Mythsquashing: Warmer Climes

[British Red]

You mean Global warming red?. Climate change is natural, Global warming is the population related one. Not trying to pick a fight etc, but this is where people get mixed up and think Global warming deniers deny climate change.

Actually I'm talking about Anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is a change in climate. Global warming ignores that overall temperatures may remain constant whilst the global climate changes unrecognisably.

The IPCC is so called because the term used now is climate change, that is what I meant. Climate change which may, or may not, be anthropogenic in cause, but is a far wider issue than global warming.

Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

 

[dewi]

So finally we agree....i think?

And red,i hope my previous post quoting you didnt come across as wrongly as i have to dewi, if so i apologize, i meant it innocently, not pointing fingers or whatnot.

It's my poor communication that led to the confusion... you were very clear where you were coming from in your first post, but I didn't ask what I was asking correctly if that makes sense. Easy to get tongue tied on here lol

 

[Laurentius]

One thing that has always amused me about those who vehemently defend the "scientific method" is that they accept on face value the claims made by others.

They themselves have not read the paper, repeated the experiments or validated the data.

So clearly they cannot be bothered to actually use the scientific method they simply accept on face value that others have.

They then vehemently condemn those who accept, on face value, a different viewpoint.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

It is indeed a problem in the philosophy of science and is known as the Duhem Quine problem but what would I know since I only have an O level in physics. For all that however you have to side with Quine (who can be found on youtube for those who are interested) and consider that although we cannot know anything with absolute certainty we can certainly make the best of what is available to us, and climate change denial flies in the face of that. I don't think any of us are going to be able by our own endeavours to re-establish the first principles of electricity, never mind the complexities of semiconductors and all that has led us too, but we reliably key into our computers and the internet because we know it works.

I will not live to see the worst of it, but I worry about those who will because hindsight will not help a great deal.

 

[Nomad64]

Regularly the IPCC will say that 97% of science agrees...

Post a link or it didn't happen = fail!

Are you sure you are not confusing the IPCC with a bloke you met in a pub?

 

[British Red]

I will not live to see the worst of it, but I worry about those who will because hindsight will not help a great deal.

Indeed but I refer you to my earlier point. We are not even willing to discuss population growth, never mind deal with it, so even if we reduce per capita emissions, global emissions will continue to rise.

I don't believe we do listen to the totallity of scientific argument at all, or people would be capmaigning in the streets about population even more loudly than the few who campaign about climate change (and it is a few, even the CLA mobilise larger protests)

 

[dewi]

Post a link or it didn't happen = fail!

Are you sure you are not confusing the IPCC with a bloke you met in a pub?

Blimey... you're dropping the ball early on then?

Are we reading the same thread here? The 97% claim is touted again and again... but if you insist...

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/drafts/WGIIAR5-Chap4_FOD.pdf

Now about that rebuttal with regards to my survey analysis.

 

[dewi]

It is indeed a problem in the philosophy of science and is known as the Duhem Quine problem but what would I know since I only have an O level in physics. For all that however you have to side with Quine (who can be found on youtube for those who are interested) and consider that although we cannot know anything with absolute certainty we can certainly make the best of what is available to us, and climate change denial flies in the face of that. I don't think any of us are going to be able by our own endeavours to re-establish the first principles of electricity, never mind the complexities of semiconductors and all that has led us too, but we reliably key into our computers and the internet because we know it works.

I will not live to see the worst of it, but I worry about those who will because hindsight will not help a great deal.

The majority do not deny climate change... that would just be silly. To deny the climate is changing would be like denying the sun rises. The question really isn't even about climate changes cousin, global warming, because its hard to argue that the climate has warmed since the last ice age... the true questions are:

Is global warming caused primarily or in part by human activity?

and then what follows if that is found to be true is:

Is it possible to reverse any changes made primarily or in part by human activity?

Those two questions haven't been answered with any degree of accuracy as the computer models being used are flawed. If they were not flawed, the satellite data would backup the computer model predictions, which it has not. Al Gores claim in 2007 that the North Pole would disappear within 5 years would have come true (he based his claim on the computer models of the time). And if the computer models were accurate, there is 220 billion tonnes that disagree... but again, 220 billion tonnes will have to wait for later.

 

[Laurentius]

Indeed but I refer you to my earlier point. We are not even willing to discuss population growth, never mind deal with it, so even if we reduce per capita emissions, global emissions will continue to rise.

I don't believe we do listen to the totallity of scientific argument at all, or people would be capmaigning in the streets about population even more loudly than the few who campaign about climate change (and it is a few, even the CLA mobilise larger protests)

I would agree with you there about population growth, Malthus has been much pooh poohed for a prophecy that did not come true, but it is only a matter of time. Ultimately anthropogenic climate change will be self limiting because we will start to die out. The earth can recover, but not in any human lifespan. We and our technology are as much a part of nature as the trees and the seas, we depend on them all for it, but our collective wisdom is not sufficient to overcome what we have let ourselves in for.

 

[Trig]

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

Quite interesting short interviews with scientists who had their work referenced in the 97% study, but say that their work was classified wrongly to suit a pro AGW view
although i do admit im not sure how involved the IPCC were in the studies creation,if any, though they certainly dont seem to deny the figure.

Even President obama has tweeted the 97% figure before.
https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160

To me that comes across as 97% of all scientists agree, which is clearly wrong

 

[Willcurrie]

Think yo need to post the page and line number for the 97% claim. I've searched the document for 97 and didn't find what you are referring to once never mind again and again. Help an old guy out here.

 

[Laurentius]

I would say that climate change has been accelerated by human activity, and althought that process started at the end of the last ice age, and we have been steadily modifying the environment ever since, the point came with the agricultural and then the industrial revolution that it accelerated to the point where it has go out of control. We may not be able to stop it, but that is no reason why we should not try to mitigate it as best we can, and head in the sand won't do that.

 

[dewi]

Think yo need to post the page and line number for the 97% claim. I've searched the document for 97 and didn't find what you are referring to once never mind again and again. Help an old guy out here.

You can busy yourself with this one while I find you the exact location of the claim...

John Cook - Climate Champion!

Please be aware, the author isn't very polite about Mr Cook, or Obama's tweet. I found it amusing, but it may not be if you're a sensitive soul.

 

[Trig]

Isnt it John cook and co that published the paper claiming 97%, not the IPCC?

 

[dewi]

I would say that climate change has been accelerated by human activity, and althought that process started at the end of the last ice age, and we have been steadily modifying the environment ever since, the point came with the agricultural and then the industrial revolution that it accelerated to the point where it has go out of control. We may not be able to stop it, but that is no reason why we should not try to mitigate it as best we can, and head in the sand won't do that.

Climate change can't be accelerated by human activity. Climate change is a state of constant flux that the planet is in.

A particular part of the change in climate can be attributed to man, but not all. Is the wind generated by human activity? The intensity of the sun? The tidal changes?

Being more specific, are you talking about global warming in relation to CO2? If so, do you have evidence of a steep upwards climb in temperature now that China is building 3 coal powered electricity generators per week? A steep upwards climb during India's new industrial revolution? Or any steep incline in recent history?

What effects, if it exists, is this temperature increase having on the world? Are sea levels rising? Ice receding?

Sorry to be such a pedant... but I would like to know specifics. If global warming is happening and effecting the climate, what exactly is it doing?

 

[Willcurrie]

Anthony Watts, really? I was expecting something with balance not a psudo journo like that.

 

[dewi]

Isnt it John cook and co that published the paper claiming 97%, not the IPCC?

John Cook is the author of Skepticscience funnily enough... the website that evaluated his paper John put it to the IPCC and they accepted it, which prompted world leaders to jump on the bandwagon. Unfortunately John refused to release his data (standard practice for peer review) and continued to deny it until some enterprising young soul hacked him and lifted it straight off his HD. When independents got onto his data, they discovered that he'd misquoted lots of prominent scientists, he's claimed agreement when the truth was disagreement, and the worst part... he claimed his small team had managed to average over 600 papers every 72 hours... which unless he's some sort of superhuman and his team have some sort of mutant super-reading powers is somewhat impossible.

John was discredited and debunked, but he continues to insist he is right and the scientific community are wrong. Not sure what the IPCC comment was on the situation, but I know a certain President was rather embarrassed and denied having ever been involved. It was one of his aides apparently

 

[dewi]

Anthony Watts, really? I was expecting something with balance not a psudo journo like that.

Pseudo or pseudo not... there is no try! Would you like it from another source? Would that make it sit better with you?

My my, we're picky tonight

 

[dewi]

Anthony Watts, really? I was expecting something with balance not a psudo journo like that.

Forbes highbrow enough for you??

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

 

[Nomad64]

Blimey... you're dropping the ball early on then?

Are we reading the same thread here? The 97% claim is touted again and again... but if you insist...

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/drafts/WGIIAR5-Chap4_FOD.pdf

Thanks for the link to a pdf of IPCC AR5 chapter on Terrestrial and Inland Waterways but sadly this is marked "draft" and "Do not cite, quote or distribute". A link to the definitive version is attached below - it has a few more pretty pictures and diagrams in it than the draft. I've had a quick look but my eyes are not what they used to be and I'm sure that if there is anything in it relevant to this discussion you will be only to keen to give us the page references. We wouldn't want people following this thread thinking that the mighty mythsquasher was just posting random links!

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap4_FINAL.pdf

Now about that rebuttal with regards to my survey analysis.

We're still waiting for the details of the survey carried out by the IPCC referred to in post #1!

Goodnight, its been educational!

 

[dewi]

Thanks for the link to a pdf of IPCC AR5 chapter on Terrestrial and Inland Waterways but sadly this is marked "draft" and "Do not cite, quote or distribute". A link to the definitive version is attached below - it has a few more pretty pictures and diagrams in it than the draft. I've had a quick look but my eyes are not what they used to be and I'm sure that if there is anything in it relevant to this discussion you will be only to keen to give us the page references. We wouldn't want people following this thread thinking that the mighty mythsquasher was just posting random links!

Awww busted Strong is the reading in you it is!

Meanwhile Willcurrie is still scratching his head about the title, let alone the content. Yet people who are quoting actual facts are 'psudo journo' {sic}... oh well.

Details of the survey in post #1? I left the references in it... now I know I've said this before, but I'm not doing your research for you.

I'm not being unreasonable here... you're challenging something that has reference points in it... you were clever enough to work out the AR5 chapter didn't contain what I said it did, so surely you can decipher the Da Vinci code on those graphics I posted up?

It would be plain wrong for me to give you an argument on a stick... and we haven't even got to the main issue yet. You're too busy being pedantic to even discuss the major points... but good on you cupcake! You're adding something to the debate... even if that addition is more amusing than factual. A helpful pointer, the majority (and I mean in the strictest sense, not the IPCC sense) have heard the 97% argument. I know what you're aiming at... but the pay off doesn't argue anything within the overall debate... its a sideline issue based on the analysis of a survey. A survey you're ignoring the pointers on to the data you need in some weird attempt to move the argument to discrediting me for my initial post! Wow... wood, trees.

Over to you petal... meanwhile we'll carry on the debate and wait for you to catch up. You know 'climate change' is causing an increase in Lyme disease don't you?

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2...rming-leading-to-an-increase-in-lyme-disease/

There is a link on the internet, so that is all the proof you need. But note the bit at the opening of the article... climate change effecting polar bears... now given the fact that you have the internet at your fingertips... what was the polar bear population in 1910? Then again in 1960? And 2010? Help us understand the true impact of this devastating global problem... what's the data Mr Potataa?