-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Liverpool said:
Let's stick to the IPCC report shall we, like I've asked on numerous occasions, what aspect of the science do you object to? Or are we to continue the ducking and weaving on all science related matters?
If you have little faith in peer review and subsequently believe the IPCC are a bunch of corrupt scientists with alterior motives then provide some evidence of this. Your conspiracy theories are certainly wearing a little thin.
As for the actions of activist groups like Greenpeace, I can only assume they are caught up in an information war with propaganda groups such as the Heartleand Institute and News Corp. My advice is to steer clear of the sensationalism from both sides and stick to the hard science. Try reading science journals for a change - that is if you even have the remotest interest in keeping an open mind.
Liverpool said:
Sorry Livers, you mentioned a few things that have some impact on temperatures but have offered little to discredit the IPCC report that humans are the main culprits behind climate change. 97% of climatologists have stated that humans are having a significant effect on the climate yet you conveniently ignore this fact. I'm assuming you feel we could burn all the coal reserves on the planet & plunder all our old growth forests and everything would be hunky dory. If so, then you are in complete denial.
Liverpool said:
Here's a graph over the past 160 years, the upward trend is clear. I also provided a graph with sunspot activity to give you some perspective. Take it or leave it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
As for your dismissal of the bell curve, you have obviously shut your eyes and ears to Australian temperature records being smashed year after year. Like I said, Australians have a lot to lose if the mercury continues to rise, and if I was a betting man, I'd predict further increases over the next 100 years.
evo said:
This is from Wikipedia.
19th century
The cyclic variation of the number of sunspots was first observed by Heinrich Schwabe between 1826 and 1843 and led Wolf to make systematic observations starting in 1848. The Wolf number is a measure of individual spots and spot groupings, which correlates to a number of solar observables. Also in 1848, Joseph Henry projected an image of the Sun onto a screen and determined that sunspots were cooler than the surrounding surface.
After the resumption of sunspot activity, Heinrich Schwabe in 1844 in Astronomische Nachrichten (Astronomical News) reported a periodic change in the number of sunspots.
The Sun emitted an extremely powerful flare on its visible hemisphere on 1 September 1859, leading to what is known as the Carrington Event. It interrupted electrical telegraph service and caused visible aurorae as far south as Havana, Hawaii, and Rome with similar activity in the southern hemisphere.
All you're doing is scattering red herrings Livers. No one - no, not even climate scientists - deny that there are many factors that influence climate. The problem is that the other factors can be dismissed as causing the changes we're seeing.
As I said, the US Geological Society has demonstrated that human contribution to greenhouse gases dwarfs that of volcanic emissions
The influence of solar activity as a contributor to the warming trends has been dismissed for nearly 10 years.
Irrelevant to the climate change being attributed to anthropogenic gases.
As I said, irrelevant to the timescales we're talking about
Again, not a factor in the warming trend.
Liverpool said:
As I said, the US Geological Society has demonstrated that human contribution to greenhouse gases dwarfs that of volcanic emissions
Liverpool said:
The influence of solar activity as a contributor to the warming trends has been dismissed for nearly 10 years.
Liverpool said:
Irrelevant to the climate change being attributed to anthropogenic gases.
Liverpool said:
As I said, irrelevant to the timescales we're talking about
Liverpool said:
Again, not a factor in the warming trend.
willo said:
This is just the nature of scientific discourse willo.
Scientists always speak in conservative, guarded language. Their findings will have a statistical basis that allows them to have some % confidence in their results and also their degree of possible error. Hence the language.
Leave the certainty speak to the advocates (although those 90%+ certainties should get you thinking).
bullus_hit said:
But why do you want to stick with just the IPCC report?
Why so dismissive of other scientists and their theories and researching/evidence?
IPCC reports have been highly questioned in the past with data and predictions that have bypassed even their own so-called peer review process.
These errors have been admitted by the IPCC themselves.
You claim to look at science and dismiss the extremist hypotheticals of Flannery, Greenpeace, Al Gore, etc....(smart move) but limiting yourself just to the IPCC report which seems to have made mistakes in the past (remember when they said the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035?
) is also a bit narrow.However, I understand why you want to stick with the IPCC report as it suits your own opinion.
Here's the link from the 2007 IPCC report ('emotionalising' in a science report? Shame on them! Not following their own peer-reviewed process? Double shame!)
The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.
The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.
In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
bullus_hit said:
Well, they have made some questionable claims which they have had to backtrack on (Himalayan glaciers, African crop yields, Netherlands below sea level just to name a few).
You can read them all here and the IPCC admittances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
I think there are some scientists that truly believe that human interference is behind any change in the global climate, however I also think there are a bunch of researchers and scientists that see backing this type of report as a way to gain notoriety or grants with fellow scientists, political parties, and/or other influential groups.
Just ask Flannery how he got into his position and would he have been there if he was in the "deniers/sceptics" group?
Even ex-IPCC scientists are not convinced of this group:
IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
It is also important to understand the nature of the IPCC. To get at the in depth information and data you would need to drill down to the individual labs or institutions that do the grunt work that ends up in an IPCC report. I would expect that with so much disporate information coming in you are more likely to get a political sounding result. How could it be otherwise? That is the express job of the IPCC, to try to take on the mammoth task of collating the best work of hundreds of scientific studies of climate and distilling it into a document for political decision makers most of whom do not have a scientific background.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Thanks for the reply PT.
I suppose I was thinking that with all the data collected and collated there would be some definitive results. Given that the proponents seem to think that there are and the doubters believe otherwise. Perhaps I was a bit more hopeful. Not doubting for a minute that human involvement does have some impact, just to what extent.
If the IPCC Report is the basis, is there any confidence (among posters) that will be enough for collective governments to act. And to what extent is enough and how will it be implemented? If it's not a collective effort from all countries, is it enough that some do while major polluting/land clearing/etc countries ignore it? Is it worth the impost on a few, does it have any major effect?
Rather than just saying "I'd rather do my bit than do nothing". That's just rhetoric. How committed are people really? Just pop 6 or so solar panels on your roof to then say I've done my bit (Is that really to reduce your carbon footprint or to reduce power consumption/economics) .
Do people go the whole hog? Sell their car, cycle or walk to work. Don't use public transport or fly to a holiday destination? Or just "do a little" and say if everyone did "a little" it really would make a difference
It's a quandary all right.
That is a great question Willo. I imagine there are tree-huggers out there who did sell their car and buy a bicycle. Did you adopt any of the water saving methods during restrictions? I stopped watering the garden and made a concerted effort to use less water. I always tried to buy Australian when I thought it benefited both Aussie producers and the environment (transport). I refuse to buy Aussie rice though.
I have to drive a company van so I could have campaigned for an electric vehicle but I didn't. At the moment it is impracticle and my requests would have fallen on deaf ears. Too small, too expensive and no charging infrastructure. In the States with Tesla electrifying the route from LA to New York things are changing and the economic arguments are being defeated so one day hopefully I will be driving an electric van. I rent so solar is mostly out of the question, but if I was building I would be serious about it and having a fully integrated grey water system.
I have to drive a company van so I could have campaigned for an electric vehicle but I didn't. At the moment it is impracticle and my requests would have fallen on deaf ears. Too small, too expensive and no charging infrastructure. In the States with Tesla electrifying the route from LA to New York things are changing and the economic arguments are being defeated so one day hopefully I will be driving an electric van. I rent so solar is mostly out of the question, but if I was building I would be serious about it and having a fully integrated grey water system.
KnightersRevenge said:
i find tree huggers a bit of a disappointing description for those trying to lessen their impact on the climate. rather than it being seen as an out there alternative lifestyle it would be better if everyone felt it their duty to help in their own small way. hopefully one day very, very soon it will be the norm rather than the exception.
rosy23 said:
I can imagine the rural experience being very different from the city but I have been lamenting the death of "community" for some time. What you are describing is social conscience, the idea of considering the impact of my decisions on others and being a good and functional member of a community. When you think this way you get less NIMBYism and less selfishness. I feel like society has been moving away from this towards individualism.
I don't understand sorry knighters. my personal efforts to lessen my carbon footprint, for want of a better term, are nothing to do with how i function in our local community. in fact we probably go against the flow a bit in that regard. i'm not even sure how social conscience applies...my concerns are more of a global aspect than a local community one.
i can't see how efforts to look after the environment can be described as selfish. sense of community and individualism in society are a different matter to people doing their bit to look after the environment and contribute less to global warming. the water example here is a good one. to my way of thinking the selfishness is with the individual wallys rather than with those who try and conserve water as much as possible. a person leaving the hose running down the gutter while washing their car is way more selfish than a tree-hugger not showering.
individual can make a difference if enough individuals make an effort...i feel it is my duty to try and do my bit in my own small way.
i can't see how efforts to look after the environment can be described as selfish. sense of community and individualism in society are a different matter to people doing their bit to look after the environment and contribute less to global warming. the water example here is a good one. to my way of thinking the selfishness is with the individual wallys rather than with those who try and conserve water as much as possible. a person leaving the hose running down the gutter while washing their car is way more selfish than a tree-hugger not showering.
individual can make a difference if enough individuals make an effort...i feel it is my duty to try and do my bit in my own small way.
Liverpool said:
Because they represent the vast majority of climatologists, it really isn't that complicated Livers. And your constant rehashing of flawed studies and predictions just goes to show how successful peer review has been.
Liverpool said:
Vincent Gray is a chemist based in New Zealand and he is a retired coal industry researcher, not a climate scientist.
"A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago."
I find it interesting that you dredge up the work of ex-coal scientists and ignore the work of climatologists. Maybe you should do some public speaking for the Heartland Institute.
Liverpool said:
This part made me chuckle, your mate Vincent Gray has been doing work for........you guessed it...........the Heartland Insitute. Nice try Livers, how about some scientific discussion for a change.
I'll try again, what aspect of the recent IPCC report do you object to?
bullus_hit said:
No comment on the many mistakes and predictions that failed to materialise in the IPCC reports?
Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035??
And you wonder why people question this stuff! :spin
bullus_hit said:
Funny that you concentrate on his coal background but fail to mention he actually reviewed for the IPCC.
If having a coal background is seen as a slur, I wonder what ties some of the scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report have to the likes of Greenpeace and other extremist groups?
Surely if being involved in coal has put into question the validity of a scientist to give honest and accurate results and research, then the same questions should be asked of IPCC scientists with links to (to your words) "organised activism".
Check out Sven Teske...member of Greenpeace (renewable energy director) for 20+ years and involved with helping author the IPCC report.
Organised activists helping author a report that you want the world to follow as 'science'.
Interesting...
Liverpool said:
others may disagree, but i have always thought there was a difference between people who are activists because they believe in a cause and people who's motives may be influenced by personal gain, ie those bankrolled by industry (not saying this is the case of Vincent Gray.)
Liverpool said:
It's a 3000 page report that's been thoroughly peered reviewed and amended where necessary. To me, this proves the peer review process is working. What other concerns do you have with the science?
Liverpool said:
Vincent Gray has not produced any peer reviewed study on climate change. He's on the payroll of the Heartland Institute and he is most definitely not a climate scientist. What makes you think he's so trustworthy and the 4000 other scientists are liars and incompetent?
Besides some generalised slurs about corruption, what aspect of the science is Vincent Gray questioning?
Brodders17 said:
I don't think there is a difference.
Just because their motivations may be different doesn't mean their outside influences don't cloud the science they are intepreting.
bullus_hit said:
Its a 3000 page report peer reviewed by scientists in that group who are of a like mind.
What sort of criticism are they going to give when they, the reviewers, already have a predetermined thought on the topic at hand?
Also, regarding the Himalayan glaciers, African crop yields, and the Netherlands being below sea level...these are examples of the IPCC peer review process failing, and admitted by the IPCC as breaches of their own peer review process.
So what is "the science"?
I think its a struggle to come up with any clear and defining science as there are so many conflicts of interests amongst the different groups and factions that not only make up the IPCC but also the deniers/sceptics camp.
It certainly isn't all one way as you seem to allude to.
bullus_hit said:
It works both ways Bullus...you can't just comdemn anyone outside of the IPCC clique as being liars and incompetent because they may have an industry background....yet seem happy to ignore key people within the IPCC who have links to "organised activist" groups as being the scientists we should place our futures in.
I think we could continue to go around in circles here, but let's say for one moment that you and your IPCC are spot on the money and we are all going under water by the end of the century....what measures should Australia take? and what difference to the world will it make considering our very small emissions compared to the big polluters?
And even if the world does implement change, will it even have any influence on our climate anyway?
