Climate change (Why do PFK bother with blogs?)

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

....it is entirely a matter of probabilities, it is just a "best guess" based upon the data they have.

To which the UK tax payer is expected to pay £768 billion by 2050. Surely we need something a little more substantial.

If you sincerely belief that these people have devoted their working careers and professional credibility to a huge conspiracy theory and have been willing to lie and cheat to support this, that is your choice.

Nobody is calling "huge conspiracy theories", but certain individuals bring the integrity of the discipline of climatology in to question. Are you familiar with the Climategate emails? They are worth a read. Michael Mann`s "hockey stick graph", with which he tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, is widely implicated within them.

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Sorry to get you bogged down in something that may not be in the forefront of your interests, but I think Phil Jones comes across somewhat disingenuous in the link below.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /38711.htm

Personally I don't and I'll post this graph (note from the CRU, and based upon the data they have collected) and people can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Come to think of it, I`ll get off my soap box now. :silent:

Dave.

 

[dw1305]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Hi all,
Dave you are entitled to your opinion, to question whether the money spent on climate research is value for money and to question the integrity of the scientists involved.

From my personal perspective I would be spending relatively small amounts of money on any "big science" projects, for example step forward CERN and the "Large Hadron Collider". I won't even start on the fact that the UK is the worlds 4th largest spender on the military (I should say my wife works for the MOD, so I appreciate there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here).

Are you familiar with the Climategate emails? They are worth a read. Michael Mann`s "hockey stick graph", with which he tried to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, is widely implicated within them.

I have followed the whole "Climategate" debate fairly closely and I would recommend that any-one who is interested reads the information on http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements and then on http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Hi all,
Really my last post, but the premier international science Journal "Nature", actually has a "climate-gate" issue on-line since yesterday. It is free content but you may have to register to read it.

<http://www.nature.com/news/specials/climategate/index.html>

cheers Darrel

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Hi all,
....I would recommend that any-one who is interested reads the information on http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements

cheers Darrel

I shall hold this one with the same regard I would hold the one on the FIFA web site declaring their honesty. 😀

This site gives info on many aspects of climate change for those interested.

http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/

As a little aside Darrel, what do you make of the EPA decision to declare CO2 a pollutant? Personally, I am a little mystified.

Dave.

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

My apologies Darrel, I did say I would get off my soap box, but I am a bit like a dog with a bone on the subject of climate change. I did have some questions regarding this graph, but I hadn`t noticed that they disappeared when I had to split my post up. Plus, you did invite comment on the graph. 😀

I shall be honest from the outset, this graph is very familiar to me.

Hi all,
.......I'll post this graph (note from the CRU, and based upon the data they have collected) and people can draw their own conclusions.



cheers Darrel

The warming from circa 1980 - 1998 (attributed to AGW) is similar to the warming of 1910 - 1940 (not attributed to AGW). If natural causes have resulted in the 1910 - 1940 temperature rise, isn`t it reasonable to suggest the 1980 - 1998 rise is a result of the same natural forcings, and nothing to do with AGW?

What caused the decline in temperature between 1940 - 1950 whilst man made CO2 concentrations were increasing?

Why have temperatures stagnated since 1998 whilst man made CO2 concentrations were increasing?

If the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements were to be superimposed on to your graph, the relationship between temperature increase and CO2 increase would be tenuous at best.

Here is my graph of the Central England Temperature dataset, which is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. This shows quite graphically the lack of correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, I hope.



Regards, Dave.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
Dave I don't think the "Climate Debate Daily" <http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/> is an unbiased commentator on the climate debate. I'd never seen the web site before, but even the most cursory reading dispels any notion of balance.

The "anti" web sites/blogs I've seen all do the same thing, with differing degrees of sophistication, they say

"look this data/graph/correlation, it doesn't agree with the theory of anthropogenic climate change, therefore it doesn't exist".

I'd say look at the "noise" in the graphs and think of the geological time scale over which planetary change happens, and then tell me if a simple correlation is going to tell the whole story? All you can do is build a model based on the data and derived probabilities, the glory of this is that data is accumulating all the time and that the model is being refined so that it more closely fits the data.

I think of it like a football season, during the last 6 weeks Hereford United (my team, I'm from Kington) won 4-3 away at Northampton, after having been 3-0 down, and 5 - 0 away at Stockport. Based on these results it is obvious we must be a good team? Well no, actually we are 92nd in the league with 15 points and these are 2 of our 3 wins. <http://www.statto.com/football/teams/hereford-united/2010-2011/results> but do I know whether we will be relegated into the Conference? I may hope not, but I won't actually know until we are mathematically relegated or safe, although I may have a pretty good idea (one or other outcome will become more "probable" as games run out).

We will know the answer about anthropogenic climate change eventually, for the same reason that an actuary will know how accurate his predictions of life expectancy were, in the actuaries case it will be only when that whole cohort of people have died, and from the point of view of climate change it will be looking back from some point far in the future.

cheers Darrel

 

[Dave Spencer]

Cheers Darrel,

I do wonder if your friends that believe unequivocally in man made global warming could answer my questions regarding your graph.

Dave.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I do wonder if your friends that believe unequivocally in man made global warming could answer my questions regarding your graph.

Dave, I will ask Andy Skellern & Tom Hill on monday. <http://www.ssmbathspa.com/our-staff/dr-andrew-skellern> & <http://www.ssmbathspa.com/our-staff/dr-thomas-hill>.

cheers Darrel

 

[Brenmuk]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Here is my graph of the Central England Temperature dataset, which is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures. This shows quite graphically the lack of correlation between the rise in atmospheric CO2 and temperature, I hope.



Regards, Dave.

I find the above graph highly misleading because it is comparing a regional temperature record with changes in emissions and not global CO2 concentrations. Emissions are important but the temperature changes need to be correlated to total global CO2 concentration change over the same time period. The above graph shows emissions rising from just over 0 to 35,000 MMT, a huge increase yet over about 1000 years total CO2 has only increased by about 38% from about 280ppm to 380ppm.

Here's another graph showing the correlation i mean ..




You then need to account for the change in CO2, the consensus is that the increase is due to the burning in fossil fuels.
(See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/ unless you believe the met office is also part of the global scientific conspiracy 😉 ).

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

I find the above graph highly misleading because it is comparing a regional temperature record with changes in emissions and not global CO2 concentrations.

CAGW is based on man`s emissions, which were starting to become detectable in 1820ish. CAGW is nothing to do with what Mother Nature put there herself. Global temperatures have been rising since the LIA, and modern times are not "unprecedented". The graph I supplied is localised to central England, but the physical properties of CO2 is universal, so there should still be a correlation.

Here's another graph showing the correlation i mean ..

There are many graphs doing the rounds that conveniently end circa 2000, even though there is data up to the present month. Can you guess why it ends where it does? Where is the correlation from 1998 to the present?

You then need to account for the change in CO2, the consensus is that the increase is due to the burning in fossil fuels.
(See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/ unless you believe the met office is also part of the global scientific conspiracy 😉 ).

I don`t think anyone is disputing man`s contribution to CO2 levels, it is just a question of their effect on the warming trend that has been going on for centuries. And remember, science is not a concensus. 😀

Dave.

 

[Brenmuk]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

I find the above graph highly misleading because it is comparing a regional temperature record with changes in emissions and not global CO2 concentrations.

CAGW is based on man`s emissions, which were starting to become detectable in 1820ish. CAGW is nothing to do with what Mother Nature put there herself. Global temperatures have been rising since the LIA, and modern times are not "unprecedented". The graph I supplied is localised to central England, but the physical properties of CO2 is universal, so there should still be a correlation.

Here's another graph showing the correlation i mean ..

There are many graphs doing the rounds that conveniently end circa 2000, even though there is data up to the present month. Can you guess why it ends where it does? Where is the correlation from 1998 to the present?

You then need to account for the change in CO2, the consensus is that the increase is due to the burning in fossil fuels.
(See http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/controversy/ unless you believe the met office is also part of the global scientific conspiracy 😉 ).

I don`t think anyone is disputing man`s contribution to CO2 levels, it is just a question of their effect on the warming trend that has been going on for centuries. And remember, science is not a concensus. 😀

Dave.

Looking at the graph you posted the take home message is that CO2 emissions have increased by a factor of over 30,000 since about 1840 yet there is only a change of less than 1deg C in that time hence anthropogenic global warming is rubbish. But that is misleading because the theory of global warming relates increasing global average temperatures to increasing global CO2 concentrations not directly to the rate of change of emissions.
If you were to show emissions against global CO2 concentrations it would show that despite massive increases in emissions there is only a small change in CO2 ie by a factor of 1.38, in other words it takes a huge effort for man to change levels of CO2. But CO2 is increasing slowly but surely and perhaps more importantly CO2 levels have risen to levels not seen since the fossil age.

The physical effects of CO2 may be universal in that according to global warming the earth's atmosphere will retain more of the suns energy but the effect on climate is far from universal. There is likely to be places that experience more floods, others that experience more droughts. If currents in the atlantic ocean change then the UK and western Europe could experience weather more like Russia etc so for some there would be a large temperature decrease. A global average is just that, an average it doesn't mean everywhere in the world will experience the same local weather change.

Yes there are plenty of graphs doing the rounds, the debate being held in the public forum is not a scientific debate but more of a propaganda campaign by both sides of the argument. That is why I think it will be interesting to hear from experts such as those that Darrel knows. These are people whose job it is to analyse the quality, consistency and source of the information and try to discern trends and meaning out of complex data - not copy a graph from climatechangeisaloadofguff.com and say this single graph and this months cold weather disproves global warming. However my understanding is that climate scientists on the whole take the view that global average temperature is correlated to global CO2 concentrations.

Yes science is not a consensus there is always a healthy debate and plenty of disagreement in any field of science but that does not mean that that field of science is a load of tosh.

 

[LondonDragon]

Just watch "The Day After Tomorrow" to see what could happen 😉

 

[Dave Spencer]

Re: Why do PFK bother with blogs?

Yes there are plenty of graphs doing the rounds, the debate being held in the public forum is not a scientific debate but more of a propaganda campaign by both sides of the argument.

You have that right. it is more like religion than science. I have had some pretty shocking personal remarks aimed at me, at times. Godwin`s Law rules supreme. Still, I can take it.That said, there are some pretty high calibre scientists out there blogging.

However my understanding is that climate scientists on the whole take the view that global average temperature is correlated to global CO2 concentrations.

This is not the case in Russia, China, India, Japan plus a few others. Even Freeman Dyson has come out recently, denouncing the quality of the science in climatology.

 

[Toulouse]

I think DAve is saying quite rightly that Yes he agrees that Global warming is an issue however most of that global warming is natural (or not attributable to man's influence.)

He isn't disputing the figures given, just the way that the quantity non attributable to man is being used to massively 'weight' the argument in favour of stopping the emerging economies from pushing those 'developed countries' down the pecking order.

If such a small amount is attributable to man then reducing carbon emissions is going to account for a virtual unseeable reduction in the overall figures, however it will create jobs, make some countries look good and if world opinion ever holds sway will grind production to a halt in those countries who out-compete the 'establishment' in terms of export and production with prices etc.

If they grind to a halt while they sort out their carbon emissions then we can get back to being the big guns and making loads of money again. lol

So he isn't disputing the overall figures. He is disputing the use of the 'whole' to represent what man has/is doing.

 

[plantbrain]

A biased group to be certain, but our class was asked what are the 5 most pressing environmental issues today.

There was a surprising agreement.

Over population (the biggy)
Global climatic change
Pollution
Habitat loss
Disease

Then we drew feedback arrows between each of these and their relationships, negative or positive.
They where mostly all positive against humans.

Not good.

Overpopulation is the biggest issue, but the white elephant no one wants to address.
Mostly stems from cultural issues and women's rights, ability to control their lives and reproductive status.
Where this occurs, the birth rates are stable and low. Where it's not, birth rates are very high.

This needs addressed or none of the other stuff will matter.

Regards,
Tom Barr

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
I'm still waiting for a reply from my colleagues but I have to agree with Tom.

Overpopulation is the biggest issue, but the white elephant no one wants to address.

It is a world of finite resources, and you can't get away from that.

cheers Darrel

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,
I just thought I'd update this thread (<"originally from 2010">), now we are ten years on. This is from the World Economic Forum:

<"2020 is on course to be the warmest year on record">.

The whole thread is quite an interesting read, but some things have changed. My wife is no longer a civil servant, Tom Hill is <"at the NHM"> but I still work with Andy Skellern, who actually sent me the WEF link.

cheers Darrel

 

[Guest]

Sorry, but I have to admit to still being something of a sceptic. That is in terms of our contribution to global warming. However, there is no doubt that the planet is warming, and that we need to clean up our act.

Folk often put far too much faith in science, it's been described as more of an ideology than an appropriate way to describe the universe in which we live.

Over population and its continued rapid growth is the single biggest factor contributing to all environmental problems and the biggest existential threat we face. But like Tom Barr said above, it's the elephant in the room that no one wants to address, Population Matters. To quote David Attenborough...
“All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”

If the trillions of dollars spent on inventing new and interesting ways of combating global warming, were spent on environmental and social justice, education, health, and freeing people from the yolk of oppression, poverty, war, famine etc then the population would stabilise and start to decline within a few generations. And in turn all our environmental problems, including global warming, would gradually become far easier to solve.

Randal Carson is not a conventionally trained scientist but he appears to have a better grasp of the mechanics of global warming and associated scientific, ideological and political mumbo jumbo than most.