Kyoto Debunked

[BobK]

National Post article (http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE)

This has been a nightmare of a year for aficionados of the Kyoto Accord. After Canada's ratification of the treaty in late 2002, environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto's science, Russia would quickly ratify the accord and it soon would become international law. Instead, as illustrated at this month's World Climate Change Conference in Moscow, exactly the opposite has happened. The growing number of scientists who dispute the treaty's scientific foundation have become increasingly vocal, regularly pushing their case in the media as groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice. Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records. The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

You might want to go here for links to exchanged emails with Mann.
Study site (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html)
Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion (http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-28/s_9820.asp)

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?

Edit spelling.

[DanishDynamite]

I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

I think you mean 'climatologists'. While meteorologists might agree, I doubt their opinion would count for much more than mine would. TMK's link (the Study site) has new evidence that the IPCC's conclusions were based on bad data. IMO, Mann and his coresearchers need to answer the questions at the end - to defend their research against this assault.

I think the primary process to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere is its change into O2 and carbon compounds by plants.

MattJ

[Tony]

I’m not really into science, so you'll have to excuse my scientific muggleism, but wouldn't plants photosynthesize more CO2, thus creating more oxygen?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
[B]

I think you mean 'climatologists'. While meteorologists might agree, I doubt their opinion would count for much more than mine would. Nitpicker. :)
TMK's link (the Study site) has new evidence that the IPCC's conclusions were based on bad data. IMO, Mann and his coresearchers need to answer the questions at the end - to defend their research against this assault.Are you saying I should read the linked site? (Deep sigh).
I think the primary process to decrease CO2 in the atmosphere is its change into O2 and carbon compounds by plants.Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Are you saying I should read the linked site? (Deep sigh).

Not if you don't want to. Mann et. al. had better start returning their calls, however.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.

MattJ

[Giz]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Now, TMK, all of the above is basically agreed upon by most meteorologists.

The causative interaction of the above is however under debate.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs?

I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.

Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.
Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

As a non-climatologist, I shall also weigh in on this issue.

1. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2. Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise. This assumes that there are no other mechanisms which counteract the increase in CO2 output. Such mechanisms could be increased foliage, increased absorption by the oceans, etc.

3. Yes, humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Well, actually I'm not positive on the numbers, but these sound fine to me.

4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.I doubt the last sentence. However, let me try to clarify:

100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons. Where does this extra CO2 get processed?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Giz
[B]

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs? Yes, it is interesting what other factors are present. And which factors are significant.
I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.Would you have a link?
Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question. Indeed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I think you mean 'climatologists'.

Ah, yes. The term is pretty much the same in Danish. Forgive my fellow Dane :)


Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nice idea, but can you show that this is what happens to those billions of tons which weren't there a 100 years ago?

Very good question.

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It is what happens to that portion of the CO2 which doesn't contribute to Global Warming. I'm having trouble following your objection.

How do you make the distinction? Are you able to track down each molecule and determine which does not "contribute" to global warming?

[DanishDynamite]

Thumper:As a non-climatologist, I shall also weigh in on this issue.

2. Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise. This assumes that there are no other mechanisms which counteract the increase in CO2 output. Such mechanisms could be increased foliage, increased absorption by the oceans, etc.Yes, if there isn't an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this is also a point which I believe most climatoligists agree on. I.e., that there is an increase of atmospheric CO2. Hence, the sinks are really irrelvant.
4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed? My understanding is that everyone agrees that the average temperatures are rising. The point of contention is that it isn't rising as rapidly as models predict and that it isn't rising in the parts of the atmosphere predicted.

[BobK]

The idea that McIntyre and McKitrick have made available on line all their methodology and data make it seem likely to me that they have a very high confidence in their study's accuracy.

The apparent difficulty they had in getting Mann's data (had to make numerous requests for different parts of it) indicates to me that Mann probably wasn't anxious to have it closely examined.

I wonder if they'll ever get adequate answers to the questions they posed on their study site concerning Mann's methodology.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I doubt the last sentence. However, let me try to clarify:

100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons. Where does this extra CO2 get processed?

My last sentence was sincere. It now seems that you object to my response because you think I was claiming that all the extra CO2 is processed by plants. I wasn't.

[komencanto]

The Climate change question has really been heating up recently. I´m not sure that the current increase in temperature is caused by humans, and even if it is, that it´s going to be the disaster it gets described as. It will have positive and negative effects, it won´t so much be the temberature that is the problem, it will be adapting to it.

[Quasi]

I would really like the US Gov. to spend more on research into this issue, and spend more than $100 million/year on alternative energy research. I do not think this will happen under "W."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Thumper



4. As for whether the average temperature of the Earth is increasing, ... the jury is still out on that. The Earth is a big place. Where are you making these measurements? On the ground? In the atmosphere? In the deserts? In the forests? In the cities? At the airports (where most are taken)? Which of these is more indicative of global mean temperature? Studies show that if atmospheric temperatures are taken, then there is no global warming, in fact there is a gradual cooling of the atmosphere. If you take temperatures in cities or airports, how can the effects of the blacktop and concrete be removed?

No, the jury came back in, the temperature is rising. Eg, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, glaciers are shrinking. They won't be around to reflect sunlight back.

[epepke]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go? [/B]

:con2: Plants breathe it. There's some evidence that there's greater plant growth. Is this a bad thing? Maybe; maybe not.

I think the climate is changing. I'm seeing species of frogs and insects in Tallahassee that I didn't see 20 years ago. Tallahassee seems to be becoming more like Sarasota was 30 years ago.

Again, is this a bad thing? I don't know. Perhaps increased plant growth is a good thing, considering losses in rain forest, etc.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide levels are not the highest they have been in recorded history, not even close. The level seems to have been highest around 2000 years ago. It's easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. They have a little bit of air in them. Put one in a vacuum and drill a little hole and use a spectrometer on the gas.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony
I’m not really into science, so you'll have to excuse my scientific muggleism, but wouldn't plants photosynthesize more CO2, thus creating more oxygen?

In the short term, yes. The problem is when the plants, in whole or in part, decompose during the winter all the CO2 just ends up right back in the atmosphere. If you want to learn more, google "carbon cycle". If you look at the CO2 levels for the past couple decades you will notice a gradual upward trend (caused by humans) combined with a seasonal oscillation (caused by nature).

There are carbon sinks in nature, like some types of plankton that will soak up CO2 then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean. This is where limestone (calcium carbonate) comes from. Unfortunately it's not enough to take care of the excess five or six billion tons we dump into the troposphere anually.

[a_unique_person]

The problem is the disruption this will cause. Life will not die out on Planet Earth because of GW. Disruption to ours and other life will be massive. No Arctic Ice Cap, for example, how about the Polar Bears.

The uptake of CO2 is included in GW Models. It can't take it up as fast as it is being spewed out.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Giz

Obviously it does contribute, I think the big question is whether human emissions (hur, hur) are material, i.e. does the Sun effectively drown out all the other inputs?

I was under the impression that things had been gradually getting warmer anyway over the last 3-400 years due to Solar fluctuations - though there was the global cooling scare in the 70's.


In a comparitive analysis of several possible culprits for global warming, including solar variability, David Thompson found the strongest correllation between CO2 emissions and the warming patterns of the last 150 years. Our emissions are drowning out the other effects, not the other way around. Cite:

Thompson, D. J., 1995. The seasons, global temperature, and precession, Science, 268, 59-68.

Who knows how many billions of tons of CO2 the atmosphere can absorb? Thats the $18,000,000,000,000,000 question.

The whole problem is the atmosphere "absorbing" CO2. Getting it out is the harder part, a molecule of CO2 will stay in the atmosphere an estimtated 200 years.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BobK
National Post article (http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE)



You might want to go here for links to exchanged emails with Mann.
Study site (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html)
Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion (http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-28/s_9820.asp)

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?

Edit spelling.

Here is a clue. Major companies are paying billions of dollars to push this issue and attack these policies. This is the same as every right-wing issue, the companies pay and they take over the media. Its the same with right-wing radio, right-wing talk shows, opposition to the estate tax, etc, etc. The left simply ooes not have the money to or any motivation other than trying to "do good" to voice its agenda. The oil and coal companies will pay billions on the other hand to dug up every half scientist possible and pay them big bucks to oppose the issue.

[EvilYeti]

I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists. The former is a mining executive and oil industry consultant and the latter is an economist. I seriously question whether they have the background to formulate a serious analyses of Mann's work. They might be correct of course, but I would expect at the very least for their work to be reviewed and published in a similar manner before considering their methods.

Logically, the best course of action would be publish in Nature, as thats were Mann's original work was presented. Let other scientists review their work and if they find it valid, I'll accept that Mann's research was flawed.

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.

I've been unable to determine who, if anyone, reviewed the M&M "debunking". Looking at their abstracts page I notice my pal Theodor Landscheidt, astrologer extraordinaire, has published in this "journal". That's more than enough evidence for me to toss the whole thing in the rubbish bin.

If M&M think they have something, they should go ahead and submit their paper to Nature and let it face the same level of scrutiny Mann's work did. I suspect they know it will be rejected, so they would rather publish in a crank journal and hope the journalistic world doesn't know any better. Unfortunately, this strategy appears to be working.

(Edited to add)

Mann has responded:


In short, here's what happened: M&M asked an associate of Mann to supply them with the Mann et. al. proxy data in an Excel spreadsheet, even though the raw data is available here. An error was made in preparing this Excel file, in which the early series were successively overprinted by later and later series, and this is the data M&M used. Mann says:
"...the authors results are entirely spurious. The mistake made insures that the estimates, in particular prior to 1600-1700, are meaningless."
This leads, Mann says, to "the use of series that are artificial combinations of early [e.g. 15th-16th century] and late [e.g. 19th-20th] information accidentally spliced together" with "no relation" to the proxy data used by Mann et. al. in their 1998 (and subsequent) work.


We can safely file the "Kyoto debunking" as itself debunked.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
Estimated cost by IPCC could be as high as $18,000,000,000,000,000. That's $18 quadrillion dollars folks.

$18 quadrillion (http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-28/s_9820.asp)

Have you ever known a political organisation to underestimate costs?


I have know plenty of organisations trying to push a political line that make the cost whatever they want it to be. The economists have a political agenda. The scientists get paid whatever they get paid, if there is GW or not. They still have a job to do.

You also have not estimated the cost of GW being as high as the possible forcasts predict.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.



The article refers to it as a "prestigous" journal.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.



Seems to me that anything that warms things up would be good for you folks. Maybe your farmers wouldn't have to dynamite the permafrost every spring so they can plant a handful of beans. Maybe the Tundra Mammoths(tm) will go farther north and leave Copenhagen alone.

I'd think on it, if I were you.

[BobK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists. The former is a mining executive and oil industry consultant and the latter is an economist. I seriously question whether they have the background to formulate a serious analyses of Mann's work. They might be correct of course, but I would expect at the very least for their work to be reviewed and published in a similar manner before considering their methods.

That's the reason they put an audit trail of their study on line, so others could verify their conclusions.

Logically, the best course of action would be publish in Nature, as thats were Mann's original work was presented. Let other scientists review their work and if they find it valid, I'll accept that Mann's research was flawed.

However they choose not to publish in a peer reviewed science journal, instead choosing a little-known periodical, Energy and Environment.

They address this question about 2/3 of the way down the linked study page where they answer some anticipated questions. Try reading a little further. They answer several such questions.

I've been unable to determine who, if anyone, reviewed the M&M "debunking". Looking at their abstracts page I notice my pal Theodor Landscheidt, astrologer extraordinaire, has published in this "journal". That's more than enough evidence for me to toss the whole thing in the rubbish bin.

LOL Seems a bit closed minded to me.

If M&M think they have something, they should go ahead and submit their paper to Nature and let it face the same level of scrutiny Mann's work did. I suspect they know it will be rejected, so they would rather publish in a crank journal and hope the journalistic world doesn't know any better. Unfortunately, this strategy appears to be working.

Frankly, I know nothing of the journal, but I tend to think it's probably not as cranky as you try to make out.

I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

There is no need for it to be rebutted, as it hasn't even been REVIEWED yet! It's just been published in some crap journal that as far as I can tell is nothing more than thinly-veiled oil industry propaganda.

Why don't you withold judgement until M&M's work is reviewed and published in a proper manner, rather than uncritically accepting their claims?

[BobK]

Yeti,

I'm not going to get in a flaming match with you. You're the king of flamers.

Just maybe you could point out where I said I accept their study uncritically.

edit to add...

Otherwise don't go putting words in my mouth.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite


100 years ago, humans sent out some insignificant amounts of CO2. Today, they send out billions of tons.

In not so sure about this. Even taking into account population expansion and all that, 100 years ago the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and very significant amounts of coal and oil smoke were belched into the atmosphere constantly; on land and at sea. I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

Just maybe you could point out where I said I accept their study uncritically.


Are you saying you don't accept their study?

If so, on what basis do you make the following claim?


Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.

[peptoabysmal]

Even the Russians don't like the Kyoto Treaty:

Just say nyet (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031006-101706-8540r.htm)

Edited to add:


Russia was apparently banking on a tidy profit by selling "carbon dioxide credits" — illusory tons of hot air not emitted during a resulting economic downturn.


LMAO!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.

The pollution controls are only in place to keep some specific chemicals and heavy metals out of the air and water. Lead for example. They do nothing for carbon dioxide emissions, they are a necessary byproduct of the burning of fossil fuels.

Here's a graph of the increase in CO2 emissions over the last thousand years, courtesy of ice core samples taken from Antartica. I'll leave it up to the audience to draw their own conclusions.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've done a bit of research on this and uncovered a few interesting tidbits.

Didn't they spell all this out on their webpage?

Originally posted by EvilYeti
One, McIntyre and McKitrick are non climatologists, or even scientists.

Statistical analysis is statistical analysis. If I take raw data file A and perform procedure B upon it to get result C, I either do it correctly or not. One need not be a climatologist or even a scientist to repeat another's mathematical results, or find errors in them.

Originally posted by EvilYeti
(Edited to add)

Mann has responded:

We can safely file the "Kyoto debunking" as itself debunked.

I don't think so (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Response.Oct29.pdf).

MattJ

[BobK]

Yeti said
Are you saying you don't accept their study?

If so, on what basis do you make the following claim?

BobK said
quote:

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.

Maybe english isn't your native language. When I say "something appears to not be kosher", it doesn't mean it might not be. It simply means it needs further investigation.

Therefore, when you say I accept something uncritically, you are in error.

Edit to add...
Not only that but I said in my post 20 min. prior to your post accusing me of accepting it uncritically...
I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?

Are you really that obtuse or just like baiting people?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

Maybe english isn't your native language. When I say "something appears to not be kosher", it doesn't mean it might not be. It simply means it needs further investigation.

Based on what information? Did you think Mann's study needed further investigation a week ago? Why didn't you post then?

Therefore, when you say I accept something uncritically, you are in error.

I would say M&M's claims need further investigation first, considering they haven't been reviewed yet.

Are you really that obtuse or just like baiting people?

I'm enjoy poking fun at the expense of the ignorant.

[Malachi151]

I've read quite a bit about this issue adn seen a few programs on it as well. As far as I'm concerned teh debunking of GW has itself been debunked.

The majority of the "scientistws" have have been reported to be opposed to the GW theory are not even climatologists or even scientists in some cases, and of those many were ot even aware that their names were being used as opponents to GW, and in fact some have said when interviewed that they are in fact proponents of GW theory that theri names are being incorrectly used.

This all comes down to lies and who you believe.

I also saw an interview with one of the heads of the major anti-GW organizations. The guy is basically an creation scientist and believes that everything is part of God's plan. He said that every time you get in your car and burn fuel you are doing God's work, seriously.

I can't remember the names of these people or the programs I saw them interviewed on as this is not a major issue for me, but I've seen enough to know that the debunking of GW is itself bunk.

I've also seen a lot about how major energy companies are paying for the research and destroying evidence that their researchers find that does not fit their agenda, etc.

If you are going to believe oil companies about GW then you have your head up your.... If you don't think that energy companies are are spending billions of dollars to build a propaganda campaign against GW then you have your head up your....

[BobK]

Yeti,

My previous message was posted more than and hour prior to your quoting me.

Your redaction of a portion of that post appears to be a weak effort on your part to negate the fact that you accused me of being uncritical when you knew otherwise.

Your seeming inability to admit to a faux pas has been very insightful.

Sorry about the side trip folks, maybe we can now get back to a rational discussion of the article. Or maybe not.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I've read quite a bit about this issue adn seen a few programs on it as well. As far as I'm concerned teh debunking of GW has itself been debunked.

The majority of the "scientistws" have have been reported to be opposed to the GW theory are not even climatologists or even scientists in some cases, and of those many were ot even aware that their names were being used as opponents to GW, and in fact some have said when interviewed that they are in fact proponents of GW theory that theri names are being incorrectly used.

This all comes down to lies and who you believe.

I also saw an interview with one of the heads of the major anti-GW organizations. The guy is basically an creation scientist and believes that everything is part of God's plan. He said that every time you get in your car and burn fuel you are doing God's work, seriously.

I can't remember the names of these people or the programs I saw them interviewed on as this is not a major issue for me, but I've seen enough to know that the debunking of GW is itself bunk.

I've also seen a lot about how major energy companies are paying for the research and destroying evidence that their researchers find that does not fit their agenda, etc.

If you are going to believe oil companies about GW then you have your head up your.... If you don't think that energy companies are are spending billions of dollars to build a propaganda campaign against GW then you have your head up your....

That's a good explanation of your opinion on the subject, but it does not deal nor does it even attempt to deal with the facts of the link Bobk posted.

It seems people on GW issue are working from the same point as religious people they start of with a belief in either side and then work from there to develop or find proof that supports their beliefs. A skeptical position on this matter would be not disprove the theory that it's happening but to have conclusive proof that it is happening and that we are causing it and that we should do anything about. So far, I have not seen such a conclusive study.

[xouper]

Grammatron: It seems people on GW issue are working from the same point as religious people they start of with a belief in either side and then work from there to develop or find proof that supports their beliefs.Sounds like you may have been reading some of David Wilson's posts on the subject. :D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK
Yeti,

My previous message was posted more than and hour prior to your quoting me.

Your redaction of a portion of that post appears to be a weak effort on your part to negate the fact that you accused me of being uncritical when you knew otherwise.

Your seeming inability to admit to a faux pas has been very insightful.

Sorry about the side trip folks, maybe we can now get back to a rational discussion of the article. Or maybe not.

You chose the title "Kyoto Debunked" for this thread.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[BobK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You chose the title "Kyoto Debunked" for this thread.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?


It happens to be the name of the linked news article.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK


It happens to be the name of the linked news article.

Do you agree with that conclusion, based on the evidence presented?

[Drooper]

Interesting thread.

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm)

Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.

OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......

The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction.


Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there re other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???

Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.

Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?

Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.

allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Drooper
Interesting thread.

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm)



OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......




Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there re other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???



Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?



What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.



Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.

Hook line and sinker....

I'm telling you, the antiGW or anti-policy change in relation to GW people are hired scientists that are essentially like "Creation Scientists".

They are people paid by energy companies to produce believable opposition to GW scince just liek "Creation Scientsits" get people with PhDs in biology adn biochemistry, etc to write "scientific" papers for them that "prove" the earth is only 6,000 years old or that its impossible to "prove" or find evidence for evolution.

Its all the same crap.

The anti-GW lobby, is, for the most part, "creation science".

That's the goal of these organizations and their propaganda, to just "instill that little bit of doubt", but doubt is all that is needed in order to prevent legislation when coupled with the "fear" that environemnt legislation with "destroy" the economy.

[BobK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Do you agree with that conclusion, based on the evidence presented?

Here is what I personally believe, but it's not based strictly on the article. I would appreciate very much if you would respond in kind with your personal view of Kyoto.

Since the basis for projections of AGW is founded on computer models, and the enormous costs associated with Kyoto, I would want a few questions answered before I could have confidence that we would be on the right track in implementing the treaty.

Models from circa 1990 were used to make projections. What is their observed error over the intervening time frame?

More recent models have been designed in an effort to better emulate the climate. What is their observed error to date?

Why many different models if the science is well settled concerning the mathematics of the climate?
It seems to me that is what models do. Quickly calculate repetitive formulas. If the formulas are correct only one standard model would be necessary.

Seems to me that a model with a repetitive error of only 1% per year from observations would be off by about +-270% over 100 years.(1.01^100). Why should I have confidence in long-range projections by climate models?

Since IPCC itself says Kyoto has enormous costs associated with it, is concerned only with CO2 emissions while neglecting the possibility of other factors, is based substantially on climate models, and admits it will only have a very limited effect on temperature, why should I buy into this program without much further research.

Humanity has been adapting to its environment for thousands of years, the money to be spent on Kyoto might well be put to better use advancing the technical ability of humanity to adapt if and when necessary.

The couching of terrible consequences in terms filled with such qualifying words such as (may, might, could, possibly etc.) simply doesn't wash with me.

This is of course my own personal opinion and it would take hard science and not computer models to change it. When someone gets the Nobel Prize for creating a computer climate model that is so good projecting over a century that no one thinks it's worth the effort to try to create a better one, they'll have my full attention. (doubt I'll be alive though)

Sincerely,
Bob

[BobK]

Nice thoughtful post Drooper.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.Maybe this will help you decide (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031027061350.htm)

From the above-linked AASC article:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.

Now try it this way:

Economic forecasting is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s economic system.

Before we proceed any further on the assumption that stricter regulations will have disastrous impacts on the world's economy, can we see evidence not based on the same type of methodology used by climatologists in reaching their conclusions?

[BobK]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Maybe this will help you decide (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031027061350.htm)

From the above-linked AASC article:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.

Now try it this way:

Economic forecasting is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s economic system.

Before we proceed any further on the assumption that stricter regulations will have disastrous impacts on the world's economy, can we see evidence not based on the same type of methodology used by climatologists in reaching their conclusions?

Since it is the IPCC that wants Kyoto to be ratified one would be naive to assume they would present their own economic forecast in anything but the most favorable light possible. Therefore no further economic analysis would be worthwhile to any layman if that person can come to the conclusion to reject the treaty by using IPCC's own figures.

The only people that could have any interest in further economic analysis would be those that have not been able to reject the treaty using IPCC figures.

I for one, reject the treaty based on IPCC's own figures relative to the confidence I have in the accuracy of their computer model forecast. If further compelling scientific data becomes available I would be willing to reconsider my position.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BobK

I for one, reject the treaty based on IPCC's own figures relative to the confidence I have in the accuracy of their computer model forecast. If further compelling scientific data becomes available I would be willing to reconsider my position.
I guess what I'm wondering is whether your lack of confidence in computer models extends to computer models in general, is it just these particular ones you don't trust?

As far as the basic science concerning the greenhouse effect, it really isn't that complicated. Do you feel that it has yet to be adequately demonstrated that certain gases, CO2 among them, can produce this effect? Are you dissatisfied with explanations as to why CO2 is considered the most important of these? Are you not convinced that atmospheric CO2 levels have dramatically increased recently?

Forget about the treaty, forget about computer models for a moment. Tell me that you really don't think there is anything to this business about global warming behind CO2.
The couching of terrible consequences in terms filled with such qualifying words such as (may, might, could, possibly etc.) simply doesn't wash with me.
Do you have car insurance? Homeowner's insurance? Life insurance?
...the money to be spent on Kyoto might well be put to better use advancing the technical ability of humanity to adapt if and when necessary.
You have a point there. This horse may already have left the barn anyway. Something like Kyoto might have had some value as a symbolic gesture to posterity, but a few measly quadrillion dollars is probably a pittance in the face of the more serious potential consequences of significant global warming. Economically speaking.
But wait. Is that really how we're going to use the money we'll save? If we can't even sell Kyoto -- which acknowledges that there is a problem, but one perhaps not beyond solution -- how are we going to sell a proposition which (by focusing on technologically advanced ways to run for the hills) goes so far as to say that not only is there a problem, but a hopeless one?

[BobK]

Having laid out my view on why I reject Kyoto, I would respectfully request that those that wish to query me more closely on the reasons for my position, present their personal reasons for taking the same or opposing view.

That would, in my estimation, put the dialogue on more equal footing and the rationality of the different points of view could then be explored more equally.

I would like this thread to stay fairly closely to the right or wrong of implementing Kyoto in the near future and why.

Questions like CO2 is bad, humans are the main cause of global warming, the sea level is rising etc. would likely expand the scope of the thread to the point that no useful information will be absorbed by anyone. Many past threads have degenerated in this manner.

We aren't going to solve the the problems of the world here, but it would be nice to have a civilized and cogent exchange of ideas on the subject.

I certainly have respect for the attempts being made to model the climate, but due to the complexity of the physics of the climate and the myriad of variables and interactions both known and unknown, I believe accuracy in extremely long term modeling is far in the future.

Can long term climate modeling work? Maybe, eventually. It's not like a game of chess or poker where all the rules and variables are known and can therefore be modeled with good degree of success.

I think I asked some pertinent questions in my previous post that require answers before signing on to a costly program.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

Here is what I personally believe, but it's not based strictly on the article. I would appreciate very much if you would respond in kind with your personal view of Kyoto.


I'm pretty ambivalent with the Kyoto protocol myself. The damage is done for the most part (we can't undo the last 100 years) and the tiny percentage reduction it offers would only buy us a little time if it turns out AGW will have apocalyptic consequences. Still, something is better than nothing.

The claims of a 18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto are totally bogus. Impossible. Thats 200 times more than the 2002 world gross domestic product! (got that tidbit from the link you provided). Don't forget that GW itself has a cost as well, more severe weather, more fires, more heatwaves, seasonal changes, etc. All of which will have an economic cost. Consider the costs of the hurricane, fire and heatwave damage and deaths of the past year. Now consider that this is just going to keep getting worse as time goes on. So ignoring AGW has its own pricetag, albeit a less obvious one.

Another important thing to remember is that we don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. We are going to have to find alternatives at some point, we simply have no other choice. Kyoto would have a side benefit of forcing us to look at easing our dependence on oil. If cutting our oil consumption is going to ruin the world economy, then I guess the human race is doomed regardless.

In a nutshell, you could say I weakly support Kyoto. Its really not huge issue to me. I'm more concerned with all the junk science that gets tossed around in these debates. I don't care if you oppose Kyoto or are not concerned about AGW, what I don't understand is the need to distort scientific truth to make your point.

[EvilYeti]

Mann, Bradley and Hughes have responded to M&M's "debunking" of their paper here (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/EandEPaperProblem.pdf)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BobK

Questions like CO2 is bad, humans are the main cause of global warming, the sea level is rising etc. would likely expand the scope of the thread to the point that no useful information will be absorbed by anyone. Many past threads have degenerated in this manner.
If the thread's scope can't expand enough to encompass the main justifications for Kyoto, then there dosen't seem to be much left to discuss. The MBH response seems very satisfactory.

I certainly have respect for the attempts being made to model the climate, but due to the complexity of the physics of the climate and the myriad of variables and interactions both known and unknown, I believe accuracy in extremely long term modeling is far in the future.
So...what?, we just throw up our hands?

[Malachi151]

When someone gets the Nobel Prize for creating a computer climate model that is so good projecting over a century that no one thinks it's worth the effort to try to create a better one, they'll have my full attention. (doubt I'll be alive though)

Which is exactly what those who oppose Koyoto want. That's their goal, to propagandize people into your belief. Thier job is to instill enouhg doubt that no action takes place.

Good, job, you bit hook line a sinker...

[BobK]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I'm pretty ambivalent with the Kyoto protocol myself. The damage is done for the most part (we can't undo the last 100 years) and the tiny percentage reduction it offers would only buy us a little time if it turns out AGW will have apocalyptic consequences. Still, something is better than nothing.

It is the cost of this "something" relative to it's benefit that concerns me.

The claims of a 18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto are totally bogus. Impossible. Thats 200 times more than the 2002 world gross domestic product! (got that tidbit from the link you provided). Don't forget that GW itself has a cost as well, more severe weather, more fires, more heatwaves, seasonal changes, etc. All of which will have an economic cost. Consider the costs of the hurricane, fire and heatwave damage and deaths of the past year. Now consider that this is just going to keep getting worse as time goes on. So ignoring AGW has its own pricetag, albeit a less obvious one.

The $18 quadrillion is evidently IPCC's estimate of upper bound cost and actually the article says 600 times 2002 world GDP. The article also says other IPCC scenarios may only cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.

I'll use $600 trillion as the lower bound to better illustrate my position. This means IPCC says it can't estimate costs to closer than a factor of 32. That is to me is an unacceptably large discrepancy between the upper and lower bounds.
It makes me think the lower figure is being used to make the program appear more palatable and that the cost will more likely approach the higher figure.

Let's divide the lower figure by current world population. That comes to $100,000 per person over 100 years or $1000 per person per year. Actually these costs would not be shared equally as 1st world people would certainly have to pay a larger portion.

I view the costs of the program similar to each person writing at minimum, a $1000 check to some organisation each year for the rest of their life, in order to attempt to reduce global temperature increase for their great-great-great grandchildren by less than 1 degree. At that point I say, those future relations will have better technology, better climate knowledge and will certainly know better what is necessary, if anything, to be done. Even if they don't, they won't likely even notice the difference in temperature.

Another important thing to remember is that we don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. We are going to have to find alternatives at some point, we simply have no other choice. Kyoto would have a side benefit of forcing us to look at easing our dependence on oil. If cutting our oil consumption is going to ruin the world economy, then I guess the human race is doomed regardless.

Humanity has successfully adjusted up to now. When we can no longer adjust to conditions, we'll go extinct. I'm sure when alternative technologies have matured sufficiently we will make more use of them. It seems to me that putting all this money toward artificially inflating current fuel costs is probably not the best way to advance alternative technology. It certainly doesn't seem cost-effective to me.

In a nutshell, you could say I weakly support Kyoto. Its really not huge issue to me. I'm more concerned with all the junk science that gets tossed around in these debates. I don't care if you oppose Kyoto or are not concerned about AGW, what I don't understand is the need to distort scientific truth to make your point.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts up to the last paragraph, which confuses me. Maybe you could point out where I distorted scientific truth.
It can't be the $18 quadrillion figure, as that is cited as coming from some Russian involved with Kyoto pointing to IPCC figures.
It can't be the small effect Kyoto will have, which is mentioned at the end of the article.

[BobK]

Having no firm opinion on the MBH vs MM controvery, I am curious to see if MM will respond.

Edit misplaced word.

[Grammatron]

I post this link every time there is a GW thread and everyone seems to ignore it.

From the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2996219.stm):
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running. The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000. The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012. On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.

Since this is a Kyoto thread, perhaps someone could explain to me the purpose of economically damaging treaty that does nothing.

[DavidJames]

"18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto "
Geez talk about gloom and doomers :)

Here is something to think about. I've heard this kind of economic catastrophe talk most every time a significant requirement surfaces to improve the environment and safety of a product or industry. Emissions in cars, power plant safety, smoke stack scrubber, etc. The new regulations cost money of course and no doubt all of it (and maybe more) was passed on to the consumers. The worst case, gloom and doom scenarios, of course, never played out. But what else happened? New industries were created. Businesses to make the converters and scrubbers. Repair shops to replace the converters. I don't live far from Rocky Flats where a multi-million (billion) dollar project has been going on for years cleaning up the waste from that facility. True enough, our prices for things reflect all of this but let's not forget about the new jobs that were created. Engineers to design equipment, factory workers, white collar workers, and yes, CEO's and executives, stocks traded and so on. Pollution control and cleaning the environment is big business. I would love to see a study regarding the economic benefits of adding pollution and environmental regulations. How many new business were created or existing ones have grown supplying this equipment. How many jobs were created? What was the net economic affect of these regulations?

I don't know the answers, but I think the questions are good :)

[BobK]

David,

I agree that new businesses and industries would come into being. I don't know if IPCC took this into consideration in their figures, but I tend to think they would or could have if they felt they could quantify and defend any such figures.

Grammatron,

I tend to agree with your view. I was just being a little bit more verbose. ;)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BobK

I view the costs of the program similar to each person writing at minimum, a $1000 check to some organisation each year for the rest of their life
What would you consider a reasonable amount? How much would you be willing to pay?
Actually these costs would not be shared equally as 1st world people would certainly have to pay a larger portion.
Yes, that sounds unfair. But since we are so interested in fairness, we might say that the environmental impacts of fossil fuels are a cost which is distributed more or less equally among all, while the the benefits are distributed in a manner highly favoring the first world. If we wanted to be really fair, we might take note of the fact that future generations may ultimately end up with a very disproportunate share of the cost, with none of the benefits. In that light, our fuel costs seem like quite a bargain. Whoo, boy -- this fairness business is a bit of a double-edged sword, isn't it? Maybe we'd be better off with sort of a 'hakuna matata' attitude like:When we can no longer adjust to conditions, we'll go extinct. Ahhh, that feels better. Que sera sera. Do you have any grandchildren by the way?
in order to attempt to reduce global temperature increase for their great-great-great grandchildren by less than 1 degree. At that point I say, those future relations will have better technology, better climate knowledge and will certainly know better what is necessary, if anything, to be done.
As I said above, I'd agree that a valid objection to Kyoto is that it is very likely too little too late, but don't be too quick to dismiss the potential value of even modest improvements on the order of a degree or two -- or even less. If anything can be done, it is we who are in position to it, because one thing we do know for sure is that effects upon global temperature and climate take place gradually. It's like cooking on an electric range; you can crank the heat up, but it takes a while for anything to happen -- ever notice that the hottest days of the year come way after the summer solstice?
Even if they don't, they won't likely even notice the difference in temperature.
If you really think this is about comfort, pardon me for laughing out loud. Let's not get confused about which aspects of this are subjects of serious scientific dispute and which are not. The degree to which increases in global mean temperature are anthropogenic is in dispute. What is not in dispute is whether whether such increases are being observed, and that temperature increases of a few degrees are very significant in terms of impact on climate. It isn't about whether folks will have to wear a sweater on a picnic. It's about catastrophic storms; it's about massive extinction; it's about droughts and famines. It's about how many cities (and in some cases, countries) we will be able to save as sea levels rise.
Having no firm opinion on the MBH vs MM controvery, I am curious to see if MM will respond.
The title you chose for this thread suggests that you do in fact have an opinion on it.

[BobK]

Dymanic,

quote:

Originally posted by BobK

I view the costs of the program similar to each person writing at minimum, a $1000 check to some organisation each year for the rest of their life

Dyma:
What would you consider a reasonable amount? How much would you be willing to pay?

BobK:
About $5 a year sounds about right. Less would be better.

What are you willing to pay?

quote:
Actually these costs would not be shared equally as 1st world people would certainly have to pay a larger portion.

Dyma:
Yes, that sounds unfair. But since we are so interested in fairness, we might say that the environmental impacts of fossil fuels are a cost which is distributed more or less equally among all, while the the benefits are distributed in a manner highly favoring the first world. If we wanted to be really fair, we might take note of the fact that future generations may ultimately end up with a very disproportunate share of the cost, with none of the benefits. In that light, our fuel costs seem like quite a bargain. Whoo, boy -- this fairness business is a bit of a double-edged sword, isn't it? Maybe we'd be better off with sort of a 'hakuna matata' attitude like:When we can no longer adjust to conditions, we'll go extinct. Ahhh, that feels better. Que sera sera. Do you have any grandchildren by the way?

BobK:
I made no comment on fair or unfair, simply that that would be the way the costs are divided. If you want to do fair or unfair why don't you start a thread on it?

Yes, I have a granddaughter. How about you?

quote:
in order to attempt to reduce global temperature increase for their great-great-great grandchildren by less than 1 degree. At that point I say, those future relations will have better technology, better climate knowledge and will certainly know better what is necessary, if anything, to be done.

Dyma:
As I said above, I'd agree that a valid objection to Kyoto is that it is very likely too little too late, but don't be too quick to dismiss the potential value of even modest improvements on the order of a degree or two -- or even less. If anything can be done, it is we who are in position to it, because one thing we do know for sure is that effects upon global temperature and climate take place gradually. It's like cooking on an electric range; you can crank the heat up, but it takes a while for anything to happen -- ever notice that the hottest days of the year come way after the summer solstice?

BobK:
And the coldest days of the year come after the winter solstice. What do either have to do with my post?

quote:
Even if they don't, they won't likely even notice the difference in temperature.

Dyma:
If you really think this is about comfort, pardon me for laughing out loud. Let's not get confused about which aspects of this are subjects of serious scientific dispute and which are not. The degree to which increases in global mean temperature are anthropogenic is in dispute. What is not in dispute is whether whether such increases are being observed, and that temperature increases of a few degrees are very significant in terms of impact on climate. It isn't about whether folks will have to wear a sweater on a picnic. It's about catastrophic storms; it's about massive extinction; it's about droughts and famines. It's about how many cities (and in some cases, countries) we will be able to save as sea levels rise.

BobK:
Where did I say anything about comfort? Comfort is rather subjective, don't you think? "Not likely notice" simply means that. Maybe I shouldn't have added the word temperature as that seems to raise yours. How often do you see definite modifying words used in science when speaking of future climatic events. Words such as will, definite, undoubtedly. They don't even use the word probably(meaning more likely than not) in most cases and instead use the word possibly. If you have some certain knowledge of climatic conditions 100 years from now I'm sure the science world would be greatly interested.

quote:
Having no firm opinion on the MBH vs MM controvery, I am curious to see if MM will respond.

Dyma:
The title you chose for this thread suggests that you do in fact have an opinion on it.

BobK:
If you take the time to read the 1st page of the thread you can easily see for yourself.

By the way, you still haven't said what your personal opinion on Kyoto is. Would you be so kind as to grace us with your opinion and why you hold it?
To this point, your view and reasons for it has been presented in a rather piecemeal fashion. Could you boil it down into one post? So we can more easily follow your reasoning.

edit to add salutation and change dyna to dyma

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

I enjoyed reading your thoughts up to the last paragraph, which confuses me. Maybe you could point out where I distorted scientific truth.

Well, for one you claimed something was not "kosher" with a study published in Nature, based only on the word of amateurs and a newspaper article. Not very scientific if you ask me.
You also once claimed that the Keeling CO2 data was "worthless" because it measured "regional" gas concentrations. Its that kind of junk science that I find irritating, especially here.

It can't be the $18 quadrillion figure, as that is cited as coming from some Russian involved with Kyoto pointing to IPCC figures.

The 18 quadrillion dollar figure is TOTALLY bogus. Whomever came up with that should be fired, as they are an idiot. The would take Kyoto causing 100% worldwide unemployment for hundreds of years to cost that much.
If I said global warming would raise the temperature of the earth by a million degrees in the next hundred years, would take me seriously? Thats the level of exaggeration we are talking about here.

It can't be the small effect Kyoto will have, which is mentioned at the end of the article.

I never denied Kyoto would have a small effect. But small is better than nothing, especially when the future of mankind is at risk.

[BobK]

Yeti,

Why do you persist in misquoting me? I thought we had hashed this out on the first page.

Yeti:
Well, for one you claimed something was not "kosher" with a study published in Nature, based only on the word of amateurs and a newspaper article. Not very scientific if you ask me.

BobK:
In my opening post I said...
"Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions."

Seems to me that "appears to be" is a qualifier for the word kosher.

I also said in another post on the first page...
"I'm sure if it can be rebutted, it will. Until then I'll withhold judgement. How about you?"

I have not edited either post. So why do you persist in editing my statement to make it appear that I support MM without qualification?
Seems like your being rather disingenuous to me.

Yeti:
The 18 quadrillion dollar figure is TOTALLY bogus. Whomever came up with that should be fired, as they are an idiot.

BobK:
I'm sure the Russian involved with Kyoto that made the statement might disagree with you. I believe it was given in the context of being an estimate by IPCC of an upper bound to the costs.
I address the figures in one of my above posts. Please feel free to read them all, thoroughly.

Yeti:
I never denied Kyoto would have a small effect. But small is better than nothing, especially when the future of mankind is at risk.

BobK:
From this statement should I assume you're willing to bear your fair share of the Kyoto costs, whatever that may turn out to be?

The rest of this is a derailment of the thread, don't know why you even brought it up, but I will comment on it from memory. I believe I left that thread due to the lack of civilized discourse. I'm begining to think this thread might go the same way.

Yeti:
You also once claimed that the Keeling CO2 data was "worthless" because it measured "regional" gas concentrations. Its that kind of junk science that I find irritating, especially here.

BobK:
I believe your were asserting that the Mauna Loa Keeling data encompassed the entire earth. I thought not.
Maybe you can tell me why there are several other stations at different latitudes, from the Arctic to Antarctic, collecting the same data. They have nothing better to do? Or maybe the Mauna Loa data might be regional?

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I never denied Kyoto would have a small effect. But small is better than nothing, especially when the future of mankind is at risk.

Since you think GW is happening and it is the fault of humans I have a...Very Specific Question: What do you think we as humans should do now to correct the problem that you think we caused? Please be as detailed as you like.


P.S. I don't think this a derailment of the thread since it will shed some light on Yeti's view on the subject.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by BobK

Yes, I have a granddaughter. How about you?
Yeah, me too. And expecting my second grandbaby any day! I take it as a given that we all want the best for our grandbabies regardless of how many 'greats' are tacked on. Which is why I don't get this bit about "Let them figure it out (or go extinct)". You must not really have meant that.
Actually these costs would not be shared equally as 1st world people would certainly have to pay a larger portion
-------------------------------------

Yes, that sounds unfair.
-------------------------------------
I made no comment on fair or unfair, simply that that would be the way the costs are divided. If you want to do fair or unfair why don't you start a thread on it?
Aw, c'mon...are you really claiming you weren't implying that the unequal sharing of cost was unfair?
And the coldest days of the year come after the winter solstice. What do either have to do with my post?
'Your post' being the one in which you suggest that future generations will be better able to deal with the problem of global warming due to greenhouse gases -- an appeal to a hypothetical high-tech fix. As an analogy, consider a missle defense system that involved physically deflecting an incoming ICBM. If, by some miracle, you were able to respond in the first minutes after the missle's launch, it would take just the tiniest bump to knock it off course. But the later in the missle's trajectory, the more force you would need to apply in order to achieve the same amount of deflection.

This same principle applies to anthropogenic GW, especially when you consider the self-perpetuating aspect of melting ice sheets (water absorbs about 80 percent of the sunlight falling on it, reflecting about 20 percent; ice reflects 80 percent, and absorbs 20 percent). My point then was that this much greater 'leverage' puts us in a better position than our 'future relations' to do something about GW.

Something appears to be not kosher with the Mann study used by IPCC to justify expensive international controls on emissions.
This is from your OP, and I think it contains something of a misjoinder, that being an objection on the one hand to the scientific methodology, and on the other, to the cost. My view is that if the science is bogus, and there really is no reason for concern about GW, then no amount of money spent is a good value.

On the other hand, if the science is well grounded, and the concerns therefore well founded, then it is hard to see how objections on the basis of cost can stand in the face of the seriousness of the threats posed. I certainly would be willing to pay at least what I pay annually in insurance against events I actually consider quite unlikely.

[BobK]

Dymanic,

I enjoyed reading your post.
I hope everything turns out well with your soon to be, new grandchild.

I expect no more and maybe less than about 20-25 more years of life. That would be high 70's to low 80's. I can realistically expect to interact with grandchildren and possibly great-grandchildren, but I will most certainly be dead before the following generation.

I can only care in a very minor way for the following generations, since I won't even have knowledge of their existence. I simply can't extend my ability to care about future offspring that far into the future.

The fact that I believe no scientist worth their salt will tell you in unqualified terms that they are certain the world will continue to warm forever, or even the next 100 years, unless we do something now, carries considerable weight from my point of view. They always include qualifying words in their remarks.

It might be, I don't know, that solar radiation has a greater impact on warming than scientists currently allow for. I think the jury is still out on that one. Boy, wouldn't that be something. Come 2100 people are saying, "Those foolish people back in 2003 spent all that money to try to reduce the temperature, and here we are now trying to bring it up because solar radiation has decreased."

I can't think of any government long-range plan or any plan at all, that ever came in at or under budget and they usually don't even end up working the way they were intended. Has any government ever successfully instituted a plan of even 10% of the length of Kyoto? It's simply too big a leap considering the state of current knowledge.

I look at Kyoto as in some ways similar to a healthy 20 year-old, buying a 20-year term life insurance policy worth $20,000 and paying a yearly premium of $1000. They're paying more than the policy is worth. There are a lot of ways that people make gambles in life and I think Kyoto is a bad one.

Someone said not long ago that there are currently more scientists alive today than have existed in our past history. Why is it not reasonable to think climate science will become considerably more sharply defined over the course of the next generation, and that a somewhat later start will be negated by advancing technology. If it even turns out to be definitely necessary.

Expansion on sharing of costs:
The reason I was not implying fair or unfair is that before writing that statement, I considered the fact that people in many countries simply could not mathematically afford $1000 dollars per year and survive. Costs can only be apportioned among those that can afford to pay. That, along with the subjective nature of the word possibly engendering arguments about proportion that I don't wish to participate in at this time. I'm sorry if you inferred what I was not implying. :)

Not sure if I'll be able to participate in the thread today/tomorrow. I'll have to see what develops.

A guy has to have some other life. :)

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I guess what I'm wondering is whether your lack of confidence in computer models extends to computer models in general, is it just these particular ones you don't trust?

As far as the basic science concerning the greenhouse effect, it really isn't that complicated. Do you feel that it has yet to be adequately demonstrated that certain gases, CO2 among them, can produce this effect? Are you dissatisfied with explanations as to why CO2 is considered the most important of these? Are you not convinced that atmospheric CO2 levels have dramatically increased recently?

Forget about the treaty, forget about computer models for a moment. Tell me that you really don't think there is anything to this business about global warming behind CO2.




Dynamic,

The problem I have with this is that the causality from CO2 concentrations to climate change are fiendishly complex.

It is due to the fact that the climate is fiendishly complex. It is for this reason that thje models are useless.

I have worked with macroeconometric models for many years. These are similar toi climate models in that they try to represent a massive system of jointly determined variables. In laymans' terms that means things that feed back into one another. A climate example would be the way cloud cover and temperature interact. Cloud formation is partially determined by temperature. But temperature is partially determined by cloud cover. When you multiply this up by thousands of other factors (which is the size of many models), the potential interactions uproach enormous numbers.

But this is not the end of the problem, because there is an issue of non-linearity. Adding non-linear relationships between these variables, which is certainly necessary in climate models, increases the potential errors.

There is also a third problem. These models, like macroeconometric models, are representations of systems. By design and necessity, they exclude a massive number of variables. For the most part, this might not be an issue. However, excluding significant variables leads to statistical bias. And in the field of climate modelling, this is a VERY important and controversial issue. Some of the factors these models potentially ignore, or under-weight include the solar input, and water vapour feedback (mainly the extent to which rising temperatures might lead to increased water vapour, hence cloud cover and hence a negative effect on temperature). Looking at the output of these models as someone with knowledge of related systems, this seems to be a problem. Why? Because if we know anything about the global climate it is that it changes over time from natureal causes and due to its own system dynamics. Secondly, it is stable and self equlibrating. That means if you push it one way or another, it will move into a new benign stable form, and not run away to a catastrophic extreme. The climate model predictions invariable show scenarios where variables fail to stabilise. This just doesn't pass any sniff test and is a big clue that the models are not yet up to the task, or they are not being used properly (by which I mean within their limitations).

[Diamond]

DD: at the risk of pedantry, can I go through this logic syllogism a piece at a time?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
[B]I'm a fence-sitter on this issue.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

As is water vapour, which is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases cause the Earth's temperature to rise.

We don't know that at all. The most accurate measurments of surface temperature globally (from satellites) show slight warming. We don't know that greenhouse gases are causing the slight warming, since a) temperatures have been rising globally since the 17th Century and the greenhouse gases (CO2) didn't start to rise for two centuries afterwards b) there is copious evidence that the sun has been getting progressively brighter during that time and c) the consistent result from icecores shows that carbon dioxide rise lags temperature rise by between 800-1200 years.

Humans are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

Yes, and the natural environment pumps trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The human contrinution is quite minor.

The average temperature of the Earth is increasing.

Yes. But since we are dealing with a loosely coupled chaotic system, since a rise could simply be natural variation. The surface temperature has increased slightly but the atmosphere itself overall has cooled since satellite measurements started in 1979.

Does anyone know what exactly happens to the CO2 sent into the atmosphere? If it doesn't contribute to the Global Warming, where does it go?

It's absorbed by plants, dissolved by rain or absorbed into the oceans.

It may seem logical that carbon dioxide enrichment causes temperature rise, but evidence from reconstructions of past climates show no such cause-and-effect. There are literally millions of variables that effect climate, and we do not know which ones are causing the current warming or are significant. My inkling is that carbon dioxide has been chosen for its political significance rather than its proven effect.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Diamond
My inkling is that carbon dioxide has been chosen for its political significance rather than its proven effect.

It is interesting to note - and it might just be a coincidence - that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory emanated from Britain in the 1980s, heavily supported, politically and financially, by the Thatcher Government.

The coincidence is that the same Government was involved in a massive battle to close publicly owned coal mines that were losing bucket loads of tax payers money and preventing the economy from moving towards cheaoer fuel sources, by freeing up imports of coal and allowing generation to shift to nuclear (a hard sell).

The miners went on national strike and one of the few emotive levers the Government could pull was to turn it into an environmental issue.

The problem was that the issue then took on a life of its own and led to the monster that is now the Climate Research Unit in the
UK.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


It is interesting to note - and it might just be a coincidence - that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory emanated from Britain in the 1980s, heavily supported, politically and financially, by the Thatcher Government.

The coincidence is that the same Government was involved in a massive battle to close publicly owned coal mines that were losing bucket loads of tax payers money and preventing the economy from moving towards cheaoer fuel sources, by freeing up imports of coal and allowing generation to shift to nuclear (a hard sell).

The miners went on national strike and one of the few emotive levers the Government could pull was to turn it into an environmental issue.

The problem was that the issue then took on a life of its own and led to the monster that is now the Climate Research Unit in the
UK.

That would have to be one of the most absurd conspiracy theories I have ever read.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That would have to be one of the most absurd conspiracy theories I have ever read.

Nothing too absurd. This is political issue driven by politicians and political organisations.

Margaret Thatcher was the global advocate of Global Warming theories. She took it to the world during the 1980's.

She forced the issue ointo the agenda at the G7 meeting in Toronto in 1988, which led directly to the establishment of the IPCC.

She oversaw the establishment of the Hadley Centre for climate research (now the primary research agency for IPCC working group 1).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Nothing too absurd. This is political issue driven by politicians and political organisations.

Margaret Thatcher was the global advocate of Global Warming theories. She took it to the world during the 1980's.

She forced the issue ointo the agenda at the G7 meeting in Toronto in 1988, which led directly to the establishment of the IPCC.

She oversaw the establishment of the Hadley Centre for climate research (now the primary research agency for IPCC working group 1).

I have talked to scientists studying all this. The only impact politics has on their minds is that their research may not be producing politcally acceptable results, hence they will get funding cuts.

If they wanted to get more funding, all they would have to do in Australia, for example, is say that there is no anthropogenic component to the current warming. That is exactly what the current conservative government would want to hear.

However, they are just calling it as they see the evidence and theory show it.

Can you show on piece of evidence to actually back this theory up?

[diddidit]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


In not so sure about this. Even taking into account population expansion and all that, 100 years ago the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and very significant amounts of coal and oil smoke were belched into the atmosphere constantly; on land and at sea. I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.

Cleaner fuels reduce particulate (soot) emissions, not CO2. CO2 emissions depend only on the quantity of fuel burned, not the quality.

did

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have talked to scientists studying all this. The only impact politics has on their minds is that their research may not be producing politcally acceptable results, hence they will get funding cuts.

If they wanted to get more funding, all they would have to do in Australia, for example, is say that there is no anthropogenic component to the current warming. That is exactly what the current conservative government would want to hear.

However, they are just calling it as they see the evidence and theory show it.

Can you show on piece of evidence to actually back this theory up?

No it is just an interpretation of the evolution of political events.

On the funding issue, funding of climate research is predominantly lavished on those researching issues that emanate from global warming. In Australia, the research is on way that the Government can try to dodge Kyoto (for example, by treatment of sinks etc.). To do this researchers have to operate from within the "circle of belief" in global warming, because at a global level, the line of Global Warming is bunk is [not] open politically, because too many Governments have sold their soul on this.


[edited where shown]

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Drooper

The problem I have with this is that the causality from CO2 concentrations to climate change are fiendishly complex.

It is due to the fact that the climate is fiendishly complex. It is for this reason that the models are useless.
The climate is not only complex, it is chaotic. What drives climate is heat. If we could just cool things down enough, maybe we could get enough simplicity in the system to permit reliable modelling.

Seriously though, taken alone, the basic science behind greenhouse warming is not complicated. You can 'model' it by simple measurements in an actual greenhouse. It's also pretty much a no-brainer that climate is driven by heat.

if we know anything about the global climate it is that it changes over time from natureal causes and due to its own system dynamics. Secondly, it is stable and self equlibrating. That means if you push it one way or another, it will move into a new benign stable form, and not run away to a catastrophic extreme.
What you seem to be saying is that global climate changes over time, but only if the causes are 'natural'. Any complex system may have various states in which it can become relatively stable. That doesn't mean the system cannot be pushed out of such a stable state, just that when that happens, that it will tend to find a new stable state. I think Venus has a pretty stable climate.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Dymanic

The climate is not only complex, it is chaotic.

most readers would have noted that I did describe it as so.


What drives climate is heat. If we could just cool things down enough, maybe we could get enough simplicity in the system to permit reliable modelling.


Seriously though, taken alone, the basic science behind greenhouse warming is not complicated. You can 'model' it by simple measurements in an actual greenhouse. It's also pretty much a no-brainer that climate is driven by heat.

Simple, yes, to the extent that you can theorise that a thicker blanket provides more insulation. However, that gets you nowhere and certainly doesn't give you the evidence you need to support AGW and the policy precription that stems out of the Kyoto protocol.

You ignore the complex, non-linear feedback within the climate, that might mean that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere could lead to negative feedback, from various places, including rising cloud cover, increased bio-mass etc. that stunts most of the affects.

Also, the complexity is at the heart of the supposed changes in climatic phenomena that it is claimed will be the ruin of the world. By that I mean, it is the claims of droughts in Africa, floods in New York,


What you seem to be saying is that global climate changes over time, but only if the causes are 'natural'. Any complex system may have various states in which it can become relatively stable. That doesn't mean the system cannot be pushed out of such a stable state, just that when that happens, that it will tend to find a new stable state. I think Venus has a pretty stable climate.

What you seem to be doing is deliberately miscomprehend.

The climate changes, it always has, but never to any globally catastrophic extreme. Our puny input does and will have an effect, but it is not yet proven that such human input can shift this naturally equillibrating system onto a previously unseen path that is too adverse. Simply put, the forecasts of disaster need to be justified and by much more robust methods than used presently.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Drooper

The climate changes, it always has, but never to any globally catastrophic extreme.
I think that depends entirely on how you define 'catastrophic'. Besides the various ice ages, there is strong evidence that earth's history includes a 'deep freeze' which included ice at the equator. I don't see earth's climate as being necessarily committed to stability for the sake of human convenience. It wouldn't take that much of a rise in sea level to flood New York. Would you say that would qualify as a catastrophe?

Putting food in six billion bellies every day or so relies on a system that is pretty complex itself, and one thing history shows is that this system is delicate. Any significant, rapid change in global climate almost automatically translates to starvation and misery somewhere. Next to that, I just can't see whining about a few bucks. I don't view Kyoto as a magic solution, but I think it might be nice if we could go on record as at least being willing to try, in whatever fumbling, bumbling way.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Dymanic

I think that depends entirely on how you define 'catastrophic'. Besides the various ice ages, there is strong evidence that earth's history includes a 'deep freeze' which included ice at the equator. I don't see earth's climate as being necessarily committed to stability for the sake of human convenience. It wouldn't take that much of a rise in sea level to flood New York. Would you say that would qualify as a catastrophe?

Putting food in six billion bellies every day or so relies on a system that is pretty complex itself, and one thing history shows is that this system is delicate. Any significant, rapid change in global climate almost automatically translates to starvation and misery somewhere. Next to that, I just can't see whining about a few bucks. I don't view Kyoto as a magic solution, but I think it might be nice if we could go on record as at least being willing to try, in whatever fumbling, bumbling way.

Well this is probably a nice place to leave it then.

If the equator freezes over again in then next millenium, I don't think it willcause us too much bother.

It is the spurious predictions that the low lying countries will be overwhlemed by rising oceans in our lifetimes that are the problem with all this.

Any change in global climate will have unpredicable effects on welfare around the world and these will occur over a long time. Maybe global climate change will translate into fuller harvests and increased welfare somewhere - we don't know.

I think you revealed you motives when you proclaim:


but I think it might be nice if we could go on record as at least being willing to try, in whatever fumbling, bumbling way

You have the angst of the wealthy world and you need relief. Well fine, but don't make me pay for the folly.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Drooper

I think you revealed you motives when you proclaim:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I think it might be nice if we could go on record as at least being willing to try, in whatever fumbling, bumbling way
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have the angst of the wealthy world and you need relief. Well fine, but don't make me pay for the folly.
No, you've missed it completely. I'm part of an international conspiracy of evil scientists out to wreck the world economy.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Since you think GW is happening and it is the fault of humans I have a...Very Specific Question: What do you think we as humans should do now to correct the problem that you think we caused? Please be as detailed as you like.


That's a perfectly fair question.

Firstly, I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how to "correct" the problem. We dump about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annualy, so we would have to figure out a way to remove at least that much yearly plus another couble billion tons to actually reverse the effect. That's alot of CO2! There has been some research into fertilizing plankton, with the hope that they would bloom, soak up CO2, then carry the carbon to the bottom of the ocean at the end of their life cycle. Last I heard the tests were inconclusive. But the idea is promising, perhaps in the future we will be able genetically engineer organisms to function as highly efficient carbon sinks.

The other alternative is to switch to altenative fuel sources before the problem gets to bad. This is the most likely scenario, IMHO, and I think this will happen within the next hundred years.

Regarding what to do now, personally I would like to see policy that rewards environmentally friendly actions. I'm always in favor of rewarding good behavior over punishing bad.

How about tax breaks for companies that allow their workers to telecommute? Or no registration fees for zero emission vehicles? Or tax relief for individuals whom do not own a car?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


That's a perfectly fair question.

Firstly, I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how to "correct" the problem. We dump about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annualy, so we would have to figure out a way to remove at least that much yearly plus another couble billion tons to actually reverse the effect. That's alot of CO2! There has been some research into fertilizing plankton, with the hope that they would bloom, soak up CO2, then carry the carbon to the bottom of the ocean at the end of their life cycle. Last I heard the tests were inconclusive. But the idea is promising, perhaps in the future we will be able genetically engineer organisms to function as highly efficient carbon sinks.

The other alternative is to switch to altenative fuel sources before the problem gets to bad. This is the most likely scenario, IMHO, and I think this will happen within the next hundred years.

Regarding what to do now, personally I would like to see policy that rewards environmentally friendly actions. I'm always in favor of rewarding good behavior over punishing bad.

How about tax breaks for companies that allow their workers to telecommute? Or no registration fees for zero emission vehicles? Or tax relief for individuals whom do not own a car?


Thank you for your reply. First I would like to comment on your last paragraph; I believe such things already happen, in California at least.

As far as alternative fuel source if you want to switch a question arises: how fast? Should we abandon the entire oil industry and its by-products (plastics) and move to some alternative source in a year? I don't think you would disagree with a catastrophic damage that would cause. If not that soon, than how soon and to what extent?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Should we abandon the entire oil industry and its by-products (plastics) and move to some alternative source in a year? ... If not that soon, than how soon and to what extent?Some suggestions may be found here (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Some suggestions may be found here (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html)

As I've showed by the link on BBC, the Kyoto is not doing a thing. In fact things are happening in the opposite manner. However, the changes are taking place that means there are negative economic impacts without any positive environmental results.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Grammatron

As I've showed by the link on BBC, the Kyoto is not doing a thing. In fact things are happening in the opposite manner. However, the changes are taking place that means there are negative economic impacts without any positive environmental results.
Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.

Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.

Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Right. First we cripple the thing, then complain that it walks with a limp. We'll never know how effective Kyoto might have been had it gotten the important support it needed, any more than we can know that things would not have been even worse in the absence of even a weakened treaty.

What are you talking about? The article -- which from your response I am going to assume you did not read -- talk about how Europe slips on its target for the second year. Meaning their policies which they want us to implement have no affect what so ever. This has nothing to do with USA.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Kyoto was supposed to be about implementing a structure for change, not about being the end-point of the plan. I don't know how many times I have read people misrepresenting Kyoto, when they ignore the basic premise of it. Many of these same people who rubbish Kyoto would also be backers of the WTO. Tell me how many years that has been going on.

I don't see the point of bringing WTO into this nor do I agree with its concept, so I will ignore that.

You are right, Kyoto is a structure for change, but there are goals that the countries, which implement it, expect to meet, such as CO2 reduction. If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't see the point of bringing WTO into this nor do I agree with its concept, so I will ignore that.

You are right, Kyoto is a structure for change, but there are goals that the countries, which implement it, expect to meet, such as CO2 reduction. If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?

Once you get a process and structure in place, you can then adjust it to suit the requirements. You would also be able to review the actual results of that process. That is, I don't believe the costs to be as high as those that are projected by the doom sayers.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Once you get a process and structure in place, you can then adjust it to suit the requirements. You would also be able to review the actual results of that process. That is, I don't believe the costs to be as high as those that are projected by the doom sayers.

Well it's irrelevant what YOU believe, facts are what's important. You are essentially advocating implementation of a potentially flawed system just to see if it MIGHT do some good.

If you honestly believe humans are causing global warming would you not want to be sure it can be stoped ASAP and no time be wasted?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Europe slips on its target for the second year. Meaning their policies which they want us to implement have no affect what so ever.
"The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012." Your linked article loosely references some 2001 figures and declares the goal unreachable.
This has nothing to do with USA.
Tragedy of the commons.
If they implement the said structure and it produces no result, does it not mean that Kyoto is a flawed "structure for change"?
Based on a single year's figures? Isn't that a bit hasty?
You've seen the figures on what EU emissions would have been otherwise?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well it's irrelevant what YOU believe, facts are what's important. You are essentially advocating implementation of a potentially flawed system just to see if it MIGHT do some good.

If you honestly believe humans are causing global warming would you not want to be sure it can be stoped ASAP and no time be wasted?

You are potentially advocating the continuing use of a potentially flawed system, just because it might not do some harm.

I cannot see any way other than by doing what Kyoto was created to do, develop a process. It's not as if the greenies are going to use force to get this done.

[aerocontrols]

There's an update/response (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html) at the McIntyre and McKitrick site.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
There's an update/response (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html) at the McIntyre and McKitrick site.

David Appell's web site has been tracking the whole mess.

http://www.davidappell.com/

Mann, etal., will not be responding anymore pending a formal published response. Good for them, lets see if M&M can get their response published as well (which is what they should have done from the beginning).

[BobK]

aero,

Thanks for the update.

Having just read the 1st installment of MM's proposed three part response to Mann, I came away with the impression that these two researchers are the type to cross their t's and dot their i's.

The fact that they kept all correspondence and directly downloaded all directories pertinent as soon as Mann made know the location, seems to already have caught Mann using deceptive techniques.

It seems that after making public the location of the data, Mann deleted one file, hid another and added still another.

I don't claim to be able to understand everything in the 1st part of their response to Mann, but I'm starting to get a whiff of something over-ripe about to fall from the tree of IPCC knowledge.

Whether Mann is incorrect or not, is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide. I'm sure there will be many qualified people looking into his newly made known data.

Did no one previously do an extensive audit of his data and methods? I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have done it. You would think they would be rushing to his defense with their audit of his claim.

Mann is supposedly preparing a reply for publication in a journal. Nature I guess. I'm looking forward to reading it as well as MM's future installments, which will likely be up in the near future.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

Having just read the 1st installment of MM's proposed three part response to Mann, I came away with the impression that these two researchers are the type to cross their t's and dot their i's.

Neither of them are researchers.

The fact that they kept all correspondence and directly downloaded all directories pertinent as soon as Mann made know the location, seems to already have caught Mann using deceptive techniques.

Mann has done nothing deceptive, the research is five years old and at this point its not surprising errors were made in providing all of it. What is deceptive is M&M rushing to publish their findings before submitting them to Mann first for review.

It seems that after making public the location of the data, Mann deleted one file, hid another and added still another.

Thats a lie. Mann has nothing to hide, his data and results have already been reviewed, published and independantly verified.

I don't claim to be able to understand everything in the 1st part of their response to Mann, but I'm starting to get a whiff of something over-ripe about to fall from the tree of IPCC knowledge.

And you don't smell anything wrong with M&M original paper, especially since its written by people with no science background? Why give them the benefit of the doubt and not Mann?

Whether Mann is incorrect or not, is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide. I'm sure there will be many qualified people looking into his newly made known data.

Why should they? Its bogus!

Did no one previously do an extensive audit of his data and methods? I haven't heard of anyone claiming to have done it. You would think they would be rushing to his defense with their audit of his claim.

Yes, the original paper was published in "Nature", meaning it was extensively reviewed by scientists prior to publication. The M&M paper was published in an "academic debate" journal, not a science one. Now why, I ask, are you SKEPTICAL of a science paper, authored published and reviewed by other scientists and NOT SKEPTICAL of an unpublished paper written by amateurs? Especially when they have an agenda?
Is it because it reinforces your belief system?

Mann is supposedly preparing a reply for publication in a journal. Nature I guess. I'm looking forward to reading it as well as MM's future installments, which will likely be up in the near future.

And M&M will again stick to publishing on websites and crank journals. Why do you think that is?

[BobK]

Yeti,

Do you really think M&M would put a bald-faced lie in their response, concerning the recent manipulation of files in the quote below?

Don't you think, given the considerable effort they have put into their audit, they would not want to be so easily caught up short?

Doesn't it raise even the slightest possiblity that Mann might, again I say might be trying to thwart further analysis by others?

If you have some concerns, might it not be better to wait and see how the dispute develops?

The apparent manipulation of files raises a red flag in front of me that will not go away. That, along with Mann's evident misrepresentation of the efforts by M&M to acquire the data from Mann. (documented by M&M being astute enough to retain exchanged emails) These concerns give me doubts, that hopefully will be resolved by the scientific community.

If you have no such concerns, I'm sure your unswerving faith in Mann will not be swayed by further discussion.

Clipped from part one of M&M's response.
Events Since MM
Following the identification of UVA as the location of MBH98 data, we downloaded the files pcproxy.txt and pcproxy.mat from UVA, together with the entire contents of ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/. On November 8, 2003, we re-visited this site and discovered the following changes: (1) the file pcproxy.mat had been deleted from Mann’s FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no longer was displayed under the directory, although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file named “mbhfilled.mat” was inserted into the directory. The header in this file reads “Created on: Tue Nov 4 23:37:07 2003.” Interested readers may partly verify (1) and (2) through the following FTP calls: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/ - showing that neither file is listed, but listing the new file; ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/pcproxy.txt - retrieving pcproxy.txt; ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/pcproxy.mat - which does not retrieve pcproxy.mat, formerly located in this directory. We have just reconfirmed these matters (November 11, 2003, 1:46 PM). Given the significance which Mann placed on our alleged use of incorrect data and his insistence that we ought to have relied upon the contents of the UVA site, we are concerned about the deletion from this archive of pcproxy.mat, a file which is right at the center of the current dispute. This is the file which provided evidence of the prior existence of the contested data in the form sent to us, and showed it to be a Matlab product rather than an Excel product. Under the circumstances the deletion of pcproxy.mat, and the removal of pcproxy.txt from the folder directory seems ill-advised. We have posted up the deleted file at www.climate2003.com/data/pcproxy.mat

[Kodiak]

FYI - Volcanos are the real enemy. (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/greenhouse_2000e.htm)

[DialecticMaterialist]

I am somewhat tired of posting on this over and over, but the idea that the Global Warming hypothesis was just "debunked" or made questionable by two rogue "scientists" is just a bit incredible. Like Yeti, I won't jump in until I see some sort of article in a peer reviewed journal.

Like I have pointed out the NAS:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/f6335bf011038bb185256a84005838c7?OpenDocument


Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030102/030102-3.html


Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008C7B2-E060-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21


Royal Society:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/search/websearch.cfm?mainpage=/events/discussion_meetings/reps/feb_clim03.htm


No small hitters, nor types that get into hysterics. Prominent thinkers and scientists such as Michael Shermer and Jared Diamond have voiced their concerns as well.

In fact Diamond has written an article on why certain groups fail to identify problems and often times act too late, the Global Warming Hypothesis is used as an example (as is Eastern Island ecocide):

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_index.html



In short these are big sources, The most reliable I know of. And if someone goes against them, they really need to be packing some heavy artillery. A questionable article that is already being questioned by prominent scientists is not what I would call heavy artillery. That's more like an intellectual pea shooter.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I am somewhat tired of posting on this over and over, but the idea that the Global Warming hypothesis was just "debunked" or made questionable by two rogue "scientists" is just a bit incredible. Like Yeti, I won't jump in until I see some sort of article in a peer reviewed journal.


Damm JREF drinking game. Never should have made it a whole sip for everytime something is called debunked when it isn't.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by BobK

Do you really think M&M would put a bald-faced lie in their response, concerning the recent manipulation of files in the quote below?

Considering their past behavior, yes. Their entire discourse with Mann was based on deception, as they never informed him of their intentions to audit his research.

Don't you think, given the considerable effort they have put into their audit, they would not want to be so easily caught up short?

They put very little effort into their audit. It amounts to sloppy (and wrong) undergraduate homework assignment.

Doesn't it raise even the slightest possiblity that Mann might, again I say might be trying to thwart further analysis by others?

No. The proxies Mann studied were collected by others, Mann has no control over them.

If you have some concerns, might it not be better to wait and see how the dispute develops?

I have no concern with junk science amateurs, funded by the petroleum industry, publishing junk science on the internet. If they have a case, submit the audit to Nature and see if they publish it.
They will never submit it, as I'm fairly sure they know its fraudulent.

The apparent manipulation of files raises a red flag in front of me that will not go away. That, along with Mann's evident misrepresentation of the efforts by M&M to acquire the data from Mann. (documented by M&M being astute enough to retain exchanged emails) These concerns give me doubts, that hopefully will be resolved by the scientific community.

The collated files Mann's associate prepared forM&M contained bad data, so they were deleted. There is no need to keep them around. Mann has since provided M&M with pointers to the raw data so they may collate it themselves.

If you have no such concerns, I'm sure your unswerving faith in Mann will not be swayed by further discussion.


The only "faith" I have is in the scientific method. Which Mann and team has followed and you and M&M have astutely ignored.
All M&M have to do to get me concerned is submit their paper in a SCIENCE journal! Then a team of very smart scientists will pour over their analysis and should it have any merit, they will publish it.

Now I ask you, why do M&M refuse to publish their findings in science journal, Nature for example?

[CapelDodger]

from Grammatron:
What do you think we as humans should do now to correct the problem that you think we caused?
That's not really answerable, since "we as humans" have never done anything in concert and, in fact, have no mechanisms in place to co-ordinate a species-wide policy. One answer might be "Establish political mechanisms so that a species-wide policy could be decided on and implemented", but that's not going to happen in the near future. And if it does happen we've no way of knowing what limitations will have to be accepted before such mechanisms can be created. Kyoto is meant to be a step along this road by establishing the principle of universal action. And it could only happen because it meant absolutely nothing. (Rather like the UN.)

"We" as individuals, interest groups, nations and so on will in the main continue to act in what we see as our self-interest. That perception will change as circumstances change - which they will do rapidly if warming continues at the present rate.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

...a team of very smart scientists will pour over their analysis and should it have any merit, they will publish it.

Now I ask you, why do M&M refuse to publish their findings in science journal, Nature for example?


There is no excuse for this level of ignorance from someone who claims to have faith in scientific method.


By simply following the links earlier in this thread I established:

Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html)

What led you to publish in E&E rather than Nature?

After receiving the MBH98 data from Scott Rutherford and Michael Mann, McIntyre posted a series of observations about curiosa in the data on the internet discussion group climateskeptics. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen invited McIntyre to consider writing up his work for submission and McIntyre agreed. Subsequent to this, McKitrick joined with McIntyre in the analysis and preparation of an article. McKitrick suggested that an article be submitted to Nature and a 1500-word version (to fit the word limit in Nature) was drafted. But after showing it to some scientific colleagues who were not familiar with the issue, we were advised that it was too short a format to convey the scope of the argument. So we chose to write a longer paper first in order to get the full body of material out. It has been suggested to us that we write a letter to Nature summarizing what is spelled out in the longer paper and we are considering this.


N.B. E&E is the Energy and Environment Journal.

This seems to answer your concerns, does it not?

Why didn't you do such a cursory check?

[DavidJames]

"There is no excuse for this level of ignorance from someone who claims to have faith in scientific method."

It appears the word refuse may not have been appropriate. But the fact is they decided not to submit to Nature. It was too short, so the decided to write a longer one and they considering writing a letter to Nature? Sounds to me like they really don't want to submit to Nature. Hmmm, maybe they did refuse.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

There is no excuse for this level of ignorance from someone who claims to have faith in scientific method.

By simply following the links earlier in this thread I established:

N.B. E&E is the Energy and Environment Journal.

This seems to answer your concerns, does it not?

Why didn't you do such a cursory check?

I saw that and it does nothing of the sort. It's a completely bogus and fabricated excuse. Nature published the original paper, there is absolutely no logical reason they could not fit an audit into a similarly sized article. There is also no reason they could not have published in any of a myriad of other SCIENCE journals with less stringent policies! And there is no harm in SUBMITTING it anyway and seeing what the editors have to say.

Instead they choose to publish in E&E, which is NOT reviewed and is NOT a science journal! Why is that? Perhaps because they KNOW their work is fraudulent?

There is no room for debate of there methods. There is a process for research audits and publishing findings. It is immutable. M&M are aware of this and chose to WILLFULLY ignore protocol. They are no more than a pair of agenda driven, fraudulent amateurs.

[EvilYeti]

David Appel has written up a 'final' summary of the affair.


I received a message from Steve McIntyre yesterday asking if I "had any luck identifying the 159 series in question at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I really can't identify them and I'm very knowledgeable about this data."

No, I haven't fully identified all these series, but then I'm a journalist not a scientist, aren't I? More to the point, I'm not the one making any claims about Mann et. al.'s work. McIntyre is.

It seems to me highly incumbent on McIntyre and McKitrick, who are making serious charges in their Energy and Environment paper and who are going to Washington D.C. next week to amplify them, to have their data straight before they proceed.

And it's increasingly clear that they do not have their data straight. In fact, they clearly can't even find all the data they need to properly do their calculations.

Their latest missive reads like a Usenet post, full of accusations and innuendo, and one very far down in the thread at that. Who has the time or desire to parse and analyze every small problem in their life, every inconsistency they think they see? Certainly not me--it's incumbent on them, and on the peer-reviewers at Energy and Environment, to have already done this before publication.

If not, it seems to me the paper should be withdrawn until such time as they do have their data straight.

This is looking more farcical all the time. It's certainly not science as I've ever seen it done--it's the science you sit and do with your graduate advisor when you're just getting started on your research, months before any kind of publication.

McIntyre and McKitrick are trying to catch up on work they should have done long-ago, way before publication. In effect, they're trying to hold on to their claim while at the same time trying to figure out if they're done things right or not. And they’re casting about accusations in the meantime. Frankly it's getting a little embarrassing.

So what's really going on here?

It’s a smokescreen, it appears. Throw enough chaff into the air and hope for misdirection.

The work of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes was peer-reviewed by and published in Nature, one of the best scientific journals in the history of science. The work has been verified by several other groups, including Crowley and Lowrey, and Briffa. (See Figure 2.21 of the IPCC’s TAR, Vol. I.) M&M chose not to challenge MBH's work in Nature, the traditional venue for any challenge, but in a journal that has already shown that it published methodologically flawed science, by an editor who has admitted she’s politically biased against Kyoto, by a publisher who's admitted he'd take industry funding if he could be so lucky as to get it.

Who has the time when there’s so much real and serious science to cover? Who has the inclination to chase down every wild accusation from two non-climate scientists who can't even find all the data they need? What blog writer wants to bore his blog readers to death?

When I see some real substance here, I’ll report it, and I would any real science being done. Increasingly, I don’t see any at all.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I saw that and it does nothing of the sort. It's a completely bogus and fabricated excuse. Nature published the original paper, there is absolutely no logical reason they could not fit an audit into a similarly sized article. There is also no reason they could not have published in any of a myriad of other SCIENCE journals with less stringent policies! And there is no harm in SUBMITTING it anyway and seeing what the editors have to say.

I agree that they should have attempted to publish in Nature. That having been said...

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Instead they choose to publish in E&E, which is NOT reviewed and is NOT a science journal! Why is that? Perhaps because they KNOW their work is fraudulent?

Upon what basis do you make the claim that E&E is not reviewed? They have represented it as a peer reviewed research paper on their website. If you are correct, then they have clearly lied.

What criteria for being a science journal does E&E fail?

Originally posted by EvilYeti
There is no room for debate of there methods. There is a process for research audits and publishing findings. It is immutable. M&M are aware of this and chose to WILLFULLY ignore protocol. They are no more than a pair of agenda driven, fraudulent amateurs.

Heaven help them for bypassing the immutable process of publication. Despite this unforgivable trespass, they still may have discovered errors in Mann. Even if they are no more than a pair of agenda-driven, fraudlent amateurs.

MattJ

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Upon what basis do you make the claim that E&E is not reviewed? They have represented it as a peer reviewed research paper on their website. If you are correct, then they have clearly lied.

I'm sure it's 'peer-reviewed' in the sense the papers are read by other junk science nobodies, but thats not what scientists mean when they say 'review'. To really review a paper, it is picked over with a fine tooth comb by fellow scientists with an equivalent level of expertise in the field in question. Would you care to point out the paleoclimatologist on E&E's staff?

What criteria for being a science journal does E&E fail?

Ummm, how about the fact that it's not listed in the SCI (Science Citations Index), unlike every other science journal on the planet? Why is that?

Heaven help them for bypassing the immutable process of publication. Despite this unforgivable trespass, they still may have discovered errors in Mann. Even if they are no more than a pair of agenda-driven, fraudlent amateurs.

And I may have discovered errors in the theory of realitivity and have proof that the moon landing was flawed. It's true cause I say so. Should every physicist and NASA drop what they are doing to prove me wrong? Of course not, the burden of proof is on me to prove my case in such a manner that others may replicate my work.

Heaven help them indeed, there are going to need it the way things are going.

[EvilYeti]

USA Today has published a correction to the Oct 28 article by Nick Schulz reiterating M&M's claim that Mann's data wasn't available online.

(c) USA TODAY - THURSDAY - November 13, 2003 - 14A


Corrections & Clarifications

In an Oct. 29 Forum article about new research that challenges the findings of an earlier study on global warming, the writer said the data on the original study by University of Virginia assistant professor Michael Mann aren't available online. The data can be accessed at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/.


So M&M are caught in a lie, again. Junk science fraudsters, through and through!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I'm sure it's 'peer-reviewed' in the sense the papers are read by other junk science nobodies, but thats not what scientists mean when they say 'review'. To really review a paper, it is picked over with a fine tooth comb by fellow scientists with an equivalent level of expertise in the field in question. Would you care to point out the paleoclimatologist on E&E's staff?

I am aware of what is required in the peer review process. The editors of the Journal in question select reviewers who are competent to review the paper. "Fine toothed comb" does not enter into it, I suspect, for E&E or for Nature.

I was mostly just interested in getting you to admit what your honest objections were - not that it's not reviewed, but that you don't trust the reviewers to be objective. Considering the nature of the journal in question, it's a much more defensible position, don't you think?

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Ummm, how about the fact that it's not listed in the SCI (Science Citations Index), unlike every other science journal on the planet? Why is that?

That's a requirement to be a science journal? Your logic here is somewhat circular - perhaps a more reasonable objection is that E&E's absence from SCI is an indication that it's not reputable, rather than it's absence is proof that it's not a science journal.

Originally posted by EvilYeti
And I may have discovered errors in the theory of realitivity and have proof that the moon landing was flawed. It's true cause I say so. Should every physicist and NASA drop what they are doing to prove me wrong? Of course not, the burden of proof is on me to prove my case in such a manner that others may replicate my work.

I take it you've visited M&M's webpage. They appear to be attempting to prove their case in just that manner.

Interesting hyperbolic examples, though.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I was mostly just interested in getting you to admit what your honest objections were - not that it's not reviewed, but that you don't trust the reviewers to be objective. Considering the nature of the journal in question, it's a much more defensible position, don't you think?

My honest objection is that papers published in E&E are reviewed by no one other than the editor, Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. Dr Boehmer-Christiansen has admitted to being biased against AGW research and the Kyoto protocol, so I will also admit that she is not objective. This is trumped by the fact that her background is not sufficient to properly judge the merits of the M&M paper as a proper audit of the Mann data.

That's a requirement to be a science journal? Your logic here is somewhat circular - perhaps a more reasonable objection is that E&E's absence from SCI is an indication that it's not reputable, rather than it's absence is proof that it's not a science journal.

If other people reference a paper published in a journal, that journal is going to end up in the SCI. As no one has seen fit to reference a SINGLE publication in E&E in the history of its existence, that is evidence enough for me that their publications have no scientific worth. Oh yeah, and they publish Landscheidt, an astrologer. So yeah, they are teh suk.

I take it you've visited M&M's webpage. They appear to be attempting to prove their case in just that manner.

They are a couple of junk science amateurs. Good for them and their website. They are in the elite company of everyone on the planet with a PC and AOL. When they decide to publish, feel free to PM me.

Interesting hyperbolic examples, though.

Thank you, I think they illustrated the point nicely. Do you have anything of substance, at all, to bring to the debate?

[Drooper]

So it seems to me that the position of Yeti et al is that unless something is published in Nature, it must be completely bogus/wrong/lies - pick your own.


I do remember a wonderful paper on homeopathy that was published in Nature.;)


Seriously, it seems to me that M&M have raised what they see as legitimate questions about the efficacy of the Mann paper - a paper that was held at the centre of COP3 as irrefutable evidence of AGW.

This paper has been published. It is open for rebuttal or correction - in fact it has been invited.

I, as a sceptic, want to see the debate. It seems the AGW supporters, such as Yeti, want anything but. What does that tell you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper
So it seems to me that the position of Yeti et al is that unless something is published in Nature, it must be completely bogus/wrong/lies - pick your own.

Well, you are either wrong or a liar. Take your pick.
If work isn't published, then its status is "unknown". It will remain "unknown" until it is published, at which point we should comment on it. Since the authors refused to publish in a reviewed science journal, it will be forever "unknown". Now, I wonder why they would render such important research invalid by publishing it in the wrong journal? Could be they are agenda driven and knowingly fraudulent?

I do remember a wonderful paper on homeopathy that was published in Nature.;)

And they also published a followup paper that proved the results could not be replicated. Sounds like good science to me! Now why wouldn't M&M publish a similar followup in Nature ?

Seriously, it seems to me that M&M have raised what they see as legitimate questions about the efficacy of the Mann paper - a paper that was held at the centre of COP3 as irrefutable evidence of AGW.

Based on what criteria? That they said so? How are you qualified to judge a audit of Mann's work? Are you a paleclimatologist?

This paper has been published. It is open for rebuttal or correction - in fact it has been invited.

It has not been(and due to the E&E legalese, cannot be) published in a reviewed science journal. Mann, etal., are preparing a full rebuttal for publication, again in a real science journal. And I'm sure M&M will "rebut" that on their website.

You have no idea how science is done, do you?

I, as a sceptic, want to see the debate. It seems the AGW supporters, such as Yeti, want anything but. What does that tell you?

A skeptic (which you are not), would be SKEPTICAL of an unreviewed paper published by two non-scientists in a non-science "journal". Especially since its critical of work done by scientists, reviewed by scientists and published in a science journal.

I'm all for debate, but the participents have to play by the rules for it to have any meaning. M&M refuse to, ergo their argument and conclusions are meaningless.

[shanek]

Man...Even with EvilYeti on ignore, I can tell from the replies that he's still up to his old tricks.

Let me guess: He's also said that the people in question aren't "real" scientists (No True Scotsman fallacy), that the only reason they didn't publish in a journal he personally approves of is because they know they're frauds, has said that those opposing him in this thread know nothing about science, are not skeptics, etc. My guess is that he's continuing his modus operandi of argumetn by authority, refusing to even acknowledge any data which seems to contradict it, choosing instead to belittle the source(s) of that data.

Am I right?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Man...Even with EvilYeti on ignore, I can tell from the replies that he's still up to his old tricks.

Let me guess: He's also said that the people in question aren't "real" scientists (No True Scotsman fallacy),



No, it's not that fallacy.



guess is that he's continuing his modus operandi of argumetn by authority,



Or that either.



Am I right?

You do, however, appear to have acknowledged that your water conservation experiment was wrong.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You do, however, appear to have acknowledged that your water conservation experiment was wrong.

Where, in anywhere other than your deranged mind, is that the case?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Where, in anywhere other than your deranged mind, is that the case?

I worked out the figures, and even in your scenario, with four flushes once a day extra, it still saves water. You did not deny them.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Am I right?

No, as usual.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I worked out the figures, and even in your scenario, with four flushes once a day extra, it still saves water. You did not deny them.

You never presented any figures that I saw.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


A skeptic (which you are not), would be SKEPTICAL of an unreviewed paper published by two non-scientists in a non-science "journal". Especially since its critical of work done by scientists, reviewed by scientists and published in a science journal.

I'm all for debate, but the participents have to play by the rules for it to have any meaning. M&M refuse to, ergo their argument and conclusions are meaningless.

A SKEPTIC loks to the evidence.

All I have seen you do is make appeal to authority, make ad hominem attack (as in this post above) etc.

And I'm not sure what fallacy this falls under:

"M&M refuse [to "play by the rules"], ergo their argument and conclusions are meaningless."

Whichever, it carries no weight at all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


A SKEPTIC loks to the evidence.

All I have seen you do is make appeal to authority, make ad hominem attack (as in this post above) etc.

And I'm not sure what fallacy this falls under:

"M&M refuse [to "play by the rules"], ergo their argument and conclusions are meaningless."

Whichever, it carries no weight at all.

A SKEPTIC also has to realise his limitations. As has already been pointed out in another thread on this subject, an everyday interpretation of a scientific paper may be entirely wrong.

"regional" gas levels for the layman would mean the gas level in that geographic region, for a climatoligist, the height of the atmosphere above sea level. Two completely different things.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A SKEPTIC also has to realise his limitations. As has already been pointed out in another thread on this subject, an everyday interpretation of a scientific paper may be entirely wrong.

"regional" gas levels for the layman would mean the gas level in that geographic region, for a climatoligist, the height of the atmosphere above sea level. Two completely different things.

Granted.

However, a paper that tries to replicate a time series from original data sources and obtains dramtically contrasting results needs to be looked at and treated on its merits.

The Hockey Stick was at the centre of COP3 and has been used again and again to drive opinion and policy on this issue.

M&M have made a startling claim - that it is fundamentally flawed due to poor data. These are errors that would not be picked up in peer review, since such review does not act to replicate either experimentation, nor data construction/manipulation.

This is the big flaw in Yeti's outright dismissal of M&Ms paper. He claims that peer review in a journal such as Nature is the Gold Standard for verifcation of the results and conclusions of any contributiuon to research. However, the process does not do what M&M have done - try to replicate (in their words audit) the original data work.

Here is a classic example:

Benveniste's homeopathy paper was published in Nature, following the normal peer review process. We now know it was complete garbage. The reason it slipped into Nature was because the peer reviewers only read the paper, check for process and, results and conculsions. What they do not do is conduct an investigation into the way any data was obtained, conduct tests on the data to test erros/flaws, or try to replicate any statistical trnaformation or manipulation of the data. In the case of Benveniste, this was eventually done (with the help of Randi) and the results of the paper fell apart.

Now, Benveniste's paper was on a topic almost universally scorned on by scientists. It took little effort to obtain and publish an "audit" of the paper and for this audit to be accepted at face value.

In the case of Mann et al, this is AGW that Nature, as policy has bought into completely. M&M are doing no more than the Nature sponsored audit of Benveniste's paper. Just like Benveniste, Mann and co-authors need to respond to the results.

Bystanders, like Yeti, need to watch the debate unfold. No, more than that, they need to encourage the debate. I am one to encourage the debate.

[a_unique_person]

Yet the failures also provoke revision. The scientific process at work.

M&M, if they are serious about getting their work reviewed, should publish it in a recognised, peer reviewed journal. Not because this will prove it to be true beyond doubt, but because it is one more step in a recognised process that has the best chance of showing it to be true.

Publishing in E&E, which is not a recognised journal, seems to imply their work cannot stand up to standard scrutiny. E&E, if you look at it's publications, seems to specialise in AGW rebuttals. Their bias on this issue makes them questionable, also.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

A SKEPTIC looks to the evidence.

Agreed. Have you?

All I have seen you do is make appeal to authority, make ad hominem attack (as in this post above) etc.

Funny. I seem to remember you casting aspersions on my skepticism in this thread.
And, for the thousandth time, there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority if the indivudal is a recognized expert in the field. Like Mann is in paleoclimatology. You are making and INVALID appeal to authority by claiming that M&M are on to something, because they say so.

And I'm not sure what fallacy this falls under:

"M&M refuse [to "play by the rules"], ergo their argument and conclusions are meaningless."

Whichever, it carries no weight at all.
It means there is a methodolgy to science, if you refuse to adbide by that methodology then you are not doing science. For example, not using a rigid double-blind protocol for experiments. The results may turn out to be valid and reproducible, but as they were obtained in a non-scientific manner they cannot be used to draw conclusions.

In this case, M&M did not follow protocol for an audit (they did not inform the author of the audit or allow a rebuttal prior to publication) and did not publish in a reviewed science journal. I freely admit its possible they may be on to something, just like all the applicants to the million-dollar-challenge may have paranormal abilities, but until they follow protocol and allow some sort of third-party verification I won't buy it.

I've read their analyses, Mann's response and their follow-up's now that they finally figured out where all the proxy data is kept. It's transparently obvious that they have no idea what to do with it, which isn't surprising considering neither of them have a science background.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

However, a paper that tries to replicate a time series from original data sources and obtains dramtically contrasting results needs to be looked at and treated on its merits.

Except M&M haven't done that, they used collated data from one of Mann's assistants which had errors in it. They have been provided with the original data sources, which they are unable to understand. Probably because they are a couple of amateurs.

M&M have made a startling claim - that it is fundamentally flawed due to poor data. These are errors that would not be picked up in peer review, since such review does not act to replicate either experimentation, nor data construction/manipulation.

What about the other independent reconstructions that came to a similar conclusion?


http://hfh.com/~coop/fig1.png


Was that all based on bad data as well? Has M&M produced a seperate audit of the proxy data? If not now do they know everyone else's is flawed?

This is the big flaw in Yeti's outright dismissal of M&Ms paper. He claims that peer review in a journal such as Nature is the Gold Standard for verifcation of the results and conclusions of any contributiuon to research. However, the process does not do what M&M have done - try to replicate (in their words audit) the original data work.

Except you are lying, I didn't dimiss their paper outright at all. Go back and read the thread, I was ambivalent at first and only dismissed it once their biases and flawed methodolgy were made known.
Again, M&M have NOT replicated the work from the original data sources. They don't know how to. Don't you think that makes the case that they are not competent to provide a proper audit of the research in question?

Now, Benveniste's paper was on a topic almost universally scorned on by scientists. It took little effort to obtain and publish an "audit" of the paper and for this audit to be accepted at face value.

And the audit was reviewed an published in Nature, where it should have been. How do you know "little effort" was put into the review of the audit? Were you one of the reviewers?

In the case of Mann et al, this is AGW that Nature, as policy has bought into completely. M&M are doing no more than the Nature sponsored audit of Benveniste's paper. Just like Benveniste, Mann and co-authors need to respond to the results.

Now you are accusing Nature of being biased ?!?!?!?! On what basis do you make that claim, other than it publishes results that contradict your dogmatic religion?
M&M have yet to provide an audit based on the ORIGINAL data sources and PUBLISH it in a SCIENCE JOURNAL. Mann, etal., are publishing a response anyway, in the proper peer reviewed fashion. Will you accept that as the last word? Somehow I doubt it.

Bystanders, like Yeti, need to watch the debate unfold. No, more than that, they need to encourage the debate. I am one to encourage the debate.

If you are such a big fan of debate, why do you encourage cheaters like M&M? Shouldn't debate be honest and rational for it to have any meaning?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If you are such a big fan of debate, why do you encourage cheaters like M&M? Shouldn't debate be honest and rational for it to have any meaning?

There you go with that ad hominem again. You won't sway anybody like that.


The data issues are in the public domain.


1. M&M requested the data from Mann.

2. Mann provided dat.

3. M&M tried to replicate Mann from the original data, but obtained contrasting results.

4. I response, Mann claimed that there was an error(s) in the data that M&M used; he claimed that they should have used his data available from an FTP site. (a bit strange that?)

5. M&M went to FTP sites where Mann kept his data and found that this data (the file properties confirmed that it was contemporaneous with Mann's work and not recently altered) was identical to the data that Mann originally provided them and that they used in there own work.

This is the chain of events and does not indicate that M&M's results were the product of using different original data.


What's wrong with addressing the facts Yeti??

[Drooper]

Oh, and on some of your other points, Yeti.


You seem to be confusing "review" and "audit".

In a journal review, the data is not checked for errors. Neither is any process of data collation or production replicated. I know this from having reviewed Journal articles myself. I am very sure Mann's paper, and any paper submitted to Nature gets the same treatment.


Secondly, I am not "accusing Nature of bias". I simpply highlighted a case that proved my point, vis. data is not checked in the review process and experiments are not replicated. Review is about checking for the efficacy of the theory and its application, the flow to results and the extent to which the conclusions are properly supported.

What I did add was that Benveniste's paper was on a topic that everybody wanted to debunk (for obvious reasons), so there was little obstacle in the way of this happening. Mann's paper is now firmly entrenched, not in science, but in global politics as well. As your own fallacy (ad hominem, appeal to authority) based attacks on M&M prove, thee are significant obstacles to anybody who might find substantive erros in Mann's work.


As a final point, you seem to be a little hysterical about all this. It is not as if Mann's paper was not controversial even before M&M's work. It completely wiped out any temperature record of the medievil warm period - something that instantly made most people curious about the results.

[edited to correct tags]

[Drooper]

One final point on this thread and then I am spent.

I want to give you another example, specific to AGW, where your blind faith in "authority" and "academic review" are badly misplaced.

Here is the background.

As part of COP3, the IPCC needed variables to project CO2 emissions in order to obtain climate forecasts. Part of this process included macroeconomic forecasts for the global economy (note that this is my area of particular academic extpertise). From the growth forecasts came forecast for CO2 emissions, which naturally will rise as incomes and production rise over time.

A range of scenarios were constructed, from low growth to high growth. Low growth, was supposed to give a lower bound to expected CO2 emmission growth.

This task was completed by 53 authors and 89 "expert reviewers".
Let me type that out again for you Yeti. This was subject to expert review by 89 people.

This must be the Gold Standard, should it not Yeti? How could anybody ever question work by 53 expert authors and published by the IPCC and reviewed by 89 expert reviewers.



Here is the problem. It is wrong. Hard as it is to believe, just about any undergradute economist should be able to spot the glaring error in the work, simply by looking at some of the strange results (just like the disappearence of the medievil warm period in Mann's paper).

The result that alerts a redaer to a problem is that the economic growth projections imply that by the end of the century, countries like North Korea, Libya, South Africa, Algeria would be wealthier than the US.

If you accept that this is.. well... unusual, then you dig a bit deeper and audit the data and process. A couple of authors, by the name of Castle and Henderson did this and published their result in, wait for it, Energy and Environment (you still haven't spelt out why anything published in this journal does not even deserve to be read - but I digress).

Without getting bogged down in the detail, the original work made some pretty stupid errors at an early point in the data work and the result was forecast growth rates for the global economy and hence CO2 emissions that were far too high (and this is in the "low growth" scenario).

I think this is worth pointing out, because this is serious and at the heart of IPCC claims and resulting policy. Within the range of forecasts for CO2 emissions driving the IPCC climate forecasts, the "low CO2 growth" scenario is underpinned by ludicriously high economic growth assumption. The lower bound depends on assumptions that would be excessive even for an upper bound.


Just like M&M vs. Mann, there is now some tit-for-tat going on about this issues that is still not resolved. However, the IPCC have presented nothing yet that can satisfactorily counter Castle and Henderson's work. As an expert watching this evolve, my position is that the IPCC work must now be placed in question and the results set aside until this is resolved.



So you see, the review process and authority are not infallible. In fact, when there are people like you around Yeti, who seem to lose all ability to think in the face of this process, it is a massive failing.


This is how The Economist appraised the situation:

Making matters worse, the panel's approach lays great emphasis on peer review of submissions. When the peers in question are drawn from a restricted professional domain—whereas the issues under consideration make demands upon a wide range of professional skills—peer review is not a way to assure the highest standards of work by exposing research to scepticism.


A lack-of-progress report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2189568)

I think that puts the point well.


Anyway, that is long enough. I doubt you'll digest the contents of this, because it is not published in Nature.


[edited to correct spelling]

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

1. M&M requested the data from Mann.

Lets stick to the facts, shall we?

M&M requested a condensed version of the original data, not the original data itself.

2. Mann provided data.

Being a busy guy, Mann had an assisstant collate the data and upload it to an ftp site.

3. M&M tried to replicate Mann from the original data, but obtained contrasting results.

Yes, for several reasons. The most important being that the assisstant made mistakes in the collated data.

4. I response, Mann claimed that there was an error(s) in the data that M&M used; he claimed that they should have used his data available from an FTP site. (a bit strange that?)

Nothing strange in the least. It was M&M that requested the data in a collated form. One of Mann's assisstants made a mistake in collating the data, so rather then risk any further errors he suggested M&M collate the data themselves.

5. M&M went to FTP sites where Mann kept his data and found that this data (the file properties confirmed that it was contemporaneous with Mann's work and not recently altered) was identical to the data that Mann originally provided them and that they used in there own work.

Except thats a lie. McIntyre can't even figure out how to read the raw data on the ftp site, let alone audit it, as evidenced by the following question to David Appell, a science journalist covering this isssue.

I received a message from Steve McIntyre yesterday asking if I "had any luck identifying the 159 series in question at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/ ? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; I really can't identify them and I'm very knowledgeable about this data."

And we are supposed to take his claims of an audit seriously?

This is the chain of events and does not indicate that M&M's results were the product of using different original data.

This a complete fabrication on your part. Anyone can go back and read about the entire debacle on http://www.davidappell.com

What's wrong with addressing the facts Yeti??

Nothing, do you plan doing it anytime soon? You could start my commenting on the figure I've attached above showing other reconstructions that have replicated Mann's findings.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper

You seem to be confusing "review" and "audit".

You seem to be confusing "biased junk science" with "audit".

In a journal review, the data is not checked for errors. Neither is any process of data collation or production replicated. I know this from having reviewed Journal articles myself. I am very sure Mann's paper, and any paper submitted to Nature gets the same treatment.

Yes, including audits. Otherwise who's to say whether the audit followed a correct methodology or not? Especially if the people doing the audit are amateurs? This is why I've said the correct place for M&M to publish would be Nature, or least some other reviewed science journal. Instead they chose to publish in an unreviewed "academic debate" journal. Now why would they do something like that, perhaps they aren't so confident in their results?

Secondly, I am not "accusing Nature of bias". I simpply highlighted a case that proved my point, vis. data is not checked in the review process and experiments are not replicated. Review is about checking for the efficacy of the theory and its application, the flow to results and the extent to which the conclusions are properly supported.

Why don't you comment on the other temperature reconstructions that have replicated Mann's work? Who else has replicated M&M's audit?

What I did add was that Benveniste's paper was on a topic that everybody wanted to debunk (for obvious reasons), so there was little obstacle in the way of this happening. Mann's paper is now firmly entrenched, not in science, but in global politics as well. As your own fallacy (ad hominem, appeal to authority) based attacks on M&M prove, thee are significant obstacles to anybody who might find substantive erros in Mann's work.

I would LOVE Mann to be proven wrong. I have no vested interest in supporting AGW. Unfortunately, non of the "skeptics" seem to have any sort of understanding of science or the scientific method. The vast majority of them also have ties to the oil industry, which does little to answer questions I have of any potential bias on their part. I'm reminded of the tobacco lobby's scientists that have "proven" cigarretes don't cause cancer.

As a final point, you seem to be a little hysterical about all this. It is not as if Mann's paper was not controversial even before M&M's work. It completely wiped out any temperature record of the medievil warm period - something that instantly made most people curious about the results.

[edited to correct tags]

Thats your opinion, like everything else you've posted in this thread. And wrong, as usual. I will admit to being highly pissed off that a couple of biased amateurs can slander the work of a real scientist so easily, but that is getting off topic.

Regarding the Medieval warm period, the prevailing theory these days is that there was no such thing. Go read the following paper for more details.

Bradley, R. S., M. K. Hughes, H. F. Diaz, 2003: Climate in Medieval time. Science, 302, 404-405.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ABSTRACT

Climate in Medieval time is often said to have been as warm as, or warmer than, it is "today." Such a statement might seem innocuous. But for those opposed to action on global warming, it has become a cause célèbre: If it was warmer in Medieval time than it is today, it could not have been due to fossil fuel consumption. This (so the argument goes) would demonstrate that warming in the 20th century may have been just another natural fluctuation that does not warrant political action to curb fossil fuel use.

Careful examination of this argument must focus on three issues: the timing of the purported temperature anomaly, its geographical extent, and its magnitude relative to temperatures in the 20th century. The latter issue is especially important, because advocates of a warm Medieval episode commonly argue that solar irradiance was as high in Medieval time as in the 20th century. They maintain that 20th-century global warming was largely driven by this solar forcing, not by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

The balance of evidence does not point to a High Medieval period that was as warm as or warmer than the late 20th century. However, more climate records are required to explain the likely causes for climate variations over the last millennium and to fully understand natural climate variability, which will certainly accompany future anthropogenic effects on climate.


Maybe you should stop getting your "science" from John Daly's website?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Drooper
One final point on this thread and then I am spent.

Sigh, looks like one more "Drooper Debunking" for me today!

I want to give you another example, specific to AGW, where your blind faith in "authority" and "academic review" are badly misplaced.

I have faith in science and the scientific method. Peer review is part of the process buddy, like it or not.

Here is the problem. It is wrong. Hard as it is to believe, just about any undergradute economist should be able to spot the glaring error in the work, simply by looking at some of the strange results (just like the disappearence of the medievil warm period in Mann's paper).

Thats fine and dandy, but considering you are clueless about the current research on the Medieval warm period I don't believe what you have to say on economics either. Sorry dude, you are going to have to research your position a bit better if you want anyone here to take you seriously.

The result that alerts a redaer to a problem is that the economic growth projections imply that by the end of the century, countries like North Korea, Libya, South Africa, Algeria would be wealthier than the US.

I've also seen economic cost projections of the Kyoto protocol in the 18 quadrillion dollar range. Which leads me to distrust these anti-Kyoto projections.

If you accept that this is.. well... unusual, then you dig a bit deeper and audit the data and process. A couple of authors, by the name of Castle and Henderson did this and published their result in, wait for it, Energy and Environment (you still haven't spelt out why anything published in this journal does not even deserve to be read - but I digress).

Is an unreviewed non-science journal published by an agenda-driven editor. Seeing as it has zero standards for what it publishes I personally don't care to read it, much like I don't care to read the "Weekly World News".
The fact that they have published cranks like Landscheidt, a career astrologer, doesn't help their reputation either.

Without getting bogged down in the detail, the original work made some pretty stupid errors at an early point in the data work and the result was forecast growth rates for the global economy and hence CO2 emissions that were far too high (and this is in the "low growth" scenario).

Why don't you provide some references to this so the forum may persuse the results themselves? Considering the amount of disinformation you have provided in this thread you'll have to forgive me if I question your conclusion.

I think this is worth pointing out, because this is serious and at the heart of IPCC claims and resulting policy. Within the range of forecasts for CO2 emissions driving the IPCC climate forecasts, the "low CO2 growth" scenario is underpinned by ludicriously high economic growth assumption. The lower bound depends on assumptions that would be excessive even for an upper bound.

Except the lower bound of the IPCC climate forecasts is less then our current emissions! How is forecasting that our CO2 emissions might DECREASE over the next 100 years being "excessive"? Sounds like C&H are just as full of baloney as M&M!

So you see, the review process and authority are not infallible. In fact, when there are people like you around Yeti, who seem to lose all ability to think in the face of this process, it is a massive failing.

Yeah, whatever. On what basis do you say the IPCC conclusions are just "wrong"? Because a paper in E&E says so? How is that not an "argument from authority"? Why are you so confident in Castle and Henderson?
Oh yeah, they reinforce your dogmatic belief system.

This is how The Economist appraised the situation:

I think that puts the point well.

Of course, peer-review is a flawed methodology because an op-ed piece in the Economist says so. I stand in awe of your impeccable references! ;)

Anyway, that is long enough. I doubt you'll digest the contents of this, because it is not published in Nature.


Yeah, I have this bad habit of getting science from trusted sources of science. When will I ever learn?

[BobK]

Drooper,

Thank you for the thoughtfully reasoned posts. I enjoyed reading them. I also think your pretty much on the mark.

If you haven't already noticed, trying to discuss something with yeti gets tends to get old. His chronic use of ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority don't make for a very interesting discussion. Not to mention misrepresentations of statements by others and throwing in exaggerations like the following statement by him.


Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've also seen economic cost projections of the Kyoto protocol in the 600 quadrillion dollar range. Which leads me to distrust these anti-Kyoto projections.

Now if I threw out a figure like $600 quadrillion at least I'd try to provide a link to where I got the figure. I don't think we will see yeti providing one any time soon.

The largest figure I've seen involved with Kyoto is the $18 quadrillion figure I cited in my opening post. According to the article, IPCC came up with that figure. Not the people in the anti-Kyoto camp.

If he can't provide a link, I can only assume he was intending to use mine and exaggerated it by a factor of 33.3. Seems like I might have found a way to gauge his veracity. Let's see now. Dividing 100% veracity by 33.3, comes out to his veracity being about 3% of content. Might well be a valid assessment, unless of course he can come up with a link that cites his figure. I'm perfectly willing to adjust my veracity gauge if necessary.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK
Drooper,

Thank you for the thoughtfully reasoned posts. I enjoyed reading them. I also think your pretty much on the mark.

If you haven't already noticed, trying to discuss something with yeti gets tends to get old. His chronic use of ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority don't make for a very interesting discussion. Not to mention misrepresentations of statements by others and throwing in exaggerations like the following statement by him.


An appeal to authority is actually what you are doing. It is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy when you refer to people who are not recognised experts, and trust what they say. This is precisely what M&M are doing, and you are trusting them. Yeti is referring to trusting information that has come through the scientific process, which has been shown to be the best way yet to come to scientific truth.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


An appeal to authority is actually what you are doing. It is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy when you refer to people who are not recognised experts, and trust what they say. This is precisely what M&M are doing, and you are trusting them. Yeti is referring to trusting information that has come through the scientific process, which has been shown to be the best way yet to come to scientific truth.

Maybe you could point me to where I said I fully trust M&M's assessment. Just quote me in context is all I ask.

[BobK]

Just thought I'd bump this thread to give a small demonstration of yeti's veracity.

Three post up, I quote part of yeti's post just above mine.

He makes the absurd statement of fact, that he has seen a figure of 600 quadrillion dollars as the projected cost of Kyoto. That's about 8 paragraphs into his post.

Now this is a lie. I only called it an exaggeration because I usually try to be somewhat tactful in my posts. But he really did state it as a fact.

I wouldn't be inclined to make any more of it until I realized what he did after I called on him to link to the figure.

He never posted again in the thread, but more than 24hrs later he took the trouble to edit his post. Lo and behold, today I read his edited post and find he has changed his statement to say 18 quadrillion instead of his original 600 quadrillion.

He gives no reason for the edit, but you would think that anybody of any integrity would have noted the reason for the edit, since it reflects directly on the post that follows it. Mine.

This leaves me looking like I've misquoted him for some unknown reason.

This is just another one of the juvenile things that yeti does to try to make himself look good.

That, along with personal attacks, (somewhere in the thread he called me ignorant) which I simply ignored, constantly misrepresenting other posters positions, ignoring pointed questions from others when they're not convenient, and chronic appeals to authority, leaves me with the feeling that he isn't a very open-minded person.

Maybe as he matures he will become better at exchanging ideas with others instead of twisting things to what he wishes the discussion was about.

For those of you that haven't read this thread, most of it is pretty good, with some exceptions.

By the way. I voted yes in the poll yeti posted. At the present time I have no reason to adjust my veracity gauge concerning yeti. It's still at 3% of content.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


Maybe you could point me to where I said I fully trust M&M's assessment. Just quote me in context is all I ask.

You don't trust their assessment then?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by BobK
The largest figure I've seen involved with Kyoto is the $18 quadrillion figure I cited in my opening post. According to the article, IPCC came up with that figure. Not the people in the anti-Kyoto camp.

The link you gave in your OP:

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-28/s_9820.asp

doesn't say that the cost associated with Kyoto is $18 quadrillion, it's the maximum projected total cost over the next 100 years. FYI Kyoto runs until 2012. And this figure is a bit misleading - as it says in the article:

The IPCC says all but one scenario for climate costs — the $18 quadrillion tag — would cut world GDP by 1 percent or less by 2050. "It has negligible impacts on the projected economic growth," the IPCC said in a report this month.

Even the strictest constraints would brake GDP by only 4.5 percent in 2050. Quadrillions of dollars apparently evaporate because they start in 1990 dollars and get eroded by inflation.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You don't trust their assessment then?

The post that you quoted was a challenge to you to point out where I was using them as "an appeal to authority".

That was what you asserted in your last post before you left the thread.

I can only assume you left the thread before, because you found out you were incorrect in your assertion and didn't want to admit to the error. Or you intentionally misrepresented my position because that is your nature. Which was it? Error or nature. Or show me where I used them as an "appeal to authority".

You seem to be on the same wavelength as yeti when it comes to misrepresenting other people's posts.

I take no one source as being infallible.

If you read my posts in this thread you wouldn't have to ask, and I think you did read them.

Maybe english is too hard for you to comprehend? What's your native language?

I simply think their audit deserves futher investigation and so does Mann's hockeystick graph. After all, Mann did do away with the medieval warming period that was generally accepted by researchers in many fields.

Are you even curious?

[BobK]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


The link you gave in your OP:

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-10-28/s_9820.asp

doesn't say that the cost associated with Kyoto is $18 quadrillion, it's the maximum projected total cost over the next 100 years. FYI Kyoto runs until 2012. And this figure is a bit misleading - as it says in the article:
quote:
The IPCC says all but one scenario for climate costs — the $18 quadrillion tag — would cut world GDP by 1 percent or less by 2050. "It has negligible impacts on the projected economic growth," the IPCC said in a report this month.

Even the strictest constraints would brake GDP by only 4.5 percent in 2050. Quadrillions of dollars apparently evaporate because they start in 1990 dollars and get eroded by inflation.


Rather nit-picky saying that Kyoto will only go until 2012. It's intended to be an ongoing process after that. Changing the name later doesn't change the proposed process.

I'll grant you that the $18quad figure is the IPCC estimate of the upper bound of costs. Their lower bound is said to be in the 100's of trillions of dollars. Have you ever known any large government program to come in under the estimates?

If you read my other posts, such as on page two you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


The post that you quoted was a challenge to you to point out where I was using them as "an appeal to authority".

That was what you asserted in your last post before you left the thread.

I can only assume you left the thread before, because you found out you were incorrect in your assertion and didn't want to admit to the error. Or you intentionally misrepresented my position because that is your nature. Which was it? Error or nature. Or show me where I used them as an "appeal to authority".

You seem to be on the same wavelength as yeti when it comes to misrepresenting other people's posts.

I take no one source as being infallible.

If you read my posts in this thread you wouldn't have to ask, and I think you did read them.

Maybe english is too hard for you to comprehend? What's your native language?

I simply think their audit deserves futher investigation and so does Mann's hockeystick graph. After all, Mann did do away with the medieval warming period that was generally accepted by researchers in many fields.

Are you even curious?

Let us see them get their paper published in a real scientific journal, for a start. The review process doesn't mean that the reviewers agree with what they claim, but it will put their methods open to scrutiny.

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by BobK

Rather nit-picky saying that Kyoto will only go until 2012. It's intended to be an ongoing process after that. Changing the name later doesn't change the proposed process.

Well, I feel that it is important to make that clear. Someone reading that Kyoto will cost up to $18 quadrillion dollars might be misled into thinking that it will cost that much until 2012, with more costs on top for the rest of the process. It is also important to point out that even countries that have ratified the Kyoto treaty are not obliged to continue the process after this date. So if the costs are too large or if the science starts to say something different then countries can pull out later.

I'll grant you that the $18quad figure is the IPCC estimate of the upper bound of costs. Their lower bound is said to be in the 100's of trillions of dollars. Have you ever known any large government program to come in under the estimates?

That's the cost to the world economy over 100 years. I don't think you can compare it directly to the cost of a large government program, especially if you take inflation into account. And as the article points out, if you look at the percentage change in GDP growth (which is probably a more instructive measure) , there isn't actually very much impact.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?


You ignored the request. Is it so much to ask that you answer BobK concerning your accusation that he is appealing to authority?

You made the claim. Please back it up. I can't find a single place in this thread where he appealed to authority.

YOU on the other hand have done so frequently.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


The post that you quoted was a challenge to you to point out where I was using them as "an appeal to authority".

That was what you asserted in your last post before you left the thread.

I can only assume you left the thread before, because you found out you were incorrect in your assertion and didn't want to admit to the error. Or you intentionally misrepresented my position because that is your nature. Which was it? Error or nature. Or show me where I used them as an "appeal to authority".

You seem to be on the same wavelength as yeti when it comes to misrepresenting other people's posts.

I take no one source as being infallible.

If you read my posts in this thread you wouldn't have to ask, and I think you did read them.

Maybe english is too hard for you to comprehend? What's your native language?

I simply think their audit deserves futher investigation and so does Mann's hockeystick graph. After all, Mann did do away with the medieval warming period that was generally accepted by researchers in many fields.

Are you even curious?

Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.


Thats twice now that you have replied to the same message by BobK where he asks that you back up your accusation that he was making an apeal to authority.

Thats twice now that you did not back up that accusation.

"Appeal to Authority" is a lofty concept comming from a person who commits Ad Hominems.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


Thats twice now that you have replied to the same message by BobK where he asks that you back up your accusation that he was making an apeal to authority.

Thats twice now that you did not back up that accusation.

"Appeal to Authority" is a lofty concept comming from a person who commits Ad Hominems.

I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

Really?

And the issue here is possible poor statistical manipulation leading flawed conclusions. And Mann's qualification in this area is what exactly? An unpublished amateur?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Really?

And the issue here is possible poor statistical manipulation leading flawed conclusions. And Mann's qualification in this area is what exactly? An unpublished amateur?

Amateurs in this area. If they are so sure of their work, they should put it up for publishing in a relevant journal, not some hokey little rag.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Taking my name in vain.

I am also an econometrician with considerable experience working with large scale macreconometric models. These are not disimilar to the GEMs used to make many of the predictions about future climatic conditions. So I know how ropey they are.

What they are modelling are two completely different things. One is a self aware, living organism with capability to change it's environment, the other is a system that is subject only to the laws of physics.

[BobK]

I'll handle your quotes of my post in reverse order.

Why you quoted my post in this post of your's is beyond me. You address nothing you've quoted.

Give a little consideration to those of us that have limited bandwidth.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Drooper is an economist. The polite exchanges between GW 'skeptics' means nothing more than schoolchildren debating supermans powers.
LOL
I don't understand why you even mention Drooper here, his name hadn't even come up when you posted. Maybe you're alluding to his super-human powers?
I really don't think you'll get much support from him. He seems to be the type that looks rationally at both sides.

For some real information from real scientists, this is an excellent link.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I frankly don't see why anyone would give much credence to your opinion when you exhibit indecision in answering the simple question I asked. Are you even curious?

If you know so little about yourself, how could anyone rely on anything you post?

Hmm. Here's a link for you.
Let's see what Dr. Brian Tucker for 20 years Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research has to say about the global warming debate.Text of Ockham's Razor interview (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm)

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Let us see them get their paper published in a real scientific journal, for a start. The review process doesn't mean that the reviewers agree with what they claim, but it will put their methods open to scrutiny.

They have posted their methodology on their website. To date no one to my knowledge other than Mann and associates(prejudice?) has refuted it, and Mann's simply made assertions and presented little or no facts. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas also did a study that calls Mann's data analysis into question.

As I have said before, the scientific process is all we have, and it has proven to be amazingly robust. Why does it suddenly fail in the area of GW?

The scientific process still works but GW has been taken over by the political process and many scientists disagree with the political assertions and assumptions.

[BobK]

Even though it was a reply to rockoon, I'll chime in here since it seems to be yet another attack on me personally.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't recall doing any to anyone who hasn't done them to me first.
You failed to show where I was appealing to authority. You admit no error in your assertion on that point. When called to task by me, you give no reasonable defense. One can only assume that it is the nature of your character to do such things.

The title of the thread says it all, Kyoto debunked, based on the research of two unpublished amateurs.

As pointed out near the top of page two, the title of the referenced article was "Kyoto Debunked"

My thanks to rockoon for defending me.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

Mighty big assertion here. Maybe you could provide a link to what was correct?

edit...
add words "to what was correct"

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK
I'll handle your quotes of my post in reverse order.

Why you quoted my post in this post of your's is beyond me. You address nothing you've quoted.

Give a little consideration to those of us that have limited bandwidth.



I frankly don't see why anyone would give much credence to your opinion when you exhibit indecision in answering the simple question I asked. Are you even curious?

If you know so little about yourself, how could anyone rely on anything you post?

Hmm. Here's a link for you.
Let's see what Dr. Brian Tucker for 20 years Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research has to say about the global warming debate.Text of Ockham's Razor interview (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or180896.htm)

The staff of that division were glad to see the end of that dinosaur. They all agree with the current scientific consensus. The models confirm the current trends and have been shown to be robust and reliable.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


Mighty big assertion here. Maybe you could provide a link to what was correct?

http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


The scientific process still works but GW has been taken over by the political process and many scientists disagree with the political assertions and assumptions.

Some oddball scientists who can't get their claims published, because their methodology won't stand up. Note, that even if the reviewers did not agree with their claims, they could still be published, if the claims were based on sound science. This has not been the case. The article you quote here being a prime example.

Could you provide some evidence to your claim that the GW area has been taken over by the political process? What is it about GW scientists that makes them different to others? Where exactly is the scientific process breaking down in the work they are doing?

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The staff of that division were glad to see the end of that dinosaur. They all agree with the current scientific consensus. The models confirm the current trends and have been shown to be robust and reliable.

My, my, my.

This time a personal attack on a person evidently eminent in the field.

Followed by your intimate knowledge of the views of others.

Are you a mind reader?

This is becoming rather sad.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/climatechange.html

complete with FAQ http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm

I see nothing there that says the climate models are correct. If you can't provide a direct quote, with link, I can only assume it's your viewpoint.

The viewpoint of someone that can't even take a position on whether they're curious about the MM vs Mann dispute, doesn't deserve consideration from me.

I did find this in your linked FAQ.

Bold is mine.

Is greenhouse just a theory?
Yes and no! The way in which greenhouse gases affect climate is based on observations and scientific interpretations, as is the evidence that human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The way in which these increases will affect our future climate is, and can only be, the result of theoretical calculations. However, there is unequivocal evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide alone has risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to approximately 360 ppm. This will have an effect on the world's climate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of that effect.

Not much certitude there.

Where did you get your's?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


I see nothing there that says the climate models are correct. If you can't provide a direct quote, with link, I can only assume it's your viewpoint.

The viewpoint of someone that can't even take a position on whether they're curious about the MM vs Mann dispute, doesn't deserve consideration from me.

I did find this in your linked FAQ.

Bold is mine.



Not much certitude there.

Where did you get your's?

They are scientists, of course they are going to put in their expected error bounds. I know someone personally who works at DAR, he is now one of the joint leaders of the team that is researching GW. Like I said, they were glad to see the end of a dinosaur who could not face up to scientific facts. He was the only person in his department who actually held that view.


From the FAQ.



How do scientists work out what the climate is going to be like in future?
Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.



This says it all. They program global warming into the model and then watch the model warm up. Big suprise that it warms up, right? Read it slowly -- they set up the model so that global warming exists and then they let it run.

What conclusions can be derived from such a model? Certainly not the conclusion that global warming is real or that man is causing it.


Quick!! before its too late! Our model shows that if global warming is real, then global warming is real!

[BobK]

aup,

Here's your quoted text with my comments.


How do scientists work out what the climate is going to be like in future? Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

likely? What is their definition of likely? 51%, 75%, 100%??? Sounds like a long way from correct to me. Not only that, but they assume global warming will continue before they even run the model. Talk about self-fullfilling prophecies.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Day to day, season to season? No mention of year to year or century to century that I could see.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate? Adequately? What percentage does that carry with it. What about processes they haven't included in their models. Like solar radiation. I see no mention of external influences on our climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Whay are two or more simulations necessary if the models are accurate. Which of the many models from varying institutions that disagree with each other is the correct one? Why do they continually work to improve the model if it's already correct? Simply award the Nobel Prize and be done with it.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.

They study geologic timescales, but make no assertions about the accuracy of their model over such timescales. They're using the word "may" now. I believe that carries a range of 0% to 99% for accuracy


This was your statement of fact, just in case you forgot.

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.

Sorry, I don't see them saying that at all.

No reference, no credibility.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


This says it all. They program global warming into the model and then watch the model warm up. Big suprise that it warms up, right? Read it slowly -- they set up the model so that global warming exists and then they let it run.

What conclusions can be derived from such a model? Certainly not the conclusion that global warming is real or that man is causing it.


Quick!! before its too late! Our model shows that if global warming is real, then global warming is real!


No, that is the interpreation you have placed on what they are doing.

They do, however, have to start with a premise. Eg, I wonder if smoking is related to the increase in cancer rates. A properly designed experiment will remove the inbuilt biases. Hence, the scientific process with it's review process.s

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


They are scientists, of course they are going to put in their expected error bounds. I know someone personally who works at DAR, he is now one of the joint leaders of the team that is researching GW. Like I said, they were glad to see the end of a dinosaur who could not face up to scientific facts. He was the only person in his department who actually held that view.

From the FAQ.



Let's see now. You're saying that now that the heretic is gone, everyone in the dept. holds the same view on GW?

That global warming will continue unless we do something about it?

Starting with an assumption held by all, and writing a computer model to prove it is supposed to be an objective way to do science?

Surely you jest.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No, that is the interpreation you have placed on what they are doing.

They do, however, have to start with a premise. Eg, I wonder if smoking is related to the increase in cancer rates. A properly designed experiment will remove the inbuilt biases. Hence, the scientific process with it's review process.s

Note:

A) It is their interpretation of what they are doing. Thanks for the link!

B) A computer model is not a scientific experiment.

[BobK]

Good point on the built in bias, rockoon.

You beat me to it.

[BobK]

When are they going to do a double-blind study of their computer models?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


Note:

A) It is their interpretation of what they are doing. Thanks for the link!

B) A computer model is not a scientific experiment.

If you would only read the link, you would see that it accurately models the past behaviour of the atmosphere, hence, it should accurately model the future. Do you think they are complete idiots?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


Let's see now. You're saying that now that the heretic is gone, everyone in the dept. holds the same view on GW?

That global warming will continue unless we do something about it?

Starting with an assumption held by all, and writing a computer model to prove it is supposed to be an objective way to do science?

Surely you jest.

No, that is just what the scientific process and their research is leading them to believe. Do you think that for some strange reason, only incompetent scientists get a job at this establishment, and similar ones around the world?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


Let's see now. You're saying that now that the heretic is gone, everyone in the dept. holds the same view on GW?

That global warming will continue unless we do something about it?

Starting with an assumption held by all, and writing a computer model to prove it is supposed to be an objective way to do science?

Surely you jest.

Can you start any sort of scientific endeavour without an hypothesis or a question?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you would only read the link, you would see that it accurately models the past behaviour of the atmosphere, hence, it should accurately model the future. Do you think they are complete idiots?

In short, just because it accurately models past climate (which is debatable anyways, which they admit) that in no way means it will accurately model future climates.

For any finite set of past data points collected from any source, there exists an infinite set of construction rules that will perfectly model the data set. But only one of them is the right set of rules that will flawlessly continue to predict future data points.

Brush up on information theory.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


In short, just because it accurately models past climate (which is debatable anyways, which they admit) that in no way means it will accurately model future climates.

For any finite set of past data points collected from any source, there exists an infinite set of construction rules that will perfectly model the data set. But only one of them is the right set of rules that will flawlessly continue to predict future data points.

Brush up on information theory.

The are modelling based on well known basic principles of physics. The changes that have been predicted by their models are happening. The only explanation for the changes that are accurately predicted by their models are those that incorporate changes introduced by man to the environment.

Once again, do you think they are idiots? People around the world are reviewing their work, using the well established scientific process using long established principles of physics and mathematics.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The are modelling based on well known basic principles of physics. The changes that have been predicted by their models are happening. The only explanation for the changes that are accurately predicted by their models are those that incorporate changes introduced by man to the environment.

Which changes are acurately predicted? You still haven't given a reference to your assertion that the models are correct. Which models are you talking about? They all give different figures.


Once again, do you think they are idiots? People around the world are reviewing their work, using the well established scientific process using long established principles of physics and mathematics.

And people around the world are coming to the conclusion that the methodology they are using is still very inaccurate. What else can people think if the models are inconsistent with each other? These modelers have a nice little earner going for them. Why would they ever say there doesn't appear to be a problem? Don't you think that might negatively impact their funding?

[a_unique_person]

No you come out with a slander against them that has absolutely no basis in anything other than cynical suspicion.

They have to justify all their funding to a conservative government in Australia that would love much more to be told that GW is a fraud. I can pretty well guarantee that if they could promise to do this, they would find funding much easier to come by. Instead, they just tell it like it is. The interesting thing is that after they put their case to the minister responsible, even known economic and political conservatives, the funding still comes through. Perhaps they have convinced him that ignorance is not a rational stance to take.

The models are getting better all the time. The thing that is surprising them is that change is happening at a faster rate than they expected. And once the change cylce starts, it will keep on going for many years, even if we stop producing all GW gases tomorrow.

What I don't understand is, people are quite happy to accept the research of many fields of science, with the appropriate levels of scientific review and proof, and now use everyday items, that benefit from this fundamental research.

However, when the issue is GW, the scientists are suddenly just a shallow bunch of money grubbing hoaxers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


In short, just because it accurately models past climate (which is debatable anyways, which they admit) that in no way means it will accurately model future climates.

For any finite set of past data points collected from any source, there exists an infinite set of construction rules that will perfectly model the data set. But only one of them is the right set of rules that will flawlessly continue to predict future data points.

Brush up on information theory.

I suppose you think the moon landing was a hoax, then. How could they have ever expected the rocket to get up there and back, just because it was pointed in the right direction.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Can you start any sort of scientific endeavour without an hypothesis or a question?

The correct way to attack the situation is to simply say let's write a program to emulate the climate. We'll know we have it pretty much right when it is consistently accurate over hundreds or thousands of years past.

You don't start by saying let's write a computer model of the climate to see if global warming is going to continue. You've just introduced a subconscious bias to the project. And if your future funding is somewhat dependent on discovery of a problem that is necessary to correct, that may also introduce a subconscious bias.

Computer modeling is not the science of the real world. Real world science consists of discovering how real things, particles etc. interact.

Computer modeling is an attempt to emulate in the virtual world, what happens in the real world. This is can only be done by plugging into the program the correct values and proportions of all possible interactions that happen in the real world.

This is simply not possible today for various reasons. All possible known interactions in the real world have not been accurately defined. There are probably interactions of which we are not aware. Computer processing power is sadly insufficient to the task. Human errors of commision or ommision in coding cannot be ruled out no matter how many tests you run. Look at the state of the currently available software.

The only thing they can do today is, try to plug in the best knowlege they have(in some cases sparse) on as many of the major interactions as is possible to compute today. From this they hope to come up with something that in some ways resembles reality.

If there are errors in their input values there are going to errors in the output. I'm sure you must have heard the acronym GIGO, garbage in garbage out. Now, I'm not saying that everything they put in is garbage, but given the uncertain accuracy that must exist in the relationships of some of the interactions, along with leaving out some, due to lack of computing power, some of their calculations are going to be done with inaccurate relationships. This means the longer the runtime of the simulation, the greater the compounding of the inaccuracy. An error of 1% in a simulation of 1 year which might be considered insignificant over that time span, would become an error of 270% on a simulation of 100 years. No longer an insignificant figure. 1.01^100

Then you have the problem of what direction the bias in the inaccuracy goes. Is it high or is it low? If they knew for sure, they would have used the correct relationships in the first place and removed the inaccuracy.

Frankly, the large differences between computer models suggests they're not even close yet.

It is reasons such as these that makes your unswerving faith in computer models totally at odds with what I perceive the situation to be.

Since the US and Australia aren't signing on, I believe that Russia signing on to Kyoto with the other European nations would be a great boost to both the US and Australian economies for at least a couple of years. Their economies will likely go in the tank, the driving up of prices, the frauds committed and the scams run with carbon credits will be good for both of our countries. It might even be a couple of years before the whole protocol blows up in their faces.

Logically viewing it though, I think the whole thing is simply a boondoggle and should never be passed.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No you come out with a slander against them that has absolutely no basis in anything other than cynical suspicion.

They have to justify all their funding to a conservative government in Australia that would love much more to be told that GW is a fraud. I can pretty well guarantee that if they could promise to do this, they would find funding much easier to come by. Instead, they just tell it like it is. The interesting thing is that after they put their case to the minister responsible, even known economic and political conservatives, the funding still comes through. Perhaps they have convinced him that ignorance is not a rational stance to take.

You seem to have view of why the government puts as much money into climate reasearch as they do that is opposite mine.
It seems to me the advocates use the press to scare the population. The government doesn't want unrest in the population so they fund further study. If the advocates were to say there is no problem the government would cut back on funding, simply because the population doesn't care if there is no problem. It seems ludicrous to me that the government would make funding easier if there were no problem. Frankly, I think my perception is closer to reality.

The models are getting better all the time. The thing that is surprising them is that change is happening at a faster rate than they expected. And once the change cylce starts, it will keep on going for many years, even if we stop producing all GW gases tomorrow.
The models are getting better? I won't argue that point, but it seems to me you were claiming just a few posts ago that they are correct. Did you change your mind?

What I don't understand is, people are quite happy to accept the research of many fields of science, with the appropriate levels of scientific review and proof, and now use everyday items, that benefit from this fundamental research.

However, when the issue is GW, the scientists are suddenly just a shallow bunch of money grubbing hoaxers.

On this point I partially agree with you. You don't seem to understand. Could it be the part about "appropriate levels of scientific review and proof"?

[a_unique_person]

You seem to have view of why the government puts as much money into climate reasearch as they do that is opposite mine.
It seems to me the advocates use the press to scare the population. The government doesn't want unrest in the population so they fund further study. If the advocates were to say there is no problem the government would cut back on funding, simply because the population doesn't care if there is no problem. It seems ludicrous to me that the government would make funding easier if there were no problem. Frankly, I think my perception is closer to reality.



OK, lets see some evidence that this is the case. Why would it be ludicrous for the government to increase funding if there were no problem? It would help get a constant thorn out of the conservatives sides. My scenario is just as much a 'what if' as yours. Perhaps the simple fact is, these are scientists doing their job.


The models are getting better? I won't argue that point, but it seems to me you were claiming just a few posts ago that they are correct. Did you change your mind?



They are not perfect, and I have never claimed they are. They are good enough and consistent enough to provide reliable results, with a defined range of error. The range of error is what is being reduced. The issue, as far as the scientists are concerned, is basically decided. It is just a matter of degree.



On this point I partially agree with you. You don't seem to understand. Could it be the part about "appropriate levels of scientific review and proof"?



Have you demonstrated that the scientific process is failing here? Scientific frauds are usually found out, even if it takes a few years. Yet in this case you are claiming that the the vast majority of scientists in this area of research are in on some massive conspiracy. Maybe you should consider the possibility they are correct.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by rockoon


This says it all. They program global warming into the model and then watch the model warm up. Big suprise that it warms up, right? Read it slowly -- they set up the model so that global warming exists and then they let it run.

What conclusions can be derived from such a model? Certainly not the conclusion that global warming is real or that man is causing it.

Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset. What they have are various inputs called radiative forcings, such as changes in solar activity, tropospheric aerosols, ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Some of these have positive forcings, such as GHGs, some are negative, such as aerosols. They then run the models with these time-dependent forcings to see how the system reacts- in particular, you will get processes that react to changes in temperature and in turn act back on the climate. These positive or negative feedbacks, like changes in atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and the ice-albedo, will tend to amplify or dampen the temperature changes.

It just so happens that there has been a net positive forcing in the last few decades due to GHGs, which is expected to continue in the future. Positive feedbacks also outweigh negative feedbacks, so that you have an amplification effect on top. This is where the warming comes from.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset. What they have are various inputs called radiative forcings, such as changes in solar activity, tropospheric aerosols, ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Some of these have positive forcings, such as GHGs, some are negative, such as aerosols. They then run the models with these time-dependent forcings to see how the system reacts- in particular, you will get processes that react to changes in temperature and in turn act back on the climate. These positive or negative feedbacks, like changes in atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and the ice-albedo, will tend to amplify or dampen the temperature changes.

It just so happens that there has been a net positive forcing in the last few decades due to GHGs, which is expected to continue in the future. Positive feedbacks also outweigh negative feedbacks, so that you have an amplification effect on top. This is where the warming comes from.

Whoa, stop making so much sense.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


OK, lets see some evidence that this is the case. Why would it be ludicrous for the government to increase funding if there were no problem? It would help get a constant thorn out of the conservatives sides. My scenario is just as much a 'what if' as yours. Perhaps the simple fact is, these are scientists doing their job.

Your scenario is not equal. When the public no longer sees a problem (the thorn), why would any rational politician/party not direct those resources toward something where the public does see a problem? Do you expect them to be kindhearted to some program that does them no political good and solves no problem?



They are not perfect, and I have never claimed they are. They are good enough and consistent enough to provide reliable results, with a defined range of error. The range of error is what is being reduced. The issue, as far as the scientists are concerned, is basically decided. It is just a matter of degree.

Here the text of your post in response to drooper about 6-8 posts from the top of this page.

With respect, you don't. The models have been tested against past climatic conditions, including ice-ages, and come up correct.
I queried you to provide a link to the veracity of that statement and you failed miserably.
So now your going to try to substitute the word "perfect" for my citation of your use of the word "correct" and then try to attack my query on the possibility of your change of position as if my query was bogus. How low can you go? I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but it seems you're not going to let a little thing like rationality or honest exchange of ideas to get in the way of your beliefs. You don't seem to care if you twist the statements of others, use personal attacks or simply ignore simple questions I have posed more than once.

For crying out loud! Even your failure to answer or even acknowledge the simple question I asked concerning the MM vs Mann controversy which was "Are you even curious?" Are you afraid you'll get the answer wrong if you don't have an authority figure to give you their answer as to what you should think about being curious?:rolleyes:


Have you demonstrated that the scientific process is failing here? Scientific frauds are usually found out, even if it takes a few years. Yet in this case you are claiming that the the vast majority of scientists in this area of research are in on some massive conspiracy. Maybe you should consider the possibility they are correct.

I made no such assertion of conspiracy. Conspiracy to me involves planning between the modelers. What I do see is involuntary collusion by the modelers, with each watching out for themselves by taking a "don't rock the boat attitude", and others using scare tactics to attempt to exert control over an ever larger portion of the public's money. You may consider this a cynical viewpoint, but I consider it a more realistic one than what you believe.

Consider the possiblility they are correct? Where have you been? Isn't considering the possibility they might wrong the major portion of that exercise?

[ceptimus]

We won't know for sure how accurate the predictions for the next 20 years are, until the 20 years have passed.

However, policy for the next few years has to be determined now. Should we:

1. Not bother about GHGs and keep producing them as the economy grows, probably at an ever-increasing rate?

2. Make drastic changes to current practises and cut GHG emmisions as low as we possibly can?

3. Try to cap emmisions at roughly the current levels, maybe allowing a gradual increase or reduction?

To me the third option seems the most sensible given the current level of knowledge. However, I can see that oil companies, and governments heavily influenced by oil companies might prefer option one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset. What they have are various inputs called radiative forcings, such as changes in solar activity, tropospheric aerosols, ozone depletion and greenhouse gases. Some of these have positive forcings, such as GHGs, some are negative, such as aerosols. They then run the models with these time-dependent forcings to see how the system reacts- in particular, you will get processes that react to changes in temperature and in turn act back on the climate. These positive or negative feedbacks, like changes in atmospheric water vapour, cloud cover and the ice-albedo, will tend to amplify or dampen the temperature changes.

It just so happens that there has been a net positive forcing in the last few decades due to GHGs, which is expected to continue in the future. Positive feedbacks also outweigh negative feedbacks, so that you have an amplification effect on top. This is where the warming comes from.

So this past Saturday afternoon, I tuned into the Weather Channel to see what the weather would be like this week. They said it would be raining here Monday through Friday. Today is Tuesday and no sign of rain yet. In fact, the weather is beautiful.

I should trust a weather forecast for 50 years from now?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So this past Saturday afternoon, I tuned into the Weather Channel to see what the weather would be like this week. They said it would be raining here Monday through Friday. Today is Tuesday and no sign of rain yet. In fact, the weather is beautiful.

I should trust a weather forecast for 50 years from now?

Well, I guess the simple answer to that is that nobody is trying to predict the weather for 50 years from now- they're trying to predict climate, which is an aggregate of weather conditions over many years. This may seem rather glib, but there's actually a big difference between the two, with different challenges for the two types of models (i.e. weather models suffer more from chaos which makes predictions after a few days very difficult, while climate models are more difficult to verify).

But if your point is that these types of computer models are not perfect, then that's well taken. Certainly, I don't think that anybody is saying that they're crystal balls. However, just like with the weather, they're the best tools that we have for trying to get some idea of what will await us in the future, and whether it is prudent to start taking some kind of precautions now.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Well, I guess the simple answer to that is that nobody is trying to predict the weather for 50 years from now- they're trying to predict climate, which is an aggregate of weather conditions over many years. This may seem rather glib, but there's actually a big difference between the two, with different challenges for the two types of models (i.e. weather models suffer more from chaos which makes predictions after a few days very difficult, while climate models are more difficult to verify).

But if your point is that these types of computer models are not perfect, then that's well taken. Certainly, I don't think that anybody is saying that they're crystal balls. However, just like with the weather, they're the best tools that we have for trying to get some idea of what will await us in the future, and whether it is prudent to start taking some kind of precautions now.

I understand that long term big-picture predictions are probably easier to make than short term snapshot predictions. I can probably safely say that the stock market will be much higher 50 years from now than it is today, but I can't say where Intel's stock will be a week from now, unless I was a doom and gloom kind of guy and then I would say that the stock market will be non-existent 50 years from now because we will all be extinct from a comet, or Jesus, or global warming.

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I suppose you think the moon landing was a hoax, then. How could they have ever expected the rocket to get up there and back, just because it was pointed in the right direction.

So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset.


The climate model to which AUP posted a link to, does infact work that way. Does infact assume global warming at the outset. They say so themselves.

Thanks for the link, AUP!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I understand that long term big-picture predictions are probably easier to make than short term snapshot predictions. I can probably safely say that the stock market will be much higher 50 years from now than it is today, but I can't say where Intel's stock will be a week from now, unless I was a doom and gloom kind of guy and then I would say that the stock market will be non-existent 50 years from now because we will all be extinct from a comet, or Jesus, or global warming.

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

You are consusing two completely different forecasts. One is at a macro level, down to an area the size of a state, the other is at the micro level, for an area the size of a city. The scientists are not claiming that

Once again, read these excellent FAQs. They are not presented at the scientist level, but then, if they were, I would doubt we could understand them.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/faq/contents.html



The climate system is complex and models still cannot represent all aspects of the system. However, confidence in the ability of computer models to project future climate has increased substantially during the past five years. There are a number of reasons for this:

Scientists better understand climate processes such as the role of water vapour, sea-ice dynamics and ocean heat transport and are able to incorporate these interactions into models.

New models simulate current climate quite well.

There is good consistency between observed changes in global average surface temperature over the 20th century and model simulations that include natural variability as well as human-induced warming and cooling.

Other aspects of model simulations have improved, including their ability to simulate monsoons, El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the North Atlantic Oscillation, and selected periods of past climate.

The analysis and confidence in models is still developing with regard to some of the more complex interactions such as those between clouds and humidity and atmosphere and ocean systems. As our understanding of these interactions improves and model resolution increases, so will our ability to model storm systems and other extreme events.

Another major improvement in recent years has been the development of techniques to allow regional scale climate to be modelled. This allows scientists to project how climate change may affect regional areas such as specific Australian states. However, it should be noted that the coarse resolution of models at present limits detail at the regional level.



http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/faq/page13.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Originally posted by rockoon

So I take it that you are NOT going to brush up on your information theory?

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

1:1 physical events can be modeled correctly. Climate models are not 1:1. Due to this they are subject to constraints imposed by information theory. A climate model has relatively few variables compared to the number of variables they are trying to model. This means that any attempt specifically designed to make the model fit past data invalidates the reliability of that model for future data.

For more understanding, brush up on your information theory.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon

So I take you don't believe that certain physical events can be modelled successfully.

1:1 physical events can be modeled correctly. Climate models are not 1:1. Due to this they are subject to constraints imposed by information theory. A climate model has relatively few variables compared to the number of variables they are trying to model. This means that any attempt specifically designed to make the model fit past data invalidates the reliability of that model for future data.

For more understanding, brush up on your information theory. [/B][/QUOTE]

The models have successfully modelled the earths behaviour of protracted periods of time. They are being adapted constantly to be more and more accurate. The level of accuracy has reached a level that the scientists are confident that they are forecasting correctly.

Luke has already asked about the reliability of local forecasting. The idea that you could give a reasonably accurate forecast out to a week would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago, kind of like making a moon landing. Yet, we can now get quite reliable forecasts for many regions around the planet, and for quite specific areas. Where I live in Melbourne, we have quite variable weather. Four seasons in one day is a common complaint, yet they can model this for a week quite reliably.

Ditto for the earth itself. The level of detail is on a completely different scale. The models have shown to be accurate to specified levels. They are not claiming a 1:1 accuracy, but an accuracy within a range of confidence. They do take into account what Snail has referred to, the various 'forcing' factors. Many of these, when incorporated, are not significant. For example, the solar cycle is a factor, but so insignificant that it does not really matter.

So yes, there are many factors that are considered, and people have come up with them. But on the macro level, they do not figure against the larger influences.



How do scientists work out what the climate is going to be like in future?
Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.



http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm#25

So they are constantly testing, revising and comparing the models.

Now, given that they are not perfect, should we just ignore the issue?



Is greenhouse just a theory?
Yes and no! The way in which greenhouse gases affect climate is based on observations and scientific interpretations, as is the evidence that human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The way in which these increases will affect our future climate is, and can only be, the result of theoretical calculations.

However, there is unequivocal evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide alone has risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to approximately 360 ppm. This will have an effect on the world's climate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of that effect.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK

I queried you to provide a link to the veracity of that statement and you failed miserably.
So now your going to try to substitute the word "perfect" for my citation of your use of the word "correct" and then try to attack my query on the possibility of your change of position as if my query was bogus. How low can you go? I'm trying to have a rational discussion, but it seems you're not going to let a little thing like rationality or honest exchange of ideas to get in the way of your beliefs. You don't seem to care if you twist the statements of others, use personal attacks or simply ignore simple questions I have posed more than once.

For crying out loud! Even your failure to answer or even acknowledge the simple question I asked concerning the MM vs Mann controversy which was "Are you even curious?" Are you afraid you'll get the answer wrong if you don't have an authority figure to give you their answer as to what you should think about being curious?:rolleyes:


Have you demonstrated that the scientific process is failing here? Scientific frauds are usually found out, even if it takes a few years. Yet in this case you are claiming that the the vast majority of scientists in this area of research are in on some massive conspiracy. Maybe you should consider the possibility they are correct.

I made no such assertion of conspiracy. Conspiracy to me involves planning between the modelers. What I do see is involuntary collusion by the modelers, with each watching out for themselves by taking a "don't rock the boat attitude", and others using scare tactics to attempt to exert control over an ever larger portion of the public's money. You may consider this a cynical viewpoint, but I consider it a more realistic one than what you believe.

Consider the possiblility they are correct? Where have you been? Isn't considering the possibility they might wrong the major portion of that exercise?
[/QUOTE]

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/press/lgm_e.html

and the paper itself:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/P...anopolski98.pdf

Mob mentality is exactly what the scientific process is supposed to prevent. And even then, there are the scientists out there who go against the flow, like Lindzen. Unfortunately for him, while he is quite a good scientist in some areas, in this one, where he holds a contrary view, he can't or won't get a paper published. Now, don't forget, that reviewer does not have to agree with what a paper is stating, merely that correct arguments and methodology have been followed.

The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Computers work on the principle of garbage in-garbage out. Whatever predicitions they make seem about as accurate as Sylvia Browne so far.

I guess I was surprised to read this, since I was under the impression that the predictions have been pretty much on the mark so far (bearing in mind the predictions are mostly for 50 or 100 years in the future, and decent climate models have only been around for 20 years).

Do you have any specific examples of predictions that have been shown to be wrong?

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/press/lgm_e.html

and the paper itself:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/P...anopolski98.pdf

Your 1st link is simply a press release, not science, and the 2nd couldn't be found on the server.


Mob mentality is exactly what the scientific process is supposed to prevent. And even then, there are the scientists out there who go against the flow, like Lindzen. Unfortunately for him, while he is quite a good scientist in some areas, in this one, where he holds a contrary view, he can't or won't get a paper published. Now, don't forget, that reviewer does not have to agree with what a paper is stating, merely that correct arguments and methodology have been followed.

I guess you just can't help yourself. It must be in the nature of your character.
Why you gratuitously brought Richard Lindzen into this simply to slam him with innuendo I'll never understand. Nobody has mentioned him at all.

Here's the 1st paragraph from his testimony before the senate.
I wish to thank Senator Voinovich, Senator Smith and the Environment and Public Works Committee for the opportunity to clarify the nature of consensus and skepticism in the Climate Debate. I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Not published? He's lead author of one of the IPCC chapters. His credentials also seem pretty impressive. Are you losing it?


The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

Well if that's the case, here's a link you might find useful in the future.
RaptureReady (http://www.RaptureReady.com)


For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony (www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/ Testimony/Senate2001.pdf)

[Brian the Snail]

Brian the Snail: Climate models don't work that way- they don't assume global warming at the outset.

rockoon: The climate model to which AUP posted a link to, does infact work that way. Does infact assume global warming at the outset. They say so themselves.

You mean this quote:

Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

I think you are inferring more from the quote that is intended, though I agree that it could have been worded better. What they mean, of course, is that they simulate the climate, find global warming, and look at associated changes in the climate (for example, precipitation levels and distributions) due to this temperature change.

They could of course just assume a particular temperature, and look at the associated changes in precipitation etc. to study the impacts of climate change. That's also a useful exercise. However, the point is that they don't have to do this- models produce warming all by themselves if forcings are included. For an example, look here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_HansenSatoN.pdf

Abstract: We define the radiative forcings used in climate simulations with the SI2000 version of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global climate model. These include temporal variations of well-mixed greenhouse gases, stratospheric aerosols, solar irradiance, ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and tropospheric aerosols. We illustrate the global response to these forcings for the SI2000 model with specified sea surface temperature (SST) and with a simple Q-flux ocean, thus helping to characterize the effectiveness of each forcing. The forcing data cover the period 1951-2000. The climate simulations are extended to 2050 for two forcing scenarios. The results suggest that observed global temperature change in the past 50 years is primarily a response to radiative forcings. It is also inferred that the planet is now out of radiation balance by 0.5 to 1 W/m2 and that additional global warming of about 0.5°C is already "in the pipeline".

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

I think you are inferring more from the quote that is intended, though I agree that it could have been worded better. What they mean, of course, is that they simulate the climate, find global warming, and look at associated changes in the climate (for example, precipitation levels and distributions) due to this temperature change.

They could of course just assume a particular temperature, and look at the associated changes in precipitation etc. to study the impacts of climate change. That's also a useful exercise. However, the point is that they don't have to do this- models produce warming all by themselves if forcings are included. For an example, look here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_HansenSatoN.pdf



I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

They have already proven it is happening, they are just working on refining the models.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by rockoon


I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

Well, I stand by my first impression that the wording is ambigious at best. I don't see how one can infer can from that sentence that they are assuming global warming in their models. Perhaps they are- as I pointed out before, there are good reasons where they might want to assume some higher temperature, for example, to study regional impacts of climate change. However, as I also tried to point out, this is pretty much irrelevant since in general models do not have to assume global warming, and a lot of work has been done, by groups around the world, that have shown that if you put all the relevant forcings into the model then you get global warming as an output. That was the point I was trying to make in posting the link to NASA.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK

Not published? He's lead author of one of the IPCC chapters. His credentials also seem pretty impressive. Are you losing it?


The possibility that they are right, using tried and proven scientific methods, is the possibility that I will consider most likely. The day that the scientific method is shown to fail for such a protracted period of time for such a large area of research is the day I start believing in god again.

Well if that's the case, here's a link you might find useful in the future.
RaptureReady (http://www.RaptureReady.com)


For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony (www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/ Testimony/Senate2001.pdf) [/QUOTE]

I said not pulbished in this area. In some areas of his science, he is quite ok, but for some reason, he is totally contrary in this one. In this area, he cannot get published.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK
For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony (www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/ Testimony/Senate2001.pdf)

It is what? For a start, he takes on the statements of non-scientists. Shooting fish in a barrel, lets see him take on fellow scientists.

In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

But basically, he is making guesses. None of his scientific arguments in this area can stand up to a scientific review.

His basic obtuseness and deviousness is demonstrated by his attack on Kyoto. He attacks the common straw man that it will not, of itself, achieve anything. Too bad the scientists don't believe it will either. All they are after is a framework that will allow a protocol to be implemented as a basis for further work.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by rockoon


I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf)

Page 81, section 23

Transient model response to global atmospheric change

In this section we examine the transient behaviour of the Mk3 coupled model under an IPCC scenario of atmospheric composition change, and compare the response in key climate variables to corresponding periods from the control experiment. In the transient experiment, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (expressed as an equivalent CO2 concentration) and stratospheric ozone, and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols, are varied according to the A2 SRES scenario (see Fig. 5(b), Climate Change 2001), starting 1961 and ending at 2100 (see Fig. 21). The climate change experiment commenced at the end of year 120 of the control integration. Computational time constraints meant that our initial climate change experiment was not able to be integrated from pre-industrial conditions, and therefore a cold-start problem occurs, where the integrated effect of varying atmospheric conditions prior to 1961 is not included in the thermal response. Our most recent transient experiment (to be reported elsewhere) starts from 1871, thereby circumventing the cold start problem.

Figure 22 shows the monthly globally averaged (over all surface types including vegetated land, ocean and ice) surface screen temperature anomalies for both the control and transient experiment. First note that although a calendar year time-axis has been attached to the control experiment results, it is only for the convenience of comparison with results from the transient experiment. In all monthly anomalies present in this section, we have used a base climate generated from years 1981-2020 of the control integration (i.e., model years 141-180). In all, the control experiment has been run for 260 years. By the year 2100 of the transient experiment the warming is about 2.8°C. The control integration exhibits a 0.25°C cooling drift from 1961-2100, so, allowing for this, the effective warming of the transient integration to 2100 is a little over 3°C. The extent of this warming lies within the range of the IPCC A2 ensemble of model results, though is modestly less than the ensemble mean of about 3.8°C (see Fig. 5(d), IPCC SPM 2001). However, note that there is substantial interannual variability exhibited by this model about the long-term warming trend.

Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

Perhaps in some cases they might start with a certain higher temperature and keep forcing fixed, which as I said before might be useful in predicting impacts of climate change rather than the climate change itself. However, this is more a question of initial conditions than of model assumptions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf)

Page 81, section 23



Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

Perhaps in some cases they might start with a certain higher temperature and keep forcing fixed, which as I said before might be useful in predicting impacts of climate change rather than the climate change itself. However, this is more a question of initial conditions than of model assumptions.

Thanks for that. These descriptions of the models are way out of my depth, but they appear to be done by people with half a brain.

[a_unique_person]

revised link http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/ganopolski98.pdf

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gordon_2002a.pdf)


Page 81, section 23

In this section we examine the transient behaviour of the Mk3 coupled model under an IPCC scenario of atmospheric composition change, and compare the response in key climate variables to corresponding periods from the control experiment. In the transient experiment, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (expressed as an equivalent CO2 concentration) and stratospheric ozone, and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols, are varied according to the A2 SRES scenario (see Fig. 5(b), Climate Change 2001), starting 1961 and ending at 2100 (see Fig. 21).


Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.



A funny conclusion you have made since this scenario is based on extreme atmospheric changes imposed on the system by extreme economic assumptions selected specifically because they are extreme:


SRES A2 scenario

A future world of very rapid economic growth, low population growth and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technology. Major underlying themes are economic and cultural convergence and capacity building, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. In this world, people pursue personal wealth rather than environmental quality

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is what? For a start, he takes on the statements of non-scientists. Shooting fish in a barrel, lets see him take on fellow scientists.

ROTFLMAO

Read your own last paragraph in this post.


In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

Relying on the models again? Since the models deal strictly with numbers, there must be a precise figure available for our share, and some one model that is correct. Since models disagree, will you tell us which model is correct and what precise figure it gives for our contribution to warming?

Anyway, I believe New Zealand is going to try to regulate flatulence in livestock to help take care of the problem. How ridiculous can things get?

But basically, he is making guesses. None of his scientific arguments in this area can stand up to a scientific review.

Strictly an assertion without rational basis.

His basic obtuseness and deviousness is demonstrated by his attack on Kyoto. He attacks the common straw man that it will not, of itself, achieve anything. Too bad the scientists don't believe it will either. All they are after is a framework that will allow a protocol to be implemented as a basis for further work.

Here you start with a personal attack on Lindzen. Then you say scientists agree with him that it won't make any difference, but you still want to spend 100's of trillions of dollars, so they'll have further work.

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.

Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.

[BobK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Thanks for that. These descriptions of the models are way out of my depth, but they appear to be done by people with half a brain.

LMAO

Now you're saying the modelers have 1/2 a brain?

What? They've all been lobotomized?

You still rely on them?

The increasing incoherence of your posts leads me to the conclusion there is not much sense in attempting to continue a dialog with you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK


LMAO

Now you're saying the modelers have 1/2 a brain?

What? They've all been lobotomized?

You still rely on them?

The increasing incoherence of your posts leads me to the conclusion there is not much sense in attempting to continue a dialog with you.

Why are you picking on a turn of phrase that I have used? It has nothing to do with the debate.

[a_unique_person]

ROTFLMAO

Read your own last paragraph in this post.

[/quote]

I don't get your point



In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

[quote]

Relying on the models again? Since the models deal strictly with numbers, there must be a precise figure available for our share, and some one model that is correct. Since models disagree, will you tell us which model is correct and what precise figure it gives for our contribution to warming?



There is not a precise figure. There is a stated margin of error. The models are not exactly the same, they all agree that GW is happening.


Anyway, I believe New Zealand is going to try to regulate flatulence in livestock to help take care of the problem. How ridiculous can things get?



That's an argument?



Strictly an assertion without rational basis.



No, I was told this by a scientist who works for CSIRO DAR. He has a lot of respect for this guy in his other areas of work, but not in this one. Why? Because in this area, he cannot get published. There are two possibilities for this,

1) A conspiracy of scientists to not let this man publish his papers in this area, and the secret hasn't got out yet.

2) His work does not stand up to peer review for basic scientific methods and integrity.



Here you start with a personal attack on Lindzen. Then you say scientists agree with him that it won't make any difference, but you still want to spend 100's of trillions of dollars, so they'll have further work.

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.


I did not agree on that at all. You are still willfully misrepresenting the stance of those who have created the Kyoto protocol and the reason for it. I will state it again, in case you missed the point.

It is supposed to establish a protocol, or means, of organising the countries of the world to reduce GW gasses. Once this first step has been achieved, we can move on to the next step.

Once again, you see a conspiracy at work for which you have provided absolutley no evidence. You accuse me of blind faith. You appear to be subscribing to totally unfounded conspiracy theories.



Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.



Neither have I, that is why I rely on a scientific method to ensure that research is based on integrity and established principles. I am not a scientist who works in this area.

[Brian the Snail]

Brian the Snail: Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

rockoon: A funny conclusion you have made since this scenario is based on extreme atmospheric changes imposed on the system by extreme economic assumptions selected specifically because they are extreme:

Here was your original post that I responded too:

posted at 5:11am 23/3/2004 by rockoon:

" Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming."

This says it all. They program global warming into the model and then watch the model warm up. Big suprise that it warms up, right? Read it slowly -- they set up the model so that global warming exists and then they let it run.

What conclusions can be derived from such a model? Certainly not the conclusion that global warming is real or that man is causing it.


Quick!! before its too late! Our model shows that if global warming is real, then global warming is real!


I then responded to this post, saying that in fact the models do not have global warming programmed into them, but have various forcing factors entered as inputs and the global warming seen in the results is a response to these forcings. You disagreed, saying that the sentence you quoted supported your point of view that the CSIRO model assumes global warming. I then went and found the paper that describes in detail the model, and pointed out that the model finds global warming based on the changes in atmospheric compostion. In short, the global warming is a response to the forcings, just like I said, not an assumption programmed from the beginning, like you said.

Now, I don't dispute that different scenarios will find different temperature changes, and that the temperature change found by the CSIRO model will change if a different scenario is used. However, I didn't quote the paper because of the value it gave for the temperature change, but to show that it works in much the same way as I said, as I discuss above.

By the way, if you're interested in the model projections of the temperature for the other scenarios, here is a graph from the IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-22.htm

As you can see, all of the scenarios give warming.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BobK

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.

Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.

I am trusting people to use the scientific method correctly. It appears they are doint that. You, on the other hand, are using blind faith in a baseless conspiracy theory.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


I then went and found the paper that describes in detail the model, and pointed out that the model finds global warming based on the changes in atmospheric compostion.


Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rockoon


Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

The FAQ is written on the basis that GW is proven to be true. As far as the scientists are concerned, the issue is proven. It is reflecting their research. Now, if you want to criticise their methods, etc, go for it. I do not have the expertise to criticse their model.

That is, the FAQ is not a scientific presentation. It is a presentation of the findings. Don't criticise it as if it was a scientific paper.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by rockoon


Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

Okay, I'm not trying to defend anybody's tactics here, and I'm not going to play referee in any kind of dispute between you two. However, I think your criticisms of AUP in this case are unfair. To show this, I will just go back to AUP's post which started all this. It is the first post on page 5, where he quoted something from the FAQs of CSIRO. Here it is:

Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.

Okay, I think a few things stand out for me here:

1) The section, taken as a whole, is quite obviously talking about climate models in general, not a particular climate model used at CSIRO or anywhere else. If it was talking about their work, they would say so. In fact, in the section after the one AUP quoted (http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm#26), it does go on to talk about the research done at CSIRO. It seems that they do a variety of things- and it says nothing about the assumptions used in their climate models.

2) The models work in much the same way as I said- the input forcings produce the particular result, global warming isn't assumed from the outset.

3) It says that the models accurately reproduce features of the climate, which would seem to support AUPs assertion that the models are correct- by this, I'm guessing that he didn't mean that they are perfect, but that the "models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate" as it says in the FAQ, and therefore we can place some confidence in their predictions for the future.

4) In the next post, you quoted the first sentence of this section, and took it to mean that it only applies to the model at CSIRO, and that the model assumes global warming at the outset. Based on reading the quote in context, I would strongly disagree with this interpretation.