Sounds like having a child...
At least the monkey will clean up half of its poop.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Irreversible climate damage is imminent
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
At least the monkey will clean up half of its poop.
Certainly the Earth's atmosphere has warmed over the past century and there is no doubt that increased CO2 due to fossil fuel burning has been a major factor.
But this tells us nothing useful unless we can accurately put a number on the amount of warming that is anthropogenic and then use this number to predict how much warming we can expect in the future due to continued burning of fossil fuels.
And here lies the argument. The number arrived at by the IPCC is a CSE of about 3 C.
But the IPCC report is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is a policy report for government leaders. Though it does take information from many peer reviewed science papers, many of its conclusions are lacking in scientific merit and are little more than the opinions of the IPCC reports authors.
Without doubt, the most important conclusion reached by the IPCC report is the evaluation of CSE at 3 C. This conclusion is not supported by any peer reviewed research. In fact, there are no peer reviewed studies which independently arrive at this number.
Considering the importance of accurately determining the value of CSE, it is not only reasonable to question the scientific validity of this number as determined by the IPCC, but it is the duty of the scientific community to demand that this information be met with the same level of skepticism as every other scientific study. Until and unless this happens, it cannot be true that a robust and reliable, quantitatively accurate theory of anthropogenic global warming exists.
But this tells us nothing useful unless we can accurately put a number on the amount of warming that is anthropogenic and then use this number to predict how much warming we can expect in the future due to continued burning of fossil fuels.
And here lies the argument. The number arrived at by the IPCC is a CSE of about 3 C.
But the IPCC report is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. It is a policy report for government leaders. Though it does take information from many peer reviewed science papers, many of its conclusions are lacking in scientific merit and are little more than the opinions of the IPCC reports authors.
Without doubt, the most important conclusion reached by the IPCC report is the evaluation of CSE at 3 C. This conclusion is not supported by any peer reviewed research. In fact, there are no peer reviewed studies which independently arrive at this number.
Considering the importance of accurately determining the value of CSE, it is not only reasonable to question the scientific validity of this number as determined by the IPCC, but it is the duty of the scientific community to demand that this information be met with the same level of skepticism as every other scientific study. Until and unless this happens, it cannot be true that a robust and reliable, quantitatively accurate theory of anthropogenic global warming exists.
Well then why are all these people saying stuff like "the evidence is in", "97% of scintists agree" and talking down at people who question it? Shouldn't they be conducting peer reviews or doing independent studies that are actually scientific?
This IPCC report is pretty much THE paper cited as being the proof. If it's not, then what are the motives for pushing all this?
Que bono?
This IPCC report is pretty much THE paper cited as being the proof. If it's not, then what are the motives for pushing all this?
Que bono?
Not my words, just a cut n paste, but this explains the 97% thing, it's a pretty solid number based on published conclusions from climate researchers, not a survey of opinions of self identified "scientists" like is sometimes claimed...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).
A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
Because we live in a country where most of the population is content to accept at face value whatever they see on the news entertainment outlet that comes closest to echoing their preconceived notions.
That same segment of the population is also very sure they are right in their assumptions because the politicians whose opinions they favor are telling them they are right to believe what they do and promise them a pot in every chicken if they will just turn out and vote for me so I can make all your dreams come true.
In short, we have a whole bunch of people who can be herded like cattle. It just takes invective instead of prods.
To be honest, I think we are closer to sheep than cattle. Cows will at least kick and fight a little as they enter the abattoir but sheep just walk right in.
That same segment of the population is also very sure they are right in their assumptions because the politicians whose opinions they favor are telling them they are right to believe what they do and promise them a pot in every chicken if they will just turn out and vote for me so I can make all your dreams come true.
In short, we have a whole bunch of people who can be herded like cattle. It just takes invective instead of prods.
To be honest, I think we are closer to sheep than cattle. Cows will at least kick and fight a little as they enter the abattoir but sheep just walk right in.
Climate change "skeptics" = lazy, sniveling, pro-pollution bozos convincing each other that publicly sucking the toes of oil money billionaires will somehow bring about the advancement of "freedom."
The only thing that truly worries me about our atmosphere and the climate it provides us is irreversible moisture loss. The higher the mean temp gets the more moisture is held in the air.
The more CO2 in the atmosphere the larger the hole in the ozone becomes. Moisture in our atmosphere escapes through this hole, so bigger hole, more water in the air, more water escapes.
And as the colonists in the moon in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" discovered, once that water is gone, it's never coming back.
Oh and don't you think characterizing what is happening as climate damage is a bit hysterical? It is now and has always been a changing entity. That it appears to be entering a stage that is not exactly comfortable for humans, does that mean it's damaged, or does it means it's just changing again like it's always done.
Strictly a personal opinion, but anyone who thinks the billions of us and our endless fascination with and manufacture of, the shovels and rakes and other implements of destruction we can't seem to get enough of, have no bearing on our atmosphere; have a rather tenuous grasp on the enormity of our species and just how prolific we are at what we do.
The more CO2 in the atmosphere the larger the hole in the ozone becomes. Moisture in our atmosphere escapes through this hole, so bigger hole, more water in the air, more water escapes.
And as the colonists in the moon in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" discovered, once that water is gone, it's never coming back.
Oh and don't you think characterizing what is happening as climate damage is a bit hysterical? It is now and has always been a changing entity. That it appears to be entering a stage that is not exactly comfortable for humans, does that mean it's damaged, or does it means it's just changing again like it's always done.
Strictly a personal opinion, but anyone who thinks the billions of us and our endless fascination with and manufacture of, the shovels and rakes and other implements of destruction we can't seem to get enough of, have no bearing on our atmosphere; have a rather tenuous grasp on the enormity of our species and just how prolific we are at what we do.
That "study" has been shown to be wrong numerous times already:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11550514.htm
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
No you've posted the same blogger level links that have complained about the legitimacy numerous times already. There is a significant difference.
It's possible Mars once had water and a workable atmosphere. But it leaked out.
While I tend towards feeling a need to provide for future generations I can also understand the appeal of going out big.
A weekend of hedonistic endeavors, expanded to a more global canvas might be the sendoff humanity deserves.
An expanded Atlantic City weekend of H888ers 8B**** and stamps taken on a global scale.
If we gonna die might as well make it count for something.
I still feel the issue can be corrected with slight personal sacrifice on everyone's part and leadership towards that end.
a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
Because there are TWO assertions being represented as ONE.
1) QUALITATIVE - 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the observed temperature increase by burning fossil fuels that results in higher concentrations of CO2. Many peer reviewed studies support this conclusion.
2) QUANTITATIVE - The authors of the IPCC report extensively cite many peer reviewed studies and then proceed to come up with some conclusions of their own based on assumptions that are less than scientifically sound. Specifically, they systematically bias their estimation of margins of error in factors in favor of greater warming. These error biases add up to produce an estimation of the Climate Sensitivity Equillibrium of around 3 C, when a significantly lower number would be a more tenable conclusion.
When environmental activists cite the 97% number along with the assertion that this is a thouroughly robust and reliable theory, it is often with the implicaiton that the IPCC report and its conclusions are included in this consensus. Number 1 is accepted science based on peer reviewed studies. Number 2 is speculation based on the opinions of UN policy makers.
If I were a cynical person, I would suppose that control over the the world's energy industry is a motivating factor. Mitigating the affects of global warming is a great excuse for governments to take over all energy production from the current private owners.
Yet there is reason to believe that many environmental activists simply believe that it's okay to exaggerate or distort the effects of global warming if that's what it takes to frighten a reluctant public into joining their cause. The end justifies the means. Unfortunately, the lack of honesty exhibited by many of the crisis mongers has caused the credibility of the enitire movement to take a hit. This includes the credibility of science in general. This really is a shame, because it didn't have to happen this way and it's very likely that the public will cease to give a crap about global warming because of the overhype that the issue has gotten.
Really? You'll need to do a lot better than a blog from Anthony Watts and a blog from Friends of Science who are known to be funded by the energy lobby. Try these...
Invalid Link Removed
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=faq
http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/jones-2013-attribution.html
Invalid Link Removed
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
What they did in that study is examine 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011 that included the words global climate change or global warming in their abstract. What they found after analysing these abstracts is that among those that expressed a position on global warming, 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
When they asked the authors of those papers to rate their own papers they again found that 97% stated that humans are causing global warming. They also contacted 8,547 authors to ask if they could rate their own papers and got 1,200 responses. The results for this again found that 97% of the selected papers stated that humans are causing global warming. They did this to determine that there wasnt any sort of inherent problem in their rating system and this seems to indicate that.
