Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[Edbear]

No, Ockham's razor. The most logical and simplest explanation is usually the best.



Correct, but I want to know that that other mechanism is present now.



Again, correct, but I will want to know that the other factors that influenced temperature change were the same as they are now.



Incorrect. Correlation is not cause. I could argue that temperatures have risen in direct correlation with women engaging in the political process or the use of synthetic fibres in ladies underwear, but they are not causes.

My motorcycle slowed down yesterday because I had my fingers on the brake, therefore when it slowed down this morning I must have had my fingers on the brake too. Or was it because I was riding up a hill and hadn't increased my throttle opening? Or was I running out of gas? The independent variables need to be constant or accounted for in the final calculation, and that is where I think you will struggle.

I thought that was a given...

[Jantar]

...

The following contradict you:

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ew-study-finds

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.js...=NSF&from=news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...mest-on-record

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicator...cfm#globalTemp

The first three items are newspaper reports, not the actual data. The first two of those refer to a report that has already been shown to suffer from the same statisitical errors as Mann's Hockey stick. But no wonder, Mann was one of the authors. The study tries to show global sea level rise based on a single small section of the USA coast. That's as bad as trying to recreate 1000 years of proxy data based on a single Yamal tree.

Your 4th link is to the only one of the four temperature series that shows a significant temperature rise, and it's also the one that has undergone the greatest changes to early data.

[shrub]

The first three items are newspaper reports

Wrong - one is a newspaper report, one is from a popular scientific journal and one is a report from the National Science Foundation, a US government funded research organisation.

And there is nothing wrong with the hockey stick or Mann's research despite the best efforts of Mcintyre and Mcintrick - who have since been largely discredited.

Come on, you can do better than that.

[Jantar]

...And there is nothing wrong with the hockey stick or Mann's research despite the best efforts of Mcintyre and Mcintrick - who have since been largely discredited.

.....

Discredited? When? By whom? And how about Wegman also showing that Mann's method was wrong?

[shrub]

Discredited? When? By whom? And how about Wegman also showing that Mann's method was wrong?

Like you I am supposed to be at work so don't have time to spend debating minutae when you are unlikely to change your position and I am still waiting on one single robust argument for your position, but this popped up with a quick google and seems sound at first glance: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[mashman]

The only support I can see for AGW is that we pave paradise. Where once trees burned unabated (due to no natural "fire break") and filled the atmosphere with CO2 etc... they also grew back over a period of hundreds of years. They don't grow back after being sprayed and walk awayed... let alone being replaced with non indigenous foliage. Other than that (probably enough to lend weight to the argument), I can't see that AGW matters a jot other than to local eco-systems (although again, that could much more damaging than we know).

[shrub]

I can't see that AGW matters a jot other than to local eco-systems (although again, that could much more damaging than we know).

Unfortunately you're wrong.

I spend most of my time working in the business world and studying business, and my relaxation is not tramping across unspoilt wilderness or marvelling at some frog or another; it's fucking around with my motorcycle, drinking, eating and the like. I don't give a toss about polar bears, kakapo or even the health of rivers in Otago, but i do give a toss about my lifestyle. I have a nice car, a nice motorcycle, a nice house (in the green zone - that matters down here), a nice fridge and good prospects; and I don't want to lose any of them.

People pay me money to tell them about business and how to make money, and part of that involves looking at the big picture - what's happening in the world and what is likely to happen, and what is influencing events and conditions. Every time I look at climate change I think "This is going to hurt my clients and it's going to hurt me" because our lovely lifestyle won't survive if even the lesser predictions come to fruition.

I have a mate who ignored the IRD for many years because he hated them and hated tax and had read an article somewhere that said he didn't need to pay tax. For many years he was fine and all was good, then the IRD bankrupted him. We're the same, just as ignoring the IRD didn't make them go away, ignoring climate change won't make it go away, no matter how many blogs get published, which is why we need to stop arguing pointless minutae and start developing strategies that will help us protect what we have.

You may be happy to lose your lifestyle, but I'm not.

[oneofsix]

IRD is real and tangible, no body doubts they exist or their cause.
Climate change happens all the time. The debate is about how real the human affect on it is.
Neither are ignorable but wont you and your business mates look stupid if you screw your lifestyles for nothing. Oops forgot it wont be your lifestyles that get screwed, thanks.

[carbonhed]

Mann's "hockeystick" wasn't produced by his proxy data. It was produced by sleight of hand by terminating his proxy data in about 1960 and bolting on a different tempearature set to give the desired uptick at the end. His actual data diverged from the desired result so they "hid the decline" in the usual sly and underhand manner to which we've become accustomed.

Of course this begs the question "if the proxy is crap after 1960 why do we believe it before 1960?"

[Big Dave]

I spend most of my time working in the business world

Good - now do some fucking work.

[mashman]

Unfortunately you're wrong.

I spend most of my time working in the business world and studying business, and my relaxation is not tramping across unspoilt wilderness or marvelling at some frog or another; it's fucking around with my motorcycle, drinking, eating and the like. I don't give a toss about polar bears, kakapo or even the health of rivers in Otago, but i do give a toss about my lifestyle. I have a nice car, a nice motorcycle, a nice house (in the green zone - that matters down here), a nice fridge and good prospects; and I don't want to lose any of them.

People pay me money to tell them about business and how to make money, and part of that involves looking at the big picture - what's happening in the world and what is likely to happen, and what is influencing events and conditions. Every time I look at climate change I think "This is going to hurt my clients and it's going to hurt me" because our lovely lifestyle won't survive if even the lesser predictions come to fruition.

I have a mate who ignored the IRD for many years because he hated them and hated tax and had read an article somewhere that said he didn't need to pay tax. For many years he was fine and all was good, then the IRD bankrupted him. We're the same, just as ignoring the IRD didn't make them go away, ignoring climate change won't make it go away, no matter how many blogs get published, which is why we need to stop arguing pointless minutae and start developing strategies that will help us protect what we have.

You may be happy to lose your lifestyle, but I'm not.

Wrong? In what respect?

So you tell people what they want to hear. I guess everyone's gotta earn a living ...

I too am fed up with the moaning and bitchin about AGW and its affects on Climate Change... pretty fuckin pointless if you don't intend to do anything about it, or after 20 years still can't make yer minds up. We know what needs to be done. The problem is we can't afford it... or can afford it, but refuse to do anything about it because of our lifestyles... heh, some have more to lose than others.

So, I'd suggest that you and your intelligent business buddies opened their eyes and started thinking about a "free" Local NZ economy. After all 1 large chunk of money makes more than several large chunks of money and there's a whole world out there crying out for the stuff... why not use the system to the advantage of everyone in the country?

Then you and the business brains trust needn't waste time strategising for something you can't prove either way , let alone do anything about. Then you have your extremes ... Think BOOM and Crack etc..., but hardly unheard of. All needs to be paid for, even though the resources are lying all around you... much better to talk sense than cents imho.

Why would I lose my lifestyle? I can't see why you would lose yours either. What are you scared of changing that?

[shrub]

Wrong? In what respect?

So you tell people what they want to hear. I guess everyone's gotta earn a living ..

Why would I lose my lifestyle? I can't see why you would lose yours either. What are you scared of changing that?

Unfortunately I often tell people what they don't want to hear, and that neatly segues into climate change - nobody wants to change, but unfortunately change is the one constant thing in life.

One of the most important things I have learnt over the last 50 years is that change is unavoidable, and that there are four ways of seeing change: First there is change you didn't expect, and change you did; then there is change you don't want, and the change you do. I have recently experienced change I didn't expect or want, and my life has been turned upside down, and that's the next thing - what happens next is determined by what you do.

The more we know about impending changes, the better we can respond to them and the more likely we are to be ready to make them into a change we want, or a change that has the least impact. Which is why scenario forcasting is a very big part of what I do - I look at a businesses operating environments, key internal and external stakeholders etc, and try and get a handle on what is likely to happen. I then get a handle on how likely those events are to occur, and what the outcome of a best case, worst case or most likely situation. From there it's all classic risk management: can you insure, prepare, counter or adapt, and if so how much will it cost?

I have looked at climate change from the boring commercial perspective, and made a call as to how likely it is to occur, and the reality is it is, at best, quite likely and probably almost certain. The evidence for is overwhelming and growing whereas the evidence against is pretty defined and hasn't changed in many years despite being countered - in fact most of the arguments against seem to be mostly based on whether Al Gore is in it for the money, the language used in the East Anglia emails and how Mann analysed the data in his infamous hockey stick. And where scientists get their funding. None of which have much to do with the argument itself.

So i have weighed up the arguments and feel that much as I'd like to be a denier, I couldn't advise a client not to worry and sleep at night once they'd paid their invoice. The environment we do business in, live in and play in is very likely change, and much of that change will be unwelcome if we don't prepare for it. It will hit our primary industries hard as rainfall patterns change and I contributed to an internal research paper commissioned by Zespri on climate change, and they are sweating because Kiwifruit flourishes in a narrow band, and if that band changes the existing orchards will face problems. It will hit our markets hard and our suppliers hard, which means it will hit us hard - unless we're ready, and NZ is one of the countries that will come through the changes we're facing the best - if we're prepared.

[mashman]

Heh, prepared... that's a good one... we're nowhere near close and we will only be able to prepare as far as budget allows. To that end we'll probably never be any where near prepared. What happens when the coffers are empty. Greece? (i'm sure NZ is can do, but we are still at the mercy of the global market, quakes or not (kia kaha shrub et al)).

I would have thought the business community would consider making some rather radical changes that would allow NZ to compete in the global marketplace, also allowing for a "better" platform in regards to addressing climate concerns imho. But is the will there to make those sorts of changes? Does anything go?

The only way to achieve that, imho, is to get rid of the $$$ from the "local" economy. Then we aren't constrained by budget and cost (that excites me in a strange way... noooo not that way), but the money generated is used to keep NZ "trading" with the rest of the world. It would also allow competition to flourish.

Until that time, we will keep fucking more things up than we fix... environment included.

What do your colleagues think of the plastic jebus theory .

[shrub]

I would have thought the business community would consider making some rather radical changes that would allow NZ to compete in the global marketplace, also allowing for a "better" platform in regards to addressing climate concerns imho. But is the will there to make those sorts of changes? Does anything go? .

Well off topic, but an interesting point. The NZ business community (and the public) needs to make some radical changes or we will make Greece look like a success story. The last few months have taught me that anything and everything can change rapidly without warning and against all odds. New Zealand is incredibly vulnerable right now because over 50% of our export income comes from primary produce, with dairy contributing over 1/3 of that. Our next biggest earner is tourism (10%).

There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones.

We have to change what we do and how, and it's been forgotten, but we need to engage in the knowledge economy which means we need to become a high-tech country that exports knowledge and technology, not milk powder. We have a predominantly well educated population and several universities and allied tertiary institutes of international calibre, so we need to capitalise on that. We need more engineers, technicians and designers; not more dairy farms or more Chinese tourists. We need John Brittens, not Allan Crafars, and we need to retain ownership of our businesses, our energy and our land, not sell it to overseas investors.

And we need to take control of our exchange rate. We are far too small and vulnerable for a floating exchange rate, but that's another debate.

[carbonhed]

There are a whole raft of single events that could occur that would completely gut our economy, and climate change is behind many of the bigger ones.

So what's the many big bad events that climate change is behind?