tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post7400569801211936..comments2023-12-11T12:21:29.338+00:00Comments on Greater Kent Birder: Global warming? What Global Warming?Greater Kent Birderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13735726800456903089noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-69868667307854654422014-04-06T08:32:41.716+01:002014-04-06T08:32:41.716+01:00Hello John,
I didn’t know you were Alcabirder.
I ...Hello John,<br />I didn’t know you were Alcabirder. <br />I have looked at some of the articles in the references you posted and to be frank I wasn’t that impressed. Most are from people just re-stating their position and/or selecting snippets of info that support their stance. <br />There were a couple of interesting articles in one of the web sites – one discussed sea ice coverage/melting (the same article was published in “Whats Up With That” by the way) and another on Extreme Weather Events. I’m not taking a stance on the latter because my knowledge of statistics is insufficient. Both articles were interesting because they contained data. Yes they reached conclusions but with the data presented you were in a position to agree/disagree/sit on the fence. Too many articles just recycle opinion and un-provable “facts”.<br />The literature/blogosphere is full of quotes/misquotes/seemingly solid data which when looked at are not quite what they first appeared to be.<br />Take the 97% of climatologists believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming that you used. I looked for the source of this oft quoted statistic. <br />A survey was done by the University of Illinois for the American Geophysical Union and was sent to 10,257 “climatologists” of which 3146 replied and “97.4 %” agreed with the first question asked.<br />So what was asked ?<br />“When compared to pre-1800 levels do you think global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?”<br />Here things get a little murky in that whilst 3000 people responded it has been suggested that only the views of 77 were used to generate the 97.4% (75 of the 77 accepted respondents.) The others were excluded because they weren’t publishing (I’ve not managed to find the source document so can’t comment on this level of details). Whatever the number used to generate the statistic what is amazing is that the answer wasn’t 100% because everyone who takes an interest in the subject knows (see the graphs in my blog) that temperatures have risen over the stipulated period – we were coming out of the little ice age (remember the pictures of ice fairs on the Thames).<br />The second question is a little more pertinent to the subject.<br />“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” <br />Now 82% reported yes to this question and it would seem all 3124 respondents were registered in this statistic.<br />A better question and a more reasonable number of participants but if you think about the question carbon dioxide is not mentioned and those active in the field would know that humans do all sorts of things – we cut down forests, we drain wetlands, we concrete over vast amounts of the country and everyone knows the latter causes local warming (heat island effect) which is why London is always warmer than the surrounding countryside and holiday airports are so darned hot when you have to walk across the tarmac to the terminal building. The statistic has been used to support carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming so why wasn’t that specific question asked?<br />Since only 30.6% of the 10257 asked replied those who actually agreed with the question was a lowly 25% of those polled.<br />So there are a lot of stats out there (both pro and con) that have to be taken with a pinch of salt. There are a lot of opinions out there that to me are equally dubious. In my blog I stuck to the facts as agreed by all participants and these just show changes in temperature and carbon dioxide levels over time and being my blog I posted my interpretation.<br /><br />SteveGreater Kent Birderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13735726800456903089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-60191510617016295172014-04-04T21:06:04.790+01:002014-04-04T21:06:04.790+01:00Of course everyone's entitled to their own opi...Of course everyone's entitled to their own opinion and I assumed that your blog was made to open up a discussion. However, saying you're not going to change your mind doesn't strike me as very scientific! Do, please, have a look at the sites I mentioned since they do address your concerns. I'm very happy to look at the sources you suggest. With regard to the recent IPCC report I gather that "nearly 500 people have signed off on the wording" and the single person who dissented was an economist, not a scientist in any relevant field. Further as I understand it his dissent wasn't about the science but that he felt it was alarmist and more things could be done to 'soften the blow' as it were. Interestingly, 'British Birds' this month has an interesting resume as to why warming seas are causing problems for our seabirds - and it looks to me to be based on sound science involving an observed change in the marine ecosystem. Naturally I abhor any call to 'jail climate change deniers'. Far from the 'climate change lobby having their say via the world's media, a recent report found that the BBC gave disproportionate attention to unqualified, non-scientific climate change deniers, John Cantelo (aka Alcalabirder)Alcalabirderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17064652704548707276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-68003989745931514882014-04-03T21:01:11.618+01:002014-04-03T21:01:11.618+01:00PS - about that proposed birding trip to Nord pas ...PS - about that proposed birding trip to Nord pas de Calais, better go soon for if sea levels rise the crossing will be longer and more expensive!!Wellsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05173969473540343252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-36468584266868945322014-04-03T20:58:54.364+01:002014-04-03T20:58:54.364+01:00Interesting views, Steve, and conclusions I broadl...Interesting views, Steve, and conclusions I broadly agree with. When next I see you over a pint (or two) I will be pleased to tell you about the only really credible explanation about the effect of pollution on our environment which I heard and understood back in about 1966 when I was commencing my studies on atmospheric pollution and air quality. This related to the commencement of Concorde flights across the Northern Hemisphere and the effect of the resultant high-level emsiions on our climate. So far, the predictions advanced by the scientist concerned have turned out to be pretty accurate, and include a period of apparent cooling as the melting of ice-caps accelerated. There's some good in being an old git after all. See you soon - Peter WWellsyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05173969473540343252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-72800741196396134782014-04-01T14:02:38.316+01:002014-04-01T14:02:38.316+01:00Alcalabirder,
Thanks for the comment but I'm n...Alcalabirder,<br />Thanks for the comment but I'm not going to change my mind. I am not paid by anyone so the thoughts presented in my blog are MY interpretation of the published results of official climate data. To me the facts speak for themselves and I don't need a climatologist to explain a graph, I can do that myself. The data is shown so anyone reading the blog can make up their own mind - one way or the other.<br />As I said in the blog climatologists and their models cannot explain what is going on (or not going on - the lack of warming since around 2000) so why should their models be believed when rolled forward 50 or 100 years? As I said a theory should fit the facts, if it doesn't then improve the theory or find a new one.<br />My comments on the RSPB (and I'd tar Spring Watch with the same brush) was made because I never once heard or read a comment that over fishing was the cause of the sea bird problem. It was always Global warming. I haven't paid as much attention to the farm bird problem because I've given up reading/listening to what those groups say. <br />I have no idea what proportion of climatologists support the current IPCC stance/report (I know one has asked for his name to be removed from the latest report) but once it was common knowledge that the world was flat; it was also accepted that the sun moved around the earth, indeed it was heresy to say otherwise (ask Galileo), and once the experts said it was impossible for stomach ulcers could be caused by bacteria due to the pH of the stomach....that is until an Aussie doctor showed that could with Heliobacter pylori...and got a Nobel prize for it.<br />The rest of your comment is just your opinion, one you are entitled to have but one I happen to disagree with.<br />Finally, and this is to inform the casual reader, there are some on the Pro Climate warming lobby who are suggesting climate change deniers be jailed (just Google "Jail climate change deniers" if you want to read about it). What happened to freedom of speech? The climate change lobby have their say via the UN and the worlds media so those that disagree should be allowed theirs. and that includes me (even if it only though my lowly blog).<br /><br />Steve RayGreater Kent Birderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13735726800456903089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-86872819573990225302014-04-01T12:07:04.462+01:002014-04-01T12:07:04.462+01:00Interesting, but I think it’s misleading to judge ...Interesting, but I think it’s misleading to judge the case for “CAGW” on the basis of media reports. Many of the scientists – dare I say most – whose work confirms “CAGW” aren’t chasing headlines in the way that is suggested and the calumny that they’re simply doing it “to keep research funds rolling in” appears to me to be unfounded. I’m not a scientist so I look to those who are and, more to the point, those that are specialists in the relevant field, for guidance. The fact is the overwhelming majority (95+%) of climatologists – often people with decades studying the subject - agree that climate is changing and are in broad agreement why this is so. Although being in the majority doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right, when it consists of specialists in the field then evidence to the contrary needs to be very solid indeed. This doesn’t seem to be the case. As I see it the real culprits who persist in peddling “views and predictions, however flawed” to the media are people like Lords Monkton & Lawson. <br />I don’t think the RSPB have maintained that the collapse in seabird colonies was solely the result of global warming And my recollection is that the difficulties you note have been tackled (I’m trying to find the reference). The decline of farmland birds has largely been attributed to changing farming methods rather than climate change and still is (see “BTO Bird Atlas 2007-2011”). <br />With regard to what’s happening to global temperatures, I’d be very cautious about relying on the website “Watts up with that”; a biased source heavily criticised for his poor grasp of the relevant science by climatologists (and others). The ‘problems’ with the role of CO2 has been noticed by climatologists and I find the rebuttals convincing. Having looked at both sides of the argument I have consistently found the ‘global warming’ stance more firmly based in science than the critics (see http://climatecrocks.com/ and Youtube channels greenman3610 and potholer54). According to some sources the amount of money thrown around by the anti-lobby (always so cautious about acknowledging exactly where they get their money from see - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/) is much greater than the sums available on direct climate change research. Oddly they seem far more interested in funding PR than sound scientific research. Interestingly the tactics, methods and even some personnel used by this lobby closely resemble that deployed by ‘big tobacco’ to rubbish the link with cancer (see the book “The Merchants of Doubt”) <br />Again contra to your own views it seems to me that if any group has the characteristsics of a religion it’s the “denialist” camp who continue to believe with a fervour despite the accretion of evidence to the contrary. The way in which Michael Mann (originator of the ‘hockey stick graph’) has been subjected to death threats etc does nothing to disabuse me of this view. <br />Alcalabirderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17064652704548707276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-69345980512237692622014-04-01T11:59:52.083+01:002014-04-01T11:59:52.083+01:00Mike, one met man does not a summer make - whateve...Mike, one met man does not a summer make - whatever he said then he's out of line with most colleagues and I'd guess his views are now seriously out of date. Similarly, no climatologist would suggest that odd temperature readings from the past couldn't be higher - the point is that in recent years readings across the world have been consistently higher. Equally, no climatologist would disagree that the sun is a major driver of temperatures - how could they? However, it not the only factor and the question is whether changes in the sun could be responsible for what we observe. Professional climatologists did think of checking this and found it cannot account for the recent changes.<br /><br />Alcalabirderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17064652704548707276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-7880986383977972102014-03-28T06:26:03.582+00:002014-03-28T06:26:03.582+00:00Mike,
The data used is the official data, it's...Mike,<br />The data used is the official data, it's not data dreamed up by those who disagree with the official view.<br />My view is that the sea is the key - the thermal capacity of water being far higher than that of air. As far as I know the models that predict the warming cannot predict El Nino events (know to affect global weather/temperature) and I'm pretty sure they do not include changes in the suns. As for underwater eruptions I'm sure these are not included as no one knows what(quantitatively) what is going on. Greater Kent Birderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13735726800456903089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-83571164787920389182014-03-27T23:55:42.938+00:002014-03-27T23:55:42.938+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Greater Kent Birderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13735726800456903089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2709807958817044045.post-49134824706475123212014-03-27T20:21:00.499+00:002014-03-27T20:21:00.499+00:00An interesting read Steve and I probably go along ...An interesting read Steve and I probably go along with your conclusion providing all the data can be trusted. We had a talk from a 'met' man a couple of years ago and he quoted much the same and we cannot measure the temperatures over such a short period as they appear to do today. I also remember reading Canterbury recorded a record high of 93 degs F in the early 1900s and I think only just pipped by Gravesend the other year. I've always thought its the sun which mainlly dictates our climate, again reading that we receive the heat from about one sq. metre from the sun's surface and that can change by a 1000 degs or more which we probably cannot detect as we may not know from which piece is aligned to radiate to the Earth. Its certainly a complex subject with many variables coming into play and many unknown or yet to be realized. eg. Do we monitor the underwater heating caused by geological erruptions eg in the mid-Atlantic ridge, probably not. Could go on all night with this subject. Lets hope some birds come our way in the next week and brighten our days. Must sign off now as 'An Idiot Abroad 2' is about to start!Mike Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14510262523696796079noreply@blogger.com