View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Feb 4th 2010 | 5:45 pm
#706
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Lets not forget that Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri is actually a former railway mechanic with PhD in..........
ECONOMICS!!!
Yep, the head of the IPCC - the UN Climate Change body, is in fact an economist.
Not a climatologist.
He is as well qualified to speak on climate change as my hairdresser is to speak about brain surgery.
ECONOMICS!!!
Yep, the head of the IPCC - the UN Climate Change body, is in fact an economist.
Not a climatologist.
He is as well qualified to speak on climate change as my hairdresser is to speak about brain surgery.
Feb 4th 2010 | 6:06 pm
#707
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,400
Re: Global warming
Feb 5th 2010 | 12:28 pm
#708
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,400
Re: Global warming
Monckton is about to be interviewed on Sky at 12.30 AEST (Saturday)
Feb 5th 2010 | 2:09 pm
#712
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Latest “error†from IPCC report AR4 (2007)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...12s12-2-3.html
“The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is producedâ€
Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland reported:
http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschapm...el-ontdekt.htm
“In its last Assessment Report on the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only one fifth of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only 19% instead of 65% of the GDP generated.â€
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...12s12-2-3.html
“The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is producedâ€
Dutch newspaper Vrij Nederland reported:
http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschapm...el-ontdekt.htm
“In its last Assessment Report on the impacts of climate change shows that 55% of Netherlands is below sea level in this area and that 65% of the gross national product is produced. These figures are far too high. The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) is only one fifth of the Netherlands below sea level and there are only 19% instead of 65% of the GDP generated.â€
Feb 5th 2010 | 2:19 pm
#713
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Many good points, well made.
As a biologist I'm well used to trying to model complex systems myself, and I know how hard it is with even a small number of parameters. The IPCC has two major problems. the first, as you say, is the data they use to build their model. The second, of course, is that they have absolutely no way of testing their model for the purpose of refinement, which is a very necessary process when modelling any complex system.
The other difficulty with complex systems is that there are patterns of behaviour that begin to occur in all parameters when you change only one. So even if an increase in carbon dioxide is causing global warming, there is no indication that reducing it will reverse global warming. No more than you can undo an avalanche by finding the pebble that started it and putting it back at the top of the mountain.
As a biologist I'm well used to trying to model complex systems myself, and I know how hard it is with even a small number of parameters. The IPCC has two major problems. the first, as you say, is the data they use to build their model. The second, of course, is that they have absolutely no way of testing their model for the purpose of refinement, which is a very necessary process when modelling any complex system.
The other difficulty with complex systems is that there are patterns of behaviour that begin to occur in all parameters when you change only one. So even if an increase in carbon dioxide is causing global warming, there is no indication that reducing it will reverse global warming. No more than you can undo an avalanche by finding the pebble that started it and putting it back at the top of the mountain.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...ch8s8-6-4.html
covers confidence levels on the disparate data use in the report.
Interestingly it includes the paragraph:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed since the TAR (see Section 8.6.3), but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections. Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.â€
Which pretty well agrees with what we had been saying.
Feb 5th 2010 | 2:30 pm
#714
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
Re: Global warming
Does IPCC stand for International Panel on Climate Cobblers?
Feb 5th 2010 | 2:55 pm
#715
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
In many ways I feel sorry for them.
Doubtless they were under pressure to come out with results, and to come out with results that proved the theory.
Add to that the sheer complexity of what they were trying to do, and you have real problems.
In my opinion proving AGW is more complex and harder than curing cancer, or discovering immortality.
Now everyone is shooting holes in their reports.
On the other hand, it would appear that a lot of people threw away professional integrity in the cause of prevention of global warming (if it exists).
Doubtless they were under pressure to come out with results, and to come out with results that proved the theory.
Add to that the sheer complexity of what they were trying to do, and you have real problems.
In my opinion proving AGW is more complex and harder than curing cancer, or discovering immortality.
Now everyone is shooting holes in their reports.
On the other hand, it would appear that a lot of people threw away professional integrity in the cause of prevention of global warming (if it exists).
Feb 5th 2010 | 3:29 pm
#716
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 899
From: Canberra
Re: Global warming
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
Feb 5th 2010 | 3:44 pm
#717
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,390
From: Canberra
Re: Global warming
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
Feb 5th 2010 | 3:58 pm
#718
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
Is there now an oscar catergory for actors that are condescending, patronising, arrogant and full of their own self importance?
Feb 5th 2010 | 4:08 pm
#719
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
You don't have to look far for evidence of climate change. The climate here in Canberra and the rest of southern Australia has changed significantly since the 70s and 80s. Temperatures every summer in the last couple of years have been pushing new records and rainfall has been below average in almost every year out of the last ten.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
The problem with a lot of recent immigrants is that they have nothing to compare today's climate with. I can tell you it has changed significantly.
But how do we know that it is not a normal “blip†in the temperature patterns of Australia?
A one hundred year old resident of London would not remember the Thames freezing over in Victorian times – but it did.
Feb 5th 2010 | 4:25 pm
#720
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,400
Re: Global warming
He is certainly very persuasive. But, as he himself says, you have to cut away a lot of - in his case, entertaining - bullshit. The first half of his address was sheer showbiz, including setting up many straw man arguments before blowing them away, and an all-too-easy putdown of Al Gore. (Let's face it, Al is a pantomime dame who has struck it rich in a convenient sort of way.)
When Monckton actually got down to the figures it became more interesting - and here we get down to my original thesis: it's too complicated to make a judgement based on raw data, but whether one should just accept Monckton's analysis presented as a rapid series of graphs (however slickly delivered) over any other is IMO very much an open question.
