What Do We Think About Climate Change

[mr curious]

sorry, but that is far to much information

[Guillermo]

Two interesting oponent blogs:

http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/

You choose.

Cheers.

[Boston]

well ya know its hard to be thorough and still keep it short
in the end
ild rather be thorough

Im one of those who actually believes in the science
hell its my life
feels like Ive spent eons at the university
my bag is theoretical physics
so the idea that some thing that isnt
could be
is not so far out of the ordinary to me
for instance
most people dont understand that faster than light speed is possible
let alone common
I.E
Newtonian physics wouldnt even remotely work if gravity acted at anything less than a few thousand times the speed of light
( hows that for useless information )

if Im a little on the passionate side about cleaning house
ooops

its just that there is middle ground here
and no one is willing to stand on it
instead
they fight over trivialities
and make no positive change
while we descend into the inevitable tragedy
that need not be

I would contend that with in the scientific community
there is no real debate about this
because no body of data fails to support the theory
oh
as always
anomalous data exists
but
human caused global climate change is for real
its rare that a theory meet with such a consensus as this

what few detractors there are
are unable to support there disagreement with any viable hypothesis of there own
if there is one
bring it on
tens of thousands of scientists would love to her it

if that qualifies me for meds
gimme amitriptiline
and a tall blond
I promise
I wont be on for a while after that

[Boston]

never to much info

data is the key to understanding
understanding is the key to survival
survival is the essence of life
and life is a gift best not waisted

live long and prosper my friend
in wisdom and wealth
for all
B

[Boston]

lots of dialog but no refereed work here
send me data that is peer reviewed and published with in the community as a hole
industry rags are not acceptable as they virtually always exclude that most precious of prequels
"the author confirms that no competing interests exist"
without which research can only be considered as biased

I am finicky as to what papers I quote or cite
as there is a lot of pseudo science skulking about
feet muddy in an agenda less than honest
snout deep in the corporate trough
B

[Butch .H]

Boston no need to defend your self or your info.Mostly we do understand what you are saying in your posts.We (I ) am pulling your leg. I live in the most boring place in the world when it comes to climate and our geoligieys are so stable we need to go to a mining town to feel a tremor. The only thing going for this place is the fossil record.I for one think we are a little late in trying to reverce the climatic trend.

[Boston]

ok watched em
nothing all to convincing
frankly this guy would be eaten for breakfast at any conference Iv ever been to
his only real point is concerning data collection and when it boils down to it
were loosing glaciers faster than the catholic church is loosing alter boys
cant really argue with ice melting now can you
one way or another
we are warming up
and no amount of arguing the data can deny it
sorry
but no thorn in the lions paw here either
B

[Boston]

ya a lot of people feel that way
but I prefer to think we have a chance
got kids you know
at least ones Ive adopted
and Ild like to leave em some thing other than a starving hulk
oh
if the oceans stratify
it wont be boring any longer
things will change fast
and ugly
so keep the old fingers crossed
B

[Boston]

k
I just went through every post on this thing and read or watched the data you provided
the data presented was all one lecture through a institution called the Australian enviromental institute which actually isnt a school at all but a front for a right wing think tank

a DR Bob Carter lecture

I think it important to note that Wikipedia states and I quote

Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article by Sydney Morning Herald environmental reporter Wendy Frew said that "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." [2] While Carter is a frequent commentator on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus.

the following article presents its opinion well concerning the Australian environmental foundation

The Australian Environment Foundation, a body founded by Jennifer Marohasy and operating from the same addess as right-wing think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, now has a web site.

At the web site we learn that Jennifer was succeeded as AEF Chairperson by Barry Cohen (former Hawke Government Environment Minister who was replaced by Graham Richardson, in part because of Cohen’s lack of vigour on environmental issues on which Richardson was able to deliver), and then by retrenched celebrity gardiner Don Burke.

We also learn that Jennifer and Don aren’t singing from the same song sheet on climate change.

Jennifer’s blog includes a category on climate change which is basically a denialist dope show. Her self-characterisation on the issue as “I’m just not sure that greenhouse gas emissions are the principal drivers of the current warming” but the general thrust of other threads in this category suggests that she is being just a little too cute on this point.

Don Burke, however, has no such doubts:

This is a pivotal time in our planet’s history. The good news is that most people are now aware of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the political will now exists to find a solution. This is because the media has done a brilliant job of spreading the word to even the remotest areas of the planet.

Furthermore, Don thinks the problem is so severe that the environmental movement must reconsider its opposition to nuclear energy.

Perhaps the AEF will resolve the differences between Don and Jennifer at its forthcoming conference, to be held in Brisbane on 23-24 September. Let’s hope so. We wouldn’t want people thinking the AEF were the people Anthony Albanese had in mind when he said that “some of those who argue for nuclear energy to combat climate change, in the very next sentence question the very existence of climate change!�?

another gem I found on this guy

Carter trotted out all the favourite falsehoods of the global warming sceptics. Actually, Carter complains about being called a sceptic:

Such persons, and myself as you introduced me, are often termed ’sceptics’ and that’s meant to be a term of denigration, but I’m a scientist…it’s my job to be a sceptic, Michael, and those who are not sceptical towards human-caused global warming or, indeed, towards any other fashionable environmental concern, are acting in unscientific manner…religious, even.
If “global warming sceptic” has become a term of denigration, it’s because of the way they have conducted themselves, dismissing real science on the flimsiest of grounds. I guess I’ll use the more accurate “global warming denialist” to describe Carter.
Carter offers up the usual misrepresentations of the science: urban heat islands contaminate the surface record (no they don’t), equivocation about the word “consensus”, the “hockey stick” is broken (no), ice cores show that warming precedes increases in C02 (only partly), the IPCC summary does not reflect the body of the report (yes it does).

One particular misrepresentation is particularly troubling. Carter claims:

[the surface record] conflicts with independent estimates or measurements that we have of changing temperature made in the atmosphere by satellites and weather balloons. They show very little net change over the last 30 or 40 years.
But the satellite data shows significant warming over the past 30 years. The only discrepancy is that some analyses find only half as much warming as the surface record, while others show a similar amount of warming. It is wrong to pretend that disagreement somehow proves that there hasn’t been any warming.
I remonstrated with Carter when he made similar claims in a Tech Central Station article last year. Here is what he wrote in reply:

There is no conflict between the two following statements, and I stand by both of them.

“There is indeed a small, statistically significant trend.(in the MSU data as analyzed by e.g. Christy et al., 2003)”

and

“The (MSU data) show virtually no long-term trend of temperature increase despite the increased carbon dioxide levels over the last 25 years”

The first is a statistical statement. The second is a statement of scientific judgement which takes into account, amongst other factors, the statistical result.

The sort of technical detail in which you are seeking to discuss the MSU data is most usefully conducted in the relevant professional journals. For reasons of length as much as any other, it is in general not possible to go into such details in an editorial piece written for the general public. That accepted, of course it becomes even more important that the writers of such pieces take particular care with their words. That I have tried to do, and I am sorry if it has not been to your satisfaction.

By coincidence, an interesting new article on MSU results has just come out in Nature (attached). It adds some weight to your evident belief that atmospheric temperatures are rising. On the other hand, many will be concerned that it has proved necessary to selectively manipulate the data to achieve the result. Earlier attempts to make such corrections are acknowledged to have failed.

I shall be interested to see what the expert atmospheric scientists make of Qiang’s study, whilst rather doubting that it will prove to be the last word on the subject.

As I said last time, what one makes of the MSU results (i) depends upon the date and authorship of the paper one chooses to trust; (ii) requires that allowance be made for exceptional events such as the 1998 El Nino; and (ii) will be much clearer when we have another 20 years of data.

So Carter is well aware that the satellite data shows warming but did not mention this on the radio show.

another jewel in the crown of Dr Bob is the following statement he made about working for big oil

I

n March 2007 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday [March 14th 2007] the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence." [7]
Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

basically
this guy is not exactly what I would call a shining example
he hasn't submitted a single article on climate change for review
nor has any by him been published

he's a marine geologist for the oil companies near as I can tell

feel free to provide me with 3 peer reviewed and published works concerning detracting opinions of the global climate change theory
as of yet I have not seen any
even after going through all your posts in this thread

I would add that a random sampling of over 900 published works
found not one to be dissenting

pretty dam compelling if you ask just about any one

B

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

hell its my life...
feels like Ive spent eons at the university
my bag is theoretical physics....

I'm confused. Aren't you a carpenter?

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Testimony of Roy W. Spencer (PhD in Meteorology, a guy with several peer reviewed works on climate matters, and a recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement) before the USA Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, on 22 July 2008:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...a-7afbc4ee72f3

From there:
"Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....
If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now."

Cheers.

[the1much]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

I'm confused. Aren't you a carpenter?

Cheers.

he's a carpenters dream,,,,,,,flat as a board,,, and never been screwed
haha

[Jimbo1490]

Boston:

Too bad all your "Gems" were from Realclimate.org. virtually the ONLY people you can find ANYWHWERE that still defend the infamous 'hockey stick' graph, which even your much vaunted IPCC have summarily abandoned.

On the issue of so-called 'Peer Review', maybe YOU can be the one that can convince Mikey Mann to release the algorithms that he used to produce his famous temp. recon. and it associated graph, or the 'alternate sources' for the data he alluded to but has YET to produce, now 3 YEARS later.

Oh, the algorithms have been deduced forensically by McKitrick.
He has a very fine website, BTW and I encourage all to take some time to read a couple of the articles and peer reviewed papers in pdf form. Unlike Mr Mann's 'pier review', Mckitrick lays it all out for everyone to see; no secret tricks or 'mann-o-matics' to make alarming graphs from even random number strings.

If the case for AGW case is so strong, why the ********? Didn't we see this same sort of distortion of data into propaganda with the pre-war intelligence on Iraq?

Isn't it even worse this time since new data sets and measurements keep a comin' with less and less alarming temp data? At least Iraq was a 'closed' society; you get to fill in a lot of 'blanks' with scary scenarios in that context and people will believe you. We don't have that excuse this time.

There really WAS a MWP and it really WAS much warmer than today, and it really WAS a global phenomena, despite what Realclimate.org ideologues (Mr. Mann) will tell you with straight faces.

Jimbo

[mastcolin]

The difference between science and politics (the Iraq 'intelligence" analogy) is that science is all about peer review. The Iraq thing was "intelligence" argued behind closed doors for political reason.

Scientist have no reason to argue the politics - that is for the politicians. Science is over theory, testing of theory etc etc. The peer review issue is that through arguement and testing a consensus arises ie an idea becomes a fact.

Whilst you can argue that a lot of the discussion of climate change is political, the science is not.

An analogy is contraception. You can argue the politics of it, but contraceptives stop babies (and disease). It isn't the health scientists job to argue the implication of a science.

Feel free to ignore the science if you want. Why stop there? Why not deny gravity when you are keen to play basketball?

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the heat retention in the atmosphere (this fact was discovered about 150years ago)
The CO2 level is increasing due to man (this is a fact)

Now explain to me how the above means that climate change doesn't exist?

Real climate is a forum for climate scientists and those interested in the field - this is a forum for boatbuilders with opinion. Feel free to argue the case on the basis of politics. Climate change is a fact recognised in science.

ps the hockey stick issue is addressed on the site. The McKitrick paper - a paper printed in a non-climate science journal? It's like an economist coming here and telling you how to build a boat. He's an economist (a pseudo-science if ever there was). He has an opinion - it's wrong factually. (though politically is satisfies some people opinions)

[Jimbo1490]

When scientists are serving at the whim of en ELECTED executive branch of government, then YOUR analysis is the one that fails. Did you not read the cited papers? This has been going on for decades, now.

And if statistical analysis is such a psuedo-science, then why do you give it such credence when a piker (in statistical analysis) such as Mann dabbles in it-and gets it VERY WRONG??!!

So you still believe the 'hockey stick' graph is an accurate representation of the earth's past climate? REALLY??!! What happened to the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD!!!????? How about the LITTLE ICE AGE??!!

"The CO2 level is increasing due to man (this is a fact)"

Even this seemingly basic tenet cannot be established as fact. The problem is that our contribution and the increase don't line up very well (for instance we KNOW CO2 was increasing BEFORE we started to release it in any significant way) and even if they did, it's strictly a circumstantial case, NOT a cause and effect relationship. The decline of European storks coincident with the decline of the human birth rate in Europe does not prove that storks bring babies. They are just coincident facts.

Jimbo