PDA

View Full Version : G8 Academies' Statement on Global Warming



worzel
2005-Sep-12, 06:54 PM
What do you guys make of this:

Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222)

After reading this (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) I am very skeptical of the whole doomsday scenario presented to us and don't really know what to make of this statement signed by the scientific academies of each of th G8 contries.

I notice that the statement refers to evidence in the SPM of the IPCC 2001 which was shown to be flawed in the link above. Is the link above considered contraversial?

Fram
2005-Sep-12, 07:37 PM
I have a feeling after reading the second link that it is controversial, yes. He seems to make the mistakes of the AGW proponents on an even larger scale, taking those locales that support his view (or the view of the Canadian Petroleum Geologists?) and discarding others. I know that a group of experts isn't necessarily more correct than the lone associate professor who has in thirty years of publishing (http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11058357) not had one citation (if this website is trustworthy of course), but for the moment I trust them more than I trust him. Both have sources to back them, and it's rather hard for an outsider to see who has the most weight (evidence) behind them (without spending loads of time, which I'm not prepared to do).

worzel
2005-Sep-12, 09:21 PM
Apparently Richard Dawkins (http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/10022475) has never been cited either :) Of course, Einstein (http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/10000936) has been cited, once!

Maybe I'm just using it incorrectly?

Glom
2005-Sep-12, 11:33 PM
Actually, that release was another scandal for the Spanish Inquisition, er, I mean the Royal Society. The American National Academy of Sciences objected to the content of the statement and the Russian Academy of Sciences was always opposed, not that you'd know it after the Lysenko tried to get them silenced.

Yet another bit of political spin doctoring by the supposedly honourable scientific establishment.

deFreitas uses detailed scientific argument for his case, Lord May uses ad hominems and intimidation for his case. I know which one I trust more.

worzel
2005-Sep-13, 12:00 AM
Actually, that release was another scandal for the Spanish Inquisition, er, I mean the Royal Society. The American National Academy of Sciences objected to the content of the statement and the Russian Academy of Sciences was always opposed, not that you'd know it after the Lysenko tried to get them silenced.

Yet another bit of political spin doctoring by the supposedly honourable scientific establishment.

deFreitas uses detailed scientific argument for his case, Lord May uses ad hominems and intimidation for his case. I know which one I trust more.
Yeah I fould deFreitas very compelling - and until I read his paper I was skeptically uncommitted due to lack of interest but leaning towards the global warming camp - I am really starting to feel this is an Emperor's New Clothes scenario. I've been called on the statement by some friends after presenting deFreitas and can't find any critique on it through google (why hast thou foresaken me).

dgruss23
2005-Sep-13, 12:10 AM
Yeah I fould deFreitas very compelling - and until I read his paper I was skeptically uncommitted due to lack of interest but leaning towards the global warming camp - I am really starting to feel this is an Emperor's New Clothes scenario. I've been called on the statement by some friends after presenting deFreitas and can't find any critique on it through google (why hast thou foresaken me).

Your friends are not the only ones as we saw a lack of response to that article and points raised on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1).

worzel
2005-Sep-13, 12:35 AM
Your friends are not the only ones as we saw a lack of response to that article and points raised on this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=15376&page=1).
I'm still making my way through that thread :) It is funny, though, how one peice of well presented logical arguments backed by evidence can be considered to be on a parr with a wishy washy statement full of presumptions without justification and obvious misrepresentations of the truth. I guess it's the Fallacy of the Middle Ground" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html).

Glom
2005-Sep-13, 12:53 AM
I've been called on the statement by some friends after presenting deFreitas and can't find any critique on it through google (why hast thou foresaken me).

Well you should point out that the deFreitas article is a proper scientific analysis, even if only a summary one, whereas the SI, er, RS press release is simply a statement of orthodoxy. The former tackles the scientific conclusions of the IPCC, the latter just takes them to be true. If you have deFreitas and your friends have only this press release, you're winning.

But I'll try to give you some material to work with. Here goes...


The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems.

Surface air temperatures are still controversial due to urban heat island effects. Average global sea levels have not changed significantly in the past few decades (Nils Axel-Morner). Retreating glaciers is no shock following a recovery from the Little Ice Age and changes to "physical and biological systems, well, that's a dynamic planet for you.

Notice no mention of the tropospheric temperatures, which at the time of the release, still appeared to show a cooling, although that has since been corrected to a slight warming, although not enough to be consistent with GWT.


It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001).

The IPCC is a political organisation (the clue is in the term "inter-governmental"). They used the Hockey Stick, the Great Fraud. Their work were rewritten by politicians to make it more alarming. They depend on climate models that have huge uncertainties, have not been validated and have numerous inconsistencies, the cooling of the Antarctic being one major example.

As we have discussed extensively on this board, the sun has a far closer corrolation.


But human activities are now causing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –
including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,
and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.

Those pre-industrial levels are in dispute because of issues about carbon depletion in ice cores. But regardless of the likely important role of human activities on a likely increase, the datum is somewhat arbitrary.


higher than any previous
levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
years).

Again, an arbitrary datum. That's not a lot of time in geological terms.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) projected that the average global surface
temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4
centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990
levels, by 2100.

See, that's part of the problem. That is some error bar. These models are too sensitive to changes in input parameters that they can't reliably converge on specific predictions that are useful. Moreover, these depend on some absurd economic scenarios.


The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.

Rinse, repeat.


Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the
magnitude and rate of climate change.

Crap! There are natural factors involved. There is an implicit assumption that we are attempting to stabilise the climate.


As the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty
about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for
delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable
cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system.

Kyoto is beyond reasonable cost. European nations can't achieve them, except Britain who had a change to gas to help them in advance and Germany, who cheated, and their economies are stagnant enough as it is. Kyoto will make no significant impact if these doomsday scenarios are to be believed. More to that, there has been no validation whatsoever of the extreme predictions that might be described as "dangerous". All evidence would seem to make the mild models more likely if anything. There is also the implicit assumption that adaption won't work, when in fact, it would be far more effective, especially given that we'd have to put up with some climate change anyway, because, believe it or not, it does happen naturally.


However barriers to their broad deployment still need to be
overcome.

Tell it to the anti-nuclear guys.


Failure to implement
significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions
now, will make the job much harder in the future.

Actually, we won't need to because the plants will do it for us.


Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Is this a subtle acknowledgement of the fact that nothing overly dramatic has happened yet since the impending ice age scare in the 70s?


Increasing temperatures are likely to increase the
frequency and severity of weather events such as heat
waves and heavy rainfall.

No! No, no, no, no, NO! There has been no upturn in severe weather events in the past century, not that any would know since the guy who did the work for the IPCC was chased out of that prestigious organisation. The reduction in temperature gradient according to GWT suggests the opposite. The recent storm activity has not been blamed on global warming.

And models predict most of the warming happening at winter and at night, meaning that the climate becomes milder. Heat waves are not a major prediction of climate models. They are just an opportunistic fad because of a couple of recent ones (like they never happened before). In fact, with the reduced cold in winter and at night, there will be a dramatic reduction in cold related deaths.


In Bangladesh alone, a 0.5 metre
sea-level rise would place about 6 million people at risk
from flooding.

Yes, because they're just going to sit there for a century and wait for the tide to drown them. There is such a thing as adaption. This is not a major concern worth jeopardising the economic security of the world that is precarious at the best of times, especially on ineffective solutions.


It is clear that many of the world’s
poorest people are likely to suffer the most from climate
change.

That much is true. Because of this fad, we are about to spend as much money on this boogey man as would be necessary to provide the developing world with clean water. Real people are dying today for lack of clean water and all Lord May can do is say instead we should spend the money based on the suggestions of his computer models.


Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy,
prosperous and sustainable world may be severely hindered
by changes in the climate.

Ignorant prophecy and he knows it. There is such a thing as adaption. And I hardly see stalling the world economy as a way to provide a more health and prosperious and sustainable world. The climate does change naturally as well. What about that?

I also note the references at the end are hardly profound. It's like an advert for United Nations.

So we have two major fallacies here: 1) the stable climate fraud, the implicit suggestion that if we do as decreed, we will not have to worry about dealing with climate change due to other causes and 2) the static society fraud, the assumption that society will sit unprogressing waiting for these disasters to kill us rather than advance technologically and adapt naturally to changes that will happen over the course of a hundred years (a hundred years is nothing in geological terms but a fair stretch in human terms).

dgruss23
2005-Sep-13, 12:59 AM
I'm still making my way through that thread :) It is funny, though, how one peice of well presented logical arguments backed by evidence can be considered to be on a parr with a wishy washy statement full of presumptions without justification and obvious misrepresentations of the truth. I guess it's the Fallacy of the Middle Ground" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html).

That seems to fit. There is this presumption that even if we can attribute some climate change to natural causes at least some of the change must be from CO2 - the middle ground.

:lol: How ridiculous does that sound: "even if we can attribute some of the change to natural causes" ? Its sad that we've come to the point that to attribute climate change to natural causes is surprising. What was the earth doing for the last 4 1/2 billion years before we got involved?

I also don't subscribe to this idea that we must simply accept the prevailing view. As I've said a number of times, the researchers have the knowledge of the observational and analysis techniques, but we can look at the results of those analyses and see if their conclusions are consistent with their evidence. The lilacs study is a good example of how they often overreach with their conclusions.

worzel
2005-Sep-13, 01:37 AM
Wow! Thanks Glom, I particularly liked this one:


However barriers to their broad deployment still need to be overcome.Tell it to the anti-nuclear guys.Particularly as previously reading your arguments dissolved my somewhat prejudiced views against nuclear power :)

About half those points had occurred to me as I read through RS and remembering what else I'd read, but you've really helped consolidate my rather scatty thoughts on this, and given me some new counters I hadn't thought of. Not that I'm so much looking to debunk the global warming theory as such, but almost everyone I know is so ready to jump on the GW band-wagon based on nothing but nay-sayers and a little political movement - ironic considering the nay-sayers are usually so skeptical of any position the G8 might take.

There was a documentary on tonight about tornadoes (Equinox). Although the actual scientists said nothing supporting the claim (one talked about extreme weather events changing in nature) the whole tone of the program was that the Birmingham Tornado was due to global warming - primarily based on one amateur's views. My girlfriend had to tell me to shut up several times while I attempted to debate my CRT :o After stating that there are over 30 recorded tornadoes a year in Britian, the program went on to say something like (why didn't I hit record) "Is the Birmingham tornado a one off, or is this the beginning of a new era of extreme weather due to global warming". Jeesh, talk about a false dichotomy!

Maha Vailo
2005-Sep-13, 11:33 AM
So, Glom, what do you really think is going to happen in the next hundred years re: global warming? And most importantly, how will society around the world adapt to all these changes in the same time span? It's the last background thingy I need for my future-Balkans story, so I'd like you to really get into detail here.

I've always liked to hear your side on such things.

- Maha Vailo

Fram
2005-Sep-13, 11:43 AM
Apparently Richard Dawkins (http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/10022475) has never been cited either :) Of course, Einstein (http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/10000936) has been cited, once!

Maybe I'm just using it incorrectly?

No, just a bad site. I should have checked that one better before using it :wall: So please ignore my previous post in this thread...

Fram
2005-Sep-13, 12:31 PM
To redeem myself, a more interesting (though basic) site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/), with good links and some interesting interviews (e.g. with Henry Jacoby and Tom Wigley, prominent members of the IPCC, and Fred Singer and Fred Palmer, non-believers in AGW). It's more of a layman's site than a true scientific site, but it contains interesting information, views and links nonetheless.

Glom
2005-Sep-15, 11:09 PM
So, Glom, what do you really think is going to happen in the next hundred years re: global warming?

I dunno. Depends on what the climate feels like doing, which is anything it bloody well likes. Settlements change a lot over time so adapting to changing waters will be natural and undramatic because, unlike what you've been told, the sea levels will not flood us overnight or we will not sit around until we're flooded before deciding that we'd better adapt. New agricultural techniques will continue to improve yields at lower costs because, despite what you've been told, farmers won't just continue to plant the same varieties of crop and watch them fail when a different variety would become more suitable for the changing world. The world will be richer in a century's time and more technologically advanced so they will be in a much better position.

Taks
2005-Sep-16, 12:11 AM
yeah, i've pointed out in other threads that technology actually exists to deal with rising sea levels anyway (galveston, TX, the Netherlands, even good old swimming New Orleans has it)... it will, however, be much cheaper as time moves on, allowing poorer nations to implement. some places, bangledesh being the poster child, have always had problems and should probably just go ahead and move now.

rising sea levels, however, are a myth anyway. some places are seeing drops. why? plate tectonics are a big player. for some reason, AAGWs seem to think the planet just froze as is sometime a while back and all the things that shaped our world stopped in their tracks. mountains don't grow, glaciers don't melt, ice ages no more, etc. then they said we came along and BAM! industrial revolution produced global warming will doom us all. well, i tell you, poverty induced from GW reactionism will spell a greater doom than anything the planet can dish out, and it will happen in a much quicker fashion, too.

taks

Glom
2005-Sep-22, 03:46 PM
All our effort goes to waste. (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2340147/)

I point out this thread and the guy totally ignores it and reposts what has already been discussed.

Taks
2005-Sep-22, 04:50 PM
stupidity and dogma are blind, glom. you know that. :(

mark

Fram
2005-Sep-22, 07:06 PM
rising sea levels, however, are a myth anyway. some places are seeing drops. why? plate tectonics are a big player. for some reason, AAGWs seem to think the planet just froze as is sometime a while back and all the things that shaped our world stopped in their tracks. mountains don't grow, glaciers don't melt, ice ages no more, etc. then they said we came along and BAM! industrial revolution produced global warming will doom us all. well, i tell you, poverty induced from GW reactionism will spell a greater doom than anything the planet can dish out, and it will happen in a much quicker fashion, too.

taks

It's not because plate tectonics play a role that rising sea levels are a myth. It's true that the earth changes, the climate changes, etc. and that this has always happened. Changes can be attributed to this. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all changes can be attributed to this, or that scientists measuring the sea level aren't aware of this (because, you know, the screams of the AAGW's, over the top as they are, are based on scientific studies, which aren't necessarily correct, but which should be taken seriously at least).

E.g. this article (http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/pubedinf/factsht/marine/sealevel.htm) from the Maine Geological Survey, which compares current changes in levels with (pre-)historical level changes, and makes cautious conclusions.
A more thorough discussion (http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/dougla01.html) by the NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center, with many references, can be found in these pages, especially part 3.

It seems to me that rising sea levels aren't a myth at all. What causes them is a great source of discussion, but that they are happening seems fairly established.

Taks
2005-Sep-22, 07:35 PM
Changes can be attributed to this. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all changes can be attributed to this, or that scientists measuring the sea level aren't aware of this (because, you know, the screams of the AAGW's, over the top as they are, are based on scientific studies, which aren't necessarily correct, but which should be taken seriously at least).reread my statement and please, tell me where i ever said it was the only driver? please.

taks

Fram
2005-Sep-23, 07:54 AM
reread my statement and please, tell me where i ever said it was the only driver? please.

taks

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. Can you tell me what was wrong in my statement instead of using this strawman?
Do you still pretend that rising sea levels are a myth?

aurora
2005-Sep-23, 06:47 PM
It seems to me that rising sea levels aren't a myth at all. What causes them is a great source of discussion, but that they are happening seems fairly established.

I wonder how much the sea level will rise as the water gets warmer. How much of a change in the average temperature of an ocean would be required to get a measurable amount of sea level rise due to expansion?

Glom
2005-Sep-23, 06:51 PM
I wonder how much the sea level will rise as the water gets warmer. How much of a change in the average temperature of an ocean would be required to get a measurable amount of sea level rise due to expansion?

Ignoring the issue of plate tectonics, there is also the issue of how much the warming will be translated into increased evaporation, which might offset any thermal expansion. Another thought is that where the water is near freezing, a couple of degrees of warming will cause a contraction because water is at its most dense at 4° IIRC. IIDRC then ignore that last bit.

aurora
2005-Sep-24, 12:31 AM
Ignoring the issue of plate tectonics, there is also the issue of how much the warming will be translated into increased evaporation, which might offset any thermal expansion. Another thought is that where the water is near freezing, a couple of degrees of warming will cause a contraction because water is at its most dense at 4° IIRC. IIDRC then ignore that last bit.

Increased evaporation would perhaps matter in the short term.

Long term, the water would find its way back to the ocean, unless there is some new large storage area somewhere?

worzel
2005-Sep-24, 01:59 AM
Increased evaporation would perhaps matter in the short term.

Long term, the water would find its way back to the ocean, unless there is some new large storage area somewhere?Before it does it might create more cloud cover thus blocking the sun and allowing the oceans to cool again before returning to them :)

Glom
2005-Sep-24, 09:00 AM
The atmosphere may just become more moist, especially given warming would increase its water holding capacity. Also, even if under GWT, the poles warm, they would still remain below freezing so the water could be stored as additional ice.

Maha Vailo
2005-Sep-24, 12:16 PM
I dunno. Depends on what the climate feels like doing, which is anything it bloody well likes. Settlements change a lot over time so adapting to changing waters will be natural and undramatic because, unlike what you've been told, the sea levels will not flood us overnight or we will not sit around until we're flooded before deciding that we'd better adapt. New agricultural techniques will continue to improve yields at lower costs because, despite what you've been told, farmers won't just continue to plant the same varieties of crop and watch them fail when a different variety would become more suitable for the changing world. The world will be richer in a century's time and more technologically advanced so they will be in a much better position.

Well, then what would you say is the most likely global-warming scenario for Europe in the next hundred years? I need a definite answer for this, since it forms part of the backdrop of a story. When one's writing a story, "I dunno" just doesn't cut it. (Forgive me if I sound huffy.)

- Maha Vailo

dgruss23
2005-Sep-24, 01:18 PM
Well, then what would you say is the most likely global-warming scenario for Europe in the next hundred years? I need a definite answer for this, since it forms part of the backdrop of a story. When one's writing a story, "I dunno" just doesn't cut it. (Forgive me if I sound huffy.)

- Maha Vailo

Here's my answer: The most likely climate scenario during the next 100 years for Europe is normal fluctuations based upon variations in solar activity. The fluctuations that will be observed will be a slight warming when the Sun becomes more active and a slight cooling when the Sun becomes less active. Of course should the Sun go into a Maunder Minimum type period or a Medieval Maximum type period during the next 100 years, then more dramatic climate fluctuations are possible. Since there is a complete dearth of compelling evidence that CO2 is an important climate forcer, there will be a continued failure of Europe's climate to respond as expected by AAGW scenarios. However, the increased CO2 will likely result in some gains in standing hardwood in Europe as has been observed in the United States.

Hope that helps. :)

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Sep-24, 02:35 PM
Since there is a complete dearth of compelling evidence that CO2 is an important climate forcer, there will be a continued failure of Europe's climate to respond as expected by AAGW scenarios.Are you saying that because there is no evidence that A causes B,
B can not happen?

dgruss23
2005-Sep-24, 04:08 PM
Are you saying that because there is no evidence that A causes B,
B can not happen?

No, I'm saying something stronger than that. There is solid evidence in the climate record that A does not cause B and therefore I'm predicting that we will continue to observe that A will not cause B as the climate record of the last 100,000 years indicates.

Maha Vailo
2005-Sep-28, 11:18 PM
Here's my answer: The most likely climate scenario during the next 100 years for Europe is normal fluctuations based upon variations in solar activity. The fluctuations that will be observed will be a slight warming when the Sun becomes more active and a slight cooling when the Sun becomes less active. Of course should the Sun go into a Maunder Minimum type period or a Medieval Maximum type period during the next 100 years, then more dramatic climate fluctuations are possible. Since there is a complete dearth of compelling evidence that CO2 is an important climate forcer, there will be a continued failure of Europe's climate to respond as expected by AAGW scenarios. However, the increased CO2 will likely result in some gains in standing hardwood in Europe as has been observed in the United States.

Hope that helps. :)

Alas, it's not helpful enough for story-writing purposes. I need a more specific scenario as to what Europe's climte will do in the next 100 years. Maybe it would be easier to ask what the effects of, say, a Medieval Warm Period-type climate fluctuation would be on a modern or futuristic society (IIRC, we're due for something like this). How would something like that affect a society in the next 100 years?

Oh, and BTW, what did you mean by "standing hardwood?"

- Maha Vailo

Disinfo Agent
2005-Sep-29, 11:41 AM
The IPCC is a political organisation (the clue is in the term "inter-governmental").And the G8 isn't?