Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[billhill]

both of which are debatable in the case of co2.

Hardly any more.
I'm happy to put my trust in the intergovernmental panel on climate change which summarises the scientific literature. So unless your an expert in climate science and possess greater intellectual understanding then 100s of scientist i think you really have little case to argue.

 

[--B--]

Hardly any more.

I'm happy to put my trust in the intergovernmental panel on climate change which summarises the scientific literature. So unless your an expert in climate science and possess greater intellectual understanding then 100s of scientist i think you really have little case to argue.

the scientists you put all your faith in are not even sure their guesses are correct, Bill. hardly compelling evidence.

i dont think you need to be an expert on climate science to think that being 90% sure an hypothesis (read: guess) is correct is fairly flimsy at best.

 

[chops_a_must]

both of which are debatable in the case of co2.

By this same logic, ozone is not a pollution.

While it may be true that human emissions are only 3-6% of total emissions, it's an obfuscation of data. It's not a linear expression, because there are multipliers, which make it in actual fact an exponential function. You can't just say that human emissions are only 3-6% of emissions so don't worry about it, when for instance, the ability to cope with these emissions has been diminished in nature, by human activity. So, in previous times, with a steady emission flow from nature, today's human emissions may in actual fact be what would previously be 9-12% of emissions or whatever. But because the greater majority of emissions, from nature, will increase at a much greater rate than human emissions, in percentage terms, it hides the extent of the problem in total terms. You can't use human emission percentages as an argument when they are likely to go down as a relation if this keeps up.

 

[billhill]

Sure they're not sure. Thats entirely correct. But they know alot more then you or me so when a large number of them are saying "Hey we think we might have a big problem here" you don't ignore them because they said might.

Its all about risk management. I think you would find most people would consider 90% a pretty sure bet. I know most people on this site would be extatic if they could be profitable in even 80% of trades. Risking our futures on 10% seems pretty irrisponsible to me. Governements wouldn't ignore a 90% risk of a terrorist attack or a category 5 cyclone. They prevent or prepare for the event.

 

[white_goodman]

anyone else find it ironic that measures to prevent climate change and global warming to promote intergenerational equity require practices that limit population growth... ie providing a better future for people that wont exist

 

[white_goodman]

indeed.

its extraordinary the amount of people who blindly believe in AGW (and strike down those who question the science) who are completely unaware that the human component of carbon emissions is only between 3-6% of total global carbon emissions.

we must por concrete into mt erebus its the only solution lol

 

[--B--]

While it may be true that human emissions are only 3-6% of total emissions, it's an obfuscation of data. It's not a linear expression, because there are multipliers, which make it in actual fact an exponential function. You can't just say that human emissions are only 3-6% of emissions so don't worry about it, when for instance, the ability to cope with these emissions has been diminished in nature, by human activity.

what on earth did you just say? i honestly dont know what youre trying to say here.

So, in previous times, with a steady emission flow from nature, today's human emissions may in actual fact be what would previously be 9-12% of emissions or whatever. But because the greater majority of emissions, from nature, will increase at a much greater rate than human emissions, in percentage terms, it hides the extent of the problem in total terms. You can't use human emission percentages as an argument when they are likely to go down if this keeps up.

when co2 is apparently going to kill us all you can talk about percentages. if the natural variation on co2 is more than the amount we consider adequate to 'save' us it makes sense to consider it.

 

[--B--]

Sure they're not sure. Thats entirely correct. But they know alot more then you or me so when a large number of them are saying "Hey we think we might have a big problem here" you don't ignore them because they said might.

a large number of climate scientists also argue there is absolutely no basis for the hype and hysteria.

 

[chops_a_must]

what on earth did you just say? i honestly dont know what youre trying to say here.



when co2 is apparently going to kill us all you can talk about percentages. if the natural variation on co2 is more than the amount we consider adequate to 'save' us it makes sense to consider it.

Hey, I was answering YOUR point about PERCENTAGES.

 

[white_goodman]

anyone realise the a financial incentive for many businesses to go green...ie the consumer pays more... ie profit.. youve also gotta look at the reliability of studies...

a study into the dangers of being vegetarian funded by the meat council might have a litle bias

 

[spooly74]

co-incidental that when we first developed the technology to measure the o zone layer we found a hole over antarctica.. whos to say there wasnt one there for 1000 years

Because the chemical signature of light revealed elevated levels of chlorine dioxide above Antartica unlike anywhere else on Earth.

In the late 80s, this was the first piece of evidence which lay the blame for the hole in the ozone on humankind. Nearly all atmospheric chlorine comes from CFCs.

 

[nioka]

Man made polution may not be the main cause of global warming but is it the last straw that breaks the camel's back. At least it is one we can do something about so why not do what we can. Let us not fiddle while Rome burns.

 

[billhill]

a large number of climate scientists also argue there is absolutely no basis for the hype and hysteria.

Ok. Then Why arn't they the scientists at the UNIPCC telling the world that human caused global warming is a load of rubbish we needn't do anything about. The UNIGPC report is compiled using the scientific literature. If human influences were not the likely cause of global warming surely this would be reflected in the literature and consequently the UNIPCC's report.

 

[--B--]

Ok. Then Why arn't they the scientists at the UNIPCC telling the world that human caused global warming is a load of rubbish we needn't do anything about. The UNIGPC report is compiled using the scientific literature. If human influences were not the likely cause of global warming surely this would be reflected in the literature and consequently the UNIPCC's report.

Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.

SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail if you received my recent NZClimate Truth Newsletters (see under “Links” on this website).

The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.

 

[--B--]

would anyone like to comment on the above?

 

[2020hindsight]

Ask him to put
a) his life on the line, and
b) the lives of all his kids and their offspring on the line ...

and see if he's so sure that he's right then

I mean, they die if he's wrong with this deal.

In any case, you just said you're happy to make these emission changes (yes??), so I don't think we have an argument in the final analysis.

PS He's one voice.
here's another..
IPCC just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[--B--]

Ask him to put
a) his life on the line, and
b) the lives of all his kids and their offspring on the line ...

and see if he's so sure that he's right then

I mean, they die if he's wrong with this deal.

oh please. is that all you guys have got? propagate fear when theres nothing else left?

it seems to be the line many revert to when backed into a corner.

 

[2020hindsight]

-B-
And is your old fogey kiwi the best you've got
http://www.nrsp.com/people-vincent-gray.html

there are countless youtubes out there (and recent articles) where never before experienced melting of snow etc is being felt right now.

The fact that you could care less about such trends is ..a bit sad
fortunately (if you were saying not to act -
which lol
you insist you are not saying)

then IF you were saying not to act-
then it looks like you would be in the minority or about 10 or 15% whatever

keep stirring - keep reading - you'll catch up

 

[--B--]

-B-
And is your old fogey kiwi the best yuo've got

oh ive got more if you like 2020.

i note with amusement you have failed to address anything in the letter.

Clearly, being a member of the review panel, Dr Gray has adequate knowledge to comment.

there are countless youtubes out there (and recent articles) where never before experienced melting of snow etc is being felt right now.

lol, youtubes are credible evidence now?

The fact that you could care less about such trends is ..a bit sad
fortunately (if you were saying not to act -
which lol
you insiste you are not)

then IF yuo were saying not to act-
then it looks like you would be in the minority or about 10 or 15% whatever

i clarified that earlier 2020. i have no problem with measures to reduce pollution. this isnt because i belive in catastrophic climate change and its not because i believe co2 is evil and deadly.

keep stirring - keep reading - you'll catch up

keep viewing your youtube videos and ill continue reading the opinions and findings of credible scientists.

 

[billhill]

I don't think one scientists view of the IPCC justifies its conclusions being completely discounted. Surely some of the points Dr Gray raises may in fact be true. However in saying that no organisation is completely void of inefficiencies in interpreting data and Dr Grays opinion last i checked was not gospel. Point is If there really wasn't a high risk of a problem caused by our CO2 emmissions then the UN wouldn't be making the current claims and projections that it is. Its really not in their business to create eloborate hoaxes about the climate. And anyone who thinks there is some conspiracy among scientists in support of this 'Hoax' really are crazy.

If this is some propaganda war then why is the side with all the money and political influence (business, particually coal and oil) not getting its so called "logical" point that GW is a myth into the mainstream media. Surely if their was no problem it would be easy to convince the public so.