Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[knocker]

Interesting but I don't know why this isn't posted in the glacier thread which would seem the obvious place.

 

Perhaps an extract from the concluding comments may be relevant.

 

A few other studies on the monitoring of Himalayan glaciers relevant in this context are worth mentioning. A loss of 15% in glacier extent in 25 years (1970–1996) has been reported in Peru20. In another study, change in glacier cover was mapped in Peruvian mountains and a loss of 1.4 sq. km per year or 54% in 48 years (11% per decade) was recorded during 1955–2003 (ref. 25) based on topographical maps and Landsat images26. Glaciers in western Canada were mapped using Landsat images of 1985 and 2005 and a loss of 24 plus or minus 4.6% in glacier area of Alberta and 10.8 plus or minus 3.8% in British Columbia was found14. The uncertainty mentioned in this study14 was attributed to difference in snow cover. In the Himalayan region, mean loss of 16% in area of glaciers was reported using topographical maps of 1962 and satellite images of 2001 (ref. 17). Retreat and advance varying from 50 to 150 m/yr was reported in the Tibetan plateau for a period from 1973 to 1993 (ref. 18). Another study states that 65% of monsoon-influenced Himalayan glaciers are retreating and those which are heavily debris covered have stable fronts between 2000 and 2008 (ref. 19). The study also found that the maximum rate of retreat of the glaciers was 80 m/yr. Rate of length, area and mass changes for glaciers for the Himalayan–Karakoram region have been reviewed31. The study31 reveals that there is 0.4%/yr loss in area from 1969 to 2010 for small glaciers of the Trans-Himalayan region 0.2% to 0.7%/yr from 1960s to 2001 in the Indian Himalaya and 0.12%/yr from 1968 to 2007 in Garhwal Himalaya.

 

From the aforementioned discussion and the results of the present study it can be inferred that the number and rate of glacier retreat have come down in the last decade compared to the results of other studies carried out for a period prior to 2001.

 

The results of the present study indicate that most of the glaciers were in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001. This period of monitoring almost corresponds to hiatus in global warming in the last decade32. It may happen that an interval of one decade could be smaller than the response time of glaciers to be reflected in terms of any significant change with 23.5 m spatial resolution of data. This point requires further studies using high-resolution data for a longer interval of time.

Edited May 10, 2014 by knocker

[ANYWEATHER]

Yet  again some interesting charts!!!

Edited May 10, 2014 by ANYWEATHER

[keithlucky]

With global sea ice anomaly about to break the alltime record with the Arctic  goes above normal (with Baffin bay gaining 36 thousand sq km) and the Antarctic ice robust ,the question is How can GW cause this with so called world temperatures on the rise lol.Oh dear i forgot all the heat is hiding deep in the deep blue sea silly me!

Edited May 11, 2014 by keithlucky

[keithlucky]

More recycled doom and gloom predictions about the collapse of the west Antarctic ice shelf , it could well collapse one year from now 10yrs 100yrs 200yrs as sea levels have risen and fallen since time and memorial, and spending billions throwing money at something we cannot prevent is pointless.The same story was released in 1922 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/63942540.

[GulberwickWeather]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

 

 

[keithlucky]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Another  scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism.

Edited May 16, 2014 by keithlucky

[Cloudman]

Another  scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism.

Really ? Reviewers report here

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

[stewfox]

Deleted  

Edited May 16, 2014 by stewfox

[be cause]

Quoted as saying 

------------------------------------

It's clearly a growing concern among interested observers how the intolerance within the climate science community is undermining what scientists are saying.

---------------------------------------------

 

 

Basically there rejecting it as the inconsistencies in the data sets are already know and doesn't add anything but for feeding the skeptics ?

  could you translate into english please ?

[stewfox]

  could you translate into english please ?

 

Ok I'll give it a go.

---------------------------------

 

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

--------------------------

 

ie the author should not be critical of the errors but explain why they are there.

[be cause]

Ok I'll give it a go.

---------------------------------

 

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

--------------------------

 

ie the author should not be critical of the errors but explain why they are there.

 

 

 Sorry Stewfox .. it was Keith's deleted comment I could not get my head around .. thanks though !

[stewfox]

 Sorry Stewfox .. it was Keith's deleted comment I could not get my head around .. thanks though !

 

 

This is a milestone day for AGW hardcore believers. The fact that the Times put this on its front page is highly significant.

[keithlucky]

Really ? Reviewers report herehttp://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

Were"s yours sense of Humour?

[keithlucky]

The plan to to neuter climate change critics this,proves what many have been saying .Co2 does not drive natural climate change as  suggested,that is why they persecuted  highly respected Professor Bengisson"s who suggested co2 is less damaging to the climate.So we back to the same conclusion GW is a political excuse to justify raising green taxation that is why they have persecuted him ,http://t.co/y8fcCw2gJ0

Edited May 17, 2014 by keithlucky

[The PIT]

It's sad that politics and funding drive the science. After climate gate which wasn't ever properly investigated you've got to take everything that the pro warmers say with a huge pinch of salt.

[keithlucky]

IPPC lead author Richard Tol admits no global Warming for 17 yrs and that UN alarmists made him step down http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/

[stewfox]

The rise and fall of the Green party

 

http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/29227/

 

There hardly get a mention in this Euro Elections.

 

Its amazing how far down the agenda 'climate change' has become in the last 20 years

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-64#entry2974557

 

Politics, obviously and, maybe, getting retaliation in early?

 

Because, given neither of us know the result yet, they might, equally, do surprisingly well. Who know till Sunday?

 

  meant to post that to the other forum

Edited May 22, 2014 by Devonian

[4wd]

Interview with a heretichttp://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/chatting-climate-heretic/ 

 

 

THOMAS:  There seems very little direct debate (i.e. in public fora) between orthodox and skeptic people. Why is this education tool neglected?CURRY:  The establishment scientists who support the IPCC consensus do not debate sceptics, for two reasons.  They do not wish to lend legitimacy to the sceptics and the sceptical positions.  Secondly, the few public debates that have been held did not go well for the establishment scientists – formal, oral debate is not a format for which most scientists have experience.

[Styx]

It's sad that politics and funding drive the science. After climate gate which wasn't ever properly investigated you've got to take everything that the pro warmers say with a huge pinch of salt.

 

Everything? Come on..

[stewfox]

We have moved from global warming to climate change to now 'extreme weather'. Any extreme weather event is now blame on man.

 

Pity no one has told the Insurers.

 

Insurers in the 325-year-old market said it paid out net claims of £9.6billion in 2013, down from £10.1billion the previous year when major events such as Superstorm Sandy hit its figures.

It said the lack of severe storms and hurricanes in the US and earthquakes this time around had helped.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/467118/Lloyd-s-of-London-best-profits-in-4-years-as-insurance-claims-fall

Edited May 26, 2014 by stewfox

[DAVID SNOW]

We have moved from global warming to climate change to now 'extreme weather'. Any extreme weather event is now blame on man.

 

Pity no one has told the Insurers.

 

Insurers in the 325-year-old market said it paid out net claims of £9.6billion in 2013, down from £10.1billion the previous year when major events such as Superstorm Sandy hit its figures.

It said the lack of severe storms and hurricanes in the US and earthquakes this time around had helped.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/467118/Lloyd-s-of-London-best-profits-in-4-years-as-insurance-claims-fall

 

Yes, lack of hurricanes. We were told to expect  more hurricanes because of global warming,climate change,or wetter water or whatever.

[Polar Maritime]

I thought it was more extreme weather.

[stewfox]

I thought it was more extreme weather.

 

 

What is extreme weather ? a 30 yr drought in the USA ?

 

If we now label all events whether 1 day or 30yrs as 'man made' we are on a slippery slope.

[Polar Maritime]

What is extreme weather ? a 30 yr drought in the USA ?

 

If we now label all events whether 1 day or 30yrs as 'man made' we are on a slippery slope.

 

 

Yes, lack of hurricanes. We were told to expect  more hurricanes because of global warming,climate change

 

Who said all weather events ?

 

Extreme weather includes unusual, severe or unseasonal weather; weather at the extremes of the historical distribution—the range that has been seen in the past. The most commonly used definition of extreme weather is based on an event's climatological distribution: Extreme weather occurs only 5% or less of the time. According to climate scientists and meteorological researchers, extreme weather events have been rare. Some extreme weather events have been attributed to human-induced global warming, with a 2012 studies indicating an increasing threat from extreme weather.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Polar Maritime