Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[BrentAllen]

Beavah has a history of poo-pooing any anti-AGW scientist we mention, saying they aren't qualified to speak on the subject since they aren't true climatologists. So, I asked him to identify the "real scientists" on the IPCC and their areas of expertise. Of course, I haven't seen any attempt at a reply. Being that a Scout is helpful, I will give Beavah a hand with two lead authors for the IPCC - Dr. Steven Running and Gary Yohe.

 

What are their areas of expertise? Dr. Steven Running ia a professor of ecology at the University of Montana. Gary Yohe is an environmental economist at Wesleayn University. If environmental economists and ecology professors are the lead authors, one can only wonder who the rank-and-file members are?

[Beavah]

Yah, as I've said, I don't know enough to comment about da science, eh? Neither do most of you.

 

I do recognize the way people act during disputes, and when arguments are spurious or being driven by emotion.

 

So we have in just the last two pages a call to pay attention to Dr. Letif!!! He's a respected scientist!! Look what he says!!!!

 

And then Dr. Letif says unequivocally that the evidence for AGW is sound and the conclusion that humans are forcing climatic changes is firm science.

 

So now it's don't listen to Dr. Letif!! The AGW people have gotten to him!! Look at these old out-of-context quotes of his instead of listening to what he just said!!

 

It's funny, eh? It's da nature of partisan advocacy argumentation at its most egregious.

 

But most people with a brain who are older than teenagers can't take that sort of thing seriously, eh? And I reckon that even teenagers know when they're doin' it and are a bit chagrined when called on it.

 

Beavah

 

P.S. I love da little thumbs-down thing. Yeh all should be sure to hit the thumbs-down on this post a whole bunch. That will make your argument stronger. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

[JoeBob]

Just like the 'consensual science' in favor of AGW, having many forum members click your post thumbs up does not make your argument stronger; just your index finger.

 

;^)

JoeBob

[GaHillBilly]

Gee, BeavAH. You're complaining about how other people argue, after you confirm for us that "Yah, as I've said, I don't know enough to comment about da science, eh?"

 

So, you tell us you don't know what you are talking about -- something that Vol and I and Brent already knew -- and yet . . . you . . . keep . .. commenting?

 

How come?

 

I initially was impressed by your financial knowledge, and figured you might know enough math to understand what some of the problems were. But, then you went and spoiled it all when you came out with this little gem: "It's very hard to predict markets in the short term, but in the longer term they're driven by underlyin' economics."

 

Ayep. That's about as helpful as saying, "Yeah, I'm not sure where that bullet's going, but you needn't worry because sooner or later, if it doesn't hit something, gravity will get it." Amazing insight, that one.

 

[ For those without college credits in economics, let me explain that just what the "underlyin' economics" are, in both market-driven and in government-controlled economies, REMAINS a subject of considerable academic debate. BeavAH's statement is a classic example of popular political statements that sound impressive, but actually turn out to mean almost nothing, once you work them out. ]

 

Understanding the problems with the AGW propganda does not require a degree in climatology. It does require some knowledge of how peer-reviewed science and tenure-track careers work, of statistically evaluated data sets, of proxy measurements and their inherent uncertainties, and of complex computer models. Not everyone here lacks that knowledge, but clearly, you do.

 

So, why don't you take your own statements seriously?

 

GaHillBilly

[mmhardy]

BrentAllen and HICO_Eagle. The rise in ocean levels is not up for debate. Is a dollars and cents issue that the US Government identified in a paper from FEMA in 1991 Projected Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise on the National Flood Insurance Program and an EPA piece from 1989 entitled The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Report to Congress. Appendix B: Sea Level Rise. This has been a topic for over 20 years.

 

Whats going on now is corrective action is gearing up that will not be easy to digest. It will be a shock to the system and for many, a change in the way we live. However left unchecked the impact would be a civilazation changer.no more Mardi Gras.

 

[mmhardy]

Digression...the current recession proved that Supply Side theory is dead. Those still clinging to this pass Reaganomics ideal are seeing the US economy reeling by foreign players who fully embrace and understand that Keynesian theory can be used as a form of economic warfare.

[HICO_Eagle]

"The rise in ocean levels is not up for debate. Is a dollars and cents issue that the US Government identified in a paper from FEMA in 1991 Projected Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise on the National Flood Insurance Program and an EPA piece from 1989 entitled The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States. Report to Congress. Appendix B: Sea Level Rise. This has been a topic for over 20 years."

 

I'd say it IS up for debate. The FEMA report is an impact assessment ASSUMING the sea levels rise as projected in 1990. In the 1990s, TOPEX and JASON did record a minor global mean sea level rise -- 4 cm from 1994 - 2006 -- but that rise has flattened out since 2006. Call it 2 inches over the last 15 years if you want to round up and ignore the flattening.

 

Heck, round it up further to a rate of 1 inch per decade; that's a 3 inch rise over 30 years, less than a foot over the next century. That beachfront property is hardly in danger. In fact, many areas of beachfront property show a minor mean sea level DECREASE -- this is because a great deal of the mean sea level increase is coming from a relatively small geographic area east of the Philippines and Papua New Guinea.

 

Check the data yourself at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

 

"Whats going on now is corrective action is gearing up that will not be easy to digest. It will be a shock to the system and for many, a change in the way we live. However left unchecked the impact would be a civilazation changer.no more Mardi Gras."

 

What's going on now is debatable but "shock to the system" and "civilazation changer" [sic] are definitely extreme exaggerations.

 

 

[Beavah]

Ayep. That's about as helpful as saying, "Yeah, I'm not sure where that bullet's going, but you needn't worry because sooner or later, if it doesn't hit something, gravity will get it." Amazing insight, that one.

 

Yah, hooray! Somethin' yeh understand.

 

What Dr. Letif is sayin' is the same thing, eh? "Yeah, we can't predict where the next storm is going to hit or how cold it's going to be in Nebraska next year. We can sort of pick up on these longer 20 year cycles. But sooner or later, carbon greenhousing is going to get it."

 

In other words, human forcing is like economic trends, eh? Not like tryin' to predict the weather.

 

Now, I reckon I do understand something about how tenure decisions are made at universities, and a bit about some of the other things you mention. I just recognize that I'm not skilled enough in those disciplines to be able to evaluate climate science research. Neither are you or most people hangin' out here, eh?

 

But since yeh claim to be, I'm all ears. Please explain statistical analysis of data sets for us. No, that's too broad. Let's look back a bit... ah, yes... Please explain Principle Components Analysis, it's relationship to Factor Analysis, and its application and usage in data reduction methodologies. Include in your response the relative merits of various matrix rotations, including the common Varimax technique. Cite several studies which you feel used these analysis tools properly, and then contrast those with what you feel the errors to be in the application of the tool to climate research. Be sure to include effect size estimates of the magnitude changes your critique would suggest.

 

It's a bit like da market stuff, eh? Real understanding takes a lot of work and effort in any field. Just grabbin' quotes and sound bites which agree with your position and pretending to understand is a lot easier.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

It would be very difficult to what you ask without this forum allowing the output from MathType or a similar mathematics software program. An equation is truly worth a thousand words. I don't think that you really wish a technical discussion of PCA, matrix mathematics, or similar topics. I can discuss these and other topics. I have listened to scholarly talks on climate change. If the AGW models had predicted the current cooling cycle, one could have some confidence in the predictions of AGW. Some competent scientists disagree with the majority view - that is why it is consensus rather than the unanimous view. Since there is clearly to present only one view (as the East Anglia emails confirm), these scientists must get their views out through various venues. This is not unique to climate change. As an attorney, if you are insistent that some group is not portraying the way that law is correctly performed, I would have to bow to your experience. I assume that all scouters posting here are trustworthy about their knowledge base. I would like to believe that when you say that you do not understand the mathematics in the climate models and the problems in data collection and others of us say that we are knowledgeable in those fields, that you would likewise accede to their opinions. I believe that GAHillBilly, HICO_eagle, BrentAllen, and myself have presented long discussions about the problems with data collection, error bars as compared to measured effects, model problems, issues with consensus opinions, et cetera. We have additionally cited journal articles as well as demonstrated skills in the hard sciences. There is considerably uncertainty about the correctness of AGW.

[Beavah]

[withdrawn, mistyped response!](This message has been edited by Beavah)

[mmhardy]

HICO_Eagle. The only debate is how much it will rise due to thermal expansion to temperature change when coupled with increased fresh water entering from glacier melt. One simplistic model shows that if the average sea surface temperature rises by 1.4C, sea levels will rise by about 6 inches.

 

Again this is a pure science and dollars and cents question. There is no question that the sea raise has already had an impact on the Gulf Coast, Florida Keys coral reefs, and beach erosion from Miami up through the Carolinas.

 

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Tell you what, lets start over