Climate Change Discussion

[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.