Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Asherman wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What specific actions are being called for by those who want prompt government action? There doesn't seem to be much that any government can do that will make the slightest difference over the short term. Passing regulations that effectively shut down major industries while increasing prices throughout the economy isn't going to fly; not with governments, industry, or the people at large.

The role can play is to grease the skids to bring more nuclear power plants in a short amount of time, and with less capital investment. Tax breaks for technologies that present less expensive alternatives to fossil fuels might work. Most important is funding for continued research related to energy production and climatology.

___________________________________________________________

Dr.Lomberg in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" wrote:

P. 322

quote

"Do we want to handle alleged global warming in the most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects...We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase there may be when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more efficiently in the developing world...THE KYOTO PROTOCOL WILL COST AT LEAST 150 BILLION A YEAR AND POSSIBLY MUCH MORE. UNICEF ESTIMATES THAT JUST 70-80 BILLION A YEAR COULD GIVE ALL THIRD WORLD INHABITANTS ACCESS TO THE BASICS LIKE HEALTH, EDUCATION, WATER AND SANITATION...Cutting back any CO2 emissions quickly becomes very costly, and easily counterproductive. We should focus more of our effort at finding ways of easing the emission of greenhouse gases OVER THE LONG RUN. Partly, this means that we need to invest much more in research and development of SOLAR POWER, FUSION, AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."

0 Replies

Mr.Parados wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having fun playing with yourself Bernard?

It is amazing the way you can make believe things that have never happened and forget things that have.
*********************************************************

Temper--Temper--You may be in violation of the TOS!!!!!

0 Replies

Mr. Parados wrote:

We have presented a re-evaluation of the hypothesis
of possible links between solar activity and low clouds. Due
to a falling correlation between IR-low cloud cover and
cosmic rays after 1993, we conclude that even though the
two series are rather well correlated, the statistical significance
is low.

end of quote

Mr. Parados does not tell us how low the statistical significance is. THERE IS A CORRELATION. No one is saying that the links between solar activity and low clouds would WIPE OUT the effects of CO2. But if all of the factors which must be considered are put into the equation, the increases in temperature which is DUE ONLY TO CO2 EMISSIONS MUST BE LOWERED.

0 Replies

Mr. Parados wrote:

We have presented a re-evaluation of the hypothesis
of possible links between solar activity and low clouds. Due
to a falling correlation between IR-low cloud cover and
cosmic rays after 1993, we conclude that even though the
two series are rather well correlated, the statistical significance
is low.

end of quote

Mr. Parados does not tell us how low the statistical significance is. THERE IS A CORRELATION. No one is saying that the links between solar activity and low clouds would WIPE OUT the effects of CO2. But if all of the factors which must be considered are put into the equation, the increases in temperature which is DUE ONLY TO CO2 EMISSIONS MUST BE LOWERED.

0 Replies

Mr. Parados wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is amazing how some people think surface temperature readings are models. I always thought recorded data from a thermometer was recorded data.
____________________________________________________________

I really don't know where Mr. Parados gets the idea that surface temperature readings are models. THEY ARE NOT!!!

According to Lomberg-The Skeptical Environmentalist--Global Temperatures from 1856 to 2005 are measured by instruments-THERMOMETERS.

There has already been evidence given to show that these thermometer measurements are far from definitive. Indeed, as Lomber states:

P. 263

"There is no doubt that the temperature of the late twentieth century is greater than many previous centuries, BUT THIS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A SIMPLE INDICATION OF OVERWHELMING GLOBAL WARMING AS WE ARE ALSO COMING OUT OF A L I T T L E I C E A G E. The claim that the temperature is higher now than at anytime during the last 1000 years seems less well substantiated SINCE THE DATA ESSENTIALLY EXCLUDE

OCEAN TEMPERATURES

NIGHT TEMPERATURES

AND

WINTER TEMPERATURES AND

MORE OVER ARE BASED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON NORTH AMERICAN DATA."

and

"IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THE IPCC'S PREDICTIONS ARE BASED ON COMPUTER MODEL SIMULATIONS....IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE RESULT OF SIMULATIONS DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE PARAMETERS AND ALGORITIMS WITH WHICH THE COMPUTER IS FED. C O M P U T E R S A R E N U M B E R C R U N C H E R S A N D N O T C R Y S T A L B A L L S>"

Source for above--"The Skeptical Environmentalist"--Bjorn Lomberg-P. 265.

Mr.Parados obviously missed my post where I showed the deficiences of MODELS.

As I have already stated, Temperatures of the PAST are indeed recorded data, BUT MR.PARADOS HAS MADE THE EGREGIOUS ERROR TO THINK THAT TEMPERATURES IN THE FUTURE CAN BE ASCERTAINED WITHOUT USING COMPUTER MODELS.

Again, Past and Present Temperatures are gained by using thermometers and, as noted, they are not definitive since they do not cover the entire globe.

FUTURE TEMPERATURES CAN ONLY BE PREDICTED. I AM NOT SURE MR. PARADOS KNOWS THAT THE COMPUTER MODELS ( there are many of them, and some differ widely from others because they do not all use the same assumptions) ARE FED DATA AND THESE MODELS THEN PREDICT THE TEMPERATURE CHANGE BASED ON THE OUTPUT GIVEN BY THE
C O M P U T E R M O D E L S.

I do hope that Mr.Parados is now aware of the different roles played by thermometers and Computer models.

The former measures past and present temperatures. The latter PREDICTS future temperatures based on input of data.

Both these measures have serious problems which often skew the data.

0 Replies

Mr. Parados wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people can't seem to make coherent and consistent arguments.

They say things like
Quote:
Your point on Solar influences is enhanced by the fact that solar energy output has been at its highest in the last twenty years.

When in reality it is near its lowest. The present year is the low point of a cycle and the last peak in the cycle was lower than the previous 2.

Then they make comments like
Quote:
Now, does this explain the total rise in Temperature since 1976?(somewhere between .50 and 1.00 C degrees depending on THE MODEL USED).

Then they defend it by claiming they were talking about computer modeling of future increases. In reality their comment says no such thing. No sane person would think it was talking about the future.

Of course some people have their heads so far up where the sun never shines so they wouldn't know anything about sun cycles or temperature data.

Then they continue to trot out "evidence" from pre 2000 failing to see that the present year is 2006. And also failing to see the the charting from 1980 on shows a rapid increase in temperature that can't be related to the solar energy.

************************************************************

A rapid increase in temperature that can't be related to the solar energy, says Mr. Parados

I note that Mr. Parados HAS NOT defined A RAPID INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE.

Don't be shy, Mr. Parados. Tell us about the rapid rise in Temperature.

Just how much has the temperature risen? In what years? What was the temperature in the early part of the century? What was the temperature in the middle of the century? Is it not true that the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE WAS HIGHER IN 1940 THAN IT WAS IN 1980?

How could that be, Mr.Parados? Certainly there was more CO2 spewed into the air from 1950 to 1980 than was released in 1940.

How can this anomaly be accounted for?

0 Replies

BernardR

You are reposting the same posts over and over again - saved to a clipboard I guess.

You are the key player in destroying the quality of this discussion, and are in violation to your, and our, agreement here on a2k.

If I should decide to leave this thread, it will be because of you.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Parados wrote:

We have presented a re-evaluation of the hypothesis
of possible links between solar activity and low clouds. Due
to a falling correlation between IR-low cloud cover and
cosmic rays after 1993, we conclude that even though the
two series are rather well correlated, the statistical significance
is low.

end of quote

Mr. Parados does not tell us how low the statistical significance is. THERE IS A CORRELATION. No one is saying that the links between solar activity and low clouds would WIPE OUT the effects of CO2. But if all of the factors which must be considered are put into the equation, the increases in temperature which is DUE ONLY TO CO2 EMISSIONS MUST BE LOWERED.

Are you incapable of following links Bernie? You never mentioned how high the correlation was. The study you trumpeted is over 10 years old and has been discarded.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr.Parados wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having fun playing with yourself Bernard?

It is amazing the way you can make believe things that have never happened and forget things that have.
*********************************************************

Temper--Temper--You may be in violation of the TOS!!!!!

Report me then. I will show examples shortly.

0 Replies

parados

Respectfully request that when the fellow stands up and waves his arms and shouts "I'm a duck...please shoot me again...oh how I have missed the searing pain of hot lead" that you ignore the plaint and scroll past, delivering us all from this spector as uncomfortable in the watching as when a farm animal touches itself in front of the children.

0 Replies

Well put Blatham, but is there nothing that can be done to modify the behavior?

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Parados wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is amazing how some people think surface temperature readings are models. I always thought recorded data from a thermometer was recorded data.
____________________________________________________________

I really don't know where Mr. Parados gets the idea that surface temperature readings are models. THEY ARE NOT!!!

I got that idea from you Bernie.. It seems I am right. You do forget things that have happened. Did you forget you said.

BernardR wrote:

Now, does this explain the total rise in Temperature since 1976?(somewhere between .50 and 1.00 C degrees depending on THE MODEL USED).

How did you deduce there was a rise in temperature since 1976? Isn't it the surface temperature readings that do that? Surface temperature readings are not models. Explain your statement if you can.

Quote:

According to Lomberg-The Skeptical Environmentalist--Global Temperatures from 1856 to 2005 are measured by instruments-THERMOMETERS.

Lomborg's work "The Sketpical Environmentalist" was found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish committee on Scientific Dishonesty

Quote:

There has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty... have been met

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Bjorn-Lomborg-Dishonesty7jan02.htm

It apears you like to quote dishonest works Bernie. Not suprising really.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lomborg's work "The Sketpical Environmentalist" was found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish committee on Scientific Dishonesty

When the committee published that verdict, it did not contain a single example of Lomborg's alleged scientific dishonesty. Lomborg then asked it to name such examples, and the committee preferred to withdraw the verdict rather than reopen the case. All of this can be looked up in the Wikipedia entry on Lomborg, under "accusations of scientific dishonesty".

If you must bring up this old hat again, at least bring up all of it. You're usually less gullible than this.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
Lomborg's work "The Sketpical Environmentalist" was found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish committee on Scientific Dishonesty

When the committee published that verdict, it did not contain a single example of Lomborg's alleged scientific dishonesty. Lomborg then asked it to name such examples, and the committee preferred to withdraw the verdict rather than reopen the case. All of this can be looked up in the Wikipedia entry on Lomborg, under "accusations of scientific dishonesty".

If you must bring up this old hat again, at least bring up all of it. You're usually less gullible than this.

Thank you, Thomas. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't have a clue whether Lomborg is a good scientist or a bad scientist. But acknowledging the hypocrisy on both sides is a giant leap toward digging the truth out of all the hype and skewed data and incomplete conclusions. As you have observed (and mentioned Smile

) I don't know squat about how to do any of that. But in what I've read, heard, and had explained to me, I am convinced there is hypocrisy and self-serving stuff from both sides of the 'scientific community' in the mix, and we would be very foolish not to acknowledge that.

I still advocate keeping an open mind on this one.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Well put Blatham, but is there nothing that can be done to modify the behavior?

su

I think we can advise and police ourselves almost always. I have my personal idiosyncratic notions regarding what operational rules our community ought to follow (rudeness doesn't bother me, but more than one logical fallacy per day should be punished with a horsewhipping) which would gain little agreement.

So, in a situation like this, I suppose all we can do is hope to persuade others to follow the old "don't feed the troll" wisdom.

0 Replies

Thomas,

Perhaps you should tell the whole story. They didn't reopen the case against Lomborg because they didn't find him personally guilty in the first place, only the work. They felt the Lomborg didn't understand what he was writing about so he wasn't being intentionally misleading.

Bernard's single quote contains several questionable statements that are easy to point out. I felt it was easier to simply point out that Lomborg was a poor choice.

Lomborg's statement was -

Quote:

THE DATA ESSENTIALLY EXCLUDE

OCEAN TEMPERATURES

NIGHT TEMPERATURES

AND

WINTER TEMPERATURES AND

MORE OVER ARE BASED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON NORTH AMERICAN DATA."

We will assume for the sake of argument that Lomborg is talking about the Mann, Bradley, Hughes study.
The dataset for that study includes, coral, icecores and tree data, and temperature data when available.
Coral grows where? Last time I checked it grows in the oceans. Yet Lomborg claims they used no ocean temperatures.
The ice cores used were from Greenland and Iceland. There were no ice cores from North America that I can see in the dataset.
The temperature data includes England from 1730 and Europe from 1550.
The tree data includes Urals, Mongolia, and Yakutsk amongst other non North American sites.

All the data files for the study can be found here
ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Perhaps you should tell the whole story. They didn't reopen the case against Lomborg because they didn't find him personally guilty in the first place, only the work. They felt the Lomborg didn't understand what he was writing about so he wasn't being intentionally misleading.

Please show me where they say this.

0 Replies

If wiki is to be believed...

Quote:

On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that they had already found Lomborg not guilty.

This is part of the Ministry's ruling..

http://www.lomborg.com/files/Case%201650%20-%20The%20Ministry%20evaluation%20of%20DCSD.doc

This is my take on it.
It appears that the DCSD found the book wrong but couldn't decide if Lomborg did it intentionally or not. Because it was considered subjective to find just the book and not an objective ruling on Lomborg's intent it was sent back to them. Because they had already passed on ruling on Lomborg the first time they saw no reason to bring it back.

There was also some question as to whether the DCSD even had jurisdiction because the book was published outside Denmark.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If wiki is to be believed...

Quote:
On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that they had already found Lomborg not guilty.

This is part of the Ministry's ruling..

http://www.lomborg.com/files/Case%201650%20-%20The%20Ministry%20evaluation%20of%20DCSD.doc

This is my take on it.
It appears that the DCSD found the book wrong but couldn't decide if Lomborg did it intentionally or not. Because it was considered subjective to find just the book and not an objective ruling on Lomborg's intent it was sent back to them. Because they had already passed on ruling on Lomborg the first time they saw no reason to bring it back.

There was also some question as to whether the DCSD even had jurisdiction because the book was published outside Denmark.

Well just a cursory review of this looks very much like the DCSD didn't expect to have their 'off the top of their heads" opinion challenged, and when it was, they offered a very lengthy, 50-cent wordy, and strained cop out.

0 Replies

Meanwhile I just found a few primary sources on the web.

a) The original verdict, by courtesy of the wayback machine. Notice how the commission accuses the book of objective scientific dishonesty, but does not specify a single objective fact that they think Lomborg got wrong. All the substantive arguments are copied from four Anti-Lomborg articles in the Scientific American. The committee does not evaluate anything itself.

b) the press release of the commission closing the case.

I have yet to find the one where the science ministry lists the cornucopia that is the commissions's errors in this matter. Meanwhile, everyone can check for themselves how and if the commission's original verdict fits together with its later description of the verdict.

(EDIT: Just saw that you posted the summary of the Ministry's findings, parados. Thanks! I guess we have a workably complete set of primary sources now.)

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know