IPCC Boots Another One

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The UN IPCC has been forced to retract its 2007 claim that droughts have been worsening since the 1950s and to admit that drought intensity and duration have remained approximately the same over the last 60 years. See link below for a PhysOrg synopsis of the Nature article, for which a link to a PDF file of the Nature article is included in the report.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html

--Previously the UN IPCC has been forced to back off on claims about the eminent demise of the Himalayan Glaciers and the Amazonian Rain Forest. The IPCC it seems only makes mistakes in one direction. That direction being the full panic, bite the furniture mode, in order to gin up support for the vast global carbon tax juggernaut, to be administered by, you guessed it, the UN.

--In all fairness, it should be noted though, that no one is arguing against the slight increases in Global Average Temperatures noted towards the end of the last century. Indeed, a consensus of Global Climate Scientists agree with the GAT figures developed by the UK Met Office Hadley Center from data compiled by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."
William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[EEVblog]

That's science doing it's job, no news there 

Dave.

[tom66]

Where's the source for the global average temperature graph?

Here's a selection from Google. They all appear to show positive increases.

http://www.met.ie/metadmin/useruploads/Annual%20global%20average%20temperature%20anomalies.bmp
http://processtrends.com/images/glob_warm_giss_tmp_anom.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/HadCRUT3_bar.png
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/Global_temps_anom-annual-5_yr_1.png

[SeanB]

It does seem to be a nice wet springtime. Farmers are loving it, the cane is growing well ( I see it often in the field, it is doing very well) and those who built in the 10 year flood lines are swimming.

[EEVblog]

We introduced a carbon tax here in Australia. The principle argument against it is that no one else  that matters is doing it. ie USA and China. It can't be both a vast juggernaut AND too small to make a difference.

My principal argument in favour of taking some action is that if we don't then it could get uncomfortable for quite a long time. If it doesn't end up as bad as some predict then we just end up with a cleaner more energy efficient lifestyle.

And that's the thing. Whether nor not you think it actually make a difference on local or global scale, taxing dirty energy and promoting cleaner renewable is a very sensible thing to do.

The other way I like to think about it is to realise that when Neil Armstrong looked back at the Earth he saw a world with 3 billion people and now 43 years later there are 7 billion.

The Apollo 8 guys were the first to see that 

Dave.

[Kremmen]

To those who in their minds see Earth as an unending resource, i say look at the Pale Blue Dot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot. Kinda puts things into perspective as far as our place in the big scheme is considered.
I am not a global warming nut, but neither am i a denier. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the levels are only going up - and fast. Grab Occam's Razor and predict the outcome of this lifestyle. I don't know what you see but we see annual heat records broken year after year. Maybe means something, maybe not but if this goes on for much longer, the stats start to accumulate.

[poptones]

So is it resources or is it warming? Frankly, I have my doubts about mankind contributing to global warming in any significant amount. We contribute less than a percent of the world's co2 emissions, and if we add everything together except water vapor it's like 5%. I'm dead sure there can be localized effects on weather, like the smog that naturally gathers in places like Los Angeles and Mexico City, but on a global scale I just don't see how our tiny contribution can make all this impact some would like us to believe. "Climate change" may be real, but our Sun has a whole lot more to say about that than we do.

My dislike for oil is rooted in national security and global stability. Our thirst for oil makes us dependent upon foreign sources, and that leads to fanatical tribes being able to secure strong armies at our economic and political expense. Maybe China and India will never wean themselves from oil, but I think it's in our interest to do so. Sure seems to be working for Brazil.

[EEVblog]

So is it resources or is it warming? Frankly, I have my doubts about mankind contributing to global warming in any significant amount. We contribute less than a percent of the world's co2 emissions, and if we add everything together except water vapor it's like 5%. I'm dead sure there can be localized effects on weather, like the smog that naturally gathers in places like Los Angeles and Mexico City, but on a global scale I just don't see how our tiny contribution can make all this impact some would like us to believe. "Climate change" may be real, but our Sun has a whole lot more to say about that than we do.

You can't see it because (obviously) you are not a climate scientist studying it.
You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.
Basing any opinion on such a crude linear percentage value when dealing with one of the worlds most complex and massively interactive chaotic systems with countless variables, is just silly.

My dislike for oil is rooted in national security and global stability. Our thirst for oil makes us dependent upon foreign sources, and that leads to fanatical tribes being able to secure strong armies at our economic and political expense. Maybe China and India will never wean themselves from oil, but I think it's in our interest to do so.

It's in everyone's interest to do so.

Dave.

[poptones]

You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.

I'm no climatologist, but I don't believe they understand it all that well either. If they did there'd be many mroe answers, for now all they have are questions.

As a kid growing up around radio I learned a lot about the sunspot cycle. Just that solar cycle has a substantial effect on our weather including severity of el nino events. And from all their charts the earth IS on an "upward" 110,000 year cycle. Well what else would you expect?

I'm all about being green, but because it makes economic sense. Let's stop lying about it.

[EEVblog]

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html

A bit of a non sequitur...

The 4th Assessment Report said it was likely that "more intense and longer droughts" had been observed "over wider areas" since the 1970s.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html#jCp

I've always found it funny that most people who talk about this issue don't understand the wording in the IPCC reports.
If you read careful at the beginning of the report they explain what their very deliberate use of the terms "unlikely", "likely", "very likely" etc actually mean.
Few know that there are actually percentage values of confidence assigned to these terms. So "very likely" means >90% confidence or whatever (I forget the exact values)

Dave.

[EEVblog]

You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.

I'm no climatologist, but

And of course it ends right there 

I don't believe they understand it all that well either. If they did there'd be many mroe answers, for now all they have are questions.

Because climate science is just that, science, it is not for example practical engineering which we know and love which is 100% understandable if you go deep enough.
I don't think there is a more chaotic system to understand, with data down in the noise, than climate science.
Of course they don't understand it all, it is continual learning and refining based on the scientific process.

I'm all about being green, but because it makes economic sense. Let's stop lying about it.

Only fools do it only because it makes economic sense.
Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

Unfortunately the stupidity of politics and a largely scientific illiterate public requires the IPCC and other groups to make up silly hard and fast dumbed down fluffy guesses to sell the issue.
Like, "X degC rise will mean X meters of water level rise in X years, with X economic impact"
Or, "removing X percent of carbon, or X percent of cars from the road, will drop the temp by X degrees" blah blah.
Yes, a lot of it is bullshit, but sometimes you gotta bullshit and scare people in order to sell the greater cause.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that the smell of bullshit means it's not real.

Dave.

[Kremmen]

I think this is a perfect occasion to remember the fate of Happiton: http://jsomers.net/happiton

[poptones]

Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

LOL Dave. Sounds like You mean "because it makes economic sense."

Bullshit is real. Fear mongering is real bullshit. I'm not a fan of any religion.

[EEVblog]

Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

LOL Dave. Sounds like You mean "because it makes economic sense."

None of those things can be measured in any reliable economic sense, which is why the politicians and business only do them when you hold their feet to the fire.

Bullshit is real. Fear mongering is real bullshit. I'm not a fan of any religion.

Religion is, by definition, and by practical measure, faith in something without evidence.
Climate change is based on a lot of real evidence, they just (have to) add extra marketing on top to sell it unfortunately.

Those who think climate change is a "religion" are as stupid as those who think Atheism is a religion 

Dave.

[poptones]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

[EEVblog]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

Rubbish.
There is much scientific evidence that says it's "likely".
Yes, it may still be wrong (by IPCC's own admission), but you cannot escape the fact that the scientific evidence shows it is likely.
Once again, "religion" is the wrong term to use here. Passionate, for sure, but can you blame some people when it's "likely" we are screwing our own planet? Kind of an important topic to get passionate about don't you think?

Dave.

[jucole]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

I'm not a climatologist,  scientist or even an engineer but I believe climate change is very real!

If you ever get chance to see this film it's well worth watching and very moving.

"The OFFICIAL TRAILER for 2012 Sundance Award-Winning film "Chasing Ice," opening in theaters starting November 2012."

[EEVblog]

I'm not a climatologist,  scientist or even an engineer but I believe climate change is very real!

You know what the great thing about science and facts is? they are (in this case, "likely") true regardless of whether or not you believe them! 
Unlike say, religion, which is only "true" if you believe in it

Dave.

[poptones]

Whether or not it's "real" is, I think, beyond dispute. What IS disputable is that we, mankind, are playing a significant role in that change and, more importantly, whether we have any power at all to change it. The earth has gone through historical warming and cooling periods and we have records of these in our ice packs. Gore's charts used exaggerated scales to make it look like we're not in a natural warming period - but we are. This one looks to be more severe than any in the last 400,000 years, but it still fits withing the timing patterns. And most of the "global warming" stats go only back to the 1960s when, clearly, if we are having any impact at all those effects would have begun more than a century earlier.

Furthermore, I object to the way all effects human are considered by many as "unnatural," as if we are chunks of plastic floating in this world of organic matter. We are part of nature and, therefore, any effects we have upon the world are every bit as "natural" as coyotes thinning deer herds or vultures picking at carrion.

[r90s]

I downloaded the climate gate emails.  I personally read hundreds of them, not wishing to rely on someone telling me no news here.  I could not believe the disingenuous nature of the scientists.  The plotting against others scientist and any publications that disagreed. The creation of result by purposely manipulating data.  It was as if it was right out of political a playbook, like the cloward-pivens stragety.   


 

[EEVblog]

Whether or not it's "real" is, I think, beyond dispute. What IS disputable is that we, mankind, are playing a significant role in that change

Read the IPCC report:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is  very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

What those words mean:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence:
virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%;
very likely >90%;
likely >66%;
more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%;
unlikely <33%;
very unlikely <10%;
extremely unlikely <5%;
exceptionally unlikely <1%.

So they are >90% confident that most of the global warming is due to us stupid and industrious humans.
Yes, they could still be wrong of course, but I think you'd be a fool to think we don't have a significant effect.

and, more importantly, whether we have any power at all to change it.

There is a whole report on the potential mitigation of it!
It covers energy supply, transport, buildings, industries, agriculture, forestry, waste, and more.

Furthermore, I object to the way all effects human are considered by many as "unnatural," as if we are chunks of plastic floating in this world of organic matter. We are part of nature and, therefore, any effects we have upon the world are every bit as "natural" as coyotes thinning deer herds or vultures picking at carrion.

Yes, agreed. But unlike them, we have the unique ability to
a) screw this planet up real bad (within a matter of hours if we so desire)
b) have the cognitive ability to recognise and quantify what we are doing
and c) do something about it

Dave.

[poptones]

What you are doing constitutes religion. Show me understandable, comprehensible, logical evidence. Thus far I see only conjecture and numbers that make no sense whatsoever. I see scientists saying "this is likely due to this" and then they come up with shit like "140% of the heating is due to humans." BULLSHIT. You can't have 140% of any fucking thing PLUS another hundred percent on top of that. This latest round they are trying to argue that the warming is even more than observed!

The earth has been warming more than 1000 years, and they are making all their sturm and drang about the last 50. Lots of people like to laugh about christians claiming the earth is 6000 years old, to hear climatologists speak you'd think it was 60.

It's a fucking religion. It's scientists not agreeing on anything except "it's real" and then the public accepting it. The only thing missing from any of this is silly fucking hats for the scientists.

[Kremmen]

[...] Show me understandable, comprehensible, logical evidence. Thus far I see only conjecture and numbers that make no sense whatsoever. [...]

Your lack of understanding, or otherwise, makes no difference at all to the actual case. It is a reflection on your ability, and only that.
Refute the argument by demonstrating that it is false. Saying that you don't understand it is just admission of ignorance.

[poptones]

[G7PSK]

There is a rather disturbing feature that runs right through the climate change argument and weather forecasting as well. Computer power or rather the lack of it, this was brought to my mind by something Dave said on one of the Amphour broadcasts.
He talked about a university making a computer in order to simulate just a very small part of the human brain, it was going to employ millions of processors. 

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Settle down Mr Poptones it is not the end of the world.

I agree with the main idea of Climate Change, which I think is that Mankind has an impact on the climate of the earth.  Therefore it is possible that the Climate systems of the earth could be brought closer to some sort of tipping point that has catastrophic results.

I don't actually need someone to prove this to be worried about it. Not necessarily for me but for future inhabitants of this planet.

What I would also like to say that when you borrow something, you should return it in the condition that it originally was.
With this in mind I would like to hand over the Earth to these future generations with its climatic systems in similar working order.

It's a fair point the probably the largest part of the recent warming is not due to humans, but how much we don't know.
So scientists keep researching. In the meantime don't pollute unnecessarily.

[r90s]

I have seen evidence that the computer algorithms were weighted to produce a result that agreed with the an agenda. This agenda promoted the argument that mankind was causing (what was then called) global warming.  Now I hear that there is a consensus.  This consensus only exists, I believe, to squelch any criticism of what some consider an agreeable result, for political and financial reasons.  I know that real science does not allow for a consensus, for "real science" is always open to new, and/or better evidence.

[EEVblog]

Which is another characteristic of  skeptics argument, ie. to distil a complex system down to a simplistic cause-effect relationship in order to support a preconceived notion.

Yep, classic straw man stuff, because that's all they have. They don't have the ability to actually analyse it any further nor do any original research. So they just build simple straw men and knock them down  %-B
What climate scientist wouldn't want to be the first to "disprove" many decades of intensive research to show that it's not anthropogenic?
Heck, even one of the worlds most reputable scientists, Richard Muller (who trained under Nobel winner Luis Alvarez no less), and partially funded by the climate sceptics recently did his own study and found that it's real. Because he was pissed off by the ClimateGate thing and wanted to see if there was any funny business. And this is a guy who likes to rock the boat and stick his neck out with "crazy" ideas that buck the trend.
That was probably the best shot possible to expose it, based on a re-examination of the data, yet he came away convinced.

Dave.

[poptones]

Talk about strawmen!

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say climate warming right now is not real.

I also haven't seen any believable proof it's not part of a completely natural cycle that has been recorded for over 400,000 years.

[Lightages]

Really, the Earth's climate is changing? Wow, this has never happened before! I can't believe it.

Hmmmm, what could be causing it......?

Aha! Human made carbon dioxide! It is much stranger and more powerful than any of the carbon dioxide that the Earth has ever produced on its own. Yeah, that must be it as we humans are all so powerful.

Wait a minute, this is crazy! It must be a conspiracy! All those big businesses that need to find another way to rape all of us poor mopes need another way to make us paranoid. They must have made up all of this to make use willing to pay whatever they deem necessary for oil and carbon credits so we can feel better about what we all have done to the planet.

Oh damn, there is war again. I guess then the scientists must have all lied because now we can see that their predictions didn't all come true. No need to worry about the climate now as those mad suicide bombers and crazy Muslims are the real worry. But wait! Maybe that is all a plot to keep oil prices higher too!

Damn I am so confused. I guess I will pray to God that he keeps the oil prices down and re-freezes all the polar ice. Oh damn, I must have prayed wrong because he is re-freezing the Antarctic ice and he is still melting the Arctic.

Oh well, science is BS, and I am a sinner, so I guess it really doesn't matter what I do. My Hummer H3 needs another 100 litres to get to the grocery store, so fill'rup! Yes I would like all my groceries double bagged in those nice plastic bags please. I can never have enough plastic to throw out. Can you give me a discount on the plastic garbage bags I just purchased to put all my garbage plastic bags in please?

Oh yes, what was I worried about? Global warming? Terrorists? Muslims? Gas prices? Oops sorry, yes double size my fries and cola please, I am still hungry after my 2 double size whoppers. I really wish they would put more streetlights up, I can't see if I dropped my Snickers bar on the floor of this damn H3.

[perfect_disturbance]

What is it about this thread that reminds me of the stupids thread?

[EEVblog]

Oh yes, what was I worried about? Global warming? Terrorists? Muslims? Gas prices? Oops sorry, yes double size my fries and cola please, I am still hungry after my 2 double size whoppers. I really wish they would put more streetlights up, I can't see if I dropped my Snickers bar on the floor of this damn H3.

Why does that remind me of this?!


Dave.

[aargee]

Ahh, stuff all this I'm going out to buy another, better, oscilloscope.

How hard it is for us to get off the merry-go-round. How hard it is that society can't take these steps to reduce our footprint on this fragile place. How hard it is to re-wire our brains, which, as it turns out, is not very hard at all.

I try not to feel guilty that technology and specifically, electronics is my life - but a nibbling, clawing little seed of doubt tells me this will change, whether I like it or not.

[tom66]

Regardless of anthropogenic climate change, which is a real phenomenon, we should take care of this planet for our future generations.

Investing in renewable energies is a good idea because it means we can wean ourself off oil which causes a lot of pollution not just across the globe but in cities as well.  It also gives us a more stable supply of energy.

[ciccio]

To day I had the time for a careful reading of this topic.
My personal opinion is that we should divide the problem in two parts:
pollution and climatic change.
Anybody with a not-sick mind will agree that we must stop polluting our planet.
There are many decision that could be taken and many actions that could be forced to help doing this.
On th other side, many people, including me, cannot agree with the assumption that the climate change (towards a global warming) is due to human activities.
The sun's power is so much higher than the total power used by mankind that our contribution is ridiculous.
Green energy sources can increase pollution when the sources are manufactured (nobody cares, for example, that, for building windmills in Europe, Chinese are polluting an entire province where the rare hearths used for the magnets are extracted ).
I'm obliged to install CFL lamps that pollute with their manufacturing process, don't last for the claimed useful life and pollute when discarded.
I stop here, but the list could be longer...
Sometimes I'm forced to believe that many "green" political decision (such as increasing my electrical bill to finance alternative energy sources, that are not economically feasible by themselves, is only a way to move my money from my pockets to the pockets of some corporation.
Best regards.

[ivan747]

We are going to have a carbon tax starting next year. Yet they won't measure your actual emissions and take the manufacturer's specification instead.

 And don't even get me started on how some groups will have the tax exempted.

[G7PSK]

There is one thing about the global warming debate that no one from either side can refute. The tax man is having a field day.

[poptones]

What China does in China is not my problem. The people need more rights, well so do we. They pollute their water and their earth well so do we, we just have taxpayers pay to clean it up and they have poor people clean it up. Wait, how the hell do they even pay for stuff if there's no taxpayers? Surely the tiny middle class is not supporting that government, they must make their money another way - of yeah, that's right the government owns the tools of production. So the government is ruining the land and oppressing the people - not my problem. Did you know Bratz dolls smell wonderful? They do, you open the box and the smell is fantastic, and that smell stays with the doll forever, like that weird sweet smell you get on your fingers when you pick up a dog's slimy squeakie toy. You know why Bratz dolls smell so great? Because every Bratz doll is blessed with the tears of an oppressed chinese dissident.

Ahhh, oppression...

[ftransform]

Don't worry we will use high altitude nuclear weapons to clean up the CO2 in the sky and follow up by imposing sanctions.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Thanks everyone for the mostly reasonable comments. Profanity and cursing, betray hostility, and are the mark of a troll, in my opinion. In this very thread, I tended to agree with some of what was said by the person using the foul language, and I thought it detracted from the argument.

To Tom66: please note the the HadCRUT graph I used is the same graph that is used in your first posted link. Even Phil Jones admits that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Not that that proves anything necessarily, but it does confirm the HadCRUT graph.

--I think that IPCC should be put in the same class as Wikipedia, I.E., if it makes a non controversial claim, or a claim that can be backed up by two other sources, then it can safely be believed. IPCC has made entirely too many wild, ridiculous claims for any further claims not to be looked at askance.

--Now, both Dave and Tom66 have made the assertion that a Carbon Taxes are a good thing to do, whether or not AGW is proven or not. A very valid point of view (though I disagree), I admit, but I am still interested in whether these Taxes are actually going to decrease temperatures or not, just as a matter of intellectual curiosity, if nothing else.

"Wish in on hand and whiz in the other, and see which one fills up first."
Gator Dundee 1948 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether