GW: Separating facts from fiction

[BobK]

Edufer,

I don't want to derail the thread, but I have to say.

Wow! 68 and still sky-diving. Way to go!

I'll hit 60 this June and never tried sky-diving. I guess I've always felt, with my luck, I'd end up being an example of an exception to the rule.

 

[Geckko]

Same thing as what? I'm not clear on what you mean.

I was refering to this post of yours:

Here's another source that debunks M&M (the gibbering buffoons).

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded.

Your source was simply a press release, nothing more.

You then castigated someone else for using a press release as a source by saying this:

Let me see if I have this straight... You have reached an opinion about scientific research based on the subtitle of a press release, and you've posted that opinion on a skeptical forum...? Yikes.

I don't consider it a cheap shot to call non-scientists who purvey garbage in the name of 'debunking' legit expert scientists buffoons. Mileage may vary.

I suppose I don't see "scientists" and non-scientists". I look at the hypotheses, data, methodology and conclusions. In this specific case the wider scientific community seem to perceive Steve MacIntyre in particular as someone who has some valid critique to make about the statistical methodology being employed in certain climate data reconstructions. If he is wrong, it will come out in the literature. My take is that for the moment there is a valid and well founded debate going on about the efficacy of long term climate history reconstructions. Moreover, this debate should only lead to improved, more robust and hence more useful nformation about how the climate has behaved over that past and how it might change in the future.

I just don't see the point of all the aggro. and phrases like "bozos" or "buffoons".

 

[Jorghnassen]

Can you see? the last two years have been cooling down -especially 2005, termed the "warmest ever" -after three years of warming, that followed three years of deep cooling (one year with a very slight warming there)

So this time you start with a more appropriate graph, and instead of a 4 years cooling trend you alluded to, you only get 2 years of local cooling, but there is nothing special there. And it still doesn't change the fact that the global average temperature in 2005 was one of the highest on record (was it really the warmest?).

As it can be seen, temperature variations are abundant and wild. As grenhouse warming theory says the lineal CO2 increase must produce an accordingly temperature increase, warming should have been constant.That's not the case anywhere in the world. if you care to make a rgapic tend for Córdoba, you'd see there is a cooling trend since 1987 -that's about the 29 -30 years span needed in climatology for setting a trend.

The same is for most cities in Argentina. So it is not “linear regression sophistry.” It’ just you don’t know too much about meteorology and the way we analyse data. Start with learning, for a change.

It is still sophistry. You oversimplify models you don't understand, and then look at a particular case in an attempt to show that a theory that makes inference on global temperature (amongst other things) doesn't work.

Here's an oversimplified illustration for you: if the number of goals scored in a season of an entire football league is increasing (from the total goals of a previous season), it doesn't prevent player A from team X to score fewer goals than he did in the previous year, in fact, it doesn't prevent the entire team X to score fewer goals than it did in the previous year.

Climate change models (they don't say global warming anymore because it conveys the wrong idea) don't say that local temperatures will increase everywhere. In fact they may not, e.g. if arctic ice melts enough (caused by higher temperature in the arctic) it might shut down the Gulf Stream and subsequently cool down Europe considerably, while globally the average temperature will still be higher than it used to be. So before you try to debate any side of the climate change issue (notice I haven't made any claims on the actual validity of the models, merely their nature), you better study the subject a lot deeper.

 

[YoPopa]

Edufer, I would like to ditto RandFan's appreciation for your contribution. I am not qualified to judge the validity of the highly technical papers on this subject and as a layman I often get influenced by the latest press release. The story of the glaciers in Greenland being a case in point.

The story that the glaciers are melting at twice the rate previously thought seemed like a big nail in the coffin for the GW skeptics. Your post #58 came as a real head-slapper for me. Let's see if I have the basic facts straight.

1. The breaking news is that the glaciers are dumping twice as much water into the ocean as previously thought.

2. There is valid data that suggests increasing snowfall and increasing ice depth at the inland source of the glaciers.

Conclusion for this layman is that saying Greenland is melting based on the newly observed glacial flow rate is like concluding that Brazil is drying up if the Amazon doubled its' water flow. It makes sense to me that if the ice at the source of the glaciers is getting thicker it will increase the pressure and thus the flow rate through the entire glacier.

I am sure that other factors such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are influencing the calving rate as well as the precipitation rate and I thank you for bringing these factors to my attention.

 

[Orwell]

The press releases typically tell a tiny fraction of the story, and they usually present conclusions without explaining much of the reasoning behind the research.

 

[Orwell]

The fact is, decreasing CO2 emissions would be a good idea even if the wasn't such a thing as global warming. Western nations need to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels, and increase their use of renewable energy, for political, economical and environmental reasons. Also, if global warming is for real, and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming. The fact that global warming seems to be taking place is just an added motive, and a big one at that.

(I've posted this on another thread on this same subject)

 

[Mark]

The fact is, decreasing CO2 emissions would be a good idea even if the wasn't such a thing as global warming. Western nations need to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels, and increase their use of renewable energy, for political, economical and environmental reasons. Also, if global warming is for real, and if we don't do something about it, the consequences might be disastrous in the long run. If global warming isn't for real and we do something about it thinking that it is happening, well, in a few decades we'll just go "d'oh", but not much else will happen.

I think we should err on the side of caution. We need to use our resources more efficiently anyway, global warming or no global warming. The fact that global warming seems to be taking place is just an added motive, and a big one at that.

(I've posted this on another thread on this same subject)

That's the part I don't get. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels can only help in every way.

 

[Geckko]

The press releases typically tell a tiny fraction of the story, and they usually present conclusions without explaining much of the reasoning behind the research.

Varwoche was correct in drawing attention to what was claimed to be a source of information was nothing but a press release. unfortunately, he cited one himself, most likely unwittingly.

A press release is just pap. And in the case of the one I read following Varwoche's link it referred to an articale that had been submitted for peer review and rejected.

 

[Geckko]

The fact is, decreasing CO2 emissions would be a good idea even if the wasn't such a thing as global warming.

You will really have to explain that to me, it doesn't immediately make any sense to me. If there is no environmental harm from the act, why curtail it??

Is the same true for O2 emissions?

 

[Orwell]

You will really have to explain that to me, it doesn't immediately make any sense to me. If there is no environmental harm from the act, why curtail it??

Is the same true for O2 emissions?

The link is so obvious (at least to me) that I didn't bother to explain it: the two main ways humans emit carbon dioxide is through burning fossil fuels and cutting and burning forests. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the sole negative consequences of fossil fuel consumption and forest destruction. For instance, fossil fuel burning also causes emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates, all serious pollutants on their own. Fossil fuel burning also comes with a high political and economical price. Destroying forests causes massive ecological problems: destruction of animal habitats, massive erosion and local climate change.

 

[Geckko]

The link is so obvious (at least to me) that I didn't bother to explain it: the two main ways humans emit carbon dioxide is through burning fossil fuels and cutting and burning forests. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the sole negative consequences of fossil fuel consumption and forest destruction. For instance, fossil fuel burning also causes emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates, all serious pollutants on their own. Fossil fuel burning also comes with a high political and economical price. Destroying forests causes massive ecological problems: destruction of animal habitats, massive erosion and local climate change.

Do you have any data on the increased rate of particulate and sulphur pollution?

What are the relative merits of reducing CO2 emissions as a means of reducing particulates and sulphur versus using clean brn technologies and emissions scrubbers?

How does reducing CO2 emissions reduce deforestation?

 

[Orwell]

Do you have any data on the increased rate of particulate and sulphur pollution?

What are the relative merits of reducing CO2 emissions as a means of reducing particulates and sulphur versus using clean brn technologies and emissions scrubbers?

How does reducing CO2 emissions reduce deforestation?

I can't answer the other two ( I don't have the time) but I easily answer the last one: deforestation causes CO2 emissions. Reduce deforestation and you reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I can't answer the other two ( I don't have the time) but I easily answer the last one: deforestation causes CO2 emissions. Reduce deforestation and you reduce CO2 emissions.

Or you could make a few more freeways

 

[delphi_ote]

BTW, how about stopping your political rethoric and concentrating on some scientific stuff.

Anyone that disagrees with you (even when a large number of factual links to recent articles about new evidence) you've so far considered to be spouting political propaganda. We're clearly dealing with your religion right now. You clearly don't want to believe in global warming the same way fundamentalist Christians don't want to believe in evolution.

Sorry you're not into the whole "rational discussion" and "scientific discovery" thing, but I'm sure your massive ego makes a great substitute.

 

[Bjorn]

RandFan, you fell short of the number of scientists opposing AGW. This Wikipedia link gives a list of some more, but those are simply the most famous ones, the most vocal, those who make their voices heard in Congress testimonials, etc. More Skeptics

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

I'm sure you are. I took the trouble of checking your own source for the first four of them and here's some snippets:

Sallie Baliunas:

In 2003, Baliunas and Soon published a paper which reviewed a number of previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. However, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work

Robert Balling:

Writes in 2005 that there is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands.

Joe Barton:

The story by Environmental Science & Technology also reported on an obscure policy journal often cited by politicians, including Barton, as scientific proof that global warming science is wrong.

David Bellamy:

A letter he published in the New Scientist (April 16th, 2005) asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the world's glaciers were advancing, not retreating. He has since admitted that the figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times on 29 May that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming".

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't have to. If your were in the scientific area you'd know it. It is in the public domain. I cannot be responsible for your observed ignorance.

I ask you to prove a simple claim, and all you do is say it is in the public domain and you don't have to prove it. This claim, that climate scientists are only out there creating a scare so they can jet around the globe to party on requires proof.

 

[Bjorn]

More Skeptics

I am personal friend of many of those guys there.

More skeptics indeed. A few more of your friends:

Tom Coburn:

This is all, not much science to find: During his run for the U. S. Senate, Coburn was quoted as saying that there was, "....no hard evidence to support global warming." Coburn called global warming "just a lot of crap."

Phillip Cooney:

On June 8, 2005, The New York Times reported that it had obtained internal White House documents which proved that Cooney had altered national climate change reports during 2002 and 2003 to undermine consensus findings that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned his position as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality

Myron Ebell:

Ebell is most famous for asserting that prevailing scientific opinion on global warming is incorrect and suggesting that it is a scientific hoax and a conspiracy perpetrated by the rest of the world to harm America's economy

Jerry Falwell:



Pat Robertson:



Are these people your friends? Are they, as you state, scientists opposing AGW?

 

[delphi_ote]

Damn hit and run trolls!

 

[Geckko]

I can't answer the other two ( I don't have the time) but I easily answer the last one: deforestation causes CO2 emissions. Reduce deforestation and you reduce CO2 emissions.

I wanted to know how deforestation causes CO2 emmissions, you simply restated the original point that it does.

If you had an estimate of how much in proportion to total CO2 emmissions, or atmospheric concentrations, that would also be useful.

 

[Orwell]

I wanted to know how deforestation causes CO2 emmissions, you simply restated the original point that it does.

If you had an estimate of how much in proportion to total CO2 emmissions, or atmospheric concentrations, that would also be useful.

Uh? Deforestation causes CO2 emissions. Hell, any dead organic matter emits CO2 and methane gas. You will cause CO2 emissions when you die. It's so obvious to me that I didn't bother explaining it, I assumed you knew.

I've heard numbers between 1/3 and 1/4 of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions being attributed solely to deforestation.
The FAO site says 25%.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/1000176/

You ask precise numbers, whereas my understanding of this stuff, like most layman's, is mostly qualitative.