Climate emails: a dirty war swirls around 'swindle'
BEN CUBBY
December 10, 2009

link to full article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-emails-a-dirty-war-swirls-around-swindle-20091209-kk69.html


....

This ["climategate"] conspiracy theory was dismissed with the contempt it merits by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at the Copenhagen summit this week.

But the accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ''debate'' on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The sum total of both the doom-laden warnings and the ever more hysterical claims from climate sceptics of a global conspiracy is an impenetrable wall of noise.

This is a pity, because the case for climate change action doesn't need spin. It doesn't need reference to ''alarmists'' or ''deniers''. Participants in the so-called debate around climate change need to grow up.

[b]The wall of noise plays into the hands of the vested interests who want to see nothing done. It is used to frighten people whose jobs depend on digging coal or smelting steel.

....

Climate science may be complicated, but it's not rocket science. It is in the public domain, open to informed scrutiny, and it has been there for decades. The self-styled climate sceptics movement - not a term climate scientists approve of - has had ample opportunity to debunk arguments that the world can no longer ignore.

We know that carbon dioxide, some other gases and water vapour trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere. We know this because it can be measured, and replicated in lab experiments. We know that the warming trends we have detected are closely correlated with the rising carbon dioxide content. The computer models used to predict future climate change scenarios take these simple concepts and some other variables, such as solar activity, into account. The reason we know that these models work is that we can model past climate scenarios using the same criteria and match the results up against the existing temperature records. If your model starts with the conditions we know to have been present in the year 1900, and produces the conditions we know to have existed through the 20th century, it is a fair bet it works.

Even if climate models are discounted as evidence, direct observation of the natural world adds to an already compelling case.

We know that the ocean is struggling to absorb carbon dioxide content because we can measure it, and measure its effects on marine life. We can measure the extent of decline in Arctic and Antarctic ice, rising sea levels and melting glaciers. We can measure changes in forests and deserts. We can measure these results against the level of warming that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere leads us to expect, and they match.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty.

Opposing the mainstream scientific view means advancing the idea that there is a mysterious X-factor that mimics the warming effect we would expect to see from our greenhouse gas emissions. It is still a slim possibility, but not one delegates at Copenhagen are taking seriously. It would be a happy day if they are proved wrong, but no one would be advised to hold their breath for that.

Climate emails: a dirty war swirls around 'swindle'
BEN CUBBY
December 10, 2009

link to full article:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-emails-a-dirty-war-swirls-around-swindle-20091209-kk69.html


....

This ["climategate"] conspiracy theory was dismissed with the contempt it merits by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at the Copenhagen summit this week.

But the accusations of fraud will persist because the so-called ''debate'' on climate change has veered into the realms of fantasy. The fog on the public relations battlefield has obscured the real question: how to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a fast but sensible way.

The sum total of both the doom-laden warnings and the ever more hysterical claims from climate sceptics of a global conspiracy is an impenetrable wall of noise.

This is a pity, because the case for climate change action doesn't need spin. It doesn't need reference to ''alarmists'' or ''deniers''. Participants in the so-called debate around climate change need to grow up.

[b]The wall of noise plays into the hands of the vested interests who want to see nothing done. It is used to frighten people whose jobs depend on digging coal or smelting steel.

....

Climate science may be complicated, but it's not rocket science. It is in the public domain, open to informed scrutiny, and it has been there for decades. The self-styled climate sceptics movement - not a term climate scientists approve of - has had ample opportunity to debunk arguments that the world can no longer ignore.

We know that carbon dioxide, some other gases and water vapour trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere. We know this because it can be measured, and replicated in lab experiments. We know that the warming trends we have detected are closely correlated with the rising carbon dioxide content. The computer models used to predict future climate change scenarios take these simple concepts and some other variables, such as solar activity, into account. The reason we know that these models work is that we can model past climate scenarios using the same criteria and match the results up against the existing temperature records. If your model starts with the conditions we know to have been present in the year 1900, and produces the conditions we know to have existed through the 20th century, it is a fair bet it works.

Even if climate models are discounted as evidence, direct observation of the natural world adds to an already compelling case.

We know that the ocean is struggling to absorb carbon dioxide content because we can measure it, and measure its effects on marine life. We can measure the extent of decline in Arctic and Antarctic ice, rising sea levels and melting glaciers. We can measure changes in forests and deserts. We can measure these results against the level of warming that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere leads us to expect, and they match.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty.

Opposing the mainstream scientific view means advancing the idea that there is a mysterious X-factor that mimics the warming effect we would expect to see from our greenhouse gas emissions. It is still a slim possibility, but not one delegates at Copenhagen are taking seriously. It would be a happy day if they are proved wrong, but no one would be advised to hold their breath for that.

Oh happy day.

I've been hanging out for an article such as this.

What do you think, Trippy?

The case of the deniers is that CO2 levels and climate are related, but that increased temperature results in increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and not vice versa.
Do you think that people who deny that CO2 causes climate change, have a reasonable case, or are they like the tobacco firms who used to deny that smoking caused cancer?

What do you think, Trippy?
What do I think?
I think the mechanism for CO2 adding heat to the atmosphere is well established in physics, so the only debate can be what efects that additional heat will have.

I think the claim "Global warming was a politically driven issue from its inception" is a bald faced lie.


The case of the deniers is that CO2 levels and climate are related, but that increased temperature results in increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and not vice versa.
I think this argument is based on faulty logic, in fact, I'm 98% certain that it fits the definition of a particular logical fallacy, I just can't think of the name of it. Claiming that CO2 levels have historically lagged behind temperature changes doesn't actually prove that CO2 doesn't cause any warming. At most it suggests that, historically CO2 may not have been a 'first cause' for temperature change, but that falls far short of proving that it caused no temperature change, especially when one considers that the possibility exists of 'other factors' leading to the apperance of a lag where none actually exists.


Do you think that people who deny that CO2 causes climate change, have a reasonable case, or are they like the tobacco firms who used to deny that smoking caused cancer?
I don't remember the full details, but, climate change, and global warming due to the greenhouse effect specifically, were first politicsized in 1969 by Nixon. It's my understanding (I have a couple of articles somewhere that go into the history of the politics of the issue) that some of the first people, or the first people to start denying climate change were the tobacco companies.

Addendum:
I also don't think the "zOMG VOLCANOLOL!!!" argument is worth spit. Why? Two reasons mainly.
1. In order for it to be valid, you'd need to be able to demonstrate that the volcanic activity Mauna Loa was not only increasing, but doing so at an increasing rate, or, that the chemistry of the magma was changing at an increasing rate.

2. It offers no mechanistic explanation for the fact that the same trends can be observed at marine surface sites.

What do I think?
I think this argument is based on faulty logic, in fact, I'm 98% certain that it fits the definition of a particular logical fallacy, I just can't think of the name of it. .

Do you mean Confirmation Bias?


Confirmation bias (or myside bias[1]) is a tendency for people to confirm their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether or not they are true. People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory.[2] Some psychologists use "confirmation bias" for any of these three cognitive biases, while others restrict the term to selective collection of evidence, using assimilation bias for biased interpretation.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Do you mean Confirmation Bias?

Actually, I think it's more like Ignoratio Elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_Elenchi)

What do I think?
I think the mechanism for CO2 adding heat to the atmosphere is well established in physics, so the only debate can be what efects that additional heat will have.
You are conflating the idiots with the reasoned skeptics. There are complete idiots on both sides of this debate. The arguments of Lindzen and Choi, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Roy Spencer, William Gray, just to name a few are not so easily put aside.

The recent temperature rise (post 1975) is almost certainly attributable in part to our dumping CO2 in the atmosphere. However, to get to the alarmist claims in the IPCC, the IPCC has to posit positive feedbacks. Those alarmist claims are not justified if negative feedbacks dominate the climate rather than positive feedbacks.

Sans unproven technologies magically becoming proven, or killing of 80% of humanity, there is *no way* we are going to be able to cut our carbon emissions by 80% in the next 40 years. Without extraordinary proof that the extreme projected (not current) warming will occur, economic reality will trump whatever happens in Copenhagen. Push too hard and you will lose. Pushing for an 80% reduction is pushing too hard.

Sans unproven technologies magically becoming proven, or killing of 80% of humanity, there is *no way* we are going to be able to cut our carbon emissions by 80% in the next 40 years. Without extraordinary proof that the extreme projected (not current) warming will occur, economic reality will trump whatever happens in Copenhagen. Push too hard and you will lose. Pushing for an 80% reduction is pushing too hard.Agree 100%. Much better to put some money into researching alternative energy sources than to destroy our economy trying to reach some unobtainable reduction in carbon output.

So what if climate change IS real.


Kyoto, and all the other "economic" "carbon tax" solutions are nothing but a jack on so-called rich countries and do nothing to combat the environmental problem!

You cannot have an ECONOMIC SOLUTION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM.

No one has put forth the true solution to human waste and modern inefficient use of resources: Destroy consumer capitalism. It's needed regardless of "Global warming" or it's causes. Consumption without need or regard for our own health and well being must be defeated.

It's not about "save the planet" it's "save ourselves". If they sold the whole thing to the public in a truthful manner...for truly selfish reasons we must reduce our consumption, it might meet with less resistance. Trying to force people to consume less for the sake of "global warming" is a fucking waste of time even if the world was a dictatorship.

You are conflating the idiots with the reasoned skeptics. There are complete idiots on both sides of this debate. The arguments of Lindzen and Choi, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Roy Spencer, William Gray, just to name a few are not so easily put aside.

The recent temperature rise (post 1975) is almost certainly attributable in part to our dumping CO2 in the atmosphere. However, to get to the alarmist claims in the IPCC, the IPCC has to posit positive feedbacks. Those alarmist claims are not justified if negative feedbacks dominate the climate rather than positive feedbacks.

No, I'm not, I've stated repeatedly that I agree that this is the case (not specifically in this thread mind). I fully agree with what you're saying regarding idiots on both sides of the fence, hence some of the things i've had to say about, for example, Al Gore and his piece of fiction.

What do you think, Trippy?

The case of the deniers is that CO2 levels and climate are related, but that increased temperature results in increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and not vice versa.
Do you think that people who deny that CO2 causes climate change, have a reasonable case, or are they like the tobacco firms who used to deny that smoking caused cancer?


What do I think?
I think this argument is based on faulty logic, in fact, I'm 98% certain that it fits the definition of a particular logical fallacy, I just can't think of the name of it.
......the first people to start denying climate change were the tobacco companies.



Thanks Trippy.
There is another fallacy, based on confusing contiguity with causation.
Two things may occur together because they have the same cause rather than one thing causing the other.
A cloud causes rain and a cloud causes thunder (roughly).
But rain does not cause thunder or vice versa.

We understand clouds pretty well, so are likely to make this mistake, but such errors are a major reason for wrong medical diagnosis.


......the first people to start denying climate change were the tobacco companies.


That would be a supreme irony, wouldn't it?

the climate reacts very slowly to the changes in the atmosphere. if earth is going to be less habitable in our lifetime, it will be, whether we reduce our pollution of the atmosphere or not.

Thanks Trippy.
There is another fallacy, based on confusing contiguity with causation.
Two things may occur together because they have the same cause rather than one thing causing the other.
A cloud causes rain and a cloud causes thunder (roughly).
But rain does not cause thunder or vice versa.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) I'm familiar with it, my job involves doing a lot of statistics, however, in this instance, a well estabished causal mechanism exists, so, we know there's a correlation, and we know there's a causal mechanism.


......the first people to start denying climate change were the tobacco companies.


That would be a supreme irony, wouldn't it?
I'm not sure I see the irony?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty.

Well, actually that's a lower level of certainty than normally used by most scientific work, but that's more than reasonable for me. The Hadley lot probably got dragged into the fallacy of 95%. Happens to everyone. Literally everyone.

Agree 100%. Much better to put some money into researching alternative energy sources than to destroy our economy trying to reach some unobtainable reduction in carbon output.

No one is talking destroying the economy except those on the right trying to scare people again.

Quoting James R. "
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty."

Exactly! Few scientific studies conclude with 90% of anything on this massive of a scale. This just shows how corrupted this "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is. Its really sad that these bureaucrats are using this oncemore for their own advantage. Because as we all know it takes millions of dollars to combat the so called green-house-caused-by-humans effect, and who is going to get the money? Why who else but them.

I really hate these sort of people, they have probably initiated these so called "hacked-emails" bonanza.

No one is talking destroying the economy except those on the right trying to scare people again.
Mandating an 80% reduction in CO2 output without having the foggiest idea of how to accomplish that doesn't count?

Mandating an 80% reduction in CO2 output without having the foggiest idea of how to accomplish that doesn't count?

LOL, more alarmist scary stuff. Who said, "without having the foggiest idea"? There is an idea. There are a lot of already know technologies to accomplish the goal. Additionally, it is not an overnight reduction, it is a phased reduction over a period of a decade or longer.

The suppositions upon which your question is based are false or at the very least misleading and incomplete.

You know what, who cares?

I mean, who cares if climate change is human-driven or otherwise? Whether or not it is or isn't our faults, don't many solutions to "climate change" go hand-in-hand with the ideas of energy independence and the conservation of resources anyway?

Regardless of whether or not we're causing rapid climate change, many of the more intelligent proposed solutions to the supposed emissions problem do follow that metric. Environmentalists propose cars that run on alternative, locally-produced energy. Environmentalists propose alternative, renewable energy sources that are, for the most part, very distributable, and would result in power grids that are very robust against wide-spread power outages, strengthening the electrical infrastructure. These technologies can be developed by government incentives that help boost economies with new industries, rather then simply imposing emissions restrictions, which of course would hinder an economy by requiring factories to retrofit with technologies that may or may not have been developed yet.

I mean, the other side of the argument is that we're not the cause of climate change, or at all responsible for it, and so we can keep going as is; burning oil like there's no tomorrow, sold to us at prices that will spike devastatingly any decade now, and which is shipped to us largely from places that make the news every other day with the words "___ more soldiers were killed in ____ this week..."

Personally, I'm on board with the skeptics, I don't think humans contribute enough to cause climate change. But so what? Many of the "eco-friendly" technologies being developed and proposed solve alot of other problems other then just our emissions outputs. This is why I really don't participate in the climate debate anymore, because it doesn't freaking matter: the consequences of acting in favor of one side of the argument are awesome and can strengthen individuals and nations alike. On the other side is just inaction and stagnation.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) I'm familiar with it, my job involves doing a lot of statistics, however, in this instance, a well estabished causal mechanism exists, so, we know there's a correlation, and we know there's a causal mechanism.


I'm not sure I see the irony?

1. What about arguments like this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which suggest that human contributions to the greenhouse effect constitute only 0.28% of the total?
Do you accept that his figures are correct, or has he fudged them somehow?

2. Irony.
It would be ironic if Tobacco companies, who spent years denying that smoking caused cancer, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, then went on to do the same with the global effects of CO2 emissions.

1. What about arguments like this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which suggest that human contributions to the greenhouse effect constitute only 0.28% of the total?
Do you accept that his figures are correct, or has he fudged them somehow?

2. Irony.
It would be ironic if Tobacco companies, who spent years denying that smoking caused cancer, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, then went on to do the same with the global effects of CO2 emissions.

I've seen that page before (in fact, I have it bookmarked because a certain someone plagiarised parts of it in a 'discussion' we once had).
On the face of it, I'm not sure I agree with some of his conclusions, but I haven't really gone through it in depth to pick it to pieces, if you know what I mean?

1. What about arguments like this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which suggest that human contributions to the greenhouse effect constitute only 0.28% of the total?
Do you accept that his figures are correct, or has he fudged them somehow?

2. Irony.
It would be ironic if Tobacco companies, who spent years denying that smoking caused cancer, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, then went on to do the same with the global effects of CO2 emissions.


I've seen that page before (in fact, I have it bookmarked because a certain someone plagiarised parts of it in a 'discussion' we once had).
On the face of it, I'm not sure I agree with some of his conclusions, but I haven't really gone through it in depth to pick it to pieces, if you know what I mean?

Having said that,and bearing in mind that I'm an environmental chemist, so my approach is probably different.

He is routinely critical of the leaving out of water from the calculations, on the basis that water is a better GHG bla bla bla.

But, on the surface of that, it appears to me to be another example of a false thesis.

Consider this:
http://www.eso.org/gallery/d/24977-2/phot-03b-03-fullres.jpg
Another graph showing much the same thing:
http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu/S02/lect23/Solar_Spectrum.png
And another:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

It indicates that in most of the bands that H2O absorbs NIR, it's absorption already approaches 100%, so increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere isn't neccesarily going to have a huge addon effect to the warming, purely because the water is already absorbing most of what it can.

This was the source of much of the debate between 1930, and 1950, was that the majority opinion was that water was already absorbing most of the radiation, and the bands overlapped, so there could be no warming. What changed, thanks to the cold war, was improved spectroscopes that confirmed the presence of the fine structure in the spectra (meaning that the overlap was not total, and there was more IR for the CO2 to absorb than had been previously budgeted.

Something else that page seems to be ignoring.

The logic appears to be, that because CO2 is present in insignificant quantities, and human contributions are insignificant, therefore human contributions to global warming are insignificant.

But such logic ignores some basic points.
Natural contributions are (at least as I understand it) approximately constant.
Human contributions are increasing.
The rate at which human contributions are increasing, is also increasing.

Consequently, everything else being equal (or accepted) we must, at some stage in the future reach a point where the two contributions become equal (naively when we reach 576ppm), after which point human contributions will dawrf natural ones.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Something else that page seems to be ignoring.

The logic appears to be, that because CO2 is present in insignificant quantities, and human contributions are insignificant, therefore human contributions to global warming are insignificant.

But such logic ignores some basic points.
Natural contributions are (at least as I understand it) approximately constant.
Human contributions are increasing.
The rate at which human contributions are increasing, is also increasing.

Consequently, everything else being equal (or accepted) we must, at some stage in the future reach a point where the two contributions become equal (naively when we reach 576ppm), after which point human contributions will dawrf natural ones.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Something else to consider.
The alleged lag that CO2, according to some sources, shows in relation to temperature, may in fact be, quite simply, an 'artifact'.

The air in ice pores remains 'in contact with the atmosphere' to some times quite substantial depths, until the point at which the bubble seals. How long the firn takes to get buried to that depth depends upon a number of factors. In the case of the vostok ice core (AFAI can tell, the most commonly cited ice core showing this), it's between 4000 and 6000 years, depending on climactic conditions. So if the first figure is the correct figure, then the snow that fell at the vostok station at the time that the ancestors of the Latins arrived in Italy, glass started making its appearance, horses were domesticated, and stone henge was completed, is still in contact with the atmosphere

Myth Busted?

2. Irony.
It would be ironic if Tobacco companies, who spent years denying that smoking caused cancer, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, then went on to do the same with the global effects of CO2 emissions.

Poor analogy, since the Tobacco companies knew they were lying and rigged their own data.....kind of like.....the global warming scientists did !

That's one step too ironic for me!

Poor analogy, since the Tobacco companies knew they were lying and rigged their own data.....kind of like.....the global warming scientists did !

Only you have yet to show even the slightest hint of mens rea.

But such logic ignores some basic points.
Natural contributions are (at least as I understand it) approximately constant.
Human contributions are increasing.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

I take this to mean that you are not in disagreement with the figures ?


There is another argument, that humans are responsible for increased acidity of seawater.
Now, 0.28 % of the total CO2, could conceivably have a dramatic effect if the earth's climate were continually at a tipping point with regard to levels of CO2.
But a dramatic effect on the ocean's Ph? No.

Only you have yet to show even the slightest hint of mens rea.

Trippy, while I'm prepared to beleive that most of the researchers are honest, this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)article suggests that at least some of them aren't.

They appear to have inexplicably and essentially arbitrarily 'homogenised' the raw data, thus yielding a completely different trend.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_9_darwin-adjusted-and-un-w-adjustment.jpg

I take this to mean that you are not in disagreement with the figures ?
It means I haven't worke dthrough the figures in any great detail yet. These are, shall we say, my first impressions.


There is another argument, that humans are responsible for increased acidity of seawater.
It's a natural consequence of a rising ppCO2


Now, 0.28 % of the total CO2, could conceivably have a dramatic effect if the earth's climate were continually at a tipping point with regard to levels of CO2.
But a dramatic effect on the ocean's Ph? No.
Actually, yes. As I said, it's a natural consequence of a rising ppCO2.

The ocean is one of the earths largest carbon sinks, also one of the slowest to respond to changes. The change in pH is as a direct result of one of the dynamic equilibria that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Trippy, while I'm prepared to beleive that most of the researchers are honest, this (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)article suggests that at least some of them aren't.

They appear to have inexplicably and essentially arbitrarily 'homogenised' the raw data, thus yielding a completely different trend.


Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know.

One thing that stands out to me about that article is the person that wrote it didn't check what was in the 6th data set (the one at the pub, 500km away). I mention this as being potentially important for two main reasons.

The first one being that the article quotes the method used, which involves comparing it to five other neighbouring stations, but there are only 5 stations in darwin, so a sixth one is required for the comparison to be done properly.

Second reason I mention it is that the climate models all use a 5°x5° grid. At the equator, 1° of latitude is somethign like 110 or 111km, so a station 500km away would/could be in the same grid square, and considered 'neighbouring'.

One thing that stands out to me about that article is the person that wrote it didn't check what was in the 6th data set (the one at the pub, 500km away). I mention this as being potentially important for two main reasons.

The first one being that the article quotes the method used, which involves comparing it to five other neighbouring stations, but there are only 5 stations in darwin, so a sixth one is required for the comparison to be done properly.

Second reason I mention it is that the climate models all use a 5°x5° grid. At the equator, 1° of latitude is somethign like 110 or 111km, so a station 500km away would/could be in the same grid square, and considered 'neighbouring'.

That is a good point but nevertheless I don't see how making the grid cells gigantic makes it valid to call two temperature stations that are 500 km apart 'neighbouring'.

Something else that page seems to be ignoring.

The logic appears to be, that because CO2 is present in insignificant quantities, and human contributions are insignificant, therefore human contributions to global warming are insignificant.

But such logic ignores some basic points.
Natural contributions are (at least as I understand it) approximately constant.
Human contributions are increasing.
The rate at which human contributions are increasing, is also increasing.

Consequently, everything else being equal (or accepted) we must, at some stage in the future reach a point where the two contributions become equal (naively when we reach 576ppm), after which point human contributions will dawrf natural ones.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Probably generally true, although you'd have to account for changes in vulcanism etc.

That is a good point but nevertheless I don't see how making the grid cells gigantic makes it valid to call two temperature stations that are 500 km apart 'neighbouring'.

The size of the grid cells isn't about making stations that are 500km apart 'neighbouring' it's about the complexity of the models.

As I understand it, a global model crunching a 5 by 5 grid takes something like 90 hrs, nearly 4 days. Doubling the size of the grid increases the computing time by a factor of about 8, so a 2.5x2.5 grid would take about 30 days to compute. The course grid (and such) is about limitations in technology, and limitations in funding - hence the question I asked BuffaloRoam at one stage if he was willing to pay additional taxes to fund better models and more research - I'm sure climatologists would love to receive funding for 720 hours of time on a super computer.

Neighbouring is a relative term - if they're in adjacent cells, or the same cell, they're neighbouring.

Earth and Mars are how many millions of km apart at any given time? And they're neighbouring planets because they're adjacent.

If you live in the middle of nowhere, and the nearest house is several km away they're still your neighbours. The concept of neighbour isn't just about physical proximity, it's also about adjacency.

Probably generally true, although you'd have to account for changes in vulcanism etc.

Quite, however this from Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(Courtosey of Wiki)

Thanks. Looks pretty categorical to me. Greenhouse, ozone, solar. Not so much the vulcanism.

Quite, however this from Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
(Courtosey of Wiki)

On the Graph, the modelling matches the actual reasonably well during the years from about 1945 to 1975 when global temperatures were fluctuating and fell overall. Yet in these years Greenhouse Gas emissions were rising rapidly.

Shouldn't the graph have been wrong at this stage?

On the Graph, the modelling matches the actual reasonably well during the years from about 1945 to 1975 when global temperatures were fluctuating and fell overall. Yet in these years Greenhouse Gas emissions were rising rapidly.

Shouldn't the graph have been wrong at this stage?

Only if you buy into some of the Anti-AGW rhetoric that suggests that AGW proponents only consider GHG's, which is the point of posting the graph in the first place, it demonstrates that the models used in this paper can correctly account for the cooling observed between 1945 and 1975 even though CO2 grows rapidly during this time frame.

If you listen to, to pick on a specific example, BuffaloRoam, he will assert that AGW proponents only consider GHG forcings and ignore solar forcings, however, this graph trivially disproves that assertion by making that prediction (which was apparently due to the fact that during this period sulfate forcing exceeded GHG forcing, and the growth rate of sulfate forcing exceeded the growth rate of GHG forcing.

In fact, and rather ironically if you ask me, the models predict a more pronounced cooling trend than was actually observed during this period.

I think that I've misunderstood the graph.
It's the forcing response which is graphed, not the amounts of each pollutant.
So, the amount of sulphate, a cooling factor, would actually have been increasing, through the trend on the graph is down.

Is that right?
Or am I still off the mark?

I think that I've misunderstood the graph.
It's the forcing response which is graphed, not the amounts of each pollutant.
So, the amount of sulphate, a cooling factor, would actually have been increasing, through the trend on the graph is down.

Is that right?
Or am I still off the mark?

Correct - how much warming or cooling each component has caused.

The graph works then.

The only objection I can see against this, would be to say that the figures were either incorrect, or the data manipulated.

If they've managed to juggle the strength of the component forces so the graph fits the data, they have done it remarkably well.

So the denier's answer to the data in this graph is.............?

The graph works then. The only objection I can see against this, would be to say that the figures were either incorrect, or the data manipulated. ...

Yeah, see? Now you see why it's possible to "deny" the graph. What assurances do you have that any of the data is correct? What assurance do you have that they didn't leave OUT of the graph some data/info that might have made the graph seem useless and meaningless?

For me, it seems as if all of the global climate change is about the same as most similar controversial issues .....one either believes one side or the other side. Each side provides "absolute proof" of their own ideas while denigrating anyone who disagrees. Ain't it always that same?

It's basically why most people can't believe any-fuckin'-thing these days! Maybe it would be better to have a powerful dictator who simply told us all what to do, how to do it, what to think and what to say? But wait, that's what "each side" of any of these issues wants, ain't it? ...except they want to be the dictator! "I'm right, you're wrong, and that's final!!"

Baron Max

A question about the graph.
Why would the volcanic line go into the positive side for temperature forcing at all? Is some volcanic activity positive forcing and some negative?

Here's another graph, showing volcanic activity.
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/volcanis.gif
It was on a sharp rising trend from 1948 to 1994, when this graph was produced.
It shows no resemblance to the green volcanic line on the climate change graph for the same period.
Why would that be?

The graph works then.

The only objection I can see against this, would be to say that the figures were either incorrect, or the data manipulated.

If they've managed to juggle the strength of the component forces so the graph fits the data, they have done it remarkably well.

So the denier's answer to the data in this graph is.............?

So far I have yet to see (for example) Buffalo Roam respond to it in a meaningful way.

A question about the graph.
Why would the volcanic line go into the positive side for temperature forcing at all? Is some volcanic activity positive forcing and some negative?

Here's another graph, showing volcanic activity.
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/volcanis.gif
It was on a sharp rising trend from 1948 to 1994, when this graph was produced.
It shows no resemblance to the green volcanic line on the climate change graph for the same period.
Why would that be?

Because some aspects of vulcanism have a net cooling effect, while others have a net warming effect, I believe it's dependant on the type of volcanism, for example, hawiian volcanoes produce a lot of gas, but very little dust, where as volcanoes like Pinatubo introduce substantial quantities of dust.

Remember, the green line is the measure of forcing caused by vulcanism, not the measure of vulcanic activity.

I would also be hesitant about the accuracy of that graph because it will be relying on proxies for much of it, we didn't know of as many volcanoes in 1880 as we did in 1980

Is some volcanic activity positive forcing and some negative? Yes. Volcanoes vary a lot in how and what they blow. A volcano that erupts quietly in a lrge flow of molten rock while emitting a lot of water vapor and CO2 will add to greenhouse warming (and a little heat from the molten rock itself). A volcano that erupts violently and throws a lot of particulates and SO2 high into the air will add to shading and cooling.

Yes, it looks like only major volcanoes produce cooling.
The low points of the volcanic line do roughly match up with all the centuries major eruptions:
Mount Katmai, Alaska 1912.
Surtsey, Iceland 1963.
Mount St Helens, USA 1980
Mount Pinatubo, Phillipines 1991

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=38&id=40379

what if the ozone layer is overstated? what if there is no layer that 'traps' gases?

bolded portions are my highlights
Good to see you still at your significant level of "peer review".

Thanks, Mr. G. Merry Christmas.

I have managed to track down the source of the '1200 km' figure, and how it was derived.

The first place I have seen it mentioned is Hansen & Lebdeff 1987 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf)

Essentially, stations within 1200km of each other tend to show a strong correlation in changes in temperature, the absolute magnitudes might differ, but the changes closely match each other. 1200km is the distance at which (typically) the correlation coefficient of temperature differences between stations falls below 0.5 (or 0.3).

Trppy, it's been ages since I looked at this thread. Could you remind me what the significance of 1200km was?
By stations, do you mean weather stations?

Trppy, it's been ages since I looked at this thread. Could you remind me what the significance of 1200km was?
By stations, do you mean weather stations?

Somebody commented (I think it may have been you) that stations 500km apart were considered 'neighbouring' and I pointed out (I believe) that current models and calculations were centered on cels with a radius of 1200km.

(or something along those lines anyway).

"Climategate" fizzles out...no evidence that Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hpt=T2

"Climate science may be complicated, but it's not rocket science."

And it is a travesty that it is not...

:cool:

I can't believe some people still actually doubt that something drastic is happening to our world by our doing...

"There is no sadder sight than a young pessimist." - Mark Twain

Climate change caused by humans may be real or not (I'm leaning towards yes) but it is not open to informed scrutiny, any type of scrutiny legit or not simply is not taken seriously and drowned in ridicule. Climate change is used as a political tool and is thus horribly exaggerated like anything greedy politicians can get their hands on to advance their own interests.

It has been reported that this March was the warmest (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/05/saga-of-deepwater-horizon-continues.html) on record. :shrug:

Climate change caused by humans may be real or not (I'm leaning towards yes) but it is not open to informed scrutiny, any type of scrutiny legit or not simply is not taken seriously and drowned in ridicule. Climate change is used as a political tool and is thus horribly exaggerated like anything greedy politicians can get their hands on to advance their own interests.

Or the scrutiny is simply overlooked or deleted, as people have seen on these forums and the news media. AGW climate change can hardly be considered a science the way anyone that dissents is treated.

Or the scrutiny is simply overlooked or deleted, as people have seen on these forums and the news media. AGW climate change can hardly be considered a science the way anyone that dissents is treated.

More paranoia?

Climate change caused by humans may be real or not (I'm leaning towards yes) but it is not open to informed scrutiny, any type of scrutiny legit or not simply is not taken seriously and drowned in ridicule. I have yet to see an example of legitimate scrutiny of anything involved in AGW discussions be ridiculed at all, let alone "drowned" in ridicule.

Do you have an example handy?

So what if climate change IS real...
No one has put forth the true solution to human waste and modern inefficient use of resources: Destroy consumer capitalism. It's needed regardless of "Global warming" or it's causes. Consumption without need or regard for our own health and well being must be defeated.

It's not about "save the planet" it's "save ourselves". If they sold the whole thing to the public in a truthful manner...for truly selfish reasons we must reduce our consumption, it might meet with less resistance. Trying to force people to consume less for the sake of "global warming" is a fucking waste of time even if the world was a dictatorship.

agree.
mostly

The earth is not in a global crisis. WE however, are endangered. the earth will carry on long after we kill ourselves off. And, while our lifestyles do need alterations, selling our new way of life like some recycled 1980s funding scam isn't really going to produce the greatest results. Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head, extreme disregard for anything but our unalienable rights to gratification is a problem. but what are you going to use to regulate our 'consumer capitalism'? limits? laws? socialism? this would probably be better in a different thread/category, but i beleive this was another function of religion. to govern without governing in order to refine a culture without the political backlash. in fact, i think i will continue this idea there. (dont wanna be a polluter!)

agree.
mostly

The earth is not in a global crisis. WE however, are endangered. the earth will carry on long after we kill ourselves off. And, while our lifestyles do need alterations, selling our new way of life like some recycled 1980s funding scam isn't really going to produce the greatest results. Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head, extreme disregard for anything but our unalienable rights to gratification is a problem. but what are you going to use to regulate our 'consumer capitalism'? limits? laws? socialism? this would probably be better in a different thread/category, but i beleive this was another function of religion. to govern without governing in order to refine a culture without the political backlash. in fact, i think i will continue this idea there. (dont wanna be a polluter!)

I have a friend who posted something on facebook who almost identical to this: "Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

Missing posts moved here (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101727).

Thread renamed to cater to the inability of a minority of individuals to retain context, and to avoid further complaints about political correctness.

Further missing posts moved here (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101739).