watervole | Hottest April on record

I'm guessing that no one in the UK will be surprised that this is the hottest April in 350 years. (It wasn't hotter then, it's just that we don't have regular records more than 350 years ago) Telegraph article

I'm always amazed by people who make silly comments like the guy who complains that the experts haven't considered sunspot activity. Of course, they bloody well have. Studied them to death, correlated with all kinds of things and concluded that the data doesn't match up.

global warming myths is nice little site for several global warming myths, both the myths spread by people who don't want to believe man is responsible, and those who exaggerate what the effects will be. There's a nice short synposis of each and clear graphs to go with them. If you want a short, clear explanation of why sunspots are not the cause of our current high temperatures, this is an easy site to visit.

If anyone has any facts that they feel contradict man-caused global warming, the guy offers to go away and do the research for you to see if the facts are valid.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Though you might want to check out some of the other stuff on his site...

Oh, I noticed he's a creationist. But at least he's more rational about it than many are.

The funny thing is that he's *not* a creationist in the usual sense of the word. He believes that it will be proven by science that the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe, but that page is all about showing that there is no conflict between current scientific thinking and a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. The page is a smack-down (and a good one) of the idiots who insist against all evidence on a completely literal reading of the Bible.

His explanations are poor though.

The people researching sunspot activity obviously factor out the 11/22 year cycle, so his graph is misleading.

Climate researchers apply corrections for urban heat island effects before publishing warming data, rather than claiming the effect is small.

Which is why I don't find him a pain. I can go along with a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. He even takes the point at which man became a 'spiritual' being as the point at which man was 'created' and accepts there were bipedal hominids before that time.

If I were to develop a religious inclination, I'd be following very similar lines.

He lets science guide his interpretation of the Bible, rather than letting an over-literal interpretaion the Bible affect his interpretation of science.

His graph quite clearly shows the 11-year cycle (in green) and the running mean in black.

His point about the largest temperature changes taking place in regions where there are no large cities is still valid and a is counter to the claim that researchers are being fooled by higher temperatures caused by urban heat islands. (I think you missed the point he was trying to make)

Take out the bit about science proving the existence of God, and it's pretty much mainstream European Christian thinking. I've known one English creationist, but they're few and far between. (Never could figure out how he managed to get through a physics degree at Durham...)

So you are now resorting to using creationists to justify the man-is-heating-up-the-planet theory. Sounds a bit desperate to me.

Nowhere near as desperate as an ad-hominem argument though.

This http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html seems a little more comprehensive

It's know as "looking for something short and simple enough that Steve will actually read it". (And his religious beliefs do not make his graphs any the less accurate)

If you want the detailed, scientific, fully-accurate and internationally accepted version then read the IPCC report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_report

The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments.

Think you can manage to look at that? Even if only the summary? (They also considered things like sunspots, but it's a lot further down in the data there as the scientists worked out early on that they weren't particularly relevant and got onto looking at things that are more important)

As far as I can figure it, your version boils down to: "I don't believe it because if I do believe it I would have to change my lifestyle. Long versions of the proof would be too time-consuming for me to read and short versions are simplistic enough that I can try and rubbish them in spite of the fact that I have no training or knowledge in this area" (Sounds a bit desperate to me...)

Rightly or wrongly, that's how it comes across.

I look at reports of farmers in Bangladesh struggling to cope with the effects of climate change and wonder how you can possibly be so blase about a disaster that is already killing people in the poorest parts of the world and has the potential to kill millions more while the rich countries contine to use their wealth to protect them from the worst of the effects.

There are two things that jump out when I read the Wikipedia link you showed. One was that the liklehood that greenhouse gases were causing more than half of climate change (no mention of the other 49%) was 90% (90% of 51% is not a lot) in a report that is trying to prove that very effect. That is very random number (suggests guesswork) and indicates there is a lot of uncertainty among the authors of the report that this is actually the cause. The fact that they use phrases like "likely" and "very likely" in a report of this nature speaks volumes

The second point I notice stems from this. If there is so much uncertainty that greenhouse gases are in fact the cause, why then does the report itself come down so strongly in favour of a position that its own figures don't justify. The answer comes in the criticisms where some scientists involved in the report have been upset by the political influences in the report's conclusions.

In other words, we have research that is inconclusive that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming yet the report on that research comes down heavily in favour of that position because of political influences.

I am not going to change my lifestyle based on that.

I think you're rather missing the point.

When they say "Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." what they mean is that at least half of the increase is man-caused.

That increase is of such a size that if we are only able to deal with the cause of half of it, then we need to act. The projections for the future, are such that if we can only reduce the damage by 50%, then we desperately need to do so.

IT isn't a random number. Statistical confidence levels are typically stated in ranges of 5%. Therefore, they use 90% rather than 92.3% or whatever the actual figure might be because that's expressing a standard statistcal method reached by standard and widely accepted techniques.

'90% confidence' is statistican speak for "between 90 and 95%

I notice that you also misunderstood 'very likely' (didn't read very far, did you?)

As the report clearly says - " very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", are over 90% and 66% respectively."

In other words, 'very likely, means 'over 90%'. Stat-speak again.

I've studied statistics at university and since. To get a 90% confidence level, you don't just pluck a figure out of the air, you have to do endless number-crunching and put your numbers through agreed correlation tests.

90% is actually a pretty high confidence level in statistical terms.

And some scientists involved in the report had the oppostite criticsm, that it caved in from political pressure from those in American and elsewhere who wanted to minimise the potential threat. (the concern - and it may yet prove to be valid - is that positive feedback mechanisms from melting permafrost releasing methane that will cause further melting wil make things much worse) 90% is where everyone agreed - those on both sides of the debate agreed on 90%.

What we have at the end of the day is everyone involved in the report agreeing that at least half the damage is man-caused. The projected temperature rise is 2-4 degrees Celsius. IF we can stop half of that rise, then that will save millions of lives.

(If you want to understand the other 49%, then I suggest you do an awful lot of reading. Climate is massively complex and there is data we still don't have on the deep oceans. Some of that 49% may in fact also be caused by human activity, some of it is definitely not. We simply haven't got enough figures to work it all out. We need more data on high-altitude temperates, gas measurements, oceanic data, weather records in remote areas, etc.)

If you're really keen to be a sceptic, I propose a wager. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and make a bet on the global mean temperature in 10 years time? Or on the contents of the next IPCC report?

Hottest April on record

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject