Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Prof Prolapse]

BJWoods said:

Even Roger Harrabin reported that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. Al Gore agreed, but still shouted at Roger Harrabin, and made him think he was some sort of' climate sceptic traitor' for daring to ask..

This is supposed to be about science. Where is the paper BJWoods?

Does it even exist?

[Prof Prolapse]

turbobloke said:

Why link to a global warming advocacy blog as opposed to a research journal with a counter result? Could it be that there is no such counter-result? Anybody can always demonstrate that such a counter result exists by posting a link to it. The blog link offered on its own as something meaningful has no such result anywhere to be seen, but it manages to claim a CO2 enhanced tail wagging the natural warming dog but again this is conjecture as the time resolution and methodology outside of papers such as Monnin et al, Petit et al, and so on require speculation as to any role of carbon dioxide. As discussed n times before.

Because it isn't an advocacy blog. It is a summary of the state of the evidence from recognised papers, which are cited, referenced and made available for all to see. Transparancy.

Let me get this straight. You honestly believe that a couple of papers published in "Nature", which is not a climate study journal and is widely criticised in biological circles as having a terribly inconsistent peer review process over rules the references in the link I have provided which are produced using the world of recognised leaders in climatology?

[chris watton]

Prof Prolapse said:

This is supposed to be about science. Where is the paper BJWoods?

Does it even exist?

I ask that same question regarding the lack of a visible human signal to MMGW.....

[Prof Prolapse]

Guam said:

For Reference Skeptical Science is A PRO AGW site (dont be mislead by the name), whilst not as far out there as realclimate, it is NOT a Skeptical Site nor even remotely what would be considered a "Lukewarm site" Useful to review if one keeps the "Position" in mind.


Cheers

Bugger TB to slow again on the AGW advocacy, I will have to ramp up my game now you are back

Edited by Guam on Tuesday 26th April 18:56

Ad-hominem.

Also irrelevent as the explanation is referenced to external papers.

[Prof Prolapse]

mybrainhurts said:

That was all very well until $$$$$$$ became involved in this area. Then we heard from Prof Jones that he intended to rig the peer review process, if necessary. This is the stuff that destroys confidence.

Ad-hominem.

[Prof Prolapse]

chris watton said:

I ask that same question regarding the lack of a visible human signal to MMGW.....

Here is your evidence, nicely summarised:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

[mybrainhurts]

Prof Prolapse said:

Guam said:

For Reference Skeptical Science is A PRO AGW site (dont be mislead by the name), whilst not as far out there as realclimate, it is NOT a Skeptical Site nor even remotely what would be considered a "Lukewarm site" Useful to review if one keeps the "Position" in mind.


Cheers

Bugger TB to slow again on the AGW advocacy, I will have to ramp up my game now you are back

Edited by Guam on Tuesday 26th April 18:56

Ad-hominem.

Also irrelevent as the explanation is referenced to external papers.

Relevant information for anyone unaware of that site.

[Prof Prolapse]

Guam said:

Yes yes we get that (we have been around this particular track umpteen times).

The point is in a "Normal Scientific world" your position would have merit, this is "Climate Pseudo Science" and for much of it the "Peer review process has been shown to be without merit!

ETA where the paper is available outside of paywalls yes I agree, unfortunately such is increasingly not the case (even where funded by Taxpayers).

Ad-hominem.

IPCC reports here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

[Prof Prolapse]

turbobloke said:

This will have to be the last for a while. There was no acceptable means of passing this on when it arrived at TB Towers, if published on here already please accept my apologies in advance.

NOAA ENSO Advisory of early April said:

A transition to ENSO-neutral conditions is expected by June 2011.

La Niña weakened for the third consecutive month, as reflected by increasing surface and subsurface ocean temperatures across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. All four Niño indices ranged between –0.3°C and –0.8°C at the end of March 2011. Subsurface oceanic heat content anomalies (average temperatures in the upper 300m of the ocean) became weakly positive in response to the continued eastward progression of a strong oceanic Kelvin wave, which has begun to shoal in the eastern Pacific. However, the basin wide extent of negative SST anomalies remained considerable throughout the month. Also, La Niña impacts on the atmospheric circulation remained strong over the tropical and subtropical Pacific. Convection remained enhanced over much of Indonesia and suppressed over the western and central equatorial Pacific. Also, anomalous low-level easterly and upper-level westerly winds have persisted in this region. Collectively, these oceanic and atmospheric anomalies reflect a weakening La Niña, but with ongoing global impacts.

No doubt the hottest / second hottest / fairly hot (etc) April (since the previously hotter April but shhhh) in the brief temperature record oft referred to will be touted by the usual suspects. Hopefully I'll be too busy to note such pointless propaganda when it arrives.

Nice summary of the weather.

Do you have a scientific explanation or will I just relay the weather forecast as well in the hope that some dullard believes it reinforces my point without me bothering to provide evidence?

[mybrainhurts]

Prof Prolapse said:

mybrainhurts said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Guam said:

For Reference Skeptical Science is A PRO AGW site (dont be mislead by the name), whilst not as far out there as realclimate, it is NOT a Skeptical Site nor even remotely what would be considered a "Lukewarm site" Useful to review if one keeps the "Position" in mind.


Cheers

Bugger TB to slow again on the AGW advocacy, I will have to ramp up my game now you are back

Edited by Guam on Tuesday 26th April 18:56

Ad-hominem.

Also irrelevent as the explanation is referenced to external papers.

Relevant information for anyone unaware of that site.

Firstly it's not information Guam has provided it's gibberish. Secondly it's not "Pro-MMGW", just because it agrees with the current scientific consensus unless we're discrediting everything that disagrees with you! (Oh crikey what do you think the chances of that are!)

Thirdly, again, it's an ad-hominem!

There is no justification to censor Guam's information regarding the bias of the site.

[chris watton]

Prof Prolapse said:

chris watton said:

I ask that same question regarding the lack of a visible human signal to MMGW.....

Here is your evidence, nicely summarised:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

I am sorry, but that means nothing - I noticed the letters 'IPCC', which kinda counts it out as reliable, doesn't it?

[Dangerous2]

Guam said:

Yes yes we get that (we have been around this particular track umpteen times).

The point is in a "Normal Scientific world" your position would have merit, this is "Climate Pseudo Science" and for much of it the "Peer review process has been shown to be without merit!

ETA where the paper is available outside of paywalls yes I agree, unfortunately such is increasingly not the case (even where funded by Taxpayers).


Cheers

My position is irrelevant to whether the peer review is good or bad, because you make up your own mind whether a paper is any good not, and don't take the fact it's been read by two invisible and anonymous men with beards (or more likely their graduate students).

If you want any papers, let me know and I'll get you a PDF.

[Prof Prolapse]

chris watton said:

I am sorry, but that means nothing - I noticed the letters 'IPCC', which kinda counts it out as reliable, doesn't it?

Only if you lack the capacity to address the science therein and resort to the (guess what?)... ad-hominem argument.

It's actually quite amusing that you believe you even have a point. It's trying to discredit the dictionary just because you met a chap from Oxford University printing press who made a spelling error when he was taking your details.

For the benifit of the ill-informed, the "IPCC" isn't a group of corrupt scientists who sat down and wrote a book. They were a group of leading climatologists assembled to review the state of the current literature. Believe it or not they probably even review the "grey literature" about Plankton that Turbobloke likes to parade around.

[turbobloke]

Prof Prolapse said:

chris watton said:

I ask that same question regarding the lack of a visible human signal to MMGW.....

Here is your evidence, nicely summarised:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

There's no global climate (temperature) data with a visible causal human signal in any IPCC report, your post appears to be incorrect in addressing chris w's point by linking to AR4, however such an error is difficult to read as accidental.

Evidence for AGW can only be global climate data with a visible and causal human signal. This does not exist as the IPCC has acknowledged before resorting to percentage based statements of faith in their own belief system.

As the same old non-evidence is being reheated and served up, this thread appears, sadly, to be destined for the same ending as its predecessors and via the same route.

[BJWoods]

Prof Prolapse said:

BJWoods said:

Even Roger Harrabin reported that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. Al Gore agreed, but still shouted at Roger Harrabin, and made him think he was some sort of' climate sceptic traitor' for daring to ask..

This is supposed to be about science. Where is the paper BJWoods?

Does it even exist?

The BBC's Roger Harrabin is a well respected Environment Analyst, he was reporting for the BBC, about the Inconvenient Truth, and quoting the UK Court Judgement on inaccuracies about the 'film'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

Harrabin: "On the remaining point - Mr Gore's implication that ice core records prove that CO2 rises drove shifts in Ice Ages - the judge is spot on.

The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.

The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. "

If we can't 'trust' the BBC's own evironemntal analyst on Pistonheads, what is the point of this discussion.

I have also just noticed, when I tried to quote you on this thread, it did not quote properly, and left the comment looking like it was your words not mine..

I have also reported this to PH.

[Prof Prolapse]

BJWoods said:

Prof Prolapse said:

BJWoods said:

Even Roger Harrabin reported that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record. Al Gore agreed, but still shouted at Roger Harrabin, and made him think he was some sort of' climate sceptic traitor' for daring to ask..

This is supposed to be about science. Where is the paper BJWoods?

Does it even exist?

The BBC's Roger Harrabin is a well respected Environment Analyst, he was reporting for the BBC, about the Inconvenient Truth, and quoting the UK Court Judgement on inaccuracies about the 'film'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm

Harrabin: "On the remaining point - Mr Gore's implication that ice core records prove that CO2 rises drove shifts in Ice Ages - the judge is spot on.

The vice-president cleverly lures the viewer into making the calculation that CO2 drove historical climate change by presenting graphs and asking the audience if they fit.

The movie is product of a political debate - as is the court case
Well, the graphs do fit - but what Mr Gore fails to mention in the film is that mainstream scientists believe that historically the temperature shifted due to our changing relationship with the Sun, with warmer climes unlocking CO2 from the oceans, which amplified global temperature rise. "

If we can't 'trust' the BBC's own evironemntal analyst on Pistonheads, what is the point of this discussion.

I have also just noticed, when I tried to quote you on this thread, it did not quote properly, and left the comment looking like it was your words not mine..

I have also reported this to PH.

Oh yes technical error was it? No harm done... What do you think the chances of that were? Quite slim I expect...

Anyway, you have evaded my request.

Where is the paper? Where is the reviewed scientific evidence that justifies your claim?

ETA: Your claim was "that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record.", (Unless we are just recounting reviews of movies we've seen? In which case, perhaps we could start another thread and keep this one about the science).

Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 26th April 22:04

[mybrainhurts]

Prof Prolapse said:

Other than three I just gave you and fact it is an ad-hominem and the moderator made it very clear this was not the purpose of the thread and would not be tolerated?

You missed my question regarding this and Ex's response.

You are wrong.

[Dangerous2]

Guam said:

You may regret that offer

It is tiresome having to pay for regular Academic papers and only rely on Abstracts, I did have a mutter about that on Judith Curry's Blog and enquired as to where that cash goes

no, seriously, no problem, pm me and if I have access I can send you the PDF.

As someone who does research that is paid for by the taxpayer I consider it pretty stupid that the result of my research are not available free to those same taxpayers. The scientific publishing situation is a bit of a con if you ask me.

Edited by Guam on Tuesday 26th April 22:48

[VPower]

As someone who has followed this topic on PH for a long time, I'm sad to see the same-old tactics still being used to try and stop people like me (lay person) benefiting from the presentation of credible science and new information.

To explain this further!
I have just this very minute finished reading "THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION" by A.W.MONTFORD.

This book clearly explains what happened and I believe somewhat why!

For those of you, who like me want to understand the issues being debated here (AND the tactics of some) on this and some other threads, I suggest you read this book ASAP!

If the "Shot-Gun" tactics continue, I, ME, YES ME, WILL report it to the mods, as I'm fed up with them already

[perdu]

Guam said:

VPower said:

As someone who has followed this topic on PH for a long time, I'm sad to see the same-old tactics still being used to try and stop people like me (lay person) benefiting from the presentation of credible science and new information.

To explain this further!
I have just this very minute finished reading "THE HOCKEY STICK ILLUSION" by A.W.MONTFORD.

This book clearly explains what happened and I believe somewhat why!

For those of you, who like me want to understand the issues being debated here (AND the tactics of some) on this and some other threads, I suggest you read this book ASAP!

If the "Shot-Gun" tactics continue, I, ME, YES ME, WILL report it to the mods, as I'm fed up with them already

Dont worry EXC has some help now I understand, there will be no return to the bad old days, as I understand it

All well and good, I am glad that The Exc has "back up".

But having just digested http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/ again I am entirely with VPower because-

Every time we get the basic premise of a science discussion thread a science sounding person pops up with accusations of Ad-Homs all round

Tiresome doesn't even begin to...

Next we get the same old baloney.

Do we also get the "five Climate scientists" bollix?

Omigod I hope not

I am alarmed

something read wrong at the beginning of this WELCOME new thread



anyway

did I mention welcome?