Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by ColonelBlimp

Just out of nerdy interest (plus it sort of counts as revision) I took a look at one of the papers you (or whoever had the time, effort and inclination wink wink to compile the list in the first place) offer:
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland (Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005) - Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev
Unsurprisingly, you don't say why exactly you are quoting this paper. So I'll just assume it was chosen due to elevation increases ostensibly not being what might be expected in a warming climate.

It would be surprising for anyone to expect the summaries to be included in my post. I have received quite enough flack for even presenting this compilation but I believed it was necessary to provide a wide enough platform not only for topic convenience, but as you say ‘the nerdy interest’ may prompt others to copy the complete list for their reference. It did take quite a long time to compile and the work was done under the supervision of Meteorologist Anthony Watts. I, like you, am not a Climate scientist. My background is in electromechanical engineering and years in the field has proven to me that products are rarely as reliable as the sales representative claims. I suppose the nerdy side has also come out in me on this issue and it has been said this may not be an appropriate site to discuss real issues so if you know of other sites more attuned to scientific debate, please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by ColonelBlimp

However, the authors don't discount the likelihood that post-3 degree warming the ice sheet will melt. Nor do they discount the possibility of interference from such melting with the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic.
Their main conclusion is of slight increase in altimetry readings for most of the GIS. OMG! ZOMG! Global warming isn't happening! Al Gore is lying! etc. etc.
Actually, they make quite clear that altimetry readings can't be obtained from more coastal areas, which is where mass loss would generally be seen most (viz. general ice sheet dynamics), and indeed they do say that this increased ablation at the ice sheet edges could balance out increased accumulation in the centre. Plus, altimetry changes are heavily linked here to NAO variation, so presumably act as a poor proxy for global climate.

Strong negative phases in the NAO from 2005 to the present indicate higher than average temperatures in Greenland as is normal and coincide with the reports of increased melting recently lamented by all in the alarmist community as attributed to Global Warming. You and I on the other hand can plainly see by this graph Climate Prediction Center - NAO: Plotted Historical Time Series that we should naturally see warming. Data taken from 1992-2003 should transition Greenland slightly warmer than normal from 1995 to 19999 and cools again in 1999 and 2002. Overall, I would derive from the data that the current normal localized climate of Greenland should cause a period of melting attributed to the NAO as you described for the cause of possible ice sheet growth in Johannessen et. al. and not a ‘proxy for global climate’. I also agree that if the Greenland temperature was 3 degrees warmer as it was during the MWP (Nature, Volume 433, Issue 7026, pp. 613-617, February 2005), the continent could once again be inhabited as it was by the Vikings.

[ColonelBlimp]

I will admit that I simply do not know enough to adequately comment on the situation. I could have a go (in fact, I can see quite a few potential lines of inquiry), but I do not have the time to research it further nor have I studied the specifics as part of my course yet. However, might I suggest that in not being a climate scientist, neither can you offer full analysis? As I have said in previous posts a shootout between two parties neither ostensibly able to analyse the science fully merely muddies the waters of the debate.

Why not publish?

[Strontium]

I for one would very quickly take up the challenge to find out more, my discipline isnt climate science, would 1 of you give me a very good initial start link so I can think about getting onto a course? Is there a place where I can actually read some of the peer reviewed papers that youve cited, that are not expensive to sign upto? Thanks in advance.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by pressld2

I only got involved in this thread because your posted list of sources was reported to moderators as spam. If it were not for the fact that you were responding to a request to quote your sources I would have agreed with that assessment and deleted the posts.

Fair enough

Originally Posted by pressld2

As it is I have let them stand even though they are, in my opinion, adding absolutely nothing to the debate and serving only to make the thread difficult to read.

Not sure if you are saying that in cases like these a long post is tolerated or if you are now expecting me to kneel and <deleted by moderator>.

Originally Posted by pressld2

I chose to respond in the thread rather than by PM for two reasons:

Oops, you assumed my intentions incorrectly again. I meant all communications and not specifically to me.

Originally Posted by pressld2

1. To pre-empt anyone on the opposite side of the debate posting their own huge list of publications.

Outstanding!! A message of notification depicting this is appropriate and I would have agreed even to the point that you would remove my post because of its length, but….

Originally Posted by pressld2

hardly helpful and I suspect it was not meant to be. Citing two or three specific publications that are directly relevant to the point you are making would be helpful.

…your actual post was vague, assuming and made no mention of actual guidelines, only what seemed to be your opinion as ‘helpful’.
I do apologize for the lengthy posts and I will keep a ‘tight reign’ on this in the future.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by ColonelBlimp

Now I've examined one of your papers, how about you examine one of mine? I can suggest a few published by a professor I work under who would be very interested in your analysis I'm sure...

Seriously though, this is a rather catty example of how, if neither of us are climate scientists, firing out papers (especially those coming from those darn good ol' folks at the Heartland Institute) that neither of us can fully analyse, seems rather futile?

Zeno never described calculus, but he did ask some very good questions. I know we are not climate scientists and we may never learn gobs about it, but we have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants and I refuse to consider the careful quest for knowledge to ever be futile.
I know you were just ‘having me on’ about your papers, but I did experience some anticipation in your production of actual research behind the statements you make, no matter what side of the camp they are from.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Strontium

I for one would very quickly take up the challenge to find out more, my discipline isnt climate science, would 1 of you give me a very good initial start link so I can think about getting onto a course? Is there a place where I can actually read some of the peer reviewed papers that youve cited, that are not expensive to sign upto? Thanks in advance.

Here you go mate.
Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information
Science/AAAS | Scientific research, news and career information
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change: Rebutting the IPCC with Authority
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
These can get you started, but I have no links to schools of this nature on hand. I will keep looking.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by ColonelBlimp

However, might I suggest that in not being a climate scientist, neither can you offer full analysis?

Some of it is history. This link from NASA Nuuk, Greenland - ASTER Image Gallery - 1 describes a period of time when Vikings inhabited Greenland from approx. 1000 to 1500 AD. This coincides mysteriously with the MWP although the connection is not mentioned, probably due to the guidance of James Hansen.

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by ChrisR

... why isn't there a simple rebuttal of all the arguments against the CO2 smoking gun?

There are several, as an overall summary of the science behind climate change in laymans terms I find this very useful when talking about some of these issues with students.

The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Bob Henson

In 2007 the New Scientist produced a set of articles looking at some of the more popular myths surrounding climate change, explained simply and clearly:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Goerge Monbiot in the Guardian is always worth a read too this link takes you to one of his recent columns which is particularly relevant to your question Chris.

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Sorry about posting external links but I could see no point in summarising second hand things that people can read for themselves directly. None of these will persuade those climate change deniers who for whatever reason have already made their minds up; to people with a more open mind they might be instructive.

[ColonelBlimp]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Some of it is history.................

AFAIK the medieval climate optimum is not disputed in any paleoclimatic/historical analysis.

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Zeno never described calculus, but he did ask some very good questions.

Even through dipping into the subject, it is clear to me that the grounds for error and misunderstanding if you don't have a comprehensive grasp of the subject are very large indeed, and hence I display extreme caution towards "everyman science". I ask you again, why not publish your findings, or at least present them to a climate scientist, in lieu of merely 'preaching to the (largely) converted on the internet?

[ChrisR]

Originally Posted by RobSutton

There are several, as an overall summary of the science behind climate change in laymans terms I find this very useful when talking about some of these issues with students: The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Bob Henson

Thanks for the links Rob - I will have a look at those - much appreciated. As a 'citizen scientist' in my own right I am a firm believer that nothing is beyond the understanding of the average man in the street, when explained properly in terms that they'd understand. If Stephen Hawking can explain complex and completely abstract concepts such as black holes and relativity then climate science should be accessible to the general public. It might be too complicated for the majority of us to *work* on ourselves but to just say that it is too complicated to *understand* seems incredibly patronizing and elitist to me. Glad to know good old Goerge Monbiot has tried - I enjoy his writings