Global Warming... a hoax?

[bobthedog]

Fraudstar, in a word no. This thread is entitled Global Warming.... A Hoax? Why does it need to be changed. Feel free to create your own (if you can type in english it may help).

[spunkymonkey]

That would be too sensible, fraudstar. But just in case ARRSE leads the way in sensible climate debate, put me down for:

1) Yes

2) Yes, though we may well be having a minor effect. Discussion would have to go elsewhere

3) Bugger all, but moving away from fossil fuels in an orderly fashion makes a lot of sense for other reasons.

[fraudstar]

Simply because bobthedog, I don't want to start another multitude of threads on essentially the same subject.

The title - "A Hoax" leaves the thread open to a wide variety of interpretations. One that I'm not happy with and seek to clarify. If at least to improve the standard of debate.

It pisses me off that even if there was an agreement that the climate is changing then there would instantly be people disputing why. Then if the cause was confirmed people would argue what could be done about it. It makes for a simple internet bitchfest.

Let's first discuss whether the climate is changing or whether there is a global conspiracy by scientists and politicians to make us believe that the weather now is exacltly the same as it has been for the last 100 years and go from there?

[ashie]

Mann said the “trick� Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. “It’s hardly anything you would call a trick,� Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

and that

"The “decline� refers to the “divergence problem�. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed as early as 1998, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 199. It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature".

Ashie, I'm not going to pretend to understand climate science (and who does?) but I do have some experience of other scientific disciplines and I know that scientists are precise in their language, even in internal e mails; I've seen enough of them. 'Trick' is not scientific language; it strongly implies that something very unscientific is going on. But according to Mann, Jones didn't mean 'trick' at all. So why did he use that word? And why write 'hide the decline' when he meant 'eliminating the divergence problem'?

This was not a technical discussion, as is claimed. If it were, the language would be precise and would not require alternative terms to be inserted along the lines of 'well, that's what he really meant'.

As I understand it, "trick" is in common use to mean "clever technique" and is even used in some of the peer reviewed literature itself.

See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ...layer_embedded

[bobthedog]

The term "trick" is hardly a word you would wish to see in a scientific discussion of something as important as this. If the scientists are to prove the links necessary to gain international agreement to deal with "man made climate change" they had better come up with better words to use, whether used in emails between scientists or the final draft of their documents.

The only "trick" being used here is scientists being asked to come up with conclusions that our political masters desire, in order to raise taxation in a charade that we can "tax our way out" of this problem. The plain fact is that taxing us for climate change hasn't worked and wont work.

[fraudstar]

Actually bobthedog, most scientists don't benefit from a raise in taxes. So the conspiracy theory breaks down. Anyway, as I understand it, the dendrochronology data dos not show the observed change in temp in the last 40 years. Consequently when using dendrochronolgy, that the recorded data does not match up with observed global temp, there is some manipulation required to correlate things.

That's not to say I don't think the current government won't try to squeeze every penny it can out of us through taxes, but merely that most scientists interests lie elsewhere

[Maple]

Let's first discuss whether the climate is changing or whether there is a global conspiracy by scientists and politicians to make us believe that the weather now is exacltly the same as it has been for the last 100 years and go from there?

er, no, I think we can take it as read that world climate changes, hence growing grapes in Newcastle in Roman times, Ice Fairs in London in the 14th century. The question is 'how much is man-made?' Up until a month ago true believers were loudly trumpeting that the science was 100% indisputable that evil man was responsible and that we had to return to the stone age or face our doom. Any naysayers were shouted down and ridiculed. Then "Climategate" broke

What's being debated here is have scientists specializing in the global warming field at the UEA been 'cooking the books' to get the results they want/expect? Why was it so hard to get the raw data, and why did the unit think it was above responding to FOI requests

If you'd like to start another thread to discuss other matters crack on

[fraudstar]

So, you agree the climate is changing?

If so what is the cause? Let's confirm your view before we start discrediting other views.

[spunkymonkey]

.... Anyway, as I understand it, the dendrochronology data dos not show the observed change in temp in the last 40 years. Consequently when using dendrochronolgy, that the recorded data does not match up with observed global temp, there is some manipulation required to correlate things....

The problem is, fraudstar, if the correlation breaks down so completely over the past few years (indicating lower than "real" temperatures) then it's entirely possible that it also broke down in a similar way sometime back in history when we haven't got instrument readings to compare with. Just because they follow temperature for a few decades or a couple of centuries doesn't prove that they're a good proxy for temperature. The apparent match couls be a fluke and they could simply be bad thermometers.

The explanation from Briffa et al seems to be summarised as "in the absense of any other reason we must assume that they diverge in the 60s because of another effect that man's having on them that we don't know about". Which is pretty unscientific really!

[fraudstar]

To an extent true, the problem is that over the last 1,000 years really humans have started to alter things quite considerably. Hence why we can only use ice cores, dendrochronolgy only until recently. Other methods such as oceanic mud cores, pollen cores etc don't provide the resolution for the last 500 years really.

Personally I think that what we're experiencing is now is not necessarily because of humans, but that it might be. Regardless we've put a lot of variables into a mechanism that it's not clever to play with.

I think that we should be more cautious, if only because it's cheaper to save energy than waste it. I dislike how to suggest that people don't need to drive V8's suddenly means that one's a communist conspirator

Edited to add, there is observable warming in the Arctic and Antartic. Areas known to heat up and cool down quicker than other areas. If this is not reflected in dendrochronolgy, which is correct?

[spunkymonkey]

Agree on virtually everything there. What I don't agree with is a mass-panic restructuring of the world's economy (although I'm all in favour of redistributing wealth) in ways which will inevitably be abused.

At the moment, fossil fuel is by far the cheapest and most convenient form of energy for most things - especially in domestic settings around the world. Artificially inflating its price to make alternatives "more attractive" will simply leave huge numbers of people unable to heat their homes or travel to work.

Converting homes to alternative energy is possible, and potentially even profitable, but the capital cost puts it way out of reach of most people - let alone those who will be worst hit by any form of carbon tax.

Nuclear energy makes absolute sense for national supply but is expensive to build, hardly anyone wants a reactor on their doorstep. We have Wylfa at the moment and are quite happy with it, thanks, but the Assembly is currently telling us that we don't want Wylfa B. It's also opposed by an awful lot of the "environmentalists" / self-flagellators who like to dance naked round maypoles and are so vocal about reducing emissions.

Ditto for wind-farms. We have a couple just up the coast and they're fantastic - huge white fans turning lazily on the horizon. But then people start complaining about their impact on the environment (while still insisting that we need alternatives to oil).

Tidal power also has "unacceptable" environmental impacts - a bit like dredging rivers in Cumbria does

So, three of the most viable alternatives for distributed energy are blocked by the same people who're most vocal about fossil fuels.

If governments really believe in AGW and really want to tackle it, they should be working to make alternatives cheap and available rather than making carbon expensive.

If they did that, they'd have my (and I'd guess a lot of others') full support even though I'm sceptical about the warming bit.

[spunkymonkey]

And, for your amusement....

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehou...-sinking.thtml

[Whet]

Spunks

Have you worked out if this was the finished program yet?

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

To an extent true, the problem is that over the last 1,000 years really humans have started to alter things quite considerably. Hence why we can only use ice cores, dendrochronolgy only until recently. Other methods such as oceanic mud cores, pollen cores etc don't provide the resolution for the last 500 years really.

(Edited for brevity)

Why do you go for the last thousand years? What was going on in the 700 years prior to the Industrial Revolution that hadn't been going on in the 3,000 years before that?

[HectortheInspector]

To an extent true, the problem is that over the last 1,000 years really humans have started to alter things quite considerably. Hence why we can only use ice cores, dendrochronolgy only until recently. Other methods such as oceanic mud cores, pollen cores etc don't provide the resolution for the last 500 years really.

(Edited for brevity)

Why do you go for the last thousand years? What was going on in the 700 years prior to the Industrial Revolution that hadn't been going on in the 3,000 years before that?

Mankind only really started to make inroads into the ecology when he began to develop agriculture about 8000 years ago. Up until then, your Mk 1 tribesman had been reliant on migratory herding, hunter-gathering, or fishing.

Almost as soon as settled agriculture took off, ecological impacts became apparent. Pollen traces show the introduction of new crops. Land clearance took place, irrigation was developed, large animals were either domesticated or systematically hunted out of areas, and so on.

This coincided with a warming cycle, as the last Ice Age ended, and, some argue, we are still coming out of it. The issue is- are human activities accelerating an already existing trend? If so, do we want to do something about it? Can or should we try and reverse this, or mitigate against the effects?

However you look at this, people are going to get hurt. There are simply far too many of us now, compared to when the Neolithic geniuses who invented farming were around. Whatever gets done, will not be able to undo the havoc that has been done in the past. The best we can hope for is to cushion the effects.