Jump to content

Global Warming is Not a Crisis


matty

Recommended Posts

I've heard the name Heartland Institute a few times now so I decided to check it out. It seems just like any other agenda driven social advocacy. Whether it be a conservative one or a liberal one like ACORN, they all sound pretty much the same. On their climate change page they gave a reason for scientific consensus.

 

The reason for the consensus among environmentalists is simple: If AGW is true, then stopping or preventing it requires higher taxes, more income redistribution, more wilderness preservation, more regulations on corporations, “smart growth,” subsidies for renewable energy, and on and on. In other words, many of the policies already on the liberal political agenda. Liberals have no reason to “look under the hood” of the global warming scare, to see what the real science says. They believe in global warming because they feel it justifies their ideological convictions (Hulme, 2009).

 

 

Could there be any truth to this at all? Even if slight? Though I've heard some pretty good reasons to support some of those examples on the agenda.

Once you go through their explanations something else stuck out about the lack of predictability of certain scientific models concerning climate change. Also about what percentage was natural warming compared to man made. It seems that if you are going to institute a model that will have such an impact on the global economy, there should at least be a full model that has predictability and can answer some of these questions that haven't been answered yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The validity of climate science is wholly unrelated to the potential mitigation strategies for which people might advocate.

 

You can't say that gravity is false because people might drop rocks from tall buildings and harm others. That's roughly equivalent to what they're doing.

 

What fascinates me is how readily you dismiss the conclusion that human behaviors impact the climate because of potentially nefarious motives of a "liberal political agenda," but you don't shine that same light on the behaviors of the deniers who ALSO have a political agenda to cloud the issue and sow confusion and uncertainty... Just like tobacco companies did when it came to research on the linkage of smoking and cancer. It boggles my mind, man. First, the science is independent from the politics. Second, the political motivations you lament are found more readily and consistently on the side with which you find yourself in agreement. It doesn't make a damned bit of sense, Justin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it should be called global "warming" at this point, because although there's increases in CO2, there's other factors such as water and air currents changing, continental locations, the Earth's increasing distance from the sun, the moon's increasing distance from Earth, etc, and those all effect different regions in different ways and can cause cooling, it should be more like "climate change", and the existence for that based on current data is virtually inarguable as there are visible dramatic shifts in air-ocean currents, and we can use various technology to look back in time and see that that although that does happen naturally, it doesn't happen at as fast a rate as it has happening recently, which coincides with the same time as when humans started burning more fossil fuels, so the only logical connection is that burning fossil fuels that release green-house gases speeds up the process of change.

Edited by questionposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The validity of climate science is wholly unrelated to the potential mitigation strategies for which people might advocate.

 

You can't say that gravity is false because people might drop rocks from tall buildings and harm others. That's roughly equivalent to what they're doing.

 

What fascinates me is how readily you dismiss the conclusion that human behaviors impact the climate because of potentially nefarious motives of a "liberal political agenda," but you don't shine that same light on the behaviors of the deniers who ALSO have a political agenda to cloud the issue and sow confusion and uncertainty... Just like tobacco companies did when it came to research on the linkage of smoking and cancer. It boggles my mind, man. First, the science is independent from the politics. Second, the political motivations you lament are found more readily and consistently on the side with which you find yourself in agreement. It doesn't make a damned bit of sense, Justin.

 

It's also interesting to me how scientists are vilified when they enter into a political discussion and act as other political activists do. There are those who have gone with the gloom and doom extreme scenarios in order to get people to act, which is how political activism is often done. Yet this seems to affect their credibility to a far greater extent than anyone else in politics who goes even further and actively lies in order to further their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

iNow, I don't remember dismissing anything. I just recall asking a question. That was the first I read any thing from that "think tank" and was wondering if there might be some truth to matter. I have no doubt that humans play a part in the emission of gases that get trapped in our atmosphere. You only have to look at the smog over big cities to know that. But to what effect besides warming? Is there not any conclusive predictable power to these climate models? The only gripe I've got about the whole issue, after doing some reading recently, is that there isn't enough data to come to a conclusive answer. Sure it's getting warmer, but what will it be doing 50 years from now? I bet pre 70's a lot of people would have said it would be unimaginably colder in the future. We've only got a little over 100 years of instrumentally recorded data. The projected warming is only 1-2 degrees, if that, and all this put together doesn't stir my imagination of impending doom like it does others. So if not politically motivated, then why the wide spread activism? Is it not true that the corrective actions that need to be taken have been on the liberal agenda even before this crisis was recognized as such? I'm not dismissing anything. Not being as emotional about it as some think I should be doesn't automatically put me on the denier's side does it? Scepticism is alright so long as it is only to conform with the rest of the scientific arena, is that it? Not to mention that you kind of skipped around my question by saying that the science doesn't have anything to do with the political aspect. Which I agree that it should be like that, but is it in this case? Does the social or environmental agendas of these guys play a part in how hard they push the doom of global warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it's getting warmer, but what will it be doing 50 years from now? I bet pre 70's a lot of people would have said it would be unimaginably colder in the future.

 

That's a fair point, but it points to a subtlety about what is meant by a prediction in the context of a scientific model. Model predictions are not absolute — they are contingent on the inputs to the model. They are always always prefaced by an "if the input conditions hold", though this is sometimes implied rather than stated. Meaning that the first question you have to ask in comparing a model prediction with results is of all of the input data are accurate. The predictions of cooling in the 1970's were contingent upon pollution getting worse at a certain rate. That temperatures did not does not, in and if itself, invalidate the models. That's because pollution did not get worse — governments passed legislation to reduce pollution levels. Similarly, predictions about temperature increases depend on the amount of CO2 and on other forcings on temperature.

 

If there were a huge volcanic eruption, that would drive temperatures down. But since one cannot reliably predict this kind of event, one generally does not try and do so — you can model the effect, but the prior inclusion or exclusion of the effect is not really a prediction. Put another way, if we have such an event and temperatures go down that could very well be in accordance with models — you just have to have the right inputs to see. But I predict that if this happens, there will be a loud outcry about how the science is somehow wrong. (If there is no major volcano, though, notice how my prediction cannot legitimately be considered to be wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only gripe I've got about the whole issue, after doing some reading recently, is that there isn't enough data to come to a conclusive answer.

Nothing in science is ever certain, but we know what's happening to a rather high degree of accuracy, so I tend to disagree with your assertion here.

 

http://sci.tamucc.edu/~lsci/lsci/uploads/KWithers/climatechangescience.pdf

 

 

The projected warming is only 1-2 degrees, if that, and all this put together doesn't stir my imagination of impending doom like it does others.

Probably because you could learn more about how huge the impact and cascading / downstream effect of this is on other systems. Would you be equally unstirred if I said I was increasing the level of toxic nerve gas in your restroom by only 1 or 2 percent?

 

That comment, I'm rather sorry to say, is the epitome of the suggestion that "ignorance is bliss."

 

 

So if not politically motivated, then why the wide spread activism?

Because of the potential magnitude and scope of the result of non-action.

 

 

Is it not true that the corrective actions that need to be taken have been on the liberal agenda even before this crisis was recognized as such?

I don't classify intelligent recommendations as being on a "liberal agenda" or a "conservative agenda." That's just not how I think. Sorry. I look at the evidence. I do a cost/benefit analysis. I form a conclusion. Whether it's liberal, conservative, independent or otherwise... I base my stance on the merit of the position, not on my ideological leaning.

 

 

Scepticism is alright so long as it is only to conform with the rest of the scientific arena, is that it?

Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but there is a very real difference between an honest skeptic and a person who ignores valid conclusions. You don't get to hold on to the label of "skeptic" after your criticisms have all been addressed. At that point, you are a liar, an idiot, or some combination of both. Again, maybe not you, but most. We've been studying this stuff for over a century. It's hardly as controversial as you think among those who know what they're talking about.

 

Not to mention that you kind of skipped around my question by saying that the science doesn't have anything to do with the political aspect. Which I agree that it should be like that, but is it in this case? Does the social or environmental agendas of these guys play a part in how hard they push the doom of global warming?

Perhaps it impacts how hard they advocate, but it does nothing to debunk or falsify their data. The data and scientific conclusion stands independent from their desire to act on that knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also interesting to me how scientists are vilified when they enter into a political discussion and act as other political activists do. There are those who have gone with the gloom and doom extreme scenarios in order to get people to act, which is how political activism is often done. Yet this seems to affect their credibility to a far greater extent than anyone else in politics who goes even further and actively lies in order to further their agenda.

 

Of course.

 

One expects scientists to be honest and objective. When they appear not to be it is a shock and the reaction to that shock can be pronounced. Credibility is lost largely because there was credibiliity to begin with.

 

No one expects politicians to tell the truth or to act out of anything except self-interest. When they lie it is just another day at the office, and since there never was any credibility there is nothing to be affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if not politically motivated, then why the wide spread activism?

All policy implementations is, by definition, political. So how can this not be politically motivated? There are ramifications to climate change, and people want the government to do something, because policing ourselves doesn't work. In this context, "politically motivated" translates as being a partisan issue. Why is it partisan? I think that's part of a broader question: Why has the GOP become the anti-science party?

 

To answer the question of why the Dems would want to skew science in order to advance an agenda, you have to demonstrate that the have actually skewed the science. Because absent that, one need not have any agenda beyond "this is a problem, we need to do something about it." Was cleaning up pollution in the 70's a matter of partisan politics based on a hoax? e.g. was mercury not accumulating in fish, and/or consuming mercury (or lead) is not actually a health problem? Was there some hidden agenda of control and taxes that caused the legislation to be passed, or was there an actual problem of polluted air, soil and water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont, I agree with that, but does the outcry for us to do something about global warming really reflect the amount of input that could be applied to the model so far? It seems to me, I admit this is just the feeling I have, is that the outcry far exceeds the the reliability of the model based on the amount of input to constitute a valid prediction. This is a reason why it is acceptable for those to question the motives behind this outcry. Not to say that co2 isn't a problem. I think any polutant released into the atmosphere should be looked at with a certain amount of concern.

 

Nothing in science is ever certain, but we know what's happening to a rather high degree of accuracy, so I tend to disagree with your assertion here.

I'm not saying it is or even should be. In the link you provided above one thing immediately stuck out. It said the IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. This automatically puts the subject into the political arena and leads to questions concerning the motivation behind any suggestive actions to be taken. Also it states that the consensus for the warming of the last 50 years is attributed to the emmisions of green house gases. But wasn't the cooling throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's also attributed to pollution? Same cause two different effects? Also it talks about the percentage of the 928 papers that were submitted under pier review. It claims that 75% of the papers submitted fell into the categories of explicit endorsement of the scientific consensus, evaluation of inpacts, and mitigation proposals. What I found interesting was that on the "deniers" sight I remember the mention of these 928 papers, and they broke down the fact that only 6 of the 928 papers actually endorsed the consensus. While in the link you provided they conveniently added that into the 75% category. I'm not saying that there is not a consensus on the fact that humans play a role. But you can see where some confusion might set in when people only lay down information that supports their point when leaving out things that might give people pause to be skeptical. Even in the link it says that the consensus might be wrong but then goes on to state what our grandchildren would think if it's right and we didn't act. Don't you think with as big of a change as is required to do something about this subject as there is, that we might want to at least make sure that we are certain? That this is as big of an issue as implied by the amount of activism in support?

 

 

Probably because you could learn more about how huge the impact and cascading / downstream effect of this is on other systems. Would you be equally unstirred if I said I was increasing the level of toxic nerve gas in your restroom by only 1 or 2 percent?

An analogy from the other side would be, would you sacrifice your new born child if the general consensus was that you would anger the Gods and die if you didn't? It seems like something like that has happened before. The nerve gas might be fine if the consensus was the same as it is for global warming. No one would know if it is, in fact, nerve gas. No one would know what the effect that pressumed nerve gas would be. All joking aside, I have already stated that any pollutant being emmited should be evaluated with a certain level on concern. Nobody can say that pollution is a good thing.

 

 

 

I don't classify intelligent recommendations as being on a "liberal agenda" or a "conservative agenda." That's just not how I think. Sorry. I look at the evidence. I do a cost/benefit analysis. I form a conclusion. Whether it's liberal, conservative, independent or otherwise... I base my stance on the merit of the position, not on my ideological leaning.

Well you might, but that is not the question I asked. I think you can decide if it is or isn't the liberal agenda, it just seems that you don't want to give a diffinative answer on the subject.

 

 

 

Maybe this doesn't apply to you, but there is a very real difference between an honest skeptic and a person who ignores valid conclusions. You don't get to hold on to the label of "skeptic" after your criticisms have all been addressed. At that point, you are a liar, an idiot, or some combination of both. Again, maybe not you, but most. We've been studying this stuff for over a century. It's hardly as controversial as you think among those who know what they're talking about.

Perhaps it impacts how hard they advocate, but it does nothing to debunk or falsify their data. The data and scientific conclusion stands independent from their desire to act on that knowledge.
But like I said earlier even the data can be arguable. With only a little over a hundred years of recorded data on temperature the fluctuations aren't that extreme and don't show a reason for all the excitement. Like I suggested to Swansont, the decline in temperature from the 40's through the early 70's was more extreme than the incline after. And even over the past several years it seems that the average temps have been steadier than with any other same legnth of time. Again I'm not denying climate change, just asking if it is not reasonable to assume that we need more physical data over a longer period of time to justify such a jurassic change in policy?

 

Sorry Swansont, I must have been typing while you posted.

 

All policy implementations is, by definition, political. So how can this not be politically motivated? There are ramifications to climate change, and people want the government to do something, because policing ourselves doesn't work. In this context, "politically motivated" translates as being a partisan issue. Why is it partisan? I think that's part of a broader question: Why has the GOP become the anti-science party?

Why has science become a party at all? Once you view the world a certain way and a seemingly neutral entity comes out to support an agenda that your opponents have been fighting for for decades, how would you look at it?

 

 

To answer the question of why the Dems would want to skew science in order to advance an agenda, you have to demonstrate that the have actually skewed the science. Because absent that, one need not have any agenda beyond "this is a problem, we need to do something about it." Was cleaning up pollution in the 70's a matter of partisan politics based on a hoax? e.g. was mercury not accumulating in fish, and/or consuming mercury (or lead) is not actually a health problem? Was there some hidden agenda of control and taxes that caused the legislation to be passed, or was there an actual problem of polluted air, soil and water?

I agree, but was the evidence for such cases as arguable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the articulate posts are not helping. I'll go bullet-point, elevator-version now:

 

 

Consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

Certainty: http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

 

Prudent Risk Management: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/11/climate-change-scientific-evidence-united-nations

 

Liberal Agenda: Wholly irrelevant to facts

 

Science as a Party: Try not to misinterpret swansont. Science is not a party. He's asking why the REPUBLICAN party so often is against facts established by science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the articulate posts are not helping. I'll go bullet-point, elevator-version now:

Articulation has nothing to do with the meritt of an arguement. I can see you are very articulate at dancing around questions and equally good at providing links that say the same things that brought about the questions in the first place.

 

 

This is from one of the articles that you provided in the link. This is what the IPCC states as uncertain.

 

Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.<li>Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.<li>Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.<li>Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

 

Again I will have to say that this being from the IPCC, they were formed with the express goal of evaluating climate science for the expressed purpose of informed policy change. This puts them in a political arena, so why should their motivation not be question when it comes to a specific agenda?

 

With what the IPCC states as uncertain, don't you think that at least a couple of these things should be adressed and a more specific conclusion brought to the table before we go and remodel our entire system?

 

Why would we make such a big change when we are not even sure the amount of change that is contributed to human activity?

Why would we make such a change when we don't even understand the variations of natural climate?

 

Why would we make such a change when we don't understand the level of reaction of the climate to green house gases?

 

It seems like people want to readjust our whole system based on speculation, and damned if someone can question their motives. You didn't comment on the fact that one side says that only 6 out of 928 papers explicitly endorse man made global warming, while the other side lists that into the 75% group. Misinformation or did someone not think it was necessary to intale?

 

Liberal Agenda: Wholly irrelevant to facts

Why is a liberal's agenda not relevant while a republican's agenda is? You still didn't answer that question. Are the things that need to be changed to adress the problem part of a liberals agenda? If so, which I think they are in a general way, then why can't the motivation of the consensus be questioned? We know the republican's agenda is business motivated, and why shouldn't it be? If something were to change that would hurt your businesses financial structure with so many unknowns wouldn't you be skeptical as well?

 

So tell me why this is a problem of which the validity and motivation should be taken at face value.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I will have to say that this being from the IPCC, they were formed with the express goal of evaluating climate science for the expressed purpose of informed policy change. This puts them in a political arena, so why should their motivation not be question when it comes to a specific agenda?

 

With what the IPCC states as uncertain, don't you think that at least a couple of these things should be adressed and a more specific conclusion brought to the table before we go and remodel our entire system?

 

Why would we make such a big change when we are not even sure the amount of change that is contributed to human activity?

Why would we make such a change when we don't even understand the variations of natural climate?

 

Why would we make such a change when we don't understand the level of reaction of the climate to green house gases?

 

All science has uncertainty. What science does is quantify uncertainty, and that's very important. There are those who take the existence of uncertainty and attempt to twist it to mean that since we don't know everything, it somehow implies that we know nothing, and that's just not true.

 

We have an understanding of how much of climate change is due to human activity. We have an understanding of the level of reaction of the climate to green house gases. We have an understanding of the variations of natural climate. Our knowledge is, and will always be, incomplete. Any call for complete understanding is a call for inaction, on ANY topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really need to brush up on the concept of uncertainty in science. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

I also never said republican agenda is relevant to facts. Don't put words in my mouth. The point is that the science is valid regardless of your ideological leaning or political agenda. That's all there is to it. Waving your hands and insinuating conspiracy or bias won't change that.

 

EDIT: Cross-posted with swansont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from one of the articles that you provided in the link. This is what the IPCC states as uncertain.

 

 

Do so-called climate-change deniers talk about uncertainty in their conclusions? Please let me know.

Edited by IM Egdall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do so-called climate-change deniers talk about uncertainty in their conclusions? Please let me know.

 

All the time, every day.

 

The warmers are the ones who are certain, all day every day. They are so certain that they are right that they believe those who question are akin to holocaust deniers, people so loathsome that they not only should not speak, but should not have a right to speak. They are so certain of their righteusness that they have variously pondered the deep questions, like "When will it be okay to strangle deniers in their beds?", to consider the bernefits to society of the tatooing of the word "Denier" on the bodies of their opponents so that they may be summarrily punished later. Wondering whether "deniers" should be tried for "Crimes against Humanity" for doubting the consensus. There have been suggestions that deniers be placed in rooms that fill with carbon monoxide to demonstrate to them the dangers of the gas. Most recently they have linked "deniers" to being the equivalent of the Taliban.

 

The warmers are so certain that they are right that they believe that any who disagree fall into one or more of the following groupings: a/ Mentally ill and requiring psychiatric treatment or b/ Mentally deficient and cannot comprehend the issues involved or c/ Morally deficient and only act for a fast buck or d/ Are just plain evil people who want to destroy the world. All data that contradicts the accepted viewpoint is either a/ wrong or b/ forged. They are certain that unless the "deniers" are defeated and crushed then civilisation as we know it and quite possible life itself will be removed from the face of our fair planet.

 

And put bluntly, all this is based on a .8 degree of warming in the last 150 years and some computer models that can't even manage to get last years climate right but can magically get it right for 100 years out.

 

I really thought the graphic on page 11 was self explanatory but I'll try again;

scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

 

The green area is the spread and uncertainty in the model projections used in the IPCC AR4 report. The wiggly black line in side the green is the model avarage. As can be seen the start time is 2000, this is because the models used in the AR4 report were initialised in 2000 to be run out to 2100. Let's be very clear about this, when the AR4 was written there were already 6 years worth of data to compare to the model runs. The blue area is Dr Scafettas planetary model predictions and the big, fat red line is the real world data from the Hadley Centre. The only thing that really counts.

 

So here is the question. Is the big, fat red line showing behaviour even remotely like the predictions of the green area? No, it is not. The models predicted certain behaviour in the climate system, the climate system has not exhibited the predicted behaviour. Either reality is wrong or the models aren't as good as we thought.

 

But I'm a denier and so am therefore a liar and a cheat and must have rigged the data. So let's add another graph to the mix. Let's compare the A1b models as initialised in 1990 to all the major temperature series, as I did back in post #156

 

CherriesAppliesOranges.png

 

Note how closely the actual reality matches the predicted outcome. See how far the reality is within the 2 sigma lines. Oh, wait. Not a match at all. Reality must have it wrong again.

 

The predictions were actually too conservative, so no... reality hasn't matched them, it's been worse than anticipated.

 

Absolute bloody bullshit. The temps haven't risen as predicted. The Sea level hasn't risen as predicted. The Arctic isn't ice free in summer as predicted. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers isn't as predicted. Go on, put up or STFU. Exactly what predictions have been made that reality has shown to be worse than anticipated? You made the statement, back it up or retract it. I presume your evidence for these claims is on the same shelf as the "assload" of other evidence you can't produce.

 

You know, when I first came here the thing that probably impressed me most was that a process known as "The Scientific Method" was strongly championed. The ideas of Popper and Feynman were king. "No matter how elegant your theory, no matter how smart you are, if experiment proves you wrong then you need another theory." Only in the field of climate science has this been turned around and when theory and reality have diverged it is reality that is assumed to be at fault. I find this very saddening.

 

BTW iNow. That "leak" you were crowing about from the Heartland Institute? You do know the major damning document is a forgery don't you? And to take the same line as the warmers have been for some time now. By referring to it I can only assume that you condone "Identity Theft", "Fraud" and "Forgery". Without the forgery the HI papers show what? HI pays people to develop educational packages! HI pays it's staff and advisors! The Sun rises in the East! Video at 5! Jesus wept. Funny how some people will believe anything put in front of them if it matches their preconceptions. Some of us prefer some actual proof before making a fool of ourselves.

 

What I cannot understand is how intelligent people can stand side by side with those who advocate pogroms and extermination of opposition and claim they are standing up for "science" and "rationality". Sceptics want to talk and check data, warmers want to strangle, gas or blow up the sceptics, but you guys are the "rational" ones. Riiiiiiiight.

 

The bottom line here, and the thing that should be the only thing that matters. The climate theory and therefore the climate models predict a buildup of heat in the system. To the best of our measurement ability there i9s no such buildup to be found. (Unless you believe in magic) For those who back the theory there is just one question you need to answer. "Where is your missing heat?"

Edited by JohnB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really thought the graphic on page 11 was self explanatory but I'll try again;

scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

 

The green area is the spread and uncertainty in the model projections used in the IPCC AR4 report. The wiggly black line in side the green is the model avarage. As can be seen the start time is 2000, this is because the models used in the AR4 report were initialised in 2000 to be run out to 2100. Let's be very clear about this, when the AR4 was written there were already 6 years worth of data to compare to the model runs. The blue area is Dr Scafettas planetary model predictions and the big, fat red line is the real world data from the Hadley Centre. The only thing that really counts.

 

 

What graph in the report is being used here? It's a big report, and the projection I find (fig 3.2 in the synthesis report, p. 46) shows multiple individual scenarios that all start at a temperature anomaly of about 0.25 ºC, which is the value for the year 2000. So it's curious that the anomaly graphed here starts at about 0.45 ºC. Why would you start your projections two tenths of a degree above the actual temperature? In the IPCC projection graph, the high temperature anomaly is at or below about 0.8 ºC in 2020, whereas here it's literally off the charts. In 2010 the high value is about 0.6 ºC, but this graph shows it as 0.8 ºC. In other words it looks to me like the projection graph has been shifted up 0.2 ºC in this graph, relative to the one I find in the IPCC AR4 report.

 

Either I'm looking at the wrong graph, or someone has erred in recreating it.

 

edit to add: the periodic graphs don't start at that same level, either. They start at 0.4 ºC. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IM Egdall,

 

Do so-called climate-change deniers talk about uncertainty in their conclusions? Please let me know.

Do deniers want to make jurrastic change because of it? I think not.

 

It's also funny how some of the people who want to push this idea need to walk around pointed questions like they're not lagitimate questions. Especially when it comes to motives, misinformation, and weak predictability that they want to use to usher in a new era of politics. I've asked pointed questions and have gotten no straight answers except to nitpick about the phrasing of insignificant lines that have little to do with the subject.

 

Swansont,

 

I can see how deception requires an agenda, but why does conveying the best understanding of scientific inquiry require an agenda?

It doesn't, but it's odd that one sides agenda fits perfectly into the scope of the scientific consensus. That, coupled with the activism for major change on so little pradictability seems rather suspect to me. It gives pause to consider that maybe there is something more than just scientific hypothesi involved.

Edited by JustinW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't, but it's odd that one sides agenda fits perfectly into the scope of the scientific consensus. That, coupled with the activism for major change on so little pradictability seems rather suspect to me. It gives pause to consider that maybe there is something more than just scientific hypothesi involved.

 

I come at this from having argued evolution vs creationism for years, and it's astounding to see the similarities between the cases. I'm not a biologist, but even with that limitation it was easy to see how the creationist arguments were based on misunderstandings of basic science (which I did/do know), and how many of the arguments were misrepresentations of science or not scientific at all, such as appeals to conspiracy and claims of a liberal agenda.

 

One of the common arguments, as with climate change, was to hold the science to a higher standard — since we don't have 100% certainty, we can't know for sure what's going on. 100% certainty does not exist anywhere in science. That argument is moot. Another was the "agenda." Scientists' basic agenda is to find out how nature behaves. There need not be any political agenda behind it — the political agenda is what explains using ideology or other non-scientific arguments in attempts to discredit the science. "maybe there is something more" is innuendo and not worthy of scientific discussion. If the science is wrong, show that the science is wrong. The problems is that too much of the discussion is based on something other than science. It's appeals to emotion and conspiracy, inconsistent expectations, and using weasel words (or outright lies) to try and smear the work, because it can't be successfully attacked on its merits.

 

I am dubious of any critique that doesn't deal with (and often runs from) the scientific aspects of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont, okay fair enough. It wasn't brought to the table by me, but once on the table I felt it should have been answered directly. The issue of agenda was brought to my attention in a link provided by iNow, where the opening statements of the IPCC indicated it's purpose was politically driven. As far as the feelings I share about doing something so jurrastic with so little predictability spurs from the fact that it's true. You couple this with the evolution/creatiionist arguement, but it's not the same. There is a crap load more evidence for evolution than there is for global warming, yet people want to turn the current system on it's head because of it. I'll try to stick to the basic from here on out though.

 

scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

 

Even if the anomoly started at 0.25c it would still be off and still at a more extreme rate of assent. Is everyone missing the fact that the graph shows the temps to be fairly steady from 2000 -2011? Once looked at from a larger time line it is actually steadier throughout that period than any other similar length of time in the past. What's up with that? Any recent readjustment of possible projections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

 

Even if the anomoly started at 0.25c it would still be off and still at a more extreme rate of assent. Is everyone missing the fact that the graph shows the temps to be fairly steady from 2000 -2011? Once looked at from a larger time line it is actually steadier throughout that period than any other similar length of time in the past. What's up with that? Any recent readjustment of possible projections?

 

If you slide the graph down so they have the same starting value, it puts the 2010 projection line nicely within the actual temperature plot, which you might notice has more variation than the projection does. I don't see how that agrees with being "off". Further, the IPCC had various scenarios — the projections are presented differently in the IPCC report. I see no mention of which scenario is being presented here as the line, and any mention of whether the numbers used in that projection reflect reality. In fact, the IPCC states "No likelihood has been attached to any of the SRES scenarios." So, if that's what this graph represents, using a range of projections as if they are error bars is very misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the time, every day.

 

 

 

Maybe this is not your view, but when I read or hear people make flat-out claims like "global warming is a hoax" or statements like that, I ask "how can you be so definite, so sure in your statement -- is there no uncertainty in this?"

 

 

What I read (mostly) from the climate scientists are write-ups which include the uncertainties in the conclusions. (Like "with 90% confidence" or "90% likely). This seems to me to sound more like a careful scientific approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont,

 

If you slide the graph down so they have the same starting value, it puts the 2010 projection line nicely within the actual temperature plot, which you might notice has more variation than the projection does. I don't see how that agrees with being "off". Further, the IPCC had various scenarios — the projections are presented differently in the IPCC report. I see no mention of which scenario is being presented here as the line, and any mention of whether the numbers used in that projection reflect reality. In fact, the IPCC states "No likelihood has been attached to any of the SRES scenarios." So, if that's what this graph represents, using a range of projections as if they are error bars is very misleading.

Hey, I'm just commenting on the data like was suggested. And no it doesn't fit nicely once it slides down to starting position of 0.25. After adjustment the projected temp is still off at 0.45, while the actual temp is at 0.25. Also the projection still has an extreme rate of assent if the projection is expected to hold it's course.

 

The actual temp part of the graph looks the same as the IPCC's chart. The reason the projections were based at 0.45 degrees instead of 0.2 can be found by the second chart provided by JohnB above. It is the A1B SRES projections and the actual projection model starts in 1990 not 2000. So looking at it from that time frame the chart that starts projections off in 2000 at 0.45 degrees makes more sense. The projections were obviously wrong. Do we have any that are closer that can better argue that global warming is a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scafetta_model_updated-fig-02_02_2012.png

 

Let's compare the A1b models as initialised in 1990 to all the major temperature series, as I did back in post #156

 

CherriesAppliesOranges.png

 

Note how closely the actual reality matches the predicted outcome. See how far the reality is within the 2 sigma lines. Oh, wait. Not a match at all. Reality must have it wrong again.

 

For those who back the theory there is just one question you need to answer. "Where is your missing heat?"

 

While the "actual" observations seem to skirt the lower bound of the A1B projection, how do they compare with other IPCC projections?

 

Page 3 of this link has recent trends & projections.

Page 4 of this link shows the current levels relative to various projections:

http://ats150.atmos....tureClimate.pdf

 

post-47272-0-86475400-1329515443_thumb.png -page 3

 

===

 

Did the ICPP projection include the longer than normal solar minimum, which we have recently experienced?

 

Did the ICPP projection include the larger than expected melting of polar ice, which we have recently experienced?

 

Do these last two points help account for the "missing heat?"

===

 

This site is by an atmospheric sciences professor and has some neat images and graphs.

Page 9 has this plot:

 

post-47272-0-76639800-1329515590_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.