Farmduck Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 But on the margins, where the temperature increases from, say, -0.1 degrees to +0.1 degrees, the ice cap would shrink. Yes, IF: - the temperature around the entire fringe of the ice mass was constantly above 0.1°C and - the rate of melting consistently exceeded the rate of precipitation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henage Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 salt water doesnt freeze at 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmduck Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 salt water doesnt freeze at 0 That's true and completely irrelevant. Polar ice caps are made of fresh water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhw Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If he believes that climate change is man made doesn't that negate his god somewhat? No I do not think it does. Religous people have tried to affect climate change before when god(s) were of far more importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 But on the margins, where the temperature increases from, say, -0.1 degrees to +0.1 degrees, the ice cap would shrink. The link I put up, which is working now, is titled " Increasing Antarctic sea ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions". It explains the apparent contradiction in logic of warm = ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 19, 2015 Author Share Posted June 19, 2015 In those circumstances it is wise to retain a degree of scepticism, regardless of your political views on other issues. If you have been near the climate 'debate' over the last few years you would know that there is a clear left and right split. In the USA, Canada, UK and Australia, the sceptical position is being lead from the right. Survey after survey has shown this to. The political aspects got involved when the solutions became apparent. They have since sought to cloudy the message for what can only be their political gain. Who are the biggest voices in the UK who hold the sceptical* view? The GPWF (Lord Lawson), Lord Ridley. Viscount Monckton, Roger Helmer (UKIP), Christopher Booker (Telegraph), Delingpole (Briebart)... *not really sceptical as they have a fixed view.... With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieSaint Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Your theory is plausible to the extent that precipitation might increase the depth of the ice shelf in those parts of the Antarctic that are frozen and receive additonal participation. But warmer temperatures would reduce the geographical extent of the ice cap, because the ice would melt on the edges. The link from my earlier post made it clear that it was the extent of the ice cap that was increasing, which is incompatible with warmer temperatures. Far too simple of an explanation Martyn. There are many different variables affecting the growth or reduction in icecaps. For example, shifting ocean currents have a huge impact as does the jet stream on temperatures in polar or Alpine locations therefore affecting everything from the weather to the size of ice flows around land environments like Antarctica and Greenland for example. If that ocean current which transports much of that warm water around the world has shifted north, then colder water replaces it hence more ice. You need to look at the evidence over a number of years, not a single year to identify the trends. Glaciers have increased in the Karakorums for example a few times over the last few years but regressed massively at times as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 If you have been near the climate 'debate' over the last few years you would know that there is a clear left and right split. In the USA, Canada, UK and Australia, the sceptical position is being lead from the right. Survey after survey has shown this to. The political aspects got involved when the solutions became apparent. They have since sought to cloudy the message for what can only be their political gain. Who are the biggest voices in the UK who hold the sceptical* view? The GPWF (Lord Lawson), Lord Ridley. Viscount Monckton, Roger Helmer (UKIP), Christopher Booker (Telegraph), Delingpole (Briebart)... *not really sceptical as they have a fixed view.... Scepticism should be the default mindset of the scientist. Science progresses when scientists are able to debunk hypotheses and theories and put something better in their place. Unquestioning belief in what we're told, even by scientists, isn't healthy. Otherwise we find ourselves believing all sorts of things that later turn out not to be true. 80 years ago you might have been telling us that scientists peddling their nonsense about eugenics were beyond reproach. People on the so-called left like George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes were as enthusiastic and lacking scepticism about that 'science' as many people are today about climate change. Incidentally, I spent 20 years in academia, and anyone who believes that all academics have unimpeachable integrity, and would never tailor their findings to what they believe their audience (or in particular their funder) wants to hear, is not living in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Far too simple of an explanation Martyn. There are many different variables affecting the growth or reduction in icecaps. For example, shifting ocean currents have a huge impact as does the jet stream on temperatures in polar or Alpine locations therefore affecting everything from the weather to the size of ice flows around land environments like Antarctica and Greenland for example. If that ocean current which transports much of that warm water around the world has shifted north, then colder water replaces it hence more ice. You need to look at the evidence over a number of years, not a single year to identify the trends. Glaciers have increased in the Karakorums for example a few times over the last few years but regressed massively at times as well. I'm well aware that it's too simple. I should have added the rider: "other things being equal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 You actually illustrate the problem with climate change quite well. You would be wise to forget about left and right, and instead be more concerned with the validity of the views being put forward. The difficulty for all of us is that we lack the expertise to make truly informed judgements, so we have to decide on fairly difficult evidence who to believe when there are alternative views being expounded. It has been adopted as a political issue and that has skewed perceptions of the very complicated scientific basis of research into the reality of what is happening with the climate. Politicians across the spectrum have made contributions to the debate that betray their prejudices. Obama, for example, even blamed his daughter's asthma on climate change, at least until someone pointed out to him that his smoking habit is more likely to be the cause of her condition. The negative side of that is that governments often fund research that they think will give them the answers they want, as do major companies. In those circumstances it is wise to retain a degree of scepticism, regardless of your political views on other issues. People who study this, regardless of their political leaning, seem to believe that the phenomenon is real. That is where left and right is forgotten. However, I am willing to look to the scientific consensus, whereas you reject it. As you do not generally reject science, there must be a particular reason. The 'debate' as to whether the phenomenon of man-made global warming is real or not or generally taken from political view points. Here it is where prejudices are displayed. The left happen to largely agree with the scientific consensus (by coincidence) a large section of the right happen to largely disagree with the scientific consensus (by coincidence). If funding was the decider, and it does have a huge impact, then I am sure Shell and Exxon have more clout than anyone else. There are some one right who believe that academic labs have more clout that either, but I do not think any sane person on either side takes that assertion seriously. I agree with the approach scientists should take with regard to scepticism. As a scientist, you work on a model of reality, but never have a perfect description of reality. However imperfectly, there is a movement to modelling something closer to the truth. However, that is the scientific discussion and the main discussion is not led by scientists, but by journalists. They may certainly have strong editorial considerations and will not be locked up for fraud if they make something up. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Scepticism should be the default mindset of the scientist. Science progresses when scientists are able to debunk hypotheses and theories and put something better in their place. Unquestioning belief in what we're told, even by scientists, isn't healthy. Otherwise we find ourselves believing all sorts of things that later turn out not to be true. 80 years ago you might have been telling us that scientists peddling their nonsense about eugenics were beyond reproach. People on the so-called left like George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes were as enthusiastic and lacking scepticism about that 'science' as many people are today about climate change. Incidentally, I spent 20 years in academia, and anyone who believes that all academics have unimpeachable integrity, and would never tailor their findings to what they believe their audience (or in particular their funder) wants to hear, is not living in the real world. Martyn. No-one is saying that academics are impeachable in their honesty. You do seem to have a touching faith that journalists, Exxon and Shell would never dream of muddying the waters if the scientific consensus did not suit them. Eugenics was not a science. The science is genetics, eugenics (as we use the word) was a political dogma about what to do about the science. Science does not suggest that certain traits are desirable. Science does not tell us that man-made global warming is a bad thing, merely that is seems to be happening. Whether it is bad is a judgement call. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Scepticism should be the default mindset of the scientist. Science progresses when scientists are able to debunk hypotheses and theories and put something better in their place. Unquestioning belief in what we're told, even by scientists, isn't healthy. Otherwise we find ourselves believing all sorts of things that later turn out not to be true. 80 years ago you might have been telling us that scientists peddling their nonsense about eugenics were beyond reproach. People on the so-called left like George Bernard Shaw and John Maynard Keynes were as enthusiastic and lacking scepticism about that 'science' as many people are today about climate change. Incidentally, I spent 20 years in academia, and anyone who believes that all academics have unimpeachable integrity, and would never tailor their findings to what they believe their audience (or in particular their funder) wants to hear, is not living in the real world. Following the evidence where it leads not where you want it to lead is the default mind of the scientist. The point of questions is that you find the answer not maintain disbelief stemming only from personal incredulity backed by a lack of understanding of the science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Reflecting on this, I am quite grateful that my area of study (brewing yeast) does not offend either the largest trade in the world or the political opinions of people with a strong faith that heavily individualism is the political solution to all the world's problems. If it did, I would have had to have put up with a scientific 'debate' in the press about whether yeast had any role in brewing beer and that is was actually caused by humors in the air. I would be accused of being bribed with big money from academia to go against the oil industry. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Following the evidence where it leads not where you want it to lead is the default mind of the scientist. The point of questions is that you find the answer not maintain disbelief stemming only from personal incredulity backed by a lack of understanding of the science. I certainly agree with your first sentence. On your second point, and related to the issue of scepticism, the Royal Society's motto is “nullius in verba”: take nobody’s word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Reflecting on this, I am quite grateful that my area of study (brewing yeast) does not offend either the largest trade in the world or the political opinions of people with a strong faith that heavily individualism is the political solution to all the world's problems. If it did, I would have had to have put up with a scientific 'debate' in the press about whether yeast had any role in brewing beer and that is was actually caused by humors in the air. I would be accused of being bribed with big money from academia to go against the oil industry. You obviously enjoy a good fantasy. Maybe you should pitch the idea to Disney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 Reflecting on this, I am quite grateful that my area of study (brewing yeast) does not offend either the largest trade in the world or the political opinions of people with a strong faith that heavily individualism is the political solution to all the world's problems. If it did, I would have had to have put up with a scientific 'debate' in the press about whether yeast had any role in brewing beer and that is was actually caused by humors in the air. I would be accused of being bribed with big money from academia to go against the oil industry. Typical answer from a communist. Brewing yeast is just a UN inspired plan to take over the world. What about the FEMA camps???? THE FEMA CAMPS!!! Its all part of Agenda 21. Its the hops stupid! (message brought to you by Heartearth Institute. Previous clients include the Tabaco industry) With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You obviously enjoy a good fantasy. Maybe you should pitch the idea to Disney. You are too kind, Martyn. In comparison to a tale where all the academics of a particular from around the world manage to gather in a sinister cabal (despite their huge language, cultural and political differences to hatch a devious plot), my story is quite pedestrian. And there would have to be a sinister initiation ceremony where everyone who studies the science in taken into the cabal and happily sworn to eternal secrecy and they are all up for that. Still, it is for greed, as by rejecting everything the poor helpless oil industry has to offer, they manage a to get grants amounting to a few thousand. And they are all left-wing political ideologues too, even the right-wing ones. And the ice-caps seem to be in on this conspiracy too, the bastards. Even the poor oppressed oil industry to expecting to drill in new areas as the ice will be receding rapidly. Fortunately, we have political journalists, who would never dream of being swayed by cash or the opinions of their proprietors, there to save the day. They do not need to look at data, let alone measure it. In comparison to that story, my version really is everyday. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 And the ice-caps seem to be in on this conspiracy too, the bastards. Even the poor oppressed oil industry to expecting to drill in new areas as the ice will be receding rapidly. Fortunately, we have political journalists, who would never dream of being swayed by cash or the opinions of their proprietors, there to save the day. They do not need to look at data, let alone measure it. The Russians are spending millions on new icebreakers that will only be needed or used if the Arctic continues to 'melt'. With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 You are too kind, Martyn. In comparison to a tale where all the academics of a particular from around the world manage to gather in a sinister cabal (despite their huge language, cultural and political differences to hatch a devious plot), my story is quite pedestrian. And there would have to be a sinister initiation ceremony where everyone who studies the science in taken into the cabal and happily sworn to eternal secrecy and they are all up for that. Still, it is for greed, as by rejecting everything the poor helpless oil industry has to offer, they manage a to get grants amounting to a few thousand. And they are all left-wing political ideologues too, even the right-wing ones. And the ice-caps seem to be in on this conspiracy too, the bastards. Even the poor oppressed oil industry to expecting to drill in new areas as the ice will be receding rapidly. Fortunately, we have political journalists, who would never dream of being swayed by cash or the opinions of their proprietors, there to save the day. They do not need to look at data, let alone measure it. In comparison to that story, my version really is everyday. You should have a career as a scriptwriter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 I certainly agree with your first sentence. On your second point, and related to the issue of scepticism, the Royal Society's motto is “nullius in verba”: take nobody’s word for it. No you look and understand the science. Verify the results, peer review, is it able to be reproduced by other using the same methods.Iv'e yet to find a scientist, apart from creationist scientists that say just take my word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 No you look and understand the science. Verify the results, peer review, is it able to be reproduced by other using the same methods.Iv'e yet to find a scientist, apart from creationist scientists that say just take my word for it. Reproduction is a difficult issue in climate science, by the very nature of the subject that is being studied. Matt Ridley is a science writer who, I think, recognises this point, and who has some interesting comments to make on the current state of climate science. And I rather doubt whether he is a creationist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 No. He has a BSc in zoology, is very firmly politically to the right and is a populist science writer. First and foremost he has worked as a journalist rather than a scientist and is your hero for understanding science. Would you care to Google "self-awareness"? "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Ahh Lord Ridley, he who was at the helm when Northern Rock sunk... He's a good writer, and throws in just the right amount of dog whistles and nods to get his opinion/bias across. However, unless you dig a little deeper you have no idea if what he is saying is true. "distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion" That's Jim Steele, no PhD, no scientific papers, no published science. He did teach 8th grade science though. Yes that's taking the man not the ball, but reading that article would give you no idea, but that's Ridley's method, throw out a few names, a few ideas. None of these true sceptics will actually check anything. If you lean his direction already its all great. Who else from my list "The GPWF (Lord Lawson), Lord Ridley. Viscount Monckton, Roger Helmer (UKIP), Christopher Booker (Telegraph), Delingpole (Briebart)..." are you going to hold aloft as a beacon of truth? With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 No. He has a BSc in zoology, is very firmly politically to the right and is a populist science writer. First and foremost he has worked as a journalist rather than a scientist and is your hero for understanding science. Would you care to Google "self-awareness"? We obviously need to know what Jeremy Corbyn's stance is on climate science. Presumably, because he's on the left of the Labour Party, his views will be beyond criticism at least as far as you are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WearyRhino Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 We obviously need to know what Jeremy Corbyn's stance is on climate science. Presumably, because he's on the left of the Labour Party, his views will be beyond criticism at least as far as you are concerned. Whereas you just doff your cap, tug your forelock and fawn to the self appointed experts in the aristocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.