What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

depends a bit on whose data you c&p eh? ...

Yes.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-b...asa_satellite/

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

From Spencer's presentation:

"...we have stumbled upon clear and convincing observational evidence of particularly strong negative feedback (low climate sensitivity) from our latest and best satellite instruments. That evidence includes our development of two new methods for extracting the feedback signal from either observational or climate model data, a goal which has been called the “holy grail” of climate research.
The first method separates the true signature of feedback, wherein radiative flux variations are highly correlated to the temperature changes which cause them, from internally-generated radiative forcings, which are uncorrelated to the temperature variations which result from them. It is the latter signal which has been ignored in all previous studies, the neglect of which biases feedback diagnoses in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity).
Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100."

Cheers.

[Guest625101138]

I guess you could argue it has something to do with a solar boat. But otherwise not much boating in this post.

The Australian BOM has some great data available in weather. Here is one example:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/c..._timeseries.pl

The value of this site is its lets people play around with recorded weather data over the continent themselves without having to rely on individual "scientific" manipulation of the data. You are simply relying on the voracity of a collection of half trained offsprings of cow cockies or some such and the accuracy of their instruments. Remembering their existence depends on the vagaries of the weather so they are keen observers.

The unique thing about Australia is that there is not much in the middle apart from maybe one or two cattle per square kilometre and the occasional kangaroo. These are not likely to have changed the country side much in the past 50 years. (Keep clear of the western side of Mt Isa because no doubt it has impacted the landscape for a good distance.) Also not much on either side apart from vast expanses of ocean. I have attached an example of annual average temperate for a spot in the middle of NSW. I guess near Cobar.

The data on the particular page linked goes back to 1950. Some of the individual locations go back to late 1800.

So without going into all the peer review nonsense that has become such a feature of this nonsense thread (notice I did not say crap) you can just do your own analysis and make up your own mind based on unbiased data.

I have also used similar data available for South Africa and less so with the USA data. I know SA is trending drier like Oz.

I should point out that my main interest in this topic is if I will have beach side at the house frontage in my lifetime.

Rick W

[bntii]

Congratulations-
You have managed to find a real champion of "science".

"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[

Who in all fairness also says this:

"Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately."

[Guillermo]

Good post, Rick.

bntii,
So, what do you find in Spencer's words that make you doubt about him being a good scientist? Look at his background: the guy doesn't seem to be an stupid or ignorant. I agree with what he says on evolutionism and creationism, which just is we can consider nothing as an absolute truth and we should have an open mind and consider all possibilities. Even on evolutionism.

And anyhow we are only discussing here climate change, and is not fair to try to scorn other opinions by using his/hers thoughts on other subjects. That's fundamentalism, in my opinion.

The very root of scientific development lies on what the ancient greeks called 'epojé' or the 'permanent doubtness condition'. That's what makes us advance.

There is a nice saying: a conclusion is when we get tired of thinking.

Cheers.

[bntii]

There is no way for me to gracefully back out other than to say I will endeavor to 'play the ball, not the man'.

Cheers your self!

[Jimbo1490]

And anyhow we are only discussing here climate change, and is not fair to try to scorn other opinions by using his/hers thoughts on other subjects. That's fundamentalism, in my opinion.

Agreed. If you want to go that route, then the AGW crowd better run and hide because their camp has a lot of real ani-human wackos; the stuff they say when they think nobody is listening (but their own) could peel paint, so let's just not go there. Stick to the science.

Jimbo

[bntii]

The UAH website has this which I feel is a balanced summary of Dr. Spencers thoughts on the topic of climate change:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

To the Senate he allows:

"And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research."

This comment is the broadest possible misrepresentation of this field of study.

[Guillermo]

Pretty interesting link, bntii, thanks.

From there:

"If artificially-enhanced global warming at potentially damaging levels isn't happening, what might that mean in terms of environmental and conservation priorities?

At hearings before Congressional committees and in other settings, we have often been asked the hypothetical question: "If you were in charge, what would you do about climate change and the environment?"

The first thing is to do no harm. With the threat of catastrophic climate change, many proposals have been put forward to limit energy use.

A fundamental point that needs to be understood is that if any of these proposals (including the Kyoto protocol) are implemented, they will have an effect on the climate so small that it cannot be detected.

None of these proposals will change what the climate is doing enough to notice.

Those are good reasons not to artificially force energy prices up. While raising energy costs might damage the economy, it would disproportionately hurt the poor, especially those people living on the world's social and economic fringes.

While no direct evidence of ecological damage from carbon dioxide has been found, that is no excuse for reducing environmental protection.

We shouldn't undo the good things that have been done to clean the air and water. More should be done, especially in developing countries.

Beyond quality of life issues, human life itself is significantly more threatened by polluted water, polluted air, habitat destruction, unbridled population growth and a host of related ecological problems than it is by global climate change on the scales that we have seen in the past 28 years.

Millions of children around the world die every year due to water borne diseases. Tens of millions of people are forced to breathe air that is blackened and made toxic by fumes from leaded gasoline, industrial pollution and cooking fires.

Women and girls in some developing countries are forced to walk miles each day from their villages to the receding edges of the forests to harvest green wood and other low-energy biomass for the fires they use to cook their meals and heat their homes.

A U.N. report estimated that 1.6 million people — most of them women and children — die each year due to indoor pollution from cooking fires

While the extent of human impacts on global climate change remains uncertain, research by our colleagues at UAH confirms that deforestation and land conversion are changing regional weather patterns and the local climate over some parts of the world.

We should also do what the U.S. does best: We should encourage and support the scientists and engineers who will develop new sources of low-cost energy. Just as transportation was "de-horsified" in the last century, we believe energy in the 21st century will continue to be de-carbonized.

Ironically, actions that artificially inflate the cost of energy might hamper those efforts, as healthy economies can better afford to find and develop alternative energy sources and cleaner energy technologies.

We should also enhance the national and international infrastructure for dealing with climate and weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. We know these events will continue to happen whether the climate changes or not. Everyone would benefit if we were better prepared when they happen.

Finally, we recognize that climate change is real and that human activities are probably contributing to that change. We should continue to devote resources to monitoring and studying the climate system, so we can develop the systems that will let us know what the climate is doing and respond appropriately. Perhaps, at some point in the future, we might even be able to reliably forecast what the climate will do in future generations."

— Dr. John R. Christy & Dr. Roy Spencer
Earth System Science Center
The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Amen.
Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by bntii

The UAH website has this which I feel is a balanced summary of Dr. Spencers thoughts on the topic of climate change:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

To the Senate he allows:

"And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research."

This comment is the broadest possible misrepresentation of this field of study.

I'm taken aback by this comment. After all, AGW proponents have all but admitted that they look at climate processes that they now understand (like the GH effect) and make predictions as to what the earth's temperature "should be" given their current understanding of those natural processes. Any temperature they observe that is "excess" to their predicted temperature is AUTOMATICALLY attributed to anthropogenic causes! If that's not both bias and hubris, I don't even know what is

Imagine if we did that with ALL natural phenomena we don't understand? Oh wait; the greens already do that Remember DDT VS bald eagles? The deformed frogs? Now we have the decline in bee popuations. The first two are now known positively NOT attributable to anthropogenic causes; third item is still pending but the greens have already weighed in with their opinion, LONG before the science is anything like conclusive-as usual.

Until only the last decade or so, the GH effect was the only known driver of global temps; no other mechanisms were even acknowledged to exist, let alone understood. ALL temperature fluctuation past and present were said to be explainable through this effect.

Jimbo

[safewalrus]

I'm so glad that global warming stopped in 1998, it means I won't have to throw away a couple of nice wooly jumpers I have! Probably also explain this absolutly 'shiite' summer we're having

[masalai]

Maybe all you northerners will enjoy the freezing zone and us clever dicks will bask in the warmth of the southern oceans? 'cause it is warming down this way - slowly and steadily.....

[bntii]

"Taken aback"

Oh my!

How you doing Jimbo?- been awhile but figured I was missing the fun here at the old global warming thread.

Still checking your facts I see:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:6.2
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/366.html

[safewalrus]

Maybe Mas, there again if it gets that good down there maybe we'll all come down and the world will turn upside down and you'll be a Northener and we can all start again? confused? You will be!!

[Jimbo1490]

Oh my!

How you doing Jimbo?- been awhile but figured I was missing the fun here at the old global warming thread.

Still checking your facts I see:

From the frog deformity study, study italics mine:

"This is the first study to show that nutrient enrichment drives the abundance of these parasites, increasing levels of amphibian infection and subsequent malformations," said Johnson. "The research has implications for both worldwide amphibian declines and for a wide array of diseases potentially linked to nutrient pollution, including cholera, malaria, West Nile virus and diseases affecting coral reefs."

Many hundreds of studies have been done on this subject since the late '80's and until this Sept 2007 study NOT ONE could make such a link, though many have tried. Which do you believe, the one or the many? You are always touting the importance of concensus, after all. I know this takes a bit more digging and reading than you are probably willing to invest (one good dig leads to another) but the trouble with this particular study is that it fails to show how all these nutrients got into streams and lakes at the tops of mountains and high plains where there is no farm runoff. It is those locations where the problem has been particularly acute. Of course the authors did not mention this; why should they knock their own work?. I'm mentioning it. Their work doubtless does increase our understanding of what is happening, but the 'blame the humans' mantra is still just indicative of a particular philosophical outlook rather than a useful tool let alone an acceptable bias for a scientist.

The paper on DDT which you linked was not a study but some sort of assessment paper based on the works of others, namely the Dewitt, Hill and Hudson. Of course this paper took all the assertions of these studies as Gospel from Jesus, which of course it is not. In fact, these studies are largely discredited now because of the following: (Some of these were even contemporaneous.)

The big problem with these studies is that they consistently dosed birds with DDT to achieve serum concentrations from hundreds to several thousand times higher than ever recorded in any wild birds known to have been exposed to DDT from agricultural or mosquito control uses. [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]

In even these studies, egg shell thinning was consistently less than in affected birds found in the wild. So how could DDT be the cause?

[Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

Subsequent research proved that many other factors influenced this phenomena and that ultimately DDT was not the cause. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

[Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

Furthermore, egg shell thinning is not correlated with ANY pesticide residues.

[Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]


Thomas , you better check your own facts before you go after mine.

Jimbo