Global Warming?

ddraver

Lycraholic wrote:

As someone who studies climate at Cambridge, I cannot tell you how much this thread is making lose the will to live.

So how about you help out the rest of us that pay the taxes used for your Athens Log-in!!

Penarse!!

lycraholic

Jez mon wrote:

Lycraholic wrote:

As someone who studies climate at Cambridge, I cannot tell you how much this thread is making lose the will to live.

Care to highlight anything in particular?

Pages 1-5

(ignore me, I'm hungover and haven't been on my bike in DAYS)

ddraver

Please don't judge all scientists by Lycraholic, most of us are decent guys, honest!

OffTheBackAdam

Glaciers.
Yep, many have receded since the end of the Little Ice Age. The world's warmed, are we surprised?
Is this unusual/out of the ordinary?
No
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm
Schnidejoch glacier, human made artifacts dicovered, that date from Neolithic through to Roman eras. A forgotten, navigable passage has been present at several times in the past, across a pass that was considered impassable. This also explained the presence of a Roman lodging house nearby, a stop-over for travellers who were going to use the path across the pass.
Removal od trees does impact upon precipitation (& hence if high & cold enough - snow) This is why the snow caps/glaciers on Kilimanjaro are shrinking.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/k ... e-cutting/
Svensmark's "Chilling Stars" book, explains the disconnect between why we see warming in the Arctic, when there's cooling in the Antarctic. Increased cosmic ray flux, caused by a less active sun, causes an increase in global cloud cover.
Because Antarctica is so white, it reflects a huge amount of sunlight (& hence heat) back out into space. Increase cloud cover has a similar effect, but the white of the snow reflects more heat than the white clouds do, hence a cloudier world causes a cooling outside of Antarctica, but conversly a warming in Antarctica.
The recent CLOUD experiment reported by CERN shows how clouds can be seeded by cosmic rays.
Sea level rises.
Yep, some rising in sea levels, not a huge amount & rate of rise is decelerating/ceasing, indeed sea levels are falling in areas now.
http://www.real-science.com/northern-he ... ing-decade
Name any islands that have been lost to rising sea levels in modern times.
How many new resorts are planned for the Maldives?
Increase in "Extreme Weather"
No,there's not been.
Hurricanes?
http://www.outlookseries.com/A0996/Scie ... n_Maue.htm
No, at a historic low!

Floods?
http://www.real-science.com/quick-flood-facts
"The world’s ten deadliest floods all occurred before 1976"

The climate has changed before, it has changed even more rapidly, see the Young Dryas as an example.
(Explained by Dr Svensmark's hypothesis linking cosmic rays to climate)

ddraver

Suggest you have a read here Adam - http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunki ... cians.html

lycraholic

ddraver wrote:

Please don't judge all scientists by Lycraholic, most of us are decent guys, honest!

OffTheBackAdam

ddraver wrote:

Suggest you have a read here Adam - http://www.skepticalscience.com/debunki ... cians.html

There's nothing skeptical about that bloke's website!

Here's the lower tropospheric temeprature series.

Why's that important?
Well, there's no contamination by Urban Heat Island effects, also, the lower troposphere is, according to the accepted climate models, where the most heating will be seen, due to an increase in water vapour (The major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.)
It shows the 1998 super El-Nino peak and the lack of increased warming since. CO2 levels are steadily increasing, temps aren't.
Sea Surface Temps are the real killer.
The bulk of the sea is such, that it retains vastly more heat (measured in joules), than the atmosphere.
SSTs over the past decade?

(Edit - Looks like I can't display these full size here, so links will be posted too.)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 3_2011.png
Right, short time, so may not be reflective of the true picture.
Rainfall?
Much has been said about the current drought, affecting parts of the USA. With a continiuing La Nina (Opposite climatic effects to the El-Nino) and something that James Hansen, of NASA/GISS, failed to predict with his models, likely to continue.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... y-year.png
120 year's of rainfall data, for June & July. Trending slightly up, but no statistical significance data, so I'd say there's no trend.
I mentioned hurricane data.
Here's a graph of total tropical storm intensities, so includes Typhoons, the Pacific equivalent of hurricanes.

http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/glo ... ng_ace.jpg
Oh, worried about Greenland melting?
A paper was just published in GRL, looking at temperatures there, over the past 4,000 years.
Full paper here http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf , but WUWT has an analysis of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/n ... 000-years/

Seanos

Adam, as it's quite clear that you know nothing about climate science and don't really understand what you just posted, I'd be really interested to know why you put your trust in bloggers intead of actual scientists..

pb21

Jeez, hold the front page some bloke has just blogged climate change is a load of guff.

That's the only response they merit, not just an excuse to avoid what they are saying, which could be anything, try something more robust.

OffTheBackAdam

Seanos wrote:

Adam, as it's quite clear that you know nothing about climate science and don't really understand what you just posted, I'd be really interested to know why you put your trust in bloggers intead of actual scientists..

So Dr Roy Spencer & Dr Ryan Maue aren't actual scientists, nor is Dr Henrik Svensmark, Dr Nigel Calder, Professor Pielke Snr & Jnr, Dr Judy Curry,
The Greenland paper. Kobashi, T., K. Kawamura, J. P. Severinghaus, J.‐M. Barnola, T. Nakaegawa, B. M. Vinther, S. J. Johnsen, and J. E. Box (2011), High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L21501, doi:10.1029/2011GL049444
Maybe I should believe something on RealClimate (Blog), Skeptical Science (Blog)?
How about something from Michael Mann, he of the Hockey Stick fame, or his "Hockey Team", all notorious from the leaked "Climategate" e-mails, showing them to have perverted the peer revue process, Dr Mann who's algorithm mines red noise for hockey sticks, who uses inverted sediment data and denies this, despite the original author saying he does, Dr Keith Briffa who deletes data from tree ring series, to "Hide the decline", Dr Eric Steig, who endeavours to block publication of a paper critical of the methodology he used to produce Nature's 2009 paper on Antarctic climate change.
Maybe I should believe everything produced by the IPCC, who's Chair denounced the debunking of a claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, as "Voodoo Science". The Chair, one Dr Pachauri, who works for Tata, the Indian steel firm, who bought & shut UK plants, to relocate them in India & claim "carbon credits" for doing so. This is the same IPCC, that claims that all it's pronouncements are based on peer-revued papers, where an audit showed 30% came from "Grey" literature, much produced by the likes of Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth.
An IPCC, that takes the results from a paper, then subjects it to an illegitimate statistical proceedure, to increase the probability of high warming at the expense of low.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... y_pic1.png
I'd argue that I know a lot more about climate science than you and I understand a lot more of the mathematics behind it than you do.

pb21

For starters having a phd isn't synonymous with knowing anything about climate change. Secondly its a blog they may just call themselves Dr with no merit. Thirdly I do have a sound understanding of the theory and math and ramifications most likely more than you.

Seanos

"I'd argue that I know a lot more about climate science than you and I understand a lot more of the mathematics behind it than you do."

And I'd be pretty sure that you were wrong, especially since your post is full of the usual denialist zombie arguments and smears and you refer to 'peer revue process' and peer-revue papers'. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

Well done on the Pachauri smear though, not only for persisting with a story that even the most hardened deniers seem to have dropped, but for going one step further and suggesting that he actually worked for Tata!

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/0 ... mear-ipcc/

(ETA - you seem to be on remarkably friendly terms with Dr Curry, most people refer to her as Judith, not Judy)

ddraver

What do you do for a living then Adam? For fairness, I'm a Petroleum geologist me...

OffTheBackAdam

Ah, in the pay of "Big Oil" are you?
A mere rep myself, but one who's well-read, knows how to read & interpret medical clinical papers & a deep scepticism of anything Governments use as a reason to extract money from the public.
Anyhow, I note Seanos resorts to the usual ad-homs, rather than producing counter-evidence, to show an increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.

ddraver

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

.... one who's well-read, knows how to read & interpret medical clinical papers & a deep scepticism of anything Governments use as a reason to extract money from the public.

Hmm, those two rarely go together really, A bit like balanced and Daily mail reader. The answers you seek are all detailed in the link I posted but you claimed that was rubbish...without giving any reasons why either...As with almost everything in science "it's a little more complicated than that" (Goldacre, 200X)

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

A mere rep myself, but one who's well-read, knows how to read & interpret medical clinical papers

How come you don't know how to spell 'peer review' then?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Anyhow, I note Seanos resorts to the usual ad-homs, rather than producing counter-evidence, to show an increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.

I don't think you know what an 'ad hom' is so I won't bother to ask you to provide an example of one in my post.

I think you should apologise for your statement on Pachauri working for Tata though. Did you lie about it intentionally to smear him or did you copy and paste it from a 'skeptic' website and not bother to check whether it was correct or not?

OffTheBackAdam

http://investing.businessweek.com/resea ... 20Partners

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri serves as a Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since April 2001. Dr. Pachauri has been Head of Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi since April 2001. He is the Founder of Glori Energy, Inc. and serves as its Science Advisor
http://glorienergy.com/
Interesting little directorship!

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

Can't see that I've mis-spelt that myself.

rick_chasey

ddraver wrote:

What do you do for a living then Adam? For fairness, I'm a Petroleum geologist me...

Shell?

Didn't fancy living in the Hague?

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=9089242&privcapId=22361&previousCapId=138823&previousTitle=General Catalyst Partners

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri serves as a Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since April 2001. Dr. Pachauri has been Head of Tata Energy Research Institute, New Delhi since April 2001.

OK, so you said:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The Chair, one Dr Pachauri, who works for Tata, the Indian steel firm, who bought & shut UK plants, to relocate them in India & claim "carbon credits" for doing so.

Yet TERI is an independent not-for-profit research institute that was originally called the Tata Energy Research Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy ... _Institute

So you're wrong that he works for TATA, the Indian steel firm, and is some way linked to the closure of UK steel plants. Are you lying to deliberately smear Pachauri or did you copy and paste your original statement from a 'skeptic' website and not bother to check whether it was correct or not?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

He is the Founder of Glori Energy, Inc. and serves as its Science Advisor
http://glorienergy.com/
Interesting little directorship!

From the website you linked to, Glori was set up by licensing the 'know how and IP from TERI'. And Pachauri isn't listed as either a director or scientific adviser. So what in particular do you find interesting? I get the impression you're trying to make some kind of point so why you don't you come out and say what it is?

Before you do, you might want to have a look at KPMG's financial review of his personal financial affairs. Good luck finding some mud to throw, plenty of brighter people than you have tried and failed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/i ... i-accounts

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

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

Can't see that I've mis-spelt that myself.

You can't see the difference between ‘peer review’ (correct) and 'peer revue process' and 'peer-revue papers' (both wrong)? Really?

ddraver

Rick Chasey wrote:

ddraver wrote:

What do you do for a living then Adam? For fairness, I'm a Petroleum geologist me...

Shell?

Didn't fancy living in the Hague?

Not Shell, I have a personality!

I'm blaming my hangover this morning on the hague tho...