312 replies to this topic

[Alan Robinson]

jethro, on 19 October 2011 - 07:42 , said:

Another thing which seems to have happened in this era of AGW and the internet is the complete reversal of usual scientific practise. Prior to this period in time if a new scientific theory was discovered or proposed, the onus was upon the scientists involved to show it was correct; if objections or questions were raised, the burden of proof was firmly on the new theory side to answer them and prove their theory to be correct. Nowadays and with this theory in particular, any questions raised are met with demands to 'prove it' or 'lots of us agree so we must be right'.

Doesn't seem like sound scientific practise and I can't see the same process being repeated elsewhere, in other branches of science - why is AGW treated so differently?

Agreed.

I do wish however we could all also agree that until an idea is proven, it is a hypothesis. Theories are validated hypotheses, and much of what is called Global Warming Theory remains hypothesis.

Edited by Alan Robinson, 19 October 2011 - 08:02 .

[Downburst]

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.
Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

[Radiating Dendrite]

Downburst, on 19 October 2011 - 09:50 , said:

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.
Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

Nobody can question the fact that climate changes and will continue too. The last Ice Age is definitive proof of this, indeed more recently episodes such as the LIA and the Medievil Warming Period show the sharpness of the changes that can occur.

The principle argument with AGW is whether the warming is natural or human induced, with AGW theorists proposing that it is induced by man and not mother nature.

Personally, I do not think we are doing the planet any favours chucking all our rubbish into the atmosphere, but whether this can overide the system and cause warming I simply do not know and I don't believe anyone knows!

[full_frontal_occlusion]

If it's not an impertinent question, then what would it take for the majority of people to be convinced that the warming trend is exacerbated by Human influence or that in the next few years we are in danger of exceding a tipping point?

Because if the science is not convincing enough now, then will it ever be or will people still say it's inevitable there is nothing that can be done?

Does global panic need to set in and what would cause that panic for the developed and industralised populations to take heed if it's not already too late?

ffO.

[greybing]

Alan Robinson, on 19 October 2011 - 04:15 , said:

No, but it is. At the risk of repeating myself, my opinion is that politicians are using the AGW idea to cover up their helplessness over peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak debt, peak this, peak that, exponential increase in world population etc etc. Politicians know full well our lifestyle is unsustainable, they have no attractive practical vision for the future, and so we must all stop burning so much oil, coal and gas. They want us to accept inevitable economic downturn, and offer us environmental excuses as a dummy to suck on.

I am quite sure the basic science about so-called greenhouse gases is correct, but like many others, I consider the overall process most complex. For example, the process of the oceans soaking up heat and carbon dioxide is not fully understood. There remains controversy over the whole business of ice core data and historical atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science seems wavering over the role of the sun and cosmic rays on cloud, playing down the sun's role, notwithstanding that if it "went out", all life on Earth is done for. And what about the effect of CFC gases on ozone? It seems that has had a considerable effect on stratospheric temperatures and thus parts of our climate mechanism that are most difficult to research practically, and those CFCs are not going away for the next few years. How have they affected global temperatures since, say, 1970?

Given all this, I'd say it is not unreasonable to be moderately skeptical of dogma, whatever its object.

Totally agree.

[SNOW_JOKE]

I'm 50/50 on it. Whilst us humans have to accept that on a global scale climatological changes are just invariably a natural process, there are certain parts where we are contributing to that change. Maybe not to a point where it would lead to parts of downtown London, NYC etc being flooded with increasing sea heights, or encroaching desert sands from the Sahara swamping mainland Europe. But just look all around you even in the bedrock of the UK and you can see 'climate change' as a natural process.

Here in the Peak District nearby we have vast reserves of limestone within the White Peak, these traps hold billions upon billions of tonnes of stored CO2 from when the UK was once where Bermuda now is. We are releasing this stored CO2 on a daily rate by industrially mining the rock out of the ground from numerous sites all across the landscape. not just leaving huge scars many miles across per mine, but also the legacy of that stored CO2 being brought back to the surface from man-made activity. Not only through this but coal, oil, other natural resourced industrialisation that is also having the same effect.

There's a reason why the Earth 'cycles' these vast stored CO2 reserves, and we are destroying that cycle for our own ill-concieved purposes. I am against driving global-warming & climate change onto the population, as they don't go around in 100-tonne dumper trucks or use TNT to blow holes in the ground, the population just wants basic energy to live from. Its the industrialisation complex who is to blame.

[Alan Robinson]

Downburst, on 19 October 2011 - 09:50 , said:

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.
Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

That reminds me of Simon Schama and his History of Britain. Skara Brae in the Bronze Age had a climate similar to UIshant, or even Belle Isle in the Bay of Biscay today. Evidence? DNA from fish species found in a Skara Brae rubbish tip.

full_frontal_occlusion, on 19 October 2011 - 11:45 , said:

If it's not an impertinent question, then what would it take for the majority of people to be convinced that the warming trend is exacerbated by Human influence or that in the next few years we are in danger of exceding a tipping point?

Because if the science is not convincing enough now, then will it ever be or will people still say it's inevitable there is nothing that can be done?

ffO.

More theory and less hypothesis I'd say.

[4wd]

The mining of limestone is entirely insignificant, not least because it isn't destroyed but re-used.
Concrete is actually a CO2 store for example.

Climate has always changed, sometimes quite abruptly.
Adapting to changes happens all the time already - future changes whether AGW enhanced or not will be coped with just as well because they won't be outside the extremes we already cope with perfectly well.
In short the thousands of researchers trying to show that AGW disaster is round the corner would be better off researching ways to continue our already successful coping strategies.
Fossil fuel use will decline steadily through the next century with no politically inspired interference, due to increasing scarcity.

On a global scale this is what will happen anyway no matter what those who wish to control our lives think.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Well, back in the old days (when I was called VillagePlank) I tried to develop a theory based on a little known differential equation called the leaky integrator (well little known outside of those that write neural networks - often it's called a leaky bucket) that would entirely dismiss the concept of human-induced climate change. Indeed, we went so far as to include volcanic emissions, ENSO, etc - we got it to the stage where r² > 0.8, and signficance was nearly 90% (not the 95% required by the scientific method) Alas, my poor knowledge of science, particularly oceanography, and thermodynamics along with spending £10k on papers (knowledge isn't free, you know) ground the project to a halt.

Even to this day I think there is something there; this is not without evidence. Many of you will know that there was a problem with the global temperature around the middle of the last century - temperature readings were taken from buckets on ships next to the engine room. The leaky integrator showed that this was the case (without our knowledge of this problems existence) and I had to put a constant in to correct it to the Hadley temperature series. There are coincidences and then there are coincidences .....

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find the thread where all of this was done in the open (think 'free' software) Alas, you'll also find lots of bickering and arguing, baiting and biting - which, honestly, I am too embarrassed to go back and look. Perhaps the mods could dig out the walkthrough and one of the results posts with the charts? (removing all the, ahem, excesses, of course) Just for interest, of course - I've since lost all my files, although I'm sure if there's a resurgence of interest, I could recreate it ....

And, yes, the taboo of attempting to travel against the tide of consensus was overwhelming at times and it directly caused my mate, Captain Bobski, to leave this forum forever.

Edited by Sparticle, 19 October 2011 - 14:18 .

[loafer]

SNOW_JOKE, on 19 October 2011 - 12:03 , said:

There's a reason why the Earth 'cycles' these vast stored CO2 reserves, and we are destroying that cycle for our own ill-concieved purposes.

I don't see why we aren't simply part of one of the cycles - given these cycles exist, surely the acceleration of release of CO2 simply brings forward the timing of natural compensatory factors to switch the cycle and restore it again? The human race is hugely and mistakenly arrogant to believe it actually has some control over nature.

[Downburst]

I think we all agree that we would prefer if we could limit the damge we do to the planet as much as possible. I worry that given all the massive heavy metals, radiactive materials and chemicals spewed out every day, think of the total mess the oceans are in, people are forced to focus on Global warming and recycling paper. Middle class thinks they are great with the corn flakes box and agreeing to the BBC, nodding in agreement when a feature is showing on the 10 o'clock news.
To cut a long story short, with the population at 7 billion, we need to find a way to reduce it to half that within 100 years, insulate our homes, produce goods with minimum impact and regulate the planet somehow.
This is a closed system this earth, very worrying when you think of that.

[SNOW_JOKE]

I think a sustainable species on Earth is a good thing. What's not good however is its drive for materialism that's getting us in all this mess in the first place, I mean we throw things out on a daily basis from TV sets, guitars, sofas, chairs, clothes, anything and everything can and SHOULD be reused or recycled. I'm a big supporter of freecycle and free-trade initiatives which promote cutting out the 'middle man' companies, and lets you trade in something (say a duvet set) for a pair of shoes or a rocking chair nobody wants. Things like this may be insignificant on a small scale, but when it turns to local projects and those turn to internet communities you can see how a worldwide network can become established.

The capitalistic greed is not only the destroyer of society by dividing class-wedges, but as demonstrated it's also destructive in creating profiteering over environmental concern. Divide the number of superstores and shopping centers per sqmeter in the UK, then think of all the rubbish that has gone into producing the cr-p they sell, that could have so easily been found at 3/4 the price in a charity shop or traded at sites like freecycle for example. the problem is we are too wasteful and only have the monetary system and advertising propoganda to blame

[Alan Robinson]

Sparticle, on 19 October 2011 - 13:17 , said:

We got it to the stage where r² > 0.8,

Alas, my poor knowledge of science, particularly oceanography, and thermodynamics along with spending £10k on papers (knowledge isn't free, you know) ground the project to a halt.

Even to this day I think there is something there; this is not without evidence. Many of you will know that there was a problem with the global temperature around the middle of the last century - temperature readings were taken from buckets on ships next to the engine room.

I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r?

Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.

Edited by Alan Robinson, 19 October 2011 - 14:47 .

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Alan Robinson, on 19 October 2011 - 14:33 , said:

I bow to your mathematics Sparticle; now what is r?

Regarding ship's engine rooms in the middle of the last century, they would probably not have been any warmer than they are today, namely 45 degrees C at the most. Also, boiler rooms were separate to engine rooms. Where was the bucket dipped in? Near the condenser discharge or near its intake? It must be clear that the engine room air temperature could hardly affect the sea water temperature significantly. What about where the ship was and seasonal temparture changes? I mean, the Arabian Gulf can well exceed 35 degrees C in mid summer, but in winter it can be a balmy 15 degrees. The variables are many, and no wonder climate scientists bicker over data.

r² is the coefficient of determination [1] - ie it determines goodness of fit between model and observation.

The problem with the temperature series was published in Nature, by Thomson et al, in 2008 [2] specifically that: "The most notable change in the SST archive following December 1941 occurred in August 1945. Between January 1942 and August 1945, ,80% of the observations are from ships of US origin and, 5% are from ships of UK origin; between late 1945 and 1949 only,30% of the observations are of US origin and about 50% are of UK origin. The change in country of origin in August 1945 is important for two reasons: first, in August 1945 US ships relied mainly on engine room intake measurements whereas UK ships used primarily uninsulated bucket measurements, and second, engine room intake measurements are generally biased warm relative to uninsulated bucket measurements"

Our little leaky integrator project identified this bias - ie we could fit the model to the temperature series apart from where the bias was ultimately identified. That is to say, we thought that the mismatch was a problem with the model, when, in reality, it was a problem with the dataset.

[1] http://en.wikipedia....f_determination
[2] http://www.atmos.col..._Nature2008.pdf

Edited by Sparticle, 19 October 2011 - 15:13 .

[Downburst]

SNOW_JOKE, on 19 October 2011 - 14:16 , said:

I think a sustainable species on Earth is a good thing. What's not good however is its drive for materialism that's getting us in all this mess in the first place, I mean we throw things out on a daily basis from TV sets, guitars, sofas, chairs, clothes, anything and everything can and SHOULD be reused or recycled. I'm a big supporter of freecycle and free-trade initiatives which promote cutting out the 'middle man' companies, and lets you trade in something (say a duvet set) for a pair of shoes or a rocking chair nobody wants. Things like this may be insignificant on a small scale, but when it turns to local projects and those turn to internet communities you can see how a worldwide network can become established.

The capitalistic greed is not only the destroyer of society by dividing class-wedges, but as demonstrated it's also destructive in creating profiteering over environmental concern. Divide the number of superstores and shopping centers per sqmeter in the UK, then think of all the rubbish that has gone into producing the cr-p they sell, that could have so easily been found at 3/4 the price in a charity shop or traded at sites like freecycle for example. the problem is we are too wasteful and only have the monetary system and advertising propoganda to blame

I agree with this but worry you are coming up with too specific a solution, it won't sell as consumerism is driven by a human instinct, to want more and more, it's just to get it, not use it really. We have to think of ways to manufacture long lasting and useful goods that aren't thrown away, food that is made in as non polluting way as possible. We've come a long way since the facotries of the 19th century, we can do it, but my word will it be a hard slog. You won't get a politician looking at it if they have to be voted in every 4 or 5 years that's for sure. Politicians love the Global Warming as it's a nice focus for people in the meantime.

[stewfox]

loafer, on 18 October 2011 - 13:32 , said:

Shuggee - You said “For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up”. That is a bizarre approach. When the earth was believed by all to be flat, it didn’t make it any more true then than it is now. Any theory has to stand on its own two feet and just because we don’t know the answer doesn’t make any existing theory “good enough for now”.

Exactly a theory is theory no one said on day 1 Earth isn't flat and 90% of the scientific community believe it or the Earth isn't centre of the universe and everything changed etc

It developed over time

Back in 2011 they still believed things couldn't travel faster then light

[Paul]

I think you're missing the point tbh - Shuggee isn't saying no-one can disagree with or try to disprove a theory, he's saying that the scientific approach to doing so is to prove an alternative theory stacks up against it.

Taking the speed of light argument you've used - had there been a discussion on this forum about the speed of light and 2 years ago you had posted 'it's possible for the speed of light to be bettered' there would have been no reason to believe you, whereas now that statement holds a lot more weight - why? Because science has 'proven' (although this is still to be confirmed) it could well be possible.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?
As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.

[Alan Robinson]

Sparticle, on 19 October 2011 - 14:58 , said:

r² is the coefficient of determination [1] - ie it determines goodness of fit between model and observation.

The problem with the temperature series was published in Nature, by Thomson et al, in 2008 [2] specifically that: "The most notable change in the SST archive following December 1941 occurred in August 1945. Between January 1942 and August 1945, ,80% of the observations are from ships of US origin and, 5% are from ships of UK origin; between late 1945 and 1949 only,30% of the observations are of US origin and about 50% are of UK origin. The change in country of origin in August 1945 is important for two reasons: first, in August 1945 US ships relied mainly on engine room intake measurements whereas UK ships used primarily uninsulated bucket measurements, and second, engine room intake measurements are generally biased warm relative to uninsulated bucket measurements"

Thanks.

Regarding buckets and seawater intakes, it sounds like baloney to me. In those days they only had spirit or mercury thermometers, and on ships they read accurate to within 1 degree C or so. I bet if I use the same thermometer, I will get exactly the same temperature from a sample in the cooling system strainer and from a bucket.

BornFromTheVoid, on 19 October 2011 - 17:27 , said:

Do the members of this forum that disagree with the AGW theory believe that they still receive an unfair level of unfriendly and derogatory remarks against them by by other members?
As far as I can tell since joining in on and reading some of the debates is that the "stick" and "taboo" is more the other way around and that the anti-AGW members, in the climate and environment section at least, are in the majority.

What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Alan Robinson, on 19 October 2011 - 17:32 , said:

What about the "don't knows" ? I'd say they are the majority.

Thing is, I consider myself a "don't know", but believe we are having an impact, I just don't know how much!
But in the context of this thread, "not subscribing agw", and this forum in general, I fail to see any taboo tbh.