Global warming Becoming More Pronounced!

[chicken]

It hailed heavily in Kent mid-August 2004, I skiied down a hill in Tunbridge Wells that winter and down a road near the shopping centre in the middle of town the following winter it was so thick!

Then they do say it may make winters colder... but then they say a lot of things.

Anyway I'm rambling now and I've noticed Google is helpfully suggesting people do an MSc in Climate Change at Exeter University.

Goodnight!

[dangel]

IF they can't predict the weather in four days time accurately...

Food for thought isn't it? Science is limitless in it's understanding of our planet - the danger thesedays is that people think we already know all the answers when nothing could be further from the truth.

[badass]

Your argument works if:

1. The 'scientist' (actually 800 scientists, peer reviewed by another 2,500) has actually previously been wrong.

Well their first 3 reports were wrong. Isn;t that enough?

2. Bad science is as prevalent now as in the time of Copernicus.

Why does it have to be as prevalent now? Bad science exists, therefore all of this man made global warming malarky could be bad science (and IMHO, IS!)

3. You've got an alternative theory to explain the current rapid warming of the earth.

Thats just wrong. Just because there is not an alternative theory makes any theory proposed correct? I suppose that means God definately existed until people started suspecting its a load of superstitious nonsense?

So, unless you've got a hold of your mythical 'all climate scientists are thickies' and

I have never suggested that. However what I have siggested is that it isn't that difficult to get a load of epopel who should know better to help boost something flawed. After all, look at the support for the Eugenics movement pre Hitler.

'everything the IPCC says is filthy lies' source, you think that the comprehensive process of peer review is as flawed as having the annals of scientific knowledge being forced to support a religious text

Peer review isn't perfect. Just like anything else. Infact I'm sure that the previous models of the solar system were subject to much peer review.

() AND you can come up with a theory to replace the one you're tearing down, I think we're done here.

As said before, I dont need to come up with an alternative theory to rubbish a flawed one. I can accept that WE DONT KNOW WHATS HAPPENING
It seems that some people cant, hence things like superstition and flawed theories being purported as scientific fact.

I know the recurring theme of my arguments is that the IPCC keep being wrong so why should we believe them this time, but yours is simply that the latest model they have proposed provides a good explanation for current data. Can you not see how that is flawed?

[Byatt]

Well their first 3 reports were wrong. Isn;t that enough?

This is the 'all climate scientists are thickies' source I keep asking you for.

Thats just wrong. Just because there is not an alternative theory makes any theory proposed correct? I suppose that means God definately existed until people started suspecting its a load of superstitious nonsense?

No, it means you should be able to scientifically rubbish the current theory, which so far, you haven't done.

Peer review isn't perfect. Just like anything else. Infact I'm sure that the previous models of the solar system were subject to much peer review.

Source.

As said before, I dont need to come up with an alternative theory to rubbish a flawed one. I can accept that WE DONT KNOW WHATS HAPPENING
It seems that some people cant, hence things like superstition and flawed theories being purported as scientific fact.

Given the nature of science is to explain, where is the movement that would follow 'we don't know what's happening'? Also, genuine 'ugh' at use of scientific fact, I'm not purporting it as fact, I'm purporting it as precisely what the authors say - 90% confidence in anthropogenic warming.

I know the recurring theme of my arguments is that the IPCC keep being wrong

Which is utterly worthless unless you show us how and where it has been wrong.

yours is simply that the latest model they have proposed provides a good explanation for current data. Can you not see how that is flawed?

I'd absolutely love to compromise with you here, but I keep quoting from a source which is giving ranges of climate parameter increases with a confidence of at least 90%, and your argument is 'well, it could be something else' - it could be 'these people wouldn't know 90% if it hit them in the face' if you would only find some evidence for it.

I can see how you've reached the position you're in, and it's honestly not a bad one, scepticism is perfectly healthy. I just can't see how you've come to the conclusion that this is bad science (this is why I keep babbling on about you citing a source).

[dangel]

the current theory

Interesting word 'theory' isn't it? Quite different from, per se [duely corrected so not to offend], the word 'fact'

[Byatt]

Interesting word 'theory' isn't it? Quite different from, per say (sic), the word 'fact'

*shrug*. All the scientific method has to offer is theory, if you want a climate fact the best you're ever going to get is 'at the moment, it's a bit cold' . What matters is the confidence with which we can make predictions using the theory we have.

[dangel]

*shrug*. All the scientific method has to offer is theory, if you want a climate fact the best you're ever going to get is 'at the moment, it's a bit cold' . What matters is the confidence with which we can make predictions using the theory we have.

(The word sic is sometimes erroneously thought to be an acronym, from any of a number of phrases such as "spelling is correct", "same in copy", "spelled incorrectly", "spelling incompetent", "said in context", "stupid in context", "stand incorrect", "spelling intentionally changed", or "sans intent comique". These "backronyms" are false etymologies. We can both be pedantic - oh joy!)

What matters to you, doesn't so much to others (and there was a good example). The point (perhaps) being that this is a war over belief, rather than simple fact. Particularly given the huge geological timescale that should be considered versus the time we've actually being monitoring the 'climate'. Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with your point of view, just with the extent of your conviction (and others) in a particular scientific 'theory' vesus another.

There's plenty of good reasons to do something about emissions from fossil fuels outside of the climate change debate - and so to do nothing would be silly. I'm just not with the lot with the pitchforks and burning torches at the castle gate right now. M'kay?

[Byatt]

(The word sic is sometimes erroneously thought to be an acronym, from any of a number of phrases such as "spelling is correct", "same in copy", "spelled incorrectly", "spelling incompetent", "said in context", "stupid in context", "stand incorrect", "spelling intentionally changed", or "sans intent comique". These "backronyms" are false etymologies. We can both be pedantic - oh joy!)

My usage didn't presume any such thing

What matters to you, doesn't so much to others (and there was a good example). The point (perhaps) being that this is a war over belief, rather than simple fact.

Yes, agreed.

Particularly given the huge geological timescale that should be considered versus the time we've actually being monitoring the 'climate'.

I think I've already said what I think on the inclusion of geological timescales.

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with your point of view, just with the extent of your conviction (and others) in a particular scientific 'theory' vesus another.

My vehemence has perhaps been confused for conviction. I apologise, I am simply irked when people dismiss what I see to be the only scientific basis for the current changes with what they see to be these great guns of unscientific common sense, or, worse, flat out stating that something is in error without explaining precisely how.

There's plenty of good reasons to do something about emissions from fossil fuels outside of the climate change debate - and so to do nothing would be silly. I'm just not with the lot with the pitchforks and burning torches at the castle gate right now. M'kay?

Okay . I'm more the thought police than a member of the pitchfork lot - a position of total scepticism (no doubts whatsoever) on the man-made warming hypothesis, given the volume of evidence in favour of it, seems unjustifiable to me, and thus it evokes a fairly obsessive curiosity to understand where people get it from.

[yamangman]

I think we all know that money is the real cause of most of the 'bad stuff' that happens.

[badass]

People that cant be arsed to read the rest of this post, just read the first paragraph. It's got all the info you need to know

So at least one part of the Third and most recent report from the IPCC, the people whose reports you rely on for all of your arguments for man made climate change simply contain made up data. Much of which was created by a computer in order to create a graph of a certain shape.

Byatt, It is now clear that the entirety of your argument that Anthropogenic global is based on the fact that the IPCC are 90% sure this is the case.
You take this at face value and say that on that basis there is a 90% chance that Global warming is partially Anthropogenic.

That, IMHO is completely flawed since they are there purely to prove that this is the case.

However, that is understandably not enough for you. I have not at any point said that Global warming is or is not Anthropogenic, but have simply claimed that we do not have enough information to say that it is.

I willl firstly say that the first report predicted an increase that was 300% out. I cant be arsed to find a source but I'm sure that if you fond the predictions of the first report you can compare them to the observec temperature increases. Fine, I have not quoted a source here because I cannot find that source. However either I am lying or this is the case. Make up your own mind on that one. How ab out you try to prove me wrong?

On the second report:

In the previous thread I pointed to a source that shows they had no good scientific reason to pick the data they did and to ignore the data that they did. You linked to the part of the thread where I presented this earlier in this thread.

Secondly, I have found accusations and that the IPCC completely abused the peer review process for political reasons. In their SAR - second assessment report - the 1995 one.
Firstly, the Summary for policymakers - the reports you keep referring to:

Like all IPCC assessments, the SAR contained three “Summaries for
Policymakers” (SPMs), one for each of the IPCC’s three Working Groups. Since
the full SAR stretches to well over 2,000 pages of mostly dense technical prose,
few outside the scientific community are likely either to read it in its entirety or
to understand most of its details. Therefore, these summaries tend to become the
basis for press reports and public debate. For this reason, the Working Groups
consider their exact wording with extreme care before they are published. At the
end of the IPCC report process, they are approved word for word by national
government representatives at a plenary meeting attended by only a fraction of the lead authors.

Only a fraction the laed authors there?
They have politicians approve the wording of these reports before they are released
Anyone see the flaw in that?

Another quote from that source

Seitz’s proclaimed distress stemmed from the fact that the lead authors of the
SAR’s Chapter 8 — on detection and attribution — had altered some of its text
after the November, 1995 plenary meeting of Working Group I (WGI), in Madrid,
at which time the chapter was formally “accepted” by the Working Group.
According to Seitz, since the scientists and national governments who accepted
Chapter 8 were never given the chance to review the truly final version, these
changes amounted to deliberate fraud and “corruption of the peer-review
process.” Not only did this violate normal peer review procedure, Seitz charged;
it also violated the IPCC’s own procedural rules.

Source

I also note that you keep bringing up Peer review.

In a typical peer review procedure, scientists write articles and submit them to a
scientific journal. The journal editor sends the article to several referees, all of
them experts in the authors’ field (“peers”). Most peer review is “blind,”
meaning that referees do not know the authors’ identity. (Not all journals
conform to this standard.) In most cases, the referees’ identity is kept secret from
the author. However, some journal editors, like myself (SHS), encourage referees
to reveal themselves. Since many scientific communities are quite small, referees
and authors can often guess each other’s identity.
Referees may recommend acceptance, rejection, or acceptance after certain
specified changes are made (“revise and resubmit”). The last of these responses
is by far the most common. The authors then rewrite their article in response to
the reviewers, and the editor serves as referee. The process usually goes back and
forth several times, with several rounds of revision, until a suitable compromise
is achieved among reviewers, authors and the editor. A similar process is
normally applied to grant proposals.

I would argue that the peer review process whilst it has its uses, will mainly force compromise where there are disagreements, so that it appears everyone is singing from teh same hym sheet.
I am not arguing that is isn't the best system available, simply that like any other system, it is flawed.

Now for report 3:
So far we have established that in the past 2 reports, the process was flawed and the first report was wildly inaccurate in its predictions.

First, an amusing observation by a politician that looks to be in the anti camp.

Crucial though the economics of climate change is, the starting point clearly has to be the science. I readily admit that I am not a scientist myself; but then the vast majority of those who pronounce with far greater certainty than I shall on this aspect of the issue are not scientists either; and the vast majority of those scientists who speak with great certainty and apparent authority about climate change are not in fact climate scientists at all."

From here
I dont know if thats true or not, but wouldn't be surprised if it is, knowing human nature.

Finally, Michael Crichton's address to the US senate - one particular port.

To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann's results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.'s Third Assessment Report, in 2001.

Mann's work was immediately criticized because it didn't show the well-known Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or the Little Ice Age that began around 1500, when the climate was colder than today. But real fireworks began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate Mann's study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a hockeystick out of any data fed to it-even random data. Mann's work has since been dismissed by scientists around the world who subscribe to global warning.

Why did the UN accept Mann's report so uncritically? Why didn't they catch the errors? Because the IPCC doesn't do independent verification. And perhaps because Mann himself was in charge of the section of the report that included his work.

Now, of course my process for creating this is not scientific. I have a clear bias here and am not afraid to admit it. I have only searched for things to rubbish the reports and I know full well there are other arguments for them. Mostly from IPCC affiliated scientists.


So at least one part of the Third and most recent report from the IPCC, the people whose reports you rely on for all of your arguments for man made climate change simply contain made up data. Much of which was created by a computer in order to create a graph of a certain shape.

[Nick]

I think we all know that money is the real cause of most of the 'bad stuff' that happens.

Absolutely not true.

I had a three day old curry last night... the bad stuff this morning had nothing to do with money...

[Byatt]

I cant be arsed to find a source

That's what you should have put in big letters.

How about you try to prove me wrong?

I shall respond to your ridiculous request with my own. Which model (I think there are 35 scenarios they examine in total) was wrong, and on what predicted parameter was it wrong?

Secondly, I have found accusations and that the IPCC completely abused the peer review process for political reasons. In their SAR - second assessment report - the 1995 one.
Firstly, the Summary for policymakers - the reports you keep referring to:

Only a fraction the laed authors there?
They have politicians approve the wording of these reports before they are released
Anyone see the flaw in that?

That is true of the wording of the summary for policymakers (SFP), not the actual reports themselves. The reports are fully peer reviewed, the data in the charts included in the SFP is directly lifted from the reports. I haven't cited any of the policy bits, as I agree that they could well be a load of arse.

Full report 3 is here

Source

Genuinely interesting link, whose conclusions (allegations unfounded, contrarians unscientific, ...) I agree with. I take my first line back, you should have the this link in big font.

Now for report 3:
So far we have established that in the past 2 reports, the process was flawed and the first report was wildly inaccurate in its predictions.

If only we had.

Michael Crichton

I think I'm about to stop contributing.

So at least one part of the Third and most recent report from the IPCC, the people whose reports you rely on for all of your arguments for man made climate change simply contain made up data. Much of which was created by a computer in order to create a graph of a certain shape.

Yes, I am.

No source on a 300% error + no source on 'making up data' (What?) + source actively refuting flaws in the process cited as allegation of flaw + Michael Crichton + government intervention on the summary (not the science) = I understand where you're coming from now, and I'm going to stop responding.

[yamangman]

I think it goes without saying that climate change will impact lives without a shadow of a doubt. Take El Nino/La Nina for example, both of which massively impact lives, health and ecomomies during and for months after every oscillation. Unfortunately these very events (among others) hugely impact any modelling for predicting future global temperature and climate variance, and I have no faith in the accepted averages.

What's more is that no government would ever dare implement the kind of legislation or even the merest hint of a suggestion of the radical changes that would need to be made to ensure not only that greenhouse emissions don't affect the future climate (whatever effect it may be) but also provide a better standard of living for practically everyone. I don't simply mean sudden corporate deus ex machina, but controls on population levels and birth and the like.

[badass]

Fine, rubbish the rest but please explain how vital data was missing from the "hockeystick graph" in report 3 and how made up data was accepted into it?
Then please explain why, after this was discovered we should take anything else in that report with anything more than a pinch of salt.
I dont care that the source was Michael Crichton and how you see him. Either refute that allegation or accept it as correct.

Before you attack me for ingoring a load of the other points you have made, you have done the same to a load of mine and to avoid this becoming a discussion of multiple page posts some things have to be dropped.
In essence, you trust the IPCC to be correct on what they say. I do not. The Summaries for policymakers they publish must be approved by politicians and I alledge that they have been busted for just making up data, with a source provided.

[dangel]

My usage didn't presume any such thing

Ah to be young (and foolish) again.

I think I've already said what I think on the inclusion of geological timescales.

...and I hadn't

My vehemence has perhaps been confused for conviction. I apologise, I am simply irked when people dismiss what I see to be the only scientific basis for the current changes with what they see to be these great guns of unscientific common sense, or, worse, flat out stating that something is in error without explaining precisely how.

The error is in thinking we having all the answers - i'm open minded about the whole thing but, frankly, there's plenty of 'theory' on both sides. Again, I reiterate - this is an arguement over belief ('what I see to be..').

Okay . I'm more the thought police than a member of the pitchfork lot - a position of total scepticism (no doubts whatsoever) on the man-made warming hypothesis, given the volume of evidence in favour of it, seems unjustifiable to me, and thus it evokes a fairly obsessive curiosity to understand where people get it from.

Let me put this to you - if we all thought the same way life would be darn boring Personally what irks me is people trying to enforce a point of view on others to the point of obsession (your word not mine) - make your point and walk away. I see nothing being said here that hasn't been already and nobody changing their standpoint on either side. It all seems rather pointless - unless you've a score to settle? I've no problem with your belief (based on skepticism or not) but i'm just not convinced (based on my own reading and understanding). Fair enough?
Take it easy

[Nick]

Just a had a thought on this, which I'll throw in here just to annoy everyone.

It seems to me that we've found an effect and now we're hunting for the cause.

This is a dangerous path to follow as what we look for are causes to fit the evidence we see which is the wrong way to go about finding out what's going on.

We *think* the Earth is warming up. (Note the emphasis)

We look for reasons why this might be.

We decide we're producing too many 'greenhouse gases' as these react with the upper atmosphere and cause reflected radiation and heat to be retained.

The problem with this thought process?

Well as logical as it may seem, it utterly fails to explore ALL the possibilities AND completely fails to try to understand the context in which we are measuring the temperature rise.

What if this is part of a brief cycle? (We know the Sun has a rough 22 year cycle of extreme surface activity and relative calmness... we don;t know how that's synched with the Earth though, or even if there IS a link)

What if this is just a small cycle within a larger cycle that has a timeline in excess of the length of time we have been recording temperatures?

What if there are other factors which we haven't considered or taken into account?

What if nothing we do actually makes any difference anyway, even if we're right about the causes?

The point is, we just don't know enough to make any sort of informed decision.

Computers are only complex calculators, nothing more than that. They are neither intelligent or smart. They are, in fact, very dumb. Very dumb indeed. Sure, a computer can do calculations far faster than I can, but if I punch in the wrong data, I just get a wrong answer faster.

It was Pierre Gallois who said "If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it."

So let' be very careful how much faith we put into models run on computers fed with data that at best is what we *think* affects climate change... Until we can completely model ALL factors that affect a global weather system, it all must be viewed from the standpoint of a VERY rough guide only...