Admiral_Bobski
-
Posts
1,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski
-
-
Okay, I've read about half of it now and skimmed through the rest for now (fear not, I shall read the second half in greater detail later).
It looks increasingly like the debate is going to continue in much the same way as it did with the TAR, namely that it will centre around two main points: how accurate are their assessments (e.g. Table SPM-1), and how valid are their assumptions (e.g. are we taking the essential parts of the climate system into account, and are we attributing the right proportions to the right factors)? Since the models which predict future climate are structured around our understanding of past records (the accuracy of the assessments) and our assumptions about present and future conditions (the validity of the assumptions), and it is those model predictions that are used to determine future policy, I think those are probably the essential aspects of the debate. There is little point in quibbling over the data from the last thirty years (certainly the last 15, anyway), and no doubt that there appears to be some warming - the core part of the debate is as to whether this is attributable to mankind's activities.
Time to go back over the second half now!
TTFN
C-Bob
-
sorry Bob you are right, it is the issue as you describe, and yes its 21 pages long. heaven knows how long the full report might be. I've got as far as page 12 so far!
John
This beast's going to take quite a lot of digestion before any sensible debate's going to come out of it, I think! My initial thoughts are that the report isn't any big surprise (as I have said), and that 90% certainty still leaves some scope for argument (little Devil's Advocate that I am!). It's interesting that there has been much debate about all the latest articles and theories over the past year and yet now, once the IPCC have come along, the debate is somehow suddenly perceived as being over. The 4AR is based upon all the papers that we have been debating, and the fact that the IPCC have drawn a certain conclusion doesn't negate the possibility of there being any other conclusions to draw.
Long may the debate last!
C-Bob
PS - The "Long May the Debate Last" comment is not an attempt to "muddy the waters", it is not an attempt to "delay action when we should be acting now", it is not an attempt to upset or rile anybody. Debate is an essential and important aspect of any scientific theory - the more debating that goes on, the sharper and more refined the theories become. So please don't shout at me for that one!
-
I've just checked and downloaded the pdf and it is, indeed, a 21 page "Summary for Policymakers". It is the full summary (i.e. not edited or abridged), but it is not the full report (which will probably run into hundreds of pages). I'd best get reading, I suppose.
C-Bob
-
no the full report is in the link I give early in this thread.
John
oh, right - I thought I heard mention that the full report wasn't to be released until May, but fair enough.
In that case I shall have a good thorough read and see if there's any debate left in this old dog! Ta
C-Bob
-
I confess I still have not read the report (been busy making a new cage for my rats!), but hopefully I'll get around to it today. Am I right in saying that this is a summary that gives conclusions based upon the full, as yet unreleased, report? If so then the debate may not be over - unless all arguments come back round to "the IPCC says it's so, so it is so..." We've debated the TAR, so I see no reason why we can't debate the 4AR even if it is "90% certain". (To WIB I would say that the use of the word "unequivocal" is wrong - there's a big difference between unequivocal and "as close to unequivocal as you're going to get in science" - people still try to argue that Einstein's theories are wrong, and they're probably 99%+ certain, so there's always room for debate!
) -
Bit unfair, I paid quite a lot of attention to your '% of degrees' stuff in another thread, and I agreed with you . Besides, (way OT) I've been known to end up in a semi hysterical gasping for breath state at the best of Tom and Jerry, W.C. Fields ('Pool Sharks'? I think), or Monty Python
Serious is serious though - imo.
Fair play to you Devonian - that much is true
(Well, I don't know about the Tom & Jerry stuff, but...you know what I mean! ) -
Nothing 'nice' about climate change. the only 'nice' thing to come from it is the apparent movement further into mainstream acceptance that man made Global warming is a measurable thing (don't be fooled by the language, you couldn't give a 100% certainty of the Sun rising tomorrow though we acept that it probably will!) that is having measurable effects that can be projected into the near future with near certainty as to it's effects over that time period.
The nay sayers slip ever further into the area of acceptability currently occupied by the K. Ringesque view on things (IMO).
I have not read the full summary (if that makes sense!) yet but, as I said over on the other thread, there is nothing particularly surprising in it. Just to reiterate something I said on the other thread, though, in the initial BBC report they quote that it is "very likely" mankind is responsible for GW (to which they attribute a 90% certainty), and they also quote that the evidence is "unequivocal". To repeat my question, "How can it be both 90% certain and unequivocal?"
Anyway, that's my first nit picked! When I've read the full pdf I'll probably have found others...
C-Bob
PS - In the interests of avoiding acrimony, as per John's request, shall we dispense with the "that's the nay-sayers argument gone"-type comments and concentrate rather upon the facts of the report?
-
Yeah, people saying such things allways say that. My experience is when the boot on the other foot the reaction is 'somewhat' different and just as 'touchy'. I could try an experiment, but I better not.
But I never did say such a thing, and I wouldn't as I always try to keep my posts as rhetoric-free as possible. Slogans, slang and catchphrases do neither side of the debate any good. I also try to keep a good humour about things - I do not advocate the use of the word "Environazis", and I would never myself use it, but it is kind of funny-sounding (I'll probably get shouted at for the now: "Oh, so you think nazis are funny, do you?!").
One thing that strikes me is how little attention seems to be paid to my posts (except by such good people as Gray-Wolf and P3) until I say something in jest - then everyone (you know who you are) jumps down my throat. The day the human race loses its sense of humour is the day we sign our own death warrant (forget Global Warming - Over-seriousness is a much greater threat to our continued survival on this planet).
C-Bob
-
I really think we can do without words like 'environazis' besides being very insulting (I suppose the equlivalent might be, ...well, I better not eh?) it's all just tooo obviously Goodwin.
I said that I wasn't using it to describe anyone, just that it was a pleasing piece of wordplay. Some people are so touchy!
C-Bob
-
Any nay-sayers convinced by this ->
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm
or is this just another bunch of enviro-nazis out to impose their hidden agenda sandals and flowers version of human existence on us all ???? (I don't think so)
I'm not surprised in the slightest by the IPCC report - they were hardly going to turn around and say "Oops! Sorry! The TAR was completely wrong so we're going to do some furious back-pedalling now." (I'll probably get shouted at for saying that, but ho-hum...)
But as a perfect example of how the IPCC like to fuzz the edges of the climate debate, they start out by saying that it is "very likely" that humans are causing GW, and they say that "very likely" corresponds to a 90% certainty. However, later on they say that the evidence is "unequivocal". Here's what unequivocal means:
un·e·quiv·o·cal; adj. Admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; clear and unambiguous.
How can it be both "Unequivocal" and only 90% certain? This is not just a somantic argument, it's a case of serious misrepresentation of the evidence. So, am I swayed by the 4AR summary? No more than by the TAR.
C-Bob
Hey Mondy!
Oi, get your own word or phrase!! Environazis is mine. So too is Fundamentalist Environmentalism.Sorry to be a party-pooper, but Michael Crichton used "Fundamentalist Environmentalism" in a speech to the US Senate a while ago.
But "Environazis" is a great word!
Nice one!C-Bob
PS - Note to all and sundry: I am not necessairly calling any Pro-AGW people Environazis, either on this board or in the world at large, but I find the structure and sound of the word especially appealing. :huh:
-
It's all quite jolly on here today, isn't it? Tempers seem to be nearing boiling point, even if temperatures aren't...! Speaking of umbrage, though, I found my nose a little put out of joint by this remark from SF:
What NONE OF YOU ever do is present a sigle shread of data, original thought, or evidential argument to back up your position. It's easy to say "yaa boo" from behind your cage, but let's not kid ourselves that it's clever.Thanks for that sweeping generalisation, SF - nice to see that my contribution (and notable others, including Mondy) to the debate has been so casually and condescendingly swept aside. I shall have to make sure that in future posts I actually link to shreds of data, that I don't just regurgitate nonsense from my automatous mind, that I try to present actual evidence and that I keep cries of "yaa boo" to an absolute minimum. Oh. Hang on a minute...
Sometimes I wonder whether there's any point to offering the other side of the debate - is this why there are so few "professional" skeptics...because they're tired of being scoffed at? Perhaps not, but I'd understand if it were the case.
C-Bob
-
I can honestly say that over half the bulbs in my house are low-energy, and I'll tell you why - they use up less electricity and they last longer, so they end up costing me far less. Practical reasons, which are exactly the reasons I have given for switching to non-polluting forms of energy. Just because you use low-energy bulbs doesn't mean you believe in AGW! Having said that, I look forward to your future polls...
C-Bob
-
Great idea! Before I read this I just started one on low-energy light bulbs. Your idea is different and I really like it: go for it?
While you're at it you could see who's religious and who's an atheist, but I think that might go down like a lead balloon. For the record, I have three children myself...
C-Bob
-
1916??????
Who did they blame then Hitler?
So far i cannot see an arguement of to why GW apparently exists and why our government is for want of better words....raping us.
They'll probably blame the First World War, since 1916 was slap bang in the middle and there were all those terrible polluting balsa-wood single-prop biplanes and the first tanks and so on...
I think the government is quite happy to use GW as the perfect alibi for said rape...
Grim stuff
C-Bob
-
Oh, forgot to say that (if anyone didn't know) the warmest recorded January CET was way back in 1916...
C-Bob
-
Generally speaking I am in agreement with Mondy (though not with such strong wording, perhaps!
), but just to comment on the quote he used from Don:If the cold spell of last week hadn't occured, this would have comfortably been the warmest January on record, making it three records breaking warm months out of the last sevenI have to confess it does bug me a bit when people (not a dig at you, Don!) say things like this. If it hadn't been for the cold spell of last week...? But the monthly CET is an average temperature, and an average is taken over a period of time, taking all peaks and troughs into account - the fact is that the cold spell of last week did happen and, as a result, this January is unlikely (just) to be a record-breaking month. It's kind of like saying "I would have won the lottery last night if all of my numbers had come up." If they didn't then it's fairly irrelevant.
C-Bob
-
Yes, this mild winter has convinced me that AGW is real. Seeing the famous "hockey-stick" graph with solar/volcanic and carbon emission data superimposed reinforced this for me.
Ooh, don't get me started on the hockey-stick graph!
C-Bob
-
I believe that 'time will tell all' and sooner rather than later (no 50yr wait in my understanding/witnessing of what is occuring.....) so I (and the IPCC) won't have long to wait for my 'definative answer'.
Quite so, Gray-Wolf. The frustrating thing for us who challenge the AGW position is that a particularly steep rise over x number of years will (for most people) clinch the debate in favour of AGW, whereas a small rise, or no trend, or even a downward trend over the same period would not clinch the debate against AGW. Pro-AGW people have a "definitive answer" to wait for, but Anti-AGW people have no such definitive answer. (Let's be honest - even if next Winter gave us two months of continuous arctic weather it would be regarded as a statistically likely blip, and not challenging to the GW debate in the slightest.)
As for the IPCC, although they are regarded as truly independent they are, at the end of the day, a governmentally approved body (admittedly approved by multiple governments from many countries) established by the UN. I have my reservations about the UN's various motives - here's an organisation that draws a line in the dirt and tells an evil dictator "you must not cross this line." He crosses the line and what do they do? They take a step back and draw another line. This happens several times until finally someone stands up and says we should do something about the evil dictator and then what does the UN do? "We oppose your actions - peaceful means are the only viable approach."
So, when it comes to international security the UN is remarkably good at rolling over and playing dead, and they take a lot of flak for it. How can they redeem themselves? Well, they set themselves an objective of tackling and solving the "biggest threat to human survival" - wars are as nothing compared to the threat of extinction by global warming... So, it could be argued that the IPCC is little more than a huge PR exercise which, to sufficiently quell the doubts of others, aims to prove GW, enforce the ways of "curing" it, and take all the credit when the Earth is finally "healed".
This bout of rampant cynicism has been brought to you by...
C-Bob
B)
-
I see the IPCC has upted the assesment of how much humans have contributed to Global warming over the last 50 yrs.
In 2001 they put a figure of 66% on how certain they were that humans are causing/fueling the change they are now 90% sure that it's us that are responsible.
Interesting that the opposition has been more vocal in the last year yet their certainty has increased... Hmmmm.......
C-Bob
Erm, no, becuase you quoting weather tolerance and then equating that with a change of climate of 1C? Since the last ice age global climate was 5C or so colder 1c warming could be said to be a 20% change.But, this is getting confusing B) .
Yes, it is getting confusing isn't it?! But, no, I'm quoting temperature tolerance and equating it with a change of temperature - climate is recognised these days as being the "average weather" over a given period of time, so the percentage temperature change over a given period of time is directly related to the climate. (In fact the CET is basically a measure of climate, not weather, as it is an average over a given period of time of around thirty days - short term, but still climatic by definition.)
C-Bob
-
To be clear, I DO get your point - we can say it's increased by x% if you have a base - I agree.
I'm just asking another (yes, periferal) question, which is kind of 'what is 100% on the Kelvin scale?' we don't know. Thus if Earths temperature was 13C and it rose by 1 C that's more in % that if it were 20C and rose by 1C.
But, again, I DO and accept your point.
The 100% would be whatever temperature you take to be your average at a given time - if we take the average January CET to be 4°C, this is 277.15K. A 4°C rise on top of this is 1.443% increase on the average. The Kelvin scale itself doesn't require an upper limit to make quantitative assessments, just a baseline.
If you notice, a 1.443% increase in the January CET worked out at 4°C, but a 1.443% increase in the July CET worked out at 4.17°C, which is slightly higher - this is due to the fact that the July CET is a bigger 100% than the January CET (being some 12°C higher).
Hope this clarifies it for you B) I'm always happy to field questions (especially if I know the answer!)
Cheers
C-Bob
-
'Tis all right, Gray-Wolf - I'm sure it was unintentional Tinkerdom B)
Devonian, you said "Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?", which is to what I was referring when I said you don't get the point. Of course we can talk about percentages with temperature, so long as we use the appropriate baseline. The point is that neither the Celsius nor the Fahrenheit scale are appropriate baselines - the appropriate baseline starts at absolute zero, which is 0K or -273.15°C. Percentages require a scale that starts with an absolute measurement of zero - so long as that is used then percentages are fine.
EDIT - Your point about accepting Man's ability to cause a 1% change in temperatures is a valid one, but my main argument against that point has always been basically one of the tolerance of the system (and I mean tolerance in the scientific sense). If we take the average extremes of UK temp (just the UK for now!) as being -10°C and 30°C (these figures are not etched in stone, just representative) that's a 40°C margin. 40°C is about 13.2% of the range from absolute zero to 30°C. Now you're talking about the 1.443% increase on the baseline scale as equating to a 10% change in our tolerance margin. EDIT - (1.443% increase in baseline temps is 4°C... 4°C is 10% of 40°C.) This may sound a little contradictory, but we've actually swapped the temperature percentage for a tolerance percentage, which is valid in this case. If the climate system's tolerance to change is 10% or greater, therefore, then a 1% overall change by Man's activity will have little or no effect on the overall system. That's what the debate - to my mind - is really all about.
C-Bob
-
Fair enough, in %* terms the rises expected are minimal, a 4C rise is only a ~1% rise (so. why do a few find a mere 1% change in global temperatures due to our activities so impossible to accept....).
*Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?
You're missing the point - we're talking about increases, and increases have to be measured from a base point, not some arbitrarily selected starting point.
If I had twenty apples and I separated them into four groups of five, then doubled one of the groups of five, would I have twice the total number of apples? No - not even if I had an infinite supply of apples to double with.
C-Bob
-
Thanks guys
It's nice to be able to clarify something which is actually rather important. The point is that while a July CET of 20°C+ is exceptional and achieveable, a July CET of 32°C+ is extraordinarily unlikely and not supported by the comparison with January CET. Granted that cities handle heat differently from rural areas, but even then I suspect an average July temperature of 32°C is virtually impossible unless something cataclysmic were to happen (rather more cataclysmic than a climatic tipping point, I should imagine), as that would involve around four times the differential we have now in July.The other problem, of course, is that when people speak of the January CET being "double the average" it does put this catastrophic idea into people's heads that all monthly averages could "double" and makes them worry all the more about the effects of global warming when, in reality, the degree of warming isn't as bad as it sounds (okay, so a 4°C CET increase every month is pretty darn bad, but it's not that bad!)
Still, let's wait and see what this year has in store for us - maybe we'll record some sub-average CETs this year that buck the trend!
C-Bob
EDIT - Please note that the "jiggery-pokery" and "tinkerdom" actually refer to the "doubling" of the CET, not to the 1.443% increase in CET - the latter is the actual increase, whereas the former is, unwittingly, a bit of sleight-of-hand...
-
I agree. Twice the CET in winter is bearable but in July???
That's a little bit of an unfair comparison to make there, Gray-Wolf. I've noticed this come up a few times in the last month or so and it's worth clearing up this misleading confusion. The problem is that you can't use multipliers on the CET, since it is measured in Celsius (or, occasionally, Fahrenheit) which isn't an absolute scale of temperature - the only scale you could legitimately multiply in this way is the Kelvin scale which starts, conveniently enough, at 0K (which is -273.15°C).
To give an example -
Using the Celsius Scale...
Average CET = 4°C
Current CET = 8°C
Temperature increase = 200%
Using the Kelvin Scale...
Average CET = 277.15 K
Current CET = 281.15 K
Temperature increase = 1.443%
So, in fact, this January's CET is not technically double the CET but only an increase of 1.443%. "Ah-ha!" you might say, "but that's just a somantic argument." It probably is if left at that, but to then go on and say that July would be a killer if it, too, had double the CET is irresponsible - here's why...
Using the Celsius Scale...
Average July CET = 16°C
Expected Increase = 200%
Expected July CET = 32°C (+16°C)
Using the Kelvin Scale...
Average July CET = 289.15K
Expected Increase = 1.443%
Expected July CET = 293.32K (+4.17°C)
If the July CET were to show an increase proportionate to the January CET then we could expect a July CET return of just over 20°C, which is certainly higher than normal (and record-breaking, too, by almost half a degree Celsius), but nowhere near as disasterously hot as your comment would have us believe.
Interesting bit of jiggery-pokery, eh?
C-Bob
(Well, I don't know about the Tom & Jerry stuff, but...you know what I mean! 
Nice one!
It's nice to be able to clarify something which is actually rather important. The point is that while a July CET of 20°C+ is exceptional and achieveable, a July CET of 32°C+ is extraordinarily unlikely and not supported by the comparison with January CET. Granted that cities handle heat differently from rural areas, but even then I suspect an average July temperature of 32°C is virtually impossible unless something cataclysmic were to happen (rather more cataclysmic than a climatic tipping point, I should imagine), as that would involve around four times the differential we have now in July.
Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Just a quick response to your last couple of comments - I do appreciate that 90% certainty does give a big bias in the direction of the pro-AGW argument but, firstly, the AGW debate is significantly more complicated than a horse race and that 10% uncertainty can have a big impact, and secondly, it comes back down to the validity of the assumptions of the pro-AGW argument. The argument as presented may be 90% certain, but if one, some or all of the assumptions are flawed then that certainty plummets.
To your second comment, I agree entirely that phrases such as "environazi" should not be used in a rational debate and that it amounts to little more than school playground dirt-kicking and name-calling. However, despite "Environazi" being a much stronger term, I feel it belongs to the same group of words as "nay-sayer". Many a time has the word "nay-sayer" been used as basically a derogatory term for anyone who is skeptical about AGW. Although "nay-sayer" doesn't conjure up such vivid imagery as "environazi" it is still a deliberately dismissive (and, in certain contexts, almost abusive) word. I am not defending the word, but the argument works both ways...
C-Bob