Gore and IPCC win Nobel Prize

[The Gaffer]

Boo-ya!

Nice one j.

How do you like them apples Inked?

[inked]

"is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases" is NOT proof, ya'll. But it is a good try to make the report say what one wants it to say.

There have been larger climate changes colder and warmer, have there not? Where were the "likely...anthropogenic" causes? And don't say there were other causes because the whole argument is the degree of human causation at the present moment (ecologically).

[Earniel]

Why can't climate changes in the past have other causes, just because this one current one is being influenced by man-made causes? There is nothing IMO that prevents past climate changes to have other causes than man.

[inked]

To disambiguate the causes, Earniel. That's my point! But thanks for making it.

[Jonathan]

Inked, you didn't answer my question. Do you think there has been a period of warming the last 50 years?

Originally Posted by inked

"is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases" is NOT proof, ya'll. But it is a good try to make the report say what one wants it to say.

There have been larger climate changes colder and warmer, have there not? Where were the "likely...anthropogenic" causes? And don't say there were other causes because the whole argument is the degree of human causation at the present moment (ecologically).

You don't trust the IPCC report then. Why not? So many national science academies and scientific organizations support their conclusions and don't consider any doubts justified.

Very likely in this case means there is a statistical certainty (confidence interval) of 90 %. Combined with all the other "very likely" calculations in the report, it seems pretty darn unlikely that humans aren't responsible for some of the causes of climate change.

This is how statistical evidence works. It's proof. To dismiss it completely because the confidence interval isn't a 100 % is ignorant, because when using statistical methods there is NEVER a 100 % certainty.

[Earniel]

I still don't see your point, Inked.

[inked]

Jonathan,
"Very likely in this case means there is a statistical certainty (confidence interval) of 90 %."

Kindly demonstrate the equivalence of very likely and your statistical correlation. My contention is that they should have stated the degree of statistical certainty if they have one. Otherwise, you can think what you wish. But if I contend that statistical certainty is 50 + 1 %, how do we differentiate the variation.

It might possibly be possible that your nunmbers are correct, but then so might mine. So the "very likely" is equivalent to a certainty of 51% to 90% and there is no apparent difference to allow judgement. That is precisely why I think the IPCC report to be POOR science. It is not because of the need for 100% certainty. It because of the need to assess the alleged certainty. I think it far below 90% btw. But you have gathered that by now.

And yes, I can say that overall a warming trend has been identified over the 50 yr haul, but the significance of that is the point under discussion. Screaming global warming over what may be mere blip in the record is not science. But it might get you a Nobel Prize as a consolation for losing the Presidency of the USA. (Did you see the news show interview with Al G and Tipper last evening. Their house in Tennessee required 20 times the average energy usage per house in America, so they have had to retrofit it, just like everyone should according to their ideology - but, of course, they can afford it, too, sooooo.......... . I especially liked the part where they went to India to teach people there how to green up. I think it was after the bit about the house.........)

But remember, Jonathan, I recall the fear of global cooling and another ice age in the 1960's as well. I have a longer perspective on science and climate than you and I dare oppose mine to the cultic norm. I also say that we need to assess prior climate changes and statistical interval changes in CO2 before climbing on the bandwagon and beating the fire alarum.

Earniel,
Clear disambiguation requires the knowledge of how the climate swings in the past have transpired so as to be able to assess the human contribution. There are clear swings of great magnitude that cannot be attributed to human involvement. To assert as "very likely" that human input is having an effect is true, but it fails to distinguish between the portion of the swing human activity contributes and makes it "very likely" to support the bias of the writer/scientist/organizer/sponsor/scaremonger/et cetera.

I think the bandwagon's rolling and folks want funding for their "study" and cry wolf to get it. It has happened repeatedly in science fads. I just happen to have a lived long enough to have experienced the cycle more than this time. So I'm jaded with regard to allegations that have specious credentials, just like you are, but in a different direction.

It's the nature of speciousness that's under discussion, really. Or to phrase it another way, what constitutes valid scientific data and how is that data to be interpreted within the context of the scientific record and study rather than political machination and usurpation of control by governments in the name of "science". The latter is political, wot?

Remember the proposal that cosmic impacts changed life on earth. It was actually proposed in WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE and dismissed by the paradigm of the day (largely due to its over-reach). There was when plate tectonics was non-existent, too, in my lifetime. I'm just being scientific in a longer sense because of my empirical observations of science in my 53 years!

[The Gaffer]

It took me about 10 seconds to find this on the IPCC web site:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence:

virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%;
very likely >90%;
likely >66%;
more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%;
unlikely <33%;
very unlikely <10%;
extremely unlikely <5%;
exceptionally unlikely <1%.

IPCC findings:

There has been warming of the climate: "unequivocal"

Most of the global average warming of the past 50 years is due to man-made greenhouse gases: very likely, > 90%

If we carry on as we are, climatic changes in the 21st century would be larger than those seen in the 20th: very likely, > 90%

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf

Section 6 has an overview of the key finding and uncertainties.

[inked]

Thanks, Gaffer! I'll take a closer look and see what I think of their thinking.

Meanwhile, here's something to cheer the hearts of greenies everwhere:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...shes_to_earth/

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

"Very likely in this case means there is a statistical certainty (confidence interval) of 90 %."

Kindly demonstrate the equivalence of very likely and your statistical correlation. My contention is that they should have stated the degree of statistical certainty if they have one. Otherwise, you can think what you wish. But if I contend that statistical certainty is 50 + 1 %, how do we differentiate the variation.

It might possibly be possible that your nunmbers are correct, but then so might mine. So the "very likely" is equivalent to a certainty of 51% to 90% and there is no apparent difference to allow judgement. That is precisely why I think the IPCC report to be POOR science. It is not because of the need for 100% certainty. It because of the need to assess the alleged certainty. I think it far below 90% btw. But you have gathered that by now.

I see the Gaffer explained the statistics and the correlation with the "very likely" statement. Thanks Gaffer! As far as I can see, there's nothing that could be called "poor science" about the statistical methods used by the IPCC. Their reports has the same usage of certainty parameters, significance testing, confidence intervals etc. that statisticians use in every scientific field. I'm glad that you'll have a look at it, Inked.

Originally Posted by inked

And yes, I can say that overall a warming trend has been identified over the 50 yr haul, but the significance of that is the point under discussion. Screaming global warming over what may be mere blip in the record is not science. But it might get you a Nobel Prize as a consolation for losing the Presidency of the USA. (Did you see the news show interview with Al G and Tipper last evening. Their house in Tennessee required 20 times the average energy usage per house in America, so they have had to retrofit it, just like everyone should according to their ideology - but, of course, they can afford it, too, sooooo.......... . I especially liked the part where they went to India to teach people there how to green up. I think it was after the bit about the house.........)

Ok, we agree that the globe has gotten warmer during the past 50 years. But you are doubtful whether that has any significance. Well, immediately after the chapter about "observations of climate change" in the IPCC report, there's a chapter called "observed effects of climate change". Apparently there are quite many effects and there is high confidence that the effects are indeed due to global warming, which in turn is mostly due to human factors. In another chapter, one can read that in the past 50 years there should likely have been a global cooling if it hadn't been for anthropogenic warming.

Forget about Al Gore, the Nobel Prize, the hype and everything. Focus on the science.
The significance of the past 50 years of global warming has already been discussed. The IPCC reports, the Stern review etc. all come to the conclusion that there will be considerable effects.

Originally Posted by inked

But remember, Jonathan, I recall the fear of global cooling and another ice age in the 1960's as well. I have a longer perspective on science and climate than you and I dare oppose mine to the cultic norm. I also say that we need to assess prior climate changes and statistical interval changes in CO2 before climbing on the bandwagon and beating the fire alarum.

You are quite right that it is important take past climate changes into consideration. Fortunately, the IPCC does precisely that. For instance, one can read in the 4th report that "the combined radiative forcing due to increases in C02, CH4 and N2O ... and its rate of increasing during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.
So it would be wrong to reject the IPCC's conclusions due to lack of a historical perspective. Because that's included in the reports

[inked]

Umm, if it was unprecedented in more than 10,000 years, what was precedenting it more than 10,000 years ago? Campfires? Natural processes? Herbivore farts? Volcanic emissions/dust? Cosmic impactor dust?

[Jonathan]

Not sure about 10,000 years ago. Possibly natural processes that disturbed the equilibrium of the climate system, perhaps coupled with variations the Earth's Orbit (Milankovitch cycles). Volcanoes played huge a role in supplying the initial CO2 to the atmosphere when the earth was young, but was like billions of years ago.

Anyway, any increase of greenhouse gases 10,000 years ago was not due to human industry. If so, they should've found traces of halocarbons in the ice cores

[inked]

So Gaia insists on having her periods of emissions regardless of humans!

NOW, how do they inter-relate and are human contributions significant in the process? That's the 64 million year question.

[Jonathan]

That the human contributions are indeed highly significant is made clear by the evidence put forth by the IPCC. The report points out that if it wasn't for us humans, Gaia wouldn't be having a period right now

[inked]

Jonathan, do you have the 64 million year record of periods for review? I distinctly recall on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel that there have prior episodes of higher levels of CO2 and O2 when not even mammals were about, so it must be true: it was on TV. But I can't recall the last 64 million so mainstream media-ish. Can you help?

I do have decades of experience in evaluating period charts. But then, I am an OB/GYN!

[Jonathan]

I'm sorry, a record of 64 million years is a bit too large to fit on my bookshelve . Unless you're up for it yourself, I can try and google it later.
Of course there have been varying levels of atmospheric gases throughout our planet's history, there's no doubt about that. I guess what you're hinting at again, is why today's climate change can't have the same causes as previous ones. Do you think our climate models wouldn't be able to explain past climate changes (without "resorting" to the inclusion of anthropogenic warming)? Do you think there's some unknown factor that's driving today's global warming, rather than humans?

I know you're an OB/GYN and should be great at reviewing scientific presentations.

[Insidious Rex]

If Im not mistaken Im pretty sure Ive heard and read that this most recent heating trend is the quickest on record. Sure there were probably hotter periods in our past but generaly they took a while to get there. The changes we are seeing now are generational which is unprecidented.

[inked]

Well, I'm browsing Brian Fagan's newest on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warming-...7325084&sr=8-1

His input may address the issue of rate of change. I think generational change is a bit hasty as a hobbit might say. Most of what I am familiar with alleges since the onset of the industrial age. And one needs to think about volcanic contributions and data (like Krakatoa et alia) as well in the time period under study.

But we are not yet such masters of the climate that we can change it perforce if it is proven to be time lined as suggested. Multivariate......analysis and solutions, if possible, would be required.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

But we are not yet such masters of the climate that we can change it perforce if it is proven to be time lined as suggested. Multivariate......analysis and solutions, if possible, would be required.

If only! If only we were not such masters, not of the climate, but of the global system that the Earth is. Or, to be more precise, we are the masters of that thin layer of skin that is the flora and fauna of the entire surface of our Earth. We are the masters of all organic lifeforms.

Why? Because no other species has that unprecedented power that we have.. to be able to wipe out even one other species! That's what's new.

The argument that it has all happened before.. that species go extinct all the time, that great catastrophes and turnovers in the Earth's history have occurred.. nobody is disputing that. And so why do we say that mass extincions, of which there are ample proof of for, are man-made? Why do we hold ourselves accountable to what is happening to this global system that is Earth?
Because of the rate at which it is happening. No less than 10% of the world's plants and animals are endangered! This might have happened before, but we are now talking about a process that has taken not hundreds of thousands, thousands upon years, or even hundreds.. but a few decades. That's why it's different. This hasn't occurred before.

[inked]

O, damn, that evidence thingy .. again.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...7-af3df032e569

Can the No Belt Prizers get their money back?