GLOBAL WARMING

[Guest alex]

Scientist reports outcome of experiments show 90% liklihood of Global Warming being man made - The sceptics dismiss it.

 

Scientist reports we can't be 100% about it - The sceptics are all over it.

 

 

Most of us see that both reports are factual.

 

Scientist have been wrong about almost everything since day one.

 

Aye, we know.

 

That rocket never got anyone to the moon. It was a Roger Corman production.

 

 

The rocket was built by Germans during wartime. Litte to do with science more to do with survival.

No it wasn't. It was built by German rocket scientists after the war. It took them a long time to perfect it and it was borne out of the Cold War Space Race.

 

Whatever

[Park Life 71]

Top climate change adviser calls for honesty from scientists in global warming debate

 

 

John Beddington

 

Professor John Beddington: Scientists should be more open about uncertainty

 

Scientists must be more 'honest and open' about the uncertainties of global warming, the Government's chief scientific adviser declared yesterday.

 

Professor John Beddington said climate researchers should be less hostile to sceptics who question their predictions.

 

But he added that the underlying physics of climate change - that carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels warms the planet - was 'unchallengeable'.

 

Professor Beddington's comments follow a series of blunders by climate scientists.

 

Last week, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming most of the Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years.

 

The warning, which appeared in the IPCC's 2007 report, turned out to be taken from a news story from New Scientist magazine in the late 1990s based on an interview with a glacier expert. The expert later admitted his comment was speculation.

 

The same report also exaggerated claims that global warming will increase the number of tropical storms.

In November, leaked emails appeared to show scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulating data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change - and debating ways to stop sceptics getting hold of their raw temperature data.

 

Professor Beddington said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

 

'I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,' he said.

Climate researchers should be less hostile to sceptics who question their predictions

 

Glaciers: Claims they will melt by 2035 were not backed up, the UN said

 

'Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.'

 

He said that the false claim about glaciers in the IPCC report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

 

'Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,' he added.

 

'We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism.

 

'All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, "There's a level of uncertainty about that".'

 

Professor Beddington also said that computer climate modelling resulted in 'quite substantial uncertainties' that should be communicated.

'It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,' he told the Times.

 

'But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change. When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties.

 

'On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.'

 

The UN is under increasing pressure to reform the IPCC - and include research from sceptical scientists in its reports.

 

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation thinktank, said of Professor Beddington's remarks: 'His public rebuke is a highly significant development which we hope will help to restore some much needed balance and realism to the climate debate.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0e0wGpZDQ

 

 

Is the tide turning??

Edited January 29, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

...

 

You got Axeman on ignore?

[Happy Face 29]

A new message said to be from al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden has blamed global warming on the US and other big industrial nations.

 

The audio tape, broadcast on al-Jazeera TV, urges a boycott of the US dollar "to free humankind from slavery".

 

"All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming," the latest tape says.

 

"This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that."

 

"Bush the son, and the [uS] Congress before him, rejected this agreement only to satisfy the big companies."

 

"I know that there would be huge repercussions for that, but this would be the only way to free humankind from slavery... to America and its companies."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8487030.stm

[Park Life 71]

 

a) It's not from BL he's dead. And It's bollocks.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not sure the tide is turning Parky but from a technical point of view i've always had my concerns about the science of predicting changes in climate and attributing cause to individual factors.

 

This is really technical but here it is anyway .... i'd like to understand the second order uncertainty in the climate change modelling. First order uncertainty refers to the use of averages or means for model inputs (an average is not a value you will see every time you measure it). Second order refers to the parametric assumptions associated with the mean inputs (is it a gamma, beta, normal statistic etc). A model used to predict climate change suffers from both types of uncertainty (as all models do) in a much more extreme way than modelling other types of data.

 

There are two philosophies in statistics, Frequentist and Bayesian. Using a frequentist approach to model the impact of changes in the current environment on the future climate, requires countless 'counter-factual' assumptions. True 'cause and effect' science requires proper experiments (removal of confounding data), which are not possible in climate change modelling. Therefore, each assumption introduces large first order and potentially limitless second order uncertainty. The Bayesian approach allows the 'prior beliefs' of the modellers to be incorporated into the predictive programmes. In the case of climate change, it could be more powerful but also more dangerous.

 

I wouldnt accept any opinion from anyone on climate change modelling unless they could tell me about the uncertainty orders of the models used and explain the impact on the conclusions of the methods used to characterise this 'second order uncertainty'. I'm a bit of a climate change sceptic since i can see how the best models can be utter garbage if the inputs are uncertain. This is certainly the case when we dont know what would have happened to the variables we are looking at without human intervention on the planet.

 

This is a debate about prediction imo, so if you want an example of how bad modellers are at predicting things, look no further than the banking sector. The one thing i take away from my own work is the massive gap in understanding between those who produce models and those who base their decisions on them. I'm not saying they are wrong (Happy Face reckons its 90% certain) but the devil is in the detail.

[Park Life 71]

I'm not sure the tide is turning Parky but from a technical point of view i've always had my concerns about the science of predicting changes in climate and attributing cause to individual factors.

 

This is really technical but here it is anyway .... i'd like to understand the second order uncertainty in the climate change modelling. First order uncertainty refers to the use of averages or means for model inputs (an average is not a value you will see every time you measure it). Second order refers to the parametric assumptions associated with the mean inputs (is it a gamma, beta, normal statistic etc). A model used to predict climate change suffers from both types of uncertainty (as all models do) in a much more extreme way than modelling other types of data.

 

There are two philosophies in statistics, Frequentist and Bayesian. Using a frequentist approach to model the impact of changes in the current environment on the future climate, requires countless 'counter-factual' assumptions. True 'cause and effect' science requires proper experiments (removal of confounding data), which are not possible in climate change modelling. Therefore, each assumption introduces large first order and potentially limitless second order uncertainty. The Bayesian approach allows the 'prior beliefs' of the modellers to be incorporated into the predictive programmes. In the case of climate change, it could be more powerful but also more dangerous.

 

I wouldnt accept any opinion from anyone on climate change modelling unless they could tell me about the uncertainty orders of the models used and explain the impact on the conclusions of the methods used to characterise this 'second order uncertainty'. I'm a bit of a climate change sceptic since i can see how the best models can be utter garbage if the inputs are uncertain. This is certainly the case when we dont know what would have happened to the variables we are looking at without human intervention on the planet.

 

This is a debate about prediction imo, so if you want an example of how bad modellers are at predicting things, look no further than the banking sector. The one thing i take away from my own work is the massive gap in understanding between those who produce models and those who base their decisions on them. I'm not saying they are wrong (Happy Face reckons its 90% certain) but the devil is in the detail.

 

Good post, I learnt someting there.

 

I would also argue climate change modelling is not only politically driven (green taxes etc/ replacement boom ((cars, boilers, ind equip)), but also it is clear a boon to that particular field of science/climatology and itenarant profit avenues. It's not just a simple thing about grants and whatnot, but climate change has become a clarion call around which all manner of vultures have been settling. Soros reckons it might be the replacement for the capitalist engine (America), which is for now unfixable. A belief system that in recent history has built profit from surplus and waste (as givens to limit supply and therefore create profit), climate change the mad ideologies around it must seem like a new playground to make a quick buck. Rarely do Govt hamstring industry with legislation unless there is some bigger bonus in the wings.

[tooner 243]

I'm not sure the tide is turning Parky but from a technical point of view i've always had my concerns about the science of predicting changes in climate and attributing cause to individual factors.

 

This is really technical but here it is anyway .... i'd like to understand the second order uncertainty in the climate change modelling. First order uncertainty refers to the use of averages or means for model inputs (an average is not a value you will see every time you measure it). Second order refers to the parametric assumptions associated with the mean inputs (is it a gamma, beta, normal statistic etc). A model used to predict climate change suffers from both types of uncertainty (as all models do) in a much more extreme way than modelling other types of data.

 

There are two philosophies in statistics, Frequentist and Bayesian. Using a frequentist approach to model the impact of changes in the current environment on the future climate, requires countless 'counter-factual' assumptions. True 'cause and effect' science requires proper experiments (removal of confounding data), which are not possible in climate change modelling. Therefore, each assumption introduces large first order and potentially limitless second order uncertainty. The Bayesian approach allows the 'prior beliefs' of the modellers to be incorporated into the predictive programmes. In the case of climate change, it could be more powerful but also more dangerous.

 

I wouldnt accept any opinion from anyone on climate change modelling unless they could tell me about the uncertainty orders of the models used and explain the impact on the conclusions of the methods used to characterise this 'second order uncertainty'. I'm a bit of a climate change sceptic since i can see how the best models can be utter garbage if the inputs are uncertain. This is certainly the case when we dont know what would have happened to the variables we are looking at without human intervention on the planet.

 

This is a debate about prediction imo, so if you want an example of how bad modellers are at predicting things, look no further than the banking sector. The one thing i take away from my own work is the massive gap in understanding between those who produce models and those who base their decisions on them. I'm not saying they are wrong (Happy Face reckons its 90% certain) but the devil is in the detail.

 

 

good post CG, and i agree that there is a ton of speculation on the part of those developing the models which are predicting the future. first lesson in programming (and only one) was garbage in = garbage out.

I had a post in this thread earlier regarding the research in the canadian arctic which found a lake that hadn't been scoured by glacial processes and therefore allowed a peek into the past that went 10 times further into the past, about 200,000 years and they found that patterns showed indeed the earth left alone from human intervention would be currently in a cooling trend.

what do you say about evidence such as this?

[@yourservice 67]

You can see Mars to the left of the moon right now.

[Park Life 71]

Lovely moon last night.

[Guest alex]

Lovely moon last night.

I noticed that too. Beautiful.

[Rob W 0]

Lovely moon last night.

 

 

it's getting closer that's why.........................

[Happy Face 29]

Dutch review backs UN climate science report

 

A Dutch inquiry into the UN's climate science panel has found "no errors that would undermine the main conclusions" on probable impacts of climate change.

 

However, it says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be more transparent in its workings.

 

The Dutch parliament asked for the inquiry after two mistakes were identified in the IPCC's 2007 report.

 

The inquiry is the latest in a series that have largely backed "mainstream" climate science against detractors.

 

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) does not give the panel a completely clean bill of health, however.

 

Whereas the IPCC's landmark Fourth Assessment (AR4) from 2007 "conclusively shows" that impacts of human-induced climate change are already tangible in many places around the world and will become more serious as temperatures increase, PBL also says the foundation for some of the specific projections "could have been made more transparent".

 

The Netherlands inquiry adds that the IPCC's summaries tended to emphasise "worst-case scenarios".

 

However, this was disputed by scientists who had played a leading role in AR4.

 

"The net impacts of climate change are not beneficial," said David Vaughan, science leader at the British Antarctic Survey, who co-ordinated the AR4 chapter on polar impacts.

 

Martin Parry, visiting professor at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Research at Imperial College London who co-chaired the AR4 working group on climate impacts, welcomed the PBL report.

 

"We welcome the conclusion of this report, which is esentially that our conclusions are safe, sound and reliable," he said.

 

"The IPCC is about to venture into the next assessment; so it's important that we learn from these issues, and it's important not to be defensive, and I think that's how the IPCC is approaching things now."

 

Flood issues

 

PBL's central remit was to look at how accurately the IPCC's chapters on regional projections of climate impacts reflected the science available, and whether those chapters were adequately distilled into the summary that was given to government representatives for signing off.

 

A UK newspaper had to apologise over the "AmazonGate" episode The panel has already admitted making a mistake over the projected date for disappearance of glaciers in the Himalay

 

It projected that glaciers could largely disappear by 2035, which the IPCC acknowledges (and the PBL inquiry confirms) is highly unlikely.

 

A furore erupted in the Netherlands over a different claim in AR4, namely that 55% of the country was vulnerable to flooding because it was situated below sea level.

 

The IPCC attributed the claim to PBL itself, to a report saying that 55% of the Netherlands was prone to flooding. But that report said only 26% of the country was at risk because it lies below sea level, with the remainder affected by river flooding.

 

PBL now accepts the blame for the mistake lies within its own doors.

 

"We acknowledge that this error was not the fault of the IPCC... the error was made by a contributing author from the PBL, and the (co-ordinating) lead authors (of AR4 chapters) are not to blame for relying on Dutch information provided by a Dutch agency," it said.

 

PBL also says it has uncovered another minor error in AR4's summary.

 

The IPCC said that by the year 2020, between 75 million and 250 million Africans would be at risk of "water stress" (ie not having enough water). PBL says that based on the science available, the figures should be 90-220 million - but that the IPCC projections fit within the "range of uncertainty" in the science.

 

However, Nigel Arnell, head of the Walker Centre at the University of Reading who led the water chapter in AR4, disputed the PBL assessment.

 

"The figures are based on a series of assumptions and calculations," he said.

 

"I think the way in which it was projected with a wide range encapsulated the huge uncertainties, and we think that (narrowing it to) 90-220 million is an over-interpretation of the information that the chapter authors had at the time."

 

Overall, there were 35 instances where PBL cited errors or made other comments. The vast majority were minor, such as typographical errors or the mis-labelling of a graph; Professor Parry and other IPCC authors accept 12, and have noted them as errata on the IPCC website.

 

PBL closes its investigation with a number of recommendations for the IPCC, including setting up a public website for the submission of information on possible errors, additional funding for staff to assist with quality control, and taking care with public statements that "could be perceived... as heightening the projected impacts of climate change".

 

Testing sequence

 

This is the latest in a series of reviews and inquiries that have endorsed the central conclusions of mainstream climate science, while finding issues of concern in how it is practiced.

 

Two reviews into issues arising from the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) late last year have concluded there was no evidence of scientific malpractice or manipulation of data.

 

However, they asked for greater openness, compliance with Freedom of Information law and better collaboration with professional statisticians.

 

The third review into the CRU issue will be published on Wednesday.

 

Meanwhile, the Sunday Times was recently forced to apologise for claiming that IPCC projections on die-back of the Amazon rainforest were unsubstantiated.

 

The main international review of the IPCC - conducted by the InterAcademy Council, a network of national science academies such as the UK's Royal Society - is ongoing, with formal publication due in October.as.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_env...nt/10506283.stm

[Rob W 0]

Sounds fair enough

[Billy Castell 0]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

[Park Life 71]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

[Happy Face 29]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

That's a higher percenbtage than your posts which are based on facts (1.6%)

[Toonpack 9399]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

[Guest alex]

Down to God, no doubt.

[Toonpack 9399]

Down to God, no doubt.

 

Why's that??

 

FoA

[Happy Face 29]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

 

Is that just a hunch?

 

You "think" a natural cycle of warming is fact? There's no thinking required on that score. It's a self-evident fact. Sea levels have risen and fallen repeatedlty for millions of years. The sea was low enough that humans could walk from Asia to America tens of thousands years ago.

 

Imagine there's a bowl of water sat in your garden. Throughtout the day and night it warms and cools, evaporates and replenishes naturally depending on the sun, the humidity, the wind, rain etc. That's a natural cycle. Science has shown that in this analogy the water seems to have started boiling up spontaneously on a scale way off the natural process, it's like a kettle's been switched on which the natural cycle can't account for.

 

If you don't believe the science that says it's man made, you'll need to posit another theory than natural cycles.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Down to God, no doubt.

 

Why's that??

 

FoA

Typical Tory tbh, zero sense of humour

[Park Life 71]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

 

Capitalism feels safer inventing its own enemies.

 

Heating and cooling of the planet is natural I agree. It's a mix of volcanic activity (also underwater), chnages in the magnetosphere and yawning of the sun god.

[Park Life 71]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

 

Is that just a hunch?

 

You "think" a natural cycle of warming is fact? There's no thinking required on that score. It's a self-evident fact. Sea levels have risen and fallen repeatedlty for millions of years. The sea was low enough that humans could walk from Asia to America tens of thousands years ago.

 

Imagine there's a bowl of water sat in your garden. Throughtout the day and night it warms and cools, evaporates and replenishes naturally depending on the sun, the humidity, the wind, rain etc. That's a natural cycle. Science has shown that in this analogy the water seems to have started boiling up spontaneously on a scale way off the natural process, it's like a kettle's been switched on which the natural cycle can't account for.

 

If you don't believe the science that says it's man made, you'll need to posit another theory than natural cycles.

 

Natural cycles as recorded in ice cores is no good? Well that's science for ya I guess. I am a healer I am telling you the planet is safe.

[Renton 21621]

I am a healer I am telling you the planet is safe.

 

Thank fuck for that. Panic over everyone, false alarm.