Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mark

Pages: [1] 2
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 18, 2014, 02:34:53 AM »

I agree with all that Bruce Steele has to say about pH; however, if facts are not sufficient to convince you then consider national security.

The linked Forbes article entitled "Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming?", indicates that the BAU pathway that you are supporting (until we have 100 percent certainty based on "conservative science" before we take meaningful action) is actually a national security threat (see extracts below).  There are numerous reports linking the current round of unrest in the Middle East to climate change induced drought that is hurting the local farmers and promoting radical groups (such as ISIS/ISIL).  I submit that using the "Fog of War" to ignore what the military has been warning about for years is not prudent, and that coming generations will pay a high price for this generation's complacency:

Extracts: "General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
“While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”

Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared."


I've had a read of that ref now ASLR - that is chilling that the military take that view. what exactly are they proposing - it seems to me that by having a pact with China they are starting the process of carbon enforcement on the rest of the world that wont be able to argue. The point is well made but is from a militaristic problem solving point of view this would be one of many scenarios they would be planning (I was in the military - if just a small % of contingency planning was in public hands there would be a massive outcry but they must prepare for every possible scenario they can think of, to be effective). There is nothing wrong in what they say but to those countries in power poverty or not on the USA christmas card list - chilling.

You said yourself you cant see this happening anytime soon and I think that is the crux of this thread. How can you get the facts across to make this happen. I dont need 100% certainty I have never said that and I reckon hardly any of the worlds population need 100% certainty, but the mood out there is considerably less than the 97% scientific consensus. So how do you convince thise that will lose out. By frighteners - that hasnt worked and in some cases hasnt happened, by education - the 2 sides are too deeply entrenched to reach a consensus or even meet to discuss (look at the abuse I got!!)  - so that wont happen, wait until something bad happens - thats too late, wait for a politician to make the right decision with the worlds welfare as a priority, not the next election.....yeah right!!. Or perhaps create a new world order with enforcement in mind - any takers!!

So where does that leave consevative scientists and the consequences - you know what - I dont reckon it is making a blind bit of difference what they are saying anymore - the politicians will win the day one way or another and to hell with the consequences (sarc)

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 18, 2014, 01:24:52 AM »
Sorry barring not darring

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 18, 2014, 01:23:20 AM »
Fair enough Sidd - I stand corrected and Im glad finally someone can put a figure to it. I was however pointing out in a pollution thread the pollution being caused in China I didnt use it here. My comment - 'The Chinese seem to work on the principle that you build the business first and worry about the pollution later. There are far too many examples of environments toxic to life that are being lived in by human beings in China. Sooner or later there will be a humanitarian disaster - its inevitable.' So my comment has been cherry picked to demonise me!! I dont like the b***** things and their benefit when they need another source to back them up when becalmed dubious. Hopefully we will develop fusion power or some other continuous plentiful power source and do away with them. Darring your correction I stand by my comments

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:22:58 AM »
<snip N.>

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 18, 2014, 12:17:18 AM »
<snip N.>

ASLR i found the pdf I read on the oyster farming concerning upwelling events in the hatchery areas. I couldnt get a full download of your first reference but the in depth study does compliment the second reference very well. Having reread it I have to say it makes my future 'balance much less likely!! Ref -

Bruce........I was asked for my references!

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 10:05:06 PM »
<snip N.>

Thanks again for the references ASLR  I will get on to them now - from the caption and extract it would seem for the most part I was correct. As for predators smelling I definitely missed that one! and the dissolving of oyster shells - very interesting as the sea would need to be below PH7 which I wasnt aware was possible unless affected by acidic runoff, which is another issue .

I must admit I am confused now as your reference says that the deeper water is less alkaline and Bruce says its more Alkaline and shells are dissolving would indicate actually acidic - below 7 but buffering back to Ph8.1 at depth (Bruce). El Ninos are doing exactly what I said they were doing and then to cap it all I am called a troll and misinformed - thanks guys for the succinct and well integrated replies

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 08:19:14 PM »
Jai if you happen to think that wind power is a carbon efficient and pollution free way of providing energy then I am definitely not going there. I have no time for expensive, enormous carbon footprint white elephants that pollute a third party environment, ruin the visual amenity of vast tracts of land and water now and endanger numerous migrating  birds - the Mail was not the only source but the first one I found when googled. To try to discredit me by flicking through my posts does you a disservice and I am disappointed. The way out of fossil fuels is not to burn more of them to build things that ultimately dont pay back on the energy they have consumed in the making and need alternatives as back up when not working.

The post title is not about proving GW facts but about consequences of conservative scientists, I do try to get on point but get waylaid the whole time. I read the biomass increase recently, ignore it if you wish, I was making a point about the facts you presented and why there is a disconnect. For weeks you have been posting about all sorts of extremes on this and other threads and I find your opinions interesting and worth following as I do ASLRs and the convesrsation regularly gets unsubstantiated but I trust that your sources are robust.

 The negative CO2 feedback scenario is from Hansen s Fossil fuel C tonnage in the article I was directed to on here and the Mauna Loa CO2 graph both of which are common knowledge here and I didnt think would need a reference. This post subject is not asking for specific scientific fact it is a fairly rhetorical debate subject. I dont get why you get so cross just because I throw up the conservative view - I have been entirely honest with my viewpoint as I assume are you. What is wrong with engaging and asking questions or offering a view. I dont believe a single one of my 'facts' to be erroneous or exaggerated but I am not trying to back up any science here I am trying to make a point about engaging the likes of me in your opinion. With your last post you have absolutely failed to convince me of anything and I am just less alarmist - it rather proves the point I am making. The way people go for the jugular in this debate just stops any debate and it becomes a game of mass back slapping.

Your post before I jumped in was:-

This is in my very unscientific estimation of current transitory states, I predict that the established trends of drought, ice loss, heatwaves and storm intensities (as well as the time rate change of those trends) will continue into the future for some time.

in my estimation of H&S I cannot help but wonder if they have also lulled us into a false sense of security as the millennial rate of temperature change that we witness from the Paleoclimate records of interstadials allows for a gradual increase in forests and other biomass accumulation of carbon that work as a semi-slow feedback (negative) parameter.  This feedback will not be present in todays biosphere due to time and baseline conditions. 

Compare, the Nordic forests of the 12th century to today, the bony fish biomass from then to now.what got me

Tell me this is not an opinion ('I predict' and 'in my estimation') - I disagreed and gave mine

Bruce its in wikipaedia here:- - lots of other goodies there as well including the aragonite saturation levels crucial to shell production. My post said 'deeper' water not deep water which I hope implied that ph decreases with depth 8.1 - 8.3 at the surface and 7.4 - 7.6 below @250m which is why upwelling water decreases ph at the surface or when winds/ currents push waters up coastal shelves and into estuaries. I respectfully suspect you are remiss in my implication. Especially when you ask me for references ina debate that shouldnt need them on this point and then provide absolutely none yourself. However if Wikipedia is wrong I apologise and concede the point - reference please

ASLR - I respect your position and am enjoying the references please allow me to catch up with the references you gave in your last response. I apologise to you as well if my reference on Ph is wrong I was watching a video on u tube by Jim Steele on ocean acidification having read about the plight of oyster fisherman in Washington State and checked his unlisted sources, it is a skeptical video but relevant to the situation and I was just checking. The graphs on the 0.1 shift were also on the same original google page

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:42:24 PM »
I have to gree with a lot of what you have to say and I read the shorter of the references in your previous post which outlines exactly the problem we are both really alluding to - the difficulty in portraying the evidence in a robust manor that will measure the need for action. That is probably impossible to achieve at the rate required. We only have a peaking of carbon emissions from China in 2030 and not a particularly arduous target from America. I think you are absolutely right that people are much more worried about their personal circumstances than the global environment, and  a painful prod is probably needed before that will change.

As for the Ph, as you want to go there - there has been a lot of reports on the shellfish farms in the estuaries in and around Washington State in the US. This is probably an area of the highest oceanic fluctuation in Ph in the world and so shellfish farming is susceptible to the problems associated with the current upwelling in that area. The Ph of the deeper ocean water is considerably less alkaline than the surface, so upwelling areas, especially when impacting coastlines, tend to be less alkaline (I would only use more acidic if the Ph dropped into the sub 7 zone and actually became acidic) to a factor that can be as great as 0.5 - 0.7. Coupled with agricultural run off of nutrients directly into the water courses feeding the estuaries leads to a recipe for disaster. So not really climate change or Ph change per se, just inconvenient weather, causing natural  events. The 0.1 drop I completely concur with and believe it to be inline with the current temperature increase, I dont expect it to be much more though as the oceans are very unlikely to have moved in Ph that much through our efforts alone - it is far to massive a shift. Much more likely and as alluded to by Jai and the Argo Buoys we are presently seeing a period of increased overturning/upwelling to release the stored heat deeper in the oceans

The modelled IPCC Ar5 representation of crop yield failure, and indeed there is a higher knowledge base than mine, does not however ring true at all, the 2010 - 2029 is not trending that way at all and I expect this particular model to need a complete rethink before it has any credibility with the people it most effects - food producers. But, hey ho, I am back on opinion again.

<snip N.>

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 10:36:48 AM »
Jai, I do appreciate what you are saying and it is a reasonable hypothesis. I dont want to argue each point because that can be done elsewhere and becomes a bit off topic.

I'm a difficult cuss at the best of times but I am putting forward my view and the view of others because it may be a minority view but it is widespread and puts me at odds with the extreme. I can be convinced and perhaps if you are going to make policy then I might be a good sounding board. But I and I think a large part of the public are going to need rather more proof that this is an abnormal and catastrophic departure from sustainable life.

If it comes to aerosols, population, pollution or disease I am there right with you but CO2 just does not do it for me or a lot of others. I think it needs to be sidelined to 'a' feedback mechanism not the feedback mechanism. When that is properly packaged as a more robust hypothesis I will be there with anybody.

The ARGO buoys are a case in point - we now know how much we didnt know about stored temperature in the oceans - what we dont know is how that has changed over big El Nino/La Nina events or during the colder 70s. How much is held there normally, how unusual is any heat fluctuation now, how does that heat work its way out, how long is a deep ocean heat cycle and how far does it travel? 10 years wont tell us much but at least now we have a mechanism for measuring it accurately and more regularly so it can be studied and understood.

There are just too many questions and the general present system of shouting questions down/ ignoring them or attacking the authenticity or even sanity of the questioner has lead to this awful impasse where there are two such distinct 'sides'. Thank you so much for not doing so here. ASLR perhaps has it right - I think he understands human nature better but works hard on his belief alongside this knowledge rather than against it

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 04:02:58 AM »
I have a bit of a norwegian ability but not much but I would say that as in Scotland the stocks of sild and torsk (herring and cod) are overfished and I dont believe that the ocean has warmed by 1.5C even if the climate has. I loved being in Norway and spent some time in Stokmarknes and would be equally horrified if the wildlife there was threatened anywhere like as much as it has been ravaged by fishing and overpopulation in the UK but I reckon you as a country are along way behind. Even if we were to reverse the CO2 trend it will  be a century or so  before the oceans are likely to respond, far better to reverse the overfishing of the North Sea. Perhaps then some of the norwegian fishing communities that have been lost in the last 50 years will return!

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 03:49:16 AM »
The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment.
Den tause våren i fuglefjellet [The silent spring on the bird mountain]

Mange takk for det Viddaloo men hva mener du

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 03:44:54 AM »
Thanks Jai - I am not trying to get a rise out of anybody even though I know I am not on the same wavelength. But as in my post in reply to ASLR. I am not yet convinced of the scenario of RCP8.5.

I have much greater faith in the adaptability of the earths Biosphere especially as it has run at considerably higher CO2 levels and temperatures. So I appreciate what both of you are saying but I am just giving another viewpoint as to why the argument isnt working IMO

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 03:36:42 AM »
The RCP8.5 is a more extreme point of view and I completely get that you and others are completely behind this projection and are concerned that noone is listening and therefore little is being done. I dont believe it, I am more closely aligned with the IPCC view but even then I dont believe that it will continue indefinitely at this rate of CO2 increase or even slightly higher. I believe the temperature increase that is coming will tail off exponentially with the logarithmically reducing effect of increasing CO2 - my view I know but not entirely unreasonable. My point being I take a lower perspective of the same problem but the more extreme version is not convincing me at all - in fact it sounds increasingly desperate as the hiatus lengthens - how then do you convince the likes of me and others whose livelihood depends on 'green' matters, by necessity I am conservative in my outlook.

You ask the question repeatedly (implied anyhow) 'why arent people listening'. Personally I think they were, but extreme views in the light of little recent trending is switching people off - just like the comet analogy - they know that a comet could hit this planet just as they know given the circumstances we may become another Venus - it is too extreme to want to consider it and is based on conjecture and modelling that is not backed by current trends. Psychology has it that the majority want to think positively rather than negatively so will always respond better to a positive point of view - its why cold callers trying to sell you something always try to get you to say yes before they ask anything pertinent to a sale.

The joke I appreciated (LOL) and I assume I am supposed to be the man with the bricks - only worried about his own welfare - you dont know me so please dont pretend to know what I think or the lengths I would go to to support others. I am incredibly concerned about the future of this world and worry for the sake of my kids - CO2 increase is not even in my top 3 however - but my priorities are not a topic of debate here - CO2 and its effects on the biosphere (currently) and why the more extreme possible outcomes are not being taken onboard - is. I am a farmer by education and still involved in growing things so the points of view of farmers does interest me. A recent poll of farmers in America had just 8% believing man is responsible for global warming and 66% believing there is any warming going on at all.

My point is that they are not convinced and some may scientifically naive but frightening them (and me) with unproven models isnt working either so in answer to the question I posed above perhaps another approach is needed

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:23:18 AM »
ASLR theres a lot of predicted shock to the biosphere at increasing temperature but very little now, in fact the opposite seems to be true at the moment. The critical thing will be to know when this critical point is reached where the biosphere starts to react negatively to warming rather than positively at the moment. Only at that point is our ecosystem in danger from warming with the exception of sea level rise and the loss of land based habitat. Where is that point (I have raised this before on this forum) is it in the cold pre industrial time, the relatively benign temperatures of now or in the future at +1, +2, +3 degrees C. The Sea Level rise is critical to low lying coastal populations - they will be reduced by migration, or depopulation - but that alone will not influence mankinds survival prospects and stretched over a generation or 2 may only be inconvenient (locally catastrophic as with the Netherlands I know but not insurmountable).

I have set out my viewpoint before on here, but you cannot convince me by speculation and hearsay. There is a large proportion of farmers out there who do not believe they are in any kind of biosphere shock - give them some real unmodelled experimentation that says their livelihoods are at stake and that will change

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 17, 2014, 12:26:25 AM »
I dont get what you mean there Jai - at present warming levels and with increasing CO2 there has already been an increase in green biomass of over 10% (I am being conservative as some estimations are 15%), this in itself means that 10% of the world is being fed by this increase in Biomass. The earths productivity has being increasing therefore there must be a considerable negative feedback against the CO2 increase otherwise there would have been a considerable increase in the rate of CO2 increase - something must be holding the curve at just a little past straight for such a long period - otherwise the rate of increase would be closer to 10 -15ppm/annum to accommodate a 5 fold increase in fossil fuel carbon emissions - it depends on when the tipping point where all mans emissions equalled the increase in CO2. A feedback of some sort must be happening or all that increase would be represented at Mauna Loa or we have only just arrived at that tipping point.

The rate is increasing and will continue to increase by the look of it to 2030 and well beyond, what the temperature will be then is open to debate but certainly 0.5 - 1 degree above now. What has to be determined is when this will have an adverse effect on green photosynthesising biomass the vast majority of which is contained in the oceans. At that particular tipping point the rate will really take off as the green biomass starts to decline. Are you saying that point is already here because as far as photosynthesis is concerned I dont see the evidence yet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Refreeze Discussion: 2014/2015
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:18:10 AM »
I wish he wasnt so touchy he brings up some good topics of conversation (hes cut off talking to me as well!).

On the november extent (its on your graph) and piomass data isnt it possible that there may not have been a melt but changing systems and wind directions caused the ice to compact and reduce extent over a short period. Personally I dont know how PIOMAS calculates the volume but being a model it may have equated loss of extent with a loss of volume when in fact thickness may have gone up.

As usual in speculation like this over a short period there are several ways of looking at the data and a safer bet is over a slightly longer period to see if the change was consistent. Without all the possible forcings on view taking data in isolation is risky if you want to confirm a point of view.

Cheer up Vid, I've been lurking along with this and other threads you post on and if you werent so touchy and convinced everyone is against you, you may have made a few friends here instead of foes!

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 07, 2014, 01:56:37 PM »
Vid you beat me to it, the conversation here is much better debated under 'conservative science' as that is the end result. It is unfair to categorise or stigmatise scientists as conservative as I am sure that in all these circumstances there are conservatives and non conservatives  better still to give them a good or bad label as that is simpler and more apt as mostly they are constrained by their guidelines.

Certainly the target should be for 0 even when this is totally unachievable given all the variables. However the equilibrium point to aim this 0 at is more difficult to define. To set the 0 point in pre industrial times is not ideal as it was too cold then and crop production in that climate would be compromised, to go colder would mean drastic compromises with the population that would be arduous to achieve. So the 0 would need to be set probably at around the temperature we are at now, which would mean a loss of some land mass but at a food production rate that can support the world ecology. This would lead on to then say should the worlds population be set at its current level and then take this point as '0' as we cannot go back to preindustrial population levels without a very difficult adjustment period.

In other words to set a zero to suit humankind would mean setting a zero point for many other aspects of human behaviour. Shift the population upwards and a corresponding shift of the climate 0 target would need to be made too. Where this 0 point is in both climate and human society is very open to discussion and worthy of yet another thread. Should we set the climate/carbon 0 at preindustrial levels and make adjustments of population levels downwards (not necessarily to match pre industrial levels as we are far more efficient now) or should we set the population levels at todays and work out an equilibrium point for temperature and CO2 that matches our needs.

So is the 0 target realistic as there is cyclical variability, over what period would one set a 0 target - a decade, century, millennia. It could only be set if we are sure we are basing it on a period where all amplitudes are known. So now one comes back to what would be a conservative/non-conservative target?

These points are rhetorical - I am not setting a position. Its just that the conversation has moved to a point where there is a gap in whats being said

Arctic sea ice / Re: Daily SMOS Ice Thickness available.
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:00:20 PM »
I had a look today at the 30day speed and drift chart and the movement of ice has been very anticyclonic in nature for a good while - may explain that unique gap in the ESS, but this is due to peak over the next day or so before Nuri is predictd to move across the ESS area. Those strong flows are then due to cease ending with a forecast, strong, more linear movement from the beaufort towards the Fram/Barents area. Will be interesting to see just how a change from one strong flow to another will affect the ice free areas still left in the ESS

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:37:14 PM »
That is so well put Jai, I enjoyed reading that. There are numerous examples of denialist misrepresentation, but the worst of all is when ones own position is misrepresented as then, rather than having something to rail against, one ends up deflated and let down.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:26:31 PM »
Jai with ref to your 39490 message a while back - that was my point. Thats why I picked that representation (I thought I explained that) as it was a complete deception and also why I wont post it here - it made me really angry, but whats the point I've been 'labelled'.

Yes I do consider myself a conservative - I took to trying to convince sports grounds to take on an alternative way of feritlising other than reliance on Haber Bosch produced nitrogen that produces 1.92t of carbon dioxide to every tone of ammonia. Half the nitrogen in your body has come from that process, 1 - 2% of the entire industrial energy is used in that one process, 30% of humanity is sustained by that process - its truly awful its an incredibly energy reliant process. Everyone I talked to thought moving away from it - especially as it wrecks the microbiology - was brilliant, however so tight is the hold of the big chemical companies that when it came to it very few would take the risk. Net result I went bust, so now I am 'conservative' in my outlook - I cant take the risk of doing that to my family again. I dont like bringing it up, I dont want sympathy, but I really resent the inferences that being conservative means I dont care. Due to circumstances I am risk averse........conservative. Please leave it at that, its now twice I have said it.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 06, 2014, 02:02:06 AM »
Good point Anne, it does depend on perspective and I was being objective, it centres around the phrase human welfare. I was rather looking at it from a survival perspective rather than an aesthetic one

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 05, 2014, 08:51:27 PM »
Fine by me Vid, fine by me. I quite like following you - so if you dont mind I'll carry on reading. To me everybodies opinion, view or comment counts unless its malicious or abusive. Sorry you must feel that I am.

Wouldnt it be easier on your blood pressure though to just ignore me rather than make an ad hominem comment about blocking me - something you claim to dislike intensely. I would prefer to like you and agree to differ. You remind me of an air traffic controller from Fornebu Airport that I used to meet in a pub in Oslo. He used to get very tense about subjects like this and just loved winding me up!! Drank far too much beer with him in the process and exchanged christmas cards for many years afterwards.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:23:19 PM »
Beer, Beer best suggestion all night!!

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 06:22:12 PM »
Lennart - come on. Thats a bit rich. Are you saying that a conservative cant conserve the life on our planet because hes conservative and not extreme - come on. I know I am losing my case here by the looks of it, but dont give me false hope!! I will take the label of conservative as its being used here, but in the true meaning I am neither change averse or traditionalist. If it meant I could have an effect on my childrens future I would already be doing it. That I am not strongly onboard with the man made bit or the end result does not mean I dont care - I care greatly. I went bust a few years ago trying to do something for the environment and reducing CO2 - my family suffered because of it. So I am now much more careful with reacting to extremes - yes conservative - but accuse me of not caring, just because my view doesnt match the majority, I dont think so

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 05:59:17 PM »
Lennart - I cant really win here as the point was not about the models themselves but about their presentation. If I presented the lowest deviation from the lowest reading model I could find and said 'look Global Cooling' i would have a lot of abuse hurled at me quite rightly. The graphical representation of the RCP8.5 models was presented as if it was all the current modelling and therefore devious and unfair, thats all, I wasnt passing comment other than that.

' This is just a simple complexity that pseudo-skeptic deniers will use, no matter what, to sow doubt in an attempt to delay climate action. I see no other way to fight this than by clear and strong communication, as more and more scientists are doing.'

I couldnt agree more

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 05:41:34 PM »
To be honest, and speaking frankly I dont really care what label you put on me......I'm me and conservative to boot - I couldnt claim anything else could I. Your summation of what I am trying to get across though is not what I mean at all. If a scientist is reporting on extremes then he should report extremes. If his remit is to study RCP8.5 then studying 2.6 will get him the sack. Conservative or not I can be stirred up into extreme language or an extreme position. I dont currently fit an extreme future on to global warming perhaps because I live in a temperate climate with few extremes so I am less sensitive  to hotter zones. I also dont think I am a false anything, I am speaking my mind and have tried to set that out - if it comes out confused perhaps thats because thats where I am at the moment. Warmist but sceptical, I am happy with that and expect a fair bit of criticism here for it. I certainly dont want to offend - but enjoy a lively discussion - I hope you let me continue

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 04:16:05 PM »
I'm not angling Neven - on checking I'm wrong with the source  - the one i refer to is the '73 CMIP5 RCP8.5' models and observations. I'm only demonstrating the point and the dangers - no need to bite - the picture is out there and valid as far as I know - its the effect on the psyche of such information - its having an effect on you now!! It had an effect on me discredits the models because they have not produced a deviation that matches the record, however the choice of model type is never explained, if you dont follow up with looking up what RCP8.5 means you are left with the impression that this represents all models. This disinformation then makes it hard to restore credibility. Its not a graph I would want to post on here at all other than as a reference for fear of the accusation you have already made.  This is a prime example of an extreme remit (RCP 8.5) and egg on face.......IMO!

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 05, 2014, 12:31:33 PM »
To get back a little bit more on topic and in response to Neven a while back. I think basically we agree (back to semantics again). If I implied that scientists shouldnt be extreme you misread me perhaps. In a prediction the upper and lower deviation limits are the extremes, if any data has been excluded in the calculation of that extreme there should be a note that explains that or the data and information should be available in order for the presentation  to  be truly accurate or just 'true' as that extreme piece of information was part of the data. Should a piece of information be excluded and then subsequently that extreme occurs - mega egg face!!! Si it makes sense to include everything. The trouble with climate science is how much is being left out - it really doesnt help, how much credibility was lost when the actual temperature fell below the lower predicted deviation at the IPCC a few years back. The temperature still rose, CO2 continued upwards, the arguments were still valid but huge credibility was lost.

My point is that to emphasise one extreme and segmentalise it is to bias the science, to leave it out completely - unscientific. I would say however that there is no reason why in Q & A sessions a scientist should not be able to talk about it at just shouldnt be an 'emphasised' point. The emphasis in any scientific document is going to be the mean value surely (therefore conservative I suppose) unless the remit in the first place is to find extremes, but then the remit is hardly ever set by scientists themselves and the conclusions are often worded around who the information was originally provided for.

If the remit is to find the upper extreme of climate warming , even then there will be a mean value to extreme - thats where I am going with this. There is no reason at all why a scientist cannot express his opinion - it will be a well informed one. However once it becomes an opinion its sort of 'off record' scientifically.

I am being purely objective and a little pedantic as there is always a human element and all scientists will be a % unscientific in their approach somewhere.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 04, 2014, 04:12:57 PM »
Lennart, I did make my comments having read that so I stand by what I said in my post. Does the IPCC consider itself as purely scientific - in which case it pitches about right, with the odd political wobble and bias. Having taken the scientific viewpoints of the 'panel' the conclusion of a politically funded and directed body is not going to be scientific, only science based and that to my mind is completely acceptible so long as a claim of being scientific is not made concurrently. The manipulation of data to promote a cause should not be the remit of any scientist.

Of course this argument is far more pertinent for a Dutch citizen and I would concur that the absence of extremes would be very remiss in any dialogue. Standard deviations smooth out any extremes and far too often the data that has been 'smoothed out' has been removed or simply excluded - quite often this makes the data set more 'saleable', but as a tool to create 'safety', unusable. I wonder if the height of the tsunami defences in Japan were built with the extremes built in to their models or just the smoothed deviations!! There lies catastrophe dont you think

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 04, 2014, 02:01:40 PM »
Neven, I would think that the natural conservatism of a scientific community comes about because of consequence. Using your figures for convenience - if you make a prediction of 1m, nothing is done about it and the sea level rise by 0.7m then that is a measurable response to inaction and lies within a reasonable range. If however you make a more alarmist prediction of 1.3m and nothing is done and the rise is as before - 0.7m - result is egg on face. So in some respects I agree with Michael (I know, i know what a surprise) scientists should be neither conservative nor extreme. After all maximum and minimum deviations are nearly always set in predictive graphs and surely it is that that we should expect of the scientists - the extremes quantified and applied. It is for politicians and policy makers to make what they will of the scientific evidence and not for the scientists themselves to emphasise the dangers or risks - that surely would be unscientific of them.

I ask you should the scientists themselves be presenting results in an either positive or negative manner - personally I think not - I would expect a good scientist to present an unbiased entirely neutral viewpoint with the extremes set as accurately as they can by a range of parameters. Scientists when presenting anything should not be encumbered by opinion or bias as that would bring their conclusions in to doubt.

Somewhere here I think we get our thinking as to what a scientist is very muddled. A scientist who produces a predictive set of results and then gives a one sided bias by expressing an opinion has just become unscientific. That should be left to others to manipulate the results for effect - which after all is done by all sides of the climate argument.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 08:33:01 PM »
No need to bow, and let's both calm down, be friends and take each our chill–pill  ;D

You probably know way more ecology than me, not least from the practical point of view. I just have a hard time seeing how Civilization can go on without all those plants, animals, fish etc, and not least without clean water.

Rough day, I suggest a more civic tone. I apologize for being so confrontational, however, I find it fascinating (while frustrating!) that honest people can view our world and our future so differently. But hey! That's what brings up the multitude of theories and ideas that may save us in the end.

No sweat mate I'm cool.......I know now how passionate you get! As Neven says - the internets like that.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:24:47 PM »
I dunno Vid 3 years at Agricultural College and 45+ working with animals plants and the soils biosphere qualifies me to get my hands dirty and very little else I reckon. I bow to your superior position

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 04:08:41 PM »
So Vid whos up for bumping off first then, which people are going to be told they cannot have the basics. Who is going to tell China - no more fossil fuel fired industry or India or Africa. Do you reckon they will listen.

Anyhow thats off topic. Mass extinctions happen because something abnormal happens to the environment. The more adaptable species wont necessarily be affected at all, in fact they may benefit. I would say that humans are by far the most adaptable animal on the planet, so I dont think humans will be adversly impacted for that reason alone. The fact that they pollute their own environment and expand like a plague is a far more likely limiting factor in human populations........IMO!

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 03:57:52 PM »
Oh and by the way - I said quite clearly that I am skeptical of the catastrophic point of view not the warming side of things. I strongly support the  view that Global Warming will continue, I expect the Arctic to be Ice free in summer within 25 years, and I also support the fact that carbon dioxide has a very active role in the overall greenhouse effect. What I also have, however, is 'faith' in the global ecology and that an imbalance will be balanced sooner rather than later. if I'm right - hurrah we are all saved, if I'm not we're all doomed, DOOMED I say. Sorry that I am not as pessimistic as I am obviously supposed to be!

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 03:45:46 PM »
I reckon picking holes in what I say is just semantics, its clear enough what I mean. But I dont mind - I know what I mean!

When I was at college in 1976, part of my reading material was the Fundamentals  of Soil Science By Foth and Turk and one of the last chapters was 'Land and the world food supply' (pdf of the latest version here,%201990).pdf      - page 326) - the text of the book is fascinating but just that chapter is particularly relevant here. That had a profound affect on me and the way I viewed the global ecology.

Theres a few 'ifs' in your last post and certainly a few implied in mine. I wouldnt want to eat jellyfish but if it was nutritious and could be made tasty why would that necessarily impact on welfare if one is purely objective. Where does 50% of all species come from,  you may be right, it still wont necessarily impact on humans especially as high carbon dioxide, 4 degree warmer climates have been very fertile and vigorous in the past, which is why I would doubt it. Can I be the only one that tires of scare stories. I want the best for my kids and I am already working to do my bit and have that in mind every day of my life - so do they. They come back from school regularly full of doom and gloom climate stories. Making them aware is one thing but the debate is considerably weakened by scare tactics especially on such young impressionable minds, its becoming an indoctrination rather than an education.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 02:10:01 PM »
Mass extinction is an abnormally large number of species dying out in a limited time frame unless I misunderstood, if you automatically include humans in the mass extinction thats a different argument - that wasnt stated here and I attemted to expand what Michael posted.

99% of all living things to have existed on the earth are now extinct, and yet we live in a very diverse, vigorous adaptable ecosystem (species live in temperatures from subzero to near boiling point). The earth has survived several mass extinctions, we are in the middle of one now caused by humans.

of course an increasing climate temperature may cause another mass extinction - but of what exactly - this is a conversation of pure conjecture. There is no study I know of that can predict exactly how this will pan out - even at 4 degrees C. I will be as sad as anyone to see any single plant or animal become extinct because of climate change, a mass extinction considerably more so but climate related extinctions happen all the time. My understanding of nature is there is sufficient diversity amongst all species to take advantage of another species disadvantage and humans are extremely good at taking advantage. I may be wrong but theres currently no way of proving it, I think humans will be ok with warming at this level even if more confined by sea level change and I do think that the current population level will be difficult to sustain anyway (see above).

I love the way as soon as someone doesnt agree with the alarmist consensus they automatically become a denialist or troll or both, I have set out my position regularly and am most definitely skeptical of the alarmist or CAGW point of view, but not the slightest skeptical about global warming. I strongly believe humankind is on course for catastrophe - I laid out my opinion above accordingly, the fact is though I dont believe the catastrophe for humans is going to be entirely climate based however it will probably have a part to play, we will have done it to ourselves long before the climate does.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 01:33:12 PM »
Bit unnecessary Wili - I shall continue to read all with interest

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 12:33:27 PM »
It depends on your view of mass extinction - a mass extinction is catastrophic for those organisms that are negatively impacted by that extinction, however that doesnt mean that other organisms wont benefit or at least have little or no overall effect. Other than the sadness of losing loved or cherished parts of our ecosystem the overall effect of a climate warming extinction event may actually benefit mankind by producing a more vigorous ecology that can be adapted to. Mass extinctions happened at the start of the ice ages and at the start of the intervening warm periods (think sabretooth tiger wooly mammoths to name to recent ones).

If you define 'welfare' as maintaining our environment at its current level, then yes it will have impacted on welfare, but if diversity and vigour  is maintained and the mass extinction is a response to the change in climate, 'I' would say there is every chance there may be some inconveniences caused but overall not detrimental to human existence. Global warming in fact is likely to lower the per capita energy requirement! It all depends on so many factors and exactly what organisms are affected that its almost impossible to tell what effect it would have.

Consequences / Re: Ecological disruption and human welfare
« on: November 03, 2014, 11:52:03 AM »
As a trained agriculturalist and working with soil microbiology it is hard to understand this ecological disruption being any more than an inconvenience to nature as a whole. Yes a local change in climate will cause local disruption, but globally less so. Take corals for instance, the buffering effect of the oceans is highly unlikely to lead to a significant change in overall Ph and the chance of actually becoming acidic as opposed to less alkali before the next ice age absolutely nil (IMO), so corals, which establish very quickly as the warm oceans are full of coral larvae just waiting to find the right conditions, will just start to creep in the direction of the right temperature. If the Ph is too high locally then they will not establish there. So if warming corals will start moving towards the poles, if cooling they will move towards the equator.

On land the environment is far more sensitive as global air temperatures change far more rapidly but the same is true, flora and fauna will move towards the right conditions for their existence. Where there are barriers to that migration then there will be extinctions - but that happens all the time anyhow. If the planet is so out of whack that it will continue warming at a wholly unsustainable and catastrophic rate then nothing we can do will make any difference except save a very small percentage of the increase. Carbon Dioxide and temperature have been very much higher in the past and it would appear the planet was able to sustain an incredibly diverse and fertile environment. As the planets most adaptable climate species I dont think humans will have a problem as such. Ecological disruption to the globe happened over the last millennia when the human population exploded to its current level.

I agree completely with what you say Neven. I think the reluctance to speak about it stems from the methodology of achieving the reduction. There seems to be 3 courses of action - consensus - that would be 'nice'! genocide - ie war, or 'natural causes' - starvation and/or disease (which probably will lead to genocide anyway).

Seeing as this is not addressed at global level at all yet I dont see consensus as happening any time soon. Once my second and third resolution come in to play then ultimately consensus will prevail. If you were a politician is this a topic that would be easy to raise and would any world leader want to listen?? No votes in it yet so wont happen in my opinion

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 03, 2014, 11:07:25 AM »
I read through my post Werther and dont see the 'we' as inclusive on any assumption that is unfair on anybody who lives in the western world and is affluent enough to be able to read this blog - anywhere else I used 'I' which is fair I think. I speak for noone other than myself - its my opinion based on my accumulation of knowledge. To speak for anybody else is arrogant and really just somantics - so if I have been taken that wayand caused offence I apologise

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 02, 2014, 08:08:15 PM »
The trouble I have with that P Maker is it is a model driven possible scenario. Thats ok for the readers of forums such as this as we wouldnt be here if we werent interested in trying to work out with greater certainty what the future holds and therefore we have a belief in the warming scenario. The difficulty is putting it to the rest of the world when they have nowhere near the comforts we do. Once the rest of the world has a reasonable energy supply/standard of living and more time to educate themselves then they are more likely to show some concern for the rest of humanity and the problems associated with AGW. Until that point they will strive to burn fossil fuels to supply themselves with a small proportion of the comfort we enjoy - I cant blame them for that and I stand up for their right to do so. 80% of the globes population lives in substandard accommodation and less than 1% owns a computer - a good population analogy is the world represented as a village of 100 people -

Perhaps educating the western world that they need to share their energy resources more equally with the rest of the world would be a better way of spending money. However would you give up your car/television/phones/computer/ in general so that the third world can have a greater share, or are we going to suppress 80% of the worlds population and keep them in energy poverty so that we can carry on as we are.

This is why I will not move on to the 'drastic action is needed' side - it wont happen without a massive change in attitude or population or both. If however we as a scientifice forward looking society can bring forward energy parity for the rest of the world - only then will you get the rest of the world to come along for the ride.

If I thought this process was already in place then I would follow the 'drastic action' plan. If not I will still prefer to see the poor in the world take action to improve their lot - if that means we are doomed then we are doomed as an entire species and not just the underpriveleged majority.

That is why I prefer to look for balance in forcings and feedbacks so I can sleep at night, which is why I enjoy the depth of information available on this site. I dont want to believe in catastrophe and all it means for my children when the action needed to change the hypothetical situation IMO is even more catastrophic. I think thats why the skeptical side of the debate wont budge, the mainstream side says we will all suffer if we dont do something, which may or may not prove to be true but if it involves a massive change in the way we all live and further disadvantages the majority of the worlds population, then there will always be huge resistance to it until the s**t hits the fan and they become involved by events.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 01, 2014, 03:05:18 AM »
I dont reckon you will attract much meaningful debate if you alienate all 'conservative' people by slinging mud at them. If you want to whip up alarmist fervour there are plenty who will answer the call - but make a difference, persuade those conservatives - no chance. Michaels obviously offended, I certainly am, now you want to drag Neven in to pour water on the flames you lit. Its your thread and your first post - read it again with a conservative mind and see if it would spur you to read further!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Slow Transition
« on: October 30, 2014, 05:35:46 PM »
looking through the ref given by Chris - at all the week36 (as good a point as any) charts going back to 1984, I can see how bad it has got. However as far as the Beaufort and ESS are concerned these had large amounts of MYI in the 80s and this trend, even though decreasing, was fairly steady until 2007 when the ice nearly completely disappeared from these areas. That continued through to 2012 but now there seems to be a return to more ice in these areas since the recovery from 2012. The confusing factor is that there seems to be a very strong oceanic gyre in the Beaufort at the moment - perhaps that is critical in opening up ice free areas to lose more heat and to build up thicker ice where it impacts into the Canadian Archipelego - it would also put pressure on the ice pack to move into Fram area where there is more ice now than back in the 80s. I cant find the right information to see if this Gyre reverses into a predominantly clockwise direction when the ice nearly disappeared there in 2007 and 2012. If so what causes it, is it just surface flow driven by cyclonic/anticyclonic weather influences or more by the deeper water flows.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Slow Transition
« on: October 30, 2014, 01:57:00 PM »
Thanks Chris, I'm certainly not disagreeing - it does show just how unpredictable the Arctic is. I say 'crash' purely on the grounds of 'ifs'. For instance if the 2010/2011 winter maximum had happened in the 2011/2012 winter - what then? Or if the conditions that caused the crash in 2007 happened in 2012, what then, as the loss in 2007 seems to me more severe, saved by there being more ice at the start. Or is it likely that the way the Arctic works prevents this from happening.

I hadnt realised until I started looking at the Arctic in depth how much the ice moves over the year, so reading volumes of any one area is going to be particularly weather sensitive and surely as the volume goes down the speed of movement will go up. Is the ESS and Beaufort being specifically affected by the warm spot in the N Pacific, is it more vulnerable to the developing (if a little weak) El Nino, will an El Nina produce the opposite. Your graphs really only emphasise the difficulties in prediction and a thirst for data that explains anomalies. 

The frustration is not having a reliable set of figures from when this may have happened in the past, it might then be easier to read the feedbacks/forcings. So much work and data but the range is just too small.....frustrating!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Slow Transition
« on: October 29, 2014, 05:47:08 PM »
I could go along with the data there and say that there is a trend of a massive melt year followed by a recovery and then another massive melt year where the maximum volume drops and then steadies for a number of years. But then if you look at the minima - theres the indication of the volatility of the Arctic once the thickness and volume reach the present low values.

I am not suggesting that any way of reading the figures is right or wrong. The trend is still downwards and the likelihood of a total collapse in any one year is getting more and more likely. Its getting very interesting. However the mere presence of such a startling increase in that Minimum value for 2014 (from JDs ESS figures) shows that if weather patterns go the other way there would just as easily be a sustained period of volume building......then what. Chris, Viddaloo et al - you are far more aware of the data than I am and without the tables and graphs I would not be able to comment, so thanks for the replies and info.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Slow Transition
« on: October 28, 2014, 03:34:27 PM »
I think that would be a giant leap of conjecture Chris. The amount of MYI anywhere in the Arctic is so dependant on the combined annual total of weather systems and oceanic gyres that increasing/ decreasing amounts of ice seem to develop almost randomly from one year to the next. From that a purely random set of weather patterns may have the Beaufort ice free next year but most likely another area will have a corresponding increase. Even PIOMAS and SIE are susceptible to extreme weather patterns in any year, just look at the 'rebound' values for the last 2 years. Can any of us be sure that the rebound will stop and carry on back downwards this winter. If not then surely we need to wait on at least another 2 years to see whether the trend has altered or just shifted right a bit.

Either way I would think that looking at any of the ice parameters in any one area is unlikely to show agreement with the overall trend.

Dont you just wish we could have 10 years all at once to see whos right!!

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: October 22, 2014, 01:19:18 PM »
Today my father has come up with the reason that the Arctic ice cap is disappearing so quickly. He recently joined a cruise that visited Svalbard and noticed the crew hacking large amounts of ice off a berg and taking it back to the ship - apparently the ice put into drinks fizzes as it melts! Now - considering the proliferation of cruise ships visiting the area this accounts for the reduction in the ice cap.

So all you people out there with your fancy ideas graphs and predictions - I'm sorry - the problems been solved. Neven you can close the site down now!!

My house is 120 years old made of brick and still needs a lot of work - I too have flooring to lay and a kitchen to build so my sympathies are with you. Once finished I will sell it and then hopefully find a project where I can let loose my ideas!

I'll be 'lurking' (I seem to be good at that!) with interest.

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: October 21, 2014, 11:48:37 PM »
Lisa, likewise it sounds great. Part of my job in the UK is advising on natural ways of keeping sports turf in playing condition that requires a knowledge of the soil and what it can do. If you want help on the project then there would be a need for a bit more info than 'too sandy or peat bog acidic' - theres a world of difference between the 2. I assume that you will put aside some of the land to grow crops/trees/fruit/berries that grow in the immediate area as that ensures success. Then I would assume you would want to 'adapt' some soil to produce vegetables and other crops that the local soils may not support. The soil is your friend so getting a basic understanding of the potential of your patch should be your first move.

Best of luck

Neven - I am very envious of your project - at the moment I'm just trying to get my house watertight after being done over by a builder who was meant to have done the work!

Anyhow one thing I have always wanted to do is make my house thermally efficient and with that in mind I saw a coup[le of television programmes on specialist home builds - one had the whole garden underlaid with pipework at @1.5m depth and a heat recovery system that supplied the heat for the whole house in winter. But the one I liked most of all was the simplest - in order to keep the cost down of keeping the house warmer in winter and cooler in summer, the ventilation system drew its air from a large duct laid down the 50m of the entrance drive at a depth of 1.5m again where the temperature (if I rmember correctly) didnt stray much during the year from 8C this meant that the house could be kept cool in summer and any heating in the winter at least drew air in at @8C - which during the night and sub zero temperatures was a substantial energy saving. I wish I had kept a record of the programme!!

Sorry if this has already been mentioned - I read the first page of posts but then skipped to the last. But thought it may interest you

Pages: [1] 2