Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 22nd Jun 2011, 11:48
  #8321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via Simonpro #8202:
The IPCC are in a catch-22 situation with stuff like that. They want the leading scientists to be authors on the working group reports, but at the same time they don't want the reports to indulge in self-citation by the authors. However, if the authors are the leading scientists in that field (which may or may not be true in this case) then of course they'll have to self-cite, there's nothing else they can do: the authors are the ones doing the research!

via my previous post:
Hmmm... self cite their own research. Simonpro, who does the 'peer' reveiw of the work of these singular 'leading scientists' ?

via Simonpro #8285:
In a "scientific" field such as Teske's there are hundreds of people with the knowledge to be peer reviewers for his article. Only the journal editors and the reviewers themselves know who they are, though - peer review should always be blind (although in smaller fields it frequently isn't).
I take it then that this Teske is the self citeing scientist refered to.

Simonpro, if there is "hundreds of people" who can peer reveiw Teske's work then surely there would be others then himself that Teske can cite ?..







.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 12:09
  #8322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via Simonpro #8285:
Hockey stick, hockey stick, hockey stick - it's like listening to a stuck record.

I thought that the Medieval Warm Period was substantially cooler on a global scale than today and a quick article search backs that up - do you have any articles etc to show otherwise? Never heard of the Roman Warm Period, but another quick literature search shows that it was probably about the same temperature as the MWP.
via green granite:
What about the Norse settlers in Greenland in the middle ages? They couldn't have existed in today's temperatures as they would have been unable to sustain themselves with crops, or buried their dead below what is now the permafrost levels. I appreciate this is only a small area of the globe though.

Its interesting that it were generally accepted fer many years that the MWP existed and were warmer then today. Reference the green granite post here's some extracts from a book written in 1926. My comments in brakets...

Our ever changing Climate through the Ages...

"...(Human)Traffic across the Alpine passes, as shown by the transmission of culture, became important about 1800 B.C. when (due to global warming) the Brenner Pass first became traversable, and reached a maximum at the end of the Bronze Age and in the early Hallstatt period, or about 1200-900 B.C. The valley settlements of the late Hallstatt period developed independently apparently in complete isolation, and traffic across the passes was at a minimum ( due to global cooling ) There was a slight revival at the end of the La Tene period and in the early Roman Empire (200 B.C. to A.D. 0 ) but it was not until between A.D. 700 and 1000 that this traffic again developed on a considerable scale (due to global warming) There was a re-advance of the glaciers in the western Alps about A.D. 1300, followed by a retreat to a minimum extent in the fifteenth century ( due to global cooling ) Near the end of the sixteenth century the glaciers advanced rapidly and about 1605 they overran settlements which had been occupied since the beginning of history. About the same time the glaciers advanced in the Eastern Alps, Iceland, where they almost reached the moraines of the late glacial stages, and probably in other parts of the world and the period from 1600 to 1850 has been termed the “little ice age.” There were minor maxima of glaciations about 1820 and 1850 since then the glaciers and ice sheets have been in rapid retreat in all parts of the world..."

...Medieval warm period “…near Cape Farewell (Greenland) The most important evidence is derived from the excavation of the churchyard, in soil which is now frozen solid throughout the year, but which, when the bodies were buried, must have thawed for a time in summer, because the coffins, shrouds, and even the bodies were penetrated by roots of plants. At first the ground thawed to a considerable depth, for the early coffins were buried comparatively deeply. After a time these early remains were permantly frozen in, and later burials lie nearer and nearer to the surface …. Finally, at least 500 years ago, the ground became permantly frozen, and has remained in that condition ever since, thus preserving the bodies…”

Quotes via Hovgaard, Climate through the Ages, C. E. P. Brooks, First published 1926.


And for you Simonpro. Just to debunk the hocky stick, here's some research that supports the MWP were an actual event with many papers covering the MWP warmer then today conditions...

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 983 individual scientists from 566 research institutions in 43 different countries ... and counting!...

CO2 Science


.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 12:15
  #8323 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Flying Binghi you obviously haven't read Mann's latest paper, about sea levels, where he refers to both the Medieval warm period and the Mini ice age.
green granite is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 12:34
  #8324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
And by the way, the latest paper on sea levels from Mann, showing the " Hockey Stick " again contain the " upside down " Tiljander proxies.

http://amac1.********.com/2011/06/ti...gain-this.html

And where this paper get published? In PNAS. The same PNAS which was involved in the Linden paper discussion just a week or two ago and the same PNAS which published the crappy Andreeg et.al. blacklist paper of which Schneider was also an author.

And so, 3 years after the Hockey Stick and upside down Tiljander proxy discussions, where was the peer review and control when another paper gets published with upside down proxies? And where are the " experts " who defend the AGW bullshit? Self confessed experts here who understand " science " I bet will remain silent about this travesty of a peer review and publication.

This is more evidence that crappy and third rate papers supporting AGW get waved through with " pal review " with no shame or controls or proper peer review. It is a systematic fraud that is operating out there.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 12:36
  #8325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
The weblink above was truncated due to the " ******** " link getting barred from this site. So, giving the article below

" Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Tiljander Data Series Appear Again, This Time in a Sea-Level Study

At RealClimate.org, Stefan Rahmstorf has written "2000 Years of Sea Level" about a study published on June 20, 2011 in PNAS. Andrew Kemp and co-authors BP Horton, JP Donnelly, ME Mann, M Vermeer, and S Rahmstorf reconstruct sea levels from 500 AD to the present, and relate these levels to the temperatures of the past, using a multi-proxy reconstruction that was first presented in Mann et al. (PNAS, 2008). (The Kemp11 PDF can be downloaded at the RC post.)

It turns out that the chosen temperature recon is heavily dependent on the four three uncalibratable Tiljander data series. This reliance grows stronger as one goes back in time, and shorter (younger) records "drop out."

I tried to leave a remark on this subject at RealClimate.org. Apparently, that site is set to automatically fail any comment tagged with my user name, email, or IP address. Here is the local copy of what I submitted (21 Jun 3:50 PM EDT) --
I was surprised at the provenance of the paleotemperature reconstruction that was used in Kemp et al's Fig. 2A and Fig. 4A. According to Fig. 2A's legend, it is "Composite EIV global land plus ocean global temperature reconstruction, smoothed with a 30-year LOESS low-pass filter". The reference is Mann et al. (2008). In that paper's S.I., the unsmoothed version is in panel F of Fig S6, as the black line labelled "Composite (with uncertainties)".

This is one of the multiproxy reconstructions that employed the four (actually three) uncalibratable Tiljander lakebed sediment data series.

According to Gavin Schmidt, "...it's worth pointing out that validation for the no-dendro/no-Tilj is quite sensitive to the required significance, for EIV NH Land+Ocean it goes back to 1500 for 95%, but 1300 for 94% and 1100 AD for 90%" (link). Further remarks on this issue as Responses to other RC comments here (see numbers 525, 529, and 531).

The incorrect inclusion of Tiljander could well make this EIV reconstruction progressively worse, as one goes from 1500 AD back to 500 AD. This might explain the increasing divergence between the temperature recon and the sea-level recon, as one travels back from 1100 AD to the beginning of the recons at 500 AD. This pattern is shown in Kemp11's S.I. Figs. S3, S4, and S5.

Did any of the peer reviewers comment on this issue, or request that you use a no-Tiljander temperature reconstruction?
I left a more detailed version at Collide-a-scape as #128 at Climate Critics That Won't Muzzle Themselves (June 21st, 2011 at 1:35 pm; lightly edited) --
...Yesterday, Kemp et al. 2011 was published in PNAS, relating sea-level variation to climate over the past 1,500 years (UPenn press release). Among the authors is Prof. Mann. Figs. 2A and 4A are "Composite EIV global land plus ocean global temperature reconstruction, smoothed with a 30-year LOESS low-pass filter". This is one of the multiproxy reconstructions in Mann et al. (2008, PNAS). The unsmoothed tracing appears as the black line labelled "Composite (with uncertainties)" in panel F of Fig. S6 of the "Supporting Information" supplement to Mann08 (downloadable from pnas.org).

This is one of the Mann08 reconstructions that made use of the four (actually three) uncalibratable Tiljander data series.

As scientist/blogger Gavin Schmidt has indicated, the early years of the EIV Global reconstruction rely heavily on Tiljander to pass its "validation" test: "...it's worth pointing out that validation for the no-dendro/no-Tilj is quite sensitive to the required significance, for EIV NH Land+Ocean it goes back to 1500 for 95%, but 1300 for 94% and 1100 AD for 90%" (link). Also see RealClimate here (Gavin's responses to comments 525, 529, and 531).

The dependence of the first two-thirds of the EIV recon on the inclusion of Tiljander's data series isn't mentioned in the text of Kemp11. Nor is it discussed in the SI (link), although it is an obvious and trivial explanation for the pre-1100 divergence noted in the SI's Figures S3, S4, and S5.

Peer review appears to have been missing in action on this glaring shortcoming in Kemp11's methodology.

More than anything, I am surprised by this zombie-like re-appearance of the Tiljander data series -- nearly three years after the eruption of the controversy over their misuse as temperature proxies!
Interestingly, M. Vermeer discussed the Tiljander proxies data series with me and others in the comments of Arthur Smith's posts Where's the fraud? and Michael Mann's errors. So at least one of Kemp11's authors was familiar with the (claimed) severe shortcomings of Tiljander-based reconstructions. And then... they went ahead and used just that type of recon."


Posted by AMac at 1:40 PM
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 13:41
  #8326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Not so much a windup...

Mr Binghi,

The article I cited from my local paper, itself based on a peer-reviewed paper by a German professor, had it that sea levels are rising and that that is due to global warming (my translation of the original German term, globale Erwärmung).

The article states that this global warming is anthropogenic, due to the combustion of fossil fuels producing Treibhausgasen, 'greenhouse gases,' and that sea levels are now rising rapidly. (Seit 1990 steigt der Meeresspiegel um 3,4 Zentimetre pro Jahrzent und damit deutlich schneller als in der Zeit davor. or, 'Since 1990 the level of the sea has increased 3.4 centimetres per decade, and with that certainly more rapidly than in the previous period.'), According to the article the sea level has risen 20 centimetres since the late 19th Century due to AGW.

Given that this article is based on a proper scientific document (when the Germans are mad keen on their science, such that your average German student can tell you exactly who Alexander von Humboldt was and what he was famous for) then I feel reasonably safe in accepting what it is trying to tell me. I am sure that if there were some other conclusion, still scientifically sound but surprisingly contradictory of AGW, then this paper would be very eager to publish that.

How about you, though? Can you accept this view, that rising sea levels are down to AGW, or do you have some other explanation you would like to share with us?

As to that other thing, well, gosh darn it! That hellsbrink, with his penetrating and cogent line of questioning, a veritable combination of a giant jumbo can of WD-40 and a [email protected] beam (one of those big industrial ones, not the little hand-held pointer kind) has made me crack, so that I really must tell you all that life in Africa made me convert to Pastafarianism. Yes, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Of course we Pastafarians can see that link between Global Warming and the decline in piracy, Arrr! when there are many little charts that document this pseudo-scientific fact, which you are all free to look up and believe in or not yourselves, as you please. (I am not one of those who stalk the neighborhood asking if anyone has a few minutes to be told about the FSM, or Fliegende Spaghetti Ungeheuer. In fact, this is the first time I have told anyone about what Africa has led me to believe.)
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 13:43
  #8327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
How about the Envisat data that contradicts that? Wanna pick'n'choose or accept that there are doubts?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 13:58
  #8328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
This particular study, from somewhere in North Carolina, used the study of sedimentation combined with historical records of water levels in harbors to make these determinations about rising sea level. It did not depend on satellite data.

There are always doubts, aren't there? I suppose it comes down to a question of 'reasonable doubts,' though, when I find it reasonable to accept what this study says about AGW and the rising sea level.
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 15:10
  #8329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Chuks,

You have no clue of what you're talking about. Learn about proxies, learn about Tiljander series and upside down proxies, learn about what happened in earlier reconstructions, learn statistics and hell, learn what all the science is about.

You have exhibited by your post now that in addition to not knowing what you're talking about you seem to think yourself capable of commenting on them and drawing conclusions from what you don't know or understand or even bother to understand, all because it says sea levels are rising due to AGW.

There is ignorance and there is idiocy.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 15:15
  #8330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Absolutely!

Well, ignorance works for me, and it worked for Socrates too!

I can see that you have made a different choice, so how is that working out for you?

The weird thing is, I think you really believe the stuff you post. Do you have a few minutes to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 16:32
  #8331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Do you have a few minutes to learn about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
No, but i do have few to learn about this emphatic proof of AGW in Africa.......

No, thought not. For someone so aware of AGW you certainly produce a lot of hot air.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 17:56
  #8332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
chuks,

For the first time in about 10 years I have put someone on my Ignore List-- you!

So don't bother to respond.
pulse1 is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 17:57
  #8333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
It is this way, you see...

I actually have just done two semesters studying chemistry, one branch of science, or so I was told. Along in there I also studied mathematics, including, now that you mention it, statistics.

In general terms I was once in Mensa, so that I don't think it's quite fair to call me an 'idiot,' particularly since that is an outmoded scientific term for a person of low intelligence.

Ignorance, on the other hand, is relative, so that I admit that I am quite baffled by these terms which are thrown around, 'upside down pixies' and what-not. I suppose using them is meant to show me (and the rest of your audience here) the depth of your knowledge of another branch of science, climatology, when that is your prerogative. About all that I know is 'what I read in the papers,' backed up by what I do know about science in general, and what I have directly observed (when one can often see quite a bit from the cockpit of an aircraft).

Now, here I went and read a newspaper article and cited the fellow who did the original study so that anyone who wants to might be able to go on-line and read it or perhaps go to their local library and check out a copy of the paper to read it that way. I thought that was the way you guys did your science, those of you who are not real scientists, meaning 'almost all of you.'

Well, darn it, you still aren't happy! Never mind; if someone, Mr Binghi perhaps, would be so kind as to speak to the points I raised about the science I read about in the local paper that would be very kind of you. Never mind fulminating about my ignorance or how it is a poorer choice than idiocy; we all must make such choices in life, me for ignorance, you for idiocy, when that is neither here nor there. Just tell me what you think of the science in the article and that will be fine.

Thank you in advance.

P.S. So how does this work, telling someone that you are ignoring them? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

P.P.S. I have to add that ignorance only worked for Socrates up to a point, 'So, guys, this "hemlock" stuff you want me to quaff, is it, like, safe to drink?' (Cue shrugs all around.) 'Oh, okay then, chin-chin!' In much the same way, ignorance of AGW might also have some bad side-effects.

Last edited by chuks; 22nd Jun 2011 at 18:12.
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 17:59
  #8334 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
For the first time in about 10 years I have put someone on my Ignore List-- you!
You too eh.
green granite is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 18:27
  #8335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
seeing as there's never going to be a revelation of this empirical evidence of AGW in Africa that chuks has seen, but it appears is some great secret that cannot be divulged...

i've added him too.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 18:45
  #8336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,331
For 'anti-AGW' read, 'against the widespread view that climate change is being caused or driven in part by the activities of man.'
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding of the bleedin' obvious.
Chuks, that's a bit dishonest. The problem with the presentation of AGW is that it is being caused by man, hence A. It is therefore dishonest to claim that AGW arguments are against the climate being influenced in part by man. That isn't what I find the Anti AGW position to be, though I will also add that the anti AGW voices vary in intensity.

GW, with drivers that include man's activity (and thus "driven in part") remains an open question for some who oppose the certitude of AGW.

Again, the A in AGW means "Man Causes It"

I don't doubt man's activities have influences, as I've seen other areas (overfishing is a classic example, RIP Grand Banks and the North Atlantic Cod, likewise Bluefin Tina unless some better ideas on stewardship are put into place) where man's influence has been counterproductive for mankind.

But quite frankly, so is overpopulation, for reasons other than GW ... though human population is a driver for energy demand and consumption, and thus of non trivial influence on any A in the GW.

But there's no headline in fighting for going to root causes, is there? The
800 pound gorilla in the living room remains ignored.

Disease kills people. Hmm, kill diseases, more people live, cause more problems. Oh, wait, famine! Famine kills people. Feed more people, more people don't die, cause more problems. War! War kills people. Put together international war preventing groups, war ... well, still killing people.

And so on.

I do not accept the blithe assumption that self-inflicted causation ought to merely be accepted. That assumption is accepted by not just the IPCC, it seems, but by a significant percentage of the pols involved in international organizations ... even when the effects of population stress on various land areas (see Sudan) are staring them in the face.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 19:05
  #8337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
You can't say that!

AGW, GW, whatever, for the purposes of a discussion things often get so oversimplified that essential details are obscured or lost. This is not some sort of very simple closed system we are dealing with, some sort of science experiment, but somehow many people want that level of certainty before they accept even that there is a problem.

It's an open question whether the 'no problem' crowd are more dubious than the doomsayers, when the truth must be somewhere in the middle.*

*This penetrating insight was lifted from a PM from someone else. I wish I had thought of it myself, but I didn't. Sort of like Oscar Wilde when he said that he wished that he had said something witty, when someone else said, 'You will, Oscar, you will....'

Last edited by chuks; 23rd Jun 2011 at 15:49.
chuks is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 19:32
  #8338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
It's an open question whether the 'no problem' crowd are more dubious than the doomsayers, when the truth must be somewhere in the middle.
I swore I would never post here again, but like those canards, I won't c.... in ...., the cheque is in the post...

Here encapsulated is the truth!

Ave Chuks...

Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2011, 20:42
  #8339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Too damned hot...

Cacophonix is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2011, 04:55
  #8340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 3,829
The article takes up about 2/3 of one page and is illustrated by a large picture of salt water washing over a meadow, a smaller one of gravity fields which result in differing sea levels worldwide, and, finally, a picture of houses on the Maldives which are built on stilts. 'Diese Häuser auf Stelzen stehen auf den Malediven, für die der Meerespiegelanstieg einen große Bedrohung bedeutet. Die Inseln könnten in absehbarer Zeit versinken,' or 'These houses are on stilts are on the Maldives, which are threatened greatly by rising sea levels. The islands can be submerged in the foreseeable future.'

This ghastly fraud has been perpetrated by Professor Stephen Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for 'Klimafolgenforschung' (research into the consequences of climate warming) with the results published in the Proceedings of the U.S. Academy of Science before being excerpted in this newspaper article.

Not least, those poor fools on the Maldives have blindly built their houses on stilts, spending good money on that, despite having already been told by Dr M. that sea levels there are not rising at all. Why in the world would they do that, do you suppose? Misguided fool that I am, I would take that for empirical evidence that Dr M. is wrong and that sea levels on the Maldives are indeed rising. As in, 'I see you one picture of a tree and raise you a picture of houses on stilts.'
I remain to be convinced that AGW is fact. I say that primarily because of the "Gore" factor. The over hyping of the message detracts from rational passing of information. That and the East Anglia scandal. Too much crying wolf. AGW may well be fact for all I know, but chuks mention of the Maldives raises a point about the message AGW is selling.

Sea levels rising in the Maldives, Tuvalu etc? Well one would expect that given Darwins theory of coral atoll formation. And the fact that many of the Pacific Islands sit on the edge of a subducting tectonic plate. Yet that has had no mention in the debate, from what I've seen. So how much of the rising sea level is down to each component - AGW, subduction, natural atoll formation mechanics per Darwin.

In fact, how much of the rising sea level is down to general tectonic plate movement? I recall reading many years ago the rate at which one part of the British Isles was subsiding and another rising.

In an effort to get a bit of a handle on rising sea levels I thought Holland, among the first world countries, would have immense interest, what with their dykes and all. I could find nothing on the net. Not saying it's not there, I just couldn't find it.
Brian Abraham is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.