Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: TwoSheds Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/26/06 07:15 PM
I may be under self delusion ;-) but I thought this would make for an interesting discussion
thank you for the link
Posted By: jjw Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/26/06 09:15 PM
Who is to say?
Half the life forms on Earth will be recycled in the time frame they discuss. I have always held the view the the Russians were a very innovative race of people worthy of careful study and observation. I like their unmaned space shuttle going back and forth by itself.
jjw
There isn't enough at that link to know whether he is taken seriously or considered a crackpot. So I went to google and looked up references to his work.

I couldn't find a single serious item that referenced him. So short of a trip to the library and a purusal of the citation index no judgement on what he says can be made.
That might be true if he were the only one saying it. He's not. one of the links i found before has said the same thing. That is, there is a good change that with the drop off of solar activity that is expected, we could be looking at a little ice age again.
Uncle Al has been quoting this stuff recently (without citing where he gets the informaion).
Posted By: paul Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/27/06 02:55 AM
well this kind of tells you how much oil the area has to offer...

I expect theres a little oil company funding behind this guys work.

  • LOL
  • LOL
  • LOL
Posted By: paul Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/27/06 02:59 AM
Quote:
They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.
I suppose they will have their air conditioning system up in running in their underground shelters in a few yesrs is what they mean by this...
actually, the work does not come from the oil companies, it comes from nasa. The one problem with the knowledge that solar flares have a lot to do with global warming/cooling is that no one has been able to explain the exact method by which the flares are effecting the global temperature. there is proof that there is a connection, but since no one has been able to explain how it happens, the global warming alarmist have been able to disregaurd it as "unproven". during the middle ages the solar activity was higher than it is now, and the temperature was higher. during the 1400's to 1800's the solar activity reach an almost nonexistant state, during which we had a "little ice age". Yet global alarmist denigh that this actually took place. They site the tree rings of washington state (an area that would have more moderate temperature than the majority of the word anyway) as proof that neither of these existed, despite evidence of them in other places of the world. Go to almost any place in the world and you can find evidence of these two climate changes but that evidence was discarded as unreliable by the IPCC. Instead they relied on tree rings that dont show temperature, but rather growing conditions as proof positive that the higher temperature of the middle ages and the cooler ones of little ice age, did not exist.

the theory that there will be a temperature drop is based on the:
1) there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001

2) the solar activity has dropped since 2001 and is expected to continue to drop until the middle of the century.

what i would like to know is why the people that do the weather models showing global warming, dont take into account the solar flare cycle.
dehammer wrote:
"actually, the work does not come from the oil companies, it comes from nasa."

then dehammer wrote:

"the theory that there will be a temperature drop is based on the:
1) there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001"

Go to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

It is a NASA web site.

Scroll down to the graph titled:

Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres

Note the date last modified is May 8, 2006.

Click on the graph which will take you to:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3_lrg.gif

Show me where the temperature has dropped since 2001.

You've really go to stop making this stuff up dehammer. It is getting embarrasingly easy to catch you making claims that just aren't valid.

And just to make sure you understand this here is NASA's 2005 report.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

And then there are these:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/global.html#Gtemp

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of links easily found that establish your statement as incorrect. Go to google and type in:
"global temperature" and "2006"

Please stop trying to bluff on science.
Posted By: paul Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/27/06 06:30 PM
Quote:
the solar activity has dropped since 2001 and is expected to continue to drop until the middle of the century.

funny , we are at this moment in an 11 year cycle where solar activity is expected to be 80% greater than the previous cycle.

perhaps you are mistaken or your parasites have led you to believe something wrong.

or perhaps I have traveled into a paralelle universe where pollution is not present , we are not at war for the remaning amounts of oil , and
scientist tell the truth about science not only what they are paid to tell. A GOOGLE SEARCH FOR 11 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE
no we are just past the middle of the cycle. look at your chart. the peak would have happen in 2001, which means we are in the dropping part, not the increaseing part. there is also an 88 year cycle, that we are in the declining part, which i believe (i cant recall which site i read it on) that it peaked in the mid to late 1990's that means it will continue to drop for the next few decades. then there is the 1000 plus year cycle. i dont have any idea where we are in that. add them up and we are going to have a considerably less amount of solar activity in the next few decades esp in the middle of this century.

Few people have ever said that polution is not doing anything. what a lot of people have said, which global alarmist dont want you to hear, is that there is a lot of things happening with the temperature that have nothing to do with polution. things like those we cant do a thing about. In 50 years, its possible that our children will be happy that we warmed the earth up so much before they were born.
Posted By: alex_J Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/27/06 08:26 PM
What's important is total solar irradiance, which hasn't fluctuated enough to significantly impact global climate within the current interglacial. The article referenced at the top of the thread is essentially useless because if offers no detail as to how this conclusion was arrived at/how this major drop in TSI is being predicted. So far, this looks to be right up there with the claim that the Tunguska event caused the global warming of recent decades, reported on this site without any comment from mainstream climatologists .
yea, right, the solar flare has nothing to do with it? why was the tsi the same during the little ice age and the global warming of the middle ages and the current one. the solar flare events were considerably higher during the last global warming, even though the tsi was nearly the same. the tsi has only be going up a tiny bit for several thousands of years. how does that have anything to do with climate changes in other time periods.

da, please explain why that site only used ground temperature readings, not satilites. perhaps because the satilite readings did not match? also please explain why the temperatures have to be constantly adjusted, not just the current one, but past ones as well.

you almost won. i almost got too tired of the insults and left. but im not going to let you get away this time.

if you give a link, no matter if it backs you up or goes against your side of the arguement, you claim it proves your point. but let some else come up with a site, you first say its not worth reading, then you claim any thing taken from that site is made up by the poster. If you dont accept the links we give then dont even bother posting about their content.
Please look at the following:

First here is what you posted at posted August 27, 2006 12:38 PM
"there has already been a drop in temperature since 2001"

and it is what I addressed by showing it was not true.

Here is your next response:

"the solar activity has dropped since 2001 and is expected to continue to drop until the middle of the century."

I didn't dispute that point. I didn't argue that point at all. Didn't you, or couldn't you, notice that I responded to your Point #1 and you went charging off about Point #2?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/27/06 09:17 PM
Dehammer, dan:
Let's cut the insults. If you can't play nice I'll start deleting instead of editing.

Amaranth
Moderator
I appreciate your opinion here Rose but I am not trying to insult dehammer. And I am not the only person who has pointed out to dehammer that there is an obvious problem with cognition.

He clearly doesn't understand what he is reading and suggesting he see his family physician is intended as sound advise.

If I wanted to insult him I am more than capable of doing so in wholly unmistakeable terms.
da, you did not argue that but al did. that was where i was going with that part. not everything is addressed to your comments. the part i addressed to your comment was that they choose to use only land based urban sites, knowing that the surroundings would raise the temperature. they did claim they adjusted it for it, but how do they know they adjusted it enough? simple, when they had adjusted it just right, it matched their model.

explain this. why do they need to adjust the temperature from earlier readings?
how could you not intend it as an insult when i give you links to where i find things, then you say they are not worth reading. then later, you claim i made it up. that is insulting. very insulting. IF you are not intending it as in insult, please stop doing it.
Posted By: alex_J Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/28/06 01:22 AM
dehammer: What do you mean by the "last global warming"?

The latest research indicates the little ice age and the medieval warm period weren't globally synchronous events, and were likely heavily influenced by oceanic circulation. Solar flares may produce a brief burst of energy, but how much have they really contributed to average insolation over the last few decades? Not enough to explain most of the warming trend, it would seem. And as I noted on another thread, the satellite temperature record is adjusted for bias from stratospheric cooling, an effect consistent with the amplified greenhouse effect.

Regarding your comment that it's "possible" future generations will appreciate our warming of the planet, your're assuming there will indeed be a major decrease in solar energy - something that seems far from substantiated. Meanwhile, the risks associated with a disruption of the carbon cycle during a long interglacial are great.

Besides, if we were to see a significant and clearly long-term trend of declining insolation, we could relatively easily step up our CO2 emissions in an attempt to avoid a big freeze. Contrast that with trying to put the CO2 genie, and it's feedbacks (including methane outgassing), back in the bottle.

Oh, and "weather models" aren't used in climate study and projection (see the first section after the intro here ), and climate models do indeed factor in total insolation, which includes any input from flares.
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
dehammer: What do you mean by the "last global warming"?

The latest research indicates the little ice age and the medieval warm period weren't globally synchronous events, and were likely heavily influenced by oceanic circulation.
not global? they effected eruope, both near the oceans and in the middle. they affected japan, and they affected africa and the orient. that sounds pretty global to me.

Quote:
Solar flares may produce a brief burst of energy, but how much have they really contributed to average insolation over the last few decades? Not enough to explain most of the warming trend, it would seem.
I already said that they dont know how it does what it does, just that there is a strong corrilation with the earths temperature and the solar activity. If no one knows how it does that, how can you say that the effect is not there. Until its understood, you cant simply say it does not exist because it cant be explained.

explain this. look at the charts that da supplied concerning the connection between rise and fall of co2 in the air and the rise and fall of the temperature. explain why the increases in co2 came after the increase in temperature. GWA's dont have any explinations for this, but they dont want it to be discussed. yet when anyone points out the connection between solar flare activity and temperature, and there is always a demand for an explaination of how it could happen.

Quote:
And as I noted on another thread, the satellite temperature record is adjusted for bias from stratospheric cooling, an effect consistent with the amplified greenhouse effect.
and once again the answer is to adjust the readings.

Quote:
Regarding your comment that it's "possible" future generations will appreciate our warming of the planet, your're assuming there will indeed be a major decrease in solar energy - something that seems far from substantiated. Meanwhile, the risks associated with a disruption of the carbon cycle during a long interglacial are great.
considering that 2 of the 3 known cycles are on the way down, how would you say that its not substantiated. If you had bother to check out a couple of the links i gave already, you would know that the last interglacial period was longer and it resulted in all the ice of the artic and greenland melting. The temperature was considerably higher during that interglacial period. so how is this one so different.

Quote:
Besides, if we were to see a significant and clearly long-term trend of declining insolation, we could relatively easily step up our CO2 emissions in an attempt to avoid a big freeze. Contrast that with trying to put the CO2 genie, and it's feedbacks (including methane outgassing), back in the bottle.
the earth has not had any problem with that during other interglacial periods. Other periods have had higher co2 than we have now. yet the levels still drop rapidly.

Quote:
Oh, and "weather models" aren't used in climate study and projection (see the first section after the intro here ), and climate models do indeed factor in total insolation, which includes any input from flares.
still looking for the point youre refering to, but i found this.

Quote:
For example, relatively rapid warming and acidification from excess CO2 affects corals and phytoplankton that play key roles in Earth's biosphere. Many thousands of species would be unable to adapt to a rapid global warming trend and it's myriad of effects.
if they are not able to adapt, how did they adapt during fast changes in the past when co2 went up just as rapidly.

another concern of theres is

Quote:
More intense, expensive, and CO2-contributive wildfire seasons.
the problem is not the co2, its mismanagment of forest. places where the forest were allowed to burn without attempts to stop them, have had no change in their burn patterns. places like the us where we stop fires, thus prevent nature from getting rid of the undergrowth are having an increase, not because of the co2, but because of the fact that the forest are filled with underbrush that burns hotter, longer and spread faster. THE LEAST they could do is blame the correct cause.

Sorry but after having read that link i cant find where they have taken into consideration the solar flare. did i miss it? please show me where it was.

its easy to get your model to agree with the changes when you are constantly changeing the older data to match.

i gave a link a few days ago where the scientist studing the ice cores pointed out that the model that did not take into consideration all the changes were not even close. taking out the man made co2 changes the temperature would not have been that much different. any model that used only the changes man has made is not even in the ball park. (my phrasing, not his)
dehammer wrote:
"they did claim they adjusted it for it, but how do they know they adjusted it enough? simple, when they had adjusted it just right, it matched their model."

You are incorrect. That is not how it is done.
Here are a couple links about the 88 year solar cycle (GLEISSBERG PERIOD):
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x176761610l512x3/#search=%22%2288%20year%20cycle%22%20solar%22

The http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html page has a report on Long-term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on the Earth's Climate.

The more I look at the GRID chart found on the http://thiver.wordpress.com/2006/03/04/simple-proof-that-global-warming-is-a-fact/ page as well as many other sites, the more interesting things I notice. Look at 130,000 to 120,000 The temperature dropped while the CO2 concentration remained high. Look at the past 10,000 years that shows CO2 rising even though the temperature has been stable. Around 70,000 years ago, the CO2 spiked while the temperature continued to decrease. The http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ page has more recently obtained data from the Vostok ice cores that go back 650,000 years now. It too has a chart (just before the comments section) that is similar to the Grid chart. It shows that 420,000 years ago, the CO2 level rose before the temperature then stayed high after the temperature dropped. This tells me that the greenhouse effect is minimal if at all existant on a global scale.

John M Reynolds
unless im seeing things on that chart, i believe there is a problem with their accertion. if you look at the time the temperature started to rise, and point that the co2 started to rise, it appears to me that the temperature started to rise first, then the co2 followed.

another point, they say the thing that is so bad is the fact that the co2 levels are rising so fast that it will kill off all the sea plant life. yet if you look about 14000 years ago, there was a 12.5 percent increase in co2 so fast that the line goes straight up. that means it occured in a century or so. yet coral, planton and other sea plants had not problem adjusting to the higher acidity.

another point. if you read what they said, they said they did the study to prove their predictions. you can always prove your predictions if you look hard enough.
Posted By: Carli Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 08/30/06 10:28 PM
I hope ther will be otherwise ther will never be another polar bear!
In case anyone missed it, here is another link about Antactica and data that is not explainable with the current climate models. The http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060711004957data_trunc_sys.shtml page starts with this:

"An improved method of measuring Antarctic snowfall has revealed that previous records showing an increase in precipitation are not accurate, even over a half-century. In the August 10 edition of Science magazine, researchers explain that their analysis of ice cores and snow pits revealed that precipitation levels in the Antarctic have in fact remained steady. The upshot of the study is that models assessing climate-change may need to be revised, as they can no longer be deemed accurate."

click the link for more

John M Reynolds
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/13/06 07:31 PM
G'day dehammer,

I know you will do this for me so I'll ask you. I do not see the reference or the link to the original premise of this thread so if you could email me the link or post it here I would appreciate it greatly.

You missed a solar cycle by the way. There is one a bit longer than 200 years. Exactly how long it is I don't think has been established but it has a very steep peak and a slower drop off. It coincided with the normal 11 year cycle well enough to cause a major change in 1980, thus stuffing up all my research of the previous decade. So I remember it really well!

I'm now in big trouble. I have been advised that my services are under review (and I haven't even formally been given any funding yet) because of "unreasonable emphasis" on allegedly fraudulent manipulation of data. For those few people that have any interest in my rantings, I have a passion for scientific methodology actually being scientific and so for the last few months have been engaged in a study on studies. It seems it was fine that I found problems in a small study but not fine that I found it in a very, very large study. The raw data was certified as being free of known variables such as urban effect yet I found that the researchers had contacted some of the stations I contacted and were told very clearly that the stations had been seriously affected by some factor or other.

To me that is lying - fraud and I said so. Worse, I refused to sign an agreement that I would not express my opinions if asked specifically. I already have an agreement that I will not publicise, except via agreed research papers, my findings so I thought it was a stupid request. Who is going to ask me about something they don't know I'm doing? I'm not a scientist that is on anyone's radar. I'm just someone that is good at ferreting out raw data and looking at research or whatever and seeing where there are logic holes, if any.

If you read this site, of course, I have nothing to fear. Some oil company or the US government will happily step in and support the research because any scepticism on global warming is obviously all funded by these or similar groups.

Well actually no. Because I don't disagree with global warming at all. It is clearly a fact. I think it is probably a good thing and would really debate whether it is man made. Oh, and I have this problem about the extent of it, about what can be proven as opposed to extrapolated or modelled or "adjusted for known factors that affect the raw data". So I don't really think the anti-global warming lobby would like me much either, and besides I'm not important.

I was asked to write an opinion piece for a local newspaper and went to the trouble of doing so, only to be told they didn't like what I had written. I'd just finished watching Mr Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" and was so overawed by his child's car accident and his sister's death by lung cancer that I just knew that everything he said was unvarnished truth, not deserving of any critisicm at all. OK, so now I'm being really sarcastic but I did like the presentation. Mr Gore is a brilliant presenter. No wonder he won the presidential elections (but strangely not the position).

I rather acerbically asked the editor isn't that why they call them opinion pieces? I do not play well with others obviously and have now been banished from the sandbox.

The article is going to waste. I'll put it in a thread maybe titled "A Really Inconvenient Truth - Do Four Polar Bears Really Prove Global Warming". Anyone interested?


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/13/06 07:41 PM
G'day Mr Reynolds,

I can answer one of your questions. The 70,000 year ago spike in CO2. Big eruption of volcano. Lots of stuff chucked out of said volcano. This does have a significant effect on CO2.

I like your thinking by the way. If you look at ALL the ice core studies one thing you will find is that the CO2 levels do not precede the changes in CO2 (at least the estimates made from the study of the ice cores - which I have now seen some arguments questioning the accuracy of the whole process). In every case of a warming period, the CO2 levels follow the temperature increase. So it is very clear that you get more CO2 when it gets hotter. Hey, plants like the heat. They grow faster. But the alleged correlation that "proves" CO2 causes warming just isn't there. Never was. Doesn't matter how pretty the charts are, they don't alter that reality.

You seem to have a good grasp of CO2 so you probably know this. Have a look at the CO2 levels at the start of this Ice Age. Many times greater than now yet it was much higher when the Ice Age started. Huh? Much higher CO2 yet world got colder. Not a good pointer to CO2 being a terrific greenhouse gas.

If you go back a few more million years you find a few other times when CO2 levels are many many times greater than now yet at the time a cooling trend started (and I will concede that sometimes this was because of continental drift or the earth's wobbly orbit placing it further from the sun but not at the start of this Ice Age I won't).


Regards


Richard
Richard

Try this Link
Posted By: Andist Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/13/06 10:18 PM
I'm in the middle here. If CO2 changes coincide with changes in world temperature, as implied above, then they must be linked. Our present increase in CO2 are man's doing, in having burned so much now.
I have always used the words "climate change", not "global warming".

I beleive in dealig with it, not griping about it.

I know the authors, especially the one with the most pragmatic experience, of a book called: Adapting buildings and cities for climate change, by S Roaf, D Crichton And F Nicol. Published by the Arcitectural Press
Richard.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the effort. We saw a big volcano erupt in 1992 which ended up cooling at least Greenland for years. It took 6 years for the effects to wear off. In other words, it took Greenland 6 years to warm back up. Volcanoes have a cooling effect.

The spike to which I was referring, the one that happened 70,000 years ago still lasted much longer than 6 years. Six years would appear as a vertical line if at all. I will check the data on Monday -- I downloaded at work -- to check, but the spike seemed to have lasted at least a hundred years. So even if your volcano eruption warmed the earth then why did the tempurature not go up during that spike? The GRID chart shows the temperature rising quickly with the quickly rising CO2 in other places. Why not during that spike?

Here is another question. According to satallite data, the temperature has been rising slightly over the past 20 years. Twenty years. Greenhouse gases have been increasing greatly for the past 50 or so years. If temperature and CO2 are so strongly correlated, then why has the temperature not kept up?

You were also talking about data from 3 million years ago. Where is that data? Is it from studying the ocean floor? Do you have a link?

John M Reynolds
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/23/06 03:27 AM
G'day John,

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I know I'm sick right now but has it affected my brain that much?

Volcanoes do indeed have a cooling affect. A really big one if you are talking a VEI7. Did I say somewhere that volcanoes caused a warming effect?

74,000 years ago a volcano erupted. It was a very big one. It was in Indonesia. It's cooling effects probably lasted centuries. Don't know. Wasn't there and am not a vulcanologist but records indicate they can cause cooling for many years. It depends on how they erupt and how high the small particles are thrown into the air.

I do recall a study about volcanoes that indicated they cause atmospheric changes to CO2. Must have been what I was commenting on.

I read all this somewhere, actually in several places. I read an awful lot of studies but up until very recently haven't even bookmarked websites let alone created a database of studies. I have started this now by the way because I simply cannot keep track of where data comes from and what study said what and whether I had access to the full study, the extract, the raw data or even if I know where the data came from.

I cannot even find my copy of the DNA study that showed that glaciation of 70,000 odd years ago killed around six million people. Pretty much the entire population on earth at the time (that figure is disputed, as I understand it) died. Two DNA studies, one I had a copy of and another all I had was an extract indicated that 2,000 to 10,000 people were all that was left.

Cold kills most of human population. Warm allows it to thrive. Hmmm. Which would most people prefer?

As to prior periods of high CO2, look at pretty much any of the paleo-climatology texts or general research. They are not hard to find. Of course, you then have to wonder how good the data is but even millions of years back, there are remnants that can provide trend information or relative levels.

Sorry I couldn't answer your questions better than this.


Richrad
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/23/06 04:13 AM
John (missed a question you asked),

Satellite Data - What Does It Show?

Summary
  • Satellite and SAT (Surface Air Temperature) Records do not match
  • Satellite Data does match US temperatures somewhat
  • John Christy is responsible for satellite data records. He disputes much of the "corrections" being suggested.
  • Satellite Data is graphed dissimilarly on different sites.
  • The satellite data does not conform to Global Warming models
  • Even corrected for the so called drift, the data still shows a cooling trend minus 2005
  • With 2005 the satellite data shows a warming trend but a small one.
  • We finally have extremely accurate data and it does not match Global Warming statistics or models. So it must be wrong!



Main Argument
Satellite data starts in 1979. That is 26 years. Balloon data to give world averages also starts around the same time although Balloon records go back to when I was born, 1957.

There seems to be this view that global warming models state that warming should cause a cooling higher up but I do not like this manipulation of data to fit the facts one little bit. For starters, those that use this excuse obviously have not read just how the satellite data is obtained and the results put together by John Christy, Uni of Alabama (good on him). It is a snapshot 17,000 times a day of near earth temperatures (zero to 4 miles). It is not a snapshot of the higher altitudes as often implied.

The argument that the satellite data has a "drift" to it over time is disputed by John Christy, who compiles the data. The differences being talked about a truly tiny and well within the margin of error allowed for in the data produced by Mr Christy.

Look up satellite data of global temperature trends in Google. Find graphs on the subject. You will find that the graphs differ quite dramatically yet they shouldn't. The data is the same. That is a worry for starters. In the National Climate Data Center graph the shape of the two data sets seems to be similar in pattern much of the time. Using the data from Mr Christy, quite a different pattern emerges.

What is interesting is that NASA's calculations of SAT for the US does match fairly closely with the satellite data and the US data goes against the rest of the data NASA produces and shows no real warming trend in the last century, overall. Take out 2005 from the satellite data because one year does not a trend make and even with the corrections claimed to be needed, you still get a cooling trend from 1979. With 2005 you get a warming trend but way below any model of global warming.

To quote John Christy:

"If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered."

and
"The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."


Regards


Richard
dehammer, I've read that the warming you see inbetween ice ages is caused by changes in Earth's orbit. The insolation increases leading to temperature increases which in turn leads to more greenhouse gasses leading to even higher temperatures.


Richard, I've read that you can get significant CO_2 output from flood basalt eruptions see e.g. here . Such eruptions are thousand times larger than typical supervolcano eruptions such as Yellowstone or Toba.

It is postulated that the Siberian eruption caused a mass extinction, see here.

Quote:
So it seems likely there were two Permian killers. The Siberian Traps did erupt, contributing first to a nuclear winter cooling effect (caused by dust) and and then to global warming (due to greenhouse gases). Over 40,000 years, some land animals gradually died out while life in the seas lived relatively calmly on, as the water temperature gently rose. Then the seas gave up their frozen methane. In just 5,000 years, there was massive loss of species from the world's oceans. In a third and final phase of the extinction, the Permian killer returned to stalk the land for another 35,000 years. By the end of that process, 95% of the Earth's species were extinct.

Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/24/06 02:02 AM
G'day Count,

Summary:
  • Good points.
  • Orbit a big factor but there are others.
  • Biggest factor is the distribution of continents. I would NOT have liked to have been around when they were all clumped together. Think today is hot. Wander into the interior of Pangea. cool
  • Detail of what happened after the huge eruption in the Permian (250 million years ago) is just fiction. No evidence at all to support climate variations within a time frame of less than about a million years. Only a postulation this was the cause of the mass extinction. They happen with amazing frequency in paleo terms.




Comment to the Count:
Whose argument are you trying to support? These points are terrific, valid, and ... seem to support many of the points being raised by dehammer or myself.


Reasons for Ice Ages
It is more complicated than the "wobble" in the earth's orbit but it is a big factor, without a doubt. Why is mercury hot? Because it is closer to the sun than we are. The earth's orbit does the same thing but over very long periods. Then you have oscillations due to the influence of other things. The other big factor in whether the world is in an Ice Age or not: Plate tectonics. It depends on where most of the land mass is. Evenly distributed and you don't seem to get an Ice Age. Distribute it in one hemisphere and you do.

I knew there was some article that I read that suggested that CO2 increased dramatically with large volcanic activity. It was not the link you provided but it had a similar idea.


Permian Mass Extinction
The only argument I would have is in relation to the "fiction" of what happened after this eruption. They have no idea whether it took 5,000 years for the extinctions. Fossil records are not that precise. Dating is not accurate to within plus or minus 100,000 years in these ages. But they at least say "It seems" and you used the best word "postulated". It is a guess - a postulation - but what happened to the climate especially that there was a cooling, warming and then a gentle rise in water temperatures is not even a postulation. That is just a story that the authors liked.


Regards


Richard
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
I can answer one of your questions. The 70,000 year ago spike in CO2. Big eruption of volcano. Lots of stuff chucked out of said volcano. This does have a significant effect on CO2.
I had intrepreted the above as you supporting the theory of volcanoes contributing to the greenhouse effect instead of having a cooling effect.

Do you have any critique for stories like the one on the http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html page? Or do you have any links to satellite data that shows cooling? What I had read was that as the surface warms, the troposphere (or was it stratosphere) will cool. Which do the balloons and satellites detect?

John M Reynolds
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 09/24/06 06:30 PM
G'day John,

Summary:
  • No proof that global warming causes cooling in upper levels of atmosphere while the lower levels are warming.
  • The principal authors of the satellite data do not agree this is occuring or that the satellite needs any adjustment from the raw data.
  • Satellite measurements are from zero to 4 miles, not upper portions at all.
  • Balloon data does not show warming near the earth and cooling higher up. It just shows, well, no trend at all.
  • Balloon data and satellite data agree with each other, therefore no real trend in satellite data either



Main Points:
Boy am I sick of the new excuse for why satellite measurements do not support global warming models or theory. Those that keep on saying this obviously do not understand the science at all (this is not aimed at you). Do a google search on "climate change satellite Christy" or "University of Hunstville Christy temperature satellite". You will get a large amount of sites that show satellite data and how that site interprets it. Go to the NASA site (www.giss.nasa.gov) and look at their graphs and data.

Satellites take a snapshot from an altitude of very close to zero to 4 miles up. That is not the upper areas at all. Balloons take data from zero to very high up. They do include the upper areas and you know what? The balloon data does not show the near ground measurements warming and the upper areas cooling.

Mr Christy and Mr Spencer, the two scientists responsible for producing the satellite data have said several times that there is a margin of error in the data. There is an argument that there is an error inherent in the data because of a shift with time in what they are recording. They do not necessarily agree but say that those that have these opinions are entitled to them and the difference is still within their margin of error.

I never said the satellite data shows cooling overall, only if you take out 1998 or 2005 or you use the data only from 1979 to 1997. But it certainly does not show much of a trend at all whether you include the individual very hot years or not.

As to the article, it was interesting but it did not mention at all that Spencer and Christy have not been idle and their techniques have improved. Even so they dispute the arguments made. The argument about drift by the way introduces an error in the order of a couple of hundreds of a degree. Whether you correct for it or not does not alter the data very much at all. It is a very big deal made out of a very small adjustment to the data. Same with weather balloons except the argument tells only a little of the story.

This is not a paper, just a summary quoting one scientist who concludes his argument that the scrutiny needed to be imposed on anyone arguing against global warming or, as in this case, just presenting data of what is being recorded, has to be so perfect that there is not even the tiniest room for doubt. Pity that degree of critique was not applied to Mr Mann et al before he was peer reviewed and published, what could very easily have been seen as a blatant manipulation of data.


Richard
The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that's why the slowdown is important.

"Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second?walking pace," says Hathaway. "That's how it has been since the late 19th century." In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. "We've never seen speeds so low."

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity. The reasons for this are explained in the Science@NASA story Solar Storm Warning.

"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries," says Hathaway.

So cycle 24 is strong and it means warm, perhaps very warm weather for a while. But cycle 25 will be one of the weakest. And if slowdown will be norm the weather in late 2010's and at least 2020's will be cooler. Perhaps cooling trend will be stronger than in 1940-1975.

Fearmongering Greens have about less than a decade time to continue their public circus. Hard times to David Suzuki, Michael Mann and James Hansen. Oh dear!
Balloons take data from 1.5 km to 9 km. Balloons haven't shown much warming since 1980. Satellites have shown some 0.4 C global warming since 1979 (surface temperatures).

I think those Nasa NOA surface temperatures are quite good. No doubt there has been warming trend since 1975. But note that warming was actually faster from 1918 to 1940. That's why i'm wondering why is this such a big issue at all.
Lets just assume the naysayers are correct.

Lets just assume that the arctic ice cover, the antarctic ice sheet, and almost all the glaciers on the planet are melting because nothing has changed.

If you can buy into that concept I have some land I'd like to sell you.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/05/06 05:41 PM
G'day Dan,

Actually the last study I saw actually indicated that if ALL glaciers were counted, then 70% of them in number and more than 70% in total volume were EXPANDING. Can't find the reference at the moment but will in a day or so when I'm a little more recoverd.

As to the Arctic and Antartic even NASA's Goddard Institute, not known for its conservative stance on global warming, acknowledges that the Antarctic total locked fresh water has been increasing over the last 30 years. The same is true for much of the Arctic.

So where is this land, since from the available information, Mr Timo P (who at least lives in an area where Global Cooling is something he/she would really understand) is perfectly correct.

Actually, quite aside from the Conveyer system, the collapse of the magnetic field of the sun back to around 12 billion kilometres, means sunspots should pretty much dissappear. The last time that happened the very harshest part of the three part LIA occurred. The collapse is due actually have an effect around October 8th (no not in 50 years, this year) and two independant studies I have reviewed both indicate that the quiet period will last more than 50 years.

It will be interesting just what excuses are going to be made for the cooling period that we go into next year and the year after and the year after(actually many parts of the world are experiencing monthly averages below par and the total world averages and trending down according to the satellites and the balloons). The GHCN set is not kept up to date enough to check if the SAT agrees just yet.

Personally, I prey that global warming due to CO2 is a fact, and as bad as the very worst modelling. It seems we will need it just to prevent another LIA. But since not a single model has managed to live up to its estimates, with all of them having to be scaled back even with the 1998 and 2005 stellar years (both simply explained by El Nino and Solar activity respectively, although they were pretty hot years none-the-less).

Nice to see you posting in the discussions on global warming again.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/05/06 05:58 PM
G'day Timo,

The figure for satellites is 0.04 C not 0.4 (that would be half the total estimated for global warming for a century). Remove 1998 or 2005 (one hot year does not make a trend) and you actually end up with a cooling trend, although still very slight.


Richard
RicS wrote:
"Actually the last study I saw ...."

And then actually you provided no reference to anything that could even with sufficient alcohol be construed as useful to determine the value of what you read.

While Nero fiddles ....

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106798&org=NSF
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/09/20/arcticroute_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20060920100030
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/20060816_arcticseaicenews.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-21-01.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001557.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/

The ice is really melting while you argue the emporer's clothes look simply grand.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/06/06 08:30 AM
G'day Dan,

And which one of those references was a STUDY? News articles are rather useless because they print conclusions, often unsupported by any facts at all. I did say that my view was unsupported and will find the reference to a study, not to news articles.

Actually I do not believe you have ever provided a link to a study in any arguments at all. You certainly get hot under the collar about anyone who disagrees with your view hence the: "...while you argue the emporer's clothes look rather grand" is insulting and unnecessary.

Different views DO NOT require sarcasm or put downs.

I will reply to you again when you quote a study. Not an extract. Certainly not an news article about what some scientist is quoted as saying or might have concluded in a study, but THE study.

And by the way, where is NASA, you are so fond of quoting. Go to their site and you will find references to studies that have shown increases in locked up water, especially the Antarctic. Is that why, perchange, you did not mention them?

And again I ask, just how is the colder periods that are now being experienced, and from the solar cycle studies now quite frequently being released, going to be explained by you? The only good thing about all of this is the solar cycles look like they are near enough so that someone isn't able to be stupid enough to attempt to reduce the "runaway global warming".


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/06/06 08:58 AM
G'day Dan,

Thought I'd analyse your links to demonstrate whether they have any real value.

Link 1. News article
Title: "Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected"
Speculation about what might happen. Modelling of future climate quoted.
Hard Science Value: Nil

Link 2. News article
Title: "Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected" - sound familiar
Same speculation as above but on a different site.
Hard Science Value: Nil

Link 3. News article
Title: "Arctic Melt Exposes Polar Route"
Ice melted enough that ice breaker could reach north pole.
Has happened before. Is no indication in itself of anything. A bit like quoting the force of a hurricane and then speculating that hurricanes will get worse with global warming. But it is anecdotal evidence of a melting event. If there were a number of these, over a climate timeframe, then it may have value.
Hard Science Value: Nil.

Link 4. Observation Overview
Title: "Arctic Sea Ice News 2006"
Shows that the melt this year is between the average from 1979 (the start of when this was measured accurately by satellites) and the record 2005 melt.
Unfortunately, this tells only a two dimmensional story. The three dimensional story indicates that ice coverage has thickened in significant areas increasing the total locked ice according to NASA at least.
Hard Science Value: Actually reasonable, although only tells a small part of the picture.

Link 5. Environmental Advocacy Site - News Story
Title: "Greenlands Ice Melt Accelerating"
Quotes a number of studies. Interesting that the conclusions it draws do not seem to match the studies. But in order to do that you actually have to go and find each of the studies, then see if they relate to global warming or even the rate of ice melting or expansion on a global basis or they relate to only very small specific areas.
Hard Science Value: Would be good if accurate. My view, less than nil but you'd need to do considerable research to back that up. So it stays my opinion.

Link 6. Washington Post News article
Title: "Greenland's Melting Ice Sheet May Speed Rise in Sea Level"
No better value than any other news article that cherry picks from studies.
We are not arguing here what the press generally prints or even what the average man on the street thinks. We already know that. I thought the discussion was on the science.
Hard Science Value: Nil.

Link 7. Climate Science Site. Speculative Article.
Title: "Is Antarctic climate changing?"
Did you include this one without reading it, or for balance?
The points made are particularly valid. The studies that attempt to determine change in locked water, end up with something similar to: "We cannot be sure, or even do anything rather than guess, because there are no records good enough to use as a baseline"

Or to quote the site: "In the Science paper, Monaghan and others show that there has been no significant change in Antarctic snowfall in the last ~50 years."

And just how does this support your argument?
Hard Science Value: Actually not too bad because this article gives links to research summaries and enough detail so that the actual research should be able to be found.
It also points out a problem with the argument that the accumulation of the ice sheet in the Antarctic is due to snowfall, in that snowfall studies do not show a change in precipitation. On its own the hard science value, even though I like the arcticle personally, still remains low, without the reader actually reading the research to which it refers.

Total Links: 7
Studies: 0
Hard Science Value: Very slightly above nil.
Assistance in this discussion: Nil

I repeat: Show us the studies!


Richard
The last time dan quoted a study, it said in its summary that the study was an attempt to prove that greenlands ice sheet was melting. It is well known fact in science that if you try hard enough to prove a forgone conclusion, youll find the evidence, provided your willing to ignore anything that disagrees with it. That study succeeded in ignoring a lot of contrary data
dehammer wrote:
"That study succeeded in ignoring a lot of contrary data"

But by some amazing coincidence you are totally unable to point to any study that discusses that contrary evidence.

See how it works. Real studies published in real journals have evidence built on bad science and foregone conclusions. But real science with contrary evidence is unpublished and you just know about it due to the Vulcan mind-meld.

I like it.
one of these days, youll have to come out of those fantasy worlds you live it. I have pointed to many, yet you refuse to discuss them, because they are not accepted by the correct political party.

try doing a discussion without insults one of these days, youll find its more enjoyable in the adults discussion.
dehammer wrote:
"one of these days, youll have to come out of those fantasy worlds you live it."

One of these days, when challenged to back up your preposterous statements you will actually be able to do so.

Have you considered writing a book? You could title it: Faith Based Science.

Subtitled: There is no credible evidence but please accept what I tell you on faith.

I like it. Put me down for a copy.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/06/06 09:33 PM
G'day Dan,

Being really sick and actually thinking there was a chance I was not going to return to this site, I wrote you a little comment, requesting not that you changed your views just one tiny bit but rather that you expressed those views civily.

I didn't die. Well not yet anyway. The infection isn't under control, for those that have asked privately, but the antibiotics tried to strangle me so it is now my body against the infection.

So I had a real reason for not immediately giving the full details of the study to which I referred. I'm not very well and the effort was a bit much right now, even though I finally realised that all these studies I have or read are useless without proper reference and am compiling a database. It unfortunately does not include glacier studies as yet. It concentrates on temperature studies since these are the things I'm actually studying.

Actually the word studying is correct in this instance because my research has had preliminary acceptance for the basis of a PhD in Climatology at a rather pleasant and prestigous university and I even have funding to actually do the work. Now Dan, if I wanted to be as sarcastic or caustic as you, I could ask exactly what part of your career or current work has anything to do with climate science and when did you have any of your work accepted for publication or as the basis of a higher degree in climate science?

As I have said before, this site is not meant to be eletist. Anyone is welcome into the discussion. The site rules say that the discussion should be civil and on point. A comment such as that above breaches those rules. But just how much of a breach do you think this comment is:

"Have you considered writing a book? You could title it: Faith Based Science."

Do you realise just how insulting that is to some? You are comparing someone who simply does not agree with you with fundamentalist creationists. In science currently, that is an extremely sore point.

dehammer's comment was reasonable in this argument. He was pointing out the very real problem with any research being that the desired result is very often achieved simply because the scientists wish it so. It is rarely deliberate (although more often so than most scientists would be comfortable with knowing the statistic) but the inherent bias can be extremely powerful. Inconsistent data is ignored when it points to the result contrary to that wished for and incorporated into a study when it assists in the "proof" being looked for.

This is such a well known problem in science that in medical research, without a double blind test, results will not be accepted.

I read a lot of studies and once again am going to refer to one that I have no idea how you would get a reference to. Perhaps a search on google but even then it is probably only available on medical sites where you pay a subscription service. It was a study on the "tainting" of research by sub-conscious actions of the researchers. It showed that the results of tests could be skewed as much as 70% when researchers knew who was taking what, even though they provided no verbal clues to the participants at all. It was a clever study because the researchers actually did not know who was taking what, they only thought they did.

So if I want to prove the average world temperature is dropping in the last 35 years and I do not accept the accuracy of the GHCN data set because of a myriad of problems with that data, if I want the results to prove me right but also want it to be unbiased, what is my subconcious going to do when I have to decide what weight to put on specific problems? The ones that tend to heat the result are going to be given more weight than the opposite.

And that is my greatest problem right now. How do you create a data set without any bias when any researcher brings bias to the process.

Back to civility. Surely Dan, you can participate and remain civil. Try this, for instance. Never reply to the person providing a contrary view, reply to the position with whatever you believe is valid science that supports your view.

Even if you provide a study that is in itself defective, the discussion will not end in people leaving simply because they do not wish to be constantly exposed to personal insults and bickering. Have a look at the many threads that involve global warming without your participation. One degenerated into a nasty little personal attack back and forth. And no science was discussed. All the others remained pleasant, had a number of participants including new members and I learned a lot and have been told by others that they learned things as well. Which seems to be a better way of doing things?


Richard
I wrote what I did to dehammer. Not with respect to your post.

Though I expect both of you, if you live long enough, to (edited) when you realize that serious science has been consistently telling you the same thing for decades and you've been listening to political hacks.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/06/06 11:26 PM
G'day Dan,

And I knew that. That does not alter what I said one iota. I do not care whether you are insulting me or anyone else. To do so, by way of sarcasm, put downs or any other form, degrades the discussion to the point it is not worth having.

And how do you have any idea what either dehammer, myself or anyone else listens to? That was just another insult or put down. I do not listen to political hacks. I have no strong position against global warming. I do disrespect bad science and I do not care who does it, how esteamed they are or how famous.

Show me a single study that indicates there is significant global warming and I'll happily concede there is proof of global warming. But despite asking you to do this over and over, you have never done this, instead resorted to belittling or insulting those that do not agree with your opinion. I wonder what makes you so confident that your opinion is the correct one in this instance. What expertise do you possess that ensures you must be right and anyone that does not agree must be so wrong?

By the way, I take umbridge to the "filing victim statements" crack. Please remove it or once again apologise. It was not funny and such comments can cause great harm simply because you have no idea what incidents may have occurred in a poster's life that makes such comments particularly in bad taste. In other words: DO NOT POST NASTY COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ANYONE

Richard
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/07/06 01:51 AM
Any more jibes, sideswipes or frontal assaults will be edited into oblivion. Please heed my warning. If you can't be civil you can't be here.

Amaranth Rose
Moderator
And still we wait for someone claiming there is evidence that supports a position contrary to the one where I have repeatedly posted links.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/07/06 04:05 AM
G'day Dan and anyone else still reading this thread,

Major Problems with Global Warming as a World Threat Arguments

To Dan:
You asked for it.

Here are main points of contention. Feel free to post links or details of studies that contradict them.

Summary
  • ALL climate data before 1979 is extremely bad for comparison purposes.
  • Tree ring and ice core data particularly suspect. Lab tests show neither good at ascertaining past temperatures.
  • SAT (Surface Air Temperature) most unreliable set of data of pretty much any "science"
  • Climate Change positions now hopelessly extreme. Those that disagree are on the side of the oil industry or accused of such. Thus that strongly support it in the payroll of luny environmentalists or accussed of such.
  • Actual science hardly ever gets examined.
  • Satellite and Balloon data do not correspond, either in pattern or in raw figurs to the SAT, even the very latest SAT excluding urban effect major cities.
  • Water temperature data hopelessly contaminated, or inconsistently observed.
  • Studies on Climate Change seem to be aimed at "proving" global warming, rather than aimed at ascertaining what is really going on with the climate.
  • Solar studies consistently ignored.
  • No one knows how much water was locked up in the Antarctic or the Arctic or whether this is increasing or decreasing, except in the last few years.
  • Ice Core studies seriously flawed by the simple problem of two ice cores never agreeing, even when only metres apart
  • The science of greenhouse gases never actualyl demonstrated other than by models.
  • The quantity of greenhouse gases produced by volcanoes never mentioned even though significant.
  • Volcanoes are mentioned when any cooling data appears as the reason for such cooling even in the face of global warming.
  • Sulphates blamed for the whole of the Eastern Half of the US, cooling.
  • Simple arithmetic has produced errors in data many many times greater than the rise or fall in average world temperatures over the last century or so.
  • No such thing as a "World Average Temperature" yet this is never mentioned (Satellites, while not giving a world average, at least give a figure that should be comparable over time against satellite data).



Main Points
I would agree with global warming wholeheartedly if there was good science to back this up (and rather than some smart come back, how about proving me wrong by referring to some good scientific studies?).

I used to think the world was warming but whether this was due to CO2 or not I wasn't at all sure. The more I study this particular field, the less I am sure of this or anything.

I frankly do not believe that anyone currently has enough data to suggest that the world has even warmed since 1880, which seems a ludicrous suggestion. since 1880 was the tail end of the LIA (Little Ice Age) and simple anecdotal evidence suggest the world is now a warmer place (a good thing - the LIA really suppressed human endeavour and caused a great deal of misery).

Mr Al Gore might like glaciers because they are pretty and he likes to climb them with his kids, however, anyone living in a valley near a glacier normally has a much dimmer view of glaciers. Overall, a warmer interglacial period has and is a godsend to humans. But as with everything you can have too much of a good thing. But are we now getting too hot and is man to blame?

Actually there is substantial evidence that man is to blame for a whole lot of things. But whether he has finally been able to cause global weather change is a little different to whether he is able to kill off large animals or pollute rivers or chop down forests.

Climate change requires really only one thing to indicate it is happening. That is data that is consistent, covers enough of the world to say that it is global in extent, and has records long enough for reasonable comparisons.

2005 was a record hot year for satellite records. But 30 years is not long enough to show any trend of anything to do with climate. In any 30 year period there must be a record hot, a record cold and several years that do nothing much at all. The interesting thing about the satellite data (no matter how adjusted - the maximum adjustments still only alter the trend by a very small fraction of a single degree) is that in that 30 years they show nothing much at all. Some cold years. Two particularly hot ones (1998 and 2005) but not the record 14 out of 21 hot years that the SAT data shows.

Balloon data matches the satellite data so closely, the argument that the balloon data was wrong in the 70s due to lack of shielding suggests that either the satellites in the 70s had a similar bizarre problem or the lack of shielding really had almost no effect on the figures.

The two arguments relating to satellite and balloon data, are amazing in the gall of those that make the accusations. The most accurate temperature data available by an incredible factor is condemned because it might be out by a very small fraction because of a drift problem with the satellites (amounting to all of 0.003 degrees in decade if even true) and lack of shielding which might have a slightly larger effect than the satellite drift but still is a pretty small number.

Yet the data on which everyone else relies has no validity at all, for the purposes of comparison over time. I used to qualify this but not any more. I've done enough calculations and comparisons of known data with the data sets available (chielfy the GHCN data set) to be fairly certain the errors implicit in the data sets currently used are just so huge that a movement of less than about 3 degrees Celcius could not be relied upon to be anything but a problem with the data.

In another thread I went into some detail about the problem of "average". I won't do it again but Dan is welcome to challenge that comment. Actually so is anyone else. Worse, when you get data from particular locations and compare them to the data in the data set, the comparisons do not seem to work except in the most general terms. Where the data shows a cooling trend using daily averages, a significant warming trend might be shown in the GHCN data. (And no, there is no research for this, it is my own research - wait about two years and I'll happily post it on my website and provide a link, including to every tiny bit of background data used so anyone else who wishes to can go through calculations to check for errors etc).

If the satellite data does not match the surface air temperature data, not even remotely, except sort of roughly in extreme years, how can the SAT be considered reliable at all?

Actually even with the GHCN, if major cities are removed, there are more localities that show a cooling trend than a warming one. It is just that the warming ones show a much larger trend than the cooling ones. That does not make a great deal of sense. Ignore the argument about global warming causing regional cooling. The areas this is supposed to happen is just not large enough to explain why over 4,000 localties show cooling trends out of 6,000 odd weather stations.

Take out any weather station that has had a major change and you end up with a few hundred stations. These show a major cooling trend. Hmmm. Does that mean the earth is cooling? Of course it doesn't. It just means there is not good enough data to determine anything.

Tree rings show how much rain falls, how much CO2 is available and absorbed by the tree and to a very small extent, the temperature of a particular year. The precipitation is the biggest one. Ignore the studies that show this and just think of the logic for a moment. Which makes more sense? We have a nice warm year with lots of rain. Then we have a really really hot year with no rain. Then we have a cold year with lots of rain. Then we have a normal year with normal rain. What will the tree rings look like for each year? If you think for one moment that they will be larger depending on heat then you have no real understanding of just what a tree does in a drought.

Ice cores have problems for many reasons but the really simple one is the fact that you cannot get repeatable results. Drill two ice cores, a metre apart and you get dramitically different ratios of Oxygen 16 to 18. All that suggests is that this is a very unreliable way of estimating past temperatures. It might be useful for rough trends but not much else. And the very best example of just how bad ice cores are would be the research of Lonnie Thompson, made famous by Mr Al Gore in his film and slide road show. Mr Thompson obtained six ice cores. They had widely different results. Don't take my word for it. Look at his research paper. Well actually that is rather hard because all you will find on the Internet are references to it. But I have looked at it and he very plainly states the results of each ice core and how they bear almost no relationship to each other. But he still manages to average the results, despite there being no scientific rationale for averaging dissimilar results.

Conclusion
There are no links in this post because I could not easily find research papers online that I have access to by other means. So I've tried to write things that are just plain logic.

And as I have now done maybe 50 times, I'd be happy to be referred a research paper that uses valid data that shows a warming trend.

I never thought that this was other than an intellectual exercise until the last six months when there has been serious suggestions made to cool the "runaway global warming". The most potentially damaging of all these was the sulpate seeding one. This one could be done without even needing a consensus of governments. Heck, just one really extreme regime could probobly pull it off because the stuff is similar to a major volcanic eruption. You do not need to release the stuff over any particular country, only at certain latitudes. The prevailing air circulation will do the rest. So what happens if this is actually attempted. Well, you could just pollute wide areas for no good reason. Or it could actually work and everyone freezes to death unless the "runaway global warming" was exactly as extreme as those proposing the method think it is. Would you really like to bet the life of 98 or 99% of the planet on that argument?

Dan, if you've even read this far. Here's the challenge. You are so much an advocate that you are given the opportunity to press the button to release the pollutants that has a change of wiping out pretty much everyone unless global warming exactly what you think it is. Are YOU willing to push that button?

To me, that's a rather sobbering thought. No one greatly cares if carbon credits have cost the UK close to $20 billion. That really hasn't changed wealth of the nation by much at all. So anyone can advocate Kyoto. But how about something that really can damage everyone unless global warming is exactly as described. Just how confident do you remain in the face of that?

Do you think that someone like me is so stupid that I cannot even work out an averaging error or sees an averaging error where none exist? What about the several hundred other scientists that have also done research that does not agree with the "consensus" on global warming? Are all of these people crackpots? And please do not blame oil companies or the Bush administration. I know some of these scientists. They are not normally even Americans and they get bugger all funding from anyone. I've declared my pecunary interests in the past. I do not get funding from oil companies. I am supposed to receive funding from a very pro global warming organisation (their attempt at balance I guess).


Regards


Richard
No RicS that is not the main point of contention.

So lets try it yet again. What study refutes this?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-176

What study refutes this?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

What study refutes this?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006032322000.html

What study refutes this?
http://www.norway.org/restech/researchnews/2006+Carnegie+Climate+Conference.htm

It is not about opinion ... mine or yours ... it is about research work carried out by experts in the field. If you can find research that explains why and how these are wrong then post it.
1st post is about a 3 year study, that ended in a year everyone admits was the hottest in several decades. Of course it will have more melt off. problem is three years is not enough for anything.

2nd one proves that this has happen before, and could be happening again for the exact same reason, yet it claims it has to be from co2. Again, no labratory evidence has ever been produced that proves inceases in co2 causes an increase in temperature.

few people have denighed that there is a temperature increase (there was a little ice age, not long ago geologically speaking, so of course the temperature has risen). The problem is the politial hacks that demand that we destroy our civilization to stop something that they cant prove is caused by our civilization. If nature is the cause why should we destroy ourselves trying to fix it. To quote an old ad, "its not nice to fool (with) mother nature".

both the 2nd and 3rd are actually news paper reports of the same thing. neither actually have any data on them about it, marely the reporters explination of the data. Since both were written (appearately by the same person) by someone who believed that co2 was causing the destruction of the ice fields, that is what is shown.

4th one is about a conference of people who believe in the global warming. only people who beleive are invited to the conference. Again no data is given to prove anything. The only thing these prove is that there are people that believe man is the cause. no proof of anything on any of these sites.

the reason ive become a doubter (i actually came to this site a believer) was that all of the links that were given, either did not show anything, save that the writer believed in global warming, or that the study was done by people who admitted they did it to prove global warming, or in a few cases actually had data that to me proved they did not have the evidence on their side.

one example of the last is the data graphs of the ice cores showing temperature and co2 levels. A close look at the data shows that the co2 increases were between 50 and a 100 after the temperature, yet its claimed that it was the cause of the increase. It also showed that after co2 got high again, the temperature fell, while the co2 stayed high. this should not have happen if the co2 cause the temperature increases. The temperature should have remained as high as long as the co2 did. Its these graphs that people point to as proof that co2 causes temperature increase. But they dont. No one has ever explained why they co2 levels being so high does not cause the temperature to stay high. if they cant, how can they expect people to believe that the increases in co2 is going to cause an extream high temperature by 2100.

Im not saying that global warming is not taking place. Im not saying that global cooling is or is not about to happen.

Im saying that there is not enough proof of it.

there is, on the other hand, tons of proof that man has done some serious damage to our eco system. Not by co2, but by other polutants. Ozone, hydrocarbons in the air, soil, and in the water, harmfull chemicals that are not produced by nature, and which nature has a hard time getting rid of, pesticides, and fertilizers in the oceans and in the water ways, and filled in flood plains being only a few. Money, attension and effort wasted on stopping a problem that has not been proven to exist, means that there is less money, attension and effort to fix known problems.


p.s. DA that is a much better return that the other ones, ill not be responding to that kind any more. Any post that are like that, ill just pretend dont exist completely.
You know dehammer I looked all through what you wrote and didn't find a single link to a single study that refuted the work.

Why?

Because there aren't any!

Get over it!

There aren't any!
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/08/06 07:34 AM
G'day Dan,

End of discussion as far as I am concerned. It is not worth it. All you have provided is news articles that are OPINIONs despite saying they were not opinions, mine or yours. I think I said about forty or fifty times that references to research would be nice (and I'll happily accept the authors, the title and publication rather than a link by the way).

And not only are they news articles and not research but you even included one you already referred to, which is just as meaningless the second time you refer to it.

Anyone can trawl the Internet using Google to find such articles. I believe it is obvious this is what you are doing and it is for this very reason that I have refrained from doing it. If you have not been doing this then I unreservedly apologise but ask why no references to actual studies?

The last of the previous references suggestions you are not even reading them properly but that is perhaps a personal attack and I really would like this to be a discussion on the topic. I could be wrong and will again happily apologise if I am but the lack of comment concerning the inclusion of a site that was not at all pro global warming leads me to think that I am probably not mistaken.

As you probably have now found, the Internet is not good for reference to research on Climate, Climate Change or Global Warming, only to news articles about research. The research itself is much less often posted, is very often held on sites that require subscriptions and even then only the extracts are held. This is one of the biggest difficulties I have in quoting research. I would rather link to it than simply specify the title and the authors but have found links are pretty much impossible. What is the point of refering to research such as Molg et al (2003) relating to the shrinking of Kilimanjaro's glacier predominantly in the period 1880 to the early 20th century, well before alleged man made global warming, if this reference is useless because the study is not on the Internet. Or the study of Georges and Kaser (2002); or Polissar et al (2006) relating to Andean glaciers advancing up to the LIA. Or the research by Ruddiman 2005 "The Test of the Overdue-glaciation hypothesis". Or the USHCN dataset relating to pretty much any of the US glacial retreat areas which shows a progressive fall in temperatures at glacial sites between 1868 and 2000 in July and a slight rise in August, making a bit of a mockery of temperature as the primary driving agent for those glaciers retreating. Because pretty much nobody here has access to any of this. But you are welcome to look up these studies, all of which really do cast doubt on global warming or on other major global warming studies. If you really want, I'll post a list of studies several hundred long that cast doubt on global warming but since you are not in the field, how are you going to actually read them? And this is not saying you have no right to an opinion because this isn't your field, just that if you wish to argue the facts, you actually need ... well ... facts.

And this is my point entirely. News articles, conclusions of studies that get news attention, and opinion pieces are pretty much exclusively pro global warming. But I have hundreds of studies that do not show global warming at all or show very serious defects in other research (not to mention all the pro global warming research at least in the conclusions where the research itself shows nothing of the sort or shows very flawed research). And if you are not active in the field you would think such studies just do not exist. You would be very much mistaken but there is no difficulty in seeing how such erroneous conclusions would be reached. But links? A very difficult ask.

So if you want lists of studies that really punch holes in global warming arguments, I'll provide them, full citations and all. I even have links but they are not freely accessible. Up to you whether you wish to pay subscription fees. And I'm not hiding behind fees so I don't provide links to studies that throw doubt on global warming. Exactly the same problem occurs with global warming studies that are very pro global warming.

This is about the only field I comment on in this forum because it is a field I am activily involved in. That does mean I do have access to original research, even if I cannot post links here. What does amaze me is you never respond to any of the real issues. You have not once addressed the problem of bad data. Surely this is completely in the realms of your particular expertise. We both have an overlapping shared field, being computers. In database creation surely the most fundamental thing to any database is the accuracy of the data being held. If all the addresses are faulty for a personal details database, would you really want to then spend a huge amount of time creating a sophisticated application to use such data or very expensive models showing patterns relating to addresses?

So if you want to debate this issue, address the issues I raised. I have grown tired of looking at links to news articles and your personal opinions without you actually saying anything directly addressing points previously raised. Don't agree with my about tree rings. Say so and set out your reasons. That is a debate even if you do not quote a single study.

There is no point in a debate, where one side actually just ignores the points they find inconvenient. And that is where I am at. There is currently no point to this thread at all.

Now if you wish to discuss the GHCN data set, or why the US data does not match the rest of the world and shows a cooling trend, or argue about satellite accuracy or weather balloons, or why the British Admiralty data set shows a cooling trend in the last hundred years for the oceans (but by an amount that is meaningless) while every other data set, because they are inconsistent and not comparable shows other trends, then I'll happily engage you again.

Otherwise, I see no point especially when faced with your last post which accuses dehammer of doing exactly what you have done, no links to any studies. Actually dehammer did refer to studies, indirectly through your links which referred to studies and put up arguments as to why they should be treated with some caution.

The best support I have found for the lack of evidence of global warming (remembering that I still have no idea whether it really is happening or not but do not think it likely in the last 30 years at least because of the satellite data) is in research where the conclusions are rabidly pro global warming. You did not respond to my comments relating to Mr Thompson's research for instance. That is a reference to a major study by a scientist feited by many as one of the greats in his field.

EVERY study relating to SAT uses a defective data set, no matter who does it. NASA is one of the few that readily admits this in their small print, although you wouldn't know it from Dr Hansen's opinion pieces, which he sends regularly to people like me. How about linking to any study that uses reasonable data? That would be an interesting change to this rather pointless thread.


Regards


Richard


PS. Apologies to dehammer. Some of this is somewhat of a repeat of your post. I read Dan's posts but not yours, looked at his links and responded, finished this and THEN read your post.
RicS wrote:
"End of discussion as far as I am concerned."

And then proceeded to write another 123 lines composed of 1360 words. So ... yeah ... obviously.
Too bad not one byte of which was a link to anything refuting the studies I posted.

Why no links to studies refuting the work?
Because there are none.

And just to pile on before leaving this hopeless thread the following was posted today:
Researchers Link Ice Age Climate-change Records To Ocean Salinity
Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061006074312.htm

You can keep calling these studies names. You can keep writing about them. You what you can not do is point to studies that refute them.

The worst thing about all this ... is that I would be much happer ... and my children and their children would be much happier ... if you were right.
If you can get some actual studies, then we will discuss them. as long as you "studies" are nothing more than a political hacks opinion, there is nothing to discuss. Show us the studies themselves. show us the data and will discuss it. Dont give us opinions and call them studies. How can you refute an opinion. the opinion is there, that is a fact. its irrefuteably an opinion.

data on the other hand or studies we can discuss and point out the flaws in them. Or perhaps with the studies, themselves you can show us where were wrong. as long as its marely someones opinion, we cant discuss the data or the study.
Let me see if I get this right.

Jet Propulsion Laboratories managed by the California Institute of Technology is political hacks?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-176

The National Science Foundation is political hacks.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

NASA is political hacks.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006032322000.html

So what you are saying is that Murray Gell-Mann is a political hack. Richard Feynman was a political hack. Albert Einstein was a political hack.

Oh how I wish to some day be labeled a political hack by you. In fact I aspire to earn that label.
What impressive company.

Did I ever tell you about the rule of holes?
When you find yourself in one you should stop digging.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/08/06 07:50 PM
G'day Dan,

I cannot resist a comeback. Well, gosh Dan, yet another N E W S article, and one that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming at that, only a discussion about mechanisms that may occur during warming periods during glaciations.

At least it seems that the authors of the research had the good sense not to crow it was further proof of global warming when it relates only to perhaps the swiftness of climate change or one possible mechanism that may aid such change. It was actually interesting.

You had enough time to actually count the words I used and the lines but not to read it I guess. Studies were quoted and I even provided a willingness to list hundreds of studies. Actually I named studies that do refute global warming as a fact. But one thing that is impossible to do is to nominate studies that refute other studies.

This is where it really gets tedious. I quote:

Quote:
Why no links to studies refuting the work?
Because there are none.
And:
Quote:
Too bad not one byte of which was a link to anything refuting the studies I posted.
Appropriate Methods of Debate
  • Actually debate the issues.
  • If you use references, make sure they are refered to correctly. WHAT studies Dan? You posted news articles. That has been pointed out over and over and over and over and over but you simply choose to ignore the point and continue to just do the same.
  • By my count I used four studies as examples with sufficient information for them to be located, if you have adequate access.
  • Respond to the issues at least once in a blue moon.


So you think global warming is a "fact" and every study is without fault. Fine. You are entitled to think what you like but you are on a forum where opinions are welcomed but the whole purpose of the forum is to debate.

And I do run on way too much with these posts. I acknowledge that. Learned to type very fast and not well enough to spend to time needed to really edit what I write here. That is a bad fault of mine. But I will engage in the discussion and directly discuss the issues with other participants. That might include giving examples of faults in studies, the ludicrous situation of having no real data to rely on for climate change studies, expressing purely personal views on climate science, or referring in general to studies.

But Dan, I have not seen you do the same. Just once, rather than finding another news article, how about addressing anything posted by anyone that does not accord with your current view. For your children's sake perhaps?

I actually don't want to be right. That is not the point of scientific study. I'm not trying to cure cancer, where being right is rather important, my particular interest is in an academic field of climate science that should have no relevance at all to weather or short term climate trends of today. The whole point to such enquiries is to test hypothesis. I did that in the 70s with an argument that the switch to this interglacial period took three years. The research is interesting even if it eventually establishes that the argument is completely wrong. It still achieves something academically.

As to global warming, how can I be right, Dan, when I do not say that global warming is not occurring? I do have very strong views about scientific methodology that includes the fundamental view that any research must be repeatable and verifiable by others, that data must be reasonable for the purpose to which it is being used.

If you wish to defend a study that I suggest has a fault, such as Mr Thompson's studies, please feel free to do so. If a study has a major fault, and you think that I'm off my rocker or falsely maligning research, then by all means point out where I have gone wrong. Insisting that someone post a link to an opposite study that refutes a study is a good way of avoiding the points raised, especially where you have no counter points available.

And I'm continuing to engage you for one reason. In the beginning, while I did not like your methods of personalising the issues, you sometimes raised some points worth discussing. I was hoping that you would do so again. Make it interesting.

That is up to you. If you want to discuss glacier studies, fine. I'll happily trot out about 50 studies that do not support global warming as a reason for glacial retreat or even that glaciers are not necessarily retreating. I still find it amazing how many "quality" newspapers repeated the photos provided by Greenpeace of a South American glacier, showing it rapidly retreating over the years, AFTER it was pointed out that Greenpeace had failed to mention that there were six glaciers feeding into one lake and five of them had been expanding.

Pick any topic relating to global warming, and I will happily provide a list of studies (but not links, for the reasons already pointed out). But in return, you need to put up an argument in the first place, not simply refer to more news articles as if they are somehow self evident.

By now there should be no one reading these posts except you and me and perhaps dehammer. Everyone else should quite rightly have been turned off by how little these particular posts actually relate to any discussion concerning global warming but rather about HOW to discuss them or more correctly how not to.


Regards


Richard

PS. This post was being compiled while the previous two posts were written.

Dan, "Albert Einstein". How did he get in there? And your links are to news articles, not studies and ones that you've used before. I do think the political hack reference was to the authors of the news articles, not to the scientists that are mentioned briefly in them. Dan, read the articles you are using as your proof. They are opinion pieces that do not even quote specific research, only mention it. They sometimes quote the opinion of a researcher but that really is not the same as the research. Global Warming is particularly prone to conclusions in actual research being personal opinions not even backed up by the research itself, let alone the off the cuff opinion of the very pro global warming people that are quoted in these articles.

As to holes, read your posts and really, who is digging a hole here? Aside from telling us we are wrong and providing the odd link to news articles, exactly what has been your contribution in any of these threads to the discussion? What personal opinions have you expressed, discussing the actual issues involved? When have you actually replied to any specific point raised by those you seem to think hold such crackpot and untenable views?
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/08/06 08:13 PM
I'm reading these posts.

Amaranth
I hope so Rose. No doubt you too are seeing a lack of references, citations, or links to even a single study that conflicts with those of NASA, NOAA, etc.

This seems to be like a love affair. I keep asking for roses and they keep delivering tickets to a football game.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/09/06 07:04 AM
G'day Dan,

Actual Citations Answered

So the four specific references were not a "single citation". How are these then?


Evidence Contradicting Glacial Retreat as Man Made, Part of Global Warming Etc
1:
T Molg, DR Hardy and G Kaser
2003
Solar-radiation-maintained glacier recession on Kilimanjaro ...


2:
Kaser et al
2004
Modern Glacier Retreat on Kilimanjaro as Evidence of Climate Change: Observations and Facts
Internation Journal of Climatology


Very Bad Science Examples - Glaciers

3:
Thompson et al
2003
Tropical Glacier and Ice Core Evidence of Climate Change on Annual to Millennial Time Scales


More Ice Cores
4:
Ramirez et al
2003
A New Andean Deep Ice Core from Nevado Illimani (6350m), Boliva
Earth and Planetary Science Lettters

Attack on Consensus View on Global Warming
Another Example of Very Bad Methodology

N Oreskes
2004
The scientific consensus on climate change
Science

A direct contradiction to Ms Oreskes' research can be found at:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
It is also an example of what happens in major scientific journals. Science published the Oreskes findings but refused to publish this, despite the credentials of the author and the reasonable research. I did some research on this as well and found 1,600 papers not 982 relating to climate change and fairly quickly found more than 40 that questioned whether climate change was even real (you get a different result depending on just how the search is structured. 'global warming' gets a much bigger number, 'global climate change' the smallest. Even repeating the search will give slightly different numbers). Hmmm. But don't believe me, read the above reference.


Comment
Phew! This is hard work. Digging up specific research and providing citations is not as easy as doing a Google search.

How about responding to any one of these, Dan? Or you pick a topic and I'll cite research relating to it specifically. The only one that is a waste of time is accuracy of data or flaws in the GHCN data set or any of the other major data sets. This just has not been adequately addressed, hence my current interest. But this problems with data sets are pointed out on the NASA site as well as many other sites. They are not difficult to track down, if you wish to.


Regards


Richard
RicS you still don't get it. Is it willfull or accidental? You wrote:
"Evidence Contradicting Glacial Retreat as Man Made"

I don't care whether it is man made or natural. That is totally irrelevant to where we are. The question is one of IS IT or IS IT NOT happening.

All studies agree that it is happening.

Are you now claiming that you too agree that it is happening?

BTW: Your link:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm
is to a letter ... not a published peer reviewed research study. Do you understand the difference? This fact is made even more poignant by the title in bold faced bright blue that reads: "ANOTHER LETTER SCIENCE REFUSED TO PUBLISH".

Gee I wonder why. ;-)
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/09/06 06:22 PM
G'day Dan,

A favourite movie trick. "A movie breathtaking in its stupidity" easily becomes "Breathtaking" on the billboard. That is exactly what you did to my heading: "Evidence Contradicting Glacial Retreat as Man Made". It also said "Part of Global Warming etc" but that would not have fitted your reply at all. That is called misquoting.

Your reply is just starting to be hypocritical now.

The letter was titled a letter because it was, a letter. It was clearly stated as such. There are no studies refuting Ms Oreskes' study because they cannot be published, as shown by the letter.

I did not say that I agree that global warming is happening. To quote my own post, I said: "... when I do not say that global warming is not occurring". Ignoring the poor English by use of the double negative, this cannot be translated be an agreement with global warming. I said in another post I didn't have a clue and that does fit with the comment I made. Actually I do not believe anyone can have a reasonable assumption as to the global change in climate based on the current information available. That is a world of a difference.

The big thing about global climate is that it is allegedly accelerating and is man made. If it was natural then what is the worry? It is just part of the earth's cycle in that case. No need for Kyoto or anything else.

It is a point that the Oreskes study was allegedly making, that there was a consensus that global warming was a fact and was man made. If it is not man made then it is not related to CO2 increase, which is man made, if the CO2 records are to be believed and I could have a very long and tiresome debate about that minutae of Climate Change if you actually wanted to discuss issues.

You asked for studies that contradicted the current general view and I provided a sample. Argue those.

You inability to argue anything about global warming except that everyone but you is wrong unless they toe the "consensus" line, is breathtaking in your ability to use the very comments that are being levelled at you against anyone asking you to put up or shut up. You have done neither. You have not for a second suggested that the SAT is valid. You have not addressed any of the many many other issues raised.

Now you decide, out of several examples that because one is a letter, and a relevant one at that because it relates to difficulties in getting any contra view published and very clearly sets out faults with a study, you need not lower yourself to respond in any way but with attacks.

"All studies agree that this is happening" You state, except the studies that do not that is, and those include examples given to you.

This is tiresome and tedious. You obviously do not wish to discuss any issues but have the self satisfaction of believing you truly know climate and therefore must be right. Obviously you have no interest in learning anything about this subject, and by now you should have learned a lot. The various threads on this subject have mostly been terrific, with people's views well expressed, the majority not in agreement with what I write. By simply accepting press releases as science you will learn nothing and will remain as ignorant of this field as any non-scientist who has an opinion because their favourite newspaper told them what it was.

As an acadamic, your position really is strange but no different to the "true believers" that seem to populate the climate science field right now, almost none of whom actually have any qualifications in climate science. The most famous and often quoted people have swapped over to this field. Does that make them wrong? Actually, no. But you have to wonder how come so few PhD's in climate science exist and how few of the experts are willing to obtain PhDs in their newly chosen field rather than just publish in it.

You have a right to your views but if you want to participate in a thread on climate change, then contribute please.


Richard
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I don't care whether it is man made or natural. That is totally irrelevant to where we are. The question is one of IS IT or IS IT NOT happening.

All studies agree that it is happening.
then why have we been argueing.

all along my point is that they cant prove that man has caused any increase in global temperature. All along, Ive been stating that there are cycles that are perhaps right this minute raising the temperature globally, but next year could be lowering them.

You on the other hand keep coming up with news articles about how the writer believes that global warming is due to man and since it is strickly man made it will destroy our civilization unless we get rid of all the things makeing co2. IF that is not what you believe why are you using ariticles written by people who do as arguements.

the links you keep giving are links to news articles written by people who believe that global warming is man made. that makes them political hacks no matter what organization they work for. Albert Einstien was not a writer, he was a scientist. He did not write articles talking about the politics of one thing or another. When he wrote things, unless it was in a letter such as the one he wrote to the president concerning the a bomb, was about science. The links you gave were articles written to express a view. they did not give one bit of evidence, did not give people any thing to make up their own minds with, it told them what to think. That in my mind makes the writer political hacks.
dehammer wrote:
"then why have we been arguing."

Good question. Never once that I can recall have I made the percentage contribution by humans the issue.

The issue to me is that the quality of life on this planet is going into the proverbial toilet if we don't do something about it. And we won't know if we can if we don't try.

dehammer wrote:
"all along my point is that they cant prove that man has caused any increase in global temperature."

But it is still true that every bit of evidence gathered does point in the direction that we are a substantial portion of the cause. It really does. That is the belief system, based on research of every respected climatologist in the field for which I can find papers and references.

Is there some crank or Russian out there claiming otherwise? Of course. There are still scientists claiming tobacco doesn't cause cancer. But this opinion is so marginal as to be essentially ignored. And that is the case with those who claim human behavious is not significant. Not the entire story ... but significant.
The thing that bothers me most about global warming is that weather forcasters often seem unable to predict what the weather is going to do tomorrow let alone 50 years time. Admittedly I live on a narrow north/south peninsular surrounded by sea.

RicS. It's probably reasonable to mention research published in journals but not available on line. My local library subscribes (or has access through other libraries) to many journals and for a small fee they are able to get copies. I have used the service often.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/10/06 08:26 AM
G'day Terry,


Climate and Weather Forcasting


Actually your point is quite valid although weather and climate are different things. For instance, I cannot tell you if your town will get swamped by massive waves in the next week but can tell you the exact time of high tide several years from now. Some patterns of weather and more particularly climate are predictable.

Those solar scientists who have only just begun to connect solar activity to climate (and I wonder if that is because almost a third of the research budget of the US is now devoted to global warming) find it self evident that the patterns of solar activities align so precisely with climate change. Often, they find it amazing that climate scientists either dispute this or just ignore it.

But to get to Climate Change, you must rely on weather readings and thus the weather of a locale really is important to this discussion, just not what is going to happen next week. And many of the very same difficulties in predicting weather apply to climate, just on a much more complex and mind boggling scale. The dynamics of how clouds affect climate is unimportant for weather predictions but becomes very important in climate modelling.

My personal view is climate models are close to worthless because there is no indication yet that these models take into consideration enough variables or even that the data they do have is reasonable.


Citations

I have now mentioned a few citations of research and you may be able to locate them through your library. If you have any specific interest in an area, please feel free to ask and I'll provide a few more citations. My particular interest currently is in weather records that make up the data that everyone then uses to state what the "average" has been and more importantly what changes have occurred to this over the period generally from 1880 to the present. I am also interested in 11,300 years ago to the present (plus or minus 300 years), the Holocene.

Because of my interest, I have more data in those areas. Funnily enough it is also the area with the least amount of research or studies. Sure I can provide citations to physics studies that suggest ice cores are terrible ways of determining CO2 concentration or temperature, but not to research that provides a better way or even one that provides a reasonably consistent way of determining climate change.


Available Evidence of Climate Change

The best information of climate change for the last 1,000 years or so is anecdotal, and indirect such as taxation records, harvest reports etc. A painting of a lake that is now free of ice but was frozen in 1200 is a good indication of local climate change. If you also have a painting or vase art from China in the same period showing a cooler climatic scene, and a record of poor harvests in some other part of the world, you can state with a pretty good degree of confidence that it was colder at that time than now. By how much? That it doesn't tell you and there just isn't enough information to do a trace through regions so that you can work out the southern most impact areas and from that extrapolate a relative figure. But none-the-less, it is a pretty good indicator, and much more accurate than tree rings.


Message Specific to Dan - Just Why Global Warming as a Looming Disaster and a Fact Annoys Me

And to Dan (I should also say Mr Morgan for those that do not know that DA Morgan is Dan), I noted you simply are not responding to either dehammer's or my request for any specifics or addressing any of the points raised. This time you chose to at least put a position rather than just attack someone else. Hurray.

Despite the problems in discussing anything with you Dan, I do not for a moment doubt your sincerity. The world has substantial problems. Millions die a year from malaria because your country's environmentalists decided that the most effective and cheap weapon might cause cancer in a few individuals and managed to get it banned. Pollution damages complete river systems in Europe, the former Soviet areas, heck, pretty much everywhere. The seas are being overfished (and what does Greenpeace do, go after waling vessels because whales make good posters, leaving the Japanese long line trawlers to destroy whole eco-systems - and yes, I'm being symplistic, but the point is still valid).

Humans have done a great deal of damage to this planet. But humans are strange creatures. Doom and gloom scenarios just do not work, unless they actually happen. Evolution has not made humans so that they can easily assess the risks of anything on massive scales that have not just happened. Why do you live near potentially devistating volcanos, for instance? Why are the largest hospitals built in areas of California liable to be flattened WHEN the next big earthquake hits? Why does so many people die each year in China from flooding when they know it happens almost every year? Humans either assume the risk because of the need to farm (such as the Chinese) or because they just cannot comprehend that an event that seems remote will ever effect them. I mean who really would be stupid enough to live in a city that was 2 metres below sea level and not bother to maintain their levees well? Answer. Poor African-Americans who had no choice because they really wanted to work and bring some monies in for their families. If the FEMA budget had not been shifted to Homeland Security and a whole heap of the US Army Corp of Engineers' budget been allocated where real need was rather than to the research and lobbying of global warming, then real tragedy would be lessened.

Katrina really showed how you can distort a scientific academic argument to shift blame. New Orleans was because the world was getting warmer. Blame the car manufacturers and sue them! Oh, what a brilliant idea. How about New Orleans was just very lucky that the last few hurricanes went east or west rather than hit it and was very much overdue for an impact of a hurricane. So, instead of blaming those that really were responsible, the Congress for diverting funds because, let's face it, poor blacks are not worth as much as people that really count. The selfish system that has bits and pieces of largesse tacked on to so much legislation so the real work of governments, that is to provide basic infrastructure and support to its citizens in return for their hard earned tax dollars, is being subverted. Global warming as our biggest threat. Tell that to the poor that have to live in trailer parks in Florida, or the kids of parents who die of Malaria because no one could weigh up the cost/benefit ratio of a simple chemical that could have saved millions or if they did, decided that 1 US life was worth millions of third world lives.

Global Warming might be real. Let's even say it was man made. So what! Climate is not like fixing a car. You simply cannot change out the spark plugs and it will run again. So blaming ever natural occurrence on Global Warming, which is now happening, such as the loss of Islands in the Pacific when their are far simpler reasons, is not just a question of whether academics are individually brilliant and as a group breathtakingly stupid. Spending billions on global warming or blaming everything on it has and will lead to real consequences, since the old adege remains true: "How come people always talk about the weather when they can do nothing about it".

And please do not argue that anything man can do will reduce man-made global warming in the forseeble future. If CO2 is to blame, then it will continue to be a problem for at least 100 years regardless of how punitive the restrictions were. Any attempt to really alter the climate downwards such as sulphate seeding will likely kill pretty much all of us. And Dan, how many hundreds of metres can you live under where you are because it would be measured in hundreds of metres.

Point out that gas consumption in the US is absurd. That the SUV craze makes you a consumer of the earth's resources that the US seems to think it has a right to because it can initially pay for it. Or that pollution kills people in areas such as LA and do something about those issues. But blaming Global Warming to achieve the same ends will backfire badly. How many voters in California do you think agree with the government suing the car companies for instance? And of the ones that agree, how many drive SUVs?

The preceding is a very political view of the world and the issues on global warming. It is the one bit about global warming that causes anger in me. That real issues are either going to be drowned out or governments and the people that eventually sway what they do will get turned off when all this doomsday fails to materialise and real issues such as actively attempting to raise the mpg average for the US up to at least those of the worst third world country is actually a good idea even if the world is cooling (actually especially if the world is cooling).

Unfortunately, once you take the lobby groups, the environmental groups, and the universities that are getting quite rich off global warming as an industry, the real science is far less certain.


Suggested Short Research for Mr Morgan on Climate Data

Actually, it isn't a bad idea for anyone interested in Global Warming to try this. It is very easy to do and shouldn't take more than a couple of hours, depending on how many sites picked.

Dan, if you've bothered to read this, do take some time to look at the GHCN data set. Find locations you are familiar with and find where there are multiple records for the same place. Really why are they so different? Pick a hundred sites around the world at random. Go to the NASA site and use their map and just click away. Print out the graphs. The majority show a cooling trend. That is not in some study but as an academic do you need to read only a peer reviewed paper before you believe anything? Don't you have the ability to do anything for yourself? Just do it, then come back and argue that this data set is not flawed, if you can.

Go further and do some calculations of different averaging systems for average daily temperatures. Just look at the different results. Firstly they trend upwards in temperature with increasing recording, producing "global warming" without any change in temperature. But if this is so why do the majority randomly picked locations trend downwards. What about urban effect? In Berlin, it is about 2.8 degrees Celcius (which is much more in fahrenheit). How much is it in a small town? Have no idea? Actually I do because I've looked at weather stations where nothing has changed and then their neigbours where the town has modernised and the town, even of less than a couple of thousand people has an noticeable urban effect.

And on the basis of this data, with an average change of 0.8 degrees coming out of the LIA, global warming is a run away disaster?

When you look at the data, feel free to select areas that have not allegedly cooled because of being downwind of polluting areas. NASA has a map of those areas to make it easier. Use any method you wish to attempt to eliminate from your random pick, anything that should falsly lower the temperature.

More than anything to do with global warming - not glacier retreat being exagerated, or mass of Greenland or Antarctic starting from absurdly bad data, or tree rings or ice cores being turned into precise measuring machines when they are nothing of the sort, the errors inherent in the world weather station temperature records and in the data sets now relied upon by those who wish to prove global warming (all of which are inconsistent avareges except a few such as the US which shows a cooling trend), the really bad data is what makes me the most sceptical of any claim that the world is getting much warmer today than it was half a century ago.


Regards


Richard
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Good question. Never once that I can recall have I made the percentage contribution by humans the issue.
actually there was one point where i had a link that said that man had caused very little of it, and pointed out several other causes, and possible causes, to which you replyed that it showed no sign that man was not the major contibutor. You called that scientist a crank, because he was saying a large part of the warming was caused by solar flares.

Quote:
The issue to me is that the quality of life on this planet is going into the proverbial toilet if we don't do something about it. And we won't know if we can if we don't try.
personally, i dont see what that has to do with global warming. its over population, and polutants that are the problem that is causing that.

Quote:
But it is still true that every bit of evidence gathered does point in the direction that we are a substantial portion of the cause. It really does. That is the belief system, based on research of every respected climatologist in the field for which I can find papers and references.
actually, that is where we are having some problem here. all the evidence ive seen, says that its not man that is the substantial portion, but nature. Ive yet to see where man co2 emissions have been proven to be causing any problems. the cities themselfs are generating weather patterns because of the heating effect of ashalt, concrete and such, but save for models that dont seem to be working with out constantly "correcting" old data, there is no sign of the problem outside of the city areas. what man is guilt of is polutions and its problems.

Quote:
Is there some crank or Russian out there claiming otherwise? Of course. There are still scientists claiming tobacco doesn't cause cancer. But this opinion is so marginal as to be essentially ignored. And that is the case with those who claim human behavious is not significant. Not the entire story ... but significant.
At one point is was the scientist that claimed tobacco cause cancer that were being called cranks. All the respectable ones said tobacco was safe. Does that mean it has always been safe, no. it means that tobacco was able to get the scientist to back them up. eventually they got discredited and all the scientist save a crank or two claim its not safe.

few people say that we have had no effect on our environment, but its where we have had the effect that is the problem. putting the spot light on co2 and greenhouse, and people forget about sulfer dioxide, about ozone, about hydrocarbons in the air, water, and earth. spending millions on getting the co2 emissions down will do little more then take away the money to get hydrocarbons out of the air and out of our lakes and seas. Put political pressure on people to reduce co2 emissions and they back off on the drive to get trash out of the ocean and stuff like that.
Lets not continue the miscommunication. The most important thing is that we all agree the planet is warming, the artic and antarctic ice melting, the glaciers receding, and that we are in real danger of stopping the North Atlantic conveyor. We do that and life as we know it ends.

But with respect to our (human) contribution check these out.

University of Illinois
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/00/08globwarm.html

Harvard University:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/10.23/ExpertsDebateEf.html

Colorado State University:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/26/fundamental-global-warming-questions/

Columbia and Georgetown Universities:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december97/protocol3.html

NOAA:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html

UCAR (National Science Foundation)
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantempsfacts.shtml

MIT
web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/cloudy_skies1.pdf

University of California
people.ucsc.edu/~mboykoff/Boykoff.Boykoff.GEC.2004.pdf

And I haven't edited these presenting only those that favour my opinion. I just googled and copied those from reputable organizations. These are not the opinions of hacks.
I find it interesting that one of your links leads to this

journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics
http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf

Quote:
recent analys of monthly mean cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatolgy Project uncovered a strong correlation between low clouds and the cosmic ray flux for extensive regions of the earth
in other words it sites non man made causes for much of the global warming.

these may or may not be political hacks, but these are still stories (for the most part) written by people how firmly believe in global warming, without giving the raw data from which they have take their opinions from. they are still telling people what to believe without giving them the data to make up their own minds.

another point is that while some glacers are retreating others arent. some are advancing.

another one is that changes will happen slow enough that they will likely not have that great effect on our way of life. Polution on the other hand can do some serious damage in only a single decade. yet with major hype about global warming going on, there is little being done to get rid of hydrocarbons in the air, and out of our water. with all the money spent on finding "solutions" to the "co2 problem", there is little left over to find solutions to the trash in our lakes and seas. With the blinding spotlight highlighting the hype over co2 destroying our way of life in the next half century, few can see how fast we are destroying it with ozone and such.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/10/06 07:29 PM
G'day Dan,


Assumed Agreement Where None Exists

Quote:
The most important thing is that we all agree the planet is warming, the artic and antarctic ice melting, the glaciers receding, and that we are in real danger of stopping the North Atlantic conveyor. We do that and life as we know it ends.
Who is "all"? I don't agree that the world is warming. I certainly do not agree that the poles or their environs are melting. There is good evidence to suggest Antarctica is increasing in locked H2O. I don't agree that glaciers are all receding. Some are growing. Some have been receding for more than 150 years. I do not agree that there is danger of stopping the Thermohaline circulation (or meridional overturning circulation or if you are not a scientist at all great ocean conveyor or perhaps global conveyor belt). I do not even accept there is such a thing as the "North Atlantic Conveyor". The system to which you refer is global in nature, crosses several oceans and is a turnover of water that is completely different to the Atlantic Current in that it is not wind driven or surface but rather 3 dimensional. The thermoline circulation runs on a thousand year cycle for starters and did stop about 8,000 years ago. Life for humans did not end.

Putting words into others' mouths is not polite.


Yet More News Articles or Opinion Pieces
Please, please refer to some climate change research occasionally
Again with news sites. Your tally stands at, about two dozen news and opinion sites and not one reference to research relating to the science of climate change, at least in the discussions I've had with you. This time you managed: News, News, Opinion, News, really inflated opinion (the hurricane stuff is just wrong), opinion, and a research paper, followed by another research paper.


Research on Public Opinion Belongs in a Sociology Thread, Not in Climate Change Discussions

I thought for a second you actually had finally contributed research but I was wrong. Sigh. Both the research papers were studies on public opinion on global warming. What does that have to do with the science of global warming? Nothing! It is a good argument actually for cutting back research grants for such studies. MIT backed a study that starts with some assumptions that real climate change studies do not support and used IPCC opinion on the link between CO2 and global warming as part of this research. The second paper was similar but seems quite flawed in that the authors, not being experts in the field of climate science, actually made decisions about what constituted balanced reporting on global warming for their analysis. If you don't like the poor science that goes into global warming research then I would suggest balanced would be to report on just how the research was carried out each time, something that is never done. If you are very pro global warming then balanced requires that you report global warming as a fact with only marginal matters around the edges worthy of discussion as to disagreement.


Concluding

I have to give Dan his due. The last post was a significant improvement. He is right, the opinions are not of hacks. For the most part they are from significant institutions. But they remain opinion and I think one thing that everyone on this site can agree is that the majority of climate scientists and probably a bigger majority of the general public really believes in the "fact" of global warming being real and man-made.

That really isn't an issue, Dan. My arguments relate to just how good the science is that backs this belief. No scientist can be good or even understand that much of Vulcanology, Glaciology, Biology, Migratory Behaviour, Mammal Population Fluctuation, Paleo-Climatology, Weather, Cloud Dynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Solar Radiation, Solar Cycles, Solar Magnetics, Ocean Currents, Ocean Salinity, Methane Deposits and Mechanics of Release, Ice Formation, Sea Level Fluctuations, Physics, Chemistry, Tree Ring Analysis, etc, etc.

Aside from the field they are expert in, most scientists have to rely on the expertise of others for fields which may effect a general condition such as climate change. From a simple perspective the evidence of global warming is overwhelming. But there is one scientific endeavour that does allow a very good view of the evidence on global warming, and that is the field of scientific methodology analysis and data bias, manipulation etc.

So if I was a mathematician and create a climate model, based on variables I rely upon other experts to tell me will provide an accurate picture of climate, then my model will show global warming and I will have no doubt it exists. If I am a glacialogist, and have now seen so many studies where the conclusion is that global warming is a fact, then I will be much less likely to question problems in my own research relating to inconsistency of sampling, the physics questions of whether the sampling creates an accurate picture of previous climate, etc, and show that glaciers are retreating or use cores to demonstrate some aspect of climate further confirming global warming.

Actually this does not explain things such as deliberate distortion of data such as Australia's CSIRO's brochure on global warming where they used only 2 of the 21 long term sea level measuring stations to "prove" that sea levels are rising and global warming is a fact. It sort of explains some poor methods but still a lot of it, I'd call fraudulent.

However, if the whole basis of suggesting global warming is occurring, the increase in average surface air temperaturs of a bit less than a degree in 120 odd years, is so suspect that it shows nothing, how much research would anyone expect to pronounce global warming so stridently?

In other words, global cooling relied on weather station data that was not very good in the 70s and because of this a number of research papers suggested we were about to enter another ice age. Global warming relies on the same data to show that there has been a warming from 1980 to the present and that even though there have been three major cooling phases, overall the planet has just been cooking itself from 1880 on. If that data showed no real change at all or a slight cooling trend, how much global warming research papers would anyone think there would be published? Not much.

So again I challenge Dan. Forget glaciers, Greenland, whether CO2 really creates a heat trap of some sort, and just look at the data used that underpins the entire concept of global warming. Without it then even if Greenland is losing ice, no one would suggest it was going to end life as we know it. They would just say it was a local or even global cycle. It would still be worth studying of course. The trouble with pretty much all of global warming arguments is there are pretty good counter arguments. You say the Antarctic is melting. Even NASA does not agree with that one.

But rather than argue the peripheral points, look at the data and the research that has been used to work out average world temperatures further back than 1979. I have. The data sucks.

GHCN Data - One of the Problems Provided by the Compilers of this Data

?A meteorologist working in a tropical country noticed one station had an unusually low standard deviation. When he had an opportunity to visit that station, the observer proudly showed him his clean, white instrument shelter in a well cared for grass clearing. Unfortunately, the observer was never sent any instruments so every day he would go up to the shelter, guess the temperature, and dutifully write it down.?


In British colonies shelters were placed under the eave of a building but in a great many locations the British forgot to swap sides for the Southern Hemisphere. This was later corrected, well mostly.

The time for taking temperatures has changed dramatically. I've gone on and one about "average" but this error is many times greater than any perceived global warming with the error being one that shows an increase in temperature over much of the 20th century without any change in the real temperature. Then you have urban effect, modernisation effects.

But by far the biggest problem with the data, is that almost none of it is consistent or contiguous. Does not matter whether it is US even. Very few sites have not been moved or records have been lost or recording was interupted. This should mean nothing being random but it is not random. Movements almost always were to a spot warmer. Further inside a town as it grew so that urban effect was larger.

If you want to say that global warming is a fact, then firstly show data that is reasonable that actually supports that argument. Really big problem there because such data does not exist.


Regards


Richard
RicS wrote:
"I don't agree that the world is warming. I certainly do not agree that the poles or their environs are melting."

I wasn't refering to you. I was referring to the proponderance of opinion on university campuses and among researchers in the field.

Your agreement is not relevant nor is mine. But I find it fascinating to see you denying that which is so easily proven as to make your statement laughable.

This is indisputable by any rational person:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5344208.stm

I'd suggest you not volunteer for the "crank" or "crackpot" label. It is very lonely out there.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/11/06 06:07 AM
Come on Dan,

Another news article. I do not think you get the point at all. This is a scientific forum. Don't like my views, debate them. Telling me I'm volunteering for "crank" label is not a debate. It ventures back into insult territory.

Actually, I don't mind being lonely. I hold a point of view because of the science and serious flaws in scientific methodology I found.


Focusing on the Science - A Quick Analysis of the News Article in the Preceding Post

Let's look at your BBC (a very pro global warming news organisation often clashing with the Government that pays its bills) article for a moment. Firstly it is not research. It is a news story with spin. That is true for pretty much every news story. There has to be a theme or angle otherwise it would not be readable.

How accurate is it? The reporting of the extremely small loss of ice (0.7 percent per decade is very much below what you would expect in any cyclic variability) yet the report says it is a "drastic" loss. Secondly, aside from the satellite data mentioned, how was the original ice sheet size determined. Going back decades it was not by satellites, that's for sure, and this is where the research or the news article for that matter breaks down.

Even the article hedges its bets by talking about changing wind patterns. And of course the shrinkage would be the largest since 1978 in 2005. 2005 was the record year. Any 30 odd year period has to have a record year. Before that was 1998 but they do not mention this year because the ice shrinkage did not conform to the allegations of this also being a record year. They do not mention 2006 (but you most graciously provided a link to a site that actually tracks ice sheet size in this area) and we know this was pretty much a 'standard' year for the 1979 to present period. A bit more shrinkage than the average, to be expected coming out of a very hot year, but not be a huge amount, but also trending back to the average.

What does 30 years of ice sheet which involves only a small fraction of the locked ice in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere tell us? Actually very little since anecdotally and from various other artefact evidence, it has happened many times before in the not so distant past (a scale over hundreds of years, not before the Holocene).

So just what does this news article do for global warming? Nothing. It assumes that a 0.7 percentage loss is drastic when anyone reading this would start to think that 0.7 percent and drastic do not really match each other. That makes scientists look stupid. The rest of the article is full of "may", "might" and is just speculation.


The Issues of Being a "Crank"

Whether my opinion is a very small minority one or not should not be relevant. Since my opinion is one based on research and the science. It should mean that I get support even if you vehemently disagree with me. Perhaps if instead of deciding what everyone else believes, you actually did a little research yourself. Perhaps even looked at the data as I suggested, you would not be so quick to condemn.

Just because everyone agrees with you does not make you right. Think of religions. Logic says only one or none of them are right yet you may have a billion people or more object to anything you say if you disagree with the teachings of the Qu'ran or the Bible or the Torah. Would that make you wrong? I don't think Selman Rushdie thought so. However, I understand religion is a matter of faith and faith is a personal matter that should be respected, as long as it does not intrude on other's beliefs. This is a matter of science.

Everyone just knew the sun revolved around the earth. Every earth scientist just knew that plate tectonics was rubbish, until, well, it wasn't. The first was in our "unenlightened" past, the second went through to the 1960s.

Please focus on the science. Otherwise why are you in a Global Warming post at all? You are right of course, so do you think it is your mission to convert everyone else? Because you certainly are not discussing the science.


Richard
That's the thing I find depressing about this Forum. We have a very vocal contingent of "Nay-sayers" who love nothing better than to discredit those who are concerned about the future of the Planet. Global Warming is, in their view, nothing more than a whimsical event of Nature. Man, a Transgressor? Oh, rubbish, the things of Earth were put here for Man. It's that type of hubris that has driven so many species into extinction. If we aren't careful, we could follow. How does a world of Cockroaches, Flies, Rats Dandelions and Crabgrass sound?
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/11/06 11:26 AM
G'day Wolfman,

As far as I know, there are only two people who regularly contribute to threads on global warming, that do not agree mostly with the prevailing view. dehammer and myself. That's not a vocal contingent and I do not believe either of us attempts to discredit anyone. Well actually I speak ill of some researchers who's use of bad science irks me.

I personally agree with you that man's place as the supreme being on this planet is not as robust as some seem to think as being a divine right. I find it very sobering that a sudden return to a cool period about 70,000 years ago was so close to causing the extinction of man it was amazing we survived.

But just because man causes damage to this planet, does not necessarily follow that there is global warming or that it is man made.

Global Warming seems to have become an article of faith. Those that are skeptics are tarred as not caring about the planet.

And climate change is far from whimsical. It has the ability to wipe out around 90% of all species on this earth and has was the cause of three of the four really big mass extinctions that have occurred.

Getting really hot would be bad for the earth but based on the evidence that uses solid science it will probably be another 20 years or so before any trend would be disernible and even then there is a question of what is the cause. I say this simply because that will then give us almost 50 years of reliable temperature data and that may be enough. No other data to date has shown much of anything if comparable over time (such as the use of the British Admiralty ocean temperature readings rather than combining them with readings, the methodology of which has changed substantially over time).

Going back to the generally more normal climate of this ice age (90% to 95% of this current Ice Age) has the potential to kill just about everyone and a great many species that man has managed to bring to the brink of extinction through habitat degredation, indiscriminate hunting or poaching or simply introducing more competitive species such as the humble bunny to Australia. I wouldn't call that whimsical at all.

Now the philosphy of global warming has been discussed, how about getting back to a discussion on climate change and the science being used. Even those that completely agree with man made global warming, surely realise that there are a great deal to do with climate change that still warrants discussion, research, and deverging views.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/11/06 11:58 AM
Short Comment to Dan (DA Morgan):

"We all agree", so from your last post you include yourself in the group: "university campuses and among researchers in the field." or was the use of "we" simply a topo?

Actually I came across 30,000 scientists that, at least as a group, do not agree with global warming. That is a lot! But since their organisation probably did not ask all their members to make that broad statement, it is no more reliable than the research of Ms Oreskes or any other claim to consensus. I'm still amazed at how many researchers in the area of climate that express reservations concerning global warming or whether it is man made if asked privately so my admittedly small anecdotal evidence suggests that "we all agree" whether the royal we or a topo so that included you when it shouldn't, isn't all that valid at all.


Richard
RicS is another one who would have us twiddle our (opposable) thumbs while the ecosystem collapses. That's our freatest failing, doing nothing. Because of our short life spans we tend to look at things from a generational perspective. And, really, things aren't all that much different from how they were 40 years ago. But from a Paleontological perspective, things are changing at breakneck speed.

Millions of years from now Paleontologists from some neighboring star system will visit Earth. They'll find evidence of mass extinctions, and they will ask the same questions that our Paleontologists ask - "What happened?" They'll see the Devonian Extinction, the Ordovocian, the Cretaceous, the Triassic, all seen in stark stone evidence. But the one that will puzzle them the most will be ours. The one that came with the invention of the Dugout Canoe, the Stone cutting edge, the iron plow, the Automobile, the Chainsaw, the Bulldozer, the Automobile. They will surely ask, "What happened here?"
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/11/06 07:18 PM
G'day Wolfman,

I hate to say this, but you're not putting up any scientific arguments either. In that respect you are not even an improvement on Dan.

So you do not like my position. Why? What makes you think that my position "would have us twiddle our thumbs". What ecosystem is collapsing?

By the way, the very great constant in the evolution of creatures on earth is mass extinction. It has happened several times during earth's history.

Man may well be condemmned by your thus far fictional paleeontogolists but I doubt whether global warming will be even a remote consideration. We have stuffed the planet in many much more mundane ways.

But back to the topic. This was, a long time ago, a thread discussing the science of global warming. Since this is a science forum, it would be really nice if the discussion had at least something to do with science.

Suggesting anyone who disagrees with your world view is allowing the destruction of the earth is not exactly a science discussion. It really is just a way of insulting someone else's perspective.

Actually in paleontogological terms this interglacial period is a tiny hiccup before the world goes back to a cold, mostly ice covered place (well at least much of the Northern Hemisphere). Looking at any reasonable evidence and within that interglacial period very little is currently changing. The world has certainly been hotter than at present before and will be so again, but probably not within an Ice Age.

Go to the main page of this forum and you will find a discussion topic on global warming being responsible for civilisation. All of man's civilisation has occurred within this rather long interglacial period. When it ends, unless man is prepared for it, it will also mark the end of civilisation for most of humanity. So is that the "What Happened Here?"?

All we have right now is evidence that the world warmed up a little bit after the Little Ice Age and bugger all else. If you want to argue that "things are changing at a breakneck speed" fine, but suggest just what is changing and how it has been measured.

Actually, instead of condemming someone for having a different view to what is popular, how about doing something really simple. Go to Wiki and read the section on Scientific Method, then apply what you have read to any major climate change study, especially to and doomsday warming models. Scientific Method demands that research provide sufficient information so that others reading the research can replicate the experiment or study and reach similar conclusions.

Do you really believe getting six wildely different ice core samples and deciding to average the result fits within any acceptable scientific method? Or for the ice sheet of Greenland, using a study that used two points and itself proved to be almost 12 metres out in vertical distance (an enormous error for the particular project) and then base all later studies on the losses of ice sheet on the study that cannot even be replicated from the figures provided?

How about ocean temperature data that has been manipulated to show that the world's oceans have warmed progressively since the 1880s because the data is not comparable over time. There is data which is comparable over time, the British Admiralty Data and it shows no warming trend. So which data should be used in such studies?

Or explain why the Continental US weather station records shows no trend at all in temperature over the last 120 years, except that it was a bit warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder, and currently it is doing nothing much at all after a little bit of warming in the 80s. Why does this set of figures match realistically with the satellite and balloon data but not with the rest of the world. Why should the satellite data, the balloon data and the US data match and show no trend when such a huge warming trend exists in the world average data sets for the same period? Why should the US data, the satellite data show no trend upwards when urban effect should be causing the apparent average to rise (although this would not effect the satellite data much at all).

So is questioning scientific method, when it really seems to be lacking basic scientific requirements, twiddling thumbs now?

Is that what science has come to. Pretty much the equivalent of the Catholic Chuch in the dark ages, telling any scientist that questioned the perceived view of the world, that they were not only wrong but so wrong that they could be put to death unless they stayed quiet. The questioning of a hypothesis is fundamental to better refining the hypothesis. How come that does not seem to apply in global warming? Questioning it condemns the author, rather than enlightens and expands knowledge.

In simple scientific terms, Wolfman, if you don't like my hypothesis, that to date much of the global warming hype remains hype because of the scientific method used, then suggest where I am wrong.

Pick any of the topics. Data sets currently are fascinating me because I am attempting to provide a method to create a GHCN type data set free of bias from urban effect, changed weather station location, and with consistent methods defined for such things as "daily average" and "world average" in a way that is completely transparent to anyone reading the research.

Of course such an endeavour will only be successful if it aligns with the weather balloon data from the late 1950s and the satellite data from 1979, whether very minor changes need to be allowed because of satellite drift and an alleged unsatisfactory insulation in the early 70s balloons.

If I can work this out then it will be interesting to see what the results are because right now we have different ways of creating an average to compare to on a yearly basis and those different methods do not accord. That means there is a significant error in one or more of the methods. Of course, there would be those that would suggest that the results should be averaged. I've seen it down. The average shows global warming so, it must be right. But such a conclusion flies in the face of simple logic placing much more weight on a system that is able to provide an near exact comparable record over time.

Global Warming is only a fact, if there is evidence to support it. If the current evidence is faulty then the whole pack of cards falls.

So I have provided several starting points for a hypothesis on global warming which could be a scientific discussion on this forum.

Actually the effort I need to put in to my research currently is extremely difficult so I resent the twindling our thumbs crack. In the backwards world of climate change, those that work very hard in an area that may contradict the pravailing view, are "Nay-sayers" and perform no useful service nor do they work productively.

I will give you a very basic hypothesis that I am currently working on.

The Statement:
The GHCN 2 data set contains mathametical errors of many magnitudes greater than the alleged global warming amount of less than a single degree. Some average methods raise the average temperature by more than 3 degrees. The data set contains numerous multiple records for the same location, often with considerabl variations to the extent that one year may be several degrees warmer than the base and the other record may have the same record being several degrees colder. The patterns mostly do not mach at all. So what should happen with these various recordings. How about averaging them together?

My proposal is to go back to the source and as much as possible obtain the raw records. An avereging method useful over the entire period studied is declared a standard and used against all data so that averages are calculated and from those averages, monthly averages can be made available.

Where the raw records cannot be obtain then research is required into the methods of measuring the data over the period of the measurements and whether such methods mean the data is corrupted beyond use, has a reasonable way of overcoming the difficulties or whatever. It may be found for instance that local stations have always only used on method of average. If this conforms with the established "standard" then the data can be used.

Where data has to be manipulated, great care should be taken to ensure that the manipulation does not introduce any bias. Such part of the process should be fully docummented so that others can determine bias if it has not been revomed.

Once data is collected from all localities which are able to provide consistent records over time and that now conform to the "standards" it winnowed to remove data that will have an error because of changes made to the weather station or its immediate surrounds or simply because no records were taken for a time. The data that remains should then provide an unbiased set of data of the average temperature for the period of the records.

The result could be that it shows global warming and further thought will be required in respect to the conflicting ground data and satellite data. Behaps the ground data simply is too flawed to provide a good comparable data record over time.

If you do not like my hypothesis or the proposed method of caring out an alternative, feel free to comment at length. We will at that point back to a discussion on the science.


Richard
Posted By: samwik Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/11/06 11:01 PM
Re: Going back to the generally more normal climate of this ice age (90% to 95% of this current Ice Age) has the potential to kill just about everyone and a great many species that man has managed to bring to the brink of extinction through habitat degredation, indiscriminate hunting or poaching or simply introducing more competitive species such as.... -Richard
I sure agree with that statement. My fear is that climate change (possibly anthropogenic warming) will push us over some tipping point and we'll end up back in a glaciation phase. I should probably read all 6 pages before say too much, but is there any example or evidence of a "tipping point?" I can only think of deep ocean circulation, but don't know how well that is modeled or understood to be a delicate balance. ~Sam
Wolfman wrote:
"RicS is another one who would have us twiddle our (opposable) thumbs while the ecosystem collapses. That's our freatest failing, doing nothing."

RicS responded:
"I hate to say this, but you're not putting up any scientific arguments either."

You don't hate to say it. You get great pleasure out of saying it. We have repeatedly posted links to research studies and asked you to post links to studies that refute them and not once have you done so. What you have done is write huge volumes of text that are not worth reading because they are your personal opinions rather than actual studies conducted by REAL researchers with expertise in the field.

Wolfman is completely correct. You are intentionally and willfully taking a position and sticking with it without regard to the evidence. That makes what you post not just unscientific but unworthy of being in a science forum.
Hi Richard

In your Oct 5th http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/3.html#000041 comment, you had this:

"Actually, quite aside from the Conveyer system, the collapse of the magnetic field of the sun back to around 12 billion kilometres, means sunspots should pretty much dissappear. The last time that happened the very harshest part of the three part LIA occurred. The collapse is due actually have an effect around October 8th (no not in 50 years, this year) and two independant studies I have reviewed both indicate that the quiet period will last more than 50 years."

It is now past Oct 12th, and I am wondering if you have heard anything about the collapse yet? Although your prediction strikes me as trying to predict a volcanic eruption or an earthquake, I was just hoping for more information.

Wolfman, Richard admited that we are doing terrible things to this planet and that those things have to be corrected. He simply stated that global warming was not one of them since there is no irrefutable scientific proof it exists.

John M Reynolds
RicS try for consistency. You just wrote:
"since there is no irrefutable scientific proof it exists."

No one, except perhaps you and a couple of crackpot zealots, claim there is no proof global warming exists. The only thing in dispute is the contribution to it created by human activity.

You have repeatedly not responded with evidence.
You have repeatedly not addressed the research.
You have repeatedly earned disdain.
Time to stop digging.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/12/06 09:43 PM
G'day John,

I'm no expert on the sun's cycles but I obtained a copy of a research paper and another one was published about the same time that both concluded that the sun was about to go very quiet for 50 years or so.

I think the October date was a bit like predicting tides. It isn't difficult to do, if you have enough information concerning the cycles.

As to what happens after the 12 October, my guess is ... nothing! The magnetic field fluctuation apparently affects the earth's climate but my guess is there would be a considerable delay. It would take a little while for the effect to actually produce results. But the study did point out that the results were fairly fast after the change in the magnetic field, in he region of a few months to less than three years, if I'm reading it right.

And as to "irrefutable", I liked the comment but I would use the word "reasonable" rather than irrefutable. Pretty much no theory ever gets to the level of irrefutable but right now, my comment on global warming is I have not seen any reasonable proof, especially in relation to temperatures.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/12/06 10:33 PM
G'day Dan,

So the citations I provided where not worthy of your enquiry? And the suggestion you look at the data sets is not worth doing?

Mr Morgan, you have provided links to no research, just news articles. How come your links to opinion news articles somehow correlate to "research" yet my citations directly to research do not mean anything? Doesn't seem particularly fair.

As I said, pick a topic and I'll provide citations to research papers that dispute global warming in relation to that field.

And just so I understand Mr Morgan's statement of facts, it would include the conclusion that the several hundred research papers I have in my database are all done by crackpots and cranks. I'd go on but this is simply a circular argument.

Mr Morgan, you do not wish to actually debate or discuss any scientific issues, only quote news links and denegrate anyone who does not agree with you. Post some links to research and I'll be happy to continue a discussion.

I find it amazing that, while I do post considerable text which is my opinion, it also includes direct discussion on research that you have referred to, or is used to "prove" global warming. You do not counter any of this except to say that I am a crank.

I personally do not care what you think of me and have patiently addressed any direct issue concerning global warming you have raised.

I don't hold a position because I like the position particularly. Do you think it is fun to worry every day that your funding promise will be yanked because your results are just so unpopular? It isn't actually. As I have said so many times it is probably not worth repeating because you, Dan, simply will ignore it, my only concern in relation to climate studies that relate to the present is the problems with scientific method and the use or misuse of data. I would much rather go back to what most interests me, and that is the cause of flips between glaciations and interglacial periods and the time it takes for such events.

Perhaps, instead of calling me a crank, and a crackpot zealot you might like to address any one of these points:

1. Show one single study relating to temperature where the data is not seriously flawed.
2. Have a look at the GHCN data set. Here is the link to NASA's site that uses it: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ . Try the random test I suggested and then tell me that the GHCN data set really is reliable and you did not get more cooling trends than warming trends by picking sites at random.
3. Find any ocean temperature records that show global warming AND are comparable against themselves over time.
4. Dispute NASA's findings that the Antarctic ice coverage is actually increasing. Since you seem to prefer news articles to research here is a selection:

?As climate shifts, Antarctic ice sheet is growing? ?Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2005

?Scientists link global warming to Antarctic?s ice cap?s growth? ?Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2005

?Antarctica ice cap thickens? ?Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 20, 2005

?Warming is blamed for Antarctic?s weight gain? ?New York Times, May 20, 2005

?Ice sheet confounds climate theory? ? The Telegraph, May 20, 2005

?Antarctica ice cap thickens, slowing rise in sea levels? ? Pioneer Press, May 20, 2005



5. Pick any aspect of climate change such as glaciers, sea levels, anything and actually argue your case that this aspect supports global warming without the data being manipulated and with proper scientific method applied. I really would like to see such research. There must be some out there, surely.

But you will not do any of this, Dan. You will simply call me another name and say that I'm not providing any links to research, even though that is actually a pretty serious misrepresentation of what I have actually done. Either Dan, you will not respond at all, or you will have some comeback that includes an insult or derogatory comment. Let's see. Perhaps it will be something along the lines that this post is nothing but more waffle on my behalf and contains nothing by my worthless opinion. Or parhaps I am being overly harsh because continiuing to address each issue Mr Morgan raises is met with yet another less than complimentary post and no science.

And the reason why I have even bothered to respond yet again? Because there are more people on this forum than those that simply wish to denigrate other's positions and they actually might wish to think for themselves. I really hope so.


Regards


Richard


PS. For those actually interested in the issues, the very substantial increase in the volume of the Antarctic has been confirmed in more than one study. This is one: Curt Davis (University of Missouri-Columbia), 2005, published in ScienceExpress. And then there are several about the reduction in mass of the western part of Antarctica. An example would be John O. Stone of University of Washington's team finding that the WAIS deglaciation began 10,000 years ago and is not related to present climate events. To quote one of the other authors, Ackert: "Recent ice sheet dynamics appear to be dominated by the ongoing response to deglacial forcing thousands of years ago, rather than by recent anthropogenic warming or sea level rise." (I think this research was partly published in Science two or three years ago, but cannot find the direct reference right now).

And of course Stone, Ackert and Curtis are zealots and cranks, by the criteria of Mr Morgan.

As to whether I cherish popularity or supporting a position because the evidence supports it, I would refer you to my current signature quote by George Bernard Shaw.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/12/06 10:48 PM
G'day all,

Record World Average Apparently Proves Global Warming, What Does Record Cold Temperatures Prove?

I know that I've produced a considerable volume of posts in this thread but thought this might be interesting to some.

2005 was a record high year. But how much mention is there of 2002-2003 Northern winter breaking numerous records for cold? Does this prove global cooling? Huh!

Some of the records:

  • Bejing having 6 consecutive days of snowfall in December 2002. Not previously recorded despite more than 120 years of records.
  • Record low temperatures or near record ice or snow coverage in places as far afield as Finland, India, Bangladesh, several areas of the Russian Federation.


I could go on but this actually proves nothing except records, both high and low, are broken pretty much every year somewhere.


Richard

PS. Anyone know how an small image may be inserted into these posts, without it having to be on a website somewhere else? I have graphs etc from some research that some people might find interesting. They are only a few kb each.
RicS wrote:
"So the citations I provided where not worthy of your enquiry?"

I looked at them. They did not address the studies and evidence amassed by multiple independent and government researchers in multiple countries that establish conclusively the planet is warming.

Thus their were not relevant and I am not easily distracted. So lets drag you back to the topic once again. Is there a single study, published in a peer reviewed journal, that clearly demonstrates that the study referenced here was in error?

Yes or No.

Simple and Boolean.

And if yes then without thousands of words of text just provide the link that references the work in question.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/13/06 12:48 AM
G'day Dan,

I challenge your reply. I simply find what you say extremely difficult to believe. How did you look at the research I referred to? Since the research is not on the Internet for the most part, you actually went to the trouble of obtaining hard copies? You really expect me to believe that you did this in two days or so.

Apparently you decide what is relevant because you apparently are "not easily distracted". The research I cited was specific to particular aspects of climate change. Pick another specific aspect and I'll provide more but it seems it doesn't matter what I provide, you don't care.

What study are you talking about by the way? Your post makes little sense. Some study was "referenced here". Huh? The study that suggests global cooling? I would be loathe to agree with that, although it makes an interesting point.

I give up. I am not going to respond to further posts by you unless they relate to a specific study or actually address a point I have raised or the cited studies raised.

Read your posts in this thread and tell me how you have even once actually addressed this topic or the general topic of global warming aside from name calling and news article or opinion links. Somehow that is twisted around to you needing to drag me back to the topic. Sheesh. All I want to do is discuss the topic but as I said, I give up. Happy to respond to anyone else or even you Dan, if you address an issue in global warming aside from opinions of others.

There really is nothing more that I can do. I have led you by the hand to the data and explained the problems with it, yet you have not once addressed this even in passing. And data analysis should be right up your alley.

What proves global warming if not glaciers, temperature variations, ice sheet melting or thickening, sea level rises? There is not much else left. I've referred directly to records on sea levels and temperature. I've cited "peer reviewed" published research on ice sheet melting/thickening and glaciers. What else is there?

And please do not say that you need to see a peer reviewed research paper on the temperature data before you will even consider that it is faulty. I've already indicated that this is one area where there is no published research, aside from the numerous comments stating flaws in the data in various pro global warming research.

By the way, the questions in this post are rethorical. I do not expect you to address them because you managed to answer only one of my questions thus far, the one concernig the citations in the post above and I have considerable reservations about your answer to that one.

And to anyone else still reading these posts, my wife raised an interesting point with me, not ever having had anything to do with science ever. Her question: "What makes you think you are right?" A terrific question. The answer is I don't think I am right. I have put forward a proposition. Scientific method follows that the proposition should be open to challenge and can be found wanting. I have no trouble with that. I would be happy to be proved wrong. As I have said a few times, I originally was of the view that there was little doubt the earth had warmed from 1980 on and overall had warmed from about 100 years before that. What I doubted was weather this was due to CO2 because that proposition seemed to have some holes, including the major cooling trends when the CO2 concentrations increased the most, and the US data being in such conflict with the world data. I had a reasonable understanding that the US data was much more likely to be accurate than much of the rest of the world. It is only because I have had to look at specific research and the methods used that the problem with "average" and just how big a margin of error this can introduce was highlighted to me. I always had a doubt about how good weather station data was, simply because we had so much trouble finding weather stations with consistent data when I had to do this for a project in the 70s but didn't realise just how bad it possibly was.

I assumed that the ice sheets were melting a bit. It seems logical if the world has warmed a bit but looking at those studies only showed up flaws in how ice sheet volume was determined before satellite data and just how unreliable that data was likely to be.

I did not know, for instance, that there was a a few sets of ocean air and sea temperature data that contradict pretty much every general study on those temperatures. The trouble is the sets that show no warming trend at all are the ones more likely to be comparable(and a significant cooling trend by very accurate measurements in the last few years - and I'm happy to cite the peer reviewed published research on ocean temperatures dropping should anyone care to look at this aspect).

All I have asked of Mr Morgan or anyone else who wishes to discuss global warming issues is to demonstrate where my logic is wrong, where there is accurate data, where I've made a mistake and some major study demonstrating global warming has no scientific method flaws.

When I taught, I had a very bad habit of starting a course with what sounded like an absurd premise and saying: "Prove me wrong". I got this from a professor who started an earth science course with "The flip between glaciations and interglacial periods takes seven years. Prove me wrong." So myself and some fellow students set out to do just that. It was because of this attempt that we all learned so much about just what evidence was available about the change over period between the two climatic states.

Yes, and I'm creating another long post, probably too long for most to bother reading it. So I'll stop.


Regards


Richard
alias RicS
or ' The Climate Change Zealot'
Apparently you missed the part where I wrote:

"Yes or No.
Simple and Boolean.
And if yes then without thousands of words of text just provide the link that references the work in question."

You are apparently impressed by length rather than content: I am not.
DA Morgan said, "They did not address the studies and evidence amassed by multiple independent and government researchers in multiple countries that establish conclusively the planet is warming."

Great. Name one study.

John M Reynolds
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
We have repeatedly posted links to research studies and asked you to post links to studies that refute them and not once have you done so.
If you have actually posted a link to a study, ive yet to see it.

ive seen links to news articles by the score. news articles are written with one goal in mind, sell subscriptions. they are not data, they are not the studies, and they are sometime not even the facts that the scientist have stated, but rather a paraphrasing of it, that makes it seem to say the opposite. you have done (or at least tryed) to do that to me several times in these forums. That does not prove anything.
Go to google.com

Put in the following search criteria:

"arctic ice cover" and "2006"

I'm tired of posting and reposting. You can easily trace any of the 19,800 items returned.

And for the terminally lazy I'll give you one leaving only 19,799 to go.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html
I suggest that RicS's wife has the patience of a Saint,

What's with this fixation about proving that GW is a "naturally occuring event"? And, if the hypothesis IS true, what, do we fold our arms and do nothing?

There IS some good in GW. The annual Baby Seal Clubbing Festival off the coast of Newfoundland has been cancelled - the ice is too thin for Humans to walk on.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/13/06 07:23 PM
Ah Wolfman,

Taking over from Mr Morgan, are we? Nothing but an attack, even if a reasonably polite one on the individual, rather than any science at all. I have no idea what your science interests are but it would be nice if for a change we could actually look at science rather than personalise this issue so that anyone who does not agree with you has a "fixation" and apparently also a long suffering wife.

Actually I did not say that Global Warming was a naturally occuring event. I actually said there was no reasonable evidence to support that there is anything such thing as global warming. Slight difference.

While I personally do not see the point of such a huge campaign to protect baby seals especially since their natural predators kill them much slower and inflict far more pain, and they are not endangered. But they do look cute on those posters, don't they. Very strange world when protection against the idiocy of man is afforded on the basis of how cute the animal is.

Actually if global warming was a naturally occuring event, Wolfman, do you suggest we attempt to intervene anyway. And there is a lot of good to "global warming", it is called civilisation. Without this interglacial period we would still be hunter gatherers without a written language. I'm not sure whether the planet would have been better off but I'm sure happier to be living in modern society and am very thankful for this for my family.

So what does a "natural" warming do that is positive? Extra CO2 follows a warming trend. More plant production. Much better food production in third worlds. More habitable and arable land. Better protection against disease (that last one sounds strange because global warming is being blamed for such things as the spread of malaria - actually I could quote considerable research by medical experts, not climate scientists, that indicate that malaria spread has nothing to do with whether the world is warmer or even a little cooler. Same with a number of other diseases. But why bother quoting real studies when they are not worthy of discussion in this particular thread, especially if they do not support the doom and gloom of global warming.

Australia is currently in a drought. Australia is always in a drought. Next to Antarctica, it is the driest continent. It has had appalling droughts, some lasting decades. Agriculture has been pushed to marginal regions where rainfall was terrific just after WWI and in the 50s but the pattern went back to a more normal one.

The threat of global warming has added an entirely new twist. In the last three months land in the main grain belts has dropped about 40% in value and generational farmers that have weathered previous bad times and have created exceptionally productive and efficient properties and giving up because they fear that this drought is because of global warming and that it is a waste of time perservering because it will only get worse.

This would all be fine if global warming is likely to be true, or likely to lead to more extreme droughts. The second is not true. The first seems to be a position that just does not have real science to prove it, hence the request after request after request to provide any research that truly shows global warming, these requests being ignored entirely. What have we been getting instead, news articles! Even NASA news releases can be very misleading when compared to the underlying research they pupport to represent. The "rapid" and "disturbing" loss of Arctic sea ice, for instance, does not match the actual research at all, and only the very negative is emphasised. Overall, the total ice is stable. All these news articles seem to have one thing in common, the use of "if", "might" and "may". Predictions in climate science are generally recognised as a particularly good way to look foolish. I wouldn't dream of saying the world is not going to get hotter. It seems from the solar evidence it might be about to get a little cooler but I wouldn't bet on it. Climate is too complex for predictions at our current level of understanding.

So Wolfman, I'm happy to discuss global warming with you if you want to discuss the science of global warming. If you go into any specifics I'll even provide citations directly to research. By the way, because I happen to think that I am not completely alone in my less than glowing response to the scientific methods used in the global warming research that gets all the publicity, I did a bit of looking at the surveys and research of climate scientists. It seems that very few of them enthusiastically support global warming being man made. The majority do agree with its existence, but a sizeable minority question even this. This type of information is really easy to find, by the way, it just is not reported in news articles.


Regards


Richard
Ah RicS ... 5,044 characters, 870 words, 2 pages in MS Word ... and not a single link to a single study refuting the actual science.

Perhaps Wolfman is, like me, deluded into thinking that in a science forum ... one should make arguments based on serious science ... not who can write largest number of lines.

quality <> quantity
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/13/06 07:58 PM
G'day John and dehammer,

Me, I've decided not to bother. You raised valid points but the response is simply going to be an endless cycle it seems.

That was my last post in response to Wolfman, unless he wishes to discuss the science of global warming. Otherwise this has become a particularly pointless exercise, one I'm afraid I created when I was about to go back into hospital and thought that it was worth making some remarks aimed at Mr Morgan. I've also perpetuated it by responding to each post.

Obviously citations or requests for studies are not going to elicit a reasonable response.

I do hope someone posts some global warming science so we can start over with a discussion not based on how many words I write (and I write a great deal and probably too much, I've already acknowledge that a few times) or just how much of a zealot or crank I am. That is not science or scientific discussion and it is just getting stale.

But it is not up to me to dictate how you respond to posts so feel free to keep trying if you want to. Just seems that it has become a rather pointless exercise imho.


Regards


Richard

PS. I made a mistake in the post about drought prices. That should have been 30%. While it probably was a mistake no one would notice, I would prefer to correct the typo.
Ha ha ha

Let me try.

Ah DA Morgan ... 306 characters, 54 words, 1 page in OpenOffice Writer ... and not a single link to a single study supporting the actual science.

Perhaps RicS is, like me, deluded into thinking that in a science forum ... one should make arguments based on serious science ... not who can write fewest number of lines.

quality <> quantity

About your link:

- The Arctic is a single region. It does not indicate a worldly trend.
- The study was about change over a single year
- It makes no mention of global warming
- It has an If statement that is guessing what the future will hold
- It mentions "another record low" without stating when it last occured or when records started to be kept

Did I miss anything?
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/13/06 09:08 PM
G'day John,

You missed a couple (although you got what I would consider were the main points).

If I may:

"While the total area of all the Arctic sea ice was stable in winter, ... "

Ah, so in total the Artic sea ice sheet hasn't changed. Hmm. So they are being picky. Bit like Antarctica then when they focus on a small part of the ice sheet that really is shrinking and neglect to mention just how small in percentage terms this area is.

Failed to mention that they are talking about a particularly warm year and that 2006 trended back towards the "norm" for the short period that the satellite derived data has been available. How come 2006 was not mentioned?

The whole article could be considered a plea for funding, hence the: "Nghiem cautioned the recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain. "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-based data," he said."

Dr Hansen of the Goddard Institute thinks NASA is being short changed in funding to such a large extent that he has written a "private" view of this travesty, which has either just been published or shortly will be published.

And, I've written this because we are actually discussing the science of climate change, for a change. It might be a news article but it at least meant that real issues could be addressed.


Regards


Richard
That would be really amusing John/Ric if it wasn't for the fact that I have posted this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html

At least 5 times in the last two weeks.

Refute it or demonstrate the professional integrity to acknowledge that you can't.
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Go to google.com

Put in the following search criteria:

"arctic ice cover" and "2006"

I'm tired of posting and reposting. You can easily trace any of the 19,800 items returned.

And for the terminally lazy I'll give you one leaving only 19,799 to go.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html
to quote your link

Quote:
Nghiem cautioned the recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain. "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-based data," he said.
that satilite was launched in late 1999, which means that it has been in orbit less than 6 years.

It is common knowledge that 2005 was a record hot year, with many explinations of why. over a hundred years there are likely to be many record hot years. Since the record keeping of the poles has been less than a hundred years, of course were going to be seeing one that is the record. so the perennial sea ice melted more during that one year than normal. can you tell me that that is surprising. During the next record cold year, it will likely grow. will you be back here using that as evidence of a global freezing?

why not come up with some real data instead of telling us your tired of giveing us all the new stories. we never wanted the news stories in the first place. We wanted the hard science.
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
That would be really amusing John/Ric if it wasn't for the fact that I have posted this link:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html

At least 5 times in the last two weeks.

Refute it or demonstrate the professional integrity to acknowledge that you can't.
ok, we acknowedge that this is a politically written news story. does that help you. the sparce data that it gives is so useless that it does not really say anything scientifically.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfman:
What's with this fixation about proving that GW is a "naturally occuring event"? And, if the hypothesis IS true, what, do we fold our arms and do nothing?
If the "natually occuring event" of gw is actually a cycyle, which all the evidence suggest, then

1) there IS nothing we can really do about it.

2) there is nothing that needs to be done about it because it will cycle back later, more than likely. its been doing so for thousands of years, why would now be any difference.

on the other hand, if its a cycle and man gets into his head that we have to cool things down, and we succeed just before the cycles turnes, then its going to get extreamly cold very quickly.
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Ah RicS ... 5,044 characters, 870 words, 2 pages in MS Word ... and not a single link to a single study refuting the actual science.

Perhaps Wolfman is, like me, deluded into thinking that in a science forum ... one should make arguments based on serious science ... not who can write largest number of lines.

quality <> quantity
show us the actual science and will refute it. until you have actual science its, hard to refute the science that is not there.
DA, I did refute it. Check my http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/7.html#000102 post.
dehammer wrote:
"to quote your link ... quote:Nghiem cautioned "

That's right. I don't just post things after filtering them. I post them because they are science.

But do note that he issue wasn't whether it is melting but rather how much is human causation. Something you and I have already agreed is not the subject of the debate. That is not something that John/Ric has yet to acknowledge.

And no it does not help as the research reported is not political.
JR wrote:
"DA, I did refute it. Check my http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/7.html#000102 post."

Your personal opinion as a member of the lay public is worth as much as mine. One does not refute NASA research with personal opinion unless one is preaching to their Sunday school class. You did not post anything from any study refuting the original work and conclusions. So no you did no such thing.

Please Note: This IS a science forum.
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer wrote:
"to quote your link ... quote:Nghiem cautioned "

That's right. I don't just post things after filtering them. I post them because they are science.

But do note that he issue wasn't whether it is melting but rather how much is human causation. Something you and I have already agreed is not the subject of the debate. That is not something that John/Ric has yet to acknowledge.

And no it does not help as the research reported is not political.
actually, it was how much was a regular melting and if it was going to be continued. also they need to know if the ice is just moving around or disappearing. Its disappearing in one area, but does that mean its disappearing altogether or just moving from side to side. that is what they need to determine.
Posted By: samwik Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 04:58 AM
Okay, I've finally made it through the 7+ pages and I'd like to comment about the last few posts (and their reference to previous posts) only. Regarding these comments below, I just don't see that the NASA article is refuted. These are all good points to talk about, but I don't think any of them rise to the level of refuting the article.
I'd like to talk about Richard's point that the total sea ice hasn't changed. I thought the article was pointing out that the quality of the ice was changing from perennial to annual, so overall mass of ice was decreasing.
Or Richard's point about the 2006 data. It takes time to generate studies like this. The news article refers to 3 studies published in a recent Geophysical Research Letters. They had to finish their study and submit it and get it accepted (peer review?); and that's gotta take months at least, so I'd think the 2006 data probably weren't available when they finished their study.
John's 'single year" comment certainly means that nothing definitive can be said about this study regarding GW or CC, but that doesn't mean the study is refuted. At worst, I think you could say it was flawed; needing more research (which I think was also pointed out in the article -to Richards chagrin -sounds like he's had some experiences in this area).

I don't see anything wrong with the researchers assessment that IF the ice melted, the ocean would warm more. (John, is that the 'if' statement you were referring to?) This seems like a neat topic to talk about though; I mean why do we assume that the ocean would warm? Should I already know? Is it common knowledge backed by many studies? Might be interesting to speculate about. Maybe the Arctic is different from the Antarctic with respect to ice cover insulation/salinity exchange --sheesh, I'm just making stuff up here.
John, I did think those were very good points about the 'record low' and when records were kept, but I still don't see that as refuting the article.
So, overall I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other; I'm just looking at this as a neat place to critique an article and maybe stimulate some new thoughts (purely selfish).
Here's the "below" excerpts:
and John, is this what you are saying refutes the NASA article?
"The study was about change over a single year - It makes no mention of global warming - It has an If statement that is guessing what the future will hold - It mentions "another record low" without stating when it last occurred or when records started to be kept Did I miss anything?" --John
And Richards also added more points: "Ah, so in total the Artic sea ice sheet hasn't changed. Hmm." & "Failed to mention that they are talking about a particularly warm year and that 2006 trended back towards the "norm" for the short period that the satellite derived data has been available. How come 2006 was not mentioned?"
----
and I see now that a few more posts have come up pretty much making the same point I'm making here, so for what it's worth....
& Please nobody take offence, I think you all have had good points about what is science, and what are we debating exactly, and how it should be debated, etc.
& Re: last post -dehammer. Are you saying that he, Nghiem, is saying it's human caused melting. I didn't see that. Nghiem specifically says "recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain." Did I misunderstand what your post says, or get the attribution mixed up? ~Sam
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 09:55 AM
G'day dehammer,

Quick comments. And to Dan (Mr Morgan), I'm going to reply against my own better judgement. What was the posts about arctic ice that both John and I posted if they did not directly speak to your NEWS article that you have repeatedly posted?

2005 was a hot year but not a record. That was 1998. 2005 was a peak year but no where near as hot as 1998 (a major El Nino affected year) according to the satellite data. It seems that everyone likes to say that 2005 was a record year. Yeah, it has some record COLD temperatures broken and was a pretty hot year in relation to the records from 1979 but why call it a record hot year when it wasn't (no offence to you dehammer by the way - this detail is not easy to find).


Regards


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 10:28 AM
G'day Samwik,

I liked your post. You looked at the science of the discussion and focused on that. It means that it is easy to discuss.

Firstly, we are all referring to a news article, not research. I've read many research papers and then news articles allegedly referring to those papers and have wondered if we were on the same planet. But for the moment we'll assume that NASA's news article is a reasonable, if very brief summary of the research.

Firstly to the speculation. The "if" part if you will. Speculation is fine if not used to support some larger theory. I have no problem with they need more research. But this area is being studied by a number of scientific groups and I wonder whether NASA also needs to do it. That was the purpose of my little comment.

Mr Morgan actually provided us with a link to another site that uses the same satellite data to monitor Arctic sheet ice and they keep their data very close to up to date. If you are going to us an "if" in an article and there is more up to date data, then I would suggest it should be at least referred to. If the article is simply a summary of research that is going through the process to publication, then there would be no need at all. Such things have a lag of up to two years.

I do not believe that anyone is trying to refute the NASA article at all aside from the "if" part. Once you leave research and enter the speculative field then anyone can have a go at you, as far as I'm concerned. And "peer reviewed" replies. Come on! Mr Morgan is demonstrating what seems to be a lack of understanding how research gets published. Directly attempting to contradict previously published research is just about impossible. No publication will normally accept another scientist reviewing the same data as a previously published study and coming to a different conclusion, even if (as in Ms Oreskes) the original research was deeply flawed. Just the way the process works. Is it fair? No. Does it advance scientific understanding? No. But editors end up with the same problems that all humans face, ego, emotional connection to what they agree to publish, the difficulty to acknowledge a mistake was made, etc, etc.

So the only peer reviewed published research that may contradict research such as this would require that someone else was looking at the same topic but using a different approach, probably at the same time as the original research.

The publication of scientific research is not some perfectly balanced system designed to advance science. It is a commercial enterprise designed to keep publishers in profit. That is not necessarily a bad thing but the limits of this system do need to be pointed out occasionally, especially if the topic becomes highly politicised and the monies involved become staggering amounts.

The points your raised are good ones. But having plowed through the seven pages you would now understand that what John/dehammer and I have been getting at is there is no science being discussed, rather news articles and opinion. Mr Morgan says that this news article supports his point that global warming is irrefutable. I don't know about the man-made bit because Mr Morgan seems to have altered his stance on that a bit. If it is not man-made then should there be any fuss at all? Kyoto and all other attempts are because of the alleged nexus between CO2 and global warming. No nexus, no Kyoto (which if every single aim was achieved would force the US to cut back 30% odd percent on its energy use for a tiny little drop in the INCREASE in the CO2). No need to donate huge amounts to Greenpeace, and all the other environmental groups. But I digress. I'm good at that.

The only science posted by Mr Morgan is a news article about the Arctic ice sheets so that is all we could work with. Does it really help Mr Morgan's argument in global warming? I think you stated that well enough. The article does not mention global warming directly. It does imply a fair bit however.

Seen from the perspective that an attempt was being made to discuss the fundamentals of global warming and the nit picking of the research does make sense.

By the way, I really would be interested if you went to the NASA site and had a bit of a look at the data and even NASA's comments about them. Find some locations that have multiple data sets. The fundamental problems with such data doesn't hit home until you bring up graph after graph that is incromplete, has multiple somewhat conflicting tracks and the majority show a cooling trend. It should take you considerably less time than reading through the seven pages here and I believe it is the best way to look at science, actually do a bit of research on your own, and the NASA site gives everyone the ability to do this without needing to download all the data (the two GHCN data sets take up a bit of space and take a long time to run anything against, I know, I have to do it).

I at least took no offence at your post. This is not a forum where anyone should have difficulty with disagreement, only with the lack of a reasonable discussion about it.

If you like, I'll pull up some research on the Arctic ice sheets and the overall locked water in the Arctic region and provide citations. It is not an area of great interest to me but I think I have about eighty studies catelogued that suggest either there is no way currently to measure the amount of ice or locked water in the arctic for longer than the satellites or that the overall locked water has increased. I have a few hundred studies that suggest that Greenland especially is loosing ice but I personally consider them to be based on poor data or manipulated data (at least the ones I've thus far reviewed). Happy to provide the citations to those as well if you like.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: samwik Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 07:51 PM
Sorry all; feel free to delete this post. ~Sam

Thanks Richard, but I don't want to focus on sea ice too much. I'll check out the GHCN data.
I would be interested to read the article you refer to earlier in this thread:

"I was asked to write an opinion piece for a local newspaper and went to the trouble of doing so, only to be told they didn't like what I had written. I'd just finished watching Mr Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth" and was so overawed by his child's car accident and his sister's death by lung cancer that I just knew that everything he said was unvarnished truth, not deserving of any critisicm at all. OK, so now I'm being really sarcastic but I did like the presentation. Mr Gore is a brilliant presenter. No wonder he won the presidential elections (but strangely not the position).

I rather acerbically asked the editor isn't that why they call them opinion pieces? I do not play well with others obviously and have now been banished from the sandbox.

The article is going to waste. I'll put it in a thread maybe titled "A Really Inconvenient Truth - Do Four Polar Bears Really Prove Global Warming". Anyone interested?"

emial would be fine; or as a thread....
Thanks, ~Sam
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 08:08 PM
G'day Sam,

I've sent you the lecture based on the article (because knucklehead me cannot find the article) and the PowerPoint presentation in a separate email.

Tell me what you think. I'd really be interested.


Regards


Richard
RicS wrote:
"What was the posts about arctic ice that both John and I posted if they did not directly speak to your NEWS article that you have repeatedly posted?"

I asked for something that refutes the study I refered to: It does not.

My post was nothing but an integrity test. Anyone with professional integrity would know you can not, in 2006, refute work done in 2005. A position of integrity would have been to state that refuting it could not be done.

Based on your inability to acknowledge the obvious ... I have a far better understanding of how you approach the issue ... like Carl Rove ... as spin.

Spin away. The earth is as impressed as I am.
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 11:25 PM
G'day Dan,

I knew I would regret responding to your post.

Your response makes no sense to me at all. Maybe I have had too much medication today but what study you referred to? I don't get that your answer actually answers the question at all.

And an integrity test? If I am reading it right, you cannot refute an earlier study because, why?, it is earlier?

And "refute"? Does that mean discuss? Does it mean critique or does it mean provide information that reasonably shows the study to be incorrect? I think you have established that your criteria for refuting a study is that the person must not make any straight observations but rather provide a link to another peer reviewed published study. A rather impossible condition, if you ask me.

I don't think I have attempted to refute this unknown study that you referred to. But I wouldn't really know because I don't quite understand what study we are refering to at all.

If we are talking about the news article about the arctic ice then the article itself has been reviewed and comments made about aspects of it in relation to global warming, because you presented this news article as if it was some form of proof to global warming. The comments relate to whether the article truly is any such form of proof rather than whether the article itself is worthy of critisicm. These are two different things.

And if you posted a request to refute a study with the full knowledge that you believed any attempt to do so whould show a lack of integrity, I would suggest that in itself shows not the best of integrity. Baiting a trap that, even when you suggest it was an integrity test, does not seem to be any such thing. Now that is a bit strange.

And to take it a bit further, disagreeing with a study because you agree with it, is in your mind a lack of integrity, is just another way of saying you believe that anyone who disagrees with you on this forum deserves a level of contempt. That's just another way of insulting someone, and not a very nice way at all because it does not even show the fortitude to do it directly.

I found the last post quite weird, Mr Morgan. Perhaps you would like to make it clearer, please, or preferably start to post something about the science of global warming and we give up on this progressively stranger digression from the topic entirely.


Regards


Richard
Posted By: RicS Re: Russian scientist predicts global cooling - 10/14/06 11:46 PM
G'day all,

If global warming is a natural cycle then I still believe we should work towards decent monitoring and even prediction. If we are about to get colder for instance, I for one would think it very very important that we are forewarned.

If it is likely that the climate is about to change, either getting significantly warmer or returning even to a mild form of the LIA, then some planning is definitely needed to minimise the damage done to human society. If we are likely to return to a glaciation then very serious thought should be put into how best to cope.

I'm not advocating we should not attempt to monitor climate change or even attempt to improve predictions so eventually they may actually have some value. It is just like weather forecasting. It took an awful lot of work to get a day or so into the future reasonably accurate but it was worth the effort because of the huge benefits to society. If we can create prediction models of climate change that finally include enough variables to be more reliable than just guessing then that is a good thing, providing of course, that the climate is likely to change in the next few decades or less (and that is a big question since it hasn't changed much in more than 130 years).

The question will remain at what point has our ability to predict climate risen to above the level of just a guess because only then will it have any value. To attempt to utilise it before then is actually worse than no attempt at all, imho.

Just some more food for thought.

Regards


Richard
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums