Climate Change Discussion

[Egon]

This thread is getting kinda funny. Sorta like reading the commics!

 

[CRJCaptain]

The grape vine is very tempermental and will only grow in certain areas at certain tempatures. Too cold or too warm and it will die. The Romans grew wine grapes in Great Britain 2,000 years ago. The tempatures there were warmer during this period than they are today.

Since we know for a fact that the planet was warmer during the Roman Empire than it is today, the question is what warmed the planet up to those levels after the previous ice age? Did the Romans cause global warming to the point they could grow grape vines in Great Britain?

The British cannot grow grapes today, which means it's not as warm there as it was 2,000 years ago. I agree the planet is warming, but it's not as warm as it has been.

It's interesting that you would use this argument, Eddie as I have heard that they are indeed growing grapes in England again. The grape vine is considered to be very sensitive to microclimate changes and is in effect a horticultural equivalent of the canary in the coal mine:

Climate change in the vineyards: The taste of global warming

 

[riptides]

Which side are you addressing?

Seriously, we don't have the report. What we do have is the news (the report about the report) of a bunch of like-minded scientists slapping themselves on the back for discovering the word 'very' and ranting about the apocolypse like streetcorner prophets because they all agreed on something that they had made their minds up about years ago. So it is really unfair to say we are prejudging when the actors have come out of the theater and told us the ending! Give me a break.

The operative word here is hubris. It is the original sin. We not only think we can change the climate but we have the brazen audacity to suggest we can change it back! To ice that cake we are going to make this effort in order to preserve and continue a world society/culture that almost no one anywhere would describe as truly good. Think about it.

Maybe we need a change.

The report I have is 21 pages that contains data and graphics prepared by science oriented people. Titled "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis". Perhaps if people actually look at the data and not the news views we can formulate a better discussion.

-Mike Z.

 

[riptides]

We (US) do clean it up. Eight of the top 10 most polluted cities are in the former Soviet Union. Get them to clean it up.


Simulations are not proof, they require all sorts of assumptions to be fed into a model. These same scientists write a model that proves their point. Imagine that. And read my last post. Leading scientists of 100s of years ago thought the earth was flat. Consensus is not science and it's not proof. If it were, the earth would be flat.

If you believe it, great for you. If you want to change your lifestyle based on this belief, great for you. Just don't make me believe through laws passed by the state and federal governments.

No, Mike, seriously, what was the point of your posting what I viewed as science taking a serious hit in A Necessary Apocalypse

Some models require facts, others require simulated data. You seem to be leading me to believe that all scientist in this report are religious zealots who formulated their own data.

Go read the report, maybe read the credentials of some who gave input into it?

You don't have to believe a law, just abide by it.

-Mike Z.

 

[SPYDERLK]

this thread exhibits the problem of paralysis on this issue perfectly. Unfortunately, there is more attitude than reason associated.

 

[N80]

Perhaps if people actually look at the data and not the news views we can formulate a better discussion.

I have not seen the report (assuming we are talking about the same report) but your accusation is specious, my impressions of the report came from quotes made by the men who wrote it.

I really don't want to read it. This is a report sponsored by the UN and written by people interested in redistributing wealth. I have seen quotes from the report (on CNN, not FOX or Rush) and as I mentioned there are surprising contradictions and illogical conclusions pointed out, again, by CNN. So sure, I may cop out. But I read a lot and I read selectively. In such a situation you find your clues where you can and you spend time with credible material and leave the trash for others to sort through.

But if pressed, I may read it.

 

[CRJCaptain]

The report I have is 21 pages that contains data and graphics prepared by science oriented people. Titled "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis". Perhaps if people actually look at the data and not the news views we can formulate a better discussion.

-Mike Z.

Here ya go...


For those that are interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf

 

[N80]

this thread exhibits the problem of paralysis on this issue perfectly. Unfortunately, there is more attitude than reason associated.

I'm not really sure which side of the issue you are on, but I'm not sure what you mean. There is a huge difference between paralysis and making a rational and accurate decision not to act. If someone has taken the time to consider the options and decides not to act, he might be wrong but he is not paralyzed. In such a case, insinuating paralysis is insulting and inaccurate.

You are right about there being a lot of attitude, and I feel certain you are including both sides of the issue in that assessment. Either way, plenty of that attitude is informed by reason and not just existing in the absence of reason.

 

[Doc_Bob]

I really don't want to read it. This is a report sponsored by the UN and written by people interested in redistributing wealth.

I agree, UN is a marginal group, with suspect motives and a long histroy of not getting anythig done well or right.
Bob

 

[N80]

For those that are interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf

Thanks for the link. And you guys win. I'm reading it. I'm on about page 8.

Here are some initial impressions. First, this is not a scientific document and nor does it necessarily claim to be. This is a summary intended for the use of policy makers. Given that it contains no significant advice for policy makers (whatever that means) it is suspicious to me. It is like saying here is the ammo, use it as you will. Again, never forget that this is a UN instituted study.

Second, the report immediately assumes but does not in any way support the claim that C02 is the primary force for current climate change. There is no discussion that I can find that supports or defends this hypothesis in any way. I'm not well versed enough in this type of science to say if that might be a point of contention but since they claim the C02 levels are higher now than at any other time, then what was the force behind the great warming periods in prehistory and how have they excluded them now, if they even know what they were back then, which is debatable. This to me is another red flag.

Third, the word 'estimate' is used throughout this report. Inasmuch as it is not a scientific paper, that might be understandable, but the word is used in virtually every parameter discussed when citing 'scientific' evidence. When hard numbers are given they are thoughtfully followed by a range. At times those ranges are extreme. There is no explanation as to how the final number is arrived at, in other words, no p values, no confidence intervals. We are supposed to accept them without question.

Fourth, the entire report is couched in the language of likelihoods. Now you statistics guys don't get your panties in a wad, I know that 'likelihood' is all statistics can give us, but their range (likely, very likely, etc) is applied to some very specific parameters and potential outcomes. Are they talking down to the "policy makers"? Or are they covering up shoddy statistical analysis? They don't give us the science behind the conlcusions so who knows. Neither possibilty is too appealing.

Fifth, in the first few pages there is a trend in which this report conflicts with the last one done by this same group. For instance, the estimate of the effect of changes in solar irradience since 1750 was cut in half compared to this same group's last estimate. This is an important and contentious issue in regard to global warming and they are admitting that they were wrong by half (!) the last time they looked at it. Their error, last time, conveniently supports their hypothesis this time. Are they right this time? Who knows? If they got it so wrong last time, why am I to trust them now.

Sixth, they use terms and phrases that are contradicted by their numbers. In the opening paragraph regarding C02 levels they say that current C02 levels (379ppm) "exceed by far" those of pre-industrial earth over 650,00 years and give a range of (180-300ppm). Well, to my simple mind, 379 is far higher than 180, but not so much higher than 300. They site that the pre-industrial average as 280ppm. Yet the prehistoric levels climbed as high as 300ppm without our help. How? Why? When? They don't say. And by the way, these levels are all based on ice core samples. I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of smart people who would call into question the validity of that 'standard' upon which all of this is based, not to mention the quality of the measurements made even if ice core samples are an acceptable standard.

Early impression: I approached this paper with my own preconception that I would be unimpressed. So far I am far less impressed than I expected to be. I will continue to explore the 'data' and I will read the whole report, but even under the guise of a 'summary for policy makers' the level of scientific credibility is poor. Too many presuppositions and broadly ranging estimates. So for those expecting this to be the holy grail of global warming proof, you will be disappointed. But don't get me wrong, I am not saying this report invalidates the cause or notion of man made global warming, I'm just saying it doesn't even approach the level of scientific proof necessary to change the minds of those with reasonable scientific skepticism. The science that produced the data in this report might be good science after all, but there is nothing in this report to support or defend that science. There is no critical analysis of the data. Not in the report. Not cited in footnotes or references. In the end it is what it says it is, a summary of the data by UN selected scientists intended for the consumption of and distribution by un-named policy makers. In other words, it is a media event.