stevoh

Well, some countries get out of various international climate change accords by saying "look, they are worse than us!". Some countries, like say, the US. At least asking china to reduce emissions isn't hypocritical when we are trying to do the same. And what ever happened to setting a good example?

I think if you placed any credence at all in the agw models proposed by the IPCC, you would not think any cost is too high, our survival depends on it. Its only because you dismiss them that you are focussed on cost. If you believed that their modelling scenarious were likely, where costs are measured in human lives, then no cost would be too high. I think this is a vast overstatement. I am however very interested in the effects on the provincial economy of BC of the new "revenue neutral" carbon tax they have proposed. We shall know within a year or so if I have to go to McDonalds for my wife and my monthly date night. I don't think scientific method has ever included defending research against random critisims from non-scientists.

She does however support following the IPCC recomendations, as the potential cost of not doing anything, if they are right, is too high. You appear to diverge from this belief. How can you be more certain than a scientist "with no agenda" that the scale of AGW is small enough not to do anything about?

While there is a one time cost when producing solar cells in terms of chemical waste (I disagree with the term 'a lot' though, disposable batteries produce significantly more waste per KW than solar cells) that cost is ONE TIME, unlike coal plants, which continue to release toxins throughout the life of the plant. Also, silicone solar cell based technology is being replaced by new less toxic production methods. The technology continues to develop at an accelerated rate, in no small part due to the increase of interest in green technologies. That fails to meet the criteria of renewable resource. We want to reduce energy dependence, pollution, and the use of non-renewable resources. Ethanol also does not result in a significant decrease in emissions. It meets two of the criteria, renewable resource and reduces energy dependence, but the environmental advantages are questionable. Reducing all polution levels is a worthy goal. I am not a big supporter of simply screening out CO2 from emissions while everything else is left in to meet certain goals. However, much of the real legislation surrounding incentives and "green" initiatives focus on reducing the use of non-renewable polluting resources overall, not just the CO2 component.

So, Loehles data that shows a downward trend at 1970 is valid, and Briffa's that shows the same is invalid? I reject both. Perhaps some personal bias inserted here? At least be consistent. As you say, if one chart is rejected because it does not match known recent temperature trends, then all that meet that criteria should also be rejected. It happens to be the first document I was able to locate that explains Briffa's position. This does not mean that Briffa was not equally open about the discrepancy in the first case. So, the data in the IPCC report reflects the reseach of the scientists who created the report? Isn't that how it is supposed to work? I have only looked into the Briffa case, and have found nothing untoward there. How about an example of the IPCC cherry picking data that has no scientific basis?

I agree with you on this. But, in this specific case, I see no reason to believe the omission was a deliberate attempt to deceive. It has a scientific basis, and the scientist associated with the data is quite open about his reasons for omission. I can only assess one data source at a time, as you know, this kind of analysis takes a while. If I find an example of cherry picking that is suspicious due to its lack of scientific support, I will let you know. This isn't one of them however. True, and I did find it a bit odd that you were so willing to accept Loehle's data and analysis when it disagreed with instrument based data trends, but are so willing to dismiss Briffa's when it does the same thing. Briffa's explanation is clear and open. The fact that McIntyre was left out of the explanation loop is hardly an indicator of deliberate deception. And that's a key point here. McIntyre is hypothesizing that the fact that HE was not given this information means we as the public were deceived. We weren't, I found the explanation within an hour of Google searches, Briffa is not hiding anything. To me, that re-assures me that the IPCC is doing what it is supposed to, reflect the science. They should not be in the position of rejecting or accepting information based on their own biases, they should be in the position of accepting or rejecting information based on the scientists recommendations. In this case, the scientist recommended not including that portion of the data, and it is reflected in the report. I see no evidence for this specific case where cherry picking took place, and I see evidence of scientific reasoning being used to decide whether or not to use that data. We may not agree with the reasons that Briffa decided to keep the data, but his reasons were not related to deliberate deception. And the IPCC report merely reflects that decision.

I decided to look into this in more detail. Why are the last 40 or so years of the tree ring data removed from that chart? Is there a scientific explanation, or a deliberate attempt to deceive the public? So, lets not mess around, lets look at the source of the tree ring data, Briffa, and find out his reasons for not including the data. Here is a paper by Briffa and three other associates that look into the tree ring data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/projects/soap...ffa_GPC2003.pdf Lots of interesting information in the paper, but, for the purposes of this discussion, I will focus it on the period after 1960, the period of contention. In section three, a chart titled "50 Newton Masked Temperature" shows the global temperature average, and the temperature scales indicated through tree ring analysis. The chart covers the period from 1860 to 2000. In the first 100 years of the chart, the tree ring data and the temperature data has an approximate match. However, in the last 40 years, the global temperature has gone up, but the latest global tree ring data indicates the temperature has gone down. This is consistent with what McIntye claims. In section 4, titled "an inconsistency with the relationship of tree ring density and temperature", Briffa clearly defines and discusses this anomaly, and comes up with several hypothesis as to why it is occuring. He then comes to this conclusion: This is a very complete explanation for why the data is not included. Basically, we know from historical temperature records from both instrumental and other sources that historically, tree ring data is a reasonably accurate indicator of temperature trends. However, since 1960, a yet unknown additional factor is influencing tree ring growth. Briffa's position, outlined above, is that we can use the tree ring data pre-1960 as it aligns reasonably well with known temperature measurements in recent history, and other temperature scales prior to instrumental temperature measurement. We can discard the data post-1960 because there is some non-temperature related influence now corrupting the data. He is quite clear that this is a less than ideal situation, but that this was better than introducing a non-temperature induced bias. The worst I see the IPCC guilty of in this specific case is not giving McIntyre the reasons for the deletion of the post 1960 data (assuming McIntyre is being truthful). Scientifically, Briffa felt he had valid reasons for not including that data, and he is clear and open in both the reasons why and suggesting that further analysis is necessary. Make your own mind up about whether the data inclusion/deletion was a valid choice on the part of Briffa. But know that no large scale conspiracy from the IPCC caused that data removal, it was entirely Briffa's choice. His reasons are clearly and openly defined.

Believe what you like. Never.

I really don't understand why a "skeptic" such as yourself would simply believe that story without looking into other potential reasons for these people not being allowed. If I had a post from greenpeace that stated something about them being denied access to a certain oil based conference, would you be as vocal about disallowing them to say their piece at that conference? Being a skeptic is not about believing what one side says and dismissing the other, its about looking at ALL of the information and being equally skeptical, regardless of its source. Speaking of greenpeace, they claim that the ICSC is a front organization for Heartland, which recieves significant funding from Exxon. They also claim that these people were being disruptive and offering free massages to anyone who would listen to them. I don't know if that is correct either. I admire your search for truth, but that doesn't mean simply reading all of the arguments for one side and accepting them, it means having a skeptical eye on all information. Don't believe that the only reason this group of individuals was there was to provide informed science. Look deeper.

How many hundred thousand years ago was CO2 3 times higher than it was now? How rapidly do organisms adapt to changing levels of CO2? I may agree that the earths climate has changed at a rate as fast as it is today, but I don't agree that current rate of CO2 change has. And if there are major events in the past that have the abiity to double CO2 in our atmosphere within 100 years, these events were typically catastrophic. Major changes in CO2 concentrations in the past that were not catastrophy based took thousands of years. This time period allows organisms on earth to reasonably adapt to the changes, both from the direct effects of CO2 concentration and the indirect effects on the climate that we are discussing here. Sure, we may have had 3 times the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere a million years ago, but the earth was a considerably different place than it is now. Making any significant change to the air we breathe is a bad idea. Until we truly understand the consequences.

I agree that the specific focus on soley reducing CO2 emissons is too fine, a general focus on reducing pollutants and energy consumption is a more worthy cause. I do have a question for you however. The atmosphere of the earth is made up of various concentrations of elements, of which CO2 is one. We do know for a fact that the current concentration and ratio of the elements in the atmosphere supports life on earth as we know it. We know we are making a significant change to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Doesn't going forward without understanding what potential effects this has seem a bit hazardous? I would be equally leery of doubling oxygen levels, or halving them, or any other major atmospheric element concentration level change. Why mess with the concentration of any element in the air we breathe when its so vital to life on earth? Isn't "we don't yet know what the effect is" a pretty weak argument for something that could potentally have such large effects?

Very interesting deletion, for sure. This also establishes my earlier point about only using climate measures that match what we know as fact. It is obvious from your link that the tree ring data is incorrect, as it shows a cooling trend in the latter part of the 20th century. So, yes, tree ring data should not be included in historic temperature trend models until it is more robust. Do you have any information about the accuracy of ice core data? How do they establish the accuracy of the temperature history they glean from this data source?

From what I can see, each side is equally guilty of being focussed more on the politics, propoganda, and insults than they are in finding out the facts.

Lets look at the two sides of this. What happens if AGW is not occuring to a significant degree, but various GW advocate interventions are realized? Reduced use of non-renewable resources. Investment in renewable resource technology. More efficient use of energy. Reduced overall emissions from various sources. I certainly don't agree with the rediculous carbon credit system, but making more efficient use of our resources and looking for cleaner (not just based on C02) ways to use non-renewable resources is a worthy cause. In other words, I agree with the cure even if I don't agree with the diagnosis. Balance this with the cost of doing nothing and being wrong about that: 1. Oceans rise, populated areas flooded. 2. Weather extremes grow. 3. As yet unknown changes in weather patterns that will have significant effects on humanity as a whole. For me, and I know many will disagree, but I feel this still balances the scales in favour of continuing to commit to actions that reduce our dependence on non-renewable energy sources. I just read a somewhat overstated article about Great Britian using 50% wind power for homes by 2020. Now, even the article admits that is overstated, it may end up being around 20%, but what great progress! I then have to wonder, if AGW turns out to be completely false, will these great initiatives still occur? Will the current thrust for renewable resource technology continue? I would hope so, but I doubt it.

Yes.

Is it unreasonable? We do know a few facts. 1. That we are releasing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to significantly change the concentration. 2. That CO2 is a climate forcing agent. 3. That we are in a warming trend. Just these three facts warrant further investigation on the subject. Yes, other climate change agents need to be examined as well, such as solar influences, but I hardly think that the CO2 hypothesis is any more unreasonable than any of the other hypothesis around what is influencing our climate currently, particularly when considering the three facts mentioned above. I actually think its more dangerous to assume that the current waming is normal (as defined by reason) and doesn't need any further investigation. The cost of being wrong is too high. Both approaches, those of the skeptics, and those of the IPCC are complimentary. The IPCC is assuming carbon is the major contributor to the current climate change occuring, and is attempting to negate the other climate change agents. "Skeptic" groups are assuming that carbon is NOT a major contributor, and seek other explanations to explain the climate change. In the end, if we get down to the science and through the politics, we will have a clearer understanding of the subject from both sources of "bias".

Defining whether todays climate change is normal or abnormal, I feel, should be based on known factors that have influenced climate in the past. So, even if the climate has changed rapidly in the past, if we have a good hypothesis on WHY that change occured, and that hypothesis does not apply to todays climate change, then we have cause for concern. In other words, its more important to me to define the current change as abnormal due to the reasons for the change, not the pace of the change.

First off, I admitted in my last post that I accept that temperature changes great as the current may have occured in the past. So no need to try and convince me further of that. Secondly, I don't care if the data source is tree rings, ice cores, or some other source, if the temperature plots over time for the last 150 years don't match known data, then they need to be re-assessed, and that includes the Loehle data, and may include the graphs I linked to that were non-instrumental as well. A hypothesis should always be compared to known fact and rejected if there is not a reasonable match. I am trying to do this without wanting a specific answer, instead seeing where the science leads me. I want to be equally skeptical of all data sources, not just pro or anti AGW.

One of the challenges of discussing this issue is the lack of precision in the longer time scales. However, for me to judge if this graph is accurate, I compared it to what we know are accurate temperature measurements, those that are from actual temperature instrument measurements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrum...ture_Record.png If I look at the period from 1800 to 2000 on the link you provided, it shows a fairly steep rise in temperature from approximately 1900 to 1970 ish, and then a steep drop in temperature from around 1970 to 1990 ish. When I superimpose this section of the graph onto the accurate temperature measurements, they don't appear to correspond. The rise from 1900 to 1970 on the Loehle paper is steep and unbroken, the rise on the actual temperature measurements peaks around 1940 then is steady for a while. Lack of precision could be blamed on this relatively minor lack of correspondence, but the steep rise on actual temperature measurements from 1970 is not reflected at all in the Loehle paper, that information instead indicates a steep decline, which we know is false. Based on that information, I would extrapolate that the information provided by the Loehle paper does not match what is actually occuring. Interesting. There do appear to be times in history where there were abrupt climate changes. What is really interesting about that is the analysis of potential causes. While the research is ongoing, two potential causes of the Younger Dryas are a THC shutdown from the sudden release of large amounts of meltwater, and a cessation of El Nino southern oscillation. So, these sudden changes are related to specific events, events that cannot be used to explain the "sudden" change that is occuring right now, however. We need to find an example of a sudden climate change that has occured that has the same reason as the current climate change for it to be relevant to today's warming. But I do stand corrected, sudden change has occured in the past, finding corresponding factors between those changes and todays change is critical however in understanding the reasons behind current warming.

I am interested in this quote, and want to find out more information. In this chart: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:In...ture_Record.png The temperature changes .8 in the last 160 years. If we look at temperature trends for the last 1000 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Ye..._Comparison.png You can see that from 1800 to 2000, the temperature went from -.4 to .2, a total difference of a slightly more modest .6 degrees in 200 years. I can't see any example in the prior 800 of a .6 difference within 200 years. The last 2000 years is shown here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Comparison.png I still see no temperature change at the pace of the current warming, not .6 and certainly not .8. If I go further back in time, there doesn't appear to be any data that is precise enough to define the pace of temperature change within a 150-200 year period. However, within the last 2000 years, there has been no consistant warming at the pace of the current warming trend. So, while it is certainly possible that more than 2000 years ago, temperatures changed at some point at a similarly fast pace, within the context of the last 2000 years, the current warming trend is anomolous. What information do you have that contradicts this information, or do you feel that a 2000 year term is not long enough to establish normality? And where do I find information that shows that prior changes were greater than today? The last 2000 years don't appear to show that, and before that the record does not appear to be precise enough.

Then we are similar in our approach. If you accept that global warming is occuring, but do not accept that human CO2 release is causing the majority of it, what is the hypothesis that you most subscribe to?

Considering that Canada and the US have approximately equivalent gun ownership rates, but wildly different gun crime rates per capita, leads me to believe that gun "control" has a limited effect. Something else, in our culture, our lifestyle, what we emulate, is more in force here. I do believe in a few things however: 1. Manditory criminal background check. 2. Manditory 1 month waiting period (prevents spontaneous "crimes of passion", for example). 3. Proof of gun knowledge through testing.

I don't need to resort to belittling or bullying tactics, or giant fonts or red text to get my point across. Your highly overstated and emotion laden response shows me that you obviously have no knowledge of such research. And yet, it is everywhere. Each and every scientific study that looks into the influence of humans on climate change has the potential to REFUTE that global warming as being influenced to a large degree by humans. That is the nature of science. If the data shows we are having an effect, that is the conclusion of the paper and it is published. If the data shows we are not having an effect, then that is the conclusion of the paper and it is published. I have seen examples of both of these papers. If you had read my final post in that forum you would have seen that I accepted the idea that was originally presented in the linked paper as factual. Hardly seems like someone who has a problem with listening to both sides. You are not a skeptic, you are a denier. Otherwise, you would not attack me with your bag of font tricks, you would tackle the science in a solid manner. And if this post is an indicator of your style, you are a lousy forum moderator as well. Of COURSE AGW people wouldn't post to your forum when you are such a jerk to those who dispute your point of view. Create a forum that intelligently handles debate, and you will see both sides of the argument. Act like you are here, and only those who agree with you will post. Why would anyone waste their time (besides me) with someone who is so abrasive? I think you are confused between what an actual skeptic is, someone who is skeptical of ALL information provided (which I am), or someone who is just skeptical of information they don't want to believe (which is what you are). Thankyou. Give the man a cookie.

I too have noticed a pattern in the skeptic point of view: 1. Identify one flaw or element of uncertainty in pro-global warming research and use it to dismiss it all. 2. Pick a specific element out of a legitimate peer reviewed publication that challenges specific data on global warming, and use that specific element to refute global warming as a whole. Even in the case where the paper itself is not casting doubt on human caused global warming. 3. Find another potential cause of global warming and assume that must be the sole cause, dismissing the idea that various elements all influence global temperature. 4. Accept data from any source, scientific or otherwise, without any review if it supports their position. 5. Claim that any refutation to global warming should be considered, regardless of whether the source is scientific, peer reviewed, or has political motives. 6. Call global warming a religion, and spew out a stream of stereotypical left wing assumptions. The fact that we are allowing non-scientists so much influence in this debate is where I see the problems surfacing. As time goes by the science for human influenced global warming will become more precise, and our actions can be more defined. Even if the results of that science mean that human influenced global warming is a negligable effect. In the meantime we reduce pollutants, reduce our energy consumption, and reduce our dependence on oil. Not a bad side effect at all.

The problem with that approach is still exposure to only the areas of the science that are deemed flawed and easily exposed by sceptics. For example, there is a good summary in one of your links of the temperature "fingerprint" of global warming that was expected to appear in the atmosphere. A signature that has not appeared. However, what is not mentioned when viewing this information is that there are more than 10 of these "global warming fingerprints". Global average temperatures, ocean temperatures, atmospheric limit changes, arctic glacier melt, etc. How have these been addressed, if at all? It would be the tendancy of any skeptic website to point out the information that is flawed, and avoid the information that appears accurate. So, even if the information you have read is correct, you have a decidedly incomplete picture. Just to point out, I am not 100% sure that global warming is occuring either. But it just makes sense that basing your research soley on the information and links of skeptics is just as flawed as ignoring them entirely.