Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

[Medulla]

Doubts about the IPCC reports and the subsequent conclusions have been voiced by many many qualified scientists including some who were involved in the data collection on which ( supposedly) the IPCC reports were based.

Which scientists involved with the IPCC process doubt that climate change is human-induced?

Its not the conclusions of the "thousands of scientists that are being questioned its the politicians from the 170 countries who wrote the reports based on THEIR consensus of the information at their disposal.

You're confusing the IPCC reports with the IPCC policy summary that politicians have some, yet ultimately minimal, input into the precise wording.

The policy summary that are released alongside each report are not the basis of the argument, as I'm sure you know to be honest.

No doubt the scientists who disagree with the reports fill their tanks with exxon or shell or BP oor some such corrupt fuel even if they are not in the direct pay of the evil oil barons.

I imagine they do use petrol as a main fuel to transport them from A to B, yes.

Your point being?

And when it comes to conflicts of interest tell me you don't think this guy is in it for all he can get.

Rajendra K. Pachauri
Rajendra K. Pachauri is director-general for The Energy and Resources Institute, which conducts research and provides professional support in the areas of energy, environment, forestry, biotechnology and the conservation of natural resources. Prior to this, Pachauri held managerial positions with the Diesel Locomotive works in Varanasi, and served as assistant professor and visiting faculty member in the Department of Economics and Business at North Carolina State University.

He has also contributed to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India; the Panel of Eminent Persons on Power, the Ministry of Power; Delhi Vision - Core Planning Group; the Advisory Board on Energy, reporting directly to the prime minister; the National Environmental Council, under the chairmanship of the prime minister; and the Oil Industry Restructuring Group, 'R' Group. Pachauri earned an M.S. in industrial engineering, a Ph.D. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in economics from North Carolina State University.

He was employed by a non-profit organisation conducting research into environmental matters and sustainable development, used to work for a Diesel Locomotive firm and has degrees that have the word 'Industrial' in their title.

Why is any of this a conflict of interest, the latter industrial 'links' (though they are absurdly tenuous) from the past especially given that the body he chairs has produced conclusions that directly oppose the interests of the fossil fuel industry?

Please expand on what your alluding to. In other words, the reasons why he is compromised and, perhaps more importantly, why this impacts on the conclusions of the peer-reviewed studies the IPCC reviews and does not itself produce itself (surely this is clear by now)? After all, these are are entirely independent of that process and are the basis of the scientific consensus.

 

[YorkMackem]

Since we have two whole weeks with nowt to do I thought I'd try and stir things up a bit - climate wise!

This article by a meteorologist puts a whole new perspective on the climate "debate." I use quotes (inverted commas to Brits) because up until now the warmers have refused to debate anything. They blithely, blindly and without challenge continue to base their beliefs on a set of flawed UN documents that were supposedly produced by scientists but were in fact written by politicians with a very serious agenda. The theories have gone largely unchallenged in the media and politicians of all stripes have jumped wholeheartedly on to the bandwagon because they smell a political opportunity or are so afraid of public opinion they choose not to jeopardise their various sinecures by expressing reasonable doubt.

Think about what the man has to say before you make your judgements! Or alternatively, stay wih the herd!

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JB_Climate_Change.pdf

Re: Food for Thought From a Meteorologist![/

QUOTE]Veggy me like

 

[---Nemo---]

Fuck it. At my age who gives a toss. What I have learned is never believe a Politician nor a desk bound man sustained by Government or corporate money.

Who knows, there may even be a God.

 

[Tony]

once again, when the climate change campaign is more about real action than simply gimmicks via tax then i will take it seriously.

- Off setting carbon with cash, easy jet have a drop down option now ffs
- taxing flights but extending airports and runways
- watching china, india etc spewing much more shite in the air than us yet telling us that not using carrier bags will make all the difference


three issues just for starters

Taxation is not the real issue but I concede that it's important. The real issue is whether our governments are going to buy into this malarkey and sacrifice our countries economies for an unproven theory and destroying our power generating capacity through the severe curtailiment or elimination the use of our prodigous sources of coal and wasting our equally prodigous sources of natural gas in the process.

Think about what will have been achieved when the process is complete and ask yourself if it will have been worth it.

Better brains than mine or yours claim that if Global Warming is taking place then none of the really puny efforts by mankind can do a blind bloody thing to prevent it. For the money that the world will spend on this futile attempt every person in the world (EVERY PErSON IN THE WORLD) can be provided with access to clean drinking water.

A degree warmer in hot climates will be accompanied by a degree warmer in all climates even the most frigid. Is this going to be a disaster?

The most vocal of the proponents of the need to take measures to reverse "global warming" are people who stand to profit most from the adoption of the policies they advocate. The biggest villain in this scenario is Al Gore who has partnerships in Cap and Pay schemes and who continues his crusade of lies and exaggerations to further his efforts including his allegations that sea levels will rise 20 feet and drown Manhattan and that the snows at the peak of Kilinmajaro are being denuded by global warming.

Think!

 

[Medulla]

So where is this evidence? Point me in the direction of the most telling link between human activity and climate change. I want to see scientific papers that show the methodology, both graphical and mathematical, I've trawled the net all night and all I can find are what look like nebulous claims from both sides.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
This is 'The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change' as derived from the latest IPCC report which includes an excellent FAQ but particularly pertinent to your queries is the 'Understanding and Attributing Climate Change' section. Each section references hundreds of peer-reviewed studies at the end, so if you're keen to cast a critical eye over graphs and methodologies that's probably your best bet.

I'd also recommend http://www.realclimate.org which is a site written by climatologists which is updated regularly and has a good summary of the evidence and explanations, but also good in terms of understanding what drives the sketicism - both financially and ideologically - is http://www.desmogblog.com/

 

[---Nemo---]

Taxation is not the real issue but I concede that it's important. The real issue is whether our governments are going to buy into this malarkey and sacrifice our countries economies for an unproven theory and destroying our power generating capacity through the severe curtailiment or elimination the use of our prodigous sources of coal and wasting our equally prodigous sources of natural gas in the process.

Think about what will have been achieved when the process is complete and ask yourself if it will have been worth it.

Better brains than mine or yours claim that if Global Warming is taking place then none of the really puny efforts by mankind can do a blind bloody thing to prevent it. For the money that the world will spend on this futile attempt every person in the world (EVERY PErSON IN THE WORLD) can be provided with access to clean drinking water.

A degree warmer in hot climates will be accompanied by a degree warmer in all climates even the most frigid. Is this going to be a disaster?

The most vocal of the proponents of the need to take measures to reverse "global warming" are people who stand to profit most from the adoption of the policies they advocate. The biggest villain in this scenario is Al Gore who has partnerships in Cap and Pay schemes and who continues his crusade of lies and exaggerations to further his efforts including his allegations that sea levels will rise 20 feet and drown Manhattan and that the snows at the peak of Kilinmajaro are being denuded by global warming.

Think!

Theories are never proven though are they? At least not when I was at school, it was all Karl Popper back then. Even if the Wear swallowed up the SOL (Please no) would that prove a human link to climate change?

Being serious for a moment my own guess is that this is no more than the greening of nuclear power and an excuse for ideologically bankrupt politicians to introduce a new level of feel good taxation. If I had a pound for every doom and gloom scientific scenario I'd heard I'd be in clover.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
This is 'The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change' as derived from the latest IPCC report which includes an excellent FAQ but particularly pertinent to your queries is the 'Understanding and Attributing Climate Change' section. Each section references hundreds of peer-reviewed studies at the end, so if you're keen to cast a critical eye over graphs and methodologies that's probably your best bet.

I'd also recommend http://www.realclimate.org which is a site written by climatologists which is updated regularly and has a good summary of the evidence and explanations, but also good in terms of understanding what drives the sketicism - both financially and ideologically - is http://www.desmogblog.com/

Much appreciated, and if you can find any worthy examples of the counter argument I'd be grateful. Sorry, just spotted it.

 

[the flying graysons]

With all due respect Joe neither do graphs showing the increase in fossil fuel use since the industrial revolution. Surely you could lay any warming period in geological time against those graphs in order to demonstrate a supposed "correlation". By the same means you could probably show a link between fossil fuel burning and exam success rates.

Do you have any evidence showing a direct link between the two?

Of more interest would by a graph of rate of change of climate against species going extinct. I am sure I have seen one in one of Dawkins books. I think we will find that over the life of earth when ever the climat changes as substanially as it is forcast to do from the models in place today about 98% of species have snuffed it. Is it man made ? is a natural warming being enhanced by man activities ? is it a natural cycle ? Who cares I for one think it is too late to do anything about it now anyway and am looking forward to being the Real Mad max :-0

If I had a pound for every doom and gloom scientific scenario I'd heard I'd be in clover.



.

Clover gives you Cancer and heart attacks man

 

[YorkMackem]

Of more interest would by a graph of rate of change of climate against species going extinct. I am sure I have seen one in one of Dawkins books. I think we will find that over the life of earth when ever the climat changes as substanially as it is forcast to do from the models in place today about 98% of species have snuffed it. Is it man made ? is a natural warming being enhanced by man activities ? is it a natural cycle ? Who cares I for one think it is too late to do anything about it now anyway and am looking forward to being the Real Mad max :-0



Clover gives you Cancer and heart attacks man

Do you not watch the Strasse?

 

[Medulla]

Being serious for a moment my own guess is that this is no more than the greening of nuclear power and an excuse for ideologically bankrupt politicians to introduce a new level of feel good taxation. If I had a pound for every doom and gloom scientific scenario I'd heard I'd be in clover.

I think it's important to distinguish between the political voices and the scientific opinion on the matter which I feel some fall into the trap of not doing. For instance, I don't doubt the fact that there is certainly a political motivation to push climate change inasmuch as it provides a justification for providing a revenue stream for Government.

But to at counter this idea I'd firstly say that, when you consider that politicians have been employing the carrot as well as the stick to drive environmentally-conscious behaviour in the population, I'd say this is an overly-cynical take on matters. Secondly though, it's taken them years of ostrich-politics and siding with industry in their denial to get to the point where the threat of climate change is now recognised (well, to an extent anyway) and so I'd say that the financial burden of regulatory policies to tackle the problem - both in terms of the government coffers but also in current and future corporate party donations and support - far outweigh the gains made by climbing on the scientific bandwagon.

More importantly though, that scientific bandwagon exists independent of the politicians and has been growing for years, even in the years when government were on the side of industry in relation to CC. That's the most important issue and why politicians' opining on this matter should lead to ears being closed (though I'm sure you're well aware of this old man ) in favour of listening to a non-partisan expert or, better yet, the synthesised views of thousands of them that is the essence of the IPCC reports.

Much appreciated, and if you can find any worthy examples of the counter argument I'd be grateful. Sorry, just spotted it.

There's a good guide to a vast amount of the skeptics' claims on realclimate written by a climatologist called Coby Beck, you can find it after clicking 'Start Here' at the top of the page. Gives you a thorough, logical overview of why they lack any rigour.

 

[Hetzkes Ballet Teacher]

it puzzles me how there wasn't more global warming in the past.you know when every house had a coal fire.thousands of factories spewed copious amounts of smoke into the atmosphere as did the trains,.there were more coal fired power stations.surely we should have been roasting our bollocks off in those days.

More coal fired power stations before? How do you work that one out? Our power is still mainly from coal fired stations. Your house might not have it's own coal fire now, but it's still warmed by someone else burning coal or by you burning gas. And then there's China, with 80% of it's energy coming from burning coal, building a new coal fired power station a week, and having an estimated need for another 500 coal burning power stations.

I thought that, if there's one thing that everyone agrees on, it's that we're now pumping stuff into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than ever before.

And perhaps, in previous ages, the planet has been able to compensate for the emissions of the time (absorption by the sea, forests, etc) but now can't, and is close a tipping point where it will actually accelerate the build up of greenhouse gases (eg. warming oceans and melting ice sheets releasing them) and therefore the warming process.

That's what puts the shits up me.

 

[the flying graysons]

Do you not watch the Strasse?

Is that the story of everyday live amongst a loverble bunch in a Munich terrase ?

 

[Floyd]

The very same eminent Dr Reid Bryson who told us all we were entering an ice age a few decades back? You seem to have missed that bit out of your post.
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

He is indeed an eminent scientist, most of his work deals with climate in relation to human ecology, but he is no longer a significant expert the causes of climate change. His 1980s work to model climate change had significant holes in it. He has no theories on climate change which have not been scientifically explained by actual climate scientists, and no peer reviewed scientific papers which support the sceptical argument. He gave an interview once in which he expressed his views on water vapor being the driving force, and of CO2 lagging temperature, thats about it, and these have been scientifically explained already. Unless you can find me a peer reviewed study that he has produced which supports the sceptic stance?

This is a quote from Bryson, who also once stated that the rural farms of undeveloped countries are as much to blame for golbal warming as heavy industry:

"The earth is simply saturated now with people. There is, in fact, so many of us currently using so much of the planet's resources—especially fossil fuels—that we are altering the earth's climate."

Interview with Bryson link

and u seem to have missed the point of my post. U asked for a name of a scientist and I gave u not just the name of a AGW sceptic scientist, not just a leading climatology scientist but the man who is considered to be the father of climatological science. He's the head honcho man FFS! I'm sure if, asked he would confirm that at one point in his life he believed in Santa Claus as well. The attempted smearing of him to which u resort doesn't alter the fact that he is an impeccably qualified and eminent scientist who simply doesn't believe it is happening and he is completely untainted by claims that he has an axe to grind or is in the pockets of big business or the oil companies.
If u want another name u just need to cast ur eyes 15 miles or so down the road from Shields to witness the absolutely shocking treatment of that well known oil-company-friendly - scientist David Bellamy who has been completely ostracised by the AGW fascistas for daring to question the validity of AGW.

 

[TexasSanddancer]

Fuck me, Tony where did you drag this crap from?

I took (wasted) the time to read the article, but not the replies, and there is nothing there. I trust you have been castigated for this. It is absolute rubbish.

Besides, any 'scientific' article that has a typo in the second sentence loses all credibility.

It's warming up. It's going off the charts. Don't have the facts at hand but it's something like 7 of the hottest years on record in the last 10 years. Glaciers retreating at an alarming rate. What is happening cannot be compared to any previous cycle. And I studied meteorology, too.

I will not waste my time reading anything else you post.

You work for an oil company, don't you?

 

[Pancho]

It seems the money men are now taking the whole thing seriously. Link

Care to comment Tony?

Preferably with constructve criticism and without the personal insults.

 

[Rizla]

If u want another name u just need to cast ur eyes 15 miles or so down the road from Shields to witness the absolutely shocking treatment of that well known oil-company-friendly - scientist David Bellamy who has been completely ostracised by the AGW fascistas for daring to question the validity of AGW.

To be fair David Bellamy's views have been shaped by his dislike of wind turbines, so he his views are based on his desire to undermine their need. He is a botanist, not a meteorologist or climate scientist and one scan of any of his articles will highlight that instantly.

A for being ostracised, he was made to step down from his position as president of various organisations due to the potential harm he may do with his completely unscientific opinions.

 

[Medulla]

If u want another name u just need to cast ur eyes 15 miles or so down the road from Shields to witness the absolutely shocking treatment of that well known oil-company-friendly - scientist David Bellamy who has been completely ostracised by the AGW fascistas for daring to question the validity of AGW.

Letter exchange between George Monbiot and David Bellamy on Climate Change. Link

Men against boys. I felt a little sorry for Bellamy to be honest, but I think it shows why he's lost so much respect amongst those concerned with the environment.

 

[Joe Public]

and u seem to have missed the point of my post. U asked for a name of a scientist and I gave u not just the name of a AGW sceptic scientist, not just a leading climatology scientist but the man who is considered to be the father of climatological science. He's the head honcho man FFS! I'm sure if, asked he would confirm that at one point in his life he believed in Santa Claus as well. The attempted smearing of him to which u resort doesn't alter the fact that he is an impeccably qualified and eminent scientist who simply doesn't believe it is happening and he is completely untainted by claims that he has an axe to grind or is in the pockets of big business or the oil companies.

I havent missed the point, you have named someone who you think is the "head honcho" of climate science, yet have missed the point that he is a retired scientist who's work leans towards the effects on humans that climate change has, has been wrong in the past with his claims of a new ice age, and has no peer reviewed scientific papers which support the sceptic argument. The fact that you think there is a "head honcho" on climate science displays that you do not have any grasp of the structure of the scientific community. He isnt even an anti global warming scientist, he has argued for over 40 years that global warming exists and was one of the first to do so (which incidentally is the reason he was referred to as the father of climate science, but you already know that, don't you? Do you?

Rather than just saying Bryson is the head honcho, point me in the direction of some of his research which supports AGW.

If u want another name u just need to cast ur eyes 15 miles or so down the road from Shields to witness the absolutely shocking treatment of that well known oil-company-friendly - scientist David Bellamy who has been completely ostracised by the AGW fascistas for daring to question the validity of AGW.

David Bellamy got out of his depth and apologies for the complete and utter inaccuracies in his article. Do you know that? He is a Professor of Botany, not a climate scientist, i'm a little surprised that you have used him as part of you argument, even by your efforts, that is poor.

In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as "poppycock" [3]. A letter he published in New Scientist (16 April 2005) asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[4] Bellamy has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May 2005 [5] that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming" .

Singer, the source of Bellamy's data, is funded by Exxon and other oil and mineral corporations.

Theories are never proven though are they? At least not when I was at school, it was all Karl Popper back then. Even if the Wear swallowed up the SOL (Please no) would that prove a human link to climate change?

Being serious for a moment my own guess is that this is no more than the greening of nuclear power and an excuse for ideologically bankrupt politicians to introduce a new level of feel good taxation. If I had a pound for every doom and gloom scientific scenario I'd heard I'd be in clover.

"Proof" Nemo, you've hit the nail on the head right there. Evidence is numerous, but absolute proof, which many sceptics demand, is not really possible, as you have said. There is no "proof" in science, that is a property of mathematics. In science, you must look at the balance of evidence and formulate theories that can explain this evidence. Where possible scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify or deny their theories and must modify them as new information comes in.

What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that Global Warming is indeed caused by the rising CO2 levels?

In the case of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, what we do have is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) that is based on well established laws of physics, it is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical, and it is supported by very sophisticated and refined Global Climate Models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behaviour over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.

I've already posted a link the scientific basis which provides the evidence you were looking for (remembering evidence is not proof, but is what is used to arrive at a scientific consensus), an example of the data, more correlations, is here:

Logon or register to see this image

This graph shows the increase in the atmospheric concentration of Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and Antarctic temperature from 420,000 years ago until prior to the industrial revolution.

The grey color represents CO2 concentrations, and the scale on the far left refers to the CO2 values. As can be seen in the graph , pre-industrial levels (280 ppmv) were similar to previous interglacials (times which were not considered an 'ice-age' - as now). The present, post-industrial atmospheric level of CO2 concentration is around 370ppmv, which on this graph would be off the scale.

We can see that temperature is linked to atmospheric concentrations of those gases, the laws of physics tell us that this is the case anyway, we have increased the concentrations to levels way above the previous 450,000 years, and we are seeing the temperature rise associated with it. Our doing, we added the gases in to the atmosphere, we have affected the global climate, just like we have affected every square mile of the oceans on this dirty little circle faced world.

 

[Idlewild Mackem]

Singer, the source of Bellamy's data, is funded by Exxon and other oil and mineral corporations.

A man who showed his integrity as a scientist is up for sale when working with Philip Morris to deny the harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke...

That this argument is still on-going is nothing more than ridiculous.

 

[youmademerealise]

A man who showed his integrity as a scientist is up for sale when working with Philip Morris to deny the harmful effects of 2nd hand smoke...

That this argument is still on-going is nothing more than ridiculous.

You're right and to be honest I don't know why Joe and Medulla bother with the detailed and well researched replies. I'd be quite happy for Tony and co to have their own little thread and come to their own concensus, while we can lob a occasional succinct insult at them.

 

[Idlewild Mackem]

You're right and to be honest I don't know why Joe and Medulla bother with the detailed and well researched replies. I'd be quite happy for Tony and co to have their own little thread and come to their own concensus, while we can lob a occasional succinct insult at them.

Agreed. But, I don't only mean this particular argument (i.e. this thread), I mean the argument overall. Already too much time has been wasted to try and prevent further problems, but people continue to argue over this subject... that's the most harmful thing now. Delaying action because of slight doubts. Ridiculous, and shows up just how selfish humanity is at it's core.