BBC Focus Magazine

[Flakkarin]

Yes, true sceptics are hard to find, our MPL is a rare breed

What kind of glaciers are you mostly looking at? Are they tidewater glaciers, i.e. with a floating tongue or at least draining into the ocean? I guess most probably are, judging by their location, in which case faster-than-expected retreat is probably the result of destabilisation of the front. Let's see, I had to do a presentation about this a while back... glaciers are normally governed by mass balance as to whether they advance or retreat (i.e. the balance between accumulation and ablation), but there are some studies that show tidewater glaciers can go into irreversible retreat governed by dynamics instead (i.e. the forces acting, such as flotation of the tongue, downslope pull, etc). That is, irreversible unless there is a massive dump of new accumulation, which is unlikely. There's a lot of complicated maths, but what it boils down to is if glacier thickness is less than threshold value h* (close to floatation) then thickness perturbations propagate upglacier from terminus region. Which is to say that if the floating tongue is thinned past a certain point, the rest of the glacier will thin in response and cause the glacier to flow faster, whether temperatures are higher or not.

[Shadowwolf]

The irony is that if you Google climate change you get more hits on sceptical sites than pro AGW.

Mayhaps but that don't amount to a whole hill 'o' beans scientifically speaking

...soon found out that genuine sceptics are few and far between,

Alas that does appear to be the case, many of them believe that if they can invalidate climate science — which seems easier to them — then they can invalidate evilution or whatever upsets them merely by association.

I myself am troubled, I have not — nor had the time — exhaustively examined all the evidence for AGW. Neither have I done so for some other scientific theories like evolution though I am a little more up on that one, anyhoo I generally am confident in the distillation of the complicated details by the many experts on evolution like Dawkins, Meyers etc who have made strong arguments for the case of evolution. Yet in AGW's case I am not confident and that just does not scan, all the bad press, the dodgy emails, political opportunism and the hockey stick fabrication are merely indications of bad practice. Do we toss out the exoneration of thimerosal based vaccination because one scientist involved is allegedly crooked? No, and none of climate sciences bad press invalidates the whole edifice either, it is bad for the message but it does not make the message wrong. AGW also has a great many studied individuals who have spent a lot of time and research on climate science, they certainly know more than I do so why do I treat them skeptically and yet by and large accept experts from other fields in what they say based on their credentials? Evidently I am not critically appraising one particular arena of science properly, so until I actually spend a lot of time examining the case for AGW I certainly cannot confidently declare that AGW is not so. I don't know is what I'm saying, but unless I have a particularly good reason for not accepting what a great many educated minds have to say I cannot naysay them. Few months to summer break, perhaps I can take some time then.

[john byatt]

hi, SW, not sure what you mean by hockey stick fabrication, which one of the ten or so?,the one that the temps were out by one thousandth of a degree?
what emails did you find to be dodgy? all this stuff is of course coming through in the press,
also I think i may be reading something into MPL's tag line that he is not saying ,

[Shadowwolf]

The Mann hockey stick graph and the emails from Hadley that advised hiding data and dodging FOIs, and yes it is all coming through from the media but as far as I know it is accurate. But my point was that regardless of the graph or the emails being true or no, none of it invalidates climate science or AGW, bad press may sully the message but it does not make the message wrong.

[john byatt]

the original Mann hockey stick caused a bit of a dilemma for the sceptics in that it contained the MWP
higher temps {regional} so they like it for that reason, a re-evaluation of the data after Mcintye's hysteria showed that the temps were out by one thousandth of a degree , the hockey stick didn't change in any way when replotted, you will discover the facts as opposed to the beat ups when you get the time as you say
real climate org. and skeptical science.com are both highly regarded.
looking into the "in context" excerpts of the emails the controversy about them mostly vanishes,

[john byatt]

Jones said some unfortunate things in the emails, out of frustration, he did not do anything though that was untoward , the FOI requests were an orchestrated campaign from Climate Audit and WUWT, 40 requests in 24 hours, most of the data was already available save that which was owned by other organizations. Jones could not just give out that information , whether he becomes a scapegoat or not i await with interest, seemed to be going okay at the Parliamentary investigation, Mann has been cleared as far as the emails go .

[Shadowwolf]

Yes but my point was that regardless of whether the claims are true or not, they meant little or nothing to the whole, even if the irregularities were true they would not automatically invalidate the science; at their worst they represent bad pr and that is as far as it goes.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Oh I don't think Mann has been cleared of anything at all John, save by the nepotistic chicanery of his associates within the closed shop that is the IPCC.

I still have much to say on this subject (rare breed or otherwise ) and if you will give me but a few hours I will gather together my thoughts and present them in due course.

[john byatt]

I cannot of course make a reasonable argument against that claim.
here are Manns words on th email www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own ... cru-emails

[john byatt]

apologies ..; www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own ... cru-emails

[john byatt]

dont know why it is doing that , it is{ michael mann his own words stolen cru emails}

[M Paul Lloyd]

Interesting, I also note that no effort is being spared to discredit McKitrick and McIntyre (now generally known as the heretics) who's analysis of Mann's statistical data for the graph so effectively undermined it and brought about its subsequent redrafting.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... struction/
http://www.desmogblog.com/mcintyre-and- ... k-unmasked

[john byatt]

Having followed much on WUWT and Climate Audit ,MPL I find that they repeatedly fabricate and spread false info, consider their about 20 different Gates to the actual number, Glaciers and below sea level areas of holland, these mistakes did not appear in WG1 , the science with rigorous peer review , they appeared in WG2, mistakes are mistakes however ,
to claim that a redrafting actually changed anything about the hockey stick though is wrong , the original plots are still in the same positions because the temp differences were less than the thickness of the data plot dots . but again a mistake even by a thousandth of a degree is still a mistake
other hockey sticks , www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ ... ey-ya-mal/

www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[john byatt]

It is often claimed that science requires a generational change to bring about a paradigm shift.
that generational change occurred for anthropogenic global warming in the 1970's
www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Could puny humans be having an effect on climate change ?
www.skepticalscience.com/visual-deconst ... ument.html

.

[M Paul Lloyd]

The hockey stick graph still troubles me John, as far as I can tell it has never been properly reviewed and in its original formed based upon Bristle Cone Pine data it strikes me as a little absurd if not downright comical. I know this makes me a prime subject for being dubbed a heretic and potential 'measure of linear mass density of a mono-filament'... a Denier if you are wondering. Sorry but the misuse of the word is one of my pet hates.

On the subject of CO2 I am still wondering why the levels were so much higher in the distant past, including some of the major ice ages, than they are even today after a century of industrialisation and yet appear to have had little effect on the climate?
The sedimentary record seems to suggest that over geological time the oceans must have absorbed a quite significant amount of CO2 otherwise shells and corals would not be so abundant and I presume that this process still has to go on even today?

For all our efforts to curb energy consumption and CO2 output have we had any effect on the rate at which the level is increasing? And if not then what hope do we have to curb it to such an extent that we will stave off global catastrophe? Will we be forced to return to the Dark Ages to survive? Given that the UK will have a 40% power deficit in he next ten years and no hope of replacing it with wind power I find myself more concerned about people freezing to death than dying from heat exhaustion.

I am currently working through some of my concerns on this and other climate subjects and I find myself greatly troubled by some of the thermodynamic concepts surrounding the greenhouse effect. Given that so much of the Earth is covered by water, which absorbs solar radiation without reflecting the infra red energy needed to propagate the greenhouse effect, and the land which does and which is not covered in reflective ice constitutes a very small (less than 25%) of the planets surface, I am left wondering how such a small amount of energy can warm the planet so very much?

It takes some 333.5 joules of energy (or 79 calories about equal to one Digestive biscuit) per gram to convert ice at 0 degrees C into water at 0 degrees C the heat energy being used to break the bonds that hold ice together. To convert water at 0 degrees C into vapour requires a further 2500 joules (or about 8 biscuits) per gram so converting thousands of tonnes of ice into water vapour requires a quite staggering amount of energy.

I also note that the oceans are on average all warmer than the corresponding atmosphere which means that the atmosphere cannot be transferring heat to the oceans otherwise the law of thermodynamics is broken.

it is also evident that no-one as yet has a full and proper understanding of the mechanics of global climate or the ocean currents which makes me wonder how anyone can claim anything for certain.

[john byatt]

MPL, i am old enough to remember mum discussing the denier of nylon stockings with her friends
prosmise not to resort to name calling unless you declare yourself a creationist or start talking about the giant conspiracy to get at our money ,
too many points in your post to address in one reply, would like to go through each .
I make no claims regarding the politics nor reverting to the dark ages to address climate change ,
Re high levels of co2 and ice ages, there is a new paper out looking at narrower time frames that i will chase up but you might wish to
consider http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lev ... ician.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/High-CO ... art-2.html
and ocean heat also.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... the-ocean/

i assure you mpl i learn more by such interactions than by just gleaning through the science
our newspapers were bombarded with sceptic claims that i could not reply to, i can and do now reply

[john byatt]

Bristlecone pine data, a little absurd

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ine-story/

Mann Bradley Hughes , Wegman hearing

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... n-hearing/

it is at about this point that the skeptics tell me to stop using realclimate and start looking at real science,

[john byatt]

the effects to date are only for the level of the .8degC anomaly since the late nineteenth century. Australia is seeing changes to the climate www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

some of the peer reviewed positive and negative effects of global warming, Climate change
www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed- ... rming.html

the term "climate change" has been around a lot longer than "global warming" due to its reference of past climate changes , it was Hansen that used the term Anthropogenic Global warming and it became popular in the media. during the 2002 {i think} USA election campaign the republicans used the term climate change and it stuck in the period of the Bush admin,that of course fixed up the problem of "Anthropogenic", I do not regard it as a guilt trip , If we dont act then we are guilty , as of today 110 countries have signed up to reductions in co2 emissions , In Australia climate change is considered a load of crap by the Parliamentary opposition , with our senator Fielding a {6000 year old earth} creationist they have been able to block a CPRS in the senate

[M Paul Lloyd]

I meant no offence over the Denier comment John, it is merely one of my own pet hates.

However I should point out that when it comes to me "just gleaning through the science our newspapers were bombarded with sceptic claims" well I'm sorry but you have rather missed the point of my efforts, I do not read the newspapers but rather I try to find stuff out for myself.

The Bristle Cone Pine study was centered on the accelerated growth rate as induced by elevated CO2 levels not temperature I therefore fail to see its relevance to rising temperatures?

Also I have actually read the Ad Hoc Wegman report, all 91 pages of it and this is presumably the same one which Mann claims as vindication for his work but which most certainly does not.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/resear ... Report.pdf

Here are a few points that also cause me concern.

The IPCC has been forced to admit that it had no evidence to substantiate a claim in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

It has also emerged that the IPCC’s claim that up to 40% of the Amazonian rainforest “could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” was drawn from a report prepared by pressure group WWF, which when I last checked was not a scientific body so they obviously missed the point that a warmer climate will lead to more rainfall not less?

Furthermore, the IPCC’s claim that rising damage costs from natural disasters are partly the result of global warming is based on a paper that had not been peer reviewed when the IPCC’s 2007 report was published. When the paper was eventually published in 2008 it included the statement: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.” Its contradictions like this that worry me.

[john byatt]

the Denier comment was in agreement with you MPL and the newspaper comment was my experience not related to you whom i realise would have studied much of the science , will come back to see what we can actually find as a starting point