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

Nope, it doesn't look any clearer written out in plain English either. Just count me hopeless on this technical stuff. I'm certain it is brilliant, however.

No, it is not brilliant. It's the same garbage he's been called on before (and admitted that it was garbage). Arbitrary starting and end points, arbitrary assignment of effects (justify the arbitrary setting of TSI to account for 99% of temp. increase, and CO2 to account for 0.9%--there is ZERO justification for that). You can't just make up numbers. Ican is making them up. It is also NOT a "model"--it's merely playing with numbeers. A model includes ALL the factors that are known to effect a process, and quantifies ALL their effects, based on the measurable evidence, and then sees if it matches reality. ican includes only two factors, uses spurious and questionable numbers, and assigns weights to them which correspond to no known scientific evidence.

Let's take one egregious example. He keeps using the period 2000-2008 to attempt to say that solar irradiance is the primary cause of temperature change. That's bullshit. His conclusion is entirely dependent on his arbitrary choices and has no correspondence with reality. Examine the period 1999-2007. The same length as his. Just one year different, and covering 89% of the same data as his. Yet in this period Global average temperature goes UP significantly, while TSI goes down. We don't even have to do the numbers (tho you can if you want) because TSI and Temp change are not even the same SIGN, so solar irradiance is in this period absolutely CANNOT be the cause of any rising temperature, under the silly schema ican is using. because if it were, it would have to be rising, but it is falling. And that, remember, is just about the same time period ican is talking about. But with a small change in the starting and ending points--but with the same lenght of observation, you get a totally opposite--and much stronger--negative correlation than the positive one ican does.

Which just goes to show that ican's whole approach is mathematically and scientifically invalid.

Again, his interval uses TSI at two different points in the 11-year solar cycle. 2000 is not too far off a solar maximum, and 2008 is a solar minimum. This is not, as he seems to think, a linear change. It will not continue to decrease in the future. It is CYCLIC. Around 2011 it will be about the same as in 2000 and around 2019 it will be around the same as 2008. The change in temp from max to min is somewhere between .1 and .2 degrees C, and it keeps going up and down in an 11 year cycle around that amount, due to the 11 year oscillation in TSI/. You can tell NOTHING about long term change in TSI or temp by comparing only two points in one cycle, at different points in the cycle.

Further, it is well -known that LaNina/ElNino events have significant though TRANSITORY effects on global temperature. They are weather, not climate. They indicate nothing about long term trends, but they are fluctuations from the mean temperature. When they are over, the temp regresses to the mean from whichever direction it had deviated. The temp in a Nino or Nina year tells you nothing about long term trends. 1999-2000 was a rather strong laNina year. So was 2008. 2007 was tied for the second hottest year after 2005, the hottest year on record, according to NOAA. ican compares two atypical years, and uses an invalid comparison between two points in a cyclic change, and thinks he can tell something about long term change. He can't.

His time frame is too short. It's just numbers. He doesn't account for the effects of any of the processes we KNOW affect temperature. He doesn't take any notice of the cyclic and periodic effects we KNOW are going on. He ignores the many other factors we KNOW have an effect on temperature change. It's not a "model". It's just essentially random numbers.

If he wants a real model, he should research the climate models the IPCC summarizes (the IPCC does not create them, which some of the posters here seem to think--it summarizes the results of the actual models that climate scientists have created, which take into account ALL the known factors, forcings and feedbacks, that affect climate change, and they cover millennia, not just random points a decade or two apart).

And for the record, I am not saying that the period 1999-2007 indicates TSI has no effect on global temp (the research shows it has a small effect on temp but cannot account for the large majority of the rise in the last half of the twentieth century). What it shows is that using ican's arbitrary methodology (and even his numbers) you can legitimately come up with a completely opposite conclusion. Which means pretty much all the math he does, and his so-called "model", are nonsense. Garbage in, garbage out.

In my opinion and in the opinion of many experts we have cited to support our arguments on this thread, the last half of the 20th century or any century is also too short a period on which to make any conclusion re climate change. I am not enough of a math wonk to know whether Ican's figures are garbage or not, but I do know that he has not developed his conclusions in a vacuum nor have any of the rest of us who currently reside on the skeptic side of the debate.

Though it is insufficient evidence on which to draw large scale conclusions, it is reasonable to assess whether increased CO2 emissions has contributed to short term global warming and it is also reasonable to assess whether short term global warming has contributed to increased CO2 emissions. It is also reasonable to have scientific curiosity re why global temperatures seem to have stabilized or even decreased on average in the last eight years while CO2 levels continued to rise. I think intelligent people who have no ox to defend or no ax to grind or no personal benefit at stake think it is acceptable to question such things while those who do have an ox to defend or an ax to grind or personal benefit at stake do not want to acknowledge such curiosity as valid.

Modern extreme liberalism seems to be pretty universal in its contempt for human prosperity and industriousness and seems to think the world would be a better place without contamination by humankind and its industry. This seems to have created a culture that accepts only information that confirms an ideology. Global warming skeptics are not part of that culture.

The bottom line for those of us on the skeptic side is that we do not want to give over our economic futures and/or our national policies and/or our life style choices and/or the health and well being of hundreds of millions if not billions of poor populations to what will be proved to be bogus science. Continue to study the issue yes. Use technology that has proved itself to be practical and beneficial yes.

But we want to study, evalate, and assess it honestly and openly and with input from all who have data and expertise to offer rather than swallow the politically/financially expedient and/or the politically correct without question.

Foxfyre, I have been extremely impressed with the quality of your arguments since my recent return to A2K. We truly did not get along back when...and I thought at that time that you were almost always arbitrary in your commentary. That seems to have changed significantly.

That said, however, I do have a disagreement with this last post"specifically that I consider your characterization of the “extreme liberal” position to be gratuitous on your part.

I am not a member of that group, Foxfyre…I am not even a liberal…but I have no problem with people suggesting that humans are causing problems for the planet. I think they are. I think most thinking people think they are also.

And to suggest that they are in “contempt for human prosperity and industriousness” or that they “think the world would be a better place without contamination by humankind and its industry” is way off the mark.

In fact, it seems rather self-evident to me that we humans are indeed causing problems for the planet…although I suspect a good case can be made that some of the problems are unavoidable and a reasonable, necessary exchange for us living on it.

But there certainly is nothing wrong with people suggesting that we recognize that we can be destructive…and that we ought to take precautions. In the long run, that seems to be less contemptuous of human prosperity and industriousness than simply ignoring or denying it…which seems to be the prevailing conservative agenda.

I think erring on the part of being more careful (I almost said, being more conservative!!!) is probably the better tactic.

As for Ican’s model…or whatever the hell he is calling this set of numbers…you would do best to simply disregard them. They are mostly smoke screen"as his numbers usually are.

I'm the same person I've always been Frank, and I am still as stubborn in not compromising or prostituting my convictions as ever, but an old dog can learn new tricks now and then and perhaps more effective communication might be among those. Anyhow thanks for the compliment. (I think )

The 'extreme liberal' reference was not gratuitous on my part but is absolutely heartfelt. It does not include all liberals, reasonable liberals, honest liberals, undecided liberals etc. who have at times particpated on this and other threads and offered their own reasoned and thoughtful perspectives that frequently differ from mine.

The 'extreme liberal' in this debate is s/he who would ridicule and/or condemn and/or punish and/or silence the skeptic, who would refuse to consider any point of view other than the one that declares that it is humankind who is destroying the planet and creating dangerous climate change. The 'extreme liberal' is s/he who favors draconian change, government mandates, and restriction of freedoms and life choices by millions to further an agenda that a least some of us consider highly questionable if not utter folly.

I have not seen one single post by any skeptic who has posted on this thread who wants us to squander our planet's resources or who favors fouling our land, water, air, or who doesn't want to preserve the beauty and marvelous diversity we enjoy on Planet Earth.

The debate is necessary and, if we humans have the power to avert unnecessary hardship or catastrophe, then of course we should learn how to do that. If we can't change our environment for the better and would rather more efficiently and effectively put our efforts into finding ways to adapt constructively to it, then that is where our focus should be.

But we need to know we're dealing with fact, not emotional or exploitive opinion/policy, and the benefits of whatever action is taken need to justify the cost before skeptics will be reassured that we are on the right course re global warming.

canada's department of the environment has worked under both conservative and liberal government (currently under a conservative government) .
while governemnts change in canada - actually quite frequently - the departments reporting to the minister hardly change at all .

the DOE is indeed very much interested in the arctic environment - a look at canada's map will show you that much of our country is ruled by the northern environment .





canada DOE works closely with government and research organizations from many other countries - particularly those concerned with the arctic environment .

they currently forecast that world temperatures will increase by
about 1 to 6 % by 21o0 .
however they also predict that the change in temperature will impact those areas closer to the arctic (and antarctic - i believe) and the areas close to the equator much more than those areas in more temperate zones .



http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1&offset=4&toc=show#D.4



http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1&offset=4&toc=show#D.5

CORRECTION
My observation that the % reduction in AAGT during the years 2000 through 2008 is ABOUT HALF as large as the % reduction in SI during the same period, is valid independent of the arbitrariness of my models. I tentatively conclude from that that it requires a SMALL amount of SI reduction to cause a SMALL amount of AAGT reduction. Consequently, it may be true that CO2 and MAF are insignificant contributors to AAGT, since they have actually been increasing during the same period AAGT has been decreasing. If that were to be the case, then SI would be the major cause of AAGT, while CAD and MAF would be minor causes of AAGT.

please ignore my previous post http://able2know.org/topic/44061-599#post-3528125

i hit the reply button too early - sorry for the confusion !
hbg

Agree with lots of what you said here…and I admire fire in a poster no matter if I strongly identify with that poster’s arguments…or consider them wrong-headed. So keep the fire…although we are definitely on different sides of many coins being flipped in A2K.

Bottom line for me is that I think everyone recognized that our environment is finite…and we humans definitely have been pouring lots of bad stuff into it…polluting its air and its oceans.

Most of the offal of civilization is necessary…unavoidable. But reasonable care can at least lower the negative impact…and lobbying for reasonable care is something that I do not see as a priority for conservatives.

I honestly think conservatives have got to step up to the plate with more authority on these issues. I don’t want to see it left to liberals. But the liberals, in my opinion, are filling a vacuum purposely created by conservatives who seem almost knee-jerk in their opposition to any kind of environmental protection. And I am convinced that lots of such protection is necessary at this time.

For some conservatives…no amount of “evidence” will ever be enough for them to move off their positions on these issues.

AAGT increased from 286.56 to 287.56 °K (about 1°K or 1.8 °F) from 1900 to 2000. AAGT decreased from 287.47 to 287.38 °K (about 0.085 °K or 0.15 °F) from 2001 to 2008.

On the other hand, CAD steadily increased from 241.6 ppm to 386.2 ppm from 1900 to 2008.

WHY do you think the CAD increase is more than a minor cause of the AAFT increase ?

From 1900 to 2000 CAD increased from 241.6 ppm to 371.6, about 130 ppm. That's about 1.3 ppm per year. If CAD were to increase at its current rate until 2100, CAD would be increased another 130 ppm. Then why would anyone think the AAGT would increase anymore than another 1°K or 1.8 °F?

If AAGT were to increase that amount, why would anyone think it would result in human suffering rather than human pleasure?

i finally managed to put together my post on the environment - from a canadian point of view . i hope you'll find it at least somewhat interesting .
....................................................................................................................
canada - the environment - and global warming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
canada's department of the environment has worked under both conservative and liberal government (currently under a conservative government) .
while governments change in canada - actually quite frequently - the departments reporting to the minister usually do not change with every new government - a difficult task imo .

the DOE is indeed very much interested in the arctic environment - a look at canada's map will show you that much of our country is ruled by the northern environment .



canada's DOE works closely with government and research organizations from many other countries - particularly those concerned with the arctic environment .
...................................................................................................................
they currently forecast that "world temperatures" will increase by
about 1 to 6 degrees C by 21o0 .
[however they also predict that the change in temperature will impact those areas closer to the arctic and antarctic , and the areas close to the equator much more than those areas in more temperate zones .]




see here for text :
http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1&offset=4&toc=show#D.4
............................................................................................................

the DOE has been questioned why they cannot be more precise in their predictions - a variance of 1 - 6 degrees is rather large .
however , even a 1 degree increase in "world temperature" will likely have a major adverse impact upon the arctic ice mass .

this is their response :




link to text :
http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1&offset=4&toc=show#D.5
........................................................................................................

here is a link to the DOE's website on the suject of :

Frequently Asked Questions about the Science of Climate Change - 2008 Update

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=2A953C90-1&offset=1&toc=show

you'll also be able to find links to many other subjects about the environment - happy reading !
hbg

(i sure hope this post will be correct)

Would you care to cite a reliable source for your temperature figures,. ican? An ORIGINAL source? (biocab is a loonie, with no climate expertise). Your figures do not gibe with, as far as I can tell, ANY other source.

For example, the NASA figures for global average temperature, show
1900 13.9719 degrees C
2000 14.3631 degrees C
2008 14.48 degrees C

I'm a little unclear as to why you think the global average temp has dropped since 2000. Sure looks like a rise to me.

Your other argument has been that TSI has dropped from 2000 to 2008 and that is responsible for the drop in global temperature. However, since global temp has RISEN since 2000, and TSI has dropped, the sign of change is different (positive for temp, negative for TSI) so TSI cannot in any way be responsible for the rise in global temp. (Would you care to concede now that looking at change in TSI due to being at different points in the 11 year solar cycle, which is what you do when you compare 2000 to 2008, tells you absolutely nothing about global climate change--in other words, that your "methodology" is totally wack?)

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/ann08.html
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual_land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000 (I suspect the second URL isn't gonna work, however it's the standard NOAA temp anomalies chart which they've now updated thru 2007, which you can get from the NOAA website searching for global temperature)

Go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html#anomalies and click on "The Annual Global (land & ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C)"

There is no question that the environment has been warming over a long period of time, much longer than modern man has been around. The question is how much of the recent warming is a result of human activity, and how much is a result of natural forces. That's the question which nobody has been able to clearly answer yet.

From the graph below it's clear that natural warming has been going on for the last 50k years and is part of a regular cycle. It's also clear that the CO2 levels have increased dramatically in modern times. But even if we got rid of the CO2 levels tomorrow (which we can't do), we would still have the natural cycle to contend with. And it's also pretty clear that the next part of the natural cycle is a prolonged glaciation. So maybe the extra CO2 is good?



http://able2know.org/topic/92381-1

(and to Ros)

The way I see it, conservation, preservation, and practical solutions are not effectively achieved by ideology but rather by practicality. In nation after nation, whether conservative or liberal, the more prosperous the people as a whole become, the more the people are interested in improving and preserving their environment. Nobody wants to live with fouled land, water, or air, and what sane person does not appreciate aesthetic beauty?

It is not the poor but rather the rich who have the ability and incentive to achieve beautiful surroundings, clean water, clean soil, clean air, to make that a priority, and who put pressure to bear to make that happen. It is the rich who invest in research and in new technologies and in building better mousetraps. It is the rich who developed catalytic converters and scrubbers to remove factory emissions and who learned how to remove sulphur from diesel fuel.

In my view, where conservatives and liberals most differ on the issue of global warming is that conservatives seem to more often require evidence that a policy is effective amd necessary while liberals more often support the opinion that the motive for the policy is sufficient in order for there to be a policy.

Ican and others who have the education, background, and training to understand the implications of mathematical equations, charts, graphs, and scientific data battle out this issue on the basis of science, but over the many months and thousands of posts on this thread, the unscientific types like me have no problem in seeing that opposing scientific data is being presented as 'evidence' for or against global warming.

I haven't taken a side on the issue because I don't know. My position at this time is to resist allowing people who also don't know and/or who have self-serving motives to take away our freedoms, choices, opportunities, and/or require that we radically alter our lifestyles to achieve something that may have no effect on global warming whatsoever. And without knowing that it would do more harm than good, I also cannot justify denying whole populations the same ability to pull themselves out of poverty and join the world of the 'rich' and environmentally conscious as we have already done.

Yes, we should continue to develop and implement effective ways to live in peace and harmony on our planet and we should do our best to do no harm. But let's don't spin our wheels in non effective and/or non necessary policy and mandates that won't help at all especially if they are based on bogus or bad science.

I’m not sure we are that much at odds in our thinking, Foxfyre, although we do seem to diverge a bit at significant junctures.

I am not at all convinced that some of the calls for concern by so-called “liberal” individuals or groups are as half-baked, frivolous, or wrong-headed as you seem to think. I may be wrong. I acknowledge, as do you, that I do not know.

I’m not at all convinced that so-called conservative commentators on this issue are any less likely to skew their “evidence” in order to arrive where THEY want to arrive. I’ve already said more than I want to about Ican and his math…but since you mentioned him in this regard, I can tell you that if Ican is doing with this math what he did with the math he used when he was “proving that God exists”…and if his motives prove to be as suspect…you would do well to simply disregard his material altogether.

In any case, the callousness and carelessness of humans with regard to their environment is already established for me. I am not speaking of the global warming area or any of the major items being discussed here…but more mundane areas where the evidence is indisputable.

Our cities, streets and the areas surrounding our highways are filthy. And before I get any gratuitous nonsense about “you only think that because you live in New Jersey and often visit New York City”…let me say that I’ve been around and spoken with people who travel widely…and this is a wide-spread problem almost everywhere.

Our oceans have crap in them that almost defies imagination; Texas sized areas of the Pacific awash in plastics and garbage.

If we are doing this kind of stuff on this scale where the measurements can be observed…I prefer to suppose we are doing it on a macro scale also.

Foxfyre, you gotta go with your instincts here. If you truly do feel the slant favored mostly by the conservatives is more to your liking…go with it. I feel the slant favored mostly by the other side is the more prudent.

All I can do is to recommend you, and others of like mind with you, to at least consider it…recommend that you all consider if ideology is playing any part in why you feel more comfortable with where you are.

If there is any chance the planet is in danger…I’d like humanity to err on the side of supposing the worst.

I’m all for “not spinning our wheels” or relying on “bogus or bad science”"but I am also not sure of who is doing the wheel spinning…or who is promoting bogus or bad science. I’ve got plenty of reason to suppose it is at least as likely “the problem is not that great” group is as much an offender in this regard as is “the problem is enormous” group.

Not really sure why others, like you, don’t feel that same way.

Frank writes


I am mostly conservative in ideology; therefore I insist on results and effectiveness. I can give credit for and forgive bad results from good intentions, but I can't condone basing policy on good intentions that will likely result in unintended bad consequences. Even moreso, I cannot support policy that has already proved itself to be ineffective or even harmful.

I am as angry as you re the thoughtless and stupid actions of people who intentionally foul the land, water, and air. You probably missed the discussions earlier in this thread where High Seas, I, and others saw the pollution of the oceans with heavy metals to be a far more serious issue than any obvious results of global warming, natural or manmade.

Where we seem to be most at odds is:

1) I see intentional or careless fouling of the land, water, and air as a different issue from global warming and each requires a different approach. You seem to see them as one and the same.

2) You, like some others on this thread, seem to want to err on the side of assuming that anthropomorphic global warming may be a worldwide reality and therefore better to be safe than sorry. I, however, see it as more important to be as certain as possible that it is both necessary and effective before we take away peoples' choices, freedoms, and opportunities.

Like you, I accept that you do not share my point of view. Like you, I don't understand why you don't.

Good answer, Foxfyre! I especially liked that last paragraph!

We’re not going to mesh on this one…but I am enjoying the conversation and I have a comment on two items of your post.



Not completely accurate. I see the former as evidence that the latter is not completely unthinkable"rather than that they are one and the same. They certainly are, though, the result of like mindsets. As I said, if we are doing this kind of stuff that we can see, I prefer to suppose we are also doing it on larger scales also"in areas where the evidence is ambiguous.

I do prefer that we err on the side of safety.




We do have a major difference in approach here…and that has to remain as it is.

I undoubtly see more good coming from giving up some personal individual freedoms and choices and even opportunities for what I perceive to be the “greater good.” I know this opens a huge can of worms, and if we have to address that, we’ll do so. But I am of the opinion that for some conservatives, (not sure about you), no amount of evidence will ever come close to meeting the “certain as possible” standard.

There certainly seems to be enough evidence to convince me that concern is in order. Maybe I am gullible! Always that possibility. But if that is the reason I feel the way I do…in my opinion I am in good company. Lots and lots of people, scientist and statesmen, seem to be of like mind.

I am interested in the planet surviving. I think our generation has to take steps that may result in less personal freedom and choices for us in order to make a solid contribution in that direction…but I think it is our responsibility to do so nonetheless.

We obviously are lightyears apart in this philosophical area. Not sure how to broach that distance…but gonna keep trying.