News UN to Say It Overstated AIDS Cases.

[chemisttree]

WHOA!

Johannesburg, South Africa - The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement...

...The latest estimates, due to be released publicly today, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40% from last year's estimate, documents show...

...researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV.

Critics also have said U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein, author of "The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS." "I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way."

Craig Timberg, Washington Post

Yeah, let's hope they haven't screwed the pooch on this one.

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

 

[Evo]

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

When the facts don't match the "conclusions" eventually the truth can no longer be held back by the political yes men.

 

[Moridin]

Please.

The UN has done nothing to fix the HIV/AIDS issue. It has been up for discussion in the GA and the SC, but nothing has been done. The main argument seems to be whether to use the term 'homosexual' or not in their reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7103855.stm

But the UN officials involved in the report say that does not reflect reality.

The main reason for the fall, they say, is that they have adjusted their estimates after receiving more reliable data for some key countries.

Most countries do not report their cases. At all.

As a side note, isn't it time to give up on the human-aided global warming denial?

 

[Evo]

As a side note, isn't it time to give up on the human-aided global warming denial?

There is no denial, you can't deny something that hasn't been proven.

 

[Plastic Photon]

This sounds like it could be a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry and related industries who bank off such disaster scenarios as world AIDs epidemic or chicken fever.

 

[Yonoz]

This sounds like it could be a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry and related industries who bank off such disaster scenarios as world AIDs epidemic or chicken fever.

How much money can they make out of that poor continent? Their efforts are better spent selling cough syrup and sleeping pills in North America, and exotic extracts and soy products in Europe.
Incidentally, soy cultivation happens to be a major cause of Amazon deforestation.

 

[Economist]

"There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein

This always happens. I am not suprised at all.

 

[Art]

When the facts don't match the "conclusions" eventually the truth can no longer be held back by the political yes men.

They seem to have learned from past errors. Now their predictions are over a 100 year timespan so unfortunately if/when it is proven to be wrong there'll be no-one left alive to say I told you so.

If the world temperature falls in the meantime they'll either claim it as a success for their policies being enacted or do another U-turn and revert to their anthropogenic snowball Earth theory

It really is a case of heads I win tails you lose.

 

[siddharth]

UN HIV estimates reduced to 33m

The United Nations has reduced its estimates of how many people are infected with HIV in 2007 from nearly 40m to 33m. Revised figures for India account for much of the decrease, experts say. But the rate of new cases and mortality levels are declining, although figures still show that there are 6,800 new cases each day and over 5,700 deaths.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7103163.stm)

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. Anyway, what does the IPCC report have to do with this? It's apples and oranges.

There is no denial, you can't deny something that hasn't been proven.

But, people can (and indeed, do) deny the current scientific consensus, that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Do you?

 

[Evo]

But, people can (and indeed, do) deny the current scientific consensus, that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". Do you?

The "consensus" lacks scientific proof. It's really just a "politically correct" consensus. I'll point you to one of Vanesch's excellent posts as he is a scientist and explains the problem quite well.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1467020&postcount=65

 

[chemisttree]

Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't. Anyway, what does the IPCC report have to do with this? It's apples and oranges.

You say tomato, I say tomahhto, you say potato, I say potahhto. You say its apples and oranges, I say it's fruit salad...

Have a happy Thanksgiving, Siddharth!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are correct Siddharth. There is a consensus based on the best minds in the business. All other opinions are moot.

We will never have absolute proof. Science doesn't work that way. The confidence in AGW at least 90%.

 

[Art]

You are correct Siddharth. There is a consensus based on the best minds in the business. All other opinions are moot.

We will never have absolute proof. Science doesn't work that way. The confidence in AGW at least 90%.

Saying the confidence level expressed by the IPCC is 90% is a little like saying the RC church is 90% confident of the existence of God. It provides 'proof' for the believers of their faith but is irrelevant to those not party to the religion which is what AGW is these days - a religion. Totally faith based - never to be questioned and never to be doubted. There are even analogies for the miracles which religion uses to 'proove' their cause such as the polar bear extinction nonsense which is probably one of the least scientific pieces of rubbish ever published with the exception perhaps of some of the other GW sensationalist nonsense publications also masquerading as science.

Out of interest mankind's total contribution to greenhouse gasses is 0.28% do you really believe such a trivial figure can make much difference to GW or that reducing this figure to 0.26% will have Earth saving consequences? Even taking the 'notorious' CO2 alone man's contribution is 11 billion tonnes a year whilst nature's is 210 billion tonnes a year.

 

[mjsd]

Saying the confidence level expressed by the IPCC is 90% is a little like saying the RC church is 90% confident of the existence of God. It provides 'proof' for the believers of their faith but is irrelevant to those not party to the religion which is what AGW is these days - a religion. Totally faith based -

true to a certain extent, the conclusion on AGW is highly dependent on the climate model that one employs. you may trust model A, I may trust model B ...

One thing is clear however, human activities have so far done more harm than good to our enviroment.

Yeah, let's hope they haven't screwed the pooch on this one.

this "new insight" (or simply admittance of past exaggeration) could potentially mean a few things:
1. less future fundings for South Africa on AIDS related drugs, programs
2. a better image for South Africa, as it is not as plagued as first thought
3. a better image for the UN, as an effective force against AIDS in Africa
among other possibilities

seriously, there is no way of telling their initial motivation behind the gross overestimations in the past, and why they'd admitted it now.

 

[ShawnD]

This sounds like it could be a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry and related industries who bank off such disaster scenarios as world AIDs epidemic or chicken fever.

How so? People only buy drugs if they have the illness, not if they think they may have the illness based on UN speculation. In any event, Africa doesn't pay for drugs. Drugs are given to Africa as a PR thing to say "look how nice we are to Africans, now please pay us $1200 per month for Atripla" (Atripla is an HIV medication, retail value is $1200/month in the US).

I used to work for Gilead, the company that makes the emtricitabine portion of Atripla. We had several meetings about the huge profit margin on emtricitabine, and why employees should contribute 15% of their income towards the stock purchase plan. The vast majority of money made on that drug was in the US since the price in the US is 10x that of India, and about 20x that of Africa.edit: and good job on derailing an AIDS thread to talk about global warming. If you bring it up enough times, somebody will eventually give a rat's ass.

 

[Art]

edit: and good job on derailing an AIDS thread to talk about global warming. If you bring it up enough times, somebody will eventually give a rat's ass.

You did actually read the OP eh??

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

Obviously not!

 

[ShawnD]

You did actually read the OP eh??

Obviously not!

Did you ever read that sign in the magical zoo that says "don't feed the trolls"? Same applies to forums. He started a thread under the pretext of it being about AIDS then ended it with a comment about global warming, and people chose to jump on the global warming comment. Another potentially interesting thread goes down the drain.

 

[Skyhunter]

I wonder when the U.N.'s IPCC will get around to also admitting that they too 'overestimated' something vitally important...

It will not be in the http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf"

http://ipcc.cac.es/"

 

[Art]

Did you ever read that sign in the magical zoo that says "don't feed the trolls"? Same applies to forums. He started a thread under the pretext of it being about AIDS then ended it with a comment about global warming, and people chose to jump on the global warming comment. Another potentially interesting thread goes down the drain.

If you want a thread specific to AIDS then why not start one?

I may be wrong but I read it as the originator of this thread wanted to highlight UN mendacity which seems a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion.

 

[Art]

It will not be in the http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf"

http://ipcc.cac.es/"

So the climate is changing. This isn't exactly surprising, the wonder would be if it wasn't.

Can you point to any period in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history the climate hasn't changed? In fact only 10,000 years ago Birmingham in the UK was under a mile of ice and the island of Ireland was populated by people who walked there from Britain.

The question is how does our 0.28% contribution to GHG materially affect climate?

 

[Skyhunter]

Art,

Using statistics to distort the facts is dishonest.

Since GHG levels are at levels clearly outside the bounds of natural variability, The human contribution has increased levels by 100ppm. That is an undisputed fact.

Why do you try and obfuscate by comparing the annual human emissions to the natural carbon cycle?

 

[Art]

Art,

Using statistics to distort the facts is dishonest.

You mean using facts to dispel nonsensical statistics? I don't see anything dishonest about that in the slightest.

Since GHG levels are at levels clearly outside the bounds of natural variability, The human contribution has increased levels by 100ppm. That is an undisputed fact.

Why do you try and obfuscate by comparing the annual human emissions to the natural carbon cycle?

Because the molecules don't know which of them are natural and which are manmade and so behave identically. It is AGW proponents who distort facts by conveniently leaving out water vapor when reporting mankind's % contribution to GHG emission despite water vapor being the main GHG. And their justification is - 'we've always done it that way' Duh!

 

[Gokul43201]

Saying the confidence level expressed by the IPCC is 90% is a little like saying the RC church is 90% confident of the existence of God.

...in the same way that saying steel is denser than water is a little like saying water is denser than steel. The emphasis ought to be placed where it belongs - on the word 'little'.

When a climate scientist uses the term 'confidence', it refers to a rigorously defined mathematical/statistical quantity known as the confidence interval (or significance level) ^{[1] http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/confint.html#confinterval} .

I wish the membership in an AGW debate came with the minimum prerequisite that the debators be familiar with standard statisical analysis.

PS: This thread, now having been completely derailed, should probably be split off into one of the earlier AGW threads.

 

[Art]

...in the same way that saying steel is denser than water is a little like saying water is denser than steel. The emphasis ought to be placed where it belongs - on the word 'little'.

When a climate scientist uses the term 'confidence', it refers to a rigorously defined mathematical/statistical quantity known as the confidence interval (or significance level) ^{[1] http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/confint.html#confinterval} .

I wish the membership in an AGW debate came with the minimum prerequisite that the debators be familiar with standard statisical analysis.

PS: This thread, now having been completely derailed, should probably be split off into one of the earlier AGW threads.

I wish the membership in an AGW debate came with the minimum prerequisite that the debators be familiar with

the subject they comment on

There are legitimate difficulties with the IPCC's 90 per cent confidence in anthropogenic warming. It is not ludicrous to question what that number means. The IPCC seems to imply that this number results from a scientific process -that it has tested a hypothesis. Indeed, the IPCC tells us its understanding is based "upon large amounts of new and more comprehensive data, more sophisticated analysis of data, improvements in understanding of processes and their simulation in models, and more extensive exploration of uncertainty ranges". If this is what the IPCC has done, it has very weak evidence. Ninety per cent is the weakest acceptable level of confidence in a hypothesis test. It is not clear from the Summary whether the IPCC has, in fact, undertaken such an analysis. It is more likely that it has neither a testable model nor data available for external researchers to replicate such a test. In other words, the IPCC's 90 per cent confidence has emerged from scientists evaluating whether they think their own work is correct.
There is an even greater problem with the analysis. The IPCC provides a breakdown of seven extreme weather events, and an assessment of human influence on those events. Only two of the individual events have a human impact of at least 66 per cent, the other five are 50-50 propositions. Somehow this all adds up to 90 per cent. Furthermore, in three of the weather events there is no underlying human attribution study -the IPCC made up that data.

http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_1342.html

 

[Evo]

PS: This thread, now having been completely derailed, should probably be split off into one of the earlier AGW threads.

There are so many, I should probably merge them and have all AGW posts restricted to one thread. Let me think about it.

In the meantime, I will agree to split the AGW posts when I figure out where to put them and revert back to the AIDS issue, which with the lower revised figures is still a high number that shouldn't be overlooked.

My 2 cents on AGW, we don't know what effects are normal and which aren't, and to what degree any abnormality is happening and what parts of the world might be affected. I *am* for reducing pollution. I am also for being smart about thinking things through before we really mess things up, yes I would like to see some caution considering that every time humans try to "fix" a perceived problem, they usually create a more serious problem. Here in the midwest, the last 2 summers have been cooler than the previous 13. Today is the coldest Thanksgiving in 12 years. Freak frosts in late spring destroyed many fruit and other crops here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Art, will you ever learn to source your quotes?

 

[Art]

Gokul, You flatter the IPCC by assuming they use data derived information to arrive at their published confidence levels. That would be a bit too much like real science for them.

Where does the IPCC terminology "Very highly confident" come from?

Where does the terminology "Very highly confident" come from?

On February 2, the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) issued a 21-page Summary for Policymakers (SPM) written by Fourth Assessment Report science section leads and government political or staff officials from 113 countries.

In the SPM, they issue pronouncements with probabilities and degrees of confidence expressed as "likely", "very likely" and "virtually certain". In a footnote, they relate these adjectives to confidence levels of 67%, 90% and 99%, which is detailed in the UncertaintyGuidanceNote.pdf IPCC policy for team members document.

Where does this terminology come from?
In statistics, similar terminology is used but with different meanings to make claims of statistically "significant" (95%), "highly significant" (99%), and "very highly significant" (99.9%).

Many of us were confused by the similar - but not the same - terminology used in the SPM and posted questions at RealClimate asking for an explanation of what the SPM terminology meant since the meaning is not provided by the IPCC documents. No answer was provided by RealClimate.

Where does this terminology come from and what does it mean?
Per a footnote in the SPM, as well as this paper by Dr. Steven Schneider, Professor of Biology at Stanford University, most of these estimates came from subjective "expert judgment". Dr. Schneider's paper appears to have been written for the IPCC and used as the basis of the terminology used by the IPCC. While some estimates may be data-derived, the SPM does not say which are based on data and which are based on subjective analysis. (Read Dr. Schneider's paper for yourself to understand the recommended best practices.)
[snip]
Summary

The probability and confidence levels in the Summary for Policymakers are not (in general) statistically derived but are from subjective analysis made by experts in the field. The probability and confidence levels are literally "gut feel" guesses.
cont'd

http://hamradio-online.com/commonsense/2007/10/where-does-ipcc-terminology-very-highly.html

As I said it's like catholic priests using their 'expert judgement' to express a 90% confidence level in the existence of God .

 

[Art]

With regard to this much vaunted consensus

How Many Climate Scientists Were Involved With Writing the 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers?

The media is in error when it states that,

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)

Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

There is a summary of the final stages in writing the 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers in the February 18, 2007 edition of the Denver Post. The article is by Kevin Trenberth and is titled Climate report on deadline.

The article states that

“A full report that’s the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages.

As one of about 30 lead authors attending the meeting, I found the experience both exhilarating and grueling.

We assembled on Saturday and Sunday, Jan. 27 and 28, to go over the written comments by governments on the draft summary. We prepared possible responses and text to update the report. The approval process is very demanding, as it requires unanimous consensus on the text, which is approved line by line. The rationale is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments help determine how it can best be said. There are detailed negotiations over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message and relevance.”

This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/09/how-many-climate-scientists-were-involved-with-writing-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers/

 

[Skyhunter]

Art,

You mean using facts to dispel nonsensical statistics? I don't see anything dishonest about that in the slightest.

Are you suggesting that the 100ppm increase in CO₂ is not from human activity?

Your argument make no sense. Yes the carbon cycle is huge. No one denies it. But it was in relative equilibrium for the last 650,000 years.

Now you are going to argue that it is just a coincidence that CO₂ levels have increased 100ppm above the natural variability of the last 650,000 years at exactly the same time that humans have been emitting 6-7 gigatons a year?

Not to mention the isotopic ratios of C¹²/C¹³ of atmospheric carbon dioxide have also altered to levels not seen in the past 650,000 years, along with the decrease of C¹⁴, offer irrefutable evidence that the 100ppm increase is a direct result of human activity.

My friend you are in denial. There is no doubt that increase in atmospheric CO₂ is from human activity. So an honest evaluation of the facts are that the 30% increase in CO₂ over the last 150 years is a direct result of human activity. That is a far less misleading statement than your 0.28% figure.

 

[ShawnD]

I might as well join in this battle.

Are you suggesting that the 100ppm increase in CO₂ is not from human activity?

That's not what he said. What he said is that CO2 is a small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect, which is a factually accurate statement to make. You could increase CO2 levels by 100%, you could increase them by 3000%, and it would still be a small factor in the equation.
That doesn't mean CO2 does nothing, but in the big picture it does very little. Now if you could show there was a relation between CO2 and atmospheric water levels, that would be something huge.

 

[Skyhunter]

That's not what he said. What he said is that CO2 is a small contributor to the overall greenhouse effect, which is a factually accurate statement to make. You could increase CO2 levels by 100%, you could increase them by 3000%, and it would still be a small factor in the equation.

No he is comparing human emissions to the total carbon cycle.

CO₂ contributes ~12% of the GE or about 4C. Increasing CO₂ levels by 100% would result in a 3C increase in radiative forcing.

That doesn't mean CO2 does nothing, but in the big picture it does very little. Now if you could show there was a relation between CO2 and atmospheric water levels, that would be something huge.

Actually If you read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Technical Summary you will find that water vapor has been increasing 1.2% per decade for the last three decades. This is consistent with model predictions and the expected response to warmer temperatures.

 

[Evo]

This is consistent with model predictions and the expected response to warmer temperatures.

But we happen to be in a natural warming period.

 

[Skyhunter]

But we happen to be in a natural warming period.

No we are not.

During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales. {2.4}

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf"

 

[Evo]

No we are not.

I'm afraid we are. We are in the interglacial warming period referred to as the Holocene.

 

[Art]

Skyhunter,
Your figures don't add up; ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2 and about 1/2 of human emissions are reabsorbed in the carbon cycle so how can all of the extra 100 ppmv be attributable to human pollution even allowing a 100 year lifespan in the atmosphere? We simply haven't produced that much CO2 even if not one molecule had been reabsorbed.

Talking in isolation about CO2 is being in denial. There are many other GHGs and when taken in their totality mankind's CO2 contributions = 0.28% of that total so again I ask you do you think spending multi-billions reducing that 0.28% to something like 0.26% will really make a difference?

Also despite us pumping out CO2 for the previous 150 years why did we have a cold spell between 1940 - 1970 (which sparked off the Manmade Ice Age hysteria?) I'd be very interested to see how you reconcile rising CO2 levels with falling global temperatures into your favoured GW theory.

I thought Al Gore's famous graph illustrated there has been no causal link between high CO2 levels and GW. In fact it showed the reverse was true with CO2 spiking AFTER a rise in global temperatures and yet despite these very large increases in CO2 concentrations the temperatures fell.

Climates change - they always have and they always will. In fact based on the historical record we should be far more worried about plunging into the next ice age as there is one due!

Anyway rather than get into a detailed discussion on positive and negative forcing etc when there simply isn't the data for a conclusive argument and so tends to lead to endless debates on CO2s actual contribution to GE I'd rather stick to the theme of this thread which is can UN bodies such as the IPCC be trusted to impart unbiased and accurate information (whether one happens to agree with their conclusions or not) and based on the info I supplied in my earlier posts the answer would appear to be no.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm afraid we are. We are in the interglacial warming period referred to as the Holocene.

The initial warming at glacial termination spanned about 5000 years and ended ~9000 years ago. The Holocene optimum was about 7500 years ago. The trend since then has been one of cooling except for a slight warming 5500 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"


The pattern of glacial/interglacial is one of warming for ~5000 years as the NH ice sheets melt and the oceans overturn and release CO₂, followed by a long trend of general cooling.

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter,
Your figures don't add up; ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2 and about 1/2 of human emissions are reabsorbed in the carbon cycle so how can all of the extra 100 ppmv be attributable to human pollution even allowing a 100 year lifespan in the atmosphere? We simply haven't produced that much CO2 even if not one molecule had been reabsorbed.

Human contribution to CO₂ in the last 150 years is ~500 billion metric tons. Enough to raise levels to 500ppm if not for the increased absorption by natural sinks.

Talking in isolation about CO2 is being in denial. There are many other GHGs and when taken in their totality mankind's CO2 contributions = 0.28% of that total so again I ask you do you think spending multi-billions reducing that 0.28% to something like 0.26% will really make a difference?

Again you are totally misrepresenting the numbers. You have such a strong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" that you are ignoring the obvious. There is no other source for the added CO₂.

Also despite us pumping out CO2 for the previous 150 years why did we have a cold spell between 1940 - 1970 (which sparked off the Manmade Ice Age hysteria?) I'd be very interested to see how you reconcile rising CO2 levels with falling global temperatures into your favoured GW theory.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming"

I thought Al Gore's famous graph illustrated there has been no causal link between high CO2 levels and GW. In fact it showed the reverse was true with CO2 spiking AFTER a rise in global temperatures and yet despite these very large increases in CO2 concentrations the temperatures fell.

Actually that was not Al Gores graph, that was a reconstruction of Antarctic ice cores. What is shows is that CO₂ does not initiate the warming, but amplifies it after about 600 - 1000 years.

Climates change - they always have and they always will. In fact based on the historical record we should be far more worried about plunging into the next ice age as there is one due!

Not for another 50,000 years according to the latest study of orbital forcings.

Anyway rather than get into a detailed discussion on positive and negative forcing etc when there simply isn't the data for a conclusive argument and so tends to lead to endless debates on CO2s actual contribution to GE I'd rather stick to the theme of this thread which is can UN bodies such as the IPCC be trusted to impart unbiased and accurate information (whether one happens to agree with their conclusions or not) and based on the info I supplied in my earlier posts the answer would appear to be no.

Fair enough. So what independent science foundation is claiming that the IPCC is exaggerating?

 

[Gokul43201]

I thought we were adding roughly 5ppmv of CO2 each year over the recent past!

 

[Art]

Human contribution to CO_{2[/sub in the last 150 years is ~500 billion metric tons. Enough to raise levels to 500ppm if not for the increased absorption by natural sinks.}

So you wish to retract this then?

humans have been emitting 6-7 gigatons a year

because even if we had been generating this level of CO2 for the past 150 years, which of course we haven't, it still only equals 130 ppmv with no reabsorbtion whatsoever.

Again you are totally misrepresenting the numbers. You have such a strong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" that you are ignoring the obvious. There is no other source for the added CO₂.

Change in land use springs to mind as does volcanic activity, even a small upward deviation in volcanic activity in a few of the last 150 years would account for a huge chunk of CO2 given that it's normal annual output is ~60Gt.

And confirmation bias Mmmm rightttt not open minded like you perhaps

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming"

You can't support todays junk science with yesterdays discredited junk science

Actually that was not Al Gores graph, that was a reconstruction of Antarctic ice cores. What is shows is that CO₂ does not initiate the warming, but amplifies it after about 600 - 1000 years.

Whatever, he used it mendaciously. So are you saying now we don't need to worry about AGW for another 600 - 1000 years? I think you just shot yourself in the foot!

Not for another 50,000 years according to the latest study of orbital forcings.

Perhaps not. Previous belief was a glacial period arrived every 12000 years but this belief seems to have changed at some point.

Fair enough. So what independent science foundation is claiming that the IPCC is exaggerating?

Here you go. And note this is a peer reviewed report rather than the politically reviewed report the IPCC issue.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Now you are just flaming.

So you wish to retract this then? because even if we had been generating this level of CO2 for the past 150 years, which of course we haven't, it still only equals 130 ppmv with no reabsorbtion whatsoever.

Where do you get your numbers from?

I retract nothing.

This is not a game of scrabble where you can just pull numbers out of the air. Show me your math or provide me with a verifiable source.

Here is thehttp://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf"

Change in land use springs to mind as does volcanic activity, even a small upward deviation in volcanic activity in a few of the last 150 years would account for a huge chunk of CO2 given that it's normal annual output is ~60Gt.

Care to retract that?

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

And confirmation bias Mmmm rightttt not open minded like you perhaps

Can you support such an assertion with an example?

You can't support todays junk science with yesterdays discredited junk science

According to who's opinion?

Whatever, he used it mendaciously. So are you saying now we don't need to worry about AGW for another 600 - 1000 years? I think you just shot yourself in the foot!

Worry about what?

I think it is you who is confused. If CO₂ lags temperature by ~800 years, then there is no way that the observed fact that carbon dioxide has increased by 100ppm in the last century, so it cannot possibly be the instantaneous response to the observed fact of a 0.6C warming during the last century

Perhaps not. Previous belief was a glacial period arrived every 12000 years but this belief seems to have changed at some point.

Belief by who and when? The ice cores and marine isotopes correlate rather well with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cyclesb" And none of the orbital oscillations operate on a 12,000 year cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg"

Here you go. And note this is a peer reviewed report rather than the politically reviewed report the IPCC issue.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

Do you even know what a peer review is.

That is nothing more than a biased economist blogger. The IPCC is a scientific body, not a political one. Your arguments are baseless fallacies.

 

[ShawnD]

Actually If you read the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Technical Summary you will find that water vapor has been increasing 1.2% per decade for the last three decades. This is consistent with model predictions and the expected response to warmer temperatures.

Now this is an interesting stat. Do they know what caused this?

 

[Skyhunter]

Water vapor has a very rapid cycle. It's atmospheric levels are generally determined by 3 major mechanisms.

1. Temperature
2. Pressure
3. Surface forcing (instantaneous radiative flux) or simply sunshine.

Global pressure is a constant, so temperature is the biggest contributor, however there has been a measured increase in surface forcing, and there is a possible but not yet quantified contribution from irrigation and land use changes. But the predominant determining factor is simply the tendency for warmer temperatures to support more water vapor.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity" for more.

 

[Evo]

Do you even know what a peer review is.

That is nothing more than a biased economist blogger. The IPCC is a scientific body, not a political one. Your arguments are baseless fallacies.

McKitrick is an Environmental Economist and is not a "blogger" anymore than the realclimate people are bloggers. His work in discrediting the "Hockey Stick" graph by Mann is world renown.

No that's not peer reviewed.

The IPCC is political, not scientific. They take work from various scientists then chew up and disgorge a politically correct version written up by non-scientists. This is why so many scientists have resigned and refused to have their work misinterpreted by politically driven non-scientists.

 

[Gokul43201]

So you wish to retract this then?

humans have been emitting 6-7 gigatons a year

because even if we had been generating this level of CO2 for the past 150 years, which of course we haven't, it still only equals 130 ppmv with no reabsorbtion whatsoever.

We've been emitting about 7 Gt of Carbon equivalents, from an annual rate of nearly 30 Gt of CO2. Multiply your numbers by about 4 to get the total estimate: about 500ppmv. Now throw in reabsorption. All the numbers make sense; no need to retract anything.

Change in land use springs to mind as does volcanic activity, even a small upward deviation in volcanic activity in a few of the last 150 years would account for a huge chunk of CO2 given that it's normal annual output is ~60Gt.

According to the US Geological survey, volcanoes contribute only abou 0.2 Gt per year of CO2. That's 300 times smaller than your number, and tiny when compared to CO2 from fossil fuels.

Source: US Geological Survey

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Here you go. And note this is a peer reviewed report rather than the politically reviewed report the IPCC issue.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ispm.html

And for completeless, here's a rebuttal from Realclimate:

/www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/[/URL]

[quote]Why go to all the trouble of producing an "independent" summary? The authors illuminate us with this wisdom regarding the official Summary for Policymakers: "A further problem is that the Summary for Policy Makers attached to the IPCC Report is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments." This statement (charitably) shows that the Fraser Institute authors are profoundly ignorant of the IPCC process. In fact, the actual authors of the official SPM are virtually all scientists, and are publically acknowleged. Moreover, the lead authors of the individual chapters are represented in the writing process leading to the SPM, and their job is to defend the basic science in their chapters. As lead author Gerald Meehl remarked to one of us on his way to Paris: "Scientists have to be ok, they have the last check. If they think the science is not represented, then they can send it back to the breakout groups. " [/quote]

And since we now have Ross McKitrick (Co-ordinator of the ISPM paper) on our plates, it may be noteworthy to point to the following:

[quote]In previous rounds of the debate, Lambert has shown that McKitrick messed up an analysis of the number of weather stations, showed he knew almost nothing about climate, flunked basic thermodynamics, couldn’t handle missing values correctly and invented his own temperature scale.

But Tim’s latest discovery really takes the cake. It’s well-known that the rate of warming varies with latitude, but McKitrick and Michaels find no such effect for their variable, which is the cosine of absolute latitude. Lambert checked and, amazingly enough, found that the data set used by McKitrick and Michaels had latitude in degrees, but the cosine function in the SHAZAM econometric package, they used expected input in radians (which is what any mathematically literate person would expect). If you apply this function to angles measured in degrees you get nonsense.

Once Lambert did the correct analysis, latitude was highly significant and the economic variables became much less important. The results reported by McKitrick and Michaels can be explained by an obvious confounding effect. Rich countries tend to be at high latitudes, and so GDP acts as a proxy for latitude.[/quote]
Sources:
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
[url]http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up[/url]

Regarding McKitrick's rebuttal of Mann's paper and the subsequent corrections published by McKitrick and Mann:

[quote] Mann, Bradley and Hughes have published some corrections to the supplementary information for the famous hockey stick graph showing the temperature record of the last 1000 years. They say that the errors do not affect their published results. This could explain why McKitrick and McIntyre could not reproduce their results, but McKitrick is continuing to insist that Mann’s graph is wrong.

McKitrick has also published some errata. Unlike Mann’s error McKitrick’s error affects his results:

[b]Figure 3 in the Cooler Heads Briefing on TBS contains an error. Tim Lambert of Australia has pointed out that missing data were handled differently between Figures 2 and 3, and when this is fixed the example no longer illustrates the intended point. The point (that the trend can change if the averaging rule is changed) is shown in this Revised Spreadsheet. Our thanks to Tim Lambert for pointing out the error. [/b] [/quote]

Sources:
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/mckitrick3/
[URL]http://timlambert.org/2004/07#mckitrick5[/URL]

PS: Some of this is covered in Sky's post above, which I hadn't seen before I was writing this.

 

[ShawnD]

Now you are just flaming.

I think the term you are looking for is "trolling". Trolling is when somebody posts a bunch of baseless crap just for the sake or starting or maintaining an argument, or to play devil's advocate. I called the first post a troll post because it quoted something about AIDS then concluded that the IPCC is retarded. Non sequitur = trolling.
Flaming has more to do with when person attacks take priority over the debate.

If CO₂ lags temperature by ~800 years, then there is no way that the observed fact that carbon dioxide has increased by 100ppm in the last century, so it cannot possibly be the instantaneous response to the observed fact of a 0.6C warming during the last century

I've always wondered about this one. If the records show that CO2 very accurately lags behind global warming for a good 800 years, why doesn't somebody look at what the temperature was 800 years ago and see if it closely follows current CO2 levels. The IPCC seems to know how much CO2 humans produce, so it shouldn't be overly difficult to subtract the human CO2 from the mix and see if natural CO2 levels agree with the temperature changes in the past.

 

[Evo]

Gokul, I will ask you, as I have asked Skyhunter, how do we know for certain what would be normal (without human intervention) and what can be undisputedly attributed to humans? Where is the data? Also, we know that "Global Warming" is now obsolete and has been replaced with "climate change", and it is now said that we need to understand that different effects happen at different locations, and the emphasis now is to try to understand change on a location by location basis.

Where is the data? How do we know what to do? Isn't this latest shift to "local climate" very new? I think everyone is on board with reducing pollution. What is it that you are proposing?

Here in the midwest we are experiencing cooler than normal temperatures, late spring freezes, today is the coldest Thanksgiving in 12 years. Crops this year were devasted by unusual cold and unusual late freezes.

I'm really curious what you think is the answer.

 

[Art]

Where do you get your numbers from?

I retract nothing.

This is not a game of scrabble where you can just pull numbers out of the air. Show me your math or provide me with a verifiable source.

~7.8 Gt CO2 correspond to 1 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere. ppmv = parts per million by volume

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
If you google on 7.8 Gt CO2 you will find numerous references for this conversion. If we are producing 6-7 Gt of CO2 per year as you said then that is less than 1 ppmv p.a.

Care to retract that?

Yes my error I looked up the wrong figure on a table I was using.

Can you support such an assertion with an example?

Yes, take a look at your last comment in your last post.

According to who's opinion?

Err the IPCC

1.3a Aerosols play a key role in the Earth's climate, with a potential impact more than
three times that of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, but their influence remains
subject to low or very low scientific understanding.

. Plus of course we didn't get the Ice Age we were threatened with which was a bit of a give away.

Worry about what?

I think it is you who is confused. If CO₂ lags temperature by ~800 years, then there is no way that the observed fact that carbon dioxide has increased by 100ppm in the last century, so it cannot possibly be the instantaneous response to the observed fact of a 0.6C warming during the last century

you said

What is shows is that CO2 does not initiate the warming, but amplifies it after about 600 - 1000 years.

Note. Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming. Looks like an argument clincher to me

Belief by who and when? The ice cores and marine isotopes correlate rather well with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cyclesb" And none of the orbital oscillations operate on a 12,000 year cycle.

Here

The Earth is now in an interglacial period known as the Holocene. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years" but now appears to be incorrect from the evidence of ice core records
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg"

Do you even know what a peer review is.

That is nothing more than a biased economist blogger. The IPCC is a scientific body, not a political one. Your arguments are baseless fallacies.

Read my earlier post re how the IPCC summary is formulated and then tell me if you think it is not political.

And why not actually try clicking on the link I supplied and then reading it. You might find it interesting.

 

[Art]

We've been emitting about 7 Gt of Carbon equivalents, from an annual rate of nearly 30 Gt of CO2. Multiply your numbers by about 4 to get the total estimate: about 500ppmv. Now throw in reabsorption. All the numbers make sense; no need to retract anything.

Not my figures. I used the figures Skyhunter provided and the maths didn't add up.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, I will ask you, as I have asked Skyhunter, how do we know for certain what would be normal (without human intervention) and what can be undisputedly attributed to humans?

I'm not going to speak for the state of the science and the sizes of error bars on various estimates. I don't know enough about the field. But I will not stand for incorrect rebuttals of the science performed by non-specialists (as we have had here and in about a dozen other threads).

Also, we don't really know anything for "certain", in any field of science. While the error bars on the data are smaller in more well-established fields, they are larger in many areas of climate science. That does not mean that we can not aassign a confidence interval to the estimates that are made.

 

[Art]

I've always wondered about this one. If the records show that CO2 very accurately lags behind global warming for a good 800 years, why doesn't somebody look at what the temperature was 800 years ago and see if it closely follows current CO2 levels. The IPCC seems to know how much CO2 humans produce, so it shouldn't be overly difficult to subtract the human CO2 from the mix and see if natural CO2 levels agree with the temperature changes in the past.

Funnily enough it's just the right lag to tie in with the MWP.