The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Has the Global Warming Argument damaged scientific credibility?  (Read 8362 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Looking at the El Niño/La Niña graphs for the last few years,

There were several strong El Niño events during the 80's and 90's when the temperatures were rapidly increasing.  Since 2000, it has indeed trended a bit more towards ENSO neutral sea surface temperatures, but that seems to contrast more with the heavily positive period earlier.  And, several of the years in the last decade have been weakly ENSO positive.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/&h=810&w=800&sz=365&tbnid=R2kYtdUpmhwR6M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&zoom=1&usg=__LY5QJblOUY993kqcDErYRoHB9Is=&docid=h3V7NPBWTpRDgM&sa=X&ei=44pZUou8H8TOswaG0IHIAQ&ved=0CFgQ9QEwBQ

The link above appears to put your graph in its wider context, showing how exceptional the '80s and '90s were, though I may be misinterpreting it as the dates of what look like earlier times are too blurred to read, and clicking through to try to see the original graph in full detail leads to a message saying "Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable." If I'm not misinterpreting it though, it shows very clearly that substantially more heat could have been absorbed by the ocean over the last decade compared with the previous two - the colder the surface of the sea, the faster it will take heat in from the air. These graphs only tell the story of the tropical Pacific, of course, while the effects of El Niño and La Niña are ultimately global - it's just most stark in that area.

Quote
The ARGO project has been measuring deep ocean temperatures around the globe since about year 2000, so unfortunately it doesn't have a lot of history.  Some of the short term trends that have been posted haven't shown significant deep ocean temperature rises in the last decade or so.  Hopefully some longer term, more neutral analysis of trends are available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

The above link leads to a graph which again puts things in a wider context.

Quote
Another measurement of sea temperatures is the sea surface height, which is largely based on thermal expansion.  Most graphs seem to indicate a similar rate of rise in sea levels before 2000 and after 2000.

How largely? Ice on land would be melting less whenever more heat is going into the oceans (while ice would continue to melt fast in the Arctic Ocean due to warmer waters below it, which is exactly what we've seen), and less melt from the land would help to mask the effect of extra sea level rise due to extra thermal expansion. How good are the statistics on how much ice on land was lost to the sea during the '80s and '90s?
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/&h=810&w=800&sz=365&tbnid=R2kYtdUpmhwR6M:&tbnh=92&tbnw=91&zoom=1&usg=__LY5QJblOUY993kqcDErYRoHB9Is=&docid=h3V7NPBWTpRDgM&sa=X&ei=44pZUou8H8TOswaG0IHIAQ&ved=0CFgQ9QEwBQ
Can you still get to NOAA websites?
Here we get this wonderful splash page  [xx(]
http://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/

But, I think I found most of the image elsewhere.  Anyway, based on the longer chart, this current decade shouldn't be considered exceptional, but rather a return to a more normal sea surface pattern. 

The question should then be whether the 80's and 90's represent a new norm, or whether they are exceptional years. 

Here, a page that is actually available, discusses normalizing the El Niño/La Niña charts based on rising sea surface temperatures.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml

It looks like they changed the normalization curves by about 0.4° to 0.6°C over the lat 80 years, although the 81 to 2010 is slightly lower than the 76 to 2005 lines.

So much of our climate is based on longer cycles that it is hard to get a good snapshot of what is happening in a few decades.

The best way is to evaluate forward predictions, but we are changing our world so quickly that it is hard to wait to see if the predictions actually pan out.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Three quarters of the way down the above page is a diagram showing the amount of heat coming in from the sun along with the temperature of the Earth at the surface. What I can't find anywhere is graphs showing the amount of heat being reflected and radiated back out again.

http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/view/badc.nerc.ac.uk__ATOM__dataent_ERBE

The above page looks like the place to go for this kind of info, but the links lead to blank pages and error messages. It looks as if you can get their data on a CD, but I don't know if that then gives you graphs of if you have to trawl through the data to generate your own graphs from it.

Either more heat's been reflected out than normal over the last few years or more heat's being stored somewhere where it isn't being measured properly, such as in the ocean (thermal expansion being distorted by changes in the amount of ice melt from land). I'd like to know which it is, but we may have to wait for the Americans to sort out their tea party nutters before we can access the data.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
but the links lead to blank pages and error messages. It looks as if you can get their data on a CD,
If it is related to the congressional stalemate, it will end...  sometime...  at least one would think.  I doubt you'd be able to convince the US government to send, or to even sell you a CD until they finish negotiating the budget that should have been done in March and April.

One thing I've started wondering is what can be done to impact the thermosphere, and perhaps stratosphere?

I.E.  There is a portion of the heat that is absorbed and radiated from the upper atmosphere, and never quite makes it down to the lower atmosphere.  Increasing the absorption of heat in the higher levels of the atmosphere should make it cooler in the troposphere. 

For some reason, O3 is produced in high altitudes when it would otherwise be too dense of a gas to make it out of the lower troposphere. 

There are a few "lighter than air" gases.
  • H2
  • He
  • Methane
  • Water Vapor
And a few others.

Is it possible that methane could cool the earth rather than warming it due to being a light molecule and greater impact at higher altitudes?
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
I would like to redirect this conversation back to the topic of peer reviews.. These are a significant part of the scientific process, and with the events around the university of east anglia, how can we keep believing everything to be true that the only argument for is 'We all agree', the speed of light, the existance of gluons, photons, dark matter, the motion of the galaxies..

Humans are fallible, there are endless things we don't know, yet some claim to be able to work them out with mathematics that is beyond 99.9% of the worlds population.. and how do we agree it is proof? 'these other guys agree with me' is pretty much it. With professional pride and ethics, this should be enough, but it has now been proven to NOT be enough and showed the potential for the perversion of science by a collection of scientists who are more interested in making a name for themselves than representing true FACT by demonstration.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
For some reason, O3 is produced in high altitudes when it would otherwise be too dense of a gas to make it out of the lower troposphere. 

Simple reason: it is a product of the reaction 3O2<->2O3 that is promoted by shortwave ultraviolet.The equilibrium depends on the incident UV intensity and the O3 product then absorbs ultraviolet, preventing the reaction from occurring lower down in the atmosphere.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
there are endless things we don't know, yet some claim to be able to work them out with mathematics that is beyond 99.9% of the worlds population.. and how do we agree it is proof?

Producing a model of an observed phenomenon is not proof of understanding it. If the model can be extrapolated backwards with reasonable accuracy, it might be "good enough for engineering purposes" in the short term forwards but still a long way from showing an understanding of the underlying principles.

The problem with currently fashionable climate models is that they don't even predict the past, so are not to be used for predicting the future.   
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
I would like to redirect this conversation back to the topic of peer reviews.. These are a significant part of the scientific process, and with the events around the university of east anglia, how can we keep believing everything to be true that the only argument for is 'We all agree', the speed of light, the existance of gluons, photons, dark matter, the motion of the galaxies..

Peer review usually assumes that the author is telling the truth about his findings, though consistently abnormal data might raise an eyebrow. The principal questions are whether the experimental method could indeed have produced the data, whether the conclusion follows logically from the data, and whether the whole thing has been plagiarised.

Matters of fundamental constants and new particles are not a problem: if you don't agree with the result you can repeat the experiment. The problem with climate science is the lack of unequivocal historic data, the impossibility of doing any actual experiments, and the fact that the only thing you can do with the data you have is to try to fit a meaningful curve to an inherently chaotic data set, whilst being encouraged by vested interests as to the "proper" shape of that curve.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Who are these powerful vested interests? Most of the people who believe there's a serious man-made climate change issue would be only too happy to believe the opposite if that belief could be sustained. I would immediately be able to improve my quality of life by buying a car and travelling about by plane instead of ruling both those things out on moral grounds. If I thought for a moment that more CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't harmful, I'd change a lot of things about my life and start campaigning against renewable energy for which there would be absolutely no role, nuclear fusion taking up the baton long before all the oil, gas and coal runs out.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Windmill manufacturers. Chinese manufacturing industry. Carbon credit traders. Bicycle manufacturers. Railway operators. Governments that impose passenger taxes and fuel levies. Green campaigners. Research councils that give taxpayers' money to fund climate research and nuclear fusion. Electricity suppliers. Hollywood...... Oh the list goes on! As long as you toe the party line, there's money to be made in huge industries that require the public to believe that carbon dioxide causes climate change which is a Bad Thing.

Pity about fusion. It was 5 years away in 1950, 10 years away by 1980, and now seems to be at least 20 years away - it's rare to observe blue shift this close to home!

Quote
Most of the people who believe......would be only too happy to believe the opposite if that belief could be sustained.
Substitute "original sin" for "climate change" and you have the basis for a very profitable religion! The trick is to present an untestable hypothesis as fact, then sell the snake oil.   
« Last Edit: 20/10/2013 09:35:48 by alancalverd »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Windmill manufacturers.

They only started appearing in numbers to meet an artificial demand, long after the party started. They had no influence at the start.

Quote
Chinese manufacturing industry.

There would be plenty of other stuff to make if they weren't making wind turbines and if we weren't wasting money on them. It's a trivial industry to them.

Quote
Carbon credit traders.

Recent development.

Quote
Bicycle manufacturers.

No influence.

Quote
Railway operators.

Highly polluting industry which would rather just go on burning.

Quote
Governments that impose passenger taxes and fuel levies.

Recent development - had no role in getting the issue noticed.

Quote
Green campaigners.

Are generally opposed to hydro power, wind turbines and biofuels. Green campaigners want energy conservation to be the main event.

Quote
Research councils that give taxpayers' money to fund climate research and nuclear fusion.

Oh, we certainly don't want anyone funding climate research.

Quote
Electricity suppliers.

Quite happy to burn oil/coal/gas.

Quote
Hollywood.

A few sh*** films.

Quote
..... Oh the list goes on!

You've been sold a conspiracy theory.

Quote
Quote
Most of the people who believe......would be only too happy to believe the opposite if that belief could be sustained.
Substitute "original sin" for "climate change" and you have the basis for a very profitable religion! The trick is to present an untestable hypothesis as fact, then sell the snake oil.

Who's selling the snake oil? Here's the list of scientists with relevant qualifications who don't believe we're causing climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. Why not add yourself to that list if you're sufficiently qualified for your opinion to carry any weight.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Science is about observation, not consensus or democracy.

Just to expand on one point: Chinese manufacturing industry has been exempted from the Kyoto agreement, and has vastly increased its output of CO2 since Kyoto, whilst European industry is unable to compete. Conspiracy or con job? Certainly nothing to do with saving the planet.

And from today's news:
Quote
The Irish air travel tax is three euros (£2.50) per passenger, per flight, but will be abolished from April 2014.
Ryanair said the abolition helped to "restore Ireland's competitiveness". The tax was introduced at Irish airports almost five years ago. The airline said that that during that period, "traffic at the main Irish airports had declined from 30.5m passengers in 2008 to 23.5m in 2012".
which rather suggests that such "green" taxes are only levied when it is politically convenient to do so. Climate change surely doesn't depend on the competitiveness of the Irish economy, does it?

Nobody sold me a conspiracy theory, and I haven't accused anyone of conspiring, but I can spot a lie and a con when I see them.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
The inability of politicians to run a hiss up in a snake pit is not evidence of anything. If there's one thing they're good at it's doing everything badly. A green tax of £2.50 per passenger is a farce - hadly noticed by the passenger and only a tiny fraction of what the true charge would be needed to offset the damage done. It was never anything other than a token gesture to try to appease the green lobby.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Green passenger tax is always a lie because the fuel consumption of a large aircraft is only about 20% dependent on the number of passengers it carries. Unfortunately for the politicians, any other form of tax e.g. on route length, is tantamount to a jet fuel tax, which is internationally regulated for safety reasons. 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length