Global warming skepticism

[Derek]

We are happy to debate here, but a degree of rigour of facts, substantiation and of level of discernment are required.

There follows a thread moved from elsewhere that illustrates how not to engage here.

I will not give webspace to garbage - there are plenty of other places on the web to do that.

Paul Ward - webmaster

Thread by "Derek" starts here:

Originally Posted by drummy

For example, there is considerable evidence from BAS scientists amongst other authoritative sources that...

"The west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming areas of the planet, temperatures having risen by almost 3?C over the past 50 years."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/pr...ase.php?id=336

Err, is it not the case that the bits of the Antarctic that are warming, have volcanoes that are quite active underneath them.
://www.lermanet.com/antarcticmelt/

I thought that the below was a published, and peer reviewed study, that shows Antarctica has been cooling for about 30 to 40 years.
Chapman, W.L. and J.E. Walsh. 2007. A Synthesis of Antarctic Temperatures. Journal of Climate, 20, 4096-4117.
As reviewed here,
://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/05/antarctica-warming-cooling-or-both/

To be fair the volcanoes have only recently been "discovered".

[Paul Ward]

You need to research Antarctica first before offering a commentary.

Drummy is talking about the Peninsula, your first link refers to the Ross Sea area. The Ross Sea is an area that is often cited as cooling by you skeptics - which is it to be - heating or cooling? Though the volcanic activity is only recently discovered in specific location and extent, it has long been known to exist - Mount Erebus for instance.

The wider web site that the page you refer is on seems to exist in order to attack scientology.


Your second link is to a web page that comments on the paper you mention - it is not the original source that you imply and so cannot be relied on to report the full finding in an unbiased way. It says on the "About Us" section of that site:

"Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. "

Hardly an unbiased starting point!

The web allows just about any "evidence" to be found for just about anything. These are two very lightweight comments and links that non the less take time and effort to show to be the misunderstood science that they are. You seem to be like 99.9% of climate "skeptics" where you have made your mind up and look for "evidence" to back it up.

I have not the time nor inclination to debunk ideas and commentary that do not serve webspace in the first place and even less to allow live links to junk that doesn't deserve the publicity it tries to gain by piggy-backing off highly regarded sites such as this one.

Links broken - add http in front of what is there and copy/paste into your browser if you wish to follow them.

[psr]

I guess the environment is always going to be a hot topic. It just seems odd that after vehemently arguing that global warming is a very real problem suddenly there are some scientists who are saying that it isn't an issue. It makes you wonder who these "non believers" really are, and who are they working for???? Yes. I really think there is a bit of a conspiracy going on and I think that it is better to be safe than sorry!

As for Antarctica...the reports and studies which have shown the damage caused by rising temperatures etc far out number those reports which say that it's not true! You only have to study the migration and breeding cycles of whales to know that something is not quite right! We can't balme the Japanese whalers for everything! And the krill...don't let me get started on that! So, I'm firmely on Paul's side on this.

Ruben, I'm glad that your thoughts are "green" and personally I HAVE to believe in global warming....I might end up with a big natural swimming pool in my backyard!

I guess this all sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek but it's really serious. More people need to wake up!

psr

[Derek]

It's good to know how you "discuss" here.

1) Dismiss the empiracal data or observation, or questioning of the science of AGW.

2) Rubbish the scource.

3) Repeat the mantra.

10 out of 10. Sadly predictable reaction.
As for the breaking of the links...for goodness sake, Holy AGW links only allowed...

[Paul Ward]

What you presented is not worth the attention Derek.

Do you expect anyone to take seriously a misunderstood and factually incorrect article on an anti-scientology site? I make no specific comment about scientology - any site that exists to decry something and then goes off on a tangent to have a pop at something else isn't exactly going to be unbiased is it?!

As for rubbishing the source, that is a common mantra of skeptics to complain about . Some webpage they found written by some guy with a chip on his shoulder, too much time on his hands and a poor understanding of the way science works is all too often a rubbish source - it's the way it is.

It's why science is done by scientists and not by asking some bloke on the web or at the bus stop what they reckon might be going on.

You have posted twice on this board until your last post, those 2 posts contained 4 links - 2 of them to a site you had written an article on. I reserve the right to edit links to sites I deem unworthy of attempting to piggy-back off this site (link popularity from high traffic sites is how SE's work on the web to assign authority).

The links are still there if someone is interested, though usually the poster of such links does it to gain publicity for the linked-to site.

You want to discuss things, then fine, but there had better be something of substance, not what you posted before. Did you bother to research the geography of the Peninsula and Ross Sea reagions yet?

[Derek]

Ignoring the routine dimissal and rubbishing, let's continue...

Originally Posted by Paul Ward

Did you bother to research the geography of the Peninsula and Ross Sea reagions yet?

Given the title of this thread, that I've posted in, there has not been a need yet.

It is true this has sidetracked me, I came to this forum with the intension to ask for as simple as possible an explanation, if there is one, as to why is Antarctica so damned cold.
It seems such a simple question, but explantions seem hard to find.
Yes, it's windy, and it's cold, and it doubles in size annually and then melts back, etc, etc. Is Ozone seasonal - it certainly seems so from satelite images.
But, explanations as to the processes that make it so cold, are difficult to find, any help appreciated.
It would seem contradictory, to put it mildly, that the one place on the planet (excluding deserts) where the air is so dry, (so it is not water vapour), CO2 (warming) must really show it's effect, is actually cooling, the opposite of what AGW says is or should be happening..

I was going to also continue to ask your opinions here about how the Antarctic effects the strength of the Thermohaline circulation. Further intending to ask how you'd assess the Solubility pump as a major natural process that appears to have been ignored / misrepresented.
But, I have a distinct feeling I already "know" how you'd deal with such questions...


NB - I havn't looked back on this thread far but did notice a distinct "harsh" tone taken to anyone asking questions from anything less than a "consesus" position.
OK, fair enough, it's your site, but you've set the stage.

[Paul Ward]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Ward
Did you bother to research the geography of the Peninsula and Ross Sea reagions yet?

Given the title of this thread, that I've posted in, there has not been a need yet.

- Yes there is! You displayed a significant ignorance about what you purported to be talking about in relation to drummy's quote and your subsequent post about vulcanism in Antarctica. The Peninsula and Ross Sea are 1500-2000 miles apart. Your response is what I have seen as typical by the "maverick" skeptics - fingers in ears and start whistling when the facts don't fit your latest bright idea.

I'm happy to preside over a discussion of people who know what they are doing and have done their homework. I will not answer to the overwhelming "noise" of the flat-earthers on this issue.

Why is Antarctica so cold?

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Vforum...ntarctica+cold

there's a page coming on it in greater detail fairly soon.

Yes the ozone is seasonal:

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarc...ozone_hole.htm

[Derek]

CONGRATULATIONS, the first time I've seen a concensus person admit the blithering obvious...
Ever since (Ozone) "the hole" was discovered it has been known to have got bigger each winter and smaller each summer, year after year,
it's what the rest of us know as "seasonal".
I first became aware of that by reading a page at junkscience dot com, many years ago now.
It seems consensus science can now no longer deny it.
I read the page here you linked to, yup, sun forms ozone, hence the hole gets smaller in the summer. It seems a bit peculiar though that the chemistry of how ozone is known to be broken down is put so, well definately.
The rates of breakdown and by what are definately still not decieded, there are papers I could link to that suggest some of the rates suggested for pollutants maybe out considerably, by factors of 10 if I remember correctly.
(There is not much point in me linking to an article that will either be deleted, as my introductory post appears to have been, or dismissed, or ignored for no reason, other than you do not want that point, however large discussing.)
I noted you've "covered" yourself by saying more research is required, rather than discuss the fact the natural and anthropengenic contributions have not been separated or quantified. That is at best, one sided, but nearer a misrepresentation of our understanding at present.
To be honest I get the usual impression of sites like this, that when you actually read what is written it often does not make much sense, or stand up to scrutiny. I'll quote an example from your link,
" By the time spring arrives and the sun comes back after the long polar night, the ozone levels are severely depleted around the Antarctic continent causing the "ozone hole". Unfortunately, there then follows a particularly long period of high sunshine and long days, just to make the effect of the ozone hole worse. "

Hmm, I would of thought the sunlight made Ozone, which repairs the hole...

One last thing of note regarding ozone, and it's hole. What was the size of the hole before it was discovered, how much did it vary, perfectly naturally..
No one knows as far as I'm aware. So the constant reference to worst ever, etc, etc, in the linked to page, again, is at best, misleading.
Worst ever, for clarity presumeably means since satelites measured the phenomenon, which at the absolute most only goes back to 1979.
Given there may well be other natural factors effecting processes we are not aware of at present, your whole premise, and direction is biased and alarmist.
The Arctic (Yes, I know that's the North pole area, but it's apprpriate) seems, for example, to be cooling rapidly at present, maybe that is the 70 year cycles (oceanic current cycles probably) that has caused the change around...AND, no polar bears are not dying out, or even endangered, just like they were not in the Holocene maximum - otherwise they wouldn't be there today would they.
Scaremongering, would seem to sum up your link in all honesty.

Now, how about the Thermohaline circulation, you seem to have avoided that subject so far. Though I see you have said the Antarctic is effectively separated from the global climate....
I doubt the annually melting sea ice, (approx area of said ANNUALLY melting ice is one and half times larger than the USA...) that presumably sinks and powers the said circulation, at least partially, can really be said to be separated from the global climate...Albeit delayed by about 800 to 1000 years apparently.

It seems you have explained much, with the intension of dismissing natural processes, or just plain deny they exist.
Mind you I doubt you would release atmospheric CO2 level measurement figures untill they were "processed" would you...

NB - Please substitute "this site" if, as, or where required for "you".

[Paul Ward]

You have quite an odd manner of discussion Derek.

You appear not to have researched the Antarctic ozone hole very closely, you won't find a single scientist or person with a scientific background who denies that the ozone hole is seasonal, which makes your opening remark rather odd.

By the time spring arrives and the sun comes back after the long polar night, the ozone levels are severely depleted around the Antarctic continent causing the "ozone hole". Unfortunately, there then follows a particularly long period of high sunshine and long days, just to make the effect of the ozone hole worse.

The key phrase is "effect of the ozone hole" - yes you are correct the ozone hole will start to repair, but after the winter in the Antarctic spring the hole is at it's maximum and the combination of long days and exposure to the sun means more uv gets through when the "defences" are down. You will notice that the hole begins to close again by December the Antarctic midsummer. I don't see any ambiguity there?

Ozone is broken down mainly by cfc's - I don't think it at all odd that the chemistry of this is well known - why would it be odd?

One last thing of note regarding ozone, and it's hole. What was the size of the hole before it was discovered, how much did it vary, perfectly naturally..
No one knows as far as I'm aware. So the constant reference to worst ever, etc, etc, in the linked to page, again, is at best, misleading.
Worst ever, for clarity presumeably means since satelites measured the phenomenon, which at the absolute most only goes back to 1979.
Given there may well be other natural factors

Before it was discovered there wasn't a ozone hole, measurements have been taken since the 1950's:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_ba...ory.php?id=171

...just a little homework would mean you wouldn't ask such non-questions.

Then again you aren't really asking questions or discussing anything - you are trying to "catch me out" in some way as skeptics like you are wont to do.

Your initial post was regarding volcanic activity in the Ross Sea region and warming temperatures along the Peninsula - you appear to have dropped that when it's flaws were pointed out and have gone to something else that is readily explicable without your needing to express surprise at the "blithering obvious". This is why skeptics are not taken seriously and why I find it difficult to take you seriously.

You have made a decision and you quite like the idea of being a "maverick", you even referred to Alfred Wegener I believe, I suppose at least in your defence you haven't compared yourself to Gallileo as I have seen many times before from skeptics.

You then go and look for evidence to back your position up, the problem is you don't do your homework very well and end up effectively "arguing" with yourself and your own misunderstandings (seasonal ozone for instance). These arguments come as "What about this...?" when it's explained, you drop it and go to "What about that...?" - "What about this other thing...?"

The latest is:

Now, how about the Thermohaline circulation, you seem to have avoided that subject so far. Though I see you have said the Antarctic is effectively separated from the global climate....

I have not avoided anything other than trying to waste my time on an argumentative guy with a preferred (required) conclusion who lacks rigour and consistancy.

I will research and publish some starightforward comments on the thermohaline circulation before too long on the main website, I am not about to skip to your next "What about this...?" idea.

For your information:

• The great majority of academic research papers are NOT available freely on the web - up to date peer-reviewed scientific papers are available in print or on the web for a usually very significant fee. This means that little of the available evidence is readily presented on a web page - this however does NOT mean it doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it.
• "Natural Processes" - the sweetheart phrase of the skeptic. Never quite specified however. Please be aware that there are scientists who constantly monitor natural phenomena and cycles (ozone hole since the 50's for instance as pointed out above) and if global warming was a result of something simple like sun-spots or Milankovitch cycles, then the scientific community would spot it long in advance of some guy who has just discovered Google.
• If you wish to regain any degree of credibilty here, then please go back to your original post regarding Antarctic temperatures and Ross Sea area vulcanism while tying it with what Drummy said about rising temperatures on the Peninsula where there is little vulcanism.
• Polar bears are generally considered to be potentially endangered, it depends on whether you believe the jouralists with newspapers to sell or proper scientists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wpolar09.xml

But please read it all - beyond the headlines that is.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ive-birth.html

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

Did you know they are thought to be only 20,000 years old BTW?

[Derek]

Yes, I referred to Alfred Wegener, who's ideas were not taken seriously till the 1960s, (Vine and Matthews 1963 - provided the "motive force" that always eluded Wegener, if I remember correctly).
There is a really good, if somewhat short account of his life and work in the series,
On the shoulders of Giants That should find a link for those interested.

He was the father of continental drift, which when a motive force was later found (ie Vine and Matthews), others (in the 70s I think) put them together and came up with platetectonics, with hardly any recognition of, or for Wegener's original thinking.


Paul Ward wrote,
" Before it was discovered there wasn't a ozone hole, measurements have been taken since the 1950's: "

How the heck can you say, or know that. ROFLMAO.
(Unless you assume it is man made of course...)

AND, look around, consensus science, or rather Montreal Protocol Science has untill recently been furvently denying that the Ozone hole was anything other than man made. Maybe it has now changed it's stance, but that does not change what was argued.
Furthermore, the chemistry, as well as the actual rates of various chemical reactions is still disputed, most recently I believe in a paper from Germany. Disputing whether the surface of the containers effected the reaction rates if memory serves me correctly.

As for volcanoes and volcanic activity, as you have effectively stopped me linking to other papers, articles, etc, how can I link to anything that says,
"Recently discovered volcanoes and volcanic activity in Antarctica"...There are some for those that want to look.

"The latest" - well actually referring to the Thermohaline circulation that was one of my first - untill you deleted the post it was in...

Paul Ward wrote, with reference to polar bears..
" Did you know they are thought to be only 20,000 years old BTW? "

Really, and when was the Holocene Maximum....

It ain't me that has a funny way of discussing,
it's the consensus way of denying Natural processes that is blithering funny.
Yeah, there are great scientists around, some are downright liars, Mann for example,
how does he, and many of his ilke retain their job.
You'd seem a good person to ask..