Can they be so sure?
Howard W. Zoufaly Quite a difference between forecasting short term and global warming. The warming has taken effect, and the experts are not your local forecaster who is hired by tv stations cause they are attractive. And, given the fact that drivers in the metro area are generally idiots who have to learn to drive again every time it snows, there isn't much difference between an inch and a foot of snow, they cause accidents either way. sam18 you are so correct because the idots who forcast gw couldnt predict the weather tomorrow. but then they are safe in saying it will happen 10,20,50 years from now because knowbody will remember what they thought or said. Howard, I know you wish Global Warming was not really happening, but burying you head in the sand and wishing it were so will not make your butt any less sunburned. Do yourself a favor and read about the science behind the modeling and then get back with us. OK Sam18 and Charles B, how about this: The U.N. IPCC has now released the detailed report for Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change. The original draft from several months ago said the following in Chapter 8 (Climate Models and Their Evaluation), Question 8.1: “As a consequence, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (refer Chapter 10), To date it has not been possible to quantify how errors in a model’s simulation of specific climate observations impact on errors in its future climate projections. In the final version that was just released this was changed to the following: “Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). The key phrase eliminated here is “it has not been possible to quantify how errors in a model’s simulation of specific climate observations impact on errors in its future climate projections.” In effect, the original draft said that we can’t quantitatively bound errors in climate forecasts generated by global climate models. Doublegood, the IPCC gives a conservative summary of climate change taken from many different scientific research projects and findings. We have no other method than modeling to do the estimates of climate change and those models are built and run with the best available science and data. Is there some other way that you would prefer this work to be done? Spud, Sam 18 & Charles B I have to admit you guys had me thinking there, but I think I finally got it. Let's see, when an attractive TV weather gal inputs historical and temperature data into a "computer model" and misses the 24 hour weather forcast by 18", you attribute the miss to her looks, not the model. But, put that same data in the hands of an attractive coed who is entering the data into a "computer model", in the behalf of a global warming cheerleader, the output leads to an irrefutable finding about our warming climate, many years into the future. So to answer Spud directly, I don't have an opinion about how this work should be done, but I am well enough informed to know that the science is not settled, and I'm not willing to take your word for it. And you might also want to answer why prominent but skeptical scientists around the world were included in the list of approving scientists when clearly disapprove of the report's findings. And, I'm wondering though why our local weather gals continue to use their "computer models" when the models used by the "scientific" community seem to be so much better and aren't influenced by the appearance of the operator? Doublegood, depending on what you mean by “settled” the answer is either that it has been settled and the dominant and default position of all the science bodies, and reflected by all the scientific journals is now that the surface temperature of this planet is climbing, and that human activity the significant driver. The other answer would be that science is never “settled” if by that you mean that the absolute truth has been uncovered and no further doubts or changes are possible. Now as far as the “TV Weather Gal” vs climate models. The weather Gal tells you what the best guess is at the weather tomorrow based on the information they have, the predictive model, and the time they have to run the model. The climate models run on bigger hardware, with more data, over longer time, and have more brains looking at the models and tuning them than your local weather. There is also room in climatic models to make and check predictions in other fields – like spread of certain fungal strains, die-offs of certain species, changes in crop yields, movement of plant and animal species, and measured changes in ice shelves, deserts, borehole production, changes in temperature sensors, and changes in the radiation being reflected or transmitted by the planet. So when a science body voices the claim that the temperature of the planet has risen, they are typically cross-referencing several (dozens of) studies, checking against several predictive outcomes, and exposing those claims to potential contrary findings. ”… you might also want to answer why prominent but skeptical scientists around the world were included in the list of approving scientists when clearly disapprove of the report's findings “ Without knowing who you are talking about or why they are objecting, I couldn’t say. One objection I do know about refers to several scientists who walked out in protest during the IPCC summit to put on record their disdain for what they said was the dumbing down and the watering down of their findings. As far as I am aware these were without exception because the political members had tried to tone down the findings to appear less alarming. This is also from the IPCC ABOUT page: "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters" In case you missed the part of "relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN -INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE..." (they only look at the information RELEVANT to HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE) and "The IPCC does NOT CARY OUT RESEARCH NOR DOES IT MONITOR CLIMATE RELATED DATA OR OTHER RELEVANT PARAMETERS" I find it very interesting when people use the IPCC as a source for proof of Global Warming (even they stopped saying Global Warming because the data since 1998 doesn't support GLOBAL WARMING), yet the entire reason the IPCC exists is only to look at "HUMAN-INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE" and make socio-economic suggestions to governments. That is not a scientific body at all. It is a political body. Charles B, just who is really burying their head in the sand? Dan, Spud, You and I have discussed this exact issue, it seems, once a week for the last 4 weeks. I think you know who the scientists are that dissented, and I know you are aware that anytime anyone declares that the "debate is over, there is proof of human induced global warming" that is an exaggeration, to say the least, and in most cases is an out right lie. Science is the continual study, using new data, new information, and looking at ALL the information, not just hand selecting the work of a few, and only using models and studies that support the very weak hypotheses of greenhouse gas influence on climate, and not utilizing the information of theories regarding normal weather cycles, the effect of the sun, or any other information that does not support the "greenhouse gas hypothesis." It is all on the IPCC's information page. The IPCC does not conduct it's own experiments, nor does it evaluate the data of any other physical collection of data. It merely relies on the information of past models and input relating 100% to the hypothesis of greenhouse gas causation of climate change. It is 100% a political body, brought together as such, to make recommendations to change energy policy. Nothing more, and nothing less. It is not a scientific body by any means. You may enjoy this link, as there are over 18,000 physical scientists that do not believe the evidence supports human-induced climate change: Dan, The debate is indeed over and a new position has been adopted – that of a global warming driven by human activity. To refuse to believe that this is the new scientific consensus is just perverse. That doesn’t mean that the position is necessarily permanent or even correct - we may yet find it necessary to change the model and get additional information, or reexamine existing data and move to a new position. Like all positions, there are scientists who strongly disagree and data or findings that conflict with the standard position. The IPCC has done exactly what it is meant to do. Since the objective is a consensus report, only those positions that were shared by a majority or all the scientists or groups involved were included. They also reported the least alarming outcomes. There are still other scientists who disagree entirely. So what is your beef? Btw. Your “18,000 scientists” claim is bogus. Go look at what they are signing to. Why on earth you trust this more than the IPCC or AAAS or NAS, heaven alone knows. The NAS, I have a tremendous amount of respect for. The IPCC I do not as they do not research, but compile. The debate really is not over. Maybe within the media, but it is not near over and time will tell what the physical evidence is, compared to the model predictions. I guess my biggest "beef" if you will, is the lack attention that other physical research is given. AAAS, NAS are organizations that are science based, but not climate science based. I would put no more creed into those organizations than I would if the AMA or the Harvard Law Review felt "compelling evidence of human induced climate change" was occurring. Instead, I will continue to subscribe to the International Journal of Climatology, and read from the climate experts and their gathering of physical data. The Oregon Petition, as you know has only had 25 names fall off, and has added over 1500 since it was originally solicited in 1997. I'll take those results anytime. There are 500 peer reviewed papers in the last 3 years that have appeared in the Journal of Climatology, and of those 500,only 7 discuss the role of human induced influence in post little ice age warming. That, to me, is more significant than the limited climatologists that are part of the IPCC, assessing model data. Spud wrote: "Perhaps you would like to offer some names and I can simply call them and ask." How about William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences? According to Gray "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people" Human caused global warming is a mistake at best and hoax at worst. It has been adopted by the IPPC because it works politically for the UN. It is a global problem and the solutions could greatly benefit the UN financially and politically. But global warming is not just happening here on earth. It appears mars, jupiter, and pluto are also experiencing global warming. In addition, it appears the relationship between CO2 and temperature is the inverse of what Al Gore points out in his Inconvenient Truth. It appears the temperatures go up, and then CO2 goes up (up to an 800 year lag). There is an old saying that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. With all the doomsday scenaries we are feed daily by the mainstream press, I would caution, if it sounds too bad to be true, it probably isn't true. and now algore and company are goin gto be investigated for carbon credit fraud as they can not prove or document any thing they are going other than feeling good and telling you how to live your life while they live the way they want. Dan, In that light, can you explain why you find “friendsofscience.org” and OISM to be more authoritative than AAAS or NAS? Given your commitment to scientific practice and rigor, I assume that you have read the petition and thus you understand that given the wording and the very close resemblance in layout to an official NAS paper, many signatories may have been in agreement with the petition but would still agree that CO2 is likely to cause global warming. Without controlling for the phrase ”… catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere…”, and the similarity to an official NAS document, the claim regarding the number of signatories would be problematic. Indeed, the Scientific American staff carried out a small experiment: I assume that you have looked through the Journal of Climatology for references to the paper that formed part of the “Oregon Petition”? Jim, where are you getting the info that other planets in the solar system are heating? Spud wrote: "Perhaps you would like to offer some names and I can simply call them and ask." How about William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences? According to Gray "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people" Indeed KW, Gray thinks that the warming is temporary and unrelated to human activity. As he says, the warming is "likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations" Since he also says that ocean currents are poorly understood, there is obviously some opportunity for research. Consider this, there are equally credentialed climate scientists who disagree with Gray, and who will state equally strongly that GW is caused by human activity. Why do you reject them but agree with Gray? It's good to read the various arguments on either side, but I can't help but get back to a point that should make the disagreement moot. Combatting global warming has nothing but upside. Even if it turns out that it's all a load of crap the side effects from efforts to lessen our impact are mostly positive. Economic activity will be spurred. There really isn't really a long-term downside that I can see. Look at it like Pascal's Wager but with climate change instead of eternal damnation. If you combat global warming and there is none, what have you lost? Charles, the opponents will have lost bragging rights, that's all. I suspect that I know why Dan and KW picked the authorities and reports they did, it's because Al Gore picked the opposite position. I hope I am wrong about this though. ;) The argument isn't over Global Warming it's that Gore says it's caused by people. You know, Soilent Green is people. We just want to hear Gore explain what caused the temperature of Mars to go up one full degree since the 70s. Spud, I wouldn't care if Al Gore or Jesus Christ said Global Warming is occurring. I do the research, evaluate the evidence and make my conclusion. I don't think that people should lie to make a point. It was the presentation of Global Warming that got me to really question if it is indeed occurring, and anytime anyone in reference to scientific evidence says that all the evidence is in and it is conclusive, I question it tremendously. Friends of science is just another source to bring information on other papers that have been published and peer reviewed in one source for easy reference. That is why I will refer to it so frequently. I am not saying they are an authority, but then neither is the IPCC. Dr. Dick Morgan, former adviser to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K., speaking of the IPCC said "Not only do we see cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance." I do understand the Oregon Petition, and like any other petition, statistic, or poll, it can be manipulated to prove a point. I was simply using it to demonstrate the lack of consensus in the scientific community as a direct rebuttal to the claim that "the debate is over..." I would also have to disagree with Charles B's assessment that it is only an upside to make changes. To force people to change leads to resentment and discourse, and upsets the normal balance (economically and socially). A perfect example is the attack on fossil fuels and the increase in fuel prices. It may be coincidence that once the "global warming scare reports" (my quotes) came out, oil went to the futures market, reformulated gasoline was forced upon us by the government, and now, as Mr. Gore wanted, we are seeing $3/gallon gasoline. It may also be interesting to note that the failed attempt to "help our environment by combating smog" (again my quotes) by the forcing of the catalytic converter on the automobile industry to convert carbon monoxide (not a greenhouse gas) to carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) is yet another example of "government forcing of change, for the betterment of society." Yes, it did reduce some smog, but is hurting the whole entire planet (according to human-induced global warming proponents), instead of it being a regional issue. So there really are some drawbacks to changing for the sake of change. Let technology develop a cost efficient alternative energy, not a blend, not solar or wind credits, but allow for nuclear plants to be built, get rid of the "reformulated" gasoline requirements, and for heaven's (and earth's) sake, TAKE OIL OFF THE FUTURES MARKET! The way I view the politicization of this issue is that it is: This is based on my research. I don't subscribe to the "gloom and doom" prognosis of environmentalists and organizations such as Greenpeace and PETA (check out PETA's statement to Gore that he should give up meat). I will personally reduce my gasoline consumption, use packaging that will compost, eat organic, and practice sound conservationalism. Another large downside is that it will cost taxpayers and average of 2-3 thousand dollars more a year to implement Gore's plan. And there is no proof it will even make any difference. Just ask the Martions. Dan2 and similar global warming skeptics: You will be left behind in this argument. There is a mountain of money to be made in alternative energy. Get on the train or not, but believe me, it's leaving the station. Too Stupid to type a name at 8:46am, "You made the rest up too! You say this but what factual basis does it have? Evidence or Shut Up. Charles old boy, are you off your meds again? Dan, What is being said is that the debate as to what the standard or consensus position is, is over. Debate is done, we now have a new standard position. You can like it or lump it, but there it is, a new standard position. The IPCC is a recognized international body made up of member states of the UN and scientists who provide expertise. The “friends of science” is what? The “Oregon Petition” is an example of why it is necessary to undergo training for questionnaire design. It is a bad questionnaire, and guaranteed to introduce systematic bias and a very high false positive reading. I congratulate them on skillful ineptitude, and if this is an example of their scientific skills and attention to eliminating error and bias, then I have a very low expectation that their paper is going to be of much use. The petition results leave them with something superficially pleasing to their cause but which leaves me wondering exactly what the respondents thought they were agreeing to. We have all kinds of protocols built into science to reduce error, we don’t shrug error off as just something to be used as we please. Spud, That's simple Spud. Not only is he not on the payroll, he's acually lost funding because of his stance and is now funding his research with his own money. That's a man I respect. He's also been in the business longer than most any scientist contributing to the concensus yet when he warned about trying to tie hurricanes to warming they laughed. How many hurricanes where there again in 2006? Still, his funding was cut because he dared to disagree. Too many of the concensus scientists have been paid quit handsomly for their research seeking to tie man to global warming. Common sense gives me cause to be skeptical. Ok KW, so to qualify for your esteem, a scientist must go without a salary, fund their own research, and be laughed at by other scientists. Kewlio, let me know how that works out for you. Will you be abstaining from using all the technology that was derived from the work of salaried and mainstream scientists who didn’t fund their own research? Or are you just one of those guys that sneers and mocks but always seems to be there to collect on the benefits? Charles, alternative energy is great and we all will benefit. But the train you speak of is the Global Warming Express. Now you can buy a ticket for that train if you want and ride it as far away as you can, please. We'd actually appreciate it. Just don't come back in a few years when the next cooling scare hits and claim you were a skeptic all along. Toot, toot! Must go? No. But if that's the way other scientists and grant providers treat him it tells me a lot about those people who seek to stifle his dissent. I'll always have more respect for the preacher wearing jeans in a worn out church than the one in a 3 piece suit with a private jet. They both may preach the Word but only one does it soley for the money. It's sad, but most people don't have the vision to actually look outside their own cozy little box. Hence, that is why humans are not one of the smartest species on the planet, but one of the dumbest: we never seem to learn our lesson on such fundamental things. Even the supposedly smartest people (i.e. those with doctorates, etc.) fall into this myopic trap that humans can do no harm. Does global warming exist? Yes, as a number as large as nearly 7 BILLION people will influence everything in both their immediate and global environment. Yet, opponents to global warming cannot envision anything on this scale...it's just the same old rehashing of money and politics. Charles B may have some kooky ideas, but at least they are ones with a vision for future change, instead of ones that simply keep people in the safety of the status quo. Oh and by the way, I love Al Gore's ideas, but not the man: you must practice what you preach. lbyfxj tzlh gcoymjslw uqgm pjalyw lcifbe xlsrm
. . again.
At least the local guys are trained unlike algore who just yells at people, telling them to change their lives but he refused to do so.
Positions, theories, and facts in science are always open to reconsideration. They are always held conditionally and tentatively.
If she was able to wait for more data, pay for a model built for her weather area, have enough processing power, and accumulate several specialists, then she could tell you with very high precision what tomorrow’s weather would be, but she would tell you in three days time.
You also want the information in the form of “X inches of rain in location Y, with wind from P direction at Z knots” and you want that wind further broken down into type, such as gusting, steady, etc. and you want to know when during the day this all happens.
Climate on the other hand details the average precipitation over periods, the seasonal start and end variation, and the number of various types of weather phenomenon over period time. Like how many hurricanes of certain strength over a particular period.
Not at all how the local weather station operates.
Perhaps you would like to offer some names and I can simply call them and ask. I assume that you have contacted them and verified their objections?
I really fail to understand what your objection to the IPCC is.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=5
Indeed we have, and I seem no to closer to understanding why you are up in arms over the IPCC.
This is nothing new, and quite expected.
Sometimes those will gradually or suddenly weaken the standard position, and sometimes topple it and another position with its detractors and problem areas will take over.
It has put together a representation of what the current consensus position is, and what studies or findings led to this. It is also putting together a series recommendations of actions that countries might be able to take.
Hence the objections that many scientists had that they reports are dumbed down and watered down.
This is normal.
This is the same tired old “Oregon Petition” rubbish.
good idea to subscribe to the International Journal of Climatology and I quite understand why you regard this journal as being more appropriate to matters of climate science than Science and the AAAS.” Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petitionone was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community”
Can you say what support further papers have given Robinson on his conclusion that CO2 has no effects on climate?
Also can you say where you get the info that CO2 actually causes cooling, as you have stated?
One prediction that he makes is that we will see global cooling in the next few years.
Ok, so let's watch that.
In the mean time, the consensus position is that it is very likely to be caused by humans.
Alternative energy research will accelerate.
Less dependence on Middle East oil.
The air will be cleaner.
Water will be cleaner.
Cars will be quieter.
Populations will be more sustainable.
Honey Bees will come back in force (ok I made that up).
Charles B.:
Honey Bees will come back in force (ok I made that up).
You made the rest up too!
One could say global warming itself could be beneficial.
Removing the words "combatting" and "efforts to lessen" from your statement is just as valid!
(Combatting )global warming has nothing but upside. Even if it turns out that it's all a load of crap the side effects from (efforts to lessen) our impact are mostly positive.
Economic activity will be spurred.
Alternative energy research will accelerate.
Less dependence on Middle East oil.
The air will be cleaner.
Water will be cleaner.
Cars will be quieter.
Populations will be more sustainable.
Honey Bees will come back in force (ok I made that up).
1. Racist as it directly targets the middle east
2. Anti Energy, the cleanest safest energy is nuclear
3. Anti consumer, as there are no affordable alternatives right now
4. Anti American as the Kyoto Protocol would impact American Industry and the American workforce more than any other nation.
One could say global warming itself could be beneficial.
Removing the words "combatting" and "efforts to lessen" from your statement is just as valid!"
Nobody said that ” all the evidence is in”.
Research continues, evidence still comes in, and research projects will both build on the this new consensus, as well as attempt to break it.
This is “normal science”
I also think that you misunderstand polls and statistics if you think they can simply say what you want. To get the answer you want rather than what the statistics say is bad science and indicates either willful or inept mishandling of data or technique.
Consider this, there are equally credentialed climate scientists who disagree with Gray, and who will state equally strongly that GW is caused by human activity. Why do you reject them but agree with Gray?
Start with the PC you are using, and remember, no transport using internal combustion engines to get you home, ok?
You will be left behind in this argument. There is a mountain of money to be made in alternative energy. Get on the train or not, but believe me, it's leaving the station.
Ok KW, so to qualify for your esteem, a scientist must go without a salary, fund their own research, and be laughed at by other scientists.