Al Gore Rumbled

[rah]

Ok, Lotm, I quickly skimmed it and have the same problem with most documents like this. It's strewn with phrases like

"It does not appear to be possible to combine the different reasons for concern into a unified reason for concern that has meaning and is credible."
and
"There is low to medium confidence"
or
"Estimates of distributional effects are uncertain because of aggregation and comparison methods"

now granted I have totally removed them from their proper context, but langauge like this is all CYA or we're putting enough disclaimers in so that whatever we say could be valid.

My final analysis is THEY"RE NOT SURE.
and for every article I read like this, I read one that says totally the opposite. I know politics is involved but you get to the point of "is any of it believable." This is why I have a problem throwing a too much money or effort at it.

Common sense tells be that some bad things will probably happen because of it. THings will change, but things have been changing all my life. There were rivers that I never would have swam in when I was a kid with scientists saying that in 10 years the river would be devoid of all life. Guess what, some of those rivers are quite healthy today. Man will adapt and I don't think we know enough about this complex issue to go to extreme fixes. Let's settle for some of the common sense things and go from there.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it does appear that the IPCC has been using the latest science on that, and that the info has gotten progressively better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and...n_IPCC_reports

Wiki's take on the controversy

wiki - hockey stick controversy

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah
Ok, Lotm, I quickly skimmed it and have the same problem with most documents like this. It's strewn with phrases like

"It does not appear to be possible to combine the different reasons for concern into a unified reason for concern that has meaning and is credible."
and
"There is low to medium confidence"
or
"Estimates of distributional effects are uncertain because of aggregation and comparison methods"

now granted I have totally removed them from their proper context, but langauge like this is all CYA or we're putting enough disclaimers in so that whatever we say could be valid.

My final analysis is THEY"RE NOT SURE.
and for every article I read like this, I read one that says totally the opposite. I know politics is involved but you get to the point of "is any of it believable." This is why I have a problem throwing a too much money or effort at it.

Common sense tells be that some bad things will probably happen because of it. THings will change, but things have been changing all my life. There were rivers that I never would have swam in when I was a kid with scientists saying that in 10 years the river would be devoid of all life. Guess what, some of those rivers are quite healthy today. Man will adapt and I don't think we know enough about this complex issue to go to extreme fixes. Let's settle for some of the common sense things and go from there.

that wasnt an article, it was a quote from the IPCC paper I linked to before. If they just quoted from ONE study, or a few, it would be much simpler. This part was an attempt to summarize a lot of different work, each category of which has its own issues. Naturally the overall language has to be somewhat vague.

No overall reason makes sense to me. If you look at studies on agriculture, on coral reefs, on malaria, etc, you are CONCERNED. But to be able to aggregate them, youd have to say "the impact on Ag is 300 Billion, and the health care costs are 400 Billion, so the total is 700 billion, plus the amount for ...etc" and they just arent there yet (this is from 2001, BTW)

Low to medium concern - Im not sure if they defined that anywhere, but it definitely means non = zero concern. Id love it if theyd say "a 25% chance of at least 300 billion, a 10% chance of 600 Billion" something like that, but I appreciate that they were being cautious, and also that they were an international body subject to huge CYA requirements. But Im capable (as are you) of going to the details behind it - they seem to be quite transparent. I was just trying quote them to give you an overall idea.

effects of distribution are unsure cause of aggregation. -well thats not even CYA. You look at say agriculture, across 6 different continents, and dozens of crops, and you aggregate that into say, 1 trillion dollars of damage -can you say how much of that is on the urban poor, how much on LDC farmers, how much on North American middle class farmers, etc? No, that detail is all back in the crop by crop region by region analysis. I wouldnt have written it any differently myself.

BTW. We did clean up a lot of rivers. We did it by adopting some fairly strict regulations, that involved major and costly changes in how we treated sewage, how industrial processes were conducted, etc. The Clean Water Act. We did NOT do it by saying, oh, the science is uncertain, prevention is too costly, lets wait for better research, lets put a little money into researching new technology. We took the bull by the horns and did it, and it didnt bankrupt us. Your analogy is making the case FOR aggressive policies to stop globawl warming.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by padillah
Did it ever occur to you that the reason they have to use time series is becuse the "population" isn't substatial enough for other analysis?

No, they have to use time series because the population is changing over time, Einstein.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Wiki's take on the controversy

wiki - hockey stick controversy

"[edit] National Research Council Report
At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee, consisting of 12 scientists from different disciplines, published its report in 2006.[19] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[20]

The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

[edit] Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
McIntyre and McKitrick's paper has been reinforced by a team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. The Wegman team was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, an outspoken global warming skeptic.[21] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report") include the following:

MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be valid and compelling.
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
Overall, the committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
The Wegman report has itself been criticized for a number of things:

The report was not subject to formal peer review.
The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction.[22]
Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions.[23][24]
The social network analysis has no value without comparative studies in other tightly defined areas of science. The network of co-authorship is not unusual at all.

[rah]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

BTW. We did clean up a lot of rivers. We did it by adopting some fairly strict regulations, that involved major and costly changes in how we treated sewage, how industrial processes were conducted, etc. The Clean Water Act. We did NOT do it by saying, oh, the science is uncertain, prevention is too costly, lets wait for better research, lets put a little money into researching new technology. We took the bull by the horns and did it, and it didnt bankrupt us. Your analogy is making the case FOR aggressive policies to stop globawl warming.

I dissagree. The things done were compromises and policies that wouldn't bankrupt companies. They were done over a long stretch of time giving people a chance adapt. And the final goal was improvement, not perfection. I think the GW paranoids are asking for more dramatic type changes. SO I don't think this example can be used to your benefit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by rah


I dissagree. The things done were compromises and policies that wouldn't bankrupt companies. They were done over a long stretch of time giving people a chance adapt. And the final goal was improvement, not perfection. I think the GW paranoids are asking for more dramatic type changes. SO I don't think this example can be used to your benefit.

Didnt bankrupt companies? If you sold elemental chlorine to a paper company, for ex, you might not agree. Im sure some companies went out of business do to clean water act changes that wouldnt otherwise have. I know a heckuva lot of coal mines closed due to the clean air act.


Long period of time? Well, we should have started back in the 1980s and gone gradual. But we didnt, and as Don Rumsfeld used to say, we are where we are. Weve used up a bunch of our gradual time futzing around pretending the problem doesnt exist at all. And much more than water pollution, this is something building up over time and heading to more negative synergies as we wait. Many (most?) problem rivers were already dead when the clean water act was passed, and we then revived them.

If the current admin was proposing a small carbon tax tomorrow, to give folks a chance to adapt, Id be happy. But they arent. Which means when we DO impose a carbon tax it will have to be bigger and more sudden.

BTW, look at this comparison of Kyoto, the Bush goals, and two substantive mandatory proposals by non-paranoids

http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/csia_ceia_comparison.cfm

[MOBIUS]

Well the hell are people harping on about only 200 years of data etc??? There's far more than that!

I think the whole crux of this entire argument in this thread is that no one actually really knows what they're talking about, which is hardly surprising because it is such a colossally complicated subject. If it were easy to understand, we'd already know for sure what was going to happen if we continued on this current course...

Returning to my point about CFCs damaging the ozone layer - the science behind that was child's play compared to this, and yet it still took something like three decades for the scientific community to finally convince the world's governments to do something about it...

THAT is why I urge the precautionary principle - because we have a precedent where similar warnings were ignored, or ridiculed. Just as I am seeing in this very thread, and in the news around the world.

As for temp records, we have very clear sets of data going back 65 million years (basically about the amount of sea bed left that hasn't been subducted yet) relating to the relative amounts of O18 isotope in the shells of forams. The amount of the heavier O18 available is directly proportional to the amount of water locked away in the Earth's ice caps at any one time - hence if a foram shell has more O18 then it is colder than if it has less. In fact some species of foram are so helpful in this regard that their shells actually radiate in a different direction when exposed to colder water - I can't remember if it's dextral or sinistral to indicate colder water - but you can accurately plot the extent of how far glaciation has reached by where these forams are located... Pretty cool huh?

Using the O18 isotope in other ways, global temps have been estimated right back to the cambrian.

For atmospheric carbon ppms, we have ice core samples going back 800,000 years which clear as day show that in that time it is only since the industrial revolution that CO2 levels have rapidly shot up to the highest level in that time! Indeed, there are several ways to estimate CO2 hundreds of millions of years into the past with one study going back into the Cambrian though these are far less reliable...

Interestingly the last time CO2 levels were estimated much higher than they are now (in the Cretaceous) - there were jungles on the poles and the sea level was >200m higher than it is today!!!

[Berzerker]

sigh. Youre not taking a random sample out of a population, youre looking for a trend in a time series

A trendline coming out of the mini ice age

And more ellaborate usually means introducing an additional level of error

Hehe

F**k it rah. We shouldnt be "looking at alt enery sources" The time to do that was in 1990. We need to actually begin to change our current patterns of GHG emission NOW, and do so fairly quickly. Either that, or start planning on moving the wheat belt to Northern Ontario, and planting sugarcane and in Northern Illinois.

Yeah, increasing the productivity of all that land up north would be disastrous.

Thats great. Im saying we shouldnt change the planet in ways that dont suit our needs.

Ice age or global warming - take your pick.

I do however think that trillions of dollars of lost economic value, from disappearing islands, to lost coastal lands, to large scale disruptions to agriculture, not to mention non-economic losses in terms of lost species, etc, that could be avoided for an investment of lesser cost, is likely if we dont change course immediately.

How do you know any of that could be avoided? The Sahara wasn't a desert 7,000 years ago even though the world was warmer. And it was becoming a desert long before mankind was pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in significant quantities. As for sea levels, where do you think we'll get all that water we need to irrigate all that land? Hell, we could pump ocean water into the Nevada basin and create an inland sea to help maintain sea levels. Desalinization, irrigation, pumping sea water into low lying areas, we can live with global warming. Living with a mile thick ice sheet covering NYC and much of the northern hemisphere aint a viable option - but thats the option the Earth is pushing for...

Interestingly the last time CO2 levels were estimated much higher than they are now (in the Cretaceous) - there were jungles on the poles and the sea level was >200m higher than it is today!!!

There was more land closer to the equator then and ocean currents were much different with all the continents having access to equatorial waters. Outgassing was the main culprit of CO2 until biomass took over the land, and while there were obviously mountain ranges, the rising Himalayas and Andes appear to have had a cooling effect on climate.

[Berzerker]

How about if it reduces the need to give a crap about the ME via investments in alternative energy?

I'd rather use their stuff up before tapping our resources

The evidence that Global Warming is going to cause us increasing problems in the future is there for all to see.

Like what? A warmer world means reduced conflicts between warm moist air and cold dry air, i.e., weaker storms. Every documentary I've seen on the subject of the mini ice age and ice age environments claims hurricanes got stronger when the higher latitudes were colder, especially covered with ice sheets that do little to slow air masses.

Some assume ag belts could easily move north - I would suggest massive disruptions and economic costs in that process.

There are always costs, always... But the cost of having to irrigate vast stretches of the northern hemisphere made arable by a warmer world is a cost we should be happy to pay. Expanding vegetation zones is not a bad thing...

ts not just rising temps, but massive changes in weather systems, due to changing oceanic current patterns, though again the impacts of those on rainfall patterns, etc are disputed, IIUC.

However its not easy to have those discussions when folks are busy denying the reality of man made global warming.

A warmer world is a more stable world, air masses will see less conflict when they are closer in temperature.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme



By this kind of argument, we don't know what the core of the Earth is made of because we didn't go pick up samples with spoons.
Similarly we don't know what the Sun is made off, we have no ideas how people lived in prehistoric time because instruments to record this didn't exist
etc...
I could go on for a very long time...

If you think that past temperature estimates are not reliable, which is possible, please make a valid point why.
The fact that thermometers didn't exist is irrelevant and makes you look like a fool.

Again, yes some data can be unreliable, but bringing in the thermometer in this conversation is idiotic.

And you take that line of logic to it's ultimate end and you end up with the inability to believe anything that's outside your sphere of observation.

I'm not trying to say the only real data is observed data. I'm trying to get LOTM to admit that the bulk of this data starts as an estimate. To base furthur data on that estimate is unstable. To prove models based on estimated data is unstable.

You saw Ogie post about the contention running through the GW debate. There are people using filters that a made to produce the results they want. I look over the graphs and see unexplained and unreferenced "flat spots" where the temprature wass table for some reason no one wants to explain.

GW proponents act like it's a given that Global Warming occurs and it's caused by humans. They have no questions at all... and that's what I can't support. If you try and tell me the temp from this year is .01 degrees warmer than last year, I can buy that. We've got instruments that can measure that. But I have a hard time believing that they can tell me March 3rd 4000 years ago was .5 degrees cooler than March 3rd 4001 years ago. Core samples may be able to tell us a lot but the temprature to within .1 degree? I find that hard to believe.

It's not that we can tell the temprature from a core sample. It's the degree of accuracy that I can't get behind.

Now, if the accuracy of a derived number beats the accuracy of an observed number, you let me know. (hence the reference to thermometers)

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No, they have to use time series because the population is changing over time, Einstein.

I meant for their population to be individualy observed tempratures per day. And while I suppose the number of days you've recorded an event must change over time, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) days change in a very predictable manner.

But that's just my outlook, I could be wrong.

I was trying to point out that a population study, of days of observed temprature, given a substantial "population" (i.e. number of days) would be much more concrete and provable than a time series estimate baised on modeling data.

Observed measurement will always be more concrete than an estimate.

...and it's an extension of Heisenburg, not Einstein.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I think the whole crux of this entire argument in this thread is that no one actually really knows what they're talking about, which is hardly surprising because it is such a colossally complicated subject. If it were easy to understand, we'd already know for sure what was going to happen if we continued on this current course...

Thank you.

That's what I've been trying to say. The scientists don't have to know. But they are not of a level of certanty that I'm comfortable with.

Why is it wrong for me to be uncomforatble? Must I take everything every scientist says as gospel?

The measurements, the observations, the models, the estimates... they are not sufficiently stable nor certain enough for me to believe with all my soul.

"The rest is smoke and shadow" - I forgot who said that

Tom P.

[MOBIUS]

EXCEPT!

As I keep harping on...

This whole conflict between the scientific community and World governments etc, is hugely reminiscent to the whole process of trying to prove that CFC's were damaging the Ozone layer. They were eventually proven correct about that, but the process of stopping using and manufacturing CFC's is still incomplete over 30 years later...

IF the world's scientists are correct about the anthropogenic nature of global warming - then we absolutely cannot afford not to do something about it!!! Hence the precautionary principle AKA 'Insurance', in tackling the issues NOW!

The massive irony is that one of the major gripes from the anti-GW faction is that it will be economically crippling... Why?

Firstly many companies actually find that when making their businesses energy-efficient, they actually see huge savings in energy costs - how can avoiding spending money be economically crippling!!?

Secondly there are vast economic opportunities to be made developing and creating this technology. Obviously draconian methods might be economically crippling but if we don't get the process underway NOW, if/when we 'suddenly realise' "Oh ****, we are ****ing up the planet for mankind!!!" (despite having been being warned for years!) THEN it will be economically crippling...

Stage one should be educating the public in what they can do individually to help AND save money at the same time! Someone said "a penny saved is a penny earned" - why is it such a crime to show people how to help protect mankind AND make (save) money at the same time!?

I for example probably save hundreds of pounds a year from the combined effects of all my own environmental initiatives. Initially it may have been a pain remembering everything, but once it became a way of life it became effortless. And my reward? I am financially better off!, and in better shape for years as a side effect...

[MOBIUS]

Imagine it is dark and you are standing on one of two sets of train tracks with a train rapidly approaching you...

You can't tell which track the train is on, you might be perfectly safe if you simply stay on your tracks but if you find yourself standing on the same tracks as the train - it will be too late to jump off!

Yes, I know it is a crap analogy - but surely everyone here would jump off the tracks they are on to avoid getting hit by the train!!!

Those of us that are advocating doing something about Global Warming say "Jump off the tracks!", those that are still skeptical are playing chicken with the present future of mankind at stake!

People like James Lovelock (who I met last year!) say we have already passed the point of no return into a chain-reaction of ever worsening positive feedbacks, whereas I prefer to believe we still have an opportunity to turn things around...