IPCC Boots Another One

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The UN IPCC has been forced to retract its 2007 claim that droughts have been worsening since the 1950s and to admit that drought intensity and duration have remained approximately the same over the last 60 years. See link below for a PhysOrg synopsis of the Nature article, for which a link to a PDF file of the Nature article is included in the report.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html

--Previously the UN IPCC has been forced to back off on claims about the eminent demise of the Himalayan Glaciers and the Amazonian Rain Forest. The IPCC it seems only makes mistakes in one direction. That direction being the full panic, bite the furniture mode, in order to gin up support for the vast global carbon tax juggernaut, to be administered by, you guessed it, the UN.

--In all fairness, it should be noted though, that no one is arguing against the slight increases in Global Average Temperatures noted towards the end of the last century. Indeed, a consensus of Global Climate Scientists agree with the GAT figures developed by the UK Met Office Hadley Center from data compiled by the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."
William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[EEVblog]

That's science doing it's job, no news there 

Dave.

[tom66]

Where's the source for the global average temperature graph?

Here's a selection from Google. They all appear to show positive increases.

http://www.met.ie/metadmin/useruploads/Annual%20global%20average%20temperature%20anomalies.bmp
http://processtrends.com/images/glob_warm_giss_tmp_anom.gif
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/HadCRUT3_bar.png
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/Global_temps_anom-annual-5_yr_1.png

[SeanB]

It does seem to be a nice wet springtime. Farmers are loving it, the cane is growing well ( I see it often in the field, it is doing very well) and those who built in the 10 year flood lines are swimming.

[EEVblog]

We introduced a carbon tax here in Australia. The principle argument against it is that no one else  that matters is doing it. ie USA and China. It can't be both a vast juggernaut AND too small to make a difference.

My principal argument in favour of taking some action is that if we don't then it could get uncomfortable for quite a long time. If it doesn't end up as bad as some predict then we just end up with a cleaner more energy efficient lifestyle.

And that's the thing. Whether nor not you think it actually make a difference on local or global scale, taxing dirty energy and promoting cleaner renewable is a very sensible thing to do.

The other way I like to think about it is to realise that when Neil Armstrong looked back at the Earth he saw a world with 3 billion people and now 43 years later there are 7 billion.

The Apollo 8 guys were the first to see that 

Dave.

[Kremmen]

To those who in their minds see Earth as an unending resource, i say look at the Pale Blue Dot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot. Kinda puts things into perspective as far as our place in the big scheme is considered.
I am not a global warming nut, but neither am i a denier. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and the levels are only going up - and fast. Grab Occam's Razor and predict the outcome of this lifestyle. I don't know what you see but we see annual heat records broken year after year. Maybe means something, maybe not but if this goes on for much longer, the stats start to accumulate.

[poptones]

So is it resources or is it warming? Frankly, I have my doubts about mankind contributing to global warming in any significant amount. We contribute less than a percent of the world's co2 emissions, and if we add everything together except water vapor it's like 5%. I'm dead sure there can be localized effects on weather, like the smog that naturally gathers in places like Los Angeles and Mexico City, but on a global scale I just don't see how our tiny contribution can make all this impact some would like us to believe. "Climate change" may be real, but our Sun has a whole lot more to say about that than we do.

My dislike for oil is rooted in national security and global stability. Our thirst for oil makes us dependent upon foreign sources, and that leads to fanatical tribes being able to secure strong armies at our economic and political expense. Maybe China and India will never wean themselves from oil, but I think it's in our interest to do so. Sure seems to be working for Brazil.

[EEVblog]

So is it resources or is it warming? Frankly, I have my doubts about mankind contributing to global warming in any significant amount. We contribute less than a percent of the world's co2 emissions, and if we add everything together except water vapor it's like 5%. I'm dead sure there can be localized effects on weather, like the smog that naturally gathers in places like Los Angeles and Mexico City, but on a global scale I just don't see how our tiny contribution can make all this impact some would like us to believe. "Climate change" may be real, but our Sun has a whole lot more to say about that than we do.

You can't see it because (obviously) you are not a climate scientist studying it.
You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.
Basing any opinion on such a crude linear percentage value when dealing with one of the worlds most complex and massively interactive chaotic systems with countless variables, is just silly.

My dislike for oil is rooted in national security and global stability. Our thirst for oil makes us dependent upon foreign sources, and that leads to fanatical tribes being able to secure strong armies at our economic and political expense. Maybe China and India will never wean themselves from oil, but I think it's in our interest to do so.

It's in everyone's interest to do so.

Dave.

[poptones]

You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.

I'm no climatologist, but I don't believe they understand it all that well either. If they did there'd be many mroe answers, for now all they have are questions.

As a kid growing up around radio I learned a lot about the sunspot cycle. Just that solar cycle has a substantial effect on our weather including severity of el nino events. And from all their charts the earth IS on an "upward" 110,000 year cycle. Well what else would you expect?

I'm all about being green, but because it makes economic sense. Let's stop lying about it.

[EEVblog]

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html

A bit of a non sequitur...

The 4th Assessment Report said it was likely that "more intense and longer droughts" had been observed "over wider areas" since the 1970s.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-climate-drought-benchmark-flawed.html#jCp

I've always found it funny that most people who talk about this issue don't understand the wording in the IPCC reports.
If you read careful at the beginning of the report they explain what their very deliberate use of the terms "unlikely", "likely", "very likely" etc actually mean.
Few know that there are actually percentage values of confidence assigned to these terms. So "very likely" means >90% confidence or whatever (I forget the exact values)

Dave.

[EEVblog]

You can't just say it's only X% so it can't matter much, unless you know exactly how the (incredibly complex) system works.

I'm no climatologist, but

And of course it ends right there 

I don't believe they understand it all that well either. If they did there'd be many mroe answers, for now all they have are questions.

Because climate science is just that, science, it is not for example practical engineering which we know and love which is 100% understandable if you go deep enough.
I don't think there is a more chaotic system to understand, with data down in the noise, than climate science.
Of course they don't understand it all, it is continual learning and refining based on the scientific process.

I'm all about being green, but because it makes economic sense. Let's stop lying about it.

Only fools do it only because it makes economic sense.
Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

Unfortunately the stupidity of politics and a largely scientific illiterate public requires the IPCC and other groups to make up silly hard and fast dumbed down fluffy guesses to sell the issue.
Like, "X degC rise will mean X meters of water level rise in X years, with X economic impact"
Or, "removing X percent of carbon, or X percent of cars from the road, will drop the temp by X degrees" blah blah.
Yes, a lot of it is bullshit, but sometimes you gotta bullshit and scare people in order to sell the greater cause.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that the smell of bullshit means it's not real.

Dave.

[Kremmen]

I think this is a perfect occasion to remember the fate of Happiton: http://jsomers.net/happiton

[poptones]

Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

LOL Dave. Sounds like You mean "because it makes economic sense."

Bullshit is real. Fear mongering is real bullshit. I'm not a fan of any religion.

[EEVblog]

Our modern world is built on things that are done because it's a good idea, it's exploring new areas, it's creating more jobs in 20 years time, and/or because it improves our quality of life for us and our kids, and our grandkids etc.

LOL Dave. Sounds like You mean "because it makes economic sense."

None of those things can be measured in any reliable economic sense, which is why the politicians and business only do them when you hold their feet to the fire.

Bullshit is real. Fear mongering is real bullshit. I'm not a fan of any religion.

Religion is, by definition, and by practical measure, faith in something without evidence.
Climate change is based on a lot of real evidence, they just (have to) add extra marketing on top to sell it unfortunately.

Those who think climate change is a "religion" are as stupid as those who think Atheism is a religion 

Dave.

[poptones]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

[EEVblog]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

Rubbish.
There is much scientific evidence that says it's "likely".
Yes, it may still be wrong (by IPCC's own admission), but you cannot escape the fact that the scientific evidence shows it is likely.
Once again, "religion" is the wrong term to use here. Passionate, for sure, but can you blame some people when it's "likely" we are screwing our own planet? Kind of an important topic to get passionate about don't you think?

Dave.

[jucole]

Climactic changes may be real, but thus far any notions about man directly causing them are religious.

I'm not a climatologist,  scientist or even an engineer but I believe climate change is very real!

If you ever get chance to see this film it's well worth watching and very moving.

"The OFFICIAL TRAILER for 2012 Sundance Award-Winning film "Chasing Ice," opening in theaters starting November 2012."

[EEVblog]

I'm not a climatologist,  scientist or even an engineer but I believe climate change is very real!

You know what the great thing about science and facts is? they are (in this case, "likely") true regardless of whether or not you believe them! 
Unlike say, religion, which is only "true" if you believe in it

Dave.

[poptones]

Whether or not it's "real" is, I think, beyond dispute. What IS disputable is that we, mankind, are playing a significant role in that change and, more importantly, whether we have any power at all to change it. The earth has gone through historical warming and cooling periods and we have records of these in our ice packs. Gore's charts used exaggerated scales to make it look like we're not in a natural warming period - but we are. This one looks to be more severe than any in the last 400,000 years, but it still fits withing the timing patterns. And most of the "global warming" stats go only back to the 1960s when, clearly, if we are having any impact at all those effects would have begun more than a century earlier.

Furthermore, I object to the way all effects human are considered by many as "unnatural," as if we are chunks of plastic floating in this world of organic matter. We are part of nature and, therefore, any effects we have upon the world are every bit as "natural" as coyotes thinning deer herds or vultures picking at carrion.

[r90s]

I downloaded the climate gate emails.  I personally read hundreds of them, not wishing to rely on someone telling me no news here.  I could not believe the disingenuous nature of the scientists.  The plotting against others scientist and any publications that disagreed. The creation of result by purposely manipulating data.  It was as if it was right out of political a playbook, like the cloward-pivens stragety.   


 

[EEVblog]

Whether or not it's "real" is, I think, beyond dispute. What IS disputable is that we, mankind, are playing a significant role in that change

Read the IPCC report:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is  very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations”

What those words mean:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence:
virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%;
very likely >90%;
likely >66%;
more likely than not > 50%;
about as likely as not 33% to 66%;
unlikely <33%;
very unlikely <10%;
extremely unlikely <5%;
exceptionally unlikely <1%.

So they are >90% confident that most of the global warming is due to us stupid and industrious humans.
Yes, they could still be wrong of course, but I think you'd be a fool to think we don't have a significant effect.

and, more importantly, whether we have any power at all to change it.

There is a whole report on the potential mitigation of it!
It covers energy supply, transport, buildings, industries, agriculture, forestry, waste, and more.

Furthermore, I object to the way all effects human are considered by many as "unnatural," as if we are chunks of plastic floating in this world of organic matter. We are part of nature and, therefore, any effects we have upon the world are every bit as "natural" as coyotes thinning deer herds or vultures picking at carrion.

Yes, agreed. But unlike them, we have the unique ability to
a) screw this planet up real bad (within a matter of hours if we so desire)
b) have the cognitive ability to recognise and quantify what we are doing
and c) do something about it

Dave.

[poptones]

What you are doing constitutes religion. Show me understandable, comprehensible, logical evidence. Thus far I see only conjecture and numbers that make no sense whatsoever. I see scientists saying "this is likely due to this" and then they come up with shit like "140% of the heating is due to humans." BULLSHIT. You can't have 140% of any fucking thing PLUS another hundred percent on top of that. This latest round they are trying to argue that the warming is even more than observed!

The earth has been warming more than 1000 years, and they are making all their sturm and drang about the last 50. Lots of people like to laugh about christians claiming the earth is 6000 years old, to hear climatologists speak you'd think it was 60.

It's a fucking religion. It's scientists not agreeing on anything except "it's real" and then the public accepting it. The only thing missing from any of this is silly fucking hats for the scientists.

[Kremmen]

[...] Show me understandable, comprehensible, logical evidence. Thus far I see only conjecture and numbers that make no sense whatsoever. [...]

Your lack of understanding, or otherwise, makes no difference at all to the actual case. It is a reflection on your ability, and only that.
Refute the argument by demonstrating that it is false. Saying that you don't understand it is just admission of ignorance.

[poptones]

[G7PSK]

There is a rather disturbing feature that runs right through the climate change argument and weather forecasting as well. Computer power or rather the lack of it, this was brought to my mind by something Dave said on one of the Amphour broadcasts.
He talked about a university making a computer in order to simulate just a very small part of the human brain, it was going to employ millions of processors.