Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#1120428 - 16/08/2012 10:51 Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only)
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
I am starting a new thread for those who wish to discuss and debate in a kind and respectful manner to each other.
No unfriendly & rude & disrepectful comments allowed.
Please follow these guidelines, thanking you all.
Cheers


Edited by bd bucketingdown (16/08/2012 10:52)

Top
#1120437 - 16/08/2012 11:22 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Thank you for establishing this BD. I sincerely hope that everyone from both sides avoids snide and politicky remarks and sticks to discussing the topic.

As a first suggestion, I would like to raise a question to both sides of the debate here:

Is the science at fault for the current debacle? Or are we merely scapegoating those whose poor communication has meant that their opinions, research and thoughts are hijacked by environmentalist radical elements and politically motivated groups.

A case and point has to be the 'Garnaut review' - where an economist was put in charge of offering recommendations on action on climate science. He had no legitimate scientific expertise for this purpose and yet came to the conclusion that something needed to be done that involved economists. In effect this was the precursor to the carbon tax, (strictly a wealth redistribution anyway), not a scientific agenda.

The IPCC AR are also an interesting thing to look at: solid research of many authors being distilled into a unified document by individuals (who may or may not have various politically or funding related biases), to giving some overall picture of the scientific perspective. (I'm referring to WG1 here which has more scientific origins, not WG3 which seems to lack peer-reviewed literature for much of what is included) Given that it is also the Inter-governmental Panel, is it possible that its organisational structure precludes an unbiased version of the science at a level beyond the scientists who originally contributed the research? I.E. is the alarmist perspective overplayed as compared to the uncertainties?

Is there a bias within the skeptical side of the debate that means they are unable to consider reason as suggested by some groups, or is it more reflecting a conservative and scientific approach to deal with uncertainty? Are large portions of this debate just simply a mis-understanding resulting from the internalised and private nature of scientists?

I would appreciate standing points from any who care to follow BD's rules. I would also respectfully suggest that this is more a discussion thread, not somewhere to place propagandist pieces from either side. Hence perhaps we should stick to results, data and discussion?


Edited by Severely Tall (16/08/2012 11:24)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1120438 - 16/08/2012 11:22 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Greetings all you friendly weather and climate loving posters!
It is interesting that after a long period of above average ocean surface temps around australia,
we have now dropped to this below average scenario atm.

Cheers Ian

PS 1 Thanks for the first post ST and the encouragment.
Your points are well raised and stated there...Thanks again.

PS 2 This new thread has started off on a good note, hope it stays that way, with advance thanks to all. This new thread and the ENSO thread may be the only ones I frequent from now on all or most of the time.


Edited by bd bucketingdown (16/08/2012 11:28)

Top
#1120440 - 16/08/2012 11:26 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Seems like some serious negative anomalies over the Northwest shelf there Ian. It will be interesting to see what will evolve with respect to rainfall for the upcoming spring/summer and what sort of ENSO phase/IOD phase we see in place.
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1120441 - 16/08/2012 11:30 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Severely Tall]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
It is not atm and would be unlikely in that colder than normal state to produce any NW Cloud-band of note!
Yes, ST, interesting year for sure, these unusual SST pattern years are always the hardest to pick, but the most interesting also I reckon.

Top
#1120446 - 16/08/2012 11:55 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Severely Tall]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Severely Tall
Thank you for establishing this BD. I sincerely hope that everyone from both sides avoids snide and politicky remarks and sticks to discussing the topic.

As a first suggestion, I would like to raise a question to both sides of the debate here:

Is the science at fault for the current debacle? Or are we merely scapegoating those whose poor communication has meant that their opinions, research and thoughts are hijacked by environmentalist radical elements and politically motivated groups.

A case and point has to be the 'Garnaut review' - where an economist was put in charge of offering recommendations on action on climate science. He had no legitimate scientific expertise for this purpose and yet came to the conclusion that something needed to be done that involved economists. In effect this was the precursor to the carbon tax, (strictly a wealth redistribution anyway), not a scientific agenda.

The IPCC AR are also an interesting thing to look at: solid research of many authors being distilled into a unified document by individuals (who may or may not have various politically or funding related biases), to giving some overall picture of the scientific perspective. (I'm referring to WG1 here which has more scientific origins, not WG3 which seems to lack peer-reviewed literature for much of what is included) Given that it is also the Inter-governmental Panel, is it possible that its organisational structure precludes an unbiased version of the science at a level beyond the scientists who originally contributed the research? I.E. is the alarmist perspective overplayed as compared to the uncertainties?

Is there a bias within the skeptical side of the debate that means they are unable to consider reason as suggested by some groups, or is it more reflecting a conservative and scientific approach to deal with uncertainty? Are large portions of this debate just simply a mis-understanding resulting from the internalised and private nature of scientists?

I would appreciate standing points from any who care to follow BD's rules. I would also respectfully suggest that this is more a discussion thread, not somewhere to place propagandist pieces from either side. Hence perhaps we should stick to results, data and discussion?


The Garnaut review is a great place to start our journey on.

This link has a wealth of information and links to the peer reviewed science that went into the Garnaut review.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/chapter1.html

Conclusion

In order to understand the mechanisms and implications of climate change, an interested non-scientist must draw on the publications of experts in the field. In this sense, the challenge facing each of us can be compared to that facing a judge in a court of law, who must make a decision on a balance of probabilities. How often does a case come before one of Australia’s superior courts where the defence is so weak that it cannot find a so-called expert to blow a fog through the proceedings? The judge’s job is to avoid wrong steps through the fog—to assess the chances that the opinion of just one so-called expert is more likely to be right than the established opinion.

The evidence for the prosecution in this case is considerable. The most important and straightforward of the quantitatively testable propositions from the mainstream science—upward trends in average temperatures and increases in sea levels—have been either confirmed or shown to be understated by the passing of time.

Some important parameters have been subject to better testing as measurement techniques have improved and numbers of observations increased. On these, too, the mainstream science’s hypotheses have been confirmed. They include the warming of the troposphere relative to the stratosphere, and the long-term shift towards wet extremes and hot extremes.

The science’s forecast of greater frequency of some extreme events and greater intensity of a wider range of extreme events is looking uncomfortably robust.

A number of measureable changes are pointing to more rapid movement towards climate tipping points than previously suggested by the mainstream science. The rates of reduction in Arctic sea ice and the accumulation of methane in the atmosphere are examples.

Indeed, scientific developments since 2008 have introduced additional caution about whether ‘overshooting’ emissions scenarios—where green-house gas concentrations peak above a goal before declining—will lead to temperature increases that are not quickly reversible.

Regrettably, there are no major propositions of the mainstream science from 2008 that have been weakened by the observational evidence or the improved understanding of climate processes over the past three years.

The politicisation of the science as many countries have moved towards stronger action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has placed institutions conducting the science under great scrutiny. Exhaustive reviews have revealed some weaknesses in execution of the scientific mandate, but none that is material to the reliability of the main propositions of the mainstream science.

There is still a high degree of uncertainty about myriad important details of the impact of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. But the uncertainty in the science is generally associated with the rate and magnitude, rather than the direction, of the conclusions.

Indeed, the consistency of the understatement since climate change became a large policy issue in the early 1990s is a cause for concern. It would be much more of a surprise if the next large assessment of the IPCC in 2014 led to a downward rather than upward revision of expectations of damage from unmitigated climate change.

This raises a question whether scientific research on climate change has a systematic tendency to understatement. It may be tempting to correct for this by giving more weight to the more concerned end of published research. This would be a mistake. In a highly contested and complex scientific matter with immense implications for public policy it is important to base policy on the established propositions of the science.

In drawing our judgment on the science, the evidence is now so strong that it is appropriate that we move beyond the civil court parameters of ‘balance of probabilities’ that I applied in 2008 towards the more rigorous criminal court conclusion of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/notes.html

_________________________

Top
#1120449 - 16/08/2012 12:00 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: CeeBee]
S .O. Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1540
Loc: Southern Victoria
well the " DISCUSSION " started well ....

Then 20 words of " wisdom " , and a link


Spammed again .
_________________________
" Solar Powered "

Top
#1120451 - 16/08/2012 12:08 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
"Thank you for establishing this BD. I sincerely hope that everyone from both sides avoids snide and politicky remarks and sticks to discussing the topic.

As a first suggestion, I would like to raise a question to both sides of the debate here:

Is the science at fault for the current debacle? Or are we merely scapegoating those whose poor communication has meant that their opinions, research and thoughts are hijacked by environmentalist radical elements and politically motivated groups.

A case and point has to be the 'Garnaut review' - where an economist was put in charge of offering recommendations on action on climate science. He had no legitimate scientific expertise for this purpose and yet came to the conclusion that something needed to be done that involved economists. In effect this was the precursor to the carbon tax, (strictly a wealth redistribution anyway), not a scientific agenda.

The IPCC AR are also an interesting thing to look at: solid research of many authors being distilled into a unified document by individuals (who may or may not have various politically or funding related biases), to giving some overall picture of the scientific perspective. (I'm referring to WG1 here which has more scientific origins, not WG3 which seems to lack peer-reviewed literature for much of what is included) Given that it is also the Inter-governmental Panel, is it possible that its organisational structure precludes an unbiased version of the science at a level beyond the scientists who originally contributed the research? I.E. is the alarmist perspective overplayed as compared to the uncertainties?

Is there a bias within the skeptical side of the debate that means they are unable to consider reason as suggested by some groups, or is it more reflecting a conservative and scientific approach to deal with uncertainty? Are large portions of this debate just simply a mis-understanding resulting from the internalised and private nature of scientists?

I would appreciate standing points from any who care to follow BD's rules. I would also respectfully suggest that this is more a discussion thread, not somewhere to place propagandist pieces from either side. Hence perhaps we should stick to results, data and discussion?
"

Thanks for your input CB, however, it may be better to stick to ST added "rules" and make this more of a discussion thread rather than a place to just put "cut and paste" articles.
A personal discussion of your opinion on Gaurnuat or however one spells it, sorry, review, or the IPCC a personal discussion...however even that is not really, I feel, what ST was after, ST is trying to look at why there is so much controversy and confusion on the whole issue.
Small quotations would be fine CB and others, but I think ST suggestion of no "cut & paste" pieces woulf add better value and make this thread a more friendly kind discussion thread as intended. Thanks very much for your input and co-operation CB and all. Cheers

Top
#1120453 - 16/08/2012 12:11 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
So please no cut & paste folks. Just friendly, nice,climate and weather discussion only and maybe small one sentence quotations only if really neccessary...thanking you all, it is not much to ask for those of us who like to have peace, discussion andn friendliness on ONE Thread.
Please help out all posters. Thanking you all once again in advance.
Cheers

Top
#1120455 - 16/08/2012 12:18 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654


How about we thrash this point out.

Because Garnaut is not a climate scientist should that preclude him from making any recommendations on action on climate science?

I recommend reading the review first before answering that question.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/chapter1.html
_________________________

Top
#1120458 - 16/08/2012 12:37 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Yes, fine, that is a much better approach CB, but maybe add a paragraph or two or three on why you agree with his ability and why he is capable of doing this report in your words and opinion, so we know where you are coming from...a link still does not help us really understand what you are thinking, here I am saying this sincerely and in a friendly manner...Then maybe other will give their opinion and discussion...ALL posters using the thread guidelines.
WE are ALL up to hearing what you think of the man and his abilities and why he is able to do this...imo the report itself is not the actual question from ST. He imo wants to know why a climate scientist or three, plus some other experts related to the field of climate science were not asked to do the report, maybe Gaunaut could have been added to the money side of it all, but even there maybe he has no background in climate science at all? Discussion, go for it folks in the guidelines manner.
Cheers

Top
#1120474 - 16/08/2012 13:48 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Sure BD.

We've established that Garnaut has no qualifications as a climate scientist. Because of that he has relied on qualified climate scientists for the science that went into the review.

That is the right approach in my view. He gathered information from the experts in each field and used that information to make informed decisions.

That is the crux of it - informed decisions based on information from experts.





_________________________

Top
#1120483 - 16/08/2012 14:45 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Interesting to see the change from southern summer to northern summer...we do not get the above average sst area near over the SH that the NH gets. Same as ice extent difference with NH melting more than average, while SH stays the same or increases.
cheers all




Edited by bd bucketingdown (16/08/2012 14:46)

Top
#1120492 - 16/08/2012 15:02 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Severely Tall Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/11/2006
Posts: 751
Loc: Melbourne, Victoria
Ahh but Ceebee,
I wasn't questioning whether the science that went into the review was wrong (as to do so would be to go against the research presented which is not entirely fair), but the outcomes from that scientific interpretation of results to the conclusion. I still wonder, was Garnaut the best person to formulate a response based on his background, given that his expertise is not in the field (given your previous statements about people without background in the field staying out of the discussion)? This conceptualisation of a carbon price through whatever mechanism realistically achieves nothing but setting up a second economy - that employs numerous economists. A quick review of the resulting Carbon Tax legislation reveals that rather than decreasing our emissions, it instead allows us to increase our emissions under the guise of carbon credits purchased during the late part of the scheme (2016-2020) after the ETS comes into effect. Clearly Garnauts review was not treated seriously by the politicians given his beyond reasonable doubt conclusions. So was letting Garnaut offer this review the best approach to take?

The question remains: Did Garnaut offer a fair and valid assessment of the apparent seriousness of the situation, or was his goals in communicating this information to parliment biased by his profession and interest in an economic solution rather than achieving anything? It is one thing for the science to be solid, but remember, what the parliment is 2nd or 3rd hand information.

An important point I must stipulate here - My reference to Garnaut goes back to the non-linkage between the Scientists and the implemented measure - in effect, what influence does the middle man have?

I guess where I am pointing to here is that alot of dis-information has suggested that somehow the scientists = carbon tax, when the reality is that scientists offer a supported hypothesis, and regardless of your orientation its important to realise that the Garnaut review is not climate science, but instead an informed opinion with a suggestion to solution. It is likely inevitable that along the course that the perception and solution may be distorted.


Edited by Severely Tall (16/08/2012 15:10)
_________________________
Photography: www.emanatephotography.com
Follow our chasing on: www.huntersofthunder.com or follow us on facebook: www.facebook.com/huntersofthunder
2011/2012 Australian Season DVD 'Another Level'available now www.emanatephotography.com/hunters.html

Top
#1120496 - 16/08/2012 15:16 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Severely Tall]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Garnaut as he had no expertise, did just what you and I and all are doing(except some of use do, in fact, have careers in line with weather & climate) therefore, his findings on climate science are only as valid as any person who has read the data and experts and have come to an opinion. Therefore, he may be right or may be wrong or may be in the middle, some of us are more qualified to judge better as we have a good grounding in the subject and the subject matter.

Top
#1120502 - 16/08/2012 15:59 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Severely Tall]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2654
Originally Posted By: Severely Tall
Ahh but Ceebee,
I wasn't questioning whether the science that went into the review was wrong (as to do so would be to go against the research presented which is not entirely fair), but the outcomes from that scientific interpretation of results to the conclusion. I still wonder, was Garnaut the best person to formulate a response based on his background, given that his expertise is not in the field (given your previous statements about people without background in the field staying out of the discussion)? This conceptualisation of a carbon price through whatever mechanism realistically achieves nothing but setting up a second economy - that employs numerous economists. A quick review of the resulting Carbon Tax legislation reveals that rather than decreasing our emissions, it instead allows us to increase our emissions under the guise of carbon credits purchased during the late part of the scheme (2016-2020) after the ETS comes into effect. Clearly Garnauts review was not treated seriously by the politicians given his beyond reasonable doubt conclusions. So was letting Garnaut offer this review the best approach to take?

The question remains: Did Garnaut offer a fair and valid assessment of the apparent seriousness of the situation, or was his goals in communicating this information to parliment biased by his profession and interest in an economic solution rather than achieving anything? It is one thing for the science to be solid, but remember, what the parliment is 2nd or 3rd hand information.

An important point I must stipulate here - My reference to Garnaut goes back to the non-linkage between the Scientists and the implemented measure - in effect, what influence does the middle man have?

I guess where I am pointing to here is that alot of dis-information has suggested that somehow the scientists = carbon tax, when the reality is that scientists offer a supported hypothesis, and regardless of your orientation its important to realise that the Garnaut review is not climate science, but instead an informed opinion with a suggestion to solution. It is likely inevitable that along the course that the perception and solution may be distorted.


I've edited this post to be inline with the current rules. BD is correct in saying that he said / she said is not on topic. Please keep on course please.

Greg





Edited by Greg Sorenson (24/10/2012 16:24)
_________________________

Top
#1120513 - 16/08/2012 16:27 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
That is not a post allowed on this thread thank you CB, stick to friendly discussion and leave those sort of remarks out of it.
THis thread is NOT for those sort of "I said...you said" remarks.
Take them to the other threads please and leave them out of here thank you very much.
Surely we can have ONE thread without such remarks...please do us that small courtesy thanks, surely you can do that, it is not hard to do!!!!!!!!!!!


Edited by bd bucketingdown (16/08/2012 16:28)

Top
#1120523 - 16/08/2012 16:48 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Severely Tall]
Tom1234 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 08/04/2011
Posts: 1709
Loc: Port Stephens
Originally Posted By: Severely Tall


Is there a bias within the skeptical side of the debate that means they are unable to consider reason as suggested by some groups, or is it more reflecting a conservative and scientific approach to deal with uncertainty?



Its psych 101 that humans are afraid of and have difficulty when it comes to uncertainty. Our experiential system is designed so that we can avoid feelings of dread. The problem with experiential thinking is that for the most part in our evolution we have never faced the concerns we are facing now.

By nature we are not designed to think 50-100 years ahead because we have lived day to day for 99.99% of our existence.
As an amateur environmental Psychology buff i feel these issues play a part in sceptical thinking.


As for Garnaut, it's been a few years since i read one of his reports so i cant really remember the content. I dont know if he had help writing his papers? Having an economist is probably not the best look, but i don't think government agencies actually care about that. If they did care then why not use a climate scientist to add some credibility?

Top
#1120531 - 16/08/2012 16:55 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: Tom1234]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6044
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
sorry, not viewing anymore from 2 posters on the threads!
cheers


Edited by bd bucketingdown (16/08/2012 16:56)

Top
#1120546 - 16/08/2012 17:27 Re: Climate change thread (For kind & respectful posting only) [Re: bd bucketingdown]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Quote:
The problem with experiential thinking is that for the most part in our evolution we have never faced the concerns we are facing now.


Enrique, I've said this before and I'll say it again. WE have faced far greater concerns then climate change in our lives. My parents were teenagers during WW2 with the Japanese knocking at our doorstep. I grew-up during the 'Cold War'. Forget 50-100 years for something that may or may not happen, our concern WAS on a day-to-day basis. Our fear was what's going to happen next week, tomorrow, or even today.

We weren't taught climate change at school, we were taught 'survival'. I can still remember to this day, our weekly practice of diving under the school desk at the first sign of a 'flash'. Lot of good that would have done anyway.

Finishing, I will repeat........you will never know on how close it got.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 40 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
mikesox, muddy
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24185 Topics
1528886 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image