The New Global Warming Thread

[AMosely]

New information begins a new thread.

The report released here represented the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, of the causes and consequences of climate change. But for the first time the group asserted with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities were the main drivers of warming since 1950.

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at www.ipcc.ch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Kerostasis]

Which means, of course, they aren't certain...

Oh but theres no debate now, right? The issue is over and everyone agrees now?

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Which means, of course, they aren't certain...

Specifically, it's 90% certainty. Do you mean that they aren't certain in the same way that one could say someone who gets 90% on a math test doesn't know math?

[Trooper]

according to the UN humans are the cause of global warming.....good thing those guys are on the ball, that info could have saved us millions if only we had that years ago....


/end sarcasm

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Which means, of course, they aren't certain...

90% certainty is what it is. How many things are you 100% certain of? Chances are, many of us don't have much more than a 90% chance of making it home every day intact (no accidents), yet we do it with certainty all the time. 90% certainty means you can bet on it. The news today is that the I.P.C.C, a consortium of thousands of scientists around the world, says you can bet on global warming. They used to say it was a good chance (66%). This is a big difference.

Make all the jokes you want, but this is a very serious report. It's not junk science anymore. If you are wondering what questions still remain, there are many:

Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth’s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.

But this is why policymakers need to wake up and stop listening to politically fueled arguments about the topic. The Earth is undergoing major changes, and it would be economically (and possibly biologically) suicidal for our species to ignore it (or continue to laugh at it) at this point.

[Dick Blonov]

Love these threads


Some fuel (data dates back to 2000, but still...)

We might be contributing more with water vapor than CO2...

Die, DIE Hydrogen engine!

edit: I had to link to this one too.


DB

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by AMosely

90% certainty is what it is. How many things are you 100% certain of? Chances are, many of us don't have much more than a 90% chance of making it home every day intact (no accidents), yet we do it with certainty all the time. 90% certainty means you can bet on it. The news today is that the I.P.C.C, a consortium of thousands of scientists around the world, says you can bet on global warming. They used to say it was a good chance (66%). This is a big difference.

If I only had a 90% chance of making it home safely, I'd quit my job today. That would suggest an accident some time in the next 2 weeks. I've been back and forth for years now without a single accident...which is closer to 99.9% certainty.

Industrially speaking, 90% usually means you dont bet on it. That means you have to take seriously the chance of it not happening.

But really, the most telling tidbit is how they arrived at that 90% figure: Statistical error analysis? No. It was Politics. Politicians and politically minded scientists argued over the number for a few days, and they finally decided that since 66% didn't sound scary enough last time, they'd write down 90% on the report this time. That kind of process gives me about 0% confidence in their certainty figures.

[TheFatKidDeath]

For the love of God. Mosley, don't you get it? Hundreds, perhaps thousands of politically minded scientists with some sort of nefarious agenda have conspired with like minded politicans to scare us into believing that humans are the main cause of this so called global warming. It's outrageous.

[TheFatKidDeath]

Oh, and one more thing. Hopefully, the petroleum industry with their record '06 profits will be able to fund research debunking this hoax inflicted upon the American public!

[Faultline]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

But really, the most telling tidbit is how they arrived at that 90% figure: Statistical error analysis?

I haven't read the report but that's how it should have been done.

Statistical hypothesis testing and confidence intervals

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Politicians and politically minded scientists argued over the number for a few days, and they finally decided that since 66% didn't sound scary enough last time, they'd write down 90% on the report this time.

I'm assuming that since they last released a report (the one from 2001) they have even more data. More data gives them better statistical analysis, thus a higher confidence level in proving/disproving their hypothesis.

[Kerostasis]

Yes, that is how it should have been done. But it wasnt.

Since data for global warming is cobbled together from 39 different marginally related fields, there is really no universally acceptable way to correlate that data and produce a single error number. So scientist number 1 had his error number from his research, and scientist number 2 had his error number from his different research, and so on up to scientist number 1400 with the 1400th different error number, and they just had to pick one that looked the best. Hence, 90%.

[xTYBALTx]

90% certainty. Hilarious. How can anyone make projections regarding future climate change based upon untested (read: has not yet predicted long-term climate changes succesfully) computer models? And how can they ascribe any sort of success probability to what these untested computer models will provide?

[thebleakaffinity]

I for one trust the skepticism of anonymous, unqualified internet posters over renowned, accredited scientific minds participating in a decades-long study. I call shenanigans!

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by thebleakaffinity

I for one trust the skepticism of anonymous, unqualified internet posters over renowned, accredited scientific minds participating in a decades-long study. I call shenanigans!

Yes, it will be nice to have the junk science of global warming refuted for once and for all when this report comes out.

Spoiler/Headline Alert: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

For extra points, try and guess who is offering the cash!

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

90% certainty. Hilarious. How can anyone make projections regarding future climate change based upon untested (read: has not yet predicted long-term climate changes succesfully) computer models? And how can they ascribe any sort of success probability to what these untested computer models will provide?

I think they are 90% certain that the warming since 1950 was caused, at least in part, by human activity.