Suv's On Jupiter?

[Chinahand]

An interesting read

 

_

 

Science is an amazing thing.

 

The graph Albert published is from "Length of the solar cycle:An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate" by Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen published in Science in (1991).

 

In 2000 the same authors returned to the topic after peer reviews and follow-up papers had critised their work. They published a paper called a "Reply to “Solar cycle lengths and climate: A reference revisited” by P. Laut and J. Gundermann" in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

 

In this paper they admitted that there were errors in the final data points of their original graphs. The follow up paper corrected these errors, and they show the correlation between climate change and sunspot cycles breaking down in the 1950s.

 

 

The 2000 paper isn't available without a subscription on the internet, but the Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data is a short 2 page review of the errors.

 

I'm not going to make alot out of the fact that a pattern that had seemed to hold for about a hundred years broke down with temperatures now increasing more than you'd expect from solar activity, though it is this type of break down between temperature change and natural cycles which is so concerning climate scientists.

 

This is science: researchers patiently and continually questioning the results they have found and pushing knowledge forward.

 

This is one of the most complex problems in the world and it isn't surprising that researches have contradictory results. The real problem is when people with vested interests stop allowing scientists to follow up their findings and claim research that fits their world view is the the only valid version.

 

I still firmly think that the most important issue in climate change is to get polititians in the US, India and China to accept that the issue is real and could have huge consequences (whether the causes are man made or natural).

 

I feel that the most powerful lobbies out there are still denying the seriousness of climate change; they continue to say this even though there is now a broad consensus within climate science that global warming is occuring. The causes of this change are not clear cut, but that is in some ways irrelevent: if your crops, or house or livelihood is distroyed by a hurricane or floods, is it really an excuse to say nothing was done to mitigate this risk because its a natural phenomonen?

 

I think it says a lot that you can find Lassen's 1991 paper quoted all over the internet, but that the follow up paper in 2000 showing the relationship breaking down is only in the academic sphere. Ignoring results that contradict your world view is anti-science and I feel the anti-science bias is far stronger in the "Global Warming is a myth" camp.

 

Edited: for some reason Albert's graph appears in the preview pane, but when I post it disappears in his quote: no idea why, but you can see the graph on page 1!!!!!

[Albert Tatlock]

Science is an amazing thing.

 

The graph Albert published is from "Length of the solar cycle:An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate" by Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen published in Science in (1991).

The problem is that people are trying to see patterns where patterns don't exist. Climate changes happen over millenia. If you look hard enough you will get a pattern to fit both arguments, especially when using graphs with small scale temperature variations - where a 0.2 degree jump looks like a major disaster (or a major recovery - thanks to the government! etc.).

 

I am not going to waste my time arguing about that.

 

There is not one computer model capable of properly modelling the Earths weather system, it is far more complex than that - and our abilities at present. Throw money at modelling and prove the model is accurate at first. And don't ignore the other far more powerful factors i.e. internal/external of the earth.

[Roger Smelly]

Weather cannot be modelled like say a building because there are so many things that affect it.

 

I with albert on this.

 

Do a little research on clean energy, hydrogen is the new fossil fuel in the next 100 years.

 

Oh and the petrol makers own that too.

 

I think its no warmer now than when i was a lad in fact the summers are getting cooler, yeah sure we get the odd hot day but most the time its no way near what some these people predict.

 

I reckon its all bluff so they can get grants to fund the research into more bluff.

[Chinahand]

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit doesn't use models. They have the world's most extensive and accurate database of metrological information.

 

Thanks to the Victorians and the Empire since about the 1850s we've had accurate climate data "on which the sun never set" and UEA has collected it.

 

This is what it shows:

 

 

No models, no approximations, just the result of collecting thousands of daily temperature records from all over the world for one hundred and fifty years and seeing how they compare with each other year on year, decade on decade.

 

Some of the articles Crozza linked us to at the start of this thread make a lot out of the fact 1998 was the hottest year and there was then a decrease in temperatures, but 2005 was the second hottest year recorded and as far as I am aware the half and three-quarter year results for 2006 beat 1998 showing the trend continuing.

 

What's important to realise is that these are gobal averages from thousands of locations: to get a global change of a tenth of a degree some areas will have larger increases which will be cancelled out by other decreases.

 

There is no doubt the world is getting hotter and that when you put more energy into a system you get larger variations: more storms, more freak weather events etc.

 

Why temperatures are rising is still massively uncertain, but when people go "Humbug, its only 0.6 degrees" they are not understanding the consequences of that: they could be huge.

[Albert Tatlock]

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit doesn't use models. They have the world's most extensive and accurate database of metrological information.

 

Thanks to the Victorians and the Empire since about the 1850s we've had accurate climate data "on which the sun never set" and UEA has collected it.

 

This is what it shows:

 

 

No models, no approximations, just the result of collecting thousands of daily temperature records from all over the world for one hundred and fifty years and seeing how they compare with each other year on year, decade on decade.

 

Some of the articles Crozza linked us to at the start of this thread make a lot out of the fact 1998 was the hottest year and there was then a decrease in temperatures, but 2005 was the second hottest year recorded and as far as I am aware the half and three-quarter year results for 2006 beat 1998 showing the trend continuing.

 

What's important to realise is that these are gobal averages from thousands of locations: to get a global change of a tenth of a degree some areas will have larger increases which will be cancelled out by other decreases.

 

There is no doubt the world is getting hotter and that when you put more energy into a system you get larger variations: more storms, more freak weather events etc.

 

Why temperatures are rising is still massively uncertain, but when people go "Humbug, its only 0.6 degrees" they are not understanding the consequences of that: they could be huge.

So what caused the increase of 0.2 degrees between 1860 and 1880 and the 0.3 degrees decrease between 1880 and 1910 - a tax on steamy horse sh1t? And what about the decreases between 1940 and 1980 when man was emitting at his worst? Anyone can make things look great or horrendous using the 'trend' function.

 

No-one is saying man does not have an effect, just that man's effect is only a tiny fraction of the forces that are at work here. How can you ignore that ratio given your understanding of the solar system and the universe etc. ?

[Chinahand]

No-one is saying man does not have an effect, just that man's effect is only a tiny fraction of the forces that are at work here. How can you ignore that ratio given your understanding of the solar system and the universe etc. ?

 

Is man's effect only a tiny fraction? How significant an influence does man have on the biomass of the earth? Are you really going to say tiny!

 

Man's activities have increased carbon dioxide levels from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since 1850 ... yes horse shit was one contibuting factor, but victorian steel mills were another.

 

 

Just look at that graph for a second. Yes thousands of scientists will be able to finesse the details, but it is undisputed that CO2 levels are vastly higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Lets ignore Middle age warm periods this is data over huge time frames and the current level is absolutely unique and absolutely caused by human activity CLICKY 1 CLICKY 2.

 

And what is the connection between carbon and climate change:

 

 

Just look at that graph stretching over 650 thousand years. Look at the correlation and then look where current levels of atmospheric carbon are (there's an arrow). This is a huge and unpresidented change. Man's influence on this planet is not tiny, or insignificant. The sun's natural cycles etc have been around for eons ... man's population levels and industrial impact hundreds of years.

 

These graphs are simplifications and wrong, but they are scientifically wrong and they are many times closer to the truth than an attitude that "we've seen it all before."

 

Look at those graphs: can you really say ... it's all just natural cycles and nothing to worry about.

 

If you say that you are being non scientific and an ostrich.

 

I'd rather not put my head in the sand.

 

I think we agree more research is necessary, but so is action. There are now very few climatologists who say this isn't a real problem with large consequences. I wouldn't ignore them. Would you?

[Albert Tatlock]

No-one is saying man does not have an effect, just that man's effect is only a tiny fraction of the forces that are at work here. How can you ignore that ratio given your understanding of the solar system and the universe etc. ?

 

Is man's effect only a tiny fraction? How significant an influence does man have on the biomass of the earth? Are you really going to say tiny!

 

Man's activities have increased carbon dioxide levels from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since 1850 ... yes horse shit was one contibuting factor, but victorian steel mills were another.

 

 

Just look at that graph for a second. Yes thousands of scientists will be able to finesse the details, but it is undisputed that CO2 levels are vastly higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Lets ignore Middle age warm periods this is data over huge time frames and the current level is absolutely unique and absolutely caused by human activity CLICKY 1 CLICKY 2.

 

And what is the connection between carbon and climate change:

 

 

Just look at that graph stretching over 650 thousand years. Look at the correlation and then look where current levels of atmospheric carbon are (there's an arrow). This is a huge and unpresidented change. Man's influence on this planet is not tiny, or insignificant. The sun's natural cycles etc have been around for eons ... man's population levels and industrial impact hundreds of years.

 

These graphs are simplifications and wrong, but they are scientifically wrong and they are many times closer to the truth than an attitude that "we've seen it all before."

 

Look at those graphs: can you really say ... it's all just natural cycles and nothing to worry about.

 

If you say that you are being non scientific and an ostrich.

 

I'd rather not put my head in the sand.

 

I think we agree more research is necessary, but so is action. There are now very few climatologists who say this isn't a real problem with large consequences. I wouldn't ignore them. Would you?

I would say that from 450,000 years ago, things look pretty cyclic to me according to that graph.

 

As for doing something, do you really think any money raised by trying to change our behaviour is going to be spent wisely by the UK government, especially when UK emissions are 2% of the total? The Chinese and Russians will undo anything we try to do in months. All these taxes will do is allow the rich to carry on travelling etc. and polluting - and the poor, who live mostly in any areas likely to be affected e.g. flood plains etc. to put up with the consequences. If you think this money will go into flood defences and rehousing - dream on.

[Chinahand]

Where in the cycles were CO2 levels at 380 ppm? I don't think you are looking very clearly.

 

I've made it clear that it is important to get India, China and the US to take action. It's you who are siding with President Bush on this issue, not me.

 

And stop wasting band width. Edit you posts to stop repeating every thing twice you old Curmudgeon.

[Albert Tatlock]

Where in the cycles were CO2 levels at 380 ppm? I don't think you are looking very clearly.

 

I've made it clear that it is important to get India, China and the US to take action. It's you who are siding with President Bush on this issue, not me.

 

And stop wasting band width. Edit you posts to stop repeating every thing twice you old Curmudgeon.

Your graphs do not show the detail in 100's of years for those periods (only averages), so you are not comparing like with like. There will be many higher peaks and lower troughs in the detail of this data.

 

They will get very different readings in 100,000 years when they analyse and average our 'sediment samples', compared to our selective measurements today.

 

I am not siding with President Bush, I am siding with many of those scientists who seem to not be 'in vogue' at the moment. Consensus is not science.

[Chinahand]

Oh Albert, it seems your english wine example is a bit flawed too:

 

Medieval warmth and English wine

[Albert Tatlock]

Oh Albert, it seems your english wine example is a bit flawed too:

 

Medieval warmth and English wine

Now you're just clutching at straws