theweatheroutlook

Remove ads from site

Gandalf The White
10 February 2011 00:22:08



This line of reasoning puzzles me.


We have coastal erosion. It is an entirely natural process.  Do we say "Oh, it's natural so we shouldn't do anything about it?"


We had a threat of flooding in London due to the South-East sinking and water levels rising, increasing the risk when conditions were 'right'.  Did we shrug our shoulders and say "It's entirely natural, we shouldn't do anything about it." ???


In some parts of the world buildings near earthquake zones are designed and built to withstand earthquakes.  I don't recall anyone saying "Earthquakes are natural, we shouldn't do anything."


Of course the key here is about the perceived risk and the much easier link between effect and consequences.


So, please don't try to run the "Is it evil human beings or is it natural" argument, because clearly we do choose to combat natural threats.  The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.



 

Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


Of course we mitigate against the clear effects of nature, and that should include those due to climate change: that is a far different thing from saying we should take all sorts of actions in the belief that as yet unobserved effects might happen if assumptions built into climate models happen to prove correct.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Hence my final sentence...


The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Marcus P
10 February 2011 09:34:01


Hence my final sentence...


The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


I would agree that perception of risk is the issue - those who think action is necessary based on their perception of high risk (and therefore significant consequence) will want us all to take action. Those who perceive risk as small and that the 'costs' of that action is too high won't want to take action: should they be forced to do so against their beliefs?

Devonian
10 February 2011 10:50:48



Hence my final sentence...


The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


I would agree that perception of risk is the issue - those who think action is necessary based on their perception of high risk (and therefore significant consequence) will want us all to take action. Those who perceive risk as small and that the 'costs' of that action is too high won't want to take action: should they be forced to do so against their beliefs?


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Should those who see a real problem be forced to live on a planet where we don't take action?


Who should 'win' that arguement?

Gandalf The White
10 February 2011 11:33:09



Hence my final sentence...


The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


I would agree that perception of risk is the issue - those who think action is necessary based on their perception of high risk (and therefore significant consequence) will want us all to take action. Those who perceive risk as small and that the 'costs' of that action is too high won't want to take action: should they be forced to do so against their beliefs?


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


That's a fascinating issue - "against their beliefs".    A Chief Exec I worked for some years ago said "beliefs are for religion, you have facts and opinions."


I think part of the problem here is that people are hooked on their 'beliefs' - which implies an emotional dimension to their thinking.  People arguing that we should do nothing are arguing against any action that would impact negatively on them. I am absolutely certain that if the actions necessary to protect the Arctic (and the planet more generally) were beneficial to humans there would be no objections at all...


So, this comes down to "I don't want to change anything that might make my life worse - unless the price of doing nothing now is something much worse later."


If your doctor told you that smoking 40 cigarettes a day would increase your chances of dying before you reached 65 by 50% you might decide to stop.  If the scientists tell you that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the present rate we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system you decide the science is unproven.  I think that you - and others - do this because they want to focus on the uncertainties rather than accept the advice.  If you applied that to smoking you would continue to smoke 40 a day, because you could focus on the uncertainties (my genes might protect me, I might be lucky etc).


So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


 

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Stu N
10 February 2011 11:59:36


Tipping point 'unlikely'
http://www.agu.org/news/press/jhighlight_archives/2011/2011-02-09.shtml#one


new research by Tietsche et al. suggests that even if the Arctic Ocean sees an ice-free summer, it would not lead to catastrophic runaway ice melt. The researchers, using a general circulation model of the global ocean and the atmosphere, find that Arctic sea ice recovers within 2 years of an imposed ice-free summer to the conditions dictated by general climate conditions during that time. Furthermore, they find that this quick recovery occurs whether the ice-free summer is triggered in 2000 or in 2060, when global temperatures are predicted to be 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer.

Originally Posted by: four 



Do you trust this GCM?

Devonian
10 February 2011 13:02:19




Hence my final sentence...


The issue is solely about perception of the risk and identification of the consequences.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


I would agree that perception of risk is the issue - those who think action is necessary based on their perception of high risk (and therefore significant consequence) will want us all to take action. Those who perceive risk as small and that the 'costs' of that action is too high won't want to take action: should they be forced to do so against their beliefs?


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


That's a fascinating issue ...


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Well put post Stu.

Stu N
10 February 2011 13:15:10


Well put post Stu.


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


I am not the poster you are looking for.

Marcus P
10 February 2011 14:34:20


So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


No I will not 'park' my beliefs!  I am a scientist too and I will not blindly go where others tell me on the basis of their "advice".  We may be partially responsible for warming the planet: the forecasts of the impact of that (especially based on unconvincing attribution) are so variable. You state that "we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system" - that risk is not reliably quantified yet (unlike with the smoking analogy).


I am not climbing on anyone's 'bus', yours or any one elses. I do welcome the fact that there are people like ******i and one or two others who at least try to maintain some public discussion of the issues in the face of the juggernaut.

Stu N
10 February 2011 16:39:22



So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


No I will not 'park' my beliefs!  I am a scientist too and I will not blindly go where others tell me on the basis of their "advice".  We may be partially responsible for warming the planet: the forecasts of the impact of that (especially based on unconvincing attribution) are so variable. You state that "we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system" - that risk is not reliably quantified yet (unlike with the smoking analogy).


I am not climbing on anyone's 'bus', yours or any one elses. I do welcome the fact that there are people like ******i and one or two others who at least try to maintain some public discussion of the issues in the face of the juggernaut.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Does it bother you that people like ******i are often wrong about climate science and many of the figures who 'maintain public discussion', as you put it, tend to feed the public with disinformation in order to keep that discussion going?

polarwind
10 February 2011 16:42:57



So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


No I will not 'park' my beliefs!  I am a scientist too and I will not blindly go where others tell me on the basis of their "advice".  We may be partially responsible for warming the planet: the forecasts of the impact of that (especially based on unconvincing attribution) are so variable. You state that "we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system" - that risk is not reliably quantified yet (unlike with the smoking analogy).


I am not climbing on anyone's 'bus', yours or any one elses. I do welcome the fact that there are people like ******i and one or two others who at least try to maintain some public discussion of the issues in the face of the juggernaut.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Someone who thinks for himself And is prepared to consider evidence and input from sources other than mainstream.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
polarwind
10 February 2011 16:50:09




So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


Originally Posted by: Stu N 


No I will not 'park' my beliefs!  I am a scientist too and I will not blindly go where others tell me on the basis of their "advice".  We may be partially responsible for warming the planet: the forecasts of the impact of that (especially based on unconvincing attribution) are so variable. You state that "we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system" - that risk is not reliably quantified yet (unlike with the smoking analogy).


I am not climbing on anyone's 'bus', yours or any one elses. I do welcome the fact that there are people like ******i and one or two others who at least try to maintain some public discussion of the issues in the face of the juggernaut.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


Does it bother you that people like ******i are often wrong about climate science and many of the figures who 'maintain public discussion', as you put it, tend to feed the public with disinformation in order to keep that discussion going?


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Sad but true - and matched by supporters of the mainstream peddling propaganda of similar proportions

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Stu N
10 February 2011 17:08:53


Sad but true - and matched by supporters of the mainstream peddling propaganda of similar proportions


Originally Posted by: polarwind 


I know some exist, but can you point me to any recent examples?

Devonian
10 February 2011 17:19:52



Well put post Stu.


Originally Posted by: Stu N 


I am not the poster you are looking for.


Originally Posted by: Devonian 


Oh yes...


good post GTW...

Gandalf The White
11 February 2011 00:34:02



So, park your 'beliefs' and focus on the balance of the scientific advice.  The overwhelming balance of the advice is that we are warming the planet.   On the other hand you could cilmb onto the bus occupied by Lord Monckton, *****Corbyn, Joe ******i and a host of others who profess to understand the science but don't.


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


No I will not 'park' my beliefs!  I am a scientist too and I will not blindly go where others tell me on the basis of their "advice".  We may be partially responsible for warming the planet: the forecasts of the impact of that (especially based on unconvincing attribution) are so variable. You state that "we risk de-stabilising the planet's climate system" - that risk is not reliably quantified yet (unlike with the smoking analogy).


I am not climbing on anyone's 'bus', yours or any one elses. I do welcome the fact that there are people like ******i and one or two others who at least try to maintain some public discussion of the issues in the face of the juggernaut.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


Sorry Marcus, you have missed the point entirely.  I'm not sure how?


If you are a scientist then you don't have 'beliefs' surely?  You have a considered position on a theory supported by data/evidence that leads you to that position, either agreeing or disagreeing.   If you have 'beleifs' it means you are putting your emotions or unsupported biases into the mix.


So, you need to help me understand the basis of your 'beliefs', as clearly they are driving you to a certain position on climate change.


Personally I have no 'beliefs' on this issue - I see overwhelming evidence of climate change and sufficient evidence that we are partly responsible.  I see other serious damage to our eco-system consequent upon our excessive reliance on fossil fuels and our associated consumption-based lifestyles.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
11 February 2011 01:58:14

Some scientists believe in God.


What about the Arctic sea ice though.


 

Gray-Wolf
11 February 2011 08:45:01

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png


Still headed in the wrong direction Aimsir! This has been over a week of poor growth when you'd expect conditions to favour growth?


Each time we suffer a week like this it hammers our chances of seeing any 'stabilisation' in the sea ice this summer (i.e. min ice extents are still in freefall)

Koyaanisqatsi
ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS
Marcus P
11 February 2011 11:26:00


Does it bother you that people like ******i are often wrong about climate science and many of the figures who 'maintain public discussion', as you put it, tend to feed the public with disinformation in order to keep that discussion going?


Originally Posted by: Stu N 


Yes it does, but then it bothers me when scientists tar all discussion of uncertainties and feedback issues with the same brush, or don't even engage in the discussions.

polarwind
11 February 2011 11:30:06



Sad but true - and matched by supporters of the mainstream peddling propaganda of similar proportions


Originally Posted by: Stu N 


I know some exist, but can you point me to any recent examples?


Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Hi Stu,


I have posted several stories within the last few months that amount to pro AGW propagander and left it to others to post comment. Am not organised enough to find them quickly so will point out in future those that I think fit the bill.

"The professional standards of science must impose a framework of discipline and at the same time encourage rebellion against it". – Michael Polyani (1962)
"If climate science is sound and accurate, then it should be able to respond effectively to all the points raised…." - Grandad
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". - Bertrand Russell
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
"A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”- Abba Eban, Israeli diplomat
Dave,Derby
Marcus P
11 February 2011 11:36:34


Sorry Marcus, you have missed the point entirely.  I'm not sure how?


If you are a scientist then you don't have 'beliefs' surely?  You have a considered position on a theory supported by data/evidence that leads you to that position, either agreeing or disagreeing.   If you have 'beleifs' it means you are putting your emotions or unsupported biases into the mix.


So, you need to help me understand the basis of your 'beliefs', as clearly they are driving you to a certain position on climate change.


Personally I have no 'beliefs' on this issue - I see overwhelming evidence of climate change and sufficient evidence that we are partly responsible.  I see other serious damage to our eco-system consequent upon our excessive reliance on fossil fuels and our associated consumption-based lifestyles.


Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 


No emotion involved Gandalf, and certainly no religion, just my scientific belief that all the uncertainties (especially about attribution of warming and feedbacks) need to be properly assessed and fed through to predictions about future climate change, and the confidence we should place in those predictions. That's the point.


What I see is that the UK is probably (going to be) suffering more than most countries from 'predicted' climate change - the impoverishment of our scenery and countryside (one of the UK's most valuable assets) with thousands of inefficient wind farms. I agree with you fully about over-consumption in general: so lets focus efforts on that rather than flogging the dying horse of climate change alone.

AIMSIR
11 February 2011 12:12:52


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png


Still headed in the wrong direction Aimsir! This has been over a week of poor growth when you'd expect conditions to favour growth?


Each time we suffer a week like this it hammers our chances of seeing any 'stabilisation' in the sea ice this summer (i.e. min ice extents are still in freefall)


Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Yes. I't will be a summer worth watching Gray Wolf.


A good test of resilience.Let's see.

Gray-Wolf
11 February 2011 15:13:32

IJIS's second update is done and it leaves us lowest on the record (by 50,000km sq?) . How long do we think this flat spot can carry on for? We're at the full moon in a week so I'd expect a bit of a 'growth spurt' then as the ice at the edges succumbs to the tidal forces and fragments. As it drifts off into the Atlantic/Pacific the extent will plot it's progress until it covers less than 15% at which point we'll see another period of drop off.


I am less and less hopeful that we'll end up with an 'average extent come ice max. and know that the ice thickness will also be less than we are accustomed to. We may well face the prospect of being the lowest extent throughout the coming melt season as the thinner than normal ice melts out faster than we are accustomed to seeing? 

Koyaanisqatsi
ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS
AIMSIR
11 February 2011 15:24:52


IJIS's second update is done and it leaves us lowest on the record (by 50,000km sq?) . How long do we think this flat spot can carry on for? We're at the full moon in a week so I'd expect a bit of a 'growth spurt' then as the ice at the edges succumbs to the tidal forces and fragments. As it drifts off into the Atlantic/Pacific the extent will plot it's progress until it covers less than 15% at which point we'll see another period of drop off.


I am less and less hopeful that we'll end up with an 'average extent come ice max. and know that the ice thickness will also be less than we are accustomed to. We may well face the prospect of being the lowest extent throughout the coming melt season as the thinner than normal ice melts out faster than we are accustomed to seeing? 


Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 

Any joy with the Cryosat2 issue?.Sorry for the bump.


I have taken on board and appreciate your post btw.

Gandalf The White
11 February 2011 16:42:11


IJIS's second update is done and it leaves us lowest on the record (by 50,000km sq?) . How long do we think this flat spot can carry on for? We're at the full moon in a week so I'd expect a bit of a 'growth spurt' then as the ice at the edges succumbs to the tidal forces and fragments. As it drifts off into the Atlantic/Pacific the extent will plot it's progress until it covers less than 15% at which point we'll see another period of drop off.


I am less and less hopeful that we'll end up with an 'average extent come ice max. and know that the ice thickness will also be less than we are accustomed to. We may well face the prospect of being the lowest extent throughout the coming melt season as the thinner than normal ice melts out faster than we are accustomed to seeing? 


Originally Posted by: Gray-Wolf 


Just looked at the latest figure.  It's curious that it is absolutely identical to 2 days ago at 13,393,906 sq km.


As you say, a new date low, below even the depths of 2005 and 2006.   Potentially only 3 weeks left before the thaw starts.

Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


TomC
  • TomC
  • Advanced Member
11 February 2011 17:20:10



Does it bother you that people like ******i are often wrong about climate science and many of the figures who 'maintain public discussion', as you put it, tend to feed the public with disinformation in order to keep that discussion going?


Originally Posted by: Marcus P 


Yes it does, but then it bothers me when scientists tar all discussion of uncertainties and feedback issues with the same brush, or don't even engage in the discussions.


Originally Posted by: Stu N 


Yet you claim to be a scientist but the issues of uncertainties and feedbacks are discussed all the time in the scieintific literature there must be 10s of papers at least every week on these issues. Do you read the scientific literature ?

Gray-Wolf
11 February 2011 17:45:02


Any joy with the Cryosat2 issue?.Sorry for the bump.


Originally Posted by: AIMSIR 


If you call freezing up at every opportunity and not logging onto the server 'Joy' then I've had plenty!!!!


I'm really interested in a fissure on East Ross ice shelf and (I think) some of the early releases of images showed the crevasse I'm interested in so it's driving me crazy knowing the info's out there but I can't lay my hands on it!!!


I'm sure the likes of C.T. and IJIS will use the data (and PIPS and Topaz?) so we'll have to wait and be patient in the meantime......Grrrrrr

Koyaanisqatsi
ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Remove ads from site

Ads