PDA

View Full Version : Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July



Contemptuous
11-18-07, 04:25 AM
GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST

Original thread was here:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12102#poststop

Here are some comments from members of this community on the validity of the global warming thesis, posted just a few months ago. I include the original reactions to the "thesis" that global warming might be real, because we now have the results in from a coordinated massive study conducted by a UN sponsored panel consisting of fully 2,500 climatologists and related discipline scientists from all over the world.

If any of you choose to continue to disbelieve this "thesis", your clear (and presumably robust) rebuttal should perhaps be duly posted here subsequently, for us all to examine.

The below multiple comments dismissing the validity of the global warming "thesis" (there are also one or two comments quite supportive of the validity of warming) should now be regarded as "faith based expressions", given the presumed competency of the combined expertise of the 2500 climate and meteorology professionals engaged by the UN to put something definitive together on the matter. They have indeed - they've since confirmed the thesis is very much borne out by their exhaustive review.

The comments below are therefore a remarkably consistent display of collective bias on the part of many in the iTulip community (Gasp! Collective bias can really exist among us!). This thread's majority conclusion from this past July (Global Warming is for credulous ninnies, whom God invented so the rest of us could have a laugh) cannot be described as one of iTulip's more incisive investigations.

I wish to call these recent, very large miscalculations reflected in the comments below to your collective attention now that the major UN report results have been published, in the hope that a healthy component of self doubt may be introduced in future regarding theses which many of us feel an automatic inclination to dismiss, because they appear too "popular" or others may appear too "liberal" (tree huggers and other low IQ citizens).

The belief that by remaining "contrarian" to overly "popular" views we are employing a methodology which will put us closer to some truth is quite manifestly not a methodology at all - it's merely an indulgence of bias, and a substitute for genuine curiosity.

I have no doubt that my calling the below widely miscalculated comments to your collective attention will earn me resentment from some quarters, and that's OK with me. Meanwhile, I'm sweeping a few cherished cobwebs away from our collective view here going forward. Global warming is not only real - it's very urgent, and it's directly linked to CO2 emissions. Case closed, for all but the most stubborn hold-outs.

____________


These were iTuliper comments then:

<< Does science prove CO2 causes global warming? Or is global warming more of a political than a scientific movement? - We believe there is more politics than science in the global warming debate. [ iTulip Ed.]

<< Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age (LOL!) >> [ Sapiens ]

<< We're trying to build an investment thesis here. If the Global Warming theory and the political impetus behind it falls apart in five years after we have made significant related investments because the movement is primarily based on religious and political motives rather than science, then we have not served the interests of our community.>> [ E.J. ]

<< I thought this article yesterday in my daily fishwrap was pretty interesting. ... Funny stuff, to think that our weather people work numbers and statistics the same way that our BIS folks do for our unemployment rate. ... I'm going to warn my children to be on the lookout for the Ice Age scam thirty years from now. >> [ Tet ]

<< What is at work here amongst the skeptics is the "reverse thesis credibility factor" - i.e. because so many naive and alarmist people have glommed onto global warming and resource depletion, I-Tulip sees this and veers unduly towards skepticism as the antidote. >> [ Lukester ]

<< To become more closely associated with issues which have been unfortunately popularised or "dumbed down" is nothing whatsoever to be concerned about for iTulip - this community has already more than established it's credentials. It should consider lending it's weight to ALL the most critical issues of the day. >> [ Lukester ]

<< A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. >> [ Fred ]

<< ( the Sun's output comment above ) - truly the funniest thing I have read in quite some time, not suprising that it comes from the BBC and the Brit Royal Academy of idiots. >> [ Tet ]

<< I would rather let experts figure it out between themselves. We do have time to wait for them to do it in spite in massive amounts of global whining. What *is* suspicious (and very profitable to some people, as the video clearly explains), is massive support of the GW propaganda by the politicians and the media. You have to have a lot of guts to oppose it. Precisely what contrarians are supposed to do. >> [ Medved ]

<< Is Global Warming bunk? Is our Government once again on the wrong side of the issues, and as contrarians are we moving closer to the truth by debunking the US Government's now embracing the global warming thesis along with half the other nations in the world? ... To merely deride "populism" and smiley faced "pro-green idiots" in this globally emerging discussion seems a fairly thin answer to the wide consensus now emerging at government levels? >> [ Lukester ]

<< I don't even want to make the judgement whether GW is real or not. I would leave it to the experts and give them more time (and, maybe, more resources for research). What is very suspicious, is the magnitude of the GW propaganda and its acceptance by the political establishment. This has nothing to do with science. >> [ Medved ]



<< Frequency of weather-related disasters <HR style="COLOR: #99ff99" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/images/hbr/hbrsa/current/0703/R0703F_A.gif

POSTED W CHART ABOVE : (Source: Swiss Re via Harvard Business Review (http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp?pageNumber=1&ml_subscriber=false&articleID=R0703F&_requestid=22622&value=R0703F&referer=/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp&reason=unknown&productId=R0703F&ml_action=get-sidebar&ml_context=sidebar&ml_issueid=BR0703&ml_id=R0703F&ml_sidebar_id=1)) The arguments about average global temperature will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But does anyone doubt the reinsurance industry's statistics on the frequency of "acts of God"? >> [ Quigleydoor ]


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

POSTED W CHART ABOVE: << Perhaps a convincing argument can be made with this one, however 'Swindle has clearly chopped off the more recent (and most accurate) data to prove his point. Also here is a review (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414) from more noteworthy Global warming skeptics. If you want to be a global warming critic, then review this site. However by taking off on this tangent with Martin Durkin as a reference, Itulip is risking its credibility. Best to stick with predicting financial doom. >> [ Fox ]

<< Our credibility is only at risk if we accept conventional wisdom without question. ... It is wise to question popular beliefs, especially when evidence abounds to demonstrate the common error of confusing of correlation with causation, in this case climate change and human activity. >> [ E.J. ]


<< It seems to me, and admittedly I have only a superficial interest in the long-term energy problems facing the planet, that what appears to be the idiocy with regard to EROEI from the current US policy in promoting corn-based ethanol, there can be a "brighter side" with regard to population control >> [ J. Nickerson ] ( Here is J.Nickerson, apparently implying ethanol derived food inflation = eventually promotes starvation = effective population control ( a novel approach to the problem indeed! )

<< Yet another signpost that the little band of iTulip skeptics are now situated in a rearguard action against the CO2 "global warming myth" ... They will now have to deny and debunk the UN's considered opinion on the matter as well as that of the Federal Administration (now on board also), the G8, and most of the industrialized nations in the world. >> [ Lukester ]

<< Seems that for the current administration the scientific basis for global warming's attribution to CO2 has been accepted. That leaves a good part of the debate on iTulip on whether there is any real science in it somewhat of a rearguard action, insofar as even the current Republican administration is now running ahead of us on the issue. >> [ Lukester ]

<< Bush calls climate change talks : The US has invited the UN, EU and 15 of the world's leading economies to the high-level talks on 27-28 September, the White House said in a statement. >> [ Lukester ]


_____________



NEWS UPDATE ON THIS PAST AUGUST ITULIP DISCUSSION RE: THE "VALIDITY OF THE THESIS" OF GLOBAL WARMING

November 15th 2007:
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->(CNN) -- Climate change is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can head it off, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report on global warming issued Saturday.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!----><!--===========IMAGE============-->http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/europe/11/17/spain.climate/art.mud.gi.jpg<!--===========/IMAGE===========--> <!--===========CAPTION==========-->Exposed mud banks at a reservoir in Spain, November 2007.<!--===========/CAPTION=========-->



The report produced by the Nobel prize-winning panel warns of the devastating impact for developing countries and the threat of species extinction posed by the climate crisis.



U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, presenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in Valencia, Spain, warned that some of the effects of rising levels of greenhouse gases may already be irreversible.

The U.N. head said the situation was already "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" could head off the crisis.

The report warns that in spite of the protocols adopted by many Western countries after Kyoto, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise by between 25 and 90 per cent by 2030.

The Kyoto treaty was a global effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States is one of only a few nations not to have signed the protocol, which expires in 2012.

The report also predicts a rise in global warming of around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

Scientists say up to an 85 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed to head off potential catastrophic changes that could lead to more floods and famine.

Ban Ki-moon told the panel he was hopeful that the report's findings could help bring about "a real breakthrough" in climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, next month.

The climate change panel was delivering its fourth and final report on the science of climate change and the impact of human-produced greenhouse gases at a conference in Valencia.

The Bali talks will set the groundwork for the successor to the Kyoto treaty.
<!--startclickprintexclude-->Don't Miss

<LI _extended="true">Climate change 'getting worse' (file:///C:/2007/WORLD/europe/11/16/spain.climate.ap/index.html) <LI _extended="true">In-Depth: Planet in Peril (file:///C:/SPECIALS/2007/planet.in.peril/index.html) <LI _extended="true">Map shows top CO2 producers in the world (file:///C:/2007/TECH/science/11/15/carbon.map.ap/index.html)
U.N. chief sees Antarctic meltdown (file:///C:/2007/TECH/science/11/10/bankimoon.antarctic.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch)<!--endclickprintexclude-->They will also guide global climate policy for at least the next decade, and dictate the types of long-term investment decisions made by big industries and utilities.

Written by more than 2,500 top government-appointed scientists from nations around the world, Saturday's report contains a summary for policymakers attending the Bali talks, outlining the scientific evidence for global warming and ways to deal with it.

However, panel member Achim Steiner, executive director of United Nations environment program, said the report was also meant to serve as a "civilian's guide" to dealing with climate change. He said he hoped individuals could use the information contained in the report to take practical steps to curbing gas emissions.

The U.N. panel -- the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore -- was asked if goals of reducing emissions could be achieved without the contribution of China and especially the United States, which was one of only a few countries that did not sign up to the Kyoto treaty.
Ban Ki-moon said he had "high expectations" that both countries would play a "constructive role" at the upcoming talks.

"Both countries I think can and should lead each in its own way," he said.
The disagreement over how the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions should be managed may well stall the Bali talks.

Some countries are thought to be in favor of mandatory caps on emissions, which could hit the industrial output of major carbon dioxide producers such as the United States.

Mandatory caps are also unlikely to be supported by developing countries, who fear they could be a barrier to growth.

Opponents of the caps -- thought to include the Bush administration -- favor voluntary restrictions and suggest postponing mandatory caps until the richer world is better able to pay for it, and cleaner energy technologies are more developed.

Writing in the International Herald Tribune on Friday, the U.N. head said the world was "on the verge of a catastrophe if we do not act."

Rajiv
11-18-07, 08:51 AM
There is definitely a Panglossian (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2461) element here at Itulip when it comes to discussing "Limitations to Growth (http://www.clubofrome.org/archive/reports.php)"

Though one could argue that EJ and others have embraced Hudson and his ilk - who seem to imply that the root cause of the current problem is in fact "growth" and the "need for growth" brought about by the very existence of "interest" as the method of payment for the use of money. See also "Reinventing Money (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19943&postcount=1)"


<< Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age (LOL!) >> [ Sapiens ]

also, I think Sapiens was laughing at the Ice Age comment

metalman
11-18-07, 09:22 AM
There is definitely a Panglossian (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2461) element here at Itulip when it comes to discussing "Limitations to Growth (http://www.clubofrome.org/archive/reports.php)"

Though one could argue that EJ and others have embraced Hudson and his ilk - who seem to imply that the root cause of the current problem is in fact "growth" and the "need for growth" brought about by the very existence of "interest" as the method of payment for the use of money. See also "Reinventing Money (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19943&postcount=1)"



also, I think Sapiens was laughing at the Ice Age comment

hudson says the credit system eventually runs out of steam 'cause there's not enough income to pay all the interest and it collapses. that's what socialists have been saying forever, capitalism collapses in on itself and blah, blah, blah. i don't know that i've seen ej agree with that. there's another piece here The End of Money (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6000#post6000)that says the money supply is growing exponentially and that can't go on forever. there's a discussion between ej and the author at the end. i checked his bio. "Dr. Chris Martenson has an MBA from Cornell and PhD from Duke, worked in corporate finance for a fortune 50 company".

Rajiv
11-18-07, 09:36 AM
hudson says the credit system eventually runs out of steam 'cause there's not enough income to pay all the interest and it collapses. that's what socialists have been saying forever, capitalism collapses in on itself and blah, blah, blah.

It all depends upon what your definition of "forever" is! I believe that socialism is relatively new to this planet!

Can I now categorize you as a "Frank Zappa-ist" and "futurist" showing "Neoliberal Econo-manic Tendencies" with a belief in the "Pure Cornucopian Features" of Capitalism?

metalman
11-18-07, 09:58 AM
It all depends upon what your definition of "forever" is! I believe that socialism is relatively new to this planet!

Can I now categorize you as a "Frank Zappa-ist" and "futurist" showing "Neoliberal Econo-manic Tendencies" with a belief in the "Pure Cornucopian Features" of Capitalism?

alls i know is that 30 years ago the marxists were saying capitalism was screwed and the soviets were gonna win and look who's screwed now?

the worst, most repressive governments EVER have been communist. on the other hand, capitalism that concentrates wealth develops political problems. what's ej's take? i'd like to hear. i bet he doesn't like your socialist idea of giving away itulip's subscription service! ha ha!

raja
11-18-07, 10:47 AM
I read this critique of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" by Mario Lewis www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

I found that it was a very convincing argument against human causation of global warming. But I have no experience in climatology, so I checked out a few of the references in the piece, and they seemed accurately represented.

I also passed it on to some of my intelligent and knowledgeable friends whom I knew were fans of Al Gore's position. They criticized the piece for political reasons, saying it was not credible because of the source. But they also had no comment on the scientific points. I wrote back saying, "But what about the science?", and in their reply they still did not address this. Some said, "But the worldwide scientific consensus is . . . .", but no specific rebuttals.

So, I got on the web and tried to find valid scientific criticisms of Lewis's work. Couldn't find anything.

As a result, I believe that global warming is probably not of human origin, and that the efforts to cut greenhouse emissions are based on a fallacy (although greenhouse emissions may have a contributory effect, so cutting could still be a good idea).

This situation feels similar to the economy situation. While I believe that the financial sky could come falling down, all my friends and relatives are proceeding with business as usual . . . despite any warnings I provide.

Rajiv
11-18-07, 11:17 AM
I didn't see any science in Mario Lewis' article. There were no citations, no references, no sources -- only allegations.

Therefore I consider the piece to be entirely political in nature

Contemptuous
11-18-07, 04:17 PM
Interesting reference from Metalman, to the ( very interesting ) iTulip interview with Dr. Martenson "The End of Money".

( http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6000#post6000 )

Dr. Martenson's quote (bold italic) below can be read as a clear endorsement of the common-sense principle "look for the most obvious indication from the data first, before reaching for less obvious hypotheses".

He writes:

<< If it looks like, smells like, and quacks like an exponential function... we may need to consider it one. >>

Applying this eminently sensible idea to the following very long term (half million year) chart, our first rational stop is to immediately conclude the evidence is overwhelming that CO2 and global mean temperatures are in near perfect correlation, no?

Notice on the chart below, how the CO2 level always LAGS the temperature level on the spikes? That ratio seems inverted at the present, implying "temperature" still has a lot of catching up to do?

At least that much of the conundrum should therefore provisionally be considered "resolved" and placed into position to assist clarifying the overall conclusion as to principal components of global warming. Seems a rational, sound methodology so far.


http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/last_400000_years.png





iTulip's article "The End of Money" provides yet further clues on the dynamics of compounding events in the physical and biological worlds, as Dr. Martenson quotes Dr. Albert Bartlett :
Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. ... I want to ask you two questions.
Number one; at which time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59, one minute before 12, because they double in number every minute?
Second Question; ... Let me ask you, at 5 minutes before 12 when the bottle is only 3% full and is 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realize there's a problem?Can we also assume that the longer the time frame of a data set, or the larger the set of data-points, the more definitive the trend changes that data describes? Look at the CO2 levels described in the above chart. These are relative to data points stretching back a half a million years. We might say this correlation of CO2 to temperature is "definitive enough for broad assumptions"?

Match this long term data to present data - we've just confirmed CO2 levels are at an all time half million year high. The one standard deviation spike in that chart (we can assume) occurs very roughly within the last two centuries of time, with a sharp acceleration of trend - i.e. 19th through to 21st Centuries.

This CO2 spike seems roughly one standard deviation out of the half million year range. So what data have we assembled for rational conclusions not encumbered by bias either pro or contra global warming?

It seems highly plausible that:

> CO2 is very highly correlated to climate change (seems confirmed from the above very long data sample chart).

> Industrial age is coincident to ramping up CO2 production to levels higher than in 400,000 years (+ 1 Stand. Dev.)

> We've just received a UN report by the world's best available 2500 climatologists re-affirming CO2 levels are higher than at any prior time retrievable data sets, (chart above readily confirms it) and that same report insists these CO2 levels are produced by industry.

Employing Dr. Martenson's sound methodology recommendation to "pick the obvious interpretation first", and Dr. Bartlett's insight on runaway dynamics in the equilibrium of systems, we know

> It is good methodology to follow the obvious implication before following the less obvious implications (Martenson)

> A system in equilibrium subject to compounding effects may tip very suddenly into disequilibrium - with a sudden speed which refutes what we presume to be "logical" rates of progression.

Conclusion #1: The above data was confirmed by 2500 climatologists mere weeks ago. They go further, suggesting the term "dire situation" is an appropriate term for describing the above chart's current global accumulating CO2 levels - those here who experience strong reluctance to arrive at the most obvious conclusions about what the above data represents, are therefore employing the less rational view of the available data, as they do not accept the most obvious implication at face value, but wish to search for secondary implications instead.

Conclusion #2: Employing an irrational view of the data above suggests that the cause of that irrational response is "ideological baggage", otherwise described as "a distaste or repugnance to be associated with other groups who espouse multiple viewpoints along with their global warming convictions, which one find's politically or ideologically unattractive, uninformed, or to be otherwise false"

Conclusion #3: Disavowing empirical data on a matter which can potentially affect one's future, that of one's children, and that of future generations, in the face of scientists growing insistence that the matter is "urgent", and disavowing these warnings due entirely to distaste for becoming associated with groups one finds politically or ideologically repugnant -such reactions imply one is captive of social strictures, rather than freely inquiring, and one is not willing or comfortable if necessary, to "hold one's nose" and cross all ideological boundaries in search of true risk, with a sincere commitment to the prospering of our species and to bequeathing a habitable world to our grandchildren.

Conclusion #4: Mankind has most often been a prisoner of it's own conceits, and we may "discover our sincerity of purpose a bit too late to avert some massive damage to the only world (quite small world) we've got. Therefore a completely politically agnostic sincerity, in the face of ideological preferences can be a very valuable tool - it even might be termed a "survival characteristic".

Contemptuous
11-19-07, 02:59 AM
Well, if the Gospel according to Gore is to be believed the whole planet will look like this very soon. Coming on the heels of Peak Oil, maybe time to swap the truck for a camel?
GRG55 -

"St. Gore" may indeed be a bore, but when you start reading a bit of the "chapter and verse" in that gospel, what strikes you is the speed at which it is already occurring.

For those who are even just a shade concerned about not being vilified by our great grandchildren for having left them a thoroughly trashed world where half the species are extinct, some concern about our current stewardship of the planet would certainly appear warranted by the harsh news listed below - breaking news - in 2007.


115

__________

BBC — Friday, 21 September 2007

Ice withdrawal 'shatters record'

Arctic sea ice shrank to the smallest area on record this year, US scientists have confirmed. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said the minimum extent of 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles) was reached on 16 September.

The figure shatters all previous satellite surveys, including the previous record low of 5.32 million sq km measured in 2005.
Earlier this month, it was reported that the Northwest Passage was open.

The fabled Arctic shipping route from the Atlantic to the Pacific is normally ice-bound at some location throughout the year; but this year, ships have been able to complete an unimpeded navigation.

The researchers at NSIDC judge the ice extent on a five-day mean. The minimum for 2007 falls below the minimum set on 20-21 September 2005 by an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five UKs.

Speaking to BBC News on Monday this week, Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC, said: "2005 was the previous record and what happened then had really astounded us; we had never seen anything like that, having so little sea ice at the end of summer.

Then along comes 2007 and it has completely shattered that old record."

He added: "We're on strong spiral of decline; some would say a death spiral.

I wouldn't go that far but we're certainly on a fast track.

We know there is natural variability but the magnitude of change is too great to be caused by natural variability alone."
The team will now follow the progress of recovery over the winter months.

In December 2006, a study by US researchers forecast that the Arctic could be ice-free in summers by 2040. A team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Washington, and McGill University, found that "positive feedbacks" were likely to accelerate the decline of the region's ice system.

Sea ice has a bright surface which reflects 80% of the sunlight that strikes it back into space. However, as the ice melts during the summer, more of the dark ocean surface becomes exposed. Rather than reflecting sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90% of it, causing the waters to warm and increase the rate of melting. Scientists fear that this feedback mechanism will have major consequences for wildlife in the region, not least polar bears, which traverse ice floes in search of food.

On a global scale, the Earth would lose a major reflective surface and so absorb more solar energy, potentially accelerating climatic change across the world.

________________


Published on Friday, October 5, 2007 by Inter Press Service
Climate Change and Entire Landscapes on the Move

The hot breath of global warming has now touched some of the coldest northern regions of world, turning the frozen landscape into mush as temperatures soar 15 degrees C. above normal.

by Stephen Leahy

Entire hillsides, sometimes more than a kilometre long, simply let go and slid like a vast green carpet into valleys and rivers on Melville Island in Canada’s northwest Arctic region of Nunavut this summer, says Scott Lamoureux of Queens University in Canada and leader of one the of International Polar Year projects.

“The entire landscape is on the move, it was very difficult to find any slopes that were unaltered,” said Lamoureux, who led a scientific expedition to the remote and uninhabited island.

The topography and ecology of Melville Island is rapidly being rearranged by climate change. “Every day it looked different,” he told IPS. “This is a permanent change.”

Normally Melville Island’s 42,500 sq kms are locked in sea ice all year round, as it is part of the high region that has been relatively unaffected by the dramatic declines in Arctic sea ice over the past decade. Until this year, that is.

This summer, southern parts of the island were free of sea ice, Lamoureux told IPS. He has led expeditions to the island every year since 2003. On land at Mould Bay on the island’s northwest side, his research team measured record-shattering temperatures of between 15 to 22 degrees C in July. Until then, the normal July average temperature had been between 4 and 5 degrees C.

The extraordinary heat thawed the tundra permafrost — permanently frozen ground — to depths of more than a metre, he said. At that depth, there is mostly ice and when it melts, it destabilises the thin, top layer of plants and soil that has patiently built up over thousands of years. Enormous amounts of water and sediments are being discharged into rivers, lakes and oceans.

Studies are underway to determine the impact on birds, fish, musk oxen and other creatures that live there in the summer.
Given the extent of the changes, there is little doubt there will be significant ecological impacts, he said.

The record low level of sea ice in the entire Arctic Ocean will also change regional and even global weather patterns.

Much more snow will fall in the Arctic due to the increased moisture from the increased amounts of open water. All that water is also dark and heat-absorbing instead of sunlight-reflecting ice, so the region gets warmer, melting more ice in what is a strong positive feedback loop.

Other parts of the Arctic region have already changed dramatically in the past 50 years. “There are trees and lawns in Nome (Alaska) now,” said Patricia Cochran, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council. “I never thought I’d see trees growing on the tundra,” Cochran said about her hometown, which lies on the Bering Sea and was once too cold for trees to grow.

“Beavers are overrunning the area now that there is food for them. They are even in Barrow, north of the Arctic Circle,” she told IPS from her office in Anchorage.

The tundra is also melting, resulting in coffins disturbingly popping out of the ground in graveyards, roads crumbling and giant sink holes opening up everywhere, including in some towns, she said. Every summer brings plants, animals, birds and insects that no one has seen before. Dragonflies and turtles now roam the lands that had been too icy for tens of thousands of years.

“Everyone living here has seen the changes,” Cochran said. And there are more changes to come even if politicians and corporate CEOs stop pretending to act and actually curb emissions of greenhouse gases. “The Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer, it’s just a matter of how soon,” said Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the University of Victoria, Canada.

A new study led by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration this week revealed that the Arctic’s thick, year-round sea ice cover declined 2.6 million square kilometres beyond the summer average minimum since satellites started measurements in 1979. That’s about the size of the province of Ontario.

“That decline is nothing short of stunning,” Weaver told IPS. It’s also a permanent decline because while the ice will re-form over the six-month-long winter when there is no sunlight, it will be much thinner and likely to melt quickly next summer, he said. Because Arctic sea ice is floating, the melting will not affect sea levels but it will “wreak absolute havoc on Arctic ecosystems”.

The rapid meltdown is pushing the upper end of the climate experts’ projections, he said, noting that new research shows that change in the Arctic could happen abruptly.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service

________________

Contemptuous
11-19-07, 01:21 PM
While iTulip skeptics dither and yawn as to whether the "thesis" of climate change has any basis, here's what is going on elsewhere:

EXTRACT:

"And the new science is saying: 'You thought it was bad? No it's worse.' "
The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," Pachauri said. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

__________

Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say
<!-- /kicker & headline --><!-- subhead --><!-- /subhead --><!-- byline -->
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif
By Elisabeth Rosenthal and James Kanter (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=By Elisabeth Rosenthal and James Kanter&sort=publicationdate&submit=Search)
http://img.iht.com/images/dot_h.gif

Published: November 18, 2007

VALENCIA, Spain (file:///C:/Program Files/Common Files/Microsoft Shared/Stationery/#): The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report's authors admit.

The report describes the evidence for human-induced climate change as "unequivocal." The rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thus far will result in an average rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, or 1.4 meters, it concluded.

"Slowing - and reversing - these threats is the defining challenge of our age," Ban said upon the report's release Saturday.

Ban said he had just completed a whirlwind tour of some climate change hot spots, which he called as "frightening as a science-fiction movie."

He described ice sheets breaking up in Antarctica, the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, and children in Chile having to wear protective clothing because an ozone hole was letting in so much ultraviolet radiation.

<!-- sidebar --><!-- today in links -->Today in Europe


The panel's fourth and final report summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of the panel's exhaustive climate-science review that were released from January through April, to create an official "pocket guide" to climate change for policy makers who must now decide how the world will respond.
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript>if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0){document.write('http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/ad/europe.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789? (http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/jump/europe.iht.com/article;cat=article;sz=190x90;ord=123456789?)');}</SCRIPT>

The first covered climate trends; the second, the world's ability to adapt to a warming planet; the third, strategies for reducing carbon emissions. With their mission now concluded, the hundreds of IPCC scientists spoke more freely than they had previously.

"The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking," said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report.

This report's summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet could result in a substantive sea level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

"Many of my colleagues would consider that kind of melt a catastrophe" so rapid that mankind would not be able to adapt, said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University who contributed to the IPCC.

Delegations from hundreds of nations will be meeting in Bali, Indonesia in two weeks to start hammering out a global climate agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the current climate change treaty. The first phase of the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2012.

"It's extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action," said Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University's Earth Institute. "We can't afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can't afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now."

He said that delegates in Bali should take action immediately where they do agree, for example, by public financing for demonstration projects on new technologies like "carbon capture," a "promising but not proved" system that pumps emissions underground instead of releasing them into the sky. He said the energy ministers should start a global fund to help poor countries avoid deforestation, which causes emissions to increase because growing plants absorb carbon in the atmosphere.

Although the scientific data is not new, this was the first time it had been looked at together in its entirety, leading the scientists to new emphasis and more sweeping conclusions.

But even as the IPCC was working toward its conclusions over the past several years, a steady stream of even more alarming data has come in.
"The IPCC is a five-year process and the IPCC is struggling to keep up with the data - we are all being inundated with new evidence and new science," said Hans Verolme, director of the Global Climate Change Program at the conservation organization WWF.

"And the new science is saying: 'You thought it was bad? No it's worse.' "

The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late," Pachauri said.

"What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

He said that since the IPCC began work on its current report five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."

"If you look at the scientific knowledge things do seem to be getting progressively worse," Pachauri said later in an interview. "So you'd better start with the interventions even earlier. Now."

The effects will be greatest in the developing world. Even without the more alarming data, the report says inaction could leave island states submerged, African crop yields down by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

Developments that affect the IPCC predictions and have made such scenarios even more likely, scientists said, include faster than expected industrial development in China and India. Economic growth has a huge effect because these countries' industries are largely powered by electricity from burning coal, a cheap but highly polluting source of energy.

"The IPCC report never imagined the world would move back to a coal- based energy economy - and that's essentially what we've done," said Gernot Klepper an economist who studies climate change at the Kiel Institute in Germany.

"If you extrapolate from that we're running into a disaster."

Part of the reason the scientists inserted their alarming statements about polar ice melts in the synthesis report is because "recent observations" were not "fully included in ice sheet models" used by IPCC, the report said.
Some in the scientific community have gone so far as to question the effectiveness of the IPCC as the world's early warning system on climate change.

"Sadly, even the most pessimistic of the climate prophets of the IPCC panel do not appear to have noticed how rapidly the climate is changing," said James Lovelock, a British scientist, "Scientists have let this potentially disastrous future steal up on us unaware."

But most scientists have been awed by the IPCC's deliberate work, for which it was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize this year.

Pachauri said that even if reality was worse than the final IPCC report suggested, that only made it more urgent to act quickly and forcefully.
"What we brought out is that if you delay action or don't do enough the impact is quite devastating. This only strengthens that message."

James Kanter reported from Paris. Andrew C. Revkin contributed reporting from New York.

bill
11-19-07, 09:28 PM
While iTulip skeptics dither and yawn as to whether the "thesis" of climate change has any basis


http://bp0.blogger.com/_lL4RDBSXdiY/Rz_7ja22JtI/AAAAAAAAAII/KnjAMCdY8VE/s400/Global-warming-underwear.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/_lL4RDBSXdiY/Rz_7ja22JtI/AAAAAAAAAII/KnjAMCdY8VE/s1600-h/Global-warming-underwear.jpg)

Contemptuous
11-19-07, 10:03 PM
Bill -

Please "fix yer post". For I canna see what the image is! Although I'm guessing, it may be another one of your trenchant cartoons? (bloomers, probably ... ) :D

Starving Steve
11-21-07, 04:56 PM
So long as there is a buck in scaring the public, there will be no shortage of junk science about global warming.

During the Ice Age, global temperatures were approximately 8F or 9F below present levels. At that time, sea levels were about 300 feet lower. So, something like a 30 or 35 foot rise in sea level has occurred with each degree of global warming that has occurred since the Ice Age.

So, if the Earth has really warmed 2 degrees F in recent years ( since 1900 ), then why wouldn't mean sea level be up by about 60 or 70 feet?

When we actually do the measurement, sea level is up by about 7 or 8 inches, at most, and even these measurements may OVER-ESTIMATE the rise in sea level because of the local effects of glacial rebound in the land due to the release of weight of ice on it from the Ice Age.

The mean sea level at Sitka, Alaska has actually FALLEN since records have been kept due to land rebound. If we were to take sea level measurements at other locations, say along Hudson Bay or the shores of the Arctic Ocean, the same negative rise in sea level would be observed.

Not to rain on the parade of the eco-nuts in Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, nor to rain on the parade of the UN climate forecasters, but why isn't Florida under 50 or 60 feet of sea water now?

Why isn't downtown SF under 60 feet of sea water?

Why is French Frigate Shoals or Midway Island still above sea level because, after all, their elevation above sea level was 3 feet or less during WWII? And these atolls are still about 3 feet above sea level, even to-day.

But don't confuse the issue of global warming with any hard science or critical thinking. There is just too much grant money at stake for any hard science and pains-taking observation to be done on the subject of global warming. :(

Starving Steve, Watsonville, California

raja
11-21-07, 08:15 PM
I didn't see any science in Mario Lewis' article. There were no citations, no references, no sources -- only allegations.
Therefore I consider the piece to be entirely political in nature
Rajiv,

That was a summary of the main points in his book, which did not contain footnotes or references.

His full book is published online. Go here for a plethora of references: http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm#CHAPTERS

Just pick any chapter and skim it to see the scientific nature of his analysis.

I was particularly impressed by the data showing historical global temperature rise PRECEDING a rise in CO2 rates.

Rajiv, from reading your posts I respect you as a careful thinker who is very concerned about getting the facts, so I look forward to your opinion of Lewis' work. Regards the global warming issue, Lewis' material is the equivalent in importance for me as iTulip is on financial matters . . . .

Contemptuous
11-21-07, 09:58 PM
Raja -

Here is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has said (this is a commissioned panel of climatologists worldwide - NOTE: if we consider them unfit to provide a scientifically objective assessment, then we must fall back on non-climatologists, for an alternate interpretation, as these climatologists represent the most qualified specialists each participant country could contribute). Here is the chronology of their published findings :

>> In 1990, in its first report, the panel found evidence of global warming but said its cause could be natural as easily as human.

>> In a landmark 1995 report, the panel altered its judgment, saying that ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’

>> In 2001, it placed the probability that human activity caused most of the warming of the previous half century at 66 percent to 90 percent — a ‘likely’ rating.

>> By 2007, the IPCC was saying that “the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years.”

MY COMMENT: Every subsequent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has raised the level of certainty that global warming was primarily a man-made phenomenon. Every report; such that now, we are talking over 90% certainty.

MY QUESTION, are you examining the immediate hypothesis borne by the data below, or are you searching for secondary hypotheses here? If searching for a secondary hypothesis - do you regard seeking out a secondary hypothesis before disproving the primary hypothesis that jumps out from the data, to be a good methodology?

Here's what I found meantime, in a very cursory search of your reference material: From Marlo Lewis' treatise

Under SUMMARY OF DISTORTIONS on page ONE, he writes -

<< Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years ... global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower. >>

That's apparently his only definitive point on the half million year data.

According to the charts I'm looking at, he's making an observation which contains a glaring error of logical inference relative to it's attempted topic of discovery, as follows:

Yes indeed, the CO2 levels were lower (in fact, a LOT lower) in the previous interglacial periods, and yes indeed the temperatures were (slightly) higher than our present temperature. But he's missing the significant point - the half million year chart shows tight, invariable correlation between CO2 and temperature, and our present CO2 levels are one full standard deviation ABOVE half million year long prior CO2 levels at prior interglacial warm peaks.

If half a million years of data proves incontrovertibly that CO2 levels and temperature are tightly correlated, Mr. Lewis is completely silent on the fact that we have statistically an extremely high probability that temperatures must rise from here to meet and exceed the CO2 peak showing in this chart if they are to obey the strict CO2 / TEMP correlation observed over the previous 400,000 years !

How can he propose a sound critique of global warming, if he does not mention this and evidence where he believes the fallacy must lie, within that chart's implication?

All his other observations in the list on page one, are micro-observations regarding the present, or stretching back one century at most. - London ground level this, Polar fluctuation that, etc. in the present tense. The real story, the incontrovertible data, is in the half-million year charts. That's where the most unequivocal issues are displayed, like exactly what does a "one standard deviation on half a million years chart in present day CO2 readings" really imply for temperature going forward?.

The issue Mr. Lewis glosses, to my mind with considerable disingenuousness, is that there is quite clearly an 'very strong' correlation of CO2 to Temp because it's derived from a truly massive set of data points. With CO2 current level towering over previous interglacials today, his remark suggesting that current temperature is "lower than during previous interglacials" and pulling an inference out of the hat that this must demonstrate the fallacy of current warming, is a specious inference in terms of any logic that I can percieve. The present temperature is close to half million year peaks, and is compelled by the above correlation to catch up to the CO2 reading, which is much higher yet. But Mr. Lewis does not make any slightest mention of that logical probability.

Are you with me on what he's missing here? It's what you might call, the 'entire issue in question'. How does Mr. Lewis propose to hold my critical attention by turning this simple statistical inference upside down right on the first page of his treatise?




http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/last_400000_years.png



These two charts below from an alternate source reiterate the previous 400K years recurring ice ages, but these charts omit the fine data concentrated in the past one or two hundred years which shows the CO2 spike moving well out of the median range. I believe the current CO2 readings are around 370 parts per million? These are not showing in the two charts below. Imagine them penciled in there, and you'll note the very large anomaly going back 400K years. That anomaly is the present!


http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg


This chart below focuses in sharply on the TEMPERATURE change occurring in the past 2000 years, so if you will mentally compress this chart's timeline and overlay it for detail onto the very end of the chart immediately above, you'll see verbatim what TEMPERATURE is doing. From the topmost chart, we see CO2 is far out ahead of TEMPERATURE. So overlaying that most recent (100-200 years) data onto this broadened middle chart gives you an idea of how strikingly steep the correction must be on the middle charts, for both CO2 and Temperature to bring them current to the present 100 years.

Why does Mr. Lewis not include such secular charts and make any inferences in his treatise, on the tight 400,000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature, and what these above charts then imply?.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/manm_etal_tempchart.gif


I am positive Raja, that you are every bit, if not more qualified than I to dig up a dozen half million year charts mapping CO2 correlation to temperature, and then mapping how starkly far out ahead of temperature current CO2 levels are.

In my opinion, Mr. Lewis' complex caveats about "London ground level sinking", and "cyclical variations in polar temperature" as being significant factors is just a lot of hot air when juxtaposed to these simple half million year charts. One full standard deviation in CO2 levels across 400 thousand years? That's the only data we need to nail to the floor.

I thought you were supposed to be the "nail it to the floor guy"? What is it in the above data that's not clear to you?


___________________


Raja - I found yet another "glaringly anomaly" in the above referenced treatise by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis writes:

<< Implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 changes trailing global temperature changes by hundreds to thousands of years. >>


Visually, there is no consistently significant lag or gap discernible at all between CO2 and Temp across the full duration of this chart - if anything they seem very tightly bound on average. More to the point yet, the chart shows the largest gap in 400,000 years, between CO2, and Temp exists right at the present time, and the CO2 is leading by a massive margin.

This author is claiming that 'causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 always trailing temperature". Where is this guy coming up with these assertions from?



http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/last_400000_years.png

raja
11-22-07, 06:19 PM
Lukester,

Of all the people I've told about this info, you are the first person to respond to Lewis's arguments. That certainly deserves a reply on my part.

However, I'm experience a lot of "turbulence" in my life right now, and will have to Bookmark it for later.

But I will get to it . . . .

Contemptuous
11-22-07, 06:25 PM
Raja -

You not only have my best wishes, you mostl likely have the best wishes of all those here with whom you've corresponded.

jimmygu3
11-23-07, 12:52 AM
Lukester,

I admire your tenacity on this issue and your always compelling posts. I have to side with the world's top 2,500 climatologists and 400,000 years of data on this one. Global warming caused by human CO2 emissions is a huge problem that will get much worse. And while we're confessing to belief in formerly radical scientific theories that have gained popular support, count me in for evolution and relativity. ;)

Since this is neither a scientific nor a political site, I think we would be better suited assessing the economic consequences of climate change and the likely actions of governments to combat it. What companies are poised to try to solve this problem once politicians start throwing money at it? What industries would benefit from a US carbon tax? Those are the questions I feel we should be discussing.

Your besieged working boy,

Jimmy

GRG55
11-23-07, 01:34 AM
...Here is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has said (this is a commissioned panel of climatologists worldwide - NOTE: if we consider them unfit to provide a scientifically objective assessment, then we must fall back on non-climatologists, for an alternate interpretation, as these climatologists represent the most qualified specialists each participant country could contribute). Here is the chronology of their published findings :

>> In 1990, in its first report, the panel found evidence of global warming but said its cause could be natural as easily as human.

>> In a landmark 1995 report, the panel altered its judgment, saying that ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’

>> In 2001, it placed the probability that human activity caused most of the warming of the previous half century at 66 percent to 90 percent — a ‘likely’ rating.

>> By 2007, the IPCC was saying that “the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years.”

MY COMMENT: Every subsequent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has raised the level of certainty that global warming was primarily a man-made phenomenon. Every report; such that now, we are talking over 90% certainty...


Lukester: You are quite clearly very passionate about this topic, and I have great respect for your views.

Unfortunately, I have a persistent predilection to observe such things through the prism of politics. Perhaps it was the way I was raised, perhaps it's a DNA defect, doubtless amplified by living in the Middle East for too long. In any case I have an automatic deep suspicion of anything with a UN stamp on it. The IPCC was estabilished under two UN organisations.




This would be the same UN that in 2001 decided to put Syria on the Security Council:
September 8, 2001: "Since even the foundation of the UN Syria has contributed to the basics of international legitimacy in order to enable peoples of the world achieving their legitimate aspirations towards a better world in which generations enjoy peace and security...
...Throughout years, Syria has revealed its complete commitment to the UN charter and honor of the principles of the international law, commitment to decisions released by the international organizations aiming at finding out just solutions to peoples causes away from double standard position."On further thought, I suppose there is some logic in having one of the world's premier police states serve on the "Security" Council.





This would be the same UN that in its founding charter embraced the following:
“...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women...”
and regularly reminds us that... "U.N. treaties, such as the Univer­sal Declaration on Human Rights, which the General Assembly passed in 1948, form the core of interna­tional standards for human rights." The same UN that determined (for the first time by secret ballot, instead of the traditional acclamation) in 2003 that, of its then 177 member nations, Libya was the most qualified to serve as Chair of its standing Commission on Human Rights. On further thought, is there any entity more qualified and knowledgable to advise on the concept of human rights than those states that habitually abuse them?





This would be the same UN whose World Food Programme agency has this in its mission statement http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/mission/index.asp?section=1&sub_section=6
"...WFP works to put hunger at the centre of the international agenda, promoting policies, strategies and operations that directly benefit the poor and hungry..."

The same UN that despite this...
"...ZANU-PF used government food stocks as a political weapon, denying supplies to some MDC [Movement for Democratic Change] supporters and promising it to other citizens in exchange for votes...In December 2005, the government agreed to allow the UN World Food Program to distribute food aid to over three million people through June 2006, and in March 2006, Zimbabwe's Millers Association warned that the country-once one of Africa's major sources of agricultural exports-had only two weeks' worth of wheat remaining. In April, the government banned international agencies from carrying out crop estimates in the country...The government's partisan disbursement of food and other material assistance...perpetuated public dependence on the ruling party...In some areas a ZANU PF card was required to obtain food and agricultural inputs." (Freedom House Country Report on Zimbabwe 2007) ...saw fit in 2006 to elect Zimbabwe to a three year term as one of the 36 members of the World Food Programme Executive Board. On further thought, who could possibly have more knowledge about the ravages of chronic hunger than a government that has become expert at starving its own people?




This may be an unfair condemnation, but in the eye of this observer the IPCC's affiliation with the UN fatally undermines its credibility.

From my perspective climate change is now well on its way to becoming the next in a long line of secular global religions, complete with all the usual trappings. In addition to the Gospel according to Gore, we have the Synod of Bishops in the form of the IPCC, with the Nobel committee substituting for Papal ratification (exactly how does a committee of eminent climatologists bring about "World Peace" anyway?). And let us faithful vassals not fail to pay due homage to the annual gathering of the College of Cardinals, at the diocese of Davos, ably led by Camerlengo Soros. (By the way, whatever happened to Bono and the African poverty problem they were going to solve?).

iTulip is not intended to be a political forum, so I will close this rant with this observation. Although there appears more and more observable evidence that something is changing with respect to our climate, it is still not clear to me to what degree this is the result of man or, more importantly, to what degree even severe and immediate responsive action by man can truly alter the entire atmosphere (Only a UN agency could possibly imagine that we can control the weather). Is this indeed a secular change in the climate, or another in a long series of cyclical temperature gradient alterations? To be frank, I just don't know. And that puts me a long ways from those, such as the IPCC, that are "over 90% certain" about a subject that appears incomprehensibly complex to me.

Respectfully,
GRG55

Contemptuous
11-23-07, 02:28 AM
Jimmygu3 -

Thanks for your feedback. It's at the end of the day a "gut-check" call. I see at the end of the day you are making the same "gut-check" call that I do. Those who surmise we may be getting bamboozled may want to pause and consider other questions we've discussed in which we don't get bamboozled, and then wonder why our critical faculties should be failing us so singularly on this one question alone.

You also wrote: << Since this is neither a scientific nor a political site, I think we would be better suited assessing the economic consequences of climate change and the likely actions of governments to combat it. >>

All I can observe is that first you have to establish in the group of people you are speaking to, even a modest consensus that global warming even exists. If one's response to all this is apathy, otherwise known as "disinterest in that global warming thingy everyone blathers about" it is still simply apathy. No need to dress it up with the name "skepticism" if it's merely apathy.

______________


GRG55 -

I would be interested in your take on the implications of the very long data-sets specifically about warming, and the rather dramatic on-the-ground reports I posted, without the interference of the political or UN sponsor reputation considerations.

Your remarks about the unbelievably shoddy history of the UN on all of it's myriad "position papers", not to speak of it's laughable nominations of Libya and Syria to chair capacities rendered outright comical by their explicit track records, prompt me to assure you I happen to feel every bit as strongly as you that these reveal the UN to be a farce.

Whether this can serve as a robust dismissal of the work of 2,500 climate scientists far removed from the UN's bureaucratic fudge and blather is however something different, and the linkage you assign frankly leaves me quite skeptical you have sufficient grounds to dismiss further examination of their findings.

Clearly the issue of greatest substance is not the august weight of the UN seal on this commissioned report - or even necessarily these scientists unanimity. What jumps out at me from all the above posts rather, is the 100% move beyond the range of standard deviation in a half million years, which is readily observable from multiple different charted findings (the charts assembled from all scientific sources don't vary much on this at all!), in present day CO2 readings.

You don't mention it or assess it as worth comment, which as a petroleum geologist is notable. Why do your comments focus only on the poor credentials of the UN, while as an earth and resource engineer you might be expected instead to be more genuinely intrigued by this very large anomaly drawn from a massive set of geological (climate) data-points?

Replying to that issue specifically however and bringing some clarity to focus upon it, requires putting all the political baggage aside entirely. Note that I did mention the liability of political baggage in the very first post on this thread? It's absolutely true what you say about the UN. When scrutinizing the pedigree of the UN, I happen to be 100% on the same page as you, it's entirely clear that their track record is cynical flim flam garbage of the worst sort regardless, so their commissioned "definitive studies" truly are a lousy endorsement.

As I reply to Jimmygu3, with whom I agree in broad principle here, at a certain point you make a "gut-check" call, based perhaps on some single, even very simple piece of evidence you may stumble across. To me, seeing the CO2 level in almost complete correlation to temperature, with a tight correlation spanning four full ice ages and four full interglacial ages, and then to see CO2 readings for the first tme in that entire progression at 370 parts per million and rising, soaring right off the 400,000 year chart with temperature severely lagging their move - well, this would be the real data to grapple with. I look somewhat curiously at anyone with a science background that does not sit upright and pay sharp notice of the implications of that simple chart.

As far as I'm concerned, that's where the real discussion lies.

And I don't need to sign off "respectfully" because I've already told you straight up I have great appreciation for all your posts. (As Metalman might put it "blah blah blah". :D )

Starving Steve
11-23-07, 04:32 PM
GRG55 -

"St. Gore" may indeed be a bore, but when you start reading a bit of the "chapter and verse" in that gospel, what strikes you is the speed at which it is already occurring.

For those who are even just a shade concerned about not being vilified by our great grandchildren for having left them a thoroughly trashed world where half the species are extinct, some concern about our current stewardship of the planet would certainly appear warranted by the harsh news listed below - breaking news - in 2007.


115

__________

BBC — Friday, 21 September 2007

Ice withdrawal 'shatters record'

Arctic sea ice shrank to the smallest area on record this year, US scientists have confirmed. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said the minimum extent of 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles) was reached on 16 September.

The figure shatters all previous satellite surveys, including the previous record low of 5.32 million sq km measured in 2005.
Earlier this month, it was reported that the Northwest Passage was open.

The fabled Arctic shipping route from the Atlantic to the Pacific is normally ice-bound at some location throughout the year; but this year, ships have been able to complete an unimpeded navigation.

The researchers at NSIDC judge the ice extent on a five-day mean. The minimum for 2007 falls below the minimum set on 20-21 September 2005 by an area roughly the size of Texas and California combined, or nearly five UKs.

Speaking to BBC News on Monday this week, Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC, said: "2005 was the previous record and what happened then had really astounded us; we had never seen anything like that, having so little sea ice at the end of summer.

Then along comes 2007 and it has completely shattered that old record."

He added: "We're on strong spiral of decline; some would say a death spiral.

I wouldn't go that far but we're certainly on a fast track.

We know there is natural variability but the magnitude of change is too great to be caused by natural variability alone."
The team will now follow the progress of recovery over the winter months.

In December 2006, a study by US researchers forecast that the Arctic could be ice-free in summers by 2040. A team of scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Washington, and McGill University, found that "positive feedbacks" were likely to accelerate the decline of the region's ice system.

Sea ice has a bright surface which reflects 80% of the sunlight that strikes it back into space. However, as the ice melts during the summer, more of the dark ocean surface becomes exposed. Rather than reflecting sunlight, the ocean absorbs 90% of it, causing the waters to warm and increase the rate of melting. Scientists fear that this feedback mechanism will have major consequences for wildlife in the region, not least polar bears, which traverse ice floes in search of food.

On a global scale, the Earth would lose a major reflective surface and so absorb more solar energy, potentially accelerating climatic change across the world.

________________


Published on Friday, October 5, 2007 by Inter Press Service
Climate Change and Entire Landscapes on the Move

The hot breath of global warming has now touched some of the coldest northern regions of world, turning the frozen landscape into mush as temperatures soar 15 degrees C. above normal.

by Stephen Leahy

Entire hillsides, sometimes more than a kilometre long, simply let go and slid like a vast green carpet into valleys and rivers on Melville Island in Canada’s northwest Arctic region of Nunavut this summer, says Scott Lamoureux of Queens University in Canada and leader of one the of International Polar Year projects.

“The entire landscape is on the move, it was very difficult to find any slopes that were unaltered,” said Lamoureux, who led a scientific expedition to the remote and uninhabited island.

The topography and ecology of Melville Island is rapidly being rearranged by climate change. “Every day it looked different,” he told IPS. “This is a permanent change.”

Normally Melville Island’s 42,500 sq kms are locked in sea ice all year round, as it is part of the high region that has been relatively unaffected by the dramatic declines in Arctic sea ice over the past decade. Until this year, that is.

This summer, southern parts of the island were free of sea ice, Lamoureux told IPS. He has led expeditions to the island every year since 2003. On land at Mould Bay on the island’s northwest side, his research team measured record-shattering temperatures of between 15 to 22 degrees C in July. Until then, the normal July average temperature had been between 4 and 5 degrees C.

The extraordinary heat thawed the tundra permafrost — permanently frozen ground — to depths of more than a metre, he said. At that depth, there is mostly ice and when it melts, it destabilises the thin, top layer of plants and soil that has patiently built up over thousands of years. Enormous amounts of water and sediments are being discharged into rivers, lakes and oceans.

Studies are underway to determine the impact on birds, fish, musk oxen and other creatures that live there in the summer.
Given the extent of the changes, there is little doubt there will be significant ecological impacts, he said.

The record low level of sea ice in the entire Arctic Ocean will also change regional and even global weather patterns.

Much more snow will fall in the Arctic due to the increased moisture from the increased amounts of open water. All that water is also dark and heat-absorbing instead of sunlight-reflecting ice, so the region gets warmer, melting more ice in what is a strong positive feedback loop.

Other parts of the Arctic region have already changed dramatically in the past 50 years. “There are trees and lawns in Nome (Alaska) now,” said Patricia Cochran, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council. “I never thought I’d see trees growing on the tundra,” Cochran said about her hometown, which lies on the Bering Sea and was once too cold for trees to grow.

“Beavers are overrunning the area now that there is food for them. They are even in Barrow, north of the Arctic Circle,” she told IPS from her office in Anchorage.

The tundra is also melting, resulting in coffins disturbingly popping out of the ground in graveyards, roads crumbling and giant sink holes opening up everywhere, including in some towns, she said. Every summer brings plants, animals, birds and insects that no one has seen before. Dragonflies and turtles now roam the lands that had been too icy for tens of thousands of years.

“Everyone living here has seen the changes,” Cochran said. And there are more changes to come even if politicians and corporate CEOs stop pretending to act and actually curb emissions of greenhouse gases. “The Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer, it’s just a matter of how soon,” said Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences in the University of Victoria, Canada.

A new study led by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration this week revealed that the Arctic’s thick, year-round sea ice cover declined 2.6 million square kilometres beyond the summer average minimum since satellites started measurements in 1979. That’s about the size of the province of Ontario.

“That decline is nothing short of stunning,” Weaver told IPS. It’s also a permanent decline because while the ice will re-form over the six-month-long winter when there is no sunlight, it will be much thinner and likely to melt quickly next summer, he said. Because Arctic sea ice is floating, the melting will not affect sea levels but it will “wreak absolute havoc on Arctic ecosystems”.

The rapid meltdown is pushing the upper end of the climate experts’ projections, he said, noting that new research shows that change in the Arctic could happen abruptly.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Serv

________________
So, if the Arctic Ocean is now melted and Greenland is melting, the ice in Northern Canada is melting, Antarctica is melting away, then WHY ISN'T THE SEA LEVEL RISING AND WHY ISN'T FLORIDA UNDER SOME 60 FEET OF SEA WATER? Why is downtown SF still above sea level because downtown SF was built mostly with bay-fill and was built at sea level 100 years ago? Why are the coral atolls of the South Pacific still above sea level? Why are the Bahama Islands still above sea level? Sorry to rain on your global warming parade, but where has the water from all of this melted ice gone?

When I look at the average monthly temperatures in the weather records compiled by NOAA up and down the West Coast of the US, the temps have been BELOW the 30year normal for most of the last three years. And surface sea temperatures in the Pacific are back to the La Nina chill, all the way from the West Coast to beyond the dateline.

Rainfall has returned to the southern Sahara Desert, but the northern Sahara is back into a cyclical drought again. Southern California now has severe drought, but during the last El Nino event a few years ago, Los Angeles had 38 inches of rainfall in one winter season.

Everything changes on Earth, and change is normal. Change is GOOD.

Global mean sea level is up 7 or 8 inches in 100 years--- hardly a major concern. After all, we are moving out of the Ice Age, so a few inches per century of sea level climb is to be expected.:rolleyes:

Rajiv
11-23-07, 05:08 PM
The sea level is not up -- because it is the Arctic that is primarily melting -- not the Antarctic or the Greenland icepack yet. The Arctic is primarily nothing but ice floating in sea water!. If you put a ice cube in a glass of water and watch it melt, the water level DOES NOT rise. However, if you add a new icecube into the water, the water level immediately rises. Once the Greenland glaciers, and the Antarctic glaciers start melting, that is when the sea level goes up -- that is still a few years out.

The 6-7 inch rise you talk about is because of some of the Greenland ice and some of the Antarctic ice has melted -- some also from the Himalayan glaciers -- which are at their least extent.

Starving Steve
11-23-07, 07:22 PM
The sea level is not up -- because it is the Arctic that is primarily melting -- not the Antarctic or the Greenland icepack yet. The Arctic is primarily nothing but ice floating in sea water!. If you put a ice cube in a glass of water and watch it melt, the water level DOES NOT rise. However, if you add a new icecube into the water, the water level immediately rises. Once the Greenland glaciers, and the Antarctic glaciers start melting, that is when the sea level goes up -- that is still a few years out.

The 6-7 inch rise you talk about is because of some of the Greenland ice and some of the Antarctic ice has melted -- some also from the Himalayan glaciers -- which are at their least extent.

Dear Rajiv:

Last winter when BBC and all of the other climate-alarmists were proclaiming alarm that arctic ice sheets were disappearing and the world was rapidly warming up, the Bering Sea had record ice pack. Not only that, there was intense cold in Alaska, BC, and up and down the West Coast of the US. Mexico enjoyed some cool weather, and even Central America had unusually cool temps: for example, the Yucatan had temperatures in the low to mid- 70s, and those were the afternoon highs.

Last winter, snow covered much of the lowland areas of the Pacific NW, and this went on for much of the winter. Los Angeles dropt to 31F at Long Beach. Palmdale, Calif, a suburb of LA, dropt to 9F, and nearby Lancaster, Calif dropt to 7F (-14C ) in January.

In the Southern Hemisphere, Johanusburg, South Africa had snow on the ground this year--- and that was snow on the ground and in the city.

So, I need more convincing that the Earth is warming.

More ancedotal evidence of no warming: Lake Superior was completely frozen over at Duluth, and kids played hockey on the lake. And Oman, on the Arabian Penninsula, had floods this summer because of a tropical cyclone coming ashore. Muscat, the capital city of Oman was underwater.

zoog
11-23-07, 09:12 PM
...snow covered much of the lowland areas of the Pacific NW, and this went on for much of the winter...

Oh really? I don't know how I missed it. Much of the winter, you say? I seem to remember about three days of about three inches of snow. Before and after that, it was 40's and rain, just like always.

By the way, the old timers here tell me we used to get so much snow and ice that the Willamette River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_River) would occasionally freeze over. There is a least one report of people driving Model T's across the ice.

quigleydoor
11-23-07, 10:30 PM
The discussions here on global warming have motivated me to research the IPCC for myself. I haven't done it yet, but I'm motivated. For <a href="http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k20145">a class I am taking</a> on science and economic policy, I have gotten approval to study how the IPCC's institutional structure and mandate have influenced the direction of climate science research.

I am agnostic about whether human activity is affecting the climate. My goal is to learn to what degree the IPCC is constructing the belief system it is purporting to verify.

If anybody can recommend scholarly works on this topic, please contact me. There are quite a lot of good pointers in this website to "yes it is" and "no it isn't" assertions about the scientific facts. I am looking for information on how the IPCC works, and the technical challenges of doing climate science.

Starving Steve
11-23-07, 11:07 PM
Raja -

Here is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has said (this is a commissioned panel of climatologists worldwide - NOTE: if we consider them unfit to provide a scientifically objective assessment, then we must fall back on non-climatologists, for an alternate interpretation, as these climatologists represent the most qualified specialists each participant country could contribute). Here is the chronology of their published findings :

>> In 1990, in its first report, the panel found evidence of global warming but said its cause could be natural as easily as human.

>> In a landmark 1995 report, the panel altered its judgment, saying that ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’

>> In 2001, it placed the probability that human activity caused most of the warming of the previous half century at 66 percent to 90 percent — a ‘likely’ rating.

>> By 2007, the IPCC was saying that “the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years.”

MY COMMENT: Every subsequent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has raised the level of certainty that global warming was primarily a man-made phenomenon. Every report; such that now, we are talking over 90% certainty.

MY QUESTION, are you examining the immediate hypothesis borne by the data below, or are you searching for secondary hypotheses here? If searching for a secondary hypothesis - do you regard seeking out a secondary hypothesis before disproving the primary hypothesis that jumps out from the data, to be a good methodology?

Here's what I found meantime, in a very cursory search of your reference material: From Marlo Lewis' treatise

Under SUMMARY OF DISTORTIONS on page ONE, he writes -

<< Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years ... global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower. >>

That's apparently his only definitive point on the half million year data.

According to the charts I'm looking at, he's making an observation which contains a glaring error of logical inference relative to it's attempted topic of discovery, as follows:

Yes indeed, the CO2 levels were lower (in fact, a LOT lower) in the previous interglacial periods, and yes indeed the temperatures were (slightly) higher than our present temperature. But he's missing the significant point - the half million year chart shows tight, invariable correlation between CO2 and temperature, and our present CO2 levels are one full standard deviation ABOVE half million year long prior CO2 levels at prior interglacial warm peaks.

If half a million years of data proves incontrovertibly that CO2 levels and temperature are tightly correlated, Mr. Lewis is completely silent on the fact that we have statistically an extremely high probability that temperatures must rise from here to meet and exceed the CO2 peak showing in this chart if they are to obey the strict CO2 / TEMP correlation observed over the previous 400,000 years !

How can he propose a sound critique of global warming, if he does not mention this and evidence where he believes the fallacy must lie, within that chart's implication?

All his other observations in the list on page one, are micro-observations regarding the present, or stretching back one century at most. - London ground level this, Polar fluctuation that, etc. in the present tense. The real story, the incontrovertible data, is in the half-million year charts. That's where the most unequivocal issues are displayed, like exactly what does a "one standard deviation on half a million years chart in present day CO2 readings" really imply for temperature going forward?.

The issue Mr. Lewis glosses, to my mind with considerable disingenuousness, is that there is quite clearly an 'very strong' correlation of CO2 to Temp because it's derived from a truly massive set of data points. With CO2 current level towering over previous interglacials today, his remark suggesting that current temperature is "lower than during previous interglacials" and pulling an inference out of the hat that this must demonstrate the fallacy of current warming, is a specious inference in terms of any logic that I can percieve. The present temperature is close to half million year peaks, and is compelled by the above correlation to catch up to the CO2 reading, which is much higher yet. But Mr. Lewis does not make any slightest mention of that logical probability.

Are you with me on what he's missing here? It's what you might call, the 'entire issue in question'. How does Mr. Lewis propose to hold my critical attention by turning this simple statistical inference upside down right on the first page of his treatise?




http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/last_400000_years.png



These two charts below from an alternate source reiterate the previous 400K years recurring ice ages, but these charts omit the fine data concentrated in the past one or two hundred years which shows the CO2 spike moving well out of the median range. I believe the current CO2 readings are around 370 parts per million? These are not showing in the two charts below. Imagine them penciled in there, and you'll note the very large anomaly going back 400K years. That anomaly is the present!


http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg


This chart below focuses in sharply on the TEMPERATURE change occurring in the past 2000 years, so if you will mentally compress this chart's timeline and overlay it for detail onto the very end of the chart immediately above, you'll see verbatim what TEMPERATURE is doing. From the topmost chart, we see CO2 is far out ahead of TEMPERATURE. So overlaying that most recent (100-200 years) data onto this broadened middle chart gives you an idea of how strikingly steep the correction must be on the middle charts, for both CO2 and Temperature to bring them current to the present 100 years.

Why does Mr. Lewis not include such secular charts and make any inferences in his treatise, on the tight 400,000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature, and what these above charts then imply?.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/manm_etal_tempchart.gif


I am positive Raja, that you are every bit, if not more qualified than I to dig up a dozen half million year charts mapping CO2 correlation to temperature, and then mapping how starkly far out ahead of temperature current CO2 levels are.

In my opinion, Mr. Lewis' complex caveats about "London ground level sinking", and "cyclical variations in polar temperature" as being significant factors is just a lot of hot air when juxtaposed to these simple half million year charts. One full standard deviation in CO2 levels across 400 thousand years? That's the only data we need to nail to the floor.

I thought you were supposed to be the "nail it to the floor guy"? What is it in the above data that's not clear to you?


___________________


Raja - I found yet another "glaringly anomaly" in the above referenced treatise by Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis writes:

<< Implies that, throughout the past 650,000 years, changes in CO2 levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 changes trailing global temperature changes by hundreds to thousands of years. >>


Visually, there is no consistently significant lag or gap discernible at all between CO2 and Temp across the full duration of this chart - if anything they seem very tightly bound on average. More to the point yet, the chart shows the largest gap in 400,000 years, between CO2, and Temp exists right at the present time, and the CO2 is leading by a massive margin.

This author is claiming that 'causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 always trailing temperature". Where is this guy coming up with these assertions from?



http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/last_400000_years.png


Hello again:

I hate to be a pest, but looking at this Mann & Jones graph of proxies for temperatures from 200AD to the present, the graph seems to indicate 0.2C, or at most 0.4C, difference in temp below the 1961-1990 mean, from 200AD to the mid-20thC. And that doesn't jive with what I know about climate history.

From what I know, or what I think I know, the Little Ice Age was something like 1C or 2C degrees cooler than the 1961-1990 mean. After all, in the 18th C, ice on the Salinas River in central California in winter was observed to be about a foot thick. And reading trip reports from Sonora, Mexico to southern California, part of the route--- presumably Banning Pass--- was habitually clogged with snow in winter, thus making foot-travel impossible..... Snow here is almost unheard of to-day.

The warm period from 1000AD to 1300AD which allowed Greenland to be settled with farms is also not shown on the graph.

But the warming due to El Nino or due to the sunspot maxiumum from 1998 to 2004 is shown as 0.6C, and this stands-out quite clearly on the graph. This magnifies the importance of the recent warming and minimizes the importance of other more important variations in climate since the Ice Age.

Finally, the recent warming since around 1998 appears to have been reversed with the onset of the La Nina in 2005 or 2006, but this reversal is not shown on the graph because the graph ends at 2004.:rolleyes:

Contemptuous
11-24-07, 12:56 AM
Quigleydoor -

You wrote:

<< (whether) IPCC is constructing the belief system it is purporting to verify >>

This provides more than a small hint that you are defining the scope of your study of this IPCC report in terms which contain your own inadvertent a-priori belief system. If the scope of your project is to discover the existence of any IPCC questionable assumptions, how is this approach agnostic at it's own outset?

If you set out to investigate whether UN commissioned reports due to that agency's stultifying beaurocratic mindset, contaminate large scale independently sourced teams of researchers scattered from Texas to Nairobi, to Stockholm to Beijing, such a narrowly defined inquiry suggests the following outcomes:

SUCCESSFUL - A demonstration that IPCC is constructing it's own belief system.

UNSUCCESSFUL - Failing to demonstrate that IPCC is constructing it's own belief system.

Remember, the larger the group of scientists, from the most disparate cultural and political / geographic area worldwide, the more tenuous it is to posit (particularly a-priori) they could have been shoehorned into communal "belief systems" at the outset of the decade-long research they've just concluded.

Quite apart from anything else, they are all observing vastly different climates and ecosystems worldwide, with time samples spanning a decade. It seems to me more than a bit labored to start a thesis from the premise they have all fallen, unwittingly and with concerted collective coherence, into groupthink under these circumstances.

How much do scientists in Beijing, Nairobi, and at MIT have in common in terms of socio-political worldview?

Is the probability of "constructed belief systems" really the largest thread of understanding that can be teased out of the sum of their work?

What's your take on the relationship between CO2 and temp in those 400,000 year charts? Most iTulip readers here are already firm believers in "return to the mean" as a powerful axiom in many fields, from finance, to physics, to biology - do you see any significance in the present day sporting the largest gap between CO2 and Temperature by a full extra standard deviation, out of a sampling of 400,000 years?

Global CO2 levels as clearly evident even to a casual layman's inspection, from the long charts posted above, was governed by a "high" and "low" limit-band for the past 400,000 years. The band, or "one standard deviation from glacial to interglacial" is quite clear on those charts.

Do we feel, as laymen, we can derive a glimmer of sense of where our inquiry may be most vitally addressed in the matter, by observing on these charts how present CO2 readings seem to exceed the previous half million year median band by a full 100% behond the entire previous CO2 fluctuation range? This is very simple, hard data we are interpreting as laymen. We are indeed laymen, but entirely capable of interpreting the "strongly unusual" segment in those charts, no?

Forget temperature.

Today, CO2 levels have cruised right on past the upper end of the prior band and practically all scientists are in agreement CO2 levels are still in a rising trend, and accelerating their increase in density in the atmosphere. Oil is getting pricey and globsl spare capacity is thin and getting thinner.

China (and India is also beginning) are churning out coal plants like there was no tomorrow. China is building one new coal burning power plant every couple of weeks. For three or four ice ages prior, upon reaching that upper interglacial period limit line, CO2 levels have promptly obeyed the "return to the median" law, and reversed back down to remain within the half million year channel. These charts indicate in very simple and clear terms, where we reached that point and exceeded it by a very large margin indeed.

Faced with this carefully logged and accepted CO2 data, which of the following two groups can be most readily identified as overlooking a large issue : 1) A UN commissioned panel of 2500 scientists findings about temperature trends, which we feel is sounding "suspiciously" unanimous, or 2) The general public's total disinterest (that public includes us by the way) in a sharply anomalous, soaring CO2 reading, as having any significant correlation to temperature from historic parallels, let alone any significance to what group #1 are talking about?

So perhaps the most fertile line of inquiry is not "is a UN sponsored team of scientists compromised by groupthink", but rather to start from this premise: "as it seems incontrovertible that some quite large event is clearly under way in the half million year log of CO2 data - what does this signify"? It is a piece of hard data, a break of a half million year trend, by a large margin, in the present. Temperature is not really saying anything clear yet, but the CO2 data is sitting there, staring right back at us. What does it mean? Might that inquiry be worthwhile hunting down too?

I submit, in any topic not as fraught with useless socio-political excess baggage as this "hard-headed skeptics vs. mushy headed treehuggers" debate, this simple standard deviation in a half million year chart would get even the most jaded scientist sitting up in his chair, and he'd be doing so (agnostically), merely to observe the existence of a quite glaringly large data anomaly in current CO2 readings. This is DATA, it is not conjecture.

Indeed, it appears increasing numbers of non-UN-affiliated scientists really are sitting up in their chairs, due to the increasing accumulation of anomalous reports from around the world.

It is primarily in lay communities such as this, where interest is piqued just enough to take a gander at the IPCC's report, that people risk getting enamored with subtleties like the search for any possible procedural or conceptual contamination of IPCC methodology. What seems lost in that decision is the option to instead get one's initial bearings on the matter by evaluating what hard, but highly controversial data we already have logged and plainly available, which is, in curious agreement with these tame and presumably compromised UN scientists, a very high and rising level of CO2, which has long since broken clean through half million year boundaries to the upside and is soaring far beyond previous CO2 peaks.

To focus on the possibility of a flawed UN scientist methodology, on the premise they may have succumbed to "groupthink", proceeds at the expense of a much simpler orientation or search for "signposts" first. As chance would have it, there is indeed a highly visible, widely published, and very relevant piece of data out there which greatly affects their report. It is the CO2 data, past and present. The existence of that CO2 data presents a very large obstruction to concluding that these 2,500 "tame scientists" are all barking up the wrong tree. This is because the CO2 data is tied inextricably to temperature across a vast span of time. Temperature and CO2, at least on our world, dance in lockstep or close to it. We may not have a clear idea what's happening with temperature, but we damn well know what's going on with CO2, and that story is a whopper.

Looking around for broad hints in the world, (or as E.J. keeps saying "looking out the window" to pick up observable hard data) means not microanalysing whether winters were colder 100 years ago, whether London is sinking or rising, whether Northern Californians reported snow four years ago in a year that was "supposed to be a scorcher". We can accept that data or ignore it as pleases each of our world views, and it's time scale is way too short anyway. We'll be sitting around all year hashing this out on those time frames. What "looking out the window" for observable data in this case means, is simply picking up the one big fat clue sitting there staring right at us.

It means wondering what all that starkly anomalous, carefully logged CO2 hard data might mean when it's so far out of the mean averages that spanned four freaking ice ages, and also of taking careful note of how curiously that CO2 hard data seems in accordance with what all those tame UN scientists are reporting.

GRG55
11-24-07, 04:23 AM
Lukester: The short (and serious!) answer to your reply to my posting is that I am quite certain I will learn more from all of you, following the debate here, than I am likely to learn spending hours poring over all the material spit out by the IPCC et al.

The longer answer includes:

Yes, there will be filtering, and biases, some based on opinion, some based on real facts, and some based on alleged facts. That's fine, because I am quite certain that human nature assures the same is going on "out there", including the IPCC. They may be expert climatologists, but they are also human, and therefore not immune to responding in the usual way to the external stimuli, political pressure, public accolades and incentives. One thing is constant, you always get the behaviour you reward. What's the behaviour the UN, and the Davos-elite, want from the IPCC? And what's the behaviour that our governments want from us?

The last great secular global religion was Y2K. As an officer of a US X-listed public company I had a front row seat from which to watch the hysteria in the run-up to the millennial midnight. One of the most memorable incidents was a visit by a lawyer from the NY bank that held our operating credit line. He came to lecture us (intimidate us, actually) about all the dire legal consequences his bank would rain down upon us miserable officers and directors if we didn't demonstrate and document we had done "everything" to keep our business running. THAT'S the very moment when I realised that Y2K was a crock, and that the main objective was to milk companies like mine to fatten an industry of consultants and groupies mascarading as messiahs and the Magi.

To one degree or another we are prisoners of our prior experiences. Climate change isn't Y2K, but the evangelical fervour, some of it bordering on outright bullying, of many of its proponents and converts makes me uncomfortable. Your efforts and knowledge of this subject were the first ingredient and catalyst to creating a considered, thoughtful discussion here, with a broad spectrum of views, and that can only be constructive. By the way, Gore is not a bore; he's well prepared, passionate, and entertaining. But just like Billy Graham, he's trying to "save me". :)

GRG55
11-24-07, 04:41 AM
Quigleydoor -

You wrote:

<< (whether) IPCC is constructing the belief system it is purporting to verify >>

This provides more than a small hint that you are defining the scope of your study of this IPCC report in terms which contain your own inadvertent a-priori belief system. If the scope of your project is to discover the existence of any IPCC questionable assumptions, how is this approach agnostic at it's own outset?

Lukester: Serious question.

In the current climate of the international debate (no pun intended), do you think there was ANY chance the IPCC members could have won the Nobel Peace prize if they had come to any other conclusion about global warming?

quigleydoor
11-24-07, 12:17 PM
Quigleydoor -

You wrote:

<< (whether) IPCC is constructing the belief system it is purporting to verify >>

If you set out to investigate whether UN commissioned reports due to that agency's stultifying beaurocratic mindset, contaminate large scale independently sourced teams of researchers scattered from Texas to Nairobi, to Stockholm to Beijing, such a narrowly defined inquiry suggests the following outcomes:

SUCCESSFUL - A demonstration that IPCC is constructing it's own belief system.

UNSUCCESSFUL - Failing to demonstrate that IPCC is constructing it's own belief system.

I am with you so far. But blaming bureaucracy is only part of the story. Here are some other factors that interest me:

- Rapid global communications: Does more interaction change how scientists approach their own research projects? Perhaps less common cultural background has an effect?
- Leadership: Grants for research are leading scientists toward the grant writers' interests.
- Modeling science vs. empirical science: I am very skeptical of complex computer models. All inputs and parameters are many sources of bias, beyond the scientists' own creative minds. Sorry I don't have time to be specific about this right now, but it's a fascinating area. <i>The Economist</i> had a piece about this issue a couple of months ago.


What's your take on the relationship between CO2 and temp in those 400,000 year charts? Most iTulip readers here are already firm believers in "return to the mean" as a powerful axiom in many fields, from finance, to physics, to biology - do you see any significance in the present day sporting the largest gap between CO2 and Temperature by a full extra standard deviation, out of a sampling of 400,000 years?

I believe it is significant. My unanswered question is, Is human activity really influencing CO2 concentration that much? What else is influencing it?

Thank you for your feedback, Lukester!

jk
11-24-07, 12:45 PM
Lukester: Serious question.

In the current climate of the international debate (no pun intended), do you think there was ANY chance the IPCC members could have won the Nobel Peace prize if they had come to any other conclusion about global warming?
this question may be serious in intent, but i question its relevance. whether the conclusion is politically correct is irrelevant, scientifically, to whether it is accurate.

yes, there is a sociology of science. some physicists believe, for example, that string theory has come to dominate cosmology to an inappropriate degree because of the elegance of its mathematics, albeit in the absence of empirical support. the string theorists have come to dominate committees determining funding, and so the process goes. but whether this sociological process is skewing research and funding decisions given the current state of our knowledge, doesn't tell us whether our knowledge in the future will come to support or refute its assertions.

i have not read about global warming. i have seen al gore's movie. i make no claim to insight. but i have the following observations, one political and the other methodological:

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science.

2. when i entertain an investment concept, i ask myself: "what if i am wrong? what is the cost of error?" it is this question that makes me lean toward support of the warming theorists, ignorant as i know myself to be. if they are wrong, we are merely being wasteful in following their advice. if they are right, we are being dangerously irresponsible in ignoring their advice.

as for your banker's visit to your company, i would say it performed a useful function. we will never know how y2k might have played out had the possibility of disaster been ignored. we do know that the warnings served to crank up a lot of effort, and that disaster was averted. we can draw no conclusions, and can merely be happy that there was in fact no problem.

warnings serve a function in helping avoid danger. their success lies in the ABSENCE of certain events that might never have happened anyway. unfortunately, this is also why the cautious avoidance of risk is rarely rewarded. stan o'neil made the abysmal decision to take merril deep into the subprime business late in the game. charles prince of citibank said that as long as the music played, he had to dance. shortly thereafter the music stopped and he discovered in no longer had the chairman's chair in which to sit. but had he sat out the dance, had he been the type of individual to sit out the dance, he would never have gotten to be chairman, i believe.

rabot10
11-24-07, 02:20 PM
[quote=Lukester;20265]GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST



I << Frequency of weather-related disasters
<HR style="COLOR: #99ff99" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/images/hbr/hbrsa/current/0703/R0703F_A.gif
Hey what got my attention was the "insect infestation" I moved to Florida a few years ago from California and man do we have some insect infestation. My God U people have not seen bugs like this!!

Whatever the science is I don't care. The amount of oil being used can only lead to a bad ending. Just the way I see it.

GRG55
11-24-07, 02:30 PM
this question may be serious in intent, but i question its relevance. whether the conclusion is politically correct is irrelevant, scientifically, to whether it is accurate.

yes, there is a sociology of science. some physicists believe, for example, that string theory has come to dominate cosmology to an inappropriate degree because of the elegance of its mathematics, albeit in the absence of empirical support. the string theorists have come to dominate committees determining funding, and so the process goes. but whether this sociological process is skewing research and funding decisions given the current state of our knowledge, doesn't tell us whether our knowledge in the future will come to support or refute its assertions.

i have not read about global warming. i have seen al gore's movie. i make no claim to insight. but i have the following observations, one political and the other methodological:

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science..

I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy, including energy interests.


2. when i entertain an investment concept, i ask myself: "what if i am wrong? what is the cost of error?" it is this question that makes me lean toward support of the warming theorists, ignorant as i know myself to be. if they are wrong, we are merely being wasteful in following their advice. if they are right, we are being dangerously irresponsible in ignoring their advice..

Unfortunately this is not like Y2K with a defined time frame and a clear, measurable outcome of success or failure (and, thankfully, a term-limit to the insanity and waste of resources).

In this instance we do not know what level of intervention is sufficient to solve the problem, or adequately mitigate its effects (itself implying two differing solution sets). We seem to know more about the size of the problem than we do about the size of the solution; even the most passionate and seeminlgy informed advocates diverge greatly on the latter. All we seem to be able to agree on is that the solution will be a massive effort, it will be ongoing (the forever war on greenhouse gases?) and it needs to be global in scope - I don't dispute any of these. Unless, and until, an irrefutable global cooling trend eventually manifests, once the world firmly embarks down this path we will always "need to do more".

Society's resources are not unlimited. It is equally irresponsible to assume that we are "merely being wasteful" given the apparent scale, in this instance, of the needed intervention, diversion of resources, and behaviour change. What are the likely unintended consequences and which parts of our society bear the opportunity costs, are fairly important questions I would think. There is no free lunch.


as for your banker's visit to your company, i would say it performed a useful function. we will never know how y2k might have played out had the possibility of disaster been ignored. we do know that the warnings served to crank up a lot of effort, and that disaster was averted. we can draw no conclusions, and can merely be happy that there was in fact no problem..

At this point all we can do is agree to disagree about the (useless) banker's lawyer.


warnings serve a function in helping avoid danger. their success lies in the ABSENCE of certain events that might never have happened anyway

Only if the potential danger is real, and only if action can be defined and taken to materially reduce the probability of the danger occurring, or action can be taken to materially reduce the consequences when the dangerous event occurs - otherwise it's just chicken little. Mankind seems to spend a lot of time listening to, and worrying about, warnings that don't fit this criteria - the frequent "carcinogens in food" scares come to mind - its a wonder we eat anything but organic brocolli.


unfortunately, this is also why the cautious avoidance of risk is rarely rewarded. stan o'neil made the abysmal decision to take merril deep into the subprime business late in the game. charles prince of citibank said that as long as the music played, he had to dance. shortly thereafter the music stopped and he discovered in no longer had the chairman's chair in which to sit. but had he sat out the dance, had he been the type of individual to sit out the dance, he would never have gotten to be chairman, i believe.

...and I believe that Citi and its shareholders may have been better off if he never had.

It is very easy for the O'Neil's and Prince's of this world to take excessive corporate financial risks, when what is at risk is other people's money and they will be rewarded equally handsomely in the event of failure. In fact it is the Boards that are responsible for the strategy of the corporation. The CEO and management team are responsible for the successful implementation of that strategy. In these instances I believe the Board's awarded the generous severance because they KNOW they are the ones at fault, and this is a convenient way to deal with the guilt of being the hangman.

jk
11-24-07, 03:43 PM
I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy, including energy interests.
and this is why we the u.s. congress and administration are working so diligently on carbon trading and similar issues - because the big money is pushing in that direction.:rolleyes:

ultimately, if the global warmists [?] are listened to, i would expect carbon trading and so on to be co-opted by the fire institutions, but for now, look at what is actually happening politically. where is the evidence of anyone with any real power pushing for anti-warming policies? money talks.




Unfortunately this is not like Y2K with a defined time frame and a clear, measurable outcome of success or failure (and, thankfully, a term-limit to the insanity and waste of resources).

In this instance we do not know what level of intervention is sufficient to solve the problem, or adequately mitigate its effects (itself implying two differing solution sets). We seem to know more about the size of the problem than we do about the size of the solution; even the most passionate and seeminlgy informed advocates diverge greatly on the latter. All we seem to be able to agree on is that the solution will be a massive effort, it will be ongoing (the forever war on greenhouse gases?) and it needs to be global in scope - I don't dispute any of these. Unless, and until, an irrefutable global cooling trend eventually manifests, once the world firmly embarks down this path we will always "need to do more".

Society's resources are not unlimited. It is equally irresponsible to assume that we are "merely being wasteful" given the apparent scale, in this instance, of the needed intervention, diversion of resources, and behaviour change. What are the likely unintended consequences and which parts of our society bear the opportunity costs, are fairly important questions I would think. There is no free lunch.
at the moment we do not appear threatened by society's overly large allocation to fight putative warming. the theory that at some time in the future such expenses might be too large relative to their benefit is not an argument to ignore the issue in the present.




At this point all we can do is agree to disagree about the (useless) banker's lawyer.
i am saying that we have insufficient information to judge. in the absence of information about what actions the board took as a result of the lawyer's threats, and an understanding of the consequences had the board not taken such actions, how do we know? assuming the board took some action, and assuming nothing bad happened on 1/1/00, we don't have enough information. if, in fact, the board ignored the threats, and nothing bad resulted, then all we know is that the lawyer's threats were unnecessary. under no other circumstances can we draw any conclusions whatsoever without further information.




Only if the potential danger is real, and only if action can be defined and taken to materially reduce the probability of the danger occurring, or action can be taken to materially reduce the consequences when the dangerous event occurs - otherwise it's just chicken little. Mankind seems to spend a lot of time listening to, and worrying about, warnings that don't fit this criteria - the frequent "carcinogens in food" scares come to mind - its a wonder we eat anything but organic brocolli.
"nutrition science" is indeed a good example of the difficulties of this process of evaluating information and warnings. i remember when butter was bad and margarine was therefore said to be good. then trans fats were discovered and margarine was the villain. our knowledge of what is best is very limited, but we can't postpone dinner while we await perfect information.

by the same token, however, it would be foolish to ignore what information we have. for example, there are lists available of fruits and vegetables and their average pesticide load [for non-organically grown]. brocolli apparently doesn't carry too much pesticide, so you needn't go to the extra expense of getting the organic. with lettuce, on the other hand, you'd likely be better off spending a bit more. whether the pesticide amounts are truly significant, i don't know. but as i said, i can't wait for dinner.




...and I believe that Citi and its shareholders may have been better off if he never had.

It is very easy for the O'Neil's and Prince's of this world to take excessive corporate financial risks, when what is at risk is other people's money and they will be rewarded equally handsomely in the event of failure. In fact it is the Boards that are responsible for the strategy of the corporation. The CEO and management team are responsible for the successful implementation of that strategy. In these instances I believe the Board's awarded the generous severance because they KNOW they are the ones at fault, and this is a convenient way to deal with the guilt of being the hangman.
i certainly agree that in theory citi and its shareholders would have been better off had prince decided to sit out the dance. but the nature of the institution, and the process by which its leadership is chosen and rewarded, makes such an occurrence very unlikely.

Contemptuous
11-24-07, 03:57 PM
JK wrote -

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science.

GRG55 replied -

I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy.


My observation -

GRG55 correctly notes the old economy sector based within and around hydrocarbons energy production is huge, acknowledging implicitly it's a very powerful lobby in the present. But he goes on to observe that the FIRE economy is many factors larger, implying that FIRE economy scale could represent a much larger influence or presumed opotunistic bias in favor of the global warming debate.

This omits noting that the very large FIRE economy and the pro-global warming elite lobby are quite evidently NOT one and the same. Not only are they entirely separate, but the pro-global-warming elite lobby are a tiny subsection of the FIRE economy, and I don't even see how they are inevitably a subset of the FIRE economy to begin with frankly. What does a University's research findings. or the Sierra Club, have to do with any FIRE economy?

The FIRE economy is indeed huge, but GRG55 only hitches the "pro-global-warming" lobby to it by inference. In fact, a very good case can be made that the "pro-global-warming" lobby has no immediately congruent interests with the FIRE economy, as by definition it implies massive initial COSTS to the FIRE economy as well as the old economy.

Think about it. Every action proposed by greenhouse gas abaters represents, certainly at least initially, a massive set of costs chopping out big chunks of the economic profits not only to P/C economy, but right across the entire global economy as well.

Anyone claiming the FIRE economy will derive significant net profits, (and avoid any loss!) from a 1% or 2% global reduction of GDP to accomodate the initial very large investments for global warming prevention, is plucking an assumption out of the air. Common sense would suggest that whatever places such a huge damper on global GDP aggregates sufficient to reduce the entire global GDP by 1% or 2%, also places a huge damper on FIRE economy profits right alongside the profits of the old producer / consumer economies.

Conversely, skeptics ascribe a huge political lobby of "entrenched establishment interests", to a small albeit rapidly growing array of microcap companies, scientists, outsider ecological movements like Greenpeace and assorted groups like the Sierra Club. Even the scientists on the UN panel, all presumed to be avidly in pursuit of a Nobel Prize at the expense of their previously sound scientific methodology, have little direct FIRE economy connection beyond the immediate scope of that one project. What do research groups of any stripe have to do with the FIRE economy?

Are these myriad small but vocal, until now largely outsider groups supposed to have a larger clout in world governments than the aggregate of global heavy industry, global manufacturing, global agriculture, global mining, etc?? The global warming groups, from science foundations, to universities, to Greenpeace, to the Sierra Club and every last Tom, Dick and Harry in this area all still niche players and do not remotely represent the financial heft and entrenched vested financial and economic interests of global heavy industry, global manufacturing, global agriculture and global mining.

My point is, you only need to look at who arrived at the global business profits dinner table first, the entire world's conventional energy-reliant industries (easily 75%+ of the pie on a global level) or all the new alt-energy and global warming upstarts? Then look at which of these two groups wants to take a drastic surgeon's knife to the world's profitable global industries to reduce carbon?

And finally with respect to applying the FIRE economy theorem to all countries in the world, this is to my view questionable. It is the same America-centric thinking which provides the world with such coined phrases as "decoupling" which was a term born entirely to accomodate the notion that the US is the lynchpin of how the world keeps running. The world contains infinitely more complex mechanisms beyond the FIRE economy, outside and far away from the US.

Remember, it's not all just about the US and it's FIRE economy. The entire industrialising world is following a traditional industrial trajectory that leaves the FIRE economy thesis looking like a singularly American construct.

CONCLUSION - JK put forward a valid (and politically agnostic) point. Vested interests who arrived at the "global industrial profits dinnertable" first, 50 and even 100 years ago, appear to be the same groups who are in fact outside the lobby that is promoting global warming. On closer scrutiny, it would appear there are some quite large interests out there who logically have every reason to avoid any global warming abatement initiative like the plague, because global warming abatement is expensive as all get-out, and it's by no means all going to be coming from public money. It appears a stretch to suggest that the much smaller global warming apologist groups (many of which are universities, fringe groups and science foundations who exist at the grants end of traditional industry, rather than at it's earnings end) have a larger lobby than do the captains of the many faceted, global hydrocarbons driven industry.

Main conclusion: Global warming abatement (if it's ever implemented seriously) will cost in aggregate far more than any profits accruing to a few vested interest niche groups.

Starving Steve
11-24-07, 05:01 PM
[quote=Lukester;20265]GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST



I << Frequency of weather-related disasters

<HR style="COLOR: #99ff99" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/b01/en/images/hbr/hbrsa/current/0703/R0703F_A.gif
Hey what got my attention was the "insect infestation" I moved to Florida a few years ago from California and man do we have some insect infestation. My God U people have not seen bugs like this!!

Whatever the science is I don't care. The amount of oil being used can only lead to a bad ending. Just the way I see it.

Starving Steve here, once again:

The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

We have more firestorms now because the eco-frauds have not permited proper forest and range management. Fire-breaks have not been cut. Forests have not been thinned. Slow-burns in winter have not been conducted, all these sins because the eco-frauds have obstructed proper land management.

Opposite to what the graph shows, we have fewer droughts to-day than in prior years, at least in California. Average annual prepcipitation has gone up about 20% from what it was in the early 20th C. For example, annual rainfall at L.A. used to average 12 or 13 inches early in the 20th C, and now it about 14.5 or 15.5 inches per year.

There appear to be fewer deadly heat-waves than in prior years. High temperature records set in the Midwest U.S. in the 1930s still stand unbroken to-day. Not only that, the North American record high of 134F set at Death Valley in 1913 still is unbroken. The world's high temp record of 137F set in Algeria dating back to the 1930s has yet to be broken.

But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

rabot10
11-24-07, 07:54 PM
[quote=RickBishop;20760]

Starving Steve here, once again:

The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

We have more firestorms now because the eco-frauds have not permited proper forest and range management. Fire-breaks have not been cut. Forests have not been thinned. Slow-burns in winter have not been conducted, all these sins because the eco-frauds have obstructed proper land management.

Opposite to what the graph shows, we have fewer droughts to-day than in prior years, at least in California. Average annual prepcipitation has gone up about 20% from what it was in the early 20th C. For example, annual rainfall at L.A. used to average 12 or 13 inches early in the 20th C, and now it about 14.5 or 15.5 inches per year.

There appear to be fewer deadly heat-waves than in prior years. High temperature records set in the Midwest U.S. in the 1930s still stand unbroken to-day. Not only that, the North American record high of 134F set at Death Valley in 1913 still is unbroken. The world's high temp record of 137F set in Algeria dating back to the 1930s has yet to be broken.

But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

Hey the bugs are for real!!!!!

Contemptuous
11-24-07, 08:06 PM
RickBishop -

Starving Steve is not talking about the bugs out in Florida! He's talking about the Granola Munchers out here in California! It's a whole different kind of pest, see?

Of course some ignorant people, who slipped out from under the watchful eye of our ASPCA would take the fly-swatter to the California Granola Munchers instead, not realising they aren't those critter sized blood-sucking swamp-bugs you got out there in the Everglades where you decided to go improve your life (and that of your long suffering family, who followed you out there).

SWAT!! (splat) ...

HAH!! There go a half a dozen granola-munchers ... reduced to fly-mulch, so you can't even tell 'em apart from the real flies!

Hey, that was easy. :D

quigleydoor
11-24-07, 10:07 PM
The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

The source is credited at the bottom of the graph. Swiss Re. Insurer to insurance companies. A lot of money is at stake in selling insurance to people for various "acts of God" type disasters, which are growing more frequent.


But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

Go git those straw men! Sick 'em!

Contemptuous
11-24-07, 10:44 PM
Starving Steve -

I didn't have a chance to warn you, but it's probably a good idea to be careful about questioning Quigleydoor's data. He's a wonk, just like that guy Rajiv? Their data is probably not posted unless it's solid.

If Quigleydoor provides you with a chart showing a very high incidence of insurance claims and demonstrating a clear statistical trend, your dismissing it as rubbish before you bother to check it may represent a hazard for you.

It's real easy to "stub one's toe" around here on stuff like that. Beware! Lots of Wonks around! :rolleyes:


Starving Steve here, once again: The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.


The source is credited at the bottom of the graph. Swiss Re. Insurer to insurance companies. A lot of money is at stake in selling insurance to people for various "acts of God" type disasters, which are growing more frequent.

quigleydoor
11-25-07, 12:10 AM
- Modeling science vs. empirical science: I am very skeptical of complex computer models. All inputs and parameters are many sources of bias, beyond the scientists' own creative minds. Sorry I don't have time to be specific about this right now, but it's a fascinating area. <i>The Economist</i> had a piece about this issue a couple of months ago.

Here is the article I mentioned:

<a href="http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9645336">Statistics and climatology: Gambling on tomorrow</a>, Aug 16th 2007, <i>The Economist</i>

The article nicely summarizes <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cats/papersPDFs/75_Stainforth_ConfidenceUncertaintyRelevance_2007. pdf">an academic paper</a> about the importance of quantifying the uncertainty associated with results of climate models. I'll quote about half of the <i>Economist</i> article right here, for a basic but profound example:


Climate models have lots of parameters that are represented by numbers—for example, how quickly snow crystals fall from clouds, or for how long they reside within those clouds. Actually, these are two different ways of measuring the same thing, so whether a model uses one or the other should make no difference to its predictions. And, on a single run, it does not. But models are not given single runs. Since the future is uncertain, they are run thousands of times, with different values for the parameters, to produce a range of possible outcomes. The outcomes are assumed to cluster around the most probable version of the future.

The particular range of values chosen for a parameter is an example of a Bayesian prior assumption, since it is derived from actual experience of how the climate behaves—and may thus be modified in the light of experience. But the way you pick the individual values to plug into the model can cause trouble.

They might, for example, be assumed to be evenly spaced, say 1,2,3,4. But in the example of snow retention, evenly spacing both rate-of-fall and rate-of-residence-in-the-clouds values will give different distributions of result. That is because the second parameter is actually the reciprocal of the first. To make the two match, value for value, you would need, in the second case, to count 1, ½, ⅓, ¼—which is not evenly spaced. If you use evenly spaced values instead, the two models' outcomes will cluster differently.

Climate models have hundreds of parameters that might somehow be related in this sort of way. To be sure you are seeing valid results rather than artefacts of the models, you need to take account of all the ways that can happen.

That logistical nightmare is only now being addressed, and its practical consequences have yet to be worked out. . . . As the old saw has it, garbage in, garbage out. The difficulty comes when you do not know what garbage looks like.

GRG55
11-26-07, 01:14 AM
...The FIRE economy is indeed huge, but GRG55 only hitches the "pro-global-warming" lobby to it by inference. In fact, a very good case can be made that the "pro-global-warming" lobby has no immediately congruent interests with the FIRE economy, as by definition it implies massive initial COSTS to the FIRE economy as well as the old economy...

Really? I'm going to call BS on that one. Have a look at the attendance rosters at the various international conferences on this topic. Notice who gets selected for Bartoromo's CNBC interviews on the topic. The private jets are overwhelmingly owned by do-good financiers like Soros.

Yes, Jeff Immelt (GE) likes to hang around to sell more wind turbines, and BP Solar will again promote their "beyond petroleum" organic sunflower logo schtick, but the costs will/are accruing overwhelmingly to the production economy. And you're going to see it in a reduced standard of living - unless you're Vinod Khosla or a VC at Kleiner.

The FIRE economy is already benefiting. Just one example: the "I" part of FIRE has managed to dramatically raise insurance rates, and their proftiablitily, on the self-serving premise that future losses due to natural disasters induced by climate change will rise. I don't begrudge profit, but this is an interesting development that is raising little argument except in places like Florida where they threaten to withdraw coverage.


ultimately, if the global warmists [?] are listened to, i would expect carbon trading and so on to be co-opted by the fire institutions, but for now, look at what is actually happening politically. where is the evidence of anyone with any real power pushing for anti-warming policies? money talks...

Just this week a government changed in Australia, in part on a platform to "sign Kyoto". As Americans should know better than anyone, politicians don't get elected without money.


Australia's new PM Rudd acts swiftly on climate
By Rob Taylor Sun Nov 25, 12:48 AM ET

BRISBANE (Reuters) - Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, made climate change his top priority on Sunday, seeking advice on ratifying the Kyoto pact and telling Indonesia he will go to December's UN climate summit in Bali.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/wl_nm/australia_election_dc_24;_ylt=AgGuDTtaa5LLyvbjevu0 zbJrAlMA

Contemptuous
11-26-07, 02:38 AM
GRG55 -


Really? I'm going to call BS on that one.


I submit the fat commissions you think the GE's and Soros's of this world are eyeing will eventually be shown to small change compared to the truly colossal cost that eventual action (or inaction) will cost to all industrialised countries worldwide should they undertake global warming abatement.

At the end of the day, if the total expense of all these nations really committing to a Kyoto type protocol really promises to dwarf the windfall profits accruing to a smaller segment of FIRE economy speculative interests, no amount of posturing about a nonexistent global warming issue will accomplish that scam, and result in those massive expenses actually being disbursed by the world - unless and until the "global warming scam" turns out instead to be true, and substantiated by hard science.

It would be ingenuous of us to believe that global governments can or will ever be duped into actually disbursing these trillions, if the entire global warming thingy progresses into global legislation without any real basis. So what I'm saying is, if you see governments actually begin to shell out massive sums of real money to comply, you can assume the probability that warming is real just rose by a very large factor, because historically it's extremely rare to see a majority of nations in the world all simultaneously duped into committing vast portions of their future wealth to a myth.

In other words, suppose as you suggest we've got a group of wily businesses and FIRE economy sectors angling to make a killing from global warming mythology. Your thesis has to include the possibility this handful of wily businesses could succeed in the most gargantuan global fraud in history, and the collective number of sophisticated money pinching governments in the world will be "taken in" by it and actually begin the largest disbursement of expenses to underwrite a simple fraud in modern history. All of them would go along in this scenario, and the scamming FIRE sectors will make out like bandits.

Conversely, if we see the global warming debate proceed and coalesce into concerted global legislation and then actual disbursements, we can assume that the science is holding up to ever sharper global scrutiny, as the Finance ministries of the world go over the rationales with a gimlet eye cast upon the validity of these very large expenses.

Certainly there are some big companies in the private sector in line to benefit hugely from a trend shift to wean the world from fossil fuels, and quite rightly, GE is right up at the top of that list. But to turn that into an inference that "big vested interest money is the primary creator of this issue" where if they merely desisted, the issue would go away - well that seems a tough position for you to choose to defend GRG55.

Also, how does microanalysing whether big money vested interests are what's behind it all, ever outweigh a serious preliminary discussion of the above observations on CO2 levels breaking steeply out of half million year channels?

Surely even as laymen in general discussion, we should analyse such a topic not from the political top down, but from the scientific data bottom up? The "from the bottom up" in this case, means to valuate the potential significance of very large CO2 anomalies, as their correlation to temperature is quite clear. We never did discuss that.

Lastly I reiterate, what does the FIRE economy which you say is "driving" the entire global warming issue have to do with the entire industrialising world?

FIRE economy is a construct pertinent to the US, and possibly a few other of the most industrialised countries, although I've not seen any discussion anywhere on this website as to precisely how the FIRE economy pertains to any other nation.

What does the US FIRE economy of vested interests have to do with China, or India, or Russia, or Brazil, or Venezuela? How are the vested interests in the FIRE economy going to put one over on those countries. And conversely, if you see those countries, typically not abject followers of the US, going along with a new global warming agreement, why are they going along with it?

Why are scientists from these countries, under the auspices of their own governments, making a concerted call on global warming that along with winning them a Nobel, also risks committing their respective governments to massive financial outlays?

Do you think the lure of an individual Nobel prize blinds each and every one of these scientists to the massive financial liabilities each of their governments faces depending upon the outcome of the global warming verdict which they deliver?

It would seem to me, that state scientists from a country like China, who have a quite healthy fear of displeasing their government on any specious scientific verdict, would care about whether their government liked what they were reporting a lot more than they would ever care about getting that Nobel prize.

Despite massive financial risks inherent in what all these scientists are stating, they are indeed saying this thing in unison. Therefore to pin one's argument upon these individual scientist all being primarily motivated by the lure of a Nobel risks overlooking a much larger potential issue.

I find the UN's posturing on issues like naming Syria or Libya to any UN chair commission every bit as wretched as you do. They use craven sops to the regional lobbies to abjectly attempt to smooth everyone's feathers, and in the process totally disqualify themselves as a serious accountable body.

But this has only a very tenuous link to the sum of the work of scientists who's primary allegiance is to their respective governments, and those governments stand to foot some truly gargantuan, massive bills, precisely from the verdict these scientists have just turned in.

I think instead, what lends coherence to the unanimity with which these scientists speak from all corners of the world and many different political systems, (and increasingly also agreement from their own governments!), is the spreading realisation that global warming is shaping up to have a very large potential to devastate their own economies in the long run due to inaction also!

Hence what you interpret as tame scientists doing the bidding of a few vested interests, I see as scientists from vastly different countries all over the world who are in active and duly intelligent dialogue with their own nation's senior planners (think China, who are obsessed with long range planning), all of whom are in fact well out ahead of us already on these issues, understanding that global warming is not only real, but will comport massive costs for all nations, either way.

They - their governments, as well as their individual scientists who work under those governments, are realising they risk paying massively for doing nothing, just as they risk paying massively for doing something about it.

_____________


And with regard to the "profiteering" of the insurance companies who are in the advance guard of the FIRE economy on this global warming scam, please re-check the Swiss-Re chart of insurance claims which Quigleydoor filed - there again, a scrupulously compiled chart of hard data (the industry's actual insurance payouts) evidences a soaring uptrend - and very many of those components are climate related. Where are you in response to the data, GRG55?

Is it possible the rising insurance premiums you note bear a rational correlation to the rising disaster claims reflected in that chart? Also, are you factoring inflation into those rising premiums as well?

jk
11-26-07, 11:23 AM
The FIRE economy is already benefiting. Just one example: the "I" part of FIRE has managed to dramatically raise insurance rates, and their proftiablitily, on the self-serving premise that future losses due to natural disasters induced by climate change will rise. I don't begrudge profit, but this is an interesting development that is raising little argument except in places like Florida where they threaten to withdraw coverage.

the last big bump in insurance rates was post hurricane andrew, in 1992. andrew cost over $26billion . hurricane katrina cost over $81billion in 2005 dollars. the insurance industry goes through a cycle: costly disaster payments are followed by big price hikes. if there is then a lull in disasters, competition tends to limit price hikes for a while, until the next disaster strikes. i see nothing in this last cycle of price hikes and coverage limitation that is any different than that expected on the basis of similar cycles in the past. where is the evidence that there is an overblown, fanciful prospective premium built-in? [this is not to say that insurance companies won't say anything whatsoever to bolster their claim on increased premiums.]




Just this week a government changed in Australia, in part on a platform to "sign Kyoto". As Americans should know better than anyone, politicians don't get elected without money.
Australia's new PM Rudd acts swiftly on climate
By Rob Taylor Sun Nov 25, 12:48 AM ET

BRISBANE (Reuters) - [I]Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, made climate change his top priority on Sunday, seeking advice on ratifying the Kyoto pact and telling Indonesia he will go to December's UN climate summit in Bali.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/wl_nm/australia_election_dc_24;_ylt=AgGuDTtaa5LLyvbjevu0 zbJrAlMA

grg, you live closer to australia than i do, and perhaps you follow their politics. i don't. i am skeptical, however, that carbon policy was a big issue in the election, or drove either support or money in a significant way. do you have reason to believe otherwise? i know that here, in the u.s., there is an endless political campaign in the run-up to 2008. i suppose the candidates have global warming/carbon policies, but i have to say that i am totally unaware of what they are. i could make guesses, but they would only be guesses. should one of the democrats be elected president, will you point to his or her putative carbon policy as evidence that political contributions are driven by individuals and institutions with an interest in exploiting that policy?

bill
11-26-07, 12:32 PM
grg, you live closer to australia than i do, and perhaps you follow their politics. i don't. i am skeptical, however, that carbon policy was a big issue in the election, or drove either support or money in a significant way.

http://greens.org.au/QldSenate#post_1195964611

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aBeLAjdqTiJE&refer=australia


Senate Politics
Labor will have to negotiate with other parties in the Senate, where the balance of power will be held by five Greens senators, the sole Family First representative and anti-gambling independent Nick Xenophon, according to Australian Broadcasting Corp. projections.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=328489

jk
11-26-07, 12:41 PM
http://greens.org.au/QldSenate#post_1195964611

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aBeLAjdqTiJE&refer=australia


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=328489

i guess when you have a terrible drought, severe enough to threaten the whole economy, people will tend to pay attention to climate. [although i couldn't help but notice the prominence given to the change in stance on iraq.,] of course, if people are paying attention to climate because it is having a huge impact on their nation, they cannot be said to paying attention to climate on the basis of mere political correctness.

Starving Steve
11-26-07, 10:00 PM
i guess when you have a terrible drought, severe enough to threaten the whole economy, people will tend to pay attention to climate. [although i couldn't help but notice the prominence given to the change in stance on iraq.,] of course, if people are paying attention to climate because it is having a huge impact on their nation, they cannot be said to paying attention to climate on the basis of mere political correctness.

I try to pay attention to climate on the basis of pure science, regardless of what I think is politically correct and regardless of what I think of the eco-nuts. So, using pure science or pure climatology, here are some forecasts of mine:

This year, being a La Nina year, means that the weather will be cool and dry along the West Coast, especially in southern California. Sadly, expect the drought in California to worsen. This meshes very nicely with climate records as well because most of the occurrences of drought in southern California last for at least 2 years. This year will be the second year of the drought.

Expect cold weather this winter too in California. La Nina nearly always brings chill.

My forecast also meshes with the sunspot cycle which is at a minimum now. A sunspot minimum correlates with drought and cold in California.

Four or five years on, we will be in the other half of the cycle: El Nino with a sunspot maximum, and that would likely mean warm and wet in California and throughout much of the desert Southwest and northern Mexico. Drought may re-occur in the Pacific NW and BC. Strong hurricanes would likely bring flooding once again to the southern Baja peninsula and the west coast of mainland Mexico.

Of course, as we go back into El Nino in 2011 or 2012, the eco-frauds will say that the Earth is warming-up and it's all due to carbon-dioxide. And get ready for another book by Al Gore. :rolleyes:

Contemptuous
11-26-07, 10:06 PM
Starving Steve -

Why not post about something other than global warming or peak oil! This community discusses many different topics.

Starving Steve
11-27-07, 07:50 PM
Starving Steve -

Why not post about something other than global warming or peak oil! This community discusses many different topics.

I do have a degree in climatology which I earned back in the early 1970s. At that time, climatologists were suggesting that the Earth might be facing another Little Ice Age, or possibly something even colder.

My other interests are economics, especially gold ( gold fever, gold mining, gold hoaxes, gold coins, gold standard, gold investment, gold as element #79, inflation, fiat money, depression, Goldfinger, Bretton Woods, Republican morons, central bankers, liars, devaluations, Weimar inflation, Argentina, Brazil, the Mexican peso, "the mess that Greenspan made", Gordon Brown type morons, supplyside economics morons, neo-cons, Arthur Laffer, etc.).

I am also interested in issues in public education in the US such as the complete FAILURE of the Bush education programme---- and how that failure is being hushed-up from the public by a frightened and controlled media in the US.

So, we have plenty to discuss, or at least, I do here.

Contemptuous
11-27-07, 11:55 PM
Starving Steve -

Have at it!

You can start your own topics. If you are really digging into some issues and not just sounding off, people will post in views of their own.

GRG55
11-28-07, 03:09 AM
GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST

Original thread was here:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12102#poststop

Here are some comments from members of this community on the validity of the global warming thesis, posted just a few months ago. I include the original reactions to the "thesis" that global warming might be real, because we now have the results in from a coordinated massive study conducted by a UN sponsored panel consisting of fully 2,500 climatologists and related discipline scientists from all over the world.

I came across this in my archive as I was trolling for something else. Not sure if it's already been posted, but if you have not seen it, an interesting interactive graphic on Arctic sea ice change from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/10/01/science/20071002_ARCTIC_GRAPHIC.html#

c1ue
11-29-07, 06:17 PM
Lukester,

I haven't been following the climate wars too closely - unfortunately I agree with Steve that the mood is more adversarial than scientific.

My main questions are as follows:

1) Are the climate models which show global warming due to human created CO2 at the point now where they can explain the 1650-1850 ice age?

If the previous and well documented ice age (and subsequent warming) is not showing up in the models, I have grave doubts as to the model's validity for predicting present events.

2) How is historical solar energy output documented?

Radiation exposure during solar flares can increase by up to 100x - the amount is small in terms of cancer risk but does point to the possibility of significant variation in the sun's energy footprint on Earth. Thus I think it is important to understand how past solar energy is estimated/measured; the sun by far is the greatest impact on climactic conditions on this planet.

Contemptuous
11-29-07, 06:29 PM
C1ue -

Maybe start by reading through this entire thread, rather than a couple of posts.

As for gaining a better fix on the basis for this alarm, I'm presently all tuckered out on the topic. If you express skepticism, you are being skeptical of the continually firming conclusions of many thousands of scientists worldwide (and many dozens of national governments who are one after another putting their heads in a noose for some really gargantuan economic costs to comply with it's findings) who are climbing on board this thesis every year now, not to speak of the quite extraordinary agreement of the 2500 scientists scattered around the world in many different countries who contributed their findings to the new IPCC report (and elsewhere).

At a certain point, the same skepticism you are exercising here initially, must begin to ask how a mere scam could fool that many nations, scientists and state budget controllers into agreeing to release vast amounts of funding. When it comes down to a large number of nations all getting 'fooled' in concerted fashion for world-budget-busting sums of money, maybe you need to look closer at the thesis.

Just do a quick Wikipedia search of the IPCC REPORT 2007 if you are short of time, to gather a summary of the findings of the most recent issued report. There seems near unanimity as to the human industrial output component. As to mini ice ages in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, I confess I'm unwilling to do the research for you to satisfy this question.

There are a lot of issues discussed in this entire thread. If you are interested you can read them to collect many different starting points of further inquiry.

As always, I very much appreciate your healthy skepticism about so many things. In virtually all other instances I find it the perfect tonic for many erroneous 'conventional wisdoms'.

c1ue
11-30-07, 01:58 PM
Lukester,

The last reports on the weather models being used by IPCC which I saw in Scientific American 3 months ago clearly stated that the models are not able to forecast past events before the 18th century.

I also have recently seen other reports which admit that any estimations of solar radiation levels before 1900 are 3rd order or worse: i.e. tree rings. But tree rings are water dependent more so than sun - plus there are other things like pest outbreaks.

As for numbers of scientists - there are much more than 2500 economists forecasting no recession in the US.

Why should I believe in the numbers of voices?

As for funding - are you serious? So the millions spent on ESP research must mean that this field is also real?

What about farm subsidies? Are these really based on facts or politics?

All I am pointing out is that as a person of scientific pragmatic view - I want some more validation that the 'marks to model' of climate change a) being due to human interference and b) likely result of present policies.

From what I've seen in the IPCC reports - the majority of the arguments are based on the graph of CO2 levels vs. temperature. Also: yep, global temperatures have gone up in the past 20 years (which comprises all of our present day scientifically accurate measurement data)

For that matter, I've done a little research into the methane arena; what is well known is that the population of cows and similar large domestic animals greatly increased at specific points in history.

The volume of methane thus generated should theoretically have introduced some warming, but this is absolutely not evident from the historical profiles.

Contemptuous
11-30-07, 04:26 PM
C1ue -

Interesting you mention Methane. I'd be curious to know what the potential methane release from the thawing of the hundreds of millions of acres of Siberian tundra will be - many multiples of the entire globe's population of herbivores in "dung methane equivalents" there, I should imagine.

My whole point in the posts above was not to take mere 100 or even 300 year old data and try to extrapolate anything, A) because we are laymen and don't really know squat, and B) because even if we did know something that time frame is simply too short on data-points to pin down a trend in something so incredibly complex to correctly analyse as climate change.

But there are some data points on 400 thousand year charts that even a 12 year old could successfully point out and draw simple, clear inferences from. CO2 being one full standard deviation above it's highest recorded points in 400,000 years is one such clear issue. I pointed out above what the inferences are, due to CO2's very, very long correlation to temperature.

I have no great urge to convert you to a different point of view. Your conclusions are entirely your own to make. As you arrive at your own point of view however, one useful thing may be to keep a keen eye out on what exactly the global scientific community consensus is doing in terms of evolution of it's ideas on this topic.

If you see that consensus steadily growing, then perhaps it's opportune to concentrate less on your own narrow technical points of objection (what you view as their flawed methodologies) and simply look more and more closely into the affirmative arguments this growing community of scientists will be making in a process of innocent minded curiosity.

That growing consensus within this scientific community can be expected to be cumulative over time. Don't forget the age-old quite tenacious reluctance of people, and entire nations, to be parted from their substantial wealth by mere untruths.

As you may start seeing large economies begin to be 'parted from their wealth' to accomodate this thesis, you'll need to conclude ever more that they are mere dupes, to maintain your skepticism. At a certain point you may be concluding very large groups of peoples are dupes, while you remain correct. This is the trend that you are embarking upon, and it would be good to maintain a flexibility within one's own opinions, as one observes any changes of the global consensus on the issue.

Starving Steve
11-30-07, 10:18 PM
C1ue -

Interesting you mention Methane. I'd be curious to know what the potential methane release from the thawing of the hundreds of millions of acres of Siberian tundra will be - many multiples of the entire globe's population of herbivores in "dung methane equivalents" there, I should imagine.

My whole point in the posts above was not to take mere 100 or even 300 year old data and try to extrapolate anything, A) because we are laymen and don't really know squat, and B) because even if we did know something that time frame is simply too short on data-points to pin down a trend in something so incredibly complex to correctly analyse as climate change.

But there are some data points on 400 thousand year charts that even a 12 year old could successfully point out and draw simple, clear inferences from. CO2 being one full standard deviation above it's highest recorded points in 400,000 years is one such clear issue. I pointed out above what the inferences are, due to CO2's very, very long correlation to temperature.

I have no great urge to convert you to a different point of view. Your conclusions are entirely your own to make. As you arrive at your own point of view however, one useful thing may be to keep a keen eye out on what exactly the global scientific community consensus is doing in terms of evolution of it's ideas on this topic.

If you see that consensus steadily growing, then perhaps it's opportune to concentrate less on your own narrow technical points of objection (what you view as their flawed methodologies) and simply look more and more closely into the affirmative arguments this growing community of scientists will be making in a process of innocent minded curiosity.

That growing consensus within this scientific community can be expected to be cumulative over time. Don't forget the age-old quite tenacious reluctance of people, and entire nations, to be parted from their substantial wealth by mere untruths.

As you may start seeing large economies begin to be 'parted from their wealth' to accomodate this thesis, you'll need to conclude ever more that they are mere dupes, to maintain your skepticism. At a certain point you may be concluding very large groups of peoples are dupes, while you remain correct. This is the trend that you are embarking upon, and it would be good to maintain a flexibility within one's own opinions, as one observes any changes of the global consensus on the issue.

Starving Steve again:

Carbon-dioxide and methane are global warmers. Melting ice sheets floating on the Arctic Ocean are another global warming mechanism. But please remember that removal of forests and conversion of those forest lands to farmlands increase the reflectivity (albedo) of the Earth's surface and tend, therefore, to cool the Earth. Not only that but smoke and filth and soot from cities block-out solar radiation and cool the Earth.

And if the Earth's climate is getting warmer--- which I doubt--- more water vapour will be evaporated from the oceans, and this water vapour forms cloud cover and cloud cover cools the Earth.

The climate puzzle is far from solved. No-one knows whether the Earth is warming or cooling, let alone whether the total affect of man is to warm or cool the Earth. Not only this, but the affect on the Earth's climate from sunspots and fluctuation in the solar constant is not understood. And then we have the Earth's cycles in El Nino/La Nina and the Gulf Stream cycles to subtract out of the data. The Madden-Julian Oscillation has to be subtracted out of the data as well.

And speaking of data, our climate data is biased by urban development through time. So, if nothing really changes on Earth, our temperature data on land tends to show warming around official weather stations because of the construction of buildings and roads.

Introduce government grants, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the UN, Kyoto, Canada, New Zealand, the BBC, the CBC, and Al Gore into this mix, and what you end-up with is a global warming belief system--- a religion, and not a science.

Contemptuous
11-30-07, 11:17 PM
Starving Steve -

<< The climate puzzle is far from solved. No-one knows whether the Earth is warming or cooling, let alone whether the total affect of man is to warm or cool the Earth. >>

Forget temperature. Tell us what you think about 370 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the half million year ranges. I understand that today's CO2 readings are 80% - 100% further out from the half million year highest readings?

How curious, and how extraordinary the statistical odds, that out of half a million years of even very approximately logged CO2 history, this anomaly should co-exist with the earth's first experience of runaway fossil fuel based human industrialisation, with a vanishingly small statistical probability the two events should ever overlap so precisely by mere chance, eh? Such improbabilities tweak some minds into an unhindered spirit of curiosity, but not everyone responds to the call. :D

We haven't had massive volcanic activity in hundreds of thousands of years. To what do you attribute a CO2 reading that is reaching out a million years into our past for any parallel?

Are 6.5 billion humans and the surge of global industrialisation an (intuitive by lack of intellectual curiosity) non-sequitur to you relative to the above CO2 hard data fact, or do they prompt any glimmer of curiosity in you above and beyond your "ideologically hardened armadillo" shell?

Starving Steve
12-01-07, 01:02 PM
Starving Steve -

<< The climate puzzle is far from solved. No-one knows whether the Earth is warming or cooling, let alone whether the total affect of man is to warm or cool the Earth. >>

Forget temperature. Tell us what you think about 370 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the half million year ranges. I understand that today's CO2 readings are 80% - 100% further out from the half million year highest readings?

How curious, and how extraordinary the statistical odds, that out of half a million years of even very approximately logged CO2 history, this anomaly should co-exist with the earth's first experience of runaway fossil fuel based human industrialisation, with a vanishingly small statistical probability the two events should ever overlap so precisely by mere chance, eh? Such improbabilities tweak some minds into an unhindered spirit of curiosity, but not everyone responds to the call. :D

We haven't had massive volcanic activity in hundreds of thousands of years. To what do you attribute a CO2 reading that is reaching out a million years into our past for any parallel?

Are 6.5 billion humans and the surge of global industrialisation an (intuitive by lack of intellectual curiosity) non-sequitur to you relative to the above CO2 hard data fact, or do they prompt any glimmer of curiosity in you above and beyond your "ideologically hardened armadillo" shell?

Starving Steve again from Watsonville, Cal:

If your Greenpeace global-warming alarmists are to be believed, then there have been no major episodes of volcanism on Earth for the past half-a-million years, which seems to be a very fishy assumption on their part. So if there has been no major volcanism, then of course, mankind is the culprit for CO2 hitting the current level of some 550 or 600 PPM.

But I shall ignore the natural occurrences of forest fires such as the Hinkley Fire which a century ago burned thousands of square miles in Minnesota. (And those volcanoes just stay constant and rather quiet, only the odd Mt. St. Helens popping-off --- for some 400 or 500 thousand years. :rolleyes: )

Contemptuous
12-01-07, 02:13 PM
Starving Steve -

You are talking to yourself.

Starving Steve
12-01-07, 05:37 PM
Starving Steve -

You are talking to yourself.

I may be talking to myself, but I do not use an ice-core sample to infer the CO2 history of the Earth for half-a-million years.

I don't know much, but I do know that everything on this planet is changing and will continue to change, and that includes the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Every time a volcano erupts, every time a forest burns, the CO2 content of the atmosphere changes.

When you post that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been constant at 350 PPM for 400,000 or 500,000 years, you are tacitly saying that the occurrences of volcanic eruptions and burning of forests have been constant--- which is fishy. Very fishy!

The job of a scientist is to check his findings and theories against all questions raised and not to ridicule the questioners. A true scientist welcomes all questions and critical thinking about his thesis.

"I'm from Missouri. Show me." Show me why the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been constant for some half-a-million years until the late 20th C. --- when Greenpeace and the Sierra Club got organized.

Rajiv
12-01-07, 08:57 PM
You may want to watch this




<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bDsIFspVzfI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bDsIFspVzfI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Contemptuous
12-01-07, 09:31 PM
Starving Steve - You might want to re-read my posts specifically regarding CO2 historic data. You must have skimmed though them while engrossed in your own skeptical point of view, as you've apparently missed the main point clearly written there three, four, five and six times over.

NOWHERE does it say the "atmosphere has been constant at 350 PPM for 400,000 years".

You go on to note: "the job of a scientist is to check his findings". Are you replying to me? If so, check the charts I posted, and the comments I posted regarding that chart data! We are not even having a balanced conversation among amateurs here, as you are ascribing to me a patently absurd statement, that CO2 has remained "unchanged" for a half million years. How could it possibly remain unchanged for that long?

There are some charts posted, with a high and low demarcation, (with very wide fluctuation) spanning 400,000 years. Surely you've examined such charts before as you have such clear cut views of your own that extraordnarily high CO2 levels today are meaningless? You must have carefully examined similar charts before on your own account, no (or have you)?

What the charts point out, is that the fluctuation is indeed very wide, gathered into some deep glacials and very high interglacials, and the present CO2 soars a full standard deviation further out from the very topmost peaks of all of those interglacials. As you indeed note: "the job of a scientist is to check his findings". We are not scientists, at least I'm not, but I thought I reiterated that observation several times over. Maybe you missed it? You further note: " Which is fishy. Very fishy!" Maybe a simple re-read will eliminate some of the "fishyness".



When you post that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been constant at 350 PPM for 400,000 or 500,000 years, you are tacitly saying that the occurrences of volcanic eruptions and burning of forests have been constant--- which is fishy. Very fishy!

The job of a scientist is to check his findings and theories against all questions raised and not to ridicule the questioners. ...

"I'm from Missouri. Show me." Show me why the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been constant for some half-a-million years until the late 20th C. --- when Greenpeace and the Sierra Club got organized.

Starving Steve
12-01-07, 11:00 PM
Starving Steve - You might want to re-read my posts specifically regarding CO2 historic data. You must have skimmed though them while engrossed in your own skeptical point of view, as you've apparently missed the main point clearly written there three, four, five and six times over.

NOWHERE does it say the "atmosphere has been constant at 350 PPM for 400,000 years".

You go on to note: "the job of a scientist is to check his findings". Are you replying to me? If so, check the charts I posted, and the comments I posted regarding that chart data! We are not even having a balanced conversation among amateurs here, as you are ascribing to me a patently absurd statement, that CO2 has remained "unchanged" for a half million years. How could it possibly remain unchanged for that long?

There are some charts posted, with a high and low demarcation, (with very wide fluctuation) spanning 400,000 years. Surely you've examined such charts before as you have such clear cut views of your own that extraordnarily high CO2 levels today are meaningless? You must have carefully examined similar charts before on your own account, no (or have you)?

What the charts point out, is that the fluctuation is indeed very wide, gathered into some deep glacials and very high interglacials, and the present CO2 soars a full standard deviation further out from the very topmost peaks of all of those interglacials. As you indeed note: "the job of a scientist is to check his findings". We are not scientists, at least I'm not, but I thought I reiterated that observation several times over. Maybe you missed it? You further note: " Which is fishy. Very fishy!" Maybe a simple re-read will eliminate some of the "fishyness".

Starving Steve back again:

I apologize that I confused your data with the data on CO2 from the Mona Kea Observatory in Hawaii, the latter which shows something like 550PPM current CO2 in the atmosphere and something like 350PPM when they began their observations a few decades ago. This data is quite famous and has led to this entire debate about global warming.

Be that as it may, if I use your data on the graph of 400,000 years of CO2 and temperature (source not given, by the way:rolleyes:), then the lower value (or floor value) for CO2 is around 200PPM and the upper value or ceiling value for CO2 is around 275PPM. Maybe the odd squiggle goes to 190PPM and the odd needle shoots to 350PPM, but for most all of the entire span until the year 0 (when Greenpeace and the Sierra Club arrive on the scene:rolleyes:) the range of CO2 is 75PPM in the atmosphere. So, that looks very constant to me.

The temperature trace is almost coincident with the CO2 trace, so the temperature of the Earth was relatively constant. And then at the year 0, the temperature skyrockets exactly when the entire 400,000 year pattern in CO2 is broken, at the year 0. Again, I roll my eyes: :rolleyes:.

Show me the source of this data. Discuss the methodology of the data; i.e, was it gathered by ice core samples, by whom, and where? Then show me why CO2 was so constant ( within a 75PPM range ) despite the comings and goings of Ice Ages?

"I'm from Missouri; show me." :rolleyes: And I have other questions too, like why isn't the sea level rising now because we are experiencing dramatic and unprecedented global warming according to your graph?

I have lots of questions. I am just chomping-at-the-bit. :)

c1ue
12-01-07, 11:46 PM
If you see that consensus steadily growing, then perhaps it's opportune to concentrate less on your own narrow technical points of objection (what you view as their flawed methodologies) and simply look more and more closely into the affirmative arguments this growing community of scientists will be making in a process of innocent minded curiosity.


Lukester,

Not to be rude, but I spit on consensus.

If you believe in consensus, I'm puzzled as to why you're reading iTulip?

The consensus is that we don't have a recession, that the subprime/Alt-A/MBS/CDO problem is short and low profile, and that the Fed has got your back.

As for affirmative arguments, my point all along is that this is NOT a debate society. A rational fact discovery attempts to fit known information with models. Most of what I see with the IPCC is trying to fit information into a climate warming theory.

The theory may be correct, but the ability to find the truth is destroyed by an incorrect process.

I increasingly am viewing global warming as a nation-level equivalent of organic produce: a great way to single out and extract money from the richer people/nations.

Contemptuous
12-02-07, 02:07 AM
C1ue -

<< I increasingly am viewing global warming as a nation-level equivalent of organic produce: a great way to single out and extract money from the richer people/nations. >>

Interesting viewpoint. Please note, tucked away in there is a considerable intellectual conceit, although I'm not sure you'll acknowledge it.

Not only a widening army of scientists from the most disparate nations in the world (you presumably believe scientists in China are more infatuated with a Nobel than they are apprehensive of delivering specious findings to their government), but also some very tight pursed finance ministries of nations spanning the globe are all going to be dupes, having failed to muster sufficient intelligence or astuteness to see through bogus popular science, while you have a handle on the bottom line which they all dutifully miss due to their "massively coordinated stupidity"?

Speaking for myself, such considerations have always given me enough pause to declare myself an agnostic which you may note above and elsewhere I've gone to great pains to clarify was my moderate position. Unlike you and Starving Steve over there who have such firmed up views on the matter (global warming to you is clearly bunk), unless and until I became a practicing climatologist, I can only discern where the CO2 data seems to be a large enough anomaly, that modest people of sufficient agnosticism would be carefully open to the idea, rather than dismissive, because being merely dfismissive would imply an extraordinarily authoritative knowledge of the matter, no?.

Intellectual humility, when confronted by entire governments moving towards spending big chunks of their treasure to back a finding, is a valuable trait to conserve, rather than instead declaring that one "spits on consensus" with defiant panache.

Maybe you feel offended I should point it out in such terms, i.e. moderating one's consignment of a good portion of the world's nation's respectively delegated scientists to the category of fools, who are miraculously all acting in exquisitely coordinated collective foolery? You are positing half the governments and science academies of the world are all wet, and you are smarter? I approve of your independence of mind, but question whether it should be applicable in perpetuity on this topic.

And my last question: I seemed to remember you getting interested to buy land in central or eastern Russia, at a fairly northern latitude presumably - on the premise of what?

Starving Steve
12-02-07, 11:56 AM
C1ue -

<< I increasingly am viewing global warming as a nation-level equivalent of organic produce: a great way to single out and extract money from the richer people/nations. >>

Interesting viewpoint. Please note, tucked away in there is a considerable intellectual conceit, although I'm not sure you'll acknowledge it.

Not only a widening army of scientists from the most disparate nations in the world (you presumably believe scientists in China are more infatuated with a Nobel than they are apprehensive of delivering specious findings to their government), but also some very tight pursed finance ministries of nations spanning the globe are all going to be dupes, having failed to muster sufficient intelligence or astuteness to see through bogus popular science, while you have a handle on the bottom line which they all dutifully miss due to their "massively coordinated stupidity"?

Speaking for myself, such considerations have always given me enough pause to declare myself an agnostic which you may note above and elsewhere I've gone to great pains to clarify was my moderate position. Unlike you and Starving Steve over there who have such firmed up views on the matter (global warming to you is clearly bunk), unless and until I became a practicing climatologist, I can only discern where the CO2 data seems to be a large enough anomaly, that modest people of sufficient agnosticism would be carefully open to the idea, rather than dismissive, because being merely dfismissive would imply an extraordinarily authoritative knowledge of the matter, no?.

Intellectual humility, when confronted by entire governments moving towards spending big chunks of their treasure to back a finding, is a valuable trait to conserve, rather than instead declaring that one "spits on consensus" with defiant panache.

Maybe you feel offended I should point it out in such terms, i.e. moderating one's consignment of a good portion of the world's nation's respectively delegated scientists to the category of fools, who are miraculously all acting in exquisitely coordinated collective foolery? You are positing half the governments and science academies of the world are all wet, and you are smarter? I approve of your independence of mind, but question whether it should be applicable in perpetuity on this topic.

And my last question: I seemed to remember you getting interested to buy land in central or eastern Russia, at a fairly northern latitude presumably - on the premise of what?

Starving Steve again:

I am very OPEN to the idea of global warming, but I think the thesis has to be PROVED. The thesis ( any thesis ) has to be proved as much as is humanly possible, then checked, and re-checked. And with the thesis of global warming, we have only just begun this debate; the matter is hardly settled.

The data from Mona Kea ( or is it Mona Loa?) Observatory in Hawaii kicked-off this debate on global warming. That data shows a near doubling of the CO2 content of the atmosphere over a span of a few decades, for the period that they have kept CO2 measurements there.

As a climatologist and a citizen of Earth, I am worried about what the implications of letting the CO2 content of the atmosphere double every few decades might mean for mankind. So I welcome research on the subject, and I welcome debate on the findings of such reasearch.

But for Al Gore to say that the matter is settled because of a consensus of activists from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, then I become dismayed. This matter is anything but settled.

And when I think of the eco-nuts in Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, et. al, these are the groups that had shut-down the nuclear power industry in the 1970s and 1980s. These groups are the last ones who should be pointing fingers at anyone because these eco-frauds are the ones who have forced the world to continue to burn fossil fuels.

Update from Starving Steve: I searched CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory at
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ .
I found that their latest figures show 314PPM CO2 in 1958 rising to 384PPM CO2 in 2007, so the problem is not a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, but a steady rise of about 22% for a span of 49 years. But, anyway, the steady rise in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is still troubling.

c1ue
12-02-07, 08:49 PM
Interesting viewpoint. Please note, tucked away in there is a considerable intellectual conceit, although I'm not sure you'll acknowledge it.

Not only a widening army of scientists from the most disparate nations in the world (you presumably believe scientists in China are more infatuated with a Nobel than they are apprehensive of delivering specious findings to their government), but also some very tight pursed finance ministries of nations spanning the globe are all going to be dupes, having failed to muster sufficient intelligence or astuteness to see through bogus popular science, while you have a handle on the bottom line which they all dutifully miss due to their "massively coordinated stupidity"?


Lukester,

Have you ever been in any type of large corporation or organization?

I ask because it is not necessary for each individual contributor to have a selfish agenda in order for the overall result to be skewed.

Some examples:

Top management has an agenda to promote 'X'. This desire is communicated down the management ranks.

Those workers/wonks which promote 'X' are given more exposure and tacit support.

As the 'X'-men rise, they naturally aggregate supporters with similar viewpoints.

Soon 'X'-men are everywhere. They have become the status quo. Those who disagree with 'X' are ignored or attacked.

Voila! 'X' occurs.

As for tight purses in government ministries - you actually promote my viewpoint. Is it easier to get a grant to study 'X' or to study "not-'X'"? Especially when 'X' is "known" to be a big problem?

I actually don't believe there is a big conspiracy, but I do believe based on what I observe and correlate vs first hand experience of what looks like a very nicely conducted marketing and promotion plan.

And again you miss my point - I've never said global warming is false.

What I've said over and over again is that I see zero conclusive proof that
1) there is global warming
2) CO2 is the primary culprit