[Psudo]

Casting doubt on the UN's ability to provide unbiased scientific research, here's a front-page, above the fold Washington Post story.

The Washington Post wrote:

U.N. to Cut Estimate Of AIDS Epidemic
Population With Virus Overstated by Millions

The United Nations' top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement.
[. . .]
Some researchers, however, contend that persistent overestimates in the widely quoted U.N. reports have long skewed funding decisions and obscured potential lessons about how to slow the spread of HIV. Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

This is a particularly blatant precedent for UN to skew scientific research that, whether intentionally or coincidentally, influences global society and politics. The same motivations for exaggerated science exist in the global warming issue; can we expect a similar correction regarding global warming in a decade or two?

[Psudo]

Here's some info on a scientific study regarding cosmic ray driven global temperature from the AGW-skeptic site JunkScience.com. It has links to the media release, the study's publisher, and other useful information. It shows a pretty strong correlation between low-atmosphere cloud formation and cosmic radiation during the 15 or so years for which cosmic ray information is available.

Clouds, it turns out, are an important aerosol affecting earth's surface temperature. The study suggests:

PDF wrote:

The 2% changes in low cloud cover in just 5 years, as seen in Figure 4, should vary the heating at the Earth’s surface by an average of about 1.2 watt per square metre. That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watt per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

The conversation seems to dwell on a few discrete points, which I'll list and comment on.

1) How do we determine experimentally whether or not carbon is the driver of global climate?

What kind of experiments would you require? At least the radiative effects of greenhouse gases can be known experimentally. Global experiments are of course not possible so there has to be something less which would be sufficient.

Psudo wrote:

Definitive results can only be had, as far as I can see, by a global experiment, such as the one proposed by the IPCC: dramatically alter global carbon emissions to see if temperature changes as their favored simulations predict. Scientifically, this is a reasonable test. Politically, it's idiotic; it is an immoral brand of authoritarianism to alter global societal behavior in order to prove a scientific theory. Economies will rise and fall, industries will fail and flourish, people will get aid and starve based on such a widespread political action. The effect on lives, industry, and governments is dramatically more relevant than the intellectual pursuit of a scientific principle.

The goal of efforts like the Kyoto protocol isn't experimentation. But if one insists calling it an experiment then one could also say that we are already running a very dangerous experiment with the effect of industry on the climate.

Psudo wrote:

But you yourself have said you don't believe in an impending catastrophe. So what justifies this to you? I suspect it is because of the next point:

I more like said that I don't believe in an unavoidable catastrophe. This of course depends on how high damage one considers a catastrophe.

Psudo wrote:

2) What are the side-effects of cutting global carbon emissions? I call it global authoritarianism, but you seem to see no threat or danger in it. I completely fail to understand your reasoning here.

I don't think it is any more authoritarian than any other government regulation.

Psudo wrote:

The vast majority (about 85% and growing [DOE]) of our global technological lifestyle is based in carbon-emissions. Cutting (or capping or regulating) carbon emissions will make everything technological or dependant on technology more expensive and, thus, less available. That is the intent, make fossil fuels more expensive to drive society to alternatives. But the economic damage affects alternative fuel technologies and materials, too. All alternative energies and fuels are dependent on technological processes, which are powered from that same pool of largely carbon-dependent energy. Cutting carbon emissions may give us more time to find a solution, but they also cripple our ability to implement any solution. It's like a foot race where you can get a head start if you shoot yourself in the foot.

I've not seen any evidence that cutting emissions would make it significantly more difficult implement any technological solutions.

Psudo wrote:

Also, everything will be more expensive to grow, harvest, process, and ship (unless done by manual labor). Everyone but farmers will pay more for food, everyone but textile workers will pay more for clothes. The poor, nations and individuals, will suffer the most. Charitable aid will be more expensive to ship, so more goodwill will provide less comfort. Medical supplies will cost more. It is forcing people to drop their dependence on experts and specialization, upon which modern society is based, and live only on what they can do for themselves. It is a force towards medieval economics, local production and trade without technological convenience nor comfort. It will not be an absolute move in that direction, but a tiny part of the effect is still a smaller, identical effect. There is nothing good about a move of any size towards medieval economics.

Of course emission reductions would require some sacrifices these don't seem to be excessive if one is to believe IPCC (pages 11 and 12).

Psudo wrote:

3) Is the current global warming trend dangerous? Only by comparing the (largely environmental) danger of inaction to the (largely economic) danger of action can we determine which is the better approach.

The 4th Assessment Report you linked me to shows 6 potential peaks for global warming, all ending within the next 100 years and with between 2° and 6° of total warming. How do the effects of 2° of warming compare to 6° or 10° or any other number?

Warming would certainly have not just environmental but also economical effects and developing countries are in general more vulnerable. IPCC has more on this.

Psudo wrote:

Quantium Wizard wrote:

As far as I can tell, as a non-expert, the science seems sound. Though, I wouldn't be so confident about this if there weren't so many scientists agreeing about it.

So if the consensus were proven to be a governmental fabrication, as some who have left the IPCC claim, that would shake your confidence?

Yes, it would.

Psudo wrote:

Something overpowered carbon in the '50s, demonstrating that, for that period of time at least, carbon was not the driving force determining global temperature. It was not then, so why is it now? Carbon was overwhelmed then, so why not use that same force to overwhelm it now?

Sulfate aerosols in troposphere would be rather problematic. The post at RealClimate I linked to earlier discussed injecting sulfate aerosols into stratosphere. I don't know how viable solution that would be but I think that on the short run emission reductions would most viable and they would make any possible other mitigation efforts easier later.

Psudo wrote:

Quantium Wizard wrote:

And what assumptions would produce [claims that CO2 does not have a primary role]? I've not heard of anything like that.

I'm not going to be able to enumerate all the assumptions that go into a computer climate model any more than you would be able to. Various climate scientists have raised concerns about climate modeling subjecting itself to the biases of the modelers. For example, NASA climatologist Roy Spenser says "Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them. And they have hundreds of assumptions. All it takes is one assumption to be wrong for the forecast to be way off."

Of course I don't expect you to into details of climate modeling. That would be unreasonable.

But the climate has been simulated with different models and also using slightly different parameterizations to evaluate the uncertainty in the projections. As far as I know the models do reproduce past climatic changes but fail to reproduce the recent warming if effect of increased greenhouse gases is omitted. Are there any physically reasonable models that would give different results?

Psudo wrote:

Quantium Wizard wrote:

There isn't one major scientific organization that would reject AGW.

What of major scientific organizations advocating specific government policies in response to it? To advocate politically is to exit the realm of science and enter the realm of politics, suggesting that it's impossible for a strictly scientific organization to advocate carbon regulation as a policy. Thus, government organizations promoting such cures are acting without the backing of purely scientific agencies as well.

That is my primary criticism of the IPCC, it's politicization of science. I consider it's publications political advocacy rather than scientific findings for that reason.

I don't think scientific organizations couldn't comment on government policy. And since climate change is a problem that potentially requires a political response I don't think IPCC would need to act "aloof and above petty politics".

On the purely scientific side of the issue IPCC's stance represents a broad consensus and thus you needn't trust UN alone.

Psudo wrote:

Here's some info on a scientific study regarding cosmic ray driven global temperature from the AGW-skeptic site JunkScience.com. It has links to the media release, the study's publisher, and other useful information. It shows a pretty strong correlation between low-atmosphere cloud formation and cosmic radiation during the 15 or so years for which cosmic ray information is available.

Clouds, it turns out, are an important aerosol affecting earth's surface temperature. The study suggests:

PDF wrote:

The 2% changes in low cloud cover in just 5 years, as seen in Figure 4, should vary the heating at the Earth’s surface by an average of about 1.2 watt per square metre. That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watt per square metre estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution.

According to RealClimate there hasn't been a trend in cosmic rays so it seems that couldn't explain the recent warming even if the mechanism itself were correct.

[Psudo]

The problem here is that you continue to depend on one set of sources (RealClimate and IPCC) regardless of the criticism from other sources.

Of course RealClimate disagrees. Democrats usually disagree with Republicans, too, and Israelis with Palestinians.

RealClimate begins their rebuttal with the quote "Damon and Laut have criticized their hypothesis and argue that the work by both Friis-Christensen and Lassen and Svensmark contain serious flaws." Which, coincidentally, is identical to the criticism of Mann's so-called "Hockey Stick" graph ("MBH98 reconstruction" if you prefer) by McIntyre and McKitrick. Makes me wonder why one rebuttal is to be ignored and the other is to be taken as sacrosanct.

The graph at the bottom of the article is compares only the galactic cosmic rays (GCR) count against the magnetic activity index (called "aa-index" there). The study I linked doesn't attempt to portray a correlation there, but rather a correlation between GCR and low level cloud formation. They don't match because this entire RC article refers to a 1991 article by the same scientists. The study I linked to mentions the years 1994 and 1995 internally. Thus, it cannot have been produced until later, perhaps October 3rd 2006 as suggested by my JunkScience.com link.

Your RealClimate link responds to the wrong study and, thus, doesn't respond at all.

[Psudo]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Psudo wrote:

So if the consensus were proven to be a governmental fabrication, as some who have left the IPCC claim, that would shake your confidence?

Yes, it would.

I'll give it a try, then.

Most obviously, the IPCC had it's press release and released it's Policy Maker's Summary for the Fourth Assessment Report on February 2nd, but didn't release it's full report of the scientific basis for it's claims until at least a month later. Why instruct policy makers before the proof is available? It sounds like a devaluing of proof and an encouragement of policy based on political trust.

a skeptical blogger wrote:

During the research phase of what is now called the Fourth Assessment Report to the UN there were about 2400 people involved in the study. One often-overlooked fact is that not all the people who were involved are scientists. There were several policy makers involved as well.

Something less than 2,400 scientists supporting the IPCC compared with something more than 200 (the number of petition signers you conceded were likely both Ph.D.s in related sciences and genuine supporters of the petition). At least 8% (200:2400) disagree with the "consensus". In most statistical analysis, a probability of coincidence (p-value) must be less than 5% for the study to be relevant. Using that as a metaphor, the consensus is insufficient to be relevant. But there's more.

Of course I suspect more of the 19,000 signatures are valid and significantly less than 2,400 of the IPCC contributers to be supporting scientists, and you expect the reverse. More accurate numbers would be nice, but are apparently not available. I'll have to concede to an estimate, as with the 19,000.

A list of IPCC contributors who disagree with it's major findings: Christopher Landsea, who resigned citing political bias and unsound science; John Christy, IPCC lead author who, much like you, sees that humans must be having some impact on climate, but is highly critical of those who exaggerate that impact or portray a scientific consensus supporting such; Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author who claims many skeptical scientists are quieted for fear of ostracization or government research funding being cut off; Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the IPCC, who has often stated that the cause for global warming is not yet scientifically demonstrated and supports aerosol injections into the atmosphere rather than cutting carbon emissions.

Gabriele Hegerl gets an honorable mention for disputing the temperature record over the past 1,000 years, though she does concede current anthropogenic global warming; also Myles Allen, IPCC lead author, whose distributed computing climate modeling has demonstrated (Nature, Jan '05) the ability of only slight changes to the parameters within plausible ranges to dramatically alter apparent climate sensitivities, a claim long heralded by AGW sketpics. Further, I'm sure there are more IPCC and former IPCC scientists in this list that I have not yet found.

My point is that not only is there a lack of a consensus within the scientific community that global warming is caused and controlled by human carbon emissions, but there is a significant dispute within the IPCC itself on that issue. Wikipedia lists 20 IPCC Lead Authors, not counting Richard Lindzen or Yuri Izrael. Along with John Christy, that gives me 3 skeptical IPCC authorities out of 22 (though, admittedly I don't know the positions of some lead authors). If that proportion holds true for all 2,400 contributors, it estimates about 330 of those IPCC contributors disagreeing. Moving those 330 to the other side turns 200:2400 skeptic:advocate ratio into 530:2070, or about a fifth of scientists disputing the "consensus".

I propose that 80% is not a consensus and, thus, no consensus of scientific thought exists on the topic of the causes of global temperature change. The appearance of such is artificial and false.

[Calbeck]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

The goal of efforts like the Kyoto protocol isn't experimentation.

The goal of the Kyoto accord isn't even to reduce worldwide pollution. The whole point is to force certain nations to reduce emissions in order to allow other, industrializing, nations to increase emissions. It effectively places a cap, agreeing that current levels of emissions are just fine and acknowledging that emissions are inevitably going to increase as the Third World industrializes --- because no one is going to be able to control their emissions short of invasion.

Quote:

But if one insists calling it an experiment then one could also say that we are already running a very dangerous experiment with the effect of industry on the climate.

Such a statement would require a presumption to be made that industry's effect on the climate is dangerous. The entire point of this side discussion is that it would take experimentation to show that such a danger existed to begin with.

Quote:

I more like said that I don't believe in an unavoidable catastrophe.

Well, more and more scientists are now concluding that even if humanity as a whole goes to zero emissions tomorrow, there is an unavoidable catastrophe coming.

[CanadianJeff]

"The goal of the Kyoto accord isn't even to reduce worldwide pollution. The whole point is to force certain nations to reduce emissions in order to allow other, industrializing, nations to increase emissions. It effectively places a cap, agreeing that current levels of emissions are just fine and acknowledging that emissions are inevitably going to increase as the Third World industrializes --- because no one is going to be able to control their emissions short of invasion."

Now that's a viewpoint I've never heard before. And your right that no one will be able to control the thrid world as it becomes an idustrial society. (Which in my opinon is a great loss in some ways there is so much to learn about us by studying less advanced society) but I still don't see anything about Kyoto that says they are not about reducing emissions for all members invovled in it's process. I don't think thrid nations accually equate into the picture for them. They simply think about and care about their own members. If a third world country joined Kyoto do you have any proof they wouldn't be pressured to reduce what emissions they could?

[dog77_1999]

I am alittle disappointed at the canidates. I first and foremost and economic conservative and all the canidates on both sides don't want to control spending except for Ron Paul. I think his isolationist platform is not the right way to go, but if we need to do that in order to save the economy, then so be it. If we can't afford to do the stuff we do now, then we shouldn't do it.

[Psudo]

CanadianJeff wrote:

I still don't see anything about Kyoto that says they are not about reducing emissions for all members invovled in it's process. I don't think thrid nations accually equate into the picture for them. They simply think about and care about their own members. If a third world country joined Kyoto do you have any proof they wouldn't be pressured to reduce what emissions they could?

When you say Kyoto's "own members", do you mean ratified signatories? Because there are 172 ratified signatories, including most third world nations [1]. Or did you mean nations who were given emissions standards under Kyoto? I count 27 nations given emissions standards, including the EU as one. Of those, 7 are specifically allowed to increase emissions, and 5 more are only expected to keep emissions unchanged. Thus, nearly half (~44%) of the mandates are not emissions decreases.

You might also mean "nations involved in the negotiations", but there are 190 member states of the international body that negotiated the Kyoto Protocol.

Sure, their stated purpose is to reduce global emissions, but their selective methodology defies any concept of a level playing field or equal treatment of member nations.

[Calbeck]

CanadianJeff wrote:

...I still don't see anything about Kyoto that says they are not about reducing emissions for all members invovled in it's process.

Actually, that's just the plain facts.

1) Of 137 nations signed to the Protocol (as of June '07), only 36 are required to control their emissions in any way. These are called "Annex I" nations. The rest are only required to monitor and report emissions.

2) The Protocol also allows "carbon trading", in which a nation which reduces its emissions may (and obviously will) sell those reductions to another nation which may then exceed the emissions cap.

3) There's no real enforcement written into the agreement. If a nation exceeds its limit, it is supposed to make up the difference plus 30%...but nothing prevents any given nation from simply exceeding the limit year after year after year and simply calling it "deficit carbon spending". The only other penalty is that the nation is prohibited from trading carbon credits --- but since it's already in deficit, it would have to spend money to buy these on the market anyway, and has no surplus to sell in the first place. Ergo, there's no real reason any given nation SHOULD comply if it's not already in its best self-interest to do so.

Quote:

I don't think thrid nations accually equate into the picture for them. They simply think about and care about their own members. If a third world country joined Kyoto do you have any proof they wouldn't be pressured to reduce what emissions they could?

Right off the bat, almost every Third World nation IS already signed onto Kyoto. And again, there's nothing that can be done under Kyoto to pressure them, assuming they were Annex I nations to start with.

BTW, the US is no longer the biggest fossil-fuels emissions producer. China eclipsed the US in that category earlier this year according to a Netherlands government study. Note that, just three years ago, China only had 54% of US emissions, but since then has been building a new coal-fired power plant every week on average. Further, it apparently intends to keep doing so well into the future. China is not an Annex I nation, and thus is unrestricted in its emissions.

[CanadianJeff]

Cool. It seems i am vastly misinformed on Kyoto. I can see why Harper was so keen on getting off the train so to speak. Thanks both of your for putting that information out there. Outside of the National post and globe and mail I have barely heard a whisper about what Kyoto accually is.

I doubt Mr. Dion has taken a full look at the subject if he's still supporting it as well. Frankly I don't see how anyone now could support Kyoto given those facts....I mean common arn't Carbon credits a bit self defeating.

It's litterly saying that becuase someone else didn't polute another country has the right if it puts out money to buy an invisible "credit" that really isn't a product of any kind of continue right on with the garbage...yikes!

[Psudo]

Okay, I've got to ask: Jeff, are you being sarcastic? You appear perfectly genuine to me, but I tend to be dense about sarcasm online and I'm extremely unused to seeing people in forums actually change their minds. If this is just paranoia on my part, I apologize for it.

[CanadianJeff]

no I'm being quite genuine here.

[sasquatch2]

CanadianJeff

Quote:

(Which in my opinon is a great loss in some ways there is so much to learn about us by studying less advanced society)

Wow!

Like flogging rape victims and tolerating slavery?

Denying females education etc.

Like making love to a virgin to cure AIDS.

Like commiting genocide?

Like being suicide bombers?

Do we really need to learn this?

[sasquatch2]

What colour most of these matter is simple rhetoric.

An alleged, irrelevant consensus has no scientific basis. Co2AGW is a political matter with NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS....currently an unfounded theory and some silly computer models.

Add to that the constant stupidity when referring to the "democratic majority" in the senate......ignoring the simple truth that there are currently 2-3 more democrats seated in the senate than republicans whereas before the reverse was true. 1 car crash or an influenza outbreak could easily alter the political balance signifigantly.......and yet the lefies here howl as if there are only 2-3 republicans left in the senate....what a crock.

It makes as much sense as Nancy Pelossi visiting Greenland in july and mistaking summer for global warming....or Ban the Moon visiting Antarctica in October and mistaking spring for global warming.