Man Made Global Warming

[Riverwind]

I responded point for point for the article that started this thread.

And I refuted your points - point by point. I did not mention this, but, the most recent solar research (see anything by Leif Svalgaard) suggests that the sun's irradiance has not only stayed constant for the last 30 years - it has also not likely changed over the last million years. This is a major problem for climate modellers because they can't explain prior variations in climate like the MWP or LIA unless they assume that the sun's irradiance changed in the past. Hell they cannot even explain the warming from 1900-1940 without assuming that the sun changed in the early part of the 19th century! (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png )

That said, I have no doubt that the climate modellers will twiddle with their assumptions about aerosols and will still be able to match the 1900-1940 warming without a changing sun but by doing that they demonstrate that their wonderful models are nothing but a complicated exercise in curve fitting.

Unbiased means something I could recognize. Something that was not created for the sole purpose of being a group of anti-AGW scientists. A national organization, a professional organization, a UN committee set up to investigate the topic SOMETHING.

Really? The IPCC was set up in order to advise governments on anthrogenic climate change. i.e. it biased towards exgarrating the role of anthrogenic climate change because that is why it is exists. Without anthrogenic climate change there would be no IPCC. I don't see how anyone could describe the IPCC as "unbaised".

Personally, I don't have a problem with acknowledging that many anti-AGW sources are very biased and I also get tired wading through the crap that passes for some skeptical arguments. But the difference between you and me is after I waded through the crap and the biases I discovered that there a number of very valid points that should be considered before we make massive bets on anti-CO2 policies.

Submissions to these journals are reviewed by experts in the field and publish what is deemed to be good studies.

The peer reviewed process is deeply flawed and should never be used as final arbitrator on the "truth". Real world experiments and real world data are the only arbitrator of truth. I am sorry I can't find I link right now but I found this great BBC documentary on the problems with the peer review system in medicine. The general conclusion is the review process is extremely spotty and the relationship between the reviewer and the author is more signficant than the worth of the science. The hockey stick fiasco is evidence that these problems exist in climate science. So arguing that skeptical papers can't be trusted because they don't show up in the "correct" jounrnals is waste of time because there is no reason to believe that the peer review process is working as claimed.

Well, until we solve the oil crisis, the money will not be wasted. Global Warming is nothing compared to the threat of peak oil (bitch with peak oil is that the skeptics will be wrong some day).

Actually, we could forget about the bun fight over the science and just discuss this one because I disagree with it. I do agree that we need to reduce our dependency on oil, however, I believe that it will be impossible to get rid of oil without reasonably priced electricity - an objective that will be impossible if coal is rejected as source of electricity. The idea that wind, solar or other renewables could supply our electricity needs is a cruel joke.

In other words, if we want to avoid a "peak oil crisis" then we should address that problem directly. Supporting anti-CO2 policies that would increase the cost of electricity as well is counter productive.

[Riverwind]

Someone here said that if it could be shown something other than co2 was responsible for global warming then the IPCC predictions must fail. But the IPCC predictions did include factors other than co2.

The IPCC documents claim that without GHGs (mostly CO2) emissions the planet would have cooled by 0.1 degrees since 1960 (see AR4 Chapter 9). There are many other possible sources of warming that have been ignored by the climate modellers and the IPCC and these are discussed in the peer reviewed literature.

Observed temperatures over the last 150 years were compared with natural effects. They didn't match. The same observed temperatures were compared with human caused effects. They didn't match.

The IPCC argument is a circular argument that is absolutely meaningless because the climate models depend on many approximations and estimations. This means that we cannot know whether the match between the models and the past climate is a result of model tuning or a because the models accurately represent reality. The only way to know if the models represent reality it to see a how their predictions of the future have panned out. All of the real data collected recently strongly suggests the models are over estimating the effect of CO2. Example:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-...still-rejected/

The hockey stick graph is an interesting debate. But it's not as one sided as the link posted suggested. A 2006 US National Research council committee looked into the graph and found it was generally accurate.

You missed the very important nuance. The NAS panel agreed that the original MBH was crap but instead argued that "other studies" supported the conclusions. The Wahl & Amman paper discussed in the Bishop blog was one of those studies, however, unethical machinations by the authors meant that McIntrye could not demonstrate that W&A was also crap until recently. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

Here is a view on the hockey stick that talks about why we should care even if the results are actually accurate: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...nce-policy-4511

Having collaborated a bit with Steve McIntyre in recent years, and seen how the community reacts to him in the peer review process, I have seen some of the frothing and irrationality that he stirs. Further, as a long-time observer of this debate, how the more vocal climate science community has dealt with the criticisms of the Hockey Stick and McIntyre’s determined efforts is really an embarrassment to all of the hard-working and brilliant scientists who work out of the limelight trying to advance knowledge in a rigorous manner. The problem is that the behavior of the few reflects upon the community as a whole.

McIntyre may never get the recognition that he deserves from the climate science community (though some, like Peter Webster and Judy Curry have shown leadership by recognizing Steve’s legitimacy, and apparently taken their lumps for it), but within science policy circles it is becoming increasingly clear that has made a significant contribution to upholding the integrity of climate science, and for this he should be applauded.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

And I refuted your points - point by point.

Then you are misunderstanding the points. If you look at the context of my statement that I responded to your points one by one, it was a response to your statement that I always "appeal to authority". I appeal to authority because every time I point out a fundamental flaw in your logic, you miss the point. Your quote two competing theories to make your points. You make statements that show you don't understand the theory you are quoting from. It takes me time to sift through the latest anti-AGW myth. An appeal to authority is much faster.

I did not mention this, but, the most recent solar research (see anything by Leif Svalgaard) suggests that the sun's irradiance has not only stayed constant for the last 30 years - it has also not likely changed over the last million years.

This is a major problem for climate modellers b.................

Didn't the "Great Global Warming Hoax" argue that global warming was caused by increased solar irradiance ??

Didn't many of the people you quote advocate that position ??/

Didn't AGW types argue there was no significant effect from solar irradiance ???

Now you are saying that being proven right (AGAIN ) is a problem for AGW supporters ??

Really? The IPCC was set up in order to advise governments on anthrogenic climate change. i.e. it biased towards exgarrating the role of anthrogenic climate change because that is why it is exists. Without anthrogenic climate change there would be no IPCC. I don't see how anyone could describe the IPCC as "unbaised".

Conspiracy theories are not evidence. One section of the IPCC was meant to address the cause. They could have blamed solar radiation, farting cows, volcanic activity. They chose carbon dioxide.

The peer reviewed process is deeply flawed and should never be used as final arbitrator on the "truth". Real world experiments and real world data are the only arbitrator of truth.

Any organized scientific process that does not support your views seems to be flawed. If the peer reviewed process is so flawed, why is it deemed so important in the academic world. In terms of prestige and promotions ?

Certainly a handful of people think its flawed, usually because they didn't get tenure because they had not written enough. I don't watch hockey with a fan of a certain hockey team, cause each game he will point out how the ref cost his team the game.

Actually, we could forget about the bun fight over the science and just discuss this one because I disagree with it. I do agree that we need to reduce our dependency on oil, however, I believe that it will be impossible to get rid of oil without reasonably priced electricity - an objective that will be impossible if coal is rejected as source of electricity. The idea that wind, solar or other renewables could supply our electricity needs is a cruel joke.

You missed nuclear.

[peter_puck]

It'll be pretty tough to keep burning fossil fuels if we really do run out. Won't the problem have taken care of itself then?

I think that is what may happen unless we get better technology. We can get Americans to live like the French, but they make up such a tinny percentage of the world population, it won't matter.

Its going to be hard to explain to some guy in Africa he has to give up his pedal bike to prevent global warming.

[Riverwind]

Didn't the "Great Global Warming Hoax" argue that global warming was caused by increased solar irradiance ??

Solar science is moving forward. The understanding 5 years ago is different than today so the arguments were reasonable at the time. However, in 2007 the solar science has moved forward to point where even the mainstream AGW theory is affected by the new understanding. Here is a graph that illustrates how this understanding has changed over time: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf

Didn't AGW types argue there was no significant effect from solar irradiance ???

They have said that solar irradiance has had no effect *over the last 50 years*. Climate models have always assumed that changes in solar irradiance explain climate variations prior to 1950. The link I gave to a 2004 attribution study demonstrates that. The models used to create that graph would not longer match the 1900-1940 data if you subtracted the effect of a varying sun. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

That said, the effect of aerosols in the early 20th century is a complete unknown so I am confident that the modellers will redo their analysis with different estimates for aerosols and then claim that they have taken the new solar data into account without changing their initial conclusions w.r.t. CO2. However, doing that would simply prove that the skeptics are right and the match between past data and the model output is largely a result of curve fitting.

Conspiracy theories are not evidence. One section of the IPCC was meant to address the cause. They could have blamed solar radiation, farting cows, volcanic activity. They chose carbon dioxide.

Because they insisted on finding a "cause". Saying it was mostly natural would have put them out of work. There are no truely unbaised sources of information. If bias is such a concern you should start by acknwoledging that the IPCC has its own baises.

If the peer reviewed process is so flawed, why is it deemed so important in the academic world. In terms of prestige and promotions ?

We are talking about making trillion dollars of investments. A process that is "good enough" for esoteric academic discussions is not good enough to justify those kinds of investments.

You missed nuclear.

I am in favour of building nukes as fast as can be done safely, however, we need to expand our electric supply today and we cannot build nuclear plants fast enough. Coal and natural gas are the only options available. They has a good report on CBC on nuclear power today. Apparently, China is building 3-5 nuclear planets in every province and that is considered to be an incredible rapid deployment of nukes. Despite that they will only meet between 4-5% of China's energy needs. The rest is coming from coal no matter what we do in the west. Edited September 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[Topaz]

Man made? yes I agree with that at least some blame is by man. If you cut down the trees, pollute the air, cement over the land, yes temperture will rise. This week the temps are going to be in the 30's, how hot do you think the cities will get with all that cement?

[Wild Bill]

There are a handful of valid names on there...no where close to 50. I don't have time to google everbody, but

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist (social scientist?)

David Nowell, M.Sc. No Phd

Timothy F. Ball Nuff said.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. No Phd

William Kininmonth M.Sc No Phd

Rob Scagel, M.Sc. No Phd

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Not a scientist

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist;

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy Not a scientist

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, A

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director

Louis Hissink MS

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist (string theory ??)

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics Molecular Genetics ????

Bryan Leyland, An expert on hydro power (I had to google him)

Gary D. Sharp <- A fish guy

I suppose if I didn't have to go to sleep, I would google all those people to show that most are not climate experts, but I am getting tired of this.

You could probably find that many Phd's taking taxi rides around Toronto.

What I am looking for is people who have a relevant education who do relevant research.

An engineer and a scientist are two different things.

A Biologist is not a climate expert.

Emeritus Professor means retired (or in Dr Ball's case it means you have made another accidental addition to your rsme)

Some guy who spent his life researching protein folding has no expertise in climate modeling, even if he has a Phd in chemistry.

If you could miss Freeman Dyson then I would suggest that you really don't have the background to judge who's reputable and who's not.

That's like being unfamiliar with the name "Einstein" or "Hawking"!

Dyson makes Suzuki look like Carrot Top on a hangover morning...

[Keepitsimple]

There are a handful of valid names on there...no where close to 50. I don't have time to google everbody, but

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist (social scientist?)

David Nowell, M.Sc. No Phd

Timothy F. Ball Nuff said.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. No Phd

William Kininmonth M.Sc No Phd

Rob Scagel, M.Sc. No Phd

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Not a scientist

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist;

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy Not a scientist

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, A

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director

Louis Hissink MS

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist (string theory ??)

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics Molecular Genetics ????

Bryan Leyland, An expert on hydro power (I had to google him)

Gary D. Sharp <- A fish guy

I suppose if I didn't have to go to sleep, I would google all those people to show that most are not climate experts, but I am getting tired of this.

You could probably find that many Phd's taking taxi rides around Toronto.

What I am looking for is people who have a relevant education who do relevant research.

An engineer and a scientist are two different things.

A Biologist is not a climate expert.

Emeritus Professor means retired (or in Dr Ball's case it means you have made another accidental addition to your rsme)

Some guy who spent his life researching protein folding has no expertise in climate modeling, even if he has a Phd in chemistry.

You've missed the point of their submission to the UN - it was titled "Don't Fight - Adapt". Adapting to Climate Change requires a lot of thought in the areas of Economics and Sociology. Most of those you've singled out have that background. Their expertise makes perfect sense in the context of the article. By the way, Arthur Rorsch - the Molecular Geneticist......he's from the Netherlands and his forte and publications are in the area of Good Scientific Pratice - very relevant in evaluating the IPCC - but also the other side as well. So in summary - I support the converse of your statement - there may be a handful of people whose inclusion could perhaps be questionable.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

So what will you say if it turns out that the skeptics are right after we have wasted trillions on a hopeless cause?

I'd say "oh well, its only money, its not like we bet the whole farm or anything". What will you say if you're wrong, "oops"?

[peter_puck]

If you could miss Freeman Dyson then I would suggest that you really don't have the background to judge who's reputable and who's not.

That's like being unfamiliar with the name "Einstein" or "Hawking"!

Dyson makes Suzuki look like Carrot Top on a hangover morning...

I just noticed he was on this list, as I said, I didn't really pay attention to the whole list. Dyson is famous (more so for his influence on science fiction (Dyson sphere).

However, back to my point. His research in no way relates to global warming. His inclusion on that list is, at best, a celebrity endorsement. I don't buy Michael Jordan's underwear because he endorses it.

[lukin]

The funny thing is that a scientist who supports human caused global warming is a genius and a respected scientist, and any scientist who offers an opposing viewpoint on global warming is a kook, or on the fringe of the scientific community.

I'm not saying that humans aren't causing global warming. However, there are very intelligent scientists who oppose the theory and get no air time, because the left-wing dominated media will only show what they want you to believe. There are two strong sides to this debate, but we are only hearing one side.

By the way, Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite you'll ever find.

[eyeball]

left-wing dominated media

By the way, Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite you'll ever find.

Well, he is a politician after all.

[marksman]

Riverwind you mentioned other peer reviewed literature. I'm interested in reading what I can and if you've got a link I'd really appreciate it.

The IPCC documents claim that without GHGs (mostly CO2) emissions the planet would have cooled by 0.1 degrees since 1960 (see AR4 Chapter 9). There are many other possible sources of warming that have been ignored by the climate modellers and the IPCC and these are discussed in the peer reviewed literature.

The IPCC argument is a circular argument that is absolutely meaningless because the climate models depend on many approximations and estimations. This means that we cannot know whether the match between the models and the past climate is a result of model tuning or a because the models accurately represent reality. The only way to know if the models represent reality it to see a how their predictions of the future have panned out. All of the real data collected recently strongly suggests the models are over estimating the effect of CO2. Example:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-...still-rejected/

I can't agree with your point about the modeling. We're dealing with climate so we can't run an easy lab experiment. In order to check predictions we need years and years of data. The best way to see if your model is good is to run it for years we already have data for - the more years the better - and see if it "predicts" the observations. So it's not a circular argument at all. It's how science works! As you improve your model and its predictions for the past then you're more confident about its future predictions. You'll still have to check the future predictions and those future predictions will be the ultimate check on your model.

Your post implies that model tuning is a bad thing which isn't necessarily true. You have a point where if all you're doing is changing values without any reason to see if it matches observations then you aren't doing real science and your model isn't worth anything. But models can also be tuned by reevaluating the theory behind it and if you tune it for scientific reasons that is completely valid.

You missed the very important nuance. The NAS panel agreed that the original MBH was crap but instead argued that "other studies" supported the conclusions. The Wahl & Amman paper discussed in the Bishop blog was one of those studies, however, unethical machinations by the authors meant that McIntrye could not demonstrate that W&A was also crap until recently. See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

Here is a view on the hockey stick that talks about why we should care even if the results are actually accurate: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...nce-policy-4511

I do realize that the report referenced the press release by Ammann and Wahl. I think you might be exaggerating how much the NRC relied on this information. The press info released by A&W is cited 6 times. Half those times it is cited along with 4 - 6 other sources. The other times the NRC report:

i. talks about limitations in choosing certain values like those chosen by A&W in press

ii. says "some reconstructions are not robust with respect to the removal of proxy records from individual regions (see, e.g., Wahl and Ammann in press)"

iii. cites this and two other sources in a paragraph that concludes "To improve the skill of reconstructions, more data need to be collected and possibly new assimilation methods developed"

It looks like the NRC took a good look at the limitations of the methods used to get the graph and still reached the conclusion that it wasn't complete garbage based on multiple sources not just A&W's take on it. To focus on one source disregards all of the other evidence pointing in the same direction even if that evidence doesn't look exactly the same.

I agree with your last point that we've got to demand standards and rigor from scientists. But that applies to all scientists not just those in support of one side or another.

[marksman]

The funny thing is that a scientist who supports human caused global warming is a genius and a respected scientist, and any scientist who offers an opposing viewpoint on global warming is a kook, or on the fringe of the scientific community.

I'm not saying that humans aren't causing global warming. However, there are very intelligent scientists who oppose the theory and get no air time, because the left-wing dominated media will only show what they want you to believe. There are two strong sides to this debate, but we are only hearing one side.

By the way, Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite you'll ever find.

Only hearing 1 side? The media I've been seeing certainly isn't limiting itself to 1 side. In fact I've heard from journalists that when doing global warming stories they go out of their way to find anti-global warming sources so that they can say their story is balanced. Many times the problem I see is that it appears that you've got 1 source saying yes to climate change and 1 source saying no when the reality is often that you really have multiple sources saying yes and fewer sources saying no. I'm not saying that all criticisms are wrong but I'm saying that more often than not it's not a 50/50 split in the scientific community.

I also think that you can have respected scientists on both sides of a complex issue. That doesn't make anyone crazy or a fanatic.

At some point we've got to make our decisions based on something and right now the majority of the evidence seems to point to human caused climate change.

[Wild Bill]

I just noticed he was on this list, as I said, I didn't really pay attention to the whole list. Dyson is famous (more so for his influence on science fiction (Dyson sphere).

However, back to my point. His research in no way relates to global warming. His inclusion on that list is, at best, a celebrity endorsement. I don't buy Michael Jordan's underwear because he endorses it.

Actually, in the mainstream he is famous for being on the investigative team for the Challenger disaster. While all the other talking heads around the table were concocting all kinds of theories he calming took a small ring out of his coat made of the same material as the o-rings that failed in the booster. He dunked it in his water glass, full of ice water from a pitcher on the table.

After he had judged it cold enough, he took it out of the water and while everyone else was babbling away he whacked it on the table. The cold o-ring shattered into a zillion pieces! All the others were instantly quiet. Dyson had just demonstrated the actual cause.

Of course, not specifically having a degree in climate change theory would mean that his knowledge and intelligence would be totally inapplicable, as I'm sure you're about to tell me...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Of course, not specifically having a degree in climate change theory would mean that his knowledge and intelligence would be totally inapplicable, as I'm sure you're about to tell me...

Excellent example.....NASA's team had all the available data and mathematics to arrive at the correct answer even before the launch. It is a case study in politics winning the day over engineering. And so it goes with the self anointed carbon police.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind you mentioned other peer reviewed literature. I'm interested in reading what I can and if you've got a link I'd really appreciate it.

Roger Peilke Sr. blog regularily discusses peer reviewed literature that casts doubt on the IPCC conclusions: http://climatesci.org/

Roy Spencer is doing a lot of work on the effect of clouds: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

Nir Shaviv on cosmic rays: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Ramanathan on Black Carbon (soot): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80323210225.htm

The best way to see if your model is good is to run it for years we already have data for - the more years the better - and see if it "predicts" the observations. So it's not a circular argument at all.

The fact that it is not possible conduct a true lab experiment with climate does not make a crappy method acceptable. Comparisons between the past and model output tell us nothing about the predictive capabilities of the models. It is very wrong and very dangerous to assume that it does. The only way to evaluate models is to compare future data with predictions. If that means we need to wait 20 years then that is what we need to do. That said, I believe it is possible to do initial evaluations on the models over shorter terms but climate modellers only acceot that if the short term data happens to match the models. If the data does not match the models then modellers say "trust us - the warming will start again soon".

Your post implies that model tuning is a bad thing which isn't necessarily true. You have a point where if all you're doing is changing values without any reason to see if it matches observations then you aren't doing real science and your model isn't worth anything. But models can also be tuned by reevaluating the theory behind it and if you tune it for scientific reasons that is completely valid.

There are simply too many tuneable parameters and too many estimates and approximations. These models are very much subject to the expectation of the scientists creating them and if the output does not match expectations the scientists assume that there is something wrong and "tune the model".

Here is a report by the US government that discusses the "tuning": http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...rd-exec-sum.pdf

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) reported on

the results of some 20 participating global climate models. "ese models can reproduce the observed

trend in global mean temperature over the twentieth century due to changes in atmospheric concentrations

of greenhouse gases and other forcing agents including aerosols. When anthropogenic aerosol

forcings are not included, the models tend to generate too much warming. However the ability of

climate models to reproduce the global mean temperature change over the past 100 years appears to

be the result of using a “tuned” aerosol forcing. Although different models exhibit a wide range of climate

sensitivity (i.e., the amount of temperature increase due to the increase of CO2), they yield global

temperature change, which is similar to the observed change. Apparently this is because the forcing

by aerosols differs between models. For example, the direct cooling effect of sulfate aerosol varies by a

factor of 6 among the models, because of different extensive aerosol properties (e.g. sulfate amount)

and different intensive properties (e.g. scattering efficiency) used in the models. Greater disparity is

found in the model treatment of other aerosol types such as black carbon and organic carbon. Even the

choice of which aerosol types and

In short - it is rediculous to claim that hindcast validate the models. They can't. The only way to validate the models is to compare data collected after the model runs to reality.

I think you might be exaggerating how much the NRC relied on this information. The press info released by A&W is cited 6 times. Half those times it is cited along with 4 - 6 other sources.

You are missing the point. It does not make a difference whether the other *independent* studies "support" the hockey stick (they don't but I don't have time to chase links). The issue is how the climate science community handled the problems with the hockey stick. In my opinion the community demonstrated that cannot be trusted to look at the facts objectively and that they have invested too much in the current theory.

[peter_puck]

You've missed the point of their submission to the UN - it was titled "Don't Fight - Adapt". Adapting to Climate Change requires a lot of thought in the areas of Economics and Sociology. So in summary - I support the converse of your statement - there may be a handful of people whose inclusion could perhaps be questionable.

You are missing the point. I asked for a list of hard scientists who have done relevant research. This post came as a response. This post did not have that list. I wanted an apple and I got an orange.

Economists and Sociologist are relevant to the debate about the EFFECT global warming will have on social structure and the economy - but thats not what we were debating . I don't really give a rats ass about that side of the debate.

I know a section of the IIPC had experts in that area, but I really don't know if there views are outside mainstream views or not. I got into this debate because of the anti-science attitudes and ignorance of many of the anti-AGW groups. When someone cannot form a logical scientific argument, it annoys me. Perhaps if I had been an English major, spelling errors would drive me nuts. Maybe if I were a political scientist, I would go crazy over something else.

[marksman]

Roger Peilke Sr. blog regularily discusses peer reviewed literature that casts doubt on the IPCC conclusions: http://climatesci.org/

Roy Spencer is doing a lot of work on the effect of clouds: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

Nir Shaviv on cosmic rays: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Ramanathan on Black Carbon (soot): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80323210225.htm

The fact that it is not possible conduct a true lab experiment with climate does not make a crappy method acceptable. Comparisons between the past and model output tell us nothing about the predictive capabilities of the models. It is very wrong and very dangerous to assume that it does. The only way to evaluate models is to compare future data with predictions. If that means we need to wait 20 years then that is what we need to do. That said, I believe it is possible to do initial evaluations on the models over shorter terms but climate modellers only acceot that if the short term data happens to match the models. If the data does not match the models then modellers say "trust us - the warming will start again soon".

There are simply too many tuneable parameters and too many estimates and approximations. These models are very much subject to the expectation of the scientists creating them and if the output does not match expectations the scientists assume that there is something wrong and "tune the model".

Here is a report by the US government that discusses the "tuning": http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/...rd-exec-sum.pdf

In short - it is rediculous to claim that hindcast validate the models. They can't. The only way to validate the models is to compare data collected after the model runs to reality.

You are missing the point. It does not make a difference whether the other *independent* studies "support" the hockey stick (they don't but I don't have time to chase links). The issue is how the climate science community handled the problems with the hockey stick. In my opinion the community demonstrated that cannot be trusted to look at the facts objectively and that they have invested too much in the current theory.

Thanks for the links. I'll get to reading them soon enough.

I don't want you to take offense because I don't mean this in a derogatory way but your argument about modeling makes no sense. Let's go through the process. Scientists create a theory about how something works and make a model about it. This model creates predictions about observable phenomenon. The predictions are then compared to the real world observations. Where discrepancies arise the theory is revisited and the model is adjusted. Now you are saying that the observations can only come from the future not the past. But what difference does it make where the observations come from?

Let's say we take your approach and only deal with the future. Over the next 50 years we gather data and compare it to the model predictions. Let's say they don't match. What happens then? The scientists will revisit the theory and adjust the model.

Now let's say we allow scientists to use previously recorded observations. Let's say they don't match with the model predictions. What happens then is the same as what happens in the last scenario - the scientists will revisit the theory and adjust the model.

Your complaint is only valid when someone tries to adjust the model just to match observations and not based on any theory but that criticism exists whether they match it to previously recorded observations or new observations.

Just because a model is complex doesn't mean that scientists are automatically trying to rig the model. I'm not sure why you think this is a crappy method. How else could you possibly create a model for Earth's climate?

Actually my point about the hockey stick graph was originally what I said earlier: the debate isn't 1 sided against it. I think we both agree that standards are necessary in all scientific research. But you've basically decided to discount what you call the climate science community because of this? Should we use the same logic to not trust anyone proclaiming climate change is not caused by humans? If so then we're stuck because some in the anti community also have a lot invested in their theories and have been known to attempt to discredit good science by any means necessary.

Good science is good science no matter where it comes from and no matter what's been done by others who might agree with the results.

[Keepitsimple]

You are missing the point. I asked for a list of hard scientists who have done relevant research. This post came as a response. This post did not have that list. I wanted an apple and I got an orange.

Economists and Sociologist are relevant to the debate about the EFFECT global warming will have on social structure and the economy - but thats not what we were debating . I don't really give a rats ass about that side of the debate.

I know a section of the IIPC had experts in that area, but I really don't know if there views are outside mainstream views or not. I got into this debate because of the anti-science attitudes and ignorance of many of the anti-AGW groups. When someone cannot form a logical scientific argument, it annoys me. Perhaps if I had been an English major, spelling errors would drive me nuts. Maybe if I were a political scientist, I would go crazy over something else.

I don't really CARE what you asked for nor do I care if you eat apples or oranges or if you have rats asses to distribute.....and I don't care about the little debate that you think you were having. My original post was stand alone and related to the original thread topic that Climate Change is more natural than man induced. The article that I included talked about adapting to Climate Change rather than fighting it. People can read it and make their own judgements.

[Riverwind]

But what difference does it make where the observations come from?

I assume you don't have much experience with engineering or any other discipline that uses numerical models similar to climate models to make decisions that can have safety or monetary implications. People working in these fields immediately recognize that any data available while the model is being developed affects the choices of the model makers. This means it is impossible to determine whether a match between a model and the real data is the result of a correct theory or a result of tuning. The only way to demonstrate that the theory of the model is actually correct is to compare the model predictions to data that was not known to the model makers while they developed the model. Now this criteria could be met if a rigorous process was followed and some historical data was kept secret, however, there is no reason to believe that this kind of rigourous process was followed with the IPCC climate models. Therefore, we must use future data to determine whether the models have any predictive ability.

Just because a model is complex doesn't mean that scientists are automatically trying to rig the model. I'm not sure why you think this is a crappy method. How else could you possibly create a model for Earth's climate?

I am not saying the model makers are being deliberately deceptive. I am saying that the model makers can't help themselves. They have certain expectations and they have a lot of tunable parameters. If the model output does not match their expectations they will adjust the tuneable parameters. The model makers would only rethink their theory if it was impossible to get a match without pushing these tunable parameters outside of "realistic" values. However, in climate models the range of "realistic" values for things like aerosols is huge which means model makers can easily hide deficiencies in the model theory with 'scientifically justifiable" tuning.

I also realize that the model makers have little choice when it comes to modelling climate and they have likely done the best with what they have. However, they are wrong to claim that hindcasts give us any indication of how the models may perform in the future. The only reasonable claim they can make is that the hindcasts show that they have a reasonable but unproven hypotheses, however, there is a significant probability that they have messed something up and the model predictions will be flat out wrong.

Bottom line: sometimes admitting that we simply cannot answer certain questions is better than using unrealiable techniques that give the illusion of certainty when there is none.

Good science is good science no matter where it comes from and no matter what's been done by others who might agree with the results.

Agreed - but how do we sort out the good from the bad. My concern is the hockey stick has demonstrated that the traditional climate science community and the IPCC cannot be trusted to do this sorting so who do we turn to? Edited September 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Agreed - but how do we sort out the good from the bad. My concern is the hockey stick has demonstrated that the traditional climate science community and the IPCC cannot be trusted to do this sorting so who do we turn to?

We could turn to a panel of judges, people who are specifically trained to sort out good evidence from bad. Eventually we'd still have to let the people sort out which policy to vote for and we'd need something we can work with to help guide us. As it stands now all I know for sure is I can't trust anything but my bellyfeel. The little voice in my head isn't so sure that's always a good thing to bet on but it doesn't have much more than that so... In any case my common sense tells me a precautionary approach is the most sensible option. It seems the most ethical too.

Like I said, a "Climate Scientist Clock" of some sort might help.

[Riverwind]

We could turn to a panel of judges, people who are specifically trained to sort out good evidence from bad.

Ross McKitrick recommended that the IPCC set up either an audit panel or a WG4 counter wieght panel that would be given the job of providing a formal critique of the WG1 report.

See p17 http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/P...05mckitrick.pdf

When it comes to invoking the "precautionary prinicipal" you must first establish that the harms caused by the precautions are not worse than the harms caused what you would like to stop. In many cases (e.g. biphenol plastic in baby bottles) the harms caused by the precautions are minimal. However, increasing the cost of energy to the point where people are forced to use non-CO2 emitting sources will cause a great deal of harm and can only be ethically justified if we are certain the harm is less than what we could face from climate change AND if we are certain that the measures used to "stop" climate change are likely to be successful. In my opinion, the answer to the latter two questions is no.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

If carbon dioxide causes global warming, regardless of the extent, and we're producing excess carbon dioxide, then global warming at least to some extent is caused by human activities. If there is a way to reduce our impact without significantly affecting our economies and standard of living, should we not at least make an attempt?

Edited September 2, 2008 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

If carbon dioxide causes global warming, regardless of the extent, and we're producing excess carbon dioxide, then global warming at least to some extent is caused by human activities. If there is a way to reduce our impact without significantly affecting our economies and standard of living, should we not at least make an attempt?

Of course. We should be reducing emissions of all kinds. The key is, as you said, not to harm the economy. Weather GW is happening or not, whether or not we are causing it, we should reduce our impact on the planet. That said, there is no reason to panic. The best thing we can do is adapt to what is happening and move forward on all fronts.