Global Warming Video

[TimG]

The thing about your 50% is that there's no checking it - it's speculation. The climate sensitivity number can be checked.

You are missing the point. Coming up with that number requires assumptions which may or may not be true. It really does not make a difference how many times you check the number if the assumptions that the number is built on are not true. This means the true probability for the IPCC PDF is expressed as 95% * X where X is some unknown probability that the assumption are wrong.

What basis do you have for your claim that X should be near 100%? Do you have anything other than your opinion?

[TimG]

No tim. Alarmists are the guys claiming the entire world will collapse if we emmit less co2.

Actually attempting to achieve the cuts demanded by the UN COP process would be economic suicide. However, in practice that will never happen because politicians need to re-elected. What is more likely to happen is a slow strangulation of the economy with high unemployment and slow growth thanks to Byzantine anti-CO2 regulations and taxes (which would ironically do nothing about the stated problem). Not the end of the world but painful enough that it is dumb policy that should be opposed. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

This means the true probability for the IPCC PDF is expressed as 95% * X where X is some unknown probability that the assumption are wrong.

I don't get it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I don't get it.

He just likes to think he know better than every climate scientist and mathematician who has ever worked on climate science in the world.

[TimG]

I don't get it.

Let's take an example from polling. A scientifically conducted poll of voter intentions is accurate +/- few percentage points 19 times out 20. That 19 times out 20 qualifier the same as the 95% likely qualifier that the IPCC uses. It takes into account that extreme events do happen from time to time.

However, that 19 times out of 20 only applies if the assumptions about the polling technique were valid. If it is found out later that the polling technique was baised (lets say it failed to ask people without a land line and those people had different opinions) then that 19/20 gets thrown out. Most, if not all, of the poll results could be completely wrong (i.e. claim "+/- few percentage points 19 times out 20" would be false).

So the true probability of the poll being correct is 95% * X where X is one's judgement on the reliability of the polling firm and the soundness of their methods. Most people will automatically assign a lower value to X if they find out a poll was conducted by someone with a vested interest in the result. It is nothing but a judgement call but it is not an unreasonable thing to do.

That is what everyone does with the 95% estimate from the IPCC which I see as a baised player much like a polling firm hired by a political party. It does not mean they are wrong - it just means I have good reason to think they could be wrong so I assign a lower value to X than you do.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[lukin]

You're the one posting stupid Youtube videos and yet he's the one who can't come up with an original rebuttal. Maybe it would help if you guys didn't just post the same garbage arguments.

Another tantalizing comment from the unemployed philosopher.

It's a great video. Even you should be able to understand it. No???

Climate change is a scam. you're being duped.

[TimG]

He just likes to think he know better than every climate scientist and mathematician who has ever worked on climate science in the world.

We are talking about the basics of science here. Climate scientists do not have any special authority and many scientists and mathamaticians from outside of climate science have looked at their work and concluded climate scientists do not understand the mathematical and statistical tools that they are using.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Another tantalizing comment from the unemployed philosopher.

It's a great video. Even you should be able to understand it. No???

Climate change is a scam. you're being duped.

Yes I get it every 1000's of climate scientists along with 1000's more in the supporting fields all got together to fake the indisputable physics of global warming. Physics which can be confirmed by experiments that fourth graders can do.

[Bonam]

Yes I get it every 1000's of climate scientists along with 1000's more in the supporting fields all got together to fake the indisputable physics of global warming. Physics which can be confirmed by experiments that fourth graders can do.

I don't think anyone remotely reasonable argues with the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect, which of course anyone can confirm for themselves with very simple experiments. The magnitude of the overall greenhouse effect on Earth can also be easily quantified: the Earth's blackbody temperature taking into account its albedo is 255 K. The Earth's actual average surface temperature is 287 K. The difference of 32 C can be attributed almost entirely to the greenhouse effect (there are slight contributions from the decay of radioisotopes under the Earth's surface, heat transferred out from the Earth's core, and direct heat production due to biological and technological processes on the Earth's surface, but these are all comparatively very small effects). However, figuring out precisely how much the magnitude of the greenhouse effect changes based on varying the concentration of CO2 (one of many different gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect) is quite a bit harder.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Bonam

[waldo]

Perhaps the most annoying thing with your debating style is your insistance that simply responding to a point means you have shown the point to be "wrong". In this case, everything I said in that exchange is correct. Claims of CO2 sensitivity are entirely dependent on the assumptions made and there are no empirical measurements that are not affected by these assumptions. This means that future data could easily show those estimates to be extremely wrong. The also means the PDFs offered by the IPCC (whether they have a lower bound of 1.5 or 2 is irrelevant) are a political exercise and cannot taken to be a description of reality. The true sensitivity given today's earth may be in that range or it may not. We simply do not know.

utter nonsense. To suggest everything you stated in that exchange is correct is the height of ludicrousness... the epitome of your delusion, your ignorance!

- you fumbled your way around until it became abundantly clear you didn't know the difference between effective and equilibrium sensitivity

- you bumbled about casting broad aspersion toward Bayesian analysis, wildly implying absolute bias/subjectivity within all climate change analysis prior distributions (notwithstanding you outright ignore objective Bayesian, or didn't even know about it)

- you offer no acknowledgment to expert view/opinion in regards IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments

- you wrongly insist all climate sensitivity is based entirely upon models (while outright ignoring the many studies done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations)

- you continue to speak to IPCC created PDFs, implying the IPCC is extending, is reaching beyond the actual state of the science (of course, the IPCC PDFs simply reflect upon the existing scientific studies, mirroring their results, presenting the same confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc.)

- you don't recognize (or accept?) that IPCC sensitivity levels are a dynamic work, that they've changed over the iterative progression of reports... and to top it all off

- you continue with your insistence in holding to a minimalistic/optimistic climate sensitivity estimate, one that doesn’t even fit within the most recent updated IPCC probability categorizations.

of course, in this, your latest post, you now sprinkle in a dab of conspiracy and politicization, suggesting IPCC sensitivity levels are a "political exercise"... which, of course, reflects directly upon the science, upon scientists since those IPCC sensitivity levels reflect directly upon the scientific papers/knowledge 'of the day'.

riddle me this: for something you claim as irrelevant, for having no basis in reality; for something where you state, "The true sensitivity given today's earth may be in that range or it may not. We simply do not know"... you seem very precise and definite in your certainty in lining up with the lowest sensitivity level available

[TimG]

you fumbled your way around until it became abundantly clear you didn't know the difference between effective and equilibrium sensitivity

Completely irrelevent.

you bumbled about casting broad aspersion toward Bayesian analysis, wildly implying absolute bias/subjectivity within all climate change analysis prior distributions (notwithstanding you outright ignore objective Bayesian, or didn't even know about it)

Baysian analysis is subjective approach - if you won't acknowledge that then you are delusional. The fact that someone cocked up a limited use hypothetical framework for "objective" baysian is irrelevant.

you offer no acknowledgment to expert view/opinion in regards IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments

Experts picking numbers out of hats does not make the numbers any more reliable. I have not seen any evidence that 'experts' as a group are better at predicting the future than a monkey with dart board. If you want to appeal to experts then you need to show that they are credible by pointing to their track record of making successful predictions.

you wrongly insist all climate sensitivity is based entirely upon models (while outright ignoring the many studies done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations)

Studies that use climate models to estimate the data that they don't have or can't measure.

continue to speak to IPCC created PDFs, implying the IPCC is extending, is reaching beyond the actual state of the science (of course, the IPCC PDFs simply reflect upon the existing scientific studies, mirroring their results, presenting the same confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc.)

Again - irrelevant.

you don't recognize (or accept?) that IPCC sensitivity levels are a dynamic work, that they've changed over the iterative progression of reports.

IOW, the science is not settled. We don't know what CO2 sensitivity is. The numbers given are a 'best guess'. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

utter bullshit... your fumbling, bumbling misunderstandings are on full display. Of course, everything you misunderstand is "irrelevant".

of course, it's "TimG irrelevant" when you're called on your misunderstandings between equilibrium and effective sensitivity.

of course, it's "TimG irrelevant" when climate science related Bayesian analysis can all be so easily dismissed as "TimG subjective"... I mean, really, c'mon... what climate scientists ever heard of efforts/scrutiny to reduce bias/subjectivity within prior distributions. Of course, my pointedly bringing forward papers that used outright objective Bayesian analysis simply brought forward another "TimG dismissal" - how easy and convenient!

of course, to TimG, all IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments are "TimG pure guesswork"... after all, c'mon... how could TimG ever accept scientific expert view/opinion when it's all so easy to just utter another "TimG dismissal", claiming it's all "TimG pure guesswork".

it's just so easy and convenient to offer another "TimG dismissal" claiming "it's all models"

obviously TimG doesn't take well to those studies done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations! They're simply "TimG irrelevant".

how can IPCC PDFs be deemed "TimG irrelevant", when TimG has gone to lengths to label them as "creations within the IPCC"? (notwithstanding, of course, they simply mirror the actual foundation studies).

whaaa! To top it off, the desperate, flustered TimG utters the denier go-to, "the science is not settled"

[waldo]

There is no point trying to have a debate with waldo. I've tried on many occasions and all he does is copy and paste, copy and paste, lengthen threads etc. He can't formulate an original rebuttal to any question. He obviously doesn't have a real job as he is on this forum at all hours of the day and night. All he does is copy and paste the quotes of others all day long. If he knew anything about science like he claims, he'd have a real job.

you're an insignificant gnat that hasn't engaged in a single formative argument/debate... all you've done, all you ever do, all you ever will do, is blindly link to references without offering any of your own comment, save an occasional one word grunt... ala, the lukinWay™. You clearly haven't the intellect to articulate your own thoughts (presuming you have any!) - obviously, you do the best with what you've got!

[waldo]

At one level using Baysian analysis to come up with a PDF is an scientific exercise but a Baysian analysis can be completely wrong if the assumptions that it is built on are shown to be wrong. IOW, the IPCC numbers tell us that if we ASSUME that our current way of looking at climate is correct then it is 95% likely that sensitivity is within that range. But that is not the number I am interested in. The number I care about is how likely is it that those assumptions are wrong. I put that likelyhood at around 50% given the number of unanswered questions and evidence of groupthink with climate science. This means the chances of CO2 sensitivity being within the IPCC range is less than 50%.

unanswered questions and groupthink! With likelihood squirreled away to a "TimG subjective" 50%... did you use Bayesian on that?

Of course, the IPCC would like us to believe that the chance of the assumptions being wrong is near zero but that is where the politics come in.

no; hardly... if anything, the IPCC is continually being chastised for being too conservative in it's findings; notwithstanding, the timing intervals between it's reports. All IPCC stated summations are founded in the inherent uncertainties associated with the science... with the scientific papers being reviewed and considered. IPCC Methods and procedures are very cognizant of uncertainty and the need for expressive accounting of that uncertainty. Of course, don't hesitate to actually give an example where uncertainty is not considered... not factored... not expressed...

But as I said before, I am fine accepting CO2 as a plausible risk among many and adding it to the list of things that it would be nice to do something about. I don't see it as a priority and I don't believe in wasting large sums of money that could be better used on more pressing problems.

while you're advocating your adapt-R-Us only response, don't hesitate to express your thoughts on increased adaptation costs relative to ignoring mitigation and/or prevention.

[waldo]

We are talking about the basics of science here. Climate scientists do not have any special authority and many scientists and mathamaticians from outside of climate science have looked at their work and concluded climate scientists do not understand the mathematical and statistical tools that they are using.

so says Steve McIntyre... so says Ross McKitrick... so says McShane & Wyner Those legitimate and required ongoing initiatives to 'bridge' climate science and statistical disciplines certainly don't involve the likes of charlatans like McIntyre.

[Michael Hardner]

so says Steve McIntyre... so says Ross McKitrick... so says McShane & Wyner Those legitimate and required ongoing initiatives to 'bridge' climate science and statistical disciplines certainly don't involve the likes of charlatans like McIntyre.

The selection of good data to use in experiments necessarily involves judgement, and as such some subjectivity. Climate science doesn't use proxy data for recent times, for example, because there are instrumental readings that we know are accurate. Even skeptical scientists accept this.

My understanding - and you can tell me if this is true, perhaps - is that the bloggers will insist on keeping that bad data, or even cherry picking the data. Even then, they didn't destroy the hockey stick, then reduced the confidence level of warming to 80%.

[lukin]

you're an insignificant gnat that hasn't engaged in a single formative argument/debate... all you've done, all you ever do, all you ever will do, is blindly link to references without offering any of your own comment, save an occasional one word grunt... ala, the lukinWay™. You clearly haven't the intellect to articulate your own thoughts (presuming you have any!) - obviously, you do the best with what you've got!

You just described yourself perfectly. Well done Mr. Copy and Paste. Now if only you could get a real job.

[Keepitsimple]

Please validate that one, real world style. Your assertion that obsession with AGW caused them to drop their other duties seems ridiculous to me.

Maybe so.....but alarmism can have tragic consequences. Here's a comment that was posted from the subject video:

I'm in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia and those Global Warming bastards are partially responsible for the lack of preparations for this Flood.

They ran around telling everyone it was never going to rain again and we would be in Drought forever.

Every Dam in Queensland is at 100%

THEY LIED

PEOPLE DIED

[scribblet]

Another good one LOL I like the comments from one Ozzie who has a good point. We should be preparing for climate change and global cooling.

Im in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia and those Global Warming bastards are partially responsible for the lack of preparations for this Flood.

They ran around telling everyone it was never going to rain again and we would be in Drought forever.

Every Dam in Queensland is at 100%

THEY LIED

PEOPLE DIED

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still waiting for proof, which means something other than a comment posted on another website...

[TimG]

I'm still waiting for proof, which means something other than a comment posted on another website.

There can never be proof of a direct causal link but you cannot deny that the AWG obession lead the officials to discount the possibility of catastrophic floods (something which that area of Australia has a long history - the 2011 flood is not unusual). The lesson that we should take from this is we cannot ignore history because of the mutterings of climate soothsayers.

[Michael Hardner]

The lesson that we should take from this is we cannot ignore history because of the mutterings of climate soothsayers.

That is A lesson, but if that didn't happen here then it's not THE lesson.

[TimG]

That is A lesson, but if that didn't happen here then it's not THE lesson.

I gave you press reports about how flood warning reports were ignored and billions were spent on an unnecessary desalination plant because warming would leave the the city with no water. I think any reasonable person would agree that is sufficient evidences to support the claim that officials were blinded by AGW science.

[Michael Hardner]

I gave you press reports about how flood warning reports were ignored and billions were spent on an unnecessary desalination plant because warming would leave the the city with no water. I think any reasonable person would agree that is sufficient evidences to support the claim that officials were blinded by AGW science.

If a decision was made that someone prioritized an immediate and persistent threat as lower than a long-term expected threat like AGW then yes. But that's likely an oversimplified assessment.

I'm pretty sure nobody went to a decision maker and said "We have funds to build a dam or prepare for global warming - which should we do ?"

Rather, there are projects, each with their own stakeholders and processes that work through a system of approvals. Then again, stupid decisions do happen. Find us a risk assessment document in the governing authority, and maybe we'll have an answer there.

[The_Squid]

Another tantalizing comment from the unemployed philosopher.

Climate change is a scam. you're being duped.

Along with gravity, evolution and a round Earth... yeah, yeah.... we get it...