What global warming?

[Cornish Steve]

So you know nothing at all about climate. Thanks.

If you'd done research, you'd know that expertise in modeling is just as important as expertise in climate science. What matters are the assumptions under which you operate, matching your model's predictions to reality (and not vice versa), and anchoring your model to real, hard data. As mentioned, there are technical and mathematical issues that must be addressed too. From the details I've read, including some of the leaked code, it's clear the climate researchers diverged from 'reality' a long time ago.

One of the biggest dangers in science is to dream up results you'd like to see and then fit the data to it. I've seen that happen. When modeling, the danger is much extreme because you can avoid inconvenient data. This is what appears to be happening with these climate models.

 

[cjd]

If you'd done research, you'd know that expertise in modeling is just as important as expertise in climate science.

I've been using and building large scale macro-economic and financial models for 30+ years and know all about it thanks. I'm fully aware of what is involved but none of that knowledge gives me (or you) the first clue about the climate or even the modelling behind it for that matter.

The one thing you can say when you have an understanding of how complex computer modelling on this scale works is that unless you've spent 6 months studying the detail of it - you should keep your mouth clamped.

 

[Subbynet]

If you'd done research, you'd know that expertise in modeling is just as important as expertise in climate science. What matters are the assumptions under which you operate, matching your model's predictions to reality (and not vice versa), and anchoring your model to real, hard data. As mentioned, there are technical and mathematical issues that must be addressed too. From the details I've read, including some of the leaked code, it's clear the climate researchers diverged from 'reality' a long time ago.

One of the biggest dangers in science is to dream up results you'd like to see and then fit the data to it. I've seen that happen. When modeling, the danger is much extreme because you can avoid inconvenient data. This is what appears to be happening with these climate models.

Seems a very long way of saying, "I don't know" Steve...

You're just repeating what all proper scientists know... Dreaming up results to fit data is one thing, but the majority in the scientific world are dreaming the same dream? The sheeple blindly follow, while you lead the debate?

Because that's what you're saying right now Steve, that the research is wrong, the models are wrong, the code is wrong, everything is wrong, everyone is being duped.

But you're right... (And you'll point to science conducted in exactly the same way to prove it)

 

[wilfredw]

But you're right... (And you'll point to science conducted in exactly the same way to prove it)

This is what is sometimes called a "circular" argument.

 

[cjd]

In their models, the CRU does not consider the sun's effects. It's been a major criticism from the beginning.

Ben Goldacre (who's one of my heroes and writes the Bad Science blog) calls these arguments 'zombies' because they just won't die regardless of how many times they've been shot down.

They used to drive me mad in the evolution debate. Someone would quote a 'fact' like there are no 'intermediate fossils' and you know that they are quoting from something someone said in the 1860s and has been regurgitated ever since on ignoramus websites - the 'fact' has been disproved over and over again to the extent that saying it is actually a lie but it doesn't stop them.

I know sod all about climate, but I can smell a zombie when it surfaces. The idea that the climate change science just forgot about sun activity is total crap.

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7327393.stm

 

[Cornish Steve]

Ben Goldacre (who's one of my heroes and writes the Bad Science blog) calls these arguments 'zombies' because they just won't die regardless of how many times they've been shot down.

I've mentioned before that temperature changes on other planets and moons in our solar system match temperature changes on earth, which clearly implies the influence of the sun. We ignore such factors at our peril. How much credibility do you give climate scientists predicting conditions 50 years hence when they can't forecast with accuracy the weather for next weekend? Clearly, many many factors influence our climate, not just the cherries picked by research teams with an agenda.

Seems a very long way of saying, "I don't know" Steve...

I'm not a climate scientist, but I do have a PhD awarded for modeling complex physical systems, and I've worked with people who model systems in other areas of science (including climate forecasters). Let me repeat: How you go about modeling is often more important that the actual subject matter. You can choose to ignore that statement if you wish, but I'm claiming the credentials to justify my statement. I'm also claiming that much of the most publicised work in climate science, especially that co-opted by the IPCC, is in serious question. Researchers around the world need to act quickly to replicate the results, modify models so they can explain historical and current data, and bring back to science a modicum of neutrality and integrity.

Because that's what you're saying right now Steve, that the research is wrong, the models are wrong, the code is wrong, everything is wrong, everyone is being duped.

I am questioning the integrity of the work done, the believability of models that produce hockey-sticks no matter what input data is entered, and the suppression of opposing views. I'm also questioning why politicians, many without a passing science grade in university between them, are extended credibility on the topic. I'm also wondering why some of the most damning emails from CRU are not being publicised (such as the one in which the current head of the CRU jokes about his predecessor "making things up"). I'm also asking why the leaked code contains a matrix called 'fudge factor' that, surprise!, is a hockey-stick. I'm also amazed that our PM can label dissenting scientists "flat earthers" when he has no credibility on the topic. Such an environment is reminiscent of religious or ideological bigotry and suppression. In many respects, AGW has become a world religion:"Believe but don't dare question!"

In general, I'm pulling out of this discussion, as I have previous discussions, because comments are becoming personal instead of factual - often a sign that there's nothing much left to discuss.

 

[gessoandgold]

If the science says that the climate will warm by x degrees and as a result y is likely to happen within an z% probablity, that's their job done. That work is agreed scientifically by the peer review process and it's not something joe blogs the butcher can have an opinion on that matters.

But that's not what's happening here - people ignorant of the science say they know better about it than the world's experts - and that is total bullsh1t.

Peer review and test processes don't work because they are based on biased theory. We've seen disasters in many areas from governments trusting experts and their so helpful peers groups.

From witch hunting to thalidomide, from military idiocies to world economic disasters, centuries of history clearly demonstrate that allowing the narrow minded 'we experts know what we're talking about' stuff invites heavy costs, chaos and misery.

If seven thousand qualified butchers assured you that a green steak was well hung and perfectly safe to eat, surely if it tasted bad you wouldn't go ahead and chow down - because the experts said it was okay? I can remember when smoking was highly recommended by medical experts to relax people. Now the exact same area of experts are demonising smokers.

Trusting experts without thinking is a very careless stance. We can all think, and we all should. Experts need to consider all other viewpoints and stop being self important and arrogant. Until they do they are not at all trustworthy, and waaaayyyyyy too expensive.

My opinion is perfectly valid and the population should certainly not be taught that thinking against fashion is wrong. Unless, of course, a nation of sheep seems like a good idea to you.

 

[cjd]

I've mentioned before that temperature changes on other planets and moons in our solar system match temperature changes on earth, which clearly implies the influence of the sun. We ignore such factors at our peril.

This is just another zombie.

Not all planets are warming - some are cooling. Of those that are warming, the reasons are largely known and are phenomenon unique to each planet.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

Let me repeat: How you go about modeling is often more important that the actual subject matter.

As statements of the bleeding obvious go, that's a fair example. You still know absolutely squat about either the model or climate - you're as ignorant as the rest of us and get your information third hand from the media.

 

[cjd]

Just for fun, we're going to be told today from Copenhagen that the increasing CO2 is acidifying the oceans which could be a least as big a threat to us as warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411135.stm

Now wait for the denial.

 

[casado]

Just for fun, we're going to be told today from Copenhagen that the increasing CO2 is acidifying the oceans which could be a least as big a threat to us as warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8411135.stm

Now wait for the denial.

Just for fun. Could you explain us, with your own words (not a link to the wikipedia) what it means?
In other words, do you know anything about anything? except of course, repeating the message of your leader in a fashion very similar to what the Hitler Youth would do? Does it mean that we should stop having fizzy drinks, cava, etc. because of the acidity of the liquid given the enormous concentration of CO2 dissolved in those drinks? I am curious about what your "settled science" says about it since we are getting closer to Christmas and many people may be in danger of poisoning themselves.
Please, go around saying that people shouldn't drink coca cola, and save their lives.
A clown couldn't do a better job than you.

 

[Subbynet]

In general, I'm pulling out of this discussion, as I have previous discussions, because comments are becoming personal instead of factual - often a sign that there's nothing much left to discuss.

Personal?

Obviously its become personal Steve - you've stated that your (limited) experience of modeling allows you to comment on this thread, and in turn you basically gave two fingers up to anyone else by saying your too stupid to understand.

How dare they speak, they don't have a "I'm-a-uber-modelling-geek-come-super-mathematician" degrees which I have.... (Not a climate scientist tho are you?)

Your not pulling out because of personal attacks Steve, you're harder than that and put your views forward for alot of discussions, so I don't believe you're that much of a whimp, what I believe is you've exhausted your argument, and that the only place to take it next is to produce the evidence to back it up.

What happened to the smoking gun? I thought it was contained in those emails...

 

[cjd]

A clown couldn't do a better job than you.

Hello, you're back (and you got a Hitler reference in too, bloody well done). Good to see that some of my predictions are accurate

 

[Subbynet]

Just for fun. Could you explain us, with your own words (not a link to the wikipedia) what it means?
In other words, do you know anything about anything? except of course, repeating the message of your leader in a fashion very similar to what the Hitler Youth would do? Does it mean that we should stop having fizzy drinks, cava, etc. because of the acidity of the liquid given the enormous concentration of CO2 dissolved in those drinks? I am curious about what your "settled science" says about it since we are getting closer to Christmas and many people may be in danger of poisoning themselves.
Please, go around saying that people shouldn't drink coca cola, and save their lives.
A clown couldn't do a better job than you.

It means some plant life will find it harder to grow in the seas, likewise corals may die, and corals support a large part of the eco-system. The loss of these corals may have a huge effect on other animals, and ultimately us.

Sorry for giving a serious answer to a stupid question. :redface:

 

[casado]

Hello, you're back (and you got a Hitler reference in too, bloody well done). Good to see that some of my predictions are accurate

Yes, but do you know what your are talking about or not?
I got tired of waiting for your references to peer reviewed scientific papers where we can read what the science denials like your are claiming to be the undisputed scientific fact. May be because you can't tell the difference between a scientific publication and the BBC website. I can give you hint, all scientific magazines are on-line.
I am also waiting to read from you what "temperature" mean, in your own words, no links allowed. And, in this latest case, what acidity mean as well.

You use to many words to say what many people have said too many times in the history of humankind, that we should refrain from asking questions and that we should blindly follow the leader. You will forgive me if this leave that habit for morons like you.

 

[Subbynet]

I am also waiting to read from you what "temperature" mean, in your own words, no links allowed. And, in this latest case, what acidity mean as well.

Its no wonder this discussion goes around in circles, now you have to state the exact meaning of every word you've used - because some morons can't look it up in a dictionary!

 

[cjd]

I got tired of waiting for your references to peer reviewed scientific papers where we can read what the science denials like your are claiming to be the undisputed scientific fact.

It's really odd, I hardly ever get tired of repeating myself with you. Here ya go - again:

I know you're not actually interested, but just to stop you wining, Chapter 9 of the IPCC paper "The Physical Science Basis" is "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" and it discusses the science.

You'll find the Executive Summary for human induced warming on page 665

There you will also find a summary of the science plus all the original scientific papers you could ever hope for underpinning it.

The references are on page 733 to 743 - 10 pages of them in double columns. Mostly in English I'm afraid.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ence_basis.htm

Like, I say, you won't read any of it. And you'll ask me again in 2 weeks time.

 

[casado]

It's really odd, I hardly ever get tired of repeating myself with you. Here ya go - again:

Like, I say, you won't read any of it. And you'll ask me again in 2 weeks time.

Sorry cjd, yo failed in the basic. The IPCC report is not a scientific paper, has not been published in a scientific magazine, and least of all has not been peer reviewed. Again, giving an example of our twisted dishonesty. Please, answer the question that I ask instead of repeating your leaders slogans.

 

[casado]

Its no wonder this discussion goes around in circles, now you have to state the exact meaning of every word you've used - because some morons can't look it up in a dictionary!

No, a dictionary is not a science text book. So, looking up the meaning of the word "temperature" in a dictionary will not help as it will only give a hint to understand the meaning of the word in common speech. Giving a scientific meaningful definition of "temperature" implies to tell us, for instance, what a thermometer is, how it works and why, what information can we extract from the thermometer reading, etc.

There is a saying in the land where I was born that goes more or less like "tell me what you are boasting about and I will tell you what your shortcomings are", that applied to this particular discussion would help to see that those who boast that the they have the support of science are the ones who haven't got the faintest idea about science, even of its basics. BTW, you can apply this to every aspect of life: those who boast a great to be successful with women never get laid, those who boast a great love for freedom invade countries and bomb the civilian population into submission, those who boast fairness fill the government and public positions with cronies, those who claim to be caring and loving love no one but themselves. And if I am allowed to quote a religious sentence, not being I a religious person, "By their fruit you will recognize them"

 

[cjd]

Sorry cjd, yo failed in the basic. The IPCC report is not a scientific paper, has not been published in a scientific magazine, and least of all has not been peer reviewed. Again, giving an example of our twisted dishonesty. Please, answer the question that I ask instead of repeating your leaders slogans.

You see, you didn't even look at, let alone even read what I'd written, so I'll try again in bold - just read the bold bit if your attention span is in overflow. (Long shot I know)

I know you're not actually interested, but just to stop you wining, Chapter 9 of the IPCC paper "The Physical Science Basis" is "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" and it discusses the science.

You'll find the Executive Summary for human induced warming on page 665

There you will also find a summary of the science plus all the original scientific papers you could ever hope for underpinning it.

The references are on page 733 to 743 - 10 pages of them in double columns. Mostly in English I'm afraid.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ence_basis.htm

 

[casado]

You see, you didn't even look at, let alone even read what I'd written, so I'll try again in bold - just read the bold bit if your attention span is in overflow. (Long shot I know)

And again, I have the repeat the question, could you point out in THOSE papers where it says what you claim as scientific settled truth?
Where is cjd debating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7pvaWLIkig

 

[casado]

Here you have a "Top" climate change scientist answering questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FEm5VwrgQY

Please mind in particular when she says "I am listening to what you are saying but I only hear what I want to".

 

[cjd]

And again, I have the repeat the question, could you point out in THOSE papers where it says what you claim as scientific settled truth?

Haha. Oh dear, I fear there is no hope.

 

[casado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrdSRDVlQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6C0cMq3RU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkSmdaLkd60&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSwErKWQs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efxToyX5cPw&feature=related


So long, scientific consensus. Not recommended for morons, who wouldn't have the attention span to watch it anyway.

 

[casado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
A Taliban not listening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQimtPoKb_8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Ryek7rHk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWALQmCnr3I&feature=related

 

[casado]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLvSHAV2FpA

 

[dagr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD6VBLlWmCI&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZS2eIRkcR0&NR=1&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2XALmrq3ro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrdSRDVlQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6C0cMq3RU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkSmdaLkd60&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSwErKWQs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efxToyX5cPw&feature=related


So long, scientific consensus. Not recommended for morons, who wouldn't have the attention span to watch it anyway.

I checked 4 of the scientists in the video clips. (Then I got bored). They all work for, or have worked for, privately-funded Institutes that are at least partially funded by oil/fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, if not actually set up by them. One who didn't work for such an Institute, the Danish guy with the unpronounceable name, actually is against the "Swindle" video that the anti-GW lobbyists are trying to tout as a balanced view to the "Inconvenient Truth" video, so I'm a bit confused by that.

I would like to see their peer-reviewed scientific papers - not the pseudo, non-peer reviewed paper pushed by Seitz that was disowned by the National Academy. A YouTube clip is not a scientific reference, by the way, but I guess you knew that.

Signed, a true sceptic.

 

[casado]

I checked 4 of the scientists in the video clips. (Then I got bored). They all work for, or have worked for, privately-funded Institutes that are at least partially funded by oil/fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, if not actually set up by them. One who didn't work for such an Institute, the Danish guy with the unpronounceable name, actually is against the "Swindle" video that the anti-GW lobbyists are trying to tout as a balanced view to the "Inconvenient Truth" video, so I'm a bit confused by that.

I would like to see their peer-reviewed scientific papers - not the pseudo, non-peer reviewed paper pushed by Seitz that was disowned by the National Academy. A YouTube clip is not a scientific reference, by the way, but I guess you knew that.

Signed, a true sceptic.

Of course, you got tired, if so tiresome to hear heretics talking!
By the way, I would suggest you watch the video where Al Gore admits before congress that he is a shareholder of a company set up to benefit from the carbon trade scheme, that goes a long way to talk about vested interests.

As for peer reviewed articles that you prefer to read, have you read any? please send the link to the article, NOT A REFERENCE in a IPCC report and we will discuss it.

I will also suggest that you watch the video where the email exchange between a BBC reporter and a activist are discussed and then come back to me on the BBC impartiality, and my over 100 pounds a year contribution to finance government propaganda.

 

[dagr]

Of course, you got tired, if so tiresome to hear heretics talking!
...

I got bored (not "tired") finding out that each of the scientists is working for an organisation with a conflict of interest, and that they mainly talked of the terrible conspiracy that is GW, etc., etc. Hardly science.

I'm not interested in seeing who's got the worst conflict of interest, just the underpinning science. Al Gore does nothing for me. Same with anyone or anything populist, no matter what side it's on.

 

[Greg.M]

Statistically there have been changes in global temperature throughout the ages. We've just come out of a mini iceage!!

I think there is nothing humans can do to the whether. Just another excuse for taxing us heavily

Sorry I know this is a quote from a long time ago and I don't mean to seem as if I'm shooting you down but technically as long as we still have polar ice caps then we are still in an ice age. If I am wrong I'm sorry and look forward to being told otherwise

Greg

 

[casado]

Sorry I know this is a quote from a long time ago and I don't mean to seem as if I'm shooting you down but technically as long as we still have polar ice caps then we are still in an ice age. If I am wrong I'm sorry and look forward to being told otherwise

Greg

No. Ice ages are periods of particular low temperature in the Earth climate, nothing else. If to be out of an ice age the polar caps need to melt then the Earth has been in a continue ice age at least for the time we have records, since the most important records come from ice of the different periods.

Yesterday I caught a chapter of a series of programs, I don't remember if it was in ITV or Channel 4, about the effects on humans of past climate changes (obviously not man made), how the Black sea was formed at the end of the last ice age, how the desertification of norther Africa, once a rich savanna, indirectly contributed to the creation of the Egyptian civilization, etc. There are more chapters to come apparently see if I don't miss them. The bottom line is that, in human history, and even during the history of human civilization, we have experienced very dramatic climate changes, not the least the las ice age, since it looks clear by know that the first agricultural societies already existed, at least on the lands that are now at the bottom of the Black sea. Curiously, humans and human civilization not only survived but also advanced during those periods.

Even if we were to believe the scaremongering predictions of the IPCC, as they stand today, we would experience an average temperature rise of 2C, and a sea level rise of 30cm in 100 years, that is nothing compared with has happened in the recent pass (Little Ice Age in the Medieval Warm Period) let alone the dramatic changes at the end of the last major Ice Age.

 

[casado]

I got bored (not "tired") finding out that each of the scientists is working for an organisation with a conflict of interest, and that they mainly talked of the terrible conspiracy that is GW, etc., etc. Hardly science.

I'm not interested in seeing who's got the worst conflict of interest, just the underpinning science. Al Gore does nothing for me. Same with anyone or anything populist, no matter what side it's on.

You seem to change your tune every time you respond. First it was that you only relied on peer reviewed papers. So, you mean to say that , just as an example, the temperature in the troposphere doesn't agree with the models that predict a catastrophic global warming have not been published in that manner?

Who specifically accuse of dishonesty? please name of the individual person and name of the company, it is not enough to give just one name to disqualify all of them. Please mind you that it is not at all clear that oil companies would loose with this schema, I don't think that Gordon Brown would be willing to jeopardize the future of BP on which 10% of pension funds rely. On the contrary, many other large corporations are posed to gain, like EDF that has been building nuclear power stations in Europe and is set to build the new ones in the UK, Vestas the biggest wind electricity generator in the world and many others. Not to mention financial institutions which will be more than happy to trade carbon emission swaps and futures.

In any case, you say you are a true skeptic, then you don't believe in things until they are evident to you, so we must assume that you don't believe there is man made global warming, or are you a believing skeptic?

The point of those two documentaries was to illustrate the falsehood that there is such a thing as a scientific consensus. There you have really top scientists in their fields, those who earn their credentials before the climate change craze, explaining their observations and their results that contradict the government/media supported climate change scare. So, the point has been well established, as it has been before the US congress.

So, I hope now that no other idiot will come with the argument that there is a scientific consensus or that the science on this issue is settled.

I am still waiting for you to post a link to one of those peer reviewed scientific papers that you trust so we can discuss it here.

 

[dagr]

Casado, quick - breathe...........

There, that's better. (I don't why, Casado, but I get the distinct impression you want to read what you want to read in others' posts).

The first scientists listed in your video clips (Seitz, Legates, Baliunas,...) are not a group of independent scientists, but are all part of a group of organizations, like the Marshall Institute, funded by by parties with an interest in rubbishing GW. Does that make them dishonest? Not necessarily, but it does mean their motives need further analysing, just like the pro-lobby. Others may be independent - I haven't been through all the clips.

In terms of consensus, I don't know the numbers of genuine, relevant scientists within the GW "for" and "against" camps, but if it is very lopsided, then I don't think it's wrong to call it a consensus. Does anyone have the numbers?

To come back to the core topic, from my own admittedly very limited reading on the subject, I understand there are many factors which contribute to global warming, but the two main factors are insolation (energy from the Sun received by Earth) and greenhouse gases, like CO2 and methane. (Note that I said "contribute" and not "cause". Nuance.). Even so, these factors cannot be isolated and analysed independently to form a final conclusion without taking into account the other lesser parameters - a mistake made by many (on both sides, but especially the anti-GW lot) in trying to come up with a snappy, populist, unscientific "see, told you!" type argument. I wont dwell too long on the laughable "spot evidence" rubbish like "They say 2005 was the hottest year ever, but that same year Mt Kenya or wherever had a 50-year cold spell!", or "Here's a baby polar bear floating on an unusually small piece of ice".

The three big science questions are, i) What are the near-future (next 100 years) climate dynamics given the current and estimated near-future data, and ii) What effect will this climate change actually have, and when, and iii) What can we do about it?

When I have read a bit more, I'll let you all know. ;-)

 

[cjd]

Does anyone have the numbers?

Yup.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes. [/quote]

But of course a few non-experts here know better ;-)

 

[casado]

Casado, quick - breathe...........

There, that's better. (I don't why, Casado, but I get the distinct impression you want to read what you want to read in others' posts).

The first scientists listed in your video clips (Seitz, Legates, Baliunas,...) are not a group of independent scientists, but are all part of a group of organizations, like the Marshall Institute, funded by by parties with an interest in rubbishing GW. Does that make them dishonest? Not necessarily, but it does mean their motives need further analysing, just like the pro-lobby. Others may be independent - I haven't been through all the clips.

In terms of consensus, I don't know the numbers of genuine, relevant scientists within the GW "for" and "against" camps, but if it is very lopsided, then I don't think it's wrong to call it a consensus. Does anyone have the numbers?

To come back to the core topic, from my own admittedly very limited reading on the subject, I understand there are many factors which contribute to global warming, but the two main factors are insolation (energy from the Sun received by Earth) and greenhouse gases, like CO2 and methane. (Note that I said "contribute" and not "cause". Nuance.). Even so, these factors cannot be isolated and analysed independently to form a final conclusion without taking into account the other lesser parameters - a mistake made by many (on both sides, but especially the anti-GW lot) in trying to come up with a snappy, populist, unscientific "see, told you!" type argument. I wont dwell too long on the laughable "spot evidence" rubbish like "They say 2005 was the hottest year ever, but that same year Mt Kenya or wherever had a 50-year cold spell!", or "Here's a baby polar bear floating on an unusually small piece of ice".

The three big science questions are, i) What are the near-future (next 100 years) climate dynamics given the current and estimated near-future data, and ii) What effect will this climate change actually have, and when, and iii) What can we do about it?

When I have read a bit more, I'll let you all know. ;-)

You need to read the dictionary first, because consensus is NOT THE SAME thing as MAJORITY. Consensus means that there is not disputed. Therefore, as long as it is disputed by peers, at least one, there is no consensus, and there has never been any scientific result which validity was established counting heads. So, it has been shown that there is no consensus, and therefore the existence of a consensus can not be used as an argument. That was my whole point in posting those documentaries.

As for bias, and organizations, and therefore doubts about their opinions, that should be applied first the CRU, that according to Lord Lawson (you could have see it in one of the documentaries) was created my Margaret Thatcher to prove that humans were causing GW. May be Lord Lawson should know it because he was in the government at the time, unless we have to assume that he is making it up. And since the publications of the emails I don't think there should be any question about the bias of that "side" of the argument.

I do have an opinion, but I refrain from discussing any more about my reasons for it, since cjd always replies with links, so I do the same, I reply with links. There is no point to argue with people who do not have the basics to hold the argument. But jet, you mentioned peer review papers, and I challenged you to show us one, why? As I said I have published about a dozen peer reviewed articles in the most reputable publications on my field or research, some of them I being the only author. Check my name in the Nuclear Physics 1998, for instance. So, I know about those things, what what they will tell you is IF then THIS. Meaning, if the model is correct, then it will happen this and that. But you have an open question, is the model correct? They would never say categorically "this will happen", because that would cease to be science. So, it would be interesting that you have put here a link to one of those peer reviewed articles.

So, since the lay persons don't know, can't know, there is no way the lay person can take a decision on the issue. The same way most people ignore if we are really under the threat of a virus pandemic that will kill us all. Therefore, this media hype is all propaganda, in a very Stalinist style by the way. Not only the statement that all "top" scientists agree with the predictions of the GW scare, and that they do not show any other view, is that they don't even show scientists who support the official position. The most you get on the news is environmentalist reporters or activists, who are not scientists, or one of a small group of 'may-be' scientists (a weather forecaster is not necessarily a scientist is a technician, doesn't create original results), always the same ones.

 

[casado]

Yup.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

But of course a few non-experts here know better ;-)[/quote]

Thank God that I am no expert but you are a better expert than those showed in the documentaries I posted, some of then reporting on the work they did as MEMBERS OF THE IPCC.
Of course, the best of all experts are the editors of the wikipedia, and above all you, you jump from the argument of the peer reviewed articles, of which you have never read any, you do not even know how they look like, to the political statements of different organizations. And is all because you are skeptical like an Iman who says he is skeptical about Islam.

We can freeze to death and idiots like you would still claim "the experts say...". We have 11 years in a row that where the predictions of the model got it wrong, against 28 years it got it right. Only Faith can prevent from throwing the model where it belongs, in the rubbish bin.

 

[casado]

There are 2 issues here, and often they are blured into one

1. what is the natural cycle of the planet? We know that we have had ice ages, we can see where the glaciers were, by looking at the mountains. We know that volcano's erupt and totally change a region, and spew milloins of tonnes of poloutants into the sky. We know about the carbon cycle, that the coal we burn now was forrests. etc..

2. what impact does manking have on the planet, and does it make any difference anyway

Questions
We measure things on a timescale of 100's of years, why not tens of thousands of years?

If the UK was basically glaciated once, why are we surprised about polar icecap melting

Well, that is another issue. When I was at university I was thought that to study climate the minimum time unit used was a 30 years, a human generation more or less. Using time intervals smaller than that, according to the academic consensus at the time (not scientific consensus, since this refers to method not to results). It wouldn't make sense to study the climate in time intervals smaller than that for very good reasons. Since the creation of the CRU, created with the purpose to convince the public opinion and the politicians that humans were responsible for climate change, 30 years was not a practical scale, they would have to wait at least 60 years before they could make the argument.

In the documentaries that I liked here you can hear people comment (real experts, and real scientist) that the relation between CO2 concentrations and temperature has been observed to be the opposite that CO2 concentration increases lag about 800 years behind temperature increases, as showed by data obtained from ice sheet samples. They didn't say this, but it could be implied that CO2 increases seen today could be due to the Medieval Warm Period that happened some 800 to 900 years ago. But the important thing is not that some experts said so, the important thing is that the logic behind the argument is very compelling. If one wants to warm the oceans to the point that CO2 trapped mainly at considerable depths, it will take about that time. If you put a pan full of water on a hob that may be at 200C, how long does it take for the water to reach 100C?, so, how long would it take for a 2C increase of temperature to be felt several Km under water?

The smoking gun of this hoax is the attempt to deceive lay people, who do not have a grasp of the orders of magnitudes involved in a problem, by applying a human scale dimension (a year) to geological dimensions, thousands of years. One day, using the same trick some environmentalist will came along to say that by sending space crafts to Mars we are altering the orbits of the planets. Wait and see.

 

[cjd]

Hey, you managed to sneak Stalin in. A master. Well done again.

 

[cjd]

Thank God that I am no expert

Which bit of this do you disagree with, non-expert?

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

 

[cjd]

What the science says...

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organisations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is response rates compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively published research on climate change responded yes.

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.​

As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A survey of peer reviewed research

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus

That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here...

 

Anyone got any cheap global warming.

Its bleeding freezing down here.

Kents the Coldest part of the country.

Earl