Global Warming

[blandy]

 

blandy, on 27 Sept 2013 - 5:33 PM, said:

 

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

 

 

 

I didn't think there was a debate though

 

It was always a scientist says global warning is melting the ice caps  and anyone that doesn't agree is then "deluded" ( same with the disappearing rain forest debate , but No lets all listen to Sting )

 

then a few more scientist came up with evidence that maybe suggested it wasn't ALL man made  and suddenly public opinion had moved to more of a not sure stance

 

 

and then today we get this new statement after it appears the proportion of people who believe human activity is making the world warmer has fallen from 55% in 2008 to 39% in 2013.

 

and yet you accuse the oil companies and Fox  of acting in their own interest with the data  ??

 

I heard today an expert saying about the ice caps melt and water will rise by xx inches  .... now maybe my logic is flawed but the ice caps have already displaced the water and thus when they melt the water level will remain the same  ( well actually it would drop slightly ) .. drop some ice cubes in a glass of coke and try it on a smaller scale   ..maybe oceans are different , salt content and so forth  .. maybe Brian Cox can tell me

 

I've said before when we've had this debate , that if man kind can do it's bit to not kill polar bears by melting his home  then we should do it  .. however what happens is the UK sticks a policy in place to go green , charges consumers a Green tax and the price of everything goes up ..meanwhile India and China increase their cheap and polluting production  and everyone in the UK goes off and buys the cheaper product  from those countries anyway ..whilst feeling good that they care about the environment  (I'm sure anyone that watched top gear has seen how the Prius is made and how wasteful the production is for a "Green" car )

 

it's like the EU and the NHS  .. there is a good debate to be had  ..been when the first contribution is to call people deluded  .. well it isn't gonna happen is it

 

Is that genuinely what you think, Tony?

There's some pretty fundamental flaws in it, if you do.

 

For example, ice caps are on land, so if they melt, then water flows into the sea.

Sheet ice or sea ice floats on the sea, it is becoming thinner. It spreads and then recedes in area, seasonally, and over decades the trend is overall downwards, significantly in area, with clear shorter periods of expansion in area, for a few years, but the past trend is of a consistent decrease in overall coverage. As also stated, when water is heated, it expands, increasing sea levels.

The data for the arcticis of consistent and significant deline. If you want to look at what NASA say and the measurements, then you can click the link, or click it and go to the conclusions. (I kind of take NASA as a valid source of data as they're run by the Oil dependent US, and have obligation about the openness of their data, and they have actual satelites to take measurements). The also reference their data.

 

Fox and others - many UK Newspaper columnists - have been jumping on things like the sea ice, cherry picking short term fluctuations to "show" the trend is reversed, when it absolutely isn't, particularly for the Arctic. They hope people will just accept what they say, without checking. The media gives them equal or greater prominence that qualified experts, and this is what has led, in part to a change in public perception. People are told by these folk that it's gone away, that they're right and the scientists are wrong and they fall for it. There's a massive lack of open-ness about who funds many of the sceptical think tanks. Digging by journalists and others, where it uncovers funding sources generally leads to coal and oil. While it's perfectly legal for an oil company to fund a "think tank", it's rather beyond the pale to call a body funded by Oil as "independent" or "unbiased", or for it's views to be treated as such.

 

I agree with you about "acting alone" in the UK. Yet if rich western countries won't act, how can we ask poorer nations to act?

[blandy]

As far as I am aware there has been a healthy debate on climate change within the scientific community. The problem the other argument has isn't that it get dismissed out of hand, but rather that it is and has been losing the argument on sheer weight of evidence for a long time now.

I think we in the UK could create a green economy that would be a win win. Our economy would be stronger than anybody's with less reliance on fossil fuels as well as the environmental benefits. There are vested interests that don't want that to happen though.

Yes, except while it's been losing on evidence, it has managed to muddy the waters and sow confusion via deliberate tactics.

[Kingfisher]

Yes, my last sentence relates to all those shenanigans.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Kingfisher

[MMFy]

The IPCC are now 95% certain that climate change is man-made. 

 

This 95% figure is based on a show of hands, and nothing at all to do with scientific evidence.  I suggest reading this letter by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley which he sent to the IPCC this week:

 

Dear Mr. Borenstein, - It would be appropriate to assign a statistical confidence interval as part of a statistical analysis of data, and only then. As you will know, a confidence interval of .95 corresponds to two standard deviations from the mean, and .99 to three standard deviations. However, there was no statistical analysis of the question whether most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us: therefore, no statistical confidence interval was appropriate, and the IPCC's attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible.

As you will also know, the IPCC was rightly criticized for having assigned a 90% confidence interval (not even a standard interval) to its "consensus" proposition in the Fourth Assessment Report. On that occasion, the political representatives of governments took the decision. Many nations wanted to plump for 95%, for purely political reasons (for there was and is no scientific basis for assigning any quantitative value to such a proposition), but China, for purely scientific reasons, wanted no confidence interval at all. In the end, 90% was settled upon as a compromise, and by no more scientific a process than a show of hands. And these people expect to be taken seriously when they demand the shutdown of the West in the name of Saving The Planet.

By the same token, Mr. Severinghaus' assertion of a 99% confidence interval to the proposition that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect is meaningless. It is demonstrable by simple experiment that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to an atmosphere such as ours will cause a radiative forcing that, ceteris paribus, can be expected to cause some warming.

However, temperature feedbacks, non-radiative transports, temperature homeostasis, and chaos in the climate object are among many complicating factors that make it near-impossible to determine with any reliability - even using probability density functions - how much warming will result from a given quantum of forcing, or when it will result, or how long-acting any temperature feedbacks will be. These and many other uncertainties - including the use of a feedback-amplification function at the heart of the climate-sensitivity equation that manifestly has no physical meaning in the real climate - render it impossible to determine whether most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Accordingly, the IPCC's pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence.

Frankly, this entire business of the fictitious confidence intervals has become a joke, particularly now that it transpires that just 0.3% of 11,944 papers on global climate change published since 1991 explicitly state support for the IPCC's version of "consensus".

In any event, only a Socialist who placed politics before science would believe or assert for an instant that scientific results are determined or reinforced by any form of mere head-counting among scientists. Aristotle demonstrated that argument by mere head-count was a fallacy 2350 years ago. The sheer dumbness of the IPCC's approach should at least be questioned by journalists, not merely paraded as though it were some sort of Gospel truth. The Holy Books of IPeCaC are no Bible.

There is a huge and fascinating story behind the loutish distortions of scientific, mathematical, physical, and statistical method that have led today's scientifically-illiterate classe politique to place their faith in propositions - such as the "95% confidence" proposition - that are obvious nonsense. Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game. This once-fashionable scare is going down and you don't want to be dragged down with it. Global warming is no longer cool. It is no longer a happening thing. Indeed, it is no longer happening. - Monckton of Brenchley

 

[MMFy]

And if we're causing the Arctic ice cap to melt, why is there record coverage of ice at the Antarctic ice cap?  And why is this not getting reported in the media?

 

http://www.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html

[villaguy]

And if we're causing the Arctic ice cap to melt, why is there record coverage of ice at the Antarctic ice cap?  And why is this not getting reported in the media?

 

http://www.livescience.com/39720-antarctica-ice-record-highs-2013.html

You need to read the article yourself, answers your own questions. This reminds me when people say, 'we've had cold weather in the last few winters'. Makes me laugh that people think climate change is as simple as just the weather getting warmer. Global warming is the average global temperature getting warmer. For some areas the warming may not be a smooth ride, in fact it may get colder before continuing to become warmer, modelling on Western Europe for example predicts an initial cooling lasting for a few decades caused as a result of the ocean currents being cut off that has until now brought warming Caribbean water to our shores. However this effect will be temporary only. The ocean currents will be altered as a result of the Arctic melting

Edited September 27, 2013 by villaguy

[villaguy]

 

The IPCC are now 95% certain that climate change is man-made. 

 

This 95% figure is based on a show of hands, and nothing at all to do with scientific evidence.  I suggest reading this letter by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley which he sent to the IPCC this week:

 

Dear Mr. Borenstein, - It would be appropriate to assign a statistical confidence interval as part of a statistical analysis of data, and only then. As you will know, a confidence interval of .95 corresponds to two standard deviations from the mean, and .99 to three standard deviations. However, there was no statistical analysis of the question whether most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us: therefore, no statistical confidence interval was appropriate, and the IPCC's attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible.

As you will also know, the IPCC was rightly criticized for having assigned a 90% confidence interval (not even a standard interval) to its "consensus" proposition in the Fourth Assessment Report. On that occasion, the political representatives of governments took the decision. Many nations wanted to plump for 95%, for purely political reasons (for there was and is no scientific basis for assigning any quantitative value to such a proposition), but China, for purely scientific reasons, wanted no confidence interval at all. In the end, 90% was settled upon as a compromise, and by no more scientific a process than a show of hands. And these people expect to be taken seriously when they demand the shutdown of the West in the name of Saving The Planet.

By the same token, Mr. Severinghaus' assertion of a 99% confidence interval to the proposition that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect is meaningless. It is demonstrable by simple experiment that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to an atmosphere such as ours will cause a radiative forcing that, ceteris paribus, can be expected to cause some warming.

However, temperature feedbacks, non-radiative transports, temperature homeostasis, and chaos in the climate object are among many complicating factors that make it near-impossible to determine with any reliability - even using probability density functions - how much warming will result from a given quantum of forcing, or when it will result, or how long-acting any temperature feedbacks will be. These and many other uncertainties - including the use of a feedback-amplification function at the heart of the climate-sensitivity equation that manifestly has no physical meaning in the real climate - render it impossible to determine whether most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Accordingly, the IPCC's pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence.

Frankly, this entire business of the fictitious confidence intervals has become a joke, particularly now that it transpires that just 0.3% of 11,944 papers on global climate change published since 1991 explicitly state support for the IPCC's version of "consensus".

In any event, only a Socialist who placed politics before science would believe or assert for an instant that scientific results are determined or reinforced by any form of mere head-counting among scientists. Aristotle demonstrated that argument by mere head-count was a fallacy 2350 years ago. The sheer dumbness of the IPCC's approach should at least be questioned by journalists, not merely paraded as though it were some sort of Gospel truth. The Holy Books of IPeCaC are no Bible.

There is a huge and fascinating story behind the loutish distortions of scientific, mathematical, physical, and statistical method that have led today's scientifically-illiterate classe politique to place their faith in propositions - such as the "95% confidence" proposition - that are obvious nonsense. Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game. This once-fashionable scare is going down and you don't want to be dragged down with it. Global warming is no longer cool. It is no longer a happening thing. Indeed, it is no longer happening. - Monckton of Brenchley

 

 

What has this individuals opinions got to do with the findings of the scientific community, other than knowing he's got a good grasp of statistics it doesn't really show anything

[Kingfisher]

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiot. He's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

[MMFy]

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiot. He's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

 

Attempting to discredit another person's opinion devalues your own opinion.  Monckton is however the public face of CFACT, an organisation that does include scientists and climatologists.

[Xann]

 

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiot. He's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

 

Attempting to discredit another person's opinion devalues your own opinion.  Monckton is however the public face of CFACT, an organisation that does include scientists and climatologists.

 

 

Monckton is a bell end of epic proportions.

 

Had the displeasure of watching him talk about the NHS on US TV only today - Utter, utter cock.

[villaguy]

 

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiot. He's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

 

Attempting to discredit another person's opinion devalues your own opinion.  Monckton is however the public face of CFACT, an organisation that does include scientists and climatologists.

 

Well the letter that he wrote really hasn't anything useful in it. Who came up with the 95% figure? He has a point there, but the scientists did not come up with it. I don't care really about the 95%, who does? Clearly he does but I don't see what he is getting at with writing such a long winded letter over such a trivial thing. Why did you even include the link for that letter as it isn't countering any of the science behind global warming

[Kingfisher]

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiotHe's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

Attempting to discredit another person's opinion devalues your own opinion. Monckton is however the public face of CFACT, an organisation that does include scientists and climatologists.

He is an idiot, and CFACT, the organisation that ExxonMobil gave $560,000 to isn't a very credible organisation. Scientific papers are peer reviewed for errors. That is how an overall scientific consensus on climate change has been reached. Edited September 28, 2013 by Kingfisher

[drat01]

 

 

Lord Monckton is a political advisor, journalist and an idiot. He's not a scientist. The views of people trained in the fields of climatology, meteorology etc who peer review papers surely carry more weight? That's how the scientific consensus has been reached.

 

Attempting to discredit another person's opinion devalues your own opinion.  Monckton is however the public face of CFACT, an organisation that does include scientists and climatologists.

 

 

Monckton is a bell end of epic proportions.

 

Had the displeasure of watching him talk about the NHS on US TV only today - Utter, utter cock.

 

Absolutely - his Wiki page shows the man up for some pretty clear indications that his word especially is not one that can be used as a source of any sort of credibility

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

[limpid]

The way science works is that it seeks to prove itself wrong. It's rare that peer reviewed publications are so completely one sided as on this topic. There's a good deal of reputation to be made by anyone who can show that the evidence is wrong.

 

This one is clickable. It's linked to a page which thoroughly debunks most of the nonsense about the subject.

[blandy]

Beat me to it, Ian. The man is an absolute tube, a fantasist, and an example of what I was talking about in my post above. He conciously misrepresents fact, misrepresents what people have said,ha been found out for it, but still blows away and some people fall for it.

I'm all for people with genuine knowledge and qualification being able to air their views, but though he's entitled to his opinion, unfounded in fact as it is,

The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!

He's a serial fantasist that makes HDE look like a model of modesty and honesty. loony tune.

[tonyh29]

blandy, on 27 Sept 2013 - 5:33 PM, said:

At least the debate is moving away from the first phase "it isn't it happening?" the next is "well we can't do anything about it because....", then finally we'll get to "oh heck, we have to do something" but that's sadly a way off in my view.

I didn't think there was a debate though

It was always a scientist says global warning is melting the ice caps and anyone that doesn't agree is then "deluded" ( same with the disappearing rain forest debate , but No lets all listen to Sting )

then a few more scientist came up with evidence that maybe suggested it wasn't ALL man made and suddenly public opinion had moved to more of a not sure stance

and then today we get this new statement after it appears the proportion of people who believe human activity is making the world warmer has fallen from 55% in 2008 to 39% in 2013.

and yet you accuse the oil companies and Fox of acting in their own interest with the data ??

I heard today an expert saying about the ice caps melt and water will rise by xx inches .... now maybe my logic is flawed but the ice caps have already displaced the water and thus when they melt the water level will remain the same ( well actually it would drop slightly ) .. drop some ice cubes in a glass of coke and try it on a smaller scale ..maybe oceans are different , salt content and so forth .. maybe Brian Cox can tell me

I've said before when we've had this debate , that if man kind can do it's bit to not kill polar bears by melting his home then we should do it .. however what happens is the UK sticks a policy in place to go green , charges consumers a Green tax and the price of everything goes up ..meanwhile India and China increase their cheap and polluting production and everyone in the UK goes off and buys the cheaper product from those countries anyway ..whilst feeling good that they care about the environment (I'm sure anyone that watched top gear has seen how the Prius is made and how wasteful the production is for a "Green" car )

it's like the EU and the NHS .. there is a good debate to be had ..been when the first contribution is to call people deluded .. well it isn't gonna happen is it

Is that genuinely what you think, Tony?

There's some pretty fundamental flaws in it, if you do.

For example, ice caps are on land, so if they melt, then water flows into the sea.

Sheet ice or sea ice floats on the sea, it is becoming thinner. It spreads and then recedes in area, seasonally, and over decades the trend is overall downwards, significantly in area, with clear shorter periods of expansion in area, for a few years, but the past trend is of a consistent decrease in overall coverage. As also stated, when water is heated, it expands, increasing sea levels.

The data for the arcticis of consistent and significant deline. If you want to look at what NASA say and the measurements, then you can click the link, or click it and go to the conclusions. (I kind of take NASA as a valid source of data as they're run by the Oil dependent US, and have obligation about the openness of their data, and they have actual satelites to take measurements). The also reference their data.

Fox and others - many UK Newspaper columnists - have been jumping on things like the sea ice, cherry picking short term fluctuations to "show" the trend is reversed, when it absolutely isn't, particularly for the Arctic. They hope people will just accept what they say, without checking. The media gives them equal or greater prominence that qualified experts, and this is what has led, in part to a change in public perception. People are told by these folk that it's gone away, that they're right and the scientists are wrong and they fall for it. There's a massive lack of open-ness about who funds many of the sceptical think tanks. Digging by journalists and others, where it uncovers funding sources generally leads to coal and oil. While it's perfectly legal for an oil company to fund a "think tank", it's rather beyond the pale to call a body funded by Oil as "independent" or "unbiased", or for it's views to be treated as such.

I agree with you about "acting alone" in the UK. Yet if rich western countries won't act, how can we ask poorer nations to act?

Ice caps in the arctic are not on land , I know this because my brother was standing on one as it broke off and he drifted about 6 miles before being rescued by the Canadian army

But yeah I'm aware that some of it is on land so probably should have been clearer with my example

[blandy]

Ice caps in the arctic are not on land , I know this because my brother was standing on one as it broke off and he drifted about 6 miles before being rescued by the Canadian army

But yeah I'm aware that some of it is on land so probably should have been clearer with my example

They are in the antarctic. By definition an ice cap has to be on land. And in the arctic the sheet ice and sea ice is demonstrably, undeniably reducing in mass. The NASA link, and Simon's link give more details. The water level if ice melts thing is (sorry) dumb. It's a misrepresentation of reality. The two poles are not analogous to "a glass of water with an ice cube in".

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Well If you're going to be deluded, better to be a deluded sceptic than a deluded believer In my opinion

I'd rather not be deluded at all, if you want to pigeon hole yourself into one of those options that's entirely your choice

 

Wasn't pigeon holing myself in either, just pointed out if you are deluded, being a sceptic is preferable to being a believer. Far healthier to question even if uninformed, as doing this usually allows you to become more informed and also get a sense of if you're being sold a load of hocus pocus if the answers you receive don't quite sit straight,

 

If somebody feels more comfortable and secure in their opinions to call someone who questions, then listens to that voice of doubt when the answers don't quite add up deluded, then it says far more about them than those that ask questions.

Edited September 27, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[NoelVilla]

Im not gonna read all posts in this thread put the title of it, does it really matter? If it is who is gonna do anything about it? There is a lot of things I would like to change in the world, my country and in my city. In my city we have a program who costs the tax payers a lot of money but its supposed to be good for the environment and across the Baltic sea in Kaliningrad well shit is running out in the sea. So whats the point for me paying a higher tax because of environment?

[Xann]

Not having kids then?