Climate Change

[SteamWake]

More withdrawn 'claims'...

Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...etract-siddall

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Lionclaw

D'oh... I've managed make a fool of myself again.

I hate making mistakes... I shouldn't have posted in this thread at all.
Self confidence takes another hit.


Sorry, I usually only read these discussions you people have, if participating as you've witnessed I forget about other things, make myself look dumber (don't know if that's the right word I'm looking for) than I am. I'm not really comfortable with social interaction with people I don't know, I get insecure. But I guess it's good to practice.

I should've stuck to "not getting into debates", it only goes bad.

Sorry, I'll stay clear in the future.

Apologies for not responding sooner, been sick the last week or so.

I do not feel you have made a fool of yourself at all. I can certainly understand why people in general can get confused over the issue. Most do not have a scientific background and cannot fully grasp the science involved or understand the scientific papers properly. It is not their fault, you do need training to be able to follow it well. The issue is so clouded as people try then to get their information from spokesmen and media outlets they trust. The problem is these outlets often do not understand the issues any better either and yet are trying to put their own opinions on the subject out, often due to political or financial interests which biases everything they say.

Anyhow I almost always welcome different opinions. If I disagree with them then I will challenge the person to either back them up, or consider altering their opinion. My own opinions are usually pretty flexible and will change if enough compelling evidence is presented to show that my current opinion is faulty.

Originally Posted by August

I see your point but i'd say that a much, much higher priority would to get world human populations stabilized at sustainable levels or which fuel we use to power our cars will not matter at all.

You have my total agreement on that point. Though I think our population needs to drop by a couple billion to end up with true sustainability without putting undue pressure on the rest of the planet and species therein.

Originally Posted by Aramike

Yet, for some reason, we've decided that this particular climate is THE climate our planet needs to maintain.

I certainly agree that there is way too much nonsense, fear mongering, and 3rd party crap in the whole debate. But we do have a vested interest to maintain our current global environment, financially and otherwise. If the ice melts the oceans will rise flooding large sections of densely inhabited areas. The damage will be in the trillions if allowed, and cost many billions to build dikes to protect all the vulnerable cities.

Then of course there is the ecological concerns which could have a dire impact on our own species. When I talk about the potential for mass extinction, I am being quite serious as the potential is very real. Other mass extinctions have happened in the past under similar circumstances to what we seem to be heading toward. Nature itself is highly interconnected, and loosing one or more species can have a trickle down effect taking out other species which can trigger a domino effect wiping out all but the most flexible and independent species. Depending on what happens, and which theories prove to be most correct, the consequences could well be very bad. My own worries are very well founded in my opinion based on the research I have done into it.

Originally Posted by SteamWake

More withdrawn 'claims'...

Did you read the article fully? Scientific papers get withdrawn all the time which is perfectly normal. This one got pulled as a few errors were discovered which rendered those calculations invalid. A new paper with corrections will probably get submitted sometime in the future.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

All that shows is their own estimates are faulty. It doesn't throw off the rest of the research, or disprove anything. Just that the numbers are off as they didn't properly account for a variable, and made a calculation error.


I have to say I am getting rather tired of seeing this stuff in the media, with them drawing all kinds of completely false conclusions, then having people hold it up and say "look see I told you its all a lie and this proves it". It doesn't prove <censored> all.

[antikristuseke]

Sensationalist media + science = fail

Sensationalist media + information = fail

[Lionclaw]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Apologies for not responding sooner, been sick the last week or so.

I do not feel you have made a fool of yourself at all. I can certainly understand why people in general can get confused over the issue. Most do not have a scientific background and cannot fully grasp the science involved or understand the scientific papers properly. It is not their fault, you do need training to be able to follow it well. The issue is so clouded as people try then to get their information from spokesmen and media outlets they trust. The problem is these outlets often do not understand the issues any better either and yet are trying to put their own opinions on the subject out, often due to political or financial interests which biases everything they say.

Anyhow I almost always welcome different opinions. If I disagree with them then I will challenge the person to either back them up, or consider altering their opinion. My own opinions are usually pretty flexible and will change if enough compelling evidence is presented to show that my current opinion is faulty.

I should have thought out my 2nd post more carefully, I had written more but I thought it was unnecessary fluff. But it may have been good to have kept it.

And the reason I felt like a fool is because I already knew about the CO2 bits, deforestation, melting ice at the poles in your reply to my 2nd post.

But I felt that I cannot add that I know about all that already, I felt like it could be portrayed that I would be seen as a kind of person who would just say: "Well yes of course I knew about that." (When in reality such a person doesn't know).

I don't know why i continously make the mistake: "They know what I already know." Well of course you don't know if I don't mention it, it's not like you could come crashing through my monitor to look into my brain and say: "Ah yes, he knows."

I remember in school when we got some assignment that we should write about ourselves. I would mention that I like this and that.
But I didn't write why.

I guess it's the same here, I fail to elaborate on the original statement.

I keep making the same mistake over and over.

And for some reason for me, a mistake means failure.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

Sensationalist media + science = fail

Sensationalist media + information = fail

Information + science = media fail

[CaptainHaplo]

Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie

[Skybird]

Selective awareness + scientific naivety = GW scepticism

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie

Political agenda + capitalistic zealotry + manipulated data + bought scientists = Lie

You see, that game works very well for the other side too.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Lionclaw

I should have thought out my 2nd post more carefully, I had written more but I thought it was unnecessary fluff. But it may have been good to have kept it.

And the reason I felt like a fool is because I already knew about the CO2 bits, deforestation, melting ice at the poles in your reply to my 2nd post.

But I felt that I cannot add that I know about all that already, I felt like it could be portrayed that I would be seen as a kind of person who would just say: "Well yes of course I knew about that." (When in reality such a person doesn't know).

I don't know why i continously make the mistake: "They know what I already know." Well of course you don't know if I don't mention it, it's not like you could come crashing through my monitor to look into my brain and say: "Ah yes, he knows."

I remember in school when we got some assignment that we should write about ourselves. I would mention that I like this and that.
But I didn't write why.

I guess it's the same here, I fail to elaborate on the original statement.

I keep making the same mistake over and over.

And for some reason for me, a mistake means failure.

Honestly, you are being too hard on yourself, trust me when I say no one is judging you with such severity as you are yourself. If you knew what I said in advance well then good (and I figure you probably did), some people do not, which is why I said it (and in case you didn't too as I wasn't sure at the time).

Anyhow I do kind of understand where you are coming from; I can be rather harsh with myself when I make a blunder, more harsh then I should be or is good for me. I place high expectations on myself, sometimes unrealistically high. I would suggest that you just try to relax a little more and try to force yourself not to worry about such things as much. Most of the people here are quite good natured and friendly. Participate and you may find the experience rewarding more often then not.

I should also add that I am an academic with scientific and statistical training (though more in the social sciences). I am quite accustomed to writing in general, and putting forth strong compelling arguments and backing them up with data as required. That makes it harder to debate against me, as then the person has to do the same as I do to have similar success. That said though I am a very friendly and helpful person by nature, and I always welcome comment or questioning which am happy to answer to the best of my abilities. So by all means make comments or question anything I say, your participation is quite welcome, and if you think I am wrong, take me on.

Political agenda + environmental zealotry + manipulated data = Lie

I keep hearing that one (manipulated data), and keep asking for some solid evidence, and have yet to get any from anyone. So I'll say it again, give proof please or it isn't true. Oh and fringe 'scientists' and mouthpieces (particularly gore gaffs) don't count.

[Lionclaw]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Honestly, you are being too hard on yourself, trust me when I say no one is judging you with such severity as you are yourself. If you knew what I said in advance well then good (and I figure you probably did), some people do not, which is why I said it (and in case you didn't too as I wasn't sure at the time).

Anyhow I do kind of understand where you are coming from; I can be rather harsh with myself when I make a blunder, more harsh then I should be or is good for me. I place high expectations on myself, sometimes unrealistically high. I would suggest that you just try to relax a little more and try to force yourself not to worry about such things as much. Most of the people here are quite good natured and friendly. Participate and you may find the experience rewarding more often then not.

I should also add that I am an academic with scientific and statistical training (though more in the social sciences). I am quite accustomed to writing in general, and putting forth strong compelling arguments and backing them up with data as required. That makes it harder to debate against me, as then the person has to do the same as I do to have similar success. That said though I am a very friendly and helpful person by nature, and I always welcome comment or questioning which am happy to answer to the best of my abilities. So by all means make comments or question anything I say, your participation is quite welcome, and if you think I am wrong, take me on.

Yes I did read your post on page 4, but I missed it at first, it wasn't until after your reply to my 2nd post that I saw it.

Politicians, don't really know what to say about them, usually nothing in nice words.

- - - - -

There's that bit if the sea temperature rises enough, methane (CH4) in the sea floor and in the arctic is released into the atmosphere making matters worse.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...mb-938932.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/methane-0902.html

It seems a bit worrying about the risk of the Gulf Stream collapsing due to the water from melting ice that's caused by warmer temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ream-hollywood


- - - - -
Sorry for OT

I only have a post-gymnasium education in "System Technics (<-?) specialized in Hydraulics".
The education form is called "KY-utbildning" or "Kvalificerad Yrkesutbildning", translated to English, it's Qualified Profession education. There's probably a more proper English term for that.

It consisted of electronics, hydraulics, technology ( mechanics and "strength of materials" ), applied mathematics and automation (Programmable Logic Controller, binary system, logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_gate)

But I've been thinking a little of getting higher education but my poor grades from my time in the gymnasium puts a stop to that. I read Science there, in retrospect it was the wrong choice.
It was very difficult with all the mathematics in physics and chemistry. And all the formulas you have to remember!

But most of the mathematical stuff you learn there has no use what so ever for everyday life.

[SteamWake]

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...jtv-exclusive/

Senator James Inhofe

Is that the senator who has oil companies as his biggest contributors with electricity generating companies coming close behind?

[Aramike]

I certainly agree that there is way too much nonsense, fear mongering, and 3rd party crap in the whole debate. But we do have a vested interest to maintain our current global environment, financially and otherwise. If the ice melts the oceans will rise flooding large sections of densely inhabited areas. The damage will be in the trillions if allowed, and cost many billions to build dikes to protect all the vulnerable cities.

Then of course there is the ecological concerns which could have a dire impact on our own species. When I talk about the potential for mass extinction, I am being quite serious as the potential is very real. Other mass extinctions have happened in the past under similar circumstances to what we seem to be heading toward. Nature itself is highly interconnected, and loosing one or more species can have a trickle down effect taking out other species which can trigger a domino effect wiping out all but the most flexible and independent species. Depending on what happens, and which theories prove to be most correct, the consequences could well be very bad. My own worries are very well founded in my opinion based on the research I have done into it.

I don't disagree with you. Hell, even if the icecaps don't melt completely, the change in the ocean's salination could have devasting impacts on weather systems and even hurt the world's supply of seafood.

But see, the thing is that we really DON'T KNOW much at this point, but many in the scientific community won't admit to not knowing what they don't know. As such, we have intense alarmism based upon inaccurate or even falsified data which has gone on to do nothing but diminish the cause of environmentalism.

The fact is that, say, Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow and change the Earth's climate practically overnight. In fact any significant volcanic activity could reduce global temperatures. Most large-scale, destructive natural events throughout history have involved the ejection of a far larger mass of ash into the atmosphere that all of human history ... combined.

The point is that the planet is a constantly evolving mechanism, and its systems are far too complex for us to have developed an ability of perfect predictability. However, some in the scientific community want us to make drastic changes and spend enormous sums based upon what amounts to science that is contradictory at best.

If there's a problem, and this problem does indeed need to be corrected, we need to know as much about it as possible before we try to fix it. And if, per chance, that a SIGNIFICANTLY long term warming period is underway (which I question) we need to search for solutions other than economically singling out the nations who are willing to play ball.

We need no more half-assed data and speculation, no more Al Gore's sensationalizing the problem for their own benefit, no more sweeping aside contradictory data rather than attempting to understand it.

In other words, the politicization of climatological science needs to cease. Both sides of the scientific discussion need to be heard, and the machinations of the issue warrant further study, WITHOUT predispositions.

[CaptainHaplo]

You mean something moving toward the following?

"At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review."

How about this?

The new effort, the proposal says, would provide:
• "verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data"
• "methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;"
• "a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,"
• "comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;"
• "robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities."

The article can be found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climategate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529

The actual Met office proposal can be found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022410_metproposal.pdf

How much you want to bet that the "Climate Change" proponents do all they can to fight opening up the research and data?

[Skybird]

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...chs163/English
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...eptics-science

The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-ipcc-sceptics

Influential sceptical commentators can afford to just throw mud and see what sticks, because they have what former PM Stanley Baldwin famously attacked back in 1931 as "power without responsibility." It's the same dynamic that allowed Sarah Palin to make up "death panel" myths to distort the US healthcare debate and get away with it— those in opposition just don't face the same scrutiny as those holding the incumbent establishment position. That's why inside newsrooms the balance of legitimacy has been allowed to tilt so considerably that the climate science controversy that was largely resolved is now live once again, despite the rock solid nature of the core facts.


Prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change can be wrong 99% of the time and right for less than 1% of the time and still win the argument because the playing field simply isn't level. Equally, the IPCC can be right 99% of the time and wrong less than 1% of the time, and they still lose.