Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Reality Check]

No, I think you are wrong. look at the last line in the author's introduction:

"Note to skeptics - here is an opportunity to pad out the positive column if you can find peer reviewed papers outlining any benefits of global warming."

(bold added) Seems loaded to me and hense the implication that climate change is our fault or at least we are the trigger. The skeptic view is not that there is no climate change but that we may not be it's cause.

No I think that you are wrong about this specific entry in the blog - see below for the blog as a whole.
He is asking if skeptics can supply more papers to fill out the positve impact column. All that this implies is that there are skeptical people out there. Given the blog's banner this implies global warming skeptics.
There is no implication in this question or this blog entry that climate change is our fault or at least we are the trigger.

The blog has a subtitle of "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" and the Skeptical Science home page starts with

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

But if you read the rest of the blog then the author seems to accept the scientific consensus that a proportion of the measured global warming is manmade.

 

[mhaze]

Good move. The perfection of the insanity would be spoiled by commentary.

May it not be dulled by deliberative discourse, nor encouraged by epiphanies of the enthralled.

 

[Reality Check]

What you must do is not say "reducing those emissions will mitigate global warming to some degree" but quantify this and the cost, within bounds, and determine if the result reaches anything close to engineering feasibility.

Incorrect.
What I stated in simpler terms is:

1. A driving force in global warming is GHGs.
2. If we reduce the level of our emissions of GHGs then that driving force will decrease
3. Thus reducing those emissions will mitigate global warming to some degree.

To what degree and whether it is cost effective to do so is a separate issue. There have been attempts to quantify this, e.g. the more dubious parts of the IPC AR4 report. Politicians have certainly jumped on the bandwagon.

IMHO It is better to do something now to reduce GHG emissions given that we know that this is very likely a major contribution to GW.
And yes this is an expression of the precautionary principle, i.e. not waiting for complete scientific evidence for a harmful situation but acting on plausible scientific evidence for a harmful situation.

 

[mhaze]

Incorrect.
What I stated in simpler terms is:

1. A driving force in global warming is GHGs.
2. If we reduce the level of our emissions of GHGs then that driving force will decrease
3. Thus reducing those emissions will mitigate global warming to some degree.

To what degree and whether it is cost effective to do so is a separate issue. There have been attempts to quantify this, e.g. the more dubious parts of the IPC AR4 report. Politicians have certainly jumped on the bandwagon.

IMHO It is better to do something now to reduce GHG emissions given that we know that this is very likely a major contribution to GW.
And yes this is an expression of the precautionary principle, i.e. not waiting for complete scientific evidence for a harmful situation but acting on plausible scientific evidence for a harmful situation.

Oh, I heard exactly what you said and understood it probably better than you did. How about we apply your logic backwards, then:

Assertion:

Proponents of Eugenics in the 1920s on should have used the precautionary principle.

Want more?

The disconnect with logic should be obvious.

 

[Reality Check]

Oh, I heard exactly what you said and understood it probably better than you did. How about we apply your logic backwards, then:

Assertion:

Proponents of Eugenics in the 1920s on should have used the precautionary principle.

Want more?

The disconnect with logic should be obvious.

That is idiotic, mhaze.
The disconnect with logic should be obvious.

 

[mhaze]

That is idiotic, mhaze.
The disconnect with logic should be obvious.

In what sense then is the Warmer disconnect more laudible, using the same "precautionary principle"?

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for hundredths of degrees C "improvement".

Meanwhile look at how many other real things could have been funded with a tenth or hundredth of that money. Skeptics argue that Warmers ignore real human problems, and chase schemes which are pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring engineering feasibility.

 

[a_unique_person]

In what sense then is the Warmer disconnect more laudible, using the same "precautionary principle"?

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for hundredths of degrees C "improvement".

Meanwhile look at how many other real things could have been funded with a tenth or hundredth of that money. Skeptics argue that Warmers ignore real human problems, and chase schemes which are pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring engineering feasibility.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that if we don't do anything about AGW, poverty in Africa will be cured?

 

[Reality Check]

In what sense then is the Warmer disconnect more laudible, using the same "precautionary principle"?

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for hundredths of degrees C "improvement".

Meanwhile look at how many other real things could have been funded with a tenth or hundredth of that money. Skeptics argue that Warmers ignore real human problems, and chase schemes which are pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring engineering feasibility.

The precautionary principle is not waiting for complete scientific evidence for a harmful situation but acting on plausible scientific evidence for a harmful situation. In the case of GW the evidence is more then plausible - it is overwhelming. The evidence for AGW is also more than plausible but less certain than for GW.

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for degrees C lessening of GW, saving trillions of dollars in the long term and saving many lives.

Skeptics argue that Warmers and Deniers are deluded by their prejudices into stances that they can only defend with ridicule, bad science and illogic. Skeptics argue that Warmers and Deniers ignore real human problems and indulge in pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring reality.

Skeptics look at the actual science as shown in peer-reviewed publications and see that there is overwhelming evidence that GW is happening. Skeptics argue that AGW is very likely because of the scientific evidence.

 

[BenBurch]

I follow the science, but feel there is ample scope for ridicule of asinine stupidity.

 

[GreyICE]

In what sense then is the Warmer disconnect more laudible, using the same "precautionary principle"?

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for hundredths of degrees C "improvement".

Meanwhile look at how many other real things could have been funded with a tenth or hundredth of that money. Skeptics argue that Warmers ignore real human problems, and chase schemes which are pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring engineering feasibility.

Is the problem that warming isn't human caused, or that you don't like the political proposals?

They're two different subjects, but you've never been able to decide...

 

[mhaze]

Is the problem that warming isn't human caused, or that you don't like the political proposals?

They're two different subjects, but you've never been able to decide...

Indeed! You've hit it right on the button, GreyIce! It's such a feast of logical contradictions I don't know which is more fun to savor. The Midnight Buffet on the cruise ship AbandonAllHope!

 

[Carefulplease]

In what sense then is the Warmer disconnect more laudible, using the same "precautionary principle"?

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for hundredths of degrees C "improvement".

Meanwhile look at how many other real things could have been funded with a tenth or hundredth of that money. Skeptics argue that Warmers ignore real human problems, and chase schemes which are pure fantasy based on dubious science while totally ignoring engineering feasibility.

The idea that reducing CO2 emissions would result in global warming mitigation in the order of mere hundredths of degrees is strange. Did you also get this from Monkton or do you have another source? He himself derived a 0.02C figure from comparing the effects of maintaining current levels of emissions (with no future increase at all) to the effects of the Copenhagen emission reduction proposal, on projected temperature increases from 2010 to 2020. His baseline is irrelevant (he is not himself advocating a ban on mere emission increases) and his timebound restricted consideration of effects seems wildly shortsighted. Our troubles aren't over in 2020.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/08/warm-rudd1.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_43.php

 

[mhaze]

The precautionary principle is not waiting for complete scientific evidence for a harmful situation but acting on plausible scientific evidence for a harmful situation. In the case of GW the evidence is more then plausible - it is overwhelming. The evidence for AGW is also more than plausible but less certain than for GW.

Here the reality is a cost of trillions for degrees C lessening of GW, saving trillions of dollars in the long term and saving many lives.

Skeptics argue that Warmers and Deniers are deluded by their prejudices into stances that they can only defend with ridicule, bad science and illogic. Skeptics argue that Warmers and Deniers ignore real human problems and indulge in pure fantasy ....

Since positive and certain action can be taken on numerous problems without invoking the "precautionary principle" which is basically no more than attempting to drive an agenda with fear, the fantasy is on your side 100%. There is no fantasy on the selection of actions with "positive and certain" effects by definition.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1143

By the nature of your argument you argue for an uncertain result from uncertain science, and against certain results from certain science...to the extent that money is used to pursue one path versus the other.

 

[GreyICE]

Indeed! You've hit it right on the button, GreyIce! It's such a feast of logical contradictions I don't know which is more fun to savor. The Midnight Buffet on the cruise ship AbandonAllHope!

Uh okay, you were looking for Bill Thompson, he's down the hall ranting about gays.

 

[easycruise]

Ignore reality if you like. But there it is, Sparky. Three independent data sets, not one of them controlled by anybody at East Anglia, and all in agreement.

Are they independent data sets? Pielke says this..

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...perature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/

""The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. They are not “completely independent”. This is further explained on page 48 of the CCSP report where it is written with respect to the surface temperature data (as well as the other temperature data sets) that

“The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.”

On page 50 it is written

“Currently, there are three main groups creating global analyses of surface temperature (see Table 3.1), differing in the choice of available data that are utilized as well as the manner in which these data are synthesized.”

and

“Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.”

The chapter then states on page 51 that

“While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results (Vose et al., 2005a). The small differences in deductions about climate change derived from the surface data sets are likely to be due mostly to differences in construction methodology and global averaging procedures.”

 

[BenBurch]

Yep, independent. You don't like it, tough. I got 5 more I could plot, too.

 

[mhaze]

Are they independent data sets? Pielke says this..

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...perature-trend-analyses-of-cru-giss-and-ncdc/

""The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups. ...

So there are not three data sets. There's one, and the raw data to that has been lost?
Three datasets from separate groups working with that one - none of which can be traced back to the original numbers on clipboards?

 

[Reality Check]

Since positive and certain action can be taken on numerous problems without invoking the "precautionary principle" which is basically no more than attempting to drive an agenda with fear, the fantasy is on your side 100%. There is no fantasy on the selection of actions with "positive and certain" effects by definition.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=1143

By the nature of your argument you argue for an uncertain result from uncertain science, and against certain results from certain science...to the extent that money is used to pursue one path versus the other.

Wrong.
The precautionary principle is nothing to do with attempting to drive an agenda with fear. It is a decision to address harmful actions based on plausible scientific evidence rather than delay until the complete scientific evidence is available (and the harm is already done). Personally I do not like the "plausible" bit since that is subjective. I prefer scientific consensus based on a large body of scientific evidence.

The nature of my argument is an possible result from overwelming science:

• Global warming has overwelming scientific evidence.
• There is good scientific evidence that GW is mostly manmade through the emission of GHGs.
• The sensible thing to do is to reduce GHG emissions now rather than wait until it may be too late.

I do recognise that overwelming does not mean certain. There is a possibility that AGW is wrong, that there is some weird thing going on that we will find out about in a few years or decades. But that is a risk we take in making any predictions.

 

[Reality Check]

So there are not three data sets. There's one, and the raw data to that has been lost?
Three datasets from separate groups working with that one - none of which can be traced back to the original numbers on clipboards?

There are at least three datasets of processed data constructed from weather stations around the world. All of which can be traced back to the original numbers on clipboards that are still held by the local organisations responsible for the weather stations. One reservation though - there is no guarantee that these local organisations have not lost the raw data. On the other hand over 95% of the raw station data collected by the CRU has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years. The GHCN also includes other weather stations that were not included in the HadCRUT3 dataset.

No raw data has been lost. The CRU lost some of their copies of the raw data.

 

[macdoc]

Reality - precautionary

and peak cheap fossil fuel plus ocean acidification is driving society in that direction anyway regardless of AGW.

One hurricane proofs one's house despite the fact than a hurricane may never make landfall in your particular area of a risk prone coast.....the risk remains....the insurance company's demands do too.

THEY are not ignoring the risks of AGW.....or hurricanes or earthquakes in appropriate areas.

and the acidification is no small matter

Rate of ocean acidification the fastest in 65 million years
Press release issued 14 February 2010

A paper published in Nature Geoscience

http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/6835.html