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.

 

[Doc_Bob]

The claim that the "use of fossil fuels=climate change" is a political issue and has nothing to do with science.

Bob

 

[N80]

I'm going to flip flop again. I'm not going to finish reading this thing. After looking through a lot of the observational data, I noticed that most of it was done since about 1970. So the trends they are seeing in atmospheric water vapor, sizes of glaciers, deep ocean temperatures, etc are based on an amazingly short 30 years, 50 in some cases. I don't know about you guys but when the frame of reference is 650,000 years, a 50 year trend isn't even a trend! And in one of the tables there is a column indicating how likely it is that these so called trends are man made. Quite a few of them say "more likely than not" (whatever that means). And if you look closely there is a foot note next to each such entry. If you have good eyes you will see that the footnote says: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies. " Unbelievable.

If I had any doubts that this group's conclusions were based on ideological/political leanings before, they are completely erased. This report is so much smoke and mirrors. A real joke. But not a funny one. It will be a media hit and in that regard may be far more valuable as propaganda than science. The uncritical masses will eat it up like sheep. The easily lead will be easily lead.

 

[MikePA]

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

For some people, who believe humans cause global warming, it's a religion. Also, it's not science, it's opinion and guesses. No one who can prove their hypothesis needs consensus.

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.

All models require assumptions.

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

I did. It's not filled with science, it's filled with assumptions and guesses.

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

That's the problem. Laws should not be passed based on the pantheism religion.

 

[Raddad]

I,m not sure global warming is being effected by humans or not. I keep going back to the fact that it took the earth billions of years to store all this carbon in the form of oil and coal. In a few hundred years we have burned billions of tons of the stuff and put it into the air. Shouldn't we expect it to effect something?

 

[turbo36]

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.

So are you saying that you seek out and read only reports that support what you already know or believe? How is that being open minded? Sort of like preaching to the choir isn't it?

 

[Tig]

As some have observed that was a report that was posted. That is the "Summary for policymakers". I will wait for the report before commenting.
I keep checking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website and I am unclear when the report will be published.

 

[CRJCaptain]

I'm going to flip flop again. I'm not going to finish reading this thing. After looking through a lot of the observational data, I noticed that most of it was done since about 1970. So the trends they are seeing in atmospheric water vapor, sizes of glaciers, deep ocean temperatures, etc are based on an amazingly short 30 years, 50 in some cases. I don't know about you guys but when the frame of reference is 650,000 years, a 50 year trend isn't even a trend! And in one of the tables there is a column indicating how likely it is that these so called trends are man made. Quite a few of them say "more likely than not" (whatever that means). And if you look closely there is a foot note next to each such entry. If you have good eyes you will see that the footnote says: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies. " Unbelievable.

If I had any doubts that this group's conclusions were based on ideological/political leanings before, they are completely erased. This report is so much smoke and mirrors. A real joke. But not a funny one. It will be a media hit and in that regard may be far more valuable as propaganda than science. The uncritical masses will eat it up like sheep. The easily lead will be easily lead.

George, I think that it's admirable that you actually read the paper, and you are correct that it's only a summary and, as such geared towards policy makers.

I have to disagree, however, with your assertion that the data used only goes back 50 years...to me the most compelling piece of evidence in this whole thing is the series of colored graphs on page 15 of the report entitled Fig. SPM-1. This is the ice core data and it includes several different distinct data sets complete with error bars, looking back 10,000 years. The radiative forcing and greenhouse gas plots go almost vertical starting at around 1900. If you have seen "An Inconvenient Truth" a similar plot is shown in the movie as well.

Once again, thanks for keeping an open mind and I look forward to your always thought-provoking responses.

 

[N80]

So are you saying that you seek out and read only reports that support what you already know or believe? How is that being open minded? Sort of like preaching to the choir isn't it?

First, no, I did not say that or imply that. I said I am selective about what I read, that does not mean that I select only material that supports my beliefs.

Second, I never claimed to be open minded. My mind is thoroughly closed to specious garbage of any kind or persuasion. Is yours?

Third, you must not have seen my last two long (boring) posts in which I stated that I was reading the report and in which I was giving my impression.

I may be preaching to the choir, after all they are just sinners who can sing. But who are you preaching too?

 

[N80]

I have to disagree, however, with your assertion that the data used only goes back 50 years

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was not suggesting that all of the data was 50 years old. In fact, I even discussed the C02 levels dating back 650,000 years. My point was that a considerable amount of the data they call 'observational' only goes back 50 years. I understand the reason for this; there was no way to accurately measure deep ocean temps and currents globally back then, there was no way to measure global atmospheric water vapor, etc. But a lot of their conclusions seem to be based on these incredibly short term observations. I can only assume that they have 'weighted' these observations appropriately but to be honest, I'm not at all convinced that they did. Their footnote on their "more likely than not" category hardly inspires confidence.

 

[N80]

As some have observed that was a report that was posted. That is the "Summary for policymakers". I will wait for the report before commenting.
I keep checking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website and I am unclear when the report will be published.

There seems to be some confusion about which 'report' you are talking about. The Summary for Policy Makers is the only one I know of. Are you saying there is going to be an actual 'scientific' paper describing methodology, statistical analysis of data, margins of error, discussion and critical analysis of the data cited in the policy maker summary? I imagine such a tome would be huge and probably way beyond my critical faculties. You know in medical journals like JAMA and NEJM there are often commentaries on studies presented in that particular issue. Often times these are presented as a critical counterpoint. It kind of gets all the cards up on the table. I'd love to see that sort of transparency from these scientists, but I'm not holding my breath. Another thing you get in these medical journals are disclosures that expose any potential conflict of interests from the study authors. That's another thing I like to see from these guys. Again, not holding breath.

Regardless, even if the 'report' you are referring to comes out, it will not create the splash this one did. No one really wants to read the science. Western culture implicitly trusts anyone called a scientist. Any group titled 'scientists from around the world' is virtually unassailable in the popular media. Very few citizens are interested, much less capable of, understanding the science, or lack thereof, that informs the global warming movement. This report is far more important to the global warming movement than any boring scientific paper or collection of papers. This is the one in which they all agreed that each of them was right all along (even though they botched things the last time they got together and only discovered it this time!). That is all that the general public needs to know and all that they activists ever wanted. They do not have to convince fellow scientists, they only have to convince us. And it would seem that with the aid of the media its been a pretty simple carrot to dangle.