News0 min ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
David's comparison of the AGW attribution of blame to human activity with the process of law in attributing guilt is poorly targetted.
What is sought by proponents of AGW is more like an injunction. There are reasonable grounds to indicate that unabated combustion is causing a problem. Until the case is settled it is reasonable that steps are taken to curtail the activity.
Indeed, David's background in Law is part of his blinkered outlook. Lawyers are trained to adopt a side of the argument and only present the evidence that supports their case while playing down the other side's assertions. A lawyer's task is to win the case, not find the truth.
This is why he (and other climate change skeptics) simply drop the discussion of things they have presented as evidence as soon as it is proven to be a fallacy. They don't want to talk about it any more and move on to their next myth.
What is sought by proponents of AGW is more like an injunction. There are reasonable grounds to indicate that unabated combustion is causing a problem. Until the case is settled it is reasonable that steps are taken to curtail the activity.
Indeed, David's background in Law is part of his blinkered outlook. Lawyers are trained to adopt a side of the argument and only present the evidence that supports their case while playing down the other side's assertions. A lawyer's task is to win the case, not find the truth.
This is why he (and other climate change skeptics) simply drop the discussion of things they have presented as evidence as soon as it is proven to be a fallacy. They don't want to talk about it any more and move on to their next myth.
Your arrogance staggers me Beso.
I used the word escalator for a reason, The labour government used the "Green Taxes" thing to introduce increases in fuel duties in excess of inflation. These were LABELLED GREEN TAXES to voters in the UK as a way of combatting the alleged threat of AGW by investing in research through the IPCC in association with the Hadley Centre and other research sites across the UK. Our current tory government rescinded the escalator but still up the duty rates in excess of inflation. Oddly enough the investment in this never rose at even close to the same rates as fuel taxes, get the picture?? Probably not!
Secondly - Vat yes I'm aware it's a general tax however if you'd bothered to read the sodding post properly what I listed was a breakdown of the costs we pay for a litre of fuel in terms of tax duties.
Perhaps beso, a look at the world outwith the three feet around your head might go down a treat.
David H - Don't know how you put up with this humerous circus expert, you can't argue or debate with salad chefs like this guy. This was a big part of the reason I went meteorology instead of climatology when I had the chance, can't ar$ed debating with prople who can't understand the concept of debate.
I'm out of this
I used the word escalator for a reason, The labour government used the "Green Taxes" thing to introduce increases in fuel duties in excess of inflation. These were LABELLED GREEN TAXES to voters in the UK as a way of combatting the alleged threat of AGW by investing in research through the IPCC in association with the Hadley Centre and other research sites across the UK. Our current tory government rescinded the escalator but still up the duty rates in excess of inflation. Oddly enough the investment in this never rose at even close to the same rates as fuel taxes, get the picture?? Probably not!
Secondly - Vat yes I'm aware it's a general tax however if you'd bothered to read the sodding post properly what I listed was a breakdown of the costs we pay for a litre of fuel in terms of tax duties.
Perhaps beso, a look at the world outwith the three feet around your head might go down a treat.
David H - Don't know how you put up with this humerous circus expert, you can't argue or debate with salad chefs like this guy. This was a big part of the reason I went meteorology instead of climatology when I had the chance, can't ar$ed debating with prople who can't understand the concept of debate.
I'm out of this
-- answer removed --
I read the excerpt from the book. Interesting enough.
I am not particularly impressed by their argument that it is inappropriate for climate modellers to be assessing the modelling. I suppose it might make sense if you are inclined to get a plumber to inspect your electrical system.
It paints a picture of models being wothless because they are incapable of absolute proof, are based solely on projecting assumptions and have no mechanism to test them.
No absolute proof yes but strong indications of high probability of undesirable outcomes.
The models are tested by applying them periods where there are good geological records of the conditions. The models (produced by about twenty independent teams) are run against the factors of that era. The goal is for the model to reproduce the real outcomes and in this way they are honed toward increasing accuracy.
How do you suppose someone with no knowledge of the factors affecting climate and the fundamental principles of modelling would be capable of making a reasonable assessment of the work?
I am not particularly impressed by their argument that it is inappropriate for climate modellers to be assessing the modelling. I suppose it might make sense if you are inclined to get a plumber to inspect your electrical system.
It paints a picture of models being wothless because they are incapable of absolute proof, are based solely on projecting assumptions and have no mechanism to test them.
No absolute proof yes but strong indications of high probability of undesirable outcomes.
The models are tested by applying them periods where there are good geological records of the conditions. The models (produced by about twenty independent teams) are run against the factors of that era. The goal is for the model to reproduce the real outcomes and in this way they are honed toward increasing accuracy.
How do you suppose someone with no knowledge of the factors affecting climate and the fundamental principles of modelling would be capable of making a reasonable assessment of the work?
Don't worry slapshot, I trained at Skeptical Science's site, once you've sparred with the heavyweights anyone else is a holiday.
Beso, I have to correct you on the law. Firstly the academic training does exactly the opposite. You have to answer questions based on the whole arguments for both sides, as a solicitor not a barrister. Only barristers then train to speak for one side and I am not one. But that is restricted to a single extra year of bar finals, graduates and solicitors are only taught to see both sides and never come down on either and make a decision as that is for the judge and jury alone.
In fact, legal cases rely on full evidence from both sides, the exact opposite of 'the science is settled'. My work was actually as a law teacher, so am happy to continue that role online if necessary.
Beso, I have to correct you on the law. Firstly the academic training does exactly the opposite. You have to answer questions based on the whole arguments for both sides, as a solicitor not a barrister. Only barristers then train to speak for one side and I am not one. But that is restricted to a single extra year of bar finals, graduates and solicitors are only taught to see both sides and never come down on either and make a decision as that is for the judge and jury alone.
In fact, legal cases rely on full evidence from both sides, the exact opposite of 'the science is settled'. My work was actually as a law teacher, so am happy to continue that role online if necessary.
Having just read beso's defence of climate models, I can affirm he does not work for the University of East Anglia. Here is their personal opinions, never expected to be public but since yesterday now are:
/// Climate Models ///
<3111> Watson/UEA:
I'd agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the "big climate picture" includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:
While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
<1982> Santer:
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we've applied.
<0850> Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<4085> Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.
--------------------------------------
I think we've found a consensus there.
/// Climate Models ///
<3111> Watson/UEA:
I'd agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the "big climate picture" includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:
While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
<1982> Santer:
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we've applied.
<0850> Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<4085> Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.
--------------------------------------
I think we've found a consensus there.
David H // Don't worry slapshot, I trained at Skeptical Science's site, once you've sparred with the heavyweights anyone else is a holiday. //
Ha! What a joke. I demolished your attempts to undermine the science with faked graphs and a ridiculous claim that the sea level change is following a sine wave.
You cannot even see when you have failed.
You really haven't a clue.
Ha! What a joke. I demolished your attempts to undermine the science with faked graphs and a ridiculous claim that the sea level change is following a sine wave.
You cannot even see when you have failed.
You really haven't a clue.
-- answer removed --
Birdie:
The problem with releasing the details of the models' workings is that it would destroy their independence. The strength of the models is in their variety. Exposing the whole shebang to all will lead to convergence on what everyone thinks is the best way forward, ultimately losing the variety and novelty of the various approaches.
The assessments are not carried out on the underlying techniques but on the extent of the match between the model and the measurements.
This is similar to the automation systems in critical technology. Independent teams build entirely separate control systems. These systems are designed not only to provide an answer but to vote on each other's competence in determining the best action.
The developers are forbidden to discuss their projects with other teams lest they all incorporate the same weakness because it seemed a good idea at the time.
The problem with releasing the details of the models' workings is that it would destroy their independence. The strength of the models is in their variety. Exposing the whole shebang to all will lead to convergence on what everyone thinks is the best way forward, ultimately losing the variety and novelty of the various approaches.
The assessments are not carried out on the underlying techniques but on the extent of the match between the model and the measurements.
This is similar to the automation systems in critical technology. Independent teams build entirely separate control systems. These systems are designed not only to provide an answer but to vote on each other's competence in determining the best action.
The developers are forbidden to discuss their projects with other teams lest they all incorporate the same weakness because it seemed a good idea at the time.
I'm guessing from that comprehensive answer you do work for the industry, and quite possibly an eco-troll who is specifically employed to kill threads pulling apart your work. The truth is always present however hard people try to hide it. If the science was so great it would stand up on its own without needing massive PR efforts and far worse.
You aren't fooling anyone, you have an axe to grind so are clearly not independent but defending a personal position. I have none and am just working for honesty's sake.
So without giving too much away which particular area of climatology are you working in beso?
You aren't fooling anyone, you have an axe to grind so are clearly not independent but defending a personal position. I have none and am just working for honesty's sake.
So without giving too much away which particular area of climatology are you working in beso?
If we could know I think that the trolling is being done by those who are opposed to action being taken to mitigate the warming problem. There was strong public support a few years ago but a concerted effort by those committed to inaction has helped turn the tables.
Take a look at the original question. It is typical of the strategy by open with a false claim purporting to be a statement of fact.
The science does stand up on its own. However skeptics repeatedly misrepresent it while presenting faked evidence. Take for example the faked data you provided here.
You claim to have read the real science and are better informed than me, insisting that I am just accepting the simplistic story fed by the media. Yet you were obviously not aware of the real graphs while I immediately recognised it had been doctored. You are the one who is far from impartial and simply lapped up the rubbish put in front of you because it suited your prejudice.
I am not working for the industry. That is just your new tack to steer away from the science yet again because you can see that I am far better informed than yourself.
Your recalcitrance persists despite my demolition of every claim you have made.
Take a look at the original question. It is typical of the strategy by open with a false claim purporting to be a statement of fact.
The science does stand up on its own. However skeptics repeatedly misrepresent it while presenting faked evidence. Take for example the faked data you provided here.
You claim to have read the real science and are better informed than me, insisting that I am just accepting the simplistic story fed by the media. Yet you were obviously not aware of the real graphs while I immediately recognised it had been doctored. You are the one who is far from impartial and simply lapped up the rubbish put in front of you because it suited your prejudice.
I am not working for the industry. That is just your new tack to steer away from the science yet again because you can see that I am far better informed than yourself.
Your recalcitrance persists despite my demolition of every claim you have made.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
The whole foundation of science, plus the political policies based on it, ought to be certain within the recognised boundaries.
It is impossible to prove there is no agw, just as unless temperatures rise way over the norm in harmony with CO2 it is impossible to prove a fairly substantial rise in CO2 with a fairly insignificant and disputed rise in an already rising temperature.
All I do is raise little known areas of doubt, as the media rarely do. People must vote for policies based on the full picture. If you dismiss the crap on both sides (Pachauri's melting glaciers, the lies about falling polar bear populations refuted in a recent court case etc) you are left with what remains, a complex collection of conflicting and inconclusive fragments attempting to prove or settle beyond all reasonable doubts something is happening which requires urgent action.
Anyone who is unable to see these doubts and the collected weight making any claims of certainty nothing more than a figment of imagination is clearly in a state of denial. If the media had the integrity to honestly report the true uncertainties in virtually every area I wouldn't need as a total amateur to try and do it for them as they can do a proper job and pay researchers to present it correctly. Criticising my presentation is a pointless pursuit as the data is collected and up to every reader to decide upon not on how I present it, and thank goodness most appear to take the same conclusions as me.
It is impossible to prove there is no agw, just as unless temperatures rise way over the norm in harmony with CO2 it is impossible to prove a fairly substantial rise in CO2 with a fairly insignificant and disputed rise in an already rising temperature.
All I do is raise little known areas of doubt, as the media rarely do. People must vote for policies based on the full picture. If you dismiss the crap on both sides (Pachauri's melting glaciers, the lies about falling polar bear populations refuted in a recent court case etc) you are left with what remains, a complex collection of conflicting and inconclusive fragments attempting to prove or settle beyond all reasonable doubts something is happening which requires urgent action.
Anyone who is unable to see these doubts and the collected weight making any claims of certainty nothing more than a figment of imagination is clearly in a state of denial. If the media had the integrity to honestly report the true uncertainties in virtually every area I wouldn't need as a total amateur to try and do it for them as they can do a proper job and pay researchers to present it correctly. Criticising my presentation is a pointless pursuit as the data is collected and up to every reader to decide upon not on how I present it, and thank goodness most appear to take the same conclusions as me.
Regardless of anything else the fact remains that all the science points to a rise in temperature as a result of CO2 increases. The exact extent of that warming is uncertain but no science suggests that it isn't a reality.
Skeptics unsuccessfully try to undermine the science and based on pure supposition without a scap of evidence claim that we have nothing to worry about.
No models, no measurements, no theory, nothing but sheer ignorange is used to support their hypothesis that the climate cannot be affected by human activity.
Skeptics unsuccessfully try to undermine the science and based on pure supposition without a scap of evidence claim that we have nothing to worry about.
No models, no measurements, no theory, nothing but sheer ignorange is used to support their hypothesis that the climate cannot be affected by human activity.
David H // ... unless temperatures rise way over the norm in harmony with CO2 it is impossible to prove a fairly substantial rise in CO2 with a fairly insignificant and disputed rise in an already rising temperature. //
Again you deny the importance of the massive delay in effects caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans. We have caused an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 concentrations and it will be thousands of years before the full effect of this is manifested.
The rise in temperature is disputed only by the most extreme of denialists. Even the majority of denialists acknowledge this. You put yourself into the caegory of extremist with that claim.
I will ask again as I have before. What is the safe level of CO2 that won't affect climate. And again you will ignore the question.
Again you deny the importance of the massive delay in effects caused by the thermal inertia of the oceans. We have caused an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 concentrations and it will be thousands of years before the full effect of this is manifested.
The rise in temperature is disputed only by the most extreme of denialists. Even the majority of denialists acknowledge this. You put yourself into the caegory of extremist with that claim.
I will ask again as I have before. What is the safe level of CO2 that won't affect climate. And again you will ignore the question.
-- answer removed --
