back to article British boffin tells Obama's science advisor: You're wrong on climate change

A top British scientist has come out with new research flatly contradicting the idea that extremely cold winters in North America – like the one just past – will become more frequent due to global warming. This new analysis disagrees completely with the assessment of President Obama's personal science advisor. Dr James Screen …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Boffins disagreeing with each other?

    Who'd a thought it....

    Slide-rules at Dawn then chaps?

    1. Preston Munchensonton
      Alien

      Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

      This reaffirms what I've thought all along. The science is never "settled" as such, since we're always learning something new. Even something as settled as evolution of species by natural selection has had differing hypothesis on its specifics.

      In fact, it further reinforces my position that most of the actual debate over AGW is really a debate over political power and easy government money. But I guess that would make me a "denier".

      The only real question left is whether AGW is really EGW (extraterrestrial GW)...naturally, aliens...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

        Yes, unfortunately, if you have any questions about the validity of climate research, you are an evil denier and are to be lumped in with flat-earthers and inbred hillbillies.

        1. icetrout
          Mushroom

          Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

          i'm a lowland hillbilly who married my cousin... but I understand well chemistry enough to understand it's sulfur dioxide in coal plant emissions that wrecks havoc with the environment , not CO2... can't the Obamites come up with a plausible "Tax & Spend" scheme... bty I'm all for scrubbing heavy metals & sulfur dioxide from coal plant emissions... love to fish for brook trout ... acid rain & mercury are doing them in... :(

          1. Martin Budden Silver badge

            Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other? @ icetrout

            It's true that burning coal puts out lots of kinds of nasty shit into the atmosphere: we'd be wise to just leave the coal in the ground. Nuclear energy is cleaner, safer, and kills a LOT fewer people than burning coal.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other? @ Martin Budden

              I think you missed "in the short term".

            2. Trevor Gale

              Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other? @ icetrout

              I'd sure agree with the idea that coal-fired plants do generate a lot of sulphur and other serious pollutants - AND that nuclear power is a FAR cleaner and safer technology for energy production. The problem with it is down to ill-informed and non-thinking slices of society raising groundless objections, in the similar way to their extremely loud backing of 'wind farms' and solar panels... whilst the provable, measureable truth shows the opposite, which they naturally choose not to believe. To wit:

              [1] - The oft-shouted issue of nuclear waste is not an issue at all, if one looks at various sites around the seas one finds a good deal of deep chalk/salt rock which can safely accomodate the waste from nuclear plants way into the future;

              [2] - Wind turbine 'farms' are far too inefficient and brought into a falsely 'good' light by over-the-top subsidies at the cost of the normal energy consumer. Individual turbine generators can be shown to be something in the order of 12% efficient from input to output, and on top of this one has to add the high maintenance costs and capacity smoothing to cater for wind variation;

              [3] - Whilst the efficiency of conversion in solar panels has increased in the last decades it remains problematic in the distribution area, and for small / family installations the initial install requires a decade or more to fund. In larger cases the variation in 'visible' solar radiation impacting the panels means, again, the need for capacity smoothing;

              [4] - So many calls for a 'cleaner environment' are based upon the reduction of CO2, the truth is that the levels of carbon dioxide we observe have been fluctuating widely for centuries and we can measure such variation thousansd of years further back, due to natural cycles of various origins. Never forget the relationship between foliage and CO2: take all the CO2 away and the forests will disappear. Likewise, cut the forests and the CO2 will increase. There's a lesson there before listening to the 'climate change' believers.

        2. Levente Szileszky

          Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

          "you are an evil denier and are to be lumped in with flat-earthers and inbred hillbillies."

          Actually clearly, he is one dumb denier, who started out by citing literally the most basic non-debated part of the issue as something in question...

          ...classic case of a clueless mouthpiece trying to sound off 'reasonably' but ends up flat on his face.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

        " most of the actual debate over AGW "

        There hasn't been any real scientific debate over AGW itself for over a decade now. We know from overwhelming observable evidence that it's happening and that it's primarily man made. The real questions are how bad will it get, and in what timescale?

        1. MondoMan

          Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

          There hasn't been any real scientific debate over AGW itself for over a decade now. We know from overwhelming observable evidence that it's happening and that it's primarily man made.

          Since "AGW" is the acronym for "anthropogenic global warming", meaning "man-made global warming", you don't even need any observable evidence to know that it's man-made.

          If you were perhaps thinking instead about what part of GW is AGW, you're not in much luck either. The only evidence for that so far depends on the climate models being complete, but they've already shown themselves unable to predict the recent "hiatus" in rising temps, not to mention clouds and other important features of the climate system. The current argument for GW being mostly AGW is "we can't think of any way to model it without AGW," which ironically was just about what the Intelligent Design folks used as their argument.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

            "Since "AGW" is the acronym for "anthropogenic global warming", meaning "man-made global warming", you don't even need any observable evidence to know that it's man-made.

            You might think so, but there are still a surprising amount of ignorant people out there that are not aware of, or outright deny the existence of AGW!

        2. Dan Paul

          Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other? (One word response)

          BULLSHIT!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

        Believe it or not scientists generally don't just spout off their opinions. Climate scientists use computer models to predict the affect of different variables. Modeling something as complex as Earth's climate is extremely complex and current models require supercomputers to work through. Different research groups use different models and sometimes come to different conclusions. The British scientist may think that their climate model is superior to the ones used by others and they are welcome to argue this point. Arguing about things like this is what science is all about. Someone arguing that climate change is bogus because their religion tells them that God is in control not man is not a scientist. Someone who challenges climate science because they fear that carbon regulations will adversely affect their profits also is not a scientist. When you combine science with religion or economics it is no longer science; it becomes pseudoscience.

    2. DrXym

      Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

      Scientists disagree all the time. As if that's a bad thing.

    3. Faux Science Slayer

      Reality of Weather & Climate Forecasting ~ Dr Piers Corbyn

      There is NO carbon climate forcing, NO 'sustainable' energy and NO 'peak' oil.

      There is a chaotic, dynamic system that is never in balance, but self buffering.

      youtube.com/watch?v=6R26PXRrgds#t=31

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reality of Weather & Climate Forecasting ~ Dr Piers Corbyn

        > There is NO carbon climate forcing, NO 'sustainable' energy and NO 'peak' oil.

        I've read a lot of ignorant stuff on this site but the above statement takes the cake.

        Carbon dioxide forcing. CO2 passes visible light and absorbs (and re-radiates) IR. The ground absorbs visible light and IR and radiates IR. If you consider a column of atmosphere, each element radiates equally in both directions (up and down). The net effect is the sun heating the surface adn that heat flowing from the surface to space as if through an insulating blanket. This is the main reason that the earth does not drop to -120C every night. If you are capable of solving an integral, you can determine how much heating you get for a certain density and type of greenhouse gas. Unbelievable as it may sound to readers of this site, the numbers work.The AGW angle is that increasing "strong" greenhouse gases increases surface temperature.

        Sustainable energy. I think it is a safe bet that the giant fusion reactor in the sky will continue to provide abundant energy for quite a while.

        Peak oil. The Hubbert Curve is used by the oil companies to determine when individual reserves are past their "peak" (that is, when the cost to extract oil at the same rate increases). Since total number of reserves does not appear to be increasing at a significant rate and the quantity of oil in those reserves is (emprically) declining, it follows that in addition to a "peak" for each reserve, there is a "peak" for all reserves taken together.

        None of this is rocket science. This is all "round earth" stuff that can be easily verified by the average person with a modicum of intellectual curiosity.

        As for Mr. Corbyn, his terms of service bar quoting his forecasts without his explicit permission so the only real comparison we can draw between him and Punxsutawney Phil is that he has better lawyers.

      2. Enric Martinez

        Re: Reality of Weather & Climate Forecasting ~ Dr Piers Corbyn

        Write it down in equations and send it to the Nobel committee. You might get famous mate.

    4. MrXavia

      Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

      So Brit Boffin vs Yank Scientist... who is right?

      Only one way to find out...

      FIGHT!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

        Mortal Kombat!

      2. Felonmarmer

        Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

        Obviously the true outcome should be to average their findings, one says more cold spells, the other says less, then surely the consensus is no change.

        1. TheVogon

          Re: Boffins disagreeing with each other?

          Whereas back here in reality, it continues to get hotter:

          http://earthsky.org/earth/may-2014-was-the-warmest-may-on-record

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Uncle Ron

    Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

    I don't really believe a mathematician has as much standing here as an actual climate scientist, right?

    1. AMBxx Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      I can only see one with a vested interest.

    2. Steve Crook

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      Absolutely right, a mathematician can know nothing detailed about climate change and can only be an amateur. After all, it's not like he's had a paper published in Nature Climate Change or other reputable climate change journal is it? Ohhh, hang on...

    3. TechicallyConfused

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      Climate Science, otherwise known as "popular science" is the stuff of the tabloid press. It is about time real scientists got involved. Had they included good solid mathematical principles to the original and no defunct models they might not have been so utterly wrong. I am sure they would still have been wrong but possible not as completely wrong as they were.

      Frankly I believe it is arrogance and hubris to think that we have the first clue about how this world really works. To be able to unpick and analyse billions of years of change and changing patterns in just a few years is at best unrealistic and at worst pathetic.

      I am sure stuff the himan race is doing it having an impact. I just don't believe that anyone thus far really has a clue what that is and how it will manifest itself in changes.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. BillG
        Coat

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        Climate Science, otherwise known as "popular science" is the stuff of the tabloid press. It is about time real scientists got involved.

        There is too much money (read: huge government grants) in "Climate Science" for people to risk getting real scientists involved.

      3. P. Lee

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        All the science appears to be stats and computer models looking at past data and trying to come up with something which matches the figures in the past and therefore (it is assumed) will match in the future too. This would be obviously in the domain of a mathematician.

        That's also why they keep getting the predictions wrong. No one understands how it works. There is no way to experiment, which you'd think would be rather critical for "real" science.

        Follow the dutch model, build some larger dams. If you're going to build on a flood plain, at least sort out the engineering to take account of it, with some stilts or something.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

          The big climate models model process, they aren't statistical pattern matching efforts. And the idea that if you can't do an experiment means it isn't science is a rather tired trope - there's an awful lot of science where experiments can't be done - or are you invalidating astrophysics, most planetary science including geology, etc?

          I don't entirely disagree that we are probably going to have to engineer ourselves out of the mess we are getting in to, but unless you are writing me a blank cheque (please do) I imagine you want to know how much larger the dam needs to be, how tall are the stilts? So maybe you' want me to build a model of wave height to justify my bill? I wonder how I'll do that - maybe I need a prediction of future climate?

      4. streaky

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        "I believe it is arrogance and hubris to think that we have the first clue about how this world really works"

        Don't talk about "real scientists" then follow it up with "I believe", it looks a bit silly.

        Not for nothing but it isn't arrogant - it's pretty clear to most people the planet is broken and the data correlates. The discussion is the final effect.

    4. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      I'm confused. Which one is meant to be the "actual climate scientist"? One is Holdren, who's thesis was titled-

      COLLISIONLESS STABILITY OF AN INHOMOGENEOUS, CONFINED, PLANAR PLASMA

      who drifted from physics to poltics with the odd collision along the way. Notably the infamous Simon-Erlich wager which Holdren advised Erlich about. And lost. Holdren also co-authored a book with Erlich which contained some radical ideas about overpopulation. The other is Dr Screen, who..

      "...leads a three-year project entitled “Arctic Climate Change and its Mid-latitude Impacts”, in collaboration with the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research."

      One's a specialist, the other's a politician and bureaucrat. But given climate science is largely about the numerical analysis of weather and climate data, who would you think more likely to produce credible results, the mathmatician or the politician?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        IMO Mathematicians are real scientists, just often a tad disconnected from the real world.

        However, if Holdren's thesis was based on computational modelling there is a reasonable cross-over into other numerical modelling disciplines.

        But IMO (and with a background in CFD!) computational modelling is just part of the process of "real science" - it is a useful tool to narrow down the options and help researchers identify what should be measured in order to confirm or invalidate a theory, but until a model has been validated with real-world data and its predictions have been verified to be accurate it remains a really complicated guess.

        1. Bobcat4424

          Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

          Just for the edification of mathematicians: Both climate and weather are chaotic systems and are non-linear. (google "Lorenz", "strange attractors", "chaos theory" to read more.) So there are three basic problems with this "scientists's" scrteed:

          1) The guy is a mathematician. Mathematics is currently the most serious impediment to truly understanding AGW. Mathematicians are in the same position versus chaos theory that they were in the 1600's and 1700's when they knew that there was a branch of maths called "calculus" but had no idea how to actually do the calculations. Today, we know that many systems are chaotic, meaning that they obey patterns that we cannot predict, but simply lack the maths to do the calculations. As a result modelers are forced to obey the mathematicians and use linear deterministic models even though they know that those models will always fall short of actual events. Any mathematician worth his salt knows this.

          2) Sea ice is not a good direct measure of anything. Sea ice is freshwater ice that forms on top of below-freezing salt water. With AGW, the warmer air over the polar areas can actually hold more moisture (basic physics.) This results in more precipitation over the sub-freezing polar oceans and more sea ice in some areas. The fact remains that the Northwest Passage, for which British and other explorers searched in vain for centuries, now exists. Maybe mathematicians are deficient in basic physics education.

          3) Dr. Screen is a brand new PhD in Mathematics. While he appears to be applying his efforts in post-doctoral research to Arctic ice and climate, his c.v. lacks the necessary background to support his work. It appears that Dr. Screen is simply trying to make a name for himself as a new PhD in a very barren funding environment. Kinda like renting out his degree for euros.

    5. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      It is hard to see who would be the real scientist and who is not. Or maybe they are both real but approaching the problem from different perspectives leading to different opinions/results. Or maybe one or both is somewhat corrupt/vested interests.

      I dont see how automatically ruling someone out because they are a mathematician makes sense unless you believe science is a field that requires restricting to only those we would consider qualified/real, which would kinda defeat the point of science and turn it into a cult.

      Instead of assuming a battle between good and evil where we must choose our champion, it surely makes more sense (only scientifically though) that if both have a respectable scientific view that they both continue to figure out if either of them is right. Eliminating the people who dont share your specific and predetermined conclusion is what caused a lot of people who do not assume a particular theory (people often but mistakenly called denier by the very people who deny the process of science).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        @codejunky

        There is a tale (true) that for something like a century the progress of thermodynamics was halted by the theory of "caloric" (heat particles), and it took someone outside the scientific bubble to make the next breakthrough.

        This was an engineer in a royal cannon factory who observed that drilling the bore of a cannon would cause it to heat up, thus caloric was being created "from nowhere". This guy then asked the logical next question "so where did the heat come from" and thus formulated the law of conservation of energy.

        1. ukgnome

          Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

          I thought that meteorologists were just physicists with umbrellas, and pure mathematicians were just physicists in sandals.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

          >This was an engineer in a royal cannon factory

          A little unfair, Benjamin Thompson (Count von Rumford) was America's first world class scientist. But since he was a royalist he got kicked out and went to work for the Germans.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

          You are referring to Benjamin Thompson (the later count Rumford), who became a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 27. His cannon drilling experiments entailed beautiful quantitative science (that indeed discredited the theory of the caloric). So, to say that Rumford was "outside the scientific bubble" is a bit odd, as is the statement that the concept of a caloric substance halted the development of thermodynamics. When Carnot published the second law of thermodynamics (about 30 years after Rumford's work) he still believed in caloric as a substance and was inspired by the analogy of caloric flowing from hot to cold with water flowing from high to low.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

      Who do you think makes the models that run all day and night in those shiny supercomputers?

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Who do you think makes the models that run all day and night

        For some time now I've been convinced it is the same group of script kiddies we know better as Anonymous.

      2. TheVogon

        Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...

        "Who do you think makes the models that run all day and night in those shiny supercomputers?"

        Bitcoin and Dogecoin.

    7. Charles Manning

      Mathematician vs. "toy" mathematicians

      Climate science is not a fundamental/pure science. It relies on using the tools from other disciplines. Clearly those tools nneed to be applied correctly or they are misleading.

      If they were using physics (which they never seem to), then it would be reasonable for physicists to call them out when they forget friction or gravity or latent heat.

      There is no opportunity to do any scientific experiments, so the "real scientists" are making mathematical models instead. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for a mathematician to call them out when they apply the maths wrongly. This is particularly true for statistics which is one of the least understood and least intuitive areas of mathematics.

  4. <shakes head>

    hmmmmm

    “I believe the odds are that we can expect as a result of global warming to see more of this pattern of extreme cold."

    sound like it is somthing he has been told and is not too sure about, thus suplying some wiggle room for later.

  5. TheVogon

    Yawn. 2 people have different views of the possible impact, but both agree that Global Warming is happening. How is this even news?

    This is of rather more significance imo - if correct: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-will-cost-world-far-more-than-estimated-9539147.html

    It is of course largely just another informed opinion. We know the ongoing impact of global warming is going to be bad. We just don't really know exactly how bad......

    1. Dr Stephen Jones

      "if correct"

      What do you expect? The prediction was made by Nick Stern, one of the biggest snouts in the climate change trough.

      The same Lord Stern who got his numbers wrong, double counted the costs and didn't count the benefits.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/beyond_stern_climate_morality/

      1. TheVogon

        Re: "if correct"

        "What do you expect?"

        I am of the opinion that AGW is likely to get pretty bad and pretty fast - so - I tend to agree that probably our current models are too conservative. I expect significant impact by 2050 and a global catastrophe by 2100 if nothing changes. And even if we did reduce CO2 emissions, etc. I suspect that it might already be too late to do anything but delay the above. But even delay is vastly preferable to doing nothing.

        1. The Grump
          Mushroom

          Re: "if correct"

          The Vogon said "I am of the opinion that AGW is likely to get pretty bad and pretty fast - so - I tend to agree that probably our current models are too conservative".

          Wow. Oh wow...someone here has an opinion. AN OPINION ! Ring the bells. Dance in the streets. Call the Queen for a press conference. WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE WITH (WAIT FOR IT)...AN OPINION.

          [SARCASM OFF]

          It amazes me how many AC's and other people comment on Climate Change without a single clue. Not one of then can probably interpret a climate model, much less understand the mathmatics involved. When I hear the word "opinion", I see a guy open his mouth, and BS comes streaming out. If you don't understand the science, SHUT UP ! And take your "opinion" with you to the pub, where it is always welcome.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "if correct"

            I can only assume you are either stupid or trolling. The vast majority of the posts here express opinions and not just facts. That someone clearly understands the difference between the facts that they reference and their opinion lends credibility to their position.

  6. Mark #255

    Evidently neither of them reads xkcd.

    (No, this is not a call to cease all scientific research and rely on xkcd cartoons.)

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.