Rctner’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Papers or abstracts of papers?

  Herewith some comments on the Al Gore film, An Inconvenient Truth.

  THE GORONS (courtesy of Lord Monckton)
  1. Some of the errors in Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth ·
  Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the 1,000-year "hockey stick" temperature chart (debunked by McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
  · Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a link between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that is not supported by the facts (IPCC, 2001, 2007).
  · Gore asserted that today's Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as warm or warmer (Briffa et al., 2004).
  · Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated
  with changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Soon, 2005).
  · Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50 years than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005).
  · Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that this is only true of a small region; the vast bulk of the continent has been cooling and gaining ice (Doran et al., 2004).
  · Gore mentioned the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf, but did not mention peer-reviewed research, which suggests the ice  shelf, did not exist 1,000 years ago (Pudsey & Evans, 2001).
  · Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland's ice is in danger of disappearing. In fact its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade (Johanessen et al., 2005).
  · Gore falsely claimed that global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's icecap, actually caused by atmospheric dessication from local deforestation, and pre-20th-century climate shifts (Cullen et al., 2006).
  · Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and other coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate is just 7in to 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004, Singer, 1997).
  · Gore implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, failing to state that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other South American glaciers are advancing (Polissar et al., 2006).
  · Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame (Foley & Coe, 2001).
  · Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning due to melting ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1940 (Taylor, 2006).
  · Gore said a review of 928 scientific papers had shown none against the "consensus". In fact only 1% of the papers were explicitly pro-"consensus"; almost 3 times as many were explicitly against (Peiser, 2006).
  · Gore showed a link between changes in temperature and in CO2 concentration in the past 500,000 years, but did not admit that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration (Fischer et al., 1999).
       If you are interested in discussions of the pros and cons of global warming, there are very few places where you can get both sides of the argument discussed dispassionately.  Two I know of.  One is Prof. Benny Peiser's CCNet (b.j.peiser@ljmu.ac.uk).  You can subscribe, at no cost, to an almost daily newsletter.  
       Last Christmas, Prof. Sir Alan Thorpe, of NERC decided to "crush" the skeptics once and for all time with scientific arguments.  He opened the NERC debates, which lasted for some weeks.  They are a bit tedious to get through, and the so-called Summary NERC has produced, is merely a re-statement of the NERC position on the subjects raised.  You will find quite a bit of discussion on consensus, to which I contributed http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?di ... (This site is down at the moment, but should return shortly)
       You might find this exchange between myself and Prof. Prentice interesting.  Specifically Prof Prentice states "I don't think that the existence of a consensus could be proved scientifically. In the end, judgment is involved. "  
   Reference my message # 347.
       I am not explaining myself very well.  What I object to is the phrase "scientific consensus".  As I have said, to me this is an oxymoron.  The IPCC and others can count how many papers have been written, but in science what counts is the scientific accuracy of the content.  Who is the judge of the value of the scientific content?  It surely cannot be the IPCC to judge how the scientific content of it's own theories compares with that of it's rivals.  Both sides of the debate have stated their reasons why they feel they are right.  Personally, I believe the skeptic point of view is more likely to be correct.  In this I am joined by many other scientists, many of whom are far more qualified than I am.  We are not just a bunch of "crackpots".  
       The problem is what happens as a result of the difference between the two sides, the warmers and the skeptics.  You are convinced that you are right; we are equally convinced.  So far as I can tell, there is no way we can resolve the issue of who is right and who is wrong, except by the hard data, 15 to 20 years ago.  Unfortunately your claim that a scientific consensus exists has resulted in our politicians taking action which, if we are correct, is likely to waste billions if not trillions of dollars.  For example here in Ontario, we are being denied the advantage of cheap electricity generated by burning clean coal.
       Do you really believe that there is such a thing as a "scientific consensus"?   And if so, how do we determine. scientifically, whether a scientific consensus exists on this issue of AGW?

  Wednesday, 24 Jan 2007 - 13:47:59 GMT
  Defending the IPCC process again, I must point out that the IPCC doesn't have "its own theories", nor does it have "rivals"! The IPCC is not a small group of scientists with an agenda (as some commentators seem to imply). It is a process engaging a very broad spectrum of the scientific community, as authors and reviewers. The authors are experts, drawn from the global pool of expertise. The final "headline" wordings in the SPM are agreed upon in line-by-line detail by representatives of the world's governments.

  The fact that the IPCC has reached certain conclusions is simply a reflection of the fact that there is a consensus, in the usual meaning of the word. I don't think that the existence of a consensus could be proved scientifically. In the end, judgment is involved.

  I don't know much about Canada's energy policy but I should point out that carbon capture and storage is very much on the radar of people who think about decarbonizing energy supplies, e.g. for China.
  Colin Prentice, Prof. Earth System Science, University of BristolOn 'Position statements hide debate'--True enough, but that is not the whole picture posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Position statements hide debate

       You state "A lot has happened since then, and none of it casts any doubt on the finding that the world is warming and it is primarily due to human actions."
       Indeed a lot has happened, not all of which is acknowledged by the IPCC, and some of which casts doubt on the idea that mankind is causing global warming.  On 2 Feb 2007, the IPCC agreed the SPM to AR4, based on "secret" scientific papers, which will be published in May 2007.  An unofficial copy of these papers shows that the IPCC neglects the work of Henrik Svensmark and others, on the role of cosmic rays.  Strictly speaking, the IPCC is correct.  The data on the effects of ions in the lower atmosphere was not published until 8 Feb 2007, in Proceedings of the Royal Society A.  The book The Chilling Stars was not published until a week later.  The paper Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: was not published until after 2 Feb 2007.
       It will be interesting to see what the IPCC publishes in May 2007 on extraterrestial forcings.  They can ignore Svensmark's landmark work;  in which case their "scientific" documents will be out of date, incomplete, and arguably inaccurate.  Or they can include Svensmark's work;  in which case they will undermine the theory that anthropogenis global warming is real.
       We await May 2007 to see what the IPCC actually does. On 'Position statements hide debate'--True enough, but that is not the whole picture posted 2 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cosmic rays.

       I am not sure how this blog works, but others seem to have received a response to comments posted.  Let me be more detailed, and maybe a little more confrontational.  There is little argument that the earth has warmed up significantly since about 1970.  There are several questions that arise as a result of this observation.  Organizations like the WWF believe that the warming is due to an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, caused by the burning of fossil fuels.  They point to a massive increase in the level of CO2 since WWII.
       There is an alternative theory that the warming is due to natural causes, and there is little or nothing that mankind can do the try and control what is happening.  So far as I am aware, there is no way of resolving which theory is correct, other than hard experimental data which will probably not be available for between 10 and 15 years.  What I was hoping is that there could be some discussion on this topic.
       There is no such thing as a scientific consensus.  Science is not a democracy where 50% plus one of the votes means one theory is right and another wrong.  Scientific validity depends on the quality of the science presented.  It would be nice to debate the quality of the two rival theories, similar to the NERC debate.
       In 2001, the IPCC put forward a scientific theory and experimental data in the TAR, which they claim, proved that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was a scientific fact.  Over the years, different scientists have shown that many of the claims in the TAR could not stand up to rigorous scientific analysis.
       In 2007, the IPCC produced the Summary for Policy Makers to AR4, in which it is claimed that the output of their climate models prove that only by assuming that AGW exists can the results be right.  In other words, the current rise in world temperatures can only be explained if is assumed that AGW is real.  However, the scientific basis for this claim will not be published until May 2007.  There are unofficial copies of this scientific background which claim that the effect of variations in extraterrestial forces have a negligible effect on world temperatures.  In particular they claim that there is a negligible effect from cosmic rays.  At the time this was written it was possibly accurate.
       However, the recent work by Henrik Svensmark on cloud formation in the lower atmosphere produced by ionizing radiation, and his subsequent book, The Chilling Stars suggest that to neglect the effect of cosmic rays is a mistake.  What I was hoping is that some sort of reply to this suggestion could be given.  Is it not possible that IPCC claim that only AGW can account for the current rise in global temperatures is wrong, and that cosmic rays could, indeed be the cause?  If, indeed, there is a valid  alternative theory as to what is causing the current rise in world temperatures, it is no wonder that no scientific consensus exists.  I wonder if I will get a reply this time around.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 109 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cosmic rays

       Would you comment on the validity of the theory that cosmic rays are one of the main driving forces affecting world climate.  I refer specifically to The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, and work by Prof. Jan Veiser, and Shaviv Nir.  The sun affects the number of cosmic rays striking the earth as it's magnetic field changes.  Would you also comment on Project CLOUD being undertaken at the CERN Laboratories.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 109 Responses