GrackMarginal wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

GrackMarginal wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

The Herald really shouldn't hire illiterate hillbillies to write science editorials. Are there some serious scientists who doubt that humans are causing global warming? Absolutely, but the overwhelming majority of scientists who have studied it beleive that humans are the primary cause of the current warming cycle.


How do you answer the following criticisms?

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

How do you answer this?

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I asked first. But since you're going to play this game, I will select one of your links at random and respond to it. What I expect to find is that GIGO is at work because every man-made global warming scenario I've ever seen is based upon precisely what Crichton was talking about.

If the random link I select merely asserts that the globe is warming, then I think it's fair that the ball is back in your court to prove that it's human-caused. I will stipulate that the globe will be generally warming for the next 150 million years or so until the planet is sucked into the sun and consumed. CO2? No.

The latest actual scientific data shows a correspondence between temperature and sunspots. But even there the temperature rise is negligible.

Michael Chrichton is unquestionably a very smart guy, but he is not a climate scientist. I believe he was trained as a medical doctor. As I said in my first post, there are many serious scientists who question carbon as the source of global warming, bu they are a small minority.

OK, Roland, I have selected your link to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

This is a 2001 report. It's out of date even if it were good to begin with, which it isn't. Starting with the first section, The Climate System: An Overview --

"Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios."

Take these sentence by sentence, and translate into plain English. Starting with the first sentence. Its really saying: Climate may be partly predictable.

Second sentence means: We believe human-induced climate change is predictable.

Third sentence means: But we cant predict human behavior.

Fourth sentence: Therefore we rely on scenarios.

The logic here is difficult to follow. What does may be partly predictable mean? Is it like a little bit pregnant? We see in two sentences we go from may be predictable to is predictable. And then, if we cant make accurate predictions about population and development and technology how can you make a carefully-constructed scenario? What does carefully-constructed mean if you cant make accurate predictions about population and economic and other factors that are essential to the scenario? The flow of illogic is stunning. Lets look at another quote:

The state of science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes.

Illustrative examples. The estimates for even partial US compliance with Kyoto -- a reduction of 3% below 1990 levels, not the required 7% -- has been predicted to cost almost 300 billion dollars a year. Year after year. We can afford it. But if we are going to spend trillions of dollars, I would like to base that decision on something more substantial than illustrative examples. Lets look at another quote:

Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850 SOME SKILL? This is not skill in predicting the future. This is skill in reproducing the past. It doesnt sound like these models really perform very well. It would be natural to ask how they are tested. Next quote:

"While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model 'false' in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment."

The term subjective ought to set off alarm bells. Science, by definition, is not subjective. Why in this high stakes climate issue do we allow the same person who makes a climate model to test it? Climate science needs some verification by outsiders. Next quote, from late in the text:

The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

What!?? If the system is non-linear and chaotic -- and it is -- then it cant be predicted, and if it cant be predicted, what are we doing here? Why are we worrying about the year 2100?

All right, you may be saying. Perhaps this is the state of climate science, as the IPCC itself tell us. Nevertheless we read every day about the dire consequences of global warming. But what if a major temperature rise is really going to happen? Shouldnt we act now and be safe? Dont we have a responsibility to unborn generations to do so? The IPCC chart of predictions for 2100 shows a range from a low of 1.5 degrees to a high of 6 degrees. That is a 400% variation. Its fine in academic research. Now lets transfer this to the real world. In the real world, a 400% uncertainty is so great that nobody acts on it. Ever. If you planned to build a house and the builder said, it will cost somewhere between a million and a half and six million dollars, would you proceed? Of course not, youd get a new builder. If you told your boss you were going on vacation and would be gone somewhere between 15 and 60 days, would he accept that? No, hed say tell me exactly what day you will be back. Real world estimation has to be much, much better than 400%.

SUMMARY

The IPCC report is largely B.S. (and all I had to do was plagiarize Crighton!)

Roland Kayser wrote:

Michael Chrichton is unquestionably a very smart guy, but he is not a climate scientist. I believe he was trained as a medical doctor. As I said in my first post, there are many serious scientists who question carbon as the source of global warming, bu they are a small minority.


Not even climate scientists are "Climate Scientists." I use the capitals to signify a grander category, which doesn't really exist. Show me a "climate scientist" who can put the whole picture together in a cohesive, supportable way. There aren't any because in a chaotic system it's impossible to put anything together in a cohesive, supportable way. There are only people making a living off government grant money whose results are often wildly extrapolated.

Climate change is one of the most complex problems facing the world today. This is too overwhelming for most people who find the easiest solution to simply state: there is no problem. We attack scientists, cite conflicting reports, speak of emotions, refer to the heated popular press and say: too much conflict,I guess that means there is no problem.

The real failure of this line of thinking involves the simple fact that we are debating potential solutions of climate change, when we are not entirely sure how to define the problem. Yes, the earth is warming, most competent researchers will agree. Yes, it appears as if we are exacerbating that increase. Is this the problem? Or is it ultimately our nonrenewable energy choices? Is it over-consumption? Or how about global poverty? And what of emerging markets? All of these are questions we should be asking. All have a role in global environmental change. But we are not that intelligent, I guess. We prefer something along the lines of yes or no. Natural climate change, over exploitation of resources, soil degradation and water shortages have ended isolated societies in the past. The fact is, we have not been around for geologically enough time to really understand what were up against. Like most, I say we bet on the safe side, the cautious one.

The fact that there is so much heated debate about pretty well substantiated data betrays this problems complexity. Using this debate as reason to deny the argument, to deny a problem, is absurd.

GrackMarginal wrote:

Roland Kayser wrote:

Michael Chrichton is unquestionably a very smart guy, but he is not a climate scientist. I believe he was trained as a medical doctor. As I said in my first post, there are many serious scientists who question carbon as the source of global warming, bu they are a small minority.


Not even climate scientists are "Climate Scientists." I use the capitals to signify a grander category, which doesn't really exist. Show me a "climate scientist" who can put the whole picture together in a cohesive, supportable way. There aren't any because in a chaotic system it's impossible to put anything together in a cohesive, supportable way. There are only people making a living off government grant money whose results are often wildly extrapolated.

I will admit to you that I am in no way qualified to analyze climate science. That's why I rely on the people who are, the overwhelming majority of whom beleive that climate change is a potentially catastrophic problem caused primarily by carbon emissions. I did read Chrichton's speech that you posted, he raises many interesting points, but I remain more convinced by people with PhDs in Climatology, Hydrology, etc.

Maybe you should check out the Borehole studies.

These are the only reliable indications of all around global temperature.

These show that the earth was warmer than it is now only 1000 years ago.

So, if it was warmer then, who caused it? Man? I don't think so.

We are just in a normal warming cycle of the earth that has taken place roughly every 1000 to 1500 years since the world began. And after it goes up, it will come back down again as well. All without our help.