Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
MH2, your statement "A different tack is from the folks who ask: Given the amount of money that would be invested in trying to mitigate climate change, with hard-to-predict outcomes, would it be better to use the money otherwise, by providing food, water, and medicine to the already disadvantaged on the planet?" is my concern exactly. Thanks for stating it so well.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
the entire climate change theory is based on 1) speculation because nobody fully understands how the globe regulates its temperature, and 2) computer models that are only as good as the data entered into those models (which the emails clearly show cru changed to fit their preferred outcomes and the raw data was destroyed...if you don't believe me, just ask your news icon jon stewart)...so, technically, gore is correct, according to the data entered into the models, the earth's sea level will rise 27 feet--though the ipcc report claims only 17 inches
also, sea level has been rising and glaciers have been melting for about 11,000 years...true, there was an evident trend upward in global temps (though many of those temps were taken in urban areas, which skews the data) starting from about 1850, but the sharpest spike of the 20th century came before 1930, BEFORE the industrial boom that agw scientists claim is the biggest threat
again, NOBODY is saying we should do nothing or that humans are not a factor...we're just saying any action we take needs to be thoroughly considered and, most importantly of all, based on FACTS...the 3000 (that number is context enough for me) emails prove that some of the most important voices in the non-debate have been lying for a very long time; trying to diminish the significance of mann and jones is like saying charles manson is only one man and can't be blamed for all those murders...the "research" done by mann and jones is at the heart of the ipcc report and cap and trade legislation...their efforts to squash dissent and blackball other scientists and to manipulate/destroy data to achieve predetermined results should make EVERYONE question the "science" of anthropogenic climate change
this is a great opportunity for cooler (get it?) heads to prevail and say, "STOP...let's start over...let's hear from everybody...let's look at ALL the data before we pass any legislation that could do more harm than good"
in the meantime, america can continue the procedures already in place that reduced our emissions more than ANY NATION that was a part of kyoto...what we're doing clearly works both environmentally and economically better than what any other nation is doing
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Here's the thing. The models, as compared with accelerating observed glacial melt and sea level rises, have almost universally been shown to be TOO conservative, with observed changes happening much faster than we expected.
Often times because factors contribute to one another and create tipping points (like melting snow uncovers earth which in turn absorbs heat instead of reflecting it.
So come on science bros. I keep hearing this debate among legitimate scientists is practically settled on "Just how much and how fast is man adding to this accelerated change, but we obviously are doing so in a serious way" while the camp that says "man is not responsible" are basically tobacco company scientists paid to obscure the debate by giving Cornis and Bookworm types data for doubt.
Quote from BBC today
"E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator. Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions..
"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability.
Some other countries shared this view, he said; and as a result, governments would not be prepared to countenance agreeing anything that would affect economic growth for many years, until "new evidence" settled the scientific picture...
..As the world's leading oil producer, Saudi Arabia has previously fought attempts to agree curbs on emissions, and has also argued that it should receive financial compensation for "lost" revenue, given that constraints on emissions might restrict oil sales.
To some long-time observers of the UN negotiations, Mr Al-Sabban's comments indicate a continuation of this strategy..."
Meanwhile "...A spokeswoman for the European Commission said that with or without the CRU hack, evidence for man-made climate change was "irrefutable".
"The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree that what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation in the climate over time, but due to human activities," she said.
"If we do not act, climate change will continue apace and lead to major damaging impacts to the natural world and society."
What does Europe know? The Saudis know if it's hot!
"Other academics prominent in developing the mainstream view of climate science maintain that the contents of the stolen documents make no difference to the picture outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its landmark 2007 assessment.
"There is a consensus among the world's scientists that climate change is real and there's a need to confront it," said Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, a leading palaeoclimatologist.
"Those who are advocating inaction, that don't want to see progress in Copenhagen, don't have science on their side.
Peace
Karl
IPCC PROJECTIONS FOR 2100
Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
Sea level likely to rise 28-43cm
Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
Increase in heatwaves very likely
Increase in intensity of tropical storms likely
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ed,
Thanks for the reply. While I agree with your description of the goal of climate models, the fact remains that they predict the past better than they predict the future, which suggests to me that we're still on a "specifcation search" for the models.
The American Statistical Association has issued a statement on climate change, supporting both the existance of global warming and the anthropogenic contribution to it. This would hardly be necessary if statistical considerations were not part of the puzzle.
Bookworm,
You and I almost always agree, but I think you may overstate the importance of the uncertainty in this area. We, of course, cannot measure precisely how much human activity affects climate. That imprecision, however, does not negate the relationship between human activity and climate. It simply leads to a wider confidence level of predictions.
I agree that the imprecision suggests that we deal with a range of possible scenarios (which, as Ed pointed out, current modelling is trying to do). This also means that we don't put all of our solution eggs into one basket (e.g. spend all our effort reducing carbon emissions, rather than ameliorating effects). After all, there is also rather strong evidence that variance in solar activity has a direct influence on our weather, too.
My bottom line: we'll make our best decisions if we let science be science, view all climate models with the degree of skepticism appropriate to any other research, and then use economics to decide what to do about it. The climate change science involves physics and chemistry. The question of how to use scarce resources to deal with this, and all other problems of humanity, is the province of economics, which most certianly is not science.
John
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
Well put john. I have some reading to do in this thread before jumping in, but I really want to know what you guys think of this "e-mail scandal" and its implications in the scientific community. Is it a big deal? Blown out of proportion? Who exactly are these guys?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
That's some serious discussion you are quoting Bluering. Just a quick unbiased, rational excerpt
"6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”
Hmm, guess they have dittoheads in England too.
Seems to me that this email scandal proves just as much about the climate debate as finding pedophile priests show proves about God or Bernie Madoff proves about wall street. Human Nature and greed taint actions in every sphere but that doesn't negate a bigger picture
Peace
Karl
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
The climate models are by no means perfect, but I think there is more than sufficient confidence to know that a bussiness as usual scenerio is going to be pretty bad.
But the question I have: for those that think that the climate models are very iffy, why does the assumption seem to be that the models are overstating the problem instead of understating? If you don't have faith in the models, it would seem more intellectually honest to think that the problem is just as likely to be far more worse as it is to be trivial.
When engineers build/design the emergency spillway on a dam, they try to size it so it can pass the 1 in 10,000 year storm (without endangering the dam).
People buy life/disability/fire insuarance even though they don't expect to ever use it.
But for global warming, it is do nothing unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt? WTF?
Instead of looking at what is most likely to happen. Think about, what is the really bad 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 outcome. The physical outcome such as droughts etc are pretty bad. Add to that, many or our other institutions are more fragile than we would like to think. Imagine that prolonged droughts in some places, combined with extreme weather events (like Katrina) and more failed states (such as Darfur) had weakened (and bankrupted) governments, and then add on top of that something like the 2008 financial meltdown. Beside the loss of life, imagine how much money and lost economic output that would cause. I don't think it is hard to imagine 15~30% loss in world GDP from a combination of events like that.
Wouldn't it be worth buying some insurance against this? Say spending 1% of world GDP? You don't have to bankrupt the economy to do this. Many things wouldn't even cost any extra, for instance, society can start buying $40,000 electric sport sedans instead of $40,000 SUVs. Jobs get shifted but the economy is not going to be static anyway.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Seems to me that this email scandal proves just as much about the climate debate as finding pedophile priests show proves about God or Bernie Madoff proves about wall street. Human Nature and greed taint actions in every sphere but that doesn't negate a bigger picture
Werd Karl!
The skeptics are just using the stolen e-mails as a convenient, lazy, and fundamentally dishonest excuse to trash all the climate science when in fact, the science behind it has been quite thorough.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
And on the other side of the coin this should come as no surprise . . .
Source: Raw Story
Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil
By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 -- 10:22 am
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4169488
Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon MobilA group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.
The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.
...................
"Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie," Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. "It's important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science."
...............
Heartland has received at least $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the year Exxon launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the two groups that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also, the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.
The study's two principal authors and NIPCC leaders S Fred Singer and Craig D Idso are both associated with various organizations that have gotten generous funding from Exxon-Mobil.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
Are the e-mails public domain at this time?
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
Has the CRU, and Phil Jones in particular, been a reliable source of information for those in scientific climate circles over the past decade? Can somebody answer this for me?
Has the University of East Anglia's CRU been a big player in the IPCC's consensus? If so, those who believe strongly in the IPCC's conclusions really need to look at this rather than dismiss the "e- mail scandal" as some rogue scientists who's behavior shouldn't change anything.
I'd love some input here.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
August, I think you have a reasonable way to look at this. The only tweak I would add is this: there are costs for being wrong in both directions. If anthropogenic warming is causing more climate change than our models state, we pay a cost by doing too little. If that warming causes less than our models state, there is also a cost for doing too much.
We look at both of these costs when, for example, we buy life insurance. I'll pay $500 a quarter for a $250,000 term policy, but I won't pay $5,000 a quarter -- at least not now. If I were 90 rather than 58, though, I'd pay $5,000 a quarter for a $250,000 term policy. There is no reason not to look at the range of possible outcomes and costs in the climate change debate. That's why I spend so much time harping about confidence intervals and statistics of fit. They affect errors in both directions.
John
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
Thanks Ed. I've dug through the IPCC report and am familiar with its findings. For those who are full on believers in man-made global warming, do these recent findings present cause for concern in what they believe in? In medicine, when we see something like this in say, a defective orthopedic screw or medication with longterm side effects, we look hard at it. We put aside our preconcieved notion and pride.
My feeling is that those who fully believe in Global Warming caused by manmade Co2, etc hear this kind of thing and dismiss it, unwilling to look hard at the fact that maybe their camp is wrong. Maybe it isn't a big deal and maybe it won't shift the consensus, but it seems to me it isn't being given much credence by those who would stand to lose the most (from an pride standpoint) should it turn out that climate change isn't very dependent on human factors. Just my two cents. Any thoughts?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Washington Times is a crap source.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Washington Times is a crap source.
Actually you are a source of crap, the Times is a source of ink and paper. On a side note, does your crap stink?
EDIT: BTW, it is a documented fact that he's been requesting the data from NASA for 2 freakin' years!!!!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Of course it doesn't stink. I also fart perfume.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!