Page 16 of 18 < 1 2 ... 14 15 16 17 18 >
Topic Options
#13661 - 10/11/2006 15:06 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BOM99 Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/08/2004
Posts: 4645
Loc: Australia
The deep ocean conveyor may play a role with surface temps, not sure, but first I want to mention this...

This is a very important question that needs a definite answer, is this correct....

Found in the telegraph article from the UK.

"the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels."

Found in the link to the telegraph article from the UK.

"The double graph, reproduced below lists CO2 concentration above temperature: but, if the two graphs
were superimposed at sufficient scale, as is customary when comparing such similar curves, changes in
temperature would be seen to precede changes in CO2 concentration by 400 to 4,000 years."

I once had this argument that the warming climate causes more plant growth and biological activity thus more CO2, but CO2 is not the real cause of global warming, CO2 could be just a by-product and minor contributor to something else that causes the real warming, which would fit in with the above statement.

The real problem with trying to predict global warming as I was once told by a meteorologist is "That the current global warming if caused primarily by CO2 has never had a historical equivalent on this planet". It is quite true that the Earth has never in its history seen a CO2 increase like what is happening right now. CO2 was not the cause for past warm periods be it the medieval or 125k years ago in an interglacial. What is happening now is quite unique and we have nothing to compare it to. This however by no means disproves the possibility that the current increases in CO2 could cause untold global warming.

What is really needed is to nut out the science precisely of exactly what temperature rise CO2 does cause. Meteorology still fails to correctly predict radiation loss of energy into space, there are still many questions that puzzle me about this like some things about grass minimums. This science will have to be solved without comparisons to anything that has happened in the past, just pure hard physics laws of what is happening right now.

Top
#13662 - 10/11/2006 16:24 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Rob G Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 31/07/2003
Posts: 673
Loc: Porters Retreat NSW
One factor I thought may have been overlooked re the WA reef is the possibility of a small scale geological uplift, though I think it unlikely for an ancient continent like Australia.

Top
#13663 - 10/11/2006 21:04 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
Ian, the quote is ambiguous & contains no data for the 2-3C figure. It does not specify that this was the global number... For example we know that the warming was most marked in the Northern Hemisphere because the insolation anomalies were positive in the summer in the NH (and winter in the SH) providing a strong albedo-temperature feedback. The higher sea levels were largely a result of the massive melt back of Greenland (Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future
Ice-Sheet Instability and
Rapid Sea-Level Rise, Science, 31, 1747-).

This is no basis for rejecting Hansen's recent paper which had detailed timeseries from coral cores dating back 100,000s of year.

But... is this the message to be take from the paper? Surely the key message is that small warmings as seen not that far in the past can trigger very large sea level rises and massive changes in ecosystems.

Hill Billy
I think it does give good reason to doubt Hansen's figures, because as has already been pointed out, not only were sea levels probably 3 to 4 metres higher, this coral outcrop is about 600 km south of the today's southernmost corals on this coast, therefore having two separate indicators pointing strongly to the conclusion that the Earth was warmer than today about 125,000 years ago, and also by inference hints at a non-linearity problem with using coral as a temperature proxy, as Hansen did not find it warmer back then using coral proxies.

As a likely mechanism for the failure of coral core proxies to be interpretated as recording higher temperatures at times in the past than those experienced today, one needs look no further than the Great Barrier Reef, where coral slows or stops altogether once water temperature rises above optimum temperature, and if too warm the coral can be bleached and die, which is a big concern for those looking after the reef.

Like tree rings, once again, we find a biological temperature proxy with ambiguous interpretation of observed growth - i.e. less growth equals hotter or colder than optimum - and the inescapable conclusion that given the way the very existence of this reef in SW WA contradicts Hansen, it is quite likely he simply assumed less coral growth equals cooler, thus incorrectly concluding it is as warm or warmer now that it has been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Top
#13664 - 11/11/2006 07:50 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>If the temps are the same or higher now than the interglacial period 125,000years ago, then why is not the sea level at the same height now as then? And why did we have a coral reef in an area that now has obviously too cold ocean temps? There is no argument to those questions David

All I can say is hold your horses! See level is rising at 3mm a year and accelerating. It is NOT in equilibrium with global warming and will take centuries to stabilise. Same goes for Coral... for example we are seeing the emergence of soft corals along the east coast of Tasmania and at the same time have lost about half the kelp forests (a cold water species) in the last 50 years.

Ecosystems are not in balance with the current climate which has warmed at a rate far faster than ecosystems can migrate. It will also warm another 0.5-1C regardless of what we do with CO2 owing to inertia in the system.

But once again, why are you taking consolation from this study? It shows that a climate hardly warmer (if not the same as the current) witnessed far higher sea level rise, and we know this sea level rise was because around half of Greenland melted. The Arctic is now warming at a disbelievable rate with massive wastage of sea ice (having declined nearly 25% in 25 years), thermafrost disappearing all over the place. Greenland is warming very rapidly with the North Atlantic Oscillation no longer acting to protect it from global warming. These are all observations unfolding before your eyes.... they are not the stuff of climate prediction for 2050 or 2100.

Hill Billy

Top
#13665 - 11/11/2006 07:54 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>SW WA contradicts Hansen, it is quite likely he simply assumed less coral growth equals cooler, thus incorrectly concluding it is as warm or warmer now that it has been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Carl you clearly do not realise that many of the oceanic proxies actually relate to the ratio of various isotopes which are modified by temperature rather than growth rates.

Top
#13666 - 11/11/2006 08:09 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
Do you somehow not believe the facts of the coral reef in SW WA, David...the facts are unarguable... a coral reef well south by a huge margin from current coral reef sea temperature boundaries, and 3 to 4m higher than current sea levels...yet you just browse over all that without almost any reference at all, and then go off to something else different to the SW WA topic under discussion! The coral measurement is an aside subject and does in no way affect the results of the coral reef in SW WA finding, or the resultant implications to the global long term temperature series debate...or do you not believe that they have found a coral reef there?

Top
#13667 - 11/11/2006 15:55 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
>SW WA contradicts Hansen, it is quite likely he simply assumed less coral growth equals cooler, thus incorrectly concluding it is as warm or warmer now that it has been for hundreds of thousands of years.

Carl you clearly do not realise that many of the oceanic proxies actually relate to the ratio of various isotopes which are modified by temperature rather than growth rates.
David, I'm not sure what specific methods were used by Hansen, and after doing some more reading, I am probably wrong about using coral growth for reconstructions, as isotope ratios seem to be the preferred method - however this does not mean the isotope ratios are immune from contamination by the effects of non-linear growth, among other things.

While looking for information on isotopes in corals I came across this interesting online paper, which in part takes a comprehensive look at factors influencing various isotope ratios relevant to SST reconstructions - reading it did little to reduce my concerns about the accuracy of Hansen's work:

Sea surface temperature and salinity reconstruction from coral geochemical tracers
by Thierry Corrège,
UR055 Paléotropique, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), 32 Avenue Henri-Varagnat, 93143 Bondy cedex, France
Received 9 December 2004;  revised 16 September 2005;  accepted 17 October 2005. 
Available online 28 February 2006.

Here is the full Abstract:

"Massive scleractinian corals secrete an aragonitic skeleton which incorporates a large array of chemical tracers. Corals present several advantages for palaeoclimate research: they grow continuously, and can live up to 1000 years; they are easy to date; and they can be sampled at high resolution (weekly to monthly resolution). Both live and fossil corals can be collected in the field. In the past two decades, significant efforts have been made to identify robust tracers of sea surface temperature (SST) and salinity (SSS) in corals. To date, Sr/Ca and d18O are considered to be the most reliable SST tracers, although changes in seawater d18O can significantly alter SST reconstructed from coralline d18O. Because these variations in seawater d18O can be linked to SSS changes, this initial problem can in fact be turned into an advantage and provide us with an SSS tracer. The SST component in the coral d18O signal can either be evaluated through Sr/Ca measurements, or in some case simply filtered out. However, there is still much uncertainty concerning the exact mode of incorporation of trace elements and stable isotopes into the coral skeleton. The effects of growth rate, light intensity, feeding habits, pH and water chemistry are still poorly documented. A review of the strength and weaknesses of Sr/Ca and d18O is presented, together with some examples of SST and SSS reconstructions. Other potential SST tracers are also reviewed. It is expected that the ability to grow corals in aquarium under controlled conditions, and that the development of sophisticated analytical techniques at the micrometric level should help us understand better the robustness of each tracers and the factors controlling their incorporation in coral aragonite."

And some extracts from the main text that illustrate some of the uncertainties that effect coral SST reconstructions:

"Despite more than 120 years of research in this field, the exact process by which corals form their skeleton is still not fully understood..."

"Sea surface temperature (SST) is one of the most important parameters in oceanographic and climate studies and is certainly the one that has received the most attention. The behaviour of many chemical elements, from isotopes to trace metals, is believed to be more or less linked to change in temperature, thus providing us with a large array of potential SST tracers. The difficulty however, is to understand the exact nature of the SST influence, and to separate it from other potential sources of variation affecting a tracer."

"Indeed, one of the prerequisites for a temperature tracer is that its concentration in seawater is stable through time. d18O is strongly influenced by the precipitation/evaporation ratio, whereas Sr/Ca is believed to be more stable in seawater. Subtle changes in the seawater Sr/Ca ratio through space... and time... can however affect the accuracy of reconstructed SST."

"The concentration of both Sr2+ and Ca2+ in seawater also affects the Sr/Ca measured in corals. It is in fact a prerequisite when using Sr/Ca for palaeothermometry to assume that the Sr/Ca ratio of seawater is constant over space and time. It has been shown that this is probably not the case, and that seawater Sr/Ca ratio can vary slightly in the modern ocean... Over glacial–interglacial cycles, the erosion of exposed carbonate shelves can also potentially alter the seawater Sr/Ca... The effect of the variability of seawater Sr/Ca in space and time on reconstructed SST could be 0.2 °C to 2 °C. However, these estimates should be re-evaluated because they do not take into account the fact that Sr2+ incorporation in corals depends on the absolute Ca2+ concentration in seawater..."

"The final question regarding the robustness of the Sr/Ca palaeothermometer is the fact that, as shown in Table 1, there is a large array of published calibration equations linking Sr/Ca to SST. It can be argued that part of this discrepancy is due to the lack of a common standard for the precise measure of Sr/Ca between different laboratories (equivalent to NBS-19 for stable isotopes standardization), or to the use of different analytical methods (TIMS, ICP-MS, ICP-AES, etc.). However, as pointed out by others... the way calibrations are constructed is highly variable and could account for most of the discrepancy."

"d18O has been widely used as a tracers of SST, despite the fact that variability in seawater d18O is much larger than that of Sr/Ca, and can affect SST reconstructions."

"Essentially, the discussion presented in the previous chapter on the reliability of Sr/Ca as a palaeothermometer could be repeated for d18O..."

"Analyses on Porites samples indicate that, similar to Sr/Ca ratios, d18O variability is high at micrometric levels and cannot be explained by temperature fractionation..."

"The complexity of the various factors discussed above, and the fact that the d18O value of seawater is not always properly known may explain the variation in calibration of coral d18O vs. SST published to date. Usually, the value of the slope varies between 0.18‰ °C^-1 and 0.22‰ °C^-1. The general conclusion of the review presented above is that, like Sr/Ca, changes in d18O are most probably largely driven by SST variations. However, many other factors can influence d18O in coral skeleton, and before we understand their relative importance in the final measured d18O, we should bear in mind the potential error they can introduce in reconstructed SST."

Top
#13668 - 12/11/2006 08:11 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>Do you somehow not believe the facts of the coral reef in SW WA, David...the facts are unarguable... a coral reef well south by a huge margin from current coral reef sea temperature boundaries, and 3 to 4m higher than current sea levels.

Ian, I believe it.. but your interpretation is wrong. These data are not proof that it was warmer before. Sea level continues to rise and ecosystems continue to migrate as they are not in equilbrium with the current climate. It is quite concievable that we are already committed to a sea level rise like that at the peak of the last interglacial.

Top
#13669 - 12/11/2006 08:18 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Prehaps you might want to email Thierry and ask him whether he believes temperature reconstructions based on coral data are valid...

Coral/isotope based reconstruction of temperature are used extensively, including by some of the most vocal climate change sceptics (who pretend past climate variability mean the current changes are not human induced). BTW, given that you reject all the proxy methods, are you willing to accept the 2-3C figure quoted in the paper?

BTW, the errors you highlight are random which are easily removed by simply aggregating data.

Hill Billy.

Top
#13670 - 12/11/2006 08:27 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
"These data are not proof that it was warmer before."
Quote David

Expand on that please, David...you can't just sweep away all the evidence from the study with a single sentence containing not a single fact in it at all!
Anyone can say a sentence like that which has nothing to back it up!
How does not the 3 to 4m higher sea level & the hugely further south location of a coral reef, that could not exist at all in that location today, mean that it was NOT much warmer back then than today?

Top
#13671 - 12/11/2006 14:34 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
>Expand on that please, David...you can't just sweep away all the evidence from the study with a single sentence containing not a single fact in it at all!

Ian, I am not the one accusing Hansen of dodgie analysis and have nothing to defend. Hansen's data seem entirely robust and so do the SW WA observations. I see no contradiction because you are comparing an equilibrium ("stable") thousands of years ago with a situation of rapid change.

The sea level observation is irrelvant in this discussion because we simply do not know what the equilibrium sea level for the current and committed greenhouse warming is. The IPCC projections only go out 100 years and do not include contributions from large ice sheets as the dynamics are chaotic and rather unpredictable with no case examples on which to verify models. We do know, however, that sea level is rising at an accelerating rate.

The coral data are interesting, but are for one extratropical point only... Further, the regions has a dominant Leuwin current which means that the region is very unusually globally (similar latitudes elsewhere are far colder and drier). An equally valid interpretation of the coral would be that the Leuwin current was simply stronger at the peak of the last interglacial.

As I have stated over and over, the real interest in this paper is that sea level and ecosystems in a past epoch with temperatures comperable to the present were so radically different.

Hill Billy

Top
#13672 - 12/11/2006 14:43 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
Prehaps you might want to email Thierry and ask him whether he believes temperature reconstructions based on coral data are valid...
David, in the paper he does conclude that:

"The general conclusion of the review presented above is that, like Sr/Ca, changes in d18O are most probably largely driven by SST variations."

So to some extent there is little doubt that he considers SST reconstructions to be valid, the real question being just how big the errors are in view of all the uncertainties he highlights, and he quite clearly points to several of these sources of error as having unknown effects.

Quote:
Originally posted by David:
Coral/isotope based reconstruction of temperature are used extensively, including by some of the most vocal climate change sceptics (who pretend past climate variability mean the current changes are not human induced). BTW, given that you reject all the proxy methods, are you willing to accept the 2-3C figure quoted in the paper?
I do not know enough to assess whether or not 2-3C is a reasonable error estimation, however even if one accepts that it is about right for times reasonably close to the present day, there should also be a caveat that the further one goes back in time from the present the larger the uncertainty is.

Quote:
Originally posted by David:
BTW, the errors you highlight are random which are easily removed by simply aggregating data.

Hill Billy.
What makes you say they are random?

I think it is highly unlikely the errors are random, but instead they are likely to be systematic errors caused by unknown environmental changes that are in part probably biological in origin (e.g. algae and plankton blooms etc.) and from other natural causes (e.g. changes in precipitation, river runoff, land erosion, etc.) so subject to non-linearities that cannot be regarded as purely random.

Aggregating lots of data sets containing unknown systematic errors into a single data set is not going to remove such errors.

Top
#13673 - 12/11/2006 15:05 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
>Expand on that please, David...you can't just sweep away all the evidence from the study with a single sentence containing not a single fact in it at all!

Sorry, David, I do not find your answers satisfactory...Don't worry about replying.
We will leave it as that....we disagree entirely over the results of the study... And everyone else can make their own mind up!

Top
#13674 - 13/11/2006 09:16 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Carl the proxy errors will be either systematic or random. If they are random (which is almost certainly the case with widely dispersed & different proxies) than simply aggregating a large number will quickly reduce them to near zero. If they are systematic which is exceptionally unlikely when you use different types of proxies then the systematic errors simply imply that you have a mis-calibrated model. The simple thing is then to recalibrate it and your errors will become random.

I would not pretend that any one proxy series is a 100% faithful representations of the truth, but enough proxies from enough locations gives you a very solid measure of historical variability. This is accepted by the science (and implicitly acknowledged by event the "climate audit" crew who simply focus on the problems in individual obs).

Hill Billy

Top
#13675 - 13/11/2006 13:18 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Carl Smith Offline
Member

Registered: 21/12/2001
Posts: 1042
Loc: Gold Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by David:
Carl the proxy errors will be either systematic or random. If they are random (which is almost certainly the case with widely dispersed & different proxies) than simply aggregating a large number will quickly reduce them to near zero. If they are systematic which is exceptionally unlikely when you use different types of proxies then the systematic errors simply imply that you have a mis-calibrated model. The simple thing is then to recalibrate it and your errors will become random.
David, I find your assertion of randomness to be highly unlikely, and your change of subject from coral proxy to multi-proxy to justify it disingenuous.

As we do not have accurate environmental measurements extending back hundreds of thousands of years, recalibration to suit very different climatic conditions that introduce systematic errors is very difficult, if not impossible. In future this problem may to some extent be addressed by growing corals in labs under a wide variety of controlled conditions, however the science still needs to be done first.

Quote:
Originally posted by David:
I would not pretend that any one proxy series is a 100% faithful representations of the truth, but enough proxies from enough locations gives you a very solid measure of historical variability. This is accepted by the science (and implicitly acknowledged by event the "climate audit" crew who simply focus on the problems in individual obs).

Hill Billy
Here David catches himself out by a making false claim about " Climate Audit " to try to support his argument, so revealing that he is talking about things he has not even bothered to look into, as " Climate Audit " is a website which in fact focusses mainly on the problems of combining proxies from various locations using dodgy methodologies and cherry picked data, and is well worth in depth reading by anyone who wants to know about both the methodologies and the problems of proxy climate reconstructions.

Here is a couple of extracts from the Climate Audit " Road Map " page setting out the scope of the site as written by the site owner Steve McIntyre:

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve McIntyre:
"There are lots of places in the world where people can discuss general issues of AGW, but not many places where technical discussions of proxies can take place...

...The main topic here are the multiproxy studies of millennial climate, which is what I work on, with some discussion of climate models. I want to keep the focus fairly narrow as there are plenty of other places to talk about things and I think that sticking to a niche is a good idea."
For those who may have been mislead by strange claims on various AGW sites that "Climate Audit" is a 'climate change denialist' website that is therefore somehow unworthy of your attention, Steve McIntyre recently wrote this reply giving his personal views on AGW in response to a contributors comment:

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve McIntyre:
#39. Brad H, I’ve by no means shown that “the foundations of doomsday climate science is fundamentally flawed”. I’m convinced that the HS ["Hockey Stick"] arguments are flawed, but that is different from proving that the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] was warmer than the modern period. I’m inclined to think that it was, but proving it is a different issue.

The main arguments for concern about increased CO2 are the obvious ones: 1) CO2 levels are increasing materially; 2) CO2 has an important role in greenhouse warming; 3) increased CO2 levels will tend to increase temperature by some amount. How much is the $64 question. Unfortunately IPCC has never bothered providing interested readers and policy makers with an intermediate level complexity description of the underlying physics and the key issues in improving the understanding of the physics. This may seem like an astonishing claim, but I’ve parsed the 3 reports and am convinced it’s true. They go from one-sentence explications to reporting GCM
[Global Climate Model] results. But just because IPCC explained it badly or not at all doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. I don’t know whether there is or isn’t - I’m not trying to obfuscate - I just don’t know. In this particular case, the whole enterprise has become entangled with POV [Point Of View] and politics, so I don’t trust pronouncements from people who, under normal circumstances, could reasonably be regarded as authoritative. That doesn’t mean that they are wrong or that political leaders can afford not to rely on such pronouncements - that’s a separate matter.
[comments in square brackets are my clarifications]

Top
#13676 - 14/11/2006 09:16 Re: Global warming and sea levels
David_dup1 Offline
Member

Registered: 27/12/2002
Posts: 1296
Loc: Ferny Creek (400m)
Carl after years of opportunity the climateaudit crew still haven't published any alternative to Mann et al... This is a fact pure and simple. Instead they just fixate on criticising individual proxy's or esoteric statistical issues.

In the meantime, dozens of additional reconstructions have appeared in the literature broadly supporting the origonal hockey stick, and the NAS report has come out.

To suggest that the IPCC reports which provide references to 10,000s of papers do not provide enough detail is crazy. They are reviews of science, not entry level books on the physics of greenhouse climate change. They are far to thick as it is, and it would appear that Climate Audit are pretty much alone in wanting more rather than less information in the reports...

Anyway, it is clear that we are wasting our time.

BTW, interesting to note that while we have been arguing OZ has just had its hottest August-October daytime temperatures on record... Sure one should not mix "weather" and climate but the flood of statistics are getting awfully hard to ignore aren't they?

Hill Billy

Top
#13677 - 14/11/2006 12:00 Re: Global warming and sea levels
BD (Bucketing Down) Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/2006
Posts: 1799
Loc: Eastern Adelaide Hills, SA
"Weather" includes, hourly, day, or week or month, or months data. "climate" is much longer term, and as you say should not be mixed with "climate"...
Why then go and do it so regularly, David.
A bad drought and bad sea surface temperature structure gives extremes at both ends of the scale often.
Can we say that eg, The cold wintery expected weather tonight and tommorow and tommorow night, and the 1.0 deg below normal max for November so far are climate trends too?!
I find the constant reference to the current dry weather spell , drought weather year 2006 , temperature monthly weather, and almost all weather events of late, used as evidence of Climate Change by media, politicians, and many others, quite poor science. Please stick to the "climate" facts, not the "weather" facts, as we could use that for all sorts of Climate Change scenarios and be completely wrong. ie. If we have a very cold 3 months next year, will we be heading for an Ice Age?! Equally as poor science as saying 3 very hot months equals Global Warming proof! Stick to the facts of change over 30 to 100 years or so, not three months please. And, I'm not having a go at Global Warming long-term statistics here, just the current widespread practice of using "weather"
as proof of global warming...I find this current use of "weather" as a guide to future climate to be quite alarming really...The rate at which it has propagated itself in 2006...it is like a rampant disease!

Top
#13678 - 14/11/2006 19:22 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Rob G Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 31/07/2003
Posts: 673
Loc: Porters Retreat NSW
I am sorry to interrupt the ongoing discussion between David, Ian and Carl, but a while ago Keith posted a link to Christopher Monckton’s article in the UK Sunday Telegraph, which purports to debunk the greenhouse GW theory. The writer is a journalist (actually a rich Viscount with nothing better to do), not a scientist, who ‘appears’ to present a comprehensive analysis on how Stern and the UN purposely manipulated data to support AGW.

On the other side (let's face it you can google anything to counter anything that you want) here is a link to a group of ‘climatologists’, who present their case to support greenhouse warming. Included is their analysis of Monckton’s article, which they more or less rubbish. You can read some of the discussions that take a macro view of the earth: analysing the heat absorbed, the heat radiated, and the role of water vapour compared to greenhouse gases in determining the earth’s thermal equilibrium. Though I studied 3 years of uni physics, it was long ago, so some of the discussions are a little out of my depth. If anyone wants to I guess they can debate these ‘experts’ (?)

Top
#13679 - 14/11/2006 19:41 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Rob, it's good that you have posted a reference to an opposite view, but any scientist whose articles are prefaced by sarcastic insinuations as to the author's credibility (in this case Monckton's wealth and qualifications to comment) do not cut the mustard with me.

I think the main thrust of the discussion so far is not whether there is or there isn't global warming, but the inadequacy of the science surrounding it, and the methods used to justify one position or another. Science is not infallible.

I do not have the knowledge or training or background to be able to put forth an expert view; I take things as I see them, just like most other people. If that means I have been deceived by Monckton's article, as those learned gentlemen suggest is the case with anyone who doesn't see things their way, then so be it. The whole thing with the GW debate in general, more often than not, is that it masquerades as a front for left versus right politics.

The best debate that could be had would be between those scientists and Monckton, and hopefully an explanation from them as to why they think it's necessary to erect an ad hominem straw man argument to demolish Monckton's credibility even before getting to the science of the matter.

Top
#13680 - 14/11/2006 23:07 Re: Global warming and sea levels
Rob G Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 31/07/2003
Posts: 673
Loc: Porters Retreat NSW
Hi Keith,

Good points. I entirely agree with you regarding the credibility of that website. Were they respected authorities on climate and GW they would not resort to personal attacks against someone presenting an opposing view. Indeed, one individual struck me as smug and presumptuous, a trait perhaps not lost in his science: complex enough to pull the wool over many eyes, but too simplistic and too many unsubstantiated assumptions to predict changes in the earth's climate.

Top
Page 16 of 18 < 1 2 ... 14 15 16 17 18 >


Who's Online
6 registered (Un_stable, poona, Sidney, Wezza, Brett T, 1 invisible), 275 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Adele, David Simpson., HannahJayne, krambo, krambo22, Pancake, weather noob
Forum Stats
29421 Members
32 Forums
23730 Topics
1469277 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image