Skip to main content

Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 110840 times)

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Anthropogenic Global Warming
It's official -- Hell has frozen over...
Yahoo! UK & Ireland News and BBC Newcastle
  • Last Edit: 2014-01-10, 16:00:55 by Josh

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #75
For one thing, it should probably be something like increased carbon dioxide concentrations or levels. But mostly I think it just makes the sentence inelegant without adding much of value. You can always toss it elsewhere in the text if you think it's vital.

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #76
It makes it pertaining to this thread, dude!:cheers:

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #77
I will acknowledge validity (if only in part) on a single (1) aspect of Anthropogenic Global Warming claims.

Deforestation. 

When forests are cut, burnt, & bulldozed under their ability to sequester CO2 is effectively eliminated, & that combined with the complete loss of Oxygen production could cause a natural imbalance. Remaining plantlife will grow larger & thrive due to a temporary increase of CO2, & as a result eventually produce higher levels of Oxygen ...... Mother Natures 4.5 Billion Year Balancing Act.

Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?

I doubt it, but the Chicken Littles of this world will probably think so. 

        
  • Last Edit: 2014-04-08, 20:19:52 by SmileyFaze

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #78
There are many ways to increase CO2 and to reduce O2 at the same time. :left:

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #79
Nuke Scotland?

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #80
Does deforestation cause any higher, lower, or any changes in global temperatures?
Deforestation is a major issue of the human impact.
irRegardless of "temperatures".

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #81
Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival. However one needs to warn you that if many of the survivors are from Glasgow you better start packing. Anyway I would probably be out in the countryside or hills on my swanky new outdoor boots.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Banned Member
  • [*]
  • Banned
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #82
Heard on BBC Three counties, then found some news elsewhere:
Quote from: Independent
A member of the House of Lords raised eyebrows in the chamber on Wednesday, when he said there could be a link between global warming and the large amount of baked beans consumed in the UK, causing people to produce so-called "smelly emissions".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/do-smelly-emissions-from-baked-beans-contribute-to-global-warming-viscount-simon-asks-energy-minister-9249179.html

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #83
Oakdale quotes here a statistician with crap logic deployed to further some hazy agenda. How does the statistician's argument go?

Quote from: William M. Briggs

...draw for yourself a standard x-y plot, with x the time and y the measure of interest, say temperature. At some early time point, place a dot for the first "temperature". And at some later point, place a second dot higher than the first.

Now I ask you: was there a trend in the data?

What point is this supposed to make? Quite likely, it's supposed to confound us with the paradox of the heap. We speak of statistical trends, but two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, are they? Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.

Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends? Clearly, the argument has made no point whatsoever thus far. The statistician's reasoning continues,

Quote from: William M. Briggs

This is why hypothesis testing is so toxic. Once a wee p-value is spotted, "randomness" or "chance" are rejected as causes and whatever other idea the researcher had in mind is said to be the cause. This is wrong in every possible way. Randomness and chance are never causes, and to assume a cause is not a proof this was the sole correct cause.

So, building up from the prior non-argument, the statistician seems to conclude that hypotheses cannot be tested and causes cannot be attributed. The statistician even goes so far as to state,

Quote from: William M. Briggs

...there is no way to tell because there is no definition of trend.

False.

The statistician's reasoning presupposes a sterile world view where statistics - which admittedly only verifies correlations at best, never causality - is everything there is. By citing the fact that statistics cannot give you causality, it's possible to reject causal forces and trends only when one doesn't want to know anything about the world outside statistics, such as the empirical world of common-sense experience, where causes are a normal feature alongside with (and distinct from) correlations.

The larger context of this discussion is the Global Warming debate. Given only the information thus far, can anyone guess on which side of the debate the statistician is? I cannot. If I had the kind of world view as the statistician here has, believing that statistics is utterly pointless and proves nothing (or can be used to prove anything), I would give up being a statistician, because I care about meaningful argumentation and proofs.

Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend. Its empirical causes are distinct from the measurements of the temperature. And policies to deal with the causes are distinct from the science of it. But in the minds of reductionists and oversimplifiers, nothing is proven and everything is politics.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #84
Okay, let's concede that two points on an x-y plot are not a trend, same as one grain of sand does not make a heap.
Now what? Does this mean there are no heaps and no trends?
The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful... No? :)
Causes necessitate correlations. But correlations may (and often do) escape causes, because the mere correlation (and any statistical shenanigans proffered) are merely co-incident.
You're too given to accept opinion polls as statistics, ersi. While they may be a valuable tool for marketing they're a pox upon science!

Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #85

The presumption of a trend requires a causal model -from which predictions can be made and verified- to be useful... No? :)

And causal models cannot be had? Like, we don't know that rain comes from clouds and clouds are made of steam and are pushed around by wind that is atmospheric pressure that differs from location to location?


Answer one question for me (to show your level of understanding of the field): What is the definition meaning of the term statistical significance?

Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so. (This in order for me to determine for sure if anything you say here has any meaning. Often it doesn't, and it seems so right now too.)

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #86
Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever bad name is given to it in English) is a statistically verified trend.
It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray...
We're recovering from the last Ice Age! Of course, the earth's climate is warming.
Scientists should want to know why! The AGW groups have focused upon CO2, and hence fossil fuels... But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

What to do?
Stick to the "trend" we think we saw, and bet the farm on it? It's not really there anymore; but we're committed!
As far as I can tell, the only statistical use of the term "trend" is to get people to spend money they'd otherwise spend sensibly. (Bluejeans with holes and rips in them selling for more than whole, durable denim is the example that comes to my mind first.)

The one reasonable use of "trend analysis" I can think of -that isn't predicated upon propaganda and political manipulation- is that of providing scientists with data-driven insights from which to develop hypotheses.
Hypotheses should lead to causal theories which make predictions... Which is how they're tested: Posit a cause, explain it by a theory; predict on that basis future events. See if the predictions fail... If they do, the theory is wrong.
The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does...) nothing will be learned...
While you might be happy with that, I would not.
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-15, 05:54:39 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #87
Sure, as soon as you answer if causes exist. Yes or no and how you came to believe so.
Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four... Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters -- mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them... The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A -- as a result. (Sometimes not...) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #88

It's the use of that "trendy" language that leads so many astray...

I can grant this - you are led astray by trendy language. It's perfectly evident from the other thread that you think statistics is fundamentally flawed - except for the single statistician that happens to be to your liking. Meanwhile, it never crosses your mind that statistics might be taught in the correct perspective in the rest of the world.

As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.


Scientists should want to know why!

But they found out why. It's just that you are in denial of what they found out.

Just to make it clear, tell what you think the scientists are saying about the causes of Global Warming. From what I have seen, the denialists are oversimplifying (as if warming were the one and only problem, instead of wider ecological concerns, and as if CO2 were the one and only greenhouse gas) and bogged down in the politics rather than the science.


The AGW groups have focused upon CO2, and hence fossil fuels... But their best models have failed to be validated by reality: They're predictions were wrong for almost two decades, now.

Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.


The trends are not the data; they are not the hypotheses. They are merely murky hints from which intelligence guesses at answers. If it stops there (as that statistician you berate notes, it often does...) nothing will be learned...

The statistician that I berate notes a lot a things with zero specifics as to what he is going on about. The specifics in his talk are so scant that from what you quoted it was impossible to tell his topic (Global Warming) and whether he was pro or contra. Whichever way it may be, he makes no point that would hint at the reason why he's pro or contra. If you can indicate such a point, please do.


Of course, causes exist!
My first memorable experience that such was so was when I was three or four... Living in Riverside, California, where we had mild winters -- mostly. But sometimes it got cold. My father would come home from work and stand upon the floor-mounted heating grates to warm his still shod feet. And one day I followed his example: I stepped, bare-foot, upon them... The burns were quite painful!
Sometimes, B follows A -- as a result. (Sometimes not...) It's important to be able to distinguish such cases.

Do you need more? :)

And how is this missing in the Global Warming debate in general? From what I can see, it's your quoted statistician alone who recognises no causality whatsoever.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #89
Do you think I didn't notice how you switched from scientists to "AGW groups"? You evidently are not talking about the science anymore, but about the politics. Conflation of science and politics, not good.
The "scientists" who are committed to AGW are leaders -or merely part of- the groups... :)
If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong... Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have repeatedly said, "Global Warming" is the wrong name for the phenomenon. You are very much hooked up with the name and you refuse to look at the phenomenon behind it.
What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end... We don't know. Our theories about such are -shall we say- merely statistical? :)
The idea that the greenhouse effect predicts, on the basis of human activity, a cataclysmic "cusp" event for the earth's climate is based upon -- what?
And when you mention that what, remember that science requires more than opinion polls!
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-15, 07:49:34 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #90

If the best accepted models positing a cause (or group of causes in conjunction) yield predictions that consistently fail, those models are wrong... Which is to say, they've not got the causality right.
How are they still science, then? :)

As long as you have not cited a specific case or paper, you have not made a point.

As for me, I see the global warming debate as a continuation of the ozone depletion debate. Nobody questioned the science there, and even the politics (targeting CFCs, HCFCs, freons, and halons) worked.


I take it, you like the idea of Global Warming, as a looming civilizational catastrophe! (That seems unlikely, to me; surely, you know better. But I could be wrong.)

Indeed, I know better. And what do you know about it? What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?



Does not statistics deal primarily with our estimation of our lack of knowledge?

This is relevant to what? Are you trying to say that you don't know and this somehow counts as a point against everyone who knows better?


What would you call "the phenomenon" and how would you characterize "the phenomenon behind it"?

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Would you say ozone depletion was unreal?


We're in an inter-glacial epoch, which may soon end... We don't know.

Oh, you are indeed saying this...

P.S. I promised to tell you about statistical significance when you answer about causes. Statistical significance begins at the threshold of statistical error. Things within the error margin are statistically insignificant. Things outside the error margin are significant, the bigger the more significant.
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-15, 10:46:16 by ersi

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #91
Oh, I would take my chances on you nuking us jimbro. Judging by the lack of geography awareness over there gives a 50-50 chance of survival.


We found you before.

Quote
The Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, was the principal means for providing U.S. military aid to foreign nations during World War II. The act authorized the president to transfer arms or any other defense materials for which Congress appropriated money to "the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States." Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Brazil, and many other countries received weapons under this law.

By allowing the president to transfer war matériel to a beleaguered Britain-and without payment as required by the Neutrality Act of 1939-the act enabled the British to keep fighting until events led America into the conflict. It also skirted the thorny problems of war debts that had followed World War I.

Don't you think it's time to pay us back.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #92
Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"? And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?
What else have you got in this discussion besides the authority of the statistician with crap logic?
I see... Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!
I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC... I've tried to keep up. (Yes, I occasionally read journal papers, as well as certain blogs -- of which I have my favorites; you likely have yours, if you're really interested. :) ) Here's John Christy relating his experience with the TAR:
Quote

My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 "Observed Climate Variability and Change", allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections.
First, note these key points about the IPCC process: the L.A. is allowed (a) to have essentially complete control over the text, (b) sit in judgment of his/her own work as well as that of his/her critics and (c) to have the option of arbitrarily dismissing reviewer comments since he/she is granted the position of "authority" (unlike peer-review.) Add to this situation the rather unusual fact that the L.A. of this particular section had been awarded a PhD only a few months before his selection by the IPCC. Such a process can lead to a biased assessment of any science. But, problems are made more likely in climate science, because, as noted, ours is a murky field of research - we still can't explain much of what happens in weather and climate.
The Hockey Stick curve depicts a slightly meandering Northern Hemisphere cooling trend from 1000 A.D. through 1900, which then suddenly swings upward in the last 80 years to temperatures warmer than any of the millennium when smoothed. To many, this appeared to be a "smoking gun" of temperature change proving that the 20th century warming was unprecedented and therefore likely to be the result of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
I will not debate the quality of the Hockey Stick - that has been effectively done elsewhere (and indeed there is voluminous discussion on this issue), so, whatever one might think of the Hockey Stick, one can readily understand that its promotion by the IPCC was problematic given the process outlined above. Indeed, with the evidence contained in the Climategate emails, we have a fairly clear picture of how this part of the IPCC TAR went awry. For a more detailed account of this incident with documentation, see http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/.
We were appointed L.A.s in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. I can assure the committee that those not familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type (and even many who should have been) were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature and sincerely wanted to believe it was truth. Skepticism was virtually non-existent. Indeed it was described as a "clear favourite" for the overall Policy Makers Summary (Folland, 0938031546.txt). In our Sept. 1999 meeting (Arusha, Tanzania) we were shown a plot containing more temperature curves than just the Hockey Stick including one from K. Briffa that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the past. In other words, absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate really was relatively cooler.
The Briffa curve created disappointment for those who wanted "a nice tidy story" (Briffa 0938031546.txt). The L.A. remarked in emails that he did not want to cast "doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates" and thus, "undermine faith in paleoestimates" which would provide "fodder" to "skeptics" (Mann 0938018124.txt). One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section. Between this email (22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two things happened: (a) the email referring to a "trick" to "hide the decline" for the preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 0942777075.txt, "trick" is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the L.A. in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa's curve had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation.)
In retrospect, this disagreement in temperature curves was simply an indication that such reconstructions using tree ring records contain significant uncertainties and may be unreliable in ways we do not currently understand or acknowledge. This should have been explained to the readers of the IPCC TAR and specifically our chapter. Highlighting that uncertainty would have been the proper scientific response to the evidence before us, but the emails show that some L.A.'s worried it would have diminished a sense of urgency about climate change (i.e. "dilutes the message rather significantly", Folland, 0938031546.txt.)
When we met in February 2000 in Auckland NZ, the one disagreeable curve, as noted, was not the same anymore because it had been modified and truncated around 1960. Not being aware of the goings-on behind the scenes, I had apparently assumed a new published time series had appeared and the offensive one had been superceded (I can't be certain of my actual thoughts in Feb. 2000). Now we know, however, that the offensive part of Briffa's curve had simply been amputated after a new realization was created three months before. (It appears also that this same curve was apparently a double amputee, having its first 145 years chopped off too, see http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/.) So, at this point, data which contradicted the Hockey Stick, whose creator was the L.A., had been eliminated. No one seemed to be alarmed (or in my case aware) that this had been done.
Procedures to guard against such manipulation of evidence are supposed to be in place whenever biases and conflicts of interest interfere with duties to report the whole truth, especially in assessments that have such potentially drastic policy implications. That the IPCC allowed this episode to happen shows, in my view, that the procedures were structurally deficient.
Even though the new temperature chart appeared to agree with the Hockey Stick, I still expressed my skepticism in this reconstruction as being evidence of actual temperature variations. Basically, this result relied considerably on a type of western U.S. tree-ring not known for its fidelity in reproducing large-scale temperatures (NRC 2006, pg. 52).
At the L.A. meetings, I indicated that there was virtually no inter-century precision in these measurements, i.e. they were not good enough to tell us which century might be warmer than another in the pre-calibration period (1000 to 1850.)
In one Climategate email, a Convening L.A., who wanted to feature the Hockey Stick at the time (though later was less enthusiastic), mentions "The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance" and was "probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2" (Folland, 0938031546.txt). This, in all likelihood, was a reference to (a) my expressed concern (see my 2001 comments to NRC below) as well as to (b) the prominence to which the Hockey Stick was pre destined.
To compound this sad and deceptive situation, I had been quite impressed with some recent results by Dahl-Jensen et al., (Science 1998), in which Greenland ice-borehole temperatures had been deconvolved into a time series covering the past 20,000 years. This measurement indeed presented inter-century variations. Their result indicated a clear 500-year period of temperatures, warmer than the present, centered about 900 A.D. - commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, a feature noticeably absent in the Hockey Stick. What is important about this is that whenever any mid to high-latitude location shows centuries of a particularly large temperature anomaly, the spatial scale that such a departure represents is also large. In other words, long time periods of warmth or coolness are equivalent to large spatial domains of warmth or coolness, such as Greenland can represent for the Northern Hemisphere (the domain of the Hockey Stick.)
I discussed this with the paleo-L.A. at each meeting, asking that he include this exceptional result in the document as evidence for temperature fluctuations different from his own. To me Dahl-Jensen et al.'s reconstruction was a more robust estimate of past temperatures than one produced from a certain set of western U.S. tree-ring proxies. But as the process stood, the L.A. was not required to acknowledge my suggestions, and I was not able to convince him otherwise. It is perhaps a failure of mine that I did not press the issue even harder or sought agreement from others who might have been likewise aware of the evidence against the Hockey Stick realization.
As it turned out, this exceptional paper by Dahl-Jensen et al. was not even mentioned in the appropriate section (TAR 2.3.2). There was a brief mention of similar evidence indicating warmer temperatures 1000 years ago from the Sargasso Sea sediments (TAR 2.3.3), but the text then quickly asserts, without citation, that this type of anomaly is not important to the hemisphere as a whole.
Thus, we see a situation where a contradictory data set from Greenland, which in terms of paleoclimate in my view was quite important, was not offered to the readers (the policymakers) for their consideration. In the end, the Hockey Stick appeared in Figure 1 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, without any other comparisons, a position of prominence that speaks for itself.
So, to summarize, an L.A. was given final say over a section which included as its (and the IPCC's) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence. This led to problems that have only recently been exposed. This process, in my opinion, illustrates that the IPCC did not provide policymakers with an unbiased evaluation of the science, whatever one thinks about the Hockey Stick as a temperature reconstruction.
(source)
If you are unfamiliar with this story, from what do you argue? :)
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-16, 00:36:38 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #93

Increasing climate instability due to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Where is the evidence of "increasing climate instability"?

You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.


And why would you call greenhouse gases pollutants?

Man-made industrial pollutants are man-made industrial pollutants. I gave a list too in #91.


I see... Your memory seems to be so short, your penchant for ad hominem so ingrained that you look like a mime stuck in a box!

I became interested in AGW after the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC... I've tried to keep up.

Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.

And, as your long quote shows this time, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.

Seriously, politics is a distinct matter. In the ozone depletion agenda, the politics worked just fine - not only because the science was right, but because the politics was right. They both have to be right. In this Global Warming/Climate Change thing, the politics is slow, narrow, ridden with "interests" and ineffective. Pretty much everybody except Americans know that the United States is torpedoing the process to gain an edge over China and EU - this is politics. But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-16, 04:31:27 by ersi

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #94
Third Assessment Report of 2001? I was first introduced into the topic of ozone depletion in mid-80's. You have no way to catch up with my far longer memory.
And, as I suspected, you are really only interested in the politics, not the science. Case closed.
I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol... The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of ... stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected... :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't... Hm!)
But the effects of banning CFCs and such was minor. (Both the environmental effects and the economic costs.)
You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.
Not to worry, though: The measurement of the earth's temperature is so poorly handled by incompetent (...or worse!) statisticians that their "trendiness" is soon to come crashing down. (At least the satellite record uses statistics correctly.) How else would you explain the "adjustment" of buoy measurements -designed for the purpose- being changed, to accommodate canvas and wooden bucket sea surface temperatures that are (ahem!) hotter, and hence to be preferred?

Indeed, the politics interests me -- in much the way that cancer might interest a pathologist. (I see some few prominent scientists attempting to be general physicians... You'd probably call them witches.)
The science fascinates me. The various fields and their interaction are rich lodes of information and inspiration -- and challenge. I'd like to see climatology become a real science -- if it's possible.
I would not like to see it continue to be a fantasy-game of supercomputer models whose predictions are never checked... Simulations are an important tool in such a field; but -if the field is to progress- it needs to hypothesize causes. By all means, model those. But the models must make predictions that can be falsified... Else, they'll just be computer games.

Is there even one climate scientist's paper you'd mention (so that I can read it, or comment if I already have...) to me?
Jim Hanson, Michael Mann, Phil Jones; Hans von Storch, James Annan, Ken Briffa; any of their co-authors... Indeed, anyone who's published in the last 20 years or so -- I can find their papers.
So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field...)
------------------------------------------
But the politics says nothing about the science and you really haven't said anything about the science yet. And neither has your statistician.
You have a very odd definition of science...
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".
The governments of the world don't abide by the prescriptions of those who believe in the models; these are evil people!

Is there anything else to your argument? :)

BTW:
You missed the question I asked: Would you say ozone depletion was unreal? This gives you an idea about the evidence.
I don't want an "idea" about the evidence... I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Put another way, I see no way you can support your trope of trends, unless you develop causal theories. (Everything Christy said about the HockeyStick graph applies...) But look at the pretty straight line! Ooh! It must mean something...!


P.S.,
Read some of Judith Curry's papers...
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-16, 07:14:24 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #95

I'm quite aware of what happened in the '80s regarding the Montreal Protocol... The acceptance of the Precautionary Principle was a milestone of ... stupidity. (If one applied it to itself it would have to be rejected... :) Is your antiquated logic able to derive that? Of course, it is; yet you don't... Hm!)

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.


You close the case, because you are ignorant of it. But the regime of attaining a less than 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 is just plain silly. And precluding a 2º C increase in the earth's temperature is a feat that modern technology cannot perform.

So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO2 and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.

You have astonishingly little faith in the capabilities of modern technology whereas in ancient times Roman empire managed to deforestate all Mediterranean coasts. Modern industry surely can achieve feats greater than this. But we've already seen that for example nuclear explosions only fill you with delight.


You have a very odd definition of science...
The models make predictions. The predictions fail.
The data don't confirm the models. The data are "adjusted".

You keep saying this, but you never cite an actual paper that predicted something and no paper that disproved the predictions. You can keep saying this as long as you like.


So, are there any that you've read that should convince me? :) (Yes, the phrasing of that question was deliberate. Alternately, I could have asked "What paper(s) convinced you?" You can only dodge this question by quitting the field...)

No paper convinced me. And no paper will be able to convince you either, because your attitude is like that of the statistician with crap logic, decidedly missing the point.

Industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me. You, on the other hand, believe there's no such thing as industrial impact because, according to you, statistics can be used to prove anything. This is missing the point, because this never was to do with statistics per se. It's to do with climatology and ecology. If you are not denying the greenhouse effect, then you know what I am talking about and you are knowingly evading it.

I am not quitting the field. We never were in the same field to begin with.

I don't want an "idea" about the evidence... I want the evidence!
(I'm sure you'll think that quibbling. :) )

Evidence about ozone depletion. Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #96
To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.
The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe... Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquition. :) ) Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...
A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated. (But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)
What do the models say, now? (What has concerned measurement said, recently?)
But I read more of your post:
So, as I thought, global warming is strictly limited to CO2 and temperature measurements for you. No concern about wider industrial impact on ecology.
Have you an anti-industrial agenda you'd like to discuss? :) (I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land...)
industrial impact on environment is an acute first-hand problem for me.
I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.
But trying to destroy the economies of the West and preclude the assumption of industrial civilization in Africa, e.g., will not make you better off.
Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support -- well, whatever. And consider becoming conversant with science, since 30 years ago...which seems to be when you stopped learning.
Are you denying ozone depletion, seriously? This shows that you only scoff at evidence.
Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion... Please.
Not the "projected" effects but those actually observed.
(As you and I both know, there were none... So, cite the paper(s) that predicted such.)
BTW: Wiki says that 98% of such pollutants have been eliminated -- but there's still more to be done! :)
Nature really is a Bitch!
  • Last Edit: 2015-06-16, 08:15:11 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #97

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #98

To reject the precautionary principle by "applying it to itself" you must suspect that it poses a risk to the environment. Show me how it does so.
The Precautionary Principle requires that whatever protocol or process is considered, it must first be proven to be safe... Proven as in proven! (To use a Briggsian loquation. :) )

Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...

No, not proven as in proven according to Briggs's definition. Same as anywhere else, Briggsian logic does not apply here.

The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action. You don't reject safety itself (which is what the precautionary principle is - it's a formulation of the principle of safety and caution; it's not a policy/action that could be considered either safe or unsafe).

If you reject safety as a matter of principle, you are not just failing the logic of the precautionary principle formulated whichever way. You are being plain stupid in the pragmatic sense.


A simple example from long ago: DDT was banned, because of unfounded environmental harms predicted. Millions of people died from disease that reasonable application of DDT would have eradicated.
(But Europeans get to sell mosquito netting to sub-Saharan Africans! A Win-Win? :) )

Not because of harms predicted, but because of pervasive environmental impact consistently demonstrated:


DDT is a persistent organic pollutant that is readily adsorbed to soils and sediments, which can act both as sinks and as long-term sources of exposure contributing to terrestrial organisms. [...] DDT is toxic to a wide range of living organisms, [etc.]



Did you really think air-conditioning was going to cause something akin to the Black Plague via skin cancers?! (Think back, ersi: Did you really think so, back then?)

The debate concerning the ban was, back then, about its use as a pesticide in agriculture, not in air-conditioning. In Northern Europe we hardly need air-conditioning. This is how much you know and remember.


(I'm willing to accept that you yourself only use vegetable matter you've grown on your own land...)

I in fact do. I was raised this way and I'm doing my best to maintain this way of life, despite the odds.


I'm sorry that your previous masters were such rapacious assholes. And, if your current government hasn't undone the damage, I'd say help them do so.

The current government cares even less about ecology. They don't care about demographics and economy either. They only care about tactical alignment with EU/US, regardless of the content of the policies. They have done things against overwhelming popular opinion, so evidently they are not looking at the people for guidance.


Or am I wrong? Would you just like to see others suffer? Would that make you feel better? If so, my only question is Why?

Yes, you are wrong. Because this is not about making oneself to feel better at all. It's about reducing obvious harm and wrongness. When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life. Whereas you evidently think that the solution is to go to the supermarket and there's no problem at all. This is worlds apart. We are not talking about the same thing, dude.


Cite the effects of supposed Ozone depletion... Please.

Too hard to read Wikipedia?


Ozone, while a minority constituent in Earth's atmosphere, is responsible for most of the absorption of UVB radiation. The amount of UVB radiation that penetrates through the ozone layer decreases exponentially with the slant-path thickness and density of the layer. When stratospheric ozone levels decrease, higher levels of UVB reach the Earth's surface.

The relevant reference on the Wikipedia page: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects/

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #99
The principle is that when the safety of a policy/action is not certain, you reject the policy/action.
So, swimming, boating, driving a car, flying on an airplane; heck, even bicycling, running and walking are too dangerous -- since they are not certainly safe! :) Your rubber room awaits you...
Feel free to cite any published academic paper to support -- well, whatever.
Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a publisher of academic papers! :) Even so, I meant actual measured effects, not speculative statistics. More importantly, I was specifically looking for papers about climatology... (You know, the topic here?)
And, as I expected, you cited none.
When one lacks arable land to grow food, I see it as end of life.
The folks here in the Central Valley of California didn't a hundred years ago, nor did the Israelis much more recently... Perhaps it's the attitude of the people that matters most.
Subsistence farming seems not much better than hunting and gathering. Just how primitive would you like to see the world's societies become? :)

And I reiterate the challenge: Prove that the Precautionary Principle won't produce deleterious effects...
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman