Your Bucks
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting bfp news to 80360 or email »
'It is not all the fault of mankind'
12:24pm Friday 18th July 2008
Comments (74)RE:SNOW IN 1907 (BFP July 11)
UNLESS those who still follow the IPCC's crusade can satisfactorily answer last week's question posed by Anthony Weeden, we should continue to deride their persistent prattle claiming that mankind is
responsible for global warming'.
The pre-historic variations in global mean surface temperature referred to by Mr Weeden incorporate the results of analyses of ice core drillings made by the British Antarctic Survey in the 1990s.
These were published in The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd Report in June, 2000 (RCEP 22).
Fig.2-V of that report, entitled Energy -the Changing Climate', shows the near-synchronous variations in local surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide content which occurred during the past 450,000 years or so. Approximately every 100,000 years during that period, the Earth's local surface temperature, close to the South Pole, dropped jerkily from a peak to a trough about 13 degrees C lower, and then jumped back smoothly and rapidly to a similar peak.
In sympathy - though actually several decades afterwards - the carbon dioxide content fell jerkily from a peak of about 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a trough of about 180 ppmv, then rose (rapidly and mostly smoothly) back again to a similar peak.
From my own calculations of the greenhouse effect of global warming, assuming solar radiation to be constant during that period (which it clearly was not), the 120 ppmv change in carbon dioxide level could not have induced a global warming change of more than about 0.5 degrees C. These calculations also show that trimming carbon dioxide levels by the colossal 60% or so aimed at in the latest IPCC jamboree could not reduce the global mean surface temperature by more than about 0.25 degrees C assuming constant solar input.
Atmospheric water - in the form of vapour, liquid (cloud and rain) and solid (ice) - is by far the dominant greenhouse substance, swamping the small effects of carbon dioxide in even the highest concentrations we can possibly generate by burning carbonaceous fuels as if there were no tomorrow.
Cloud, as well as forming a significant part of the greenhouse blanket', is also a potent shield against the Sun's rays. By increasing its extent during prolonged warm periods it reflects solar energy back into space, and by reducing its extent during prolonged cold spells it lets more sunshine through. It thus acting as an automatic Venetian blind.
The carbon dioxide changes in the Vostok Ice Sheet core analyses can be explained as the result of photosynthesis.
A warm Earth stimulates plant growth and subsequent decay to produce both methane (a potent greenhouse gas) and carbon dioxide.
A cold Earth arrests plant decay and thus inhibits carbon dioxide production, while photosynthesis at a reduced rate continues to deplete the atmosphere's stock of this gas.
Pre-historic global warming is therefore clearly due mainly to causes other than carbon dioxide, and - since this is fundamentally an energy phenomenon - it has to be attributed to variations in solar energy received by the Earth. Changes in the Earth's orbit (the Milankovitch theory) and orientation (axial tilt and precession of the equinoxes) clearly play some part, but these are minor in comparison with changes in the Sun's energy output. Why? Simply because the shape of the temperature/time curve due to gravitational effects has to be symmetrical in order to be repeatable, whereas the dominant shapes shown of RCEP's Fig.2-V are strongly asymmetrical.
I suggest that these solar energy changes are the result of continuing variations in the Sun's internal thermo-nuclear activity. One explanation could be that the Sun alternately accretes interstellar hydrogen and deuterium by its intense gravitational power during periods when energy output is low, then brakes - or halts - such accretion when energy levels increase.
The rapid rise in radiation pressure which follows increasing core temperature propels interstellar matter away from the Sun, forming a powerful buffer.
Gravitational attraction acts much more gently during the longer decay period. There are, perhaps, other viable explanations Yes, mankind certainly affects global warming a little by the burning
of fossil fuels, and even just by breathing! But by far the greatest effect is created by the Sun's inherent energy variations, however caused, and to a lesser extent by the changes in the Earth's
orbit and the tilt of its axis of rotation. So there we have it!
Roderick Taylor
Chartered Engineer
Abbotsbrook
Bourne End
Your Say YourBucks
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:56am Sat 19 Jul 08
FAO Roderick. It has just occurred to me that we could meet up, over a coffee, to hold a civilised conversation about why we both feel as strongly and as certainly as we do about our very different 'positions'. It may be a complete waste of time, for both of us, but there is only one way to find out. Dave
tom, marlow says...
5:42pm Sat 19 Jul 08
Its nice to see that the chartered engineers now accept there is some human contribution.
Perhaps its a result of our friends at Exxon-Mobil putting out adverts on the TV about how much they are doing to reduce carbon emissions.
I wonder if they still fund any of the mmgw sceptic groups and bogus reearch we had a long discussion about last year?
If you get chance to meet Mr Taylor perhaps you could ask him to publish his calculations so we could all share. I'm particularly interested in why he appears to base them solely on carbon dioxide levels when, as we all know, and he points out, water vaour and methane are significant. It may be, of course, that in the limited context of his letter this was a detail that was missed.
Perhaps its a result of our friends at Exxon-Mobil putting out adverts on the TV about how much they are doing to reduce carbon emissions.
I wonder if they still fund any of the mmgw sceptic groups and bogus reearch we had a long discussion about last year?
If you get chance to meet Mr Taylor perhaps you could ask him to publish his calculations so we could all share. I'm particularly interested in why he appears to base them solely on carbon dioxide levels when, as we all know, and he points out, water vaour and methane are significant. It may be, of course, that in the limited context of his letter this was a detail that was missed.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:05pm Sat 19 Jul 08
Thanks Tom. Indeed!
There was a perfectly sound ending to this false 'debate'.. back in 2006.. when Sir David Attenborough, after a lifetime of study and listening to experts, concluded once and for all, that recent steep rise in temperature is down to humans.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=S9ob9WdbX
x0
The legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough was long unsure about the causes of the observed climate warming. In his documentary, The Truth About Climate Change, he sheds doubt and explains what convinced him.
Climate models based on purely natural processes such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions fail to explain the observed change in Earth's climate in the latter part of the 20th century. Models factoring in the human impact, that is, the increase of carbon dioxide in the athmosphere, depict the transpired warming accurately, however.
None of this stops die-hard sceptics from attempting to deny everything though, as they do!
One last thing, I am a Chartered Engineer, amongst my other qualifications, and I can reassure you there are plenty of us that have been leading the pack in terms of incovenient truth telling for a long while.
There was a perfectly sound ending to this false 'debate'.. back in 2006.. when Sir David Attenborough, after a lifetime of study and listening to experts, concluded once and for all, that recent steep rise in temperature is down to humans.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=S9ob9WdbX
x0
The legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough was long unsure about the causes of the observed climate warming. In his documentary, The Truth About Climate Change, he sheds doubt and explains what convinced him.
Climate models based on purely natural processes such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions fail to explain the observed change in Earth's climate in the latter part of the 20th century. Models factoring in the human impact, that is, the increase of carbon dioxide in the athmosphere, depict the transpired warming accurately, however.
None of this stops die-hard sceptics from attempting to deny everything though, as they do!
One last thing, I am a Chartered Engineer, amongst my other qualifications, and I can reassure you there are plenty of us that have been leading the pack in terms of incovenient truth telling for a long while.
williams, London says...
6:05pm Wed 30 Jul 08
With all due respect to Richard Attenborough and yourself, the logic employed in order to claim that climate models prove man-induced climate change, is circular.
As I'm sure you are aware, the physics of the atmosphere are incredibly complex. So complex, that is is impossible to model them accurately (even Dr Jim Renwick, a lead author on IPCC AR4 stated "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we dont expect to do terrifically well").
In order to get climate models to agree with past temperature records, the IPCC tell us in AR1 that they use "flux adjustments" which are later defined as "empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles". You and I would call them fudge factors.
Later, the IPCC tell us that some models have moved away from this, but then concede that "a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it".
As for the models that don't use "flux adjustments", they now use "ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters". This is further defined as "implicit flux adjustments".
So we have models with fudge factors that account for physical processes that we cannot identify, so as we can get them to agree with past temperature records.
Even the processes we can identify are so hard to model the slightest change in their input can swing the temperature by whole degrees. The IPCC even admit this in AR4 chapter 1 when they state...
"The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities."
(it's worth noting that this is heavily played down by the time it is mentioned again in chapter 8.)
On top of all this is the requirement for CO2 to have a positive feedback on water vapour (as I'm sure you are aware, the 0.01% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for cannot cause significant warming without this feedback). There is no evidence that demands that this relationship to be modelled as a positive feedback.
However, since the models are built on the assumption that man induces climate change and that in itself requires this feedback value (when almost every other natural feedback is negative) it is thrown in to the model.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming.
As I'm sure you are aware, the physics of the atmosphere are incredibly complex. So complex, that is is impossible to model them accurately (even Dr Jim Renwick, a lead author on IPCC AR4 stated "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we dont expect to do terrifically well").
In order to get climate models to agree with past temperature records, the IPCC tell us in AR1 that they use "flux adjustments" which are later defined as "empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles". You and I would call them fudge factors.
Later, the IPCC tell us that some models have moved away from this, but then concede that "a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it".
As for the models that don't use "flux adjustments", they now use "ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters". This is further defined as "implicit flux adjustments".
So we have models with fudge factors that account for physical processes that we cannot identify, so as we can get them to agree with past temperature records.
Even the processes we can identify are so hard to model the slightest change in their input can swing the temperature by whole degrees. The IPCC even admit this in AR4 chapter 1 when they state...
"The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities."
(it's worth noting that this is heavily played down by the time it is mentioned again in chapter 8.)
On top of all this is the requirement for CO2 to have a positive feedback on water vapour (as I'm sure you are aware, the 0.01% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for cannot cause significant warming without this feedback). There is no evidence that demands that this relationship to be modelled as a positive feedback.
However, since the models are built on the assumption that man induces climate change and that in itself requires this feedback value (when almost every other natural feedback is negative) it is thrown in to the model.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:31pm Wed 30 Jul 08
Hi 'williams'
All very impressive lengthy and utterly believable but, sadly, balderdash.
Also, it was Sir David Attenborough not Richard that satisfied himself, after years of investigation, (for fear of getting it wrong) and he is right.
Lay readers may wish to have a look at the little youtube vid clip i posted before to see the sheer certainly of the conclusion.
Don't be fooled.
If you want a bit more depth, but still an easy read, try the home page of THE ROYAL SOCIETY no less:
http://royalsociety.
org/
Utterly clear and completely at odds with Bucks few odd ball denialists, who seem so sure and who are in fact in fantasy world... or worse...
All very impressive lengthy and utterly believable but, sadly, balderdash.
Also, it was Sir David Attenborough not Richard that satisfied himself, after years of investigation, (for fear of getting it wrong) and he is right.
Lay readers may wish to have a look at the little youtube vid clip i posted before to see the sheer certainly of the conclusion.
Don't be fooled.
If you want a bit more depth, but still an easy read, try the home page of THE ROYAL SOCIETY no less:
http://royalsociety.
org/
Utterly clear and completely at odds with Bucks few odd ball denialists, who seem so sure and who are in fact in fantasy world... or worse...
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:38pm Wed 30 Jul 08
PS If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so.
(These are the ones that cause thermal runaway. The hotter it gets, the hotter it gets, exponentially.)
How can you guys have missed this?
Try the Westminster Briefing, if you dare:
http://www.apollo-ga
ia.org/BaliandBeyond
.htm
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
(These are the ones that cause thermal runaway. The hotter it gets, the hotter it gets, exponentially.)
How can you guys have missed this?
Try the Westminster Briefing, if you dare:
http://www.apollo-ga
ia.org/BaliandBeyond
.htm
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:57pm Wed 30 Jul 08
And before some other wit remarks that the Earth is now cooling, try this:
Climate of suspicion
Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers - encouraged by a cool year - have to say
Fred Pearce
The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008
The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right - well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climatic cycles. The La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this year.
And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Niño year. Now we are on the way back down, they will say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing human influence on temperature.
By late next decade, natural warming will once again combine with man-made warming to push temperature rise into overdrive. The surge that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s will resume with a vengeance. That could be the moment that climate change passes a point of no return, when ice sheets start to collapse and parched rainforests and soils dump their carbon into the air, accelerating warming.
Now, a sceptic might say that if the modellers are only just learning about the importance of natural cycles to climate forecasts, why should we believe their predictions at all? Fair point. In their desire to persuade us about the big picture of global warming, scientists have sometimes got cocky about colouring in the detail.
Recently I attended a conference in Reading where some of the world's top experts discussed their failings. How their much-vaunted models of the world's climate system can't reproduce El Niños, or the "blocking highs" that bring heatwaves to Europe - or even the ice ages. How their statistical mimics of tropical climate are "laughable", in the words of the official report.
This sudden humility was not unconnected with their end-of-conference call for the world to spend a billion dollars on a global centre for climate modelling. A "Manhattan project for the 21st century", as someone put it.
Even so, scientists are concerned that many of their predictions about how climate change will play out in different parts of the world are little better than guesses. But whatever the local wrinkles and whatever natural cycles may intervene, man-made global warming is real, current and matters a great deal.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
· Fred Pearce is the author of The Last Generation
Climate of suspicion
Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers - encouraged by a cool year - have to say
Fred Pearce
The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008
The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right - well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climatic cycles. The La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this year.
And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Niño year. Now we are on the way back down, they will say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing human influence on temperature.
By late next decade, natural warming will once again combine with man-made warming to push temperature rise into overdrive. The surge that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s will resume with a vengeance. That could be the moment that climate change passes a point of no return, when ice sheets start to collapse and parched rainforests and soils dump their carbon into the air, accelerating warming.
Now, a sceptic might say that if the modellers are only just learning about the importance of natural cycles to climate forecasts, why should we believe their predictions at all? Fair point. In their desire to persuade us about the big picture of global warming, scientists have sometimes got cocky about colouring in the detail.
Recently I attended a conference in Reading where some of the world's top experts discussed their failings. How their much-vaunted models of the world's climate system can't reproduce El Niños, or the "blocking highs" that bring heatwaves to Europe - or even the ice ages. How their statistical mimics of tropical climate are "laughable", in the words of the official report.
This sudden humility was not unconnected with their end-of-conference call for the world to spend a billion dollars on a global centre for climate modelling. A "Manhattan project for the 21st century", as someone put it.
Even so, scientists are concerned that many of their predictions about how climate change will play out in different parts of the world are little better than guesses. But whatever the local wrinkles and whatever natural cycles may intervene, man-made global warming is real, current and matters a great deal.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
· Fred Pearce is the author of The Last Generation
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:00pm Wed 30 Jul 08
Here's the important summary para of the above post - quoted from teh Guardian - for the busy reader.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
williams, London says...
10:24am Thu 31 Jul 08
Hi Dave,
I must apologise for mixing up my Attenboroughs. I must admit, I have never had the mind for celebrity names and faces. I hope you'll excuse the Freudian slip.
I would be most grateful if you could tell me precisely what part of my criticism was 'balderdash' as I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling.
With regards to your offer to discuss the water-vapour feedback within the climate, I would be very pleased to read any empirical evidence you have found that proves this to be a positive feedback relationship of the 67-80% scale that the IPCC assume.
With the IPCC WG1 describing the evidence they have with a closing paragraph of...
"Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback by correlating spatial surface fluctuations with spatial OLR fluctuations were carried out by Raval and Ramanathan (1989). Their results are difficult to interpret, as they involve the effects of circulation changes as well as direct thermodynamic control (Bony et al., 1995). Inamdar and Ramanathan (1998) showed that a positive correlation between water vapour, greenhouse effect and SST holds for the entire tropics at seasonal time-scales. This is consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback as the circulation fluctuates in a different way over the seasonal cycle than it does in response to doubling of CO2."
....I find it baffling as to why they would then assign such a high feedback value to it in their models.
The IPCC's decision seems even more confused when papers like 'Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007) conclude that the, within all the IPCC climate models, the negative forcings of water vapour are undervalued, while their positive forcings are largely exaggerated.
This has recently been re-affirmed by Dr Roy Spencer and W.D Braswell in their recent announcement of their latest research from the NASA AQUA satellite that they claim shows evidence of a much more insensitive climate. I am waiting to see if their claims hold any value once they publish their research in the coming weeks.
I'm afraid I can't really comment on the Guardian article without bringing in the mess that is the Mann "hockey stick" which is a lengthy discussion in itself, and perhaps one best left until we have resolved the CO2/water question. I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces.
I am very interested in hearing any comments you have on the papers mentioned above, or any other papers you know of regarding this issue.
I must apologise for mixing up my Attenboroughs. I must admit, I have never had the mind for celebrity names and faces. I hope you'll excuse the Freudian slip.
I would be most grateful if you could tell me precisely what part of my criticism was 'balderdash' as I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling.
With regards to your offer to discuss the water-vapour feedback within the climate, I would be very pleased to read any empirical evidence you have found that proves this to be a positive feedback relationship of the 67-80% scale that the IPCC assume.
With the IPCC WG1 describing the evidence they have with a closing paragraph of...
"Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback by correlating spatial surface fluctuations with spatial OLR fluctuations were carried out by Raval and Ramanathan (1989). Their results are difficult to interpret, as they involve the effects of circulation changes as well as direct thermodynamic control (Bony et al., 1995). Inamdar and Ramanathan (1998) showed that a positive correlation between water vapour, greenhouse effect and SST holds for the entire tropics at seasonal time-scales. This is consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback as the circulation fluctuates in a different way over the seasonal cycle than it does in response to doubling of CO2."
....I find it baffling as to why they would then assign such a high feedback value to it in their models.
The IPCC's decision seems even more confused when papers like 'Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007) conclude that the, within all the IPCC climate models, the negative forcings of water vapour are undervalued, while their positive forcings are largely exaggerated.
This has recently been re-affirmed by Dr Roy Spencer and W.D Braswell in their recent announcement of their latest research from the NASA AQUA satellite that they claim shows evidence of a much more insensitive climate. I am waiting to see if their claims hold any value once they publish their research in the coming weeks.
I'm afraid I can't really comment on the Guardian article without bringing in the mess that is the Mann "hockey stick" which is a lengthy discussion in itself, and perhaps one best left until we have resolved the CO2/water question. I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces.
I am very interested in hearing any comments you have on the papers mentioned above, or any other papers you know of regarding this issue.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:38pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Dear Williams
Happy to oblige.
I can only call you Williams as that is how you identify yourself,or rather, you don't.
Fred Pearce was the Editor or Dep Editor of the New Scientist, not some Guardian hack.
The part of your argument that is balderdash, and I suspect you know it, is this:
"It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming."
Not only is that statement balderdash, ot is fantasy, and dangerous misleading fantasy to boot.
I suspect you are a professional obfuscator, trying to make it look - to the lay reader - as if there is doubt, when there is not.
If however you have some real science education, O would be interested in your comments on the Westminster Briefing, and on the various Wasdell papers that show that the IPCC played down the threat, not exaggerated them.
As to water vapour, it is indeed a powerful element of the 2nd order cross compounding negative feedbacks that are leading us to a dangerous state of thermal runaway...
But i am sure you will deny everything.
Go ahead, the public won't be fooled for much longer
Yours
Oh, and happy to meet up anytime..
If
Happy to oblige.
I can only call you Williams as that is how you identify yourself,or rather, you don't.
Fred Pearce was the Editor or Dep Editor of the New Scientist, not some Guardian hack.
The part of your argument that is balderdash, and I suspect you know it, is this:
"It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming."
Not only is that statement balderdash, ot is fantasy, and dangerous misleading fantasy to boot.
I suspect you are a professional obfuscator, trying to make it look - to the lay reader - as if there is doubt, when there is not.
If however you have some real science education, O would be interested in your comments on the Westminster Briefing, and on the various Wasdell papers that show that the IPCC played down the threat, not exaggerated them.
As to water vapour, it is indeed a powerful element of the 2nd order cross compounding negative feedbacks that are leading us to a dangerous state of thermal runaway...
But i am sure you will deny everything.
Go ahead, the public won't be fooled for much longer
Yours
Oh, and happy to meet up anytime..
If
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:44pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Just in case lay readers were impressed by 'williams' apparent show of detailed scientific understanding, here is what wikipedia say on the matter.
I am not citing this as relevant or decisive, just that many parents will trust this source for school home work.
Lets see what they say about:
Human influences on climate change:
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment and influence climate. In some cases the chain of causality is direct and unambiguous (e.g., by the effects of irrigation on temperature and humidity), while in others it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been debated for many years, though it is important to note that the scientific debate has moved on from scepticism, as there is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Consequently in politics, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce human impact and adapt to change that is already 'in the system.'
The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere), which exert a cooling effect, and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture and deforestation, also affect climate.
I am not citing this as relevant or decisive, just that many parents will trust this source for school home work.
Lets see what they say about:
Human influences on climate change:
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment and influence climate. In some cases the chain of causality is direct and unambiguous (e.g., by the effects of irrigation on temperature and humidity), while in others it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been debated for many years, though it is important to note that the scientific debate has moved on from scepticism, as there is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Consequently in politics, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce human impact and adapt to change that is already 'in the system.'
The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere), which exert a cooling effect, and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture and deforestation, also affect climate.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:52pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Will 'Williams' explain why he doesn't answer the question i posed:
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
His charming belittling of Sir David Attenborough is subtle but insulting.
Look at the video readers and see once and for all why Sir David was, at last, utterly convinced that humans are to blame...
Don't allow clever sounding people to bamboozle you. The facts are clear:
There is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Period.
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
His charming belittling of Sir David Attenborough is subtle but insulting.
Look at the video readers and see once and for all why Sir David was, at last, utterly convinced that humans are to blame...
Don't allow clever sounding people to bamboozle you. The facts are clear:
There is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Period.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:02pm Thu 31 Jul 08
One last important item.
'Williams' tries to dismiss the author of the important Guardian piece i cited by saying:
"I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces."
Fred Pearce is a national treasure.
Read what wikipedia have to say about him: Fred Pearce is an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers and has reported on environment, popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental issues, including water and climate change. and frequently takes heretic and counter-intuitive views - "a sceptic in the best sense", he says.
I may be wrong but I'd trust him more than i'd trust Bucks home grown obfuscators.
best wishes, dave
'Williams' tries to dismiss the author of the important Guardian piece i cited by saying:
"I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces."
Fred Pearce is a national treasure.
Read what wikipedia have to say about him: Fred Pearce is an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers and has reported on environment, popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental issues, including water and climate change. and frequently takes heretic and counter-intuitive views - "a sceptic in the best sense", he says.
I may be wrong but I'd trust him more than i'd trust Bucks home grown obfuscators.
best wishes, dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:16am Fri 1 Aug 08
Dear 'Williams'
Just in case you were sincere in your comment:
"I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling"
and I really should have given you the benefit of the doubt, I am investigating the water vapour element that you ask me to focus on, and will get back to you on that. My frustration comes from seeing several "well meaning people" dragging small pieces of detailed science in front of a local lay audience without any consideration of what they are doing. The prevailing concensus is way beyond debate. All the signs are there, in front of our face. NASA scientists say "Warming in increasing greatly, especially recently" and the ice everywhere is melting. Yet in Bucks people seem t think there is still some doubt we can cling on to - for dear life?
The consequences of the 'obfuscators' doing their job well will be that humankinds necessary response to addressing the climate destabilisation we have released (like a Genie out of a bottle) will be delayed. Are you sure you want the fact that you dared to take that risk to be written into history. I prefer to listen and heed the warnings that 99% of scientists have long been trying to tell us, via a ceptical media owned by several oil-vested interests, and oil-funded governments!
I also choose to listen to the smaller number of brave independent and pennyless scientists who are trying to tell us that it is actually far far WORSE than the IPCC consensus suggests. But I must be careful or I will be written off (like they often are) as being an alarmist. The truth is that the future the children of the world face is very alarming indeed.
"Warming is increasing greatly, especially recently."
(N.B. As ever scientist will know, this quote refers to WARMING not TEMPERATURE, it being the underlying 'heat engine' of the planet that will lead, in due course, to temperatures we simply can't even live through. Game over. That is how big the stakes are.
Perhaps you would care to address these wider issues (Mr.Ms?) Williams. Why do you dare slow mankinds necessary, beneficial, inevitable and desirable transition to a post fossil world.
Just in case you were sincere in your comment:
"I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling"
and I really should have given you the benefit of the doubt, I am investigating the water vapour element that you ask me to focus on, and will get back to you on that. My frustration comes from seeing several "well meaning people" dragging small pieces of detailed science in front of a local lay audience without any consideration of what they are doing. The prevailing concensus is way beyond debate. All the signs are there, in front of our face. NASA scientists say "Warming in increasing greatly, especially recently" and the ice everywhere is melting. Yet in Bucks people seem t think there is still some doubt we can cling on to - for dear life?
The consequences of the 'obfuscators' doing their job well will be that humankinds necessary response to addressing the climate destabilisation we have released (like a Genie out of a bottle) will be delayed. Are you sure you want the fact that you dared to take that risk to be written into history. I prefer to listen and heed the warnings that 99% of scientists have long been trying to tell us, via a ceptical media owned by several oil-vested interests, and oil-funded governments!
I also choose to listen to the smaller number of brave independent and pennyless scientists who are trying to tell us that it is actually far far WORSE than the IPCC consensus suggests. But I must be careful or I will be written off (like they often are) as being an alarmist. The truth is that the future the children of the world face is very alarming indeed.
"Warming is increasing greatly, especially recently."
(N.B. As ever scientist will know, this quote refers to WARMING not TEMPERATURE, it being the underlying 'heat engine' of the planet that will lead, in due course, to temperatures we simply can't even live through. Game over. That is how big the stakes are.
Perhaps you would care to address these wider issues (Mr.Ms?) Williams. Why do you dare slow mankinds necessary, beneficial, inevitable and desirable transition to a post fossil world.
tom, marlow says...
9:22am Fri 1 Aug 08
This is a complex problem in which many factors play a part. Some of the data is not as good as other data. A few elements of the modelling may turn out to be wrong. A few of the boundary conditions are not well understood.
However, it is a fallacy to infer that because one element of a model is not correct then the whole model is wrong. Most of the data, most of the climate modelling is self consistent and leads to the same conclusions.
For sure there are a number of quantitative questions, exactly how much?, exactly when?. Thats inevitable when you are dealing with non-linear processes. But the range of answers doesnt include "none" and "so far in the future we can ignore it"
This whole apparoach of picking out one thing thats not well determined and arguing that the whole model is thus wrong is well used in many areas by people with an axe to grind.
Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers.
The obfuscators (as Dave so aptly describes them) are using the same techniques with climate change.
I wonder why?
However, it is a fallacy to infer that because one element of a model is not correct then the whole model is wrong. Most of the data, most of the climate modelling is self consistent and leads to the same conclusions.
For sure there are a number of quantitative questions, exactly how much?, exactly when?. Thats inevitable when you are dealing with non-linear processes. But the range of answers doesnt include "none" and "so far in the future we can ignore it"
This whole apparoach of picking out one thing thats not well determined and arguing that the whole model is thus wrong is well used in many areas by people with an axe to grind.
Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers.
The obfuscators (as Dave so aptly describes them) are using the same techniques with climate change.
I wonder why?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:41am Fri 1 Aug 08
Thanks Tom. I wonder too. They can't be 'bad' people surely. Perhaps they are simply fooled/fuelled by a few professional bad fossils. In other words some may be a reasonable distance downstream of the few centrally organised well-funded professional oil-funded obfuscator denialists. Far enough away not to pick up the whiff of inauthenticity.
In other words, I don't think all the people who write in to Bucks papers are necessarily bad people, they may just be inadvertently mixing with powerful people (in 'power') who turn their minds. There's a lot of it about.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate!
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
In other words, I don't think all the people who write in to Bucks papers are necessarily bad people, they may just be inadvertently mixing with powerful people (in 'power') who turn their minds. There's a lot of it about.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate!
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
williams, London says...
3:53pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Thank you for both of your comments, Dave and Tom. If you don't mind, you have raised several points, so I will deal with Dave's first and then Tom's, so as not to keep some kind of order.
Firstly, I am a little confused as to what you are "looking into" with regards to the relationship between CO2 and water vapour feedback, since you earlier stated...
"If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so."
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject and were convinced through empirical evidence that the relationship was that of a positive feedback.
This links neatly into Tom's misinterpretation of my original post showing how climate models are not proof of anthropogenic global warming. Allow me to explain.
Every scientist is at least agreed on one rule of the physics regarding climate, that CO2 alone cannot drive climate to the extent that the theory of AGW demands without the assumption that it has a positive feedback relationship with water vapour.
i.e. the IPCC state that a doubling of current CO2 levels would result in a base warming of 1 degree C (which is negligible within the natural variance of the climate). The supposed catastrophe comes when this warming is multiplied by anything from 3 to 6 times by the feedback with water vapour.
There is no empirical evidence to believe this is to be an accurate representation of the actual climate, and there are many papers concluding that the IPCC has exaggerated this effect ('Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007))
IPCC climate models, however, assume this theory to be correct and so assign high, positive feedback parameters when simulating global temperature increases from man-made CO2.
Therefore, to claim that these climate models prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, is (by the application of basic rational logic) a self proving argument (since the models are built on the assumption that man made CO2 drives climate) and is, therefore, void.
The subject becomes even more interesting when we take into account recent empirical evidence from the NASA AQUA satellite that was launched in 2001, specifically to research the CO2/water vapour relationship. The AQUA team's findings indicate that it is actually a negative feedback relationship and thus the climate may be much less sensitive than has been assumed.
(Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: Smoking Gun Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System?)
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect. The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years. The Arctic is already half-way through the summer melt and if you check the current TERRA/MODIS satellite images you will see a far from "ice free" Arctic. The NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) also shows the increase in sea Arctic sea ice in 2008 compared to 2007.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles.
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
N.B. I apologise for not putting my full name in. I had no intention of inducing some cloak and shadow persona for myself. The registration merely asked me for a 'username' for which I used my last name. You can call me Bill if it helps.
Firstly, I am a little confused as to what you are "looking into" with regards to the relationship between CO2 and water vapour feedback, since you earlier stated...
"If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so."
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject and were convinced through empirical evidence that the relationship was that of a positive feedback.
This links neatly into Tom's misinterpretation of my original post showing how climate models are not proof of anthropogenic global warming. Allow me to explain.
Every scientist is at least agreed on one rule of the physics regarding climate, that CO2 alone cannot drive climate to the extent that the theory of AGW demands without the assumption that it has a positive feedback relationship with water vapour.
i.e. the IPCC state that a doubling of current CO2 levels would result in a base warming of 1 degree C (which is negligible within the natural variance of the climate). The supposed catastrophe comes when this warming is multiplied by anything from 3 to 6 times by the feedback with water vapour.
There is no empirical evidence to believe this is to be an accurate representation of the actual climate, and there are many papers concluding that the IPCC has exaggerated this effect ('Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007))
IPCC climate models, however, assume this theory to be correct and so assign high, positive feedback parameters when simulating global temperature increases from man-made CO2.
Therefore, to claim that these climate models prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, is (by the application of basic rational logic) a self proving argument (since the models are built on the assumption that man made CO2 drives climate) and is, therefore, void.
The subject becomes even more interesting when we take into account recent empirical evidence from the NASA AQUA satellite that was launched in 2001, specifically to research the CO2/water vapour relationship. The AQUA team's findings indicate that it is actually a negative feedback relationship and thus the climate may be much less sensitive than has been assumed.
(Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: Smoking Gun Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System?)
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect. The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years. The Arctic is already half-way through the summer melt and if you check the current TERRA/MODIS satellite images you will see a far from "ice free" Arctic. The NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) also shows the increase in sea Arctic sea ice in 2008 compared to 2007.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles.
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
N.B. I apologise for not putting my full name in. I had no intention of inducing some cloak and shadow persona for myself. The registration merely asked me for a 'username' for which I used my last name. You can call me Bill if it helps.
williams, London says...
4:00pm Fri 1 Aug 08
*sorry for the repeat post, but there was an error in posting. The last passage should read...
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. I have no intention
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. I have no intention
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:18pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Hi Bill Williams
By hiding in the detail you completely ignore the main thrust.
If I understand you right, you are saying that the CO2 than humankind is releasing into the atmosphere by the buring of 200 illion years worth of fossil (safe underground) into the air we share, is not a problem to the planet.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
I was correct in refereing to 'negative' feedback loops, thank you, as you would have seen if you had bothered to read the references I have provided. Eg The Westminster briefing.
You are either a scoundrel or a very blinkered and very easily duped person, so I am not going to waste more of my time. If you want to respond to the questions I raise about the big issues, then feel free. And perhaps you could tell us why you know better than 99% of independent scientists too.
Dave
By hiding in the detail you completely ignore the main thrust.
If I understand you right, you are saying that the CO2 than humankind is releasing into the atmosphere by the buring of 200 illion years worth of fossil (safe underground) into the air we share, is not a problem to the planet.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
I was correct in refereing to 'negative' feedback loops, thank you, as you would have seen if you had bothered to read the references I have provided. Eg The Westminster briefing.
You are either a scoundrel or a very blinkered and very easily duped person, so I am not going to waste more of my time. If you want to respond to the questions I raise about the big issues, then feel free. And perhaps you could tell us why you know better than 99% of independent scientists too.
Dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:25pm Fri 1 Aug 08
I repeat my offer of being willing to meet up with each one of you 'Bucks based obfuscators' (Messrs Weeden, Taylor, Williams) - one on one - over a coffee - to try to politely discover why we have both drawn such totally opposite conclusions from the evidence in front of our eyes. If the BFP wish to witness such a meeting, that would be fine by me too.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:26pm Fri 1 Aug 08
I repeat my offer of being willing to meet up with each one of you 'Bucks based obfuscators' (Messrs Weeden, Taylor, Williams) - one on one - over a coffee - to try to politely discover why we have both drawn such totally opposite conclusions from the evidence in front of our eyes. If the BFP wish to witness such a meeting, that would be fine by me too.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
williams, London says...
5:09pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Dave, it appears you are not, as you stated,...
"Happy to talk science whenever you like"
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling.
If you are no longer "wasting your time" on dealing with the science I have drawn in to question, then I would suggest that my presence at your public debate is somewhat redundant as I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics.
"Happy to talk science whenever you like"
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling.
If you are no longer "wasting your time" on dealing with the science I have drawn in to question, then I would suggest that my presence at your public debate is somewhat redundant as I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
5:20pm Fri 1 Aug 08
HERE IS MY LETTER BFP DIDN'T PRINT THIS WEEK:
I sincerely hope you will print this response to Mr Weeden et al.
We are letting the children down: Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy.
or
Seeing behind the Oil industry smoke screen.
Sir/Madam
Oh bother! Its a fair cop. Mr Weeden has me bang to rights in the BFP letters page!
In his letter last week he has exposed me to the people of Marlow! Its true! Shamelessly I try to earn my living out of convincing everyone that global warming is their fault. Some readers may be a little perplexed as to how such a business model could work. Well its simple: (1) Blame your client and make them feel bad. (2) Suggest they stop doing things they like, e.g. flying away on holidays so much. (3) Plunge them into darkness, and make them feel bad again. (4) Submit large invoice. (5) Hope they pay. There. See how easy it is! The truth is out.
No. Its a bit more subtle than that. You can Google carbon coach to find out more. Also, legally speaking, any readers thinking of taking up this career path should be warned that in financial terms, the living I make is around half what it was before, just over three years ago now, when I was enjoying the Directorship of a top London consultancy, and winning national awards for my leadership in sustainability and social responsibility. I take this subject deadly seriously, and I have done my homework.
Any accusation that I am in it for the money, is frankly laughable. I am in this game for the sake of my and other kids. It is that simple. Our children will not thank us for a good education, or a fat legacy, if they inherit a broken planet. Ask yourself, what could be the motivation of those who want to make us feel good about carrying on burning fossil fuel?
The other belly laugh is the ridiculous notion that back in January I failed to submit my written proof on time (!) to BFP letters page. (Whos taking notes here?) Mr Weeden tells us that he was in science education until he was 25. I have referred my readers before to such bodies as The Royal Society www.royalsociety.org whose freely downloadable and up-to-date publication Is Global Warming a Swindle?, on their website homepage, no less, is an easy but authoritative read. Readers who have any real interest in this subject will find this document useful. Its conclusion is alarmingly unequivocal.
When 99% of eminent independent world scientists agree something, then, (unlike Messrs Weeden and Taylor,) I do not consider that I have that much to add. The Professional Institutes that they proudly list after their names are also in agreement. So too, since 2006, is Sir David Attenborough. Even the US administration of President George W. Bush concluded in 2007 that mankinds contribution to global warming is no longer up for debate. But in small pockets in Bucks, the denial, astonishingly, and shamefully, continues.
The Canute analogy is a good one. But it will take more than a few doggedly denying individuals in Bucks to stop the rising tide of the free thinking world from joining the dots, and seeing the truth, behind the Oil industry smoke screen. One is left wondering whether Messrs Weeden and Taylor keep track of correspondence outside of Bucks?
Its undeniably tough for all of us to face the music, and face the rough climate that lies ahead. But if we dont, we are simply letting the children down. Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy. May I repeat my hope that all those who wish to soothe BFP readers into complacency, will be around long enough to be held responsible by todays children, who will have to live with the consequences.
Dave Hampton
The Carbon Coach
I sincerely hope you will print this response to Mr Weeden et al.
We are letting the children down: Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy.
or
Seeing behind the Oil industry smoke screen.
Sir/Madam
Oh bother! Its a fair cop. Mr Weeden has me bang to rights in the BFP letters page!
In his letter last week he has exposed me to the people of Marlow! Its true! Shamelessly I try to earn my living out of convincing everyone that global warming is their fault. Some readers may be a little perplexed as to how such a business model could work. Well its simple: (1) Blame your client and make them feel bad. (2) Suggest they stop doing things they like, e.g. flying away on holidays so much. (3) Plunge them into darkness, and make them feel bad again. (4) Submit large invoice. (5) Hope they pay. There. See how easy it is! The truth is out.
No. Its a bit more subtle than that. You can Google carbon coach to find out more. Also, legally speaking, any readers thinking of taking up this career path should be warned that in financial terms, the living I make is around half what it was before, just over three years ago now, when I was enjoying the Directorship of a top London consultancy, and winning national awards for my leadership in sustainability and social responsibility. I take this subject deadly seriously, and I have done my homework.
Any accusation that I am in it for the money, is frankly laughable. I am in this game for the sake of my and other kids. It is that simple. Our children will not thank us for a good education, or a fat legacy, if they inherit a broken planet. Ask yourself, what could be the motivation of those who want to make us feel good about carrying on burning fossil fuel?
The other belly laugh is the ridiculous notion that back in January I failed to submit my written proof on time (!) to BFP letters page. (Whos taking notes here?) Mr Weeden tells us that he was in science education until he was 25. I have referred my readers before to such bodies as The Royal Society www.royalsociety.org whose freely downloadable and up-to-date publication Is Global Warming a Swindle?, on their website homepage, no less, is an easy but authoritative read. Readers who have any real interest in this subject will find this document useful. Its conclusion is alarmingly unequivocal.
When 99% of eminent independent world scientists agree something, then, (unlike Messrs Weeden and Taylor,) I do not consider that I have that much to add. The Professional Institutes that they proudly list after their names are also in agreement. So too, since 2006, is Sir David Attenborough. Even the US administration of President George W. Bush concluded in 2007 that mankinds contribution to global warming is no longer up for debate. But in small pockets in Bucks, the denial, astonishingly, and shamefully, continues.
The Canute analogy is a good one. But it will take more than a few doggedly denying individuals in Bucks to stop the rising tide of the free thinking world from joining the dots, and seeing the truth, behind the Oil industry smoke screen. One is left wondering whether Messrs Weeden and Taylor keep track of correspondence outside of Bucks?
Its undeniably tough for all of us to face the music, and face the rough climate that lies ahead. But if we dont, we are simply letting the children down. Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy. May I repeat my hope that all those who wish to soothe BFP readers into complacency, will be around long enough to be held responsible by todays children, who will have to live with the consequences.
Dave Hampton
The Carbon Coach
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:48pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Dear 'Bill Williams'
Perhaps you would care to answer the question I have asked you several times.
Why do you think you know more than 99% of all independent scientists.
Why do you risk the childrens lives on your certainty that you alone are right.
You have completely failed to answer any of the general matters I have raised.
In whose employ are you sir.
If you don't have the confidence to meet with me, go back to your 'research' study.
Good night sir.
Dave
Perhaps you would care to answer the question I have asked you several times.
Why do you think you know more than 99% of all independent scientists.
Why do you risk the childrens lives on your certainty that you alone are right.
You have completely failed to answer any of the general matters I have raised.
In whose employ are you sir.
If you don't have the confidence to meet with me, go back to your 'research' study.
Good night sir.
Dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:02pm Fri 1 Aug 08
One more thing.
Can you prove you are not in fact Mr Weeden, or Mr Taylor, in plain bill disguise?
Your argumemnts and tactics are very familiar and well documented in "The Exxon guide to confusing the general public that there is still some doubt."
I am disappointed you don't want to meet.
I remain happy to talk science whenever you like. When would you like to start?
And since when has the minority view of 1% of all scientists been 'empirical science'. I think you are getting a little confused.
If you are open to further learning, then please have a read of The Westminster Briefing and the latest research it draws on.
You couldn't be more wrong. But I suspect you know that.
Can you prove you are not in fact Mr Weeden, or Mr Taylor, in plain bill disguise?
Your argumemnts and tactics are very familiar and well documented in "The Exxon guide to confusing the general public that there is still some doubt."
I am disappointed you don't want to meet.
I remain happy to talk science whenever you like. When would you like to start?
And since when has the minority view of 1% of all scientists been 'empirical science'. I think you are getting a little confused.
If you are open to further learning, then please have a read of The Westminster Briefing and the latest research it draws on.
You couldn't be more wrong. But I suspect you know that.
williams, London says...
6:25pm Sat 2 Aug 08
Dear Dave,
I must admit, your continual attacks on my character along with petulant name calling are begining to make me very weary.
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
It is a common misconception that a consensus establishes a scientific theory as a "fact". As I'm sure you are aware, there are many examples throughout history where a scientific consensus has been later shown to be wrong.
i.e. there was a consensus of scientists in the 90's that by now a third of the UK population would be dead from CJD transmitted through beef. This never happened.
It is for this reason that I am loathed to defend any of my scientific principles on the basis of "consensus" as it has no relevance and is generally an argument reserved by people who cannot understand nor debate the science.
If I, as you say, "couldn't be more wrong" then convince me with science. Don't bully me with smear tactics and the continual bannering of a consensus.
However, as you seem to place so much emphasis on the IPCC consensus, I would recommend starting your research with...
Chris Landsea's resignation letter to the IPCC.
http://sciencepolicy
.colorado.edu/promet
heus/archives/scienc
e_policy_general/000
318chris_landsea_lea
ves.html
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Professor Paul Reiter's testimony to the House Of Lords
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200506/ldselect/l
deconaf/12/12we21.ht
m
"It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"
The Heidelberg Appeal
http://www.sepp.org/
policy%20declaration
s/heidelberg_appeal.
html
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour (which is integral to the theory of anthropogenic global warming). That is to say, a rebuttal of the recent data analysis done by the NASA AQUA satellite team.
However, the cynic in me is convinced that you will, once again, avoid citations of actual research papers and instead provide some obscure wikipedia page and declare a consensus. At which point I will have to take my leave from the "debate" as iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine.
I must admit, your continual attacks on my character along with petulant name calling are begining to make me very weary.
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
It is a common misconception that a consensus establishes a scientific theory as a "fact". As I'm sure you are aware, there are many examples throughout history where a scientific consensus has been later shown to be wrong.
i.e. there was a consensus of scientists in the 90's that by now a third of the UK population would be dead from CJD transmitted through beef. This never happened.
It is for this reason that I am loathed to defend any of my scientific principles on the basis of "consensus" as it has no relevance and is generally an argument reserved by people who cannot understand nor debate the science.
If I, as you say, "couldn't be more wrong" then convince me with science. Don't bully me with smear tactics and the continual bannering of a consensus.
However, as you seem to place so much emphasis on the IPCC consensus, I would recommend starting your research with...
Chris Landsea's resignation letter to the IPCC.
http://sciencepolicy
.colorado.edu/promet
heus/archives/scienc
e_policy_general/000
318chris_landsea_lea
ves.html
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Professor Paul Reiter's testimony to the House Of Lords
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200506/ldselect/l
deconaf/12/12we21.ht
m
"It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"
The Heidelberg Appeal
http://www.sepp.org/
policy%20declaration
s/heidelberg_appeal.
html
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour (which is integral to the theory of anthropogenic global warming). That is to say, a rebuttal of the recent data analysis done by the NASA AQUA satellite team.
However, the cynic in me is convinced that you will, once again, avoid citations of actual research papers and instead provide some obscure wikipedia page and declare a consensus. At which point I will have to take my leave from the "debate" as iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine.
tom, marlow says...
9:47pm Sat 2 Aug 08
Bill said
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect.The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years
Tom looks back at what he wrote and discovers that he said nothing of the sort.....
I made a comment in a discussion last year about the arctic melting - perhaps thats what you are referring to.
I'm not going to argue about things I havent said other than to comment that if I had said it I would be arguing that it is well established that the artic and antarctic ice masses are shrinking. The Glacier I've been skiing on most winters for the last 20 yrs has been getting smaller too, so I've seen it for myself (and for dave's benefit, most years I go there by train)
I'm going to leave you and Dave to slug it out over the climatology. My background is in spectrocopy so my detailed understanding of the processes is limited to the microscopic and molecualr level. However, I have a good grasp of the methodology (and the politics)
I say again - finding faults with specific details does not in any way invalid the larger picture
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:35pm Sat 2 Aug 08
WE are at last agreed.
(i) there is no "debate" and (ii) iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine either.
You may have fooled a few people with your posturings, but I doubt it.
I remain happy to meet with you, and I remain curious why you cannot or will not explain why you feel you know better than 99% of independent scientists.
I am also curious how you will feel about yourself in 10 year time when the evidence is all around you, and people start to get angry with those who misled them that everything was fine.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate.
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
(i) there is no "debate" and (ii) iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine either.
You may have fooled a few people with your posturings, but I doubt it.
I remain happy to meet with you, and I remain curious why you cannot or will not explain why you feel you know better than 99% of independent scientists.
I am also curious how you will feel about yourself in 10 year time when the evidence is all around you, and people start to get angry with those who misled them that everything was fine.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate.
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:52pm Sat 2 Aug 08
"the theory of anthropogenic global warming"
It is NOT a theory, it is a fact, as i suspect you know. it was a 'theory' 25 years ago.
Readers might be interested in the organisations backing a new campaign called "One Hundred Months". We don't time to waste debating whether black is white, we need to get on with cutting the carbon, for the childrens sake.
www.onehundredmonths
.org
It is NOT a theory, it is a fact, as i suspect you know. it was a 'theory' 25 years ago.
Readers might be interested in the organisations backing a new campaign called "One Hundred Months". We don't time to waste debating whether black is white, we need to get on with cutting the carbon, for the childrens sake.
www.onehundredmonths
.org
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:30pm Fri 18 Jul 08
"Yes, mankind certainly affects global warming a little by the burning of fossil fuels, and even just by breathing!" he writes.)
No need to hold your breath readers.
If your carbon footprint is average for UK, let alone for Marlow, the CO2 you breathe out will be just one twenty fifth of your fossil fuel generated 'footprint' of CO2 emissions.
Plus, more fundamentally, most of us don't eat or drink pure fossil fuel, so the CO2 breathed out is mainly part of the natural ongoing circle of life, and not part of the breaking of that cycle by the release of locked up carbon (ancient sunlight) from 100s millions of years ago.
i.e. Plants grow into the food we eat, absorbing CO2, animals eat plants and release some CO2, but hardly any of this is 'new' CO2, unless the food we eat is heavily industrially processed, air-flown and fertiliser hot-housed.
Or unless we drink oil!