UN to Say It Overstated AIDS Cases.

[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.

 

[Evo]

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.

Ok, because I value your opinion. Let's say you are right about the level of human effects. What next? What is the right thing to do? Do you feel confident that we know enough to make drastic world wide climate changing decisions?

I'm trying to understand what you and Skyhunter expect should be done.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

Sky didn't provide the units. If you were aware of the roughly factor of 4 multiplier between the molar masses of C and CO2 (or between carbon equivalents and CO2 volumes) and knew the approximate human production rate, you'd have immediately been able to convert the units and the math would have made sense. I spend the tiniest fraction of my time thinking about climate science (all of it when threads like this pop up), and it struck me immediately.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm trying to understand what you and Skyhunter expect should be done.

I have little opinion on how good the science is and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true. I have not expressed any opinion on these matters.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here. And that's all I'm tackling in my posts.

 

[Art]

I have little opinion on whether the science is good and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here.

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

I wasn't debating with hundreds of scientists I was pointing out a fundamental logical fallacy in Skyhunter's argument as you well know.

Oh and btw when in the same sentence Skyhunter talked of CO2 and 6-7 Gt I do not think it was unreasonable of me to assume he was still talking about CO2 .

 

[mjsd]

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.

Mmm... so less money for AIDS program but more effort on AGW was the potential outcome of this latest admittance of past gross overestimation?

I may be a bit naive about AIDS or AGW but one thing is clear:
the people who are going to lose out amid these political storms are probably AIDS sufferers in Africa, AND small countries in low-lying areas (if AGW is somewhat true). It will probably not affect us just yet, so perhaps the mentality of those self-centered ppl is that,
"well, if it is not going to affect us soon, why worry yet?! It is not *our* problem really, so why waste resources to fix others' problems?!" OR "problem is not that bad, even if it is, we can only do so much, so why bother?!"

People often just care about their own well-being, but not realising that sometimes your well-being may transpire into others' suffering.

 

[Evo]

I have little opinion on how good the science is and whether the IPCC is doing a fair job of communicating it to us (if anything, I'm skeptical on both counts). I've also got no opinion on what should be done if what they say is true. I have not expressed any opinion on these matters.

I do however, have an opinion on non-specialists rebutting the work of career scientists, particularly when the rebuttal is mired in misconception and misinformation. I do have an opinion on one-line arguments (like "Does NOT initiate the warming therefore AGW theory must be wrong because it works on the premise CO2 DOES initiate the warming.") that claim to debunk the primary findings of hundreds of scientists. My opinion is that such arguments are essentially crackpottery and do not belong here. And that's all I'm tackling in my posts.

Fair enough, although there are climate scientists with very good data that is not being considered because it is not politically correct, and this concerns me. Shouldn't we be looking at all the data, even if it goes against what we want to believe?

Personally I'm more concerned about the human desire to take things into their own hands and go charging ahead without really knowing what they are doing and oblivious of the long term consequences.

So, I'll then ask Skyhunter. Let's assume you are correct, what are you suggesting we do?

 

[ShawnD]

G
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.

I think this has something to do with El Nino and La Nina. I remember back in the 97/98 school year everybody's science project was about this "El Nino" thing that was on the news all the time. It was an exceptionally warm year, and I think global warming alarmists named 98 as being the hottest year on record. I'm not sure if that's true, but it doesn't matter, what matters is that El Nino and La Nina happen at regular intervals. El Nino is when it's hot, and it's followed by a La Nina which is cold. 97/98 school year was very warm, while the 98/99 school year was insanely cold.

Wiki

El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a global coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon. The Pacific ocean signatures, El Niño and La Niña are important temperature fluctuations in surface waters of the tropical Eastern Pacific Ocean. The name El Niño, from the Spanish for "the little boy", refers to the Christ child, because the phenomenon is usually noticed around Christmas time in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of South America.[1] La Niña, similarly, means "the little girl".[2] Their effect on climate in the southern hemisphere is profound. These effects were first described in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker from whom the Walker circulation, an important aspect of the Pacific ENSO phenomenon, takes its name. The atmospheric signature, the Southern Oscillation (SO) reflects the monthly or seasonal fluctuations in the air pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin. The most recent occurrence of El Niño started in September 2006[3] and lasted until early 2007.[4]. From June 2007 on, data indicated a weak La Niña event.
...
...
ENSO conditions seem to have occurred at every two to seven years for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak.

Major ENSO events have occurred in the years 1790-93, 1828, 1876-78, 1891, 1925-26, 1982-83, and 1997-98.[15]

Recent El Niños have occurred in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 1997-1998, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.

The El Niño of 1997 - 1998 was particularly strong [16] and brought the phenomenon to worldwide attention. The event temporarilly warmed air temperature by 3°F, compared to the usual increase of 0.5°F associated with El Niño events[17]. The period from 1990-1994 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession (but were generally weak). There is some debate as to whether global warming increases the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño episodes. (see also the ENSO and Global Warming section above).

Remembering stuff from childhood is cool

 

[Evo]

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

He was responding to a question I asked.

 

[Art]

He was responding to a question I asked.

Pity he didn't just answer your question instead of taking a poke at me

 

[Gokul43201]

Your nose out of joint because your statistical consensus comment was shown to be wrong or something? Or is there another reason you are producing these strawmen?

I guess it must be a strawman to show that your number for volcanic production was off by a factor of a few hundred or to show that your math for adding up the total anthropogenic input to atmospheric CO2 was switching back an forth between different units and hence ending up with the wrong answer.

Furthermore, your quote from a free market advocacy site says:

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.

All this says is that they found little evidence to support an assertion that the confidence interval is an outcome of rigorous hypothesis testing. The following lines are their opinion on what they think is more likely.

I myself am skeptical of the rigor involved in arriving at the significance level, but nothing in your quote shows I'm wrong. Also, the second of the bolded sentences completely misses the point and goes about attacking a strawman. In any case, there's definitely nothing there to show that thie number was just pulled out of thin air.

I wasn't debating with hundreds of scientists I was pointing out a fundamental logical fallacy in Skyhunter's argument as you well know.

Didn't sound that way, but I accept that is possible. Nevertheless, you have attempted "debunkings" of published articles in other threads.

Oh and btw when in the same sentence Skyhunter talked of CO2 and 6-7 Gt I do not think it was unreasonable of me to assume he was still talking about CO2 .

Of course he was talking about CO2. Are you not aware that CO2 volumes are commonly reported using carbon equivalents? Even the article you linked a couple posts ago uses these units!