Global Warming....

[HardScienceFan]

By that I gather you mean the Vostok Ice cores of course.
Faking results is always bad science.
Just remember folks,one man's fuzzy data set is another man's
rigorous data.
I still maintain there's a slight bias,because we humans live on geological short timescales,hell IRRELEVANT timescales.
Still as the climate system has curious dynamics,it's better to be safe than to be sorry.

[Coolhand]

I think the Hockey Stick graph hoax is worthy of serious note for two reasons.

1. It shows that deliberately faked or accidentally flawed scientific research can easily slip past the safety nets and become accepted fact. Mann’s graph was simply accepted as proven fact by scientists, Greenpeace and policy makers, without ANYONE checking or seriously trying to duplicate the results or test the data. A significant part of the scientific, political and environmental movement WANTED to believe this data, and so it was simply accepted as fact. It took a guy OUTSIDE the scientific community, someone who was not a scientist, to realize what was going on and expose it. And when he did, there was a concerted effort on the part of at least one scientific journal to, if not silence him, at least downplay what he’d uncovered. Even now, most people are not aware that this famous graph is rubbish. Even old Al Gore used it in his film AFTER it was proved to be bobbins. This leaves me wondering what else in this debate is, if not faked (I think most people are probably honest enough) then perhaps not properly tested and checked because people WANT it to be true.

2. The data from which this graph was created does not show increasing temperature. The trees were actually in the vicinity of a weather station that recorded LOWER than usual temperatures at these times. What the trees were showing was an increase in CO2 levels. The heading on the ORIGINAL STUDY said that. Even if the hockey stick graph were taken as correct in terms of CO2 increase, what it’s actually recording in this location is a rise in CO2 and a DROP in temperature. So whilst the hoax graph showed a CO2/warming link, the actual data showed EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. That’s not conclusive proof of anything on it’s own, but at the very least it deserves further study.

Personally, I think that for a lot of people, GW is no longer about science. Facts don’t matter anymore. This is about faith, ideology, politics and money. GW is the new cool, anti-GW is not cool. Kyoto was beyond reproach, any dissenting voices beyond contempt. Bono and Cameron Diaz endorse man-made climate change, George Bush and fat oil tycoons endorse the opposite. Man made climate change has all the right moves, walks the walk and has a winning smile. Its has a caring, sharing, cuddly, eco conscious message. How can you NOT want to save the planet?
At the end of the day, no amount of data can ever compete with that. Even if it was conclusively proved that climate change was mostly a natural phenomenon, I think a huge amount of people would ignore the data because they WANT the opposite to be true. Because they’d rather agree with Bono than Curious George.
(EDIT: Just realised, this thread is in the world affairs/political part of the forum, not the science part. Which slightly goes to back my point up to a degree.)

Originally Posted by Dave

However, while you can pick and choose tree rings to count, you cannot fake Ice Cores. If the "hocky stick graph" you mention is the atmospheric CO2 then that is real. I don't disagree with Orson Scott Card's conclusions though:

To be honest, you can pick and choose whatever you like, and fake anything you can get away with. It’s been done before many times in science (see above for just one) and that's why peer review and intense scrutiny is supposed to happen.
Re the ice-core thing, I might be wrong on this, but don’t ice core samples show that historically CO2 starts to increase about 800 years AFTER a warming trend begins? Thus being a by-product and not a prime causative factor?

But yeah, I agree with you about how news reports should have reference footnotes, or have to actually show you the data. Problem is it doesn’t make for good, sound-bite news, and requires the media to actually know in detail what it’s talking about. So I doubt that will ever happen.

[HardScienceFan]

well,I read the Journal of Climatology,GloPlaCha,P3 and all the other relevant stuff.
And Elsevier,for all their overblown prices,at least like to get their publications spot on.
MIS 4,the Younger Dryas,Jurassic and Cretaceous dendrochronology,
glendonites,Heinrich events,Julian-Madden Oscillations,hysteresis,
the role of eddy diffusion,rain forest evapotranspiration,ozone photodissolution,aerosol refractive properties,etc.you name it,
we know a lot,but even more is still unclear.
the number of climate models nowadays amounts to the ridiculous.
People,read Ganapolsky,Rahmstorff,Kutzbach,Crowley, and others.

[Rosemary]

I still think they should be able to blow all the hot air out through the hole in the Ozone Layer! A frivolous idea of course...

I dont understand all of the various things that are causing global warming but I do try and keep up to date as well as I am able, and to do what I can to help.

[chrispenycate]

No-one on this planet understands global climate, even when it's steady state; like sociology, weather models are an attempt to explain something after it has happened. If, like the monsoon, the same basic effect keeps recurring you can refine your model to a high standard of elegance; it might be completely wrong, of course, but it'll be consistent, and allow for fairly accurate predictions. In a varying system, the predictions can only be accurate if we know all the factors, all the interactions involved. A tall order. It is within the limits of accuracy of the present state on knowledge that mankind's influence on the situation is negligable; in which case I can't see that reducing polluants and our dependency on fossile fuels is a bad think, at worst neutral, at best worth while in its own right.
It could be that industrial is the main cause of the heating, in which case it would probably be a good idea to slow down the effect as long as possible, so as to be able to adapt little by little.
But if anyone claims to fully understand, beware; they're talkin enough hot air to accelerate the process.

[HardScienceFan]

Do I find people agreeing with me then???
Chris?
I've said a zillion times already that climate is hard to undrestand.
It's fluid dynamics,thermodynamics,chaotic behaviour,hysteretic behaviour,
and confronting the limits of computation and modelling,and fuzzy data.
Read Randall's General Circulation Model Development,and you'll get the idea

[Coolhand]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

Do I find people agreeing with me then???
Chris?
I've said a zillion times already that climate is hard to undrestand.
It's fluid dynamics,thermodynamics,chaotic behaviour,hysteretic behaviour,
and confronting the limits of computation and modelling,and fuzzy data.
Read Randall's General Circulation Model Development,and you'll get the idea

I'll agree with that.

[Coolhand]

Continuing that idea...

Ever since I started to seriously research this issue, I’ve been slightly irritated that no-one had simply put some pro-scientists in a room with some anti-scientists and just let them kick the crap out of each others positions to see what emerges.

Turns out someone has.

A group call IQ2 US grabbed three scientists who believe that man-made global warming is serious and happening, and three who don’t (well, two scientists and Michael Crichton) and stuck them in a room with an audience to debate the following motion:
“Global Warming is not a crisis.”

First of all, before the debate started the audience voted for or against the motion. 30% agreed with the motion, 57% were against and 13% were undecided.

Then each speaker got ten minuets to put their case, and then the floor was opened for Q&A. Then the audience was asked to vote again for or against the motion...

You can downloaded both the edited and the unedited versions of the debate here (audio only), plus review the biographies of the various contributors.

NPR : 'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis'

Or, you can actually watch the debate on Youtube, starting with part 1 (of 10) here.

YouTube - Global Warming Debate - Introduction, part 1 of 10=

Enjoy.

[Coolhand]

Or, you can read the entire thing (including stuff not in the other two versions) here. This is probably the most complete record.

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org...n%20031407.pdf

[j. d. worthington]

Of course, the worst thing about this sort of idea is that we're dealing with very complex scientific issues -- they cannot be got across in sound bytes, but only in very, very lengthy reports with mounds of data to back them up.

This sort of "debate" is happening in a lot of scientific fields, and presents a completely skewed idea of how science works, how scientists draw conclusions, how complex the issues are, etc. A genuine handling of this, where they brought in their information and debated the findings, would take months (if not longer); so this sort of thing is not only not helpful for finding out the facts, it is actively detrimental to the process....

[Coolhand]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Of course, the worst thing about this sort of idea is that we're dealing with very complex scientific issues -- they cannot be got across in sound bytes, but only in very, very lengthy reports with mounds of data to back them up.

This sort of "debate" is happening in a lot of scientific fields, and presents a completely skewed idea of how science works, how scientists draw conclusions, how complex the issues are, etc. A genuine handling of this, where they brought in their information and debated the findings, would take months (if not longer); so this sort of thing is not only not helpful for finding out the facts, it is actively detrimental to the process....

With all due respect, I totally disagree. Whislt the shouting matches that often pass for debate in the media are indeed detrimental, I think the kind of reasoned, calm debate that was showcased in the links I provided provides a vital insight into current scientific thinking and argumentation.

Whislt to cover every aspect of the technicalities would indeed take months, the fundimentals of the science can be outlined in much shorter timeframe, and it's always interesting to see a theory vigourously contested in a "live" arena by people who know what they're talking about. I found that several interesting points were made by both parties, which I found personally helpful regaurding the issue of climate change.

Such debates also serve as useful springboards for further personal research. (they certainly have for me- I've tracked down a load of extra reading as a result of the debate I posted)

Essentialy, if there is no point in debating GW in such a setting, there is no point debating ANY complex issue (finance, history, medical ethics) in such a setting, since it would take far longer than the scheduled debate time to air all of the data and research.

[Allegra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm

(Sorry for double posting the link under another thread)

[Briareus Delta]

Originally Posted by Allegra

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Asia's brown clouds 'warm planet'

(Sorry for double posting the link under another thread)

Yes, this is really interesting. I saw a documentary a few months go - can't remember the title but it really focussed on the phenomenon of global dimming.

The premise of the program was that world governments are wasting their time trying to reduce carbon emissions by investing in renewable energy etc. We are all wasting our time trying to reduce our 'carbon footprint' by saving energy/fuel. Basically, unless world governments start working with those countries responsible for deforestation - by paying them not to cut down trees, essentially - then we are all doomed. Anything else is akin to rearranging the deckchairs on The Titanic.

[j. d. worthington]

Well, here's the latest news I've seen:

Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes - Yahoo! News

Title: "Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes", from LiveScience, by Andrea Thompson, datelined Thu., Aug. 30, 2007.

Industrial nations reach 2020 climate compromise - Yahoo! News

Titled: "Industrial nations reach 2020 climate compromise", from Reuters, datelined Fri., Aug. 31, 2007.

[Coolhand]

Okay Dokey,

Here’s a snippet of the recent reading I’ve been doing on the climate change debate.

I’ve tried to avoid what the journalists and the news media are saying because it seems like they have a tendency to report speculation as fact and don’t always seem to fully understand the science that they’re reporting on.

Instead, I’ve gone in search of the actual scientific reports, papers and science blogs. Get it all from the horses mouth, so to speak. Below is a selection of the actual science and documentation that gets thrown back and forth in the debate. Read it all and make up your own mind.

The IPCC
Here’s the IPCC third assessment from 2001. It’s the first time the IPCC actually decided that climate change was happening and was due mostly to man-made CO2.

Publications

Also, here a link to the other reports such as the second assessment. You can also get access to the Forth (current) Assessment as it’s published at this site.

Publications

These are useful to have on hand, as many of the websites that follow refer to the text of these reports so its good to be able to check that the claims being made of the IPCC are accurate or not. It’s always good to know what the IPCC actually said, as opposed to what some people say they said.

Good? Cool. Onto the boffins in the white coats.

These scientists at realclimate.org are pretty much convinced by the catastrophic anthropogenic climate chance thesis presented by the IPCC.
RealClimate

These guys at the Pielke Reseach Group at CIRES take the stand that humans are affecting the environment, but say that CO2 has been vastly over hyped, is not the main driver, and that a lot of the change we are seeing is down to natural process.
Their blog is here
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
And their wesite is here.
The Pielke Research Group at CIRES

(Note: there are many more scientists blogs and websites out there, both with various positions on the climate change debate. Search and read. Make up your own mind.

Now for a couple of hot topics in the debate:

The Hockey Stick

Right, this one gets people on both sides really hot under the collar. The Hockey Stick graph was one of the major chunks of the IPCC’s third assessment and claimed to demonstrate a direct link between C02 and temperature rises on the earth. It was the work of Climatologist Michael Man, a Lead Auditor on the IPCC’s Third Scientific Assessment. According to whom you listen to, it’s either now obsolete debunked gibberish or it remains a vital piece of evidence showing man’s affect on climate.

Here’s the wikipedia article on the whole thing. Keep in mind it keeps getting edited back and forth by the pro and anti camps, so you’ll find it either very pro-hockey stick or anti depending on the time of day your access! But the actual references usually stay intact

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to get you started:

A link in support of the graph:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
I guess this comes pretty close to being Mann’s personal defence of his work, as he is one of the major contributors to the realcimate.org blog.

A link against the graph.
Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » Hockey Stick Studies
This is the webpage of one of the two guys who basically started the controversy (Steven McIntyre). It documents his claims about the inaccurate and doctored nature of the graph

Read, think, make up your own mind.

Solar Activity
Right, here’s a pretty interesting one. Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv working at the Rachah Institute of Physics has recently submitted research that he claims demonstrates that the sun and not C02 is the main driver of climate change (in partnership with Professor Jan Vizer, University of Ottawa.)

Their research is presented below.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../0409123v1.pdf
http://www.gsajournals.org/archive/1...173-13-7-4.pdf

Yes it is an absolute brain-scrambling read for us mere mortals but they do have summaries and you can google around to find more readable interpretations of their findings.

The basic gist of it all is the claim that there is a direct provable link between increases in the sun’s activity and increases in warming on the earth, and that most of climate change can be attributed to this rather than man-made C02

After these reports were published, they were challenged by various other scientists who supported the IPCC position. The link below takes you to a couple with emphasis on a report by two scientists named Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich. Once again, Lockwood and Frohlich’s report is hard to get your head around if you’re a mere motel like me, but they have a summery and you can find simplified versions on the BBC websites and on RealClimate.org, as well.

RealClimate » Friday roundup

Basically, they contend that Shaviv’s theory cannot be correct, because the sun’s activity has dropped since 1985, but that that global temperatures have gone up since then.

Nir Shaviv then responded to the Lockwood and Frohlich’s study here.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html

Study it all, make up your own mind.

Happy Reading.