[bascule]

SkepticLance said:

What now?
Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

I haven't read Lomborg's book but I've read the Copenhagen Consensus (perhaps more aptly titled the Lomborg Conjecutre)

I think that should give a fairly accurate view of his positions, through the amazing power of peer review!

If there's something to what Lomborg is saying, certainly I should find it there, right?

Sadly I did not. Lomborg and his economist cohorts who pushed out the Copenhagen Consensus didn't exactly factor in the facts when constructing their viewpoint.

They completely downplay any human penalty in climate change, and thus deprioritize it completely.

As I said earlier, climate change induced water vulnerability has the potential to threaten the lives of half a billion people over the next two decades.

This figures nowhere into the Copenhagen Consensus's analysis.

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

To iNow

What now?
Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

I read both Lomborg and the SciAm scandalously incompetent and biased tirade against him. The editor of SciAm should have been sacked over that. Scientific American is supposed to be an unbiased scientific magazine. Instead, he made it a vehicle for politically correct morons.

So he found 9 errors. Wow! I have my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist in front of me, and there are 352 pages of text; 81 pages of explanatory notes, and 70 pages of bibliography. 9 errors out of that lot is such a small amount as to constitute a total bloody miracle!!
I would be struggling to write 20 pages without making at least 9 errors.

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

This is now my fourth request. Why are your trying to evade the request made to you to share your source for the claims you made in Post #27?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

The claim I made in post 27, which you for some weird reason object to, was :

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade.

My response to your rather strange query was :

This data is available bloody near everywhere!

For example : the Wiki article on global warming

http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming

which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade.

Now, I could quote any of dozens of sources, including IPCC, Realclimate, or others. They all will say the same thing - that in the past 30 years, the world has warmed 0.4 to 0.6 C on average. What is your quibble? Is the Wiki quote not satisfactory? Even my old debate partners are not arguing this point, because they know it is a simple piece of widely available data.

For Finagles sake, this is not even controversial!

[iNow]

The wiki article does not reference the .15 to .2 per decade number. I want a specific study from which you are drawing your conclusion so I can look at it's methods and context.

Why is it so hard? You said there are so many, yet now I have to ask you a fifth time. Wiki is not what I mean.

[swansont]

SkepticLance said:

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

I haven't read the book, but I wonder: how do you justify characterizing this as an extrardinarily competent work be when the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty found him guilty of scientific dishonesty?

"Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on"

http://www.spacedail.../earth-03b.html

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

Said Danish committee reversed its findings later, and apologised.

If you are interested, I suggest you obtain a copy of Lomborg's book, and read it. I am sure your local library will be able to help.

To iNow

This is beyond getting ridiculous. As I told you, the figure of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years is obtained from the total warming over that period divided by 3. Rather basic really.

Total warming over the past 30 years was about 0.5 Celsius, plus or minus the error factor. This is shown in the Wiki reference.

Here is another reference with a suitable graph showing 0.5 C warming over the last 30 years.

http://geology.com/n...ph-and-map.html

If you still continue to deny the basic data, then that is your affair. I do not intend to continue down this ridiculous argument.

[swansont]

SkepticLance said:

To Swansont

Said Danish committee reversed its findings later, and apologised.

From what I can glean from reports, the reversal was on procedural grounds, not scientific ones.

[Pangloss]

iNow said:

The wiki article does not reference the .15 to .2 per decade number. I want a specific study from which you are drawing your conclusion so I can look at it's methods and context.

Why is it so hard? You said there are so many, yet now I have to ask you a fifth time. Wiki is not what I mean.

I am having a hard time believing that that's why you want him to present that reference. I am concerned that you may be asking him to present that reference because you know he's in a beleaguered minority here, and you want to make things as difficult for him as possible. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

[iNow]

[quote name='Pangloss']I am having a hard time believing that that's why you want him to present that reference. I am concerned that you may be asking him to present that reference because you know he's in a beleaguered minority here, and you want to make things as difficult for him as possible. I sincerely hope that's not the case.[/QUOTE]

WTF?!? :doh:

Believe what you want, mate. To suggest I'm trying to make things "as difficult for him as possible" is ridiculous. I asked for a specific source (which was not wiki), and he explicitly stated:

[quote name='SkepticLance']To iNow
This data is available bloody near everywhere![/QUOTE]

I simply maintained my request for specific study data, and now he is trying to make me look foolish for asking for specific studies to support his numbers.

All I've wanted is a speicific study (or studies), not claims of how dumb I am for asking, nor links to wiki that he had adjusted to make his point.

Continual evasion of my request has led me to believe that he is masking the overall data to suit some purpose or agenda, and I continue to hold my ground that he has yet to supply a source which supports his assertions and conclusions as has been requested now six times.




[quote name='SkepticLance']To iNow

As I told you, the figure of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years is obtained from the total warming over that period divided by 3. Rather basic really. [/quote]
I am still asking from where the 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years data comes from.

Please address this point, and stop appealing to ridicule.


[quote name='SkepticLance']Total warming over the past 30 years was about 0.5 Celsius, plus or minus the error factor. This is shown in the Wiki reference.[/quote]
I asked for non-wiki support. What study shows this? I want to know more about it.


[quote name='SkepticLance']Here is another reference with a suitable graph showing 0.5 C warming over the last 30 years.

[url]http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html[/url][/quote]
I appreciate your first attempt to show something, but unfortunately your graph does not share it's source data, nor it's methods for obtaining that, hence we are still exactly where we were six requests ago.

I spent some time drilling down into the various references and links, but still was unable to arrive at the source for your numbers.


[quote name='SkepticLance']If you still continue to deny the basic data, then that is your affair. I do not intend to continue down this ridiculous argument.[/QUOTE]
There has been no argument. Support your damned assertions with actual studies and citations. I get the strong sense that your data relates only overall averages across 30 years, not annual means. But... how would I know? You have not shared ANY support (except now a graph which doesn't share it's source data)?


So... I repeat for the sixth time:

[quote name='iNow;377570][quote name='SkepticLance'']The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.[/quote]

Hi Lance - Do you have a citation to support this?[/QUOTE]

[SkepticLance]

My thanks to Pangloss. It is nice that someone else can see how ridiculous iNow is being. I have given two references, and the data is widely accepted as correct, so there is no point continuing.

[Pangloss]

I do agree that the Wikipedia is not an academic source, but when the entire purpose of the page is to promote a specific concept, the page is record-locked and about as peer-reviewed as any academic source, then it is, at least for our purposes here, perfectly citable. That page is the central rallying point for everyone who promotes that cause, and they wouldn't let inaccurate data on that score last 13 picoseconds without somebody smacking the Revert button.

That having been said, you might have been best served by just answering his question. The source for that information is stated on the Wikipedia page as the IPCC report.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar...1_Print_SPM.pdf
(Warning: PDF)

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade.

Thanks to Pangloss, we have an actual source to view. It’s rather suspicious that somebody so confident in their claims refuses to back them up with anything more than appeal to ridicule, despite repeated requests.

From the link shared kindly by Pangloss, we can see the context of the data, which is this:


http://ipcc-wg1.ucar...1_Print_SPM.pdf

Quote

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850).

The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C].

The above summary references section 3.2 of the Physical Science Basis report, which details the following:

http://www.ipcc.ch/p...g1-chapter3.pdf





As you can see, the mean increase per decade must be viewed in context of 1) Dataset, 2) Land versus Ocean, and 3) Specific time frame. The above provides a much clearer view of the referenced trends, and allows the reader to put the numbers into context and consequently form their own impression of the trends.

One benefit of having this source data available to us is that it also allows one to view the trends in other ways... such as by hemisphere, or for the overall globe (as shown below).

SkepticLance said:

An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.

First, you have not defined “near future.” If you mean this week, then of course you are correct. However, presuming that the source provided by Pangloss (IPCC) is the source for your comment, it’s important to note that your own source directly contradicts your conclusion.



Let’s look now at the information shared in section 10.3 of the Physical Science Basis report, which (in terms of projected global mean temperature change for the 21^st century) states exactly the following:


http://www.ipcc.ch/p...1-chapter10.pdf

Quote

An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C. For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range.

You, watching all data as closely as you do, and, being aware of the finer details, likely noticed the key contingency in the above conclusion. It referred to a "doubling of atmospheric CO₂." Sure enough, this contingency was itself validated at several points in Chapter 10, with a complete list of references as to how this approach is supported. I do advise you check it out for yourself, especially if you are concerned about the validity of such an approach, just as you should verify the validity of all data and claims before coming to a conclusion. :-)



Of special note, that same chapter also shares the following:

Quote

About half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values.

Quote

Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Quote

Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,

Quote

There is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas during summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions.

Quote

As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous generation of models in the TAR.

Quote

Sea level is projected to rise between the present (1980– 1999) and the end of this century (2090–2099) under the SRES B1 scenario by 0.18 to 0.38 m, B2 by 0.20 to 0.43 m, A1B by 0.21 to 0.48 m, A1T by 0.20 to 0.45 m, A2 by 0.23 to 0.51 m, and A1FI by 0.26 to 0.59 m.

There were also multiple pages describing increased frequency of intense storms, monsoons, cyclones, and other weather activity that don’t exactly lend themselves well to the increased survival of humans and their habitats, but... uhhh... yeah… I can see where you might think people who encourage change now are over reacting. :rolleyes:

SkepticLance said:

We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

You have not defined “sensible measures,” nor have you supported your point that these will be sufficient to mitigate the issues described. You then AGAIN appeal to ridicule, and offer two distinct strawman arguments. Human contributions to atmospheric CO₂ can be curbed with little to no impact on standard or living, and can, in fact, actually improve it for many. There is also no reason to presume that curbing human contributions to atmospheric CO₂ will “drive the poorest into starvation.” I outlined much of my support for this conclusion recently here in another thread.

If you disagree with my challenge, and you have support for your assertions regarding the economy and starvation (IOW, they're not just strawmen), please share them here (preferably, without making me request citations from you). If you don’t, or you are unable, then your strawmen above should be thoroughly ignored and considered completely invalid.



So, you see what happens when a source is shared? Your entire approach and set of conclusions get debunked. I can see why you didn’t want to share it openly when prompted.


Now… some of your other posts had serious logical fallacies, and I am going to highlight a few of those here. My point regarding the fault in your conclusions has already been demonstrated above. The below is my response to your attempts to belittle me and ridicule me for requesting you provide evidence of your claims… both of which are explicitly against this forum’s rules.

SkepticLance said:

In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one [knows how the warming will go over the next 30 years]. It may increase or not.

Besides your ad hominem, this is false (as demonstrated above).

SkepticLance said:

However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

Your own source contradicts this claim. If the IPCC was not your source, then you should offer your source, as the information which I shared from the IPCC clearly and resolutely debunks your statement.

SkepticLance said:

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen.

To make a claim as profound as this, you must define new technologies, and forecast their impact on climate, as well as implementation timelines and potential obstacles. If you’ve done this, please share your results. If not, then you’re simply making this up. Unsupported arguments will not convince anyone of reasonable intelligence. Please show the readers of this forum enough respect to support your points with evidence.

SkepticLance said:

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive.

This is both ad hominem and a strawman. The rest of this particular post was more of the same.



I concede that this is a long post. However, Lance, if you’re so sure about your conclusions, you need to support them. Your unfounded opinion means nothing, especially when it is completely unfounded, inaccurate, and wrong, all three descriptors which I have amply demonstrated and supported above.

[Pangloss]

Quote

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive.

That's not a straw man, it's an observation and statement of opinion. It may be off subject, but if it's not intended to refute anything specific, but just expand on his point of view, then not only is it valid, it's WELCOME. We INVITE that sort of thing here, iNow.

This is what I mean by the SFN Talking Points Memo and ideological ostracization on this board. This right here.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

What an overreaction!

We got into an argument over my statement that warming over the past 30 years was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade. I posted two separate references to support that, and, in fact, as you now realise, I was correct. My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

Let's leave it at that, huh?

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

What an overreaction!

Gee... would you look at that... another appeal to ridicule.

SkepticLance said:

My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

Actually, if you read my post above, you will notice exactly where I disagreed with you, and precisely where your assumptions were mistaken.

SkepticLance said:

Let's leave it at that, huh?

If you're unable to support your position, and you recognize that I won't put up with bullshit claims, then... yeah, I can see how you'd want to "leave it at that." Fair enough.



Walk the walk. :rolleyes:

Pangloss said:

That's not a straw man, it's an observation and statement of opinion.

Perhaps that observation can be supported with an actual example then?


Exactly who, when, and where is the evidence of "people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive," and that what Lomborg said "offended the delicate sensibilities" of them?


I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Pangloss. You and I have had our disagreements, but I think we've come quite a long way into forming a mature relationship with one another. Please don't go too much farther down the above path, because I WILL strongly support my position, and I will not hold my punches. If we must openly disagree, let's just do so regarding our approaches to the political polarization in US politics and it's impact on humanity, not anthropegenic global climate change and the nonsense people say to argue against it and changes we must make as a culture to mitigate the risk it imposes. I ask this of you in the spirit of future friendship.




http://www.logicalfa...narguments.html

Quote

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

[Pangloss]

Then why don't you apply the same reasoning to both sides, iNow? Why do you only hold the opposition to that standard?

Would you like me to give you an example of how you've failed to hold your side to your standard within this very thread?

[swansont]

SkepticLance said:

We got into an argument over my statement that warming over the past 30 years was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade. I posted two separate references to support that, and, in fact, as you now realise, I was correct. My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

I can't help but note that you've omitted the "An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future." claim, which was the focus of iNow's argument. The issue was not so much the past increase, but the extrapolation and conclusion you reached from it. Linear extrapolation of a nonlinear function has limited validity.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

If you look at the warming over the last 30 years, on any graph produced by a reputable authority, you will see a warming that bounces up and down. However, a straight line is not a bad fit for this warming, if we ignore the minor fluctuations up and down. Of course, if you try a longer time scale, extending further into the past, the straight line no longer fits.

If you assume that the higher part of the warming range (ie. 0.2 C per decade) is correct, then it will take 150 years for a 3 Celsius increase in average temperature on Earth.

Of course, the warming may not stay anything like linear. It may accelerate, or it may decelerate. You will, no doubt, argue that it will accelerate. However, when you do that, you are gazing into a crystal ball, or a computer model, which is also unreliable. The simple truth is, we do not know.

In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years.

Swansont,
I am not a global warming denier. Just a sceptic of those who make extravagent claims. I accept the world is warming, and that over the past 30 years, the main agent for that warming is human activity. I also accept that a need exists for remedial action.

However, I do not accept that we should be precipitated into panic action. Action needs to be well thought out, well tested, and well managed. Currently the biggest problem is that we lack acceptable alternatives for a lot of the carbon releasing activities we do.

For example : If someone comes to me and tells me I have to give up my car, and ride a bicycle everywhere, that guy is likely to end up with a thick lip. I do not, and very few others do, agree that a bicycle is an acceptable alternative to a car.

Yet those alternatives are under development. Let's put resources into developing the alternatives, and then implement them. Let's NOT allow anyone into panicking us into ill considered actions that we will regret later.

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years.

I supported, with evidence, my contention that your claim here is mistaken. You have offered no evidence in support of your claim. Can you?

[Pangloss]

iNow, what do you believe that it means if the answer to your question is "no"?