[Stephen Wilde]

Perhaps current levels are not so high after all ?


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/...s_report_1.pdf

[andykn]

How does this help us reduce our carbon footprint?

Again you appear to misunderstand the nature of the current problem.

It's not that global temps or CO2 levels haven't been as high prehistorically. It's that we don't want global CO2 levels (and hence temps) to continue to rise to levels seen in prehistory, but over the next few decades.

[robh2002]

Anyone know which peer reviewed journal this appeared it, if indeed it has appeared anywhere?

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by andykn

How does this help us reduce our carbon footprint?

Again you appear to misunderstand the nature of the current problem.

It's not that global temps or CO2 levels haven't been as high prehistorically. It's that we don't want global CO2 levels (and hence temps) to continue to rise to levels seen in prehistory, but over the next few decades.

No empirical evidence has concluded that [anthropogenic] CO2 levels drive temps. That's the bottom line.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

No empirical evidence has concluded that [anthropogenic] CO2 levels drive temps. That's the bottom line.

The bottom line is

1/ It was shown many years ago that CO2 levels are one of many drivers of global temperature (in addition to being driven by global temperature)
2/ Man is adding significant quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere
3/ Global temperatures are going up

To suggest that CO2 does not cause global temp rises or that man's CO2 output is somehow irrelevant opposes even the views of the majority of sceptics.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

The bottom line is

1/ It was shown many years ago that CO2 levels are one of many drivers of global temperature (in addition to being driven by global temperature)

The jury is still out on this one - I have read as many argument for this as against it.

Originally Posted by andykn

2/ Man is adding significant quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere

Absolutely agree with this. The world will be a much better place with oil (for reasons that have nothing to do with the theory of AGW).

Originally Posted by andykn

3/ Global temperatures are going up

Absolutely agree with this. The area of contention is the rate of increase and the causes behind the increase (there is likely to be more than one cause).

So despite our differences in other posts/threads, we actually have a lot in common

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

The jury is still out on this one - I have read as many argument for this as against it.

I have only read one argument against it as opposed to its acceptance by the scientific community here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Absolutely agree with this. The world will be a much better place with oil (for reasons that have nothing to do with the theory of AGW).

Absolutely agree with this. The area of contention is the rate of increase and the causes behind the increase (there is likely to be more than one cause).

So despite our differences in other posts/threads, we actually have a lot in common

True. But if you think the "jury's still out" on CO2 as a greenhouse gas or that it isn't a greenhouse gas that's a big difference between us and between you and the vast majority of the scientific community.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

I have only read one argument against it as opposed to its acceptance by the scientific community here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf



True. But if you think the "jury's still out" on CO2 as a greenhouse gas or that it isn't a greenhouse gas that's a big difference between us and between you and the vast majority of the scientific community.

Sigh . . . I didn't mean the "jury's still out" on CO2 as a greenhouse gas. I meant the jury's still out on the cause or causes of AWG. To be fair I did misread your quote a little - my bad. So for clarity, you did say:

Originally Posted by andykn

1/ It was shown many years ago that CO2 levels are one of many drivers of global temperature (in addition to being driven by global temperature)

And I say - I agree

I will also credit you for acknowledging that CO2 levels are one of many drivers of global temperature.

So you and I now agree on all three original points

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

I have only read one argument against it as opposed to its acceptance by the scientific community here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Interesting document. What are your thoughts on the second paragraph, first sentence?

snip
"The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today."
/snip

I would have thought average temperatures would be much more extreme and volatile without greenhouse gases. Considering the signatories in the document, I think I must have missed something . . .

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

Interesting document. What are your thoughts on the second paragraph, first sentence?

snip
"The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today."
/snip

I would have thought average temperatures would be much more extreme and volatile without greenhouse gases. Considering the signatories in the document, I think I must have missed something . . .

I'm not an expert on atmospheric composition and its effect on global temperatures, but I think you are getting volatility mixed up with "average". It may well be that, like in the desert, temperatures will swing much more but there still will be an average about which they swing. In statistical terms, the "standard deviation" may well be greater.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

I'm not an expert on atmospheric composition and its effect on global temperatures, but I think you are getting volatility mixed up with "average". It may well be that, like in the desert, temperatures will swing much more but there still will be an average about which they swing. In statistical terms, the "standard deviation" may well be greater.

When you have a temperature swing like a desert, how on earth do you come up with an average? Its would be something like 15 deg C plus or minus 50. Meaningless in other words.

I would imagine an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses would effectively render the planet hostile to all life, with temperatures swinging from extremely high when facing the sun, to extremely cold when facing away from the sun. Would this be a more accurate representation of the realities of no greenhouse gas?

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

When you have a temperature swing like a desert, how on earth do you come up with an average? Its would be something like 15 deg C plus or minus 50. Meaningless in other words.

Not at all, they calculate average overall global temerature now.

I would imagine an atmosphere without greenhouse gasses would effectively render the planet hostile to all life, with temperatures swinging from extremely high when facing the sun, to extremely cold when facing away from the sun. Would this be a more accurate representation of the realities of no greenhouse gas?[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid I don't know. An atmosphere of just Oxygen and Nitrogen on its own will keep in a fair amount of heat during the night and the desert gets cold because the sand doesn't keep the heat overnight as well as (moist) dirt.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

Not at all, they calculate average overall global temerature now.


I'm afraid I don't know. An atmosphere of just Oxygen and Nitrogen on its own will keep in a fair amount of heat during the night and the desert gets cold because the sand doesn't keep the heat overnight as well as (moist) dirt.

There are two parts to your answer that puzzle me. Unfortunately when I am puzzled I ask lots more questions

How do you calculate average overall global temperature? I tried searching for a definition of the technique and failed

I suppose a statelite far enough out could provide an average reading over a wide area, but I think you would get a different reading if the satelite was positioned over the equator compared to a satelite position above the poles. I guess you could average the two.

Another technique would be to take readings from ground based stations around the globe, but how would you use that data to create the average global temperature? For example, would you just measure the highest temperature at each site, then average out all the readings? Or would you measure min and max to find the average for the day for each site, then average out all the readings (an average of an average)? But what day of the year do you choose for all your readings? Do you take min max average every day and average that out for the year, then average out all the readings (an average of an average of and average)?

And how do you factor out bias? For example, only about 30% of the surface is land so we have to assume that the large majority of temperature stations are going to be on land. Most of those stations are located in the northern hemisphere (because the northern hemisphere contains twice as much land mass as the sourthern hemisphere) and many are near population centers (urban heating effect).

All of a sudden it doesn't look like an easy thing to calculate to me (my head hurts )

Perhaps the easier question to answer is the last part of your post


So, anyone want to chime in on whether an atmosphere without greenhouse gases would or could retain enough heat? Personally I would think not because it is the greenhouse gases that trap the heat (the most abundant being water vapour), but I have to defer to others more qualified than me.

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by andykn

The bottom line is

1/ It was shown many years ago that CO2 levels are one of many drivers of global temperature (in addition to being driven by global temperature)
2/ Man is adding significant quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere
3/ Global temperatures are going up

1. "One of the many drivers"? Then why did you say in your first post that "It's that we don't want global CO2 levels (and hence temps) to continue to rise to levels seen in prehistory, but over the next few decades." You're implying by that statement that CO2 is a principal driver. The divergence between global temperatures and CO2 is increasing. Here. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to be a principal driver. Indeed, it may not be a driver of any significance.

This paper here questions the greenhouse and radiative forcing theory. This paper here suggests that anthropogenic CO2 may not be as relevant as the alarmists would have us believe and further suggests that any warming during the 20th century was part of the natural warming cycle following the Little Ice Age.

2. Mankind is responsible for only 3-4% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions. The atmosphere contains roughly 750 gigatons of carbon dioxide, of which only about 6 gigatons are attributable to fossil fuel burning and cement production. The significance of that 3-4% is open to debate.

3. Global temperatures are not currently displaying a rising trend. Indeed, RSS global land and temperature data for May 2008 show an anomaly of -0.083 degrees in the January 1979-April 2008 series and the HadCRUT data will likely come in at about +0.1 degree. The 2002-2008 global temperature trend is showing a distinct fall.

Originally Posted by andykn

To suggest that CO2 does not cause global temp rises or that man's CO2 output is somehow irrelevant opposes even the views of the majority of sceptics.

Your point being that I am some sort of extremist?!!! Doesn't phase me one iota. I believe what I believe. Whether my beliefs concur or not with those of others is purely coincidental.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

1. "One of the many drivers"? Then why did you say in your first post that "It's that we don't want global CO2 levels (and hence temps) to continue to rise to levels seen in prehistory, but over the next few decades." You're implying by that statement that CO2 is a principal driver. The divergence between global temperatures and CO2 is increasing. Here. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to be a principal driver. Indeed, it may not be a driver of any significance.

There is a lag between increased CO2 levels and temp increases caused by those higher levels. Shown excellently by the graph you provided.

Another example of how the only way that the sceptics can make points is to misstate the Climate Change argument:

The on again, off again nature of this correlation suggests that carbon dioxide is not the driving factor in our climate.

"A" driving factor, is the Climate Change argument. Short term, other cyclical factors such as solar and the possibly related El Nino/La Nina cycles can have greater effects - the variability from year to year of global mean temps demonstrates that there are other drivers of temp variability. To suggest that the Climate Change argument is that CO2 is the primary driver demonstrates a lack of statistical understanding.

This paper here questions the greenhouse and radiative forcing theory.

Yes, it does. Apart from suggesting that the official position of the IPCC is represented by an Australian children's website it also says:

Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.

So greenhouses don't work either?

This paper here suggests that anthropogenic CO2 may not be as relevant as the alarmists would have us believe and further suggests that any warming during the 20th century was part of the natural warming cycle following the Little Ice Age.

The alarmist claims to which the sceptics refer tend to be invented by the sceptics first and are never, ever, referenced to a quote from a real scientist.

And this paper too ignores the lag between increasing CO2 and higher temperatures. Your greenhouse gets warmer later in the day, not as soon as the sun comes out.

2. Mankind is responsible for only 3-4% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions. The atmosphere contains roughly 750 gigatons of carbon dioxide, of which only about 6 gigatons are attributable to fossil fuel burning and cement production. The significance of that 3-4% is open to debate.

Source?

I suspect that you are confusing balance sheet and profit and loss.

So 750 gigatons (bablance sheet) accounts for, say, 375ppm and 6 gigatons then accounts for 3ppm ADDED EVERY YEAR.

3. Global temperatures are not currently displaying a rising trend. Indeed, RSS global land and temperature data for May 2008 show an anomaly of -0.083 degrees in the January 1979-April 2008 series and the HadCRUT data will likely come in at about +0.1 degree. The 2002-2008 global temperature trend is showing a distinct fall.

As predicted in 1988. Global ocean currents are a driver too.

Your point being that I am some sort of extremist?!!! Doesn't phase me one iota. I believe what I believe. Whether my beliefs concur or not with those of others is purely coincidental.

My point is that the other "extremists" don't agree with you either. Too many sceptics try and pretend that there are only two sides to this debate.

You not only disagree with the vast majority of the worlds' educated, trained and experienced scientists, you disagree with the vast majority of the sceptics too.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by nickbat

This paper here questions the greenhouse and radiative forcing theory.

Quote from link:

Since it radiates the same amount, its temperature obviously isn't raised by carbon dioxide absorbing some infrared - for CO2 simply releases that energy at the same pace


So the earth reaches a steady temperature and then the Earth radiates as much energy as it absorbs, since loss of energy through radiation increases with temperature until the amount absorbed by the planet, equals the amount irradiated out to space, thus a nice steady state of average temperature is reached.

I can't see how that correlates with previous known variations in the Global Average Temperature? Unless the Sun became more active, during times of higher temperature and less active during cold periods. Any evidence for this?

[johntheexpat]

From the same link:
"Why isn't anyone else shouting from the rooftops about the self-evident absurdity of the IPCC model?"

Probably because we are cringing with embarrassment at the thought of having wasted time reading this 'paper'/blog/waste of time and energy.

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbat
1. "One of the many drivers"? Then why did you say in your first post that "It's that we don't want global CO2 levels (and hence temps) to continue to rise to levels seen in prehistory, but over the next few decades." You're implying by that statement that CO2 is a principal driver. The divergence between global temperatures and CO2 is increasing. Here. Therefore anthropogenic CO2 is unlikely to be a principal driver. Indeed, it may not be a driver of any significance.
There is a lag between increased CO2 levels and temp increases caused by those higher levels. Shown excellently by the graph you provided.

There is no obvious lag-correlation. Are you sure you’re looking at the right charts?

Originally Posted by andykn

Another example of how the only way that the sceptics can make points is to misstate the Climate Change argument:
Quote:
The on again, off again nature of this correlation suggests that carbon dioxide is not the driving factor in our climate.
"A" driving factor, is the Climate Change argument. Short term, other cyclical factors such as solar and the possibly related El Nino/La Nina cycles can have greater effects - the variability from year to year of global mean temps demonstrates that there are other drivers of temp variability.

How can you claim that solar (factors) are short term. Not heard of the Maunder Minimum? As for “possibly-related” ElNino/La Nina cycles, there’s no “possible” about it.

Originally Posted by andykn

To suggest that the Climate Change argument is that CO2 is the primary driver demonstrates a lack of statistical understanding.

You suggested it first by flatly stating that increases in CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. Logically, and by your own admission that CO2 is one of several drivers, any increase in CO2 will not necessarily cause an increase in temps if the other drivers (solar, La Nina) have a greater negative effect!!

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbat
This paper here questions the greenhouse and radiative forcing theory.

Yes, it does. Apart from suggesting that the official position of the IPCC is represented by an Australian children's website…

Don’t understand your point. I would guess that plenty of children’s websites represent the alarmist theories of the IPCC

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.
So greenhouses don't work either?

Glass and CO2 are different. One’s a solid and one’s a gas. Also, a greenhouse is covered entirely (bar the frame) by a reflective material. If I changed the glass coverage in my greenhouse (yes I do have one!) to reflect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would barely have one pane. The term “greenhouse” was adopted merely to suggest the alleged trapping of heat by CO2. It doesn’t really have anything to do with greenhouses.
The scientist is talking about atmospherics.

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
This paper here suggests that anthropogenic CO2 may not be as relevant as the alarmists would have us believe and further suggests that any warming during the 20th century was part of the natural warming cycle following the Little Ice Age.
The alarmist claims to which the sceptics refer tend to be invented by the sceptics first and are never, ever, referenced to a quote from a real scientist.

And this paper too ignores the lag between increasing CO2 and higher temperatures. Your greenhouse gets warmer later in the day, not as soon as the sun comes out.

See above. Greenhouses are covered in glass.

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
2. Mankind is responsible for only 3-4% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions. The atmosphere contains roughly 750 gigatons of carbon dioxide, of which only about 6 gigatons are attributable to fossil fuel burning and cement production. The significance of that 3-4% is open to debate.
Source?

I suspect that you are confusing balance sheet and profit and loss.

So 750 gigatons (bablance sheet) accounts for, say, 375ppm and 6 gigatons then accounts for 3ppm ADDED EVERY YEAR.

If you say so. That means around 675ppm by 2108. By golly, our plants will be doing well in that CO2-enriched environment. Except, it won’t happen like that if we enter a cooling phase as more CO2 is absorbed by cooler oceans.

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:
3. Global temperatures are not currently displaying a rising trend. Indeed, RSS global land and temperature data for May 2008 show an anomaly of -0.083 degrees in the January 1979-April 2008 series and the HadCRUT data will likely come in at about +0.1 degree. The 2002-2008 global temperature trend is showing a distinct fall.
As predicted in 1988.

Source? I don’t recall the IPCC mentioning it.

Originally Posted by andykn

Global ocean currents are a driver too.

Glad you agree

Originally Posted by andykn

Quote:

Your point being that I am some sort of extremist?!!! Doesn't phase me one iota. I believe what I believe. Whether my beliefs concur or not with those of others is purely coincidental.
My point is that the other "extremists" don't agree with you either.

Bold statement. I am not an extremist, although you may still call me one if it makes you feel better. As for people agreeing with me, why just this morning I notice that University of Adelaide mining geology professor Ian Plimer says climate change cannot be stopped -- and it isn't even caused by human-created carbon dioxide.
"There is no relationship between carbon dioxide produced by industry and climate change," he said.
Professor Plimer said the scientific community had not reached any kind of consensus that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Originally Posted by andykn

Too many sceptics try and pretend that there are only two sides to this debate.

You mean scientific reality on one hand (sceptic) and political manipulation on the other (alarmist). Maybe you have a point.

Originally Posted by andykn

You not only disagree with the vast majority of the worlds' educated, trained and experienced scientists, you disagree with the vast majority of the sceptics too.

No I don’t. I think thousands agree with me.

[splatz]

I think I made this point earlier in another thread - science isn't about agreeing with people, its about agreeing with facts supported with evidence.

If you want agreement with people, become a politician not a scientist.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by nickbat

. As for people agreeing with me, why just this morning I notice that University of Adelaide mining geology professor Ian Plimer says climate change cannot be stopped -- and it isn't even caused by human-created carbon dioxide.

In the article linked to, he says:
"There's no such thing as surety in science -- 32,000 North American scientists signed a document saying humans don't create global warming whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only has 2500 scientists saying it does."

Was this the 32,000 referred to ages ago on this forum, where I picked one at random and found out that the scientist was gainfully employed as a piano teacher at a very exclusive North American 'university'?
Probably is the same list.
So, if its alright with everyone I shall continue to trust the IPCC rather than a Liberace wannabee

[splatz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

In the article linked to, he says:
"There's no such thing as surety in science -- 32,000 North American scientists signed a document saying humans don't create global warming whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only has 2500 scientists saying it does."

Was this the 32,000 referred to ages ago on this forum, where I picked one at random and found out that the scientist was gainfully employed as a piano teacher at a very exclusive North American 'university'?
Probably is the same list.
So, if its alright with everyone I shall continue to trust the IPCC rather than a Liberace wannabee

I wouldn't be so quick to trust the IPCC so blindly - after all they are not a scientific organisation.

You only need to see the type of language used in their assessment reports to see things dressed up to look sciencelike when in fact they are not. For example, in their 2007 policy document they attempt to replace words like Most, Likely and Very Likely with numbers. Here is the extract:

snip
"most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.
/snip

They do this so they can then go on to state:

snip
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
/snip

The numbers look more "scientific" because it implies some form of calculation.

They also quote wide ranging figures on their predictions:

snip
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C
/snip

That is quite a margin of uncertainty (that's about 400% uncertainty for the temperature and about 300% uncertainty about sea level rises). If I quoted a 400% level of uncertainty into my projects plan estimates at work, I would be laughed at, then fired.

So why do they do these things? Because they are asked to by the governments they are trying to convince to sign up and ratify their Assessment reports. At the moment, no government is going to stick their neck out if they don't feel the evidence is strong enough, so they lobby to dampen down the language. Governments may change this view if temperatures were significantly higher now.

Now don't get me wrong, the IPCC does bring lots of important scientific work together, but their main task is to convince governments to sign up to the reports - and that process is politics not science.

Just check out their About Us page and tell me if you are not sure on their remit.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

[andykn]

Originally Posted by nickbat

There is no obvious lag-correlation. Are you sure you’re looking at the right charts?

Yes. I can see the lag correlation, so can the IPCC and the worlds' climate scientists.

How can you claim that solar (factors) are short term. Not heard of the Maunder Minimum? As for “possibly-related” ElNino/La Nina cycles, there’s no “possible” about it.

I was referring to the 11 year solar cycle. Just because there are short term solar cycles doesn't mean there aren't long term ones too and vice versa. The other solar activity cycle are well understood and discounted as a cause of the underlying rapid warming we are exepriencing.

The causal relationship betweeen the El Nino/LaNina cycles and other factors is not well understood.

You suggested it first by flatly stating that increases in CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. Logically, and by your own admission that CO2 is one of several drivers, any increase in CO2 will not necessarily cause an increase in temps if the other drivers (solar, La Nina) have a greater negative effect!!

An underlying increase. So once the other cyclical drivers settle back to their norms we will have higher temps.

I Don’t understand your point. I would guess that plenty of children’s websites represent the alarmist theories of the IPCC

But not necessarily very well or authoritatively. It is odd to base one's supposedly scientific opposition to Climate Change by quoting a children's website rather than the source.

Glass and CO2 are different. One’s a solid and one’s a gas. Also, a greenhouse is covered entirely (bar the frame) by a reflective material. If I changed the glass coverage in my greenhouse (yes I do have one!) to reflect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would barely have one pane. The term “greenhouse” was adopted merely to suggest the alleged trapping of heat by CO2. It doesn’t really have anything to do with greenhouses.
The scientist is talking about atmospherics.

The principle is broadly the same. Keep more heat in, temperature rises.

See above. Greenhouses are covered in glass.

If you say so. That means around 675ppm by 2108. By golly, our plants will be doing well in that CO2-enriched environment. Except, it won’t happen like that if we enter a cooling phase as more CO2 is absorbed by cooler oceans.

I don't say so - they're your allegations. Artificially doubling our atmospheric CO2 in 100 years doesn't sound like a terribly good idea to me.

And any cooling phase will not reverse the last 30 years of warming.

And the rapidly rising acidity will do what to our marine life?

Source? I don’t recall the IPCC mentioning it.

Global Cooling trend continues.

Glad you agree

Bold statement. I am not an extremist, although you may still call me one if it makes you feel better. As for people agreeing with me, why just this morning I notice that University of Adelaide mining geology professor Ian Plimer says climate change cannot be stopped -- and it isn't even caused by human-created carbon dioxide.
"There is no relationship between carbon dioxide produced by industry and climate change," he said.
Professor Plimer said the scientific community had not reached any kind of consensus that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

You mean scientific reality on one hand (sceptic) and political manipulation on the other (alarmist). Maybe you have a point.

You may perjoratively call scepticism of climate change "scientific reality" but you should really specify which alternative "reality" you are referring to:

• CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
• It is a greenhouse gas but it will just be absorbed by the oceans with no ill effect
• Climate change is "natural"
• man is the cause but we are better of living with it
• Man is the cauuse but the cliamte won't change enough to matter

and so on.

No I don’t. I think thousands agree with me.

Although you, like all true skeptics, prefer not to specify which of the many contradictory arguments againt the validity of climate change you actually believe in, I'm afraid that which ever one you do believe in will contradict most of the "thousands" who are skeptical about climate change for any one of many reasons.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

I wouldn't be so quick to trust the IPCC so blindly - after all they are not a scientific organisation.

You only need to see the type of language used in their assessment reports to see things dressed up to look sciencelike when in fact they are not. For example, in their 2007 policy document they attempt to replace words like Most, Likely and Very Likely with numbers. Here is the extract:

snip
"most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.
/snip

They do this so they can then go on to state:

snip
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
/snip

The numbers look more "scientific" because it implies some form of calculation.

They also quote wide ranging figures on their predictions:

snip
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C
/snip

That is quite a margin of uncertainty (that's about 400% uncertainty for the temperature and about 300% uncertainty about sea level rises). If I quoted a 400% level of uncertainty into my projects plan estimates at work, I would be laughed at, then fired.

So why do they do these things? Because they are asked to by the governments they are trying to convince to sign up and ratify their Assessment reports. At the moment, no government is going to stick their neck out if they don't feel the evidence is strong enough, so they lobby to dampen down the language. Governments may change this view if temperatures were significantly higher now.

Now don't get me wrong, the IPCC does bring lots of important scientific work together, but their main task is to convince governments to sign up to the reports - and that process is politics not science.

Just check out their About Us page and tell me if you are not sure on their remit.http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm

But just because we aren't sure "how bad" doesn't mean anywhere near "not bad" like the sceptics claim.

[johntheexpat]

The trouble with debate around CC is the lack of certainty. But there is 30+ years of coherent science that all points to a potential problem.
One bit of decisive evidence, that is credible and stands up to peer review will sink it. That's all the cynics have to produce. It's not hard. bring it on!

[splatz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

The trouble with debate around CC is the lack of certainty. But there is 30+ years of coherent science that all points to a potential problem.
One bit of decisive evidence, that is credible and stands up to peer review will sink it. That's all the cynics have to produce. It's not hard. bring it on!

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the trouble is lack of certainty and then you say 30+ years of coherent science. You cannot have it both ways.

It is uncertain because there isn't one bit of decisive evidence that is credible and stands up to peer review to prove the case. That's all the activists need to produce. Its not hard. Bring it on.

Oh - that's remarkably similar to what you said. Only the exact opposite . . .

It would be too easy for me to say that the burden is on scientists to prove CC. However, science teaches that the burden of truth is not mutually exclusive to cynics or activists - it is for science to figure out one way or the other.

For every scientist trying to prove something, there should be a scientist trying to disprove it but more importantly there should be an independent control group who doesn't know the source who verifies the results. At the moment we do not have the validation rigour on some of the material being published. But before anyone jumps in and says "well what about peer review!", peer review is very important but is not the same as double blind independent review.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

The trouble with debate around CC is the lack of certainty. But there is 30+ years of coherent science that all points to a potential problem.
One bit of decisive evidence, that is credible and stands up to peer review will sink it. That's all the cynics have to produce. It's not hard. bring it on!

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/0...eath-blow.html

Read my sixth article. The Title started off as a bit of journalistic licence but is seeming more and more apt.

If solar influence can be re introduced as a significant player for the period 1975 to 1998 then AGW is mortally wounded or dead.

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by andykn

You may perjoratively call scepticism of climate change "scientific reality" but you should really specify which alternative "reality" you are referring to:
• CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
• It is a greenhouse gas but it will just be absorbed by the oceans with no ill effect
• Climate change is "natural"
• man is the cause but we are better of living with it
• Man is the cauuse but the cliamte won't change enough to matter
and so on.
Quote:
No I don’t. I think thousands agree with me.
Although you, like all true skeptics, prefer not to specify which of the many contradictory arguments against the validity of climate change you actually believe in, I'm afraid that which ever one you do believe in will contradict most of the "thousands" who are skeptical about climate change for any one of many reasons.

I don’t think you mean “pejoratively” as that would imply that I am being derogative about scepticism when I refer to it as “scientific reality” when, in fact, I mean the opposite. But I digress. You claim that like all true sceptics, I prefer not to specify which of the many contradictory arguments against the validity of climate change I believe in. By saying that, you are missing the point entirely. Unlike alarmists who like to paint themselves into a corner with their dogma, I am quite happy to state that, at this point in time, neither side can offer definitive proof of the role of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change (previously known as global warming) or, indeed, the magnitude of climate change. On the balance of probabilities, and having read many scientific papers, I am of the firm opinion that:

Whilst theoretically a greenhouse gas, CO2 is not a very effective one and, at just 4% of the atmosphere (with the anthropogenic contribution being even smaller), it is highly unlikely to have a significant effect on global weather patterns or temperatures.

Secondly, climate change is natural and the world's climate has changed naturally since the dawn of time. The debate is whether this instance of change is prompted or augmented by anthropogenic CO2. I believe that, on balance, neither to be the case.

Thirdly, I believe that the economic cost of trying to reduce global temperatures is so astronomic – and possibly pointless given the above – that we would do better spending on both adapting to change, whether that be for a warmer world or a cooler world, and on alternative technologies to reduce the long-term reliance on fossil fuel. Such technological advances will occur much faster if an economic depression is avoided. I would suggest that capping CO2 will have the effect of reducing our long-term ability to reduce consumption, thus ensuring a worse situation in 60 or 70 years time.

Finally, I would point out that, in addition to the link I provided in my earlier post which concerned Ian Plimer’s claims that "There is no relationship between carbon dioxide produced by industry and climate change," (and I notice you made no comment about that!), I have since noted an interesting - and very recent - quote attributed to Patrick Michaels:

“Even if CO2 emissions are returned to the level of horse-and-buggy days, an increase of 0.013 degree Celsius might be avoided over the next century.....That's if CO2 increases temperature, which many scientists doubt. So, why go down this path?”

That sounds just like the position I hold! And yet you lambast me for being an extremist and holding a view which is contradictory to thousands who are skeptical of climate change.

I don’t think so!!

Oh, and just who is this Patrick Michaels?

“Michaels is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on ABC, NPR's "All Things Considered," PBS, Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, BBC and Voice of America. According to Nature magazine, Pat Michaels may be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.”


And the link to the quote is here.

[Corey USA]

After last summers ice melt off I can't believe people don't realize that using ice samples to determine past co2 levels is majorly flawed. In that if there has been warm trends in the past similar to last summer the ice that would have showed the co2 would have melted thus there would be periods of NO RECORDS.

After all even antartica did not have ice on it at some point in the past. carbon dating isn't exactly precise either. So they revised that it actually took 10,000 years or so for the dinos to actually go extinct after the meteor.

So all we can do is base it on today and in recorded history, Along with opening our eyes to see how much we actually changed earth in a negative manor.

We NEED TO STOP PLAYING GOD by changing everything in our own flawed image.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the trouble is lack of certainty and then you say 30+ years of coherent science. You cannot have it both ways.

You can't, he isn't. You continually conflate qualitative and quantitative analyses. The if is certain, the how much is not as precise as it could be.

It is uncertain because there isn't one bit of decisive evidence that is credible and stands up to peer review to prove the case. That's all the activists need to produce. Its not hard. Bring it on.

The existence of climate change isn't uncertain because thousands of "bits of decisive evidence that is credible and stands up to peer review" have all been produced.

Oh - that's remarkably similar to what you said. Only the exact opposite . . .

It would be too easy for me to say that the burden is on scientists to prove CC. However, science teaches that the burden of truth is not mutually exclusive to cynics or activists - it is for science to figure out one way or the other.

They have.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by robhowell

Anyone know which peer reviewed journal this appeared it, if indeed it has appeared anywhere?

The whole position of the denialists is so flawed, when did credibility ever matter?