Climate change. . .

[Phil Perry]

Just a 'quickie' post from another place, by a one time poster on this site ( Polardroid ) who has worked in the Antarctic quite a lot.

 

** I know a bloke called John Turner, author of the paper that repudiates the "warming" of the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

The fact that the peninsula is getting colder is bleeding obvious to anyone who has worked there. I've been going there for the last 30 odd years. On my first visit, in 1985, it was very "warm" with pink coloured algae growing in the ice and the lads at Faraday base moaning about being unable to leave their little island in winter due to lack of sea ice. These days, it looks completely different (in a good way).

 

I'll try and find some pics from my archive to illustrate the point, if anyone is interested. **

 

I have no scientific comment on the above post, ( I am Not a climatologist. . . . ) other than to say that the climate change argument, cannot possibly be 'Settled Science' whilst anomalies like this patently exist. Sorry if it doesn't conform to the narrative that everyone seems to be happy with . . . must be just a 30 year 'Blip' I guess. . .

 

I've no doubt that someone will give me a good, sensible reason why this fits in nicely with the majority arguments. . .

 

Anyway,. . .the Antarctic is down your way and a lot closer; so I've no doubt you'll be able to give me the Al Gore reason why it's all bollox. . . .In the meantime, I shall retain an open mind on the subject. ( Important in all things scientific, as, if we 'settle' a subject too soon, advancement of knowledge is curtailed somewhat. . .in the UK, any questioning of the Anthropormorphic climate change narrative is instant death to the career of any academic or scientist. . . . . )

 

 

[pmccarthy]

New Scientist has never given any opportunity for questioning the orthodoxy, at times there has been virulent editorial criticism of observers like the one you quote.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

New Scientist has never given any opportunity for questioning the orthodoxy, at times there has been virulent editorial criticism of observers like the one you quote.

 

HOW THE FCUK can someone 'Question' empirical / VISUAL evidence ? Especially from someone who has no dog in the fight and has actually BEEN there a LOT of times ?. . . . . Doesn't add up.

 

That is all.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I've no doubt that someone will give me a good, sensible reason why this fits in nicely with the majority arguments. . .

Yes, shut up and pay your carbon tax.

 

 

[octave]

Just a 'quickie' post from another place, by a one time poster on this site ( Polardroid ) who has worked in the Antarctic quite a lot.

 

** I know a bloke called John Turner, author of the paper that repudiates the "warming" of the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

The fact that the peninsula is getting colder is bleeding obvious to anyone who has worked there. I've been going there for the last 30 odd years. On my first visit, in 1985, it was very "warm" with pink coloured algae growing in the ice and the lads at Faraday base moaning about being unable to leave their little island in winter due to lack of sea ice. These days, it looks completely different (in a good way).

 

I'll try and find some pics from my archive to illustrate the point, if anyone is interested. **

 

I have no scientific comment on the above post, ( I am Not a climatologist. . . . ) other than to say that the climate change argument, cannot possibly be 'Settled Science' whilst anomalies like this patently exist. Sorry if it doesn't conform to the narrative that everyone seems to be happy with . . . must be just a 30 year 'Blip' I guess. . .

 

I've no doubt that someone will give me a good, sensible reason why this fits in nicely with the majority arguments. . .

 

Anyway,. . .the Antarctic is down your way and a lot closer; so I've no doubt you'll be able to give me the Al Gore reason why it's all bollox. . . .In the meantime, I shall retain an open mind on the subject. ( Important in all things scientific, as, if we 'settle' a subject too soon, advancement of knowledge is curtailed somewhat. . .in the UK, any questioning of the Anthropormorphic climate change narrative is instant death to the career of any academic or scientist. . . . . )

 

It is always important to watch out for cherry picking of statements, so the first thing I do is go to the source and not just rely on 2nd hand short quotes.

 

Here is a newspaper article by John Turner: Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change

 

For something more rigorous here is a paper by John Turner and Jim Overland: Contrasting climate change in the two polar regions - Turner - 2009 - Polar Research - Wiley Online Library

 

This is a rather long read and I am working my way through it at the moment at the moment but here is the Abstract:

 

Abstract

 

The two polar regions have experienced remarkably different climatic changes in recent decades. The Arctic has seen a marked reduction in sea-ice extent throughout the year, with a peak during the autumn. A new record minimum extent occurred in 2007, which was 40% below the long-term climatological mean. In contrast, the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased, with the greatest growth being in the autumn. There has been a large-scale warming across much of the Arctic, with a resultant loss of permafrost and a reduction in snow cover. The bulk of the Antarctic has experienced little change in surface temperature over the last 50 years, although a slight cooling has been evident around the coast of East Antarctica since about 1980, and recent research has pointed to a warming across West Antarctica. The exception is the Antarctic Peninsula, where there has been a winter (summer) season warming on the western (eastern) side. Many of the different changes observed between the two polar regions can be attributed to topographic factors and land/sea distribution. The location of the Arctic Ocean at high latitude, with the consequently high level of solar radiation received in summer, allows the ice-albedo feedback mechanism to operate effectively. The Antarctic ozone hole has had a profound effect on the circulations of the high latitude ocean and atmosphere, isolating the continent and increasing the westerly winds over the Southern Ocean, especially during the summer and winter.

 

 

[Yenn]

I recently heard that the Antartic ice was not behaving as the computer model had predicted in the global warming predictions. What do the experts do? Change the computer modelling. That way they are always correct in their predictions.

 

 

[octave]

I recently heard that the Antartic ice was not behaving as the computer model had predicted in the global warming predictions. What do the experts do? Change the computer modelling. That way they are always correct in their predictions.

Yenn have you read the links I posted?

 

 

[octave]

Just a 'quickie' post from another place, by a one time poster on this site ( Polardroid ) who has worked in the Antarctic quite a lot.

 

** I know a bloke called John Turner, author of the paper that repudiates the "warming" of the Antarctic Peninsula.

 

The fact that the peninsula is getting colder is bleeding obvious to anyone who has worked there. I've been going there for the last 30 odd years. On my first visit, in 1985, it was very "warm" with pink coloured algae growing in the ice and the lads at Faraday base moaning about being unable to leave their little island in winter due to lack of sea ice. These days, it looks completely different (in a good way).

 

I'll try and find some pics from my archive to illustrate the point, if anyone is interested. **

 

I have no scientific comment on the above post, ( I am Not a climatologist. . . . ) other than to say that the climate change argument, cannot possibly be 'Settled Science' whilst anomalies like this patently exist. Sorry if it doesn't conform to the narrative that everyone seems to be happy with . . . must be just a 30 year 'Blip' I guess. . .

 

I've no doubt that someone will give me a good, sensible reason why this fits in nicely with the majority arguments. . .

 

Anyway,. . .the Antarctic is down your way and a lot closer; so I've no doubt you'll be able to give me the Al Gore reason why it's all bollox. . . .In the meantime, I shall retain an open mind on the subject. ( Important in all things scientific, as, if we 'settle' a subject too soon, advancement of knowledge is curtailed somewhat. . .in the UK, any questioning of the Anthropormorphic climate change narrative is instant death to the career of any academic or scientist. . . . . )

 

 

 

The Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling, but that doesn’t disprove global warming

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling, but that doesn’t disprove global warming

I would never presume to make such a statement Octave.

 

All I ask is that minds remain open and various questions are discussed sensibly and not shouted down as heresy.

 

That is all.

 

 

[octave]

I would never presume to make such a statement Octave.

The Antarctic Peninsula has been cooling, but that doesn’t disprove global warming

 

That looks like a statement, but it is actually a link to an article.

 

All I ask is that minds remain open and various questions are discussed sensibly and not shouted down as heresy.

That is all.

Agreed. I consider that my mind is open to good quality evidence, I did do quite a lot of reading before posting because I am aware that John Turner's work is often misquoted. I consider going to the source as being rigorous open minded.

 

I would like to believe that my postings would fall into the category of 'sensible discussion" and I don't believe I have shouted anyone down. All I have really done is provide links to the source of the requotes you used and I have no problem if after having read and considered the research you reject it.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Thank you Sir. I did not mean to infer nor suggest that you have done any shouting at all.

 

This often happens however in other places where no discussion is allowed, in my experience. You have provided some reference information, some of which I have seen. I will read the rest with objective interest.

 

Phil.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I recently heard that the Antartic ice was not behaving as the computer model had predicted in the global warming predictions. What do the experts do? Change the computer modelling. That way they are always correct in their predictions.

Scientific models (which includes computer models) are always imperfect to start with and the whole idea of them is that they are adjusted if observations don't match predictions so that they are continually improved to the point where, eventually, they give sufficiently good predictions to be considered accurate models.

 

I learned this in Year 9 Science class when we were taught about scientific modelling. It's one of the most basic tenets of modern science.

 

HOW THE FCUK can someone 'Question' empirical / VISUAL evidence ?

One questions "empirical evidence" as follows:

 

1) You can question whether the empirical evidence is actually correct, as human perception and observation is far from perfect. This is why such evidence usually needs to verified by other sources before it is considered reliable. The biases in human observation are exactly why in medicine we have "double-blind" trials.

 

2) Even if it is correct, you can question the conclusions drawn from it. Example, which I've heard numerous times:

 

"It's summer and the last week where I live has been 10 degrees below average, therefore climate change is a crock!"

 

This is a classic "non sequitur" fallacy ("it does not follow"), and it's also "cherry picking". The observer may be correct in their observation, but the subsequent conclusion cannot justified by a single observation from one specific location without looking at the reams of other data from other periods and locations. Yet they are deliberately trying to make it so. Anyone making a global conclusion based simply on a single data point such as "it's not warming on the Antarctic peninsular like we expected, therefore there is no global warming" would be highly unlikely to be taken seriously. Now if it actually wasn't warming anywhere, that would be a different matter, but you have that pesky empirical evidence from multiple sources actually showing quite the opposite.

 

So what do we therefore conclude? Put simply, the specific and unique local climate impacts in some sections of Antarctica are not well understood, but they don't trump what is happening around the rest of the world.

 

 

[Bruce]

If a place which used to have more foehn winds ( descending air and therefore warmed by compression) began to have less foehn winds, it will show a cooling tendancy even if the larger area is warming.

 

Here's two better anti-warming arguments:

 

1. In Siberia, you used to get more heating oil if you reported colder temperatures back to Moscow. So they got lots of record lows. Now this situation no longer exists, the temperatures have "risen" a lot.

 

2. There are lots of temperature measuring boxes ( Stephenson screens) which are now getting blown on by air-conditioners. Guess what? super high temperature reports on hot days.

 

Alas, these effects are not enough to explain away global warming, for the reasons dutch set out.

 

 

[Yenn]

A Stephenson Screen which has air conditioners blowing on it is incorrectly sited.

 

Science is always open to change. Ant theory is only waiting for some evidence to come and disprove it, but the Global Warming is only a prediction it seems to me. there is warming and there is cooling, but the changing of the theory to suit the predictions does not sound like good science to me. My personal view is that wether or not global warming is occuring it would be a good idea to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel, including natural gas.

 

At the moment we are exporting gas as fast as we can, for a price below that which Australians can buy it. Qld has closed a gas fuelled electrical generator, because the gas costs too much. Joe got the railways electrified and now the only electric train between Rocky and Brisbane is the tilt train and i think one version of that is diesel powered.

 

We will not get any sensible methods of treating global warming until we get rid of our present pollies.

 

 

[dutchroll]

A Stephenson Screen which has air conditioners blowing on it is incorrectly sited.Science is always open to change. Ant theory is only waiting for some evidence to come and disprove it, but the Global Warming is only a prediction it seems to me. there is warming and there is cooling, but the changing of the theory to suit the predictions does not sound like good science to me. My personal view is that wether or not global warming is occuring it would be a good idea to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel, including natural gas.

 

At the moment we are exporting gas as fast as we can, for a price below that which Australians can buy it. Qld has closed a gas fuelled electrical generator, because the gas costs too much. Joe got the railways electrified and now the only electric train between Rocky and Brisbane is the tilt train and i think one version of that is diesel powered.

 

We will not get any sensible methods of treating global warming until we get rid of our present pollies.

Yes science is always open to change but the increase in global temperatures is actually both empirically (directly) observed from numerous sources, and also indirectly observed from numerous sources. Indirect observations include significantly changing patterns of flora and fauna behaviour which only happens in adaptation to warmer climate shifts.

 

To suggest it's not actually happening is in contradiction of almost all the available evidence from pretty much every source. Now that's fine if people want to offer an opinion in total contradiction to the available evidence - there's no law against that. But again it's difficult to take such opinions seriously and it's certainly not within the bounds of science to take them seriously unless you actually have robust evidence to support those contradictions. If you do have that evidence - and historically it's certainly possible to overturn scientific consensus - you'll be in line for the next Nobel Prize.

 

Where the real scientific debate is, is trying to answer "how far will this warming go?', "what consequences will this have for us?", "over what timescale are we talking?", "should we mitigate it and if so, what is the best way?" and so on.

 

"Changing the theory to suit the predictions"

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. There's no change in the basic theory so far: increasing human emissions of CO2 are significantly contributing to warming of the planet through the greenhouse effect. Adjusting the finer details of scientific modelling to make more accurate predictions (magnitudes of the effect, timescales, etc) is totally normal. If you don't do that, you may as well not do science at all. Just marvel at all these weird and wonderful things (like cancer) without putting in any effort to understand the precise mechanisms by modelling what you think is happening and adjusting it to make accurate predictions. Scientific progress will be halted in its tracks. Completely.

 

 

[Bruce]

If you had a dry planet, the warming effect due to CO2 is a trivial problem, one you could give to year 12 physics students. What makes it hard is the effect of clouds and oceans.

 

But please remember my bet offer if you come across a real climate change denier who believes his stuff enough to put his money up.

 

I'm still looking for one of those.

 

 

[Yenn]

Keep looking, most likely place somewhere with a lot of sand.

 

 

[Bikky]

Hmmm. Many people choose to confuse opinion with fact. Opinions you can either agree, or disagree with. A fact is a fact is a fact. Climate change is a fact. The way we measure it, it's causes, and possible solutions are open to change at any time according to science which by it's nature, is dynamic. Unfortunately, opinions don't tend to change as readily.

 

 

[Yenn]

Maybe Climate Change is a fact. I am not sure of the definition of fact. Maybe it is a religion and just a matter of belief.

 

 

[Bruce]

I reckon a reading on a thermometer is a fact. As is no ice in what was once a glacier.

 

Another fact is that we humans have an amazing capacity to believe nonsense. There are actually flat-earth believers out there.

 

 

[Marty_d]

We will not get any sensible methods of treating global warming until we get rid of our present pollies.

And replace them with...? (Caligula had the right idea there, didn't he make his horse a senator? Bet it never voted for dodgy legislation or made boring speeches.)

 

Here's the problem. Large corporations including mining companies and banks determine government direction. Just look at the QLD government now saying that the proposed Carmichael coal mine is "critical infrastructure". Idiots.

 

Not to mention SA's blackout, caused by storms knocking over transmission lines (which would have happened even if the power plant at the other end was coal fired), prompting formerly sensible people like Malcolm Turnbull to blame renewable energy.

 

The one party which actually takes climate change seriously, the Greens, are not able to run the country in their own right, even if they managed to claw a majority. I'm usually a Green voter and I'll freely admit that. But with more seats they might be able to steer the agenda a little bit so I'll keep voting for them.

 

 

[Bruce]

Marty, I used to be a labor voter but lately I have more time for Hanson, and that was even before I found she had a Jabiru. I just wish she didn't have that climate-change denier in her ranks, and she didn't worry some of my Asian friends.

 

The Greens seem to me to lack understanding of basic science, so they don't understand that nuclear is less bad than coal.

 

Mind you, just like Pauline, they get a bad press. Caligula got a bad press too, he wasn't like he has been portrayed.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Maybe Climate Change is a fact. I am not sure of the definition of fact. Maybe it is a religion and just a matter of belief.

A fact is something verified to be true.

 

For example, the output of fossil-fuel derived CO2 from human sources is easily verified to a reasonable degree of accuracy by a simple chemical formula and the fact that we know how much fossil fuel we produce (and therefore combust) each year. So for just the USA, the CO2 emissions every year are about 6 billion metric tonnes of CO2.

 

The accelerating loss of ice in the Arctic is a fact verified by a number of different organisations using both direct observation and indirect observation by satellite measurements of Arctic gravitational fields (the thicker the ice mass, the stronger the field).

 

Neither of these are "beliefs". There are many, many more factual examples.

 

Of course if you really want to, you can take facts and edit them to suit your view. Here is a graph I posted several years ago (my own commentary in red) to show Arctic ice extent. It's just simple data, but if you chop out a few parts you can show the decline is just a myth peddled by greenies and really it's staging a spectacular recovery (original data source: National Snow and Ice Data Centre):

 

[ATTACH]48008._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

So I guess if you wanted to pick and choose what you show people, you could say it's just a matter of opinion whether arctic ice really is in serious and continual decline. Regrettably a lot of the anti-global warming arguments end up a bit like this. But it makes some people feel good about being able to sit back, relax, and carry on with business as usual without feeling guilty about it. We don't like guilt or blame even if the problem we created is totally unintentional, so we tend to pick a position which thoroughly absolves us of any. It's like the guy I saw on a (real-life) medical show recently with a gangrenous foot. He just ignored it, convincing himself it wasn't really that bad, especially because he eventually couldn't feel it anyway (strangely ignored the smell, and the visual reality). It had started in the tips of his toes. By the time he got to hospital it was at the stage where he had to get his leg amputated. Classic human behaviour. For all our intelligence, we're pretty irrational sometimes, particularly when acceptance of a fact might lead to unpleasant consequences.

 

[spacesailor]

HERE

 

Is the fact that most have ignored for centuries. ( you/we all can test it ourselves)

 

The SEA was fresh water, now its salt, the larger the salt content the less evaporation occurs, which means less rain!.

 

Are we "warming" to the fact, that the rain is Not cooling the planet as it did eons ago.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

I dunno if you are arguing that climate change is not man-made space. The sea has been salty for a long time... our blood is saline like the seas when our ancestor-fish lived there.

 

But as I have my mother-in -law from Darwin staying here, I will give you a good reason why to do nothing about climate change that will make us poorer.

 

Years ago, retirees left Darwin. Now they stay, because of air-conditioning. Who cares if the temperature goes up 2 degrees if you can afford 20 degrees cooling from air-conditioning? If you had to choose between being poor and no climate change, or rich with all the air-conditioning you want, what would you choose?