Climate Science Blunders

[Inanna]

Okay, what's MWP and AGW?

[River]

Alphabet soup used to obfusticate discussion.

[N.E. Brigand]

Okay, what's MWP and AGW?

MWP is "Medieval Warm Period", sometimes known as the "Medieval Climate Anomaly". In some parts of the Northern Hemisphere, c. 1000 and lasting for a few hundred years, temperatures are known to have been warmer than they are now -- or warmer than they were for most of the twentieth century, at any rate. It is not known if this was a global or localized phenomenon. This period was followed by the "Little Ice Age" -- again, in the north Atlantic basin at least.

AGW is "Anthropogenic Global Warming".

[N.E. Brigand]

It does look bad for the AGW faithful...

"Eppur si muove!"

[N.E. Brigand]

Well, the I[nformation] C[omissioner's] O[ffice] has found that [the] C[limate] R[esearch] U[nit] [at the Universirty of East Anglia] did violate the F[reedom] O[f] I[nformation] Act (don't you love acronyms?).
Unfortunately, the law was written to have no effect, so they get off without any repercussions. Talk about a toothless law...
link

The prosecution has to be initiated within six months but you have to exhaust the university’s complaints procedure before the commission will look at your complaint. That process can take longer than six months

Well, no they didn't, at least not < according > to correspondece between UEA and the ICO posted Friday to the UEA website. The meaning of the commissioner's statements was apparently only that Phil Jones's 2007 suggestion --that e-mails should be deleted-- would be sufficient to merit an investigation, but that the statute of limitations had run out. There has been no official finding by the ICO.

So we still don't know if any e-mails were actually deleted. Jones says not. (And as it happens, I never deleted that e-mail from Voronwë after I said that I intended to do so.)

[halplm]

Link

Some interesting information.

My point on Newsnight was that it appeared that the organization writing the code did not adhere to standards one might find in professional software engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly documented.

Now, there's an interesting question of whether or not University scientific work should hold itself to any professional coding standards. Granted, even among professionals, it's often not done.

However, and I'm speaking from several years of personal experience, the government (at least in the US, and I would assume the UK is similar), demands adherance to explicit coding standards, extreme levels of testing, and very detailed record keeping.

One would hope, or rather expect, that when using conclusions derived from software to shape the global energy economy, and effect the lives of every single person on the planet... that software would be held to the same standard by the government.

We have seen this is not the case.

I've worked with code ranging from GPS that helps planes land safely, to test software for nuclear missile guidance systems... and the thought of an unfound bug in my code somewhere still haunts me rather continuously...

The fact that these scientists could so recklessly throw together software that could change the way the entire world works... and the fact the politicians would let them... seriously bothers me.

[halplm]

The IPCC has been forced (through FOI requests) to release the comments that were made as its report was reviewed. The review process was apparrently two rounds by scientists, and one by governments (not sure why governments should be commenting on it...).

Here is one small instance of the total fraud that went into this thing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/t ... more-18382

To summarize. A graph was used in the final report to imply that global warming was accelerating.

In one of the first two rounds, the same graph was there, but no such claim was made, and a scientist made the following comment:

‘This whole diagram is spurious. There is no justification to draw a “linear trend” through such an irregular record’

This comment was ignored.

The graph, however, was changed to include multiple linear lines, with increasing slopes. The scientists were done reviewing it, but the Chinese government made the following comment during their review:

These two linear rates should not compare with each other because the time scales are not the same’.

This comment was also ignored, despite it's complete validity.

[N.E. Brigand]

The IPCC has been forced (through FOI requests) to release the comments that were made as its report was reviewed. The review process was apparrently two rounds by scientists, and one by governments (not sure why governments should be commenting on it...)

The reason for government comments is that the IPCC report is divided into three volumes (of about 900 pages each). The first volume reports on the current status of climate science, the second reports on the observed and predicted results of climate change, and the third reports on how governments and others can and/or should respond to climate change.

[halplm]

The IPCC has been forced (through FOI requests) to release the comments that were made as its report was reviewed. The review process was apparrently two rounds by scientists, and one by governments (not sure why governments should be commenting on it...)

The reason for government comments is that the IPCC report is divided into three volumes (of about 900 pages each). The first volume reports on the current status of climate science, the second reports on the observed and predicted results of climate change, and the third reports on how governments and others can and/or should respond to climate change.

I suppose that's fair enough... but then it seems the three parts would not be relevant to all reviewers.

Why would the government be commenting on the science, and why would the scientists be commenting on the government policy?

[narya]

So, if the current level of plant growth + oceans can handle 300 gigatons and maintain a balanced system...more greenery actually could take care of the extra 6 gigatons, theoretically.

Isn't the absorption of all that extra CO2 part of the reason that the coral reefs are bleaching?

[vison]

The oceans are 30% more acidic now, because of absorbing more CO2. This is one cause of bleaching of the coral reefs, actually it is believed to be the primary cause. Another link. The atmosphere is warmer, which means it holds more water, which means when it rains or snows, it rains or snows more heavily. "Storms of the century" are happening once or twice a decade.

We don't now live on the Earth we evolved to live on, and this is true of almost all other species presently alive.

If the climate gets much warmer, the great bread baskets of the world are going to be in even more trouble: yields of our basic grains - rice, maize, and wheat - are going to drop. The varieties presently in use will not thrive in the warmer, generally drier climate.

Agriculture is the biggest fossil fuel user of all industries - to continue to farm in the current manner will require even more fossil fuel.

The change has come, in large part, and regardless of the cause, we have to deal with it.

[Inanna]

The change has come, in large part, and regardless of the cause, we have to deal with it.

Exactly. I wish people would stop squabbling... and realize that we have to deal with it. But i guess if you fundamentally disagree about the causes, then its impossible to agree about how to deal with it.

[Primula Baggins]

That's something I fundamentally don't get: there's a serious problem, and whatever caused it, we know of ways to make it less of a problem—delay it, lessen its effects. Why is it somehow unnecessary or undesirable to take these steps unless we are 100% certain the warming is human-caused? We don't hesitate to take steps to counteract other natural disasters; and if this were a natural disaster, it would be the biggest we've ever faced.

It is, in fact, human-caused, but my point is that our actions shouldn't be different whether it is or is not.

[narya]

People don't want to accept that there is a change. After all, it snowed last week. Right?

[Primula Baggins]

I think it was Stephen Colbert who had a bit where he panicked because it was dark outside, meaning the sun must have been destroyed.

It's very human to derive your understanding of the world from your immediate surroundings. I do hear people on hot days half-seriously proclaiming them as proof of global warming.

[halplm]

That's something I fundamentally don't get: there's a serious problem, and whatever caused it, we know of ways to make it less of a problem—delay it, lessen its effects. Why is it somehow unnecessary or undesirable to take these steps unless we are 100% certain the warming is human-caused? We don't hesitate to take steps to counteract other natural disasters; and if this were a natural disaster, it would be the biggest we've ever faced.

It is, in fact, human-caused, but my point is that our actions shouldn't be different whether it is or is not.

First of all, it's not human caused. There is no evidence it is human caused. The hockey stick graph is thoroughly debunked now, which was the entire basis for the theory.

There is warming I suppose, if you define warming a certain way, but all proposals for dealing with it assume that CO2 is the cause, rather than a result of that warming.

We can't "fix" natural cycles of the climate. To try to do so is rather nightmarish if you ask me, so it is not a matter of "how can we fix it." It's a matter of "how do we live with it."

So policies to make energy extremely expensive, while enriching carbon credit traders... don't really appeal to me.

[vison]

It is not a matter of "fixing the climate", halplm. It's a matter of dealing with the actual situation on the planet Earth.

We are poisoning the air, water, and earth. The oceans are now 30% more acidic than formerly, and getting worse. Why? Because they are absorbing more CO2. Why? Because there is more and more CO2 to absorb. Why? Because we are producing more and more CO2. Why? Because we are using fossil fuels to maintain our unsustainable lifestyle. Why? Because we are stupid, greedy, and shortsighted and don't seem to care that our great-grandchildren are going to be living on a very very inhospitable planet.

You may not plan on having children, halplm, but I already have. And I have grandchildren. I care about them enough to worry about their future. You and others who believe there is no problem will be safely dead before it gets really bad.

Acidic oceans, warmer atmosphere, less and less water for drinking and irrigation: why would anyone want to ignore these things? They are HAPPENING now. These are not predictions, not doomsaying, they are NOW.

[yovargas]

The hockey stick graph is thoroughly debunked now, which was the entire basis for the theory.

From the couple weeks I spent learning about this topic a few months back, the core basis of the theory seemed to be the well-understood chemical properties of CO2.

[Primula Baggins]

yov, bingo. A fundamental physical property of CO2 that can't be changed by crossing our fingers, or saying la la la la la. It's a basic factor in the Earth's climate, just as the fact that bricks have weight is a factor in a complicated building. It does not disappear because it's in a mixture.

Hal, you assert that the "hockey-stick" graph has been debunked (link? to science, please) and that therefore there is no global warming caused by humans, which is a complete non sequitur.

You say that because the warming is not human-caused, it is a natural process and therefore we can't do anything to mitigate it. This is not true. We can indeed make the problem less severe, no matter what is causing it. If we're the cause, we can make it a whole lot less severe. Remind me again why it's not worth trying to save our economy and environment?

You never have answered the question people have repeatedly asked you, which is whether you would try to defend yourself or your property from any other kind of natural disaster. Does the principle of "don't mess with Mother Nature" aply to earthquakes, floods, and lightning-caused fires as well? It seems as if it ought to, if that's the choice you make in regard to warming.

[halplm]

It is not a matter of "fixing the climate", halplm. It's a matter of dealing with the actual situation on the planet Earth.

Well, that's called life if you want to get that general.

We are poisoning the air, water, and earth.

We are? What poison are you referring to? CO2? That's a byproduct of animal life. It's not a poison. If you are referring to something else, then you are not talking about the "climate change" problem, and you've moved into environmentalism.

The oceans are now 30% more acidic than formerly, and getting worse.

I'll admit I don't know much about this. From my two minute tour of the interwebs about it, it is blatantly obvious this is the new tactic to say CO2 is the evil we have to destroy economies with... since the whole global warming myth has been proven a fraud.

Why? Because they are absorbing more CO2. Why? Because there is more and more CO2 to absorb. Why? Because we are producing more and more CO2.

Or, is the earth as a whole producing more CO2 because its warming... as all the historical records suggest.

Why? Because we are using fossil fuels to maintain our unsustainable lifestyle. Why? Because we are stupid, greedy, and shortsighted and don't seem to care that our great-grandchildren are going to be living on a very very inhospitable planet.

I don't think they will have an inhospitable planet... because it's highly likely in the natural cycles of global temperatures, the .3 to .4 degree increas we've seen over the last 30 years will likely revers in the next 30, or something else will happen, who knows.

You may not plan on having children, halplm, but I already have. And I have grandchildren. I care about them enough to worry about their future. You and others who believe there is no problem will be safely dead before it gets really bad.

Ah yes, the "if you cared about people, you'd agree with me" argument that has been the final resort of the environmentalist movement as long as I've been alive.

You know what hurts people more than having their electricity on? Having the government shut down their water and entire livelihood to theoretically save a bunch of smelt. That's happening today, right now... not in some theoretical future.

Acidic oceans, warmer atmosphere, less and less water for drinking and irrigation: why would anyone want to ignore these things? They are HAPPENING now. These are not predictions, not doomsaying, they are NOW.

Who's ignoring them? The problem is not willful ignorance, it's that people are rushing to judgement about causes because they have alternate agendas that those causes will help support.

if CO2 is not the big bad guy, then the environmentalists don't get to shut down businesses. They have to find ACTUAL poisons, which most businesses are actually pretty careful about.