Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

[chomerics]

I stand corrected. That magic word "If" appears.

Magic word???? If the ice melts we would be under water??? What part of that is not correct? You stated my post was false, you also stated that the ice could not raise the ocean by 23 feet. You were wrong, there is no "magic word" which alleviates you from being wrong, you were not correct, and your assumptions were completely false.

I read the whole thing, not just the part you picked out. It was interesting.

The Earth does go through climate changes, the pole is shifting also. You may see areas that are melting right now, but there are also places that are refreezing that do compensate.

Not correct, yet again. There are areas where the glacial mass is increasing, that much is correct, but it is NOT compensating for the mass loss of ice. For example, in Greenland, the center of the ice mass is actually increasing in size by something like 50 miles³, but it is losing at the rate of over 250 miles³. That is a net loss of over 200 miles³ and that number is INCREASING.

That is what everyone is concerned about, not just the fact that is it melting, but the melt rate is accelerating!!! There is also speculation that there will be a tipping point in glacier melting where the entire ice sheet breaks up in a VERY SHORT time frame. There are mathematical models which examine the force these glaciers have due to gravity, and what happens when they lose say 1/4 of their mass. Their models state that you get a catastrophic breakup. This is what people are worried about!

If Greenland alone was melting as fast as certain people want to make it seem, a lot of the major areas of the East Coast would already be under water.

What "certain people" are these? Look at the data and examine it yourself, then see what everyone is talking about. This IS happening, and the people who are saying that it isn't are all on the same side of the political fence. Then to top it off, they are saying to remove the politics out of it :doh: If they could only remove their partisan blinders for a single moment and examine the issue they could see why people are saying this needs to be addressed.

[alexey]

50% of the country vote democrat and I must assume they believe in "global warming".

I’ll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once politics is taken out of the science and someone can prove it.

Simply amazing.

Still waiting for replies to:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3488459&postcount=26

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489253&postcount=66

[alexey]

Thanks again for demonstrating the "fatal flaw" of Democracy, as if introducing Democracy to the Middle East did not demonstrate that flaw in its full glory. There are not many alternatives, unfortunately... dictatorship works if the dictator is a tallented leader with interest of people at heart - but even benevolent dictators die. Maybe a Tyranny of the Educated is the answer

Yes there are self-correcting mechanisms in the system, but the system is still very vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. This is especially true now that flooding people with information from different directions is easy. It is a well-studied psych phenomenon that we grant a higher level of credibility to information that we percieve to come from different sources.

[Lowghost]

chomerics,

Please don't bring politics into this, because I haven't any affiliation to any party.

I agree mankind is speeding up the climate change, how rapid that is, I really don't have a clue.

I agree that if 25% of a major glacier broke off at once, it would be devastating.

Personally, this worries me more:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html

[alexey]

I agree mankind is speeding up the climate change, how rapid that is, I really don't have a clue.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

(2 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere

system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while

negative forcing tends to cool it.)

[Lowghost]

Thanks alexey, but right now I can't open a pdf file. When I download adobe 8, I will look at it.

[alexey]

Thanks alexey, but right now I can't open a pdf file. When I download adobe 8, I will look at it.

No problem! I posted the relevant image for you, but there is a lot more in there if you're interested.

[alexey]

Johnny Punani,

Notice how the radiative forcing caused by CO2 (first graph) is actially below 0 when CO2 levels are under approx 275ppm. That further explains the study you brought regarding CO2 not being the "principal driver of climate variability" back when CO2 levels were lower: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489005&postcount=51

That's pretty interesting, I did not know about the "radiative forcing" stuff. I did not know they can actually measure how something effects incoming/outgoing energy in the atmoshpere. I wonder if that's a recent development... will have to read up on it.

[SnyderShrugged]

BTW, the IPCC report is out...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Here is an article about it and some of the BS being said about it...

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/the_ipcc_report_is_out_let_the.php

after reading the first 10 pages of the report, there is a bit of confusion on my part that I'm hoping someone can help explain. I'm sure I must be missing something.

On page 9 of the document(in Adobe), there is a table identified as SPM-2. The middle column is the "expert judgement" assessments of Human impacts on the trends they have outlined in the 20th century. here is a breakdown:

1. Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas:

"likely" (or 66% confidence in results)

2. Warmer and more frequent Hot days and nights over most land areas: Likely(nights only) (or 66% confidence in results)

3. Warm spells/Heat waves frequency increases over most land areas: "More likely than not" (or 50% confidence in results)

4. Heavy precipitation events. Frequency (or proportion of

total rainfall from heavy falls) increases over most areas: "More likely than not" (or 50% confident in results)

5. Area affected by droughts increases: "More likely than not" (or 50% confidence in results)

6. Intense tropical cyclone activity increases: "More likely than not" (or 50% confident in results)

7. Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis): "More likely than not" or (50% confidence in results)

Table notes:

a See Table 3.7 for further details regarding definitions.

b See Table TS-4, Box TS.3.4 and Table 9.4.

c Decreased frequency of cold days and nights (coldest 10%).

d Warming of the most extreme days and nights each year.

e Increased frequency of hot days and nights (hottest 10%).

f Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather

than formal attribution studies.

g Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is defined here as the highest 1%

of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period.

h Changes in observed extreme high sea level closely follow the changes in average sea level {5.5.2.6}. It is very likely that

anthropogenic activity contributed to a rise in average sea level. {9.5.2}

i In all scenarios, the projected global average sea level at 2100 is higher than in the reference period {10.6}. The effect of

changes in regional weather systems on sea level extremes has not been assessed.

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an

outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely

than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See Box TS.1.1 for more details).

so please help me clarify what I am reading here.

they are saying that of the events (trends) listed, their best level of confidence doesnt beyond "likely" or 66%, and the majority fell worse at 50%?

On top of this, then they tell us that Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies?. When we see elsewhere in the report that anthropogenic influence was at least 1/3 of the attribution for nitrous oxcide? Why wouldnt they include the magnitude in the study?

How is this leaving anyone with confidence that Humans in the 20th century have contributed to these trends?

Please dont take this as an attack on the Global Warming alarmist camp, it really isnt. I am simply confused by the variation in what I'm seeing between media reports and in this report.

Thanks for helping me figure out specifically what page 9 of the report is stateing in regards to the "likelihood" of human contribution to the above referenced trends.

[MiltonFriedmansGhost]

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to use the same reasoning on my brother, explaining that if he'd stop drinking, and it doesn't save his marriage, then at least he'll have stopped drinking.

The analogy works fine unless you consider the fact that drinking does absolutely nothing for your health. Carbon-based fuels are cheap and have driven our economy and the world's to unprecedented levels of prosperity. While the "addiction" analogy seems fine (even presidential), we're no more "addicted" to oil than paper, corn or light bulb filaments. We use them to get our business done.

[Predicto]

Snyder, I'm not dodging you. Things hit the fan here and I haven't had a chance to look at the report and try to think about it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Snyder, I'm not dodging you. Things hit the fan here and I haven't had a chance to look at the report and try to think about it.

Thanks!! really no hurry. I appreciate you walking through ikt with me and comparing observations.

(ps) hope your day gets better! I cant stand it when it blows up like that)

[SnyderShrugged]

wow, the more I study page 9, the more confused it gets to me.

here is the definition of "anthropogenic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic

When you read point F from the footnotes below the table it is alarming to say the least that 4 out of 7 of their conclusions had no study of the magnitude of Human influence, it was just an "expert judgement"?

footnote F says:

"Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather

than formal attribution studies."

I really must be missing a big chunk of information here, because that makes literally ZERO sense to me.

[chomerics]

wow, the more I study page 9, the more confused it gets to me.

here is the definition of "anthropogenic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic

Anthropogenic basically means manmade. . .

When you read point F from the footnotes below the table it is alarming to say the least that 4 out of 7 of their conclusions had no study of the magnitude of Human influence, it was just an "expert judgement"?

footnote F says:

"Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather

than formal attribution studies."

I really must be missing a big chunk of information here, because that makes literally ZERO sense to me.

No, that is not correct. Read what it says. . .

magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. . .translation "we did not calculate the impact of anthropogenic contributions".

Notice how the column heading is labeled "Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" This says it is likely that humans will contribute to these factors, but we have not calculated out the exact contribution currently.

The categories of (f) are:

Warm Spells, Increased Tropical Cyclones, Increased Rain Events, and Increased Sea Level.

The conclusion is this. . .

Although we have not calculated the exact amount of increase at this time, it is likely that these events will happen, and it is also likely that these events are happening because of human factors.

That is the gist of their graph. You have to understand that the exact amount of warming, and the exact amount of hurricanes, or ice melting is basically impossible to predict, but they can predict an increase in intensity of hurricanes, and ice melting based on their models.

They predict the temperature will change anywhere from between 2°C and 5°C over the next 100 years. This will cause the aforementioned events to happen. What was not calculated was the % of anthropogenic influence when their models were run, or for example, hurricanes will increase 95% because of human impact, and 5% because of other factors. They are still working on that part of the problem.

Does that make more sense to you now?

[SnyderShrugged]

Anthropogenic basically means manmade. . .

No, that is not correct. Read what it says. . .

magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. . .translation "we did not calculate the impact of anthropogenic contributions".

Notice how the column heading is labeled "Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" This says it is likely that humans will contribute to these factors, but we have not calculated out the exact contribution currently.

The categories of (f) are:

Warm Spells, Increased Tropical Cyclones, Increased Rain Events, and Increased Sea Level.

The conclusion is this. . .

Although we have not calculated the exact amount of increase at this time, it is likely that these events will happen, and it is also likely that these events are happening because of human factors.

That is the gist of their graph. You have to understand that the exact amount of warming, and the exact amount of hurricanes, or ice melting is basically impossible to predict, but they can predict an increase in intensity of hurricanes, and ice melting based on their models.

They predict the temperature will change anywhere from between 2°C and 5°C over the next 100 years. This will cause the aforementioned events to happen. What was not calculated was the % of anthropogenic influence when their models were run, or for example, hurricanes will increase 95% because of human impact, and 5% because of other factors. They are still working on that part of the problem.

Does that make more sense to you now?

Thanks Cho, I dont think I concur with your assessment here, but I will keep an open mind for the sake of dialog.

2 things:

How can they gauge the "likelyhood" without studying the magnitude?

and where is the media getting the 90% certainty that Humans likely to have influenced the observed trend when the percenatges are so dramatically different?

[chomerics]

Thanks Cho, I dont think I concur with your assessment here, but I will keep an open mind for the sake of dialog.

2 things:

How can they gauge the "likelyhood" without studying the magnitude?

It comes from their climate models. They can predict the temperature will increase 2°-5°. They can then run these models, which give an indication of which is likely to happen. That is what you saw in the column. What the models don't tell them is how many hurricanes increased because of human factors, hence the footnote (f).

The bottom line is that the earth is getting hotter, and we are causing it. What they don't know is the severity of our impact, that is what they are currently working on.

and where is the media getting the 90% certainty that Humans likely to have influenced the observed trend when the percenatges are so dramatically different?

I haven't seen that figure, but if you give me a link, I could find it for you. i would imagine they tried to hit 3 sigma levels (99.97%) but ended up around 2 sigma with their predictions. The problem is that as you increase the confidence, you also increase the tolerance band. For example, they can be 90% sure the temp will fall in the 2-5 degree band, or they can be 99% sure the temp will fall in a 0.5-8degree band. I don't know if those are the actual numbers, but just trying to give you the run of how statistics work, and what they mean in this report.

[SnyderShrugged]

It comes from their climate models. They can predict the temperature will increase 2°-5°. They can then run these models, which give an indication of which is likely to happen. That is what you saw in the column. What the models don't tell them is how many hurricanes increased because of human factors, hence the footnote (f).

The bottom line is that the earth is getting hotter, and we are causing it. What they don't know is the severity of our impact, that is what they are currently working on.

I haven't seen that figure, but if you give me a link, I could find it for you. i would imagine they tried to hit 3 sigma levels (99.97%) but ended up around 2 sigma with their predictions. The problem is that as you increase the confidence, you also increase the tolerance band. For example, they can be 90% sure the temp will fall in the 2-5 degree band, or they can be 99% sure the temp will fall in a 0.5-8degree band. I don't know if those are the actual numbers, but just trying to give you the run of how statistics work, and what they mean in this report.

Hey, not too bad on your stats! I think you are correct on landing within 2 sigma. but, one nitpicky thing...

actually as you increase confidence, you decrease the band (tighter prediction band).

I actually get the statistics part of it (it's my job, lol)

What Im lost on is how this report was supposed to be a "smoking gun" report, and it really is more of a policy statement lacking the mathmatical umph that I would have expected from such a big deal being made of it

[chomerics]

Hey, not too bad on your stats! I think you are correct on landing within 2 sigma. but, one nitpicky thing...

actually as you increase confidence, you decrease the band (tighter prediction band).

I actually get the statistics part of it (it's my job, lol)

haha, :cool:

I was looking at the problem via a manufacturing mind, as in one way to achieve 3 sigma is to increase the tolerance bands for the data set. For example, if your parts have a tolerance of ±.05mm and you can achieve 2 sigma, but if you increase the tolerance to ±.75mm you can reach 3 sigma. I think I just did a poor job explaining it. So the correlation would be they are 99.97% confident they will be within a .5-8degree shift, or 93% confident they will be within a 2-5degree band. :laugh:

What Im lost on is how this report was supposed to be a "smoking gun" report, and it really is more of a policy statement lacking the mathmatical umph that I would have expected from such a big deal being made of it

I believe all of the mathematics is going to be in the final 1600 page report due in a couple of months. All this report contained was a summary of the conclusions, but the main report is due out in a few months.

[SnyderShrugged]

February 11, 2007

Global Warming Shovel Hot Item in New York Stores

by Scott Ott

(2007-02-11) — Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores in upstate New York report brisk sales of the new Global Warming Shovel which hit store shelves just in time for this week’s 9.5-foot snowfall.

The shovels, made of a rigid form of lightweight GORE-TEX®, are specifically designed to remove the kind of snow spawned by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “no matter how deep it gets,” according to the manufacturer.

Later this week, the company will also roll out its new Kyoto Mittens, “guaranteed to protect the wearer from the inconvenient truth of global warming-induced frostbite.”

[ddpls]

I want to know whatever happened to the big push about acid rain??? I guess there wasn't enough money to be made from studying that, so all the scientists had to jump on the "Global Warming" subject to make more money. It still amazes me how during the 40's and 50's with all the heavy industry for the war and all the fires burning from the war and all the open air nuclear testing that was done, all the military vehicles and civilian vehicles that were being used with Leaded gasoline, paints, insecticides and then underground testing of nuclear weapons and all the pollution of the 70's. That after the big push for environmentalism by the former vietnam protestors who had to find something else to be mad about, and all the environmental regulation on industry and superfund site cleanups. That somehow after implementing all these so called abosolute measures of cleaning up the environment. Somehow we are even worse off as a whole because of SUV's and cow's passing gass? I think it all comes down to money, keep everyone hysterical so that they don't question how much money is being dumped into this study and that study. Just like all of the pharmaceutical companies. Look at all the money being made on treating Symptoms. What incentitive is there to cure disease? If they do, the money well dries up. So keep up the hysteria, everyone will do whatever they must to keep money pouring into "Research" and debates will continue forever. I wonder how big a topic it would remain if all the funding was taken away and scientists had to do research because of their heartfelt obligation to save the world from this great calamity. Then it would be equally interesting to see how many politicians would remain on this wagon as well when the attention turned to something else to spend money on?