latest on global warming

[PLOlover]

http://www.mises.org/story/2571

for people who have stated here that global warming co2 models take into consideration sun activity etc. (they don't) this article should be an eye opener.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!



[/ QUOTE ]

This is the global climate change positive feedback loop I most fear.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.mises.org/story/2571

for people who have stated here that global warming co2 models take into consideration sun activity etc. (they don't) this article should be an eye opener.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "solar activity etc."? If you're talking about this cosmic ray effect, then yes, I'm sure most models don't take this into account, probably because, as the article suggests, no one knows how to quantify this effect: "It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays". To call this "a credible alternative suspect" at this stage is more than a bit rich.

When I say that solar activity is account for I mean that historical analysis of solar activity and temperature shows that solar variations can explain most historical warming trends but can't explain the current trend.

[Ron Paul]

Sounds familiar (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9024815&page=0&vc=1) .

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say that solar activity is account for I mean that historical analysis of solar activity and temperature shows that solar variations can explain most historical warming trends but can't explain the current trend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8041432&page=0&vc=1) .

[Taraz]

I asked one of my best friends from college who works on climate change for the British government about this article. She got kind of riled about it and refuted a few of the claims on the mises website. Apparently some of the phrasing in the guy's article is misleading and describes things that the models actually predict as evidence against the models.

She referred me to this website for the latest on climate change research: http://www.ipcc.ch/. Apparently this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created by the UN 20 years ago and is dedicated to researching what effect humans have on the environment. They just released a major report that supports the claim that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming.

Edit: I'm reading one of the report summaries and they claim that there is a 90% chance that the average net effect of human activities is a warming of the climate. Also "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations." The term 'very likely' is used in the report as a probability of greater than 90%.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked one of my best friends from college who works on climate change for the British government about this article. She got kind of riled about it and refuted a few of the claims on the mises website. Apparently some of the phrasing in the guy's article is misleading and describes things that the models actually predict as evidence against the models.

She referred me to this website for the latest on climate change research: http://www.ipcc.ch/. Apparently this Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created by the UN 20 years ago and is dedicated to researching what effect humans have on the environment. They just released a major report that supports the claim that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the UN group where the scientific report was rewritten by UN beaurocrats and a bunch of the scientists who signed the original report were outraged that their names were on final modified rewritten report?

Also isn't the CO2 emissions model a secret? I mean don't they release the results from the computer mathematical model, but they don't let anyone see the actual model?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: I'm reading one of the report summaries and they claim that there is a 90% chance that the average net effect of human activities is a warming of the climate. Also "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations." The term 'very likely' is used in the report as a probability of greater than 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is all in terms of their computer math model, I could be wrong.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the UN group where the scientific report was rewritten by UN beaurocrats and a bunch of the scientists who signed the original report were outraged that their names were on final modified rewritten report?

Also isn't the CO2 emissions model a secret? I mean don't they release the results from the computer mathematical model, but they don't let anyone see the actual model?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea, I'm just relaying the message. This latest report was just released this week I think, so I don't think it's controversial yet.

All I know is that I trust this friend's opinion on the matter. This doesn't mean anything to you all I'm sure, but I just thought I'd provide another link for those that are interested.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, I'm just relaying the message. This latest report was just released this week I think, so I don't think it's controversial yet.

All I know is that I trust this friend's opinion on the matter. This doesn't mean anything to you all I'm sure, but I just thought I'd provide another link for those that are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

ask your friend if their global warming model takes into account variable solar output, because from the little I've read it seems like the model basically assumes constant solar output, but no one ever comes out and says that either.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, I'm just relaying the message. This latest report was just released this week I think, so I don't think it's controversial yet.

All I know is that I trust this friend's opinion on the matter. This doesn't mean anything to you all I'm sure, but I just thought I'd provide another link for those that are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

ask your friend if their global warming model takes into account variable solar output, because from the little I've read it seems like the model basically assumes constant solar output, but no one ever comes out and says that either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will do. I also forgot to mention that she claims that no scientific body has come out and said that they disagree with claims of the IPCC and that almost all objections have been raised by people in industry.