Climate Change-We Must Be Sure of the Facts

#1
Sorry this is a bit late but I just read it in the Prospect online magazine and thought it worth re-posting

.
Too hot to handle
Roddy Campbell
24th February 2010
Before we embark on drastic plans to combat climate change, we must be sure of the facts

The belief that man is warming the Earth’s climate via greenhouse gas emissions is supported by evidence showing a modest increase in global temperatures over recent decades. But what is the scale of these increases, and are they in any way abnormal? To find out, we need an accurate record over a long period. This is where the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) comes in, and why the “climategate” scandal over its leaked emails matters so much.

The CRU is one of the world’s leading climatic research bodies. Its scientists, along with the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, build and maintain the world’s temperature record. This may sound easy, especially as the figures they produce always seem precise: in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put warming over the past 100 years at exactly 0.74°C. But tracking such tiny temperature changes is tricky—even over the last century when we have had decent thermometer coverage. Do you measure highs, lows or averages? Should readings come from Siberia, Antarctica or Australia—and, if all of them, how do you weight the results for a global average? By land area? What about seas?

To get round this the CRU divides the world into geographical grids. It gathers data from meteorological offices all over the world, makes adjustments and obtains a temperature for each grid. Researchers then compare this result against a baseline of historical temperatures for that grid. The average of the differences across every grid reveals how much global temperatures today differ from historical temperatures.

But there are problems, even if you do this carefully. The first is urbanisation. Ideally, thermometers would be in the same place for long periods and unaffected by people. Yet they are often placed near airports, for example, where they are susceptible to an “urban heat island” (UHI) effect, as traffic increases or runways expand. This UHI effect has happened most in places where the record should be most trustworthy, like Britain and the US, where economic development has been strongest, so the surface temperature record has a manmade upward bias which needs to be adjusted for. The CRU’s adjustment methodology is not disclosed.

Even in the countryside, a thermometer on a farm could be exposed to more machinery today than a century ago. Comparisons of rural and urban thermometers have shown heat island effects of a few degrees celsius. Some studies claim that apparently rising temperatures are correlated with local economic activity rather than global warming. Other problems come when a thermometer is replaced, creating discontinuous data, so the series needs blending. This blending and averaging is far from perfect in places like Britain. But in Siberia and China the CRU has to take data without even observing the weather stations. (For 30 years there has been satellite data too, but this measures only at higher altitudes and has shown less warming than at ground level.)

This is why “sceptics” have, not unreasonably, asked to see the raw data. A scientist cannot say “I have discovered X” if he refuses to share the data to test his discovery. A 2005 email from CRU director Phil Jones to Australian sceptic Warwick Hughes highlighted this: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” In another email he wrote that he had deleted “loads of emails” after receiving freedom of information requests, and had asked other scientists to do the same.

The good news is that now, post-climategate, the CRU and the Met Office have released data they had claimed was protected by copyright, or subject to confidentiality agreements. So the scandal has encouraged greater openness. But it has done less to solve a second problem, which arises when you try to deduce temperatures going back thousands of years. Palaeoclimatology (climate study of the history of the Earth) is harder than short term measurements, as there are no records. Temperature changes must be inferred through tree rings or ice cores. Yet some tree cores, for instance, suggest different histories from one side of the tree to the other, while their growth is changed by rainfall and CO2 as well as temperature. Another problem comes with the infamous “hockey stick” graph, devised by US climatologist Michael Mann and featured prominently in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. This used tree ring data from Russia and the US to show temperatures gently falling for most of the last 1,000 years, then shooting up from the middle of the 20th century, like the end of a hockey stick. Yet the graph seemed to miss two crucial periods: the “medieval warm period” from the turn of the last millennium to the 15th century, and the “little ice age” at the start of the 17th century, when the Thames regularly froze. Mann claimed these periods were local in nature; sceptics, meanwhile, suspected that the techniques used to create graphs like the hockey stick had been designed to favour the idea that warming in the second half of the 20th century was unprecedented.

There is no conspiracy here. But the scientists involved in climate research for the past 30 years may have enjoyed their golden age too much. Research grants have flowed freely, although not, of course, as freely to scientists with contrary views. I am far from being a climate change denier. It seems perfectly likely that we are having, or will have, an effect on warming through the higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. But the evidence is not yet clear; there were, for example, periods of warming in the 19th century almost identical to the modest warming we seem to have experienced since 1975. We cannot rely on highly imperfect climate models as a basis for policy initiatives that cost billions and change how we live. An accurate and unbiased temperature record is critical.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/02/too-hot-to-handle/





*
 
#2
JJH,

FFS BORE OFF.

This climate crap already has it's own mind fuckingly boring thread all to itself.


It's that fucking boring that my mouse refuses to paste in the link for it.
 
K

Kirkz

Guest
#3
Most rational people are already aware of the facts :?
Isn't there a massive thread on this already :?
Edited - Beaten by BPS666 :oops:
 
#4
#5
mistersoft said:
BPS666 said:
JJH,

FFS BORE OFF.

This climate crap already has it's own mind fuckingly boring thread all to itself.


It's that fucking boring that my mouse refuses to paste in the link for it.
It is but here it is anyway.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=138302/highlight=climate.html
So sorry to disturb your afternoon siestas. While there may well be another thread in general, the point of this post (and as so wonderfully underscored by your prompt broadsides) is that the facts are not well known or understood. IMHO, that is the problem with this subject generally--we continue to be told by some that all the facts are in, when it is apparent that they are far from it. Now you can resume your sleep. :D
 
#6
So JJH, you didn't feel the need to just tack this on the end of the extensive climate change hoax thread? Perhaps you might kindly ask the Mods to do so, or we can just waste space and time abusing you in here instead. :?
 
#7
shape.when.wet said:
So JJH, you didn't feel the need to just tack this on the end of the extensive climate change hoax thread? Perhaps you might kindly ask the Mods to do so, or we can just waste space and time abusing you in here instead. :?
As is my custom, I humbly defer to the more accomplished ARRSERS as to such minor administrative details I would previously have merely delegated to my batman since as a senior OC receiving the "big bucks" I only troubled myself with thinking "big thoughts." :D

In any event, please do not waste further (extremely valuable) time or energy slagging me here as there is such a target rich environment on other threads for that.
 
#8
So Roddy Campbell raises an interesting point. Do we listen to the vast overwhelming number of climatologists and scientists that this does exist and is man made? That maybe the ppm of CO2 currently being about 380 (from an average of 250 ppm before the last fifty years) is maybe a problem?

Or do we listen to a Fund Manager writing in an online current affairs magazine?

I will certainly rush home and start burning coal, now.
 
#9
Bazzinho1977 said:
So Roddy Campbell raises an interesting point. Do we listen to the vast overwhelming number of climatologists and scientists that this does exist and is man made? That maybe the ppm of CO2 currently being about 380 (from an average of 250 ppm before the last fifty years) is maybe a problem?

Or do we listen to a Fund Manager writing in an online current affairs magazine?

I will certainly rush home and start burning coal, now.
Yes that "vast overwhelming number of climatologists and scientists" sure have settled all the debate as reflected here for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emperature-data-wake-Climategate-scandal.html

Make sure the coal is low sulfur will you. :D
 
#10
JJH, I hereby accuse, and convict you of being bored, spoiling for a fight, devoid of new information and in need of punishment. I therefore direct you to read this in it's entirety where this thread is going before you thieve any more internet oxygen on the issue.

I'm off to go knit some yoghurt.
 
#11
shape.when.wet said:
JJH, I hereby accuse, and convict you of being bored, spoiling for a fight, devoid of new information and in need of punishment. I therefore direct you to read this in it's entirety where this thread is going before you thieve any more internet oxygen on the issue.

I'm off to go knit some yoghurt.
As my point has obviously been driven deeply home, I hereby yield the floor..... :D
 
#12
jumpinjarhead said:
Yes that "vast overwhelming number of climatologists and scientists" sure have settled all the debate as reflected here for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emperature-data-wake-Climategate-scandal.html

Make sure the coal is low sulfur will you. :D
Ah a quote from the Daily Mail. Truly, a last act of a desperate man. :D

P.S. The correct spelling is Sulphur - you septic git.

By the way - one of your countrymen who does know how to write - Friedman - has an excellent book out - called "Hot, Flat and Crowded".

I would heartily recommend it.
 
#13
Bazzinho1977 said:
jumpinjarhead said:
Yes that "vast overwhelming number of climatologists and scientists" sure have settled all the debate as reflected here for example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...emperature-data-wake-Climategate-scandal.html

Make sure the coal is low sulfur will you. :D
Ah a quote from the Daily Mail. Truly, a last act of a desperate man. :D

P.S. The correct spelling is Sulphur - you septic git.

By the way - one of your countrymen who does know how to write - Friedman - has an excellent book out - called "Hot, Flat and Crowded".

I would heartily recommend it.
As usual, I cannot win.. when I went to the trouble to include alternate spellings i was accused of Brit-bashing. The DM is when I last checked a Brit paper--similar articles appeared the same day in the others as well.

Tell you what, I will read that book if you will reciprocate with one of my choosing.

But in any event, I must get off this thread as I am keeping other ARRSERS from their naps and yog(h)urt.
 
#14
You not gone yet? :)
 
#16
jumpinjarhead said:
As usual, I cannot win.. when I went to the trouble to include alternate spellings i was accused of Brit-bashing. The DM is when I last checked a Brit paper--similar articles appeared the same day in the others as well.

Tell you what, I will read that book if you will reciprocate with one of my choosing.

But in any event, I must get off this thread as I am keeping other ARRSERS from their naps and yog(h)urt.
I have a hole in my reading list now, as it happens.

In fact, I can even post you (at my own personal expense) Hot, flat and crowded. It is incredibly septic-focussed whilst taking about these issues.
 
#17
The 'facts' unfortunately are both well-known and well-understood. Regrettably, people are in the main unwilling to let their opinions be swayed by them and will go to the most ridiculous lengths to avoid staring them in the face if they happens not to fit the predetermined belief.

Democracy: the belief, in the face of all evidence and experience, that 1,000 fools are smarter than one learned man.
 
#18
smartascarrots said:
The 'facts' unfortunately are both well-known and well-understood. Regrettably, people are in the main unwilling to let their opinions be swayed by them and will go to the most ridiculous lengths to avoid staring them in the face if they happens not to fit the predetermined belief.

Democracy: the belief, in the face of all evidence and experience, that 1,000 fools are smarter than one learned man.
Is that quote copyrighted or can anybody use it?
 
#19
Bazzinho1977 said:
smartascarrots said:
The 'facts' unfortunately are both well-known and well-understood. Regrettably, people are in the main unwilling to let their opinions be swayed by them and will go to the most ridiculous lengths to avoid staring them in the face if they happens not to fit the predetermined belief.

Democracy: the belief, in the face of all evidence and experience, that 1,000 fools are smarter than one learned man.
Is that quote copyrighted or can anybody use it?
No, 'Fair Use' and all that.

If you feel like it, just pop a donation to the Misanthrope Society - assuming they don't tell you to fcuk off, that is! :D
 
#20
smartascarrots said:
Bazzinho1977 said:
smartascarrots said:
The 'facts' unfortunately are both well-known and well-understood. Regrettably, people are in the main unwilling to let their opinions be swayed by them and will go to the most ridiculous lengths to avoid staring them in the face if they happens not to fit the predetermined belief.

Democracy: the belief, in the face of all evidence and experience, that 1,000 fools are smarter than one learned man.
Is that quote copyrighted or can anybody use it?
No, 'Fair Use' and all that.

If you feel like it, just pop a donation to the Misanthrope Society - assuming they don't tell you to fcuk off, that is! :D
Ah, Smartas...
I think the great Robert Heinlein was lurking at the back of your mind:
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"


Although for the purposes of this thread:
"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get" :)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top