Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

Again, that's not how that fallacy works. It would nice to see it used properly. If you need me to post it again, I will. But you're are incorrectly calling this a fallacy. It is proper to use actual experts in a field. Not a fallacy.

Click to expand...

since your sources are wrong on the subject then yes it is a fallacy.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

It's not a secret: climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

Climate Change: Consensus

Click to expand...

let's break down this consensus you speak of.

climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,

Click to expand...

This is the only part of what you said that has value in measuring any type of consensus,
because organizations, do not count as individuals.
"agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"
What are they agreeing to?
Are they agreeing to the full range of catastrophic predictions by the IPCC?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Are they maybe agreeing to the idea that feedback from CO2's direct response,
will cause catastrophic warming?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Ah, Maybe they are agreeing CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a warming curve,
that is accepted by Physics?
But that could not be it, that amount of warming is not alarming.
I actually agree that some of the warming over the past century
is very likely due to human activity.
So the consensus, is quite vague, vague enough to include
anyone who understands Science, including myself.
So how can I be skeptical of the catastrophic predictions, and yet be part of the consensus?

This drives home, something I have discussed before,
There are two separate concepts within the idea known as AGW.
The first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and likely causes some warming.
The second concept, is that combinations of feedbacks, will cause catastrophic warming,
beyond the accepted direct response of CO2.
The consensus idea, would lead one to believe, anyone who accepts the first part,
automatically accepts the second, but they are completely different.
The direct response was known and measured, before we had Quantum to understand what was going on.
The second part has never been quantified, and may not even exists.

The instrument record reflects what I am saying.
If you accept the IPCC's number for the direct response of CO2 (1.2 C for each doubling),
then there is only .2 C of the .8 C in the last 133 years that could be attributed to
all other effects known and unknown.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:

Then post some science... That's an opinion survey that seems to be based on published papers, and not actual conversations.

I would like to see the actual procedure here, I'm surprised they didn't just claim 100%?.

Click to expand...

Sorry. I guess a paper from PNAS isn't good enough for you, huh?

In the world of science, it's probably considered to be in the top 3 interdisciplinary journals in the world, but since you don't like the conclusions (despite not having even read it ...the 'actual procedure' would be covered in the methods section of the paper, natch) you dismiss it out of hand.

Of course, a few other published papers reinforce the exact same conclusions too (Orestes, Cook, and a couple others I can't recall), but you insist upon 'real science'.

This is getting clownish.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Threegoofs said:

Sorry. I guess a paper from PNAS isn't good enough for you, huh?

In the world of science, it's probably considered to be in the top 3 interdisciplinary journals in the world, but since you don't like the conclusions (despite not having even read it ...the 'actual procedure' would be covered in the methods section of the paper, natch) you dismiss it out of hand.

Of course, a few other published papers reinforce the exact same conclusions too (Orestes, Cook, and a couple others I can't recall), but you insist upon 'real science'.

This is getting clownish.

Click to expand...

Then link to the papers and make points about the most recent failure of the warmists.

Do you not realize the difference between a scientific paper and an inion survey?

Opinion surveys, EVEN WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TALK TO THE PEOPLE GIVING ANSWERS, are NOT scientific. They did not even talk to people, they looked at papers WRITTEN BY AGW SCIENTISTS, WHO MAKE MONEY ALARMING ABOUT AGW, AND STILL they could not keep 100% support.

What would happen if they ASKED those scientists? Would it drop down to 80%? Then include scientists in all disciplines, does it drop to 47% ?

Hell, even If that was a meta study of climate science papers that would be more scientific than this tripe.

Why do you think I'm throwing out all these other equivalent "studies"?

97-98 % of :
- motorists prefer cheap gas
- monkeys like bananas
- catholic priests prefer little boys

Don't you see how meaningless it is?

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

j-mac said:

Childish tantrums, and name calling doesn't make the lemmings on your side "less extreme" just misguided, and easily duped.

Click to expand...

No tantrum. No name calling. Not on my part anyway.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:

you might want to check your own i didn't think alarmists sites were considered valid but i guess if it agrees with you then alarmists sites are perfectly fine.

while i didn't know real climate scientists and nasa engineers weren't good sources. if that is the case then your sources are even worse since your sources maniplutate data, lie, and all around try to stifle any opposition to their political agenda.

what is worse your main source the IPCC isn't even run by a climatologist. it is run by an industrial engineer and a economist. who by chance is heavily invested in green carbon trading companies.

yep no conflict of interest there.

who also by the way was busted for not using peer reviewed papers in a report.

i think you need to clean your sources up a bit before critizing someone elses.

Click to expand...

On the overwhelming whole real climate scientists and NASA support AGW. You use sources that 1) outright lie about the numbers of dissent, 2) mislead by cherry picking, 3) try to make a fringe few seem like a lot.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:

since your sources are wrong on the subject then yes it is a fallacy.

Click to expand...

No, again, you neither know what the fallacy is nor the science on the subject.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

No tantrum. No name calling. Not on my part anyway.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure...:/

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:

let's break down this consensus you speak of.

This is the only part of what you said that has value in measuring any type of consensus,
because organizations, do not count as individuals.
"agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities"
What are they agreeing to?
Are they agreeing to the full range of catastrophic predictions by the IPCC?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Are they maybe agreeing to the idea that feedback from CO2's direct response,
will cause catastrophic warming?
We do not know, because they did not ask that question!
Ah, Maybe they are agreeing CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a warming curve,
that is accepted by Physics?
But that could not be it, that amount of warming is not alarming.
I actually agree that some of the warming over the past century
is very likely due to human activity.
So the consensus, is quite vague, vague enough to include
anyone who understands Science, including myself.
So how can I be skeptical of the catastrophic predictions, and yet be part of the consensus?

This drives home, something I have discussed before,
There are two separate concepts within the idea known as AGW.
The first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and likely causes some warming.
The second concept, is that combinations of feedbacks, will cause catastrophic warming,
beyond the accepted direct response of CO2.
The consensus idea, would lead one to believe, anyone who accepts the first part,
automatically accepts the second, but they are completely different.
The direct response was known and measured, before we had Quantum to understand what was going on.
The second part has never been quantified, and may not even exists.

The instrument record reflects what I am saying.
If you accept the IPCC's number for the direct response of CO2 (1.2 C for each doubling),
then there is only .2 C of the .8 C in the last 133 years that could be attributed to
all other effects known and unknown.

Click to expand...

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases that remain semi-permanently in the atmosphere and do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change. Gases, such as water vapor, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."
Climate Change: Causes
Global Warming Science and Impacts
The causes and consequences of rising global temperatures



The effects of rising temperatures are already being felt across the United States and around the world, with serious implications for our health, our environment, and our economy.

Dangerous heat waves are increasing in frequency. Sea level rise is accelerating. Coastal flooding risks are growing. Extreme storms are on the rise in some areas. More severe droughts are occurring in others.

The science is clear. Global warming is happening — and we are the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-causes/

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

No, again, you neither know what the fallacy is nor the science on the subject.

Click to expand...

I don't considered your sources reliable or experts so therefore the appeal to authority works.
i consider them alarmists pushing a political agenda and the term "science" doesn't even cross their desk.

they have been caught time and time again distorting and covering up real facts and manipulating data to continue to push their cause.
they have been cited for using non-peer reviewed papers.

Climate panel slammed for embracing controversial `grey literature`

how is this even remotely science?

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

all their theories rely on shotty models that are being misused and have major errors. they cannot hope to get an accurate picture of what is going on because the models they have created are WRONG.

therefore any analysis coming from those models are WRONG.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

ludin said:

I don't considered your sources reliable or experts so therefore the appeal to authority works.
i consider them alarmists pushing a political agenda and the term "science" doesn't even cross their desk.

they have been caught time and time again distorting and covering up real facts and manipulating data to continue to push their cause.
they have been cited for using non-peer reviewed papers.

Climate panel slammed for embracing controversial `grey literature`

how is this even remotely science?

Global Warming Bombshell | MIT Technology Review

all their theories rely on shotty models that are being misused and have major errors. they cannot hope to get an accurate picture of what is going on because the models they have created are WRONG.

therefore any analysis coming from those models are WRONG.

Click to expand...

Your first article is about representation, and the second one is a decade old. Not anything that is relevant to this conversation.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

The science is clear. Global warming is happening — and we are the primary cause.

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

Click to expand...

Since the Science is clear, what portion of the observed CO2 increase, is directly
attributable to human activity?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and has an accepted direct response, no argument there.
The IPCC's number for the CO2's direct response is 1.2 C for a doubling of CO2,
Per Baede et al, cited as the key concept in AGW. (not alarming)
If we accept the IPCC's direct response #, then .6 C of the observed .8 C
in the last 133 years is directly attributable to the increase in CO2.
So the question becomes what part of the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm,
is a result of Human activity?
For the sake of this discussion, let's say 100% of the increase in CO2 is Human.
(4*log(560)) -(4*log(400))= 10.9927-10.4082=.5845 C remaining.
So 1.2 C-.5845 C= .6155 C
Feel free to check my math, the 4 log curve was a crude fit,
So of the .8 C observed, the direct response of CO2 accounts for .6155 C.
This leaves only .184 C, for all variables in the last 133 years.
If there is any additional forcing as predicted, it must be hiding in that .184C.
For those who a graphically oriented, I checked my work with an excel graph.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry, but I can't find anything from the scientific community supporting you claim. You side uses conservative business magazines, fake science groups, charts without scientific explanation, or paid hacks. These just can't be counted as equal to the mainstream scientific community.

Click to expand...

I try and do my own work to see if the predictions are plausible.
I feel about other Scientist the same way I feel about fisherman.
"All the fisherman in the world are liars, except for you and I,
and I have my doubts about you."

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:

I try and do my own work to see if the predictions are plausible.
I feel about other Scientist the same way I feel about fisherman.
"All the fisherman in the world are liars, except for you and I,
and I have my doubts about you."

Click to expand...

The trouble is neither of us are scientists. We don't know what we don't no. I've tried to communicate this to you. No matter what you figure, we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you feel about scientists, they're not idiots. So, you need something better than they're either stupid or in conspiracy.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

The trouble is neither of us are scientists. We don't know what we don't no. I've tried to communicate this to you. No matter what you figure, we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you feel about scientists, they're not idiots. So, you need something better than they're either stupid or in conspiracy.

Click to expand...

The fisherman comment is a bit of sarcasm, related to checking peoples work.
I have worked professionally as a principle investigator, on may research efforts,
mostly physics and optics.
What you keep dodging, is that their numbers do not add up for the mid to high range
of their predictions.
True, that we cannot possible know what all the variables are,
but the direct response for CO2 is a known variable, that when accounted for
does not leave much room for the additional forcing, necessary for the catastrophic
warnings of AGW to be valid.
In post #637, I showed you the math and the graphical representation of the math,
to validate what I am saying.
As I said, please check my math, if my calculations are incorrect, point it out.
I have no issues finding out I am wrong about something.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

The trouble is neither of us are scientists. We don't know what we don't no. I've tried to communicate this to you. No matter what you figure, we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you feel about scientists, they're not idiots. So, you need something better than they're either stupid or in conspiracy.

Click to expand...

You don't need a B.Sc. To understand science enough, hell, even high school level physics is enough to show the fallacy.

No, they are not idiots, they know exactly the game they are playing. Either that, or they simply drank their own kook-aid, and figure if they simply tweek co2 values that they will get the climate figured out.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:

The fisherman comment is a bit of sarcasm, related to checking peoples work.
I have worked professionally as a principle investigator, on may research efforts,
mostly physics and optics.
What you keep dodging, is that their numbers do not add up for the mid to high range
of their predictions.
True, that we cannot possible know what all the variables are,
but the direct response for CO2 is a known variable, that when accounted for
does not leave much room for the additional forcing, necessary for the catastrophic
warnings of AGW to be valid.
In post #637, I showed you the math and the graphical representation of the math,
to validate what I am saying.
As I said, please check my math, if my calculations are incorrect, point it out.
I have no issues finding out I am wrong about something.

Click to expand...

I don't know they don't add up, as I don't know what I don't know. And I have no reason to accept it on anyone's word here. I've seen many people over the years make good sounding arguments the eventually prove wrong. So, I ask myself if you are correct why don't experts know it. I can only think of three possibilities:

1) They know your numbers, but are hiding it in some conspiracy.

2). They're stupid and don't know what they're doing.

Or

3) you're missing something in your equation or in your understanding.

Absent another explanation, I have to side with you're missing something as I don't believe the first two.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:

You don't need a B.Sc. To understand science enough, hell, even high school level physics is enough to show the fallacy.

No, they are not idiots, they know exactly the game they are playing. Either that, or they simply drank their own kook-aid, and figure if they simply tweek co2 values that they will get the climate figured out.

Click to expand...

No, it's more likely they merely know more. Sorry I don't buy your explanation.

Erod said:

New White House report: Climate change is here and action needed now - CNN.com



Did you hear that? That was your taxes about to skyrocket.

Click to expand...

By "action" I assume that means "to become poorer and weaker with new heavy taxing" as the ONLY solution..

who knew the dinosaurs drove cars and were industrious...?

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

No, it's more likely they merely know more. Sorry I don't buy your explanation.

Click to expand...

Ok, imagine other sciences having 20 year track record of a failing hypothesis, with margins of error that is wider than the variability being measured... Can you think of another scientific discipline where this is acceptable?

Changing terms is another sign.... Was global warming, then climate disruption, climate change... Which is funny because climate change might as well be called "natural variability", except there are going to be problems because human activity might change the climate a small fraction of a degree relative to natural variability.

They simply don't understand the climate... Trying to look for the shortcut with co2 is fallacious. They might as well be guessing.

Consider the complexity of projecting weather patterns, run that level of environmental model, but global in scale, and it might start to approach a viable model.... But even at those small scales, the margin for error reaches a coin flip odds at about 2 weeks out.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Boo Radley said:

I don't know they don't add up, as I don't know what I don't know. And I have no reason to accept it on anyone's word here. I've seen many people over the years make good sounding arguments the eventually prove wrong. So, I ask myself if you are correct why don't experts know it. I can only think of three possibilities:

1) They know your numbers, but are hiding it in some conspiracy.

2). They're stupid and don't know what they're doing.

Or

3) you're missing something in your equation or in your understanding.

Absent another explanation, I have to side with you're missing something as I don't believe the first two.

Click to expand...

There is a fourth possibility.
Everything I am saying is within the enormous range of the IPCC's prediction,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C

Click to expand...

There is nothing alarming about the low end of the IPCC predictions.
My calculations, show, we will likely have about 1.6 °C total increase,
if we could ever actually burn enough organic hydrocarbons to get to 560 ppm.
I don't think that will happen, because the cost curves will cross long before then.
When man made fuels become cheaper than organic sources, people will buy what is cheaper.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:

Then link to the papers and make points about the most recent failure of the warmists.

Do you not realize the difference between a scientific paper and an inion survey?

Opinion surveys, EVEN WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TALK TO THE PEOPLE GIVING ANSWERS, are NOT scientific. They did not even talk to people, they looked at papers WRITTEN BY AGW SCIENTISTS, WHO MAKE MONEY ALARMING ABOUT AGW, AND STILL they could not keep 100% support.

What would happen if they ASKED those scientists? Would it drop down to 80%? Then include scientists in all disciplines, does it drop to 47% ?

Hell, even If that was a meta study of climate science papers that would be more scientific than this tripe.

Why do you think I'm throwing out all these other equivalent "studies"?

97-98 % of :
- motorists prefer cheap gas
- monkeys like bananas
- catholic priests prefer little boys

Don't you see how meaningless it is?

Click to expand...

I did link to it. A paper from PNAS. I don't know how much clearer it can be.... It's a review of published papers. It's not a poll, it's not an opinion survey.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

Threegoofs said:

I did link to it. A paper from PNAS. I don't know how much clearer it can be.... It's a review of published papers. It's not a poll, it's not an opinion survey.

Click to expand...

Ya, I know, I read the link... It's opinion survey derived from published papers. It's useless in proving anything beyond making the case that the alarmists will publish anything that supports their cause.

If it was a meta analysis going into averages of multiple studies on the same topic, that's one thing, but this is scientifically useless.

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

longview said:

There is a fourth possibility.
Everything I am saying is within the enormous range of the IPCC's prediction,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

There is nothing alarming about the low end of the IPCC predictions.
My calculations, show, we will likely have about 1.6 °C total increase,
if we could ever actually burn enough organic hydrocarbons to get to 560 ppm.
I don't think that will happen, because the cost curves will cross long before then.
When man made fuels become cheaper than organic sources, people will buy what is cheaper.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt people will buy what is cheaper. But it helps to have motivation to make something cheaper.

I also note your link draws a very different conclusion than you do. Often the interpretation of the numbers is what is important. With interpretation, why ignore those who know the most?

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

BmanMcfly said:

Ok, imagine other sciences having 20 year track record of a failing hypothesis, with margins of error that is wider than the variability being measured... Can you think of another scientific discipline where this is acceptable?

Changing terms is another sign.... Was global warming, then climate disruption, climate change... Which is funny because climate change might as well be called "natural variability", except there are going to be problems because human activity might change the climate a small fraction of a degree relative to natural variability.

They simply don't understand the climate... Trying to look for the shortcut with co2 is fallacious. They might as well be guessing.

Consider the complexity of projecting weather patterns, run that level of environmental model, but global in scale, and it might start to approach a viable model.... But even at those small scales, the margin for error reaches a coin flip odds at about 2 weeks out.

Click to expand...

No, your just seeking things to lack onto. And frankly, we see much if what they predicted.