Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

PercyBlakeney · 25-09-2013 1:59pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It's funny how 'those who believe in global warming' are held responsible for every single claim ever made by anyone who believes in AGW

Well, if you think the IPCC is just “anyone who believes in AGW” then that’s your view. I differ.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you can find any mistakes by anyone on this side, that means that nobody can be trusted and all of the evidence must be wrong

Again, I disagree with your conclusion. My view is that if one body is found out to be making claims, and those claims later turn out to not only be untrue, but based on dubious and very flimsy, or in reality no, “evidence” (in the case of the claim about the Himalayan glaciers based on one pamphlet produced by an obscure activist), the my conclusion is that one has to be

1. suspicious of the how that body reaches all conclusions and
2. it seems to demonstrate that body has its own agenda

Akrasia wrote: »

You are cherry picking errors and claims and only discussing data that you think supports your pre-existing opinion.

That’s how evidence by example works. No one could cherry pick unless the examples are true.

Akrasia wrote: »

'Glaciergate' boils down to one source in one volume of a 3 volume publication with tens of thousands of scientific references getting into the final draft of the paper without it being fully verified first.

I am sure we all realise that every single issue is one issue in a whole publication.

Your innuendo here seems to be that it’s not relevant because it was buried somewhere in a document, which is a bizarre argument, as everything in any document is to be found somewhere within the document. It would be interesting for someone who house is being repossessed to argue that the bit in the contract they signed about “your house may be repossessed if you don’t keep up the payments” was one source in a very big and complex document, and should be ignored and made invalid due to that fact.

Akrasia wrote: »

What do the climate change 'sceptics' predict about arctic sea ice?

You’d really have to ask them.

It’s a bit much to tell someone “well we know all those computer predictions we made for the last 17 years didn’t happen, and we got it all wrong, but really, we know what we are doing – trust us” and not expect a little scepticism.

theLegion · 25-09-2013 2:07pm

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, six years on from its publication, no further evidence of an agenda has been found. The reasonable conclusion is that it was an isolated mistake.
Really?
Really?

Nasa et al have only been keeping records of sea ice in the Arctic since the 70's. It's madness to think we have enough data to predict a global apocalypse based on insufficient information. Same as predicting global doom based on computer models that have been shown to be totally wrong.

In 1903, Roald Amundsen sailed through the North West passage. In 2013, to mark the anniversary 22 yachts attempted to repeat the feat. They had to abandon and be rescued by Canadian Coast Guard due to their boats being caught in the ice!! How did that happen?? Aren't the polar bears drowning??

The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early.

http://www.sail-world.com/UK/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

Why don't you comment on the Antartic Sea Ice being at records high:

Antarctic sea ice extent on September 22 compared to 1981-2010 median depicted by orange curve (NSIDC)

djpbarry · 25-09-2013 2:50pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Again, I disagree with your conclusion. My view is that if one body is found out to be making claims, and those claims later turn out to not only be untrue, but based on dubious and very flimsy, or in reality no, “evidence” (in the case of the claim about the Himalayan glaciers based on one pamphlet produced by an obscure activist), the my conclusion is that one has to be

1. suspicious of the how that body reaches all conclusions

Even though said body explicitly states in the introduction to its report that not entirely scientific sources were used in places?

Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-1.html

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That’s how evidence by example works. No one could cherry pick unless the examples are true.

Science generally works by considering all of the available evidence, not just the bits you agree/disagree with.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

It’s a bit much to tell someone “well we know all those computer predictions we made for the last 17 years didn’t happen, and we got it all wrong, but really, we know what we are doing – trust us” and not expect a little scepticism.

Fortunatley, the IPCC have said no such thing.

djpbarry · 25-09-2013 2:50pm

theLegion wrote: »

Nasa et al have only been keeping records of sea ice in the Arctic since the 70's.

And what do those records show?

theLegion wrote: »

Why don't you comment on the Antartic Sea Ice being at records high:

There’s lots of things I haven’t commented on in this thread. What’s your point?

Akrasia · 25-09-2013 2:54pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Well, if you think the IPCC is just “anyone who believes in AGW” then that’s your view. I differ.

The IPCC is an organisation that comprises of thousands of scientists across dozens of organisations and countries. The fact that there are a small number of errors in their publication does not invalidate the entire body of research.

Do you think that there are no errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
Do you think the fact that there are some errors in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that this means that we can't trust any information in that publication?
Of course not

Should we blindly trust either an encyclopaedia or the IPCC? Of course not, but neither should we go looking for isolated errors and then using them as a reason to completely disbelieve everything in the publication.

Again, I disagree with your conclusion. My view is that if one body is found out to be making claims, and those claims later turn out to not only be untrue, but based on dubious and very flimsy, or in reality no, “evidence” (in the case of the claim about the Himalayan glaciers based on one pamphlet produced by an obscure activist), the my conclusion is that one has to be

1. suspicious of the how that body reaches all conclusions and
2. it seems to demonstrate that body has its own agenda

There is overwhelming evidence in support of the claims made in the IPCC reports. The science underlying the theory of AGW is very strong. The predictions are not absolute, they are contingent and are based on a range of different possible outcomes and they need to be read as such. Honestly and with integrity. The predictions are constantly being measured and reviewed and if they start to diverge from the measured outcomes in ways that are statistically and scientifically significant, then the scientific community will absolutely start to re-assess the evidence.

That’s how evidence by example works. No one could cherry pick unless the examples are true.

What is 'evidence by example'
There's no such thing. In order to make a scientific claim about anything, you need a proper sample that is controlled for bias.
If you wanted to properly assess the IPCC, you would take a random sample of IPCC claims and then honestly assess them. You are not doing this, you are taking a biased sample of one or two instances that you believe support your claim and then using that to generalise that all claims by the IPCC are illegitimate.

I am sure we all realise that every single issue is one issue in a whole publication.

Your innuendo here seems to be that it’s not relevant because it was buried somewhere in a document, which is a bizarre argument, as everything in any document is to be found somewhere within the document. It would be interesting for someone who house is being repossessed to argue that the bit in the contract they signed about “your house may be repossessed if you don’t keep up the payments” was one source in a very big and complex document, and should be ignored and made invalid due to that fact.

You will find in every single important legal document the following notation 'E&OE'

it means 'errors and ommissions excepted'
It is an acknowledgement that even carefully prepared legal documents can have errors, and a legitimate error in the document does not confer or remove legal rights other than what is intended in the contract. (if I sign a mortage agreement that says the bank will lend me €100000,00 and I only have to repay €100000.00 (it's interest free wahey) does that mean I have just made a cool 9.9 million euros profit?
No, because the error would be recognised as an error.

You’d really have to ask them.

According to many global warming sceptics, we're heading for an ice age. (those who say that AGW was all due to solar cycles)
Do you have anything to say about the credibility of this position?

It’s a bit much to tell someone “well we know all those computer predictions we made for the last 17 years didn’t happen, and we got it all wrong, but really, we know what we are doing – trust us” and not expect a little scepticism.

They didn't 'get it all wrong'
The temperatures are still increasing well within the margin of error in their predictions (unfortunately)

Duiske · 25-09-2013 3:00pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It's funny how 'those who believe in global warming' are held responsible for every single claim ever made by anyone who believes in AGW
If you can find any mistakes by anyone on this side, that means that nobody can be trusted and all of the evidence must be wrong

You are guilty of using the same ploy yourself.

Akrasia wrote: »

The IPCC 4th assessment prediction was that global warming would increase global average temperatures by about .2 degrees per decade. Meanwhile the global warming deniers were predicting an ice age.

By the way, you keep throwing this "global warming deniers" slur about. Can you show an example of a skeptic who believes the globe has not warmed over the past century ?

djpbarry · 25-09-2013 3:06pm

Duiske wrote: »

By the way, you keep throwing this "global warming deniers" slur about. Can you show an example of a skeptic who believes the globe has not warmed over the past century ?

Ah, come on. The accuracy of the temperature record is frequently questioned. For example:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

PercyBlakeney · 25-09-2013 4:31pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The IPCC is an organisation that comprises of thousands of scientists across dozens of organisations and countries. The fact that there are a small number of errors in their publication does not invalidate the entire body of research.

You have already previously made the same point, which I have already answered above.

Akrasia wrote: »

Should we blindly trust either an encyclopaedia or the IPCC? Of course not, but neither should we go looking for isolated errors and then using them as a reason to completely disbelieve everything in the publication.

Well, that’s what they ask us to do. They make claims and tell us we have to believe them because they are the experts.

All errors are “isolated” and they are still errors, whether isolated or not isolated.

Akrasia wrote: »

There is overwhelming evidence in support of the claims made in the IPCC reports. The science underlying the theory of AGW is very strong. The predictions are not absolute, they are contingent and are based on a range of different possible outcomes and they need to be read as such. Honestly and with integrity. The predictions are constantly being measured and reviewed and if they start to diverge from the measured outcomes in ways that are statistically and scientifically significant, then the scientific community will absolutely start to re-assess the evidence.

Predictions are not “theory” but facts. And when the predictions don’t come true, then they can be said to be incorrect.

The term scientist is one which is much bandied about. Anyone can call themselves a scientist. Much of the scientific community has done just that and many noted scientists have concluded that AGW as a theory is less and less credible due to the lack of evidence when measured against the predictions made many years ago.

That’s not to say that the climate isn’t changing, but its not changing the way it was predicted to by those who claim they can predict how it will change, and how they can then manipulate that change.

Akrasia wrote: »

What is 'evidence by example'

As ever, context is everything.

The context we were talking about was the IPCC making a claim that the Himalayas would be glacier free by 2035, and this was the example referred to. The evidence they relied upon to make this claim was more than dubious, it was nonsense with no scientific backing and just the rather mad imaginings of a fringe activist. Yet the IPCC reproduces these claims and gave them the imprimatur of the IPCC.

This is evidence of how the IPCC operates, by example.

Akrasia wrote: »

They didn't 'get it all wrong'

The temperatures are still increasing well within the margin of error in their predictions (unfortunately)

Weasel words “”margin of error”.

The fact is we have seen virtually no increases in temperature in the last 17 years. I don’t remember being told that virtually no increases were within the “margin of error”.

The ice caps are not melting, despite the dire warnings. The Himalayan Glaciers will probably still be intact despite the dire warnings. None of the dire predictions seem to be happening, and thankfully there has been virtually no increase in temperatures.

It just seems to be a minor, or non, issue.

Duiske · 25-09-2013 4:32pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Ah, come on. The accuracy of the temperature record is frequently questioned. For example:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Anthony Watts wrote that report. He also recently said the following.

"Now I'm in the camp of we have some global warming. No doubt about it, but it may not be as bad as we originally thought because there are other contributing factors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

So, back to my original question, which I asked because of Akrasia's use of the term "global warming denier". Can you show an example of a skeptic who believes the globe has not warmed over the past century ?

djpbarry · 25-09-2013 8:20pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Well, that’s what they ask us to do. They make claims and tell us we have to believe them because they are the experts.

No, they don’t. That’s why any and every claim made in an IPCC report is referenced, so any member of the public can verify it.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Predictions are not “theory” but facts.

So if I predict that Ireland will win the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, that’s a fact, is it?

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The term scientist is one which is much bandied about. Anyone can call themselves a scientist. Much of the scientific community has done just that...

Could you list some climate scientists who don’t have any formal scientific training?

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That’s not to say that the climate isn’t changing, but its not changing the way it was predicted to by those who claim they can predict how it will change...

So the planet is not getting warmer then?

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The context we were talking about was the IPCC making a claim that the Himalayas would be glacier free by 2035, and this was the example referred to. The evidence they relied upon to make this claim was more than dubious, it was nonsense with no scientific backing and just the rather mad imaginings of a fringe activist. Yet the IPCC reproduces these claims and gave them the imprimatur of the IPCC.

This is evidence of how the IPCC operates, by example.

The fact that the error was corrected is also evidence of how the IPCC operates, but you’re choosing to ignore that evidence because it doesn’t suit your agenda.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Weasel words “”margin of error”.

No, it’s proper scientific practice to state the margin of error associated with a result.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The fact is we have seen virtually no increases in temperature in the last 17 years.

First of all, yes we have.

Secondly, what’s this arbitrary 17 year cut-off point all about? Where’d that come from?

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The ice caps are not melting...

The Arctic is not melting? Seriously?

djpbarry · 25-09-2013 8:20pm

Duiske wrote: »

Can you show an example of a skeptic who believes the globe has not warmed over the past century ?

Look at the post I just responded to.

Duiske · 26-09-2013 12:05am

djpbarry wrote: »

Look at the post I just responded to.

In your first reply you posted a link to a report by Anthony Watts, a well known climate sceptic. Which leads me to believe that you knew I was referring to sceptics who would be relatively well known to anyone interested in the climate debate, and not some anonymous poster on a social networking site.

djpbarry · 26-09-2013 9:56am

Duiske wrote: »

In your first reply you posted a link to a report by Anthony Watts, a well known climate sceptic. Which leads me to believe that you knew I was referring to sceptics who would be relatively well known to anyone interested in the climate debate, and not some anonymous poster on a social networking site.

Actually my first instinct was to direct you to various posters on this forum.

But anyway, The Heartland Institute in the US routinely question the validity of the temperature record and they've been doing it since long before Watts' report came out. The (in)famous Hockey Schtick blog also jumps on any opportunity to question the temperature record.

If you absolutely have to have the name of an individual sceptic who questions the validity of the temperature record, then Ross McKitrick is probably the most prominent example I can think of.

Akrasia · 26-09-2013 10:08am

Duiske wrote: »

In your first reply you posted a link to a report by Anthony Watts, a well known climate sceptic. Which leads me to believe that you knew I was referring to sceptics who would be relatively well known to anyone interested in the climate debate, and not some anonymous poster on a social networking site.

What a short memory you have.

Michael Mann was the subject of brutal harrassment from the climate denier camp because of his hockey stick graph that showed that the temperature in the 20th century was higher than normal. Denying that global warming was happening at all was the strategy of the denialist movement for most of the last century. it is only recently that they have moved to phase 2. Accepting that it is real, but denying that it's a cause for alarm.

Anthony Watts admits now that the global temperatures have increased in the 20th century, but up until very recently, he was denying this and claiming that the measurements were biased by the 'urban heat island effect'
He is involved with the Surfacestations.org website which exists explicitly to undermine the temperature statistics and claim that they are being exaggerated due to poor measurement practises.

The fact that he now admits that global temperature have actually increased just shows how irrefutable that evidence has become, but now it's time to move on to phase 2 of the denialist strategy. (although he still uses the urban heat island argument whenever it suits him to hand wave individual pieces of evidence)

Climate change 'sceptics' have been following the same pattern that tobacco causes cancer 'sceptics' established decades ago. There are 4 distinct phases (although not all those involved are on the same phase at the same time, some Deniers are on phase 3 while there are others still beavering away at phase 1 (and some have even started working on phase 4.)

Phase 1
Deny that there is any problem. There is no global warming

Up until very recently most 'climate sceptics' were claiming that there is no issue, that the increases in temperature measured in the US and the UK are all due to
A) a conspiracy by scientists to manufacture a crisis for some reason or another (funding, big government, taxes etc)

Mistakes in the measurements, bad scientific practises, inconsistencies between different data sources
C) the temperatures in recent the past were warmer than they are now therefore temperatures are just part of a normal natural cycle

Phase 2
Admit that the world is warming(like we've always done), but we don't know why, and even if it was carbon dioxide that was causing it, it's not as bad a problem as the 'alarmist' scientists say it is.

Here we have all the libertarian economists argue against fiscal measures to control the release of carbon on the basis that it would be cheaper to use that money dealing with the consequences of global warming (which won't be that bad)

Phase 3
Admit that global warming is a serious problem (like we've always said) but still deny that it's caused by humans, global warming is mainly a natural phenomenon caused by the sun, or a long term cycle or some other unknown mechanism. Therefore, there is no point reducing carbon emissions because it won't have any effect

Phase 4
Global warming is real, it is caused by carbon emissions (we've said so all along), but now it's too late to prevent global warming, we need to focus on dealing with the problem, taxing carbon emissions is too late, we need to focus on geo-engineering or steps to protect ourselves from the harm caused by all these floods and storms and droughts and famines and plagues.

PercyBlakeney · 26-09-2013 11:59am

Akrasia wrote: »

Michael Mann was the subject of brutal harrassment from the climate denier camp because of his hockey stick graph that showed that the temperature in the 20th century was higher than normal.

It seems incredible that anyone can still examine all the available evidence, and still appear to claim Mann's hockey stick graph as good evidence.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been subjected to rigorous peer review, and has been demonstrated to be unreliable. If your judgement is that Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is reliable, then that's good information about how you reach conclusions.

Akrasia · 26-09-2013 12:44pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

It seems incredible that anyone can still examine all the available evidence, and still appear to claim Mann's hockey stick graph as good evidence.

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been subjected to rigorous peer review, and has been demonstrated to be unreliable. If your judgement is that Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is reliable, then that's good information about how you reach conclusions.

The fact that you think this only demonstrates what kinds of sources you trust on this issue.

Those sources are currently being sued for defamation by Michael Mann and he has a strong case. Recently they tried to get the case thrown out of court but a Judge has rejected their attempt stating that there is enough evidence of malicious attacks against Mann's character and professional reputation as to justify this defamation suit.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/hockey-stick-graph-climate-researchers-defamation-suit-to-go-forward/

There have been multiple 'hockey stick' graphs that have been produced by independent researchers that use seperate and independent temperature records and they are consistent with Michael Mann's findings.

if anything, Michael Mann's graph under estimated the true impact of Human induced climate change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html#.UkQdBdJJNA8

PercyBlakeney · 26-09-2013 1:20pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that you think this only demonstrates what kinds of sources you trust on this issue.

Maybe that is the difference between us because I don’t decide who to “trust”, but look at all the evidence I can find.

Akrasia wrote: »

Those sources are currently being sued for defamation by Michael Mann

It’s simply untrue that “those” who worked on the hockey stick graph are being “sued” , and even if they were it would not take from the evidence. Your claim is (i) untrue and (ii) would be irrelevant even if it were true. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are not being sued by Mann.

Akrasia wrote: »

There have been multiple 'hockey stick' graphs that have been produced by independent researchers that use separate and independent temperature records and they are consistent with Michael Mann's findings.

That’s true. But if you look at all the work done and not just the studies you like, for example, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s work, and others, (which has been peer reviewed and verified), then we can understand why you are bound to reach the conclusions you do.

Akrasia wrote: »

if anything, Michael Mann's graph under estimated the true impact of Human induced climate change

That you make such statements seems to show that you have decided to not look at all the available evidence, and have decided to “trust” one “side”, ignore any evidence to the contrary, and just keep rushing to make statements which are unbalanced and partial.

To be honest, I am more worried about the intellectual climate.

djpbarry · 26-09-2013 1:36pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

But if you look at all the work done and not just the studies you like, for example, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s work, and others, (which has been peer reviewed and verified), then we can understand why you are bound to reach the conclusions you do.

The McIntyre & McKitrick paper that you're referring to was referenced in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report. It was noted that McIntyre & McKitrick's claim that Mann's "Hockey Stick" could not be reproduced was demonstrably false, as evidenced by the subsequent work of Wahl & Ammann, for example.

Put simply, McIntyre & McKitrick had not implemented Mann's method correctly, hence they obtained a different result:

McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html#6-6-1

Akrasia · 26-09-2013 1:50pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Maybe that is the difference between us because I don’t decide who to “trust”, but look at all the evidence I can find.

You can look at all the evidence that you like, it doesn't mean that you're qualified to properly assess it.
The IPCC is an organisation that gathers together thousands of the most highly qualified and highly respected scientists in the most relevant fields and asks them to review all of the published research into the topic of global warming.

What makes you think that you are more capable of assessing the available evidence than the IPCC?

That’s true. But if you look at all the work done and not just the studies you like, for example, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s work, and others, (which has been peer reviewed and verified), then we can understand why you are bound to reach the conclusions you do.

I am not qualified to look at 'all of the work done'. Neither are you. The IPCC is the best qualified body to do this, and they have done this, and they have looked at McIntyre and McKitrick's work (their one published journal article from 2003 in the less than prestigious 'Energy and Environment' journal)

Even if McIntyre and McKitrick completely discredited Mann's work, which it doesn't, it would barely scratch the totality of evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis.

That you make such statements seems to show that you have decided to not look at all the available evidence, and have decided to “trust” one “side”, ignore any evidence to the contrary, and just keep rushing to make statements which are unbalanced and partial.

To be honest, I am more worried about the intellectual climate.

I very much doubt that you have looked at 'all' of the available evidence on climate change. I very much doubt you have the qualifications to properly assess even one piece of academic research in atmospheric sciences. Yet you feel you are able to conclude that the scientific consensus on this very important issue is all wrong.

I think you should re-assess your position as it appears to be a bit unreasonable.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 9:48am

The IPCC press conference is on at the moment and unfortunately, as expected, it's not good news at all

Australia will see maximum daily temperatures increase by 6 degrees by the end of the century and average temperatures increase by 2 degrees by 2060 and another 3-4 degrees by 2100! That's a massive massive change

Australia has already seen increases in droughts and storms, and so far there has only been a temperature increase of less than 1.5 degrees since the start of the 20th century on that continent.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/climate-change-report-hotter-australia

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 9:50am

There are live updates on this link
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-ar5-live-coverage

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 9:54am

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-ar5-live-coverage

Low-income countries will remain on the frontline of human-induced climate change over the next century, experiencing gradual sea-level rises, stronger cyclones, warmer days and nights, more unpredictable rains, and larger and longer heatwaves, according to the most thorough assessment of the issue yet.

The last major UN assessment, in 2007, predicted runaway temperature rises of 6C or more by the end of the century. That is now thought unlikely by scientists, but average land and sea temperatures are expected to continue rising throughout this century, possibly reaching 4C above present levels – enough to devastate crops and make life in many cities unbearably hot.

As temperatures climb and oceans warm, tropical and subtropical regions will face sharp changes in annual rainfall, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, released on Thursday in Stockholm before online publication on 30 September.

PercyBlakeney · 27-09-2013 11:38am

Akrasia wrote: »

I very much doubt that you have looked at 'all' of the available evidence on climate change. I very much doubt you have the qualifications to properly assess even one piece of academic research in atmospheric sciences. Yet you feel you are able to conclude that the scientific consensus on this very important issue is all wrong.

I think you should re-assess your position as it appears to be a bit unreasonable.

Your doubts are your own and, as such, are subjective.

You have said that you "trust" one "side" of the debate. I disagree and I don't "trust" either or any "side".

"All the evidence" means all the evidence one can get at a particular time. That doesn't mean its physically all the evidence, nor does it mean one should not be aware that new evidence might emerge later.

Again, "wrong" is just not a scientific term, and I would never claim such. I might express doubts, I might be sceptical in the wake of evidence, I might be all sorts of things. But it simply isn't possible to claim someone else's opinion is wrong, any more than you can claim, with apparent complete certainty here, that Australia will be warmer by 5-6°C by 2100.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 11:41am

BBC news website today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

In the draft report, the panel agrees that "the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951".

The effect of this slowdown means that the future temperature range predicted by the IPCC will be wider than in 2007, and with a lower starting point.

Many sceptical voices believe this is a recognition that the IPCC modelling process has been too sensitive to carbon dioxide, a claim given some credence by the text of the draft which states that some models have "too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing".

There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007.

In the wake of that year's report, a small number of embarrassing errors were detected in the underlying material. The organisation's reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus.

"Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.

"The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.

"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 12:11pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

BBC news website today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

In the draft report, the panel agrees that "the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951".

The effect of this slowdown means that the future temperature range predicted by the IPCC will be wider than in 2007, and with a lower starting point.

Many sceptical voices believe this is a recognition that the IPCC modelling process has been too sensitive to carbon dioxide, a claim given some credence by the text of the draft which states that some models have "too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing".

There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007.

In the wake of that year's report, a small number of embarrassing errors were detected in the underlying material. The organisation's reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus.

"Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones," said Prof Petersen.

"The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.

"It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!"

That BBC report was from the 23rd of September and it was speculation about what will be in the actual report. Today part 1 of the 5th IPCC report on Climate change has been released, perhaps we should focus on this, and not speculation from before.

PercyBlakeney · 27-09-2013 12:24pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Australia will see maximum daily temperatures increase by 6 degrees by the end of the century and average temperatures increase by 2 degrees by 2060 and another 3-4 degrees by 2100! That's a massive massive change

Akrasia wrote: »

perhaps we should focus on this, and not speculation

Are you saying that it's ok to speculate about something which is 87 years in the future, but not about something which happened this week?

Filibuster · 27-09-2013 12:29pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that you think this only demonstrates what kinds of sources you trust on this issue.

Those sources are currently being sued for defamation by Michael Mann and he has a strong case. Recently they tried to get the case thrown out of court but a Judge has rejected their attempt stating that there is enough evidence of malicious attacks against Mann's character and professional reputation as to justify this defamation suit.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/hockey-stick-graph-climate-researchers-defamation-suit-to-go-forward/

There have been multiple 'hockey stick' graphs that have been produced by independent researchers that use seperate and independent temperature records and they are consistent with Michael Mann's findings.

if anything, Michael Mann's graph under estimated the true impact of Human induced climate change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html#.UkQdBdJJNA8

Michael Mann removed data from 1961, because it went against his hypothesis and substituted actual temp data to the graph. That's not science, it's using a scissors to make a jig-saw puzzle fit together. How do we know the pre-1961 data on the graph is accruate?? We don't!!. The hockey stick graph is junk science.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 12:31pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Your doubts are your own and, as such, are subjective.

You have said that you "trust" one "side" of the debate. I disagree and I don't "trust" either or any "side".

When you're assessing the evidence for or against something, trust has to be a part of that assessment. We have to have trust, and we also have to know the limits of that trust. Can we trust our own memory, our own senses, our own ability to understand complex data?

In science, evidence is cumulative, individual datapoints are useless by themselves. Scientists collect data and this data is analysed to establish trends, and then this data is peer reviewed and in theory, errors and Biases are weeded out to make the analysis more robust.

I trust the 'side' of this debate that uses the scientific method.
I distrust the 'side' of the debate that is anti-scientific

The reason I trust the scientific method is because it has been designed specifically to minimise bias.

The fact that I 'trust' something or somebody doesn't mean that I trust it 100%. The trust is contingent.

Can you tell me, when you are assessing two pieces of evidence, one comes from a highly regarded research study in a highly regarded scientific journal, and the other comes from a fringe study in a journal that is regarded as having very low standards, do you give the conclusions of both of these studies equal weight?

"All the evidence" means all the evidence one can get at a particular time. That doesn't mean its physically all the evidence, nor does it mean one should not be aware that new evidence might emerge later.

That's ridiculous. What standard do you consider evidence to be available to you at a particular time? The IPCC reports are all fully available to the public, have you read these reports fully?
Or do you consider 'available to you at a particular time' to only include information posted in newspapers or blogs that you read?
The daily Mail can post 10 blog articles a day that repeat the same discredited misinformation while the IPCC releases a report every 6 years?
It is much much easier for a blogger to write a piece of propaganda that makes up a lie about climate change than it is for a climate scientist to rigourously refute it. The lies spead virally and they consume vast time and resources to keep under control.

What quality control do you insist on?

Have you heard of the 'Availability Heuristic?'

Again, "wrong" is just not a scientific term, and I would never claim such. I might express doubts, I might be sceptical in the wake of evidence, I might be all sorts of things. But it simply isn't possible to claim someone else's opinion is wrong

Opinions can be wrong all the time, facts can be wrong. Opinions that are based entirely on wrong facts are also wrong.
Opinions and facts are often completely mixed up.

If I believe that all women should be prevented from going to school because of the fact that women are 80% less intelligent than Men, is that opinion right or wrong?

any more than you can claim, with apparent complete certainty here, that Australia will be warmer by 5-6°C by 2100.

My language in that post above was wrong, I should not have said 'will' the prediction is not guaranteed, it is a prediction of what could happen if the models are accurate and we don't reverse our global CO2 emissions.
The models are not 100% accurate, but they are accurate enough that we should stop burying our heads in the sand and pretending that everything is going to sort itself out.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 12:32pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Are you saying that it's ok to speculate about something which is 87 years in the future, but not about something which happened this week?

Yes, it's ok to speculate about what might happen in the future, not what might happen in the past

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 12:35pm

Filibuster wrote: »

Michael Mann removed data from 1961, because it went against his hypothesis and substituted actual temp data to the graph. That's not science, it's using a scissors to make a jig-saw puzzle fit together. How do we know the pre-1961 data on the graph is accruate?? We don't!!. The hockey stick graph is junk science.

There are lots of hockey stick graphs, and the IPCC today have said that they are 95% - 97% certain that human activity has caused the unprecedented climate change we are currently experiencing

Get with the program. Smoking does cause cancer, CO2 does cause global warming, HIV does cause AIDS. Are we 100% sure about any of these? no. Are we sure enough to justify action? Absolutely.

By the way, your username is perfectly Apt, given that Filibuster is exactly the strategy of the Oil industry at the moment, just like it was with the tobacco industry

PercyBlakeney · 27-09-2013 12:43pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There are lots of hockey stick graphs, and the IPCC today have said that they are 95% - 97% certain that human activity has caused the unprecedented climate change we are currently experiencing

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

Filibuster · 27-09-2013 12:45pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There are lots of hockey stick graphs, and the IPCC today have said that they are 95% - 97% certain that human activity has caused the unprecedented climate change we are currently experiencing

The sun causes climate change. What will the IPCC call the "hiatus" in AGW in the next report? Perhaps they should invest in another computer model.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 1:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

That BBC report was from the 23rd of September and it was speculation about what will be in the actual report. Today part 1 of the 5th IPCC report on Climate change has been released, perhaps we should focus on this, and not speculation from before.

The subsection from 23/09 is included in today's BBC news story. Its content is clearly not speculation.

Furthermore, the experience of last fifteen years is not speculation and the IPCC isn't stupid enough to deny its existence.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 1:26pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

The validity of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been debated to death. The 'Hide the decline' argument has been comprehensively dealt with and you can see the arguments here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

The only people who are discussing Michael Mann's hockey stick now are climate change deniers. All the serious climate change scientists have moved on, Michael Mann's graph has been accompanied by many other graphs that are all based on independent analysis and independent data sets and are all consistent with the IPCC's position

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 1:40pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

I thought you looked at 'All' the evidence. Yet you keep coming back to one or two anomalies.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

Scientists have to manipulate data all the time. When you are converting data from one format to another, you need to use mathematical fomulas and 'tricks' to accurately convert this data while retaining the scientific value of the data.

In climate records we use proxy data and these datasets are imperfect. We have to adjust the data to take into account of the known imperfections and this is perfectly valid as long as the methodology is recorded and the reasoning is justified.

If you think this is scientifically dishonest, then throw away your GPS. The clocks on the GPS satelites are constantly adjusted to take into account the effects of time distortion due to relativity. The only reason the GPS stays accurate is because we use 'tricks' to keep the clocks on the satelites synchronised with the clocks here on earth.

Michael Mann recorded his 'trick' in the methodology, that was included in the peer review, and his graph has been reproduced by independent scientists using the same dataset using his methodology.

Despite the fact that the climate change deniers constantly go on about it, there was nothing wrong with Michael Mann's scientific methodology and those who claim he fraudulantly fixed the data are in danger of repeating a libel.

edit (when i say 'We' above, I don't mean to imply that I am a climate scientist, I am not)

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 1:46pm

Filibuster wrote: »

The sun causes climate change. What will the IPCC call the "hiatus" in AGW in the next report? Perhaps they should invest in another computer model.

The vast majority of the worlds experts in the field completely disagree with you.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 1:53pm

The 'Hiatus' as you call it, was a slight decrease in ocean surface temperatures, which has slowed down the warming in the atmosphere air and land.
While the ocean surface temperatures did not increase, the deep ocean temperatures did, and overall heat content in the oceans is likely higher now than 10 years ago.
.
There was still warming over the last decade. The last decade was still the warmest decade on record

It says a lot when the global warming deniers can say there has been no global warming for a time when the world has never been warmer than any other time on record.

There were more record High temperatures during the last decade than at any other time on record.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 2:01pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'Hiatus' as you call it,

It's what the global warming industry calls it!

Macha · 27-09-2013 2:10pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

It's what the global warming industry calls it!

[mod]Please try and provide some constructive input.[/mod]

Filibuster · 27-09-2013 2:21pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'Hiatus' as you call it, was a slight decrease in ocean surface temperatures, which has slowed down the warming in the atmosphere air and land.
While the ocean surface temperatures did not increase, the deep ocean temperatures did, and overall heat content in the oceans is likely higher now than 10 years ago.
.
There was still warming over the last decade. The last decade was still the warmest decade on record

It says a lot when the global warming deniers can say there has been no global warming for a time when the world has never been warmer than any other time on record.

There were more record High temperatures during the last decade than at any other time on record.

Instrument records have only begun to be recorded for the past 150 years. We are at the top of a solar cycle, of course temperatures are at their highest. It's a natural cycle and people are flapping their arms about like lunatics about it.

6a010536b58035970c01901d8e8e3a970b-pi

Deep Ocean Temperature
Again this is the jig-saw scissors coming out. Their computer models predited the arctic to be free of ice, the glaciers melting, hurricanes every 2nd week. Now that this hasn't happended they are saying "opps the energy actually went 3 miles under the ocean but its gonna come and get ya"

Look at the above graphs the deep ocean temperature follows the solar activity.

Macha · 27-09-2013 2:38pm

Filibuster, no one is arguing that solar activity doesn't contribute but that has been factored into the models. There is still a huge chunk of warming that cannot be explained in any way other than by increased GHG emissions.

The new IPCC Summary for Policymakers is out: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Key paragraphs:

The RF due to changes in solar irradiance is estimated as 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m−2. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes from 1978 to 2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in a RF of –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between the most recent minimum in 2008 and the 1986 minimum. {8.4}

The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}

There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 2:49pm

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

Turtwig · 27-09-2013 2:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

As and aside there is some phenomenon where the solar outputs from the sun typically seem to have a 10 year latency on their affects on the Earth. It's just something to do with latent heat from the ocean. Anyone have anything more than a vague inkling on this?

That said with the sun's minimums, even a possible maunder minimum, you wouldn't have expected warming of the magnitudes observed. So the sun can't really be it.

Macha · 27-09-2013 3:04pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Please try to be a fair moderator. Mine was a reasonable observation on the use of the word "hiatus" in this context.

[mod]No in-thread discussion of moderation. If you have a problem, take it up with a PM.Post deleted[/mod]

Filibuster · 27-09-2013 3:39pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

Solar activity peaked during the 50's (cycle 19) then again during the late 80/mid 90's (cycle 21/22). Solar activity is winding down and it will put a lid to the global warming hysteria:

cyclcomp1.gif?w=640&h=433

Turtwig · 27-09-2013 3:42pm

Filibuster wrote: »

Solar activity peaked during the 50's (cycle 19) then again during the late 80/mid 90's (cycle 21/22). Solar activity is winding down and it will put a lid to the global warming hysteria:

http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cyclcomp1.gif?w=640&h=433

We've had a decade of probably the lowest solar activity in the century and yet we also had one of the warmest decades in the century. Bit strange.

Filibuster · 27-09-2013 4:24pm

Jernal wrote: »

We've had a decade of probably the lowest solar activity in the century and yet we also had one of the warmest decades in the century. Bit strange.

Like I said before, temperature records have only been recorded for 150 years. We are still at the top of the solar maximum.

Again:
6a010536b58035970c01901d8e8e3a970b-pi

Macha · 27-09-2013 4:48pm

According to the above graph, average solar irradiance peaked around 1980 and had a continual downward trend until 2010. How do you explain temperature increases during this time period?

Also, 2013 is the peak of this solar cycle yet the sun is set to be its quietest for 100 years. Yet temperatures continue to rise.

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 5:12pm

We'll have to wait until September 30 before we can download the full report, but I've read through he summary and they have (of course) examined the evidence for solar climate forcing and the conclusions are that variations in solar output have had an insignificant effect on the total global warming that we have experienced since the start of the 20th century.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 5:47pm

Two interesting paragraphs from the BBC today... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24282150

The report’s authors ultimately conclude that 15 years is still not a long enough timescale to draw firm conclusions about the pause. Scientific studies on the slow-down have cited uptake of heat by the upper oceans as a possible cause, along with the properties of particulate matter in the atmosphere which can reflect solar energy back into space. But published research is still relatively sparse.

But there remain inconsistencies between observed changes in the climate system and the conditions simulated by computers. An obvious one is the slowdown in warming since 1998. The report says this could be due to unpredictable variability in the climate and over-sensitive responses to greenhouse gases in some climate models.

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

Comments