Aliens cause global warming

[Chris C]

Lomborg doesn't really seem to know what would happen in the world got 3 C hotter...his expertise in "economics" and "cost-benefit" is cute, and a lot of expertise in this area is needed, but the view that there is little benefit to stopping climate change is wrong.

[SkepticLance]

To Chris C

 

I don't think Lomborg ever said that we should do nothing to better manage climate change.

 

He is more against the ridiculous and 'heroic' measures that some idiots are advocating. What is needed to better manage climate change is a blend of new technology (eg. Hydrogen fuel cell cars. New generation nuclear power), better environmental management (stop Indonesia chopping down forest and converting peat bogs to CO2), and a degree of adaptation on our own part to the inevitable climate change that will remain after taking reasonable steps.

 

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future. We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

[bascule]

The Copenhagen Concensus is bullshit.

 

RealClimate had an interesting reaction:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-copenhagen-consensus/

 

Here's the facts: In 1990 there were 131 million people without access to safe drinking water. By 2025 that number will rise to 817 million (Douglas et al. 2005, Natural Hazards)

 

Water vulnerability is an important issue that threatens the lives of millions of people. The root causes in the hydrologic cycle, and ultimately the climate system, need to be addressed.

[iNow]

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.

 

Hi Lance - Do you have a citation to support this?

 

Also, I have two IMPORTANT questions:

1) Over what years was this per decade warming average calculated?

2) Can you explain why your comment mysteriously ignores the fact that the increase is not linear, but is increasing more quickly with time?

 

 

This has some pretty significant ramifications on your projection of future increase. Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

Continuous functions look linear for a small enough section of them.

[Chris C]

To Chris C

 

I don't think Lomborg ever said that we should do nothing to better manage climate change.

 

He is more against the ridiculous and 'heroic' measures that some idiots are advocating. What is needed to better manage climate change is a blend of new technology (eg. Hydrogen fuel cell cars. New generation nuclear power), better environmental management (stop Indonesia chopping down forest and converting peat bogs to CO2), and a degree of adaptation on our own part to the inevitable climate change that will remain after taking reasonable steps.

 

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future. We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

 

Actually, a 3 C rise is the most likely scenario keeping the way we do things. And if we don't do things, "by 2100" will be worse than "2x pre-ind CO2." Obviously sensible application from economic and scientific angles is required, but Lomberg doesn't really have AGW scenarios in perspective.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

The period I refer to for the 0.15 to 0.2 C increase per decade is the past 30 years. If the increase were linear, I would not need to present the data as a range. However, the last set of figures I looked at were still below 0.2.

 

I do not know how the warming will go over the next 30 years. In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one does. It may increase or not. Much will depend on nations such as China. However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

 

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen. We already have hybrid petrol/electric cars. The research is already underway to further develop transport that uses far less fossil fuels, and electricity generation that is based on non carbon emitting methods. I have no doubt that the ability to achieve this will be with us within, say 20 years.

 

The third leg of the anti-CO2 tripod is to combat deforestation. Or rather, to make sure reafforestation exceed deforestation. We have already achieved this in the western world, and it just requires the spread of this philosophy and practise into the third world.

[bombus]

The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes."

 

Nine factual errors is rather a lot! Maybe it took eleven pages to satisfactorily destroy these nine of Lomborg's arguments. If they'd addressed every error there'd have been no room for the adverts!

 

Lomborg is just an attention seeker.

[SkepticLance]

bombus

 

Have your read Lomborg's book? You need to. I recommend it.

 

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive. Those people needed a solid kick in the fundamentus. Sadly, presenting truth does not mean truth is accepted, and most people still think with their gonads.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

The period I refer to for the 0.15 to 0.2 C increase per decade is the past 30 years. If the increase were linear, I would not need to present the data as a range. However, the last set of figures I looked at were still below 0.2.

 

I do not know how the warming will go over the next 30 years. In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one does. It may increase or not. Much will depend on nations such as China. However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

 

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen. We already have hybrid petrol/electric cars. The research is already underway to further develop transport that uses far less fossil fuels, and electricity generation that is based on non carbon emitting methods. I have no doubt that the ability to achieve this will be with us within, say 20 years.

 

The third leg of the anti-CO2 tripod is to combat deforestation. Or rather, to make sure reafforestation exceed deforestation. We have already achieved this in the western world, and it just requires the spread of this philosophy and practise into the third world.

 

You completely ignored the whole purpose of my post.

 

 

Do you have a source? Once you share it, I will begin countering your faulty and unsupported assumptions (of which there are several).

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I am a bit puzzled. When you ask "Do you have a source, are you referring to my statement that warming over the past 30 years has averaged 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade globally? If you are, it leaves me wondering. This data is available bloody near everywhere!

 

For example : the Wiki article on global warming

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade.

 

I am not a great fan of Wiki, but the same information can be picked up from numerous web sites.

[iNow]

When you ask "Do you have a source, are you referring to my statement that warming over the past 30 years has averaged 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade globally?

Yes.

 

 

I am not a great fan of Wiki, but the same information can be picked up from numerous web sites.

 

So, if it's so easy, why have you now made me ask you a third time?

[Pangloss]

I think it's unfortunate to see Lomborg casually dismissed in this thread. He clearly does not deserve the Official Scientific American Global Warming Denier Badge(©2007 SciAm Inc All Rights Reserved).

 

And it looks like the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo has been distributed on Bjorn Lomborg. No further discussion allowed, nothing to see here, move along.

[iNow]

Discuss it all you want. The data shows it's relevance (or, lack thereof).

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

What now?

Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

 

I read both Lomborg and the SciAm scandalously incompetent and biased tirade against him. The editor of SciAm should have been sacked over that. Scientific American is supposed to be an unbiased scientific magazine. Instead, he made it a vehicle for politically correct morons.

 

So he found 9 errors. Wow! I have my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist in front of me, and there are 352 pages of text; 81 pages of explanatory notes, and 70 pages of bibliography. 9 errors out of that lot is such a small amount as to constitute a total bloody miracle!!

I would be struggling to write 20 pages without making at least 9 errors.

 

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

[bascule]

What now?

Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

 

I haven't read Lomborg's book but I've read the Copenhagen Consensus (perhaps more aptly titled the Lomborg Conjecutre)

 

I think that should give a fairly accurate view of his positions, through the amazing power of peer review!

 

If there's something to what Lomborg is saying, certainly I should find it there, right?

 

Sadly I did not. Lomborg and his economist cohorts who pushed out the Copenhagen Consensus didn't exactly factor in the facts when constructing their viewpoint.

 

They completely downplay any human penalty in climate change, and thus deprioritize it completely.

 

As I said earlier, climate change induced water vulnerability has the potential to threaten the lives of half a billion people over the next two decades.

 

This figures nowhere into the Copenhagen Consensus's analysis.

[iNow]

To iNow

 

What now?

Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

 

I read both Lomborg and the SciAm scandalously incompetent and biased tirade against him. The editor of SciAm should have been sacked over that. Scientific American is supposed to be an unbiased scientific magazine. Instead, he made it a vehicle for politically correct morons.

 

So he found 9 errors. Wow! I have my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist in front of me, and there are 352 pages of text; 81 pages of explanatory notes, and 70 pages of bibliography. 9 errors out of that lot is such a small amount as to constitute a total bloody miracle!!

I would be struggling to write 20 pages without making at least 9 errors.

 

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

 

This is now my fourth request. Why are your trying to evade the request made to you to share your source for the claims you made in Post #27?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

The claim I made in post 27, which you for some weird reason object to, was :

 

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade.

 

My response to your rather strange query was :

 

This data is available bloody near everywhere!

 

For example : the Wiki article on global warming

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

 

which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade.

 

Now, I could quote any of dozens of sources, including IPCC, Realclimate, or others. They all will say the same thing - that in the past 30 years, the world has warmed 0.4 to 0.6 C on average. What is your quibble? Is the Wiki quote not satisfactory? Even my old debate partners are not arguing this point, because they know it is a simple piece of widely available data.

 

For Finagles sake, this is not even controversial!

[iNow]

The wiki article does not reference the .15 to .2 per decade number. I want a specific study from which you are drawing your conclusion so I can look at it's methods and context.

 

Why is it so hard? You said there are so many, yet now I have to ask you a fifth time. Wiki is not what I mean.

[swansont]

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.

 

I haven't read the book, but I wonder: how do you justify characterizing this as an extrardinarily competent work be when the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty found him guilty of scientific dishonesty?

 

"Although the Committee did not feel able to conclude that Lomborg had misled his readers deliberately, this was only because the scientists considering the case felt that Lomborg might simply have misunderstood the issues he was working on"

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-03b.html

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

Said Danish committee reversed its findings later, and apologised.

 

If you are interested, I suggest you obtain a copy of Lomborg's book, and read it. I am sure your local library will be able to help.

 

To iNow

 

This is beyond getting ridiculous. As I told you, the figure of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years is obtained from the total warming over that period divided by 3. Rather basic really.

 

Total warming over the past 30 years was about 0.5 Celsius, plus or minus the error factor. This is shown in the Wiki reference.

 

Here is another reference with a suitable graph showing 0.5 C warming over the last 30 years.

 

http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html

 

If you still continue to deny the basic data, then that is your affair. I do not intend to continue down this ridiculous argument.

[swansont]

To Swansont

 

Said Danish committee reversed its findings later, and apologised.

 

From what I can glean from reports, the reversal was on procedural grounds, not scientific ones.

[Pangloss]

The wiki article does not reference the .15 to .2 per decade number. I want a specific study from which you are drawing your conclusion so I can look at it's methods and context.

 

Why is it so hard? You said there are so many, yet now I have to ask you a fifth time. Wiki is not what I mean.

 

I am having a hard time believing that that's why you want him to present that reference. I am concerned that you may be asking him to present that reference because you know he's in a beleaguered minority here, and you want to make things as difficult for him as possible. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

[iNow]

I am having a hard time believing that that's why you want him to present that reference. I am concerned that you may be asking him to present that reference because you know he's in a beleaguered minority here, and you want to make things as difficult for him as possible. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

 

WTF?!?

 

Believe what you want, mate. To suggest I'm trying to make things "as difficult for him as possible" is ridiculous. I asked for a specific source (which was not wiki), and he explicitly stated:

 

To iNow

This data is available bloody near everywhere!

 

I simply maintained my request for specific study data, and now he is trying to make me look foolish for asking for specific studies to support his numbers.

 

All I've wanted is a speicific study (or studies), not claims of how dumb I am for asking, nor links to wiki that he had adjusted to make his point.

 

Continual evasion of my request has led me to believe that he is masking the overall data to suit some purpose or agenda, and I continue to hold my ground that he has yet to supply a source which supports his assertions and conclusions as has been requested now six times.

 

 

 

 

To iNow

 

As I told you, the figure of 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years is obtained from the total warming over that period divided by 3. Rather basic really.

I am still asking from where the 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade for the last 30 years data comes from.

 

Please address this point, and stop appealing to ridicule.

 

 

Total warming over the past 30 years was about 0.5 Celsius, plus or minus the error factor. This is shown in the Wiki reference.

I asked for non-wiki support. What study shows this? I want to know more about it.

 

 

Here is another reference with a suitable graph showing 0.5 C warming over the last 30 years.

 

http://geology.com/news/2006/01/global-warming-graph-and-map.html

I appreciate your first attempt to show something, but unfortunately your graph does not share it's source data, nor it's methods for obtaining that, hence we are still exactly where we were six requests ago.

 

I spent some time drilling down into the various references and links, but still was unable to arrive at the source for your numbers.

 

 

If you still continue to deny the basic data, then that is your affair. I do not intend to continue down this ridiculous argument.

There has been no argument. Support your damned assertions with actual studies and citations. I get the strong sense that your data relates only overall averages across 30 years, not annual means. But... how would I know? You have not shared ANY support (except now a graph which doesn't share it's source data)?

 

 

So... I repeat for the sixth time:

 

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.

 

Hi Lance - Do you have a citation to support this?

[SkepticLance]

My thanks to Pangloss. It is nice that someone else can see how ridiculous iNow is being. I have given two references, and the data is widely accepted as correct, so there is no point continuing.