Al Gore receives Nobel Peace Prize

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cool. exactly what I thought. The number of studies you can produce = exactly zero. Regardless of my problems with the IPCC, it doesn't claim man caused global warming. It uses very lose phrases like "likely".

[/ QUOTE ]
You demonstrate your ignorance here. You do not understand that this is ordinary language distilled from a precise scientific meaning - which is clearly defined in the report. The language isn't loose at all if you have any notion of the underlying science that it refers to. For example, this graph is far from a "loose phrase" - but it forms part of the basis for the layman language that you see in the report.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no loose language. Lets go to the big statement in the summary shall we:

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling infl uences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confi dence7 that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2).{2.3., 6.5, 2.9}"

In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confi dence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confi dence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct (see Box TS.1)."

Just on the face of it and even if you took the report as the holy grail of global warming research the report admits that there is a 10% chance that all this man made global warming is a myth and that man has had no heating affect on the environment at all. Why is everyone so sure man is heating the earth when this report alone admits there is a 10% change man isn't?

Now, from a scientific perspective, my understanding is that such a report should have a confidence interval of 95% or higher for it to be taken seriously and if one were to submit a normal study to a scientific journal with a 90% confidence interval it would be instantly rejected. Someone please correct me if I am wrong as it has been a long time since I looked into this.

So, the report sucks on face value. I don't even have to get to the 100 underlying problems I have with it.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
There must be scores and scores of studies claiming man has caused global warming if there is a wide consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea. PDF link

[ QUOTE ]
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[/ QUOTE ]

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, from a scientific perspective, my understanding is that such a report should have a confidence interval of 95% or higher for it to be taken seriously and if one were to submit a normal study to a scientific journal with a 90% confidence interval it would be instantly rejected.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. 90% confidence statistics are used sometimes. Lower than that, probably not, but 90 yes.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There must be scores and scores of studies claiming man has caused global warming if there is a wide consensus.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea. PDF link

[ QUOTE ]
That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change”... Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the time to post something. However, what you posted does not meet the challenge even remotely. This isn't actual research. It is just an article and you are reading too much into it.

You conveniently left off the very important next paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argue this point.

[/ QUOTE ]So, in other words, this little statistic says nothing about man made global warming.

To be honest, I thought you might have had something in the articles mention of the study: "Climate Change Science: an Analysis of Some Key Questions" because I would give strong weight to anything by the NAS (although I may critical of it). However, the author of this article uses the same disingenuous approach when it comes to global warming by making it appear that a study is far more definitive than it actually is. So, I went and actually read the study. This is what it says:

[ QUOTE ]
THE EFFECT OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES: Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

[/ QUOTE ]

[iron81]

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?

The NAS is a couple of years old so there may be something newer that states more definitively the affects of mankind.

Note - I am not disavowing global warming and saying that it hasn't occurred of that man hasn't warmed the atmosphere. My position is simply the case hasn't been made. I have no problem with someone thinking it is likely that man has caused the earth to warm. That is a reasonable position. My problem is with the zealots who are 100% sure of man's affect and who shout down angrily anyone who points out that there is a lot of uncertainty or who doubts man made global warming.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't. I'm not a climate expert, so I don't really feel the need to critically examine the issue when huge scientific bodies like the IPCC and others proclaim MCGW to be 90% certain. Frankly, 90% certain is more than enough to take action. Fortunately, there is a climate expert on the board who can help us all out.

As for the NAS quote, its not saying anything significantly different than the IPCC.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're a big boy and can discuss directly. I would like your comments on the NAS quote. Would you agree that it clearly states that there is no definitive link between human activity and global warming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't. I'm not a climate expert, so I don't really feel the need to critically examine the issue when huge scientific bodies like the IPCC and others proclaim MCGW to be 90% certain. Frankly, 90% certain is more than enough to take action. Fortunately, there is a climate expert on the board who can help us all out.

As for the NAS quote, its not saying anything significantly different than the IPCC.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ever happened to the scientific method? Your reasoning here isn't anything like the scientific method in making conclusions. Yet you want to basically have people spend alot of money (anything green seems to always cost more money) on something that is basically at the hypothesis stage IMO. The climate models are unproven and I find it laughable to the point of absurdity that anyone can vouch for these models being gospel when we're modeling something as complex as the climate and the models are in their early stages of development.

One thing that we do have experience with and know very well, the special interests that stand to benefit from laws that are passed in the name of solving the problem of "climate change" are lining up at the trough. Laws that we have no idea or proof of that they'll do a bit of good regarding "climate change."

[guids]

Its rather ironic, that the left calls non-believers "heretics who think the earth is flat still", when the real parallel is actually quite the opposite. So many people are willing to accept something as dogma that hasnt been proven yet, its really quite hilarious, and if you have the gaul to question their dogma, you are automatically branded like they did to Galileo. Nothing has been definitely proven, most of this stuff is still in its infancy, quit treating it like its not.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]

You demonstrate your ignorance here. You do not understand that this is ordinary language distilled from a precise scientific meaning - which is clearly defined in the report. The language isn't loose at all if you have any notion of the underlying science that it refers to. For example, this graph is far from a "loose phrase" - but it forms part of the basis for the layman language that you see in the report.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are they getting the total net error bar? If you have two quantities with non-fractional error ranges, the measure of the error of the net is a summation of the measure of each individual errors.