A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

A week of IPCC news - February 4, 2007

Courtesy of H.E.Taylor, here is this week's GW news roundup, installment 1 (IPCC related stories only)
(skip to bottom)

The IPCC released its 2007 Summary for Policymakers on Friday:

Lots of people reported:

And what did the various nations have to say?:

Some think that things are worse than the SPM says:

Some in the blogosphere had unique reactions:

James Annan deserves a reward for coining the word 'bloggorhea':

Then there was the usual commentary:

--regards--

-het

PS. You can access the previous postings of this series here

--
"Socialism collapsed because it did not allow prices to tell the economic truth. Capitalism may collapse because it does not allow prices to tell the ecological truth."
- Oystein Dahle, former VP of Exxon Norway, May 31, 2005

Global Warming: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwarming.html

GW News: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwnews.html

GW News Archive: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/gwna.html

H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/

Labels:

2 Comments:

  • At March 10, 2007 5:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am a global warming skeptic. However I enjoy your site. Your articles are well thought out and reasoned.

    All of your articles attempt to address the skeptics on a logical level and not by accusing critics of being on Exxon's payroll (I work for New York State.), Holocaust Deniers (My mother's sister survived Auschwitz.), flat earthers (Anyone who visits the seashore can see for himself why the Earth is round.), or a seven-day creationst (Sorry, I'm not one either.).

    My problem with the AGW thesis is that is has not met six conditions that are critical for the theory.

    To prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists the following conditions have to be met:

    1.) the temperature of the earth is increasing;

    2.) the temperature increase is beyond normal variation;

    3.) the temperature increase will continue into the future;

    4.) the temperature increase is related to Carbon Dioxide concentrations;

    5.) Other plausible explanations have been rejected; and,

    6.) The increase of Carbon Dioxide caused by human activity is the driving force.

    I maintain that each of these conditions is an open issue.

    I don't want to deal with each issue at preent, but I will give some ideas of the problems involved. Concerning my first point, why cannot NASA and CRU-UK agree on global temperatures? That they cannot indicates a problem of measurement. Also note that the drastic increase of surface temperatures as measured by weather stations is negatively correlated with the number of weather stations--there are many fewer weather stations now than there were 20 years ago. Additionally, there is still a difference between satellite and surface data. This has led two of the world's leading experts on this approach to measuring the earth's temperature--Christie and Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville to a very moderate position on temperature increase. Lastly, where tree ring data is available(unfortunately not enough sites) it does not confirm the readings of the surface stations.

    So lets keep this civil and scientific. I await answers to my questions. I also hope to have a civil discourse

     
  • At March 11, 2007 2:01 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Anonymous,

    IMO, all 6 points you present are very well established (I agree they are the necessary building blocks of the AGW case), but you did not wish to discuss them...anyway, read the IPCC TAR WG1 report (in the side bar) they very thouroughly address all those points. (thanks for your complimentary words, btw!)

    I'm not sure why you would find something surprising or worisome about two different analyses of global temperature arriving at slightly different results. That is the nature of science, no two measurements are ever exactly the same.

    Regarding satellite readings, see here

    I do not know that you are correct that tree ring proxies disagree with weather station readings, but regardless there are many many other indicators that show warming.

    Thanks for the comment, I look forward to your response.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home