CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[hartley353]

Science progresses through the falsification of hypotheses and supporting evidence. As Einstein said, no amount of experimentation will prove me right, but just the one experiment will prove me wrong. I guess this might give the impression of scientists not agreeing with each other, but it is in reality simply the rightful application of the scientific method and rigour to any problem. It's surely not a reason for concluding you shouldn't believe anything a scientist says. Is it?

In the court of scientific opinion, what one might believe about something is neither here nor there. One cannot wish away the evidence as it builds through hypothesis, experiment, validation and consensus. As Feyman said, mother nature cannot be fooled. And at the moment, mother nature is struggling under the weight of a well-established variable very much in our gift to control. All other variables are accounted for in the models.

Richard Broughton

Eloquently put bruff,fine words never buttered any parsnips. All I ask for when ever some one offers a hypothesis is proof,and that I can not find in global warming,or carbon emission,of course science has improved our lives,but equally blighted it. Every form of pollution has come from science,but never with a warning or an antidote.

[hartley353]

What a load of Tosh. Had this man lived in the past he would probably have blamed the first ice age on gaseous emissions from herbivores. The only certainty after death and taxes is that scientists will never agree, and so shouldn't be believed.

Not heard such a Luddite attitude for a long while, yet in another thread you expound the virtue of a mobile phone contract for emergency purposes. The only reason you have this choice is through the application of science.

Take your head out of the sand and look at the facts.

All my life I have looked at the facts. The postulations of others are not the place to look for facts,in the end all you will do is fill your head with another mans thoughts, and never know the truth.

[Stanley]

Ian and Richard, two good posts. Hartley, what interests me is your absolute certainty that you are right. I have news for you, I give more weight to John Beddington who is a good honest scientist than I do to you. But that's only my opinion, I may of course be wrong..... The world we live in is a chaotic system which has supported human life by sheer chance, we meddle with the balance at our peril and this essentially is the message that Professor Beddington was conveying to us. Of course we don't know for certain he is right, unlike you he doesn't allow himself the luxury of certitude, but his assertion is backed by evidence, logic and experience. Good enough for me.
New Zealand reports the worst drought in some areas for over 70 years.

[hartley353]

Once again Stanley, people have not read what I have posted. There is not an ounce of hubris in my body,in none of my postings have I said that I am right, only that Mr beddington is wrong. the term Government Scientist only conjures pictures of Portland down and men of science beavering away to create better ways of killing people cheaper. I think we are all now in consensus that the financial models that have driven us all on the way to penury were seriously flawed, and contrived to a false purpose. Well surprise surprise the scientists use a similar model basis to prove their point. What I stand by is that it was not possible to introduce sound imformation to that model because it doesn't exsist. Thus the output cannot be true, I am not a voice in the wilderness there are very many who would agree.
In my introduction line to the site I believe I said that I watched this site for many years from the side lines before joining, so i found the summision that I had not read your postings a little puzzling. Over the years I have read with appreciation the many postings you have made, I don't agree with all of them, or your tacit acceptance of what you read in books,but i can tell you are a thinking person, and one of great common sense.
Yes I have little respect for scientists who abandon the way of truth,and seek only to retain their funding, or find what they are paid to find. Try to write down all the great strides forward in the last 50 years. a postage stamp should suffice to write them on. The first that comes to mind is nanotechnology, then just fast forward to laboratorys all over the globe with scientists labouring away to create a nuclear weapon the size of a grain of rice.
Way back in 1947 a dooms day clock was set to work, the fingers of this clock are moved by global observers when it reaches midnight the world as we know it will be dead.The closest it has come to midnight is two minutes during the cuban crisis, at present it sits at 5 minutes to. People of the world this is where your fate lies, not in geting your feet wet,not in unseasonal weather...Mike.

[hartley353]

Ian and Richard, two good posts. Hartley, what interests me is your absolute certainty that you are right. I have news for you, I give more weight to John Beddington who is a good honest scientist than I do to you. But that's only my opinion, I may of course be wrong..... The world we live in is a chaotic system which has supported human life by sheer chance, we meddle with the balance at our peril and this essentially is the message that Professor Beddington was conveying to us. Of course we don't know for certain he is right, unlike you he doesn't allow himself the luxury of certitude, but his assertion is backed by evidence, logic and experience. Good enough for me.
New Zealand reports the worst drought in some areas for over 70 years.

Stanley you posted the news clip, containing the word irrefutable evidence, this I rightly challenged,is there such a beast as an honest scientist I doubt it,is there one in the pay of the goverment no.

[Stanley]

Well, there you are. I must be wrong again. Question is, can I be bothered to change my world view? On reflection I shall stick with my evident ignorance....

[hartley353]

Stanley please dont beat youself up,it is only by being wrong many times that you can arrive at the final truth,and then it may have varieties. But take heart your camp is very large ,and well fed by the press and media agencies who prefer to print or broadcast without the benefit of verification.

[PanBiker]

So, all the scientists are in league with each other to perpetuate a giant lie coupled with falsifying satellite data monitoring the polar ice caps. I think I will come down on the side of their arguments rather than you denials. Probably best not to post the following link, but I will anyway:

Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years

You will almost certainly come back and tell us it's either fabricated or perfectly normal. If the latter is the case please provide evidence to that effect.

[Bruff]

''All I ask for when ever some one offers a hypothesis is proof,and that I can not find in global warming,or carbon emission''

Why? Do you disagree with the hypothesis? Or the evidence in its support? What is your alternative hypothesis and how would you test it? As I mentioned above, if you after 'proof', cast-iron and definate proof, you are destined for a life of perpetual disappointment. The proof such as it is of the Theory of Relativity is relevant only to the extent that it may at some stage be falsified.

''Try to write down all the great strides forward in the last 50 years. a postage stamp should suffice to write them on.''

And that is a problem why exactly? Is it a given that the strides we saw during the 20th century should be seen in perpertuity? Why? And what counts as a great stride anyway?

''is there such a beast as an honest scientist I doubt it....''

A rather sweeping statement at face value. Could you explain? As someone who practised as a scientist for a time and supervised two students through their doctoral studies and so onto a life in science and research, I'd be interested as to why you feel I (and they) are dishonest.

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

Richard There is no doubt in my mind that you are are a man of learning. I am not prepared to give endorsements for any thing that I write, all I ask is that people get off there backsides and ask questions, search out the truth, challenge the established facts, and become wise through their own endeavours. Many years ago a lady in barnoldswick library, showed me how to use books, she gave me a true course and I have been happy to follow it. Whilst on that course I found that what one man wrote was challenged by another, and he by another, who should you believe. In that situation there is only yourself and your findings.
Yet again people have not read, or understood what I have said. The word dishonest does not appear in any thing I have said, this is the antithesis of honest and between the two there is a great difference and varience of honesty.
Over the years I have sat on the side lines and folowed this site, on my retirement I joined in. As an impartial observer what I saw then and what I see now is a constant regurgitation of what people see in the paper or on the small screen or had read in books. None of this is free thinking, none of this is edifying, none of this is of any worth. What has heartened me is the response to my scribbles seems to have swept a few cobwebs from lazy minds.
Please do not take my disrespect of scientists personnaly for all I know you are a good one. Many milions of ordinary people will live their lives with the damage caused by the bad ones, and many more lesser creatures will know nothing but suffering at their hands....Mike

[Tizer]

''is there such a beast as an honest scientist I doubt it....''
A rather sweeping statement at face value. Could you explain? As someone who practised as a scientist for a time and supervised two students through their doctoral studies and so onto a life in science and research, I'd be interested as to why you feel I (and they) are dishonest.
Richard Broughton

I too was a scientist for most of my working life and therefore would likewise be interested in the answer. Scientists have to provide good evidence for their claims whereas deniers simply deny whatever suits them.

[hartley353]

So, all the scientists are in league with each other to perpetuate a giant lie coupled with falsifying satellite data monitoring the polar ice caps. I think I will come down on the side of their arguments rather than you denials. Probably best not to post the following link, but I will anyway:

Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years

You will almost certainly come back and tell us it's either fabricated or perfectly normal. If the latter is the case please provide evidence to that effect.

Give me the facts for 5 billion years not the blink of an eye. 7000 ft of ice in the antartic, temperatures recorded by man have never risen above freezing, if it melts we are in trouble, but it wont. Ice in the arctic is all floating will not make a jot of difference if it all melts, Green land ice infinitesimal not of any concern. facts.
97% of all water is in the sea already, 2% is frozen at the southpole, 1% is frozen at the northhpole. 0.002% is free fresh water. This is all knowledge gained from 4 years in secondary education I have never challenged it, because it is of little value.

[hartley353]

''is there such a beast as an honest scientist I doubt it....''
A rather sweeping statement at face value. Could you explain? As someone who practised as a scientist for a time and supervised two students through their doctoral studies and so onto a life in science and research, I'd be interested as to why you feel I (and they) are dishonest.
Richard Broughton

I too was a scientist for most of my working life and therefore would likewise be interested in the answer. Scientists have to provide good evidence for their claims whereas deniers simply deny whatever suits them.

To whom do scientists offer their proof,please do not answer other scientists, that cannot be acceptable. When they have offered up the product of their studies to their commercial fathers this has killed, maimed and caused harm that only future generations will measure.

[hartley353]

Gentlemen My final words on the subject, I have done what I did not wish to do I have gone over my past research ,and double checked all the relevant internet info at the end I have come back to my initial conclusion. Huge mistakes have been made in the research.
Now I shall return to my fly tying, and think of simple things,whilst watching the water,and as usual hoping for it to rise in level,but only because it has rained on the hills.

[Stanley]

"My final words on the subject," Thank God for that. I was losing the will to live.

[hartley353]

"My final words on the subject," Thank God for that. I was losing the will to live.

Glad to be of service Stanley,when you make a rod for your own back I'm only to happy to remove it from your hand....Mike

[Bruff]

My final word.

That's quite a remarkable achievement I have to say, reviewing in a day or two one's own research (as yet unmentioned so we have no way to assess the methodology and conclusions) as well as the almost 14 thousand research publications and meta-analyses carried out world wide by researchers in often multi-disciplinary teams. You should publish your findings. Seriously.

One thing

''Ice in the arctic is all floating will not make a jot of difference if it all melts, Green land ice infinitesimal not of any concern. facts.''

How do you know? Seriously. How do you know? These are not 'facts', unless you can back them up as to why. Without wishing to be uncessesarily contentious, it's the argument I'd expect a 10-year old to make as 'evidence'.

So, here goes. Why is it cold now? It's cold because we are under a cold weather system that historically shouldn't be here. We have a blocking system due to a shift in the jet stream. It occured last year when we had a seemingly endless deluge of biblical proportions. What are the causes for this shift in the jet stream? Do you know? I think the climate scientists have quite a persuasive expanation that flows from their natural application of the scientific method. The climate scientists will say it is a natural consequence of changes to the North Atlantic weather pattern due to (in simple terms) the melting of the Arctic ice cap resulting in atmospheric changes. And this is the crucial bit. This was predicted by their models decades ago.

The onus is on you to falsify their models that predicted this outcome. If you decide not to take up this challenge then we can safely dismiss any further word on you part, I'm afraid. That is how science works.

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

Richard I am being realy gracious here, the floating ice fact is very simple to replicate on your kitchen table with a plastic bowl, digital scales,and ice cubes, as you are a scientist I will leave the nitty gritty of how to do it to you. Should you get stuck I feel Thomo RN would be willing to explain the displacement of bodies in water theory.
As to the rest of the given facts 2 mins on the internet should give you the answers you require. By the way facts applied to what came after, not what came before,please concentrate.
Kind regards.

[hartley353]

My final word.

That's quite a remarkable achievement I have to say, reviewing in a day or two one's own research (as yet unmentioned so we have no way to assess the methodology and conclusions) as well as the almost 14 thousand research publications and meta-analyses carried out world wide by researchers in often multi-disciplinary teams. You should publish your findings. Seriously.

One thing

''Ice in the arctic is all floating will not make a jot of difference if it all melts, Green land ice infinitesimal not of any concern. facts.''

How do you know? Seriously. How do you know? These are not 'facts', unless you can back them up as to why. Without wishing to be uncessesarily contentious, it's the argument I'd expect a 10-year old to make as 'evidence'.

So, here goes. Why is it cold now? It's cold because we are under a cold weather system that historically shouldn't be here. We have a blocking system due to a shift in the jet stream. It occured last year when we had a seemingly endless deluge of biblical proportions. What are the causes for this shift in the jet stream? Do you know? I think the climate scientists have quite a persuasive expanation that flows from their natural application of the scientific method. The climate scientists will say it is a natural consequence of changes to the North Atlantic weather pattern due to (in simple terms) the melting of the Arctic ice cap resulting in atmospheric changes. And this is the crucial bit. This was predicted by their models decades ago.

The onus is on you to falsify their models that predicted this outcome. If you decide not to take up this challenge then we can safely dismiss any further word on you part, I'm afraid. That is how science works.

Richard Broughton

Again Richard I have to shine a torch into dim minds. At no time have I said the model was flawed, only the information that was fed into it, honestly I despair.

[Tizer]

The statement "Ice in the arctic is all floating will not make a jot of difference if it all melts" tells it all. The deniers say what they like regardless of the evidence.

"Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface; 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further. A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth. According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic. The loss of sea ice also has the potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate patterns."
From the US National Snow & Ice Data Centre: "Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice": http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

"Ice sheets contain enormous quantities of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)."
From the US National Snow & Ice Data Centre: "Quick Facts on Ice Sheets": http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

[Tizer]

..is there such a beast as an honest scientist I doubt it..

The word dishonest does not appear in any thing I have said, this is the antithesis of honest and between the two there is a great difference and varience of honesty.

OG members can make what they wish of that contradiction.

[hartley353]

The statement "Ice in the arctic is all floating will not make a jot of difference if it all melts" tells it all. The deniers say what they like regardless of the evidence.

"Arctic sea ice keeps the polar regions cool and helps moderate global climate. Sea ice has a bright surface; 80 percent of the sunlight that strikes it is reflected back into space. As sea ice melts in the summer, it exposes the dark ocean surface. Instead of reflecting 80 percent of the sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90 percent of the sunlight. The oceans heat up, and Arctic temperatures rise further. A small temperature increase at the poles leads to still greater warming over time, making the poles the most sensitive regions to climate change on Earth. According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic. The loss of sea ice also has the potential to accelerate global warming trends and to change climate patterns."
From the US National Snow & Ice Data Centre: "Quick Facts on Arctic Sea Ice": http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

"Ice sheets contain enormous quantities of frozen water. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet)."
From the US National Snow & Ice Data Centre: "Quick Facts on Ice Sheets": http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

Not one iota of proof just supposition and estimate as a knee jerk reaction to the Unknown. seems you can fool all the people all of the time,just ask a scientist to spread the rumour.

[Bruff]

Thank you for letting us consider your experimental work on this.

I don't think in your experiments you've considered the difference between ice that floats on the sea (or in your bowl) and the ice that rests on the continents and land - like the Greenland ice cap? I think this is important given your suggestion that if the Greeland ice sheets melts it'll make no difference (fact apparently), as I guess changes in the Antarctic wouldn't. So just a few comments.

I think we all know that if all the sea ice melts it won't raise sea levels an inch as ice and water here are in equilibrium. But it's a different matter with respect to continental ice, and specifically the Greenland ice cap. This water is held above the sea by land. There is no equilibrium. New water would be introduced if this melted. I wonder how much?

But anyway, it's a multi-variable issue. Sea ice melt won't raise sea levels, but it will reduce reflected sunlight. As this insulates polar regions, it is suggested that surrounding regions may warm faster. Experiment and observation will test this suggestion. Oh, and there's the floating ice shelves to consider too. These if they melt won't raise sea levels either, but they may let warmer water in to triiger degradation of the continental sheets.

Few more things for you to consider with your bowl and ice cubes

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

I have never done the experiment myself it is a simple teaching aid for children, no disrespect. Another poster has suggested that if the ice melts the sun will heat up the polar seas and cause climate changes. There are some very basic laws of physics being challenged here. when the sun is directly overhead then it will give up the maximum amount of heat to what it shines on. It shines on the polar regions at an acute angle and gives up a miniscule amount of heat to the area it illuminates thus the reflected light is of no consequence. Should there be no ice then the warming effect on the water is negligible.

[PanBiker]

I have never done the experiment myself it is a simple teaching aid for children, no disrespect.

If this is the case how do you know that the result is true? You said previously that you only believed things that you could prove yourself. Could it be here that you are actually relying on a scientific principle.

Many of your arguments seem to be full of contradictions, can you please quantify what a "minuscule amount of heat" is and prove that it will not have any effect?

If its not our sun that is responsible for the land based Greenland ice melt what is, or are you denying that it is actually happening?