PDA

View Full Version : Cracks in the Global Warming Case?



Pages : [1] 2

fliped42
10-11-09, 06:09 AM
post deleted

WDCRob
10-11-09, 09:32 AM
When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

mooncliff
10-11-09, 09:58 AM
Yes, it is possible there will be cooling. The Sun is a variable star. It has not had sunspots for an unusually long period, and its output has dropped about 0.1% There are many other variables, and the uncertainties are large, so I think it makes it impossible to calculate.

Instead, why not concentrate on the result and ask: Why is the arctic melting?

The carbon dioxide level is now as high as it has been in 15,000,000 years. Does that sound like a good idea?

If some factor changes and the planet does start to heat up, it will take centuries to bring the carbon dioxide level down.


A copy of one of my previous posts:

Hmm, while cows, and deforestation, and melting of permafrost in the arctic resulting in decreased albedo and methane release, and clouds, and many other things may be parts of the problem, I think it is undeniable that a huge amount of carbon that was previously sequestered underground as coal and oil has been and is being injected into the atmosphere by human activity and by highly accelerated deforestation.

When we think of the Earth, we think of it the way it has been over the last 10,000 years. But if you were to watch it from 4.5 billion years ago, you would see, for the first 2 billion, no oxygen. Later, horrible ice ages in which the Earth froze to nearly the equator. Oscillations between ice ages and horrible periods of global warming when the oceans were stagnant and released choking sulfur gases into the atmosphere. So, if we look at the quite pleasant climate we have had for the last 10,000 years, we should keep in mind that it has been like this for less than 1% of Earth's history.

Whether trying to slow CO2 increase will wreck the economy, or whether carbon credits are a conspiracy, has no effect on consideration of the following.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration was very recently 280 ppm, and our fossil fuel use seems to be driving it to over 400 ppm over a period of 200 years. Does that seem like a good idea when we don't know what that will do?

Everyone is alarmed by hockey sticks, and this is the biggest hockey stick I know.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slide...ase/core36.jpg


No one believed we could fish cod to near extinction, but we did. The entirety of the US was densely forested from New York to the Rocky Mountains, but it was all cut down or burned by humans. Pennsylvania used to supply all the oil, until it went empty. Texas used to supply all the oil until it went empty.

We can literally see to the end of the Universe and to the beginning of Time. By 2020, we will have scanned half the Galaxy and will either make First Contact or will know that we are even rarer and more precious than we already suspect. We have become really powerful. We even contemplate methods of terraforming Mars to make conditions more Earthlike. I have no doubt we are capable of drastically altering the Earth's climate, and that the result could be highly unpleasant.

This is a must-see about how the oil was formed and its relationship to nastier periods of the climate. Everything will fall in place when you watch this.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

jtabeb
10-11-09, 10:37 AM
Yes, it is possible there will be cooling. The Sun is a variable star. It has not had sunspots for an unusually long period, and its output has dropped about 0.1% There are many other variables, and the uncertainties are large, so I think it makes it impossible to calculate.

Instead, why not concentrate on the result and ask: Why is the arctic melting?

The carbon dioxide level is now as high as it has been in 15,000,000 years. Does that sound like a good idea?

If some factor changes and the planet does start to heat up, it will take centuries to bring the carbon dioxide level down.


A copy of one of my previous posts:

Hmm, while cows, and deforestation, and melting of permafrost in the arctic resulting in decreased albedo and methane release, and clouds, and many other things may be parts of the problem, I think it is undeniable that a huge amount of carbon that was previously sequestered underground as coal and oil has been and is being injected into the atmosphere by human activity and by highly accelerated deforestation.

When we think of the Earth, we think of it the way it has been over the last 10,000 years. But if you were to watch it from 4.5 billion years ago

Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

Starving Steve
10-11-09, 12:39 PM
Have fun with it but it would be really funny if at the peak of Gobal warming histeria after inacting Cap and Trade, Harsh regulations, Coordinated Global Legislation and a whole lot of misdirected government investments the Earth Cooled for the next 30 years. If it happens which I am not qualified to render an opinion on the science, or in a position to predict,it will go down as the biggest group think bubble in modern human history. But if we are in a period of 30 year cooling I would assume that has serious consequences for the price of fuel and down feathers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Isn't it interesting how everyone must think the same way, in one big group-think bubble? Why can't divergent or minority opinions be heard?

Why can't the media, especially BBC and FOX do some critical thinking and critical review of their own long-held views?

Back to the global warming thesis: So long as the world's sea-level atolls (sp?) are still above sea-level and doing just fine, everything is wonderful. There is no global warming, and the global warming models are obviously mis-calibrated.

c1ue
10-11-09, 03:14 PM
No one believed we could fish cod to near extinction, but we did. The entirety of the US was densely forested from New York to the Rocky Mountains, but it was all cut down or burned by humans. Pennsylvania used to supply all the oil, until it went empty. Texas used to supply all the oil until it went empty.

There are more people alive now than cod. Even 100 years ago, there were more than enough people that a few eating 100 cod a year would have caused a problem given that the relative lifespans weren't dissimilar (20 year max vs. 40 years average).

As for the US being densely forested - are you saying the Great Plains was forest? Secondly in the West there is probably more plant matter now than before due to the suppression of forest fires.

If you meant old growth forest on the East Coast, that is true but there are plenty of trees there now.

And what does the amount of oil in Pennsylvania and Texas have to due with global temperature?

All your arguments have been discussed in rant and rave before and all boil down to the same thing:

1) We don't know what's really happening
2) Enacting catastrophically expensive procedures to account for an unclear outcome is simply a variant of Pascal's Wager. If so, we should be doing a lot of other things 'just in case' like worshipping all the various deities, limiting population growth to zero, etc etc. I don't see any of these other propositions being expounded much.

Starving Steve
10-11-09, 07:24 PM
There are more people alive now than cod. Even 100 years ago, there were more than enough people that a few eating 100 cod a year would have caused a problem given that the relative lifespans weren't dissimilar (20 year max vs. 40 years average).

As for the US being densely forested - are you saying the Great Plains was forest? Secondly in the West there is probably more plant matter now than before due to the suppression of forest fires.

If you meant old growth forest on the East Coast, that is true but there are plenty of trees there now.

And what does the amount of oil in Pennsylvania and Texas have to due with global temperature?

All your arguments have been discussed in rant and rave before and all boil down to the same thing:

1) We don't know what's really happening
2) Enacting catastrophically expensive procedures to account for an unclear outcome is simply a variant of Pascal's Wager. If so, we should be doing a lot of other things 'just in case' like worshipping all the various deities, limiting population growth to zero, etc etc. I don't see any of these other propositions being expounded much.

Parts of California such as the Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley) and the Los Angeles Basin appear to have more trees now than ever before. Entire urban forests are now appearing and replacing desert scrub, especially in Southern California.

t12357
10-11-09, 11:10 PM
Shhh,

This will get "We are "peer review trumps reality" toast" upset again.

thousandmilemargin
10-12-09, 04:31 AM
When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

A 30 year sideways move within a 100 year upward trend raises the possibiity that the 100 year upward trend is itself part of a larger cycle.

Just like a ten year sideways move in stocks would make fools of people who believe that stocks can only go up, up and away.

The main point is that I didn't hear anyone saying in 1998 that we were about to go sideways for 30 years - it was all about temperatures soaring ever higher.

Now that the models have been shown to suffer from a "small" omission, people are claiming that they knew about this all along. So where was the IPCC graph showing a 30 year sideways move?

The obvious conclusion was that the models were crap, and are still crap.

Yes, I would expect to see a resumption of the dramatic upward trend in 2030 or thereabouts, when the PDO cycle turns. But I'm still waiting for the IPCC graph that shows us moving sideways until then. I don't expect this to get published until 2025.

It's hard to whip up hysteria when your projection is that the world will start getting warmer again ... in twenty years time.

I can't wait for the headlines in 2028 - "2027 was the 29th hottest year on record, planet DOOMED".

thousandmilemargin
10-12-09, 04:41 AM
1998 is the hottest year on record.

Bear in mind that our records don't go back very far. In 1850 there were only 70 weather stations in the entire world. "Global temperature" wasn't something that could be accurately measured prior to 1930.

So it's kind of like people who talk about "average stock returns" based on a graph that starts in 1982. You are only looking at part of a long cycle.

halcyon
10-12-09, 04:51 AM
Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

ROTFL!

A Classic!

This reminds me of a useful article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL).

Master Shake
10-12-09, 07:18 AM
1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.



Ah, the Big Lie. Not only is the "record" about 100 years, give or take, but even for that blip in geological time, it's not true.

Was 1998 the hottest year in United States history, as most reporting on climate change has presumed? Or was that record set back in 1934 before "global warming" became a scary household phrase?

A corrective tweak to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's formulation shows that the hottest year on record in the US indeed was back during the Dust Bowl days.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

Now, if you want to argue that anthropogenic global warming is still a concern, go ahead, but don't repeat disproven "facts."
<!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->

Ghent12
10-12-09, 07:19 AM
Bear in mind that our records don't go back very far. In 1850 there were only 70 weather stations in the entire world. "Global temperature" wasn't something that could be accurately measured prior to 1930.

So it's kind of like people who talk about "average stock returns" based on a graph that starts in 1982. You are only looking at part of a long cycle.
Yes; also current monitoring stations are in settings that significantly alter the results by +/- up to 5 degrees C. Setting the stations on concrete, near buildings, etc., can drastically skew the results.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

santafe2
10-13-09, 10:47 AM
Ah HA! Spotted the flaw in this analysis. IT PRESUMES that the earth more than 6,000 years old!:rolleyes:

I'm sure I have something marginally useful to say about this but I'll have to wait until I stop laughing.

touchring
10-13-09, 11:06 AM
When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.


the smog is blocking out the sun, therefore leading to cooling in urban areas. it's that simple. :D

bcassill
10-13-09, 12:06 PM
Parts of California such as the Santa Clara Valley (Silicon Valley) and the Los Angeles Basin appear to have more trees now than ever before. Entire urban forests are now appearing and replacing desert scrub, especially in Southern California.

I was watching a program on forest fires and they were interviewing the man in charge of all the federal fire fighters (I think they call them smoke jumpers). Anyhow, his prediction was that they are looking at losing about half of all the forested areas in the U.S. west of the Mississippi due to drier climate and the densification of forests.

c1ue
10-13-09, 12:50 PM
I was watching a program on forest fires and they were interviewing the man in charge of all the federal fire fighters (I think they call them smoke jumpers). Anyhow, his prediction was that they are looking at losing about half of all the forested areas in the U.S. west of the Mississippi due to drier climate and the densification of forests.

If I were an AGW believer, I'd be saying since this isn't peer reviewed it is irrelevant. And a firefighter isn't trained or dedicated to studying trees.

But as it is it would be interesting to understand the rationale for this belief.

Starving Steve
10-13-09, 01:31 PM
If I were an AGW believer, I'd be saying since this isn't peer reviewed it is irrelevant. And a firefighter isn't trained or dedicated to studying trees.

But as it is it would be interesting to understand the rationale for this belief.

Wherever I travel in the West of America, I am impressed at how well forests are doing, even with fire, and maybe even helped by fire.

There are small outcrops of forest ( in fact, old growth forest ) on the High Plains of North America. There are small enclaves (sp?) of redwood forest in central California, even southern California's Frazier Park north of Los Angeles, also in the San Bernadino Mountains, even in the Penninsular Range of southern California and the state of Baja California Norte.

Between Tijuana and Mexicali, guess what: small ponderosa pines, spaced far apart! Two inches of rainfall per year in Mexicali, BCN, never-the-less, small ponderosa pines appear, up on top of the mountain range west of the bleak salt-flats of the Mexicali Valley.

In the Upper Midwest, forests of old Norway pines are doing wonderfully, especially in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Ontario has over 1000 miles of solid forest from Lake Ontario straight through to the Manitoba border and beyond, and all the way north until the Hudson Bay Lowland.

The Kiabab Plateau of Arizona and New Mexico have old growth ponderosa pine above 7000 feet, albeit spaced far apart. The tops of the mountain ranges in the entire Great Basin region have old growth forest above 7000 feet.

There is no case to be made for the de-forestation crap coming from the ecology bunch to-day. The evidence is just the opposite: Forests are fine and doing well, at least in North America. Trees are everywhere, even in the arid West.:rolleyes:

Starving Steve
10-13-09, 04:59 PM
If I were an AGW believer, I'd be saying since this isn't peer reviewed it is irrelevant. And a firefighter isn't trained or dedicated to studying trees.

But as it is it would be interesting to understand the rationale for this belief.

Not only is the evidence lacking for de-forestation, but the evidence is just the opposite: the forests in the Western U.S. have become too thick, too dense, with so much over-growth and manzanita scrub that the forests are now in danger of uncontrollable fires. There is a need for fire-breaks and proper land management by mankind, which heretofore has been resisted by environmental groups.:rolleyes:

And even worse than this, drug gangs have used the over-growth of manzanita scrub as a way to hide their meth labs and pot-fields in forests. Some fires have broken-out by fires from illegal meth labs in forests, and some drug gangs have even set fires purposefully to cause havoc.

necron99
10-13-09, 10:44 PM
**Sigh** it's so futile to try and change political attitudes with facts, but Master Shake and WDCRob are not on the same page here. Being careful with our terminology might help.


Was 1998 the hottest year in United States history, as most reporting on climate change has presumed? Or was that record set back in 1934 before "global warming" became a scary household phrase?
A corrective tweak to National Aeronautics and Space Administration's formulation shows that the hottest year on record in the US indeed was back during the Dust Bowl days.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

[MASTER SHAKE] Now, if you want to argue that anthropogenic global warming is still a concern, go ahead, but don't repeat disproven "facts."OK, please let's take this slow. 1934 was proven to be the hottest year on record in the USA, as the CSMonitor article says. It turns out to be 0.02 degrees hotter than 1998, which is well within the margin of error of the study, so this is not a statistically significant change in the data. Here is a useful article explaining the measurement correction: RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)

The larger problem is that the US is not the globe. If you want to talk about "GLOBAL warming," then 1998 or 2005 was still the hottest year in terms of the global average (depending which study method you use).

Quoting NASA and the IPCC of course immediately marks me as a communist who wants to exterminate all mankind, but this is what the people who actually handle the data have to say:


(NASA (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)) Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. ...the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) {emphasis added} and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html)), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.
... "Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend.
(IPCC via U of Colorado (http://wwa.colorado.edu/climate_change/trendpro.html)) Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). {emphasis added} The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of +0.74°C is larger than the corresponding trend of +0.6°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes.These are my notes superimposed on a graph (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)from NASA and University of Colorado... Just to keep the readings in perspective here.


http://www.itulip.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=20&pictureid=123


...note that the above graph refers to GLOBAL mean temperature, not U.S. temperature.

Mathematical averages can be somewhat tricky things when we're talking about the whole globe: land and water, cities and forests and ice. But they can be done and they are meaningful. So, yes, every few years, somebody says that this record or that data set is off by two-hundredths of a degree. But that doesn't disprove the larger body of evidence. The vast majority of studies from satellite measurements, tree rings, ice cores, sea-bottom gases, and atmospheric isotope studies all support the theory of human-caused global warming (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/). Quibbling with a few hundredths of a degree in this or that data set does not cause us to throw out the entire theory. The theory is still predictive and leads us to the conclusion that we face drastic risks, most especially including economic risks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review), if mankind doesn't change our ways.

goadam1
10-13-09, 11:46 PM
Oh, good. Now that global warming is settled we can move on to myth busting mercury in the fish and dioxin in the rivers.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/archive/x398375673/g113000fbcbf1b1ac2a91dc05a8753ac15dd32a7df72c08.jp g

c1ue
10-14-09, 07:08 AM
Mathematical averages can be somewhat tricky things when we're talking about the whole globe: land and water, cities and forests and ice. But they can be done and they are meaningful. So, yes, every few years, somebody says that this record or that data set is off by two-hundredths of a degree. But that doesn't disprove the larger body of evidence. The vast majority of studies from satellite measurements, tree rings, ice cores, sea-bottom gases, and atmospheric isotope studies all support the theory of human-caused global warming (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/). Quibbling with a few hundredths of a degree in this or that data set does not cause us to throw out the entire theory. The theory is still predictive and leads us to the conclusion that we face drastic risks, most especially including economic risks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review), if mankind doesn't change our ways.

Ah yes, the famous hockey stick which has been thoroughly disproven, but still has a strong grip on the imagination.l

Well, here's another graph for you:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/cherry-pick_fig2.jpg

Strange, it seems that recent (last 10 years or last 17 years depending on POV), the trend is completely opposite to what the hockey stick says.

The above is a compendium of ALL the various data sources.

Even within the data sources, there are extensive projects underway to review the climate stations; it seems that due to urbanization, the monitoring stations on land are almost certainly giving higher temperature readings at least partly due to siting.

Even the IPCC 'scientists' like Latif have been backtracking and saying that cooling for the next 20 years is possible. Again, hockey stick WRONG.

Dr.No
10-14-09, 07:44 AM
When the stock market goes up, does it do it a little bit at a time? Or do you have some up days and some down? When the market is at all-time highs do you set a record every day? Or do you sometimes reach new highs, and fall back for a few weeks?

1998 is the hottest year on record. The years since haven't breached that high, but temperatures remain historically elevated.

You'd be wise to give someone trying to make the case that this proves cooling the same deference you'd give a TV 'stock analyst' who says that the Dow dropping a few tenths of a point off a new high for a few weeks proves that a bear market is in.

- Gold just broke $1062 on the 5 minute chart...must be a new bear market!

WDCRob
10-14-09, 12:58 PM
Ah, the Big Lie. Not only is the "record" about 100 years, give or take, but even for that blip in geological time, it's not true.

Did you actually read the article? Or just follow the link to the headline from Rush Limbaugh's site?


For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

The point about recent records and geologic time is an excellent one though. Fortunately there are other ways of recovering data from the past, and they support the observed findings.

Master Shake
10-14-09, 01:13 PM
Did you actually read the article? Or just follow the link to the headline from Rush Limbaugh's site?



The point about recent records and geologic time is an excellent one though. Fortunately there are other ways of recovering data from the past, and they support the observed findings.

No, I didn't find any link from Limbaugh. Is he your favorite bogeyman?

Speaking of the geological record, if you examine it, you'll find that we are still at an historically low concentration of CO2, regardless of all our fossil fuel burning.


<CENTER>Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time </CENTER>


<CENTER><TABLE height=425 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=550 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2 height=339>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2 height=85>Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
<CITE>Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm</CITE>
<CITE>CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III) </CITE>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/pdf_logo.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

Starving Steve
10-14-09, 01:32 PM
**Sigh** it's so futile to try and change political attitudes with facts, but Master Shake and WDCRob are not on the same page here. Being careful with our terminology might help.

OK, please let's take this slow. 1934 was proven to be the hottest year on record in the USA, as the CSMonitor article says. It turns out to be 0.02 degrees hotter than 1998, which is well within the margin of error of the study, so this is not a statistically significant change in the data. Here is a useful article explaining the measurement correction: RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)

The larger problem is that the US is not the globe. If you want to talk about "GLOBAL warming," then 1998 or 2005 was still the hottest year in terms of the global average (depending which study method you use).

Quoting NASA and the IPCC of course immediately marks me as a communist who wants to exterminate all mankind, but this is what the people who actually handle the data have to say:

These are my notes superimposed on a graph (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/)from NASA and University of Colorado... Just to keep the readings in perspective here.


http://www.itulip.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=20&pictureid=123


...note that the above graph refers to GLOBAL mean temperature, not U.S. temperature.

Mathematical averages can be somewhat tricky things when we're talking about the whole globe: land and water, cities and forests and ice. But they can be done and they are meaningful. So, yes, every few years, somebody says that this record or that data set is off by two-hundredths of a degree. But that doesn't disprove the larger body of evidence. The vast majority of studies from satellite measurements, tree rings, ice cores, sea-bottom gases, and atmospheric isotope studies all support the theory of human-caused global warming (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/). Quibbling with a few hundredths of a degree in this or that data set does not cause us to throw out the entire theory. The theory is still predictive and leads us to the conclusion that we face drastic risks, most especially including economic risks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review), if mankind doesn't change our ways.

Arguments AGAINST man-made global warming:

1.) All the atolls (sp?) of the world's oceans are still high and dry, and doing just fine, thank you;

2.) December 2008 was the third coldest on record at Victoria, BC, and all along the Pacific Coast of North America, December was very cold, to say the least. Summer 2009 in the North-east US was the second coldest on record. And early October in the U.S. has brought near record cold and snowfall in the upper Midwest, hurting the corn crop. Already Watsonville, California has recorded 41F (+5C) for a morning low, and temperatures inland in the Salinas Valley have been as low as 33F (+ 0.5C). Early October! The wettest October on record has also occurred in central California, and the month is not even half-over yet;

3.) The ignored fact of life that buildings, even unheated and uninhabited and unelectrified buildings, block heat from being radiated to outer space at night has biased nearly all climate records to show warming, especially low temperature warming;

4.) The Earth is still recovering from the Ice Age which ended just 10,000 years ago, so a warming mega-trend of about 1F (0.5C) is natural and has been happening for thousands of years; sea-level rise from this warming is about as measured: 6 or 7 inches per century;

5.) Climate models have a built-in tacit assumption that the relationship between CO2 and temperature on Earth is known. But no-one has any basis to quantify what affect CO2 has upon climate except to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many such gases on Earth. So using climate models to predict global warming is junk science, at best. ( Thus, the logic behind climate modelling is circular: the model(s) predict global warming because the models are mis-calibrated to prove global warming.)

Starving Steve
10-14-09, 02:19 PM
Arguments AGAINST man-made global warming:

1.) All the atolls (sp?) of the world's oceans are still high and dry, and doing just fine, thank you;

2.) December 2008 was the third coldest on record at Victoria, BC, and all along the Pacific Coast of North America, December was very cold, to say the least. Summer 2009 in the North-east US was the second coldest on record. And early October in the U.S. has brought near record cold and snowfall in the upper Midwest, hurting the corn crop. Already Watsonville, California has recorded 41F (+5C) for a morning low, and temperatures inland in the Salinas Valley have been as low as 33F (+ 0.5C). Early October! The wettest October on record has also occurred in central California, and the month is not even half-over yet;

3.) The ignored fact of life that buildings, even unheated and uninhabited and unelectrified buildings, block heat from being radiated to outer space at night has biased nearly all climate records to show warming, especially low temperature warming;

4.) The Earth is still recovering from the Ice Age which ended just 10,000 years ago, so a warming mega-trend of about 1F (0.5C) is natural and has been happening for thousands of years; sea-level rise from this warming is about as measured: 6 or 7 inches per century;

5.) Climate models have a built-in tacit assumption that the relationship between CO2 and temperature on Earth is known. But no-one has any basis to quantify what affect CO2 has upon climate except to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, one of many such gases on Earth. So using climate models to predict global warming is junk science, at best. ( Thus, the logic behind climate modelling is circular: the model(s) predict global warming because the models are mis-calibrated to prove global warming.)

6.) The modellers of climate change are benefiting from research grants from interests which benefit from model results supporting the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming thesis; similarly, studies which question the AGW thesis are suppressed and go unpublished. :rolleyes:

necron99
10-15-09, 02:06 AM
Ahhh, futility, futility...

6.) The modellers of climate change are benefiting from research grants from interests which benefit from model results supporting the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming thesis; similarly, studies which question the AGW thesis are suppressed and go unpublished. :rolleyes:

...but at least I can still enjoy a good laugh when somebody asserts that a few million dollars of grant money throw a whole branch of science into question, whereas trillions of dollars of fossil-fuel profits don't have any influence on the debate at all. (Geez, read the "Experts (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts)" page of the ICECAP site where c1ue got his graph, and you can just check-off all the people who've received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Western Fuels Association (Balling (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Balling), Baliunas (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_Baliunas)); Exxon (Idso (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso), Fred (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer) Singer (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Fred_Singer)); and on and on.) Although ICECAP doesn't disclose its funding, I see that the institutions where these guys worked while they produced the graph declared over $830,000 in funding from Western Fuels and Exxon, so it's just hilarious for Steve to say that 'skeptic' thesis "are suppressed and go unpublished." :rolleyes: Oh yeah your guys are just getting a well-deserved paycheck for making an honest living doing unbiased research; whereas our guys are sellouts who will say anything for a buck. Not a very objective line of argument there.

Any of my fellow iTulip-ers who might actually be approaching this subject with an open mind... ya just gotta make a decision who you trust:


a group who jumps on a 0.02°C change in America's temperature record as "de-bunking" the world's temperature, and who cite a 15-year graph as "de-bunking" 100 years of data;

or,

the actual, y'know, rocket scientists who work at NASA, JPL, National Academy of Sciences, and hundreds of other well-respected science institutions around the world. Whom I linked to.


I just hope that iTulip-ers pick their stocks with better data than these guys pick their scientists. Without a doubt Steve, Shake and C1ue really do pick their stocks with a lot better unbiased research than the way they argue Global Warming, so it honestly puzzles me how or more importantly why they assert these things.

Good night and good luck.

thousandmilemargin
10-15-09, 05:05 AM
.

...but at least I can still enjoy a good laugh when somebody asserts that a few million dollars of grant money throw a whole branch of science into question




It is quite possible for a whole branch of science to be sidetracked into dogma with out any significant financial incentive. All that is needed is the granting of career advancement to those who adhere to the party line.

Economics during the 20th century would be the obvious example. The Keynesians and Friedmanites managed to completely dominate academia. The Austrian school was marginalised to the point where it was functionally irrelevant - there was just the odd eccentric here and here who read Mises or Hayek, but it had no influence on public policy.

I'd say the same thing happened in Modern Art, modern orchestral music, psychology after Jung, critical theory, cultural studies and to a large extent history. The fields were captured by fashionable ideologies and took a left turn into whacko land.

I say a left turn, because in the Humanities in particular what happened was the successful capture of academia by Cultural Marxism.

In a past life I actually majored in Critical Theory. One of my main units was called "Western Marxism and Modern Cultural Theory". There wasn't any attempt to hide that fact that the humanities had been captured by Marxism - it was simply studied as a historical fact.

If a field of science has significant political implications, it should not be suprising if the same kind of ideological capture which was explicitly advocated as means of social progress by progressive activists from the 60s onward takes place in that field.

Let me put it another way completely....

If you go to a Catholic University, and ask the chair of the Theology department to draw up a summary of the consensus view amongst academics at the University on the nature of God, you will get a summary that adheres to the published doctrine of the Catholic Church, and there will be no dissenters or deniers.

Does that mean that all debate about the nature of God is settled? No, it means that you are dealing with an institution that has expelled all those who don't adhere to the established doctrine.

We haven't gone that far though. Richard Lindzen still holds a chair at MIT.

c1ue
10-15-09, 10:29 AM
...but at least I can still enjoy a good laugh when somebody asserts that a few million dollars of grant money throw a whole branch of science into question, whereas trillions of dollars of fossil-fuel profits don't have any influence on the debate at all. (Geez, read the "Experts (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts)" page of the ICECAP site where c1ue got his graph, and you can just check-off all the people who've received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Western Fuels Association (Balling (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Balling), Baliunas (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_Baliunas)); Exxon (Idso (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Idso), Fred (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fred_Singer) Singer (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:_Fred_Singer)); and on and on.) Although ICECAP doesn't disclose its funding, I see that the institutions where these guys worked while they produced the graph declared over $830,000 in funding from Western Fuels and Exxon, so it's just hilarious for Steve to say that 'skeptic' thesis "are suppressed and go unpublished." :rolleyes: Oh yeah your guys are just getting a well-deserved paycheck for making an honest living doing unbiased research; whereas our guys are sellouts who will say anything for a buck. Not a very objective line of argument there.

Let's follow the money shall we?

Federal money spent on climate research from 1989 to 2007: $30 billion

Oil money spent on fighting AGW by Exxon over the same period: $23 million

Al Gore: gets paid $100K to $300K per appearance. Has at least one a month. Al personally comes close to matching all the Exxon 'denier' money.


Any of my fellow iTulip-ers who might actually be approaching this subject with an open mind... ya just gotta make a decision who you trust:


a group who jumps on a 0.02°C change in America's temperature record as "de-bunking" the world's temperature, and who cite a 15-year graph as "de-bunking" 100 years of data;
Yes, must be cherry picked data like this paper examining the Hadley center's 20th century temperature trends:

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/CO2DrivenGlobalWarmingClimateRealists.pdf



Global cooling by 0.71 deg C from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.
Global warming by 0.53 deg C from 1911 to 1944, for 33 years.
Global cooling by 0.48 deg C from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.
Global warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998, for 22 years.


That looks like CO2 induced global warming all right. The 1944 to 1976 saw no CO2 growth - the US wasn't building the interstate highway system and Americans weren't buying cars left and right in the golden era of American prosperity.

Then there's the tragedy of the past 10 years. Seems like global warming is actually global cooling. Where's the yearly march of upward temperatures? Is it perhaps that the 'hockey stick' is too simplistic and wrong?



or,

the actual, y'know, rocket scientists who work at NASA, JPL, National Academy of Sciences, and hundreds of other well-respected science institutions around the world. Whom I linked to.


Yes, like these rocket scientists - err astronauts - who both say AGW is not true: Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmitt - both doctorates as well

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11254

What about the 31,000 scientists who've signed up to this statement:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)


There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

And the 80 members of the American Physical Society who've put their names on an open letter decrying the editorial AGW slant of their executive council:

http://conservativebusinessnetwork.c...ysical-society (http://conservativebusinessnetwork.c...ysical-society)

And the 19 members of the ACS who wrote letters decrying the editorial AGW slant of the ACS Council:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html)


I just hope that iTulip-ers pick their stocks with better data than these guys pick their scientists. Without a doubt Steve, Shake and C1ue really do pick their stocks with a lot better unbiased research than the way they argue Global Warming, so it honestly puzzles me how or more importantly why they assert these things.

Good night and good luck.

I'm honestly puzzled why the questions being raised are so difficult to dismiss?

Why there are so many scientists who are willing to go against 'settled science'? When there is so much more money on the 'settled' side?

Why AGW folk are so rabidly against other opinions to the point of excluding a polar bear researcher from a polar bear research conference because his global warming, but non-AGW views are 'not helpful'?

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/exile-for-non-believers/

I even posted a debate between a prominent denier and a prominent AGW proponent. Examine the quality of the AGW 'debate: in IPCC we trust, let's be safe, climate models are good.

Contemplate the difference between dogma and inquiry.

zilbo79
10-15-09, 04:50 PM
Hi,

Interesting.

So if we assume that Human-caused Climate Change is one big conspiracy and we should do nothing then what are the benefits of doing nothing? Would switching over to carbon-emission-free sources of energy be so expensive that it would cause a massive global depression?

But what if the scientists are right and that humans have the ability to negatively impact the global climate? Would doing nothing cause the collapse of nations and the death of millions?

We can't know with metaphysical certainty if human-caused climate change is true or not, but we can decide whether to act or to not act, right?


There are three reasons why I think acting to prevent further emission of greenhouse gases is the prudent course of action:

1. It's not fantastic to believe humans have the ability to impact the environment around them. If you've ever been to a third-world country, you will see the enormous amounts of pollution a typical third-world city makes. Go to Los Angeles, Mexico City, Manila, and a dozen other crowded cities and you will experience the choking smog created by the collective outputs of millions of vehicles. Humans are actually quite good at screwing up their environments (See: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond).

2. EVEN IF human-made climate change is false, and the scientists are wrong, it would be beneficial to invest in new
technologies to get us out of our dependence on expensive and foreign sources of energy, afterall, the wind and sun are free. The initial investment is expensive but it is likely that it will be beneficial over the long-term.

3. The failure to act is more costly than the failure to do nothing. Would I rather have my grandchildren experience a temporary great depression due to overinvestment or experience something worse due to a human-made global catastrophe? I know they are extreme causes but you have to prepare for extreme cases. That's why I have fire extinguishers in my house, why I buy accident insurance, why I buckle my seatbeat, and why I own gold -- better to have a margin of safety and to have taken active precautions than to be left unprepared.

Anyone have thoughts on why we shouldn't act and the consequences of not acting? Can anyone refute the logic of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Paul
Norridge, IL

metalman
10-15-09, 05:08 PM
i can't fathom how burning 77 million barrels of oil per day, tons of coal, etc, cannot pollute the thin 10k layer of troposphere that covers the earth.

c1ue
10-15-09, 05:46 PM
But what if the scientists are right and that humans have the ability to negatively impact the global climate? Would doing nothing cause the collapse of nations and the death of millions?


The problem with these what if scenarios is that you are assuming doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.

If, for example, we are presently in an interglacial period and are about to enter a glacial period, then global warming via whatever means is a good thing. Conversely though if AGW is false then pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is worthless for warming purposes.

Isn't it better to understand via proof?

Another example is where doing the wrong thing causes more problems than doing nothing.

DDT is an excellent example: while certainly many bald eagles and what not were likely saved by banning DDT in North America, millions more of men, women, and children likely died in Africa since the chemical companies were prohibited from manufacturing this cheap compound. While certainly DDT is a pollutant, it can be argued that the nuance free legislation pushed through by 'Silent Spring' inspired crowds was far more costly than an otherwise more careful approach.

The last example is that if we do everything based on unproven what if, then you are condoing all kinds of bizarre crap like

1) Illegal wiretapping: what if you catch a terrorist talking on his cell phone? Thus we should ignore civil liberties?

2) Preventative jailing for those genetically and/or sociologically prone to commit crime a la Minority Report

3) Fighting wars in countries because they might a) develop nuclear weapons b) sponsor terrorists - oh wait already doing that.


2. EVEN IF human-made climate change is false, and the scientists are wrong, it would be beneficial to invest in new
technologies to get us out of our dependence on expensive and foreign sources of energy, afterall, the wind and sun are free. The initial investment is expensive but it is likely that it will be beneficial over the long-term.


If the goal is reducing dependence on foreign energy - and I assume you also mean Canada and Mexico? - then money should be spent for that purpose. Creating artificial means of biasing energy use seems like an extremely inefficient and corruption prone process when direct subsidies of alternative energies are easily doable. If we can throw trillions of dollars on bank bailouts, I don't see why a few dozen billion for alternative energy isn't feasible.

For that matter, why don't we have a slogan of WAOFE (Wean America Off Foreign Energy)? Oh, perhaps because American leadership is too chicken to take on any large existing interests.


3. The failure to act is more costly than the failure to do nothing. Would I rather have my grandchildren experience a temporary great depression due to overinvestment or experience something worse due to a human-made global catastrophe? I know they are extreme causes but you have to prepare for extreme cases. That's why I have fire extinguishers in my house, why I buy accident insurance, why I buckle my seatbeat, and why I own gold -- better to have a margin of safety and to have taken active precautions than to be left unprepared.


Is it? As I've repeatedly pointed out - the catastrophic outcome forecast by the AGW crowd is not holding up well even in the short term. Are you certain the worst case will come to pass as well? Let's not forget that some of these same people like Stern and Professor Steven Schneider were prominent in the global cooling crowd in the 1970s. Which is it? Fire or Ice?

This isn't the same thing as the rape of American society by its government right now. There is no question whatsoever that the end of the path we are on as a nation will be a downward decline of the American standard of living. The only question is how fast.


i can't fathom how burning 77 million barrels of oil per day, tons of coal, etc, cannot pollute the thin 10k layer of troposphere that covers the earth.

Sure, there's never been a question that there is CO2 being released. Also water, soot, various nasty partially combusted combinations of carbon/oxygen/hydrogen/sulfur, etc.

Cows are farting off millions of tons of methane too.

But of course the point is that the earth is a closed system.

The CO2 was in the atmosphere at one time - past CO2 levels were actually far far higher than today or even what AGW people profess:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Note that CO2 levels were 7000 ppm in the early paleozoic era (compared to the 560 ppm scare level), bottoming out near our present historical level (200-300ppm), then rising again.

On the other hand the temperature graph is completely inconsistent with the CO2 levels - specifically how CO2 levels have been falling in the last 170 million years but temperatures only started to fall 30 million years ago.

Now don't get me wrong - I absolutely believe in at least trying to recycle, minimize energy usage, etc.

But that is far different than artificially managing conservation - even more if the focus is only on CO2.

If the goal is to minimize pollution, how about adding $3/gallon in taxes to gasoline?

$0.50/can recycling fee?

Why is CO2 the only culprit when even the proof for this is circumstantial?

thousandmilemargin
10-15-09, 07:10 PM
Hi,

So if we assume that Human-caused Climate Change is one big conspiracy and we should do nothing then what are the benefits of doing nothing? Would switching over to carbon-emission-free sources of energy be so expensive that it would cause a massive global depression?


It's not a conspiracy, its a mania. One of those periodic self-organising infections of delusion that affect the human race from time to time.
.........
People who are skeptical about AGW aren't necessarily fans of coal and oil.

I'm quite happy to see trillions spent on programs to replace all coal power stations with 4th generation nuclear stations, make EVs the standard form of motor vehicle, and increase solar power usage. I'm also a big fan of double glazing and insulation.

That's progress, as far as I'm concerned.

Painting all skeptics as pawns of the fossil fuel industries is just a smear tactic.

jacobdcoates
10-15-09, 07:31 PM
Personally I find the AGW illogical at this point. The AGW supporters say that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase and increasing CO2 cause the global temperatures to increase faster, hence we must cut global CO2 emissions.

Lets say we accept the thesis that CO2 is the main/only cause of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not gone down or remained steady YoY for anytime in the last ~100 years. Yet we know as an empirical fact that global temperatures have declined in the last 10 years. To summarize we've have increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures for the last 10 years. This would seem to be an immediate violation of causality, if one accepts that AGW thesis above is true. There is a cause but no effect. Actually it is worse, because we've had an increasing cause(CO2) and the opposite effect(decreasing temp) for the last 10 years. It would be like you dropped a hammer, but it did not fall and not only did it not fall it floated up and then declare with a righteous certainty that gravity works as it always has.

Here comes the real nut of the problem. If one declares that the temperatures readings are false and do not accept them as valid, then there is immediately no evidence that there is global warming or cooling, because one would be denying the accuracy of the very instruments that purportedly show that there is global warming or the temperature of the earth at all. OR one cannot accept the AGW as true and then there is no problem.


Just my rant on another new religion trying to get converts. Although it is better in one respect to the old religions. When the old religions started to have some power they said " convert or die". This new religion has some power now and says " convert or the world will end.". As least there not killing people, yet.

metalman
10-15-09, 09:04 PM
how about a oil floating tariff that keeps oil at $200? use the $$$ revenue to finance projects to reduce energy consumption?

zilbo79
10-15-09, 09:11 PM
The problem with these what if scenarios is that you are assuming doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid, that is obvious. It would have been clearer to say: to prevent man-made climate destabilization caused by pollution, we should focus on conservation and transitioning into renewable energy. And, even if man-made climate destabilization is false, conservation and renewable energy is a good thing.


If, for example, we are presently in an interglacial period and are about to enter a glacial period, then global warming via whatever means is a good thing. Conversely though if AGW is false then pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is worthless for warming purposes. I am glad you brought this up. These two scenarios you just described are scenarios whereby doing nothing leads to good (or not bad) consequences. The following table shows the choices we can make and their possible results:

http://i35.tinypic.com/2lrpfm.jpg
The first row means that man-made climate destabilization is false. Your scenarios of interglacial cooling and false AGW fall into this row. And doing nothing would be the second column of that row - a nice smiley face. But doing nothing, even if were 10% true, could lead to disaster. I don't want to play Russian roulette with my grandchildren's future.



The last example is that if we do everything based on unproven what if, then you are condoning all kinds of bizarre crap like

1) Illegal wiretapping: what if you catch a terrorist talking on his cell phone? Thus we should ignore civil liberties?

2) Preventative jailing for those genetically and/or sociologically prone to commit crime a la Minority Report

3) Fighting wars in countries because they might a) develop nuclear weapons b) sponsor terrorists - oh wait already doing thatI actually agree with the above steps taken. BTW, we have police that make arrests because they have probable cause to do so without having 100% complete information but they do it to err on the side of caution and to protect the overall society. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

As to your DDT example, what harmful consequences do you think will happen from people conserving energy, recycling, and using renewable energy?


Creating artificial means of biasing energy use seems like an extremely inefficient and corruption prone process when direct subsidies of alternative energies are easily doable. If we can throw trillions of dollars on bank bailouts, I don't see why a few dozen billion for alternative energy isn't feasible.

For that matter, why don't we have a slogan of WAOFE (Wean America Off Foreign Energy)? Oh, perhaps because American leadership is too chicken to take on any large existing interests.Agreed. I'm not arguing that our legislators are competent, I'm advocating conservation and renewable energy.


This isn't the same thing as the rape of American society by its government right now. There is no question whatsoever that the end of the path we are on as a nation will be a downward decline of the American standard of living. The only question is how fast.I agree about the rape of America. But I can always move the family to New Zealand or Australia. Why do you think I am buying gold? ;)

Why not kill two birds with one stone? We remove the American oligarchs and cancel/reduce private debts then use the otherwise-wasted economic rents to invest in a alternative energy economy. Any logical way you look at it, there's no reason to continue the status quo.

Starving Steve
10-15-09, 09:13 PM
Personally I find the AGW illogical at this point. The AGW supporters say that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase and increasing CO2 cause the global temperatures to increase faster, hence we must cut global CO2 emissions.

Lets say we accept the thesis that CO2 is the main/only cause of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not gone down or remained steady YoY for anytime in the last ~100 years. Yet we know as an empirical fact that global temperatures have declined in the last 10 years. To summarize we've have increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures for the last 10 years. This would seem to be an immediate violation of causality, if one accepts that AGW thesis above is true. There is a cause but no effect. Actually it is worse, because we've had an increasing cause(CO2) and the opposite effect(decreasing temp) for the last 10 years. It would be like you dropped a hammer, but it did not fall and not only did it not fall it floated up and then declare with a righteous certainty that gravity works as it always has.

Here comes the real nut of the problem. If one declares that the temperatures readings are false and do not accept them as valid, then there is immediately no evidence that there is global warming or cooling, because one would be denying the accuracy of the very instruments that purportedly show that there is global warming or the temperature of the earth at all. OR one cannot accept the AGW as true and then there is no problem.


Just my rant on another new religion trying to get converts. Although it is better in one respect to the old religions. When the old religions started to have some power they said " convert or die". This new religion has some power now and says " convert or the world will end.". As least there not killing people, yet.

Once again my rant: On any such clear, calm, and dry night at Minneapolis-St.Paul (or any other similar city on flat ground, away from major water bodies) one can observe a 40F (approx. 24C) drop in temperature between the downtown core and the distant rural fringe of the city. The drop in temperature is step-like, directly co-relating to the height of structures. Thus, most of the drop in temperature occurs at the edge of the downtown core, and the rest of the drop in temperature occurs at the very limit of urban development.

The implication is rather clear: buildings reflect heat back to the street and blanket the city. This is not so much warming of the Earth as just a local effect around cities.

But the implication in climatology is quite important: This implies that buildings greatly affect temperature, including the temperatures observed at the world's climate stations. Even at airports, small additions or modifications to the airport greatly affect the airport's temperature readings. So historical temperature records can not be compared to current temperature records, at least not records taken near cities and even airports.

Finally, the global warming debate is over whether the Earth has warmed maybe 1C, at most, from CO2. But the effect of urban development can be as much as 24C, at night, the latter due just to blanketing climate stations from radiating heat at night to the sky, and not at all due to global warming or climate change of any type.

My masters' thesis at the University of Minnesota in climatology was unpublished, and decades later, I am beginning to understand why that was. Probably re-submitting the thesis for publication to-day would be futile too.:rolleyes:

metalman
10-15-09, 09:20 PM
My masters' thesis at the University of Minnesota in climatology was unpublished, and decades later, I am beginning to understand why that was. Probably re-submitting the thesis for publication to-day would be futile too.:rolleyes:

i wish you'd resubmit it and publish your travails here. who knows? maybe we'll read about you in the nytimes some day?

btw, in case you didn't hear, stalin's taken another hit...


Stalin’s Grandson Loses Defamation Suit (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/stalins-grandson-loses-defamation-suit/?hp)

On Tuesday in Moscow, a court ruled against Joseph Stalin’s grandson, Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, who had demanded a retraction, a public apology and $340,000 in damages from the newspaper Novaya Gazeta for supposedly besmirching his family’s reputation by calling his grandfather a “bloodthirsty cannibal.”

Starving Steve
10-15-09, 11:03 PM
i wish you'd resubmit it and publish your travails here. who knows? maybe we'll read about you in the nytimes some day?

btw, in case you didn't hear, stalin's taken another hit...

Not to offend Raz, but the Sword of Honour, officially known as the Sword of Stalingrad, was presented to Joseph Stalin for the people of Stalingrad. The presentation was authorized by H.M. King George VI. Sir Winston Churchill and U.S. President, Franklin Roosevelt presented the Sword to Stalin on Nov 29, 1943 at the Tehran Conference.

Joseph Stalin, Soviet foreign minister Molotov, and Marshall Zuchov, Commander of the Red Army then directed the Red Army to liberate all of Eastern Europe from the Nazis. Warsaw was liberated in August 1944. Auchwitz was liberated on Jan 15, 1945, and Berlin was liberated April 29th, 1945 when Hitler shot himself. VE Day was May 1st and May 2nd, 1945. For two days, people danced in the streets of every city of Europe, and from every steeple of Europe, church bells rang-out in celebration.

Since those glorious days, Stalin died of a brain hemmorage in 1950. Churchill died in 1965 and was given honourary American citizenship. His body lied-in-state under the Dome of the U.S. Capitol.

Starving Steve's masters' thesis in climatology went un-published in 1971, and a Russian court in recent days ruled against Stalin's grandson in a defamation law-suit launched in defence of Joseph Stalin's memory.

Worse yet, Arminishod, the world's new Hitler in Tehran, says that the Holocaust was a hoax. And worst of all, the British Govn't this year allowed a rogue Scottish judge to free the Lockarbie bomber of Pan Am Flight 103 and send him home to Libya --- home to a hero's welcome.

santafe2
10-16-09, 12:18 AM
http://i35.tinypic.com/2lrpfm.jpg


Welcome to iTulip but I disagree with your argument as stated.


In the upper left, case A we've allotted our funds to AGW and it's not proven to be a problem. In that case, like all wars, no depression, just money spent and new technology earned. There will be a fantastic post war economic cycle as we reap the rewards of our efforts without a lot of dead people.
Moving to the right, Case B, we're screwed because we've mal-invested trillions in our old school technologies and fossil energy driven economy. That's an end game.

Half time report: Move the happy face to the left and add an XX face on the upper right.


Lower left, Case C. We're screwed. We're not extinct but we're so far over the top already, most won't survive. There is little difference between B and C, just different problems. I'm surprised that most folks that understand where we're heading are so apologetic. There's no happy endings with B or C.
Case D: It's much worse than that. The stupidity of gambling against the earth is revealed but it's way too late.

The only good outcome is that the deniers are correct but the AGW crowd, (count me in), wins out. All other outcomes are negative.

santafe2
10-16-09, 12:36 AM
Then there's the tragedy of the past 10 years. Seems like global warming is actually global cooling. Where's the yearly march of upward temperatures?

I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

jiimbergin
10-16-09, 06:17 AM
I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

You give no justification for your belief. Obviously you believe the models that have failed to predict anything correctly yet. You do not reply to any of the arguments made by the deniers. Well I am sure you are wrong:D

c1ue
10-16-09, 08:42 AM
Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid, that is obvious. It would have been clearer to say: to prevent man-made climate destabilization caused by pollution, we should focus on conservation and transitioning into renewable energy. And, even if man-made climate destabilization is false, conservation and renewable energy is a good thing.

Unfortunately if all that was being asked was conservation and researching better energy sources, that'd be fine as a relatively harmless safety measure.

Instead what is on the plate is an entirely new bureaucracy and tax system. Again, those who advocate radical change must present a clear and present need for doing so.

What-if is not such a situation.

If you believe in what-if, then you should all immediately pay me $10000 dollars each. Because I am god, and will punish your children and grandchildren for your not doing so in 20 years.

http://anninateatime.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/vred-gud-angry-god-tokyo-national-museum.jpg


The first row means that man-made climate destabilization is false. Your scenarios of interglacial cooling and false AGW fall into this row. And doing nothing would be the second column of that row - a nice smiley face. But doing nothing, even if were 10% true, could lead to disaster. I don't want to play Russian roulette with my grandchildren's future.



I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

Again, you both try to invoke Pascal's Wager. And again, are you a practicing Catholic? Buddhist? Muslim? Those are all exactly the same situation: unproven and unprovable but with catastrophic consequences if wrong (not a believer).

Unlike religion, however, science can progress. Why not spend the effort and some time to do so?


When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

That's funny, Hansen's original graph said we'd already be accelerating on the temperature curve.

Now the thesis is global warming will restart in 10 years - 20 years after his hockey stick. Maybe that's why Gore has switched from global warming to climate change?

At what point do you start questioning the AGW panic thesis?

At what point do you at least consider that the science is *not* settled?

But as I've noted before:


It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

santafe2
10-16-09, 01:15 PM
You give no justification for your belief. Obviously you believe the models that have failed to predict anything correctly yet. You do not reply to any of the arguments made by the deniers. Well I am sure you are wrong:D

Unlike politically motivated denial stances...;), 390 PPM CO2 concentration is not a belief, it's an unfortunate fact. Next year 400 PPM will be a new, and yet more unfortunate fact. Then 450, then 500 PPM and on and on. Possibly deniers have a CO2 concentration they're uncomfortable with...1000 PPM, maybe 20,000 PPM where humans become confused and disoriented....hum...maybe deniers like breathing into a paper bag?...:D

All joking aside, there is a CO2 concentration that will create a tipping point. My peps think it's 350, your peps don't have a number as far as I know.

c1ue
10-16-09, 02:37 PM
All joking aside, there is a CO2 concentration that will create a tipping point.

I've already posted the historical CO2 vs. temperature record.

There is no evidence there whatsoever of a tipping point at 390 ppm or even at 560 ppm.

Here it is yet again.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

If anything, there is a tipping point at 4000 ppm (downward). Another at 2000 ppm (downward).

But rather the temperature and CO2 levels seem randomly correlated if anything.

Again, the burden of proof is on those advocating radical action.

MulaMan
10-16-09, 02:51 PM
Again, the burden of proof is on those advocating radical action.

Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

c1ue
10-16-09, 03:02 PM
Oh, by the way, I should mention that there was an Ice Age at the end of the Ordovician period when CO2 levels were 4000ppm - or 10 times what you're calling a trigger point.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm


http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Images/ord04b.gifThe Ordovician Period is the second period of the Paleozoic Era. This important period saw the origin and rapid evolution of many new types (http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Paleozoic3.html#Life) of invertebrate animals which replaced their Cambrian predecessors. Primitive plants move onto land, until then totally barren. The supercontinent of Gondwana drifted over the south pole, initiating a great Ice Age that gripped the earth at this time. The end of the period is marked by an extinction event.

If CO2 is such a big factor - there should not have been any ice, anywhere, anyhow with CO2 so high. The earth should have been a scorched ball similar to Venus.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Venus/atmosphere.html


Earth Venus
N<SUB>2</SUB> 0.79 2
O<SUB>2</SUB> 0.20 < 0.001
Ar 0.01 0.005
CO<SUB>2</SUB> 0.0003 64
H<SUB>2</SUB>O ~ 0.02 0.003

Total 1.00 66

--------------------------
H<SUB>2</SUB>O 3 km 0.5 mm


Oh, there's 213,000 times as much CO2 on earth per unit as Venus.


Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

Yes, you too can pay me $10000 or I will curse your kids and grandkids.

And you too can perhaps read the thread to understand what was actually said as opposed to your anti-Fox news-tinted glasses.

For the record I don't watch ANY TV - Fox, CNN or otherwise. It is all crap.

And I have no issue with cutting subsidies for energy or putting a gas tax if the true goal is reducing dependence on foreign oil.

But the financial consequences of these are far better understood by everyday people unlike the 'cap and trade'.

jneal3
10-16-09, 04:08 PM
As I'm newly-attuned to this debate (curses!), I think a paraphrase of an iTulip gem is in order:


It's almost worth The Global Warming Debate to learn how little our big men know.

Aren't we living with the consequences of the assurances of our 'big men' right now? If we've learned anything, isn't constant questioning of our beliefs and leaders more important than ever right now?

I'm definitely not fluent in the details of both sides, but I know when to go on the offensive, and it's when curious people reasonably point out discrepancies and are told to sit down and shut up.

santafe2
10-16-09, 05:21 PM
Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

c1ue is unrelenting but hardly without intellect. That said, I think you're correct. Until Exxon, et. al. can find a way to make a buck off AGM they will continue to play their role as the cigarette companies of the 21st century - Our research shows there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer. It's just a modern update - There's no link between heightened CO2 and global warming because there is no global warming...:rolleyes:


Oh, by the way, I should mention that there was an Ice Age at the end of the Ordovician period when CO2 levels were 4000ppm - or 10 times what you're calling a trigger point.


The supercontinent of Gondwana drifted over the south pole, initiating a great Ice Age that gripped the earth at this time. The end of the period is marked by an extinction event.Oh great! Can't wait for the extinction event.


If CO2 is such a big factor - there should not have been any ice, anywhere, anyhow with CO2 so high. The earth should have been a scorched ball similar to Venus.
We know from recent human stupidity, (CFCs, another corporate gift), that a lack of ozone can cause higher winds that have a cooling effect. But to compare the earth 500 million years ago to the modern world is only useful in that you may get someone to take the bait and get themselves tangled in a fruitless argument.


But the financial consequences of these are far better understood by everyday people unlike the 'cap and trade'.We're getting cap and trade because that's what your boys at Exxon want. We want a straight carbon tax - You produce CO2, you pay a tax on it. A carbon tax would have the effect of moving us away from polluting fossil fuel and funding research into less harmful energy sources.

jiimbergin
10-16-09, 05:37 PM
c1ue is unrelenting but hardly without intellect. That said, I think you're correct. Until Exxon, et. al. can find a way to make a buck off AGM they will continue to play their role as the cigarette companies of the 21st century - Our research shows there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer. It's just a modern update - There's no link between heightened CO2 and global warming because there is no global warming...:rolleyes:



Oh great! Can't wait for the extinction event.

We know from recent human stupidity, (CFCs, another corporate gift), that a lack of ozone can cause higher winds that have a cooling effect. But to compare the earth 500 million years ago to the modern world is only useful in that you may get someone to take the bait and get themselves tangled in a fruitless argument.

We're getting cap and trade because that's what your boys at Exxon want. We want a straight carbon tax - You produce CO2, you pay a tax on it. A carbon tax would have the effect of moving us away from polluting fossil fuel and funding research into less harmful energy sources.

Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science. :D

santafe2
10-16-09, 05:43 PM
I'm definitely not fluent in the details of both sides, but I know when to go on the offensive, and it's when curious people reasonably point out discrepancies and are told to sit down and shut up.

You'll find a great amount of information in the half dozen or more long debates on melting glaciers, (or lack there of) and AGM, (or lack there of), on iTulip, (I think some are in Select News so you might have to join to see them). No one here will tell you "to sit down and shut up" unless you go way, way off topic...or...you defend Al Gore's Nobel Prize...:D

santafe2
10-16-09, 06:08 PM
Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science. :D

Global warming, especially AGW, is a debate fraught with problems, not the least of which is geologic time scale. And you're right, I've not taken the time to respond in depth on this thread. I'm just too busy with work to take the time. This, of course, does not mean you guys are correct...:D

c1ue
10-16-09, 06:09 PM
Again, the 'oil companies are evil' thread.

How many times must I repeat: "Follow the money"

Exxon spending on 'deniers': $23 million

Federal spending on global warming research: $30 billion - including the all the American leaders of AGW: Hansen et al.

Al Gore as a conduit for believer's donations: From $2M net worth in 2000 to an estimated $100M net worth in 2008

http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/following-the-big-green-money-trail-part-2/

So, cui bono?

Starving Steve
10-16-09, 07:33 PM
Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science. :D

Just for general information here, the CO2 content of Venus is 965,000 parts per million (96.5%). One might infer that the hellish temperatures on Venus are partly due to its high CO2 and also its closer location to the Sun than Earth.

Meanwhile, the public on Earth is alarmed by CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere at 500 parts per million (0.05%). The debate about anthropogenic global warming has to do with whether an increase from 0.035 % CO2 in 1940 to now something around 0.05% has any impact upon global climate. So the debate is about 0.015% additional CO2 over more than half-a-century..... I would call that debate ridiculous.

Of all the darn things to worry about ( hunger, disease, water shortages, inflation, energy costs, war, population growth, poverty, terrorism, etc. ) this has to be the most ridiculous worry I have ever seen in my life.... Yet, Al Gore won a nobel prize alarming the world about CO2 in the atmosphere!:rolleyes:

Now anthropogenic global warming is determined by governments to be "a settled issue", and cap-'n-trade legislation has been enacted in many countries. How ridiculous can this get? And no mind that CO2 is a natural gas on Earth, and CO2 is used by plants to live on this planet; without CO2, plants perish.

What one has to ask: What are teachers teaching in public schools if the public is this dumb and can not reason this silly issue out? Even in colleges, the students can not reason this issue out? 0.015% over 60 years is a darn small increase in CO2 in absolute terms, not to mention that CO2 is required for most life on Earth.

MulaMan
10-16-09, 07:38 PM
Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.

What has Al Gore's now inventing "Global Warming" got to do with the science behind global warming? More Fox News retardation. Are you people really that dumb?

The science behind global warming is simple and correct. People like Al Gore and Fox News retards making predications on how the climate with shift or not is just speculation.

It is no different then the anti-Evolution retards. A new fossil gets discovered and the Christian fundamentalist radicals claim it disproves the science behind evolution.

If you actually think there is no global warming then how about sell everthing you own and purchase water front property in the Maldives. Post the property title on here once you've done it so we can track your purchase on Google Earth.

because it will soon be underwater - you could make a fortune!

jiimbergin
10-16-09, 07:43 PM
Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.

What has Al Gore's now inventing "Clean Tech" got to do with global warming? More Fox News retardation. Are you people really that dumb?

If the actually think there is no global warming then how about sell everthing you own and purchase water front property in the Maldives.

It is going cheep because it will soon be underwater - you could make a fortune!

You really don't know Al Gore's history with global warming???:confused: You need to read some more. http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255736567&sr=8-2:D

Diarmuid
10-16-09, 08:27 PM
Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.


Are you serious?:rolleyes::confused: I had not heard that one before, Al gore or his PR machine is taking credit for the internet, plausible deniability, I suppose like the war justification of Al Queda links to Iraq. I did not say it, have no idea how that rumor got started, but hey if helped bolster my credibility and my position, great.

Or do you believe the Al Queda piece of nonsense too? - no one person is responsible for the internet - and I would say least of Al Gore, in case your comment was not sarcasm, here is a brief article trying to trace the development of the internet.

http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html

Guess what you are being lied to ALL the time - it is one of the great challenges we face as a society, when our information sources have become this polluted - people do not know where to turn for reliable information - hence the constant debates, regarding the economy, AGW etc. and more and more people turning to alternative information sources, many of which are as bad or worse then the crap in the MSM when fraud becomes systemically embedded in societal structures, as one poster put it, Rome burns.

jiimbergin
10-16-09, 08:31 PM
Are you serious?:rolleyes::confused: I had not heard that one before, Al gore or his PR machine is taking credit for the internet, plausible deniability I suppose like the Bush Al Queda links to Iraq. I did not say it, have no idea how that rumor got started, but hey if helped bolster my credibility and my position, great.

Or do you believe the Al Queda piece of nonsense too? - no one person is responsible for the internet - and I would say least of Al Gore, in case your comment was not sarcasm, here is a brief article trying to trace the development of the internet.

http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html

Guess what you are being lied to ALL the time - it is one of the great challenges we face as a society, when our information sources have become this polluted - people do not know where to turn for reliable information - hence the constant debates, regarding the economy, AGW etc. and more and more people turning to alternative information sources, many of which are as bad or worse then the crap in the MSM when fraud becomes systemically embedded in societal structures, as one poster put it, Rome burns.

The actual quote in 1999 is "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

here is a link http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/goreinternet.htm

Starving Steve
10-16-09, 10:48 PM
Just for general information here, the CO2 content of Venus is 965,000 parts per million (96.5%). One might infer that the hellish temperatures on Venus are partly due to its high CO2 and also its closer location to the Sun than Earth.

Meanwhile, the public on Earth is alarmed by CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere at 500 parts per million (0.05%). The debate about anthropogenic global warming has to do with whether an increase from 0.035 % CO2 in 1940 to now something around 0.05% has any impact upon global climate. So the debate is about 0.015% additional CO2 over more than half-a-century..... I would call that debate ridiculous.

Of all the darn things to worry about ( hunger, disease, water shortages, inflation, energy costs, war, population growth, poverty, terrorism, etc. ) this has to be the most ridiculous worry I have ever seen in my life.... Yet, Al Gore won a nobel prize alarming the world about CO2 in the atmosphere!:rolleyes:

Now anthropogenic global warming is determined by governments to be "a settled issue", and cap-'n-trade legislation has been enacted in many countries. How ridiculous can this get? And no mind that CO2 is a natural gas on Earth, and CO2 is used by plants to live on this planet; without CO2, plants would perish.

What one has to ask: What are teachers teaching in public schools if the public is this dumb and can not reason this silly issue out? Even in colleges, the students can not reason this issue out; why is that? The numbers really do speak for themselves: 0.015% over 60 years is a darn small increase in CO2 in absolute terms, not to mention that CO2 is required for most life on Earth.

Oh yes, the hockey-stick possibility: Temps could go off and do the hockey-stick thingy...... But they don't. And Earth had much higher CO2 levels in its past complete with Ice Ages. CO2 does NOT have a hockey-stick thingy on this planet at anywhere near its current concentration in the atmosphere.

Finally, for the children here who might be reading this, an increase in CO2 to 0.05% from 0.035% in 1940 does represent a large percentage increase (43%). But the significance is near zero--- just as having a penny in your pocket and finding another penny on the ground would add 100% to your pocket change. (In percentage terms, you have done well indeed, but your actual gain is just one cent.)

santafe2
10-17-09, 12:25 AM
Again, the 'oil companies are evil' thread.

That's your characterization of course. If someone criticizes your boys at Exxon because they'll do anything to maintain their turf, we're calling them "evil". Hardly. We're calling them self serving and too loosely regulated but no criticism is allowed.


Federal spending on global warming research: $30 billion - including the all the American leaders of AGW: Hansen et al.Amuse me with the details. Sorry to be so flippant, but the number is ridiculous.

c1ue
10-17-09, 11:31 AM
Amuse me with the details. Sorry to be so flippant, but the number is ridiculous.

First the $30B I mentioned: (actual spending $79B)

Official report to Congress of the US Climate Science program

http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf


Since 1989, the annual report,Our Changing Planet, has been submitted to Congress by the Federal agencies charged with coordinated research on global environmental change.

2327

Another part of the $79B: more than $25B for the Climate Change Technology Program, the National Climate Change Technology Initiative, the Energy Tax Provisions that may reduce Greenhouse Gases since 2003.

Yes, that Bush, such an oil company stooge yet passed so much Climate Change spending...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf

2329

I won't bother going further, you can examine the rest of the data yourself:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

2330

Now that you see this - and I hope you don't dispute the government's own publications - then you might understand better that Al Gore wasn't spearheading a new movement. He was monetizing it.

santafe2
10-17-09, 02:20 PM
First the $30B I mentioned: (actual spending $79B)

Ah, you're talking about actual spending over the last 20 years. That makes sense. Both your numbers are in line with mine. Unfortunately, it's a drop in the bucket, about $6 per US citizen per year. I'd be happy to pay $12 so you don't have to pay c1ue.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...mate_money.pdf (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf)Mmmm...The Third Viscount Lord Monckton of Brenchley again...let's just cozy up to big oil. And the site founder, Ferguson came out of right wing politics and Frontiers for Freedom, a big oil funded climate change denier group.

Starving Steve
10-17-09, 02:28 PM
Hi,

Interesting.

So if we assume that Human-caused Climate Change is one big conspiracy and we should do nothing then what are the benefits of doing nothing? Would switching over to carbon-emission-free sources of energy be so expensive that it would cause a massive global depression?

But what if the scientists are right and that humans have the ability to negatively impact the global climate? Would doing nothing cause the collapse of nations and the death of millions?

We can't know with metaphysical certainty if human-caused climate change is true or not, but we can decide whether to act or to not act, right?


There are three reasons why I think acting to prevent further emission of greenhouse gases is the prudent course of action:

1. It's not fantastic to believe humans have the ability to impact the environment around them. If you've ever been to a third-world country, you will see the enormous amounts of pollution a typical third-world city makes. Go to Los Angeles, Mexico City, Manila, and a dozen other crowded cities and you will experience the choking smog created by the collective outputs of millions of vehicles. Humans are actually quite good at screwing up their environments (See: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond).

2. EVEN IF human-made climate change is false, and the scientists are wrong, it would be beneficial to invest in new
technologies to get us out of our dependence on expensive and foreign sources of energy, afterall, the wind and sun are free. The initial investment is expensive but it is likely that it will be beneficial over the long-term.

3. The failure to act is more costly than the failure to do nothing. Would I rather have my grandchildren experience a temporary great depression due to overinvestment or experience something worse due to a human-made global catastrophe? I know they are extreme causes but you have to prepare for extreme cases. That's why I have fire extinguishers in my house, why I buy accident insurance, why I buckle my seatbeat, and why I own gold -- better to have a margin of safety and to have taken active precautions than to be left unprepared.

Anyone have thoughts on why we shouldn't act and the consequences of not acting? Can anyone refute the logic of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Paul
Norridge, IL

There is no choking smog now in the Los Angeles Basin, at least when brush fires are not raging in the adjacent hills. The old smell of gasoline vapours in the air in California is a distant memory from the 1950s. Cars burn clean, almost so clean that actual water is emitted from car tail-pipes.

Pollution from fossil fuels is mostly an issue long past. Even coal burns clean in power plants with scrubbers for particulates.

The issue to-day is where is the world going to get its fuels for the future, and more importantly, what are these fuels going to cost?

For the next two hundred years, heavy oil is available and plentiful for up-grading into light oil, diesel fuel, and gasoline. The main source of heavy oil is Alberta--- hardly a terrorist state.

Atomic power is available and plentiful if only eco-nuts would allow atomic power plants to be built in America. There is plenty of uranium to be harvested from atomic weapons which can be converted to uranium fuel in for the fuel-rods of atomic power plants. One source of uranium fuel to be taken from atomic weapons would be the Rocky Mountain Weapons Arsenal in Boulder, Colorado.

We also have plentiful natural gas reserves in America, and these reserves can be harvested for fuel for power-plants and also for use in vehicles. Coal is also plentiful, especially lignite coal in North Dakota.

And the U.S. can build more hydro-electric dams, especially in the West. For example, the Eel River of California can now be dammed, and hydro-electric power could be produced and sent southward to SF and LA.

We can solve America's addiction to foreign oil from terrorist states like Iran and Lybia. But we have to get-on with a plan that is realistic and without regard to demands and lawsuits from extremist environmental groups.

If I were President Obama, I would sign an executive order from the White House which would mandate the building of hydro-electric dams, atomic power, importation of Alberta up-graded oil, the mining of lignite coal in N.D, the full development of natural gas reserves throughout America, and the and the drilling of new oil wells offshore in American waters now. This executive order would over-ride all lawsuits from environmental groups. This would be a five-year plan with goals to be met by specific dates. This plan would be administered through the Pentagon by the U.S. military--- just the same as the Manhattan Project was in WWII.

The energy crisis would be solved by 2015, and the issue would be settled. Those who failed to co-operate with this emergency energy plan would face criminal charges in the courts, just as they would have during the Manhatten Project of WWII.

c1ue
10-17-09, 03:28 PM
Ah, you're talking about actual spending over the last 20 years. That makes sense. Both your numbers are in line with mine. Unfortunately, it's a drop in the bucket, about $6 per US citizen per year. I'd be happy to pay $12 so you don't have to pay c1ue.

Excuse me, but you're changing the subject.

My assertion was that there was so much money being spent on AGW that the money itself provided an incentive for a 'positive' result.

Furthermore that this money was far more than being spent by the 'deniers'.

You implied that the 'evil oil companies' were somehow altering the AGW debate by funding the deniers - yet for some reason don't consider that the federal government is somehow different for funding the AGW proponents literally thousands of times more than the deniers - billions vs. millions.

You asked, and I've provided proof that literally BILLIONS are being spent each year, with the sums being $70B+ over the last 20 years.

Yet you still refuse to acknowledge that there is at least a possibility of an agenda in action?

Secondly the money spent thus far is COMPLETELY WITHOUT MANDATE.

Your assertion that 'only' $12 per person spent over the last 20 years is both irrelevant and inconsequential.

You might also note that this money wagon started even before the first IPCC report in 1990 much less the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

The clearly 'oil driven' Bush White House, if not also the Republican Congress, was no different than the so called 'liberal' White House of Clinton. It started in fact with the FIRST Bush White House and Congress.

Thirdly we're not even talking now about the money spent before. We're now talking about NEW money being spent. The Cap & Trade bill is estimated by the CBO to cost $175 per household per year.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapTradeCosts.htm

I await the next installment of rhetoric vs. the facts I keep on laying out.

So far you and the other AGW faithful have yet to refute a single statement I've made.

Even the scurrilous offhand remarks have been shown to be wrong.

I'll conclude with a graph from Hansen employee Gavin Schmidt:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg

Scenario A is clearly wrong. Scenario B is the so called 'mainstream' one - now that A is so clearly off.

Scenario C is the one where NO action is taken.

The page where this is taken from tries to obscure the actual temperature effects by focusing on how the so called CO2 forcing modeling is correct. The implication is that if the forcing is correct, then the model is correct even though the actual temperature record is BETWEEN B and C - and that is even with NASA's own temperature record data being possibly contaminated by urbanization of temperature recording stations.

Of course what is also left out is that the above graph only extends to 2005.

The latest data available that I can find is up to 2008, and the graph looks like this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hansen11.gif

Of course with centering the last 3 or 4 years is only slightly under 'Scenario C', but certainly lends itself to the strong possibility that Scenario B is wrong - as well as Scenario C possibly being wrong. Certainly the actual record is no longer between B and C but rather under C.

Or in other words, the science isn't settled.

In just 2 or 3 years we will have a much better idea if the so called hockey stick is real. Perhaps that why the urgency and pungency with which AGW fanatics demonize critics is so high.

jiimbergin
10-17-09, 03:49 PM
C1ue,

I want to thank you for all the time you have put in here to try to convince the AGW group, but I think it is hopeless since they refuse to even discuss all of the data you provide (and McIntyre etc.) I have found in my own discussions with them in person and at other web sites that there only replies are always the same. Big Oil, Fox News, science is decided etc. They don't even realize that Steve McIntyre is anything but a right wing extremist.

jim

c1ue
10-17-09, 09:08 PM
C1ue,

I want to thank you for all the time you have put in here to try to convince the AGW group, but I think it is hopeless since they refuse to even discuss all of the data you provide (and McIntyre etc.) I have found in my own discussions with them in person and at other web sites that there only replies are always the same. Big Oil, Fox News, science is decided etc. They don't even realize that Steve McIntyre is anything but a right wing extremist.

jim

Jim,

Thank you, but I am happy to do it.

I'm not saying AGW is not a possibility.

What I am saying is that the science is far from settled and that there are clear reasons why AGW might be more than just science based.

What I have been doing and will continue to do is point out those many many contradictions, red flags, warning signs, and so forth which the entire AGW movement exhibits.

You'll note I do not initiate these discussions in anywhere but Rant 'N Rave, but will contribute wherever they pop up.

I will continue to provide data, facts, and documentation on the 'denier' side - and every discussion in which the AGW fanatics resort to ad hominem, argument from adverse consequences, excluded middle, argument from authority, appeal to authority/anonymous authority/false authority, confusion of correlation and causation, causal reductionism, argument by inconsistency/double standards, argument by changing the subject/misdirection, appeal to complexity, and possibly a few others which I have seen in just a few short months only serves to show that AGW at least as exhibited by these people is more a belief system than a logically derived understanding.

Full list: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#burden

santafe2
10-17-09, 10:50 PM
Excuse me, but you're changing the subject.

My assertion was that there was so much money being spent on AGW that the money itself provided an incentive for a 'positive' result.
There are grounds on which we'll never find, well, common ground. The government money your talking about is spent on peer reviewed research. The Exxon money you're talking about is spent on propaganda, right wing think tanks, misinformation and junk science. As the cigarette companies proved in the 80s with their "doubt is our product" marketing, it works.


Thirdly we're not even talking now about the money spent before. We're now talking about NEW money being spent. The Cap & Trade bill is estimated by the CBO to cost $175 per household per year.
I'm not joining this 50 cents a day debate with you. Cap and Trade is what the FIRE economy will allow. Don't pretend it has anything to do with the environmental movement. We want a carbon tax. Simple as that. A carbon tax, moves us away from OPEC oil, air pollution and oil wars.



The latest data available that I can find is up to 2008, and the graph looks like this:

http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hansen11.gif

Of course with centering the last 3 or 4 years is only slightly under 'Scenario C', but certainly lends itself to the strong possibility that Scenario B is wrong - as well as Scenario C possibly being wrong. Certainly the actual record is no longer between B and C but rather under C.

Or in other words, the science isn't settled.
You demonize Hansen regularly but that was the state of climate science 20 years ago. You should enjoy this moment in 2009. We're 10 years into the PDO cooling cycle, we're just now, (most likely), experiencing the end of an 11 year cycle solar minimum. Both are thought to contribute to global cooling. We also have an ozone hole over Antarctica which causes more localized cooling. We could get lucky and the sun will under heat while we humans continue to create green house gas, but it's not a smart bet.

It's likely that we have 20-25 years before these 30 year and 11 year cycles line up with rising CO2 to create the disaster Hansen foresaw in 1988.

Thailandnotes
10-17-09, 11:32 PM
I live in Thailand, but my wife and I own a house in Virginia on the Potomac River just as it dumps into the Chesapeake Bay. My neighbor to the left used to be a 96-year old retired school teacher who talked state representatives into coming to the homeowner’s picnics and then skewered them with demands on why she was paying property taxes on land the river had reclaimed. She spent most of her time on her porch. She left the house to a gaggle of grandchildren who enclosed the porch. They installed a heat pump the size of a dumpster. It cools or heats the house to a perfect 72 degrees 365 days a year. They use the house 40 days a year. We already tax the hell out of behavior. (A deck of plastic playing cards in Bangkok costs ten dollars.) Tax carbon!

santafe2
10-17-09, 11:51 PM
For the first time, two commercial shipping vessels have completed a journey along Russia’s Northeast Passage without the need for icebreakers.
Maybe big business is going to embrace this global warming thing...but, but..how is it possible that there's a new northeast passage when the warmest year was 1998?


Bound for the Netherlands from South Korea, the route will cut 4,000 nautical miles from the typical 11,000-mile route through the Suez Canal, helping realize a “considerable” reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, said Niels Stolbert, president and CEO of Beluga.Mmmm...Exxon could sell this. Yup, we were wrong, there is global warming but it's a good thing.

http://ecoworldly.com/2009/08/27/russias-northeast-passage-open-to-commercial-shipping/

santafe2
10-18-09, 12:18 AM
And more fun...


New research indicates that polar bears in the western Arctic (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882.700-more-polar-bears-going-hungry.html) are finding it increasingly difficult to find food during the critical spring season.But as c1ue pointed out on another thread, they're not dead yet so why worry? Let's wait for the evidence.


Not only is the early melt affecting the bears ability to hunt, it could also have significant impact on the prey for which they hunt. The diminishing sea ice impedes the seals' ability to nurse and build dens for their pups, causing their numbers to drop.
I seem to remember c1ue wringing hands over seals the other day...:rolleyes:

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2009/01/08/new-study-shows-polar-bears-in-western-arctic-going-hungry/

Fun stuff. There's no proof yet from denier POV but lucky us, we'll likely see it in our lifetime.

santafe2
10-18-09, 12:58 AM
New research, released by the Catlin Arctic Survey and WWF, provides further evidence that the Arctic Ocean sea ice is thinning, supporting the emerging thinking that the Ocean will be largely ice-free during summer within a decade.Overstated? Yup...It's going to take 30 years.


The data...collected by manual drilling and observations on a 450-kilometre route across the northern part of the Beaufort Sea...suggests the survey area is comprised almost exclusively of first-year ice.
Scurrilous I guess, but accurate.


“That means you’ll be able to treat the Arctic as if it were essentially an open sea in the summer and have transport across the Arctic Ocean.”See previous post...Exxon should pay me for this stuff. They'll be switching sides in 10 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091015203837.htm

c1ue
10-18-09, 03:36 AM
There are grounds on which we'll never find, well, common ground. The government money your talking about is spent on peer reviewed research. The Exxon money you're talking about is spent on propaganda, right wing think tanks, misinformation and junk science. As the cigarette companies proved in the 80s with their "doubt is our product" marketing, it works.

Again, you assert that Exxon's $1M or so per year outweighs the government's $2B to $3B per year - much like the cigarette companies.

Well, let's see now: since I've shown that your spending assertion was thoroughly wrong, how about you show me that cigarette company spending in the 60s and 70s was 1/1000th of the federal government's spending on lung cancer research. If so then I might be more inclined to believe your story - although this seems more like a bad analogy argument: lung cancer rates were going up in the 60s and 70s whereas global temperatures have been going up and down from Ice Ages to Warm Periods for thousands of years.


I'm not joining this 50 cents a day debate with you. Cap and Trade is what the FIRE economy will allow. Don't pretend it has anything to do with the environmental movement. We want a carbon tax. Simple as that. A carbon tax, moves us away from OPEC oil, air pollution and oil wars.

To start with, an argument by misdirection: again what does 50 cents have to do with anything? Your water bill costs less than 50 cents a day - is that irrelevant?

As for the rest, well, at least the truth is coming out: 'We' want a carbon tax.

How about a national referendum on this Waxman-Markey bill then?

Because I don't want it. And apparently a lot of other people don't want it. But equally apparently YOU want it.

The difference here is that I'm not advocating forcing everyone to do something I want. AGW fanatics are. And as I've said before - those advocating radical action *for everyone else* are the ones with the burden of proof.


You demonize Hansen regularly but that was the state of climate science 20 years ago. You should enjoy this moment in 2009. We're 10 years into the PDO cooling cycle, we're just now, (most likely), experiencing the end of an 11 year cycle solar minimum. Both are thought to contribute to global cooling. We also have an ozone hole over Antarctica which causes more localized cooling. We could get lucky and the sun will under heat while we humans continue to create green house gas, but it's not a smart bet.

It's likely that we have 20-25 years before these 30 year and 11 year cycles line up with rising CO2 to create the disaster Hansen foresaw in 1988.

I demonize Hansen regularly because he is the one who most vocally has given up his scientific credentials in favor of a politician's. But more importantly Hansen's scaremongering tactics are now falling apart as his projections increasing show to be inaccurate.

As for your assertion on what's going to happen in 20-25 years - it is amusing that Hansen's testimony before Congress 20 years ago made NO mention of PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, etc etc - only Green House Gases.

He also explicitly tossed out the 1950 to 1980 period because it was a global cooling era.

The assertion you are putting up is as much as admitting that AGW is at best a secondary effect on actual global temperatures. Furthermore it is still unproven that the rise in "base" temperatures is due to CO2 or to some other as yet unproven effect or effects. If there can be an Ice Age with CO2 at 4000 ppm, why would CO2 going from 250 ppm to 360 ppm make a dramatic difference?


Maybe big business is going to embrace this global warming thing...but, but..how is it possible that there's a new northeast passage when the warmest year was 1998?


Another bad argument: confusing correlation with causation.

For one thing, how is it known that never before have both Northeast and Northwest passages been open at the same time?

Oh yeah from the link:


Last year, for the first time in the era of satellite monitoring, both Arctic passages were briefly open at the same time (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/sea-ie/).

That's what, 30 years max? But of course for the AGW - only the last few years count.

A more clear understanding of the ice is shown below:

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/elements/issues/12/fossil-eng.php


The most common cause of death for the bowheads studied by Art and his colleagues was entrapment in the ice as it expanded in autumn. Because the whales followed the ice edge so closely, the location of their fossils indicates the extent to which the ice had previously retreated. By using radiocarbon dating, Art can determine the age of the fossils. Since fossils are only found where the ice edge once existed, their age tells Art how far the ice extended at a certain point in history.

...

With all this data, Art and his colleagues have been able to determine when the Northwest Passage was open, and what conditions would be required for it to happen again. Art and his colleagues have found a significant number of bowhead fossils scattered throughout the length of the Northwest Passage dating from approximately 10,000 years ago. This abundance of fossils coincides with the warmest part of the Holocene era. At that time, it was approximately three degrees warmer than average temperatures in the mid-twentieth century.



New research indicates that polar bears in the western Arctic (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126882.700-more-polar-bears-going-hungry.html) are finding it increasingly difficult to find food during the critical spring season.

The return of the polar bears - Save the Cuddly White Teddies!

Maybe they're hungry because there are too many of them:

http://www.aksenateminority.com/archives/date/2007/03/29


According to University of Alaska Fairbanks Research Associate Professor Matt Cronin

...

“We don't know what the future ice conditions will be, as there is apparently considerable uncertainty in the sea ice models regarding the timing and extent of sea ice loss. Also, polar bear populations are generally healthy and have increased worldwide over the last few decades. Recent declines in sea ice and indications that polar bears in some areas may be negatively impacted are cause for concern, but in my opinion do not warrant designation of the species as threatened with extinction,” Cronin said.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500424/Polars-bears-brink-Dont-believe-it.html



http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/polar071207_468x393.jpg (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/bear071207_600x495.jpg)
'It's the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer'

...

After almost three months of working with those who know the Arctic best - among them Inuit Indians, who are appalled at the way an animal they have lived beside for centuries has become a poster species for "misinformed" Greens - Nigel Marven finds himself in broad agreement.
"I think climate change is happening, but as far as the polar bear disappearing is concerned, I have never been more convinced that this is just scaremongering.
"People are deliberately seeking out skinny bears and filming them to show they are dying out. That's not right.
"Of course, in 30 years, if there's no ice over the North Pole, then the bear will be in trouble.
"But I've seen enough to know that polar bears are not yet on the brink of extinction."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132220.stm


We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," explained Professor Ingolfsson.
<!-- E IBOX -->
"And what's interesting about that is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was much warmer than the Holocene (the present).

"This is telling us that despite the ongoing warming in the Arctic today, maybe we don't have to be quite so worried about the polar bear. That would be very encouraging."



New research, released by the Catlin Arctic Survey and WWF, provides further evidence that the Arctic Ocean sea ice is thinning, supporting the emerging thinking that the Ocean will be largely ice-free during summer within a decade.

You were mentioning right wing think tanks? What would you call the WWF? Perhaps a AGW-wing think tank? But more importantly let's look at the Catlin Arctic Survey: there's already a response

http://therebel.org/science_&_technology/climate/the_top_ten_reasons_why_i_think_catlin_arctic_ice_ survey_data_can't_be_trusted_2009101573935/



Top Ten Reasons why the Catlin Arctic Ice Survey data can’t be trusted
10.

High profile news and PR from the beginning, plus an unrealistic vision of self importance related to the mission. The entire venture was publicized well in advance of the actual expedition, and the mission was “too important to fail” according to the January 23rd interview with The Guardian Catlin team leader Pen Hadow said:

“During this mammoth expedition we will gather the essential data that scientists need to more accurately determine when the permanent floating sea ice will disappear altogether. We cannot afford to fail on this mission – there is too much at stake.”
With pronouncements like that, you also can’t afford not to bring home a result consistent with the theme of the expedition.
9.

Reality Show Science as reported here (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/another-shocked-polar-explorer/), “The trio will be sending in regular diary entries, videos and photographs to BBC News throughout their expedition.” When you tie science too closely to the media from the beginning, it predetermines some outcomes. That pressure is always there to produce the story rather than focus on the task. This is why most proper science is done well away from the media and the results are reported afterwards.
8.

Hadow, by his own admission, has an unrealistic and biased warmer view of the Arctic that doesn’t match the current data. In his Curriculum Vitae posted here (http://www.nyt.co.uk/pen-hadow.htm), he writes:

“Twenty years ago, you could walk to the North Pole – now you have to swim part of the way there.”
Only problem is, the satellite data showed a completely different picture of solid ice, and Hadow’s expedition encountered temperatures of -44F (-42C) along the way (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/28/catlin-expedition-impaired-judgment/), and the vast majority of the trip was below 32F (0C). He didn’t encounter vast leads of water along the way, and in fact encountered ice conditions far worse than he expected. This shows his bias for a warmer trip from the start.
7.

The Catlin team’s scientific advisor at the beginning of the trip seemed to already have a predetermined outcome for the Arctic. In this BBC article and interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7902766.stm) they write of Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, a science advisor to the survey:

“Ultimately, Professor Maslowski hopes to finesse his forecast for when the first ice-free summer might arrive.
Currently, he has it down for 2013 – but with an uncertainty range between 2010 and 2016.”
So if they already had this figured out from the beginning, why make the trip at all? Is it so the BBC could recycle the headline again today saying Arctic to be ‘ice-free in summer’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8307272.stm)? Why do “science” at great personal risk when you already are sure of the end game? There’s also another nugget of predisposition wisdom by Catlin’s science advisor Professor Maslowski. Read on.
6.

They failed to advise of major equipment failure in a timely manner, inviting suspicion. The ice radar sounding equipment that was designed to do the thickness survey failed miserably, almost from day one, yet even though they were “sending in regular diary entries, videos and photographs to BBC News throughout their expedition,” the world didn’t learn of that failure until day 44 of the 73 day expedition (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7998501.stm). When Apollo 13 had a problem, the world knew about it almost immediately. When Catlin had a problem, it was covered up for well over a month, yet that didn’t stop the BBC from paraphrasing Apollo 13’s famous words for a headline ‘London, we have a problem’ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7991801.stm) as if there was some parallel in integrity and timeliness here.
5.

Hadow and his scientific advisor erroneously believed that their expedition was the only way ice thickness measurements could be done, and they seemed oblivious to other efforts and systems.
From this BBC article and interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7902766.stm):

“No other information on ice thickness like this is expected to be made available to the scientific community in 2009,” explained Arctic ice modeller Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, a science advisor to the survey.
While this was obviously a selling point to sponsors and an ego boost for the team, it was flat wrong. For example, there’s a bouy network (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/18/arctic-ice-thickness-measured-from-buoys/) that provides ice thickness data,. Then there’s ICEsat (http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/) which provides mass and balance measurements, as well as ice thickness maps, shown below:
http://therebel.org/images/stories/200910/73935/2008fall_web.png
http://therebel.org/images/stories/200910/73935/seaicediscrete.png
ICESat data for Fall 2008, source NASA Scientific Visualization Studio
As reported on WUWT, another data source of Arctic Ice thickness in 2009 came in the form of an aerial survey with a towed radar array from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. They didn’t have to risk lives, create drama, or bleat constant headlines to the BBC while doing the science. They simply flew the plane over the ice a few times.
Here’s some excerpts of what was reported on WUWT in the story Inconvenient Eisdicken – “surprising results” from the Arctic (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/)

At the North Pole ice sheet is thicker than expected
<IMG title="The research aircraft Polar 5 " alt="Das Forschungsflugzeug " ? 5?="5" in="in" Bremerhaven="Bremerhaven" [Quelle:="[Quelle:" AWI]?="AWI]"> (http://www.radiobremen.de/wissen/nachrichten/polarfuenf100_v-slideshow.jpg)
The “Polar 5″ in Bremerhaven
The research aircraft Polar 5 “ended today in Canada’s recent Arctic expedition. During the flight, researchers have measured the current Eisstärke measured at the North Pole, and in areas that have never before been overflown. Result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than the researchers had suspected.
Normally, ice is newly formed after two years, over two meters thick. “Here were Eisdicken up to four meters,” said a spokesman of Bremerhaven’s Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. For scientists, this result is still in contradiction to the warming of the seawater.
Gosh. Where’s the polar death defying drama in that?
4.

Due to the extreme cold conditions they were not fully prepared for, they completed less than half of the planned trip. Originally it was to be a 1000 kilometer trip to the North Pole which according to early interviews given by Hadow was easily done, yet they failed. The original start point was to be at 81N 130W but they actually started closer to the pole by about 100 kilometers.
Click here (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/catlin_arctic_survey18.kml) to explore the Catlin Arctic Survey in Google Earth (right click and save as)
According to the Google Earth KML file (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/route_googleearth.aspx) provided by Catlin, they started at 81.7N 129.7W and ended at 85.5N 125.6W for a total distance of approximately 435 kilometers over 73 days. Hardly a broad survey of the Arctic Ice when put into perspective on the Google Earth and ICEsat maps shown below:




<CENTER><TABLE width=510><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=smalldark>Catlin Route Map from GPS data with planned and actual start/end points</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>Here’s the Catlin Arctic Ice Survey Route overlaid on the ICEsat map. You can see just how little of the ice was actually surveyed.

2333

<CENTER><TABLE style="WIDTH: 510px"><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Catlin Arctic Survey Path over ICEsat map

2334

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>Note that the ICEsat image is from Fall 2008, while the Catlin trip was in the Spring of 2009. Since we all know sea ice moves, often connected to the Beaufort Gyre, it is likely that the path depicted does not represent the ice Catlin actually traveled over. The sea ice may have moved so that the Catlin path traversed some of the thinner ice to the west, though some thickening of the ice would also be expected during the winter of 2009. The point of this map was to put the route in perspective.
3.

There’s very little actual data return for 73 days on the ice, only 39 datapoints. See the dataset they provide in the Excel file here:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/images/excelLogo.png (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/CAS%20Snow%20Ice%20measurements%20-%20Final.xls) CAS Snow Ice Measurements – Final 2009
Final surveying results from the 2009 expedition. (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/CAS%20Snow%20Ice%20measurements%20-%20Final.xls)
The actual number of holes drilled and measured for ice thickness by Pen Hadow is said to be in the hundreds, and what we see in the Excel file is the average of those many holes at each drilling session. While I commend them for providing the raw hole data, problems with potential measurement bias don’t appear to be well addressed in the methodology paper they provide here (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/CAS%20Snow%20and%20Ice%20Measurements%20Methodolog y.pdf) (PDF) while it is mentioned in the preliminary June report (http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/assets/downloads/Ice_Report_June_09.pdf):

“One further consideration, when interpreting the ice thickness measurements made by the Catlin Arctic Survey team, may be navigational bias. Typically, the surface of First Year Ice floes are flatterthan that of multi‐year ice floes and because the team systematically seeks out flatter ice which is easier to travel over and camp on, there is a risk that the ice surveyed will not be representative.”
Since they make no mention of the potential measurement bias in the final report, it appears that there wasn’t anything but lip service consideration given to it in the early report, possibly to appease critics.
2.

One of the most prominent sea ice researchers in the world, Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC said he would not use the Catlin data saying in a post here on WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/19/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-on-catlin-and-ice-survey-techniques/):

“I don’t anticipate using the Catlin data.”
That begs the question then, beyond the use of the data for generating news stories like we’ve seen in the BBC and other media outlets, who will? Even the media outlets have ignored the actual data Catlin made available, preferring sound bites over data bytes.
1.

The Catlin Arctic Ice Survey knowingly presented false data to the public and to the media in their web presentation.

As many WUWT readers recall, it was here that it was discovered that Catlin’s website had bogus telemetry data on it, giving the impression of “live data from the ice” when in fact the data repeated in an endless loop from a short period.

Don't give up your day job.

Diarmuid
10-18-09, 09:56 AM
Again, you assert that Exxon's $1M or so per year outweighs the government's $2B to $3B per year - much like the cigarette companies.


Here is one example of how the tax payers money is spent in the UK on generating informed public opinion on AGW - government sponsored fear and self loathing UK style. :eek:

<object width="560" height="340">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w62gsctP2gc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>

xela
10-18-09, 05:04 PM
Bet the same audience wont take the 1h36min to watch this
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking at Bethel University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded)

jimmygu3
10-18-09, 06:06 PM
Don't give up your day job.

Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.

Jimmy

ggirod
10-18-09, 06:48 PM
Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.

Jimmy

I second Jimmy's motion.

ThePythonicCow
10-18-09, 08:01 PM
That talk of Lord Monckton is delightful. He rips the Global Warming alarmists to shreds. Thanks for posting.

ThePythonicCow
10-18-09, 08:11 PM
That talk of Lord Monckton is delightful. He rips the Global Warming alarmists to shreds. Thanks for posting.
I hope everyone views the last minute of Lord Monckton's talk that xela linked above. It seems Obama is about to sign a devastating treaty in Copenhagen.

santafe2
10-18-09, 11:26 PM
Bet the same audience wont take the 1h36min to watch this
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking at Bethel University (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded)

Honestly, I tried. Here's my report on the 1st 30 minutes:

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> After making a lame joke about the President’s citizenship, and wasting 11 minutes making sure we know he’s an ultra-conservative sycophant [I]and assuring us he’s only presenting the TRUTH, he finally launches into his rhetorical diatribe. First it’s an all out attack on the DDT ban with a sneaky inference that THESE SAME PEOPLE are going to SHUT DOWN 5/6ths of the economy. This is what passes for proof in the denier world. This is what passes for science. DDT has nothing to do with global warming but let’s start the presentation by damning science with a broad brush. Let’s soften up the audience with an irrelevant FACT and proceed to damn climatologists by association. Slick and slimy like Limbaugh and playing to the same intellectual level.

But I soldier on, listening to the buffoon in the 3 piece suit without even an undergraduate degree in science as he goes on a name calling binge; intolerant, Communistic, [murderers of children], they want as much of humanity as possible to be wiped off the planet…but of course, he’s not REALLY talking about climate scientists, he’s talking about DDT scientists. Then we get a bullshit speech about how the left is responsible for the mounting population and the poor in the world. And then a polemic on HIV…blah, blah…same left wing murderers, blah, blah. Fuck! I’m 18 minutes into this and the bastard hasn’t mentioned one FACT on global warming.

Ah..the main harangue begins. Biofuels, blah, blah…sorry shithead, no one on the left and no one in real science wanted corn based fuels. But he goes on to make the same slipshod correlations here. But that’s how they work. Get you to waste your time defending crap they make up. And what does this have to do with climate science and global warming? Minute 21, now add in crazy and wicked to our nicknames. Mud pies in Haiti - as if he gives a shit about the third world. Monster!

And at minute 23, he mocks, and mocks and mocks. This is great science. Great PROOF. Great TRUTH….blah, blah. Beats up Al Gore, hell I beat up Al Gore so I guess I can’t say much here. But at 28:25 he refers to himself as a climatologist! “We climatologists”, he says. His degree from BSU one supposes.

I can’t waste one more minute of my life with this idiot.

santafe2
10-18-09, 11:53 PM
Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.
Jimmy

Thanks Jimmy, (and ggirod). I think the science for AGM is fairly solid and the downside for ignoring it, catastrophic. C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists. While I try to be civil, I dispise these mouth pieces for the denier right. The science is not perfect but it's robust and climate scientists will get the details worked out.

ThePythonicCow
10-19-09, 03:37 AM
I can’t waste one more minute of my life with this idiot.I gather that Lord Christopher Monckton's sense of humor does not agree with Mr. Santafe2.

xela
10-19-09, 04:27 AM
Biofuels, blah, blah…sorry shithead, no one on the left and no one in real science wanted corn based fuels. But he goes on to make the same slipshod correlations here.

Not being a scientist and only a regular guy I try to listen to both sides (usually via realclimate.org, got interested in the matter after reading John Houghton's Global Warming, 3rd ed.).
He makes some very serious accusations, which I cannot check but the answer I see on the net is usually "he's a crook/idiot/no scientist/skews,makes up the data", well he says the same.. in a funnier way.
Maybe one of those days scientist make a good case of why the climate was warmer 10 centuries ago and quite colder 4 centuries ago, until then those "idiots" are not idiots in my book.

Btw, my personal stance is GW cannot be denied, but how much of it is manmade cannot be quantified yet, and the effects cannot be reasonably predicted. I don't buy their "models", I don't buy "biofuels", "cap&trade" or whatever financial scam they come up.

I quoted this sentence of yours because it shows just how AGW is captured by the gov/corps. A nonsense measure which costs a shitload of money, apparently does more harm then good to the environment, but sure good for the select few corporations... a big scam basically.

The scientific community should have done their best to blast those things immediately, hopefully they are not as captured as we see it in the financial sector (just a couple of years back presuming what is revealed about Goldman today would have put you solidly in the conspiracy corner).

c1ue
10-19-09, 05:44 AM
C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists.

So far you've posted a few news stories, but very little scientific nor logical contradiction to the many discrepancies in the AGW argument I have raised.

As I posted earlier, the method of your arguments is identical to that which you assert is being used by the Moncktons (Al Gore), McIntyres (Hansen), and Watts (Trebarth) of the AGW movement: IPCC, peer review, and Look! Its getting warmer!

Unfortunately these arguments all boil down to (as follows):

IPCC (appeal to [false] authority): I've already posted many examples of both IPCC misrepresentation of its contributors as well as slanting of its conclusions

peer review (appeal to anonymous authority): again, numerous examples of peer reviewed papers which contradict AGW core assumptions

Look! Its getting warmer (also polar bears, sea levels, hurricanes, etc etc): Confusing correlation with causation

I have yet to hear why there could be an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm.

I have yet to hear why there was global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred.

I have yet to hear why there is now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility.

I have yet to hear why temperatures 10000 years ago were 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 - and why it is different this time.

I have yet to hear why a climate model can predict 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, but cannot predict behavior 2 years into the future. For that matter, cannot model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency.

I have yet to hear why $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years is more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government.

So you can continue to attack the sources of these questions (ad hominem), but from my view your failure to address these questions points to a religious conviction and not a scientific one.

we_are_toast
10-19-09, 10:27 AM
Thanks Jimmy, (and ggirod). I think the science for AGM is fairly solid and the downside for ignoring it, catastrophic. C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists. While I try to be civil, I dispise these mouth pieces for the denier right. The science is not perfect but it's robust and climate scientists will get the details worked out.

Nice try Santafe2 but you are wasting your time. You try to discuss science with the denialists and they talk fox news, misinformation, and out of context accusations from crazy web sites. They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.

It really is like trying to convince UFO believers that there is no evidence of their claims. No matter how many fuzzy pictures you prove are fake, they'll always come up with another for you to disprove. If you ask them to have a scientific discussion with verifiable evidence, and a testable, well reasoned hypothesis, they come up with another fuzzy picture.

You tried to make a moral argument that following the unsuported claims of the denialists could be catastrophic to many people throughout the world, while fixing the problem is doable and affordable, but the denialists have shown that not raising their taxes takes priority over their childrens future.

The readers of this thread have to decide for themselves, are they going to follow the science that has led to the technical civilization that makes life possible for many people alive today, or are they going to live their lives based on fuzzy pictures of UFO's.

Master Shake
10-19-09, 12:09 PM
So you can continue to attack the sources of these questions (ad hominem), but from my view your failure to address these questions points to a religious conviction and not a scientific one.

Michael Crichton: Environmentalism as Religion

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Starving Steve
10-19-09, 02:10 PM
Nice try Santafe2 but you are wasting your time. You try to discuss science with the denialists and they talk fox news, misinformation, and out of context accusations from crazy web sites. They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.

It really is like trying to convince UFO believers that there is no evidence of their claims. No matter how many fuzzy pictures you prove are fake, they'll always come up with another for you to disprove. If you ask them to have a scientific discussion with verifiable evidence, and a testable, well reasoned hypothesis, they come up with another fuzzy picture.

You tried to make a moral argument that following the unsuported claims of the denialists could be catastrophic to many people throughout the world, while fixing the problem is doable and affordable, but the denialists have shown that not raising their taxes takes priority over their childrens future.

The readers of this thread have to decide for themselves, are they going to follow the science that has led to the technical civilization that makes life possible for many people alive today, or are they going to live their lives based on fuzzy pictures of UFO's.

Let me make it simple for the Hansen bunch at NOAA, Greenpeace, BBC, Al Gore, and the others who believe in man-made global warming: WHY ARE THE ATOLLS AROUND THE WORLD ALL STILL ABOVE SEA-LEVEL AND REMAINING HIGH AND DRY?

As the carbon rises in the atmosphere, the atolls are still rather unchanged. Why is that?

The AGW bunch proclaimed that CO2 leads to AGW, and AGW leads to de-glaciation, and de-glaciation leads to rising sea-levels. SO, SHOW ME THE ATOLLS BEING FLOODED AND DISAPPEARING FROM THE MAP OF THE WORLD? .... My mind is open. Start with Sand Islet at Midway or French Frigate Shoals: show me the new flooding caused by mankind since WWII. ( We have pictures of these atolls dating back to WWII. )

SHOW ME THE FLOODING, at least above the baseline rate of 6 or 7 inches per century which has occurred since the end of the Ice Age, 10,000 years ago. :)

c1ue
10-19-09, 02:30 PM
They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.


I've provided many 'peer reviewed' articles which contradict key AGW assertions, but apparently you still choose to speak in incorrect generalized terms.

As for the overwhelming informed consensus - how many of this consensus make a living from the $70B+ overall and $5B+/2009 funding from the US federal government? From the UN? From other governments? What about the many AMS/ACS examples who clearly are not in the consensus? The 31000 signatories to http://www.oism.org/pproject/?

This assertion stated by santafe2 and the toast'd one has yet to be demonstrated outside of IPCC, IPCC, IPCC.

More importantly, the AGW faithful continue to display tactics completely at odds with the concept of scientific inquiry and objectivity.

An example:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/shameful-article-review-and-update.html

Note how even an assertion that AGW is not yet proven is considered an attack on the Holy Gospel - leading Trenberth (an IPCC lead author) to publish in a newspaper comments on how the peer reviewed article (In the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for something involving hurricanes) should be withdrawn and is shameful.

And that a subsequent attempt to openly discuss the objections raised have been ignored.

The implication is clear: We (AGW) are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Much like the attitude the toast'd one and others also assert.



The "Shameful Article": A Review and Update (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/shameful-article-review-and-update.html)

2341

As the world continues to suffer a "depression" in global tropical cyclone activity (http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/climo.php) with activity at 30-year lows, and hurricane forecasters try to keep busy while watching the listless Atlantic, I thought that for those who haven't been reading this blog for the past 5 years (which I assume is most everyone;-) it would be worth reviewing a bit of the history of the science on hurricanes and global warming, and how that science was ignored by the IPCC.

In 2004 and 2005 (before Katrina), I led an interdisciplinary effort to review the literature on hurricanes and global warming. The effort resulted in a peer-reviewed article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (here in PDF (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1766-2005.36.pdf)). Upon its acceptance Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at NCAR here at Boulder and the person in charge of the 2007 IPCC AR4 chapter that reviewed extreme events including hurricanes, said this in the Boulder Daily Camera (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/hurricanes-and-global-warming-another-comment-3514) (emphasis added) about our article:

I think the role of the changing climate is greatly underestimated by Roger Pielke Jr. I think he should withdraw this article. This is a shameful article.
Here is what the "shameful article" concluded:

To summarize, claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature for three reasons. First, no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes . . . Second, the peer-reviewed literature reflects that a scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability . . . And third, under the assumptions of the IPCC, expected future damages to society of its projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes are dwarfed by the influence of its own projections of growing wealth and population . . . While future research or experience may yet overturn these conclusions, the state of the peer-reviewed knowledge today is such that there are good reasons to expect that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or their impacts will not be made in the near term.
When Trenberth called the article shameful I responded on Prometheus with this comment (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/hurricanes-and-global-warming-another-comment-3514):

Upon reading Kevin’s strong statements in the press a few weeks ago, I emailed him to ask where specifically he disagreed with our paper and I received no response; apparently he prefers to discuss this issue only through the media. So I’ll again extend an invitation to Kevin to respond substantively, rather than simply call our paper ’shameful’ and ask for its withdrawal (and I suppose implicitly faulting the peer review process at BAMS): Please identify what statements we made in our paper you disagree with and the scientific basis for your disagreement. If you’d prefer not to respond here, I will eagerly look forward to a letter to BAMS in response to our paper.

Climate change is a big deal. We in the scientific community owe it to the public and policy makers to be open about our debates on science and policy issues. We’ve offered a peer-reviewed, integrative perspective on hurricanes and global warming. I hold those with different perspectives in high regard — such diversity makes science strong. But at a minimum it seems only fair to ask those who say publicly that they disagree with our perspective to explain the basis for their disagreement, instead of offering up only incendiary rhetoric for the media. Given that Kevin is the IPCC lead author responsible for evaluating our paper in the context of the IPCC, such transparency of perspective seems particularly appropriate.
Not surprisingly the IPCC chapter that Trenberth led for the IPCC made no mention of our article, despite it being peer reviewed and being the most recently published review of this topic prior to the IPCC publication deadline (the relevant IPCC chapter is here in PDF (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf)). Even though the IPCC didn't see the paper as worth discussing, a high-profile team of scientists saw fit to write up a commentary in response to our article in BAMS (here in PDF (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/2005.36_comment.pdf)) . One of those high-profile scientists was Trenberth. Trenberth and his colleagues argued that our article was flawed in three respects, it was,

. . . incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits any mention of several of the most important aspects of the potential relationships between hurricanes and global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts; and 3) does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.
Our response to their comment (here in PDF (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2458-2006.06.pdf)) focused on the three points that they raised:

Anthes et al. (2006) present three criticisms of our paper. One criticism is that Pielke et al. (2005) “leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts.” If by “significant” they mean either (a) presence in the peer-reviewed literature or (b) discernible in the observed economic impacts, then this is indeed an accurate reading. Anthes et al. (2006) provide no data, analyses, or references that directly connect observed hurricane characteristics and impacts to anthropogenic climate change. . .

In a second criticism, Anthes et al. (2006) point out (quite accurately) that Pielke et al. (2005) failed to discuss the relationship between global warming and rainfall, sea level, and storm surge as related to tropical cyclones. The explanation for this neglect is simple—there is no documented relationship between global warming and the observed behavior of tropical cyclones (or TC impacts) related to rainfall, sea level, or storm surge. . .

A final criticism by Anthes et al. (2006) is that Pielke et al. (2005) “does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.” Anthes et al. (2006) make no reference to the literature that seeks to distinguish the relative role of climate factors versus societal factors in causing impacts (e.g., Pielke et al. 2000; Pielke 2005), so their point is unclear. There is simply no evidence, data, or references provided by Anthes et al. (2006) to counter the analysis in Pielke et al. (2000) that calculates the relative sensitivity of future global tropical cyclone impacts to the independent effects of projected climate change and various scenarios of growing societal vulnerability under the assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This series of exchanges was not acknowledged by the IPCC even though it was all peer-reviewed and appeared in the leading journal of the American Meteorological Society. As we have seen before (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/systematic-misrepresentation-of-science.html)with the IPCC, its review of the literature somehow missed key articles that one of its authors (in this case Trenberth, the lead for the relevant chapter) found to be in conflict with his personal views, or in this case "shameful." Of course, there is a deeper backstory here involving a conflict between my co-author Chris Landsea and Trenberth in early 2005, prompting Landsea to resign from the IPCC (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html).

santafe2
10-19-09, 03:13 PM
I have yet to hear why there was global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred.


Necron tried to explain this much earlier on this thread but your response was something about the 'discredited hockey stick'. This, I suppose, is from McIntyre who's a blogosphere entity with no credentials. If that's the one, he's challenging the work of a scientist with his crank-a-riffic junk science. More denier noise.

There is a simple answer to your question above. It's called natural oscillation. The earth will naturally go through warming and cooling cycles. I know you know that and I know you'll try, like all deniers do, to use that to deny AGM. Or maybe you'll call all of the data into question. As I said before, the cigarette companies perfected this approach years ago - doubt is our product.

Here's the graph previously posted as it appears on the GISS site.
2343
Using the 5 year mean temperature we see a warming trend start in 1919. That trend peaks in 1942. Then we see a moderate cooling trend from 1943 through 1966 which retraces less than 40% of the increase measured between 1919 and 1942. Then in 1967 the increase in unrelenting for 40 years.

Is it possible global warming will take another break? Maybe, but the trend is obvious...well to most without an agenda.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

santafe2
10-19-09, 03:32 PM
I gather that Lord Christopher Monckton's sense of humor does not agree with Mr. Santafe2.

Gathered correctly.

we_are_toast
10-19-09, 04:00 PM
I've provided many 'peer reviewed' articles which contradict key AGW assertions, but apparently you still choose to speak in incorrect generalized terms.

As for the overwhelming informed consensus - how many of this consensus make a living from the $70B+ overall and $5B+/2009 funding from the US federal government? From the UN? From other governments? What about the many AMS/ACS examples who clearly are not in the consensus? The 31000 signatories to http://www.oism.org/pproject/?



Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal. You've provided articles from fox news, oil industry journals, and fake peer reviewed journals that are completely discredited and fully rejected by the scientific community.

As far as the 31,000 signatories to the "petition project";

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5P8mlF8KT6I&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

This is what the denialists do, mislead and misrepresent, it's all they have.

Mashuri
10-19-09, 04:03 PM
Michael Crichton: Environmentalism as Religion

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

An unfortunate side-effect of human nature. C1ue, you may as well try and convince a Catholic to consider that Jesus was just a man.

santafe2
10-19-09, 04:44 PM
Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal.

And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.

Personal disagreement held up as conspiracy. Add that to the diniers list of tricks.

Starving Steve
10-19-09, 06:27 PM
And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.

Personal disagreement held up as conspiracy. Add that to the diniers list of tricks.

Trust me: My atolls from around the globe do not receive government grants. They receive no fat cheques from NOAA, nor from the UN, nor from Greenpeace, nor from the oil industry. No cheques were received by my atolls from the tobacco industry, and none from FOX News, either. None were received from the rightwing, nor the Republican Party; and none were received from BBC, the CBC, nor the Green Party in British Columbia, either.

Yet, my atolls all have a story to tell about sea-level on this planet and about the planet's climate. They all are saying the same thing: not much change in the world's sea-level has occurred since 1940 or so. Therefore, one might infer that the world's mean temperature has been unusually steady for seven decades, possibly even longer than that.

Sea-level rose 300 feet when the Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago. Much of that 300 foot rise happened immediately after the ice sheets melted away from the continents of Europe and North America.... Now, little change in the sea-level is being observed: 6 or 7 inches per 100 years. This is good news for everyone and everything on Earth, including my atolls.

Finally, I receive no money nor accept any research grants for my blogs. But I do own common oil and gas income stocks, atomic energy stocks, some of which might benefit from cap-'n-trade legislation, and some of which might be hurt by cap-'n-trade. My view-point on cap-'n-trade is that it is terrible legislation and based upon politics, not real science.

Starving Steve, East Sooke, British Columbia:)

santafe2
10-19-09, 07:10 PM
This is what the denialists do, mislead and misrepresent, it's all they have.

And here's a good report on the IPCC / Mann "hockey stick" chart that c1ue refers to as "thoroughly discredited"...maybe not so much unless one supposes that the National Academy of Science is in on the fix.

And bonus material. The Medieval Warming period chart is old data and the idea is no longer supported after much more robust data samples. So now we know why the deniers are always using this chart from IPCC - even though they profess disdain for them. The chart is politically expedient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

ggirod
10-19-09, 07:12 PM
The video reminded me of the era in the 1970s when scientists were solicited to write articles that found that people likely to smoke were also likely to get lung cancer. That sort of finding almost brings tears to one's eyes. It meant that the poor sap whom you see smoking not only stinks, coughs, wheezes, and occasionally gags, but in addition to likely not finding an optimal mate to procreate with, the poor sap is destined, through no fault of his own, to die of lung cancer. Oh, how cruel a fate awaits this poor gent (or lady, if you prefer)!

I guess the fact that smoking is still allowed/encouraged in many places around the nation, not to mention the world, and people still come out and picket for their individual rights, does not bode well for the future of similar global warming initiatives. Maybe in another 30-40 years society will finally reject profligate CO2 production. Oh, you say you can't wait that long? Oh, Well, sorry .....

santafe2
10-19-09, 07:22 PM
Yet, my atolls all have a story to tell about sea-level on this planet and about the planet's climate. They all are saying the same thing: not much change in the world's sea-level has occurred since 1940 or so. Therefore, one might infer that the world's mean temperature has been unusually steady for seven decades, possibly even longer than that.


I think that's correct. Not much change in sea level yet. Glad you're feeling good about your atolls, the Maldivians are not feeling so sanquine with regard to their average ground level at 1.5 meters...:eek:.

We've had several long discussions about sea ice where we learned or were reminded that melting sea ice does not raise sea level much since most of it is already floating in the sea.

I'd have to disagree with your conclusion however. Temperature can move up within some limit and not cause all the glaciers to melt into the sea. We know that because, temperatures are up and the sea isn't. Let's hope we don't have to wait until we're saying, Maldives? There's no stinking Maldives!

c1ue
10-19-09, 09:02 PM
Using the 5 year mean temperature we see a warming trend start in 1919. That trend peaks in 1942. Then we see a moderate cooling trend from 1943 through 1966 which retraces less than 40% of the increase measured between 1919 and 1942. Then in 1967 the increase in unrelenting for 40 years.

Perhaps you might explain how GISS can have a data set from the 1880s when it was founded in 1961?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/


The institute was originally established in May 1961 by Dr. Robert Jastrow to do basic research in space sciences in support of Goddard programs.

And at least GISS is honest about what they are: trying to find climate change as opposed to perform science research


Current research, under the direction of Dr. James Hansen (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html), emphasizes a broad study of Global Change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales (from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal/annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages) and affect the habitability of our planet.

Furthermore the GISTEMP is itself new having been:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/


The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models.

And surprise! he wanted a better method to 'estimate global temperature change', and he got it.

The GISTEMP page also lists this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif

Hmm sure doesn't reconcile well with the hockey stick.

Then there's another graph on the same page:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

That doesn't look like a hockey stick either.

Finally let's look at the underlying data set to the hockey stick you refer to:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt

Interesting, no actual temperature data. It is all a plus or minus vs. some reference which is not obvious to me. Another case of 'oops we don't got no steenkin' data?'

But of the 130 data points: 76 are 0.00 or negative. Another 32 are 0.01 to 0.20. The remaining 22 points range from 0.23 to 0.62 - and EVERY SINGLE ONE UNDER HANSEN'S TENURE. Coincidence?

I'd say it is a little worrying given the almost all the biggest +variance years were all AFTER his testimony to Congress: all but 4 of the 22 points above are after his 1989 testimony.


<TABLE style="WIDTH: 144pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=192 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=3 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 height=20 x:num>1970</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="00.03">0.03</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="-00.01">-0.01</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1971</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.1">-0.1</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.03">0.03</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1972</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1973</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.14">0.14</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.02">-0.02</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1974</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.08">-0.08</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.03">-0.03</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1975</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.05">-0.05</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1976</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.16">-0.16</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="-00.03">-0.03</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1977</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.13">0.13</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1978</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.01">0.01</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.05">0.05</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1979</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.09">0.09</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.13">0.13</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1980</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.18">0.18</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.12">0.12</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1981</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.26">0.26</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.17">0.17</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1982</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.05">0.05</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.17">0.17</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1983</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.26">0.26</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.14">0.14</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1984</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.09">0.09</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.11">0.11</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1985</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.05">0.05</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.16">0.16</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1986</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.12">0.12</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.17">0.17</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1987</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.26">0.26</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.19">0.19</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1988</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.31">0.31</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>0.25</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1989</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.19">0.19</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.3">0.3</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1990</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.38">0.38</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.27">0.27</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1991</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.35">0.35</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.24">0.24</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1992</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.12">0.12</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.24">0.24</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1993</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.14">0.14</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.24">0.24</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1994</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.23">0.23</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.23">0.23</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1995</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.38">0.38</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.29">0.29</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1996</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.29">0.29</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.37">0.37</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1997</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.39">0.39</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.39">0.39</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1998</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.56">0.56</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.38">0.38</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1999</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.32">0.32</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.41">0.41</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2000</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.33">0.33</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.45">0.45</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2001</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.47">0.47</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.44">0.44</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2002</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.55">0.55</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.48">0.48</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2003</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.54">0.54</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.53">0.53</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2004</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.48">0.48</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.55">0.55</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2005</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.62">0.62</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.55">0.55</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2006</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.53">0.53</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.53">0.53</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2007</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.56">0.56</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.54">0.54</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2008</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.44">0.44</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2009</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.54">0.54</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent">*</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

c1ue
10-19-09, 09:16 PM
Again, you have not provided one article from a single scholarly peer reviewed journal. You've provided articles from fox news, oil industry journals, and fake peer reviewed journals that are completely discredited and fully rejected by the scientific community.


Gee, the Pielke article in question was not only peer reviewed in the BAMS, but also referred to a number of other peer reviewed articles.

Are are you saying the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society is not a peer review journal? Or that it is an oil industry journal? Fox news?


And apparently with regard to this peer reviewed article to two principal antagonists had a less than collegial history. Trenberth of the IPCC and co-author Landsea, had personal disagreements according to Pielke.

So this paper is not an example of the AGM "religious" ostracizing other general points of view. It's not even the IPCC doing it. It's one scientist who doesn't like another scientist.


Excuse me, but is the normal disagreement process conducted via newspaper opinion articles? And the disagreement in question was an outright attack on the article without apparently willingness to engage in face to face discussion.

As for one scientist not liking another - It is interesting that IPCC's hurricane forecasting lead author who personally attacked a specific article on hurricane forecasting would fail to mention the very peer reviewed article in question even to discredit it in the IPCC proceedings. Oh, and Trenberth is not a hurricane researcher either.

I'd say that personal like/dislike is one thing, but professional discrimination is completely different.


As far as the 31,000 signatories to the "petition project";


Ah, so (ad hominem) on Seitz, also some discrepanies in the signatories means all 31000 are indeed veterinarians and pranksters?

So by the same argument then IPCC WG3 is also false:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12511


Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

...

Then there are the contributors whose involvement we cannot explain. Farhana Yamin is an international lawyer, based at the University of Sussex. Rachel Warren and Paul Watkiss are merely listed as “environmental consultants” at the latter’s consultancy firm, and clearly have a commercial interest in climate change policies being developed. Kate Studd is listed as a contributor, but she works for the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, and doesn’t appear to be an academic at all. What are these people doing on this list of the most expert climate specialists in the world?

...

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences.

...

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.
Well, we can all play that game… Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field - they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/l/plc103/), administrative assistant (x2) (http://www.environment.psu.edu/psie_people/staff.asp), and network administrator (http://www.environment.psu.edu/psie_people/res_tech_spec.asp).

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be (http://ccsr.columbia.edu/staff/index.html) a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would Dessler take his sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is Marta Vicarelli, who is a PhD candidate in ’sustainable development’ (http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree_programs/phd/profiles/mv329.html). Can she be the amongst the world’s leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?


So let's throw both Seitz and IPCC out as being bogus lists of scientists.

The video also assets Dr. Seitz oversaw $45M in tobacco company funded research in the 70s - quite a lot of money then.

If $45M in the 70's is corrupting to scientific skepticism, then how is $70B plus in federal climate change research not also corrupting?

bill
10-19-09, 09:32 PM
Here’s something that’s real.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/07.pdf



Draft implementing agreement under the Convention prepared by the
Government of the United States of America for adoption at the fifteenth
session of the Conference of the Parties


FCCC/CP/2009/7
Page 10

Section 4 - Financing

With respect to funding, the U.S. is keenly aware of the need for a dramatic
increase in the flow of resources available to developing countries to catalyze both
mitigation and adaptation actions at a scale that will be necessary to address the
climate challenge. Resources will need to flow from a wide variety of sources,
including, for example, public sources in developed and developing countries,
private investment, and – in the case of mitigation – the carbon market. The
private sector is expected to be a much larger source of funding than the public
sector, making it critical that policies in both developed and developing countries
promote the flow of such funding. The text below suggests certain fundingrelated
elements to be included but leaves to future negotiation, taking into
account mitigation efforts and other related issues, the questions of whether there
is a need for a new funding-related mechanism(s) and, if so, where such
mechanism(s) would be referenced.
[provision reaffirming Annex II Parties’ obligations under Article 4.3 and 4.4 of
the Convention]
[provision regarding assigning a new function to either the existing or another
operating entity, namely to provide technical assistance for building developing
countries’ capacity to “ready” themselves for accessing larger pools of domestic
and international financing by e.g., creating low-carbon development strategies
and establishing national systems for measurement, reporting, and verification]
[provisions to establish a means to, inter alia, draw on public/private sector
expertise; recommend steps intended to mobilize domestic and international
financing from a variety of domestic, bilateral, regional, and multilateral sources,
including carbon markets; consider ways of linking qualifying actions with
support; recommend how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Parties’ aggregated efforts to mobilize investment; and address concerns of
competition, targeting and overlap of such efforts]


http://en.cop15.dk/

santafe2
10-19-09, 09:39 PM
And at least GISS is honest about what they are: trying to find climate change as opposed to perform science research

Ok, you see GISS as part of the conspiracy. It doesn't surprise me. Notice I've no use for anything else you say about their data, that's just noise once you state this belief.

santafe2
10-20-09, 12:42 AM
Excuse me, but is the normal disagreement process conducted via newspaper opinion articles? And the disagreement in question was an outright attack on the article without apparently willingness to engage in face to face discussion.

Two guys don't like each other, old story. You tried to turn it into a global conspiracy. Is it fair? Probably not but it's two guys with a personal problem...this is nothing.


Ah, so (ad hominem) on Seitz, also some discrepanies in the signatories means all 31000 are indeed veterinarians and pranksters?
Yeah, pretty much. When you're such a complete dick and sellout that the world class organization you headed is outing you...you screwed the pooch. Are you so short of options you're going to try and support this guy?


So let's throw both Seitz and IPCC out as being bogus lists of scientists.Wow, I guess so. The king of iTulip deniers is supporting Seitz?! Get this straight, we're not tossing the IPCC under the bus so you don't have to give up your boy Seitz. You own that piece of shit from this day forward, enjoy it. Seriously, you want to draw the line here? Support this loser? Go for it, let's debate the value of this scam artist. He's a classic sellout denier. First tobacco and now global warming. What's next, child labor?

You're all about the science, right? Support Seitz here. Help us understand his, (and your), support for tobacco as a harmless product.

Of course, if you want to just admit your wrong and toss Seitz under the bus, that's fine...;). It could be a 12 step program. First Seitz then that fascist Monckton and the next thing you know, you're free of your hate for science.

I've seen you write in other areas and I've serious hope you'll give up this nonsense.

MulaMan
10-20-09, 03:00 AM
Apple, Yahoo, PG&E, Exelon, and Nike = a few minor companies that have left the US Chamber of Commerce because the anti-American Fox News watching retards that can't figure out the basic science around global warming.

Amazing that even the U.S. Department of Commerce has currently been taken over by anti-American scumbags.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/Apple-Chamber%20of%20Commerce.pdf

MulaMan
10-20-09, 03:11 AM
An unfortunate side-effect of human nature. C1ue, you may as well try and convince a Catholic to consider that Jesus was just a man.

Yes I do think there is a valid connection here: people who are easily drawn into religious cults are also easily brainwashed by a political ideology such as the neocons / neolibs.

Just a theory, no evidence, but the connection between radical religious people in America and those that follow the similar "preacher-like" Foxs News broadcasts - fear based cults.

The current Republican Party seems structured much like a religious cult - I think they learned from the evangelical christian cults that prey on Americans and make a fortune.

I wonder how many "anti Global Warming" folks, are / were also weapons of mass desctruction scare folks, anti evolution folks, bomb Iran folks, ect... I'll bet many are the same people and that there is some "cult" gene that makes these people so easily brainwashed.

thousandmilemargin
10-20-09, 04:24 AM
I'll bet many are the same people and that there is some "cult" gene that makes these people so easily brainwashed.

Nice smear tactic.

I'm skeptical about AGW because I'm skeptical about everything.

As an atheist, I am oppossed to all religions - including the secular ideologies with the 20th century megadeath bodycounts.

If you want a box to put me in, label me under "People who read history".

And what history teaches is that people go crazy in crowds, but only recover their sanity one by one. Society lurches from one form of madness or delusion to another. Peer review or "consensus" doesn't guarantee truth - it just tells you what kind of delusion is fashionable at the moment.

(And "consensus" often just means "We've managed to silence all the people who disagree with us" or "The people who disagree don't count").

c1ue
10-20-09, 07:45 AM
Ok, you see GISS as part of the conspiracy. It doesn't surprise me. Notice I've no use for anything else you say about their data, that's just noise once you state this belief.

Yes, your true colors are showing. The data is irrelevant. Any criticism of your pet belief is a conspiracy.

What I point out is a person with a well documented history of pushing an AGW agenda who also is in charge of an agency which is supposed to provide objective information.

If you cannot see the dangers in such a situation, then so be it.


Wow, I guess so. The king of iTulip deniers is supporting Seitz?! Get this straight, we're not tossing the IPCC under the bus so you don't have to give up your boy Seitz. You own that piece of shit from this day forward, enjoy it. Seriously, you want to draw the line here? Support this loser? Go for it, let's debate the value of this scam artist. He's a classic sellout denier. First tobacco and now global warming. What's next, child labor?


Did I say I supported Seitz? What I said was that the same games played by the video posted by toast'd one, when applied to the IPCC, should yield the same results.

Your attempt to equate Seitz's history with tobacco with global warming can also be equated to Al Gore's "took the initiative in creating the internet". Since this statement is clearly bullshit therefore so is his AGW stance?

This is another common AGW faithful tactic: the Poisoning of the Wells - discrediting an opponent's view by attacking his sources.

Well, I can do the same: another proponent of AGW - anthropogenic global warming - is Dr. Stephen Schneider.



Stephen H. Schneider (born c. 1945) is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University), a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Spogli_Institute_for_International_Studies ) and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. He has served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
His research includes modeling of the atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere), climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change), and "the relationship of biological systems to global climate change." He has helped draw public attention to the issue of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming). He is the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change. He has authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_paper), proceedings, legislative testimonies, edited books and book chapters; some 140 book reviews, editorials, published newspaper and magazine interviews and popularizations. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAR_(IPCC)); and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). During the 1980s Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) emissions to combat global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).

The problem of course is that Dr. Schneider was part of the global cooling movement in the 70s.



“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the world’s future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. This well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration.”

Stephen Schneider, Back cover endorsement, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976).



“Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.”

Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason (Washington: Island Press, 1996), p. 34.

In his paper (2nd author behind R.I. Rasool): "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"


However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 oC. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Later he wrote in "The Genesis Strategy"


A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect.

So, there was a global cooling consensus in 1976 based upon the then prevailing global cooling trend - that proved clearly wrong.

But the consensus with the seminal IPCC papers for AGW during a warming trend is right? So now that we're in a cooling trend again, will we return to global cooling?

The real reason I bring up Schneider is that he is much more of a REAL scientist who merely has failed to ensure that his research is better understood:





<DL><DD>I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming. [1] (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000) </DD></DL><!--PAR-->

Or has he? Because Schneider also said this:


"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

I personally have issues with deliberate attempts to "capture the public's imagination...offer[ing] up scary scenarios...simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

This is tantamount to saying the ends justify the means and is not something a scientist should do, but is something every politician does.

Each should stick to their own knitting.

santafe2
10-20-09, 11:35 AM
The [GISS] data is irrelevant. Any criticism of your pet belief is a conspiracy.

Yup, GISS, NCDC, NOAA, IPCC, and a host of others are all irrelevant and your crazy little cadre of climate deniers own the truth.

Let me help you out. Your boy Roy Spencer, (at least he's a scientist!), is publishing at that bastion of scientific integrity, Prison Planet...:D...but still using that tired old IPCC chart from 1990.

Scientists move on as new data becomes available but not ole Spence. He seems to be stuck in a rut.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-crushes-scientific-objectivity-91-0.html

c1ue
10-20-09, 01:21 PM
Yup, GISS, NCDC, NOAA, IPCC, and a host of others are all irrelevant and your crazy little cadre of climate deniers own the truth.

Let me help you out. Your boy Roy Spencer, (at least he's a scientist!), is publishing at that bastion of scientific integrity, Prison Planet...:D...but still using that tired old IPCC chart from 1990.

Yes, again the lame attempts to equate one specific denier with all those who oppose the AGW tin god.

Why is it the questions I post have yet to be answered? If the science is settled, then it should be trivial to answer these conundrums. Or is it perhaps that too much skepticism and scrutiny is not permissible under the Great Leader's CO2 mandate?

Again, I repost them:

Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?

Why was there global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred? Was the CO2 and other forms of pollution in this era less than the modern one?

Why is there now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility?

Why were temperatures 10000 years ago 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 AND CO2 levels were lower than today - and why it is different this time?

Why is it a climate model which can predict global temperature behavior 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, cannot predict behavior 2 or even 5 years from now? For that matter, why can the climate models not model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency?

Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Why are hundreds of scientists in the Physics, Chemistry, and Meteorology fields putting their names and reputations publicly on the line as not agreeing with the AGW thesis - if the science is truly settled?

santafe2
10-20-09, 05:23 PM
Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Attempts to frame the debate with denier questions that are not germane to the scientific questions being investigated, are at best boring and at worst further attempts to misinform, misguide, confuse and otherwise muddle the debate.

You've no interest in understanding this issue. You prove that when you site propaganda like the "31,000 signatures". Everyone knows that list is a discredited PR fabrication. The list is a joke, a hoax. But you don't care. If you think it will give you an edge, you'll use it.

The above quote by c1ue is typical denier junk logic. The government spends money on research and Exxon spends it on propaganda. PR. Lies. And it's not just them, the energy industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to PR the science to death. They only want to create doubt for as long as possible with fake science and lies.

There are hundreds of examples but here's one from 3 years ago:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs an ad that says, Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker according to a recent paper by an IPCC scientist.

Of course, the scientist that wrote the paper complained but not before the usual MSM suspects picked it up and ran with it. How did the scientist characterize the CEI ad? "...a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate."

It's a very typical denier tactic.

iTulipers can watch the ads and read the background on this here:
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

ggirod
10-20-09, 06:12 PM
OK, I have had enough!!! Research money, in the case of deniers makes no real difference. They are no way no how that stupid. Why spend money on expensive, peer reviewed research when they already know that the good stuff can be discredited by bullsh*t and the bad stuff has a life of its own. So, they spend their money much more wisely ...

FOR 2008 (the last election; see linked data for other years)How about the oil and gas industry spending $35,564,322 to influence Congress (http://http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01);
<table class="datadisplay"><thead><tr></tr><tr><td class="number">$8,113,550</td><td class="number"> to Democrats, $27,432,642 to Republicans.
</td></tr></thead></table>And, not to be left behind, the Electric Utilities spent (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E08++&goButt2.x=12&goButt2.y=9&goButt2=Submit)$20,779,001 to influence Congress; split roughly 50/50 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E08++&goButt2.x=12&goButt2.y=9&goButt2=Submit)<table class="datadisplay"><thead><tr><td class="number">$10,109,312</td><td class="number"> for Democrats, $10,666,338</td><td class="number"> for Republicans
</td></tr></thead></table>Meanwhile the Coal Mining Industry ... $3,486,436 to Congress; (http://http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1210)<table class="datadisplay" height="23" width="355"><thead><tr><td class="number">$922,048</td><td class="number"> to Democrats, $2,564,388 to Republicans</td><td class="number">
</td></tr></thead></table>That sure does dwarf the amount of money reported for "research", huh!

And, finally, the alternative energy industry spent $1,938,461 to influence Congress; (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1500) <table class="datadisplay"> <thead><tr><td class="number">$1,439,437</td><td class="number"> to Democrats, $496,724 to Republicans
</td><td class="number">
</td></tr></thead> </table>
Money Talks and Big Money Talks Loudly.

Note that these contributions were for 2008, click the links above to see the wonderful job OpenSecrets.org (http://itulip.com/forums/OpenSecrets.org) does reporting the influence of the almighty dollar.





<table class="datadisplay"><thead><tr><td class="number">


</td><td class="number">
</td><td class="number">
</td></tr></thead></table>

santafe2
10-20-09, 07:59 PM
Why spend money on expensive, peer reviewed research when they already know that the good stuff can be discredited by bullsh*t and the bad stuff has a life of its own. So, they spend their money much more wisely ...

It's even more simple than that. They can't do the research because they're not trained to do it. Anthony Watts, a classic denier, is a weatherman in California. He'll go to a complete BS forum like the one's setup by the Heartland Institute but he's not welcome at a real conference, because he's not a scientist. Deniers set-up these fake conferences and publicize the hell out of them. The Heartland scam conference was all over the news creating the idea that working, mainstream climatologists had doubts about global warming. It's just PR, delay and deny.

johnnybill45
10-20-09, 08:26 PM
Lots of predictions based on computer modeling. Weather is a slipperly little devil indeed and predictions 5 or 10 years out seem ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist. And a die-hard skeptic. So I've read about three books and at least 30 scientific articles on global warming, all the IPCC data I could find, and my conclusion is that we are looking at a tiny data set on a huge graph. The huge graph is called : warming and cooling in the last 100,000 years. The tiny data set is called: the last 100 years. And I also don't believe we have anything to worry about.

We just don't know for sure if we are still trending up or down. But one thing we do know: Some of the same guys that said "the sky is falling because the earth is cooling" in the 70's are saying "the sky is falling because the earth is warming" in the 00's.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that the whole global warming fears will blow over in another 10 years and those who believed it was an issue will find new issues to fear.

c1ue
10-20-09, 08:49 PM
Attempts to frame the debate with denier questions that are not germane to the scientific questions being investigated, are at best boring and at worst further attempts to misinform, misguide, confuse and otherwise muddle the debate.

Yes, the possibility that there are OTHER causes which raise global temperatures - when there are well documented historical examples of both higher CO2 levels without higher temperatures as well as higher temperatures without high CO2 levels - is not germane.

The possibility that climate models are not just inaccurate for 2 to 5 year future time spans (asserted by climate modellers) but also inaccurate for 20 to 50 year horizons is not germane (how convenient).

The possibility that gigantic new bureaucracies and taxes will be created to solve potentially nonexistent problems is not germane.

The numerous instances of IPCC and AGW proponent scientists talking about exaggerating results to gain media attention are not germane.

The financial livelihoods and professional reputations staked on AGW are not germane.

All that is germane to the AGW fanatic is that AGW is real and anyone who disagrees is wrong.


FOR 2008 (the last election; see linked data for other years)How about the oil and gas industry spending $35,564,322 to influence Congress (http://http//www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01);
<TABLE class=datadisplay><THEAD><TR></TR><TR><TD class=number>$8,113,550</TD><TD class=number>to Democrats, $27,432,642 to Republicans.

</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>And, not to be left behind, the Electric Utilities spent (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E08++&goButt2.x=12&goButt2.y=9&goButt2=Submit)$20,779,001 to influence Congress; split roughly 50/50 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E08++&goButt2.x=12&goButt2.y=9&goButt2=Submit)<TABLE class=datadisplay><THEAD><TR><TD class=number>$10,109,312</TD><TD class=number>for Democrats, $10,666,338</TD><TD class=number>for Republicans

</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>Meanwhile the Coal Mining Industry ... $3,486,436 to Congress; (http://http//www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1210) <TABLE class=datadisplay height=23 width=355><THEAD><TR><TD class=number>$922,048</TD><TD class=number>to Democrats, $2,564,388 to Republicans</TD><TD class=number>

</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>That sure does dwarf the amount of money reported for "research", huh!

And, finally, the alternative energy industry spent $1,938,461 to influence Congress; (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E1500)<TABLE class=datadisplay><THEAD><TR><TD class=number>$1,439,437</TD><TD class=number>to Democrats, $496,724 to Republicans

</TD><TD class=number>

</TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>

And what are you trying to say? That all the oil and natural gas money noted above is devoted towards promoting 'denier' beliefs in Congress and the Presidency?

Because if that is your assertion, then the $70B+ spent by the federal government on AGW research and technology proves that the evil oil industry lobbying and contribution money isn't working.

The $5B+ to be spent by the federal government just in 2009 on AGW related topics also shows that the 'deniers' aren't getting their money's worth.

To put the $70B/20 years and $5B+/2009 in perspective, the infamous Farm Lobby received a total of $177B from 1995 to 2006 with $13.4B in 2006.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/summary.php

The oil and other energy industry groups you speak of spend that money for various energy subsidies including alternative energy, not to fight AGW.

santafe2
10-20-09, 11:25 PM
Lots of predictions based on computer modeling. Weather is a slipperly little devil indeed and predictions 5 or 10 years out seem ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist. And a die-hard skeptic. So I've read about three books and at least 30 scientific articles on global warming, all the IPCC data I could find, and my conclusion is that we are looking at a tiny data set on a huge graph. The huge graph is called : warming and cooling in the last 100,000 years. The tiny data set is called: the last 100 years. And I also don't believe we have anything to worry about.

We just don't know for sure if we are still trending up or down. But one thing we do know: Some of the same guys that said "the sky is falling because the earth is cooling" in the 70's are saying "the sky is falling because the earth is warming" in the 00's.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that the whole global warming fears will blow over in another 10 years and those who believed it was an issue will find new issues to fear.

Petroleum geologist perhaps...;)

MulaMan
10-20-09, 11:36 PM
1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html) or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html) are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/) now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060706-warming-fires.html), heat waves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html), and strong tropical storms (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html), is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works (http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview-interactive.html).)


• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070517-carbon-oceans.html).

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html).

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.


3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?


• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html).

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html) from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html) and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060829-methane-warming.html). Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

ggirod
10-20-09, 11:48 PM
And what are you trying to say? That all the oil and natural gas money noted above is devoted towards promoting 'denier' beliefs in Congress and the Presidency?No, quite obviously the money being spent targets more than global warming; it targets "drill, drill, drill", chopping mountaintops off and filling nearby valleys with toxic coal sludge in the pursuit of "clean coal", and other initiatives in the interests of the fossil fuel producers. What I was saying is that huge sums are spent to influence government to benefit the massive carbon producing industries whose profits relate almost directly to the CO2 their products release into the atmosphere. Truly the gift that goes on giving.

Compared to their expenditures to "research" global warming, however, it would appear the fossil fuel industry found that direct influence by buying congressmen was a better investment, and worthy of more investment.

thousandmilemargin
10-21-09, 04:58 AM
It's even more simple than that. They can't do the research because they're not trained to do it. Anthony Watts, a classic denier, is a weatherman in California. He'll go to a complete BS forum like the one's setup by the Heartland Institute but he's not welcome at a real conference, because he's not a scientist. Deniers set-up these fake conferences and publicize the hell out of them. The Heartland scam conference was all over the news creating the idea that working, mainstream climatologists had doubts about global warming. It's just PR, delay and deny.

Richard Lindzen.

jdv
10-21-09, 10:52 AM
c1ue - Thank you so much for the education you have provided to all of us. I have appreciated the quality of your responses (in comparison to the AGW advocates who seem much less open minded!)

My position has almost always been similar to Santafe2's - that some action is the prudent thing to do, just in case, for the sake of our kids. But your balanced fact based postings have exposed to me to the fact that there is not really as much consensus as the AGW advocates say there is. And I also agree with your point that there is alot of greed behind the AGW bandwagon.

santafe2
10-21-09, 11:14 AM
Richard Lindzen.

Congratulations. That's the one. You just have to hope he can maintain the high road. Since he's one of the only truly credible skeptics he's well paid by the oil industry, (through Heartland and other conduits).

He needs to stay away from the really right wing press because he has a tendency to go off like Monckton and wildly overstate the opposition, as he does here in a "National Post" interview:


Q ... On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.School teachers are like Hitler? The implication of course is that global warming advocates will exterminate you. But as you point out, he's a credible scientist.

jneal3
10-21-09, 11:19 AM
c1ue - Thank you so much for the education you have provided to all of us. I have appreciated the quality of your responses (in comparison to the AGW advocates who seem much less open minded!)

My position has almost always been similar to Santafe2's - that some action is the prudent thing to do, just in case, for the sake of our kids. But your balanced fact based postings have exposed to me to the fact that there is not really as much consensus as the AGW advocates say there is. And I also agree with your point that there is alot of greed behind the AGW bandwagon.

I'd add that c1ue is obviously a very smart guy, and every response by the pro-AGW side that either ignores his questions, or attempts to answer but with a sneering attempt to associate him and his side with Fox News or similarly discredited organizations just hurts their cause. The pro-AGW side is losing open minds on this forum, mostly because the personal nature of a lot of the responses reveals a limited understanding of the science.

If the four (or so) basic questions he posts can't be scientifically answered to any degree at all, then AGW-ers, please just acknowledge that this is a difficult field and certainty is not in the cards; acknowledge that a change in the theory with new data is at least possible, and that questions are good and make any theory stronger. Do the homework c1ue's very clearly done (and that I'm now compelled to do, argh).

c1ue
10-21-09, 11:22 AM
1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Again, a failure to wonder how an institute founded in 1961 has data going back to 1880 as well as a failure to actually read what has already been posted in this thread.

1) Are the temperature recording methods consistent? Especially given the undocumented provenance of older data?
2) The data in question isn't even absolute temperature data - it is vs. some unknown and unstated 'average'
3) The biggest warming years also were AFTER the global warming scare

More importantly, the temperature record, even if accurate, doesn't prove man made global warming any more than more Muslims means Islam is the true religion.

In particular the question of how the massive fossil fuel use in WW II and post WWII Europe and America due to reindustrialization saw CO2 levels RISE but global temperatures FALL.


• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.


Yes, and again even if the conflicting reports are untrue, it still doesn't answer the question of whether the warming is CO2 AND manmade, or is due to some other factor. This STILL fails to answer the questions on how past higher temperature levels without man made CO2 occurred, as well as how past Ice Ages with CO2 at 4000 ppm could have occurred.


• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

Again, the failure to prove that temperature rises are both manmade and consistent. Eastern Russia's records in particular are extremely spotty. And the assertions of temperature rises in the Arctic seem inconsistent with what's posted in the next rebuttal below.


• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html) or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html) are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.


Again, a failure to actually read what was posted. As for the Polar Bear crap - the mislabelled pictures, the diminishment of the fact that Polar Bear populations are higher than than 20 years ago - I've already posted plenty of rebuttal to this ridiculous line of reasoning.

Secondly, the term ice free is a misnomer. The ice area always goes up and down.

Thirdly what is not being mentioned is that Arctic ice actually greatly increased last year:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834




http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_daily.gsia.jpg
Thirty years of sea ice data (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834#). The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

...

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834#) Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834#).

Oops, the models were wrong!

Oops the de-icing trend in the Arctic has broken.

Oops there's more ice than since before the current warming trend.

Oops I don't read anything but alarmist crap thus don't see when trends might change.


• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/) now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.


Confusing correlation with causation. I've said before that there was a warming trend just as there now appears to be a cooling trend. Again this proves nothing with regards to whether these effects are due to man-made CO2 causes. As for bleaching - how much is due to pollution?


• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060706-warming-fires.html), heat waves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html), and strong tropical storms (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html), is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

Wildfires - is it due to temperature or is it due to 40 years of wildfire suppression?

As for strong tropical storms, if this is true then it is certainly odd why Hurricane incidence is no higher than in the previous decades. Again a failure to actually read what has been previously posted.

Here's some new data: hurricane incidence in Florida/East Coast:

2349

Doesn't look like hurricane incidence is increasing there

In fact NOAA itself has a paper showing decreasing hurricane incidence in the 5 decades leading up to 1996:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/downward/


There is concern that the enhanced greenhouse effect may be affecting extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones. The North Atlantic basin offers a reliable, long-term record of tropical cyclone activity, though it may not be representative of tropical cyclones throughout the rest of the tropics. The most recent years of 1991 through 1994 have experienced the quietest tropical cyclone activity on record in terms of frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, and intense hurricanes. This was followed by the 1995 hurricane season, one of the busiest in the past 50 years. Despite 1995's activity, a long-term (five decade) downward trend continues to be evident primarily in the frequency of intense hurricanes. In addition, the mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season) has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest hurricane each year has not shown a significant change.

Oops! Maybe you should read something besides Al Gore and Hansen crap.


2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works (http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview-interactive.html).)


And yet CO2 is the only one causing the problem? That is odd how human changes to surface albedo due to farming, urbanization, plant and animal husbandry; how human populations have exploded, etc etc are not factors. Oh yeah those can't be 'reversed' via a tax.


• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070517-carbon-oceans.html).

And yet past CO2 levels were 10 times or more higher, but without higher temperatures. And yet past temperature changes in fact preceded CO2 rises. So is CO2 causing higher temperatures or vice versa?


• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html).


And so what? If the CO2 isn't the cause, then persistence is irrelevant. If CO2 in fact is increasing due to other effects such as warming of the oceans, then man-made CO2 emission reductions in fact won't do a damn thing.


• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

And so what is this assertion mean? That the warming of the earth cannot be due to any other causes than CO2? The way science works is you show how an asserted cause creates an asserted effect, not by saying the asserted effect can only have an asserted cause.

Furthermore you have yet to show me why 4000 ppm CO2 levels permit an Ice Age, and why 4500 BC global temperatures (and tree lines) 2 degrees higher/4000 feet elevation higher occurred given no man made CO2 or higher CO2 levels.

For that matter how it is possible that documented instances of more recent historical warming/cooling trends could have occurred when man made CO2 was obviously not a factor: Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period. That there is a concerted effort to minimize the MWP itself is pathetic despite evidence to the contrary:

http://www.livinginperu.com/features-808-environment-opportunity-knocks-again-andes


The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far from Machu Picchu and their report says that "the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries."

The four centuries coincided directly with the rise of this startling, hyper-productive culture that at its zenith was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two most powerful contemporaries of the Inca.

"This period of increased temperatures," the scientists say, "allowed the Inca and their predecessors to expand, from AD 1150 onwards, their agricultural zones by moving up the mountains to build a massive system of terraces fed frequently by glacial water, as well as planting trees to reduce erosion and increase soil fertility.

"They re-created the landscape and produced the huge surpluses of maize, potatoes, quinua and other crops that freed a rapidly growing population to build roads, scores of palaces like Machu Picchu and in particular the development of a large standing army."


• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.

And equally other recent research has asserted that the vast majority of climate changes are due to various factors related to the sun. There is no 'consensus'.


3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?

• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

Sea levels have changed before, and they will change again. So what? Is your assertion that stopping all man made CO2 emissions will stop this? If so it contradicts your earlier statement.


• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html).

And how is that relevant? If people want to live on the beach, they are going to get swamped. For one thing, even a normal hurricane has Storm Surge. The record storm surge levels are nearly 50 feet, and typical storm surge is 6 to 12 feet. So anyone living on a coast anywhere within 3 feet of sea level is already at risk whenever a hurricane swings by. The sea level rise is irrelevant compared to allowing people to build near the ocean.

For that matter, tidal surge is higher than the 'sea rise' alarmism levels as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide


The theoretical amplitude of oceanic tides caused by the Moon is about 54 centimetres (21 in) at the highest point, which corresponds to the amplitude that would be reached if the ocean possessed a uniform depth, there were no landmasses, and the Earth were not rotating. The Sun similarly causes tides, of which the theoretical amplitude is about 25 centimetres (9.8 in) (46% of that of the Moon) with a cycle time of 12 hours. At spring tide the two effects add to each other to a theoretical level of 79 centimetres (31 in), while at neap tide the theoretical level is reduced to 29 centimetres (11 in). Since the orbits of the Earth about the Sun, and the Moon about the Earth, are elliptical, tidal amplitudes change somewhat as a result of the varying Earth–Sun and Earth–Moon distances. This causes a variation in the tidal force and theoretical amplitude of about ±18% for the Moon and ±5% for the Sun. If both the Sun and Moon were at their closest positions and aligned at new moon, the theoretical amplitude would reach 93 centimetres (37 in).

If the maximum high tide surge is higher than the "mean sea level" for these several hundred million people, they and the government who let them build in these areas are stupid.

CO2 taxation won't save them.

Sea level rise = alarmism


• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

This statement you are cribbing from Vandana Shiva is stupid.

For one thing, glacier melt is a finite resource much like an aquifer unless snowfall equals melt. Well, if the glaciers are melting faster than replenishment, then the short term should see MORE water, not less.

Yes, it will ultimately run out but the question isn't the melting of the glacier. It is the usage of the snowfall/rainfall in the watershed feeding the river.


• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

The hurricanes aren't getting stronger now, and haven't been for the entire 'warming cycle' thus far - completely at odds with IPCC assertions.

2350


• More than a million species face extinction (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html) from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

And how much of this is due to man made CO2? And how much is due to simply more people? Again, irrelevant.


• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html) and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060829-methane-warming.html). Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

Uh ok. May, could, might. How many of these causes could occur if the warming was due to natural cycles? How many are avoidable even if the draconian measures are implemented today? A complete non-sequitur.


4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

Gee, this is useful. You continue to beat up the Fox News straw man.

I'll continue to beat up on supposed scientists who constantly and publicly decry their agenda. No doubt you agree with Hansen's view that anyone who disagrees with him should be jailed.

As for climate change being easier to understand vs. global warming:

Your statement is bullshit - climate change is an obvious backtrack vs. a much more clear statement that the world is warming.

Because the world is now cooling.

Apparently global warming was too simplistic AND WRONG, and now the AGW faithful are covering their collective fannies.

c1ue
10-21-09, 03:06 PM
I just posted an essay by John Reid in the Rant 'N Rave Section:

Climate Modeling Nonsense (http://8)

A lot of the ground covered there is already in this thread, but there are 3 items of interest:

1) Insight into potential problems with use of climate models as predictive devices



I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically. One reason for their inherent instability is that the mesh size of the model grid (typically hundreds of metres to hundreds of kilometres) is always much larger than the scale at which friction and molecular diffusion operate (millimetres or less). These are the forces which act to damp down oscillations by converting free energy to heat. In order to get around this difficulty, in order to keep a model stable, it is common practice to set certain parameters such as eddy viscosity unrealistically high to compensate for the absence of molecular friction. This is reasonable if we are using the model to gain insight into underlying processes, but it means that fluid dynamic models are not much good at predicting the future. There is no exact correspondence between model and reality, and the two soon part company. Fluid mechanics and celestial mechanics are very different disciplines.

...

My belief is that early models did not show much increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the reason set out above. However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen. It is called “water vapour positive feedback” and appears to be used in all the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. Without it, the climate models would show negligible increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water vapour positive feedback is only an assumption; but, importantly for the modellers, it is an assumption which makes the models work.


2) Failure to attempt normal scientific testing of AGW theories


A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way. These reports include sections on “Verification and Validation” but none on testing. “Verification” means that only data which support the theory are examined and data which do not support it are ignored. Indeed the authors of this section in the IPCC Third Assessment Report specifically dismiss the need for rigorous testing when they state: “our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’” (Section 8.2.2 on page 474). Effectively what they are saying is: proper scientific testing is too hard and we are not going to bother doing it.

3) Existing carbon emissions limitation programs via taxation failing to address specific problem of (over)consumption

This last point is very interesting and one which I have wondered about for a while.

My personal question came when I saw a man driving a Chrysler Crossfire: a 2 passenger car with a 3.2 liter, V6, 215 horsepower engine. Nothing unusual these days but the driver was alone and the car sported a "This car's carbon emissions traded off using XXX scheme"

The point which Dr. Reid is bringing up is that carbon emissions taxation doesn't itself limit consumption. For the poor, it might, but then again the poor are already limited via their limited financial resources.

But those who have more money can now freely pollute as much as they desire since their pollution is now 'traded off'.

What truly needs to happen is for consumption to go down.

Not people starving, but people using less than they can but as much as they need.

The ability to freely over-consume but be 'carbon neutral' is exactly like the argument that 'free trade is always good'.

If you're the one who has the bigger industrial output and the credit, free trade is good but if you're the one with nascent industries or subsistence farmers - not so good.

The idea that somehow paying $0.50 a day or $175/year makes everything ok; that installing solar panels makes 2000 Kwh/month electrical consumption ok; that driving 40 miles one way to work in your hybrid is ok - all of these excuses don't conceal the basic issue that overconsumption is really what is bringing about more of environmental destruction than anything else.

ThePythonicCow
10-21-09, 03:19 PM
Thanks for the good posts, jdv and jneal3. I agree. c1ue is doing fine work.

zilbo79
10-21-09, 08:23 PM
santafe2,

I was actually on the fence about AGW. But this YouTube channel you just mentioned has rebutted all the deniers theories. And even if it didn't disprove all of them, it raises doubts about their doubts.

Thanks.

Paul

santafe2
10-21-09, 08:58 PM
santafe2,

I was actually on the fence about AGW. But this YouTube channel you just mentioned has rebutted all the deniers theories. And even if it didn't disprove all of them, it raises doubts about their doubts.

Thanks.

Paul

Your welcome. At it's worst, this debate can get rancorous but I, and I think c1ue and others on both sides, try not to let it devolve into a shouting match. As contentious as this debate can be, there's valuable information here for anyone who is interested in researching the topic.

Agree with AGW or not, you have to read and understand the latest IPCC report. You can find that here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Spend time understanding Lindzen and Hansen. You won't agree with both but both scientists will help you understand how they frame the debate which is not a bad way to begin structuring your understanding.

Avoid Monckton and Gore and anyone else not actively working in the field of climate science.

That will make for a good start. Then you have to separate the scientific issues from the political issues which can be difficult but not as much once you have some background.

aaron
10-21-09, 09:43 PM
Yes, again the lame attempts to equate one specific denier with all those who oppose the AGW tin god.

Why is it the questions I post have yet to be answered? If the science is settled, then it should be trivial to answer these conundrums. Or is it perhaps that too much skepticism and scrutiny is not permissible under the Great Leader's CO2 mandate?

Again, I repost them:

Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?

Why was there global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred? Was the CO2 and other forms of pollution in this era less than the modern one?

Why is there now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility?

Why were temperatures 10000 years ago 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 AND CO2 levels were lower than today - and why it is different this time?

Why is it a climate model which can predict global temperature behavior 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, cannot predict behavior 2 or even 5 years from now? For that matter, why can the climate models not model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency?

Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Why are hundreds of scientists in the Physics, Chemistry, and Meteorology fields putting their names and reputations publicly on the line as not agreeing with the AGW thesis - if the science is truly settled?

Can anybody answer these questions? They seem reasonable to me.

Starving Steve
10-21-09, 10:21 PM
1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html) or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html) are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/) now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060706-warming-fires.html), heat waves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html), and strong tropical storms (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html), is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works (http://green.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview-interactive.html).)


• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070517-carbon-oceans.html).

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html).

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html) are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.


3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?


• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html).

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html) from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html) and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060829-methane-warming.html). Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

Since the time of the Ice Age when ice sheets covered North America and northern Europe, there was a flood of biblical proportion: a 300 foot rise in the level of the sea. Most of this 300 foot rise took place 9,000 or 10,000 years ago. It may well be that walls of water crossed barriers such as the gap between to-day's Black Sea and the Agean Sea.

Sometime around 5,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert became wetter. There is some evidence of a grassland with actual rivers flowing into the Nile River from the Sahara grassland.

One or two thousand years ago, the Sahara became a desert again. Still, at the time of the Roman Empire, Cyranaica in to-day's NE Libya was a wheat-growing region. There was human habitation within the Sinai Desert of Egypt and also in Arabia.

About 800 years ago, temperatures on Earth were warmer than to-day. But a little ice age occurred from 1600AD to 1850AD when temperatures abruptly cooled on Earth and glaciers grew.

Since 1900, we know that the Earth has warmed slightly, about 1 degree F, or maybe just a bit more. Sea-level is up about 6 or 7 inches.

We know that the late 1990s were warmer than average probably because the solar output (the Sun's solar constant) was higher than average. For the first time in my life (of 61 years) I could see the northern lights at night in central California.

Since the late 1990s, solar activity has decreased, and global mean temperatures have slightly cooled. El Nino vanished in 2003, and La Nina conditions returned to the Pacific. Drought returned to California. In 2009, El Nino has returned, and warm-wet conditions have returned to the west coasts of North and South America. El Nino conditions will last to around 2013 or 2014.

Looking forward, sea-level may rise another 6 or 7 inches in the next 100 years; that would not be a shock. That would be just a continuation the current trend. City planners need to think about the mega-trend of slightly rising sea-level and plan ahead for it.

But there is no case to be made for mankind having upset the balance of nature. No such balance ever did exist in nature. Rather, the Earth's climate is always changing and will always change. Mankind just needs to observe nature and plan ahead for natural changes which occur constantly.

The observation that the Earth's sea-level is rising at just 6 or 7 inches per century is downright encouraging. It is something to celebrate. But climate could change (colder or warmer) thru time, and sea-level could change dramatically too. So, planners need to plan ahead--- not to restrict man's industrial activities or carbon-producing activities, but simply to build cities several feet above mean sea-level, and not at mean sea-level.

santafe2
10-22-09, 12:33 AM
Can anybody answer these questions? They seem reasonable to me.

<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> The questions are not reasonable they are simply attempts to frame the argument inappropriately to gain debate ground and create political talking points. I won’t take time to answer all of them but I’ll point to one and you can do your own research on others if you desire more knowledge.


Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CEric%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsoht mlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> The last time CO2 concentration was above 4000 PPM, was 375 million years ago. Think dinosaurs and then go 5X back in time. There was burgeoning flora by that time but in the beginning of the Paleozoic there was little vegetation. What we see during this period is the earth beginning to create a balance as we humans like to see it, and bringing down the concentration of CO2 from 7000 PPM to well under 500 PPM. Think, little vegetation at the start and much more at the end. Good time for trilobytes but humans, not so much.

But, the issue at hand is AGM. A warming of the planet over the human industrial epoch. Any decent paleoclimatologist can explain the push and pull of CO2, temperature and other forces over the Paleozoic era better than one of us on iTulip if that is your interest but it’s complete bullshit as an AGM talking point. C1ue does not define the ice age period, (when CO2 is over 4000 PPM), he’s talking about so we don’t know if it’s 700 million years ago or 375 million years ago. But it doesn’t matter because we’re not concerned with the earth as it forms 500 million years before humanity, we’re concerned about today. Let me say that again, as science, it’s complete bullshit, as polemic…apparently golden.

The question as stated above is provocative but no more interesting than questioning whether the US moon landings were staged. A better question might be this: Where is the published, peer reviewed paper by a working paleoclimatologist or other closely associated scientist that suggests one should consider ultra high CO2 in the Paleozoic period as a precursor or explanation for modern AGM?

MulaMan
10-22-09, 02:06 AM
LOL! Let me provide some direction:

1. Is climate change real?

This is the scientific evidence that points to climate change.

If you do NOT believe in climate change then you need to refute the scientific evidence in this section - only.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans?

This is evidence that climate change is caused by humans.

If you argue against this as if it refutes climate change then you watch too much Fox News.

If you do not believe climate change is caused by humans then you need to argue against this - only.

3. What is going to happen?

These are projections - speculation.

If you argue against this as if it refues climate change then you have entered the retard zone - LOL - for example, a historical chart of hurricanes in Miami and then conclude extreme weather events have not increased hence there is no climate change. Sorry, but that is very dumb.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

This is the extreme retard zone. Glad most of you did not try to argue that a single or two or three very cold, snowy winter(s) in Boston or Moscow ... and hence there is no global warming.

Please take a look at your arguments and if you want to argue against climate change then please argue against climate change and not against -Is it caused by humans? what are the predicted outcomes? why did it snow so much this year? what would Jesus do? ect...

MulaMan
10-22-09, 02:26 AM
Looking forward, sea-level may rise another 6 or 7 inches in the next 100 years; that would not be a shock. That would be just a continuation the current trend. City planners need to think about the mega-trend of slightly rising sea-level and plan ahead for it.

But there is no case to be made for mankind having upset the balance of nature. No such balance ever did exist in nature. Rather, the Earth's climate is always changing and will always change. Mankind just needs to observe nature and plan ahead for natural changes which occur constantly.

A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

jneal3
10-22-09, 09:20 AM
A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

Does anyone know of a forum where the AGW proponents actually make sense and know what they're talking about? I've come to the conclusion that if I have any chance of understanding the scientific responses to c1ue, it ain't coming from iTulip.

iTulip global warming debate template:

anti-AGW - Q: "What is the evidence that reducing CO2 will have a discernible impact on future global warming?"
pro-AGW - A: "Yesterday, you Fox-news watching idiot"

For the record, I get my news from Olbermann and Stewart.

c1ue
10-22-09, 11:21 AM
The question as stated above is provocative but no more interesting than questioning whether the US moon landings were staged. A better question might be this: Where is the published, peer reviewed paper by a working paleoclimatologist or other closely associated scientist that suggests one should consider ultra high CO2 in the Paleozoic period as a precursor or explanation for modern AGM?

Excuse me, but again you attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is: if global warming/climate change/weenie term du jour is due to CO2 - manmade in today's case but clearly NOT man made in the past - then the mechanism being asserted today (warming due to CO2) should have been equal or worse in the period when CO2 was 10 times or more greater than today.

Yet there was an Ice Age.

This is clearly documented fact. Having a peer reviewed paper is irrelevant since the twin assertions of AGW being due to CO2 and CO2 causing warming are supposedly settled.


LOL! Let me provide some direction:

1. Is climate change real?

This is the scientific evidence that points to climate change.

If you do NOT believe in climate change then you need to refute the scientific evidence in this section - only.


This evidence of 'climate change' used to be evidence of global warming.

This evidence also fails to address key conflicting historical fact.

This evidence also primarily consists of mathematical models for the future and a short term warming trend which was both preceded and followed by cooling trends.

This evidence fails to show if these changes are or are NOT due to man made reasons.

The presence of SOME evidence is not the basis for a verdict.

Perhaps you need to take some instruction on both the scientific method and the basis for logical proof.


2. Is climate change caused by Humans?

This is evidence that climate change is caused by humans.

If you argue against this as if it refutes climate change then you watch too much Fox News.

If you do not believe climate change is caused by humans then you need to argue against this - only.


Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Nice circular argument. What is 'this'? Perhaps you need to stop smoking whatever crack it is you are on and try to make a coherent statement.

As for your second statement - nice try to assumptively close the argument. Unfortunately the questions I have posed which seem to contradict both parts of your assertion are still unanswered.


3. What is going to happen?

These are projections - speculation.

If you argue against this as if it refues climate change then you have entered the retard zone - LOL - for example, a historical chart of hurricanes in Miami and then conclude extreme weather events have not increased hence there is no climate change. Sorry, but that is very dumb.

You are the one who asserted hurricanes would be worse with global warming. I've shown that both Atlantic hurricane incidence and severity is not increasing.

You asserted 'sea level rise' would threaten "hundreds of millions of people". I've shown that these people are threatened anyway - but not due to sea level rise. They're threatened because they live near sea level - and are threatened whenever a storm goes by or even a very high tide.

Now you are saying historical evidence disproving your assertion is useless and that anyone who disagrees with you is dumb.

It is clear who is dumb.


Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do we roll the dice and hope that all the assumptions, have truths, and half baked models are right?

Do we take some action to ensure that this crusade we are all being roped into is necessary and beneficial?

I've already posted a report on the German experience with alternative energy subsidies - perhaps you should read it (http://6).

Because it specifically pits the investment into alternative energy against carbon emissions trading schemes. Or in other words - it is better to restrict carbon than it is to find better ways to generate energy.

Is this a good outcome?


4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

This is the extreme retard zone. Glad most of you did not try to argue that a single or two or three very cold, snowy winter(s) in Boston or Moscow ... and hence there is no global warming.

Please take a look at your arguments and if you want to argue against climate change then please argue against climate change and not against -Is it caused by humans? what are the predicted outcomes? why did it snow so much this year? what would Jesus do? ect...

It seems all of these questions are really your own - your own complete lack of understanding writ upon straw man questions for others.

You've made many posts and have failed to actually present any evidence beyond a single video.

You've made many statements yet have failed to answer any of my specific questions.

Clearly you're talking to yourself.

Please continue to do so and continue to discredit your entire movement.

In conclusion I reiterate what I said in a previous post:

The bugaboo of AGW due to CO2 is not only potentially wrong, it is also a danger in that it both risks diverting attention from real problems (including non-AGW warming, non-CO2 warming, etc etc) as well as removes focus from overconsumption to CO2 limitation.

CO2 limitation is itself a blatant reinvention of the Catholic indulgence: the ability to buy your way out of sin with money.

Certainly there will be some effect on consumption as energy prices rise, but ultimately those with more money can just indulge away while those with less money will suffer.

CO2 emissions limitation is a regressive method. What is needed is a progressive method which discourages those with the most ability to overconsume, to consume less.

Diarmuid
10-22-09, 11:40 AM
A little more simple direction for you on simple reasoning:

The scientists are making a very specific statement about CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans causing / speeding up / increasing the earth's temperature.

No scientist claims humans upset the balance of nature. If there is some warming mega-trend then that just makes CO2 based global warming even more urgent to address, if we luck into a cooling mega trend then we luck out, if a volcano erupts for 2 years straight it will get very cold no matter how much CO2 we pump out, ect...

Philisophical arguments about nature vs. humans, should humans intervine - we pumped CO2 into the air but nature made us do it..we cannot control nature so I can dump garbage in my nieghbor's pool, what would Jesus say... are all gateways into the retarded zone.

Now, if you understand that humans have increased CO2 levels and hence global temperatures the only question that should be debated is - What to do about it?

Do we roll the dice and keep pumping out CO2? Do we take some action to clean it up? Do we hope for "nature" to clean up? push the problem to our grand-kids and party on?

Do you cut your grass and take your garbage out or do you wait for nature to take care of it?

Because nature will take care of it, let your garbage pile up in your kitchen for 6 months and see what nature does.

Just because this topic has been not divisive enough to date - here is something to stir the pot a bit :D ;)

http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/dealingwithskeptics3.jpg

ggirod
10-22-09, 11:41 AM
Does anyone know of a forum where the AGW proponents actually make sense and know what they're talking about? I've come to the conclusion that if I have any chance of understanding the scientific responses to c1ue, it ain't coming from iTulip.I could as easily ask the question "does anyone know a forum where I can become conversant in brain surgery, causes, interventions, outcomes, ethics, and techniques" you might find this is not your forum. However, brain surgeons have not recently been put into the political spotlight, news media don't discuss them derisively, and few vested interests purport to educate the public on the topic. As a result, you don't come here for brain surgery discussion.

With due deference to brain surgeons the world around, climate science, the interactions between earth's systems and the sun/moon along with the impact of biology and human activity are at least as complex as brain surgery. So, while you swallow nervously and seek out an expert for that anuerism or whatever afflicts your cranium, does it seem likely you should be able to be expert in climate science and to meet thousands of similarly highly qualified people in forums such as this?

I am sure there are many forums devoted to climate science, their membership and existence are not widely open, and very active and penetrating discussions of research go on every day. Probably very few iTulip readers could keep up with the discussions and learning the background information to just begin to understand one posting could take a day for a committed student.

Now, with that introduction you are probably going to say I am some sort of ego maniac elitist. I am not. I recognize that people need to understand at least some of the science behind the major issues of the day, just as they should comprehend the economics behind our current mess. So, with that in mind, here is my recommendation for study materials if you wish to comprehend and begin to judge climate science discussions and assertions...

1. Philosophy of Science - Science is conducted with a set of agreed upon rules that are followed quite rigorously by people who are qualified to call themselves scientists. Politicians, business people, religious experts, and others sometimes find those rules confusing and confining, but if you don't know that 3 strikes is an out and 4 balls is a walk, you will find baseball confusing in addition to boring. :-) So, here is an introductory set of resources for philosophy of science ...

Wikipedia has a brief but meaty overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) and with the links spread richly throughout the text it is quite thorough. You should keep it at hand when reading scientific discussions so you can look up topics like the rhetoric of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_of_science), Explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation) and many others that are listed. Perusing this one article will probably open your eyes to a lot of fallacies foisted on the public in the name of science by people who are working outside their primary field.

2. Design of Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments) - While climatology does not involve lots of experiments, a quick perusal of experimental design and statistical analysis of experimental data will help you understand critical aspects of the scientific method. One thing you will realize from studying that topic is that the crucial experiment to "prove" AGW cannot be conducted until we find two identical earths, measure the climate exhaustively on each, and then have the humans on one do as we are doing, except in a carefully measured and controlled way, while the people on the other planet do as we should do. Analyzing the data would be rather enlightening. You would also find out about experimental controls and why, by our profligate production of CO2, we just might be conducting the experiment of our lives. Then again, maybe not ...

3. Topics like causation vs correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=causation+correlation&go=Go)are not treated to their own article in Wiki but perusing the links there and following up details will help you understand some of the difficult topics of discussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

4. Then, statistical topics such as curve fitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=curve+fitting&fulltext=Search&ns0=1) are useful to understand so that everything that looks like a hockey stick is not used to hit a puck and everything that grows really really fast need not be exponential but might look like it. It will help you become both skeptical and accepting of the outcomes of research depending on how the reports are presented. You will understand the limitations of predicting outcomes based on curve fitting, correlations, and statistical analyses in general.

5. Writing styles for reporting research are important to understand. While each discipline has its own rulebook, you can pretty much discount any article that does not include ... an Introduction (what is it about), a review of the literature and the rationale for why the study was done, the methodology (the what, where, how, when, why, of measurements and analysis) and a justification for why the study was conducted the way it was, details of the data analysis including statistical tests used, and finally, results and discussion, usually related back to the issues identified in the literature survey. Once you realize that you need to assess all areas of the research article not only before you believe it, but before you CAN understand and then maybe believe it. The major impact of peer review is on this stage; where a team of experts read, question, criticize, and evaluate the research article before it is published. The primary review is at the microscopic fact level for each article so that the basis of subsequent review articles (see below) is more solid.

6. Climatological models (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=climatological+models&fulltext=Search&ns0=1) are critical to understanding many of the discussions of climate change. These models utilize the data produced in 5, above, and they attempt to predict with ever more accurate results, the climatic future given drivers such as sun, water, wind, CO2, methane, ice cover, etc. There are lots, and the Wiki articles I cited just scratch the surface, but you can study each in depth by going back to the original articles and reading them. Sorry, but most of the models are rather mathematically rigorous so you may or may not be able to pursue the author all the way to the nuances of his findings with full comprehension. Such is life.

7. Critical reading of survey articles - You will find lots of interesting stuff if you start reading survey articles, especially those with lists of references as long as your arm. Here is the trick ... read the article and then, when you encounter a reference, read it. The judgments you learned in (5) above should be used to assess whether the referenced article actually said what the survey author said it did. In almost all cases with survey articles you will find a review of the references will provide a more nuanced and less certain view of the point in the article but it will also provide more background to understanding the real problem being discussed.

After you get to the point of reading a bunch of review articles and looking at the references and evaluating the truth for yourself, you are probably ready to benefit from LISTENING TO (not talking in) the discussions of climate scientists in their real groups. Probably, if, after researching a question arising from reading the discussion, you send a private email to a group member with a well thought out scientific question related to the methods, measures, outcomes, analyses, etc. for a study, you will probably find the guy is as nice and competent as Finster or Bart are in our group.

Go forth and prosper. After a while engaged in the pursuit of climatological understanding you will begin to understand that the discussions you see happening here, there, and everywhere, for what they are. If, late in your pursuit you are not frightened to the core with the ignorance being applied to really serious issues, then you probably should go back, do a refresher, and start again.

Now, back to brain surgery, above. The brain surgeon, when he plows through your skull to rearrange you 'til you're sane (or more likely save your life or the use of your faculties) relies on research produced in analogous ways to the approaches above. He daily reads journal articles and survey articles and has to question the results of anything that looks suspicious. So, because he follows a rigorous approach in his profession, you can pretty well trust him to open your skull as needed.

I hope this helps.

jneal3
10-22-09, 12:31 PM
Now, with that introduction you are probably going to say I am some sort of ego maniac elitist. I am not. I recognize that people need to understand at least some of the science behind the major issues of the day, just as they should comprehend the economics behind our current mess.

Good to hear, for the record it's not how you come across.


1. Philosophy of Science - Science is conducted with a set of agreed upon rules that are followed quite rigorously by people who are qualified to call themselves scientists. Politicians, business people, religious experts, and others sometimes find those rules confusing and confining, but if you don't know that 3 strikes is an out and 4 balls is a walk, you will find baseball confusing in addition to boring. :-) So, here is an introductory set of resources for philosophy of science ...

Wikipedia has a brief but meaty overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) and with the links spread richly throughout the text it is quite thorough. You should keep it at hand when reading scientific discussions so you can look up topics like the rhetoric of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_of_science), Explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation) and many others that are listed. Perusing this one article will probably open your eyes to a lot of fallacies foisted on the public in the name of science by people who are working outside their primary field.


I'll forward this to my former thesis advisor at Purdue, he'll be shocked to learn I've been exposed to a definition of the scientific method.:rolleyes:

Seriously, how condescending can you be?



2. Design of Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments) - While climatology does not involve lots of experiments, a quick perusal of experimental design and statistical analysis of experimental data will help you understand critical aspects of the scientific method. One thing you will realize from studying that topic is that the crucial experiment to "prove" AGW cannot be conducted until we find two identical earths, measure the climate exhaustively on each, and then have the humans on one do as we are doing, except in a carefully measured and controlled way, while the people on the other planet do as we should do. Analyzing the data would be rather enlightening. You would also find out about experimental controls and why, by our profligate production of CO2, we just might be conducting the experiment of our lives. Then again, maybe not ...

3. Topics like causation vs correlation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=causation+correlation&go=Go)are not treated to their own article in Wiki but perusing the links there and following up details will help you understand some of the difficult topics of discussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

4. Then, statistical topics such as curve fitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=curve+fitting&fulltext=Search&ns0=1) are useful to understand so that everything that looks like a hockey stick is not used to hit a puck and everything that grows really really fast need not be exponential but might look like it. It will help you become both skeptical and accepting of the outcomes of research depending on how the reports are presented. You will understand the limitations of predicting outcomes based on curve fitting, correlations, and statistical analyses in general.


'Black Belt Six Sigma' on this end (my parents are sooo proud), kind of know statistics and Taguchi.

I'm mostly embarrassed by the pro-AGW side in this discussion, because before letting myself dragged into this I accepted AGW, and probably after drilling down will be back in the fold but with better understanding. The detailed questions being brought up, forgive me, deserve answers if you're trying to convince the world at large to go along with drastic action. A respectful, convincing answer to some of them would be 'We don't know yet' or 'yes but that is a small issue and here's why' (I do see that occasionally here, but it's rare), without the condescension.

BTW, you haven't lived until you've tried to follow a forum discussion between doctors on how to read an EKG...


I hope this helps.

It did. Thanks.

c1ue
10-22-09, 12:34 PM
On the subject of peer review and 'experts in the field' and 'conspiracies':

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/



In the absence of compelling systematic studies, is there anything we can say about the reliability of peer review?

The question of reliability should, in my opinion, really be broken up into three questions.

First, does peer review help verify the validity of scientific studies; second, does peer review help us filter scientific studies, making the higher quality ones easier to find, because they get into the “best” journals, i.e., the ones with the most stringent peer review; third, to what extent does peer review suppress innovation?

As regards validity and quality, you don’t have to look far to find striking examples suggesting that peer review is at best partially reliable as a check of validity and a filter of quality.

Consider the story of the German physicist Jan Hendrik Schoen (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/11352). In 2000 and 2001 Schoen made an amazing series of breakthroughs in organic superconductivity, publishing his 2001 work at a rate of one paper every 8 days, many in prestigious journals such as Nature, Science, and the Physical Review. Eventually, it all seemed a bit too good to be true, and other researchers in his community began to ask questions. His work was investigated, and much of it found to be fraudulent. Nature retracted seven papers by Schoen; Science retracted eight papers; and the Physical Review retracted six. What’s truly breathtaking about this case is the scale of it: it’s not that a few referees failed to pick up on the fraud, but rather that the refereeing system at several of the top journals systematically failed to detect the fraud. Furthermore, what ultimately brought Schoen down was not the anonymous peer review system used by journals, but rather investigation by his broader community of peers.

You might object to using this as an example on the grounds that the Schoen case involved deliberate scientific fraud, and the refereeing system isn’t intended to catch fraud so much as it is to catch mistakes. I think that’s a pretty weak objection – it can be a thin line between honest mistakes and deliberate fraud – but it’s not entirely without merit. As a second example, consider an experiment conducted by the editors of the British Medical Journal (ref (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237)). They inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper already accepted for publication, and sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers. 221 responded, catching on average only two of the errors. None of the reviewers caught more than five of the errors, and 16 percent no errors at all.

None of these examples is conclusive. But they do suggest that the refereeing system is far from perfect as a means of checking validity or filtering the quality of scientific papers.


What about the suppression of innovation? Every scientist knows of major discoveries that ran into trouble with peer review. David Horrobin has a remarkable paper (ref (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/263/10/1438)) where he documents some of the discoveries almost suppressed by peer review; as he points out, he can’t list the discoveries that were in fact suppressed by peer review, because we don’t know what those were. His list makes horrifying reading. Here’s just a few instances that I find striking, drawn in part from his list. Note that I’m restricting myself to suppression of papers by peer review; I believe peer review of grants and job applications probably has a much greater effect in suppressing innovation.

George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.
Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.
Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.
To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.

At this point I expect most readers will have concluded that I don’t much like the current peer review system. Actually, that’s not true, a point that will become evident in my post about the future of peer review. There’s a great deal that’s good about the current peer review system, and that’s worth preserving. However, I do believe that many people, both scientists and non-scientists, have a falsely exalted view of how well the current peer review system functions. What I’m trying to do in this post is to establish a more realistic view, and that means understanding some of the faults of the current system.


From the comments:



MikeM said,

January 8, 2009 @ 10:48 pm (http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/#comment-16921)
Economist George Akerlof wrote his most famous paper, “The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism” in 1967. The paper used the market for used cars as an example of asymmetric information – where a seller knows more about the goods he is selling than a buyer does. The first journal Akerlof tried rejected the paper on the grounds that it was trivial. The second also rejected it. The third rejection came with a referee’s comment that the paper was wrong in its reasoning – that if it were right, economics would be different.

The paper was eventually published, Akerlof shared a Nobel Prize for economics in 2001 primarily on the basis of “The Market for Lemons”, and economics is now different.


MikeM, that was a terrific link to George Akerlof. In particular, Akerlof’s describes an example peer-review failure because “The economists of the time felt that it would violate their methodology to consider a problem, such as the role of asymmetric information, that was out of its traditional focus.”

“Out of our traditional focus” is a very common reason for rejection, not only in academic publishing, but also in business, and politics (and if you think about it, even romance).

I think it was Marvin Minsky, in Society of Mind, who pointed out how very necessary it is, that human cognition has strong censorship mechanisms, operating largely on the preconscious level, that reject ideas that don’t match preconceptions.

This is no bad thing. But the paradoxical result is that it is (sometimes) more difficult for a good idea to find an audience than a mediocre one.



John Sidles (http://www.mrfm.org/) said,

January 9, 2009 @ 3:12 pm (http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/#comment-16942)
Sérgio Nunes’ post indirectly points to another unintended consequence of peer review, which comes about as follows (humor alert!).

(1) The most inexpensive kind of faculty to hire are theorem-provers. (2) The most rigorous form of peer review is theorem-checking. (3) Hence, in any academic ecosystem that regulated by peer-review, the theorem-provers eventually become the dominant species of professor.

Arguably, this trend has been wonderful news for mathematics, OK news for the physical sciences, not-so-good news for engineering … and it has been an utter disaster for economics. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif




Beginning in the seventeenth century (or perhaps a little earlier – I’m not positive) what would now be equivalent to publishing in a premier journal (Physical Review, Nature, JAMA, etc.), consisted of having one’s paper presented to one of the learned societies of the time. The historical ‘remnants’ of this process are still evident in the names of several of the Royal Society’s journals, notably “Proceedings of…” and “Notes and Records of…”

This process always involved some sort of peer review and often suffered from the same problems peer review still suffers from. Two of the most notable examples of this were the nearly simultaneous attempts by Abel and Galois to have their work (the origins of group theory) communicated to the French Academy of Sciences. Both were unsuccessful (at least in their short lifetimes) and, in fact, Galois received what amounted to a referee’s report dated July 4, 1831 that rejected one of the foremost papers in the history of mathematics. The referees were Poisson and Lacroix. Abel was simply ignored (again, until he was dead).

Ironically, though neither knew the other, they were working on the same problem nearly simultaneously and had trouble not just with the same society, but the same people. At one point or another both ran into the immense ego of Cauchy in their attempts to be recognized by the Academy.

Mario Livio’s book, despite its “popular” title (The Equation That Couldn’t Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of Symmetry), represents very serious scholarly research into the history of group theory and, particularly, Abel and Galois themselves. There is also a book out on the history of learned societies that I have not yet read, but, thanks to this post, will make my next read. I don’t recall the title and it is on the bookshelf in my office.

MulaMan
10-22-09, 01:26 PM
I could as easily ask the question "does anyone know a forum where I can become conversant in brain surgery, causes, interventions, outcomes, ethics, and techniques" you might find this is not your forum. However, brain surgeons have not recently been put into the political spotlight, news media don't discuss them derisively, and few vested interests purport to educate the public on the topic. As a result, you don't come here for brain surgery discussion.scussion you might hear thrown around in climatology discussions.

100% wrong. The science behind climate change is very, very simple high school level science.

The science is made complex to confuse and divide.

For example, just like the tabacco lobby did for years or the anti-evolution folks with junk, psuedo science.

Fact #1: Humans pump more CO2 into the atmosphere then is taken out through plants ect.. hence the amount of CO2 is increasing.

Fact #2: CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures through a greenhouse effect.

SIMPLE AS THAT. THAT IS THE SCIENCE. PERIOD.

All the psuedo science crap are just complex PROJECTIONS of how fast the globe will warm up and what the impact will be - that is like predicting the stock market and is complete junk - but it DOES NOT NEGATE the simple facts.

If you want to argue global warming you need to prove that either:

#1: Human beings are not pumping out more CO2 then is being taken out.

#2: CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT produce a greenhouse effect increasing temperatures.

GOOD LUCK. It is that simple.

Diarmuid
10-22-09, 01:50 PM
On the subject of peer review and 'experts in the field' and 'conspiracies':

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/



From the comments:

Speaking of which - on a subject more fimilar to most of the readers on itulip - here is an article on economics and the total dependence of using theory with devastating circular logic and computer models to try and predict a system with extreme complexity and further to enact public policy from the results with the resulting devasting effects - whether AGW proves to be analogous, I suppose time will tell, personally I believe, there is WAY too much hubris in science, what ever the field.



Modeling the Economy as a Complex System (http://news.kontentkonsult.com/2009/09/modeling-economy-as-complex-system.html)

Modeling the Economy as a Complex System


......Economics can be thought of the physics with strategic atoms, who keep trying to foil any efforts to understand them and bring them under control. Strategic agents complicate modeling enormously; they make it impossible to have a perfect model since they increase the number of calculations one would have to make in order to solve the model beyond the calculations the fastest computer one can hypothesize could process in a finite amount of time.


Put simply, the formal study of complex systems is really, really, hard. Inevitably, complex systems exhibit path dependence, nested systems, multiple speed variables, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, and other non-linear dynamical properties. This means that at any moment in time, right when you thought you had a result, all hell can break loose. Formally studying complex systems requires rigorous training in the cutting edge of mathematics and statistics. It's not for neophytes.


They carefully presented their models as aids to a broader informed common sense. They built this modesty into their policy advice and told policy makers that the most we can expect from models is half-truths.

.......


In the early 1900s that two-part division broke down, and economists became a bit less modest in their claims for models, and more aggressive in their application of models directly to policy questions. The two branches were merged, and the result was a tragedy for both the science of economics and for the applied policy branch of economics.

It was a tragedy for the science of economics because it led economists away from developing a wide variety of models that would creatively explore the extraordinarily difficult questions that the complexity of the economy raised, questions for which new analytic and computational technology opened up new avenues of investigation. Instead, the economics profession spent much of its time dotting i's and crossing t's on what was called a Walrasian general equilibrium model which was more analytically tractable. As opposed to viewing the supply/demand model and its macroeconomic counterpart, the Walrasian general equilibrium model, as interesting models relevant for a few limited phenomena, but at best a stepping stone for a formal understanding of the economy, it enshrined both models, and acted as if it explained everything. Complexities were just assumed away not because it made sense to assume them away, but for tractability reasons. The result was a set of models that would not even pass a perfunctory common sense smell test being studied ad nauseam.

...........



Initially macroeconomics stayed separate from this broader unitary approach, and relied on a set of rough and ready models that had little scientific foundation. But in the 1980s, macroeconomics and finance fell into this "single model" approach. As that happened it caused economists to lose sight of the larger lesson that complexity conveys -that models in a complex system can be expected to continually break down.

.....


Models and Macroeconomics


Let me be a bit more specific. The dominant model in macroeconomics is the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model. This is a model that assumes there is a single globally rational representative agent with complete knowledge who is maximizing over the infinite future. In this model, by definition, there can be no strategic coordination problem-the most likely cause of the recent crisis-such problems are simply assumed away. Yet, this model has been the central focus of macro economists' research for the last thirty years.


Had the DSGE model been seen as an aid to common sense, it could have been a useful model. When early versions of this model first developed back in the early 1980s, it served the useful purpose of getting some intertemporal issues straight that earlier macroeconomic models had screwed up. But then, for a variety of sociological reasons that I don't have time to go into here, a majority of macroeconomists started believing that the DSGE model was useful not just as an aid to our understanding, but as the model of the macroeconomy. That doesn't say much for the common sense of rocket economists. As the DSGE model became dominant, important research on broader non-linear dynamic models of the economy that would have been more helpful in understanding how an economy would be likely to crash, and what government might do when faced with a crash, was not done.

......


Similar developments occurred with efficient market finance models, which make similar assumptions to DSGE models. When efficient market models first developed, they were useful; they led to technological advances in risk management and financial markets. But, as happened with macro, the users of these financial models forgot that models provide at best half truths; they stopped using models with common sense and judgment. The modelers knew that there was uncertainty and risk in these markets that when far beyond the risk assumed in the models. Simplification is the nature of modeling. But simplification means the models cannot be used directly, but must be used judgment and common sense, with a knowledge of the limitations of use that the simplifications require. Unfortunately, the warning labels on the models that should have been there in bold print-these models are based on assumptions that do not fit the real world, and thus the models should not be relied on too heavily-were not there. They should have been, which is why in the Dahlem Report we suggested that economic researchers who develop these models be subject to a code of ethics that requires them to warn society when economic models are being used for purposes for which they were not designed.


How did something so stupid happen in economics? It did not happen because economists are stupid; they are very bright. It happened because of incentives in the academic profession to advance lead researchers to dot i's and cross t's of existing models, rather than to explore a wide range of alternative models, or to focus their research on interpreting and seeing that models are used in policy with common sense. Common sense does not advance one very far within the economics profession. The over-reliance on a single model used without judgment is a serious problem that is built into the institutional structure of academia that produces economic researchers. That system trains show dogs, when what we need are hunting dogs.




Suggestions


Let me conclude with a brief discussion of two suggestions, which relate to issues under the jurisdiction of this committee, that might decrease the probability of such events happening in the future.


Include a wider range of peers in peer review


The first is a proposal that might help add a common sense check on models. Such a check is needed because, currently, the nature of internal-to-the-subfield peer review allows for an almost incestuous mutual reinforcement of researcher's views with no common sense filter on those views. The proposal is to include a wider range of peers in the reviewing process of NSF grants in the social sciences. For example, physicists, mathematician, statisticians, and even business and governmental representatives, could serve, along with economists, on reviewing committees for economics proposals. Such a broader peer review process would likely both encourage research on much wider range of models and would also encourage more creative work.

ggirod
10-22-09, 01:57 PM
Seriously, how condescending can you be?I did not intend to be condescending, just thorough. People who have not been exposed to scientific research need some basic orientation for further discussion. Neither of us need it, but many readers might. I guess I tried to cover the bases so that people could see what the full scope of understanding was. I have observed too many discussions in which basic tenets of science were ignored in favor of rancor.


'Black Belt Six Sigma' on this end (my parents are sooo proud), kind of know statistics and Taguchi. Ditto here, not Six Sigma but lots of SPC and some Taguchi. I really enjoyed the philosophical discussions between Taguchi folks and classical experimental design folks. Also, of course, undergrad and Master's level stat.


The detailed questions being brought up, forgive me, deserve answers if you're trying to convince the world at large to go along with drastic action. A respectful, convincing answer to some of them would be 'We don't know yet' or 'yes but that is a small issue and here's why' (I do see that occasionally here, but it's rare), without the condescension.This is probably not an ideal forum for many of the detailed questions because the detailed answers required demand either very in-depth climatology background or a lot of study to bound and resolve the issue. In general, when i see a detailed attack on a broad model I recognize that it is probably not valid. Instead, it is frequently an attempt to invalidate a simplified and absolutist strawman with one or a few conflicting instances. The attempt to strip science of its nuances is one means to simplify prior to invalidating it for large numbers of people.

I will pick one topic as an example ... "It's cold - the sunspots have disappeared. So, you say that people stopped the sunspots? What about the Maunder Minimum? Then, for emphasis, the author includes a temperature graph that shows a slight deceleration of warming. As a metaphorical exclamation mark, the writer even includes the detail that the temperatures on Mars and maybe a few other planets have dropped coincident with the suns output. It turns out that the issue is a bit more nuanced than that, as Scientific American (http://http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sun-spots-and-climate-change) shows in their article. An earlier article (http://http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=solar-forecasts-and-climate-change-09-05-22) covers the topic with a stronger opinion. One could look at the two articles and say that there was disagreement. Or, one could also look at the extensive agreement and determine that some issues might still be open but the main thrust is not in question. In neither case, was there an assertion that AGW was invalid because the sun is the cause.

Interestingly enough, more recently, (sorry no links handy) it turns out that the solar wind, which consists of charged particles from the sun, increases the condensation of moisture in the upper atmosphere, makes clouds, and the clouds hold in some heat while reflecting some. The solar wind is stronger with sunspots so the "truth" appears to have a contribution of solar wind in addition to the raw energy output of the sun. now, that small contribution likely causes changes in the ocean temperatures and other knock-on effects too. That is the current status of but one tiny and seemingly fairly simple detail, in a huge model of the climate. Actually, I picked that one to be simple because the more basic the topic, the more resulting moving parts to be explained and evaluated.

In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

Diarmuid
10-22-09, 02:08 PM
I

In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

ggirod


On a serious note, this topic appears to be very devisive, but I wonder for people on either side of the debate here on Itulip, for many, are the underlying concerns they have the same? with such in mind I respect your argument, admire your motivations, but respectful disagree.

jneal3
10-22-09, 02:28 PM
In summary, I am very concerned with mankind's inability to deal with scientific information, public policy, and appropriate determination and balancing of risks and consequences. That holds not only for AGW, but for GM foods, various pollution problems, collapses of ecosystems, fisheries and coral reef collapses, and most anything in which political forces align themselves with their funded interests and ignore the very significant nuances of the scientific issue. As long as the loudest voice with the biggest bullhorn and the best public relations funding makes the decisions, the world is at serious risk.

This is very honest, and frankly I'm in 100% agreement with this sentiment. I just think it does far more damage than good to attack questioners, even if you question the motives of the questioner. It shows fear. There's nothing more reassuring to me than a scientist who says "I don't know, yet".;)

ThePythonicCow
10-22-09, 02:40 PM
Fact #1: Humans pump more CO2 into the atmosphere then is taken out through plants ect.. hence the amount of CO2 is increasing.

Fact #2: CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures through a greenhouse effect.

SIMPLE AS THAT. THAT IS THE SCIENCE. PERIOD.
You're missing a couple of things needed to justify major action. If I piss in the ocean, that adds to the water in the ocean and adds to the polution in the ocean. Therefore the worlds nations should pay me a trillion dollars to not piss in the oceans :rolleyes:.

All the psuedo science crap are just complex PROJECTIONS of how fast the globe will warm up and what the impact will be - that is like predicting the stock market and is complete junk - but it DOES NOT NEGATE the simple facts.
You in particular, and some of your colleagues in this particular discussion, do not serve your position well with such borish insults and condescending retorts

ggirod
10-22-09, 03:15 PM
This is very honest, and frankly I'm in 100% agreement with this sentiment. I just think it does far more damage than good to attack questioners, even if you question the motives of the questioner. It shows fear. There's nothing more reassuring to me than a scientist who says "I don't know, yet".;)
I guess my preference is not to attack the questioner in any case, and instead to deal with the sources, process, method, analysis, peer review, and study replications for the underlying documents cited. Unfortunately, survey / opinion pieces are not easy to deal with because you have to check the author's interpretation of the research articles and whether the conclusions in question came from referenced primary sources or other surveys, etc. Judging the quality of scientific literature is not easy but very important. (sorry for the continued lecture, but it for all readers, not just us)

Then, having qualified the item, it is time to add it to the mix of existing information, which includes probably hundreds of studies and replications. At that point it may not shift the balance; in fact the odds of being near enough 50/50 to shift the balance of the decision are pretty low unless there is but a very small body of information thus far available. Near 50/50 is definitely I don't know territory, though if possible the answer should bound the possibilities too.

By the way, re: peer review and its shortfalls ... the best control on peer review is supposed to be replication and people should not accept as "truth" things that have not been replicated by different scientists in different places with similar findings. In fact, replication in which you demonstrate a principle by multiple methods or measures, such as tree rings, ice cores, ocean chemistry, fossil remains, chemical erosion rates is by far the best confirmation for a model. While discrepancies are to be expected in such confirmations, the basic principle should survive. Just one study or one instance should not usually credit or discredit a model.

I must sound very much like I am a apologist for the status quo. I am not, but I do respect the results of well-conducted science in giving the best answers for the questions TODAY. Tomorrow there may be new answers; if not, it probably isn't science, if so, it is to be expected.

c1ue
10-22-09, 04:42 PM
#1: Human beings are not pumping out more CO2 then is being taken out.

#2: CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT produce a greenhouse effect increasing temperatures.


Again your slip is showing. You don't prove squat by proving the absence of something. Science is proving cause creates effect exclusive to or in well understood and proven proportion to other causes, not disparaging other views.

Furthermore skeptics like myself are not the ones advocating massive new taxes and bureaucracy. The ones who do advocate such are the ones with the burden of proof.

In response to the latest installment of MulaMan idiocy, I post an article which closely approximates my view on the debate over AGW, with the conclusion first for those who don't want to read several pages:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494#


The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

------------------------------------------------------------

There is a famous graph showing the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it varies month by month and year by year (see the graph (http://www.nybooks.com/images/tables/2008061244img1.gif)). It gives us our firmest and most accurate evidence of effects of human activities on our global environment. The graph is generally known as the Keeling graph because it summarizes the lifework of Charles David Keeling, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. Keeling measured the carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere for forty-seven years, from 1958 until his death in 2005. He designed and built the instruments that made accurate measurements possible. He began making his measurements near the summit of the dormant volcano Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii.

...

The graph has two obvious and conspicuous features. First, a steady increase of carbon dioxide with time, beginning at 315 parts per million in 1958 and reaching 385 parts per million in 2008. Second, a regular wiggle showing a yearly cycle of growth and decline of carbon dioxide levels.

...

The only plausible explanation of the annual wiggle and its variation with latitude is that it is due to the seasonal growth and decay of annual vegetation, especially deciduous forests, in temperate latitudes north and south. The asymmetry of the wiggle between north and south is caused by the fact that the Northern Hemisphere has most of the land area and most of the deciduous forests. The wiggle is giving us a direct measurement of the quantity of carbon that is absorbed from the atmosphere each summer north and south by growing vegetation, and returned each winter to the atmosphere by dying and decaying vegetation.

...

When we put together the evidence from the wiggles and the distribution of vegetation over the earth, it turns out that about 8 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is absorbed by vegetation and returned to the atmosphere every year. This means that the average lifetime of a molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, before it is captured by vegetation and afterward released, is about twelve years. This fact, that the exchange of carbon between atmosphere and vegetation is rapid, is of fundamental importance to the long-range future of global warming, as will become clear in what follows. Neither of the books under review mentions it.

...

Everything is calculated by running a single computer model which he calls DICE, an acronym for Dynamic Integrated Model of Climate and the Economy.

Each run of DICE takes as input a particular policy for allocating expenditures year by year. The allocated resources are spent on subsidizing costly technologies—for example, deep underground sequestration of carbon dioxide produced in power stations—that reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, or placing a tax on activities that produce carbon emissions. The climate model part of DICE calculates the effect of the reduced emissions in reducing damage. The output of DICE then tells us the resulting gains and losses of the world economy year by year. Each run begins at the year 2005 and ends either at 2105 or 2205, giving a picture of the effects of a particular policy over the next one or two hundred years.

The practical unit of economic resources is a trillion inflation-adjusted dollars. An inflation-adjusted dollar means a sum of money, at any future time, with the same purchasing power as a real dollar in 2005. In the following discussion, the word "dollar" will always mean an inflation-adjusted dollar, with a purchasing power that does not vary with time. The difference in outcome between one policy and another is typically several trillion dollars, comparable with the cost of the war in Iraq. This is a game played for high stakes.

...

Nordhaus examines five kinds of global-warming policy, with many runs of DICE for each kind. The first kind is business-as-usual, with no restriction of carbon dioxide emissions—in which case, he estimates damages to the environment amounting to some $23 trillion in current dollars by the year 2100. The second kind is the "optimal policy," judged by Nordhaus to be the most cost-effective, with a worldwide tax on carbon emissions adjusted each year to give the maximum aggregate economic gain as calculated by DICE. The third kind is the Kyoto Protocol, in operation since 2005 with 175 participating countries, imposing fixed limits to the emissions of economically developed countries only. Nordhaus tests various versions of the Kyoto Protocol, with or without the participation of the United States.

The fourth kind of policy is labeled "ambitious" proposals, with two versions which Nordhaus calls "Stern" and "Gore." "Stern" is the policy advocated by Sir Nicholas Stern in the Stern Review, an economic analysis of global-warming policy sponsored by the British government.<SUP>
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494#fn*)</SUP> "Stern" imposes draconian limits on emissions, similar to the Kyoto limits but much stronger. "Gore" is a policy advocated by Al Gore, with emissions reduced drastically but gradually, the reductions reaching 90 percent of current levels before the year 2050. The fifth and last kind is called "low-cost backstop," a policy based on a hypothetical low-cost technology for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or for producing energy without carbon dioxide emission, assuming that such a technology will become available at some specified future date. According to Nordhaus, this technology might include "low-cost solar power, geothermal energy, some nonintrusive climatic engineering, or genetically engineered carbon-eating trees."

...

Here are the net values of the various policies as calculated by the DICE model. The values are calculated as differences from the business-as-usual model, without any emission controls. A plus value means that the policy is better than business-as-usual, with the reduction of damage due to climate change exceeding the cost of controls. A minus value means that the policy is worse than business-as-usual, with costs exceeding the reduction of damage. The unit of value is $1 trillion, and the values are specified to the nearest trillion. The net value of the optimal program, a global carbon tax increasing gradually with time, is plus three—that is, a benefit of some $3 trillion. The Kyoto Protocol has a value of plus one with US participation, zero without US participation. The "Stern" policy has a value of minus fifteen, the "Gore" policy minus twenty-one, and "low-cost backstop" plus seventeen.

...

The main conclusion of the Nordhaus analysis is that the ambitious proposals, "Stern" and "Gore," are disastrously expensive, the "low-cost backstop" is enormously advantageous if it can be achieved, and the other policies including business-as-usual and Kyoto are only moderately worse than the optimal policy.

...

The Zedillo book covers a much wider range of topics and opinions than the Nordhaus book, and is addressed to a wider circle of readers. It includes "Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?," by Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, answering that question with a resounding no. Lindzen does not deny the existence of global warming, but considers the predictions of its harmful effects to be grossly exaggerated. He writes,

Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than that found in computer models whose sensitivity depends on processes that are clearly misrepresented.
Answering Lindzen in the next chapter, "Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts," is Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Potsdam University in Germany. Rahmstorf sums up his opinion of Lindzen's arguments in one sentence: "All this seems completely out of touch with the world of climate science as I know it and, to be frank, simply ludicrous." These two chapters give the reader a sad picture of climate science. Rahmstorf represents the majority of scientists who believe fervently that global warming is a grave danger. Lindzen represents the small minority who are skeptical. Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt.

In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time. The great virtue of Nordhaus's economic analysis is that it remains valid whether the majority view is right or wrong. Nordhaus's optimum policy takes both possibilities into account.

...

Howard Dalton, spokesman for the British government, is the most dogmatic. His final paragraph begins:

It is the firm view of the United Kingdom that climate change constitutes a major threat to the environment and human society, that urgent action is needed now across the world to avert that threat, and that the developed world needs to show leadership in tackling climate change.
The United Kingdom has made up its mind and takes the view that any individuals who disagree with government policy should be ignored. This dogmatic tone is also adopted by the Royal Society, the British equivalent of the US National Academy of Sciences. The Royal Society recently published a pamphlet addressed to the general public with the title "Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide." The pamphlet says:

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming.
In other words, if you disagree with the majority opinion about global warming, you are an enemy of science. The authors of the pamphlet appear to have forgotten the ancient motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, which means, "Nobody's word is final."

If the solution towards purported AGW is one which can be shown to build towards the future as opposed to limit towards the past, then there can be no objection towards action now.

If on the other hand the solution is one which costs lots of money, restricts growth, and/or introduces new bureaucracy - then the questioning of the need for such a solution becomes much more important and necessary.

Either way the lack of convincing proof as well as the lack of dialogue is not indicative of scientific inquiry, but rather dogma.

KGW
10-22-09, 05:07 PM
These folks are contributing to information about temperatures with their samples of air bubbles in ice core samples from the Northern Greenland ice sheet: http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/ (http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/)

c1ue
10-22-09, 05:48 PM
BTW, in case you are curious as to the details of the Nordhaus scenarios:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_14_02_03_murphy.pdf

2358

Notice how the abatement costs for the 'Stern' and 'Gore' scenarios is over $25T in present discounted value - i.e. today's dollars today.

This is more than the estimated damages resulting from doing nothing.

The $33.9 TRILLION in abatement costs for the 'Gore' scenario includes both taxation costs and compliance costs: taxes and bureaucracy in other words.

Starving Steve
10-22-09, 10:42 PM
Yes; also current monitoring stations are in settings that significantly alter the results by +/- up to 5 degrees C. Setting the stations on concrete, near buildings, etc., can drastically skew the results.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Setting climate stations in downtowns can skew temperature results upward by as much as 24 degrees C. or 40 degrees F. I found that juicy tid-bit of information when I studied temperatures in Minneapolis-St.Paul at night.

Many of the world's climate stations are in downtowns; for example, San Francisco's "official weather station" is at the Federal Building in downtown SF.

Even at airports, where many climate stations are located, temperatures are influenced by buildings and pavements. So, the bias in favour of reading temperatures too high is built-in. Also, as airports and downtowns, universities, in fact all urban settings develop, the built-in bias in favour of warming only increases.

Yes, some of NOAA's temperature readings come from satelites, but even using satelites, there are issues: for example, what infra-red radiation is the satelite measuring? --- the surface of the Earth's infra-red radiation, or the upper atmosphere's radiation, or both?

Also with NOAA's satelite data, the Southern Hemiphere of the Earth's cooling seems to nicely cancel the warming detected in the Northern Hemisphere. So, how can the Earth, as NOAA says, be warming above the 1951-1980 global mean temperature by 0.44C during 2008? The global temperature maps which Dr. Hansen at NOAA provided certainly do NOT show global warming, although they proclaim to show global warming.

Let me say this even slower: Antarctic cooling cancels Arctic warming in Hansen's maps. So too, the cooling of North America cancels the warming detected in Siberia and northern Europe. So too, the over-all cooling of the Southern Hemisphere nicely cancels the broad warming of the Northern Hemisphere.

Sorry, but I like every i-dotted and every t-crossed in a proof, before I believe anything, especially in science. Thus, "Show me." Show me the calculations of global mean temperatures that you used to determine the warming the entire Earth at 0.44C in 2008 with...... The maps Dr. Hansen's team at NOAA provided show no such warming, at least not to the naked-eye.

Steve Jacobs, climatologist, known here as, "Starving Steve" and resident of East Sooke, BC.

santafe2
10-23-09, 12:04 AM
Could the bubble be bursting as sentiment poll moves sharply towards the Deniers position with a 25% change in opinion over three years.

It's not surprising that the public would be less concerned about global warming after the La Nina bottom and before the new El Nino takes control. We're also at a solar bottom and just beginning an upturn with regard to the sun's output. Look for a new global temperature high in 2010 or 2011. AGM is the force driving our climate change. The earth forces oscillate but we continue to force the system.

santafe2
10-23-09, 12:28 AM
Let me say this even slower: Antarctic cooling cancels Arctic warming in Hansen's maps. So too, the cooling of North America cancels the warming detected in Siberia and northern Europe.

And you are recommending what? Release of more CFC's to off-set global warming from CO2? You do understand the issue with the ozone hole in the Antarctic? Could a denier make our case more clearly?

The right wing denier community will crack over the next few years as natural forces align with AGM and temperatures again move up.

santafe2
10-23-09, 12:45 AM
The $33.9 TRILLION in abatement costs for the 'Gore' scenario includes both taxation costs and compliance costs: taxes and bureaucracy in other words.

Without analyzing the numbers I'd say bravo! We come out on the other side with a new economy. Energy is simply a thing we use and not a driving force. It's unimportant, it's a tool. This is the future I work for every day of my life. You see a spreadsheet with big numbers, I see an energy efficient, and very low cost future.

we_are_toast
10-23-09, 09:10 AM
The right wing denier community will crack over the next few years as natural forces align with AGM and temperatures again move up.

I strongly disagree with you!

There is no amount of data, no amount of direct measurement or observation, no amount of published science, no amount of sea level rise, no amount of crop failure or forest degradation, no amount of species extinction, that will make the deniers admit they are wrong. For every piece of new evidence they simply come up with another nonscientific, nonsensical claim to keep their denial delusion alive.

20 years ago the deniers denied the earth was warming. When the direct measurements were simply too much, many moved to denying the warming was man-made (notice some deniers here still deny any warming, while others post geologic temperature graphs to claim a natural temperature rise). The next phase is to move to adaptation rather than prevention.

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

c1ue
10-23-09, 10:35 AM
Without analyzing the numbers I'd say bravo! We come out on the other side with a new economy. Energy is simply a thing we use and not a driving force. It's unimportant, it's a tool. This is the future I work for every day of my life. You see a spreadsheet with big numbers, I see an energy efficient, and very low cost future.

The difference between you and I is that you think these big numbers will represent new investment in technology and energy generation.

I think that these numbers represent bureaucrats and taxation schemes.

History is on my side.

You idealistically think that those pushing an agenda which presently benefits your industry, will continue to do so. The report from Germany says otherwise (http://1)

Lastly you don't seem to understand that there are differences between wholesale commitment of huge resources towards a goal vs. net benefits achieved from said goal.

While Nordhaus is assuming AGW, the point from the projections is that even IF AGW is real, the choices being presented by Gore and Stern vs. a do nothing path vs. a moderate path seem to dictate less draconian measures than are being pushed forward by politicians today.

If you read the full review, you might also notice that there are plenty of potentially better ways to handle CO2 - the alternative energy focus is only one possibility.


At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

Yes, that is how skeptical inquiry and science works.

You assert something, it is proven or disproven, and you move on.

Science isn't baseball - you don't get just 3 strikes.

Once again, those pushing for radical action to support a supposed scientific conclusion are the ones with the burden of proof.

santafe2
10-23-09, 10:42 AM
At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

:(...You're probably correct. I've read about a couple of geoengineering schemes that are just plain spooky. And their new approach to denial - global warming just may be a good thing. It certainly would solve the Florida housing crisis...no Florida, no crisis!

jneal3
10-23-09, 11:04 AM
20 years ago the deniers denied the earth was warming. When the direct measurements were simply too much, many moved to denying the warming was man-made (notice some deniers here still deny any warming, while others post geologic temperature graphs to claim a natural temperature rise). The next phase is to move to adaptation rather than prevention.

At each phase there is never an admission that they were wrong, they simply move the goal post to change the discussion.

I swore to myself I wouldn't post in this thread again until I could learn something and comment about the science, but come on! What do you call this?:

Global warming -----> Climate change

Who's changing the goalposts? Who, when the data might (caveat, since I don't personally know it is) be giving them trouble, re-words their position? Jesus.

we_are_toast
10-23-09, 01:50 PM
I swore to myself I wouldn't post in this thread again until I could learn something and comment about the science, but come on! What do you call this?:

Global warming -----> Climate change

Who's changing the goalposts? Who, when the data might (caveat, since I don't personally know it is) be giving them trouble, re-words their position? Jesus.

No need to be formal, you can just call me toast. ;)

I think you're trying to imply that those who have all the science on their side changed the term from global warming to climate change, of course you would be wrong.


Those who believe that global warming is caused by humans and their activities call it global warming, not meaning warming of the globe, but meaning that human activity is causing this dangerous situation," says Payack. "Those who believe that the climate changes over the eons, like it has for millions of years and that it's not exacerbated by human beings, are more likely to use the term climate change."

Payack says climate change is often the choice of those who think the situation can't be fixed by emissions treaties or hybrid cars or drastic changes to the American way of life.

In fact, a 2002 memo encouraged Republicans to go with climate change because it "sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge," whereas global warming sounds like it has "catastrophic connotations."
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/09/terms/

jneal3
10-23-09, 02:06 PM
No need to be formal, you can just call me toast. ;)

I think you're trying to imply that those who have all the science on their side changed the term from global warming to climate change, of course you would be wrong.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/09/terms/

Sorry, I got the term 'climate change' from the IPCC website, my bad. :rolleyes:. Pretty sure it was 'global warming' when I first saw 'An Inconvenient Truth', but the stress from the fear that induced must've affected my short-term memory.

santafe2
10-24-09, 12:57 AM
The difference between you and I is that you think these big numbers will represent new investment in technology and energy generation.

I think that these numbers represent bureaucrats and taxation schemes.

Again you're attempting to frame the debate to suit your own ends. I am this and you are that. It's just nonsense, a tactic but not an interesting one.

I am investigating a solution to a problem you deny exists. Now you've decided to quit denying and post an unreviewed paper that suggests that even if we are correct, our solution is wrong. And you ask us to respond?! Classic! Nordhaus or other experts in the field will respond as they have time. Your appeal to authority, (aren't you fond of formal arumentation rules?), is BS.

And although you've not been so polite to reciprocate, I've noted a few times in this debate that while I utterly disagree with every point you've made, I respect you and your intellect. I mean none of this as a personal attack and I try not to judge your motives. If I have, I apologize.

I see AGM as the largest issue humanity will face over the next 100 years. I'd like to hand off a functional world to my children and grandchildren and I'm sure we're not doing that now.

You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested. I'm not judging, just explaining...If you don't have children you can't imagine how your center changes from the present to the future. I don't have grand children but I can see how my parents and my wife's parents are invested beyond us and concerned about that generation once removed from them.

As I look at the science, I'm deeply concerned. The economics are secondary.

ThePythonicCow
10-24-09, 01:34 AM
You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested.One can be an AGW "denier" and still be generationally invested. Indeed, if one views the proposed "solutions" to AGW to be a major threat to our future and if one views the advocacy of an AGW threat to be erroneous and corrupt, while one denies there is a significant AGW problem itself, then if one is generationally invested, one will avidly oppose the proposed solutions.

Thailandnotes
10-24-09, 02:45 AM
:It certainly would solve the Florida housing crisis...no Florida, no crisis!

According to the USGS, Citibank on Wall Street is at 0 feet.

c1ue
10-24-09, 07:54 AM
Again you're attempting to frame the debate to suit your own ends. I am this and you are that. It's just nonsense, a tactic but not an interesting one.

I am investigating a solution to a problem you deny exists. Now you've decided to quit denying and post an unreviewed paper that suggests that even if we are correct, our solution is wrong. And you ask us to respond?! Classic! Nordhaus or other experts in the field will respond as they have time. Your appeal to authority, (aren't you fond of formal arumentation rules?), is BS.


Excuse me, but again your grasp of debate is poor.

I appeal to no authority. I merely point out that even those who are assuming AGW is real are pointing out that the extremist solutions are not the best path. It is ridiculous to say that I consider Nordhaus an authority when I am skeptical of AGW to start with.

But it is perfectly consistent to note that even those who assume AGW and who assign large economic damages due to this phenomenon, can see that not all solutions are necessarily worth pursuing.

As for investigating a solution - I fail to see why global warming is necessary in order to investigate a better energy source.


And although you've not been so polite to reciprocate, I've noted a few times in this debate that while I utterly disagree with every point you've made, I respect you and your intellect. I mean none of this as a personal attack and I try not to judge your motives. If I have, I apologize.

SF, I don't believe you have been attempting to attack me personally; however this statement does not apply to the others on your side of the debate. With 'friends' like those, AGW doesn't need enemies.

I will still reiterate that from a 'Golden Rule' perspective, your acceptance of the 'safe' solution violates the precept of non-interference in others' affairs. There are absolutely instances where this is necessary but a perquisite of such interference should be a rock solid, bullet proof rationale and I have raised a number of questions which would contraindicate this status for AGW.


I see AGM as the largest issue humanity will face over the next 100 years. I'd like to hand off a functional world to my children and grandchildren and I'm sure we're not doing that now.

You have a different opinion but I never sense that you're generationally invested. I'm not judging, just explaining...If you don't have children you can't imagine how your center changes from the present to the future. I don't have grand children but I can see how my parents and my wife's parents are invested beyond us and concerned about that generation once removed from them.

As I look at the science, I'm deeply concerned. The economics are secondary.

This statement is nothing but a rewording of your previous statement that it is better to be safe than sorry.

I've already said that I reject Pascal's Wager and why.

Furthermore I don't see you attacking the Social Security pyramid, the devaluation of the dollar/deep capture of the US government, the degradation of personal liberties, the failure of the health care system in the US, proliferation of nuclear weapons, wealth inequality, etc etc.

All of these issues are equally 'generational investment' and each are arguably of much greater impact on future generations as well as the present ones.

It seems hypocritical to focus on one single issue when there are so many of equal or greater impact on future generations.

As for the science - I still cannot comprehend why there is such faith in mathematical models. Besides the very specific criticisms of the climate 'science' models, there are numerous other examples where mathematical models have been complete failures including LTCM, AIDS progression, and population growth.

While I am not a climate scientist nor a professional mathematical modeler, I have been on the forefront for 4 generations of computer engineering. As you probably know, computer engineering is heavily dependent on mathematical modeling of the basic components, principally the transistor but also resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components.

Despite the very limited set of behaviors and devices in question, every single new generation has required reworking of the basic models. Effects which mattered at 0.5 micron, disappeared at 0.18 micron, then returned at 65nm. New effects show up.

Computer engineering is able to continuously update these models because every new generation has literally tens of thousands of physical tests run before the first production chip rolls out. Millions of simulations are run with all sorts of very specific test cases for very specific effects. In fact every single wafer that is created has at least a few test structures in the scribe line.

But climate 'science' doesn't have this. There are no real life test cases unless you dive down into relatively small scales - and even then simulations of tornados or rain are generalized.

In fact 'climate science' has much more in common with economics than it does with other forms of science: huge numbers of variables, a high number of poorly understood micro-phenomena, and an agenda.

The possibility that climate 'science' as we see it today is behaving identically as the neoliberal economists is very high: premises being confirmed rather than testing to create better models of reality.

As the economics field has shown us in the past 30 years, neither a consensus nor a huge investment in mathematical modeling guarantees a usable result.

Furthermore the economics field has already amply demonstrated the malinvestment which reliance on false models can engender.

That is why I continue to beat the drum on why 'climate science' is unable to reconcile even very high level contradictions to AGW assertions: both because the science is not rigorous and because the potential malinvestment being advocated is extremely high.

I close with a 'debate' between Bill Nye, the 'science guy' and Richard Lindzen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M
-----------------------------
Bill Nye: "I think it is real [global warming], I know it is real ... these molecules hold heat in the same way as glass holds heat in a greenhouse ... The weather around the world is gonna change ... the ice caps are melting and that fresh water flows into the sea and that upsets the flow of the thermo-haline heating or the salt-heat driven ocean currents ... and thats what makes the Gulf Stream go"

Richard Lindzen: "There is a certain climate of fear. For instance, Nye was talking about fresh water perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream. But that isn't what physical oceanographers think. First of all, we've measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes, it is almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down you'd have to stop the rotation of the earth."

Bill Nye (round 2): (Larry King: Where is Richard Lindzen wrong?) Well, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on his ideas. But the IPCC is pretty compelling and as you know I'm a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. And I find my colleagues pretty compelling - much more so, his view is a minority on a scale that is pretty impressive. It is probably 100,000 to 1 vs. him. But I don't want to get into a personal attack.

Richard Lindzen: (Larry King: Are you one of the alone ones in this) You know, on what I was just saying, it is textbook material. If the textbooks are outvoiced by environmental advocacy groups like UCS by 100,000 to 1, that would be bizarre, we should close down our schools. It makes no sense what Mr. Nye is saying. I'm simply saying that his comments about the Gulf Stream are wrong. And his comments on heat transport are wrong. And that is not 100,000 to one.

Bill Nye: Just to clarify, Larry asked me about fresh water falling on the ocean. That would be the ultimate consequence.

Richard Lindzen: All I'm saying is the thermo haline circulation is not the major driver of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is not...

Bill Nye: (interrupts) So you're saying we should not be concerned about global climate change because the wind drives the Gulf Stream? That's not enough for me.

Richard Lindzen: Nobody is saying anything of the sort. We're just saying if you wish to issue scare remarks, you should make them accurate according to the science.

Bill Nye: So it would be very dangerous if the world gets 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in say the next 50 years. It would be dangerous for everyone. Do you disagree with that?

Richard Lindzen: Yes of course I do. There is no study saying that the world will be appreciably more dangerous.
-----------------------------

I would like to point out that the mechanism for AGW ascribed by Bill Nye here is completely, absolutely wrong.

Greenhouses work by limiting convection.

The Greenhouse Effect via Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) works by radiation - specifically CO2 somehow magnifies the temperature effect of the normal water vapor radiative process.

I don't know anything about the Gulf Stream - someone else can comment on that.

Chris
10-24-09, 10:23 AM
Ian Plimer, Author and Professor in the School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science"

Some pretty convincing arguments from a geologist and very amusing guy. Worth a listen (http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1024-2.mp3).

ggirod
10-24-09, 10:51 AM
Greenhouses work by limiting convection.

The Greenhouse Effect via Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) works by radiation - specifically CO2 somehow magnifies the temperature effect of the normal water vapor radiative process.

I don't know anything about the Gulf Stream - someone else can comment on
that.The following is written for consumption by a general audience and is not intended to be condescending toward those who understand more. In fact, should you understand more or differently, you are invited to refine the descriptions I have provided because there may be better metaphors to describe the concepts. Past issues (over the past decade or maybe more) of Scientific American have excellent summary and survey articles on the same topics and are highly recommended.

Indeed, greenhouses work by limiting convection and the greenhouse gas effect is not the same. I think that the term was selected since the net effect of many contributors "feels" like a greenhouse and the term is a simplification for communicating with the general public. You are right, though, nobody put a glass roof on the earth.

Instead greenhouse gases reflect back to earth the longer wavelength infrared radiated from the earth while passing the wider spectrum of incoming radiation from the sun. The net effect is a warming of the earth because reflection is not symmetrical in and out.

Water vapor actually acts differently. It carries many times the heat of dry air. So, it is not entirely the same mechanism, but it is a similar effect at the outcome. Water vapor, which originates at the oceans, lakes, vegetation, etc. as the temperature increases, releases its heat when it condenses, usually in the form of rain/snow, and it powers storms. In addition to its role in carrying heat, though, it forms clouds that, at night, limit radiation from earth into space and hence cooling. For those in a winter or desert climate, go out in a crystal clear starry night midway near sunrise, and compare temperatures with similar temperatures measured with clouds. In fact, as a connoisseur of winter, I get to see cold nights so clear that you can actually feel the radiative loss from your body as you stand near windows or step outside. It is a tiny, minor sample of what being in space would be like. Those nights are becoming progressively more rare as clouds and CO2 etc. proliferate.

There is a further example of radiative cooling you can witness for yourself. It may be darkest before the dawn, or seem so, at least, but it is coldest after the dawn if the sky is clear. The reason is that a truly clear sky continues to pass radiation from the earth into space as the sun rises and "tries" to replace the radiated heat with its own. Only after a while, when the sun rises enough, can the radiation from the sun match the radiation losses from the earth and start the usually welcomed warming. Another observation you can use to make the greenhouse effect more "real". Often, especially spring and fall, you won't be able to see the temperature effect near dawn unless it is a very dry day. Instead, you will have to observe the condensation of dew for cooling because the water vapor (see above) is condensing and "resisting" further cooling. Water vapor has a moderating effect on temperatures until it gets too concentrated, when it causes undesired temperature increases.

Finally, the gulf stream is powered primarily, not by wind, but by the saline concentration in the ocean. Cold water has a higher concentration; warm tropical water has less. Concentrations will tend toward equilibrium in any open system, so dilute saltwater will flow to concentrated salt water to produce a balance. It does the same in the ocean. Dilute tropical salt water flows toward concentrated cold salt water in the north. There the dilute water is "fooled" because it cools, some of it forms ice, leaving the rest to become more concentrated and joins the "forces" of attraction up north. When ice melting lowers the concentration of salt enough, the game is over and the flow will stop; reaching, instead, the South Carolina coast or thereabouts instead of Scandanavia. It will then await the return of the ice caps and salt concentrations to reach a threshold and the gulf stream will return. There is scientific dispute of when the gulf stream will stop, but I don't think there is much dispute that it will. I remember seeing a reference that it had slowed this year (sorry, no link). Much of the concern re: the gulf stream is that it shows signs of being a chaotic system with multiple attractors (stable states); one of which is today with it flowing, and one without. Once it stops, if it does, it will take more salt concentration (like a hysterisis effect) to restart it. Nobody knows at this point, with a chaotic system when it will stop.

When it stops, Scandinavia, the UK, northern Europe, and Russia will be deprived of a moderating heat source that has made their climate comfortable and they will be returned to conditions appropriate to their latitude. I suspect that it is one of Earth's controls that will return normality a few thousand years after CO2 drops but that is probably speculation. Reflectance from the snow cover in the large area affected by the Gulf Stream will tend to cool the planet and contribute to returning the ice caps and the full flow of the gulf stream. Northern fisheries are fed by organic materials from the tropics and dropped in the arctic so changes will be extensive when the stream stops.

Of course, when northern Europe and Asia are plunged into the cold, it will be met with relief by those who say ... see? the earth isn't warming. See? We told you so. Look at the Germany and -30C temperatures. You call that warming?

c1ue
10-24-09, 02:16 PM
The following is written for consumption by a general audience and is not intended to be condescending toward those who understand more.

...

Instead greenhouse gases reflect back to earth the longer wavelength infrared radiated from the earth while passing the wider spectrum of incoming radiation from the sun. The net effect is a warming
of the earth because reflection is not symmetrical in and out.

The point of the 'debate' posting was the the AGW proponent was both obscuring the actual science (GHGs equal greenhouse glass) as well as making a scientific statement which Dr. Lindzen asserts is just plain wrong - on top of which Bill Nye was very much on the negative edge of polite discourse.

Dr. Lindzen's work is also one which points to an opposite effect to the said radiative GHG effect than one asserted by the IPCC and its models.

The reason this is of interest is that a positive feedback system trends towards extremes, while a negative feedback system trends towards status quo.

Thus the subject of the 'water vapour positive feedback' which both Dr. John Reid and Dr. Lindzen cover.

A climate which may be warming but which will not trend toward extremes is a very different climate than one which might suddenly turn violent once a tipping point of CO2 is exceeded.

This seems like a very reasonable criticism: Dr. Lindzen shows experimentally and via peer reviewed papers that the actual climate GHG feedback appears to be negative, while Dr. John Reid notes that the 'water vapour positive feedback' mechanism is used to compensate for sub-mesh oscillation damping effects such as "friction and molecular diffusion" and is modeling artifact.

santafe2
10-25-09, 02:35 AM
Excuse me, but again your grasp of debate is poor.

I appeal to no authority. I merely point out that even those who are assuming AGW is real are pointing out that the extremist solutions are not the best path. It is ridiculous to say that I consider Nordhaus an authority when I am skeptical of AGW to start with.


Thanks for your help with regard to my failings in logical argument...:rolleyes:. I was having some fun as we all appeal to authority, (sorry...you too), with our arguments. It's Hansen says, or Lindzen says, or...etc. I would also think it ridiculous that you appeal to Nordhous...but of course if you want to, I'd have an easier time offering a checkmate. You appeal to your own gods. I withdraw my criticism.


But it is perfectly consistent to note that even those who assume AGW and who assign large economic damages due to this phenomenon, can see that not all solutions are necessarily worth pursuing.
Of course. Many solutions will be designed to produce a profit for the well connected and will have no long term positive effect. Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.


As for investigating a solution - I fail to see why global warming is necessary in order to investigate a better energy source.
As do I. Short term, I'm more concerned about our now constant state of war to maintain our connection to fossil energy but the war funding is driving renewable energy with multiple hundreds of millions. Talk about a conflict?! One of my key concerns is that renewable energy research in the US will go underfunded for so many years that we'll fall behind several other countries who in my US centic point of view will not push the reseach. We've a fanatical entreprenureal base here in the US. I know, I've given up my saftey net twice in my life to pursue a business dream.

We have nano solar cells in the lab working at 45% efficiency and currently being driven to 50% by DARPA/DOW funding so soldiers/etc. in Afghanistan/Iraq can be connected for several days in the field with a 50 lb. backpack instead of 125 lb back breaker. Life is very complex. Without the oil wars, we're not driven to reseach nano solar techology.



SF, I don't believe you have been attempting to attack me personally; however this statement does not apply to the others on your side of the debate. With 'friends' like those, AGW doesn't need enemies.
Ok, just checking in. I don't think Toast or Necron or ggirod have ever intended a personal attack and I learn from their posts. And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but utterly wrong.


I will still reiterate that from a 'Golden Rule' perspective, your acceptance of the 'safe' solution violates the precept of non-interference in others' affairs. There are absolutely instances where this is necessary but a perquisite of such interference should be a rock solid, bullet proof rationale and I have raised a number of questions which would contraindicate this status for AGW.The Golden Rule, would allow that I would only expect/do unto you what I would expect of myself. I uphold that value as I assume, you do as well. But, the Golden Rule in the hands of the wrong people is genocide. I've no respect for the Golden Rule.


This statement is nothing but a rewording of your previous statement that it is better to be safe than sorry.
I make my kids wear seatbelts. I don't ride my bike at night without a light. I see my doctor yearly. I could go on but, it's better to be safe than sorry. You're a gambler. I respect your right to gamble. That's who we are as Americans. But I despise your request that I gamble my family's future on your bet. Throw a seven, get lucky. I respect your right to do that, but don't involve me or anyone in my circle. When you do, I'd rather crush you than risk those close to me.


I've already said that I reject Pascal's Wager and why.
You are a gambler and I am not. I know I'm characterizing you unfairly but I'm of the opinion that humantity is always one big mistake away from extinction. As you reject Pascal's Wager, you gamble with humanity's future. I'd rather we took a measured path through the next 100 years. I think we're at a crossroad and we'd better get our compass correct. You have the dice in your hand and you see a seven. I'm not taking that chance.


Furthermore I don't see you attacking the Social Security pyramid, the devaluation of the dollar/deep capture of the US government, the degradation of personal liberties, the failure of the health care system in the US, proliferation of nuclear weapons, wealth inequality, etc etc.
Ok, I only have so much time outside my business and family. Others, including EJ are doing a much better job with these issues. All that said, I think AGW is a much large issue. We obviously disagree.


All of these issues are equally 'generational investment' and each are arguably of much greater impact on future generations as well as the present ones.
I don't except any of those arguments. All are constucts within a working envriornment. If AGW scientists are correct, no one is going to care about the US$ or SSI.


It seems hypocritical to focus on one single issue when there are so many of equal or greater impact on future generations.
This is like being concerned with your favorite pair of shoes when your house is burning down. Let's not go down this road, it will take us well off track.


As for the science - I still cannot comprehend why there is such faith in mathematical models. Besides the very specific criticisms of the climate 'science' models, there are numerous other examples where mathematical models have been complete failures including LTCM, AIDS progression, and population growth.I'll be polite and not beat on you for referring to findings of the best climate scientists in the world as "faith". We both know that's complete crap. How can you honestly talk about climate research as if it's all based on computer models? You've posted your objection to our on-the-ground research. Scientists use on-the-ground research, satellite observations and other methods to understand our climate.


While I am not a climate scientist nor a professional mathematical modeler, I have been on the forefront for 4 generations of computer engineering. As you probably know, computer engineering is heavily dependent on mathematical modeling of the basic components, principally the transistor but also resistors, capacitors, and other electrical components.
I'll avoid offering my credentials as neither of our backgrounds matter unless one of us is a published and reviewed climatologist.


Despite the very limited set of behaviors and devices in question, every single new generation has required reworking of the basic models. Effects which mattered at 0.5 micron, disappeared at 0.18 micron, then returned at 65nm. New effects show up.

Computer engineering is able to continuously update these models because every new generation has literally tens of thousands of physical tests run before the first production chip rolls out. Millions of simulations are run with all sorts of very specific test cases for very specific effects. In fact every single wafer that is created has at least a few test structures in the scribe line.You deny the value of Pascal's wager and offer your knowledge of computer engineering as a defense. As a human being, I'm offended by your spreadsheet view of the world.


But climate 'science' doesn't have this. There are no real life test cases unless you dive down into relatively small scales - and even then simulations of tornados or rain are generalized.
Really? Ice cores are 'simulated'? Are small scale?


In fact 'climate science' has much more in common with economics than it does with other forms of science: huge numbers of variables, a high number of poorly understood micro-phenomena, and an agenda. Economics is a faux science, a non science. Good try but complete BS.


The possibility that climate 'science' as we see it today is behaving identically as the neoliberal economists is very high: premises being confirmed rather than testing to create better models of reality.
I get bored when you try to compare climate science to something out of context and assume a thinking person will buy into your "very high" association. Let's turn it around. Deniers are like Hitler. Do you really just want to scream at each other? Could you please quit this nonsense?


As the economics field has shown us in the past 30 years, neither a consensus nor a huge investment in mathematical modeling guarantees a usable result.Um, you can talk about economics for as long as you'd like to but it has nothing to do with the science of AGM. Computer modeling is only one aspect of the reseach.


Furthermore the economics field has already amply demonstrated the malinvestment which reliance on false models can engender.
Please don't ever defend this statement and I'll just let it pass. I hope you'll never offer up economics as a comparible field to climate science.


That is why I continue to beat the drum on why 'climate science' is unable to reconcile even very high level contradictions to AGW assertions: both because the science is not rigorous and because the potential malinvestment being advocated is extremely high.
The science is not rigorous? Please offer your peer reviewed papers that show climate science to have an "extremely high" correlation to say, astrology. We await your drum beat.


I close with a 'debate' between Bill Nye, the 'science guy' and Richard Lindzen
Really, I disrespect you for doing this. I could find 100 people on your side that have taken on a world class scientist and been slammed. Leave Bill Nye alone. He's a TV personality. WTF, you should apologize. When you pull this nonsense out, I suspect you only care about winning.

c1ue
10-25-09, 09:43 AM
Thanks for your help with regard to my failings in logical argument...:rolleyes:. I was having some fun as we all appeal to authority, (sorry...you too), with our arguments. It's Hansen says, or Lindzen says, or...etc. I would also think it ridiculous that you appeal to Nordhous...but of course if you want to, I'd have an easier time offering a checkmate. You appeal to your own gods. I withdraw my criticism.

I appeal to no authority - in fact I am the one attacking 'authority' in the AGW case. In every case I point out the specific assertions which individuals have brought up as opposed to use their credentials.

If you cannot understand the difference, so be it.


Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.

There was global warming just as there was global cooling before that. And now there appears to be global cooling.

So if we can agree on that, then yes. And again, global warming due to natural causes doesn't dictate radical action now. Man made CO2 not being a principal driver of global warming also doesn't dictate radical action now. Climate change is a reality with or without man.


Do we at least agree that there is global warming? If not, the debate must go back to square one. If so, maybe we'll find a path forward. If not, I see no value in this discussion.

And yet much of the political focus, domestic and international, seems to be on anthropogenic global warming.


Ok, just checking in. I don't think Toast or Necron or ggirod have ever intended a personal attack and I learn from their posts. And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but utterly wrong.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this assertion. The Toast'd one in particular seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his thesis is an oil industry sellout, stupid, and/or a right wing think tank-er.

I've seen very few questions answered substantively by any of the pro-AGW advocates thus far in this thread.


But, the Golden Rule in the hands of the wrong people is genocide. I've no respect for the Golden Rule.


I make my kids wear seatbelts. I don't ride my bike at night without a light. I see my doctor yearly. I could go on but, it's better to be safe than sorry. You're a gambler. I respect your right to gamble. That's who we are as Americans. But I despise your request that I gamble my family's future on your bet. Throw a seven, get lucky. I respect your right to do that, but don't involve me or anyone in my circle. When you do, I'd rather crush you than risk those close to me.


Ah, the truth comes out. Those who disagree with AGW are aiding and abetting genocide. Therefore in the pursuit of avoiding genocide - all other considerations are secondary.

You say buckling seat belts is 'being safe' - but that is being safe only for you. It doesn't affect anyone else except in the general sense of insurance premiums.

You don't ride bikes at night without a light. Again, that helps you. It might save some paint on someone else's car, but that's all.

You see a doctor regularly. Again that is only selfish. Your not seeing a doctor doesn't affect anyone else even financially since you have insurance.

You'd rather 'crush me' than try to see if the premise which you follow is wrong. But you see, I'm not requesting anything - I am in fact requesting nothing whereas you are trying to force action onto me.

You are talking about forcing EVERYONE to not take a chance. You're talking about a world filled with cotton balls - with bubble wrap around anything and everything. A world where some will diktat to all.

I reject that world and I reject attempts to scare me into it. If you can prove a clear and present danger, then I could at least potentially agree to it but so far every substantive question I've raised has been ignored.

The entirety of your argument is consensus and IPCC.

Then of course there's the 'gambler' line. Asserting I'm a gambler is irrelevant to the facts of the discussion in addition to being a passive aggressive attack.


I don't <S>except</S>accept any of those arguments. All are constucts within a working envriornment. If AGW scientists are correct, no one is going to care about the US$ or SSI.

That IF is a big one. And even were the IF to be true, there will still be plenty of people who care about the US$ and/or SSI.

For one thing, weather related deaths are down both in absolute and relative terms with the sole exception of Katrina - which itself was not during the 'hottest' year of 1998 but rather 2005:

(source: census.gov for population, http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats/images/69-years.pdf for weather related deaths. Lightning deaths excluded due to likely other factors such as fewer farmers hence fewer people outdoors)

2364

2365

So the historical trend seems against the AGW scaremongers: even during the warming cycle there were very few weather related deaths both in absolute and relative terms at least in the United States. Even the great tragedy of Katrina only matched levels seen previously and was a 1 year, 1 event incident.

There are other reports showing similar trends worldwide.


You deny the value of Pascal's wager and offer your knowledge of computer engineering as a defense. As a human being, I'm offended by your spreadsheet view of the world.

If you cannot understand how my background gives me direct experience with the vagaries of modeling vs. reality via testing, then clearly you are not reading what was written.

As for your last sentence, another passive aggressive attack, this time with the implication is that somehow I am not a human being. Yeah, that's constructive.

To respond: As an intelligent, independent, and critical thinker, I am offended by your touchy feely view of the world.


Really? Ice cores are 'simulated'? Are small scale?

The problem AGW has is the inability to see scale. What's looked at is the last 50 or 100 years of ice core data and the conclusion is man made global warming. This is called "its different this time" or Now-ism.

An examination of the data from the last 400K years reveals a different picture:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

2366

2367

There are clearly 3 major spikes in the last 400K years of higher magnitude than the present one - both temperature AND CO2. And none of the previous 3 spikes involved man made CO2.

I believe the term that applies to the short term ice core data is cherry picking.


Economics is a faux science, a non science. Good try but complete BS.


Whether economics is a real science or not isn't the question. The question was: is there a resemblence between economics and climate science given neither can be directly proven or disproven in the short term; both involve massive amounts of variables and data, and both make extensive use of mathematical models.


The science is not rigorous? Please offer your peer reviewed papers that show climate science to have an "extremely high" correlation to say, astrology. We await your drum beat.


I've posted in Rant 'N Rave: Climate Modeling Nonsense (http://7) - there are 4 different cited peer reviewed papers supporting the 'negative feedback' cycle asserted by Dr. Richard Lindzen's experiment.

This is in direct opposition to the the 'positive feedback' cycle cited by IPCC and used in the IPCC climate models.

I've also referred to this previously in this thread. Clearly not reading.

I've also shown that hurricane incidence and severity are NOT higher despite the warming trend up to 1998.

Do I have to show a peer reviewed paper showing that storm surge is greater than 3 feet?


Really, I disrespect you for doing this. I could find 100 people on your side that have taken on a world class scientist and been slammed. Leave Bill Nye alone. He's a TV personality. WTF, you should apologize. When you pull this nonsense out, I suspect you only care about winning.

Your disrespect is already patently obvious. In this thread you've already called me a gambler whose actions you despise and implied I'm not a human being.

As for Nye, let's see:

1) Bill Nye chose to defend the AGW position on Larry King Live.
2) Bill Nye asserted he is a scientist
3) Bill Nye furthermore asserted he must be knowledgeable being a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists
4) Bill Nye asserted his opinion outrepresents Dr. Lindzen's views 100,000 to 1 even though Dr. Lindzen had yet to even say anything about global warming up to that point.
5) Bill Nye asserted his views are based on IPCC

That's funny, the use of the consensus and the IPCC. Where have I seen that before? :D

As for the 100 people getting slammed - I'm not sure what your point is?

Is 100 morons getting slammed equivalent to the truth?

This is an identical argument with the Bill Nye 100,000 to 1 statement in response to Dr. Richard Lindzen's assertion that Nye's statement was scientifically wrong.

This entire discussion is emblematic of the AGW view of things.

At best the other side is misinformed, wrong, inhuman, and gambling with our collective future.

At worst the other side is an oil lobby advocate. A denier on the scale of creationists. A Fox news right wing redneck American.

The whole 'environmentalism as the new secular religion' view is something which many people have commented on already (and I've documented). It is not inherently bad - I'd bet money that I use less gasoline, less electricity, eat less meat and red meat fish than almost anyone here.

I have likely spit out more CO2 due to my past flying.

But there is a huge difference between making personal choices and forcing actions on others.

Religion itself is absolutely not a bad thing. What is bad is when religion trips over into dogma - that is when the believers turn into the Spanish Inquisition, when witches get burned, when Crusades arise. Those with influence in the new secular religion ought to be aware what happens when religious extremism occurs: a backlash against even the good in the belief system.

I conclude with this:

The unwillingness to further the discussion and the science, the urgency to act upon incomplete information and a half-formed thesis, the ad hominem attacks, and the ad populum arguments only serve to brand the AGW movement even should that thesis be accurate.

MulaMan
10-25-09, 05:00 PM
You people keep arguing different questions within the same argument, very confused:

1. Is there global warming?

-Yes. Humans have increased CO2 and temperatures are rising due to the greenhouse effect. The science behind this is solid.

2. How much and how fast will temperatures rise?

-The science behind this is strong but it is just a range estimate, a prediction.

3. What will happen to the climate if temperatures rise X in Y years?

-Predications based on what scientist now.

MulaMan
10-25-09, 05:03 PM
Great that people are doing real positive work, bringing people closer together from around the world, rather then sitting around watching Fox News all afternoon acting as an anti-global warming mouthpiece for the oil & gas industry. You can't stop progress.

http://www.350.org/

Our mission is to inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet.

Our focus is on the number 350--as in parts per million, the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. But 350 is more than a number--it's a symbol of where we need to head as a planet.

To tackle climate change we need to move quickly, and we need to act in unison—and 2009 will be an absolutely crucial year. This December, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark to craft a new global treaty on cutting emissions. The problem is, the treaty currently on the table doesn't meet the severity of the climate crisis—it doesn't pass the 350 test.

ThePythonicCow
10-25-09, 06:35 PM
And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but <s>utterly</s> udderly wrong. :D http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/commons/thumb/1/1a/Udder_closeup.jpg/200px-Udder_closeup.jpg

santafe2
10-26-09, 02:18 AM
I appeal to no authority

Of course you don't.:rolleyes:


There was global warming just as there was global cooling before that. And now there appears to be global cooling.
Every knows that's why the 10 warmest years in the instrumental measurement era are 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.


I'm afraid I disagree with you on this assertion. The Toast'd one in particular seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his thesis is an oil industry sellout, stupid, and/or a right wing think tank-er.
He did call you out for trying to pass off the canard of US temperature records as somehow important with regard to the debate regarding world wide warming. Maybe you should bring up 1934 again as if it matters globally?


The entirety of your argument is consensus and IPCC.As you stated above, you reject global warming. You said there 'appears to be global cooling'. Good luck with that one. Your denier scientists are even beginning to vacate the bunker and advocate the new, new denier line...global warming may be a good thing.


Then of course there's the 'gambler' line. Asserting I'm a gambler is irrelevant to the facts of the discussion in addition to being a passive aggressive attack.
You are a gambler. There is more than enough scientific evidence to be deeply concerned with our current climate trajectory. You want to throw the dice and refer to climate science as a religion. Fine. Boring but fine.


For one thing, weather related deaths are down both in absolute and relative terms with the sole exception of Katrina - which itself was not during the 'hottest' year of 1998 but rather 2005:
So you're saying that if a US based weather disaster doesn't occur during the hottest global temperature year on record, it's not related to global warming. You are of course confusing a US issue with the discussion of global warming but even worse, you're confusing weather with climate. When it's convenient for you, you mix US issues with global issues. When you're just seeing what will stick on the wall you confuse weather with climate. That's denier 101.


So the historical trend seems against the AGW scaremongers: even during the warming cycle there were very few weather related deaths both in absolute and relative terms at least in the United States.I'm confused. You said we appear to be in in a cooling cycle. Now you want to assert that we're in a warming cycle? By the way, the scaremonger label was a nice touch and you tossed in another weather reference in a climate discussion. You get denier bonus points for that.


Your disrespect is already patently obvious. In this thread you've already called me a gambler whose actions you despise and implied I'm not a human being.
I had no idea you were so touchy-feely...I'll try to restrain my remarks...:D

c1ue
10-26-09, 09:30 AM
Every knows that's why the 10 warmest years in the instrumental measurement era are 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.


Yes, the 10 warmest years in the instrument measurement era.

And what is the instrument measurement era?

The start of the industrial revolution. So you're telling me the data derived from satellites today are comparable to the mercury thermometers in the 1880s? That the worldwide data and communication network today is the same as the 1880s?

Even were I to grant this ridiculous assertion, again you try to conflate correlation with causation. Is the recent rise in temperature largely man made? If it is largely man made, is it due to CO2? If it is both largely man made and due to CO2, will this increase result in a catastrophic climate change?

I've demonstrated using your own 'ice core' data that temperature increases and CO2 increases have occurred many times in the past - long before man made causes.

I've brought up very specific criticisms of the climate models as demonstrated by peer reviewed papers - the same models being used to project a catastrophic 'tipping point' 20 to 50 years from now.

I've even shown that alarmist crap about rising sea levels, more and worse hurricanes, etc etc are just that: crap.

But you must return back to the old hockey stick.

Here's an example of the hockey stick in action, or the 'dramatization' which AGW alarmists (whom you clear believe) employ:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
2374

2375

2376

The hockey stick is #2. But all 3 graphs are from the same data.




The first candidate, although lacking the amplitude to allow easy detail examination, is perhaps the most visually accurate and least useful. Clearly global temperature has been on an overall warming trend through the series and this warming is very small compared with say, seasonal variation. Likewise, the two order of magnitude magnification of carbon dioxide (by scaling parts per million on a 10K range) has made our trace gas visible while maintaining perspective (two times a tiny fraction of the atmosphere still gives you a tiny fraction of the atmosphere).
Our next graphic is a mixed bag, rather restrained in the temperature variation when compared with most publications but sufficient to readily observe variation. The representation of rapidly climbing carbon dioxide is achieved by scaling against only a tiny portion of the valid range. ACIA, in this graphic (http://www.amap.no/acia/Files/1KYrsofChg_150.jpg), manage to present virtually a perpendicular change which gives the impression of being about 500% over 'background' levels and fitted neatly to a representation of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph when in fact the total change in atmospheric carbon dioxide is under 35%. Oh well, that's the impression they want to give, we suppose, although we think it an appalling piece of chart work. Finally, our third chart depicts unrestrained temperature variation, utilising maximum plot space in order to easily depict temperature changes (albeit vastly magnified) and with a greatly magnified but proportionately correct trace gas representation (316-377ppmv annual CO<SUB>2</SUB> (Keeling and Whorf, May, 2005), missing values omitted). This is our preferred graphic and the style we present. Granted, it greatly amplifies apparent temperature change and, if this worries readers just visualise the world as a relatively flat 14°C ± 0.7°C and you'll be in the ballpark.


This is from the CRU - the temperature record for which the base data was 'lost'


You are a gambler. There is more than enough scientific evidence to be deeply concerned with our current climate trajectory. You want to throw the dice and refer to climate science as a religion. Fine. Boring but fine.

And you are trying to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, an alarmist, a Chicken Little.

There is more than enough scientific evidence raised showing that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change is not conclusive nor even likely.

You have yet to answer why past CO2 levels were as high as they are today without the presence of man and in some cases with lower temperatures.

You have yet to answer why past temperature levels rose as much as the past century without the influence of man or why said CO2 levels LAGGED temperature.

You have yet to show why the purported tipping point should be trusted when key underlying assertions behind the climate models are in doubt.

You want to force everyone to agree with your alarmist views or you will 'destroy' them.


So you're saying that if a US based weather disaster doesn't occur during the hottest global temperature year on record, it's not related to global warming. You are of course confusing a US issue with the discussion of global warming but even worse, you're confusing weather with climate.

The pattern of weather related deaths in the recent 3 decades vs. the 3 decades prior is quite opposite with the exception of a single incident. And it is equally clear that the number of deaths due to Katrina were significantly if not largely due to well known but never addressed infrastructure neglect in New Orleans as well as population growth in unsafe areas of that city.

And you should note - Dr. Richard Lindzen actually asserts that higher global temperatures imply LOWER hurricane strength and activity.

This is in direct opposition to what Gore and your fellow alarmists say.

This is because the strength of a hurricane is not due to absolute temperature. It is due to temperature differentials. Temperature differentials in a warmer world are lower. This has the irony of the hurricane record being consistent with global warming but inconsistent with alarmist crap.

But then scientific fact is irrelevant if not convenient to Torquemada types.


I'm confused. You said we appear to be in in a cooling cycle. Now you want to assert that we're in a warming cycle? By the way, the scaremonger label was a nice touch and you tossed in another weather reference in a climate discussion. You get denier bonus points for that.

Since you cannot read, let me be more specific.

The warming cycle from 1976 to 1998 showed the fewest number of weather related deaths on average in the US of any 22 year period from 1940 to the present.

This is in direct contradiction to AGW ortho-scare-doxy.

You get AGW fanatic bonus points for not being tempted by facts.


I had no idea you were so touchy-feely...I'll try to restrain my remarks

What restraint? It is now quite obvious that your prior restraint was simply due to fear of alienating the undecided - a veritable 'catch flies with honey' mode of discourse.

But as you have continued to fail to answer a long series of very reasonable questions - unsurprisingly you are now attacking me personally since I don't meekly agree with your conclusions.

I don't mind - in fact I am curious to see what the next installment of AGW fanatic fatwah brings.

For that matter I have restrained from asking questions about your own personal 'green'ness. How many miles a year do you drive? How many Kwh do you use a month? Do you buy organic produce and meats?

That's because these questions are irrelevant from a scientific and skeptical standpoint.

Nor do I ask specifically what you do in your solar company. Is it fundamental research? Marketing? Sales? IT?

Again irrelevant.

To reiterate those still unanswered questions (with a few new ones):

1) Why should we be concerned about rising CO2 levels when CO2 levels have spiked in the past - before man?

2) Why should man made CO2 cause temperature rises when dramatic temperature increases have occurred in the past before human presence?

3) Why should man made CO2 levels cause a catastrophic climate tipping point at 350 ppm, 560 ppm or whatever when the historical record shows periods where there were Ice Ages during CO2 levels of 4000 ppm?

4) Why should the climate models projecting 20 year or more future climate behavior - temperature or otherwise - be trustworthy and actionable when these models cannot predict even 2 or 5 year behavior?

5) Why should the climate models be trustworthy and actionable when even the basic underlying assumptions are being scientifically challenged?

6) Why should AGW alarmism be considered objective science when there is a ton of money on its side ($70B+ US federal, plus UN and EU) vs. the purported corrupting $23M from Exxon?

7) Why was there a 40 year (1936-1976) cooling of global temperatures exactly during a period of rising US industrialization and world warfare?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html

2377

ThePythonicCow
10-26-09, 11:08 AM
What restraint? It is now quite obvious that your prior restraint was simply due to fear of alienating the undecided - a veritable 'catch flies with honey' mode of discourse.I agree with that observation, c1ue.

On so many topics, millenia after millenia, the perceived wisdom of the tribal elders is defended so eagerly by those who would be respectable. Whether it be the flatness of the earth, the warmth of the earth or les événements du onze septembre de l'année de notre Seigneur 2001, some of the most important topics of the day always seem beyond sensible consideration.

It would seem that an essential basis of this enormous beehive we call human civilization is this often used ability to coagulate around perceived wisdoms. One does not require conspiracy theories involving some few evil elite to explain humanities grand mistakes. Such malformation of a group's understanding seems to be an inherent capacity of any society of intelligent beings.

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/rbotoole/2007/10/06/img_1056.jpg

C1ue, as a child, poking a stick at some rhino dung.

vanvaley1
10-26-09, 05:19 PM
I agree with that observation, c1ue.

On so many topics, millenia after millenia, the perceived wisdom of the tribal elders is defended so eagerly by those who would be respectable. Whether it be the flatness of the earth, the warmth of the earth or les événements du onze septembre de l'année de notre Seigneur 2001, some of the most important topics of the day always seem beyond sensible consideration.

It would seem that an essential basis of this enormous beehive we call human civilization is this often used ability to coagulate around perceived wisdoms. One does not require conspiracy theories involving some few evil elite to explain humanities grand mistakes. Such malformation of a group's understanding seems to be an inherent capacity of any society of intelligent beings.

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/rbotoole/2007/10/06/img_1056.jpg

C1ue, as a child, poking a stick at some rhino dung.


I don't know, Cow...those look like toxic mortgages to me. Suppose it's apropos the kid is playing with em and getting to understand them as he'll be doing the same for years as he 'deleverages' them with his future paychecks.

MulaMan
10-26-09, 05:46 PM
Global Cooling Is Proven As Rubish Science.

Once again scientists are forced to waste time refuting anti-global warming, Fox News watching retards.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

MulaMan
10-26-09, 05:55 PM
1) Why should we be concerned about rising CO2 levels when CO2 levels have spiked in the past - before man?


LOL! A few billion years ago there was no Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere - before man - why should we be concerned about Oxgen?

That is such a retarded attempt at an argument that I did not even read any further. LOL.

These anti-global warming arguments are approaching "Intelligent Design"

How about this? The climate is so complex that human beings will never understand it and so it must be under the control of a supreme being. It is God's will and we should not mess with God's creation - except of course to keep CO2 polution pumping out because that is what God want us to do. Please give as much as you can each Sunday.

Diarmuid
10-26-09, 06:15 PM
LOL! A few billion years ago there was no Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere - before man - why should we be concerned about Oxgen?


The question goes to the heart of the argument, that is climate sensitivity, feedback loops and tipping points. you may feel the question is inappropriately framed, not in context or just plain disagree with it and offer alternative data, but your response seems to indicate you do not have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms and mechanics of the theory you are defending.

Here is a pro-AGW site commenting on climate sensitivity, if you are interested the site offers the mainstream view and discusses much of the science and mechanics behind the AGW view, and I suppose is a useful resource if this is your inclination.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/

Here is the abstract from the paper in question from the piece - the author maintains this paper could point to greater climate sensitivity, many people on the other side maintain the climatologists just don't know and the models and science is not nearly where it should be at, to be using it to make the huge policy decisions which are on the table. Nothing to do with creationism or Fox news.



Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3

Top of page

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html

santafe2
10-27-09, 12:31 AM
You have yet to answer why past CO2 levels were as high as they are today without the presence of man and in some cases with lower temperatures.

I did, many, many posts ago. I suppose you were too busy lighting your hair on fire and screaming on your green and white ethereal soap box about AGM as a religion to notice.

One could jump back to my post but here's a good overview on the subject for critical thinkers. For the pious and theistic denier...not so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

c1ue
10-27-09, 09:18 AM
I did, many, many posts ago. I suppose you were too busy lighting your hair on fire and screaming on your green and white ethereal soap box about AGM as a religion to notice.

Nice Bullhorn video. And to sink to your level: no doubt you were too busy hugging trees and protesting against DDT in your organic recycled cardboard sandwich board outfit about man destroying the environment.

2384

But to return to reality: let's look at what the video says:

1) CO2 is not the controlling factor in global temperature increases in previous cases. The previous orbital changes were responsible for increased temperatures in turn releasing CO2 and methane. But then the video says the temperatures increased too much with respect to the actual orbital change and that the CO2 must have amplified the actual energy transfer. This is almost neatly circular.

Fallacy 1: CO2 amplification. See 3)

Fallacy 2: Let's say we allow the assumption that CO2 is amplifying. The argument being made is that CO2 amplifies temperature due to an increase in incoming solar energy due to a orbital tilt change.

Yet still more questions arise:

Why did not temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels kept rising? i.e. Why did temperatures fall even as CO2 levels rose?

Since CO2 is only an amplifier - there must have been some other force which caused both the rise to the peak and the fall from the peak since increasing CO2 levels are clearly unrelated to either the rise or fall.

However if CO2 is a dampener - then the data is very consistent. The effects of a dampener would be overridden (read delayed) until the incoming energy increase is offset enough to be negative. The rise of levels of the dampener lagging the peak could then be explained by the pass through cycle time between incoming energy levels hitting temperature and the dampener reducing temperature effects. Throw a brick up in the air for a real life example of a dampener in action. Also see 3)

2) The Vostok cores shown above are because of Hansen's request for more data. Therefore what?

3) CO2 is a positive feedback amplifier thus will make this era of rising CO2/Temperatures worse.

Already posted peer reviewed evidence that feedback may actually negative much less the significant positive multiplier asserted. Similarly positive climate temperature feedback due to CO2 has yet to be proven to be true - its existence is a deduction.

4) Climate change deniers are paid by the oil companies. But the video doesn't mention the $720,000 paid by Soros to Hansen in support of AGW. Why is oil company money different than Soros' money? Why is the $70B+ federal money different than the $23M Exxon money?

More interesting NASA/GISS talk vs. GISS data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/


The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

But from the exact same site we see the data for which a dump and sort in Excel yields:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt



<TABLE style="WIDTH: 144pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=192 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=3 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 height=20 x:num>1954</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="00.84">0.84</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num="00.46"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1938</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.86">0.86</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.35"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1990</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.88">0.88</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.4"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1953</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.9">0.9</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.32"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1999</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.94">0.94</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.71"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1931</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1.08</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.26"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>2006</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1.08</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.63"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1921</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1.13</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.13"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1934</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1.24</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.43"></TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" height=20><TD class=xl22 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; HEIGHT: 15pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right height=20 x:num>1998</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num>1.24</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-TOP: #e0dfe3; BORDER-LEFT: #e0dfe3; BORDER-BOTTOM: #e0dfe3; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right x:num="00.52"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Only 3 years past 1995 are in the top 10 warmest - and 3 years in the '30s.

Strange discrepancy no? Perhaps what GISS really means is that the warmest years in questions are only in the satellite data - which only started in 1981.

If so, then what does the 'warmest years on record prior to 1995 ... 1990' really mean? There are only 28 years on the record - unless GISS is Lake Woebegon then above median would be 14 of them.

Some other views of the data:

2381

2382

Interesting how there was a temperature spike in the midst of the Great Depression.

So, nice video but again no conclusive proof.

In fact if I were to look at the GISS historical data vs. the US energy use as a proxy for world energy consumption in turn as a proxy for fossil fuel air pollution - a reasonable assumption up to around 1995:

2383

We see a rise in coal use from 1900 to 1915 - staying level for many years. There is no rise in global temperatures then though - odd given the Industrial Revolution. A rise in temperatures doesn't start until the 1930s.

So empirically there is a 15-20 year lag. But CO2 as a positive multiplier is inconsistent with this theory - coal usage was fairly steady from 1915 onwards to the '60s and CO2 levels were increasing this entire time even as temperatures dropped.

Then petroleum usage started spiking around WW II and passed the coal level in 1950 or so, peaking in the 1970s.

Yet temperatures didn't start increasing until the late 70s/early 80s even as US oil and natural gas usage dropped from 1975 to 1985.

Clearly the concept of CO2 as a simple multiplier is inaccurate to describe this data.

What might be more accurate? (pure conjecture)

It could be the localized climate changes due to fossil fuel consumption increase temperatures with a 15-20 lag, with CO2 then damping out the temperature spike once the effects of the fossil fuel consumption levels off or stops. Decreasing CO2 levels may thus actually impede the return of temperatures to normal - an implication of CO2 as a negative feedback mechanism in the climate.

It should be noted that the soot and other levels associated with coal use decrease significantly as time progresses on the energy use graph - ditto for petroleum. The ever more modern hence efficient engines primarily reduce the products of inefficient combustion (and release more usable energy): soot which in turn is pure carbon. As the chemical process of combustion converts CHx hydrocarbons + O2 oxygen into CO2 and H20 - modern engines are likely to produce more proportional CO2 than older engines but less soot.

Because of the above, it could be the opposite: the soot from early adoption of new energy sources offsets the temperature increases due to fossil fuel combustion pollutants.

But it could also be that the act of burning fossil fuels releases more water vapor into the atmosphere as water is a product of the fossil fuel combustion process. Water vapor is indisputably the primary driver of the greenhouse effect and water vapor from fossil fuel combustion is both gaseous and already at a high temperature.

The point is that the association of CO2 with global temperature increases is very tenuous and circumstantial. The energy use graphs vs. CO2 graphs vs. temperature records even in the last 130 years indicate neither a simple conclusion nor a simple solution.

we_are_toast
10-27-09, 10:34 AM
The question goes to the heart of the argument, that is climate sensitivity, feedback loops and tipping points. you may feel the question is inappropriately framed, not in context or just plain disagree with it and offer alternative data, but your response seems to indicate you do not have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms and mechanics of the theory you are defending.

Here is a pro-AGW site commenting on climate sensitivity, if you are interested the site offers the mainstream view and discusses much of the science and mechanics behind the AGW view, and I suppose is a useful resource if this is your inclination.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/petm-weirdness/

Here is the abstract from the paper in question from the piece - the author maintains this paper could point to greater climate sensitivity, many people on the other side maintain the climatologists just don't know and the models and science is not nearly where it should be at, to be using it to make the huge policy decisions which are on the table. Nothing to do with creationism or Fox news.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3

Top of page

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have some real science discussed.
But actually there is some Faux News Nutwork involved in this. The article explains it like this:
Bolding added.

it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for ‘alarmist’ global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/07/global_warming_our_best_guess.html) has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that ‘climate models are wrong’ with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to makeAlso, I think you may have inadvertently edited an important piece from your quote that might add to a better understanding of many of the other warming feedback mechanisms associated with an increase in CO2. If I might continue the quote you took from the article, to try and clarify a little about the paper;


At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.

In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of ‘Target CO2 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/04/target-co2/)‘. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.

Diarmuid
10-27-09, 11:17 AM
copy of thread below editing caused a second post

Diarmuid
10-27-09, 11:23 AM
Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have some real science discussed.
But actually there is some Faux News Nutwork involved in this. The article explains it like this:
Bolding added.
Also, I think you may have inadvertently edited an important piece from your quote that might add to a better understanding of many of the other warming feedback mechanisms associated with an increase in CO2. If I might continue the quote you took from the article, to try and clarify a little about the paper;

There was no intentional editing I linked the realclimate article and the link to the abstract for the full article. People will interrupt it as they see fit I suppose, as evidenced by this thread, the realclimate commentary and the so called "denier":D view point. Bias weighs heavy on both sides it seems to me.

jneal3
10-27-09, 06:15 PM
Either this highly-astute observation is being ignored, or it's produced a silence that approaches deafening:



Fallacy 2: Let's say we allow the assumption that CO2 is amplifying. The argument being made is that CO2 amplifies temperature due to an increase in incoming solar energy due to a orbital tilt change.

Yet still more questions arise:

Why did not temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels kept rising? i.e. Why did temperatures fall even as CO2 levels rose?

Since CO2 is only an amplifier - there must have been some other force which caused both the rise to the peak and the fall from the peak since increasing CO2 levels are clearly unrelated to either the rise or fall.

However if CO2 is a dampener - then the data is very consistent. The effects of a dampener would be overridden (read delayed) until the incoming energy increase is offset enough to be negative. The rise of levels of the dampener lagging the peak could then be explained by the pass through cycle time between incoming energy levels hitting temperature and the dampener reducing temperature effects. Throw a brick up in the air for a real life example of a dampener in action. Also see 3)


If the YouTube video posted by santafe2 was intended to sway open-minded critical thinkers, there's a big matzo-ball hanging out there at the moment. On the face of it, 300+ years of falling temperatures in a rising-CO2 environment (in the banded range in the video's plot) seems to constitute a contradiction of the AGW theory (unless someone can posit a theory that the rate of temperature decrease was reduced by the presence of CO2? ). CO2 as a damping effect does seem at least trend-wise consistent with this data segment.

santafe2
11-01-09, 02:46 AM
Either this highly-astute observation is being ignored, or it's produced a silence that approaches deafening:

Please...Some of us are busy in the real world. The observation is neither astute or being ignored.


If the YouTube video posted by santafe2 was intended to sway open-minded critical thinkers...I suppose that would be you...:D...we await your open-minded critical thinking.


On the face of it, 300+ years of falling temperatures in a rising-CO2 environment (in the banded range in the video's plot) seems to constitute a contradiction of the AGW theory (unless someone can posit a theory that the rate of temperature decrease was reduced by the presence of CO2? ). CO2 as a damping effect does seem at least trend-wise consistent with this data segment.OK, let's walk through this. There is an ongoing change in the earth's orbit and rotation defined as precession, obliquity and eccentricity. Some 242,000 years ago one or more of these natural forces caused a warming period to begin. That is a non-controversial point. As ice melted the Earth's albedo lowered and temperatures warmed. Simple stuff - ice reflects ~90% of the sun's energy and water reflects less than 10%. As temperatures rose, the oceans warmed. As oceans warmed, they were less able to absorb CO2. As orbital and rotational temperature forcing lessened, temperatures dropped. As temperatures dropped, oceans cooled. As oceans cooled they absorbed more CO2. If one were to make an argument regarding CO2 forcing, it would be that the increase in CO2 lengthened the period of warming. That seems self-evident unless one is politically predisposed to argue that CO2 is a cooling force.

Since you're a self described critical thinker, you may have noticed that the CO2 high 242,000 years ago was 280 PPM. Care to guess where it is today? Care to defend why CO2 concentrations 140% above the last 400,000 years is OK? You may want to consider a change in the Earth's albedo in your calculations. You may want to calculate when the oceans will create a positive feedback loop as their absorption of CO2 lessens. CO2 is leading temperature. Temperature is rising. Albedo is falling, and it's not taking thousands of years. And there is no obvious natural forcing.

Climate science discussions are highly polarized, that I understand. But when someone makes the argument that a GHG is a cooling force and another person calls it "astute", I question myself for taking the time to respond.

c1ue
11-01-09, 09:45 AM
Simple stuff - ice reflects ~90% of the sun's energy and water reflects less than 10%. As temperatures rose, the oceans warmed. As oceans warmed, they were less able to absorb CO2. As orbital and rotational temperature forcing lessened, temperatures dropped. As temperatures dropped, oceans cooled. As oceans cooled they absorbed more CO2.

Your assertion is both incorrect and circular: if according to AGW - CO2 drives temperature, then what reversed the increasing temperature trend? It was not a reversing orbital tilt.

RealClimate has a nice sounding patter, but they are inherently no different than the loud squawker sites with regards to considering all alternatives to historical scenarios.


CO2 is leading temperature. Temperature is rising. Albedo is falling, and it's not taking thousands of years. And there is no obvious natural forcing.

All you are saying is that it is somehow different this time. And again, the question is that there are clear periodic episodes where temperature rose - thus leading to albedo changes as ice melts - yet in each instance the trend was reversed. It wasn't the ice refreezing in a warmer Earth.

Thus again it seems unlikely that albedo is a primary driver nor that positive feedback is dominant.

Yet it is this positive feedback which leads to the catastrophic scenarios touted by the AGW faithful.

The AGW mantra really is 2 parts:

1) CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases which affect temperature. Increased CO2 and other GHGs will increased 'base' temperature

2) Positive feedback means that instead of 0.3 degrees C or 1 degree C, the change will be 3 to 5 degrees C.

If there is no positive feedback - if indeed it is a negative feedback, then 2) is invalidated. Without 2), the catastrophic ACT NOW rationale is gone.

And 2) is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

Climate models aren't science.

Positive feedbacks in a natural system - specifically climate - is such a departure as to require more than a modicum of proof.

santafe2
11-01-09, 12:03 PM
Your assertion is both incorrect and circular: if according to AGW - CO2 drives temperature, then what reversed the increasing temperature trend? It was not a reversing orbital tilt.

RealClimate has a nice sounding patter, but they are inherently no different than the loud squawker sites with regards to considering all alternatives to historical scenarios.

All you are saying is that it is somehow different this time. And again, the question is that there are clear periodic episodes where temperature rose - thus leading to albedo changes as ice melts - yet in each instance the trend was reversed. It wasn't the ice refreezing in a warmer Earth.

Thus again it seems unlikely that albedo is a primary driver nor that positive feedback is dominant.

Yet it is this positive feedback which leads to the catastrophic scenarios touted by the AGW faithful.

The AGW mantra really is 2 parts:

1) CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases which affect temperature. Increased CO2 and other GHGs will increased 'base' temperature

2) Positive feedback means that instead of 0.3 degrees C or 1 degree C, the change will be 3 to 5 degrees C.

If there is no positive feedback - if indeed it is a negative feedback, then 2) is invalidated. Without 2), the catastrophic ACT NOW rationale is gone.

And 2) is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

Climate models aren't science.

Positive feedbacks in a natural system - specifically climate - is such a departure as to require more than a modicum of proof.

Your original point was that during the period 242,000 years ago, CO2 acted as a cooling force. I offered a more plausible scenario. Do you stand by your assertion?

Mashuri
11-01-09, 12:56 PM
I've noticed that geologists have practically been ignored by the IPCC. Perhaps it's because they know that the Earth has had CO2 levels over 2,000 PPM in its history -- during an ice age. We're also still technically in an ice age and on our way out of one -- which means Mother Earth should be warming up. Anyway, here's a graph of CO2 vs temp based on this peer-reviewed study (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf).

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

halcyon
11-01-09, 01:10 PM
New crack emerges:


Methane’s impact on global warming far higher than previously thought

Mark Henderson, Science Editor



<style type="text/css"> div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } </style> The effects of a critical greenhouse gas on global warming have been significantly underestimated, according to research suggesting that emissions controls and climate models may need to be revise.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece

c1ue
11-01-09, 01:11 PM
Your original point was that during the period 242,000 years ago, CO2 acted as a cooling force. I offered a more plausible scenario. Do you stand by your assertion?

My original point was that if the AGW thesis is correct: that CO2 is both a greenhouse gas (true) and a multiplier of temperature (in debate), then the historical record where temperatures precede CO2 leads to some strange contortions: rising CO2 levels should not coincide with temperature levels falling.

If on the other hand CO2 were actually a part of the negative feedback system, then this would be more consistent with the historical record.

A hypothesis no matter how much it resonates with desire must hold true for all known instances.

Starving Steve
11-01-09, 01:50 PM
While the global warming and CO2 debate rages, I take another look at my favourite climate station, San Francisco Airport:

October 2009 mean temperature 61.8F, normal 61.0F, deviation +0.8F.
October rainfall 2.96 inches, an all-time record for Oct, normal 1.07 inches, deviation +1.89 inches.

But this is an El Nino October, so one would expect above normal temperatures and above normal precipitation. So, this is exactly what we would expect.

The man-made global warming bunch at NOAA and at Greenpeace figure run-away global warming is near, but one glance at the climate record of San Francisco Airport, and one reaches the opposite conclusion: everything is normal and following exactly the well-known El Nino pattern of warm and wet on the West Coast.

Why is the Sun's output of energy and the El Nino/La Nina cycle in the Pacific a better predicter of climate at San Francisco Airport than NOAA's climate models? And the answer is that those climate models have been mis-calibrated to over-estimate the affect of CO2 on climate, and in turn, under-estimate the affect of the solar activity (sun spots) on climate and the Pacific Ocean's surface temperature oscillation on climate.

c1ue
11-01-09, 02:20 PM
A nice video talking about feedback and the 2 parts of AGW previously referred to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ctRvtxnNqU8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></P>

ThePythonicCow
11-01-09, 04:39 PM
A nice video talking about feedback and the 2 parts of AGW previously referred to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8
The following 54 minute long video is referenced from the one you note. This longer video can be found at <a href=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2827010454587416316#>What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory</a>. I recommend this longer video to fellow "deniers." On the other (left, sinister?) hand, AGW "alarmists" will likely find this longer video to be worthless or dangerous or some such.

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2827010454587416316&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

Starving Steve
11-01-09, 07:09 PM
Just glancing at the graph of 130 years of surface sea temperatures, it looks like we are up by 0.6C (or about 1.0 degrees F) in 130 years. The Earth's natural warming by exiting the Ice Age 10,000 years ago would account for much of this warming, and the other part would be the very active Sun in the late 20th C.

For the first time in my life of 61 years, during the late 1990s, I saw the northern lights in brilliant display in central California. This was when the Sun's activity hit its peak.

The graph of surface sea temperatures is very encouraging; it argues that AGW (man-made warming of the Earth's climate) is truly negligible.

Also, who was measuring SSTs in 1880? Where does the raw data come from, and how much reliable data do we have on SSTs at that time--- decades before anyone even heard of El Nino or La Nina?

santafe2
11-01-09, 11:17 PM
My original point was that if the AGW thesis is correct: that CO2 is both a greenhouse gas (true) and a multiplier of temperature (in debate), then the historical record where temperatures precede CO2 leads to some strange contortions: rising CO2 levels should not coincide with temperature levels falling.

If on the other hand CO2 were actually a part of the negative feedback system, then this would be more consistent with the historical record.

A hypothesis no matter how much it resonates with desire must hold true for all known instances.

As I've pointed out before you attempt to frame the debate to suit your own needs. You then go off to throw as much against the wall as possible to see what sticks.

Your original point was that in your reading of the data, CO2 was a cooling force. I asked if you still held that stance. Some here find that point astute. I find it so utterly dumb I can't believe I'm taking the time to ask you again.

Since there was no anthropogenic forcing 242,000 years ago, I'm not sure why you find it necessary to confuse the question. If you still think CO2 is a cooling force a simple "yes" is acceptable. If you no longer hold that position, a simple explanation will suffice.

Crazyfingers
11-01-09, 11:37 PM
10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.

Ghent12
11-02-09, 01:51 AM
10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.
The bolded part was my emphasis. That's the crux of the matter, actually. Is it really a perfectly good cause? I had the distinct displeasure of reading the Waxman-Markley bill, and I can tell you this--we are totally boned if that monster gets through the Senate, to use an engineering term.

c1ue
11-02-09, 08:50 AM
As I've pointed out before you attempt to frame the debate to suit your own needs. You then go off to throw as much against the wall as possible to see what sticks.

And as I've pointed out before - you seem to believe AGW is the answer no matter what historical record, ongoing scientific inquiry, or internal (lack of) self consistency brings up with respect to key AGW tenets.

The entire point of scientific inquiry as well as skepticism is exactly an ongoing evaluation of facts vs. theories. That's why there were theories on phlogiston, theories on various subatomic particles before they were discovered, etc etc. Some were right and some were wrong, but time and ongoing inquiry distinguished the fact vs. the fiction.

Now you're trying to say that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it cannot be part of a negative feedback system.

Note I have never said CO2 is a cooling force. What I've said is that if CO2 is exclusively a heating force and a primary driver for climate as is alleged by the AGW faithful, then the past historical record is not consistent with this theory.

Furthermore that if CO2 is both a heating force and a multiplier of energy input into climate, then the past behavior trends are even more inconsistent.

If on the other hand CO2 is actually part of a negative feedback mechanism, then past historical behavior is actually consistent.

CO2 can be BOTH a greenhouse gas AND a part of a negative feedback system.

Unfortunately this appears to be too complex for the simplistic AGW soul.

CO2 could, for example, rather than absorb energy in addition to water vapor then add its energy to water vapor thus driving temperature up, might actually serve as a mechanism by which the heat in water vapor is more rapidly dispersed thus driving temperature down. After all normally water vapor not only holds much more heat than CO2 but also retains heat longer.

An example is the reason why salt water freezes at a different temperature than pure water: http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/saltandfreezing/ofwater.html

Salt is a solid. If water is treated as a homogeneous solution, then the concept of salt water freezing at a lower temperature than pure water seems ridiculous. But the reality is that salt water is not homogeneous. At the atomic level, the interaction between forming ice crystals and liquid water is significantly impeded by the presence of salt (or any other foreign substance).

No matter how you look at it, the basis for allegations of catastrophe due to CO2 appears more and more contrived as time goes on. The return of soot to explain why massive temperature rises aren't occurring as predicted is amusing - a veritable Lamarckian evolution of 'climate science'.

This in turn makes the case for dramatic and ill-conceived 'action' now less a matter of need and more a matter of profit and control.

we_are_toast
11-02-09, 11:24 AM
NOAA: Global Surface Temperature Was Second Warmest for September

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the second warmest September on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/) in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.
NCDC scientists also reported that the average land surface temperature for September was the second warmest on record, behind 2005. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was tied for the fifth warmest on record for September.
Global Temperature Highlights


The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.12 degrees F above the 20th century average of 59.0 degrees F. Separately the global land surface temperature was 1.75 degrees F above the 20th century average of 53.6 degrees F.
Warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed most of the world’s land areas during the month. The greatest warmth occurred across Canada and the northern and western contiguous United States. Warmer-than-normal conditions also prevailed across Europe, most of Asia and Australia.
The worldwide ocean temperature tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest September on record, 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 61.1 degrees F. The near-Antarctic southern ocean and the Gulf of Alaska featured notable cooler-than-average temperatures.

Other Highlights


Arctic sea ice covered an average 2.1 million square miles in September - the third lowest for any September since records began in 1979. The coverage was 23.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and the 13th consecutive September with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent on record, behind 2006 and 2007.
Typhoon Ketsana became 2009’s second-deadliest tropical cyclone so far, claiming nearly 500 lives across the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The storm struck the Philippines on September 26, leaving 80 percent of Manila submerged.



As the tea leaf reading, 911 conspiracy reasoning, pseudoscience of the denialists continues to expand the universe of unreason, REAL science marches on.

But wait! Ah Ha! Thermometers don't really measure temperature, they actually measure something completely different, and what about that uncalibrated thermometer in southern France, it means all the rest of the measurements are wrong, and here's a chart of Neanderthal thermometers from 40,000 years ago that show the earth is actually cooling, and you can't tell me it was warm when my state had one of the coldest Septembers in years, after all, the rest of the world surely has the same weather as I have, and everyone knows that all those NOAA scientists are involved in one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the universe...

c1ue
11-02-09, 11:32 AM
Arctic sea ice covered an average 2.1 million square miles in September - the third lowest for any September since records began in 1979. The coverage was 23.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average, and the 13th consecutive September with below-average Arctic sea ice extent.
Antarctic sea ice extent in September was 2.2 percent above the 1979-2000 average. This was the third largest September extent on record, behind 2006 and 2007.

Your own excerpt shows the 3rd lower Arctic sea ice AND the third HIGHEST Antarctic ice. Seems inconsistent with global temperature rises.

:p

we_are_toast
11-02-09, 12:03 PM
Your own excerpt shows the 3rd lower Arctic sea ice AND the third HIGHEST Antarctic ice. Seems inconsistent with global temperature rises.

:p

Please see my comment above about, not everywhere on the earth having the same climate changes at the same time. :D

jneal3
11-02-09, 12:16 PM
10 pages of this gobbly gook and we go nowhere. Why the heck cant we just cut to the chase.

It is about time for human beings to stop acting like damn ORCS, take some responsibility and start working on cleaning up this planet and not destroying it.

I dont really give a dern if the climate is cooling or warming. We aint god and cannot control the thermostat. I do care about sick seas, polluted air, and a bunch of critters goin extinct because of us ORCS.

The real shame is the bankers and other charlatans that want to hijack a perfectly good cause and skim off the top with some global cap and trade bs.

This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question:

What data supports the hypothesis that CO2 causes (not correlates to) increasing global temperatures.

This question is an opportunity, not a threat; if a response to the above question comes along it will sway a lot of fence-riders. I've read the posts, and not one has directly addressed this question.

I for one believe that there is an answer to this specific question out there (scientists really are about the science, I'm pretty confident there's a strong rationale behind the consensus) that none of the pro-AGW posters on this thread are capable of putting forth. I'm trying to get there, but it requires more than sitting in an echo-chamber.

we_are_toast
11-02-09, 12:36 PM
This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question:

What data supports the hypothesis that CO2 causes (not correlates to) increasing global temperatures.

This question is an opportunity, not a threat; if a response to the above question comes along it will sway a lot of fence-riders. I've read the posts, and not one has directly addressed this question.

I for one believe that there is an answer to this specific question out there (scientists really are about the science, I'm pretty confident there's a strong rationale behind the consensus) that none of the pro-AGW posters on this thread are capable of putting forth. I'm trying to get there, but it requires more than sitting in an echo-chamber.


<table width="760" border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1" height="852"><tbody><tr><td width="380" height="391"><center>http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/images/irelectromag.JPEG
Click for larger image (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/) </center></td> <td width="380" height="391"> <center>Greenhouse Gases Absorb Infrared Radiation</center> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" height="282"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%" height="273"> Radiation from the sun is absorbed by the earth as radiant visible light. You feel this effect on a sunny day when you stand in the sunshine vs. the shade. Eventually, the heat from the earth is re-emitted into the atmosphere as infrared radiation (IR). As an example, infrared radiation is what you can feel and see (slightly) as the red hot burner of an electric stove. The different types of electromagnetic radiation are shown in the graphic on the left.
Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate - this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. Analogy: Think of a partially stretched "toy slinky" - if you bump the slinky, the energy of the bump is absorbed by the vibrations in the slinky.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="177"> <center>http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/images/irgreenhouse.JPEG

</center></td> <td height="177"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> Greenhouse Analogy: Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically.
The greenhouse gases have the same property as the glass towards the IR radiation. Think of the greenhouse gases acting as an invisible glass shield around the earth.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="277"> <center>http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/images/irCO2.JPEG
Click for larger image (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/) </center></td> <td height="277"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td width="100%"> Greenhouse Gas Molecules:
The greenhouse gas molecules are shown in the next series of figures along with the IR spectra and the bending and vibrations caused by absorbing the IR radiation. The arrows on the molecules indicate the direction of the bends and vibrations of the bonds. The IR spectra indicates the specific energies at certain wavelengths which are absorbed. Radiation that is 100% transmittance is not blocked but travels straight through the sample. The dips in the lines are caused by the absorption of energy, hence only 10% of the energy is transmitted.
The graphic on the left is carbon dioxide.
Figure 1: Water (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/)
Figure 2: Methane (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/)
Figure 3: Nitrous Oxide (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/)
Figure 4: All Greenhouse Gases (http://www.elmhurst.edu/%7Echm/vchembook/)
Overall Question: In your own words, explain how greenhouse gases cause global warming.
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>Of course, we could just deny Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theories and maybe some of the other fundamental principles of physics.

Diarmuid
11-02-09, 01:25 PM
Of course, we could just deny Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theories and maybe some of the other fundamental principles of physics.

No requirement for a "denier":D to deny Maxwells Wave theories, just an admission that the current science and theory can not fully explain or account for the process as seen in the real climate.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/in-their-own-words-the-ipcc-on-climate-feedbacks/



In Their Own Words: The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks

<small>November 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.</small> Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.
The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
This is a rather amazing admission. Of course, since these statements are lost in a sea of favorable (but likely superfluous) comparisons between the models and various aspects of today’s climate system, one gets the impression that the 99% of the IPCC’s statements that are supportive of the climate models far outweighs the 1% that might cast doubt.
But the central importance of feedbacks to projections of future climate makes them by far more important to policy debates than all of the ways in which model behavior might resemble the current climate system. So, why has it been so difficult to measure feedbacks in the climate system? This question is not answered in the IPCC reports because, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to dig into the reasons.
Rather unexpectedly, I have been asked to present our research results on this subject at a special session on feedbacks at the Fall AGU meeting in San Francisco in mid-December. In that short 15 minute presentation, I hope to bring some clarity to an issue that has remained muddied for too long.
To review, the feedback measurement we are after can be defined as the amount of global average radiative change caused by a temperature change. The main reason for the difficulty in diagnosing the true feedbacks operating in the climate system is that the above definition of feedback is NOT the same as what we can actually measure from satellites, which is the amount of radiative change accompanied by a temperature change.
The distinction is that in the real world, causation in the opposite direction as feedback also exists in the measurements. Thus, a change in measured radiative flux results from some unknown combination of (1) temperature causing radiative changes (feedback), and (2) unforced natural radiative changes causing a temperature change (internal forcing).
The internal forcing does not merely add contaminating noise to the diagnosis of feedback – it causes a bias in the direction of positive feedback (high climate sensitivity). This bias exists primarily because forcing and net feedback (including the direct increase of IR radiation with temperature) always have opposite signs, so a misinterpretation of the sum of the two as feedback alone causes a bias.
For instance, for the global average climate system, a decrease in outgoing radiation causes an increase in global average temperature, whereas an increase in temperature must always do the opposite: cause an increase in outgoing radiation. As a result, the presence of forcing mutes the signature of net feedback. Similarly, the presence of feedback mutes the signature of forcing.
The effect of this partial cancellation is to result in diagnosed net feedbacks being smaller than what is actually occurring in nature, unless any forcing present is first removed from the data before estimating feedbacks. Unfortunately, we do not know which portion of radiative variability is forcing versus feedback, and so researchers have simply ignored the issue (if they were even aware of it) and assumed that what they have been measuring is feedback alone. As a result, the climate system creates the illusion of being more sensitive than it really is.
One implication of this is that it is not a sufficient test of the feedbacks in climate models to simply compare temperature changes to radiation changes. This is because the same relationship between temperature and radiation can be caused by either strong forcing accompanied by a large feedback parameter (which would be low climate sensitivity), or by weak forcing accompanied by a small feedback parameter (which would be high climate sensitivity).
Only in the case of radiative forcing being either zero or constant in time – situations that never happen in the real world – can feedback be accurately estimated with current methods.
Our continuing analysis of satellite and climate model data has yet to yield a good solution to this problem. Unforced cloud changes in the climate system not only give the illusion of positive feedback, they might also offer a potential explanation for past warming (and cooling). [I believe these to be mostly chaotic in origin, but it also opens the door to more obscure (and controversial) mechanisms such as the modulation of cloud cover by cosmic ray activity.]
But without accurate long-term measurements of global cloud cover changes, we might never know to what extent global warming is simply a manifestation of natural climate variability, or whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. And without direct evidence, the IPCC can conveniently point to carbon dioxide change as the culprit. But this explanation seems rather anthropocentric to me, since it is easier for humans to keep track of global carbon dioxide changes than cloud changes.
Also, the IPCC can conveniently (and truthfully) claim that the behavior of their models is broadly “consistent with” the observed behavior of the real climate system. Unfortunately, this is then misinterpreted by the public, politicians, and policymakers as a claim that the amount of warming those models produce (a direct result of feedback) has been tested, which is not true.
As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better.

c1ue
11-02-09, 02:20 PM
Greenhouse Analogy: Energy from the sun in the form of some ultraviolet and visible light (short wavelength) passes through the glass of the greenhouse. As the light strikes various surfaces in the greenhouse and they are heated. These surfaces in turn re-radiate the heat in the form of infrared radiation (long wavelength). However, the IR radiation is blocked from escaping by the glass. IR is not able to pass through the glass, hence the greenhouse air heats up fairly dramatically.
The greenhouse gases have the same property as the glass towards the IR radiation. Think of the greenhouse gases acting as an invisible glass shield around the earth.


Sorry bubba, you've just failed physics 101.

Greenhouses work primarily by preventing convection, not by 'absorbing' more energy. The greenhouse analogy is simply a nice marketing ploy for the simple minded. This thread has already seen discussions on the differences between convection and radiation/black body absorption.

But to refresh for those unable to remember:

In a greenhouse:

The ground which the sun - whatever wavelength you choose to focus on - is the same whether it is in a greenhouse or not. The energy absorbed by the ground - some is reflected but the majority heats the ground. This heat then is transferred to the air right above the ground.

In the normal convection process this resulting hot air rises.

A greenhouse prevents this hot air from escaping hence the greenhouse allows retention of more of the sun's energy.

This is easy to test: open a door in a greenhouse and compare the resultant temperature vs. a sealed greenhouse.

The greenhouse gases operate entirely differently. There is no blockage of convection. Instead the GHGs are supposed to absorb energy directly.

Even a cursory mind experiment shows even this incorrect greenhouse analogy is wrong beyond just the convection vs. radiation issue:

How can CO2 absorb only in one direction? If CO2 is encountered by the sun coming into the atmosphere, why is it different when photons reflect off the ground and then head back out into space?

Similarly, why would energy absorbed by CO2 radiate away only in one direction? It should radiate in all directions.

But even were there some unique feature of the reflected photons, then why aren't there temperature anomalies in the atmosphere layers which supposedly 'block' or 'reabsorb' or whatever ridiculous assertion which physics contorting climate science computer drovers postulate? The 'greenhouse' layer around the earth doesn't seem to do squat - and even this analogy is ridiculous because the atmosphere mixes very rapidly and evenly. The 'greenhouse gas layer' is no more a layer than salt is a layer in sea water.

The AGW greenhouse theory isn't matched by either physics behavior or observed behavior, much less the multiplicative factor which basically has been pulled out of alarmist's needs.

we_are_toast
11-02-09, 02:52 PM
Sorry bubba, you've just failed physics 101.

Greenhouses work primarily by preventing convection, not by 'absorbing' more energy. The greenhouse analogy is simply a nice marketing ploy for the simple minded. This thread has already seen discussions on the differences between convection and radiation/black body absorption.

But to refresh for those unable to remember:

In a greenhouse:

The ground which the sun - whatever wavelength you choose to focus on - is the same whether it is in a greenhouse or not. The energy absorbed by the ground - some is reflected but the majority heats the ground. This heat then is transferred to the air right above the ground.

In the normal convection process this resulting hot air rises.

A greenhouse prevents this hot air from escaping hence the greenhouse allows retention of more of the sun's energy.

This is easy to test: open a door in a greenhouse and compare the resultant temperature vs. a sealed greenhouse.

The greenhouse gases operate entirely differently. There is no blockage of convection. Instead the GHGs are supposed to absorb energy directly.

Even a cursory mind experiment shows even this incorrect greenhouse analogy is wrong beyond just the convection vs. radiation issue:

How can CO2 absorb only in one direction? If CO2 is encountered by the sun coming into the atmosphere, why is it different when photons reflect off the ground and then head back out into space?

Similarly, why would energy absorbed by CO2 radiate away only in one direction? It should radiate in all directions.

But even were there some unique feature of the reflected photons, then why aren't there temperature anomalies in the atmosphere layers which supposedly 'block' or 'reabsorb' or whatever ridiculous assertion which physics contorting climate science computer drovers postulate? The 'greenhouse' layer around the earth doesn't seem to do squat - and even this analogy is ridiculous because the atmosphere mixes very rapidly and evenly. The 'greenhouse gas layer' is no more a layer than salt is a layer in sea water.

The AGW greenhouse theory isn't matched by either physics behavior or observed behavior, much less the multiplicative factor which basically has been pulled out of alarmist's needs.

Jneal3 asked for the relationship between CO2 and the heating of the atmosphere, it is now provided, but as I predicted, we now have overturned Planks Law and several of the foundations of electromagnetic wave theory.

Welcome to the denier twilight zone.

ThePythonicCow
11-02-09, 02:55 PM
This thread will END when one knowledgable person posts the prevailing scientific explanation to c1ue's 1st-order question: That answer might end this thread for you; I suspect that this thread will end when c1ue gets tired of pushing this rock up the hill.

I have ceased to respect AGW advocacy sometime ago. I am a bit puzzled as to why c1ue persists in this Sisyphean task. This thread is (yet another) monument to the obduracy of the collective human mind.

For the record, in case it is not clear from what I just wrote, I agree with c1ue.

jneal3
11-02-09, 04:22 PM
For the record, in case it is not clear from what I just wrote, I agree with c1ue.

Also for the record, I don't know enough to agree or disagree with c1ue, but he is properly focused on the right question with plenty of data, theory, and logic to back up his position, and deserves better than the responses received so far, few if any of which show that his posts were being read. I have taught in the past, and there's no patience of the teacher in any of the pro-AGW posts (hint: it requires carefully listening to and responding in an empathetic way to the question being asked).

And though I appreciate the response from toast'd, that was a hypothesis only, not the supporting data that would help confirm it.
I've resigned myself to reading the entire IPCC ar4 and letting that lead me where it goes.

c1ue
11-02-09, 08:16 PM
Jneal3 asked for the relationship between CO2 and the heating of the atmosphere, it is now provided, but as I predicted, we now have overturned Planks Law and several of the foundations of electromagnetic wave theory.

I assume you really mean Planck's law - or more specifically black body radiation. Unless you're referring to tree rings? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law

Yes, black body radiation is a great proxy for the sun/gases/earth/climate behavior. Or not.

First of all, normal black body radiation calculation assumes a theoretical perfect absorption as well as an even and regular body. Earth ain't it.

In fact I suggest you refer back to your own side's arguments: what AGW theory is saying is not merely that 2x CO2 equals more heat equals to 1 to 3 degrees C rise in temperature - what AGW is saying is 2x CO2 equals more heat equals 5 to 7 degrees C rise in temperature due to unproven and never observed 'positive feedback' effects.

Please demonstrate for me using black body radiation calculations or electromagnetic wave theory or whatever where X going into an equation yields 2X, 3X, or 5X coming out.

Then please find the missing hot layers of atmosphere where this supposed extra heating is occurring. Or if short term soot cooling is why these aren't visible, then find the similarly missing cool spots near the soot emitting areas.

Runaway never occurred before when CO2 levels were 10 times what they now. Runaway has never occurred period in the historical record.

But for AGW its different this time. I guess human-produced CO2 is qualitatively different than when it was created by nature.

ThePythonicCow
11-03-09, 12:26 AM
One of my favorite economists and commentators, Howard S. Katz, the self-proclaimed One Handed Economist, has a good post on his blog today regarding the Global Warming Controversy. See <a href=http://thegoldspeculator.blogspot.com/2009/11/pascals-wager.html>PASCAL’S WAGER</a>. Mr. Katz figures that a little global warming would be a blessing, not a curse (he lives in New Hampshire, where the winters are too cold) and he concludes by suggesting that if there is even the slightest chance that the Global Warming Alarmists might prevent a little much desired warming, then "perhaps they should all be rounded up and sent far away to a very bad place so the rest of us good people can be left in peace."

santafe2
11-03-09, 11:23 AM
And as I've pointed out before - you seem to believe AGW is the answer no matter what historical record, ongoing scientific inquiry, or internal (lack of) self consistency brings up with respect to key AGW tenets.

You are a deniers, denier c1ue. You comment on a period 242,000 years ago and I ask if you still believe CO2 forced atmospheric cooling during that period as you contented...sorry, you said the data made you do it and that CO2 forced cooling was the best explanation.

As is your usual style, you yammer on and on with regard to AGW denial when the point you made and my follow-up have nothing to do with AGW unless you now contend that humans had something to do with that period...:rolleyes:

It's really a yes or no question. Or you can have a third option: Just say you have no intention of answering the question but would prefer to rant for 20 additional paragraphs...:D

And no answer is fine too, I'm done talking about climate on iTulip for the time being. The sum of iTulip user's knowledge and opinion is well captured in this thread. At least the Freds will be happy about that.

Orforded
11-03-09, 12:00 PM
Thanks for that article. It gives me a new mindset. Just ignore the crazies. I don't know whether it will help the country, but it will help to keep me sane.

c1ue
11-03-09, 02:13 PM
You are a deniers, denier c1ue. You comment on a period 242,000 years ago and I ask if you still believe CO2 forced atmospheric cooling during that period as you contented...sorry, you said the data made you do it and that CO2 forced cooling was the best explanation.

Yep, as usual your so-called reasonable tone was a mere facade over the AGW fanatic inside. I think you should throw in a few "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyahs" to complete your unveiling.

As for the 'best' solution - I'm not the one whose position states "the science is settled".

The "settled science" should be able to answer this glaring contradiction as well as the long list of questions and inconsistencies which have arisen in this thread.

The hypothesis I put forward was merely an observation which contradicts the "settled science" but not the historical record. In a normal scientific endeavor, many hypotheses are put forward and validated or invalidated over time. As has been already noted: the existence of positive or negative feedback due to CO2 is not conclusive (IPCC) or small/negative (Lindzen), yet the models all assume large positive values of feedback. Thus the assumption of a negative feedback due to CO2 is not at all unreasonable given the complete lack of conclusive evidence thus far.

In contrast to the hypothesis put forward - the AGW faithful appear to have an agenda to use theoretical future climate catastrophe to force through equally catastrophic societal and economic changes now.

I cannot be more clear: if AGW (and I mean catastrophic AGW because even mild AGW is different) is based truly upon a best fit of a combination of observations, theory, experiments, and backwards consistency checks then this topic would be much less controversial.

Instead the AGW arguments seem to derive more from achieving the desired agenda of restricting human activity via restriction of the universal constant of CO2 emissions via fossil fuels than an unbiased attempt to explain a natural behavior via scientific investigation:

1) The increasingly tortured arguments: its warming, no its not warming yet but it will warm, there will be a tipping point at 350 ppm, there will be a tipping point at 560 ppm, there will be a ______ (insert 20 or 50 year future excuse)

2) The inability to square both with backwards historical events: past instances of dramatically higher CO2 levels without either tipping or runaway climate, past instances of CO2 rises lagging temperature spikes, transparent attempts to remove well documented global climactic events like the Medieval Warming period - attested to not just by Greenland but high altitude South American civilizations - to better fit AGW theory. As opposed to theory conforming to fact

3) The inconsistency between even what little theory exists and observations: Where is the tropospheric warming if CO2 is indeed doing its many multiple heat amplification magic? Where is the warming that was supposed to accelerate but in fact has decelerated? Why can the climate models not even predict well known major hemispherical phenomenon like El Ninos?

4) The amount of money involved on the AGW side is literally THOUSANDS of times larger than the 'denier' side. Yet the deniers are the ones motivated by "dirty money" and "greed"?

All these point toward something besides a science based rationale.

So please by all means give up the fight. Take your AGW marbles and go home.

Your inflexible and equally uninformed and uninforming stance has not been of benefit to me - I won't speak for anyone else.

Mango
11-03-09, 02:46 PM
Mooncliff,

Do you have a link that works for the NCDC? I can't find it.

I was just skimming the last page of this long Tulip argument and your comments stood out as eminently rational.

Thanks

MulaMan
11-03-09, 04:10 PM
I think a more interesting question is:

How many of those that think global warming does NOT exist also believe that Noah built an Ark 2,000+ years ago using wooden tools that was big enough to hold 2 of every species on planet earth?

Please provide your answers to the following:

1. How big was Noah's Ark?

Assume 1 square foot per animal. Estimates vary between 5 and 30 million species on earth. So Noah built a boat that was between 5 and 30 million square feet.

Big Boat. LOL.

Conclusion -> There was no Noah's Ark - try and explain that to a religous fanatic in America and you'll get similar arguments back as the AGW crowd.

This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

It is absolutely fasinating to me. I am dead serious, it is amazing.

and here is great web site for the AGW people.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Diarmuid
11-03-09, 04:24 PM
I think a more interesting question is:

How many of those that think global warming does NOT exist also believe that Noah built an Ark 2,000+ years ago using wooden tools that was big enough to hold 2 of every species on planet earth?

Please provide your answers to the following:

1. How big was Noah's Ark?

Assume 1 square foot per animal. Estimates vary between 5 and 30 million species on earth. So Noah built a boat that was between 5 and 30 million square feet.

Big Boat. LOL.

Conclusion -> There was no Noah's Ark - try and explain that to a religous fanatic in America and you'll get similar arguments back as the AGW crowd.

This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

It is absolutely fasinating to me. I am dead serious, it is amazing.

and here is great web site for the AGW people.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

For all your pedantic efforts at irony, I am not sure that the site you provided, does not just about sum up your own knowledge on the topic, based on your previous posts, your name calling efforts at discourse. So before you point out the splinter in the fundamentalists eye, better to remove the beam in your own first.

c1ue
11-03-09, 04:52 PM
This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I thought you were one of the AGW believers? Or are clear sentences based on grammar and correct spelling another one of the casualties of 'AGW stuff'?

MulaMan
11-03-09, 05:50 PM
What do grammers got to do with reason?

Before some AGW fool tries to argue that Noah's Ark exists. I am not smart enough to come up with these arguments myself but I knew that they were out there:


How many years did it take Noah to build the Ark?

It is implied by Dr. Henry H. Halley, that prior to the flood, God made His decision to destroy sinful mankind when Noah was 480 years old (Gen 6:3). From that time, Noah was asked to build the Ark, at 500 years old, begot "Shem, Ham and Japeth" (Gen 5:32) and at 600 years old finally entered the Ark (Gen 7:6). Therefore, taking the difference in Noah's age from the "commission" to the flood was 120 years. Or roughly 120 years to build the Ark.




<HR align=center width="30%">What are the dimensions of the Ark?

Genesis 6:15 And this which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. [KJV]
Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit, therefore, the Ark would have the following characteristics:




<CENTER><TABLE border=1 width="50%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="25%" align=middle></TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>Length</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>Width</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>Height</TD></TR><TR><TD width="25%" align=middle>Cubits</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>300</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>50</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>30</TD></TR><TR><TD width="25%" align=middle>Feet</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>450</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>75</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>45</TD></TR><TR><TD width="25%" align=middle>Meters</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>137.2</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>22.8</TD><TD width="25%" align=middle>13.7</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>





<CENTER><TABLE border=1 width="50%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle></TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>Total Floor Area</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Square Cubits</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>45000</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Square Feet</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>101250</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Square Meters</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>9406</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>





<CENTER><TABLE border=1 width="50%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle></TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>Volume</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Cubic Cubits</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>450000</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Cubic Feet</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>1518750</TD></TR><TR><TD width="50%" align=middle>Cubic Meters</TD><TD width="50%" align=middle>43006</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

How in the world could ALL animals fit into the Ark?


First, why take adult full-sized animals, when youthful smaller animals would accomplish the same thing? Second, why put fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark when surrounded by water? Third, why put burrowing animal/creatures like insects, snails and worms in the Ark? As you can see, logically rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. An excellent resource is available to you written by John Woodmorappe entitled, [I]Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study . See the Publications (http://www.arksearch.com/napublic.htm) page, Noah's Ark Books (#18) to review a copy at Amazon.com.





Here are a few points of interest:

One pair (two) of each unclean animal. (Gen 7:2, 15)
Seven pairs (fourteen) of the clean animals and birds. (Gen 7:2, 15) (p 8)

Clean animals are identified in Leviticus 11.

Clean animals and birds used for food and sacrifice. (Gen 8:20)
It is estimated that there were about 16,000 animals on the Ark. (p 13)
Only 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep. (p 13)
The animals would have occupied 46.8% of the Ark's floor space. (p15)
Dry food: 4378 tons (1990 metric tons) 6-12% Ark volume. (p 18)
Drinking water: 1.07 million gal (4.07ML) 9.4% of Ark volume. (p 20)
More great reading for the AGW crowd here to work on thier arguments: http://www.arksearch.com/naemail.htm

jneal3
11-03-09, 07:13 PM
What do grammers got to do with reason?

Before some AGW fool tries to argue that Noah's Ark exists. I am not smart enough to come up with these arguments myself but I knew that they were out there:


How many years did it take Noah to build the Ark?

It is implied by Dr. Henry H. Halley, that prior to the flood, God made His decision to destroy sinful mankind when Noah was 480 years old (Gen 6:3). From that time, Noah was asked to build the Ark, at 500 years old, begot "Shem, Ham and Japeth" (Gen 5:32) and at 600 years old finally entered the Ark (Gen 7:6). Therefore, taking the difference in Noah's age from the "commission" to the flood was 120 years. Or roughly 120 years to build the Ark.






<HR align=center width="30%">What are the dimensions of the Ark?

Genesis 6:15 And this which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. [KJV]
Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit, therefore, the Ark would have the following characteristics:






<CENTER><TABLE width="50%" border=1><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle width="25%"></TD><TD align=middle width="25%">Length</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">Width</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">Height</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="25%">Cubits</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">300</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">50</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">30</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="25%">Feet</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">450</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">75</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">45</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="25%">Meters</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">137.2</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">22.8</TD><TD align=middle width="25%">13.7</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>







<CENTER><TABLE width="50%" border=1><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle width="50%"></TD><TD align=middle width="50%">Total Floor Area</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Square Cubits</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">45000</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Square Feet</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">101250</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Square Meters</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">9406</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>







<CENTER><TABLE width="50%" border=1><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle width="50%"></TD><TD align=middle width="50%">Volume</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Cubic Cubits</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">450000</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Cubic Feet</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">1518750</TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle width="50%">Cubic Meters</TD><TD align=middle width="50%">43006</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

How in the world could ALL animals fit into the Ark?


First, why take adult full-sized animals, when youthful smaller animals would accomplish the same thing? Second, why put fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark when surrounded by water? Third, why put burrowing animal/creatures like insects, snails and worms in the Ark? As you can see, logically rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. An excellent resource is available to you written by John Woodmorappe entitled, [I]Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study . See the Publications (http://www.arksearch.com/napublic.htm) page, Noah's Ark Books (#18) to review a copy at Amazon.com.







Here are a few points of interest:

One pair (two) of each unclean animal. (Gen 7:2, 15)
Seven pairs (fourteen) of the clean animals and birds. (Gen 7:2, 15) (p 8)

Clean animals are identified in Leviticus 11.

Clean animals and birds used for food and sacrifice. (Gen 8:20)
It is estimated that there were about 16,000 animals on the Ark. (p 13)
Only 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep. (p 13)
The animals would have occupied 46.8% of the Ark's floor space. (p15)
Dry food: 4378 tons (1990 metric tons) 6-12% Ark volume. (p 18)
Drinking water: 1.07 million gal (4.07ML) 9.4% of Ark volume. (p 20)
More great reading for the AGW crowd here to work on thier arguments: http://www.arksearch.com/naemail.htm

Wow. I stand corrected. Are we done here?

ThePythonicCow
11-03-09, 07:20 PM
Thanks for that article. It gives me a new mindset. Just ignore the crazies. I don't know whether it will help the country, but it will help to keep me sane.
Whom are you thanking, for which article?

It helps to quote a snippet of whatever you're responding to, especially on large threads with many posts.

P.S. -- I figured out the answer to my question, immediately after posting it ;).

Orforded was responding to: halcyon's


This reminds me of a useful article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL).

ThePythonicCow
11-03-09, 07:36 PM
All these point toward something besides a science based rationale.

So please by all means give up the fight. Take your AGW marbles and go home.

Your inflexible and equally uninformed and uninforming stance has not been of benefit to me - I won't speak for anyone else.
You speak for at least one other - myself.

I fear Anthromorphic Group Wrongheadedness more than I do Anthromorphic Global Warming.

santafe2
11-04-09, 01:37 AM
The hypothesis I put forward was merely an observation which contradicts the "settled science" but not the historical record. In a normal scientific endeavor, many hypotheses are put forward and validated or invalidated over time. As has been already noted: the existence of positive or negative feedback due to CO2 is not conclusive (IPCC) or small/negative (Lindzen), yet the models all assume large positive values of feedback. Thus the assumption of a negative feedback due to CO2 is not at all unreasonable given the complete lack of conclusive evidence thus far.


OK, I was getting very bored with this thread, but this answer is interesting. If you'd like to have a dialog regarding this issue, I'd like to continue as I have time to respond. A GHG like CO2 as a negative feedback loop seems like a non-starter to me but let's assume I'm incorrect.

Can you offer some evidence? I think my original post with regard to this period offered a warming of the ocean as the primary cause of CO2 increase during a period of temperature cooling. As oceans warm their ability to consume CO2 lessens and they begin to out-gas CO2. As temperature falls, oceans balance and begin to consume CO2. As I understand it, this is the way the earth worked prior to 6B+ humans.

If you have an alternate explanation, I'd like to hear it.

c1ue
11-04-09, 08:14 AM
What do grammers got to do with reason?


Perhaps grammar and spelling have nothing to do with reason, but equally perhaps attempting to demonstrate reason is impossible if your assertion of 'A' actually is read to be 'B'.

How hard is it really to first type into a word processor before posting?


Can you offer some evidence? I think my original post with regard to this period offered a warming of the ocean as the primary cause of CO2 increase during a period of temperature cooling. As oceans warm their ability to consume CO2 lessens and they begin to out-gas CO2. As temperature falls, oceans balance and begin to consume CO2. As I understand it, this is the way the earth worked prior to 6B+ humans.

The wherefores of the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not the question. As I've noted before, it seems reasonable that temperature changes in the ocean cause outgassing - though this does not preclude other causes.

The question is: if CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary driver for temperature and/or a positive feedback mechanism, then how can increasing CO2 permit temperatures to fall?

If an initial energy input change causes temperature to increase - i.e. orbital tilt - with subsequent ocean outgassing leading to CO2 increases, then logically rising CO2 levels should further increase the rate of temperature increases.

After all, initial radiative budget increase of 'X' should be 'X + Y' if CO2 is both increasing as a GHG and as a positive feedback mechanism.

The evidence for this is scanty at best.

Furthermore if the original orbital tilt reverses - i.e. the radiative energy budget returns to previous levels - then rising CO2 levels should moderate the fall in temperature.

Or in other words the temperature fall should be slower than the temperature rise - assuming the radiative budget changes are consistent in both directions.

In fact the records show temperature falls are FASTER than the temperature rises.

Faster temperature falls with increasing CO2 seems very inconsistent with both CO2 as a primary GHG and also as a positive feedback mechanism.

It would be more likely that either CO2 is irrelevant or the overall feedback is negative.

And on the subject of feedback: a couple of examples of Roy Spencer

1) Dr. Spencer being attacked by an AGW - all the usual suspects: Exxon funding, its different this time, sea level rise, Antarctic Ice (note this was 2008 - before either the 2008 or 2009 increases became known)

A nice reprise of many of the 'arguments' presented in this thread thus far. I do like how Dr. Albert backtracks in saying that "IPCC is getting better". Yet the call for action started in the '80s?

http://www.toddalbert.com/files/20080324.PoliticalAnimals.mov

2) Dr. Spencer examining the Lindzen and Choi paper postulating CO2 as part of a negative feedback mechanism:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/#more-12444

Note that despite Dr. Spencer being a prominent 'denier', unlike the AGW crowd he focuses on the science rather than pushing a common agenda.

I have yet to see examples of AGW proponents critiquing each other's work.



The authors showed that satellite-observed radiation loss by the Earth increased dramatically with warming, often in excess of 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree (6 W m<SUP>-2</SUP> K<SUP>-1</SUP>). In stark contrast, all of the computerized climate models they examined did just the opposite, with the atmosphere trapping more radiation with warming rather than releasing more.

The implication of their results was clear: most if not all climate models that predict global warming are far too sensitive, and thus produce far too much warming and associated climate change in response to humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions.

...

A GOOD METHODOLOGY: FOCUS ON THE LARGEST TEMPERATURE CHANGES

One thing I liked about the authors’ analysis is that they examined only those time periods with the largest temperature changes – whether warming or cooling. There is a good reason why one can expect a more accurate estimate of feedback by just focusing on those large temperature changes, rather than blindly treating all time periods equally. The reason is that feedback is the radiation change RESULTING FROM a temperature change. If there is a radiation change, but no temperature change, then the radiation change obviously cannot be due to feedback. Instead, it would be from some internal variation in cloudiness not caused by feedback.

But it also turns out that a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. In other words, it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified (e.g., from chaotic cloud variations in the system). This is the subject of several of my previous blog postings, and is addressed in detail in our new JGR paper — now in review — entitled, “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedbacks in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing”, by Spencer and Braswell).

WHAT DO THE AMIP CLIMATE MODEL RESULTS MEAN?

Now for my main concern. Lindzen and Choi examined the AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) climate model runs, where the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were specified, and the model atmosphere was then allowed to respond to the specified surface temperature changes. Energy is not conserved in such model experiments since any atmospheric radiative feedback which develops (e.g. a change in vapor or clouds) is not allowed to then feed-back upon the surface temperature, which is what happens in the real world.

Now, this seems like it might actually be a GOOD thing for estimating feedbacks, since (as just mentioned) most feedbacks are the atmospheric response to surface forcing, not the surface response to atmospheric forcing. But the results I have been getting from the fully coupled ocean-atmosphere (CMIP) model runs that the IPCC depends upon for their global warming predictions do NOT show what Lindzen and Choi found in the AMIP model runs. While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short-term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming.

In fact, a radiation increase MUST exist for the climate system to be stable, at least in the long term. Even though some of the CMIP models produce a lot of global warming, all of them are still stable in this regard, with net increases in lost radiation with warming (NOTE: If analyzing the transient CMIP runs where CO2 is increased over long periods of time, one must first remove that radiative forcing in order to see the increase in radiative loss).

So, while I tend to agree with the Lindzen and Choi position that the real climate system is much less sensitive than the IPCC climate models suggest, it is not clear to me that their results actually demonstrate this.

...

But since the Lindzen and Choi results were for changes on time scales longer than 36 days, next I computed similar statistics for 108-day averages. Once again we see feedback diagnoses in the range of 2 to 4 W m<SUP>-2</SUP> K<SUP>-1</SUP>:

Finally, I extended the time averaging to 180 days (five 36-day periods), which is probably closest to the time averaging that Lindzen and Choi employed. But rather than getting closer to the higher feedback parameter values they found, the result is instead somewhat lower, around 2 W m<SUP>-2</SUP> K<SUP>-1</SUP>.

By way of comparison, the IPCC CMIP (coupled ocean-atmosphere) models show long-term feedbacks generally in the range of 1 to 2 W m<SUP>-2</SUP> K<SUP>-1</SUP>. So, my ERBE results are not that different from the models. BUT..it should be remembered that: (1) the satellite results here (and those of Lindzen and Choi) are for just the tropics, while the model feedbacks are for global averages; and (2) it has not yet been demonstrated that short-term feedbacks in the real climate system (or in the models) are substantially the same as the long-term feedbacks.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I’ve been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.

we_are_toast
11-04-09, 08:49 AM
back to overview (http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_overview.htm)

Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect



In the experiment transport of heat (http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpheattran.htm) we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.
An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.

In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:



Experimental setup:

Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)
two lights of identical output
two pans with water
black cardboard
Temperature feeler (data registration by a computer)

http://www.espere.net/Germany/expjpggif/watexpgreenh2.jpg
Experiment:


A The lights in the experiments represent the sun, which emits light towards the earth.
B A pan filled 1cm with water is needed in order to absorb the thermal energy emitted by the lights, which would disturb the experiment. Normal bulbs emit a major fraction of their energy as heat but only the radiation should pass and is required for the processes below.
C1 The left hand side glass vessel is filled with pure carbon dioxide.
C2 The right hand side vessel is filled with normal air containing only about 0,037% of carbon dioxide. Therefore the absorbing effect of CO2 is by far stronger in the left vessel and the capability to act as greenhouse gas can be estimated through this experimental setup.
D Below the glass vessels (covered by the sign) is a layer of black cardboard, representing the dark surface of the earth. After switiching on the light, the temperature is measured in both bessels and plotted on the computer screen as a function of the time.
http://www.espere.net/Germany/expjpggif/watexpgreenh1.jpg
Sketch of the experimental setup

(!Please click the picture in order to see an animation - takes some loading time!)

<table width="500" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="249">left: carbon dioxide
the infrared radiation emitted by the cardboard, is absorbed by the CO2 and causes an increase of heat in the vessel. </td><td valign="top">right: air
the infrared radiation emitted by the cardboard leaves the vessel without any significant absorption. The increase in tempearture is less. </td></tr></tbody></table>http://www.espere.net/Germany/expjpggif/watexpgreenh4.jpg (http://www.espere.net/Germany/expjpggif/watexpgreenh3.gif)
Occuring processes:
1) The lights are switched on
2) Infrared light (heat) is absorbed by the water in the pan above the vessel and does not reach the air or the CO2 below.
3) The visible light emitted by the bulbs passes the water and reaches the black cardboard.
4) The cardboard becomes warmer and emits infrared radiation.
5) The infrared light is absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide (left) much stronger than by the air (right).
6) In the vessel with carbon dioxide the gas is heated due the absorption.

Result:

Temperature as a function of time:
<!-- The following table was generated by the Internet Assistant Wizard for Microsoft Excel. --><!-- ------------------------- --><!-- START OF CONVERTED OUTPUT --><!-- ------------------------- --><table border="1"><tbody><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">Time</td><td width="60">T (air)</td><td width="60">T (CO2)</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">[min]</td><td width="60">[°C]</td><td width="60">[°C]</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">0</td><td width="60">22</td><td width="60">22</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">5</td><td width="60">32</td><td width="60">37</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">10</td><td width="60">35</td><td width="60">40</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">15</td><td width="60">40</td><td width="60">45</td></tr><tr valign="bottom" align="center"><td width="60">20</td><td width="60">44</td><td width="60" align="left">50</td></tr></tbody></table><!-- ------------------------- --><!-- END OF CONVERTED OUTPUT --><!-- ------------------------- -->Diagram:
The blue series in front shows the course of temperatures in the right vessel.
The violet series behind shows the temperature course in the left vessel containing carbon dioxide.
http://www.espere.net/Germany/expjpggif/watexpgreenh5.jpg
Conclusions:

Due to the infrared radiation absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen. The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas.
Direct and measurable.

sunskyfan
11-04-09, 09:51 AM
I am someone who basis their world view on Reason. I am also someone who has spent a great deal of time around Science types. I am also someone who grew up in the center of the Bible Belt.

Unfortunately, there is not much difference between a bunch of theologians ranting about the validity of the ark or the bible code and most Science types ranting about computer models and a complex multi-parameter control problem. The personality traits and ego infusion is pretty much the same. The ability of the "successful" players to say "I don't know" or "I was wrong" is pretty much zero. The production of Priests, Rabbis, and Ministers parallels most PHD programs right down to the ceremonies and cult like behavior of benediction and bequeathment of robes and power.

Global Warming is, at its core, a euphemism for Over-population at the subconscious core of humanity. Something that is obviously a problem but we just can't face because even the most liberal, off-the-grid, earth-loving hippie chick feels the right to have a baby. Do you ever notice that the effects of the data comes from where there are no people (the arctic or the Himalayan glaciers) and the predictions of catastrophe are in the highest population density places on Earth?

Climate change happens on Earth. That is a fact. Get used to it. Whether from solar variability or oscillations in atmospheric gas content due to vulcanos and/or human beings. Will human beings die as it happens? Yes. Will human beings die from some other over-population induced phenomena anyway? Yes. They already are and they are called cities.

So, until I see a political and cultural movement that actually takes on OP this is all silly talk. As for the future of communion ... "solyent green is people!".

jneal3
11-04-09, 10:13 AM
Direct and measurable.

This would have been fascinating if they had conducted the experiment not with pure CO2 but with a doubling of the concentration in air. Assuming someone somewhere has done that, is it safe to assume that those would be the kind of results used to form the basis for the parameter settings in the computer sims?

we_are_toast
11-04-09, 11:51 AM
This would have been fascinating if they had conducted the experiment not with pure CO2 but with a doubling of the concentration in air. Assuming someone somewhere has done that, is it safe to assume that those would be the kind of results used to form the basis for the parameter settings in the computer sims?

1st, I don't want to mislead you into believing that this is some novel new experiment. These types of CO2 experiments have been conducted for more than 100 years by scientists, and now high school science classes, and the results are well established.

CO2 is the basis for the computer models, BUT CO2 is a trigger mechanism which leads to many, many complex interactions between the upper atmosphere, the oceans, permafrost, sea ice, glaciers, ... Anyone who implies there is a direct linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is promoting the pseudoscience plastered on this thread. In the last 10 years or so, the major climate models have been pretty accurate, with the error falling in underestimating the rate of increase in temperatures.

Here's another direct measurement;


How are infrared spectra obtained, and what do they look like? An infrared spectrometer consists of a glowing filament that generates infrared radiation (heat), which is passed through the sample to be studied. A detector measures the amount of radiation at various wavelengths that is transmitted by the sample. This information is recorded on a chart, where the percent of the incident light that is transmitted through the sample (% transmission) is plotted against wavelength in microns (um) or the frequency (http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/img21_11cl.gif). Remember that energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. If we define wavenumber (a.k.a. "reciprocal centimeters") = 1/http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img16.gif (http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/img21_11cl.gif), we have a parameter that is directly proportional to energy. Figure 6 shows the infrared spectrum of a gaseous sample of carbon dioxide. Note that the intensity of the transmitted light is close to 100% everywhere except where the sample absorbs: at 2349 http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/img21_11cl.gif (4.26 um) and at 667 http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/img21_11cl.gif (15.00 um).

http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gifIf you look at the theory, look at the direct measurements, look at the experimental evidence, and you'll see why there is overwhelming consensus among the thousands of scientists studying the subject. Only through the alchemy of the pseudoscience, promoted by deniers, can they hope to confuse the issue enough to cast doubt with a public trying to understand a very complex, but critical subject.

You'll notice, in EJ's latest piece on oil, iTulip has proclaimed the non peak oil arguments are debunked, and will probably show little tolerance for those who start making arguments that oil is created through some chemical process deep inside granite and we only need to drill in the right place to find it. There is far, far, more evidence debunking the psudoscience of the deniers of AGW than there is for the deniers of peak oil. I'm a bit confused why, after EJ stated his fear that we are entering an age of unreason ( a point I very strongly agree with), iTulip allows this thread to remain in the News area of the site, rather than moving it to rant and rave. There are no cracks in the global warming fact, I hope we're not seeing the start of cracks in iTulips desire to promote reasoned analysis over unreasoned psudoscience.

c1ue
11-04-09, 01:53 PM
You'll notice, in EJ's latest piece on oil, iTulip has proclaimed the non peak oil arguments are debunked, and will probably show little tolerance for those who start making arguments that oil is created through some chemical process deep inside granite and we only need to drill in the right place to find it. There is far, far, more evidence debunking the psudoscience of the deniers of AGW than there is for the deniers of peak oil. I'm a bit confused why, after EJ stated his fear that we are entering an age of unreason ( a point I very strongly agree with), iTulip allows this thread to remain in the News area of the site, rather than moving it to rant and rave. There are no cracks in the global warming fact, I hope we're not seeing the start of cracks in iTulips desire to promote reasoned analysis over unreasoned psudoscience.

Yes, run home to poppa. Can't handle it on your own.

Maybe iTulip Ex Machina will save you.

Does CO2 absorb energy? Yes

Does CO2 cause temperatures worldwide to rise? Not clear

As has been explained in exhaustive detail, the Catastrophic AGW forecasts are actually based on 2 items:

1) Let's accept that CO2 causes global temperatures rises by absorbing heat. This is good for maybe 1 degree C. IPCC says it is all manmade CO2, others point out the Ice Age we are recovering from, historical record keeping anomalies, etc. Either way 1 degree C rise in 100 years is not catastrophic even if CO2 were indeed the cause.

2) CO2 not only causes global temperatures to rise but increases positive feedback in the climate such that the actual temperature rise will be 5 to 7 degrees C. This positive feedback is completely unproven, has been undemonstratable, and even IPCC itself says it is an assumption.

Show us a nifty high school experiment demonstrating 2).

santafe2
11-17-09, 11:49 PM
The question is: if CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary driver for temperature and/or a positive feedback mechanism, then how can increasing CO2 permit temperatures to fall?

I've zero time to engage this but wanted to point out that CO2 does not "permit" anything, it simply forces warming. There are periods where other forces predominate but CO2 continues it's upward concentration...tick tock. It may be five years or so, but commercial passage through the Arctic is expected to be established by 2015, the US Navy reported on this eight years ago. They need funding to patrol the navigable Arctic.

I'm voting, Navy 1, Deniers 0.

c1ue
11-18-09, 10:24 AM
I've zero time to engage this but wanted to point out that CO2 does not "permit" anything, it simply forces warming. There are periods where other forces predominate but CO2 continues it's upward concentration...tick tock. It may be five years or so, but commercial passage through the Arctic is expected to be established by 2015, the US Navy reported on this eight years ago. They need funding to patrol the navigable Arctic.

I'm voting, Navy 1, Deniers 0.

Unfortunately reality still trumps your wishful thinking.

CO2 forcing is anything but proven; experimental demonstration hasn't even happened.

Your example of Arctic ice lows also equals Antarctic ice highs.

Plus I've already posted numerous historical examples in the recent past (50+ years ago) where navigation was possible by sailing ship in the Arctic.

CO2 keeps going up, yet clearly temperatures are not.

The latest compendium of the many holes in the AGW crusader dogma:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Phoenix%20Climate%20Presentation.ppt

santafe2
03-14-10, 01:57 AM
Unfortunately reality still trumps your wishful thinking.
Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

c1ue
03-14-10, 12:14 PM
Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

It is amusing how the same line keeps getting used:

"you are smart therefore you should agree with me"

I, on the other hand, like to actually examine the evidence.

The evidence thus far is still far from 'settled', and furthermore a long chain of evidence exists showing a bias on the part of the IPCC continues to rise to the surface like turds in a bowl.

From NGO-sourced documents to student dissertations, from reversed conclusions from peer reviewed papers to gaming of inclusion of publications, the entire 'climate science' situation on the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe side would be a comedy of errors were it not for the real societal costs already being imposed due to this situation.

After thousands of lines - the basic questions are still unanswered:

If CO2 is the primary driving factor, why have global temperatures been stable for a decade or more despite an increase in CO2 levels?

Where is the evidence for CO2 having a multiplication effect on global temperatures? (Radiative forcing/positive feedback)

Why are all the IPCC and other alarmist models wrong every single time - until back-adjusted for 'real' data?

If the dystopian Keystone Kops of climate keep it up, the next question added to the list will be: Why should anyone believe you?

A video which is much more nuanced on this subject:

http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyNjg1ODMwNjE2ODcmcHQ9MTI2ODU4MzA4MzMyOC ZwPTI2Njc1MSZkPXR2b1ZpZGVvUGFnZSZnPTMmbz*yNzAxNjZm/MWU4YmY*MGJkYjQ1MGE5MmE4NjYwOGExMyZzPXNxdWFyZXNwYW NlLmNvbSZvZj*w.gif<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyNjg1ODMwNjE2ODcmcHQ9MTI2ODU4MzA4MzMyOC ZwPTI2Njc1MSZkPXR2b1ZpZGVvUGFnZSZnPTMmbz*yNzAxNjZm/MWU4YmY*MGJkYjQ1MGE5MmE4NjYwOGExMyZzPXNxdWFyZXNwYW NlLmNvbSZvZj*w.gif" /><embed src="http://www.tvo.org/video/tvoMain.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="486" height="412" name="flashObj" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" FlashVars="videoRefID=71356252001&videoPlay=manual&gig_lt=1268583061687&gig_pt=1268583083328&gig_g=3&gig_s=squarespace.com" ></embed>

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyNjg1ODMwNjE2ODcmcHQ9MTI2ODU4MzA4MzMyOC ZwPTI2Njc1MSZkPXR2b1ZpZGVvUGFnZSZnPTMmbz*yNzAxNjZm/MWU4YmY*MGJkYjQ1MGE5MmE4NjYwOGExMyZzPXNxdWFyZXNwYW NlLmNvbSZvZj*w.gif" /><embed src="http://www.tvo.org/video/tvoMain.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="486" height="412" name="flashObj" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" FlashVars="videoRefID=71356252001&videoPlay=manual&gig_lt=1268583061687&gig_pt=1268583083328&gig_g=3&gig_s=squarespace.com" ></embed></EMBED></EMBED></EMBED>

jiimbergin
03-14-10, 01:39 PM
Your denial of science is amusing but only wishful thinking. You're a smart guy, it's too bad you have such a silly agenda. CO2 is a force for warming. That's not my idea, it's basic physical science.

Again you never ever answer any question. Is there any chance that the business you are in gives you a bias that you can't face up to:confused:

santafe2
03-16-10, 10:54 PM
If CO2 is the primary driving factor, why have global temperatures been stable for a decade or more despite an increase in CO2 levels?

Where is the evidence for CO2 having a multiplication effect on global temperatures? (Radiative forcing/positive feedback)

Why are all the IPCC and other alarmist models wrong every single time - until back-adjusted for 'real' data?


Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

jiimbergin
03-17-10, 07:53 AM
Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

Once again you never answer any question. And in this case you do not properly read. C1ue did not say CO2 is not a force in Global Warming. As C1ue answered in another thread.


My argument has been quite clear all along.

CO2 - even should its entire GHG properties be exercised (and not negated by some systemic effect) would raise global temperature by at most 1 or 2 degrees.

The 5 or 7 degrees postulated by the IPCC is due to the second factor, the radiative forcing/positive feedback.

This positive feedback has not been evident in the past.

It is not evident now.

It exists only in a few GCM computer models.

The real climate scientists note that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past without either runaway. Other scientists note that CO2 levels have lagged temperature increases, not the other way around. Even more scientists note that CO2 is not some perpetual heat engine - there is only so much light of the appropriate bandwidth. And yet again other scientists wonder how CO2 levels which keep increasing still have yet to increase the global temperatures in the past decade plus.

So please, try again with your simplistic alarmist crap.

jneal3
03-17-10, 08:49 AM
Once again you never answer any question. And in this case you do not properly read. C1ue did not say CO2 is not a force in Global Warming.

+1.

There is absolutely no chance santafe2 uses words for a living (lawyer/teacher); I sit on the outside of this debate and want to scream every time the AGW side doesn't carefully read (and understand and respond to the meat of) c1ue's posts.

WDCRob
03-17-10, 09:11 AM
That's because c1ue's posts fly in the face of fifty years of research and thousands of published studies, and aren't worth discussing anymore than having a debate with the tobacco industry about whether smoking causes cancer would have been c. 1975.

To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

jneal3
03-17-10, 09:25 AM
To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

Anyone else?

btw what are the 24+ 'fields'?

This debate is at its core a search for a scientific rationale for massive, costly action, that would most likely crowd out other action potentially beneficial to humanity. Thinking people have a duty to shout 'Sez who?!'.

c1ue
03-17-10, 02:05 PM
Ok, I'll give up the idea that you're a smart guy. Your argument is that CO2 is not a force for global warming. It's a dumb argument and not supported by climate scientists or any area of science. I suppose 200 years of scientific discovery has been nothing more than a conspiracy and CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" don't cause global warming.

Um ok, so the many scientists out there who do NOT agree with the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe arguments are all dumb too. As mentioned previously, anyone who doesn't toe your line must be dumb.

The IPCC has been significantly discredited; 1/3 or more of its citations are NGO, magazine, or some other non-peer reviewed work.

A number of IPCC's claims have also been shown to be false - not just based on the non-peer reviewed work, but also due to IPCC taking/assuming positions OPPOSITE to the scientists who wrote the papers: Pielke Jr., Tol, Muir-Wood to name just 3.


You like to argue that climate from a billion or two billion years ago should be taken into account when considering AGW but now we have to question basic physics because a new global temperature peak has not been reached over the last 10 years. Buffoonery.

Yes, it is buffoonery that the supposed settled science can neither predict near future nor reconcile with recorded past events - only unprovable far future events.

It is buffoonery that the settled science monkeys with the raw data, or loses it, or denies access to it to anyone not toeing the party line.


Then you ask how CO2 is a force for warming. If you understand basic physics, you do your minions here a complete disservice. CO2 blocks a percentage of IR returning it to earth. The more CO2 the more heat returned to earth. Within the scientific community, this is a 100% non controversial issue. Even your boy Lindzen understands the science and only argues that the earth will find it's own cure and we shouldn't worry about it. Of course he still argues that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer...but that's another denalist issue.

I understand basic physics just fine - you clearly cannot read English.

I've said it before and will say it again: even if all of the supposed CO2 HG effects are not mitigated by the system, the rise in temperatures would at best be 1 or 2 degrees.

This is more than the present 100+ year trend, much less the decade+ nonwarming/cooling trend.

Thus the evidence is not very strong empirically for this allegation.

Secondly the IPCC 'projections' which have been and continue to be wrong - in the same vein as the Hansen scenarios - also assume positive feedback.

This feedback has yet to be demonstrated in any way.

For something which is obvious from a physics standpoint - this seems highly inconsistent.


Um, IPCC characterized as "alarmist", there's some good science.

Yep, IPCC does great science.

That's why 1/3 of its citations are non peer reviewed and come from such scientific sources as Greenpeace, Oxfam, the WWF, student dissertations, carbon traders, climbing magazines, boot cleaning guides, and what not.

IPCC also does a great job with actual scientists: when scientists point out that their work as cited by the IPCC is opposite to what the IPCC claims, this is just ignored.

So yes, the evidence is quite significant that IPCC has an agenda beyond science.


That's because c1ue's posts fly in the face of fifty years of research and thousands of published studies, and aren't worth discussing anymore than having a debate with the tobacco industry about whether smoking causes cancer would have been c. 1975.

To engage his arguments is to give them equal footing with decades of science across dozens of fields. Which they do not deserve.

Yes, there is so much science in dozens of fields that even simple and straightforward questions cannot be answered.

That the 50 years of research STILL has yet to produce a smoking gun, or a useable climate model.

How much more money and time do these scientists in this 'settled' field need?

ThePythonicCow
03-17-10, 09:48 PM
I sit on the outside of this debate and want to scream every time ...Ditto on the scream.

santafe2 -- as best as I can tell, you keep accusing c1ue of saying that CO2 has no green house affect, while c1ue keeps saying that whatever such affect it has is modest and the focus of our efforts to reduce it are sorely misguided.

Please tell me, santafe2, that I am misreading your posts.

santafe2
03-18-10, 01:40 AM
Ditto on the scream.

santafe2 -- as best as I can tell, you keep accusing c1ue of saying that CO2 has no green house affect, while c1ue keeps saying that whatever such affect it has is modest and the focus of our efforts to reduce it are sorely misguided.

Please tell me, santafe2, that I am misreading your posts.

Possibly you are correct and I'm incorrect, and c1ue is saying that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'. That is, c1ue is saying that CO2 is a force for warming and additional CO2 will cause additional warming. I don't think he's ever said that. I don't think he understands basic physical science or he's so politically motivated he won't admit this basic understanding...but as I said, I could be wrong.

This is a simple yes or no question. C1ue can say:
Yes. This means he agrees that CO2 is a force for global warming...or
No. This means he doesn't admit to any understanding of basic physical science.

You say he's been saying yes but I bet he doesn't even answer the question. While I can't wait for the answer, I'll be busy the rest of the week so I'll check in over the weekend.

BTW, the red was a very nice touch. It screams without garish human big type or underline and bold. Only a cow would be so subtle.

c1ue
03-18-10, 03:31 AM
Yes. This means he agrees that CO2 is a force for global warming...or
No. This means he doesn't admit to any understanding of basic physical science.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - YES

CO2 is the primary driver for climate - NO

human generated CO2 is a reason why temperatures have increased in the past 100 years - POSSIBLE, but so are any of a dozen other reasons including land use changes, etc etc.

human generated CO2 is the PRIMARY and ONLY reason why temperatures have increased in the past 100 years - NO - no proof whatsoever that this is the case other than "we can't think of another reason" (IPCC).

IPCC 5 to 7 degree warming scenarios backed by science - NO

IPCC a primarily scientific institution - NO

Positive feedback - NOT PROVEN

Himalayan glaciers disappearing - NO

Arctic Ice disappearing - NO

Sea Levels to rise several meters or more - NO

Hurricane intensities and energy increasing - NO

ThePythonicCow
03-18-10, 03:59 AM
BTW, the red was a very nice touch. It screams without garish human big type or underline and bold. Only a cow would be so subtle.Thanks for the compliment, but being an engineer at heart, not an ingénue, I can't resist asking for what red I am being complimented :).

The only special font I used in my post to which you were responding was underline and italic.

jiimbergin
03-18-10, 06:20 AM
Thanks for the compliment, but being an engineer at heart, not an ingénue, I can't resist asking for what red I am being complimented :).

The only special font I used in my post to which you were responding was underline and italic.

I sure did not see any red in your post either:confused:

santafe2
03-20-10, 02:28 AM
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - YES

CO2 is the primary driver for climate - NO

c1ue, your post cut to keep the argument more focused. I find we simply devolve into a Hanson vs. Lindzen snowball fight if we tackle too much in one post and we've gotten nowhere just tossing ideas and invective about.

Let's start here. We agree on the nearly 200 year old scientific argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will force additional warming if all other forcings and feedbacks are neutral. We're not agreeing that these forces and feedbacks are neutral, just agreeing on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be a force for warming.

Your second statement is more complex and we'll have to agree on several more ideas before we can discuss this. Not the least of these will be some discussion of how many tons of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere and how that effects the overall level. A good stating point would be for me to understand if you agree that our currently measured 390 PPM for CO2 is accurate and that the 280 PPM pre-industrial point is accurate. After that, we can attempt to look at specific issues.

If we can agree on the generally accepted measurements, let's move forward. If not, let me know and possibly we can get past this impasse. I should let you know that I'm not much interested in discussing climate issues that predate human forcing and absolutely no interest in discussing climate that predates humans and modern climate. That will limit the discussion to the last ~400k years. If that's not acceptable, it needs to be discussed prior to moving forward.

c1ue
03-20-10, 06:43 AM
Let's start here. We agree on the nearly 200 year old scientific argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and additional CO2 added to the atmosphere will force additional warming if all other forcings and feedbacks are neutral.

Yes, CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

Yes, since CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, then more CO2 should cause more GHG effect.


We're not agreeing that these forces and feedbacks are neutral, just agreeing on the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be a force for warming.

I also note that we likely do not agree the actual amount of GHG warming introduced by the additional CO2.


Your second statement is more complex and we'll have to agree on several more ideas before we can discuss this. Not the least of these will be some discussion of how many tons of CO2 humans add to the atmosphere and how that effects the overall level.

A good stating point would be for me to understand if you agree that our currently measured 390 PPM for CO2 is accurate and that the 280 PPM pre-industrial point is accurate. After that, we can attempt to look at specific issues.

I've noted a number of times the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as denoted by the US Department of Energy - expressed as a percentage of the existing CO2 sources and sinks in nature. Unless you disagree with that number listed below, this can be used as a reference point:



<CENTER>TABLE 1.</CENTER>

<CENTER>The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1) <TABLE height=181 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width=599 border=1><TBODY><TR height=44><TD width="36%" height=44>(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)</TD><TD align=middle width="14%" height=44>Pre-industrial baseline</TD><TD align=middle width="10%" height=44>Natural additions</TD><TD align=middle width="12%" height=44>Man-made additions</TD><TD align=middle width="15%" height=44>Total (ppb) Concentration</TD><TD align=middle width="13%" height=44>Percent of Total</TD></TR><TR height=24><TD noWrap width="36%" height=24> Carbon Dioxide (CO2)</TD><TD align=right width="14%" height=24> 288,000</TD><TD align=right width="10%" height=24>68,520 </TD><TD align=right width="12%" height=24>11,880 (2)</TD><TD align=right width="15%" height=24>368,400 </TD><TD align=right width="13%" height=24>99.438% </TD></TR><TR height=24><TD width="36%" height=24> Methane (CH4)</TD><TD align=right width="14%" height=24> 848</TD><TD align=right width="10%" height=24>577 </TD><TD align=right width="12%" height=24>320 </TD><TD align=right width="15%" height=24>1,745 </TD><TD align=right width="13%" height=24>0.471% </TD></TR><TR height=24><TD width="36%" height=24> Nitrous Oxide (N2O)</TD><TD align=right width="14%" height=24> 285</TD><TD align=right width="10%" height=24>12 </TD><TD align=right width="12%" height=24>15 </TD><TD align=right width="15%" height=24>312 </TD><TD align=right width="13%" height=24>0.084% </TD></TR><TR height=24><TD noWrap width="36%" height=24> Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)</TD><TD align=right width="14%" height=24> 25</TD><TD align=right width="10%" height=24>0 </TD><TD align=right width="12%" height=24>2</TD><TD align=right width="15%" height=24>27 </TD><TD align=right width="13%" height=24>0.007% </TD></TR><TR height=24><TD align=middle width="36%" height=24> Total</TD><TD align=right width="14%" height=24> 289,158</TD><TD align=right width="10%" height=24>69,109 </TD><TD align=right width="12%" height=24>12,217 </TD><TD align=right width="15%" height=24>370,484 </TD><TD align=right width="13%" height=24>100.00% </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

santafe2
03-21-10, 01:55 AM
Yes, CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas.

Yes, since CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, then more CO2 should cause more GHG effect.

Check.


I also note that we likely do not agree the actual amount of GHG warming introduced by the additional CO2.This is a good area to investigate. There is a CO2 forcing that is well known and can be expressed mathematically in additional watts per square meter. That is, a molecule of CO2 is opaque to IR and acts to deflect it. That deflection can be measured accurately and the percentage of heat returning to the earth is well known. If this is where you have an objection, let me know. If not, we should be able to establish a relationship between increasing CO2 and additional heat returning to earth.


I've noted a number of times the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere as denoted by the US Department of Energy - expressed as a percentage of the existing CO2 sources and sinks in nature. Unless you disagree with that number listed below, this can be used as a reference point:


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The link is highly problematic as it introduces many additional issues into the discussion. For example, to talk about orbital issues without quantifying them, and explaining them in detail, adds only noise to the discussion. Water vapor is even more problematic. These issues are like me introducing issues of albedo as ice melts. I think it's better to keep it simple for now.

As an aside regarding albedo: Ice and snow reflects short wave radiation as short wave radiation and CO2 doesn't "see" it. The rest of the non icy world absorbs short wave radiation rather well and returns much of it as long waves. CO2 acts as a goalie for long wave radiation and returns a little less than half of it back to earth.

If we can get through some of the CO2 basics we can certainly discuss other forcing issues, but I don't see the value at this point.

The DOE numbers for CO2 replicated on this site are close to the one's I use, (a direct link would be better so we know DOE has not updated). While they publish 288 as the beginning of the rise, I think 280 is generally more accepted but, close enough for now unless you see this beginning point as important. The end point of 368.x in 2000 is correct but at this point in time, is only an historical reference as we're currently at 390 and not yet at our seasonal peak. If we consider these numbers within the context of an industrial time line, CO2 rose 80 PPM in 250 years and has risen an additional 22 PPM in the last 10 years.

Since you know I find a rise from 368-390 in 10 years shocking, possibly you can comment on any upper limit with which you may be concerned. Since CO2 is lethal in much larger concentrations, I know there's a level at which you would have concern, I'd just like to know where that might be.

c1ue
03-21-10, 02:18 PM
The link is highly problematic as it introduces many additional issues into the discussion. For example, to talk about orbital issues without quantifying them, and explaining them in detail, adds only noise to the discussion. Water vapor is even more problematic. These issues are like me introducing issues of albedo as ice melts. I think it's better to keep it simple for now.


The only data I referenced from the link were the atmospheric ppm data from the DOE.

If you choose to quibble over 288 vs 280, or 2000 data vs. today, then provide a link of your own.

I don't think it matters, but having an objective source is necessary.

The numbers you posted were without reference.


This is a good area to investigate. There is a CO2 forcing that is well known and can be expressed mathematically in additional watts per square meter. That is, a molecule of CO2 is opaque to IR and acts to deflect it. That deflection can be measured accurately and the percentage of heat returning to the earth is well known. If this is where you have an objection, let me know. If not, we should be able to establish a relationship between increasing CO2 and additional heat returning to earth.


You clearly did not read the excerpt I posted on what CO2's GHG impact itself is according to this person's HITRAN simulations.

From Mr. White's presentation: CO2's spectrographic absorption properties

2933

2934

Mr. White fails to elucidate the specifics on his assertion, but here's another view which clarifies it

2937

Thus the statement: CO2 absorbs energy, and more CO2 absorbs more energy is correct. But the detail missing is how much more?

These pictures indicate the additional amount is not very high.

To put in perspective:

2936

In the grand scheme of things, even discounting all other effects, it is unclear whether CO2 will have a major impact on the global system. The additional W/m-squared seems minimal.

As a check, is there any relationship between temperature and CO2 levels even at Mauna Loa?

2935

It seems not.

Link for ModTrans and trenberth graph: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/#more-17114

c1ue
03-21-10, 02:27 PM
One more graph - had to use a second post because of the 5 attachment limit:

2938

The blue bars represent 'natural' levels.

The red bars represent what IPCC is asserting.

Clearly a fundamentally different behavior is being posited for 'human produced' CO2 vs. 'natural' CO2.

Why?


Since you know I find a rise from 368-390 in 10 years shocking, possibly you can comment on any upper limit with which you may be concerned. Since CO2 is lethal in much larger concentrations, I know there's a level at which you would have concern, I'd just like to know where that might be.


Toxicity for CO2 - at least as defined by the US Navy - is not until 8000 ppm: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming.html


In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm) make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers recommends a CO2 level no more than 700 above background:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC149392/

Crowded rooms may achieve CO2 levels as high as 10000 ppm:

http://www.co2alarms.com/articles/the-dangers-of-co2-poisoning/

So I'd be worried if we get up to 1000 ppm (absolute) or more.

The reality is that there is simply not enough easily accessible fossil fuels to get the world up to that level - not unless we kill all the CO2 consumers first (plants).

santafe2
03-21-10, 09:43 PM
2938

The blue bars represent 'natural' levels.

The red bars represent what IPCC is asserting.

Clearly a fundamentally different behavior is being posited for 'human produced' CO2 vs. 'natural' CO2.

c1ue, I'm out of time for this weekend but will get back to this soon. Do me a favor, when you site a chart like this one please reference it. The IPCC reports are a work in progress so I'd like to know if you're quoting data from the early 90s or more current without having to review all the reports to find this chart, thanks.

c1ue
03-21-10, 11:22 PM
All charts are from the links noted.

Continuing failure to read what is actually posted.

santafe2
03-21-10, 11:55 PM
All charts are from the links noted.

Continuing failure to read what is actually posted.

Continuing failure to read your own post.

c1ue
03-22-10, 06:51 AM
Another series of posts where the big 'proof' of any aspect of AGW-CO2-catastrophe is touted...then simply left off.

This is 100 years of 'settled science'?

More like the WWF, and Woods Hole 'science' talking its book.

More tales of incestuous relationships between NGO's and 'climate science'

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html


The WWF and other green campaign groups talking up the destruction of the Amazon rainforests are among those who stand to make billions of dollars from the scare. This "green gold-rush" involves taking control of huge tracts of rainforest supposedly to stop them being chopped down, and selling carbon credits gained from carbon dioxide emissions they claim will be "saved".

Backed by a $30 million grant from the World Bank, the WWF has already partnered in a pilot scheme to manage 20 million acres in Brazil. If their plans get the go-ahead in Mexico at the end of the year, the forests will be worth over $60 billion in "carbon credits", paid for by consumers in "rich" countries through their electricity bills and in increased prices for goods and services.

The prospect of a billion-dollar windfall explains the sharp reaction to the "Amazongate (http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html)" scandal, in which the IPCC falsely claimed that up to 40 percent of the rainforest could be at risk from even a slight drop in rainfall.

...

The Woods Hole interest had earlier been declared in March 2006 (http://www.whrc.org/pressroom/press_releases/PR-2006-03-31-Defor-Emiss.htm) when Richard Houghton, a senior scientist and deputy director of the centre sent a memorandum to the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) on developing a scheme called "Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries" (REDD). "Carbon credits represent the largest potential flow of revenue in support of sustainable development in tropical forest regions," he then stated.

...

To finance its plan, the WWF then obtained $18 million seed funding from the San Francisco-based Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (http://www.moore.org/init-grants-awarded.aspx?init=44). This was topped up with $15 million from the German government, paid through the state-owned KfW Entwicklungsbank (http://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/EN_Home/Countries,_Programmes_and_Projects/Latin_America/Brazil/Project_-_Tropical_forest_protection.jsp). Then its Brazilian partner, FUNBIO (http://site.funbio.org.br/teste_en) (The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund) - an NGO which had been started in 1996 with a $20 million grant from the Global Environment Facility – contributed $18 million, donated by the Brazilian government.

Fronting FUNBIO, the WWF then orchestrated a formal application for a grant from its partner, the World Bank. Predictably, in 2002 (http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=104231&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P058503), the Bank donated $30 million from public funds. It also arranged for its small grants division, the GEF to donate (http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/ecology-environmental/5658683-1.html) $500,000 to a trust fund to help maintain the areas.

...

Meanwhile, Woods Hole Research Centre had been at work. Representing itself to the world as a scientific institute, it is in fact an advocacy group from the same wellspring as WWF. Its founder, George M Woodwell (http://www.whrc.org/about_us/mission.htm) (pictured), is a former chairman of the board of trustees and currently a member of the National Council of the WWF. He thus shares its values and objectives.

Woodwell is also a founding trustee of the World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org/about/board), another advocacy group. It is currently chaired by James A Harmon (http://www.wri.org/about/board/james-harmon), Chairman of the investment group Harmon & Co and a director of Questar Corporation, an integrated natural gas exploration, distribution and pipeline company. He is also senior advisor to the Rothschild Group. Additionally, the Institute counts as a board member Al Gore, chairman of Generation Investment Management, a company with strong interests in carbon trading.

Funded heavily by the Moore foundation, to the tune of over $7 million, and working in partnership (http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/amazon/arpa.html) with the WWF on the Tumucumaque project, in May 2008 (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0529-amazon.html) Woods Hole Research Centre, alongside the Federal University of Minas Gerais in Brazil, came up with the "Holy Grail", a methodology for calculating the carbon "savings" from managing rainforests.

...

This ideological environmental movement, we are thus informed, is a powerful $4 billion-a-year US industry, an $8 billion-a-year international gorilla. And WWF is one of the major players. Like the profit-making international corporations it so freely criticises – into which it has crawled into bed, taking their money – the WWF itself is a massive international corporation,. Its declared income (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_ar08_final_singles.pdf) for 2008 was €447 million, including €107.7 million for its international arm.