Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

    Using his own direct field experience and understanding of specific local areas...

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/2...ny/#more-94616

    Summary:
    Cognitive biases are driving unwarranted and incorrect homogenization techniques in climate record keeping.

    Failure to understand the details within specific areas means an inability to correctly account for cyclical changes affected temperature behavior

    Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

    For researchers like myself examining the effect of local microclimates on the ecology of local wildlife, the change in the global average is an absolutely useless measure. Although it is wise to think globally, wildlife only responds to local climate change. To understand how local climate change had affected wildlife in California’s Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains, I had examined data from stations that make up the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN).

    I was quickly faced with a huge dilemma that began my personal journey toward climate skepticism. Do I trust the raw data, or do I trust the USHCN’s adjusted data?

    For example the raw data for minimum temperatures at Mt Shasta suggested a slight cooling trend since the 1930s. In contrast the adjusted data suggested a 1 to 2°F warming trend. What to believe? The confusion resulting from skewing trends is summarized in a recent study that concluded their “results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.” 13.



    I began exploring data at other USHCN stations from around the country and realized that a very large percentage of the stations had been adjusted very similarly. The warm peaks from the 1930s and 40s had been adjusted downward by 3 to 4°F and these adjustments created dubious local warming trends as seen in examples from other USHCN stations at Reading, Massachusetts and Socorro, New Mexico.



    Because these adjustments were so widespread, many skeptics have suspected there has been some sort of conspiracy. Although scientific papers are often retracted for fraudulent data, I found it very hard to believe climate scientists would allow such blatant falsification. Data correction in all scientific disciplines is often needed and well justified. Wherever there are documented changes to a weather station such as a change in instrumentation, then an adjustment is justified. However unwitting systematic biases in their adjustment procedure could readily fabricate such a trend, and these dramatic adjustments were typically based on “undocumented changes” when climate scientists attempted to “homogenize” the regional data. The rationale for homogenization is based on the dubious assumption that all neighboring weather stations should display the same climate trends. However due to the effects of landscape changes and differently vegetated surfaces,1,2 local temperatures often respond very differently and the minimum temperatures are especially sensitive to different surface conditions.

    For example even in relatively undisturbed regions, Yosemite’s varied landscapes respond in very contrary ways to a weakening of the westerly winds. Over a 10-year period, one section of Yosemite National Park cooled by 1.1°F, another rose by 0.72°F, while in a third location temperatures did not change at all.16 Depending on the location of a weather station, very different trends are generated. The homogenization process blends neighboring data and obliterates local differences and then fabricates an artificial trend.

    Ecologists and scientists who assess regional climate variability must only use data that has been quality controlled but not homogenized. In a climate variability study, scientists computed the non-homogenized changes in maximum and minimum temperatures for the contiguous United States.12 The results seen in Figure A (their figure 1b) suggest recent climate change has been more cyclical. Those cyclical changes parallel the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). When climate scientists first began homogenizing temperature data, the PDO had yet to be named, so I would like to suggest instead of a deliberate climate science conspiracy, it was their ignorance of the PDO coupled with overwhelming urbanization effects that caused the unwarranted adjustments by causing “natural change points” that climate scientists had yet to comprehend. Let me explain.



    Homogenizing Contrasting Urban and Natural Landscape Trends


    The closest USHCN weather station to my research was Tahoe City (below). Based on the trend in maximum temperatures, the region was not overheating nor accumulating heat. Otherwise the annual maximum temperature would be higher than the 1930s. My first question was why such a contrasting rise in minimum temperature? Here changing cloud cover was not an issue. Dr. Thomas Karl, who now serves as the director of the NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center partially answered the question when he reported that in over half of North America “the rise of the minimum temperature has occurred at a rate three times that of the maximum temperature during the period 1951-90 (1.5°F versus 0.5°F).”3 Rising minimum temperatures were driving the average but Karl never addressed the higher temperatures in the 1930s. Karl simply demonstrated as populations increased, so did minimum temperatures even though the maximums did not. A town of two million people experienced a whopping increase of 4.5°F in the minimum and was the sole cause of the 2.25°F increase in average temperature.4



    Although urban heat islands are undeniable, many CO2 advocates argue that growing urbanization has not contributed to recent climate trends because both urban and rural communities have experienced similar warming trends. However, those studies failed to account for the fact that even small population increases in designated rural areas generate high rates of warming. For example, in 1967 Columbia, Maryland was a newly established, planned community designed to end racial and social segregation. Climate researchers following the city’s development found that over a period of just three years, a heat island of up to 8.1°F appeared as the land filled with 10,000 residents.5 Although Columbia would be classified as a rural town, that small population raised local temperatures five times greater than a century’s worth of global warming. If we extrapolated that trend as so many climate studies do, growing populations in rural areas would cause a whopping warming trend of 26°F per decade.
    CO2 advocates also downplay urbanization, arguing it only represents a small fraction of the earth’s land surface and therefore urbanization contributes very little to the overall warming. However arbitrary designations of urban versus rural does not address the effects of growing population on the landscape. California climatologist James Goodridge found the average rate of 20th century warming for weather stations located in a whole county that exceeded one million people was 3.14°F per century, which is twice the rate of the global average. In contrast, the average warming rate for stations situated in a county with less than 100,000 people was a paltry 0.04°F per century.6 The warming rate of sparsely populated counties was 35 times less than the global average.

    Furthermore results similar to Goodridge’s have been suggested by tree ring studies far from urban areas. Tree ring temperatures are better indicators of “natural climate trends” and can help disentangle distortions caused by increasing human populations. Not surprisingly, most tree-ring studies reveal lower temperatures than the urbanized instrumental data. A 2007 paper by 10 leading tree-ring scientists reported, “No current tree ring based reconstruction of extratropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record.”8

    Because tree ring temperatures disagree with a sharply rising instrumental average, climate scientists officially dubbed this the “divergence problem.”9 However when studies compared tree ring temperatures with only maximum temperatures (instead of the average temperatures that are typically inflated by urbanized minimum temperatures) they found no disagreement and no divergence.10 Similarly a collaboration of German, Swiss, and Finnish scientists found that where average instrumental temperatures were minimally affected by population growth in remote rural stations of northern Scandinavia, tree ring temperatures agreed with instrumental average temperatures.11 As illustrated in Figure B, the 20th century temperature trend in the wilds of northern Scandinavia is strikingly similar to maximum temperature trends of the Sierra Nevada and the contiguous 48 states. All those regions experienced peak temperatures in the 1940s and the recent rise since the 1990s has never exceed that peak.



    Figure B. 2000 year summer temperature reconstruction of northern Scandinavia. Warmest 30 year periods are highlighted in by light gray bars (i.e. 27-56, or 1918-1947) and coldest 30 year periods are highlighted by dark gray bars (i.e. 1453-1482) Reprinted from Global and Planetary Change, vol. 88-89, Esper, J. et al, Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia.(REF11)

    How Homogenizing Urbanized Warming Has Obliterated Natural Oscillations

    It soon became obvious that the homogenization process was unwittingly blending rising minimum temperatures caused by population growth with temperatures from more natural landscapes. Climate scientists cloistered in their offices have no way of knowing to what degree urbanization or other landscape factors have distorted each weather station’s data. So they developed an armchair statistical method that blended trends amongst several neighboring stations,17 using what I term the “blind majority rules” method. The most commonly shared trend among neighboring stations became the computer’s reference, and temperatures from “deviant stations” were adjusted to create a chimeric climate smoothie. Wherever there was a growth in population, this unintentionally allows urbanization warming effects to alter the adjusted trend.

    Climate computers had been programmed to seek unusual “change-points” as a sign of “undocumented” station modifications. Any natural change‑points caused by cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation looked like deviations relative to steadily rising trends of an increasingly populated region like Columbia, Maryland or Tahoe City. And the widespread adjustments to minimum temperatures reveal this erroneous process.

    I first stumbled onto Anthony Watts’ surface station efforts when investigating climate factors that controlled the upslope migration of birds in the Sierra Nevada. To understand the population declines in high-elevation meadows on the Tahoe National Forest, I surveyed birds at several low-elevation breeding sites and examined the climate data from foothill weather stations.

    Marysville, CA was one of those stations, but its warming trend sparked my curiosity because it was one of the few stations where the minimum was not adjusted markedly. I later found a picture of the Marysville’s weather station at SurfaceStations.org website. The Marysville weather station was Watts’ poster child for a bad site; he compared it to the less-disturbed surface conditions at a neighboring weather station in Orland, CA. The Marysville station was located on an asphalt parking lot just a few feet from air conditioning exhaust fans.

    The proximity to buildings also altered the winds, and added heat radiating from the walls. These urbanization effects at Marysville created a rising trend that CO2 advocate scientists expect. In contrast, the minimum temperatures at nearby Orland showed the cyclic behavior we would expect the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) to cause. Orland’s data was not overwhelmed by urbanization and thus more sensitive to cyclical temperature changes brought by the PDO. Yet it was Orland’s data that was markedly adjusted- not Marysville!
    (Figure C)

    Figure C. Raw and adjusted minimum temperature for Marysville and Orland California.

    Several scientists have warned against homogenization for just this reason. Dr. Xiaolan Wang of Meteorological Service of Canada wrote, “a trend-type change in climate data series should only be adjusted if there is sufficient evidence showing that it is related to a change at the observing station, such as a change in the exposure or location of the station, or in its instrumentation or observing procedures.” 14

    That waning went unheeded. In the good old days, weather stations such as the one in Orland, CA (pictured above) would have been a perfect candidate to serve as a reference station. It was well sited, away from pavement and buildings, and its location and thermometers had not changed throughout its history. Clearly Orland did not warrant an adjustment but the data revealed several “change points.” Although those change points were naturally caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), it attracted the computer’s attention that an “undocumented change” had occurred.

    To understand the PDO’s effect, it is useful to see the PDO as a period of more frequent El Niños that ventilate heat and raise the global average temperature, alternating with a period of more frequent La Niñas that absorb heat and lower global temperatures. For example heat ventilated during the 1997 El Nino raised global temperatures by ~1.6°F. During the following La Niña, temperatures dropped by ~1.6°F. California’s climate is extremely sensitive to El Niño and the PDO. Reversal in thr Pacific Decadal Oscillation caused natural temperature change-points around the 1940s and 1970s. The rural station of Orland was minimally affected by urbanization, and thus more sensitive to the rise and fall of the PDO. Similarly, the raw data for other well-sited rural stations like the Cuyamaca in southern California also exhibited the cyclical temperatures predicted by the PDO (see Figure D, lower panel). But in each case those cyclical temperature trends were homogenized to look like the linear urbanized trend at Marysville.
    Figure D. Upper panel PDO Index. Lower Panel Cuyamaca CA raw versus adjusted minimum temperatures.

    Marysville however was overwhelmed by California’s growing urbanization and less sensitive to the PDO. Thus it exhibited a steady rising trend. Ironically, a computer program seeking any and all change-points dramatically adjusted the natural variations of rural stations to make them conform to the steady trend of more urbanized stations. Around the country, very similar adjustments lowered the peak warming of the 1930s and 1940s in the original data. Those homogenization adjustments now distort our perceptions, and affect our interpretations of climate change. Cyclical temperature trends were unwittingly transformed into rapidly rising warming trends, suggesting a climate on “CO2 steroids”. However the unadjusted average for the United States suggests the natural climate is much more sensitive to cycles such as the PDO. Climate fears have been exaggerated due to urbanization and homogenization adjustments on steroids.

    Skeptics have highlighted the climate effects of the PDO for over a decade but CO2 advocates dismissed this alternative climate viewpoint. As recently as 2009, Kevin Trenberth emailed Michael Mann and other advocates regards the PDO’s effect on natural climate variability writing “there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.”

    However contrary to Trenberth’s email rant, the PDO continued trending to its cool phase and global warming continued its “hiatus.” Now forced to explain the warming hiatus, Trenberth has flipped flopped about the PDO’s importance writing “One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,” “especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.”18 No longer is CO2 overwelming natural systems, they must argue natural systems are overwhelming CO2 warming. Will they also rethink their unwarranted homogenization adjustments?

    Skeptics highlighting natural cycles were ahead of the climate science curve and provided a much needed alternative viewpoint. Still to keep the focus on CO2, Al Gore is stepping up his attacks against all skeptical thinking. In a recent speech, rightfully took pride that we no longer accept intolerance and abuse against people of different races or with different sexual preferences. Then totally contradicting his examples of tolerance and open mindedness, he asked his audience to make people “pay a price for denial”.

    Instead of promoting more respectful public debate, he in essence suggests Americans should hate “deniers” for thinking differently than Gore and his fellow CO2 advocates. He and his ilk are fomenting a new intellectual tyranny. Yet his “hockey stick beliefs” are based on adjusted data that are not supported by the raw temperature data and unsupported by natural tree ring data. So who is in denial? Whether or not Gore’s orchestrated call to squash all skeptical thought is based solely on ignorance of natural cycles, his rant against skeptics is far more frightening than the climate change evidenced by the unadjusted data and the trees.

    Literature cited


    1. Mildrexler,D.J. et al., (2011) Satellite Finds Highest Land Skin Temperatures on Earth. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

    2. Lim,Y-K, et al., (2012) Observational evidence of sensitivity of surface climate changes to land types and urbanization,

    3. Karl, T.R. et al., (1993) Asymmetric Trends of Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperature. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 74

    4. Karl, T., et al., (1988), Urbanization: Its Detection and Effect in the United States Climate Record. Journal of Climate, vol. 1, 1099-1123.

    5. Erella, E., and Williamson, T, (2007) Intra-urban differences in canopy layer air temperature at a mid-latitude city. Int. J. Climatol. 27: 1243–1255

    6. Goodridge, J., (1996) Comments on Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming Including Natural Variability. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Vol.77, p.188.

    7. Fall, S., et al., (2011) Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 116

    8. Wilson R., et al., (2007) Matter of divergence: tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data. Journal of Geophysical Research–A, 112, D17103, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008318.

    9. D’Arrigo, R., et al., (2008) On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes. Global and Planetary Change, vol. 60, p. 289–305

    10. Youngblut, D., and Luckman, B., (2008) Maximum June–July temperatures in the southwest Yukon region over the last three hundred years reconstructed from tree-rings. Dendrochronologia, vol. 25, p.153–166.

    11. Esper, J. et al. (2012) Variability and extremes of northern Scandinavian summer temperatures over the past two millennia. Global and Planetary Change 88–89 (2012) 1–9.

    12. Shen, S., et al., (2011) The twentieth century contiguous US temperature changes indicated by daily data and higher statistical moments. Climatic Change Volume 109, Issue 3-4, pp 287-317.

    13. Steirou, E., and Koutsoyiannis, D. (2012) Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization. Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol. 14, EGU2012-956-1

    14. Wang, X., (2003) Comments on ‘‘Detection of Undocumented Changepoints: A Revision of the Two-Phase Regression Model’’. Journal of Climate; Oct2003, Vol. 16 Issue 20, p. 3383-3385.

    15. Nelson, T., (2011) Email conversations between climate scientists. ClimateGate 2.0: This is a very large pile of “smoking guns.” http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

    16. Lundquist, J. and Cayan, D. (2007) Surface temperature patterns in complex terrain: Daily variations and long-term change in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, D11124, doi:10.1029/2006JD007561.

    17. Menne. M., (2009) The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data, version 2. The Bulletin for the American Meterological Society. p. 993-1007

    18. Appell, D. (2013) Whither Global Warming? Has It Slowed Down? The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org...t-slowed-down/

    Adapted from the chapter Why Average Isn’t Good Enough in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

    Read previous essays at landscapesandcycles.net
    Last edited by c1ue; 10-01-13, 12:43 PM.

  • #2
    Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

    Ah, Mr. Steele has surfaced again. A self proclaimed researcher with no credentials or peer reviewed work. The last time I read his musings he was positing that CRU scientists were engaged in a conspiracy and CO2 increase follows temperature, (as it did in Paleoclimate periods), and completely ignoring the ~500 GtC carbon added by humans during the current industrial period. I see he's moved on to the "it's the models!!!" meme with a side of PDO. Yup, models are not perfect but unfortunately for Mr. Steele, humans are still adding ~9 GtC a year to the atmosphere. The physics of the issue is fairly straight forward.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

      With the ski season here not really going yet, I think I am finally feeling the effects of this global warming episode. I do not like it.

      ----------------------

      Ever wonder if our Purpose on this planet is precisely to liberate all the buried, life-producing CO2?

      It seems at the rate we were going, CO2 was going to go to zero eventually. I think Earth is very lucky to have had us come along and keep life going for another few hundred million years.

      Regardless, we will burn all we can. We will not stop until it is not worth the time to get it out of the ground. Therefore, the climate change crew should stop the whining and start talking about mitigation. Everything else (taxing carbon, etc) is a bunch of b.s. Even if climate change is proven, it does not matter. It is easier to build dikes and damns than to change humanity.

      CO2 WILL BE LIBERATED


      Increased C02 --> more plant mass --> more oxygen released --> Bigger animals?
      Increased C02 --> more food --> more people --> more C02
      Increased C02 --> warmer weather --> more food --> more people

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

        Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
        Ah, Mr. Steele has surfaced again. A self proclaimed researcher with no credentials or peer reviewed work. The last time I read his musings he was positing that CRU scientists were engaged in a conspiracy and CO2 increase follows temperature, (as it did in Paleoclimate periods), and completely ignoring the ~500 GtC carbon added by humans during the current industrial period. I see he's moved on to the "it's the models!!!" meme with a side of PDO. Yup, models are not perfect but unfortunately for Mr. Steele, humans are still adding ~9 GtC a year to the atmosphere. The physics of the issue is fairly straight forward.
        I won't comment on the effect of CO2 on temperatures, but a few years ago (perhaps within the last five years?) a middle school student here in the Phoenix valley did a science project studying the heat island effect on weather stations. His findings corroborated Steele's.

        He looked at temperature readings from weather stations in the city, which is one of the largest and worst heatsinks in the world. He compared them with temperature readings from weather stations in rural areas of the Phoenix valley. Thermometers surrounded by concrete and reflective walls showed a clear warming trend, whereas thermometers situated over dirt and away from concrete and buildings, didn't.

        I'm searching for articles about this because it made the news here, but so far google is not being my friend and I have to get to work now. But perhaps someone else might be able to dig it up.

        Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

          Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
          Ah, Mr. Steele has surfaced again. A self proclaimed researcher with no credentials or peer reviewed work. The last time I read his musings he was positing that CRU scientists were engaged in a conspiracy and CO2 increase follows temperature, (as it did in Paleoclimate periods), and completely ignoring the ~500 GtC carbon added by humans during the current industrial period. I see he's moved on to the "it's the models!!!" meme with a side of PDO. Yup, models are not perfect but unfortunately for Mr. Steele, humans are still adding ~9 GtC a year to the atmosphere. The physics of the issue is fairly straight forward.
          Unpleasant facts, Santa Fe.

          On the nuclear front:

          Many of the people who were forced to evacuate after the 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear power plant may never return, Japanese lawmakers admitted, overturning initial optimistic government pledges.

          A call to admit the grim reality and step back from the ambitious Fukushima decontamination goals came from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's coalition parties. Japan has so far spent $30 billion on the clean-up program, which has proven to be more difficult to carry out than initially expected.

          The new plan would be for the government to fund relocation to new homes for those who used to live in the most contaminated areas.

          "There will come a time when someone has to say, 'You won't be able to live here anymore, but we will make up for it'," Shigeru Ishiba, the secretary General of Abe’s Liberal Democrat party said in a speech earlier this month.

          On Tuesday, evacuees reacted with anger at the government's admission.

          "Politicians should have specified a long time ago the areas where evacuees will not be able to return, and presented plans to help them rebuild their lives elsewhere," Toshitaka Kakinuma, a 71-year-old evacuee, told the Asahi Shimbun newspaper.

          Some 160,000 people escaped the vicinity of Fukushima Daiichi, when a powerful earthquake and tsunami transformed the plant into the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

          Chernobyl:

          From 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.[4][5] According to official post-Soviet data,[6][7] about 60% of the fallout landed in Belarus.

          That's 160,000 in Japan, 350,000 in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

          How can these costs be ignored when modeling the cost of nuclear power? Nuclear power is a boon to humanity - as the other sources of energy decline, nuclear will proliferate. Just trying to get a rational breakdown of costs, however, is like acknowledging the ~9 GtC annually dumped into the atmosphere. Shades of Big Tobacco.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

            Originally posted by don View Post

            That's 160,000 in Japan, 350,000 in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

            How can these costs be ignored when modeling the cost of nuclear power? Nuclear power is a boon to humanity - as the other sources of energy decline, nuclear will proliferate. Just trying to get a rational breakdown of costs, however, is like acknowledging the ~9 GtC annually dumped into the atmosphere. Shades of Big Tobacco.
            It may not be correct to use Fukishima and Chernobyl as typical examples for future nuclear plants to evaluate risks and costs.
            Instead they serve as examples of what NOT to do, lessons learned by tragic disaster.

            Chernobyl was a fundamentally risky and cantankerous reactor design operated by an impoverished and failing USSR.
            Fukishima was placed in a awful location and suffered an unlikely tsunami/earthquake combo.

            I am hopeful that a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors made all the same to a single standard design will be much better, and worth building.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

              Originally posted by shiny! View Post
              I won't comment on the effect of CO2 on temperatures...
              This is the only point I wanted to make. As CO2 concentrates it tends to reflect long wave energy, (heat), back to the earth. As CO2 increases more, heat is reflected and the earth, air, ice and water have to come into equilibrium with the increased heat. Unless our understanding of physics is incorrect, the earth will warm as long as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. This hasn't been scientifically controversial for a Century.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                Originally posted by don View Post
                The new plan would be for the government to fund relocation to new homes for those who used to live in the most contaminated areas.

                "There will come a time when someone has to say, 'You won't be able to live here anymore, but we will make up for it',"....
                Isn't this what we'll have to tell the good folks in New Orleans? Storm surge kicked New York last year and finally woke a few people up but no one outside of New Orleans cares about New Orleans. And no one outside of Japan cares about Japan. Wait until the Yuppies and Millennials in Seattle have to take a Geiger counter to the grocery store. The liberals in the North West will start to sound like folks in Alabama 50 years ago.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                  Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
                  This is the only point I wanted to make. As CO2 concentrates it tends to reflect long wave energy, (heat), back to the earth. As CO2 increases more, heat is reflected and the earth, air, ice and water have to come into equilibrium with the increased heat. Unless our understanding of physics is incorrect, the earth will warm as long as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. This hasn't been scientifically controversial for a Century.
                  The earth will be much warmer one day. It will also be much cooler one day as well.

                  All things being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise temperatures. There are not many who would argue that.

                  All things are not equal, however.

                  No matter what, we are not going to stop burning oil until a real replacement exists at a cheaper cost. That does not look to be coming in the near term. We are somewhere near that peak oil curve. We will burn the same amount of oil going forward as all the oil used up until today. This will happen over the next 50 years. This is unstoppable. In other words, we are about to dump another 100% more man-made C02 into the atmosphere.

                  My understanding of plant biology is that they are primed to use even more CO2 than currently in the atmosphere. After we add another 100% over the next thirty years, how fast will plants grow? Plants = food = happy people . There will be 10 billion of us soon ! Hungry! Hungry!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                    Originally posted by aaron View Post
                    No matter what, we are not going to stop burning oil until a real replacement exists at a cheaper cost. That does not look to be coming in the near term. We are somewhere near that peak oil curve. We will burn the same amount of oil going forward as all the oil used up until today. This will happen over the next 50 years. This is unstoppable. In other words, we are about to dump another 100% more man-made C02 into the atmosphere.
                    You're very likely correct since the supply of coal will not be a challenge this century. The world community is certainly not going to change direction as long as the general pause in atmospheric warming continues and from what I understand, this may not end for several more years, (PDO El Nino/La Nina, etc.). At the current pace it will take just under 25 years to get to 450 ppm atmospheric CO2. I suspect we'll have a very clear understanding of the implications by then.

                    While we may not agree on the implications of this grand experiment, we apparently do agree on the general direction, the lack of urgency for change and the approximate timing to reach the 450 ppm plateau. It is a fait accompli so I see no reason to argue one side of the issue or the other.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                      Originally posted by aaron View Post
                      My understanding of plant biology is that they are primed to use even more CO2 than currently in the atmosphere. After we add another 100% over the next thirty years, how fast will plants grow? Plants = food = happy people . There will be 10 billion of us soon ! Hungry! Hungry!
                      Yes, CO2 can boost the yields of non C4 plants. Indoor growers of plants have been tinkering with this on a small scale for the last few decades. The issue is that we are talking about a massive, complex system - i.e. Planet Earth, not a greenhouse or a formal laboratory. We cannot possibly predict (using models, genies in bottles or otherwise) what will occur as a result of ******* with this system. This is the crux of the "Global Warming / Climate Change" issue that most people ignore while focusing with a spotlight on what they think are the details. It's highly likely that the "climate models" are incorrect, but still the safer play is to err on the side of caution.
                      Last edited by Slimprofits; 01-04-14, 10:16 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                        Originally posted by Slimprofits View Post
                        Yes, CO2 can boost the yields of non C4 plants. Indoor growers of plants have been tinkering with this on a small scale for the last few decades.
                        yep - esp in colorado - altho it isnt quite a massive complex system there.... yet.

                        The issue is that we are talking about a massive, complex system - i.e. Planet Earth, not a greenhouse or a formal laboratory. We cannot possibly predict (using models, genies in bottles or otherwise) what will occur as a result of ******* with this system. This is the crux of the "Global Warming / Climate Change" issue that most people ignore while focusing with a spotlight on what they think are the details. It's highly likely that the "climate models" are incorrect, but still the safer play is to err on the side of caution.
                        yet we CAN predict (using past experience) that it would be a heluva lot less risky to use more of the technology that we already have (and own outright all the knowledge, raw materials and industries necessary right here, right NOW in The US) that could/would have an IMMEDIATE AND MASSIVE COUNTER-EFFECT - on the already KNOWN side-effects of dirty combustion for energy.

                        and whats being done about it here??? - while the chinese, russians, et al are about to EAT OUR LUNCH for us??? (again)

                        hell - even the french like it....

                        just sayin...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                          Well, it's damn cold today, 1/7/14, with 90% of the nation freezing.

                          http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/...pecial-report/

                          I'm waiting for the call to INCREASE C02 because of global COOLING.

                          Until then I like what this prominent scientist is saying:

                          http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...e_773268.html#

                          Of course the "consensus" didn't like what this guy said either:

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                            Why don't they just count the number of penguins from year to year? Or is that too simple?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: More of an environmentalist's look at the 'consensus'

                              Originally posted by vt View Post
                              Well, it's damn cold today, 1/7/14, with 90% of the nation freezing.

                              ...
                              I'm waiting for the call to INCREASE C02 because of global COOLING.
                              any day now, no doubt - esp if there's some fed'l grant money to look into it

                              noted that 'all 50 states' had sub-freezing wx someplace today/yest - even up on Top of The Pacific
                              where its a not-too-balmy 25 today, and not near as kea (white) as it was the other day

                              Originally posted by Forrest View Post
                              Why don't they just count the number of penguins from year to year? Or is that too simple?
                              but... but... how would they justify budgeting 'research' for that?

                              could just send up a bunch of cruise ship passengers and offer em a 'free iceburg tour' with buffet and cocktails...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X