Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

You wouldn't read about it: climate scientists right
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Hotwire

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Location: Multiverse

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:19 am Post subject:

Well the globe IS getting warmer!

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:03 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

However, the core findings of the IPCC are not in serious dispute, excepting the nuttiest of climate change deniers, or course.

I know you are desperately clinging to any error/inconsistancy/problem regarding the IPCC as proof that Climate Change is just a fantasy. .

Nice ad hominem above. Rolling Eyes

And for the record I have never said that climate change is just a fantasy.

My issue is with anthropogenic global warming. The earth has been around for a long long time. It was much hotter and with 10X the carbon levels in the air long ago. Yet the earth did not perish. It's still around. In the main I believe that the earth is simply going through a warming trend like it has many times before. Cooling and warming trends are a part of our history as the Ice Ages show. AGW is only a slight contributor to the warming of the earth. If Earth's orbit were a few more million miles from the sun...there'd be no life (as we know it, maybe some bacteria) on Earth.

Hotwire

Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Location: Multiverse

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Nice ad hominem above. Rolling Eyes

Citations please.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:48 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Nice ad hominem above. Rolling Eyes

It's not the Earth that's in trouble, dear. Ask a dinosaur. Wink

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject:

Hotwire wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Nice ad hominem above. Rolling Eyes

Citations please.

It's all been discussed in the original global warming thread complete with citations.

But here's one to start you off.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

According to this link CO2 levels have varied from 18 times as much as today to 4.7 times as high. The 10X was just a rough estimate of the mean temps. During the Late Ordovician period though levels were nearly 12 times as high as today and that was when the planet was going through an Ice Age. Obviously then the link between C02 and global warming is shaky at best.

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:54 pm; edited 2 times in total

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Big Bird wrote:

while we contract Malaria instead, no doubt

Evidence of a link between higher temperatures and Malaria isn't scientifically straightforward:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/08/trying-to-hit-a-mosquito-with-a-sledgehammer/

The comment about malaria was tongue in cheek - but the point I was making still stands. To spell it out - yeah, there will be advantages, but they may be outweighted by disadvantages. People will die less winter-related deaths, but likely more will die from heat related death (this is what them pesky scientists are saying, anyhow). So no net gain.

In fact, the scientific consensus is that benefits will be far outweighed by graver consequences. If you don't like that prediction, avoid all mainstream discussion, and keep on visiting that lovely Pollyanna Blog so kindly funded by the lovely chaps at Exxon-Mobil.

Quote:

Big Bird wrote:

Global warming is going to be a party! Bring it on then.. the sooner the better!

Inevitably, there will be some benefits brought to someone or something

Ignoring them because they don't suggest catastrophe isn't a very scientific thing to do, now is it?

What's not very scientific is going to a blog (funded by a company whose interests lay in resisting any legislation that may be imposed in an attempt to ameliorate climate change) that presents a consistently Pollyanna view of global warming, cherry picks from studies (often out of context) and ignores all research to the contrary and saying "Look 'ere! These webpages have got references! Their message must be true then!"

Quote:

Big Bird wrote:

Scientists believe that civilisation as we know it can only tolerate a 2 degree rise in global warming

Well, what global warming catastrophist in her right mind wouldn't use a phrase like "civilization as we know it"?

Well, how about 'civilization as we like it' then.

Quote:

Big Bird's article:

Quote:

The differential is crucial. The consequence of a gap that big is that world emissions of CO2 will continue to increase rapidly, nudging the global rise in average temperatures over this century up from C to well over 3C. One degree more might not sound much, especially to us living in the cool north. But massive regional variations in warming � strongest in parts of the globe that are hot already � mean that significant parts of the world would become totally uninhabitable through desertification, while much land elsewhere would disappear under seawater as a result of the melting of the poles

These are all catastrophist cliches with no scientific proof offered. Actually, the specific sentence about global warming being "strongest in parts of the globe that are hot already" seems to contradict the fact that climate models are predicting the greatest warming in the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (during the winter season)

That's because it's an editorial, pet. But it's based on the predictions of the 'mainstream' scientific consensus. If you really want to find out for yourself, go to google scholar and start mining through research articles yourself. I haven't got the time for it - and I'm sure that you and TUM will go on in your own muddled way, whatever sources I lined up for your inspection.

Quote:

Your other article consisted of nothing in the way of proof of anything and certainly didn't at all do what I asked you to do earlier: show an actual relationship between cases of extreme weather and warmer temperatures.

You claimed:

Big Bird wrote:

Extreme weather events are increasing, SS.

Big Bird wrote:

It's global warming that is bringing on these extreme weather events.

Well?

This is not something I've just pulled out me arse. It's something them pesky 'mainstream' scientists have pulled out of theirs'. Go take it up with them then.

Floods 'to become more frequent'

Quote:

The European Environment Agency (EEA) recently published a report which examines the impacts of Europe's changing climate.

It suggests that between 1975 and 2001, the annual number of floods events increased.

According to the report, climate change is likely to increase the frequency of extreme flood events, in particular the frequency of flash floods.

CLIMATE change in the future will bring more freak weather events like super cyclones, but Australia is unprepared to deal with them, a report reveals.

Scientists Projected an Increase in Intensity and Frequency of Extreme Weather Events

Scientists: Summer fires, floods augur global warming. Weather fits predictions; 'There is no time to waste,' says climatologist

Quote:

The U.N.'s network of climate scientists � the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) � has long predicted that rising global temperatures would produce more frequent and intense heat waves, and more intense rainfalls. In its latest assessment, in 2007, the Nobel Prize-winning panel went beyond that. It said these trends "have already been observed," in an increase in heat waves since 1950, for example.

That's just a few of the things a quick google search threw up.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted that global warming would see a rise of freak weather events. Consensus seems to strenghening on this issue too.

Good scientists are naturally cautious (unlike internet warriors) and they will talk about possibilities and probabilities, and generally avoid statements of certainty. And so they should. And that gives people like you a lot of room to wriggle around and pretend that none of it is real. Wriggle as you like. I'm sure you will. Plently of smokers have wriggled, coughed and wheezed all the way to the grave telling themselves that 'scientists haven't found a definitive link between smoking and cancer!'

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

[

Quote:

You'll pardon me if I don't take these "predictions" as fact. After all these were the very same people who predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt within the next quarter of a century. And that's not the only prediction they got wrong. In fact while some predictions have been proven wrong or at a minimum based on poor data, none as of yet have come true.

And by your definition of good scientists then the folks at IPCC aren't good scientists then as many if not most claim that global warming IS happening and that it IS man-made and that catastrophic events WILL happen. In fact they've made plenty of "statements of certainty"

And ironically when Sergio Stefanuto and myself take them to task for making these statements, you defend them and attack Mr Stefanuto and myself for suggesting that these statements may be wrong.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:20 pm Post subject:

Double post Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

[

Quote:

You'll pardon me if I don't take these "predictions" as fact.

Predictions aren't facts, dear. You're quite right. Predictions are made concerning the future. Predictions can't be facts, in fact.

Quote:

After all these were the very same people who predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt within the next quarter of a century.

No, they aren't 'the same very people' who predicted the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. For the record - it wasn't a definitive prediction anyway - it was a conditional likelihood. But that's an aside. Let's see how this 'prediction' came about shall we?

Quote:

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)."

The source for this information was "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China", a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund. The WWF report was not peer reviewed. On Page 25, we find:

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: �glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high�. Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years. The prediction that �glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming� and that the flow of Himalayan rivers will �eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages� (New Scientist 1999; 1999, 2003) is equally disturbing."

The WWF sourced their information from a 1999 news item in New Scientist. Again this was not peer reviewed (New Scientist is a popular science magazine). The article was based on an interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain, chair of the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who speculated that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035. This speculation was not supported by any formal research.

Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the Working Group II section (which focuses on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability with a regional emphasis). It was not one of the key features included in the Technical Summary, the Summary for Policymakers or the Synthesis Report. The 2035 prediction was not included in the Working Group I section (focusing on the Physical Science with more of a global emphasis) which was solidly based on peer reviewed research.

The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

Ah. So I'm talking about climate scientists. They are not the 'very same people' at all. This prediction wasn't made in a peer-reviewed study - and should not have been included in the report at all. Some chap speculated that the glaciers would disappear in 2035 (actually the full story was 2350, with a further typo) and some journos wrote it down. Unfortunately, it made its way into the report. The only major error in the report, it seems. Human error, eh? Who'd think it were possible?

Quote:

And that's not the only prediction they got wrong. In fact while some predictions have been proven wrong or at a minimum based on poor data, none as of yet have come true.

Can you tell me a bit more about these so called 'predictions?'

Quote:

And by your definition of good scientists then the folks at IPCC aren't good scientists then as many if not most claim that global warming IS happening and that it IS man-made and that catastrophic events WILL happen. In fact they've made plenty of "statements of certainty"

Well, global warming IS happening. That's something that can be measured. It's been measured by various methods, and it's found to have been on the increase. Some things can be said with certainty. But other things should not until the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence that the globe has warmed is now impossible to dispute, unless you are an anonymous internet warrior, or an absolute crackpot.

Quote:

And ironically when Sergio Stefanuto and myself take them to task for making these statements, you defend them and attack Mr Stefanuto and myself for suggesting that these statements may be wrong.

Ha. It's not that you say they may be wrong - because then you would be conceding they may be right. Something you are certainly loathe to do.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

[

Quote:

You'll pardon me if I don't take these "predictions" as fact.

Predictions aren't facts, dear. You're quite right. Predictions are made concerning the future. Predictions can't be facts, in fact.

Quote:

After all these were the very same people who predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would melt within the next quarter of a century.

Quote:

And that's not the only prediction they got wrong. In fact while some predictions have been proven wrong or at a minimum based on poor data, none as of yet have come true.

Can you tell me a bit more about these so called 'predictions?'

Quote:

And ironically when Sergio Stefanuto and myself take them to task for making these statements, you defend them and attack Mr Stefanuto and myself for suggesting that these statements may be wrong.

Ha. It's not that you say they may be wrong - because then you would be conceding they may be right. Something you are certainly loathe to do.

Ah, but if the Himalayan glacier issue was included in the IPCC report then by definition it means the IPCC was supporting that claim. Thus being the "same people." And if no one had challenged it it would likely have been regarded as fact.

As for more info about the predictions/claims certainly. Read the Telegraph article again. Not only did they get their facts wrong about the glaciers they also did so about the wave power issue and they based some of their info about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence.

Actually it is that I say they may be wrong. I already pointed out that the earth is getting warmer. I have not been loathe to say so in the slightest. As to their claims that it IS man-made and that catastrophic events will happen...I notice you dodged those entirely, preferring to focus on something that was never a issue of debate.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

It was one of those pesky climate scientists who noticed the error. The vast majority of what was contained in the report has not been found to be in error. That's quite respectable, given the scope and enormity of the report. However, the 'skeptics' are acting as though the very fact that an organisation is not infallible demonstrates absolute proof that anything contained in the report is likely to be false or nonsense. This is really really silly. It's an impossible standard to hold any organisation to.

TUM wrote:

As for more info about the predictions/claims certainly. Read the Telegraph article again. Not only did they get their facts wrong about the glaciers they also did so about the wave power issue and they based some of their info about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence.

One example of the Telegraph's scandalous revelations are:

Quote:

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC�s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Wow. That is mindblowing. Everything in the entire report must be completely wrong then!

This is an international panel that has had to scour an enormous amount of data from a vast number of sources from all around the world. During this process, it's almost certain that some people might have been a bit sloppy sometimes. Have you ever known any organisation where this wasn't occasionally the case? It's really unsurprising that there are errors and some flaws in a 3000 report. Or did you imagine the entire staff employed by the IPCC to be infallible god-like beings?

I'm not sure how the IPCC was supposed to check the Dutch Government's (wrong) information. Perhaps they need to get independent corroboration from other sources before they accept any information at all. That might not be a bad thing. But the IPCC itself would not have had the funds and the means to run about Holland checking out such information - doing it's own countrywide topography!

And so, because there is some human error (something to be found in ANY human organisation) we can all pretend that absolutely every bit of research looked at by the IPCC must be in grave doubt.

All this says to me is that they need more checks and balances (something they ARE working on) and a near blanket rule that only peer-reviewed research may be considered.

TUM wrote:

Actually it is that I say they may be wrong. I already pointed out that the earth is getting warmer. I have not been loathe to say so in the slightest. As to their claims that it IS man-made and that catastrophic events will happen...I notice you dodged those entirely, preferring to focus on something that was never a issue of debate.

Human activity has had a clear impact on the planet's climate. Anyone who still thinks differently is really just kidding themselves - and ignoring a plethora of evidence and scientific research. I wonder if you'll still dare to voice this view in 2020? Many or your fellow 'climate skeptic' travellers have now conceded that humans have had a hand in this, and are now moving on to the 'global warming won't really be so bad, folks' phase.

From the American Physical Society:

Quote:

Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject:

Big Bird wrote:

There are powerful economic and ideological incentives that motivate catastrophic climate change peddlers, but that fact alone is totally insufficient to just dismiss scientific evidence. That's why I would never be seen dead doing it. The self-interest a party has in a claim being true has no bearing on the truth of the claim. This is the kind of debate tactic one might expect to see employed by, say, a university freshman. Otherwise, avoid it at all costs, I say.

All this nonsense does is show that you are totally barinwashed and refuse to even consider contrary scientific evidence. It's intuitive that the articles don't at all rely on tricks or quote-mining, any more than your secondary sources. They seem perfectly straightforward and faithful citations of the primary source - graphs, quotes, references, the lot. Indeed, since they are written by actual climate scientists, ironically they're far more likely to be faithful than a newspaper article written by some leftist hack. Quoting out of context? That doesn't seem very likely if you actually read it.

Big Bird wrote:

In fact, the scientific consensus is that benefits will be far outweighed by graver consequences

All filed under the I�ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it category, I'm afraid

("But by then, the scientific consensus says it'll be too late!! By then, civilization as we would like it will be GONE!!")

Big Bird wrote:

This is not something I've just pulled out me arse. It's something them pesky 'mainstream' scientists have pulled out of theirs'. Go take it up with them then.

Floods 'to become more frequent'

Quote:

start point/end point fallacy

Big Bird wrote:

CLIMATE change in the future will bring more freak weather events like super cyclones, but Australia is unprepared to deal with them, a report reveals.

Scientists: Summer fires, floods augur global warming. Weather fits predictions; 'There is no time to waste,' says climatologist

Perhaps it's my connection, but these took so long to load I gave up

Quote:

Scientists Projected an Increase in Intensity and Frequency of Extreme Weather Events

If there's a cause/effect relationship between a warmer than average climate and cases of extreme weather, a dose/response relationship ought to follow.

Perfect example: we are certain there is a cause/effect relationship between CO2 emissions and heating. We can reasomably extrapolate that there's a dose/response relationship of 100ppm = 0.8C. So we can predict that a further 300ppm emitted = 2/3C in additional heating.

The predictability of the quantity and intensity of extreme weather events, however, is much more vague, wishy washy and uncertain, suggesting the evidence for a cause/effect relationship in the first place is uncertain.

Once the temperature of the Earth increases, changes occur to atmospheric moisture levels, cloud patterns, surface properties, and so on straight away. Some changes, such as additional moisture, amplify the warming, whilst other consequences, namely the development of more low clouds, would act to restrain (or even reverse) the warming. Sorry, the science (predicting more cases of extreme weather) is too uncertain.

Big Bird wrote:

Plently of smokers have wriggled, coughed and wheezed all the way to the grave telling themselves that 'scientists haven't found a definitive link between smoking and cancer!'

Hehe. Climate change catastrophists are so cute. I too used to come out with all these things when I was a believer. If someone takes up smoking, the likelihood of a shorter life due to cancer or heart attack increases dramatically. The emission of greenhouse gases however produces modest heating, modest change and with very little in the way of indication that being Chicken Little about it is a remotely sensible position.

Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:21 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

[q
This is an international panel that has had to scour an enormous amount of data from a vast number of sources from all around the world. During this process, it's almost certain that some people might have been a bit sloppy sometimes. Have you ever known any organisation where this wasn't occasionally the case? It's really unsurprising that there are errors and some flaws in a 3000 report. Or did you imagine the entire staff employed by the IPCC to be infallible god-like beings?

.

]

No, but I did imagine that any actual data that made it into the report would be rigorously peer-reviewed and checked. ( BTW how does one incorporate student dissertations by accident?). I mean this was supposed to be THE definitive report on global warming...the final word. There's really no excuse for that given the importance attached to this report. Given that the IPCC does not do any original research of its own or monitor the climate all it would have to is check the research...something anyone with a computer could do. Heck that's what bloggers have been doing and they have a lot less resources than the IPCC.

Minor flaws like typing and so on could be overlooked but large amounts of data were (a) unsourced, (b) unchecked. (c) based on data that itself was unsourced and unchecked.---see my link about the computer programmer (which you keep ignoring). To note just one problem he pointed out that many of the weather stations from which this data was supposedly gathered from do not seem to exist.
And we're supposed to trust this?

Any road up it seems clear that carbon legislation (to the point the IPCC was calling for) will not be introduced anytime soon if ever.

So I guess we'll see who was right 20 years from now.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:43 pm Post subject:

You must be awash with gallons of bloody testosterone to write such arrogant buggery, SS! I'll get back to you on this later, in another rare pocket of leisure time.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:15 am Post subject:

This should be the definitive word on this subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe