Posts by besty

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

it's the widely remarked upon failure of temperatures to rise as expected.

Der Spiegel gets the title of their graphic wrong.

Global Temperature Changes

*Global Surface Temperature Changes - fixed that for you.

It's difficult to understand the Der Spiegel graphic - all the prediction lines seem to originate in 1990, except the 2007 prediction which seems to go back to 2000. All the prediction lines seem to end around 2016. Do all the IPCC predictions end in 2016?

Also they are using HadCRUT4 temperature data which was only released in April 2012. Do you know why they chose this dataset out of the 3 or 4 choices for global surface temperature datasets available? I am keen to know why you think you can compare 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 IPCC predictions with temperature data released in 2012.

Are you saying this graphic accurately represents the IPCC literature, and could withstand a cross-examination from climate scientists?

Nobody is denying there has been a pause in rising surface temperature acceleration in the time frame considered by Der Spiegel. This is the trouble with taking one metric in isolation and considering a cherry-picked timeframe. You ignore the bigger picture (deep ocean heat content and overall energy imbalance in the global system) and you ignore all empirical evidence (you know ...the Artic melting away, earlier springs in the Northern Hemisphere etc) and you ignore decadal timeframes infavour of focusing on a noisy signal. ("The Artic has recovered!" every other year, ignoring that its 60% down in the last decade)

If you want a prediction from me - the Der Spiegel article will come back from the grave around 2030 when it will be used as evidence that scientists were confused by the global cooling that was evidently taking place.

But go ahead - find a media source that mirrors your views and read away. You were right all along...

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

Surface temperature, like the graph you posted, partially at first.

Ok to me that graph shows a rising trendline. (for now lets ignore all other global warming metrics and empirical evidence and just focus on one metric..but thats ok - its best to look at evidence in isolation isnt it?)

So humour me and provide a link to your assertion that climate scientists inaccurately predicted hotter surface temperatures - a peer reviewed paper or named source at least would be great. Thanks in advance.

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

I'm talking about the temperature figures that have not risen as expected.

Link please - are you talking about deep or mid ocean temperatures, lower or upper atmospheric temperatures or land or sea surface temperatures?

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

Q - what data are you referring to

A - any prediction

Are you confused between data and predictions?

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

Ben Goldacre may believe in global warming, but my point is that his book Bad Pharma shows just how badly empiricism can go wrong. We have drugs on the market that don't work and we should know don't work, including some that cause real harm. How can this happen in such a rigorous hard scientific field as medicine? Because not all studies conducted are published. Not all promising cures are studied. Not all published studies convey findings in an accurate and helpful way. It is no great leap to wonder if something similar could be happening in climate science, especially with all the financial and institutional interests involved. Empiricism is great in theory, but can be thwarted at so many levels and it often imbues false confidence.

So let me see...you like what Goldacre writes on bad science in pharma <off topic>,...

but you don't like what he writes on good science in climate change <on topic>?

You then make a speculative leap to say bad pharma science here might = bad climate science there.

Every time you make an actual science-based assertion it is shown to be wrong. Thats when these threads start moving around in circles...let me give you some more denier myths you can trot out again:

It's the sun doing it

Its volcanoes doing it

Climate is not sensitive to CO2

Humans only emit a tiny amount of CO2

You changed it from global warming to climate change

Its cosmic rays

Its not happening

It will be a good thing

We can't do anything about it

Its cold where I live

We will be in an Ice Age soon

You said it would be global cooling in the 1970's

Scientists can't predict the weather, never mind the climate

Scientists are biased and its a conspiracy...follow the money

What else have you got, because honestly its very boring.

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

The data of the past 20 years do not support global warming.

What data are you sepcifically referring to?

bear in mind that the IPCC is a summary document, not primary research, so saying the IPCC got it 'wrong' is not helpful in making your point

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

@SBF

How do you arrive at the 97% figure? Does it refer to academic articles on the subject, because what gets published in academic journals is notoriously impacted by bias and interest groups.

See answer above for TT2C - the 97% figure is well established for some time by multiple studies covering multiple decades and has not been refuted. (Nice little attempt to poision the well - noted)

Have you read Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre? He explains this phenomenon in relation to medicine. How a dozen studies can be performed on a drug, only one showing that it works, and it's the only one that gets published.

Have you read Ben Goldacre's recomendation on studying the IPCC website for climate science information - you do know he is an evidence-based writer, don't you? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change

A similar thing could be going on in climate science.

Pointless speculation - evidence please, and not a view held by Ben Goldacre - see link above for his views on climate science.

Plus scientists who believe in climate change are naturally drawn to the field, and publish their work. Others who find the evidence less compelling may pursue other topics and hence never publish on the subject of climate change. So there may be selection bias both at the level of what gets published and who enters the field in the first place.

You are speculating SBF - this is ridiculous, and denies the scientific method. This is not a local book club we are talking about. Every major oil and gas company accepts the science of climate change. To do otherwise is akin to creationsim or flat-earthism. This theory would have been in the trash by now if money and influence could have put it there - it's not - deal with it.

It is my strong suspicion that the coming decades will confound the climate change narrative, that is if humanity does not destroy itself with nuclear weapons before then.

The last bastion of the denier - future events will prove me right, even when all previous facts show me to be wrong.

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

Unless Betsy has a new source, she is probably referring to the 2009 Doron/Zimmerman survey that came up with the 97% figure.

<<<<<<--------- *Besty <he>

Although it is valid to crtiticize methodology, it is also possible to attempt to replicate results. If you have an alternative peer-reviewed paper which shows climate scientists are not in near-unanimous consensus then please share with the group. (Of course the 3% deniers also serve to destroy the conspiracy myth and provide evidence of the scientific method being alive and well - it just so happens they are almost certainly wrong)

Aside from Doran/Zimmerman finding that 75/77 climate scientists attribute rising temps to human activity there are several other similar studies with similar outcomes analysed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

1 - A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

2 - A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

Besty, et al are playing defense for a reason.

Do you know what a knob is? I'm just wondering if a knob can also be hypocritical.

That would make you a hypocritical knob, if I'm not mistaken...

153

IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave in

.....states that there is 95% certainty climate change is man made.

people are still saying we don't need to do anything about it.. if you were told there is a 95% risk of you dying if you don't change your diet, wouldn't you change your diet?.

besty

Well the sea temperature sure looks like rising on that graph. What does Judith Curry say about that?

That's your comment on it?

falsified evidence on CO2 (how it increased after not before temperature rises)

CO2 both leads and lags temperature. A small increase in CO2 caused by orbital cycles does trigger a small increase in temperature. That temperature rise then releases more CO2 which increases the temperature still further. This is well understood. The missing piece in the current scenario can only be explained by human activity.

There is no falsified evidence. Otherwise publish a paper and make yourself rich and famous. Your falsified evidence exists only on the blogosphere.

Since I don't know the science I can only follow the discourse, and it looks and feels to me like a theory in retreat.

Your position on matters of science is decided for you by the tides of public opinion? I don't understand why you would reject what 97% of climate scientists say about climate science, whilst simultaneously accepting what 50% of Joe Public's think about climate science. Doesn't make sense.