CLIMATE CONTRARIAN: Sen. James Inhofe has called global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
Image: Senator James Inhofe
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
On November 18, with the United Nations Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen fast approaching, U.S. Sen. James R. Inhofe (R–Okla.) took the floor of the Senate and proclaimed 2009 to be "The Year of the Skeptic." Had the senator's speech marked a new commitment to dispassionate, rational inquiry, a respect for scientific thought and a well-grounded doubt in ghosts, astrology, creationism and homeopathy, it might have been cause for cheer. But Inhofe had a more narrow definition of skeptic in mind: he meant "standing up and exposing the science, the costs and the hysteria behind global warming alarmism."
Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists. Not everyone who questions climate change science fits that description, of course—some people are genuinely unaware of the facts or honestly disagree about their interpretation. What distinguishes the true naysayers is an unwavering dedication to denying the need for action on the problem, often with weak and long-disproved arguments about supposed weaknesses in the science behind global warming.
What follows is only a partial list of the contrarians' bad arguments and some brief rebuttals of them.
Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant.
Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.
Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.
Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”
1776 Comments
Add Comment"The costs of non-CO2 based energy sources are at least double those of fossil fuel."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your source on this? This disagrees with everything I've read.
"Therefore, instead of mandating the conversion to these alternatives at this time,..."
There's no mandate. The idea of cap and trade is to force polluters to internalize the costs of their emissions, so that they choose to pollute only when the profits justify the harm to the environment.
Does this magazine realize how much money it is losing supporting this illogical political platform?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad that the first comment on SAs helpful article was obviously shot off without having read it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to stand for a central problem in the debate on climate change. The motivation of contrarians to deny is, by and large, stronger than arguments can be. They are comfprtable with defying reason.
This is quite understandable, as any forceful action against climate change may change our lives considerably, while not being able to stave off all catastrophic results. Not a scenario that can be happily endorsed.
How we communicate is obviously at least as important in this fight for hearts and minds as what we say.
I think I speak for many of your readers in saying that climate science is extremely difficult to understand, so we need to be able to trust the scientists engaged to do so. The recent 'climategate' scandal suggests that some of the leading scientists in the field, with strong influence throughout the rest of the field including the IPCC, have deleted data, adjusted remaining data to fit their theories, adjusted their models to create the answers they wanted, prevented access to their data by people who disagree with them, and tried to prevent access to both the IPCC and scientific journals by those who disagree. I have no bias either way, and am neither a believer or a skeptic. I want to know the truth, but if these claims are true, and they appear to be, I can no longer trust the climate science community to provide it, and certainly won't believe any conclusions that are based on data handled by that discredited community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's an article that indicates wind is currently at leat 50% more than conventional utility generated electricity. Solar is much more expensive than wind - so my estimate is certainly in the ballpark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html
The mandate comes in two forms 1) the extra costs of emitting CO2 (I still have a real problem with calling it a pollutant in light of its critical beneficial role in life and the environment) which drive the purchase of costly alternative and 2) the renewable mandates in many states (I live in NC) that force utilities to build renewable energy plants and pass the extra costs onto rate payers like myself.
With respect to cap and trade, who gets to decide who is exempt and on what basis is the decision made?
I did read (most) of the article and am well acquainted with its outdated arguments. Do you have any responses to the issues I've raised?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main question to the 'skeptics' is "can we afford the risk that you're wrong?" Shouldn't the need for proof be the other way around. Let us try to limit our impact on our (so carefully balanced) ecosystem unless we can proof that our impact is positive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that the human race has survived substantial climate changes before and we would most certainly survive again in some fashion, but a new change of climate (anthropogenic or not) would force much more severe change upon humanity than a little CO2 reduction ever could.
One more comment. Rennie's article - as indicated by the title - was meant to be inflammatory and offensive to those who have scientifically based disagreements with the IPCC' s Policy Summaries. As an environmental engineer (Duke) with over 30 years experience, I found it insulting. Your comments on the tenor of the debate should be addressed to people like
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRennie.
Duh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo trends:
the world over, weather patterns are changing, with agriculture becoming ever more challenging in many parts of the world;
the habitats of species' are fairly consistently moving toward the poles; and these two trends are not the only evidence of climate change that can be understood by the layman and -woman.
In a to-and-fro based on reason, and not on wishful thinking, the 'if' of climate change is a non-issue. The issue is what can and what should we do about it.
Our desire for even more certainty than we currently have (99% plus agreement amongst the scientists working in the field of climate research) is understandable, given the cost and effort involved, and wholly inappropriate.
Due to the complexity of climate processes, we will not have the factual certainty we wish for anytime soon, if ever.
I agree with jercarobrien. Warming and freezing seems to be a natural cycle which is being exploited by 'shock scientists' to sell their costly and ineffective alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you go being insulting again. So much for civility in the debate (I though that was your point).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou didn't present any arguments but I'll repeat mine and add another.
1. The current warming has been experienced before in the Holocene maximum and Medieval warming period with no ill effects on humans or the planet. (BTW, Rennie's argument that the Mann hockey stick is just one of many is unbelievable in light of how much it was used to define the current crisis.
2. From a scientific basis, the CO2 warming fingerprint predicted by all the GHG models is refuted by the actual measurement of atmospheric temperatures by satellites.
3. There is no scientific basis for the catastrophes that are talked about in the media.
4. The costs of alternative energy resources are roughly double those of conventional sources. I don't want my energy bill to double to fix a non-existent problem.
I find it disturbing that an article in Scientific American, which I have read and respected for over forty years, now publishes articles that would not pass muster at Wikipedia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe unattributed assertions, and biased emotional language reduce this article to a mere polemic that demeans the value of a generally worthy magazine.
Where do I turn now for a summary that will inform me?
It looks like conservative people are all against global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder why this scientific matter do important for them.
Is that because Republican party always sides w/ the rich and the rich are the ones who would pay the biggest price if new laws passed to limit CO2 production?
Actually, the Earth is warming due to solar magnetic surface cycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to jercarobrien1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease excuse my assumption that you had not read the article fully, but it did - to me at least - seem to address and refute much of what your wrote.
So if I may, in some more detail:
"narrow, biased and unscientific perspective" seems wrong, given the fact that a stupendous majority of scientists in the field of climate research represent the consensus represented in the article.
"Idso and Singer's Climate Change Reconsidered" is one piece of research by two scientists who have worked extensively for organizations which have received substantial funding from ExxonMobil and other players with significant financial 'contrarian' interests (that does not in itself discredit their arguments, but does show a possible line of motivation for their gleeful contrarianism).
"1) how much is mankind contributing to it and 2) what are its expected consequences" are the questions that we need answers for immediately but will not receive soon (if ever), at least not with a satisfactory precision, given climate complexity.
The periods of warming that you mention may have been beneficial to flora and fauna as a whole; given the fragile nature of human civilization in many parts of the world, it seems prudent to doubt that major changes in the local climate can be weathered without the most severe loss of life and livelihood. (...and is researching the consequences of warming periods hundreds/thousands of years ago not shot through with inconsistencies and blind spots as applied to human civilization as we treasure it today?)
"Since man's contribution to the current trend is minor.." I really cannot best Rennie on this, Claim 1 ff.
"The costs of non-CO2 based energy sources are at least double those of fossil fuel." Are these today's prices, or last years, or your forecast for 2020? Pricing for fossil fuels is exceedingly volatile. Fossil reserves are diminishing at an unknowable rate. The time left for us to prepare for consistently higher prices is just as unknowable. Why risk being caught out in a few years, now that renewables are only twice as expensive - without having been rolled out in scale, which will further lower prices?
The science on climate change goes back 150 years, as the article says. To claim some global conspiracy on perpetuating the global warming "myth" suggests that the contrarians are conspiracy nuts who just choose to ignore the evidence, in the same way other nuts ignore evidence of the moon landings, the assassination of JFK, Roswell, etc., etc.. Unfortunately, those same nuts are now harder to ignore because they now have a global platform to spew their crazy beliefs, the internet (which, by the way, also came about through the hard work of scientists, using SCIENCE).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed , This is only about $
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The issues you have raised are exactly some of the issues that John Rennie's article debunks. Baldly repeating debunked myths is not a counter argument" Agreed!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "facts" used to support this article are just as speculative as the "facts" used to disprove it. No data shows anything other than positive correlations. Since there can be no direct tests that show cause and effect in this scenario, everything is speculative. I can state that increased food consumption leads to increased laptop purchases. This is because population is on the rise and I have skewed information to say what I want it to. Any increase in anything can be linked to an increase in population through positive correlation. I'm all for helping reduce pollution, but has anyone accounted for the fact that we will still be producing CO2? If we reduce our output to 50% of what it is right now, what happens when population keeps growing? It will minimize all efforts to help. We need to come up with better technology before acting like anything we have on the table will fix the problem (other than nuclear power). Solar and wind power require open areas. Do you suggest cutting down forests to make them? Isn't that way worse than anything we are doing now? Also, why would I want to give even more money to the government. They already mismanage everything I give them. The taxes from CAPP and Trade will not be used for anything other than politics as usual. The price on everything will go up as businesses just post the expenses on to the consumer. Anyone who disagrees with that statement chooses to ignore history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never took a science class, nor ever heard any of my professors or even the people I have worked with for the last 25 years ever utter the words "science" and "consensus" in the same sentence. I cannot even recall hearing the word "consensus" when discussing science or in any literature until the AGW "debate" came up. So has science now been relegated to a show of hands as to what each scientist believes? How do we measure consensus (hire Zogby and Rasmussen) and at what threshold (60%) does a scientific question now be considered answered? Was there "consensus" that Newton was correct? Is there consensus now that Einstein, not Newton is correct. A show of hands: Bohr or Einstein. Hawking's hand counts a lot more than other's since he is so respected (and no one should ever question Hawking's calculations because of this respect).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wonderful thing about conspiracies is that those who seek to refute them, regardless of the logic or strength of their argument, are seen by the conspiracy theorists as being an integral part of that conspiracy. Thus, any argument posed to a climate skeptic will fall on deaf ears.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it telling that much of the argument against anthropogenic climate change is focused on mitigation costs, regulatory actions, and the "beliefs" of those supporting the existing science. None of these have anything to do with the physics of the issue. Skeptics on this issue tend to begin with the end point they fear and work to find reasons why the physics are in error so as to avoid the end point.
The scientific community needs to simply ignore these people, and the media needs to learn to do likewise.
cam75 - Isn't what you describe what certain warming "scientists have now been caught doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood grief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimategate? Heloooooo???
If I hadn't already canceled my SciAm subscription years ago, I should certainly do so now.
Global warming isn't political except for those who use it like Mr. Rennie. Otherwise, why would he mention the issues preceding his mention of the global warming issue. Mr. Rennie, you are ridiculous and pathetically transparent in the way your politics skews your view of the issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claims are simply stated - yet the responses we are supposed to use are complex and buried in a couple of paragraphs. It would be more compelling if this response led with a simple one-sentence counter statement at the top, then followed by all of the supporting detail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Rennie,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would anyone credit you with anything but engaging in the manipulation of Scientific facts to suit a liberal political agenda. Its evident in the first ten lines. Warming is not political, for anyone but liberals. And the facts you isolate and misstate illustrate your political needs trump reason even in the face of the most recent news regarding suppression of anti global warming information.
You have nothing new or even interesting to add to this situation. So why did you bother?
Bravo - I couldn't have said it better, myself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unfortunately, those same nuts are now harder to ignore because they now have a global platform to spew their crazy beliefs, the internet (which, by the way, also came about through the hard work of scientists, using SCIENCE)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, you're the nut. And don't you mean to say that the internet came about through the hard work of AlGore? You obviously believe everything else he said, might as well stick with that one too.
So, the Wegman report is discounted because it is not "peer reviewed". However, the author later uses a polling of 4 statisticians by an AP reporter as proof that the earth cooling in the past decade is not significant. I guess the AP reporter was the peer reviewer? I think it's funny that the GW crowd discounts the past decade's cooling as not significant to the debate, yet every time there is a hurricane, a new plant disease or infestation, a species on the decline, a drought, a hurricane or a heat wave, it is always proof of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the Wegman report discounts this vaunted "peer review" of the Mann hockey stick graph. He shows that the peer review here is primarily friends scratching each other's backs.
This whole article seems like a desparation play to try to salvage something out of Dopenhagen.
Global warming has been demonstrated to be a hoax with fabricated and fraudulent data. SA knows this, but instead of dealing with the MAJOR issue of widespread scientific fraud and corruption, instead decides continue to pretend the hoax is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is obvious that SA is nothing more than a political propaganda publication.
The arrogance displayed here, to refute the assumptions of a huge majority of scientists, both relatively and absolutely, based on a book or two, or the odd study, is breathtaking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe denial of climate change is simply unreasonable, if somewhat understandable if you take motivation into consideration.
It's source obviously lies in motivation, not in fact or expert opinion. This is about not wanting to change anything, because that would be uncomfortable. Because nobody wants to admit that our lifestyle of the past decades has seriously damaged so much. It also is about defending financial interests in not changing anything, as represented by a few vocal deniers with industry funding. And in human traits such as revelling in risk-free rebellion.
And it is plain wrong, with a very high rate of certainty.
The human traits involved are surely present, and in some cases apparent, on the other side of the debate.
But they are right, pure and simple, with a exceedingly high rate of certainty.
And a high rate of certainty is all we will ever get. Climate is too complex to allow us more than that.
Climategate, storm in a beeker if there ever was one, is based on the theft of private e-mails. What do you exchange in presumed privacy? Would it all stand up to mean-spirited perusal?
I thought scientists were supposed to be skeptics; the constant search for evidence and proof requires a fair amount of skepticism or at least one would believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no scientist but I understand and use the scientific method as a software engineer and I fully believe in the of value peer review. Yet, those pushing "Climate Change" have moved from the realm of science and into the realm of politics, leaving both tools behind.
It boils down to the amount of money pouring into scientific circles from organizations backing climate change, i.e. UNEP (see http://topstories.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=17224&content=27179497&pageNum=-1)
The lack of objectivity by "Scientific American" has lead to the cancellation of my subscription of this once fun and enlightening periodical. SA used to focus on the possibilities of human kind, but is now fixated on limiting and suppressing the speech of anyone who disagrees with its agenda. Hence its attack on a sitting Senator which proves my point that SA has lost it scientific objectivity and has now become a political wing of the UN and the IPCC.
Attacking those who have claimed collusion amongst climate scientists as 'conspiracy theorists' constitutes an 'ad hominem' attack. It ignores some real evidence of collusion and attempts to paint them as a bunch of nuts in order to hide an unpleasant reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychiatrists have a saying that goes "It ain't paranoia when they're really after you." In this case, it is no longer a conspiracy THEORY once the conspiracy is demonstrated.
The recent email release shows leaders in the climate research field engaged in some extraordinarily unprofessional behavior -- including suborning the peer review process, denying access to and threatening destruction of raw data and cooking the analysis to fit preordained conclusions.
Such actions, if proven, would end the careers of many scientists.
Whatever your views on CO2 and climate, dismissing these acts as 'no big deal' and painting those who call attention to them as 'conspiracy nuts' only strengthens the deniers arguments.
As an aside, John Rennie, isn't it comforting that this article hasn't lost you a single reader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey all left long ago, yet can't resist coming back for more, it seems.
Anyway, assuming that a few members of our vast silent majority are still reading this, I would like to use the course of this little 'debate' here ("listen, I'm talking at you" is more like it) to highlight a central problem that the larger public debate has as well.
No matter how unreasonable, a loud enough drumbeat often gets attention simply for being outrageous; and with persistence even the most absurd arguments gain acceptance as a viable position over time.
And while we busy ourselves with fruitless 'debate', precious time is lost, and the quality of discourse plummets.
After all, important and contentious debate of the how and how much is necessary, which would best be carried out in a much more productive and communicative spirit of well-meaning scepticism.
Maybe the best approach re climate-change deniers should focus more on them, and their underlying motivation for refuting the obvious.
Here is a suggestion, why doesn't someone explain what we are going to do to correct the issue? The current plans I hear will not. They will be offset by population growth. Since this is the case, stop arguing about whether global warming is real or not and actually come up with a viable plan to fix the situation. The old "sometin' has to be done" liner proves complete ignorance. People may be more likely to back a man-made global warming side if there is a real plan to fix it. After all, even if you do not believe in global warming, reducing pollution is always a plus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a teacher/researcher in another environment... and here is a recommendation to writers about this problem: "If there is fraudulent data contaminating the manuscripts, everyone concerned needs to be aware of the contributing author list. And the entire manuscripts are now appropriately suspect. Indeed, all data connected with this investigator are tainted by the mere suggestion of fraud." from AMWA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubject: Re: [FREELANCE] Fraudulent authorship
Date: November 30, 2009 3:50:22 AM CST
Can we get the climate researchers to adhere to the same ethical guidelines that we require of our medical and pharmaceutical researchers?
Remember the IPPC used that data for its papers..
The EPA used this data for it's determinations.
All of those recommendations should be open to question...
And... certainly no decisions should be made without re-examining the data and all derivations of that data... and all authors from the 'tainted' works should be equally suspect.
SA is using the authors and data tainted by serious questions of fraud. SA needs call for an investigation of the potential fraud... rather than continue to cite those implicated in potential fraud as authoritarian sources.
If our patients deserve ethical and responsible treatment, our society also deserves ethical and responsible treatment.
Some of the information "recently discovered" about CRU et al has been public for quite some time. (such as the "lost data".)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can follow the history at www.climateaudit.org - McKitrick's site.
He has been requesting this data from CRU for - I'm estimating - 5-8 years?
These revelations are just the first on a series of skeletons in the warmers' closet.
It wil lmake no difference to the wamists, though - their conclusion re AGW was never based on rational review of the evidence. So finding out that the data is suspect - is meaningless to them. They will stick to their story/goal of controlling soceity through controlling energy.
Think I'm wrong? Why are the "warmists" not celebrating hte news that maybe it was a hoax, and we al laren't going to die? Why are they not calling for "more attention to this data, and possible new analyses"? etc.
You are late to the party, and wil lbe astonished at the un-scientific "science" of the warmists.
I'm a teacher/researcher in another environment... and here is a recommendation to writers about this problem: "If there is fraudulent data contaminating the manuscripts, everyone concerned needs to be aware of the contributing author list. And the entire manuscripts are now appropriately suspect. Indeed, all data connected with this investigator are tainted by the mere suggestion of fraud." from AMWA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubject: Re: [FREELANCE] Fraudulent authorship
Date: November 30, 2009 3:50:22 AM CST
Can we get the climate researchers to adhere to the same ethical guidelines that we require of our medical and pharmaceutical researchers?
Remember the IPPC used that data for its papers..
The EPA used this data for it's determinations.
All of those recommendations should be open to question...
And... certainly no decisions should be made without re-examining the data and all derivations of that data... and all authors from the 'tainted' works should be equally suspect.
SA is using the authors and data tainted by serious questions of fraud. SA needs call for an investigation of the potential fraud... rather than continue to cite those implicated in potential fraud as authoritarian sources.
If our patients deserve ethical and responsible treatment, our society also deserves ethical and responsible treatment.
I actually don't need to see the data. Just give me predictions that come true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method is about coming up with a theory that can be used to predict the behavior of future events, but in climate science, the models used for predictions are consistently being patched to fit what has happened in the (often near) past. This gives the impression - deserved or not - that the models are unable to predict the future with any accuracy. Since I can't trust the models, I have a hard time trusting the predictions.
It would sure help if there was a survey of predicted events made over the years compared to what actually happened for each version of a model - even if that means showing some mistakes. Something like this might exist, but I haven't seen it.
That said, I'm all for clean energy and conservation if only because I'm not a huge fan of pollution and energy waste.
I assume you have a problem, then, with Mann and IPCC removing the Mideavel Warming period from the hostory books? Are they correct there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "science" goes back 150 years? You warmists just sound foolish. Go back and do your homework, before you make a greater fool of yourself in public.
SA is toast. I just discovered them today - I didn't realize how wack they are. The articles they are presenting are just plain silly for anyone familiar with the topic or the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey will not pursue your approach - because it was never about the science to the warmists. SA is complicit in the hoax.
OK, for me this comes down to two things,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- Like it or not, deny it or not, the majority of the real science points to the fact that something is going on, humans are at least partially responsible for it, and only we can change it. The prudent course of action is to do something to try and improve the condition.
2- There are people for whom the bottom line of profit is the only motivating factor. Anything that interferes with profit is by definition, wrong, no matter what the evidence says.
I am wholly for continuing to examine and evaluate all the evidence that there is, but it would be foolhardy to say that until ALL the evidence is in, we should do NOTHING. All the evidence will never be in, that's the nature of science. You just need to act on what is deemed the best evidence by the majority of the scientific community, and to examine the motives of the obstructionists and denialists. If the maintenance of profit at any cost is the true foundation of their actions, can they be trusted to be objective under any circumstances? I don't think so.
Well, it took long enough for SciA to get to the Climategate story!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, it only resulted in a child plugging his ears and yelling, "La, La, La! I can't hear you!"
I won't claim there has been a Warmist conspiracy. However, one can't deny that there has been, shall we say, a confluence of agendae. It works like this:
1) Scientists, by and large, depend on government financing.
2) Governments, by their very nature, strive to increase their power over the people that they govern.
3) Bureaucrats are the primary mechanism of government. Generally, they are immune to the checks and balances that elected officials are faced with. Even dictators are hemmed in by "the will of the people" at some point. Bureaucrats, too, have an insatiable appetite for power. And they are the ones holding the purse strings.
4) Government, by its very nature, will be more predisposed to funding research that will further its ambitions to power than research that does not.
5) Scientists, therefore, have a financial stake in the sort of research they pursue. Dissent is quietly "defunded" and a "consensus" appears.
If there is any doubt of my observations, one needs merely to consider the proposed "solutions" to the "problem" of AGW/ACC:
1) Strict control over the people regarding their energy usage, the types of cars they drive, mass transit plans, etc.
2) Carbon taxes, which will ensure that economic activity will be sharply curtailed.
3) A "world government", which makes interaction between the government and the governed even more tenuous than it is today.
4) "Wealth redistribution", not only from the developed world to the Third World, but from industry to the new, burgeoning class of "Carbon Billionaires" like Al Gore. This will also have the very undesirable effect of turning the Third World into backwards welfare clients, with no hope of joining modernity and freedom.
Sorry, Mr. Rennie. Your claims that there is no "conspiracy" do nothing to address the fact that there are agendae which dovetail together quite nicely. Further, the emails make clear that this problem is worldwide, not limited to the Hadley/CRU. Indeed, it goes right up to the UN and its hopes of becoming the government of the world.
Time to face facts, my Friend! Your appeals to authority are nothing short of totalitarian.
RE: "But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interested in denying."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen all of those who promote the idea of anthropogenic global warming also promote statist solutions, it is wise to suspect ulterior motives which bias their scientific claims. Why is it that no one arguing for climate catastrophe also argues for a warmer but richer world more capable of responding to whatever changes in climate may occur?
The science you summarize in the above article is too entangled with political agenda to be trusted.
Unfortunately you are wrong about who will pay. Maybe the rich countries will pay in money, but the policies that have been proposed will absolutely cripple poorer developing countries. It is the richer nations that can afford to have environmentally sensitive policies. It requires a nation or community to be relatively wealthy to afford to control pollution and institute environmentaly clean industry and living standards. These proposed AGW policies will condemn developing nations to never get to the point of being "clean". And don't get me wrong I am not talking about CO2 as a pollutant. It is the watermelons that have managed to get a life giving gas classified as a pollutant and that by lawyers on the supreme court, not someone with any scientific back ground or knowledge. It's a Travesty!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislost my subscription....i am tired of the book of Genesis and book of Revelations i am seeing in Global Whining
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Mr. Rational,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how make so many assertion without a hint of evidence or logic.
I have seen corral in all it's glory and 30 years later only a cemetery of corral where fish abundance was the norm desolation as far as anyone could go. TMP! (Too many people!) The search of more efficient energy is only a search to continue abusing a dwindling energy and dumping garbage in the water and the air. The Chinese I am sorry to say have the solution again. One child per couple will revers the population explosion we can't possibly feed and not enough energy available for it forces people to cut forest for energy. Exactly like someone cutting a branch next to the trunk while seating on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming that scientists benefit from global warning theory is like . "Alternate "medicine" is hidden by Doctors and drug company for profit. Testing alternate "medicine" will make them medicine if they pass the rigorous test required. Similarly the deniers of human cause of global warming should come up with proof for their claim that can stand the scrutiny that all science must pass, testing, retesting, peer review. In short the honesty of good science is absent from all the deniers of global warming. Distribute condoms and instructions all over the earth as a inexpensive way of fighting global warming. Remember those letters: TMP causes global warming in addition to cheap energy. Tax energy up to the gna gna and everybody will start to use less and less and we will all breath a little easier.
John Rennie - Please Wake Up !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is not a problem. Read Roy Spencer, read WUWT. Pure physics shows that (if all else is the same) doubling CO2 would cause much less than 1 degree C rise, the effect is logarithmic. The only 'problem' is when climate models include huge positive feedback effects, speculating that temperature increase will somehow cause a further temperature increase. This is clearly absurb, otherwise we would never have cooled down from the medieval warm period. You have been severely misinformed.
@FieldMedic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about you try giving evidence for your accusations? What papers are fraudulent? Evidence? What database corrupted?
Please be as specific as possible. Give message numbers and references.
It is so obvious that many commentators never read the article they are screaming about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the fact that climate change has set in, thereby fulfilling the core expectations of us warmists, the fact that the CRU has been caught in questionable behaviour does not change the basic outlook by much; which is that we have a problem, which needs a solution, for which we do not have enough information to easily make sound choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhereas I do not want to whitewash questionable practices, it must be kept in mind that climate data does by no means bear itself out, so that more interpretation is necessary to break down the complexity of reality than one would want. All in the hope of reaching reasonable assumptions about the past; and then defining expectations for the future.
And that is one large bit of what seems to be in those e-mails.
That the CRU is under intense scrutiny seems only right, and hopefully more openness amongst climate scientists will be a result.
But this will not unmelt icecaps, unflood Bangladeshi cities or feed the people and wildlife under severe drought in Eastern Africa etc.
The glee so popular here is misplaced where applied to more than a self-cultured demigod getting one on the nose.
And to make a simple suggestion concerning a path for action: prioritize measures with collateral benefits. Safeguarding forests also secures habitats for species - that we might even want to utilize at a later date.
Renewable energy strengthens national, even regional (how about that black-helicopter Guy), independence.
A decrease in CO2 goes hand in hand with less pollution. (Population growth is its own hairball, I am not getting into that here, but feel to drop dead any time.)
Stuff like that first.
This should read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like how you make so many assertions without any evidence.
@Haynes,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When all of those who promote the idea of anthropogenic global warming also promote statist solutions, it is wise to suspect ulterior motives which bias their scientific claims."
Has anyone ever told you that the physics does not give on farthing for your ideology?
"The science you summarize in the above article is too entangled with political agenda to be trusted."
Right. All those Commie-Pinko-Atheist-Secret Muslims-Fascist are out to swindle you with all there fancy-schmatzy degrees in astrophysicist, geophysics, oceanography, and biology degrees .
Did you take your pills today?
Ah, the "Follies of Mankind." On display in the SA responses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on ice core samples, the CO2 levels are now at their highest level in 800,000 years!
If that alone doesn't scare you, nothing will!
PeterT
The rationale presented is not very convincing. The information at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ is much more convincing. There monthly reports are clear and concise and point to CO2 as not being a significant contributor to warming periods. I'm still a global warming skeptic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil Scientific American provides a forum for the other side, I consider it to be a politically driven magazine not worthy of ones attention.
@John,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich arguments did you not find convincing? Why? What argument does your favorite web site offer that you think is most convincing? Why? What empirical peer reviewed argument does it offer?
What I find most amusing about the propaganda tactics of the "skeptics" is how they blatantly and repeatedly accuse the other side of their own worst traits. Such as behaving like religious zealots, ignoring the science in favor of presumptive conclusions, acting in the interests of those who stand to gain the most, and so on. From demagoguery to sophistry, the deniers practice the whole range of methods for manufacturing doubt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I was Trent1492 I would stop bringing up the term "peer review" when the e-mails show it now to be a corrupted, unethical process. And guess who corrupted it? Maybe the AWG gang didn't feel the data would speak for itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry if I'm covering the same ground of a previous post - I have not read them all. But there is a problem with the article's simple refutation re: water vapor being a potentially dominant player in the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not disagree with the author, however what he omits is that water vapor forms clouds. Accounting for both cloud formation and cloud driven climatic effects are (I think , someone correct me if I'm wrong) beyond the current capabilities of climate models.
If this is so, water vapor effects, via cloud effects, may be more important than other atmospheric gas effects.
Charles Jordan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Scientific American would publish the scientific responses by any one of a number of good scientists to Rennie's nonscientific pseudo-journalistic blather, we might get somewhere. Scientific American's reputation for scientific integrity didn't score any points with such an ill-considered political name calling.
It's a complicated subject and any response needs a platform like you gave Rennie.
Unless you have been following Realclimate, ClimateAudit, and various other climate blogs for years, it is hard to know what the truth is. I have, and I must say that this article is not very objective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI started reading your magazine in Jr. High and subscribed to it for many years. I let my subscription lapse when you started to get very political during the Bush Administration. I am no fan of that administration, but is this world so postmodern that hard science (which your magazine used to represent) cannot be separated from politics? As a scientist, that really scares me.
@Voice of Reason,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Accounting for both cloud formation and cloud driven climatic effects are (I think , someone correct me if I'm wrong) beyond the current capabilities of climate models."
You know it has been said, but I think it bears repeating that Google is your friend. When I put into Google Scholar the search term "clouds +climate modeling" my hits are the following:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=clouds%20%2Bclimate%20modeling&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
Any comments?
Unless you have been following Realclimate, ClimateAudit, and various other climate blogs for years, it is hard to know what the truth is. I have, and I must say that this article is not very objective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI started reading your magazine in Jr. High and subscribed to it for many years. I let my subscription lapse when you started to get very political during the Bush Administration. I am no fan of that administration, but is this world so postmodern that hard science (which your magazine used to represent) cannot be separated from politics? As a scientist, that really scares me.
@Tex,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I was Tex I would make the at least a semblance of effort to provide evidence of this great conspiracy of the world's geophysicist to defraud the public over the past century and a half.
So Tex: Tyndall was a fraud with what evidence do you have to substantiate this assertion?
The main flaw with this article is that it supposes that one can win over a denier with facts. Irrational people with agendas can not be persuaded with knowledge. It has no meaning to them. There are any number of fallacies they can use to "counter" the facts. The simple truth is; there will always be people who believe the earth is flat. Facts won't change it. So who cares? McDonalds will always need people to flip burgers so we don't need everyone to be scientifically literate. Our society needs people from all across the intellectual spectrum. The problem we have now is that the idiots have access to a bigger audience than before (internet and sadly this forum) where they are likely to find other idiots. And mainstream media is always glad to hand the stage to the idiot. He is far more entertaining than the guy with the charts awkwardly reading from his notes at the podium. The challenge we have is to ensure the policy makers are listening to the science and not the idiots. Unfortunately, we just went through 8 years where the idiots had exclusive access to the ears of the president.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to have attracted quite a self-sampled crowd of deniers. These folks are of the same crowd who denies that Apollo ever landed on the moon, and are of the same degree of allegiance to the principles of scientific inquiry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo say that there is a global conspiracy of scientists, to falsify either the data or the results, is to ignore how science treats its own cheaters -- with abhorrence, and banishment from the annals.
I suggest that deniers admit and mend their own major shortcoming: their ignorance of the subject they are criticizing. I include in this evaluation, those who are scientists, but are educated in disciplines apart from the relevant one; ie, geologists or paleontologists, who seem prone to misinterpretation of climatological data and concepts.
Gimme a break!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want a scientific journal -- even a popular one like SciAm -- to give deniers an equal forum with real scientists?
With all due respect, you have no idea what a real scientist is.
Climate modeling is too complex to learn from a quick google search. I was hoping to hear from someone who actually worked in the field. Have a nice day, and by the way, I'd advise you not to try to learn my field from google either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am rolling on the floor laughing as I read the title of this article. The news is awash with how science has nothing to do with the global warming fact or fiction. Data has been supressed by "Scientists" for thier own political purposes and idiologies. What other contraversial fields are equally corrupt by so called "Science". For those who have filled the reply forums with "science is unbiased and peer reviewed" must feel like complete and utter asses if they honestly believed what they posted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad how far the left has fallen. For anyone who has followed this story - from the beginning, to wondering why the "scientists" never want to have open debate, and explain their data and analysis methods, through the hype - finally reaching the only conclusion - hoax - this was the shoe that was waiting to drop. There areundoubtedly many more skeletons waiting in closets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe even sadder part - the warmists are now exposed for what they are. Note how few (if any) are requesting for new analysis of data - keep in mind, they are the ones convinced that "the earth is in the balance" so to speak. Now - this news would mean - maybe we aren't doomed! Do they rejoice? Do they request open air review of data and methods? No - they go to full court denial - spewing yet another cloud of straw men, ad hominem attacks, personal assualts, etc.
Liberal didn't always mean nuts.
We are having a continual scientific debate on the causes and effects of climate change (if there is a change at all to some). But keep the discussion healthy and respectful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMultitudes of data can lead to adverse interpretations. Since no projection can claim to be absolutely right at this juncture, one needs to stay calm and be objective.
@Voice of Reason,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climate modeling is too complex to learn from a quick google search."
Who is saying otherwise? Do you always attack arguments that nobody makes? The assertions was that climate models do not account for clouds. That is demonstratively false.
"I'd advise you not to try to learn my field from google either."
My advice is that you try reading more s-l-o-w-l-y since you do not seem to understand what is being written.
@Rational Man,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The even sadder part - the warmists are now exposed for what they are."
You want a real sob story? You expect people to buy your work of fiction without a hint of evidence. How about you demonstrate this hoax that according to you has been on going since the 19th century involving thousands of people from fields as diverse as geophysics, astrophysics, oceanography and wild life biology.
What papers were forged? What data bases corrupted? Come on now please present specifics for these questions. I want citations message numbers and the full context. Not just some snippet you copy and pasted off another Denialist web site.
@ Telrunya,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Data has been supressed by "Scientists" for thier own political purposes and idiologies."
What specific piece of data was suppressed? Be specific. Cite the information for which you make this accusation. Cite the message number and the full number please.
Until the current 'Climategate' issue is resolved, I think the whole climate discussion should be put on hold. From the e-mails it is apparent that a great deal of less that professional behavior was being practiced by the principals of the Climate community. The behavior borders on fraud and raises very serious questions about the credibility of the data as well as the principals themselves. We should not go forward with potentially disrupting political and social changes until new data is obtained, vetted and an open peer review process is completed in the open. The e-mails have put a cloud over this whole issue and over science itself. The behavior of the principals as evidenced in the e-mails is offensive and abhorrent to anyone who seriously pursues science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the original "Climategate" data were lost, only the adjusted data are now available. Does the explanation seem plausible, ie, "we deleted the original data because we didn't have "room" to store it..." in a world where one can store 3500 books, on a Kindle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't have time to run down all the author's citations, but the citation used to underscore his claim that anthropogenic carbon dioxide release is the cause of increases in atmospheric carbon doesn't demonstrate causality, merely show a plausible correlation. As with most correlations there are multiple explanations -- the authors chose the one that fit their hypothesis. So it goes unanswered that even if the atmosphere is warming, are we sure that man is the cause?
If we are sure that man is contributing, can we actually do something to limit our impact? If so, what ought that be? Massive changeover to nuclear power? (Makes sense to me, but where's the call on the left for this?)
If we can do something, should we in light of undone but bona fide comparisons of costs v. benefits?
How do the proponents account for the absurdly high likelihood of publication bias in the post hoc studies that dominate climate science, (a variation of which all the problems associated with data mining) in coming to their conclusions that the world must completely change because of their (with some now missing) data? It seems to me that SCIAM has a data-mining problem of its own -- mining repeatedly done to support their lefty-cosmopolitan leanings, (Do they see themselves as now-underprivileged members of a future nomenklatura?)
Bottom line, absent reasoned debate and assuming that there is no fraud (this is getting to be a problematical assumption), it's not much of a stretch to see all this attention to global climate change as a move by the eco-left to hamstring the West.
And if I was the king of China or India, I might be funding them.
Bottom line: It's not up to those who have reasonable questions regarding the IPPC's conclusions to prove our doubts -- rather it's up to climate change proponents to prove that it's worth all the costs associated with changing the world based on what is incomplete evidence. And a major start would be when Obama and others on the left start clanging the gong for a crash program to develop and deploy modular nuclear plants so as to increase the percentage of nuclear-sourced electricity generated in the U.S. from 19% to 80% by 2030. Until then, it all smells like political games to me, and I'm dressed in green today here in Hawaii..
Nobody should get angry or sad because of global warming deniers here trying to teach science to scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Republicans won the election it would be much worse.
(Maybe something like US military already invaded Iran and planing next attack on N. Korea whereas most of middle class Americans started to live on the streets and everybody in all other countries hates America!)
The game has completely changed. Here is your certainty. A programmers comments in the CRU database.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)
- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)
- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)
- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)
- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html
Wow, every time we get an AGW article, or even any environmental article on Sciam, the deniers crawl out of the woodwork and spout the same so-called arguments they always have, despite the fact that they have been adequately dealt with here and elsewhere. It's like they just won't listen. I'm lost for an explanation as to why. Please examine what has been written in this article and follow through links, get involved in detailed discussion without name calling, implied or otherwise. Try and find out why climate scientists for decades have increasingly been led to AGW by the data, the scientific research. Don't let a few sentences in a few emails out of thousands to/by a few scientists distract you from finding out whether the apparent large consensus is justified. Don't you owe your kids and grandkids that much?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's depressing.
Wait a minute. I am a high energy physicist, worked in a group at SLAC who received a Nobel Prize for discovering the quark and have researched, taught physics and developed research equipment all my life. Who are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should be depressed. You have given up. The simple lack of correlation of temperature increase with an almost linear increase in CO2 and the total inability of the models to get the feedback right indicates that the weather forecasters in charge of climatology are out of their depth. Stay flexible, the problem is very hard and the effect is very small. What have you got to gain by sticking your head in the sand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly all of the commentors on this article who disagree with Mr. Rennie have never taken an environmental economics course, nor understand the basic concepts of discounting for the future OR cap and trade. Cap and trade would actually save many firms costs through least cost abatement methods. It's a free market approach. Does that make you happy, conservatives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPick up a textbook.
"Had the senator's speech marked a new commitment to dispassionate, rational inquiry, a respect for scientific thought and a well-grounded doubt in ghosts, astrology, creationism and homeopathy, it might have been cause for cheer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously? Does this magazine still have editors left?
As for rational inquiry, your denying its existence does not effect its existence.
Deepinelastic, I have not given up. The depressing thing is that the same old arguments get rehashed whenever Sciam includes a climate change article, even arguments that are actually addressed in the article. If people could commit to shelving their personal, and long held, opinions for a while and go look at the science, then we might actually get somewhere. Look at what climate scientists are saying about the points raised by the contrarians and think critically about whether those points might need revision. Desire for some outcome is not good enough to risk the lives or livelihoods of millions, or even billions of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientists I speak with consider global warming claims to be bad science. Why do I agree withthem rather than the charlatans who claim that the Earth is getting warmer? Because every year the weather seems to be getting colder, & the summers cooler & wetter. That's why! Frankly, as I sit here by the fire today in Tasmania wondering when this year's southern summer will finally come, a little bit of global warming would be very much appreciated. But unfortunately all we are getting at present is global cooling. Remedy: sack all those scientists who back the global warming scam. Then perhaps, & only then, would summer finally come!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConfession of a warmist: Climate research IS weak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompared to science carried out in labs, based on experiments, or straight-out engineering, climate science is woefully inexact (maybe even worse than economics, in fact).
But sitting on our hands or waiting for bona fide proof is no alternative, since we in fact do have a problem.
We will not harness the complexity of climate processes soon enough, if ever, to enable the comfort of really knowing what we are doing.
Ladies and Gents, the fact that I (as an individual) am freezing my bum off while subsidizing renewables with my higher energy rates, simply has no import on the fact that we (as a planet) have escalating climate change and need the best advice available. And your petty grumbles do not either.
With all due respect to the folks who seem to dread this insight subliminally - yes this colossal FU is of our making as developed countries, who are suffering the least so far.
And Tasmania, we we will find you a toasty place in the Serengeti, but do not forget to bring your own water!
I note with the usual mixture of frustration and amusment that you make claims ' human contribution is insignificant' without offering a credible source of evidence to support your statement. Same thing every time. Put up or shut up. Can I speak more plainly. You quote Singer, Has he done any original research that supports his statements? NO again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease quote someone who has actually done some research on the subject. Singer is a fake like all the rest of the so called skeptics. Just one real fact would be like a drop of water in the desert of self deception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Rennie's article only serves to debunk the notion that Scientific American is paying attention to the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSchneider, Hansen, Schmidt - All involved in the generation and maintaining of a phony consensus when in truth there is much uncertainty. This has been going on for 20+ years - environmentalists use scientists to promote their agenda, and scientists in turn use environmentalists as their marketing division. Both groups are often well meaning, but the resulting science is distorted and weak.
Scientific American should be trying to encourage scientific debate, not stifle it. Wake up editors!
How about this for a reason to reduce use of fossil fuel: We need to stop wasting lives protecting oil in the Middle East. The status quo of rich oil execs using our military to protect profits is criminal. It's easy to sit back stateside and live large, and not ponder the cognitive dissonance that the last administration intentionally foisted on us. It hurts to think of the insanity we've let occur in the last eight years. We need to work on strategies that make the Middle East insignificant, not pander to the corrupt clerics and sheiks by protecting them militarily. One grand strategy that serves that purpose and more is to lessen our use of fossil fuel in every way possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Onewell,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Both groups are often well meaning, but the resulting science is distorted and weak."
This fact free rant brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
"It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see how one can debate the flaws in MBH98.
First, the Wegman report clearly pointed out that the methods were flawed. When Wegman and the other statisticians corrected the errors the hockey stick went away.
And the point about the insignificance of the Hockey Stick fraud is wrong. There is no empirical evidence of unusual warming in the temperature record so the IPCC needed something to push its message. The hockey stick graph became that evidence and showed unprecedented change for the 20th century. Without the hockey stick graph there was no case for AGW, which is the reason why it was on the cover page for AR-3.
It is now clear that the AGW movement has been exposed. In the absence of credible objective evidence there is no scientific basis for the myth at this particular point in time.
Reading these comments is like watching 2 kids on the playground boast about who's daddy could kick the other's dad's bottom. Except in this case, we are trading websites and references.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason most scientists ignore many requests for informaton is because 1) most of it is already published/accessible and 2) they would need 3 assistants to address all the inane questions posed by people who are looking for any evidence to justify their lifestyles/budget.
I read the post on the "quotes" from the illegally obtained e-mails, and honestly, as a software developer, there is no smoking gun there. I could have communicated half those comments myself on completely unrelated software.
It is part of the science/software world that we complain over time limits, software limitations, bad input data (and how to handle that), database server outages, system crashes, file recovery, and compromises based on time/effort/money. If that is the worst they could find on these hacked e-mails, and if reading those they see a "smoking gun", then the conclusion they have arrived at can be nothing except an agenda.
Funniest thing... some of the people who posted here that they are leaving SA forever, have posted the very same line 1, 2, and 3 months ago...lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe get it... now just leave ok?
There are plenty of climate skeptic websites that cator to the delusions.
I am no scientist what so ever but I am interrested in these matters (and many other). And I do not believe in any gods or cults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you, who respect real science, keep responding to those "conspiracy theorists" ? It's pointless.
To those who question the reality of man made climate change : questionning is good, that's what makes science go forward.
But please come forward with some valid scientific research to proove your point instead of just giving us the same flow of wobbly statements over and over. So far, I haven't heard or read any convincing evidence against it (let alone a cooling climate). But I am open minded and since so many people don't believe it to be true, I would really like to see the evidence.
As for the climategate, if those scientists did falsify or modify their work in some way, their careers should (and will) end as soon as it has been established. I think every one agrees with this, especially the scientists. It has happened before and will happen again.
"jerco brain"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Case - I immediately ignore everything else you say. Doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. You start with a personal attack and you prove that you have nothing to say worth reading.
1) Something the article fails to address about water is that the precip/evap cycle is an active, temperature mediating cycle. Water heats up at the surface, evaporates, rises very high in the atmosphere, radiates heat (to space, where it is lost), and comes back down colder -- where it absorbs more heat until the same water again makes the trip to the upper atmosphere. CO2 just sits up there; water vapor cycles faster and faster as the temperature rises and in so doing, transfers more and more heat out. This is bound to balance at some point (and since the water vapor is a far more active system than the CO2, probably sooner rather than later.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) The earth has been much warmer. This tells us very plainly that warmth in and of itself is not an ecological disaster. On the contrary, all it will do is move temperate zones north from the equatorial regions. We'll be growing oranges in Pennsylvania, perhaps; this is not a bad thing.
3) Onset is *extremely* slow. Normal human patterns of migration are far faster than any possible forced movements caused by rising waters. People can move several times in their lifetime (considerably less than 100 years) and be none the worse for it. Corporations find it even easier. Also, shorelines change naturally from storms and normal erosive patterns.
4) It is important to note that the theory of global warming via AGM causation is a new theory, and is not backed by the historical data. Historically speaking, CO2 rise occurs most notably during the fall in temperature after a warm period. Two seconds looking at the climate temp/CO2 graph will confirm this. So historically, CO2 rise coincides with cooling - not warming; and this also demonstrates that cooling can occur while CO2 is rising. Now, this does not debunk AGW, but what it does tell us is that one cannot look to the historical record for confirmation. AGW is a new theory, and until, or unless, its predictions are borne out, it has no track record and should be treated as any other unconfirmed speculation.
5) The models that have been created that predict based upon the ideas in AGW have been producing failed predictions, such as missing the current deep cooling trend, the complete failure to operate correctly in the polar regions, and so forth. These models are either outright incorrect, or flawed in some significant manner. Consequently, taking action based upon them is silly.
To say that AGW is possible is a reasonable stance. To say that it is inevitable is religion. More science is clearly called for. Action, however, is not.
Much to the chagrin of Eleanor Clift, Science is not now, nor should be religion. There is a method to the madness, and blind obedience to a belief is not part of it (or should not be as AGW seems to have taken on that form).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following is an exercise (albeit from a skeptics point of view) in arriving at a conclusion. It is somewhat involved, but then science is not easy. Dismissing opposing viewpoints because you do not like them is not science, but religion.
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html
Until critical questions are answered - as to the source of basically all the evidence that has been used to advance the hypothesis (it is not a theory yet, regardless of the media's mis-nomenclature, as it has yet to have its first "test") - further advancement on the hypothesis is not possible in a scientific sense. And until such time as the hypothesis can be advanced, it is no more than a religion. If that is indeed what one wants to believe in, then that is fine. Religion is not the opiate of the masses as posited by Marx, but a belief in man's fallibility and the manifestation of a universal good (and evil in some cases) that allows man to try to overcome his fallibilities and advance to a better world.
But religion is not science, nor should be.
All IPCC statements and data sets must now be regarded with a great deal of caution. A lot of smaller, independent studies should also be re-examined carefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome that raise doubts with me are those which purport to measure the mass of glaciers and ice caps not by volume, but by how much they add to the gravity field or their gravity fluctuations. Wow, that has to be so precise and so many other factors can mess it up that it I really have to wonder how much these claims are good science and how much are just something opportunists whipped up to make a sure-fire press release.
@Vange,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice if you would actually read the articles you comment on.
"I don't see how one can debate the flaws in MBH98. "
It is hard to credit you as someone to listen too when you seem utterly ignorant of the fact that the Hockey Stick has been replicated again and again by different researchers using different methodologies and multiple proxies. This can be easily seen here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/ipcc2007.html
Look at all those different reconstructions. You are ignoring a basic fact. The Hockey stick is a empirical reality.
"First, the Wegman report clearly pointed out that the methods were flawed. When Wegman and the other statisticians corrected the errors the hockey stick went away."
I like how you ignore the report from the National Academy of Sciences that gives a basic clear on Mann's findings.
"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies."
Page 3
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3
Yet you insist ignoring the National Academy Report in favor of the non-peer reviewed report by non-specialist. Your bias is showing.
"How about this for a reason to reduce use of fossil fuel: (sic) ...<political rant redacted> ... One grand strategy that serves that purpose and more is to lessen our use of fossil fuel in every way possible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point. But that's not a good reason to lie about the science. If the science is good, it shouldn't require hiding/changing/deleting of data. Transparency is the order of the day.
Lots of emotion from John Rennie and his fellow hoaxers here on this website! I challenge each and every one to actually READ the leaked emails from CRU and also examine the code comments from the leaked AGW models. Once this information is read, no rational human being without a pre-existing agenda can possibly conclude that there hasnt been a conspiracy to perpetrate a massive hoax ongoing for years and years. I invite you to visit these websites to examine the facts , as you hoaxers are continually clamoring for; then come back and provide the rest of us with your mea culpas:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor an analysis of selected leaked emails from CRU go to:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
For an analysis of the code and code notes of various climate models contained in the leaked material from CRU go to:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
And for a citizens guide to global warming evidence go to:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1417
Clearly, anyone who disagree's with the notion that man is making a catestrophic impact on Global Warming is a 1) moon-landing denier 2) creationist 3) high school dropout 4) republican 5) war junky 6) on the pay roll for a) big pharma b) big oil c) adolf hitler....lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is getting a bit ridiculous. I am not a climatologist, but I have just as much education as anyone who publishes in these SELECT journals (Ph.D/MD).
After the last political peice by POLITCAL AMERICAN, I canceled my office subscription, and so have my colleagues.
I'm all for a cleaner and healthier planet, but to lump and lable anyone who disagree's with 'warmist doctrine' as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist is quite obtuse and ignorant.
@Michael Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"All IPCC statements and data sets must now be regarded with a great deal of caution. A lot of smaller, independent studies should also be re-examined carefully."
Go to it. I look forward to your examination of say the Infrared Absorption of CO2. Go to it.
"Some that raise doubts with me are those which purport to measure the mass of glaciers and ice caps not by volume,but by how much they add to the gravity field or their gravity fluctuations. Wow, that has to be so precise and so many other factors can mess it up that it..."
We all look forward to your report of why the GRACE satellites are useless in a peer reviewed journal. It must be said that your unbelief does not constitute a rational critique.
"...really have to wonder how much these claims are good science and how much are just something opportunists whipped up to make a sure-fire press release."
So here is the abstract for the latest GRACE report in the peer reviewed journal of Nature Geosciences:
Accelerated Antarctic Ice Loss from Satellite Gravity Measurements
Nature Geoscience 2, 859 - 862 (2009)
doi:10.1038/ngeo694
Abstract:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
"Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190plusminus77 Gt yr-1, with 132plusminus26 Gt yr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57plusminus52 Gt yr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006."
That you think that an abstract from one of the most prestigious science journals on the planet is a "press release" is pitiful.
Most of the attacks in this thread are plants by industry stooges. The first sentence in the first post gives the game away-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The narrow, biased and unscientific perspective presented in your article causes me to continue to lose respect for your magazine's scientific credibility and objectivity."
"your article... your magazine". Clearly a generic paste.
The same disconnect between the content and criticism is characteristic of the attacks. "The unattributed assertions, and biased emotional language reduce this article to a mere polemic that demeans the value of a generally worthy magazine." Yeah, sure. Make it up, why not. More made-up stuff- "Global warming has been demonstrated to be a hoax with fabricated and fraudulent data." No doubt.
It works like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Corporations, by and large, depend on profits.
2) Corporations, by their very nature, strive to increase their profits from their consumer base.
3) Advertising is the primary mechanism of sales. Generally, advertisers are immune to the checks and balances that elected officials are faced with. Even dictators are hemmed in by "the will of the people" at some point. Advertisers, too, have an insatiable appetite for profit. And they are the ones holding the purse strings.
4) A corporation, by its very nature, will be more predisposed to funding research that will further its ambitions to profit than research that does not.
5) Stooges, therefore, have a financial stake in the sort of research they pursue. Dissent is quietly "funded" and a "debate" appears.
"Read Roy Spencer" It does not take much of an internet search to discover Spencer is an industry shill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"5) Stooges, therefore, have a financial stake in the sort of research they pursue. Dissent is quietly funded and a 'debate' appears."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCase in point-
"Until Scientific American provides a forum for the other side, I consider it to be a politically driven magazine not worthy of ones attention."
@Covah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"5) Stooges, therefore, have a financial stake in the sort of research they pursue. Dissent is quietly "funded" and a "debate" appears."
Spot on.
"I challenge each and every one to actually READ the leaked emails from CRU and also examine the code comments from the leaked AGW models."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, then since you are making the assertion provide evidence. For what paper was this code used? Are you even sure that the code was used in its present form? What particular piece of software? Please be specific.
Nice try but not true in my case. Once again, the only response you can come up with is an ad hominum attack. What about the scientific questions I raised? Any response?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect to the representatives of both side of the discussion, now that I have read the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, I find it difficult to place much confidence in any claims made by members of that institution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
Alas, It makes for some grim reading, and no, it does not matter how the correspondence can into the public domain, but rather their contents.
Why is that so scary? When the earth was first formed, CO2 was one of the primary atmospheric gases. It has gradually been reduced through photosyhthetic bacteria to its current level of less than a tenth percent of the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Covah and Trent, we can trade ad hominem attacks all day. I challenge you to read about the real climate fraud here (not everyone is a "stooge"):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
OK, so much for Scientific American. The doubletalk and evasion in this piece of vacuous nonsense is fully worthy of ZealClimate; every one of the points raised is either completely irrelevant, misstates the issue, or is demonstrably false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is not now and never has been the slightest evidence that anthropogenic CO2 had any discernible impact on the planetary climate. The hypothesis appeared absurd to anyone who had passed 7th Grade Earth Science when it was first proposed publicly in 1988 and has become no more believable since. ALL recent evidence -- from satellite upper-troposphere humidity measurements to deep-diving ocean buoys -- contradicts this silliness.
If SA has become more political, then it is because its readers have. Not one of you can tell me you didn't get excited at the chance to champion your side when you saw the article title. That's why SA makes these kinds of articles, to keep you coming back to argue your points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace, Love, and Free Speech! <3
Eternalstudent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will concede that point to you. SciAm is, after all, a commercial entity, and as such does benefit when traffic is generated to the advertisers on these pages. The more provocative the piece, the more traffic it generates.
Ahh, the sweet sound of ignorant knee-jerking clapping monkeys.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe funniest thing about all of this is watching you deniers get pissed off and defensive because Rennie here just called you on all your BS and you can't do a thing to hide it. The truth hurts.
It also goes to show just how relentless you all are. I mean, if you can face being exposed for bald and scrambling liars and unsupported naysayers, and still fire off a few accusations and retorts of your own, why that speaks volumes about the rigidity of your belief. You know what else behaves this way? Religion.
So why exactly are you hanging around a science site?
I take it this was written before the email hackers posted the truth online. Amazing how Scientific American is part of the whole fraud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgalaxy_man,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this the voice of reason? “ignorant knee-jerking clapping monkeys” “bald and scrambling liars”
I hope not. Rather than invest effort insulting those who disagree with you, why not respond to the criticism raised?
This is painful. The science of climate change has nothing to do with the legal aspects. Even if global warming is man made, why should we do anything to stop it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Stu,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you stay on topic? Did you read the article you are commenting on at all?
Conventional sources such as coal have only recently been evaluated for their true costs. The conservative annual cost to society from CO2 emissions, health effects, and mine accidents is $451 billion. Those "externalities" have never been included in the price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor this I blame economists. It's been very convenient for them to keep using a 100+ year old framework when we have data on health, safety, and pollution to understand exactly what those costs are. This seems to go well beyond lazy into the realm of unprofessional and unscientific.
All the libertarians out there should be screaming bloody murder about this. The best place to put the real cost is up front, in the price. We know how to do that, but we're not doing it. Why not? Arguing the cost of one energy source versus another in such a context is absurd.
"Even if global warming is man made, why should we do anything to stop it?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause I like our coastlines and coastal cities where they are now.
This article illustrates why at least two camps exist in the debate. The author comes across as arrogant and dismissive, instead of persuasive. Heavy on rhetoric and light on science--you can almost read the screaming can't you?. This is all so disappointing since I certainly believe there is man contributed climate change, but wonder why I subscribe to this magazine anymore. Should I change to "Popular Mechanic" perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConventional sources such as coal have only recently been evaluated for their true costs. The conservative annual cost to society from CO2 emissions, health effects, and mine accidents is $451 billion. Those "externalities" have never been included in the price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor this I blame economists. It's been very convenient for them to keep using a 100+ year old framework when we have data on health, safety, and pollution to understand exactly what those costs are. This seems to go well beyond lazy into the realm of unprofessional and unscientific.
All the libertarians out there should be screaming bloody murder about this. The best place to put the real cost is up front, in the price. We know how to do that, but we're not doing it. Why not? Arguing the cost of one energy source versus another in such a context is absurd.
Babbin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“… why should we do anything to stop it?”
If the effects of climate change are influenced by human activities, and if these effects are anywhere near as severe as some predictions, then if humans can change their behavior to avoid those consequences, they owe it to their progeny to do so.
LoftusRoadLad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…Should I change to ‘Popular Mechanic’ perhaps?”
Probably. It is, alas, very much NOT the SciAm it used to be.
boulderfrog,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is another example of posting before reading the article. You said, "I take it this was written before the email hackers posted the truth online." and thus proved that you don't want to consider viewpoints that are different to your own, regardless of the evidence or arguments. This is akin to religious belief. Please read the article to understand why it was clearly written after the theft of emails that do not prove conspiracy.
"There is not now and never has been the slightest evidence that anthropogenic CO2 had any discernible impact on the planetary climate. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: CO2 absorbs IR waves. A fact know since the 19th century.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Fact: Over 99% of the Earth's atmosphere is transparent to IR and UV waves. A fact know since the early 19th century.
Fact: Water Vapor is incredibly sensitive to temperatures and is a feed back not a forcing.
Fact: Humanity has increased the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 38%
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html
Fact: Fact we know that humanity has increased CO2 levels because of the isotopic ratios left by fossil fuels.
http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/radiocarbon/card/suess.htm
Fact: Temperatures have been rising in a statistically significant way for decades.
Which of these facts do you agree with?
"The hypothesis appeared absurd to anyone who had passed 7th Grade Earth Science when it was first proposed publicly in 1988 and has become no more believable since."
Fact: The idea that humanity could increase temperature by adding CO2 to the atmosphere has been know since the 19th century.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/
You fail miserably at even the most basic level of facts.
"ALL recent evidence -- from satellite upper-troposphere humidity measurements to deep-diving ocean buoys -- contradicts this silliness."
No it does not. From NASA we find the following:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Why is it you can not even get the most basic facts straight?
We've been deforesting the earth, burning wood, coal, oil, and anything else we can torch, in ever-increasing (exponentially increasing since the last century) amounts. There are now 6 billion of us doing it. But... there's no noticeable effect from any of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the effects of climate change are influenced by human activities, and if these effects are anywhere near as severe as some predictions, then if humans can change their behavior to avoid those consequences, they owe it to their progeny to do so."
You are exactly right. That is what needs to be determined, but the determination is going to be herculean. Trying to discern a butterfly's effect on a hurricane so to speak. I think it can be done when the so called (based upon recent revelations and past actions) climate scientists grow up and actually do their work, instead of playing politics for grant money.
And a word to the wise for the AGWers, while I am sure you are firm in your beliefs, it does your argument no good to continue to try to denigrate the opposition with slurs, labels, and innuendos. To a undecided looking in, it appears you have no argument, and must now browbeat the opposition to prove a point. Science is not religion, but you seem to be trying to turn it into one in this case.
1. Cap and Trade is the scientific establishment's equivalent to the selling of indulgences by the church. It is a massive wealth redistribution tactic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Even if the planet is warming, so what? Carbon levels will always be increasing as population growth accelerates, even if we drive around in little vegetable cars. Ultimately, all natural resource issues will be centered around population control, something that can only be managed by global totalitarianism.
3. If we were consistent with our stated belief in Evolutionary theory, then we shouldn't worry about environmental issues at all. As it changes, we too will change, will evolve. Adaptation, on this account, IS the history of our species. And of those who are destroyed by climate change? they are unfit and therefore selected out per genetics. its that simple.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe shrillness of the personal attacks of the more passionate participants in this tragedy make it more difficult to secure the information (not data, not facts, but information) needed to make the difficult decisions. Should anything be done about climate change, and if so what? I suspect that those who expend their energy vilifying their opponents rather than to persuade them that their conclusions are correct are scared that their conclusions will be found wanting if examined dispassionately.
The PEW Center web site (www.pewclimate.org/print/2268) shows hat every 1000,000 years we have a warming period identical to th one we are now experiencing. This cycle is caused by the Milankovitch cycle involving the earth's orbit. Based on prior cycles and the fact that temperature decreases in spite of CO2 remaining high PROVES that CO2 IS NOT the primary cause of the warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilJourdan said,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And a word to the wise for the AGWers, while I am sure you are firm in your beliefs, it does your argument no good to continue to try to denigrate the opposition with slurs, labels, and innuendos. To a undecided looking in, it appears you have no argument, and must now browbeat the opposition to prove a point. Science is not religion, but you seem to be trying to turn it into one in this case."
What? Try reading through the comments again and see which side has the edge on slurs, labels, innuendos and no argument. Heck, some of the deniers even posted without reading the article, or so it would appear.
At least you seem to think that there might be a case for AGW. If the science turns out to confirm the notion that humans are detrimentally affecting our environment, would you concede that it might have been better to take action decades earlier than the research that finally convinces you of the need for action?
I have. The only response I ever get to any sort of reasoned arguments is a bunch of spew. I'm sorry, but I just don't have much tolerance or respect for those who can't respect such things as facts or verified information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSofistek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Heck, some of the deniers even posted without reading the article, or so it would appear."
I read where - what you call deniers - are trashing the studies, the conclusions, and now the data. I have not read where they are trashing the adherants. However, your very post proves my point. Why call them deniers? You label them so you can dismiss them, not debate them. I read the accusations of not reading the article - but the posts that brought on those instigations were basically rehashing their arguments against AGW, not the proponents (with the possible exception of the author of this article) of AGW.
Quit using labels and debate the meat of the arguments. The beauty and the beast with unproven science is there will always be at least 2 sides. And until proof is forthcoming, neither side is wrong.
It is a mistake to claim that population control is something that can only be managed by global totalitarianism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 1970s only twenty four rich countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less. This is the replacement level of fertility, the average number of children by each woman, that causes a country’s population to slow down and eventually to stabilize. There are now more than seventy countries, not all rich, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three—three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. Over the same period, Europe went from the peak of the baby boom to the depth of the baby bust and its fertility also fell by almost half, from 2.65 to 1.42—but that was a decline of only 1.23 children.
A review the statistics at the UN Population Division,
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/index.htm
will showa very strong correlation between lower fertility and a rising standard of living and female education.
@Phil Jordan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is it that you can expect anyone to take you seriously about insults and slurs when your complaint is focused only on one side? Any the most casual glance of this thread reveals a vitriol that is typical of the "skeptics".
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause it is that group of people who are attempting to persuade the rest that they are correct.
Trent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly I dont expect those who are spewing the vitriol to take me seriously. I do not expect a leopard to change his spots. However, for the few that seem to be debating the issues and not spreading the vitriol (on both sides), my post was an observation.
YOu can continue to post as you see fit, I am not a hall monitor. But as soon as I see trash talk in a post, I skip it. I know it has nothing to add to the debate.
@Jmillay,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou link does not work for me. I did, however, find this document from PEW:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/global-warming-science-brief-august08.pdf
From page 4.
"Records of observed climate change at the earth’s surface, in theglobal ocean, and in the atmosphere, bear the fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is caused by human activiies associated with fossil fuel burning and land use. "
Can you explain this discrepancy between what you say PEW says and what I find PEW says?
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because it is that group of people who are attempting to persuade the rest that they are correct."
Will everyone please not that Chryses has is making excuses why hypocrisy is perfectly, ok? You see it appears one side must act Christ like in behavior and appearance while the other side should feel free to insult and scream.
Chryses, your answer is noted and can be discarded for the transparent double standard that it is.
Correction:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis should say:
Will everyone please note that Chryses is making excuses why hypocrisy is perfectly, ok? You see it appears one side must act Christ like in behavior and appearance while the other side should feel free to insult and scream.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that you did not respond to the issue.
There exists a group of people who believe that climate change is influenced by human activity. It is incumbent upon those people to present their case reasonably, based upon facts, rather than to attack those who are not yet persuaded.
If you state your case well, you will have no need to denigrate those who are not like you.
"I note that you did not respond to the issue."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been answered you just do not like the answer. Tough.
"There exists a group of people who believe that climate change is influenced by human activity."
Yes, we call them scientist. The journals they publish their findings show a remarkable lack of insult and vitriol. That is the battle ground upon which "skeptics" have lost.
"It is incumbent upon those people to present their case reasonably, based upon facts, rather than to attack those who are not yet persuaded."
You know if you insist on being an idiot I can BOTH present facts, logic and still call you an idiot. They are not mutually exclusive activities.
Carbon soot is more responsible for ice field and glacier melting than CO2. But that isn't addressed in Cap and Trade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina benefits with Cap and Trade, America loses. Production won't change but the jobs certainly will.
Ecopolitics causes more destruction because it increases crop production in millions of acres of marginal land to feed the biofuel market. This dramatically increases irrigation and dropping of aquifers; N2O emissions (298X worse than CO2); increases nitrogen induced dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico; and ozone emissions from ethanol.
SciAm actually is doing more harm to the environment by blindly supporting ecopolitical goals that will bankrupt America.
Nice rationalization in defense of the delusion of man-made global warming. Delusional ideas are prevalent in many areas such as politics and religion, as well as science. Adherents with sympathetic needs and values will always be found to support many delusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater vapor increases with the required irrigation for food-to-fuel crops. Why isn't SciAm reporting that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEthanol in fuel destroys legacy fuel systems. That requires more equipment production (in China) to replace corroded equipment. And that increases landfill usage. Why isn't SciAm reporting this?
SciAm is the true denier.
Totally irresponsible "reporting". Scientific American is fast becoming a joke with it's biased views of human global warming. How about an honest OBJECTIVE debate??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"’I note that you did not respond to the issue.’
It has been answered you just do not like the answer. Tough.”
That is a mistake. You did not respond to the issue that it is incumbent t upon those who advance a proposition to provide an adequate argument.
"’There exists a group of people who believe that climate change is influenced by human activity.’
Yes, we call them scientist. …”
Only partially correct. Many people who are not scientists believe that to be true.
"’It is incumbent upon those people to present their case reasonably, based upon facts, rather than to attack those who are not yet persuaded.’
You know if you insist on being an idiot I can BOTH present facts, logic and still call you an idiot. They are not mutually exclusive activities.”
All those who read these posts can learn what type of argumentation you prefer.
A Content Fatalist at 11:22 AM on 11/30/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main question to the 'skeptics' is "can we afford the risk that you're wrong?" Shouldn't the need for proof be the other way around. Let us try to limit our impact on our (so carefully balanced) ecosystem unless we can proof that our impact is positive?
The same argument applies to religious fanatics, 'Can we afford the risk that there may actually be a God'?
For my part, I'm not too concerned about 'Global Warming' as I am about 'Global Swarming', too damn many of us! Reduce our numbers & the corresponding amount of energy we consume will, waste gases etc, reduce proportionally!
Global Population 1908 circa 1.6 Billion.
Global Population 2009 circa 7.6 Billion.
You work it out, It 'Ain't rocket science', to use the vernacular!
"Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well..." -NASA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Clouds. Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting back into space about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, cloud patterns may change, altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities. NASA and its research partners in industry, academia, and other nations have a small flotilla of spacecraft and aircraft studying clouds and the closely related phenomenon of aerosols. "
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/index.cfm?Print=Yes
That's from NASA. A model is only as good as the known science. Here's some more from NASA...
"Carbon cycle. Currently, natural processes remove about half of each year's human carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere, although this varies a bit year to year. It isn't well understood where this carbon dioxide goes, with some evidence that the oceans are the major repository and other evidence that land biota absorbs the majority. There is also some evidence that the ability of the Earth system to continue absorbing it may decline as the world warms, leading to faster accumulation in the atmosphere. But this possibility isn't well understood either. The planned Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission will mark NASA's first attempt to answer some of these questions via space observations."
Notice how they use words like possibility, Not fully understood, needs more research, etc.
Evidence accumulate? Only in your mind, John
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this""Records of observed climate change at the earth’s surface, in theglobal ocean, and in the atmosphere, bear the fingerprint of the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is caused by human activiies associated with fossil fuel burning and land use. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you explain this discrepancy between what you say PEW says and what I find PEW says?"
Nothing can be explained until we know which records the Pew Center on Global Climate Change is referencing. From what I see all you have is a general statement that is not supported by any scientific evidence. If there were true warming and an anthropogenic signature you could be certain that the raw data that was being used to create the reconstructions would not be hidden from the public and the link would be heavily publicized. The fact that the data has not been released and there isn't a single paper showing a link between human emissions and temperatures tells us that there is no science supporting the AGW position at this time. While we cannot discount the possibility that the AGW thesis is correct we still need objective evidence before we take it seriously
I see no reference to the medevial warm period when human activity contributed little
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses at 03:03 PM on 12/01/09 says it is a mistake to claim that population control is something that can only be managed by global totalitarianism. In the 1970s only twenty four rich countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops! The corporate shill pasted on the wrong forum.
It's amazing to watch these guys work. Most obviously their posts are devoid of content. Second, they refer to biased sources like American Thinker. Third, they provoke responses by blatant lying then, when countered by facts, play the victim.
The only difference between AGW theory promotion and big tobacco is that Big Tobacco paid scientists to lie, and in promoting AGW, scientists lied to get paid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExplaining away the problems of yet another pseudo-scientific apocalyptic theory falling apart by blaming the skeptics who pointed out it was clap-trap is not really very constructive.
The batting average of apocalyptic predictions .000. Including the ones promoterd here and in other science journals.
You guys suspended your credulity and permitted publication of stuff that was clearly non-reproducible, and not well documented, because it was peer reviewed. By friends of the authors who stood to gain if they publication was approved.
Your attempts to in effect tell the public to believe you, and not their lying eyes, is not one that leads your side to success.
The one thing clear in cliamte gate is that AGW promoters and true believers do not really have a lot more than self-referential arguments from authority and ad hom.
The world is facing dangerous changes due to CO2. It is not even close.
Making false choices between either agreeing with you or not caring for the environment was never legitimate.
Now we know that significant numbers of AGW promotion leadership knew this was the case.
Why are you still cazrrying water for them? Why not redeem your magazine from political manipulation by calling for full and complete disclosures from all climate science labs and research units, and for a reform of peer review processes and a return to arms length relationships between science journals and scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo we have, based on the assumption that some studies on climate change are scientifically inadequate to forget about the predictions of the many others that point about the possible dangers of climate change? What would be the social and economical results to ignore these studies? Let's say they are wrong. Doing nothing is just much worst and irresponsible if there is a risk - as it is pointed to. Politicians should not focus any longer (20 years after the beginning of the debate) about the scientific integrity of some of the studies but take action because if only one of such study is right and we are leading to a possible climate catastrophe, this should be enough, in theory, to makes us think about the consequences and take responsibility. In any case, as a matter of fact, they are more studies that shows that climate change is real than the contrary so in any case we should act in reason.
wil9000:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it interesting and very egocentric that we have been tracking temps for a few hundred years when our planet has been around for billions of years. Really, these guys figured out how a planet billions of years old is so rapidly changing in .000000000001% of the time the planet has been around. Give me a break. Those scientists that are in compliance with this money making machine are hypocrites, you don't have the data to support anything, you can't go back billions of years for weather data. This is a bunch of hype to get billions and billions of dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswil900 - repeat after me....I believe everything that is printed in SA. I believe the finding on Global Warming by the IPCC regardless of the data they use...I am smart and all Republicians are dumb. Repeat this every day until you get sick of hearing it and do some research on your own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho owns this magazine??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is in charge, because the current editors/publishers should be fired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's amazing to watch these shills work. Most obviously their posts are devoid of content. Case in point-
"I believe everything that is printed in SA. I believe the finding on Global Warming by the IPCC regardless of the data they use...I am smart and all Republicans are dumb. Repeat this every day until you get sick of hearing it and do some research on your own."
Content? What's that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe usual red herring- "you don't have the data to support anything, you can't go back billions of years for weather data"
It does not matter what happened a billion years ago or a thousand years ago it matters RIGHT NOW that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation.
</i>
Thanks for making my point Covah, the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years, this is one of those cycles. The temp has actually cooled over the last ten years, we are trying to explain things we know nothing about with useless data that has been altered by "green" scientists for many years. Open your eyes, this is about money, not the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed! This is a very biased point of view. I have cancelled my subscription.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years, this is one of those cycles"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure it is. Just because you say so.
" The temp has actually cooled over the last ten years"
Read the article above the thread.
Dave needs to keep his lies straight. First it's "billions of years" then it's "last ten years". Why not make it up as you go along.
Covah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The usual red herring- "you don't have the data to support anything, you can't go back billions of years for weather data"
It does not matter what happened a billion years ago or a thousand years ago it matters RIGHT NOW that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation."
It's called relevant data. If it doesn't matter what happened millions or even a thousand years ago, then why is proxy data from ice cores that are thousands of years old relevant? So I guess according to your logic we should just throw out proxy data.
"Open your eyes, this is about money, not the environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil company money.
Now tell me something I don't already know.
Thanks Covah, your content was so much more intelligent! Please make another point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCovah - "carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation" Thank God it does or we would all be dead!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If it doesn't matter what happened millions or even a thousand years ago, then why is proxy data from ice cores that are thousands of years old relevant?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelevant to what? Everyone knows temperature goes up and down. Question is, is carbon from fossil fuel heating the atmosphere?
Oil companies say of course not.
What a surprise.
I have canceled my subscription to SA. The magazine has evolved (devolved?) from a science based, knowledge distribution media, to an activist propaganda media.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe lack of SOLID science in this article by Rennie is particularly alarming.
Good bye, and good luck, SA.
Covah, I guess you've missed the SHELL Advertisement on the right side of this page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We need to make CO2 management happen"
Talk about fallacious arguments! Don't you know some of the largest energy companies are for Cap and Trade?
"The Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard statements from leaders representing eight big energy companies, including General Electric, Shell, and the two largest owners of utilities in the U.S., Exelon and Duke Energy. Six of the eight said they would either welcome or accept mandatory caps on their greenhouse-gas emissions. Wal-Mart too spoke in favor of carbon caps. The two outliers from the energy sector, Southern Company and American Electric Power, delivered pro forma bids for a voluntary rather than mandatory program, but they, too, broke with tradition by implicitly acknowledging that regulations may be coming, and offering detailed advice on how they should be designed."
http://www.grist.org/article/griscom-little5/
Follow the money. Who benefits from attacking global warming besides oil companies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese companies have PR department funded with millions.
I am sure their paid representatives are posting here right now.
They actually didn't bring up one of the main points against AGW. My biggest issue, isn't with whether or not the earth is warming, or with how big the effects might be, it is with the idea that C02 is the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not even necessarily saying that C02 levels haven't risen because of human activity, I'm simply saying that those levels rising, doesn't prove that increases in C02 causes the earth to warm.
There is no signature of warming that can be found in the troposphere, at best they have found that the signature might not be missing within the data they have from radiosondes.
So rather than discuss if C02 is a primary cause of global warming, this articles assume it is true (point number 1 in the article), and then go on to say how humans have increased it. Then to counter the point of how water vapor is the main greenhouse gas they talk about how their models (note, not observed data, modeled data) include the water vapor positive feedback loop.
They rightly say "climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models" but they have made gross assumptions about the positive feedback C02 has on the increase in water vapor. This is why their models have failed to predict what the weather has been like for the last ten years, because they are wrong.
I don't think the global warming hysteria is necessarily a big conspiracy or anything, but I think with the individual motivations of money, combined with the effects of groupthink, the global warming hysteria has been blown way out of proportion.
Okay Covah, so why has the temp not gone up in the last ten years. You have to admit we have no data relevant to the start of this planet. Wake up man, This is about "green" industry which looks to put huge money in Nancy Pelosi's pocket (who bought up thousands of acres and is letting farmers be without water so she can put solar panels up and profit to the tune of 2.3 billion dollars), do you think they might have an agenda?? Maybe??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you know some of the largest energy companies are for Cap and Trade?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalk about fallacious arguments! We are not discussing Cap 'n Trade on this forum. Throw out a red herring, why not.
"Covah, I guess you've missed the SHELL Advertisement on the right side of this page."
SHELL is no doubt K8tdyd's employer.
"This is about green industry which looks to put huge money in Nancy Pelosi's pocket"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou got something against capitalism?
You got something against democracy?
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Nancy Pelosi bought up thousands of acres and is letting farmers be without water so she can put solar panels up and profit to the tune of 2.3 billion dollars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter give the money to the Arabs instead. Oil companies are multinational after all. What do they care? Dave's oil company employer is probably located in Bermuda anyway.
Do you think they might have an agenda?? Maybe??
"My main question to the 'skeptics' is "can we afford the risk that you're wrong?""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an easy question to answer. History has shown us that warmer temperatures are good for biodiversity and for civilization and that we are nowhere near previous temperature highs. It also tells us that people are quite adaptable to changes.
But what if you are wrong? What if the huge costs for Kyoto or its equivalent turn out to do nothing for climate change (as the models actually predict) and we find the world having to adapt with fewer resources available? What if the biofuel programs that your side was pushing wind up destroying forests, diverting food to fuel and by doing so make food more expensive for the world's poor? What if those wind power generators wind up killing birds and bats and require subsidies and higher rates that kill jobs? What if those carbon trading schemes wind up making insiders rich but do little for emissions?
" Shouldn't the need for proof be the other way around."
Proof is always demanded of the people who come up with the hypothesis.
"Let us try to limit our impact on our (so carefully balanced) ecosystem unless we can proof that our impact is positive?"
By all means go ahead. You are free to limit your impact as much as you wish. If you want to minimize your carbon footprint go right ahead. Get rid of your power consuming computer. Rent a small living space. Walk instead of drive. Don't eat meat, own a pet, have children, take vacations, etc.
LONDON The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBad news for the AGW folks, they really need to clean this up as they have mislead millions of people, squandered billions in needed money, and worse -- disgraced the entire scientific process&&
“LONDON – The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday...”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBad news for the AGW folks, they really need to clean this up as they have mislead millions of people, squandered billions in needed money, and worse -- disgraced the entire scientific process……
Covah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“ …Oops! The corporate shill pasted on the wrong forum.”
You are mistaken. That post was in response to that of JOKERR at 02:23 PM on 12/01/09 in this thread, which read in part
“… 2. Even if the planet is warming, so what? Carbon levels will always be increasing as population growth accelerates, even if we drive around in little vegetable cars. Ultimately, all natural resource issues will be centered around population control, something that can only be managed by global totalitarianism.”
Those who read the posts will make fewer mistakes.
"What if the huge costs for Kyoto or its equivalent turn out to do nothing for climate change?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMAGINE THE HORROR!
-invest in energy independence
-jobs for Americans
-build American industry and technology
But what if you are wrong?
SAY YES TO OIL COMPANY PROFITS!
EVERYBODY READ WHAT I AM SAYING!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason this stupid debate has got so far out of hand, is that we have actually listened to the contrarians ridiculous arguments.
Like other people have said, it is impossible to prove something to someone who is in denial, so lets just LEAVE the contrarians alone, and eventually they will get sick of talking to each other and disperse, because right now they are like an ANGRY MOB, driven by irrational thinking.
Any attempt to argue with such a mob results in more and more mob members jumping on board, screaming and yelling.
They have the same mentality as religious evangelists, you can't reason with them or have a logical conversation.
My advice to everyone who is sick to death of these contrarians.... leave them alone.... go on with your life.... wait for them to find another conspiracy and eventually we can get back to the science and the real issues at hand, trying to undo the catastrophic mess which is threatening to destroy all that we hold dear to us.
There can be no question that SA has adopted a strong political bias and is engaged in shameless advocacy journalism at the expense of unbiased scientific reporting. The scientific controversy over anthropogenic climate change is entirely legitimate, with respected scientists and compelling research abundant on both sides of the argument. But SA has never published, in my recollection, a single article challenging the anthropogenic carbon forcing theory. This pathetic bias is evident throughout the publication. One only has to read the editorials, such as comrade Sachs' call for massive tax increases to pay for the "government we need" or comrade Krauss' denigration of anyone who would dare to disagree that proposed health care legislation would actually deliver "reasonable and affordable health care for all its citizens". Recent issues have been replete with articles masquerading as science which attempt to make the case for ending poverty, redistributing income and numerous other political, economic or philosophical issues. Sadly, SA has hijacked science to promote the agenda embraced by its editors and publishers. One can only hope for an eventual return to strictly objective scientific review, and be grateful that SA is at least not showcasing Hollywood rock stars alongside its highly selective perspective on science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"History has shown us that warmer temperatures are good for biodiversity and for civilization" unless you live in Southern California and watch your forests dry up and burn and your snow pack shrink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only places benefiting from global warming are Russia and Canada.
biodiversity and civilization=oil company profits
Earth had higher CO2 billions of years ago. True.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the humans existed in that time would they be able to live like today? No way!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"SA has never published a single article challenging the anthropogenic carbon forcing theory" maybe because there aren't any.
Wah wah massive tax increases! Now that is REALLY scary.
Let's be scared of things that are real, not made up.
While it is entertaining to watch the polemical attacks, it would be better to engage in a reasoned, fact-based discussion on what is an important and difficult issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience isn't just finding evidence for a theory but about finding evidence against theories. It only takes one piece of solid evidence to disprove a theory. No matter how much evidence is brought forth in favor of the theory of man-made global warming there is enough evidence by now that it's not true. Not only that but we are now receiving proof that evidence for the theory was manipulated and isn't true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the people who keep saying they will cancel their subscription:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop lying! You never had subscription to this magazine. It is beyond your intelligence!
"but is now fixated on limiting and suppressing the speech of anyone who disagrees with its agenda."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSays the guy on their website, who was allowed the freedom to speak... How exactly has Scientific American tried suppressing free speech?
PoweroftheMindless listen to what I am saying!!!! You should be the preacher! or better yet a comedian! You crack me up !!! I am still laughing. The best line in your whole rant was "They have the same mentality as religious evangelists, you can't reason with them or have a logical conversation." That is the same thing I keep saying about you powerless minded people! Good luck with that whole leave them alone and they will go away theory!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No matter how much evidence is brought forth in favor of the theory of man-made global warming there is enough evidence by now that it's not true. Not only that but we are now receiving proof that evidence for the theory was manipulated and isn't true."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep the lies coming, why not.
Did Dimus notice there was an article above this thread addressing those very fallacies?
Guess not.
Amen brother! EVERYBODY READ WHAT HE IS SAYING! and don't forget to send you donations to PoweroftheMindless!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColumbus was a contrarian also!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience isn't just finding evidence for a theory but about finding evidence against theories. It only takes one piece of solid evidence to disprove a theory. No matter how much evidence is brought forth in favor of the theory of man-made global warming there is enough evidence by now that it's not true. Not only that but we are now receiving proof that evidence for the theory was manipulated and isn't true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@tbrick42
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is funny that you have to resort to name calling, is that the only ammunition you have left? People who can not back up their arguments with any logic or reasoning will always resort to name calling.
Silence is a powerful weapon, and one that you have obviously never learnt to use... just look at women, the silent treatment works every time.
When absolute proof of the integrity of the research and the researchers, then I would begin to listen. Not that I believe humans may not be responsible as are many, many other things on and off the earth to blame. But, the recent discovery of emails clearly pointing to fraud is disconcerting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really detest the tone of the article---stupid, extremist contrarians. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age so it is natural to think there will be a warming trend. I don't argue that we seem to be warming, but some evidence seems to suggest that CO2 increase is not the driving factor and most natural systems have a negative feedback rather than positive feedback. There is still some significant doubt about the positive feed back if you read the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been disappointed by the fact that SciAm has not at least presented a forum for alternative papers. I am also wondering if SciAm has been part of (perhaps innocently) what appears to be the "peer review" scandal coming out in the CRU emails. And it is likely that a whistle blower rather than a hacker released the emails. For the past year I have been thinking of discontinuing my subscription to SciAm because there seems to be an underlying political agenda to the articles and my curiosity about alternative theories has not been satisfied. This particular web article may have confirmed my decision to jump ship. I can always renew in the future.
Don't know about the the cold, but the fires are a result of too much mismanagement by the environmentalists in this state. They refuse to do what is necessary to keep the trees from all being burned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Anthony Watts' "Is US Surface Temp. Record Reliable?" study that shows the temperature has actually not increased significantly, or at all, in the last 100+ years we've had the system (now under NOAA): Over 89% of the over 860 stations examined have come to give higher temp. readings due to site and equipment changes. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilar studies are now underway in other countries, yielding similar results.
Here are some of the recently gathered/assembled amazing facts. Our NOAA data, which AGW advocates have been citing, is incredibly flawed, and made even worse by computer & data worshipers incorrectly massaging the data!!! Until Watts and team made this monumental study of the actual temperature measuring sites, many didn't know why terrestrial data from the vaunted ("finest in the world") US system didn't seem to match satellite and other data. (Actually we now are learning that measurement in the rest of the world suffers from similar problems. Other countries are now checking for the same kinds of problems that caused this.)
The data had to be massaged and manipulated because it did not support the desired outcome. (Unfortunately, many so-called scientists today, are not hands on measurement types, who would examine and understand the details of how the data is obtained.)
Shame on Political Scientific American for not adequately covering this issue! Youve come way down from the exceptional journal Ive read since the 1940s and that spurred me to scientific/engineering education and work in the electronics, semiconductor, and aerospace industries and a lot of precise temperature measurement.
As one I would view you as a "contrarian"...we'll just ignore you, O.K.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the fires are a result of too much mismanagement by the environmentalists in this state" except that they aren't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFires caused by enormous amount of dead trees killed by bark beetles. Normally trees have enough sap to slough them off but decades of drier weather has not allowed trees to develop enough sap.
Controlled burns are not possible because wealthy have second homes up in the hills.
Environmentalists have nothing to do with anything.
About 51% of the solar radiation penetrates the atmosphere. The solar radiation is poorly absorbed by the greenhouse gases, except for the atmospheric water vapor which absorbs 14% of the incoming energy. The CO2 is transparent to the SW solar IR. From the remainder percentage (43.86%) of solar radiation, the surface, land and oceans, absorb 50%. From this percentage, the surface emits 318 W/m^2. How much thermal energy is transferred from the surface to the carbon dioxide? According to its current partial pressure in the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide only absorbs 3.3 W/m^2, while the atmospheric water vapor absorbs about 238.5 W/m^2. The evidence, the scientific one, i.e. the evidence provided by nature or real evidence, eliminates the carbon dioxide as the culprit of any warming of the atmosphere. Actually, the oceans are the main deposits of energy incoming from the Sun and the water vapor the main greenhouse gas, for excellence. In reality, the climate change provoked by the fabricated anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist. Climate change is happening, of course; the climate has always changed in the life of the Earth. Carbon dioxide is not thermodinamically capable of causing any climate change. Physics demonstrates the AGW idea is a fake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Anthony Watts study that shows Watts is not an unbiased source. From his homepage-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Any celebrity flying the green flag needs glittering eco-credentials. But how do they justify the fleet of customized planes, the luxury homes and the posse of servants?"
And if you are NOT flying the green flag? No justification necessary! Who gives a shit.
So the fact that the CRU messaged the raw data to come up with their position that man is causing global warming is OK with you? How about the fact that they "lost" the raw data so that no one, including themselves, can demonstrate that their position is correct? And what about all of these "peer reviewers" who consistently stick up for each other?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the real scientific proof? There is none and what has been put forward is truly suspect.
Let us try to keep a sense of balance. Many who accept that people are changing the climate disagree on how much and how quickly. Strive to be civil to each other. Remember that Al Gore and the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on climate change. This was not an award for science, but then again, the Nobel Peace Prize never is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI’m glad to learn that the Met Office has taken the lead to compel Professor Jones, the director of the CRU, and his staff to publish all their data. Don’t put too much faith that there will be a radical rethink about climate change when the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia does post the full data. Yes, they seem to have tried to suppress the data that didn’t fit their model. No, they were not forthright about their intentions. An email from Dr Mann does refer to an aspect of some statistical testing he did not want discussed widely as “dirty laundry.”
Here is a url for the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
All very embarrassing, but there is no evidence of fraud. The emails seem to show a workaday picture of scientists. There is nothing in the emails to suggest that the authors do not believe in global warming and are making the whole thing up. A more serious concern is that they believe in global warming too much, and that their commitment to the cause leads them to tolerate poor scientific practice, to close themselves off from criticism, and to deny reasonable requests for data. Attacks on climate scientists have made many researchers in the field nervous and defensive. This does not excuse attempts to resist transparency, but does help explain them.
The science is difficult, but doable. There are many other indications that humans influence climate change (global warming), and if so, then those same humans can reverse their contribution. That is the point where the scientists should properly hand control of the debate over to the politicians.
I agree, Covah. Anthony Watts is not a scientist, so he and his blog are not reliable neither unbiased sources of information. Read from scientific sources and compare with scientific or academic books where the information given has been corroborated by experimentation. Anthony Watts cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Adpack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry but NOAA succinctly and elegantly blew Anthony Watts supposed survey out of water with the rope the Watts himself constructed. They took the 70 stations that Watts called good or best and managed reproduce the continental temperature record with it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
"Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same
gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good
or best. We would expect some differences simply due to the different area covered: the 70 stations only covered 43% of the country with no stations in, for example, New Mexico, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee or North Carolina. Yet the
two time series, shown below as both annual data and smooth data, are remarkably similar. Clearly there is no indication from this analysis that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends."
Page 2.
What can you say when your hero gets hung by his own rope?
Has anybody noticed how Chryses continually calls for civility from only one side and then accuses entire academic of fraud without nothing more than Newspaper editorials?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfb36,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“To the people who keep saying they will cancel their subscription:
Stop lying! You never had subscription to this magazine. It is beyond your intelligence!”
In what positive way does this type of post contribute to the discussion?
We are obviously in a difficult, brainwashed era in which the new cultists are essentially saying "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up". And if someone doesn't agree with everyone and everything in my brainwashed cult, I won't even examine the evidence presented. Thus, everything that Hansen, Jones, Linzen, Seitz, Watts etc. express is a lie, has no utility, is misleading. Well, without constant examination of new data, new findings, new hypotheses, SCIENCE IS DEAD!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo sad. So pathetic. And on the site of Scientific American no less.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Has anybody noticed how Chryses continually calls for civility from only one side and then accuses entire academic of fraud without nothing [sic] more than Newspaper editorials?”
This is a mistake. What I posted was "Let us try to keep a sense of balance. Many who accept that people are changing the climate disagree on how much and how quickly. Strive to be civil to each other. ..." I call for civility from both sides.
This is a mistake. What I posted was “…All very embarrassing, but there is no evidence of fraud.”
Those who read the posts make fewer mistakes.
I have sent you opinions when I see rediculous articles posted in your perversion of Scientific American. Articles like the two fools who proposed to pave the Southwest with thousands of square kilometers of solar cells. With nary a concern expressed for the environmental impacts such an alteration of the landscape would cause, including the certian extinction of thousands of species. Nor the least concern of how getting the thus generated electrical power to market in New York would be accomplished, without losing it all, in IR heating of the high tension wires between there and NYC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBu the best critique of the cast of clowns now running that formerly great institution of Scientific American into the ground, far better than I am able was posted by the noted Czech Physicist, Lubos Motl, which I include here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientific-american-answers-to.html
Until you fire that Charlatan religious fool from Columbia University, and turn over the editorial and selection of articles to professional writers and soliciters of valid scientific advances, as used to occur, your readership will continue to decline.
I know many former lifelong subscribers who can no longer stand the Gaian fatuous religious indoctrination, and subversion of science reporting, that you have made of the formerly unique and fine publication.
Sincerely,
S Pietrewicz
A former Subscriber
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are of course right. I Should have read your concern trolling with a more discerning eye. My apologies.
Although it may sound counterintuitive, the best way to win an argument is to say "yeah yeah yeah - you're right and I'm wrong... whaddever!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt works an absolute treat every single time :-)
@Adpack,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are just going to ignore that NOAA document and its analysis and continue on with the mindless rants, eh?
Carry on then.
You are of course right, Barney.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an earth scientist, but with no climate/weather vocational experience. However, I never hear what the "bad things" are that are supposed to happen with global warming. Sure, the seas may rise a little, but not so fast that we cannot get out of the way. I can think of lots of good things that global warming will bring - more land to live on (from under melting glaciers), longer growing seasons, milder weather, less death & disease from cold weather, and probably lots of other great stuff. In my opinion, "manmade global warming" is still an unproven hypothesis that needs to be debated in open forums with scientific skeptics. In no way is it an accepted scientific theory akin to Plate Tectonics, at least not yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am going to agree with the other posters. Those disclaiming their cancellation of subscription are suspect of never having had one in the first place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have also noticed that our pseudo-subscribers ALWAYS claim to have been readers for decades upon decades. Some of them even seem to have gone through the yo-yo actions of canceling and re-subscribing and then canceling in the space of two days.
Although it may sound counterintuitive, the best way to win an argument like this is to say "Yeah yeah yeah! You're right and I'm wrong - whaddever!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore you can get a response, change the subject to something like "Do you think Peter Andre's going to get back together with Jordan?"
Hey presto! You get the last word in, therefor argument won!
Works an absolute treat every single time :-D
PoweroftheMind - do you honestly even remember what you type? Name calling is all your powerful mind is capable of ....Please read what you are typing before replying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are so stupid! Just keep saying it and maybe some day it will come true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI definitely don't think that all (or perhaps even much?) of the science connecting human behavior to global warming is full-proof. I think there are possibly confused correlations--wouldn't be anywhere near the first time in science that that's happened--and I also think much of the studies done are done with lots of money behind them, just as much as what's behind some of the "naysayers." Believing otherwise is to ignore the huge industries and some institutions looking to profit from this; it's not bad for them to want to profit, but not all of these studies, for or against the concept of human-caused global warming, come of their own accord. (Also, to those mentioning some of the "debunkers," I hope you realize that some of those "scientists" also argue the secondhand smoke and lung cancer link, which makes me question their science and motives just as much as whiny, sensationalist Al Gore's.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe much of what we are experiencing today is just a cycle, the ebb and flow of change in our environment; that being said, I do support some conservation and 100% support reforestation. Those things make sense to me, regardless of any notion of climate change. What I am unsure of, and what I grow tired of hearing neither side fully or reasonably address, is the idea of it being human-caused. When it comes to the "science" behind that, it gets petty very quickly. It becomes more of an "I'm right" and "they're wrong" sort of thing before it is scientific. The catty opening paragraphs of this article, as well as many of the comments, are proof of how petty things can get.
That's a very mature counter-argument there. And you have to wonder why the other side is so silly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the arguments for and against anthropogenic climate change, it is very difficult for me to evaluate them. For this reason alone, it would be prudent for those writers like Mr Rennie who wish to persuade us of the likelihood of catastrophic climate change to take a slightly less contemptuous approach to the arguments on the other side.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read articles on both sides of the climate change issue, and find them very difficult to understand. For this reason alone, writers like John Rennie would be well advised to take a less contemptuous approach to the opposition when writing about this subject. There is much that is not proven, and to refer to "contrarian nonsense" is contemptuous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a woman and mother of three daughters I can say that silent is something arrogant white males should patience more than they preach. As for me and my daughters we will speak up any time a mindless male tries to tell me how smart they think they are by telling me I should shut up and listen. I am sure your Mom is proud of you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article suffers from the classic misconception that the environment is in a "delicate balance." There is no such thing as a balance in chemistry or biochemistry, instead things are in equilibrium. Increasing CO2, the primary food source of all plantlife on Earth, should increase plantlife, especially algae, and therefore the seas are not about to get acidic. Any evidence that algae concentrations have increased?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a bunch of hooey. What is the variation in the amount of CO2 produced by water vapor? It's probably greater than the amount of CO2 produced by humans. Humans do not produce 5% of the CO2 unless of course you throw out water vapor's contribution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou neglected to include the studies that have correlated the earth's climate to the sun's cycle. You neglected to state the fact that the earth's temperature was lower when CO2 was 25% of the atmosphere.
You didn't answer all the recent release of papers, emails, whatever that have occurred with scientists who have excluded other scientists from reviewing papers attending conferences, etc. because they were against global warming. That's politics, not science.
You neglected to mention that the earth's temperature has cycle for thousands of years and we're in the middle of another upward cycle.
You neglected that the climate models of the global warming scientists do not match what has actually occurred.
And finally, you skirted around the issue of how the earth's climate can be so unstable as to be affected by a variable that is something like .1% of the total CO2 which is 0.038% of the total atmosphere. Water vapor is a variable 1% of the total atmosphere.
Some links in support of what was said.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf
There are others.
The position that global warming is caused by humans just cannot be supported by the facts. It can only be supported by the omission of facts.
how convenient, a quick rebuttal to the most repeated questions about AGW. The root issue is our willingness to say " the science is complete" and enact legislation that will cripple our society, maybe irrevocably. To declare CO2 a hazard to our eco-system is preposterous. We have just now started to understand some of the fundamental planetary and cosmic forces at work on our home. The shifting of the magnetosphere, and geological evidence on our planet , the moon and Mars are unlocking new facts everyday. Plus the data is not as accurate as most would have you believe. enacting draconian legislation on an approximate model is foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must say Mr. Trent 1492 is so voluminous in his posts, and certain of his pseudo-facts that do not quite match any questions, and his oblique ad hominem attacks, that I begin to question any scientific credentials that he possesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf indeed he has any.
But then a religious accolyte doesn't need any, does he. He has the surety of revealed Dogma. The reality is that climate science is practiced with most empirical data actually weather not climate data, and near the edge of noise, with distilled facts, quite uncertain.
And unfortunately many a climate scientist as revealed by the Climategate correspondence, is full of human failings like greed, lust for power, and the corruptions of fame and money.
Milne's radiation theory model is patently inapplicable to planetary atmospheres. GHGs in prodigious quantitites are available to this atmosphere from time immemorial. Why they should choose now, to run away, is inexplicable. We finally have some climate experiments rather than weather data reporting, but it is wholly negative.
The ERBE results show no net accumulation of warming energy, as energy re-radiates to Space. The Argos buoys cannot be disputed, that the Oceans are not serving as repositories of net heat accumulation, as Dr. Hansen had proposed, as neccessarilly occuring. The energy imbalance, if energy imbalance there must be for GW, doesn't seem to be storing energy anywhere we look for it. Yet our empirical noisy weather data has indicated a gradual warming.
The picture is building that our science is wrong. There appears to be little warming going on, and the empirical history showing it, is increasingly being called into question, for human manipulation. Were that the case, the climate data from ERBE and Argos, would fall into place, and the entire picture would make sense.
Who needs scientific credentials? It's all about the oil!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBURN MORE OIL!
BURN MORE OIL!
BURN MORE OIL!
It is sad to see that those who don't have the capacity to understand climate change, or wish to deny responsibility for it, or are just plain ignorant or stupid seem to dominate these comments pages. Perhaps if they spent more time trying to understand it instead of demonstrating their ignorance we could all benefit from their input.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeptics,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that at least a part of the recorded warming trend that has occurred over the last century is of human origin.
The ability of carbon dioxide to retain heat is well documented. Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers. The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers.
Carbon dioxide is much more transparent to the shorter wavelengths than the longer. So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out. This process has been documented.
Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of about one part per million per year. This increase in the quantity of carbon dioxide is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. As the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases, so does the atmosphere’s opacity in the infrared. If this continues, some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius.
This doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding. This process has been documented. Many millions of people live in the coastal areas that will become flooded, or at least will become more flood prone. Forced migration of millions of people from these affected areas will likely cause considerable social problems.
Given the potential severity of the impact of global warming, and that at least part of it is due to human actions, it is only prudent to include this as one of Earth’s possible futures. This scenario seems plausible to many people, and to them it then seems irresponsible for the world’s political leadership to not take steps to reduce the likelihood of what could lead to the death and or misery of a significant portion of the world’s population.
You say: "the hypothesis appeared absurd to anyone who had passed 7th Grade Earth Science when it was first proposed publicly in 1988 and has become no more believable since. ALL recent evidence -- from satellite upper-troposphere humidity measurements to deep-diving ocean buoys -- contradicts this silliness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? I don't think I have ever read a more arrogant post, which indeed contradicts the reams of evidence you so glibly dismiss with one ludicrous sentence.
NO ONE, except an uneducated fool, doubts AGW. The only question is how much impact we are having. Is it negligible, managable, or a real problem?
You're suggesting seven ways support a debunked myth and the hoax of manmade global warming?? I am canceling my email subscription to your magazine for the same reason I canceled my paper subscription--there is not science in Scientific American, just politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCJK at 09:33 PM on 12/01/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad to hear you are cancelling your subscription. Perhaps one less moron will be helpful.
Climategate Foretold...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.
Actually it's about charting graphs that almost alway start at the Little Ice Age or the Wisconsin Ice Age, so of course you see a temperature increase. Mann charted back to the Medival Warm Period and plainly fudged the figures to make it appear that neither the Warm Period nor the Little Ica Age even existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole Global Warming nonsense is so redolent of politics and dogma, hysterical alarmism, and the obligatory attacks on the petroleum, coal, and gas industries (generally only of the Western nations, I don't hear anybody complaining about China) that the validity of it is suspect.
We see the same political agenda in hysterical headlines in the New York Times of the early seventies quoting scientists -predicting "no end" to Global Cooling caused by, you guessed it, industrial emissions.
See: http://www.delanceyplace.com/readarchives.php?letter_id=1176&lettertype=&pageaction=browse
@Natural Philosopher,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you think that no one is going to not notice that you fail to substantiate your position using logic and empiricaly based peer reviewed cites?
"And unfortunately many a climate scientist as revealed by the Climategate correspondence, is full of human failings like greed, lust for power, and the corruptions of fame and money."
You speak of dogma and the lack of facts. So here is your chance. Please provide evidence of all your charges. What papers where fraudulent? What part in the papers? What database where corrupted? I do want generalities but specifics. I want you to cite the complete message and message#. Show me the money. Otherwise I am going to conclude you are just one of the countless fossil fuel dupes.
"Milne's radiation theory model is patently inapplicable to planetary atmospheres."
Do you often engage in red herring arguments? Do you expect everyone to just accept your assertions? Can you demonstrate to us how many circulation models use" Milne's radiation theory model"?
I am going to make it easy for you. Here are three of the GCM's and their codes. Show me:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
Now get to work.
"GHGs in prodigious quantitites are available to this atmosphere from time immemorial."
Do you understand that humanity has been INPUTTING several billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Do understand even that in the slightest way? Carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for tens of millions of years and is going up in the space of less than 300 hundred years? No I do not think you do.
"The ERBE results show no net accumulation of warming energy, as energy re-radiates to Space. "
Here is ERBE:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.html
Go ahead make your case.
"The Argos buoys cannot be disputed, that the Oceans are not serving as repositories of net heat accumulation, as Dr. Hansen had proposed, as neccessarilly occuring."
Do often just swallow fossil fuel propaganda whole whole heartedly?
"The Argos buoys cannot be disputed,.."
But you competence can be disputed. From the journal Nature we find the following:
Improved Estimates of Upper-Ocean Warming and Multi-decadal Sea-Level Rise
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
Any more bits of disinformation you wish to spread?
Oh, one more thing from NASA-GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif
Temperatures are rising is a significant manner. To spite all the propaganda that you swallowed.
I clearly remember a news article a while ago that said the people of the Seychelles Islands collecting money to buy land from a mainland country because their islands expected to go underwater within decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming deniers should go and tell them it is a hoax and they should not collect any money!
I want to take this opportunity to point out to the scientific ignorati that are currently infesting this thread one thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you rabbit on about the "broken hockey stick" dutifully regurgitating the propaganda you have been spoon fed by the fossil fuel industry. I have but one question.
Which Hockey Stick? All of you seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that Mann 98 has been replicated over and over again using different methods and proxies.
I want to entreat you to go here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png
And contemplate your bamboozlement by the industry.
I think you've made our point, all but one of the lines on the graph you cite terminate at temperatures no higher than that of the Medeval Warm Period. The black line, of course, is Mann.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear you folks are CRUddites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is clear that you folks are CRUddites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink "science" not "politics." Stand up - bravely not ideologically - for GOOD science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't want politicians to trump scientific inquiry. However, the way to protect science is to engage in GOOD science, not science perverted by politics. Scientists might not LIKE the results of good science, but...Hey, isn't that what it's always been about? What makes science NOT politics?
Get ye back to the scientific method...and then report back - and be willing to live with whatever are the results. EVEN IF IT MEANS some politically motivated group pulls your funding.
If you can't do that, then you are nothing special as a scientist and science loses its unique, special power to inform man.
Think "science" not "politics." Stand up - bravely not ideologically - for GOOD science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't want politicians to trump scientific inquiry. However, the way to protect science is to engage in GOOD science, not science perverted by politics. Scientists might not LIKE the results of good science, but...Hey, isn't that what it's always been about? What makes science NOT politics?
Get ye back to the scientific method...and then report back - and be willing to live with whatever are the results. EVEN IF IT MEANS some politically motivated group pulls your funding.
If you can't do that, then you are nothing special as a scientist and science loses its unique, special power to inform man.
"I think you've made our point,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo you just can not read even a simple graph.
"...all but one of the lines on the graph you cite terminate at temperatures no higher than that of the Medeval Warm"
Actually two others do and Mann is not even the highest.
PS2004 and Q2005 are both higher than Mann 98.
"The black line, of course, is Mann."
No, that is the INSTRUMENT RECORD. Mann 98 is the thin line of gray.
Period. The black line, of course, is Mann.
A key to the color coding would have been useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sofistek,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease look at the ice core records and see the really significant temperature changes over the last 450,000 years. Look at the plateaus like the one we are now on. Nobody expects human activity will ever result in a temperature change remotely comparable to the solar changes which have caused ice ages. Solar changes (including cosmic ray generation of clouds, which is something I know something about) seem to be the main controller of our destiny. By the way, if you look at those graphs, you see clearly that the only way we can go is down. Do you understand that present temperature changes are very small and the only reasons to worry are the projections of models which are incapable of predicting anything, effects of volcanoes, large thunderstorms, variable cloud cover, ocean circulation, etc. Look at the IPCC report. They report 20 or so models because they can't agree on any of them and they disagree by factors of 2 to 20. All of them go more or less linearly upward in direct disagreement with the variation of the temperature. The sensitivity of the temperature to CO2 seems to be disappearingly small at this value of CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you discount the CO2 estimates for the last few ice ages that amount to up to 20x the present value?
Most physicists feel that maintaining the temperature of the earth is harder than cooling it off. It just doesn't make sense. For every person who dies of more heat, five live who would have died of cold (Bjorn Lomborg, Cool it). That's a tradeoff I can live with.
I don't think that the climatologists have the gear to model the problem. In general terms, one can say that a nonlinear theory like climate science can not be modeled in principle. Check it out in your chaos theory book or other book on complexity or read the Dreams of Reason by Heinz Pagels.
Yours,
Charles
Dear John Saint Smith,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlot the temperature anomaly and the CO2 in the atmosphere on the same graph. Look at the curves in the temperature and the smooth increase of the CO2. The correlation coeffiicient is bad. They don't track. CO2 is not the driving force. Never mind Al Gore's ice core graphs which prove the opposite, the CO2 is the result of the warming. I know, there are very complicated arguments to explain that away, but they are from people that whose models don't get anything right. I'm sorry to say that their science is not convincing. The problem is very complicated and their models and their computing hardware are insufficient to base any large scale financial programs on.
I guess we can just wait and see and one side or the other can say "I told you so." I would rather be doing something about the problem now, even if some one can say, "I told you so" in the future. My Daughter and her unborn children are the ones who will be left to live with who ever is right. I do not feel good about just plodding along waiting to see who's right...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRespectfully,
Dukejohns
Dear fyngyrz,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said.
I live in Central Africa and have done for 60 years. The weather is different year to year, but different in the same way. The climate isn't hostile, rains come each year, sometimes lots of it sometimes not so much. Some summers are hotter than others some winters colder but never enough to make me feel something has gone wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is this, the weather is variable and if the climate is changing it is doing so imperceptibly at (my) human level.
CO2 is the byproduct of the world civilization today and it is being targeted as the cause of climate change. This means that the whole energy based civilization must undergo revolutionary change based on nothing very convincing at all.
I can see how the traders in CO2 will benefit, also those who enter the sequestration industry but for the rest of us all I can see is increased expense. I am not saying there is a conspiracy, just opportunists using uncertain science to position themselves to make dough out of a new asset class.
The scientists at the heart of Climategate are just human and having built careers and reputations on their ( shaky) findings are reluctant to have their base data studied by others more skeptical in case their reputations are ruined. Instead they want us all to sleepwalk into a revolution in our civilization based on what they largely feel to be the right reasons.
Give us the base data and let others less invested in AGW linked to CO2 have a good look at the material.
I see that Jones at CRU has stepped aside to let a proper investigation into their data and methods be done. That's a good step, let's hope the investigators do a decent job.
@Trent1492... I don't think so. Even the treering proxy shows the medieval global warming (MGW) was more severe than the current one, which denotes very clearly the flawed science behind the anthropogenic global warming. For your information, the database used in my article was generated by NOAA. There is no point of comparison between the MGW and the warming ocurred in the past decade. Besides, treerings are not a trusty proxy for assessing climate. To say that treerings growth is a sensible proxy for climate is plain "ignorantia" on plant physiology:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html
@Tbrick42...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink about the long cycles... This is just one of them, packed with warm periods and transgression phases, and cold periods with regression phases; big ones and small ones, but all natural, however. :)
In case anyone is interested in another opinion from an expert in the field:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOVEMBER 30, 2009, 7:44 P.M. WSJ
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
I have looked at all the data, heard all the arguments, and seen the government grants to study global warming, and I am surprised that SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN would publish such nonsense. This article is pure BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefutation through insult is hardly refutation. "Contrarian nonsense" right off the bat demonstrated the biased and arrogant viewpoint. There are several flaws in the article that could have much better refuted the "contrarian" viewpoints, but instead dwelled on attacking the character of "contrarians", much as comments below have done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn open, honest and detailed "this is what we know, this is what we don't know" would go a long way, rather than the arrogant assumption that people won't understand or believe anything but a simplified version of the facts.
Before I get called a "contrarian" or worse, I'll point out that I'm not arguing against anthropogenic climate change, only the poor presentation of it in this unprofessional article.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, I’ve converted the graph to TIFF and focused it with software. I can read the key now, but the colors are all screwed up on the key, so I've located the graph elsewhere at:
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/000000000001014807.pdf
The nice fat grey line derived from ice cores is intriguing. It's a shame they didn't core all the way back to 800 A.D., but I guess ice coring ain't cheap.
The Instrument line is intriguing as well. I looked up the reference HadCRUT2v and found that this appears to be a compilation of weather station and sea surface measurements by Hadley CRU, which is now suspect due to the revelations in their recently hacked e-mails.
Further, Hadley's data does not correspond to satellite data collected since 1979. A paper reconciling the two has recently published by the USCCSP, but annoyingly enough when you look at the interpretation of the satellite data, whether or not Global Warming is occurring depends on who is crunching the numbers. The University of Alabama team says no warming. The University of Maryland says substantial warming on the same raw data. You can see this in Figure 2 on page 135 of the report at:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
So this thing appears to be very much in the air and the vitriol this argument floats in has more to do with politics than with data.
One of the things I find confusing about skeptics is their total unwillingness to let go of fossil fuels. Even if global warming is not anthropomorphic surely weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewable resources will benefit us. Carbon is not the only "pollution" created from burning fossil fuels as nitrogen and sulphur oxides cause environmental damage as well. Not to mention the huge amount of environmental and, at times, human damage caused by the mining of these resources. In addition, correct me if I am wrong but fossil fuels are non-renewable we will run out of them and if you want expensive petrol think about the price when we have almost finished our resources. Renewables on the other hand will only get cheaper the more they are used. I am no expert on this but it seems that this is the way all technologies go. Life has existed on this Earth by being renewable. We seem to be the only organisms that have a cradle to grave attitude when it comes to resources. Finally to end off I can't help but think of the huge industries and the vast numbers of jobs that will be created by the move to renewable sources of energy. There is money to be made out there. Should we be finding out if global warming is preventable, of course, but let's please keep in mind that this is not the only thing at issue. It is a shame that so many important issues are being completely clouded over by this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the things I find confusing about skeptics is their total unwillingness to let go of fossil fuels. Even if global warming is not anthropomorphic surely weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewable resources will benefit us. Carbon is not the only "pollution" created from burning fossil fuels as nitrogen and sulphur oxides cause environmental damage as well. Not to mention the huge amount of environmental and, at times, human damage caused by the mining of these resources. In addition, correct me if I am wrong but fossil fuels are non-renewable we will run out of them and if you want expensive petrol think about the price when we have almost finished our resources. Renewables on the other hand will only get cheaper the more they are used. I am no expert on this but it seems that this is the way all technologies go. Life has existed on this Earth by being renewable. We seem to be the only organisms that have a cradle to grave attitude when it comes to resources. Finally to end off I can't help but think of the huge industries and the vast numbers of jobs that will be created by the move to renewable sources of energy. There is money to be made out there. Should we be finding out if global warming is preventable, of course, but let's please keep in mind that this is not the only thing at issue. It is a shame that so many important issues are being completely clouded over by this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a professional futurist and long time member of the World Future Society, I find your ongoing support of global warming through the use of minimal and distorted science a shame and a sham. I am not writing as representative of the World Future Society, but only as a member expressing my own personal observations. Putting a spin on science to support more advertising by those who might profit from global warming, if it were being a man made fact of significant addition to the natural CO2 being used by nature to produce life giving O2, is reprehensible. As I see it, you are in the process of gross abolishment of well educated and knowledgeable readership. I strongly suggest that you take a second look and print the REAL SCIENCE BASED TRUTH which is that we simply do not have enough knowledge to be able to predict any global warming. To use, what amounts to Junk Science in the Scientific American is total waste in an attempt to gain advertising by promoting their own cause, worthless as it may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is incredible how people can so easily become fanatics and defend a position with more effort than they use to ever try to understand it. People are basing their points on who said this or that and why they may benefit from doing so... that is how they decide how reliable a piece of information is! I believe we should not ask ourselves to forcefully trust either point of view. Say we cannot trust our politicians, our magazines, our organizations. Say we have no numbers that we can use to say that we, the crowds, have any idea of what really is happening out there... total uncertainty, believe nobody! We all know CO2 "can" cause global warming if enough. We also know people "can" produce CO2, although we don't want to believe how much that is. On this uncertainty... should we relax and continue to do as we are doing... "just in case" there is no actual global warming going on? Or is it more logical to be cleaner and more careful "just in case" we are helping in any way? Science is not about numbers. Numbers are just for precision. Science is about questions and answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is incredible how people can so easily become fanatics and defend a position with more effort than they use to ever try to understand it. People are basing their points on who said this or that and why they may benefit from doing so... that is how they decide how reliable a piece of information is! I believe we should not ask ourselves to forcefully trust either point of view. Say we cannot trust our politicians, our magazines, our organizations. Say we have no numbers that we can use to say that we, the crowds, have any idea of what really is happening out there... total uncertainty, believe nobody! We all know CO2 "can" cause global warming if enough. We also know people "can" produce CO2, although we don't want to believe how much that is. On this uncertainty... should we relax and continue to do as we are doing... "just in case" there is no actual global warming going on? Or is it more logical to be cleaner and more careful "just in case" we are helping in any way? Science is not about numbers. Numbers are just for precision. Science is about questions and answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIloveyorkton,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou raise some points to which I’d like to respond.
While it is likely that the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by renewable resources will decrease over time, the current cost of cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by non-renewable resources (coal) is lower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
What this means is that the cost of energy to the consumer will increase, at least initially. Reasonable criticisms can be made about how the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced can or should be calculated, but that is a different subject.
Further, there is no guarantee that the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by renewable resources will decrease over time, as that depends upon how the transition from non-renewable to renewable generating is managed. Specifically, if the renewable generating capacity is not brought on line at a rate at least as large as that of the non-renewable being taken off line, then the constant demand for reduced resources will either drive the cost per kilowatt-hour up, or there will be shortages.
In re the notion that non-renewable resources will be exhausted in the immediate or near term, SciAm’s October issue of this year contained an article which suggests that “Together with new discoveries, the increased productivity could make oil last at least another century,” to quote from the article.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil
The case for transitioning away from non-renewable energy resources exists, but must be done carefully to avoid the economic damage to society that the more emotional skeptics keep predicting.
According to Dutch measurements the sealevel increase is still 2 mm per year, the same as it has been for the past hundred years. But 6000 years ago the rise was 60 (!) mm per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not focus on the discrepancy between real sealevels rather than comlutermodelled ones?
Klaas de Groot
According to Dutch measurements the sealevel increase is still 2 mm per year, the same as it has been for the past hundred years. But 6000 years ago the rise was 60 (!) mm per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not focus on the discrepancy between real sealevels rather than comlutermodelled ones?
Klaas de Groot
Klaas de Groot,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would focus not on the difference between the absolute rate of current sea level rise, and that which occurred 6,000 years ago, but if there is any part of the current rise which it attributable to human activities.
I am comfortable with the assumption that no part of whatever the rise in sea level was 6,000 years ago was a result of human activities.
I am comfortable with the claim that current sea level rise will have a significant negative impact on the lives of millions of people, perhaps tens of millions of people.
If any part of that damage/flooding/forced migration is due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy production, then that is the portion which humans are responsible to manage. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that humans should “police” natural production of atmospheric pollutants, only that portion which is created by human activities.
Chryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may be comfortable with spending trillions of dollars on some else's "claims" and computer models, but there are others who understand science and know that real world actual measurements are what counts.
And the real world measurements show no sea level change.
So my advice to you, is don't worry about seal level change, or the myth of AGW and put your efforts into fighting AIDS, distributing vitamins to the malnourished, or spend some time helping the homeless. These are real problems, not imaginary ones. Make a difference, a real one.
As Maggie Thatcher said "The problem with socialism is that after a while you run out of someone else's money". And that is all that the myth of AGW was, a massive effort at re-distribution of wealth through socialism under the guise of naive environmentalism.
@Villar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Instrument line is intriguing as well. I looked up the reference HadCRUT2v and found that this appears to be a compilation of weather station and sea surface measurements by Hadley CRU, which is now suspect due to the revelations in their recently hacked e-mails. "
Oh, really? What is your evidence for this assertion? What message? Please give the text number that indicates they are tampering with the data. I would like you to reproduce the E-mail/s in FULL that you think substantiates your position.
Further and this is the crazy thing about this manufactured controversy. NASA-GISS gives us slightly *HIGHER temperatures than HadCru. Unlike HadCru which puts out 95% of its data NASA make public all of it.
"A paper reconciling the two has recently published by the USCCSP, but annoyingly enough when you look at the interpretation of the satellite data, whether or not Global Warming is occurring depends on who is crunching the numbers."
Actually no. It is not just who is crunching the numbers. All of the major DATA BASES agree that warming is happening. The only reason why you had disagreement is that the people who operated those systems did not take into account orbital decay. This a matter of public record and can be seen in an exchange of letters in the Journal Nature about fours years ago.
"The University of Alabama team says no warming."
No it does not.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
Or you may want to compare all the databases together or separately at this site:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/examples
*It is not a mystery why that is. If you want a fuller explanation I can supply that.
@Biocab,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"@Trent1492... I don't think so."
I do not care what you think I care what the data says. The data says it is substantially warmer now than it was 800 years ago. It is a fact get over it.
"Even the treering proxy shows the medieval global warming (MGW) was more severe than the current one, which denotes very clearly the flawed science behind the anthropogenic global warming."
Which studies? Why is it you never ever substantiate your position? I think it is safe to dismiss your post as wishful thinking.
"There is no point of comparison between the MGW and the warming ocurred in the past decade. Besides, treerings are not a trusty proxy for assessing climate."
It is absolutely amazing that as you write this you are still ignorant of the fact that multiple proxies such as ice cores, coral cores all generally agree with the tree rings. Do you think that if you ignore that, the fact will just shrug its shoulders and go away?
"To say that treerings growth is a sensible proxy for climate is plain "ignorantia" on plant physiology:"
When can we expect your ground breaking paper to appear in a peer reviewed journal? Can you tell me how Liebigs Law of the Minimum plays a factor in tree ring dating? Can you tell me why it should be discarded?
You know what is absolutely amazing here? In one breath you will talk about how tree rings are absolutely unreliable and then in the next claim that they show it was warmer then than now. Do you ever stop to think about your contradictions at all?
@Trent1492...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get angry at truth, Trent. As I told you, the database I used for my assessment was exactly the same database published by NOAA, so if you say my work is not substantiated, you're saying the same for NOAA. Please, read my article first and then discuss science, not pure ideologies. There is a section at the end of the article labeled "References", you should go over those references and see that my work is absolutely well substantiated.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, my article is peer reviewed. My article exposes how Mann and Briffa have invented a hoax methodology for assessing climate from pines' treering growth. Even so, if the treerings were taken as proxies for climate, the results say the medieval global warming was more severe than our short warming period. Thus, from my article, it is quite evident the manipulation of data made by Mann and Briffa on their "works".
http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html
Biocab:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492 is a rabid True Believer. You will not get him to change his mind...he already knows everything, his mind is made up and anything to the contrary is threatening to him.
An investigation has now started into Mann's work and other academics are now coming out of the woodwork claiming harassment by the Climate Change "Theocracy". It's sad in that the damage done is enormous. And their claim to have destroyed the original data is unbelievable. I still have the original data from my M.Sc. thesis publications just in case anybody ever wants to review it. That is part of the responsibility of being a scientist.
Soshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the real world measurements show no sea level change.
This is a mistake. Sea level rise is well documented. Further, there is real negative impact of that sea level rise. I provide urls below to four real world examples of sea level rising.
The first is the most frequently cited, that of the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean. In this instance, the problem is not limited to the economic impact of the recorded sea level rise there, but that of the destruction of the islands themselves. This relates back to the forced migration referred to in an earlier post. Reported by the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7945877.stm
The second is an extreme example recorded in Florida, where rising sea levels have inundated wetlands and other low-lying lands, eroded beaches, intensified flooding, and increased the salinity of rivers, bays, and groundwater tables. I refer to this example as extreme because in this instance, not only has the sea level risen, but also the coastal lands there are subsiding. Reported by the US EPA.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html
The third is an example recorded in BANGLADESH, where rising sea levels have had a deleterious impact on the economy by increasing the saline content of what was once arable land to the degree that subsistence farming can no longer take place. Reported by IRIN, the humanitarian news and analysis service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=75094
The fourth is an example recorded in Australia, where rising sea levels have led to risk assessments that storm surges and tidal damage to four of Australia's coastal capitals Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne had increased at least fourfold. Unless one dismisses these evaluations out of hand, then whatever resources that are used to address this clear and present danger (as assessed by competent scientists) will necessarily be unavailable for other uses. This represents an unambiguous economic impact. Reported by The Canberra Times.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/rising-sea-levels-threaten-cities/785840.aspx
It is, of course, possible that the BBC, the U.S. EPA, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the Canberra Times are co-conspirators in a vast left wing conspiracy (with apologies to the current U.S. Secretary of State), but I feel that it would be incumbent upon anyone making such a claim to do the due diligence, and provide some evidence to that effect. In the absence of which, I (and I suspect most people) would find the evidence of rising sea levels to be powerfully persuasive, if not altogether convincing.
There are many other such examples available by Googling rising sea levels in . My apologies for verbing a noun.
I wonder how many subscriptions SciAm has lost because of its one sided position on a subject that has 2 sides. It would do itself a service by just dropping the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ‘CCU Affair’ is a vivid example that scientists are all too human. The conclusions which relied on their data must now be reassessed in the light of these revelations. At the same time, one should keep in mind that this is but one line of inquiry, and the discounting of their historical assessments does not invalidate other independent lines of inquiry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou "warmists" are truly unbelievable! There are 100's of articles out now about how the Phil Jones, Ben Santor and Michael Mann, to name 3 of the worlds most prominent "authorities" on AGW have: Cooked the books, lost original station data their models are based on, attempted to hide the MWP and the current 10 year temp decline, used crude "fudge factors" in the code for their warming models, have refused to share their research with any and all climatologists who want it, have relied on wholly inadequate tree ring samples from Russian and Finland to bolster their case, have engaged in ad-homonym attacks on anyone who disagrees with their self appointed "authoritarian" voice on the subject, have ignored the role the sun plays in the picture, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObservations:
First The so called consensus is anything but. Hundreds of climatologists the world over are the LEADING skeptics. You choose to believe the ones that bolster your political agenda without regard to the underlying science or scientific integrity.
Second It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now in just the past 1000 years. Surely you aren't claiming that "Man made" campfires are to blame! See the data on the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming Period.
Third Who elected Al Gore and the warmist crowd as the arbiters of what the "Optimum" earth temperature should be? If it has been several degrees warmer and cooler than it is now, any temp on that scale could be called the "Optimum"!
Fourth It is now clear that much of the data that other climatologists have been using, like the hudcrat data, were cooked by the East Anglia CRU. No wonder they draw the same wrong conclusions.
Fifth If the East Anglia e-mails, code and other documents are all about nothing, why have Phil Jones and Michael Mann been asked to step down while inquiries are made into their methods and conclusions? Likely, both of these men are done in climate science as they are and always have been politicians before scientists.
Finally, the real victim of all of this is the scientific process which is supposed to go like this. Scientists look at data, draw conclusions, develop theories and publish in peer reviewed publications. THEN all of their data, models and conclusions are fully vetted by other scientists. By its nature, this is an adversarial process.
The mere fact that the AGW crowd has fought peer review from the beginning is enough to call into question their science, conclusions and motivations.
Please look at the long term trend. You can find it at www.pewclimate.org figure 2C. This shows the temperature and the level of CO2 over the last 400,000 years. CO2 and temperature track quite well, and now CO2 is quite high. But the question is:does CO2 cause these 100,000 year cycles, or does the level of CO2 simply report on the temperature (until man caused CO2 to rise)? It is difficult to determine which is the cause and which is the effect during the rather steep increases in temperature. However it is easy to determine that the temperature decreases while CO2 remains high during each of the previous cycles. If CO2 were the cause, it would have to decrease before the temperature could decrease, and such is not the case. This proves that CO2 is not the main cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismlrb2113,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the tone of Mr. Rennie’s article does seem gratuitously antagonistic. SciAm’s editors have let us down.
There seems to be some consensus that the world should be getting colder, not warmer. So wouldn't it be much easier to deal with a warmer climate than another little ice age?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"By the way, my article is peer reviewed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, really? Why is it that your journal does not show up in the ISIS? Care to explain?
You say in this "paper":
"Notice that the maximum temperature derived from the analysis of Siberian larch trees from the Yamal Peninsula, in Russia, occurred in 995 AD, which coincides with the well known Medieval Warming Period. One notable point is that the current warming insignificant in comparison with past warming periods."
Patently false. Before your "paper" came out two other reconstructions came out once again confirming and reconfirming that this period is warmer than MWP. Why is it you fail to address these papers?
"The photosynthesis of Siberian Larch trees, bristlecone pines, Canadian pines or C3 plants in general, is affected by insolation, in the first place, followed by environmental temperature and humidity (Lodish et al. 2000)"
Why is it you cite a whole textbook here and you do not even give the page number? If this is post to be science you should be citing the PRIMARY literature? Why do fail to this?
Also, how do you reconcile your statement with Liebig's Law of Minimum? Do you know you are making an assertion that is direct contradiction of it? Why is it you fail to address this?
Then you say:
"For the next assessment I averaged three databases from different proxies to those of the treerings growth of Siberian larch trees and combined them with the data from the Yamal Peninsula."
Just an average? Are you aware that the Yamal peninsula is also in SIBERIA?
My god. Your paper is a freaking disaster.
I have two more questions for you. If you think that tree rings can not be used as a proxy. Can you explain why the other proxies show the same reconstructions? This can be illustrated here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html
Page 13254
If you think none of the proxies are good can you explain your assertion that "One notable point is that the current warming insignificant in comparison with past warming periods."
So let me put this conundrum more succinctly. If you do not believe that any of the proxies are valid then you can say absolutely nothing about past temperatures. If you think some are reliable then tell us and explain how when past temperature reconstructions are made they agree with the tree ring data. The one thing you can not do is say both things. Holy Cow, basic logic is not your forte is it?
Oh, btw. Can I have the doi for your paper please?
bpuryea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘The so called consensus is anything but.’
Consensus does not mean unanimity. Consensus usually means ‘majority of opinion’ or ‘general agreement,’ and the fact that there are real climatologists who are skeptical of the AWG hypothesis should not be misinterpreted as representing a lack of consensus. If there were reliable reports (no blogs please, let’s strive towards scientifically reproducible results) of, twenty to thirty percent of the world’s climatologists who were skeptical of the AWG hypothesis, then there would be a strong case to be made for a ‘lack of consensus.’
I have never read that there are more than a few – certainly less than 10 percent of the world’s total – competent climatologists who harbor sufficient doubts that they are willing to take a public position in opposition.
Have you any data in regards to the ratio of skeptical climatologists to non-skeptical climatologists?
"Trent1492 is a rabid True Believer. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis from a man who thinks peer review is fascist. Unbelievable. Going to ever answer any of my questions? No? Then run along then.
True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how does the planet know to only pull out the "natural" CO2 and leave the anthropogenic CO2 just hanging around...?
How does living nature know when a Mount Pinatubo is going to blow? These type of events are not yearly or periodical (thank god), but infrequent, and cause much more pollutants to be expelled into the atmosphere than anything man is capable of doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet the earth abides.
Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you pick one thing I wrote to ask questions about? The fact is that those climatologists who have spoken out against the AGW theory have been routinely attacked, roasted, marginalized and shouted down by the AGW crowd. Many of them are afraid to say anything for fear of this kind of shameful treatment by their peers, or worse loosing their funding and/or their jobs. The other points I raised are completely valid and explain why there appears to be a consensus. If scientists are relying on scrubbed and altered data like hudcrat to draw their conclusions - and it is now obvious that data is at the very least highly suspect - then all of those scientists by virtue of the scientific process MUST question their earlier conclusions.
As I stated at the end of my post, the real victim here is the scientific process.
Trent1492
It is laughable in the extreme that you champion the likes of shysters such as Mann and Jones because they have their work "Peer reviewed". We now know from their own emails that they were cooking the data to fit their pre-conceived notions, they successfully locked out any critics from seeing their data and models to check their conclusions and the so called "peer review" process has largely been done by their fellow travelers who have all acted in the same shameful ways. The Peer Review process in surrounding AGW is a joke and anyone who loves science and not pre-conceived political conclusions knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If you rob Peter to pay Paul you will have Paul's unqualified support. If you concluded mankind is a scourge to the earth and your friends across the pond agree, having them count as objective reviewers is stupid at the best of times.
I read something today that says that anthropogenic CO2 is 130 times as great as volcanic activity. It is interesting that big volcanic events like Mt St Helens don't seem to register on the Mauna Loa CO2 dataset.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing unusual about the current rise in temperature. Looking at the long term trend it is right where it should be. If you look at the 400,000 year graph on temperature (can be found at www.pewclimate.org) you will see that on a 100,000 year cycle the earth warms and cools. The only thing unusual is the level of CO2 at present. Does this mean that the Earth will warm? NO! CO2 has tracked temperature until man caused to level to rise. However is CO2 the cause of the temperature changes, or has it simply reported on the Earth's temperature? We can determine this by looking at the fact that the temperature peaks and then decreases in spite of CO2 remaining high during each of these 100,000 year cycles. If CO2 were the cause it would HAVE to decrease before the temperature could decrease. Just as winter follows summer, the Earth is poised to cool once again in spite of any of man's activities. If anyone out there can explain away the fact that the temperature in each case falls in spite of CO2 remaining high, please do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article shows why the "Scientific" community is having such a hard time with thier take on Gloobal Warming, er - I mean Global Cooling (1970's), er - I mean Global Warming (pre 1970's). Face it - just because ice core samples show elevated C02 from 800,00 years ago - that doesn't mean jack. That theory is based on a static view of what the earth should be regalrdless of natural progression or solar influenced change (something which the pro-warming community ignores, e.g. head in sand, pre-conceived theories). It is sad that the scientific community as a whole is being forced to have their entore profession looked upon with skepticism due to the outright fraud and manipulation of this entire situation. Oh - and if you are a politician, you can keep your advocacy to yourself regarding the cap and trade "solution" being proposed. That is nothing other than a veiled attempt at global monetary control. To all of the global warming beleivers and advocates - take a hike, you are no longer trusted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But the question is:does CO2 cause these 100,000 year cycles,or does the level of CO2 simply report on the temperature (until man caused CO2 to rise)?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, good question. The answer is both. Milankovitch Cycles initiate the changes and the CO2 levels then increase that trap more heat and you get a cascading effect.
"It is difficult to determine which is the cause and which is the effect during the rather steep increases in temperature."
Here is a fact. CO2 captures IR waves. The more you increase the CO2 the more heat is trapped.
Your arguments are plainly nonsense and ad hominem attacks... Why you are too angry at truth? Read the references; all of them have an index where you could look for the words... :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you're right; Trent doesn't discuss science. He says "it is false" but he doesn't support his opinions on scientific arguments.
bpuryea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘Why do you pick one thing I wrote to ask questions about?’
I was unaware that I was obligated to pick more.
‘The fact is that those climatologists who have spoken out against the AGW theory … loosing their funding and/or their jobs.’
I take it that there is a conspiracy against AGW scientists. Please provide the data to support the claim
As I was criticized to only question one of your claims …
‘Second It has been both warmer and cooler than it is right now in just the past 1000 years. …’
According to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a part of NASA, all of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1997.
Please provide the records going back to the year 1008, so I might update NASA.
‘Third Who elected Al Gore and the warmist crowd as the arbiters of what the "Optimum" earth temperature should be?’
No one. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe neither Al Gore nor ‘the warmist group’ make such a claim. Do you have evidence that the accused have actually made the claim that this or that temperature is the “’Optimum’ earth temperature.” Perhaps they have made the claim that such and such RANGE OF TEMPERATURES is better than the range of temperatures made likely in the event of global warming, but that is not quite the same.
‘Fourth It is now clear that much of the data that other climatologists have been using, like the hudcrat data, were cooked by the East Anglia CRU. …’
This is a mistake. The CRU specializes in studies of climates past. Other lines of research, which also support the AGW hypothesis do not rely on that data. Further, the CRU is not the ONLY source of past climate data, so the very real suspicions which we should now have about their claims should be raised ONLY about conclusions drawn from THEIR data.
‘No wonder they draw the same wrong conclusions.’
It is a mistake to assume that the conclusions are wrong because the data is tainted.
‘Fifth If the East Anglia e-mails, code and other documents are all about nothing …’
Only the accused have made that claim. That is why there is an inquiry – it is unscientific to make unwarranted assumptions.
‘… why have Phil Jones and Michael Mann been asked to step down while inquiries are made into their methods and conclusions? …’
Because these are serious accusations.
‘… Likely, both of these men are done in climate science …’
Yes.
'... the scientific process which is supposed to go like this ...'
I was unaware that you were the arbiter of the scientific method.
bpuryea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease excuse the length of my last post, but you did take exception to me criticizing only one of your points.
@Trent... Your next argument is pseudoscience:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Here is a fact. CO2 captures IR waves. The more you increase the CO2 the more heat is trapped."
It is false because the carbon dioxide absorptivity-emissivity is 0.001 at its current Pp in the atmosphere. Besides, as you increase the density of any gas in the atmosphere, the change of temperature decreases due to an unchanged emission of thermal energy. For increasing the amount of energy absorbed for carbon dioxide, you MUST to increase the radiation of heat from the source, i.e. the surface for this case because the carbon dioxide is a very poor absorber of SW IR.
Trent1492: Here is a fact. CO2 captures IR waves. The more you increase the CO2 the more heat is trapped."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBioCarb: It is false because the carbon dioxide absorptivity-emissivity is 0.001 at its current Pp in the atmosphere.
Hold it you think emissivity changes? I am sorry but puts you into the far fringes of the crankosphere.
Disagree? Then please submit for peer review a critique of the following paper:
"Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons"
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JD01386.shtml
Notice that this is not published in a fake journal. But in a real live one with with a ISI listing and all. BTW, are you ever going to get that DOI to me?
"Besides, as you increase the density of any gas in the atmosphere, the change of temperature decreases due to an unchanged emission of thermal energy."
We await your Noble Prize to be awarded for this foundational change in physics. I have just one question. Can you explain the temperature differences between Venus and Mercury? I am intrigued how a future Nobelist explains it.
I have another question for your genius. Can you tell me exactly how you can explain the Giant Redwoods of Northern California considering that you think that the main factor in plant growth is solar insolation? I want to know why we do not see bigger and a more abundant species of such giants along the TROPICS.
After all Liebig's Law of Minimum according to you has been suspended.
Biocab,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“@Trent... Your next argument is pseudoscience:
‘Here is a fact. CO2 captures IR waves. The more you increase the CO2 the more heat is trapped.’
It is false because …”
That is a mistake. Rather than post another long rebuttal, I shall post urls that provide the refutation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
Keep in mind that these articles all assert essentially the same claim: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which contributes to maintaining the average temperature, and that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide increases its contribution to the greenhouse effect.
This is the scientific consensus. Those who disagree are invited to substantiate their claims.
"It is laughable in the extreme that you champion the likes of shysters such as Mann and Jones because they have their work "Peer reviewed". We now know from their own emails that they were cooking the data to fit their pre-conceived notions, they successfully locked out any critics from seeing their data and models to check their conclusions and the so called "peer review" process has largely been done by their fellow travelers who have all acted in the same shameful ways"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence? What papers? Where falsified? What part in the papers? Please give in full the offending E-mail messages in full. Why is it that I expect you never ever to answer these questions.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not reading who said what. It is BioCarb who said
It is false because the carbon dioxide absorptivity-emissivity is 0.001 at its current Pp in the atmosphere."
"Keep in mind that these articles all assert essentially the same claim: carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which contributes to maintaining the average temperature, and that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide increases its contribution to the greenhouse effect."
I do not disagree with that. It is BioCarb that disagrees. Please read what is being said by who.
@BioCarb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have given you citations of past temperatures reconstructions with and without tree rings both show the same history. Why do you think that no one is going to notice your silence on this issue?
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, I do read the posts here carefully. You may notice that the post opened “Biocab, …”
"No data shows anything other than positive correlations"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntrue.
Correlation analysis is only one type of statistical test used in science.
Other statistical methods like T tests, ANOVA, and Chi-Square tests can be used to determine cause and effect relationships.
That you believe that correlation analysis is the only way scientific data are analyzed suggests that you have only had a middle school level of science education.
Frankly, that makes you relatively unqualified to discuss the science of climate change in anything approximating an intelligent manner.
Chryses, you were doing good until you made that challenge. Either you are not reading much, or chosing to ignore a very real threat against those who are skeptics. To wit (how many more do you need?):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html
http://mikesoron.com/2009/11/canadas-commonwealth-membership-threatened-over-climate/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/making_space_for_skeptics.php?page=2
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092801833.html
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2047
http://newsbusters.org/node/11019
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5CC23ACD-802A-23AD-4F6A-DED3B52FE522
http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2006/12/10/climate_mccarthyism_and_eco-inquisitions?page=full
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2007/07/michael-t-eckhart-environmentalist.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=A4017645-DE27-43D7-8C37-8FF923FD73F8
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, dam it I did it again. Your writing just does not come across clearly. I was thinking that you are addressing me and it turns out that you addressing Biocarb.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to interpret from your post that you believe that there is a conspiracy against AGW skeptic scientists?
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNP. Mistakes happen. No one is perfect.
@Phil Jordan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want to be convincing? Reproduce the most damming messages in full. Give the messages numbers. Now make a connection to what you perceive to be a deception and a connection to a SPECIFIC paper or database.
A link to a right wing blog or even a newspaper article will not cut it. Go to it.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a part of NASA, all of the ten hottest years on record have occurred since 1997."
You should do more research. You are wrong again:
"Goddard had to reconfigure its findings and recognize 1934 -- not 1998, as it had figured -- as the hottest year on record in American history. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/when_the_warmest_in_history_is.html
Clearly if the hottest year on record was 1934, then the 10 hottest could not have been since 1997. And that is old news (debunked over a year ago when they recalculated the temperature readings due to errors when they "massaged" it).
"What is your source on this? This disagrees with everything I've read."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have to stop reading studies paid for by Dupont, Siemens, GE, BP, First Solar, and other companies looking for subsidies and look at the real world experience.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219295?from=rss
http://www.troymedia.com/?p=517
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/energywatch/features/article_1326519.php/Dutch_carbon_emission_reduction_methods_under_scrutiny
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004956.html
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said nothing about a "conspiracy". But you asked for proof of threats, and I provided them. That some would seek to stiffle dissent when they supposedly "know" the ultimate truth seems at odds with reality. The truth does not need threats, yet clearly some are doing so. And so the question becomes, why?
It seems that the most vitiolic and rabid here (just to take one anecdote) are those who are calling names and trying to denigrate the skeptics. Note, not their arguments, but the posters themselves. If AGW was a fact (I know it is far from it) as they seem to maintain, then no threats would be necessary as the obviousness of their rightness would be apparent to all but the flat earthers. Yet instead of convincing the ones on the fence about their rightness of their cause, they are only serving to demonstrate the links I posted showing they do not know the truth, and if we had to vote today, would vote against them.
However, science is not a ballot box, so I leave an open mind on the subject and do so - note this carefully - INSPITE of those who would try to argue for AGW. Clearly they have the weaker argument since they dont seem to be debating, rather castigating.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“You should do more research. You are wrong again:”
No sir, I am not mistaken, unless the Union of Concerned Scientists is part of the conspiracy, which of course, is a possibility. We can now extend the claim to nineteen of the hottest twenty years on record have occurred since 1980.
http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/global_warming/recordtemp2005LoRes.pdf
"There's no mandate. The idea of cap and trade is to force polluters to internalize the costs of their emissions, so that they choose to pollute only when the profits justify the harm to the environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not a true statement. CO2 is not a pollutant so cap and trade has nothing to do with limiting pollution. It is primarily a way to redistribute wealth from consumers to politically connected rent seekers.
"Does this magazine realize how much money it is losing supporting this illogical political platform?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a study that showed that more than $75 billion was spent over two decades in promoting AGW while Exxon only spent less than $0.030 billion on the study of climate change. It is clear that the money is with promoting AGW, not promoting the truth.
Thank you so much for compiling the responses to these assertions. I have been looking for this synopsis for a long time. A bibliography would also be useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime to update that Denier list of who is in on the conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA
The American Geophysical Union
Polar Bear Specialist
Glaciologist
Vulcanologist
Oceanographers
The American Meteorological Soceity
The Journal of Nature
The Journal Science
NOAA
Astrophysicists
Dendrochronologist
Wildlife Biologist
The Royal Academy of Sciences U.K
The University of East Anglia
The Journal of Geophysical Research
You nutters are pitiful
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could say that, but you would be wrong again. While the hottest year on record was 1934, 4 of the top 10 hottest years were in the 1930s. So a truer statement would be "16 of the 20" which is quite possible.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
The above has the following headline: Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki. Note that the targets of Dr. Suzuki’s ire are not AGW skeptic scientists.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm
The above has the following headline: U.N.: Ignoring global warming is "criminally irresponsible". Note that the actual quote in the article is "Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" The targets are policymakers, not AGW skeptic scientists.
etc.
Good stuff, which I shall peruse at leisure.
I am pleased to learn that you are not suggesting that there is a conspiracy.
“It seems that the most vitiolic and rabid here (just to take one anecdote) are those who are calling names and trying to denigrate the skeptics. Note, not their arguments, but the posters themselves. If AGW was a fact (I know it is far from it) as they seem to maintain, then no threats would be necessary as the obviousness of their rightness would be apparent to all but the flat earthers. Yet instead of convincing the ones on the fence about their rightness of their cause, they are only serving to demonstrate the links I posted showing they do not know the truth, and if we had to vote today, would vote against them.”
I could not agree with you more – both about the name calling and the tentative nature of the AGW hypothesis. I can only presume that you have read my posts to that effect. I also agree that such antagonism only compromises their position.
I forgot to post the link before Chryses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/347541/nasa_admits_that_1934_not_1998_was.html
Sorry about that. BTW: I make no claim on the competance of the Union of Concerned Scientest. I think the CRU has done enough damage to them and other scientist and until they clean up that snake's pit, any union or amalgamation, confederation, cabal, coven or sect will be suspect.
Unfortunately, there are as many AGW alarmists as anti-AGW contrarians. You know, the ones who claim AGW is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- killing polar bears
- caused the hurricanes back in '05
- is melting the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro
- will cause sea levels to rise 7 meters
- etc.
Write an article debunking the nonsense spouted by warmists and you'll regain some small measure of integrity.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps I posted the wrong url to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/global_warming/recordtemp2005LoRes.pdf
The boxed list on the right, titled “The 20 Hottest Years on Record” was the source to which I was referring.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you aware that the CRU specializes in studies of climates past? Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?
If so, why?
woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Mr. Gore was taken to task for some of his claims. Extreme claims on both sides of the aisle are often unsupportable.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have indeed, and find them very helpful. Your posts are great in debating the issue and I appreciate your dedication to your view, and the manner in which you go about presenting the facts. Indeed, I have been reading all of your posts as very informative. I am not committed one way or the other except in the following:
1. CRU is a disaster that Scientists (not us) involved with it have to clean up and fast. regardless of who is right, the truth will never be known if such practice is allowed to go unchecked.
2. I am an Economist/Statistician by education, so I firmly believe in the 2 types of errors. I therefore am unwilling to start putting tin foil hats on mountains (a very funny idead when you think about it) before finding out what is going on with the climate and the cause.
3. cleaning up the planet should not be an AGW issue. Anyone who has smelled LA air in the summer time would be very adamant about using technology to clean up the environment. If for no other reason than so that our children and grands can enjoy it. However, Al Gore and his charlatans are not about cleaning up the environment but about selling indulgences. And that will help no one.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut Scientific American hasn't published an article called "Seven Answers to AGW Alarmist Nonsense" has it? Double standard? Obviously.
"Accounting for both cloud formation and cloud driven climatic effects are (I think , someone correct me if I'm wrong) beyond the current capabilities of climate models. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you are correct. Here is what the IPCC says:
"The role of clouds in the climate system continues to challenge the modelling of climate (e.g., Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2). It is generally accepted that the net effect of clouds on the radiative balance of the planet is negative and has an average magnitude of about 10 to 20 Wm-2. This balance consists of a short-wave cooling (the albedo effect) of about 40 to 50 Wm-2 and a long-wave warming of about 30 Wm-2. Unfortunately, the size of the uncertainties in this budget is large when compared to the expected anthropogenic greenhouse forcing. Although we know that the overall net effect of clouds on the radiative balance is slightly negative, we do not know the sign of cloud feedback with respect to the increase of greenhouse gases, and it may vary with the region. In fact, the basic issue of the nature of the future cloud feedback is not clear. Will it remain negative? If the planet warms, then it is plausible that evaporation will increase, which probably implies that liquid water content will increase but the volume of clouds may not. What will be the effect and how will the effects be distributed in time and space? Finally, the issue of cloud feedbacks is also coupled to the very difficult issue of indirect aerosol forcing (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3).
The importance of clouds was summarised in the SAR: “The single largest uncertainty in determining the climate sensitivity to either natural or anthropogenic changes are clouds and their effects on radiation and their role in the hydrological cycle” (Kattenberg et al., 1996, p.345). And yet, the single greatest source of uncertainty in the estimates of the climate sensitivity continues to be clouds (see also Chapter 7, Section 7.2). Since the SAR, there have been a number of improvements in the simulation of both the cloud distribution and in the radiative properties of clouds (Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2). The simulation of cloud distribution has improved as the overall simulation of the atmospheric models has improved. In addition, the cloud sub-component models used in the coupled models have become more realistic. Also, our understanding of the radiative properties of clouds and their effects on climate sensitivity have improved. And yet in Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2 we find that, “In spite of these improvements, there has been no apparent narrowin"
Skeptic arguments that weren't covered by the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- CO2 doubling to 600 ppmv will add 1 degree C of warming. Nothing much to worry about by itself.
- Second order warming after the C02 doubling will come from feedbacks, and nobody knows what they'll amount to. IPCC claims that we'll see 4 degree C increases in temps due to global warming are based on climate model estimates of feedbacks that are guesses, pure and simple. No GCM can adequately estimate cloud feedback, for example.
- Climate scientists have only themselves to blame for public skepticism of AGW. They've been so arrogant in their withholding of data, unwillingness to accept legitimate criticism, etc. that for the first time, the NAS was forced to write a set of rules codifying basic behavior on data retention, transparency in how results were achieved, data sharing, etc. It's shameful, really, but that sort of thing never gets reported in Sci Am.
@BioCarb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you still insist that you have written in a peer reviewed article. I have a few questions that you should easily be able to answer.
What is the Impact Factor of your journal?
Being the editor of your own publication do you not find a ethics quandary when you publish your own work in it?
What is your rejection rate for submitted articles?
Quoted from the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A 2006 National Research Council review of the evidence concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries""
Didn't the Little Ice Age end about 400 years ago? Wouldn't you expect temperatures to rise after something called an ice age? A less biased writer than Rennie might have made that connection and drawn the conclusion that the NAS was doing everything in its power to not publicly humiliate Mann et al for the error riddled hockey stick paper.
It appears that Woosh is whining that Scientific American did not every lie that he can think of. Well, Woosh, I got the site for you on that one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said: CO2 doubling to 600 ppmv will add 1 degree C of warming. Nothing much to worry about by itself.
No. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.html
Then you regurgitate the following propaganda:
"Second order warming after the C02 doubling will come from feedbacks, and nobody knows what they'll amount to. IPCC claims that we'll see 4 degree C increases in temps due to global warming are based on climate model estimates of feedbacks that are guesses, pure and simple."
No. We can look at the paleoclimatic record for that. And look here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=co2&x=0&y=0
I say we start playing the Woosh Game of Skeptic Bingo.
By my score Woosh scores an 11 on Skeptic Bingo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=co2&x=0&y=0
You can do better Woosh. I am rooting for greater displays of ignorance!
Yo, Trent1492 buddy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTip: Control your blood pressure, take a deep breath, and read what you write before hitting "submit".
Did you actually understand what I wrote? If so, criticize it without linking to a page that's empty. Sheesh, how sloppy can you get?!
Rather than play bingo, I'd rather count the non sequiturs in your posting. If you can't do better than mindlessly post links, it's not worth time to debate you.
"Didn't the Little Ice Age end about 400 years ago."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. Google is your friend.
"Wouldn't you expect temperatures to rise after something called an ice age?"
No. The Earth's climate is NOT like a big pendulum with swings. It is more like a boiling pot. Inputs matter. Otherwise you are asking for a violation of the Law of Conservation. And, oh, here is the Skeptical Science article on the matter:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age.htm
You got a Bingo Score of 9 now.
"Aless biased writer than Rennie might have made that connection and drawn the conclusion that the NAS was doing everything in its power to not publicly humiliate Mann et al for the error riddled hockey stick paper"
Translation from Woosh Speak:
I want to engage in baseless slander and how dare Scientific American say otherwise! Hrmmph!
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not you buddy. You are though my little sad clown.
"Did you actually understand what I wrote? If so, criticize it without linking to a page that's empty. Sheesh, how sloppy can you get?!"
I understand what you are saying it is just you are shoveling on the manure of fossil fuel propaganda. You really suck at that trough, huh?
Here you are seemingly determined to Gish Gallop your way through every skeptical argument ever made and not care one wit about the reality of the matter.
"Rather than play bingo, I'd rather count the non sequiturs in your posting. If you can't do better than mindlessly post links, it's not worth time to debate you."
This is Woosh's very special way of saying: Run Forrest! Run!
Not the most convincing of counter-arguments and still far too much conjecture and a dearth of good quality scientific arguments for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the sensationalism and absolute acceptance of something that is so uncertain in the media makes middle of the road observers like myself err on the side of scepticism.
Also - I have a fundamental problem with carbon credits - where there is money and politics, there is huge scope for abuse and perhaps it is no wonder the 'green' wagon rolls on way ahead of the facts......Will carbon credits be the biggest tradable / taxable commodity in years to come?
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. I said the claim that temperatures are higher now than at anytime in the last 400 years is to be expected since temps have risen steadily since the LIA ended. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSlow down, read carefully. Your bestest buddy wooosh.
Are you actually going to try and refute my claim that a CO2 doubling will raise temps about 1 deg C?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEstimates of cloud feedback are based on GCMs. Can you dispute that without providing non-specific links to an AGW-by-numbers site?
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour last post shows what a desperate denier you truly are.
You’re called on the table for posting links to blank pages rather than, GASP, thinking for your self and writing an original idea. You keep posting sites that you think back up your chicken little the sky is falling view of the world, all the while remaining totally ignorant of the facts about the real science. The fact that observations do not match the AGW crowds models. The fact that they will not release their data, their data scrubbing techniques or the models they use to show that man kind is destroying the earth. They posit the idea that we need idiotic policies like cap and trade to stave off a problem that it is now crystal clear isn't a problem or man made!
Done with you as you are a religious cultist bowing at the feet of warmist hypocrisy.
"Not the most convincing of counter-arguments and still far too much conjecture and a dearth of good quality scientific arguments for me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo says the Denier. OK,lumpkin what is the WEAKEST argument you think their. Give the link and using peer reviewed information make a counter argument.
"You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not the problem you just can not seem get the idea of the answer. You asked, "Did not the Little Ice Age end 400 years ago".
My answer No. Google is your friend.
"You’re called on the table for posting links to blank pages rather than, GASP, thinking for your self and writing an original idea."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am going to hold this up as the classic Denier double standard. It is just that they should feel unconstrained by facts and logic but they demand for their own entertainment that all responses be absolutely original. Never mind the fact that they are simply endlessly repeating the same tripe. Never mind that this propaganda has been repeated so many times that people can number them. No. Like the other rules they think that it only applies to the other guy. Your a class act.
The 7 claims addressed here speak to the problem, not the solution. It's no good trying to shoot down opponents of climate <i>policy</i> by attacking arguments about the science. Climate policy, while informed by science, is a also a question of trade offs that economics, among other disciplines, has more to say about than climate science. One's objection to climate policy can be on any number of levels other than the science - skepticism that tax and regulation can produce any benefits, fear that governments will misuse the power being handed to them, concern that the selected policies are second- or third-best, concern that the policy process is corrupted by group think. None of these has anything to with the relationship between CO2 and temperature, yet they are concerns that skeptics, as opposed to denialists, are raising. That the argument for climate policy is so strongly supported by particular elements of the political spectrum is a major source of concern for outsiders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundamental mistake you are making is to believe that the case for policy is established by the science saying there is a problem. This, plainly, is wrong, and any first year graduate in economics can tell you why.
On the science, the glaring ommission from your article is on climate sensitivity, upon which the case for action in part depends.
I agree with other posters: this is not an article become of Scientific American.
"The fact that observations do not match the AGW crowds models."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it a fact? Which of the multitude of models? How do they fail? How do you suggest to make them better? Are you even slightly cognizant of the fact that if you threw out all the models you would still have a mountain of evidence? The paleoclimatic data and the CURRENT OBSERVATIONS would indicate a huge problem.
"They posit the idea that we need idiotic policies like cap and trade to stave off a problem that it is now crystal clear isn't a problem or man made!"
You are right we need a penalizing tax on large CO2 emitters. Much more straight forward.
This should read"as:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Not the most convincing of counter-arguments and still far too much conjecture and a dearth of good quality scientific arguments for me."
So says the Denier. OK, lumpkin what is the WEAKEST argument you think they got there. Give the link and using peer reviewed information make a counter argument.
@bpuryea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You keep posting sites that you think back up your chicken little the sky is falling view of the world, all the while remaining totally ignorant of the facts about the real science. "
Here is link I keep on posting up and you guys just act like it never ever happened. Want to see it? Yes? Well, here you go:
Accelerated Antarctic Ice Loss from Satellite Gravity Measurements
Abstract:
"Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190plusminus77 Gt yr-1, with 132plusminus26 Gt yr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57plusminus52 Gt yr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006."
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
From the Geoscience Nature Journal of last week. Now I am going to guess that you think that Nature is one of those "Chicken Little" (like I have not seen that epithet a thousand times Mr. Originality) publications of no account. Is that correct?
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are you actually going to try and refute my claim that a CO2 doubling will raise temps about 1 deg C?"
Logic Tip for the Impaired # 11.
The burden of evidence is always on the claimant. That ball is in your court, Woosh.
The view of the contrarians comes under the category of deja-moo: it seems to me I've heard this bull before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the comments to any article on agw in internet media like SciAm has become some kind of sick hobby for me - like watching traffic accidents or similar distusting spectacles that you just cannot avert your eyes from. On thing has become clear to me: structure as well as content of this enormous mass of responses (not only to this article) are highly unusual and deserve much greater interest that the "debate" itself. Although almost all comments pretend to originate from "average" readers, something that is often quite explicitly stated in them, the whole thing looks like an astroturfing campaign on a scale completely unknown until now. I'm toying with the idea of running a few text analyses on them, but even without that several observations can be made:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- articles about agw attract _much_ more crackpot responses that articles on comparable "debated" topics, e.g. vaccination risks.
- the commenters avoid engaging the article with arguments, a trend, that has become more pronounced as it becomes harder to contradict the more and more obviously visible effects of warming. I can only conclude that this is a deliberate strategy, one that genuine crackpot-deniers would never pursue by themselves
- the commentators (that is, deniers) main strategy is now to discredit and marginalize anybody in a public forum like SciAm that presents the current scientific point of view. Real crackpots on the other hand would forever continue to debate any argument against them that is put forward in the acticle
- also, the whole "climategate" discussion looks highly artificial and constructed. The commenters (not only here) present the affair as a "scandal" with a public consensus behind it, a point of view that is hardly justified if you look at the more sane mainstream press reactions
Overall, the mass of comments to this article and similar ones, trying to give the impression of a significant majority of genuine, highly convicted and outraged "average joe readers" is the scariest demonstration of privately financed PR i have ever seen. I always knew that Public Relations could be evil, but the scope, financing and perseverance seen in this campaign simply boggles the mind. It gives quite an insight at what sums are at stake.
to anyone interested in educating themselves on climate change and the lies told by al gore and the environmentalists{who by the way ,think humans don't belong on this planet due to our destructive nature}i recommend "Unstoppable Global Warming"by S.F Singer&D.T Avery and "Blue Planet in Green Shackles"by Vaclav Klaus.Human ingenuity will find energy sources as we need them,and oil will go the way of whale oil in the coming years,but we can't shut the world down and quit using petroleum because of a propaganda campaign based on doctored studies done by researchers at the well of government funding.do we really want to give up our freedoms and way of life for something that is totally out of our control,that is a historically proven natural phenomenom,and will actually benefit the human race?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'nature' (the journal) has an editorial on the recent issue with the hacked e-mails, that puts the discussion at rest,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
While the conventional view of climate change is that it is very difficult to understand, such is not the case. Go to www.pewclimate.org web site and print out the Long-term trends in carbon dioxide etc )chart 2C). This chart shows the temperature and the CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years the Earth warms to a temperature similar to today and then cools. The alarmists point out that CO2 and temperature track until man started burning so much fossil fuel. Now it is higher than ever, which will (they claim) cause more warming. If CO2 was the CAUSE of these temperature changes, it would be a time of concern. However if you are looking at the graph you will see that the temperature peaks and then decreases in each of these 100,000 year cycles while CO2 remains high. In other words something else besides CO2 is causing these temperature changes. CO2 is not the cause of warming as proven by the fact the Earth cools while CO2 is still at a very high level. If CO2 were the cause, CO2 would have to go down before the temperature could decrease. It does not. So what is the cause for these 100,000 year cycles? Do some research on Milankovitch cycles and you will discover the cause. In particular the Eccentricity cycle which is also 100,years long and is the true cause. Man can not change this cycle any more than changing winter following summer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat editorial from Nature. Thanks for the link. One of the best parts of the editorial is this:
"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories. In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."
Do these facts ever sink into the septics logic processing unit or will they continue to get the Error message? I am betting on the latter.
Some more comments from 'nature' (the journal), regarding the recent e-mail leak,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
Let's quote Thomas Stocker from the article,
"Science and science institutions should be transparent, but they are not a 24-hour help service for climate sceptics who lack fundamental scientific and technical skills."
"Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a horrible argument, the fact that all of those reasonable sources rely on and trust a single source for for information and succour.
It only requires ONE person and the kind of uncritical thinking displayed in this article to taint the field. How many people were in involved in Piltdown Man?
Exactly one if I remember the history correctly. One, that is, and a bunch of fools who let their racist and imperialist dogma cloud all better judgement and search for truth.
You don't even know the basics about AGW and you're lording it over the skeptics?! Too funny, you're just a fraud (do you work at CRU by any chance?).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll try to use short words.
When CO2 doubles to 600 ppmv, it won't arithmetically increase it's contribution to temps from 3 deg C to 6 deg C. Instead, it will increase temps logarithmically, so the actual increase will be 1 degree C. Double check me at wikipedia, I know you won't trust me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Essentials
Next in our remedial course on global warming, I'll explain to you how feedbacks make up the remainder of the scary high temps the IPCC tries to foist on us. Long story short, their GCM guesstimates of feedbacks are about 75% higher than what will actually be the case, so we'll see 1.5 - 2 degrees C of warming once equilibrium is reached.
Author's statements seem a bit nonscientific to appear in a journal named "Scientific American". The article was clearly pushing a point of view while desiring to suppress other opinions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"polluters" are people. Everyone who breathes, uses electricity, or burns wood to cook or provide heat is a polluter. I think this includes all of us. Rather than throwing around terms like "polluter" it would be better to constructively improve energy generation to minimize undesired effects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be interesting to do a scientific study of Scientific American to see if the magazine has indeed become more politicized over the years. For example, arbitrary years could be randomly picked from the beginning to 2009 and some type of rating system developed to test whether or not articles have become more opinionated with passing years. I have an opinion but think that communication scientists could develop criteria for objectively rating this hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad to see a long standing icon of scientific journalist degenerate to the level of being a propaganda tool for the green marxists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmpowering government to legislate massive wealth transfers predicated on simplified and incomplete academic models of climate is a potentially economically disastrous leap, but unfortunately conceivable in its consistence with similar other monumentally destructive policies of over extended governments bent on enforcing a common good ultimately to the misery of many.
Let's keep the debate academic for a while and not demand government force economically crippling policy choices on us.
"When CO2 doubles to 600 ppmv,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can not even get you the first half of your sentence factually correct. The doubling is from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
This is confirmed here:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:DTuMop1OA4EJ:www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf+ipcc+2
Before you ask that value is derived for around the year 1750.
" ...it won't arithmetically increase it's contribution to temps from 3 deg C to 6 deg."
I like how you just inserted a Red Herring Argument in the second sentence. Who said that it would increase arithmetically? Oh, that is right. That would be the phantom dummy you are having a go at. Keep on flailing I am sure you will impress someone.
"Instead, it will increase temps logarithmically, so the actual increase will be 1 degree C. Double check me at wikipedia, I know you won't trust me."
Actually I did go check and here is what it says:
"This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C"
You just got owned by your own source.
"Long story short, their GCM guesstimates of feedbacks are about 75% higher than what will actually be the case, so we'll see 1.5 - 2 degrees C of warming once equilibrium is reached."
I like how you treat your assertions as fact. Classy that is. Not. Care to provide multiple peer reviewed articles asserting this. I ask because you seem blissfully ignorant that there our multiple models and that you can go compare them for climate sensitivity. Look they even have an entire chapter devoted to it!
Climate Models and Their Evaluation
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:d65iSPeF3KwJ:www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf+ipcc+2007+model+comparisons&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
If that HTML link does not work go download the PDF version.
Reality is not politically determined, Woosh.
Here's an example of the bias at SciAm:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe get a "juicy" quote of Imhofe saying this is the year of the skeptic. Imhofe's not a scientist but AGW alarmists love to point him out as representative of knowledgeable skeptics.
Yet, Al Gore, patron saint of global warming and Nobel prize winner for same, said this recently:
"...People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..."
Get it? We've got a furnace as hot as the sun right here in the Earth, yet I didn't see that mentioned on Sci Am anywhere. Double standard? Survey says..."YES!"
Oh, man. I gave you the reference and you still got it wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat section in Wikipedia was discussing "climate sensitivity." Another basic term you should already have known. Climate sensitivity is a combination of CO2 doubling + feedbacks. You're quoting the climate sensitivity guesstimate from IPCC which, isn't what I was describing.
I. Was. Describing. Temp increases. From a Doubling . Of CO2. Alone.
That. Is. 1 degree C.
You've just embarrassed the other AGW alarmists with your ignorance.
As for the arithmetic/logarithmic stuff, I was trying to educate you without it being too obvious. Pearls before swine, it seems.
As for feedbacks. Convince me you're capable of understanding the CO2 doubling, then I'll discuss them with you.
I remember when SciAm was a science magazine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Radagast,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there's a joke that goes:
"Remember when SciAm was a science magazine?"
"Neither do I."
Articles such as this do little to advance the AGW cause. I am beginning to have serious doubts on the validity of the argument, and this type of article only serves to further my uncertainties. This certainly does little to convince me that we are discussing "settled science". On the contrary, if this is the best reasoning that "Scientific American" has to offer towards this debate, I believe I will spend the next few days writing letters to my representatives and some of the local media expressing my grave concern that we are quite possibly gravely mistaken. Roger Drew Williams
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing that this article convinced me of is that it is time for me to start writing letters to my elected representatives in Washington and as many sources of the local media as possible. If the researchers involved in climate studies aren't several degrees of magnitude more thorough in their research than the people at "Scientific American" who published this article, then it seems obvious that we are making a grave mistake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Trent...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeh! More nonsensical arguments. I do have a lot of patience.
1. I am NOT the editor of the website. I AM the scientific research director at BIOCAB.
2. I have NOT data about the impact of my website because it is NOT my area or job into BIOCAB. The only thing I can tell you is that it has very high rating among students and academics. Many of my articles have been quoted and cited in scientific literature and academic books.
3. About three of ten articles are rejected for being published like "papers". When the peer reviewers send back an article which needs corrections; those articles are approved after the corrections are done for their publication like "didactic articles". I hope you use to read the heads of the articles.
Well... Now let's talk about science:
Do you know the algorithm for calculating the change of temperature from doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Perhaps you don't, do I'll give it for you make the proper calculations and stop arguing pseudoscience:
dT = a (LN 2) / 4 (s) (T^3)
Where dT is for the change of temperature, a is for the total emittancy of the carbon dioxide, s is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the standard temperature (300.15 K).
Now, you must go on and make the calculation. :)
I find it really funny that some "skeptics" keep saying there is not enough evidence for global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you guys know evidence when you see it.
Then how about asking for evidence to your church first?
But you don't need any evidence in there right? :-)
Chryses wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are you aware that the CRU specializes in studies of climates past? Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?"
There was plenty wrong with CRU's paleo work before Climategate, the whistleblower just ended speculation that the problems were innocent.
This is a general overview, if you want details, go to http://camirror.wordpress.com (Climate Audit)
Most reconstructions that show a hockey stick shape rely on certain widely distributed proxies: the Yamal series (that we just learned comprises 12 trees for the 20th century, only 1 of which had the striking hockey stick shape) was used by Briffa and D'Arrigo in their papers to get their HS. Other papers rely on proxies the NAS has recommended not be used (bristlecone pines and others). Mann (who never worked for CRU, but they were in his "clique" as Wegman put it) was criticized for his use of strip bark bristlecone/foxtails and for using software that mined for the hockey stick shape.
OK, now Mann and other recent reconstructions (including some from CRU) are supposed to be so robust they can maintain a hockey stick shape even if you remove the Yamal series or bristlecone/foxtail proxies, depending on which paper you're looking at. But if you check out the table in this article from Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?paged=7
You'll discover that the reason they can lose one questionable proxy and still keep that hockey stick shape is because they use *two* questionable proxies!
That looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive. And don't forget the Climategate conspiracies to prevent contrarian papers from being published, and keep data from being review. CRU needs a full-on audit of everything they've published!
If you are a researcher, do a little on the past 400,000 years. You can see a temperature/co2 chart for the past 400,000 years at www.pewclimate.org. This chart shows how every 100,000 years the earth warms and cools just as night follows day. The chart shows we are either at or approaching a peak temperature. The correlation between temperature and CO2 can not be denied. Also it is obvious that man has increased the level of CO2. However if CO2 is the cause of each of these warming cycles, then it would have to decrease before the temperature could decrease. Itdoes not proving that something else is going on causing these cycles. That something is Milankovitch cycles where the earth orbit goes from circular as it is now to oblong every 100,000 years. There is NOTHING that man can do about this. So get off the CO2 kick. It is not important. The earth is either entering into a cooling cycle or is very close to one. If you are a researcher, here is your opportunity!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear fb36...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a skeptic; I am a scientist.
I am not a dennier; I am a scientist.
I am not an environmentalist; I am a scientist.
For this solitary reason:
I have found the Anthropogenic Global Warming is not true. I have enough experimental and observational scientific data which contradicts AGW ideology.
I have found AGWers who assure they are scientists have manipulated data, hiden data, fabricated methodologies which have nothing to do with science, and impeded clean scientists see their papers published in scientific magazines. This is not the way of science, but of religions.
I have found that we humans are damaging the natural world through many of our activities; however, although I am conscious that we need to change our behaviour towards nature, I can assure that the carbon dioxide emitted from human activities has nothing to do with climate changes or global warmings. These phenomena are natural... The rest of the tale is pure politics, not science.
@jmillay...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I am a researcher. I have published some articles on the issue you're referring to, i.e. on paleotemperatures and geological concentrations of carbon dioxide:
http://www.biocab.org/Climate_Geologic_Timescale.html
http://www.biocab.org/Hematite_Stained_Grains_and_TSI.html
http://www.biocab.org/Holocene.html
Please, make me know if I understand your suggestion. :)
The answer wouldn't happen to be 0.6 C., now would it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://biocab.org/emissivity_co2.html
Please respond quickly, my posts are being deleted. What a surprise.
Interested_observer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“the fact that all of those reasonable sources rely on and trust a single source for for [sic] information and succour…”
This is a mistake. The tainted data from the CCU reduces the confidence which we may place on one of several convergent lines of inquiry.
The existence and effect of the existing and increasing amounts of human sourced greenhouse gasses.
The record of rising sea levels as predicted by the AGW hypothesis.
The alternate sources of paleontological climate data.
I think it is fair to question quite closely those conclusions based solely on the CCU’s data. Indeed, it would be irresponsible not to.
Those who claim that similar conclusions based on independently sourced data can only do so if they assume that all such data has been similarly manipulated. Alternatively, those dismissing such claims could provide evidence for doing so, as has been done with Dr. Jones et al.
The theoretical framework of AGW, the greenhouse effect, is also uncontroversial. There either is, or is not sufficient corroborating data to use the hypothesis to guide public policy. Setting aside for the moment the claims made by some in this forum that the way science works is as they define it to work, the presence of alternate independent lines of corroborating research remain. The physics of the effects of greenhouse gas is uncontroversial science. As pointed out elsewhere, consensus does not mean unanimity, but those in an extremely small minority need to overturn a large body of empirically verified science before they will be listened to.
The theory, tentative as it is, makes certain predictions which may be tested. Those who Mr. Rennie rather condescendingly refers to in his article as contrarians who spout nonsense, claim that the evidence which has been presented is insufficiently clear to justify the significant impact that impending policy changes will bring about.
The tomfoolery exposed at the CRU should rightly disqualify the data supplied as evidence from that institution. Rather than waste more energy (sorry) on that sorry affair, at least pending the outcome of the investigation instigated by the Met Office (remember, the jury is still out, etc.), I suggest that the focus of the discussion should be about the AGW hypothesis, and the contradictory and corroborating evidence, which alternatively invalidate and substantiate it.
Lord Monckton’s Summary Of Climategate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rightsoup.com/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate- and-its-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=Feed%3A+RightSoup+%28Right+Soup%29
A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all scientific research.
* The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
* The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
* The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
* They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
* They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a
“decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
* They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
* They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
* They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
* They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
* They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
* Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
Nobody but a nut denies climate change; climate changes all the freekin time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is whether mankind has any significant effect upon those changes.
I think not; the whole marketing term of greenhouse gases ignores that the mechanism cited is NOT the same effect as what we commonly observe in a real greenhouse, or a car parked in the sun.
The fact is, this alleged atmospheric effect requires and inversion of normal convective physics to produce the alleged effect, namely a heated fluid, where the bottom of the fluid is hotter than the top.
The atmosphere does not accumulate heat; this is supposed to be a science magazine? All energy received from the sun, HAS to be reemitted back into space in an equilibrium, lookup Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Kirchoff's law of radiative equibilirium. There can be no accumulation!
The atmosphere acts as a heat buffer, not an accumulator, so the effect is that the average is more comfortable, instead of 400deg on the sun side, and -200deg on the dark side of the earth.
SciAm should be a dispassionate arbiter on this debate, instead of being a vehicle for undeserving articles like this. The writer presents only one side with the passion of a religious zealot. When you gloss over facts, such as the leaked emails that we can all read, you make the rest of your arguments suspect, and this is what is distasteful. It is good for people to question results - it makes for good science. Be careful lest you find your writings as a source of amusement in your "50 years ago" section. I grew up on SciAm, and I'm very saddened by your foray into politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissparcboy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI followed the provided url, and the banner the site reads “Right Soup political news, conservative views”.
I quote the first paragraph of the cited article:
“The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better. In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade ‘global warming’. “
Note, the reference to “…an unelected and tyrannical global government …“. I was unaware that the purpose of the conference was to create a global government, tyrannical or otherwise.
The site is copyrighted by Gravy Train Productions, LLC, whose home page reads, in part “Gravy Train Productions is the source for all your online entertainment needs”.
I suggest that this is yet another example of the type of extremist writings which detract from, rather than add to the real issues.
So fb36, you are saying that AGW is religion and not science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbatpox,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel your pain. SciAm’s editors should not have allowed such antagonistic material to be published with their imprimatur. Still, there are those of us who think that there remains something in SciAm worth saving.
Rennie fails the Global Warming Test http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html . Turning everything into a crisis may make us feel more alive, but it is really not fair to make other people pay for our cult beliefs and need to get high - remember, to the brain, life is about securing the regular release of neurotranmitters, reality is secondary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiocab,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claim to speak with authority on the AGW hypothesis “… I am a researcher. I have published some articles on the issue you're referring to, i.e. on paleotemperatures and geological concentrations of carbon dioxide.”
Fair enough. Usually, authorities on a subject have a corpus of published works to which they may refer the inquisitive. Often these published works, particularly when they appear in scholarly publications, have been peer reviewed.
I note in your post that the website where your work is published, http://www.biocab.org/, to which you refer jmillay, is maintained (at least in part) by you. Some people might be skeptical enough to suggest that there could be a degree of circularity involved, in that you are implying by publishing your work that your work warrants publishing.
Are articles which are published by “Biology Cabinet” peer reviewed? I was unable to find any reference to that common scientific process at from the home page.
Here is the link Nature’s peer review; permit me to quote from it, “ … Peer review is commonly accepted as an essential part of scientific publication…”.
http://www.nature.com/authors/peer_review/index.html
Are there any peer reviewed articles of yours which have been published?
I was unable to find any reference to publishing guidelines from the Biology Cabinet home page. Here is the link Science’s General Policies for authors.
http://www.sciencemag.org/help/authors/policies.dtl
I also note on the “Biology Cabinet” home page the following: “Donate to help keep the www.biocab.org website going.” In order to ensure transparency and full disclosure, would you please publish the list of donors (with contact information of course) to the site? By doing so, you will be able to increase the degree of confidence others might have in re your claim to be an authority on this subject.
Why do people, particularly those left of center, seemingly always resort to name-calling and arguments ad-hominem when people don't agree with them? This technique was widely practiced in Europe in the 1930's and it brought us WWII. As Americans our stength is not in how we agree but how we handle our differences. We must value the other opinion even if we don't agree with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe term "jerco brain" (B. Case 11:38 AM 11/30/09) is childish at best and harmful to any free society's discussion on any topic. Grow up a little bit and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem
woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn re your post at 12:34 on 12/03/09, you quoted an earlier post of mine:
“Chryses wrote:
‘Are you aware that the CRU specializes in studies of climates past? Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?’”
The quote is accurate, but your post responds to only the first question. Most people agree that the value of the Climatic Research Unit should be devalued, until the results of the investigation are made public, at which time they may be rather more honestly assessed. That seemed to be a given; sorry if I failed to give that impression.
You did not respond to the second question. To provide a starting point for a possible discussion, do you contend that the results of the U.S. NOAA (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/climate/index.shtml) should be ignored? What about the research of UCAR/NCAR (http://www.ucar.edu/), or the research done at UCSD (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/), etc?
If, on the one hand, you dismiss the research from independent, and independently funded institutions, then might I ask why?
If, on the other hand, you accept that the data from these other sources do provide useful data, I would suggest that the debacle at the CRU should not be used as a red herring, and to use the empirical evidence which is reliable.
Wouldn’t discarding only the unreliable data be the scientific thing to do?
Environmentalism is its own form of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one knows which is sense and which is nonsense. Long term climate cycles are not understood. Accuracies of measurement, statistical variations that depend on sample length etc seem to have been ignored by the dooms day Sayers. Cooling proponents have turned warming proponents. There seem to be political overtones behind the warming hypothesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I Was. Describing. Temp increases. From a Doubling . Of CO2. Alone."
Since nobody else is talking about just CO2 alone why are you? Oh, that is right you like constructing strawmen and whacking at them no matter how utterly transparent. Well keep flailing at those strawmen just do not let the straw get you nose, ok?
"That. Is. 1 degree C."
Hi! I am reality. I am what some people call the real world. Here in reality land it incumbent upon people to deal with facts not as they are not they wish them to be but they are. Allow me to give you an example. If CO2 is doubled from its 1750 levels of 280 ppm then we can expect that with feedbacks that temp to be well above 1.c.
"As for the arithmetic/logarithmic stuff, I was trying to educate you without it being too obvious. Pearls before swine, it seems."
Your like the beggar who thinks himself King. Pitiful really.
Hint: This is my way of saying you are delusional.
You know what I am impressed with? The Denier ability to scream hoax, fraud, and scam with noevidence and yet ignore the very transparent fraud that is Biocarb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it we just do not see you people pouncing on this character? Is it because a liar and fraudster raises no protest because he is on the same team?
"Environmentalism is its own form of religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
@Spacboy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou quote Lord Monckton extensively now I got something for you to do. Provide the evidence.
I want to know what papers and databases you feel are frauds. What part in the papers has is fraudulent? Please reproduce the E-mails you think are evidence in FULL with the text number and make the necessary connections; otherwise, I am going to dismiss you as just another dupe.
@Biocab,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you continue to make assertions and provide no evidence. Once again:
What is your journals "Impact Factor"?
What is the DOI for your article?
Why is it that you do not even show up on the ISI Web of Knowledge?
How is it that you do not seem to know that Yamal is a part of Siberia?
Why is it in your cities you cite an entire textbook but fail to cite the particular pages? Matter of fact, why are you citing a textbook in the first place and not the primary research?
You made your claims to credentials central. Provide you C.V. What other journals have you published in? Who else has cited them?
All of these questions should be easily answered yet you are silent on them. Why? All you claim is that I speak "nonsense". You are a huckster.
Trent, my dear friend
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that you know about climate sensitivity and CO2 doubling, thanks to me. Let me explain how they all come together in the magical world of global warming:
First. Think about 1 degree C of warming. Much of that increase has already occurred because its logarithmic nature front-loads the warming. So we've seen the worst of the CO2 increase, now all that's left are feedback effects.
While CO2 has been in the process of doubling (approximately 301.3 ppm) for over a century, that 1 deg C of set off feedbacks that have been heating and cooling the surface in an attempt to achieve equilibrium. According to the IPCC we could see from 3 to 10 degrees of increase due to positive feedbacks overwhelming negative feedbacks.
That sort of thinking assumes the climate is so precariously balanced that a minuscule increase like 1 deg C would send it into a huge positive feedback response. Nature doesn't work that way, it vastly prefers negative feedback loops. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a livable climate. Now if you were to drop a large asteroid into an ocean or set of Yosemite's megavolcano or change the position of the continents, *that* would be so overwhelming as to send the climate into positive feedback madness until negative feedbacks could regain sway. At which point we'd descend into ice ages as has happened in the past.
But a 1 degree C increase? Get real.
Contrarian scientists who differ from the IPCC, (you know, the ones the CRU conspired against) say we're more likely to see temps increase a total of 1.5 to 2 deg C when equilibrium is reached because of overwhelmingly negative feedbacks from clouds.
Trent spluttered:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since nobody else is talking about just CO2 alone why are you?"
Is that supposed to be an argument? Yikes! What passes for critical thinking in the AGW alarmist set is truly alarming. I think I'll frame it for posterity.
Trent continues to fulminate:
"Oh, that is right you like constructing strawmen and whacking at them no matter how utterly transparent. Well keep flailing at those strawmen just do not let the straw get you nose, ok?"
And now everybody knows that you don't know what a "straw man" fallacy is.
Cue Twilight Zone theme:
"Hi! I am reality. I am what some people call the real world. Here in reality land it incumbent upon people to deal with facts not as they are not they wish them to be but they are. Allow me to give you an example. If CO2 is doubled from its 1750 levels of 280 ppm then we can expect that with feedbacks that temp to be well above 1.c. "
All we know for certain is that temps will rise 1 degree C with a CO2 doubling. The feedbacks are just guesses based on GCMs. Temps are likely to be higher than 1 deg C, but more in the realm of 1.5 to 2 deg C, rather than the silly claims made by the IPCC.
The gist of your final surreal paragraph is the only correct if you explain what the meaning of "well above" is. Try being less histrionic and more specific in the future. M'kay?
@Trent...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you're not a scientist...
First answer my scientific questions. I see you know nothing about thermodynamics, climatology, physics, etc.
Yours is nothing more than ad hominem attacks. If you want to know my credentials, ask for them to the institutions from which I got them. Hah!
@Trent...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want me to provide evidence on whaaat? Please, make the calculations by the formula I have provided to you. Here it is again:
dT = a (LN 2) / 4 (s) (T)^3
Heh! :)
The only logical and reasonable future for energy production is in sustainable production. The lightest footprint possible, global warming or not. The only way for energy companies to move towards that future is with a market price on carbon. Without a market price on carbon very few companies can even begin to develop truly sustainable options. That means cap & trade is critical to getting to ball rolling towards long and short term solutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt we must gradually extricate ourselves from oil dependence, for national security and geopolitical reasons. I would support new gas taxes, and support current subsidies for expensive alternatives, and am calling for more of those and increased R&D. As a result, CO2 emissions will go down, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are the alternatives to foreign oil and dirty coal? Development of local deposits, "clean coal", nuclear, sun and wind. The GW crowd is mostly against local oil and gas, against "clean coal" research, against nuclear, and solar/wind are just not ready yet to pick up the slack. It's an anti-development agenda.
there is no question that pumping millions of years of carbon back into the atmosphere in less than 100 years is not a brilliant idea and has and will continue to cause health issues...but this idea that global warming will melt the ice in greenland and antartica to the point that the worlds coastal areas will flood is just bad math...antartica 5.4 million sq mi x 10,ooo feet of ice....greenland 800k sq mi x 5000 feet of ice... verses 1.25 TRILLION sq feet of ocean...drum roll please....less than 5 inches MAX...how does that convert to venice or manhattan being "flooded over"...it is a great idea that we give incentives for smart behavior, but can we have at least an honest debate about the "real effect"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are facts, but, just because some person or group of people claim that the information they are presenting are, in fact, facts, does not necessarily make that information be actual facts. It is a fact that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now it at one of it's lowest points in history, it is a fact that plants love CO2, in fact, without CO2, plants cannot live. When plants don't live, neither do animals, and, believe it or not, people are animals, albeit, very complex and highly developed animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might seem funny, but, climate change happens, with and without human interference. There are sunspot, solar flares and other solar activity that has an infinately more impactful effect on the earth and the rest of the planets in the solar system than anything man, with his minimal impact on the environment, can possibly have.
While it is true that man made affects have had major impact on rivers, lakes, habitats, various different animal populations and different aspects of the environment, if man becomes too much of a problem, the earth and it's own mechanisms will reduce the possible impact man may have, by, through environmental changes, reduce the impact that man may be able to exert on the environment.
If man's actions result in reducing the efficacy of the soil to be able to grow eatable plants, that will reduce the population to a point where the land will be able to recover from whatever damage man may have caused it. If the populations of various animals is reduced to a point where they are not able to feed the human population the human population will be reduced by that action as well, at least to a point where the population of those particular animals will either be able to recover, or some other animal population will be able to be used to replace the depleted or eliminated animals.
The planet will regulate it's own needs, better than any "global elite" with carbon taxes or other money transfer schemes could possibly accomplish.
When you have "retards in charge" of global resources the retards in charge will do whatever they are permitted to transfer all wealth they are able to themselves.
When the free market is allowed, without undue influence by groups, individuals and organizations that do not have the well-being of the entire planet and the various populations of the planet as a ruling mechanism, to function freely with minimal influence from misguided government policies it will promote actions that will result in an overall improvement for all life on the planet.
Citicrab,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree! The only way we are going to get out of the Middle East is when they stop calling the dance tune. But I do not like the Cap and Trade because it is simply another tax that will be lost in the boondoggle called DC.
We do need to develop alternate energies, and that will require the cost of Oil to go up (whether OPEC does it or taxes do). The fly in the ointment is - do we trust the politicians in DC to use the tax for energy? Right now, given their spending ways (over the last 9 years, not just this one), I say no. They have to restore confidence in governance first, establish an irrevocable trust on the tax for energy development second, and then (and only then) talk about raising taxes on oil.
This stupidity of selling "carbon credits" is akin to selling indulgences - it will make the rich richer, but do nothing for anyone else (Gore has part ownership in one of the ponzi scheme companies! So noble!).
Fyngyrz your discussion is good and needs to be taken further.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The water cycle is a mitigating factor, but the whole thing can balance at a higher energy flux, i.e. greater temperature.
2) Warmth will be a wildlife ecological disaster, due to the current fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
3) Onset of temperature might be characterized as extremely slow, were it not for the fact that there is now a much higher acceleration than at any other point in the hockey stick. Given the various other factors, such as the extensive layout of human settlements at coasts, the necessary glacial sources of freshwater, unknowns about iceshelf stability and desertification even at small temperature increases, -- the possible concerns about human migration have raised economic and security issues which have even alarmed the Pentagon.
4) CO2 has lagged planetary warming in the distant past, but that is not a cause for relief. It may not have occurred during cooling periods, but instead caused additional warming. The correlations of CO2 and temperature are not close in those distant graphs due to the nature of ice-core recording of temperature vs. CO2, and also, that evidence is restricted for temperature to the Antarctic (while CO2 on the other hand is well-mixed over the planet.) If we have yet to see additional "natural" CO2 degassed from wherever it came from before, we could be in more trouble than we thought.
5) Action is not suggested upon the models, but upon the evidence and the models. Indeed, some of the evidence is worse than the models have predicted.
But what is underneath most of this objection is the idea that climate mitigation must be economically costly, is that not correct? Yet that is probably the biggest mistake of all. The projections do costs, BUT NOT benefits. They can't do benefits because we can't predict human creativity in innovation. Climate mitigation could have greater economic benefits than costs, so it could be a net plus. In fact that is likely to be the case -- the economic models also don't factor in the enormous government subsidies to the petroleum and coal industries, nor even touch upon the costs to national security. The economic fears by the skeptics here are tantamount to gibberish.
@BiocCarb,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you will not answer any ones questions? Any how since you insist that we play the Math obfuscation game. I want to bring this down to the elementary level.
What does. -0.774 °C - 0.75 = ?
Now this is something a child can do. How about you?
"but this idea that global warming will melt the ice in greenland and antartica to the point that the worlds coastal areas will flood is just bad math...antartica 5.4 million sq mi x 10,ooo feet of ice....greenland 800k sq mi x 5000 feet of ice... verses 1.25 TRILLION sq feet of ocean... less than 5 inches MAX"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets work out the math rather than just making assertions in CAPS. Assuming the initial values are correct:
5.4 million square miles = 28.5 billion square feet.
28.5 billion square feet * 10,000 feet of ice = 285 trillion cubic feet
285 trillion cubic feet / 1.25 trillion square feet = 228 feet. for Antarctica alone.
(This calculation is clearly an oversimplification as it does not take into account the density difference between ice and water, or the volume in the ocean that used to be taken up by ice that would be filled with water.)
Trent:Since nobody else is talking about just CO2 alone why are you?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWoosh: Is that supposed to be an argument? Yikes! What passes for critical thinking in the AGW alarmist set is truly alarming. I think I'll frame it for posterity.
Non Sequter. At no point do you address the point that I am not making the argument you claim I am making. You just can not think straight can you?
"All we know for certain is that temps will rise 1 degree C with a CO2 doubling. The feedbacks are just guesses based on GCMs."
No. Once again you display your ignorance. I have said this again and again and now am going to say yet again.
If you took all the models and placed them in the trash can you would still know you got a huge problem. That it because the paleclimatic data and CURRENT observations would be enough information to take action.
E.g you keep on rabbiting on how we need have no worries because we are only guaranteed 1c of temp rise. What you seem to ignore or are ignorant of is that at we have ALREADY experienced a 0.7c rise in temps and we are at 385 ppm.
So it is not reasonable or rational to ignore the feedbacks. The paleoclimatic data demonstrates that at higher CO2 levels we get higher temps than 1c. Why would you expect temps to suddenly stop at 1c.
"The gist of your final surreal paragraph is the only correct if you explain what the meaning of "well above" is. Try being less histrionic and more specific in the future. M'kay?"
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/perspectives.html
It is about time you started educating yourself.
I should clarify this for those out of the loop. Biocarb is a notorious internet troll who is infamous for obfuscation tactics with math and claiming to be a scientist (what kind he will not say).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sad thing is that he does not even the basic skill we would expect of a 6th grader.
When I asked "What does. -0.774 °C - 0.75 = ?"
I did not pick those numbers randomly either. They come from a James Randi Education Foundation thread where Biocarb has posted frequently. Go to the following links to watch the comedy of Biocarb playing the mathematician.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3823150&postcount=530
Go look at his answer for the problem. Now you know what an incompetent he is.
Want some more evidence of this silliness? Go here where one enterprising has put Biocarb's Greatest Math Hit's.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3854567&postcount=779
Read through the threads much hilarity is to be had here.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRespectfully, and recognizing that we do not always agree, I suggest that it is unwise to continue to engage Biocab.
He has failed to provide evidence to support his contention that he is a scientist deserving any deference due to authority.
He has failed to provide any references to his purported peer reviewed publications.
My wife is a librarian, and she was kind enough to do a name search back to 1985 in several (BioDigest, Biological Abstracts, PubMed) of the biological science databases. The only hits she got in them were for an anesthesiologist with the name Nazih Nahle. While it is possible that this is the same individual as Nasif Nahle, the Scientific Research Director of Biology Cabinet, I seriously doubt it.
Having visited his website I have noted that his services are for sale to the highest bidder.
http://www.biocab.org/About_Us.html
Scroll down to “What We do: We perform laboratory and field research by assignment from other institutions -or by special projects of Biology Cabinet Organization. We have the appropriate equipment required to perform scientific researches in the main disciplines of Biology.”
I attempted to get Biocab to substantiate his claims, as did you. His last response to you was “If you want to know my credentials, ask for them to the institutions from which I got them. Hah!”
While you are free to continue to try to connect with Mr. Nahle, I expect your efforts to be fruitless. I forget where I heard it, but there is a quote that seems to fit this situation well, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it.”
I leave it to the readers of this post to reflect upon these facts and to come to their own conclusions as to why Mr. Nahle would make the unsubstantiated claims he does.
Trent (seriously, I'm not making this up) said the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Non Sequter. At no point do you address the point that I am not making the argument you claim I am making. You just can not think straight can you?"
Not after that twisted reply, I think you gave my brain whiplash. I'll sue presently.
Trent again:
==============
"All we know for certain is that temps will rise 1 degree C with a CO2 doubling. The feedbacks are just guesses based on GCMs."
No. Once again you display your ignorance. I have said this again and again and now am going to say yet again.
==============
Amazing, more than 100 words of null semantic content. Better trim the excess verbiage or nobody will want to debate you regardless of how unintentionally funny you are.
Trent finally gets down to it:
"If you took all the models and placed them in the trash can you would still know you got a huge problem. That it because the paleclimatic data and CURRENT observations would be enough information to take action."
If you read my reply to Chryses earlier, you should know the paleoclimate data is seriously compromised. What current observations did you mean? Because the ones I've seen show the steady increase in temps has stalled for the last 10 years despite increasing CO2. That seems to match my contention that the warming from CO2 and feedbacks have maxed out.
Trent:
"E.g you keep on rabbiting on how we need have no worries because we are only guaranteed 1c of temp rise. What you seem to ignore or are ignorant of is that at we have ALREADY experienced a 0.7c rise in temps and we are at 385 ppm."
Congratulations! You've discovered the straw man fallacy! I never said any of that. You really don't read very well.
Remember that CO2 doubling, being logarithmic, does the bulk of its warming at the early stages. The remainder of the warming from this point up until doubling is finished will be quite small.
Trent:
"So it is not reasonable or rational to ignore the feedbacks. The paleoclimatic data demonstrates that at higher CO2 levels we get higher temps than 1c. Why would you expect temps to suddenly stop at 1c. "
Stop, I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe! Didn't you see where I wrote in the last two postings that temps will rise 1.5 to 2 C? Hey Mr. Straw Man, show where I ever said I "expect temps to suddenly stop at 1c."
@Trent1492...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say: "I should clarify this for those out of the loop. Biocarb is a notorious internet troll who is infamous for obfuscation tactics with math and claiming to be a scientist (what kind he will not say)."
You can think whatever you wish on my person, but science is science and you are arguing pure pseudo-science. Your evasive answer only shows that you are NOT a scientist and you cannot manage mathematics. By the way, it is not a matter of mathematics, but of physics, i.e. Thermal Science. :)
Now, let's go over your "argument":
When I asked "What does. -0.774 �C - 0.75 = ?"
As you have two negative magnitudes, both count for adding. Then, my answer at Randy's blog is correct and you are showing your ignorance on simple maths operations with negative magnitudes. If you cannot do the sum on paper, use your MSN calculator... :)
Now apply the formula that I have shown you two (with this one three) times:
dT = a (LN 2) / 4 (s) (T)^4
The result is the change of temperature resulting from doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is physics, OK?... heh!
My credentials are here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html
You can ask about me straightly to every institution mentioned there. Trent's a looser ignorant who repeats like a parrot the pseudoenvironmentalists' mantra.
The idea that oil companies are funding deniers is not founded in reality. All large corporations, especially oil companies, WIN if there is cap and trade, or any sort of political restrictions on additional production of fossil fuel. They get to charge more for their product, and they get to defer investment in new production. Their profits skyrocket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who thinks big business in general, and oil companies in particular, are supporting the so-called "deniers" is being quite naive.
Google biocab.org:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=biocab.org&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-sx5
and Nasif Nahle:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=nasif+nahle&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-p2
Perhaps your wife needs another easier job?
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say:
"I leave it to the readers of this post to reflect upon these facts and to come to their own conclusions as to why Mr. Nahle would make the unsubstantiated claims he does."
Please, don't show so easily the terror that my name instills in you. What are those supposedly unsubstantiated claims which you say I've done? Could you clarify this kind of conundrum from your side? :)
All you need to note is the following: "even if [the Mann data, featured in the IPCC, used as the major argument for action on climate change] is bad, what of it?". Repeat that a few times, and you will realize what amazing hubris is reflected in opinions like this. Even if the surface station data is corrupted, what of it? Even if the ice core data shows CO2 rise following the temperature rise, what of it? Even if the latest cloud research shows that climate models are inadequate, what of it? Even if the solar magnetic activity and sunspot counts show a demonstrable, causal effect on temperature, the models are sacred and must be protected. The people are experts and must be protected. The money for climate change is pouring in and must be protected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is no longer science, folks. And the tragedy is that positions like Rennie's put all of science in pretty serious danger.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public funds for research warrants a federal investigation. Im hoping the perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State Universitys Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. Michael Santomauro
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public funds for research warrants a federal investigation. I’m hoping the perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. — Michael Santomauro
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you can not just admit you are arguing a case that no one is making? Is it really that embarrassing for you to admit error even anonymously? Seriously you just bury yourself more and more with the likes of Biocarb who can not even do basic math.
"If you read my reply to Chryses earlier, you should know the paleoclimate data is seriously compromised."
Oh really? Here is challenge for you. Make the case.. Please reproduce the incriminating E-Mails in FULL with text and a accompanying text number. Then I want you to make a connection between a specific paper and the E-mail. I want to know what part is the paper that you think is "compromised".
Now you asked, "what current observations?". Let me see:
The rise in temperatures:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
The loss of glacier mass in 90% of monitored glaciers:
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb9/sum06.html
The loss of mass from the East Antarctic Ice Sheet:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
The fact that record highs beat record lows by nearly at 2:1.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=115905&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51
That the stratosphere is cooling while the lower troposphere is WARMING:
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Declining Arctic Sea Ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
A Warming Arctic far faster than the rest of the globe:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
The Jet Stream moving steadily more North:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL033614.shtml
The Sea rising is and the attribuiton is to humanity:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040216.shtml
We got plenty of evidence. Now note that all of the the links go to straight to peer reviewed articles or national science organization with links to the article.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe falsification of data and the conspiracy to commit same etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. Further, the granting of public funds for research warrants a federal investigation. Im hoping the perpetrators, including possibly Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State Universitys Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows. Michael Santomauro
I've only read a few comments, but the personal attacks against jercarobrien1 were disappointing. Rennie is obviously presenting the best case for the alarmists. His first answer seemed convincing until I read Lindzen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=djemWMPh
This may give some of you pause before going on the attack.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used the urls Biocab supplied, and you will probably be not surprised at the results.
When googling on biocab.org (the first url)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&q=biocab.org&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-sx5
The search returned a list of hits for his website. Not bad advertising.
When googling on Nasif Nahle (the second url)
The search returned a list of hits for himself, including his facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/nasif.nahle). Not bad advertising, but no peer reviewed publications that he authored.
I shall go to sleep this evening secure in the belief that my wife’s position is in no immediate jeopardy.
Biocab raves on:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please, don't show so easily the terror that my name instills in you."
The great terror! LOL! I think the only people you have terrorized is your 5th grade math teacher. I can only imagine the dread she felt when Biocarb added and substracted decimals.
Poor thing, must have needed a couple of stiff tequilas after grading your work.
Chryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen does sea level change mean an actual rise in sea level and not a sinking of the land due to man's local engineering practices and messing with the depositional/erosional balance of a deltaic system?
In all of the locations you quote. Try again.
Shoshin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was unaware until now that the Maldives were “… a deltaic system … In all of the locations you quote …”.
As they are not, I still am.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn enjoyable read: http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html
Not only is Mr. Nahle the “Scientific adviser in the Biology Cabinet, Institution for the Scientific research and Education on Biology“ which publishes his work, but he is the owner. Not only a conflict of interest, but also a commercial plug.
Mr. Nahle claims an impressive list of degrees to his name:
1. MATHEMATICS: Degree on January 14, 1975.
2. EARTH'S SCIENCES: Meteorology, Climatology, Geology, Dynamic Geology, Geomorphology, Geophysics, Pedology (Soils Science) and Hydrology, Biogeography, Paleobiology.
Certified on January 12, 1975.
3. PHYSICS: Degree on July 4, 1977.
5. Biotic Resources. Degree on July 4, 1977.
6. History of the Biological Doctrines. Degree on January 12, 1975.
7. Scientific ICAM Research. Certified on April 20, 1999.
What I couldn’t find is what degree was awarded: AA, BA, BS, MS, PhD. I was also unable to identify the name or contact data of the accredited institutions that awarded those degrees. Perhaps you will have better luck.
He does, unsurprisingly, reference himself: Nahle, Nasif. Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases. Biology Cabinet. 27 April 2007.
The reference “Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 6, (pgs. 7-14) January 01.” sounds impressive as all get out, but if you follow the link (http://www.eoht.info/) it will take you to a wiki.
I am not making this up.
Michael Santomauro,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. If Dr Mann (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/) has perpetrated fraud, he should be taken to task for doing so.
It should be interesting to see what the investigation (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izNbUAsY0l5eBzcvw_JFleAvawuwD9CC3NF00) uncovers/exposes.
To the people who scared of massive wealth redistribution due to AGW legislation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter seeing all CEO ethics and the global economic crises caused by it in the past year or so, my conclusion is that a massive redistribution of wealth is exactly what this country needs!
Big money must be taken from large 20th century companies those managed by greedy stupids which produce lots of pollution, and must be given to new 21th century companies which have clean alternative solutions!
Its nice to see someone actually attempt to engage the science for a change, instead of appealing to authority. The presentation is one sided though, you need a debate. On point 1, while he is right that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is also established that the effects are logarithmic, that is the molecules only absorb in narrow bands, and after a small number are in the air, these bands are already covered, so each molecule does less than the last. This means that, unless there is positive feedback through water vapor, we have already seen essentially all the warming we will ever see, if CO2 concentrations quintuple from here. Positive feedback through water vapor is conceivable, but hardly established. In fact, feedback is likely negative. The IPCC's computer models predict that warming in the tropical troposphere should be double what it is on the surface, and in fact zero (0) warming has been observed in the tropical troposphere in the 50 year history of the time series.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2)The earth may have warmed over the last 400 years, which stops short of the medieval warm period. Claiming "the last 400 years is the most relevant" is tendentious at best. Fact is, variations of this level occur naturally. Hockey stick results have been produced using similar statistical analysis from random input, proving the hockey stick graph nonsense. It is an artifact of the statistical technique, not rising temperature. The hockey stick, when it was believed, was strong evidence that we actually were affecting climate. But any reasonable person who eyeballs the temperature record will spot nothing untoward about the last 100 years against the last 1000.
3. There may be no true temperature declines, but there are no true temperature increases either. Moreover, the data since 2001 FALSIFY the 2001 predictions of the IPCC models at the 95% level. So the models are seen again to be broken. If the models are broken, so is the case for alarm.
4. The IPCC report, like Rennie, does address the strawman of direct solar radiation increase. The real issue however is cosmic rays, which are not discussed in the IPCC report. The evidence for cosmic ray impact is extremely compelling, which is why warmists like Rennie always confront the strawman and ignore the real case. The evidence for cosmic ray involvement is much much stronger than for CO2.
I could go on. For data backing up each of these assertions, see
http://whatisthought.com/GW.html
and other essays at http://whatisthought.com/essays.html
fb36,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRespectfully, the scientific basis for AGW is difficult enough to assess without adding the pros and cons of ethics and morals into the equations. Let the judgments about whether any policy changes should be made, and if so which ones, based on the best science. At least that’s my preference.
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfounded Ad Hominem attacks which only reveals your ineptitude and ignorance on scientific issues.
You are invited also, as Trent was, to apply the algorithm for knowing the truth about the hoax of global warming:
dT = a (LN 2) / 4 (s) (T)^3
The result is very important because it concerns to the inhability of carbon dioxide for causing any global warming. This is the important thing, not what game I like to play.
You have not a single scientific fundament for saying that humans are causing global warmings or climate changes, neither that carbon dioxide is the culprit of the normal (natural) climate changes. :)
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not a scientist. Your are a catkiller and no more.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes Biocab’s insult imply that he is a cat?
Why Chryses and Trent don't solve the algorithm? Here the answers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. They know nothing of physics.
2. They know nothing of mathematics.
3. The formula, deduced by the IPCC from Arrhenius algorithm, reveals that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't produce a change of temperature higher than 0.1 K:
dT = a (LN 2) / 4 (s) (T)^3
Introducing magnitudes:
dT = 0.423 W/m^2 (LN [560 ppmV/280 ppmV]) / 4 (5.6698 x 10^8 W/m^2 K^4) (255 K)^3 =
= 0.29 (W/m^2) / 3.76 (W/m^2 K) = 0.08 K. Rounding up the cipher, dT = 0.1 K
That's the truth. Why is it so low? Simple, because the total emittancy of carbon dioxide is low. Compare it with the total emittancy of water vapor and you have solve the conundrum.
Read scientific books.
Covah,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Beetles kill the tree, which causes the trees to dry, then what the Forestry Dept. would do is cut down those trees and other dry brush to prevent a massive forest fire. But Environmentalists sought legislation preventing the clear cutting of dead dry trees and brush. Then a lightening storm hits, or someone tosses out a cigarette butt and a fire starts. While a live tree might have sap preventing it's complete destruction, the needles on a conifer will still go up in flames. The fire travels up the bark and needles to the top where the air flow catches the embers sending them to the next trees fueling the fire.
However fires are not wholly bad. They do help in the creation of new growth. Pine cones hold the seeds, but only open under high heat. Nature isn't always pretty, but man can help in subtle ways like clearing out dry and dead brush and trees, preventing mass lose resulting in a more controlled small area loss.
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHah! It seems you don't know your own language. :D
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey! I got a “Hah!” out of Biocab! I wonder if that has any significance.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question for you. If you were presented with the following statement, “Unfounded Ad Hominem attacks which only reveals your ineptitude and ignorance on scientific issues,” how would you respond?
Would you point out that the posts being objected to were not ad hominem arguments? Would you take the time to advise the complainer that everything that you had posted was based upon urls that the complainer had himself provided?
Would you invest the effort to explain that as the posts of data from the urls provided by the complainer were not ad hominem attacks, they could hardly be described as unfounded?
If you did reveal the emptiness or the null contents of the first four words of the sentence, would you bother to bring to the complainer’s attention that whether any ad hominem attacks occurred, or didn’t occur (as in this instance) reveals nothing at all about ability with or knowledge of scientific issues? Probably not, now that I think further about it, as the fact that the complainer saw fit to assume that there is an association between independent phenomena (ad hominem attacks and ability with or knowledge of scientific issues).
So no, as the complainer has demonstrated within the structure of the complaining sentence that the complainer does not appreciate what he is showing to everyone who reads his sentence, it would not really be worth the effort to respond to the complainer.
Thanks for letting me talk my way through this,
Chryses
WOW ! Multiple Questions for all you Warmists/ True Believers here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you call yourselves scientists or honest and interchange weather and climate in these discussions ? From a statistical standpoint your data set is nearly nonexistent and your base lines are even less accurate ! Weather - most of what you are claiming as "climate change" is just that weather. Tens years of => for than matter any single period of several hundred years is just weather. Unless a several hundred year data set is compared to an established baseline of SEVERAL millennia than a trend line is impossible to establish from a climactic standpoint ! Anything less is absolutely vapid weather forecasting.
Trying to then form public "environmental" policy - read destroy free markets/ private property rights and individual liberty - and establish centralized command economies based on this farce is UNfiltered post bovine organic matter.
Exactly how much data corruption from the CRU, flawed NOAA/ NASA "weather collection stations" will you accept as fact ?
Tens of thousands of scientists - 30 K + - real ones- without political agendas or need for gov't grants have attested to the weakness of the AGW proponent's arguments including more than 9 K Phd s Are they too going to be ignored? Are they too to be dismissed as cooks, troglodytes, Republican stooges and whatever other Progressive pejoratives pass for hip ?
CO 2 As a causal force ? Really? The geologic record indicates - rocks have no need of gov't. grants nor do have political agendas- that earth has had CO2 concentrations several hundred times higher than it does now and yet ?
Yet NOW according to the Warmists @.04% and rising it is necessary to return earth's (western) economy(ies) to some luddite utopian yesteryear. How much technology/ freedom/ prosperity must we surrender to pay for our sins against Mother Earth ? More bluntly put - How many humans must die for this earth utopian balance to be achieved? Who gets to decide who reproduces and who does NOT to achieve these ends ?
I have been nose to nose with the "green" Progressives for nearly three decades and ANY assertion that AGW is NOT a political agenda to destroy the US, US Constitution, free markets and individual liberty is ignoring what the eco-socialists have been saying and doing for decades.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood news! We participants of this SciAm forum have not only been told (bpuryea at 12:13 PM on 12/02/09) how the scientific process is supposed to go, but now we have been provided the truth! Really!
“dT = 0.423 W/m^2 (LN [560 ppmV/280 ppmV]) / 4 (5.6698 x 10^8 W/m^2 K^4) (255 K)^3 =
= 0.29 (W/m^2) / 3.76 (W/m^2 K) = 0.08 K. Rounding up the cipher, dT = 0.1 K
That's the truth.”
And there you were getting frustrated with some of the other participants of this erudite discussion! We should count ourselves fortunate indeed, that after seeking enlightenment for lo these many years, we are graced with such profundities in the space of but a few short hours.
WSG,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…Tens of thousands of scientists - 30 K + - real ones- without political agendas or need for gov't grants have attested to the weakness of the AGW proponent's arguments including more than 9 K Phd s …”
Impressive. I was unaware of such numbers. Who are they?
This article may be good for Saturday Night Live, or some other outdated comedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American has lost my respect.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Does Biocab’s insult imply that he is a cat?"
At least one strange cat.
"I am not making this up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWelcome to the BioCab Hall of Mirrors where simple addition and subtraction are taken to levels of insanity that the Mad Hatter only dreamed of.
Heh, was this article written for Saturday Night Live, or some other out of touch comedy? It wasn't written for any respectable Scientific Journal. Why even bother to post it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Chrsyse,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I was unaware until now that the Maldives were “… a deltaic system … In all of the locations you quote …”.
I want to welcome you the Republican War on Geography.
*Sigh *
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould read:
I want to welcome you to the Republican War on Geography.
@Chryse,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What I couldn’t find is what degree was awarded: AA, BA, BS, MS, PhD. I was also unable to identify the name or contact data of the accredited institutions that awarded those degrees. Perhaps you will have better luck."
No thanks. I think I might have better luck finding Amelia Earhart's lost plane from my bathtub than confirming the bona fides on those credentials.
@WSG,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI looked at you wall of words and I just got one thing to say. I believe in paragraphs.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Good news! We participants of this SciAm forum have not only been told (bpuryea at 12:13 PM on 12/02/09) how the scientific process is supposed to go, but now we have been provided the truth! Really!"
I suspect that Bpuryea is a sock puppet. I know of only one other forum member who uses the word cipher in such an eclectic way.
@Trent and Chryses... I am a donkeykiller. I've killed to Trent and Chryses with basic physics. Hah! :D
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI canceled my subscription about a year ago. I like science, not politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When does sea level change mean an actual rise in sea level and not a sinking of the land due to man's local engineering practices and messing with the depositional/erosional balance of a deltaic system?"
Newsflash: measurement of sea level rise are taken at more spots than the Delta of rivers. You really are that delusional.
Do not take my word for though. Take a look this peer reviewed article:
Present-day Sea Level Change: Observations and Causes
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2003RG000139.shtml
Abstract:
"In fact, the geocentric rate of global mean sea level rise over the last decade (1993–2003) is now known to be very accurate, +2.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr, as determined from TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason altimeter measurements, 3.1 mm/yr if the effects of postglacial rebound are removed. This rate is significantly larger than the historical rate of sea level change measured by tide gauges during the past decades (in the range of 1–2 mm/yr)"
So can you show me the evidence that these clusters of satellites are only taking measurements from deltas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, that 5 % of CO2 is going to destory Earth, because of people, runs the argument? And 95% of this naturally produced, infra-red radiation absorber (not much about infra-red radiation as regards our potential warming, cooling, etc., is known, BTW - and this is not quoting 1896-quality science as current fact) is going to be as nice for us as Turkish yogurt? (This must be because Gaia, the Earth Empress...ah, never mind...)
At the moment, 15 years into a negative warming trend (that some at East Anglia tried to HIDE) and 9 years of a distinct downward trend (tied mysteriously to solar activity and albedo I might add - though I dare not say with the certainty of the dogmatist that this is "it") we are lucky that Henry's Law -which determines how CO2 is stripped out of the water and air, or not, due to cooling- is not turning this compound back into constituent parts fast enough. This so that we can still grow crops effectively to feed the 3 and a half billion of us who are basically well fed, and the 1 billion or so that are well fed. Would we could hold on to all the water vapor, too; because if the Sun does what it did with other forces (geothermal? hydrological? intra and extra-galactic due to cosmic radiation accumulation?) in c. 1800-1820 (Dalton Minimum)...or worse, what it/these did from c. 1630-1730 (Maunder Minimum)...then cut out c. 1 billion souls, then c. 3 billion souls, respectively.
That is, dead. Now, there's some cruel numbers for you.
Seems cruel numbers, cruelly-used, have turned around and bit some chaps on their bottoms. Phil stepped down at CRU. And Mike got a Christmas present from the Penn State provost's office, which is going to go to work on him very soon. And Kevin, and John, and all the rest. Soon they'll all be, er, DENYING , they knew each other.
Read all about it at East Anglia. That would be the grant-mill in the UK where the riggers have been caught rigging data all along (c. 13 years' worth). And not the high school somewhere in Pennsylvania or Minnesota etc.
Due to the violations of the Freedom of Information Act, some of the lads are probably going to go to jail.
You can't call me a contrarian or denier. The temperature had - HAD - been going up to about a degree celsius - over the last 130 years or so - in the northern hemisphere. This has had the horrible life threatening effect of extending the northern year-round ranges of birds like Mockingbirds and Mourning Doves these last 100 years.
I hope it keeps going up. Or staying as it was. For all our sakes.
"And the governance of the geoengineering system could become a political minefield, with nations disagreeing about what the optimal climate settings should be." - a little irony there, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Mr. Rennie, I couldn't make it past the first intentional covering up of fact--when you oh so correctly state that Arrhenius predicted 6 degrees Celsius warming with a doubling of CO2 concentrations. But as you so surely know, that was in 1896. In 1905 he had the opportunity to revise his calculations and changed his projections to 2.1 degrees Celsius, including the half degree of feedback from water vapor. Is this the standard of factual accuracy we are to expect from Scientific American?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a scientist working in a non-climate (but physics related) field for the past 25 years. I will believe whatever accurate, repeatable, reproducible data indicate, and any theories that are validated by reliable data. I have two points to make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint # 1:
As I try to understand the global warming debate, a significant validation problem with the climate models keeps pushing me towards being skeptical: the IPPC 4th Assessment Report states "the best estimates ... for global average surface air warming ... for the low scenario ... is 1.8 C .." (by the end of the century). This implies a rate of about 0.2 C per 10 years. Note that other IPPC referenced models predict larger temperature increases up to 0.4 C per 10 years.
I have found actual data (not models) showing strong deviation from the model predictions. For example, it is clearly evident from the NASA GISS Surface Temperature data, updated monthly, that there has been no warming for the past 10 years.
What bothers me is that if I created a model that was performing badly for the first 10% of its range, I would not have much faith in the accuracy of my model. And, to retain credibility, I would be working hard to explain why the model was not working correctly.
I cannot find reasons why the IPPC models have missed their temperature increase predictions. Maybe explanations exist and I haven't found them. Until I do, I have no choice but to be skeptical of the models and their predictions.
Point #2.
I expect legitimate science magazines (and journals) to encourage debate about science data and models. I have noticed in the past 1-2 years that Scientific American seems to publish many more articles (and opinions) supporting global temperature increase than those taking the opposite side. This apparent bias is not useful to me. I want to understand both sides.
So, I have decided to drop my subscription and will look for a more unbiased source of information. This is a shame. SA used to be less biased.
Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air, so it sinks to the bottom of the atmospheric pile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long , and how high up in the pile, does the CO2 stay mixed in with the N and the O ?
What happens to it when it is lying on the ground and can't sink any further?
Just wondering.
Why is it that whenever anthropogenic C02 is talked about, as in this article, the denominator is never spoken of? This article says we produce 30 billion tons each year, well at least its rounded up from the 27 billion SciAm recently reported. But never is the fact that we already have 3,600 billion tons of C02 already in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo 27/3,600=0.75% of all C02 is man made. The numbers have never added up.
And any student of economy will note that the Cap and trade will not affect just polluters but it will hit everyone. Gas will rise at least 50%, electricity will "necessarily skyrocket" to 90%. Our economy will come to a screeching halt and the morons who voted for this tax based on fraudulent science will be responsible for the "great depression of 2010".
"This article says we produce 30 billion tons each year, well at least its rounded up from the 27 billion SciAm recently reported. But never is the fact that we already have 3,600 billion tons of C02 already in the atmosphere. So 27/3,600=0.75% of all C02 is man made."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're dividing a value of "30 billion tons each year" by "3,600 billion tons" and don't see a problem with that?
Hint: The answer you get isn't 0.75%. It's 0.75% PER YEAR. The fact that increases in carbon dioxide levels recently are anthropogenic can be and have been confirmed with isotopic analyses.
Why is it that deniers of global warming repeatedly demonstrate fundamental mathematical and scientific errors and convey a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, yet are absolutely certain that global warming is a hoax? Or why denial seems to so overwhelmingly correlate with the far-right in the U.S. and elsewhere, when the scientific facts should have absolutely nothing to do with one's political leanings?
I also don't follow the reasoning that failing to give just as much time to false, misleading, and thoroughly rejected views is "bias". The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and humans are contributing significantly to it, and a scientific publication such as SciAm should reflect that. We don't give equal time to moon landing conspiracy theorists when we talk about the Apollo program, and we don't give equal time to David Irving and other holocaust deniers when we talk about WW2.
Most of the comments here just parrot the talking points of the denial movement, without actually reading the article - which solidly debunks most of them. Others are just outright lies, misstatements, and Chinese-whisper nonsense.
One aspect to this debate on climate change is clear--there are scientific whores willing to cheat, steal, lie and distort just to maintain their tax bracket.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe easy way to spot the whores of science has been established by this debate among others. Now those searching for dishonest workers can easily spot those who are willing to lie on demand of their masters. So if you're looking for lackies with degrees you know where to look!
I think we can all agree that... it would be a good idea to clean up as much pollution as we can without going over the deep end, so to speak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't care about the science, I honestly am worried... It's November 26, it was 63 today, the birds are flying in circles over the river, they should be going north. We used to have 3 feet of snow this time of year.This is not normal. Let's talk about how many feet of rain we had this spring. April showers...not floods. Bring May flowers.
There's a lot of people who add 2+2 and come up with six. I'm sure you know them too.
How's the climate where you live? How is it different? I'm sure that if you think about it honestly, the climate is changing.
Some have said...that people have not made a significant impact on the earth. Check them off, they can't add.
I have a friend who loves words. She writes total nonsense that sounds like she know something, but it's just for fun.
Why focus on only one source of evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about weather reports...they go back for years and years.
They have to be accurate, they are recorded after the fact.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"’Does Biocab’s insult imply that he is a cat?’
At least one strange cat.“
It would seem that this donkeykiller cat is a very strange cat indeed!
Q's 1."Climate-Gate" is the context right? The context was clear. 2., The work of Michael Mann East Anglia U. and the Goddard Space Centre with the IPCC, have faked data. "The world has never seen such freezing heat", London Telegraph, 16 Nov. 2008 showed that. 3. The money? $5 billion is nothing to sneeze at, and Shell along with other NGO's are paying the pollies too. Remember, QUI BONO, who benefits?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQ's 1.Context of "Climate-Gate"? The context was clear. 2. Michael Mann East Anglia U., the Goddard Space Centre and IPCC, have faked data. "The world has never seen such freezing heat", London Telegraph, 16 Nov. 2008 showed that. 3. Money? $5+ billion on top of private reserch grants. 4. Power? Politicians, foundations and companies can ask for anything "For the Earth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou certainly do not look like the tangled haired bulging eyed "mad scientist", but you certainly speak his language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not a scientist, but I become suspicious of anyone or any group that claims to know the hidden problem and have the ONLY answer. I am reminded of the tales of Chicken Little and The Emperors Clothes. Simply because a miniscule number of people (scientists), group together and make world boggling statements based on experiments that indicate the sky is falling, walk about making naked statements, with out any real covering does not obviate other considerations. You base your conclusions on experiments, conducted by people that expect to find evidence to under gird preconceived ideas. I understand quantum physics implys that whatever experiment you conduct, you will find what you are looking for, all possibilities are there. I ask the question " could global warming or cooling for that matter be 'ghost' possibilities, depending upon which direction one chooses to conduct experiments" ? Whereas I fall within that group you haughtily refer to as contrarians (nonsensicals), I would readily accept a world energy system based upon hydrogen or derivitives other than fossil fueled components. I am concerned that we as US citizens would make all these sacrifices and economic restrictions, while the rest of the world merrily continues to bring us (according to your "consensus") to our doom anyway.
Eliyahu,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“I understand quantum physics implys that whatever experiment you conduct, you will find what you are looking for, all possibilities are there.“
That is a mistake. Quantum Mechanics does not imply that.
You may be referring to the fact that experiments can be designed to measure the particle nature of quantum entities and they may alternatively be designed to measure the wave nature of the same quantum entities. The classic examples (sorry about that) of these quantum wave–particle dualities are the particle nature of light, which earned Albert Einstein his Nobel prize, and the wave nature of electrons.
These different experiments measure the different, existing, natural, and inherent properties of those quantum entities. This in no way implies that “you will find what you are looking for, all possibilities are there.”
WSG,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat post. Can you provide links for some of the information contained in it? I would love to read more on your assertions.
Eliyahu,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou bring up an excellent point. In the end, until such time as AGW becomes a crises (if it ever does), man as a species will not do anything to correct it. Some will (perhaps Obama and other "literati" nations), but their efforts will be offset by nations that do not believe in AGW (check out India's latest response).
One nation cannot go it alone, but they can take care of their own (cleaning up pollution, while not absolute on a national scale, does do wonders within ones borders), they cannot tackle the problem (or non-problem) of AGW unilaterally.
In the end, if AGW is real, then the climatologist have to get their house in order - not only to convince the common man - but to convince the rest of the scientific community that they are serious scientists and not political shills. That has to occur now. Once that occurs (and the threats against those who oppose their views cease), then perhaps we can find out if we are facing a global crises - or just another vehicle for the socialists to restrict freedom around the world and grab more power.
Some of the science is interesting - and if true - compelling, but the politics scream louder and right now we have only to quote Rahm Emmanuel to know that regardless of the truth, some are using this issue to advance their "non-climate" agenda and grab more power.
Given the hatchet job that rennie did, it is fortunate that SA provides a forum for all to discuss the issue. While most of the posts are chaff, there are kernels of wheat among them that clearly show the answers to AGW are not set in stone, and are still being worked out. before we jump off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings, it is best to know why we must - if indeed there is any reason other than the lemming mentality to do so.
I remember when the burden of proof was shouldered by proponents of a theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI generally believe in global warming, but I do remember fondly the old days when the burden of proof was presumed to rest with the proponents of a theory, rather than its detractors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Some of the science is interesting - and if true - compelling, but the politics scream louder and right now we have only to quote Rahm Emmanuel to know that regardless of the truth, some are using this issue to advance their "non-climate" agenda and grab more power.
Given the hatchet job that rennie did, it is fortunate that SA provides a forum for all to discuss the issue. While most of the posts are chaff, there are kernels of wheat among them that clearly show the answers to AGW are not set in stone, and are still being worked out. before we jump off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings, it is best to know why we must - if indeed there is any reason other than the lemming mentality to do so. “
Hear Hear!
Chryses I stand corrected --- My info was gleaned from a book by John Gribbin (a physicist) --- In search of Shrodingers Cat -- to me, a great read, although not a text book, it clarifies Quantum physics in lay language --- perhaps too lay? Perhaps I misunderstood his contentions of the "metaphysical" aspects of Quantum theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein never accepted the theories of Quantum Physics and posed several experiments that would prove the contentions of Borg Borne and Schrodinger. He died before these experiments could be performed.
Phil --- Thanks for an insightful comment --- I say as you do
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHear Hear !!
CO2 is NOT responsible for Gobal Warming!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Earth cycles from a rather pleasant temperature to a much cooler temperature every 100,000 years. We are at or close to the apex (maximum warm) now. Please refer to a long term tempreature graph such as can be found at www.pewclimate.org to understand the following argument on why CO2 can NOT be responsible for this change. It is figure 2C titled "Long-term Trends in Carbon Dioxide and Surfact Temperature". This graph is supposed to prove that we are in serious trouble because of CO2, but I beleves it proves just the opposite. If you have any interest in this subject it will be necessary to look at a graph showing the long term trends of temperature an CO2 to understand what I believe is a very compelling argument.
Refering to the graph you will observe that the temperature cycles on a 100,000 year cycle from rather plesant to quite cold. The peak to peak variation is about 20 degrees F. According to the past cycles, we are close to the maximum expected temperature at this time. CO2 tracks this temperature quite well until man entered the picture. There is NO question that the Earth has been warming this past 10,000 years or so. There is also no question that the present level of CO2 is higher than could be expected based on history.
The question that needs answering before pointing to CO2 as the cause of these cycles is: Does CO2 cause these temperature variations, or simply respond to the temperature? In other words, which is the cause and which is the effect? Looking the past 4 increases in CO2/temperature it is difficult to tell because they each apear almost identical on this chart. However look at the fall in temperature following each of the previous peaks. It is easy to determine that the temperature falls before the level of CO2 falls. If CO2 were the cause, it would HAVE to fall first. It does not, which I believe proves that CO2 is NOT the cause of either the increase or the following decrease in temperature. It is necessary to look elsewhere for what I believe to be the true cause, which is Milankovitch Cycles. In particular the cycle that describes the changes in the Earth orbit from a realitively circular path to an oblonged one. This cycle corresponds well with the temperature cycles we have been discussing and in at a minimum at this time. If this argument is correct, there is NOTHING that man can do to alter these cycles. If you have evidence that this is not correct, I am open to hearing it.
Trent ponders:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why is it you can not just admit you are arguing a case that no one is making?"
Well gee, Trent. Maybe the problem is that you're incapable of comprehending the argument I'm making? Considering that you continue to be ignorant of the basics of global warming, I think that's the most likely case, don't you?
Now, let's look at your laundry list:
Trent gets belligerent:
"...Here is challenge for you. Make the case.. Please reproduce the incriminating E-Mails in FULL with text and a accompanying text number. Then I want you to make a connection between a specific paper and the E-mail. I want to know what part is the paper that you think is "compromised". "
So you failed to comprehend yet again. Prove that I said anything regarding "a specific paper and the E-mail." Am I correct in assuming that English is not your first language?
Now for that laundry list. Show me a link that disproves my assertion that we'll see more than 1 to 2 degrees C of warming total.
P.S. Results from climate models are not proof.
Actually, Chryses. I believe Eliyahu is referring to the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Wikipedia:
"Proponents argue that many-worlds reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realised."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Things are quite simple. Carbon dioxide is not an important greenhouse gas. From experimentation by Hottel el al confirmed by other physicists in the area of thermal physics like Modest, Manrique, Petit, Bakken, etc., etc., etc., the absorptiviy of energy by carbon dioxide is quite limited. Observation and experimentation, the tools of real clean science, contradicts contundently Arrhenius' assertions made in the 19th Century. The carbon dioxide at its current concentration has an absorptivity of 0.001, which is nothing when it is compared with the absorptivity of energy by water vapor, which is 0.75.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn conclusion, the anthropogenic global warming/climate change is a hoax perpetrated by politics. The IPCC of UN has not scientific credentials for handling scientific issues.
I repeat, from a scientific standpoint, AGW is a lie, a hoax, a swindle.
>>>Solar is much more expensive than wind - so my estimate is certainly in the ballpark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what if PV cost declines due to new breakthroughs?
Researchers find a new way to make cheap and flexible photovoltaic cells.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19044/
Quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Things are quite simple. Carbon dioxide is not an important greenhouse gas. From experimentation by Hottel el al confirmed by other physicists in the area of thermal physics like Modest, Manrique, Petit, Bakken, etc., etc., etc., the absorptiviy (sic) of energy by carbon dioxide is quite limited. Observation and experimentation, the tools of real clean science, contradicts contundently (sic) Arrhenius' assertions made in the 19th Century. The carbon dioxide at its current concentration has an absorptivity of 0.001, which is nothing when it is compared with the absorptivity of energy by water vapor, which is 0.75."
This is really so, so simple. Show us a peer-reviewed article that says what you say is true. You know some scientist's names, now go the extra distance and cite the article. In a peer-reviewed journal.
Mr. Rennie once again clearly displays his personal biases. This article is yet another example of why I let my 20+ year SciAm subscription expire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBakken, G. S., Gates, D. M., Strunk, Thomas H. and Kleiber, Max. Linearized Heat Transfer Relations in Biology. Science. Vol. 183; pp. 976-978. 8 March 1974.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoyer, Rodney F. Conceptos de Bioqu�mica. 2000. International Thompson Editores, S. A. de C. V. M�xico, D. F.
Manrique, Jos� �ngel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
McGrew, Jay L., Bamford, Frank L and Thomas R. Rehm. Marangoni Flow: An Additional Mechanism in Boiling Heat Transfer. Science. Vol. 153. No. 3740; pp. 1106 - 1107. 2 September 1966.
Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill.
Potter, Merle C. and Somerton, Craig W. Thermodynamics for Engineers. Mc Graw-Hill. 1993.
Schwartz, Stephen E. 2007. Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System. Journal of Geophysical Research. [Revised 2007-07-16]
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10787
http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/7IMSC/Normals.pdf
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
Need more?
Under the multiverse quantum theory, the known universe, our universe, would be a daughterverse originated from a motherverse. The theory contemplates the formation of a black hole horizon and a quantum wormhole through which the energy of the motherverse would flow with the consequent creation of a false void bubble which would give origin to a daughterverse. The multiverse would be formed by uncountable motherverses and daughterverses which never touch one to another; they do never alter one to another, do never absorb one to another and do never bound one to another. The most interesting derivation of this theory is that there is no need of the occurrence of Big Bangs, just the negative pressure exerted by the true void, which consists of real void space. The space would be as we know it, three-dimensional, infinite and unbounded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to jercarobrien1. Why do you imagine that "Climate Change Reconsidered" is not published in the peer reviewed literature? If it overturns the current overwhelming consensus in climate science that warming is real and almost certainly due to anthropogenic causes, then why should not such groundbreaking conclusions be seen in the literature?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will answer my own question, if you don't mind: it's because global warming denial is a political movement, not a scientific contribution. That is why global warming denial is limited to websites, think tank white papers, and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and other far-right media. It has as much legitimacy as creationism or holocaust denial. If you dispute this, then stop posting to the SciAm comments section and start submitting "Climate Change Reconsidered" to journals so that such earth shattering discoveries may be considered. OTOH, if this hodge-podge of discredited nonsense had any validity it would already be there.
Sir... Would you be so kind as to corroborate your assertions with scientific data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother trumped up analysis of CO2 emission restrictions for climate change mitigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not interview Professor Ian Pilmer, Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre, Marc Morano or any one of the thousands of folks who actually hold the counter view.
Probably because that smells too much like real journalism.
They want us to give up our standard of living for their untried, untested climate change mitigation CO2 emission restrictions. When you break down the argument of even the best climatologist, all they are saying is, "Stop, go back!" It would be different if they had even a single experimental test, trial, demonstration or sample to show how well this might work.
"Stop, go back!" That's what they told Columbus right before he fell off the edge of the world and was never heard from again.
Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, Chryses. I believe Eliyahu is referring to the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Perhaps, but Everetts Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is only introduced in chapter eleven, the last chapter, at the end of the book. As you probably know, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics
Those who feel they need to adopt the parallel universes/many-universes/many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to support their position, either for or against the AGW hypothesis, have, in my opinion, strayed sufficiently far from the topic of this forum that I shall not engage them on that here.
Some other time perhaps.
Of course it is warming just as it is supposed to do per the long term temperature trends. Every 100,000 years the Earth goes through the same cycle, although politics were minimal the last time when it was even warmer than at present. CO2 is not responsible for this warming any more than it is responsible for the cooling we have been experiencing the past couple of months in the US. It is called Winter! If you look at the information I have posted a few comments back, you will see what I believe is proof that CO2 is not the cause. This is an easy to understand proof. So far no one has even tried to argue with it!! SO you can be the first!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that Mr. Nahle has embraced the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as some portion of his argument that the AGW hypothesis is false.
Either that or he is now spamming the forum with irrelevancies.
Are you as impressed with this line of reasoning as I am?
I have been writing a paper on global warming a fascinating subject btw, I was really up in the air trying to decide which side to take. I have been looking at evidence on both sides of the issue while no scientist I am, a little commen sense and research goes a long way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is a load of BS. It is a massive money maker for scientists who want to jet set around the globe and scare people into changing into new products and ditching old ones.
Frankly the evidence on the flip side of this argument makes alot more sense.
Has anyone ever thought about the heat of the center of the earth and volcanic activity concerning this point. Before they start releasing sulpher into the atomosphere shouldn't the reason be solidified? Perhaps it has to do with magnetics (gravity you know the force that holds us on this earth) So when a volcano erupts the earths temp goes down? hmmmmm is this really rocket science? No, to me it seems that being a living planet, the earth must have some sort of defence mechanism (like plants and the human body). So perhaps gravity is dependent on the heat of the earth's core and when it reaches the threshhold temp it s instinct is to let off the heat ...... volcano. So maybe its let off too much heat and now needs to compensate for the loss thus the green house effect.
Maybe certain scientist and politicians need to just leave the planet well enough alone to do it's job. The way I see it earth has cycled its way this far and if it isn't broke don't fix it.
Is it dispassionate scientific inquiry to call those who disagree names?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgarhighway,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&now go the extra distance and cite the article. In a peer-reviewed journal.
Mr. Nahle has, I believe, posted a response to your invitation (Biocab at 01:06 PM on 12/04/09).
I was unaware that Biology Cabinet (http://www.biocab.org/) was a peer-reviewed journal. As Mr. Nahle submitted the article to a website he owns, I wonder who the referees are. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.
garhighway,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…now go the extra distance and cite the article. In a peer-reviewed journal.”
Mr. Nahle has, I believe, posted a response to your invitation (Biocab at 01:06 PM on 12/04/09).
I was unaware that Biology Cabinet (http://www.biocab.org/) was a peer-reviewed journal. As Mr. Nahle submitted the article to a website he owns, I wonder who the referees are. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.
John Rennie's article demonstrates that he fails to understand the positions and arguments of climate scientists who hold ideas different from his. It is obvious that he's made up his mind and does not wish to be confused by other points of view. Ironically, he's guilty of the very charges he levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen science no longer allows or respects differing perspectives, it fails to be science. I suggest he do a little reading in the field before he renders final judgments on who is right and who is wrong in this debate. Ad hominem attacks don't settle complicated issues. Name calling is childish.
I've subscribed to Scientific American for over 50 years. Until recently, I never thought of this publication as a political rag. Stick to the science and leave the condescention and pontificating to the journalists in the popular media.
Chryses wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this============================
You did not respond to the second question. To provide a starting point for a possible discussion, do you contend that the results of the U.S. NOAA (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/climate/index.shtml) should be ignored? What about the research of UCAR/NCAR (http://www.ucar.edu/), or the research done at UCSD (http://meteora.ucsd.edu/), etc?
If, on the one hand, you dismiss the research from independent, and independently funded institutions, then might I ask why?
If, on the other hand, you accept that the data from these other sources do provide useful data, I would suggest that the debacle at the CRU should not be used as a red herring, and to use the empirical evidence which is reliable.
Wouldn’t discarding only the unreliable data be the scientific thing to do?
============================
Before we go off on a long discussion along the lines you mention, Chryses. Please take a quick look at the trends for global temps as measured by UAH satellites here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2605/4158824792_2477b01bf8.jpg
UAH data clearly shows two nearly flat trends separated by a step up around 1998. So for the 30+ year period the satellites were making measurements, warming occurred in just two years or so. There's practically no warming in the first 20 year period and the last 10.
Instructions for creating this chart to verify it can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158070451/in/photostream/
What do you think about that? Assuming that my contention of about 1 degree C of warming from a CO2 doubling is correct, the low measured increase in temps indicates that negative feedbacks are managing the increase nicely.
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Before we go off on a long discussion along the lines you mention, Chryses. Please take a quick look at the trends for global temps as measured by UAH satellites here:"
I interpret that to mean that you have decided not to respond. That is one way of handling awkward questions.
How can we change the planet's atmosphere and NOT expect consequences? To me it seems far safer to quit doing that. Yes, it's expensive, but cutting the US's dependence on foreign oil by conservation and switching to renewal sources would have many benefits, including national security (stop funding governments that allow terrorism). So why the resistance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I interpret that to mean that you have decided not to respond. That is one way of handling awkward questions."
Interesting interpretation of "Before we go off on a long discussion along the lines you mention...".
Did you look at the image? I had hoped to discuss your impression of it along with my response to the links you sent.
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“…my response to the links you sent.”
May I interpret the above to mean that you will respond to the question?
Yes. Are you willing to add that image to the discussion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy originating post to PkilJourdan (Chryses at 03:37 PM on 12/02/09) was “‘… Are you aware that the CRU specializes in studies of climates past? Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis? …”
You quoted it in your (wooosh at 12:45 AM on 12/03/09) post
“Chryses wrote:
‘Are you aware that the CRU specializes in studies of climates past? Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?’"
The rest of that post was used to comment on the CRU’s earlier work. It did not respond to the first question, but as the CRU’s scientific impartiality has been called into question of late, their input should be set aside until the inquiry can independently evaluate their work.
I stated in my response (Chryses at 09:56 AM on 12/03/09) that you had not responded to the second question.
Your most recent post in reply to my last inquiry as to whether you would respond, read, in part “Yes …”
Good. The question to which you have said you would respond is “Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?”
It seems to be, and was intended to be a question which can be answered ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
I agree with you ann that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but only b/c someday it will run out maybe not inour life times but someday, they do need to put more effort into renewable sources for this reason not b/c our planet is too hot.....I actually like that it has gotten warmer lately : )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnn,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the U.S. is not the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, the PRC is, any national policy adopted by the U.S. has no guarantee of success.
This is assuming that the AGW hypothesis is correct. If the AGW hypothesis is NOT correct, then any national policy adopted by the U.S. is guaranteed to fail.
Additionally, depending upon the size, and implementation of any national policy adopted by the U.S., the impact could have a catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy.
I have been a great fan of S.A...that is up till now. This so-called scientific article contains as many conjectures, may's, might's, seems to be and other such terms so as to discredit itself on that basis alone. Let's get back to science here people. The bottom line is simply this: nobody can say for certain, without doubt which way the climate will go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overwhelming evidence that mankind has flourished in a much warmer climate before and that CO� has in all ice core sample been shown to follow global temp changes (not cause them) is enough for me. I'll leave the rest of the arguments aside for now. These two simple facts should be enough for anyone. By the way Ice core samples have shown that much greater levels of CO� have existed in the past than at present.
The smell of money is irresistable! To think humanistic thought could conclude a temporary solution based on POOR science when untruths are espoused based on contrivemnets of the need for power and lust of money. I'll pray for you all and pray for the millions of people that you will cost dearly. Yes, I believe in GOD, an intelligence far beyond your comprehension. Your lust for power and money is accountable. Despite yourselves, I'll pray for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA comprehensive review and analysis of Climategate can be found here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this43 page pdf. A lot of info. You can say Yessss! or spit at the screen and save a lot of futile shouting and furious typing.
Thank you adpack. I have downloaded the pdf info and will read it with great interest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading some of the global warming denier's comments was so much fun that I decided to imitate them:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere goes:
"I was not decided about which side to take on global warming after reading all the comments from
the both sides here decided global warming deniers are absolutely right. So if you just someone
who does not understand the article or the comments then just take my word for it to become a denier.
I, my relatives and friends all were reading this lovely magazine for the past 100 years but we noticed
this single article made the magazine so political so we quit our subscription right now.
So that the publishers of the magazine should be scared to publish any similar articles in the future
and let everybody learn about global warming from unscientific, biased denier websites, blogs instead.
The writers in those websites may not be scientist or highly educated or smart at all but they know
the truth always.
The recent single incident of "climategate" has proven that thousands of other research on global warming
for decades are all were fake. "The truth" did not leaked from all those previous works because they found and killed
the poor whistleblowers right on time. But lucky for us this time the killer slipped because of banana peel
so that the whistleblower saved himself."
Signed: A denier.
The issue I have along with millions more people is that the cap and trade scheme is just that, a scheme. Designed to transfer the wealth. This does nothing to squelch carbon emissions. To say, well, I bought some carbon credits so therefore, I'm neutral all the while still spewing carbon into the air. That's just plain stupid. Anyone that falls for that reasoning is a boob. Here's an idea, how about letting the people fix it by letting us all work together to develop something like, I don't know, fuel cell technology... no wait, that's already been done and we had a fuel cell car ready for the market but uh oh, somebody stopped it.. I wonder who?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not falling for the global warming b.s. anymore. In the 1970's it was global cooling and according to those meatheads that predicted that, we should be in the middle of an ice age right now and half dead.
YOur humor is flat, your sarcasm is lame, and your contribution is nil. And you somehow want to convince people that you are the second (or third) coming of JC and we should believe you because you are you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least I know not to waste my time on your posts in the future (like the other arrogant fools that cant seem to debate or discuss the issue here).
OK, Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's break it into pieces we can analyze:
CRU's, Mann's, and other paleoclimate reconstructions use the same two flawed proxies that mine for hockey sticks, so most of the reconstructions done since MBH 1998 are questionable: Paleo reconstructions: FAIL
NOAA's USHCN: Of the 948 USHCN surface stations that have been surveyed (http://www.surfacestations.org/): 75 have errors of +/-5 degrees, 645 have errors of +/-4 degrees, 209 have errors of +/-3 degrees
You can't get accurate data when two of the 5-degree-error stations could be reading the same temps and yet be 10 degrees apart! And the errors aren't consistent as the problems at each site can vary at intermittent rates! Also, there's the urban heat island (UHI) bias, the impact of which has been severely underestimated (http://co2science.org/articles/V7/N48/C2.php).
So how does NASA and CRU keep their even close to the satellite records? They manipulate each station's data manually.
Here's the clever bit, Hansen and NASA continually change the GISTEMP records to try and account for UHI and other effects, but Phil Jones of CRU calls the methods and results "inferior" to CRU's CRUTEM3:
"GISS is inferior - not just because it doesn't use back data. They also impose some urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don't think is very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year variability - when I last looked"
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1042&filename=1254850534.txt
So what does that say about CRU's CRUTEM3? We can't check their raw data because it's not available, instead we've got CRU's "value-added" data to rely on. And you and I have agreed that CRU's problems make their work unreliable until it has been thoroughly audited.
No we can't rely on USHCN because the data is being measured at surface stations only a small percentage of which meet siting requirements for accurate measurement, In short: FAIL
GISTEMP can't be relied on because the data is being corrected in ways even the climate scientists can't agree on. FAIL
CRUTEM3: Cheatin' researchers, missing data, "tweaked" data. MASSIVE FAIL
GISTEMP and CRUTEM3 also fail to track with the satellite data (which brings that graphic I hope you examined into the discussion), so when you see that, barring 1998-1999, the UAH satellites show practically no warming since 1978, it's time to question everything they're telling us.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ran out of characters before I could sum up. No I won't say that all climate data is invalid because of the CRU Climategate scandal. Satellite data seems to be reliable after a few early problems, for example.
But as I showed in the previous posting, much of the data from the most influential sources is unreliable.
My opinion is that we should put the brakes on, audit the current data, code, and results. Give skeptical scientists a voice in the process and generally de-politicize the science. Then we can figure this out together.
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I also stubbed my toes on the post length limitation earlier in the forum.
Given the original question: "Are you suggesting that their [the notorious CRU] misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?"
Given your recent post in reply to my last inquiry as to whether you would respond, read, in part "Yes …"
Given the reviewed question: The question to which you have said you would respond is "Are you suggesting that their misdeeds invalidate all data that supports the AGW hypothesis?"
Given your response: "No I won't say that all climate data is invalid because of the CRU Climategate scandal. "
It would follow then that the reliability of empirical data has been reduced by (weighted value of CRU data)/(weighted value of all climate data).
If the weighted value of the CRU data is equal to or the same as that of the weighted value of all climate data, then the value of the empirical climate data is zero; it is worthless.
If, however, the weighted value of the CRU data is less than that of the weighted value of all climate data, then the value of the empirical climate data is (original value) - (weighted value of CRU data)/(weighted value of all climate data).
If the weighted value of the CRU data is only a small fraction of that of the weighted value of all climate data, then the value of the empirical climate data is essentially unchanged.
I note from your long post that you favor disregarding a variety of other data sets for one reason or another. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as to which data sets should or should not be admitted as valid. Whether this or that data set warrants inclusion in the "acceptable review data" is a reasonable question.
I am pleased to learn that you agree that there is useable empirical data that can be used to evaluate the AGW hypothesis.
"Give skeptical scientists a voice in the process and generally de-politicize the science."
The above implies that scientists who are persuaded that the AGW hypothesis is correct are not skeptical. This is a mistake. A scientist may be skeptical and at the same time be persuaded that the AGW hypothesis is correct.
Given the existing state of affairs, I believe your hope to "de-politicize the science" is wistful thinking. About the best than can be expected is to manage the politicized reality well.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting approach to try and quantify the extent of damage done to the AGW hypothesis, but I think you don't carry it far enough.
The problems I mentioned with USHCN, GISTEMP, CRUTEM3 and paleo reconstructions could reasonably be factored in as well. So the new equation would read:
(weighted value of CRU data+Paleo+USHCN+CRUTEM3+GISTEMP)/(weighted value of all climate data)
You misunderstood my use of the term "skeptic." I meant it in terms of scientists who have been frozen out of the process by, in the words of climate scientist Eduardo Zorita, "collusion" and "conspiracies" of the CRU, Michael Mann, and others involved with the IPCC. I agree that not all AGW skeptics are correct, just as the reverse is true with the AGW proponents. But AGW proponents should not continue to be gatekeepers preventing alternating views from being heard.
I think Climategate is the best chance we've had so far to de-politicize AGW. The public has proof that scientists are manipulating the system to promote their views, favoring politics over science. That proof enables us to push for transparency, verification of results, and a general housecleaning of the peer review process. If it doesn't work out, we'll fall back on trying to "manage the politicized reality well."
Did you have an opinion regarding that image I posted earlier showing UAH satellite trends? (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2605/4158824792_2477b01bf8.jpg).
"There is a kind of pseudo science...they don't do science, they follow the forms, gather data, do so and so and so forth, but don't get any laws. They haven't got anywhere - yet. Maybe one day they will, but it's not very well developed. But what happens is, on an even more mundane level - we get experts on everything that sound like a scientific expert - they're not a scientific expert. They'll sit there at a type writer and make up all this stuff as if its science and then become an expert. There's all kinds of myths and pseudo science all over the place. I might be quite wrong, maybe they do know all these things, but I don't think I'm wrong, you see I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to get to really know something; how careful you have to be about checking your experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something. And therefore, I see how they get their information and I can't believe that they know it. They haven't done the work necessary, they haven't done the checks necessary, they haven't done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion. And they're intimidating people. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard Feynman, Nobel Laureate
If you read the emails from climategate as I have, and keeping in mind the above quote, I think you would quickly realize what this community of scientists are - pseudo scientists. And I lump them together because they have the audacity to defend, or even remain silent - and not condemn the associated scientists and institutions.
This article has an arrogant tone to it, on top of it all.
Eat a slice of humble pie Mr. Scientist. Aren't you supposed to be objective? Skeptical? Engage in the spirit of Dr. Feynman, knowing how hard it is to really know something.
When your dealing with science that will so profoundly affect world politics and allocation of the world's wealth - using your social status to spread pseudo-science as if it were the law, science that could potentially squander quadrillions of dollars, and may centralize power into corrupt hands at the expense of millions of people...is not very nice of you.
There are many good reasons to stop using fossil fuels, but none of those reasons justifies the gross distortion of science to advocate for a political position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burden of proof rests not with the skeptics of AGW, rather it rests with those who would assert that AGW is real. I am a skeptic but my beliefs are not on trial. Remember Dan Rather when he was in trouble for claiming GW Bush welshed on his National Guard commitments? He was on television at one point saying, in reference to his claims, that no one had proof that they were not true. Wrong, wrong and even more wrong. He took the initiative to make his claims and thereafter the public, quite rightly, looked to him for his supporting evidence. The public did not look to others for evidence that his claims were false. Articles such as "Seven Answers" , as with Mr. Rather, attempt to put the shoe on someone else's foot. Again, wrong, wrong and even more wrong. In the end, the public looks to Mr. Rennie and those likeminded, to prove that AGW is real, and not to the critics to prove that AGW is wrong. I am a layperson who has read far more widely on AGW than I believe most people have, and so far I am able, with regard to the pro-AGW evidence, to discern only a hopelessly confusing morass of propositions that has become the source of endless, futile bickering. But I am not surprised. We have gone from the days of the Illiad (the sky is the ceiling of Heaven) and the ancient Chinese poet (winds break loose and race to the four corners of Heaven) and Sir Walter Raleigh ("the light, wandering and unstable clouds carried every where with uncertain winds") to our modern age that posits the God Particle and the Theory of Everything. The truths that once resided only with the gods are now revealed by supercomputer modeling that feeds on grant money, itself garnered through pleas to money sources (mostly tax dollars in the hands of government), pleas that claim, in one way or another, that "our research will save the world". I am old now, I cannot dwell on this folly much longer. Want to know the punch line though? I voted for Al Gore because I thought he would protect our environment, for which my love is strong, better than Mr. Bush. I just did not see this folly coming or I would not have voted for anyone. Best of luck to everybody reading and writing here, we are all still good people no matter what we believe, right? Right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Post!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjercarobrien1 , did you even read the same article I did? The Holocene was not globally warmer than today. Here's the relevant excerpt from the NOAA report:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years."
And the Medieval Warming Period? It actually never happened:
NOAA presents a whole selection of proxy studies together with the data they are based on and these can be found here. Specifically, they have this to say about the MWP:
"The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect."
Please stop breaking out the usual denialist talking points. Saying a lie over and over does not make it true.
That article, and you, neglects the many subsidies that fossil fuels receive. A news article does not a reference make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispapposilenus,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour AGW alarmist arrogance makes you qualified to work at CRU.
Comments like yours saying "we clearly know the cause" of anything as complex as paleo climate conditions when we can't even accurately predict changes 20 to 50 years in our own climate are ridiculous.
Let me give an example using the simplest of physical mechanisms. Are you aware of what's called the The Solar Corona Problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona#Coronal_heating_problem)?
Here we have the Sun, a bag filled mostly with hydrogen, engaging in a well understood fusion process. The center, where the fusing is occurring, is 13 million Kelvin, the surface cools to 5,800 Kelvin.
All that is exactly what we expect to happen based on us "clearly knowing" how a simple heat engine like the sun should work.
Except that the temperature of the corona surrounding the sun is millions of Kelvin higher than that of the surface, apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics and common sense. We still haven't explained what's causing it, although several theories are being tried.
So kindly show a little humility and accept that climate science really doesn't "clearly know" how much of the planet was part of Holocene warming and that there is plenty of evidence and peer reviewed papers that the MWP was global in extent.
A Content Fatalist at 11:22 AM on 11/30/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy main question to the 'skeptics' is "can we afford the risk that you're wrong?" Shouldn't the need for proof be the other way around. Let us try to limit our impact on our (so carefully balanced) ecosystem unless we can proof that our impact is positive?
Do you lay awake at night worrying about asteroids wiping out life on the planet? Do you know that we don't have a credible means of detecting killer asteroids because we're not willing to spend the money?
Shouldn't we spend money on that, can we afford the risk otherwise?
Are you aware that the entire Yosemite valley is the caldera for a megavolcano? One that's overdue for erupting? When that goes off the aerosols given of into the atmosphere will trigger a nuclear winter besides smothering the central US under inches of volcanic ash. Millions will die, yet we do nothing to prepare except watch the volcano. It's too expensive to do otherwise, but:
Shouldn't we spend money on that, can we afford the risk otherwise?
Are you getting the point? There's risk in being alive, we can't afford to spend money on everything that might someday be a problem, and of the ones I've mentioned, AGW is by far the least worrisome problem to throw money at.
Oops! That would be "Yellowstone valley," not "Yosemite valley."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"can we afford the risk that you're wrong?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a non-starter! If I make the claim that the moon is about to fall on the earth, you would not advise everyone head for shelters. Why?
The impulse to do something... anything is better than nothing is false. Until we are empirically certain, we may move in the wrong direction. If we are in fact cooling, introducing more cooling (additional atmos. suphate clean-up) might not be recommended at this time.
CO2 is already at it's lower boundary for healthy plant yields. Reducing yields as population reaches 7 billion may not be wise. There are many ways we can do the "wrong thing". Just review the cane toad fiasco to see how badly "Man" can screw up when intervening in nature. GK
Okay, now a serious comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI noticed some people keep claiming the current global warming is due to a 100 thousand year cycle of Earth's climate etc. If that is true, is that really means we should not care about CO2 increase in the atmosphere because of burning fossil fuels? The answer is still no! Because the greenhouse effect of CO2 is well established. We still need to limit CO2 production to minimize the damage and give more to humanity to adjust incoming climate warm-up period.
For example, if you are going fast w/ a car and about the hit another car etc., no matter if you push the brake or not, isn't it still the right thing to do the push the break hard to minimize the damage?
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“You misunderstood my use of the term "skeptic." I meant it in terms of scientists who have been frozen out of the process … I agree that not all AGW skeptics are correct, just as the reverse is true with the AGW proponents. But AGW proponents should not continue to be gatekeepers preventing alternating views from being heard. “
On these details, we must agree to disagree. You misused the word skeptic. In the context you used it, ‘skeptic’ is an adjective, modifying the noun ‘scientist’. A skeptical scientist is a scientist who assesses theories and data critically, being willing to change his (sorry for the lack of PC there) views as new data becomes available, or when alternative explanations, theories, provide a better or simpler description and explanation of the phenomena in question. A skeptical scientist is not a scientist who says, “you’re wrong.”
Most scientists accept the Anthropomorphic Global Warming hypothesis as currently articulated and substantiated by available data. The theory was advanced many years ago, and has been corrected, refined, and improved over those years. Measurements, the empirical evidence, have been gathered and accumulated during those years, and that data is broadly consistent with, although occasionally in conflict with, the theoretical model. No theory, not even QED or its successor, the Electroweak theory is absolutely correct. Data recordings without error bars identify an unusual test, whether in astrophysics, biology, climatology.
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscontinued (2)
Just as Creationists are not invited to symposia on evolution, Flat Earthers are not invited to NASA colloquia on Solar System exploration, and invitations to String Theory conventions are not sent to those theoretical physicists who advocate theories different from or in competition with String Theory, so too those who are in opposition to the generally accepted theory of AGW not invited to gatherings which operate with the assumption that AGW is the proper theoretical framework to plan for the future. This was newsworthy a few years ago with the publication of “The Trouble With Physics” by Lee Smolin (http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689539), and “Not Even Wrong” by Peter Woit (http://www.scienceline.org/2006/12/28/phys-schrock-woitqa/). One need not assume any conspiracy or malicious intent by those scientists who have been persuaded that that some particular theory is appropriate to explain why those who are not so persuaded (for any reason) feel “left out.” They are left out, and until they can advance a preferable alternative theory, they will remain so.
It is that lack of a plausible alternative that is one of the most penetrating criticisms that can be leveled at those who find AGW unacceptable. The data that is usually published indicates a long-term temperature increase that correlates strongly with the concurrent increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I believe that there is general acceptance, even by those who do not accept the AGW hypothesis, that the increase in carbon dioxide is due to human activities. The point of contention is if that increase is meaningful, and if so what impact it might have.
Some AGW critics, Mr. Nahle being an example, assert that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. While they may be correct, there exists an enormous body of evidence confirmed over many years by thousands of physical chemists that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Unless and until Mr. Nahle et al can overcome that obstacle, he and they will not be taken seriously.
This is an analysis of "Climategate" written at a level that even "non-scientists" can work through. The consequences justify the effort.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf
COLD FACTS ABOUT THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE AFTER THE CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CAUGHT GREEN-HANDED!
THE WHISTLE BLOWS FOR TRUTH ............................................................... 3
REVEALED: THE ABJECT CORRUPTION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE ......................... 4
THE NATURE ‘TRICK’ TO ‘HIDE THE DECLINE’ IN TEMPERATURES ................... 5
BREAKING THE BROKEN CODE: DISSECTING THE DODGY DATA .................... 6
MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE SILENT, BUT THE INTERNET ROARS .................... 10
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION? WHAT FREEDOM? ...................................... 11
WHY THE TRUTH ABOUT TEMPERATURE MATTERS ................................... 15
TERRESTRIAL VS. SATELLITE TEMPERATURE RECORDS ............................... 17
MORE OFFICIAL DISHONESTY ABOUT GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ..................... 23
A NATION TAMPERS WITH ITS TEMPERATURE RECORD .............................. 32
LYING EVEN TO CHILDREN ....................................................................... 35
AL GORE’S TEMPERATURE-RELATED FALSEHOODS ................................... 36
WHAT IS TO BE DONE? ............................................................................ 38
ESSENTIAL READINGS ............................................................................. 40
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscontinued (3)
Another objection that is raised in re atmospheric carbon dioxide is that even given that humans add twenty five to thirty billion tons each year, it is too small a part of the whole to make a difference. A response which I find conclusive is that a fatal dose of cyanide for human can be as low as 1.5mg/kg body weight, so a fatal dose for a 175 pound adult could be no more than 120mg – less than a tenth of the weight of a postage stamp (1-3 g). Depending upon the compound and the situation, a little can go a long way. It is not the absolute amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that induces GW, but the amount in excess of what is captured by natural background processes. That excess is manufactured by humans. Finally, there are those who claim, in essence, that the data is too unreliable or noisy to be useful. While that too may be true, the consensus of practicing climatologists is that a useful signal can be extracted from the noise.
The AGW hypothesis has persuaded the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists that it best fits the data at hand. The scientific debate of the “truth” of AGW is over, as is the scientific debate of the “truth” of evolutionary theory.
The issue being debated is whether the AGW hypothesis should be used to guide public policy.
fb36,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're mistaken about the danger posed by a doubling of CO2. The most that temps will rise solely because of the CO2 is 1 degree C. That's it. The remaining question is how much increase in temps will we get from feedbacks caused by the CO2 doubling. If you look at the satellite temp trends here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158824792/
You'll see that, other than a two-year spike in temps that happened in 1998-1999, the trends are nearly flat. That's probably because cloud feedbacks are overwhelmingly negative, preventing the kind of increases that IPCC scientists (who favor strong positive feedbacks) have been alarming the public about.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've asked you to comment several times about this graphic showing nearly flat trends in global warming as measured by satellite.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158824792/
Since you've decided to ignore me on that, I think I'll do the same regarding the three posts you just made. It's a shame, you went to a lot of work and at a quick glance they would have been fodder for some lovely debate.
But courtesy must go both ways.
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are, of course, free to ignore any criticism whatsoever. The criticism was intended for, will be read, and appreciated by others.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think they'll appreciate that you have nothing to say about that image. What's the problem, stunned by the data? It's valid satellite data and the trends show no warming except for a unique two-year increase in temps that happened in 1998-1999.
You ignore that while lumping AGW skeptics together with creationists and such.
The word I'm thinking of is "hypocrite."
For those with willing to challenge their preconceptions, the image is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158824792/
wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI daresay that they will learn how little those who find AGW wanting bring to the table, other than calling their interlocutors names.
Aloisius,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“… The scientific method is about coming up with a theory that can be used to predict the behavior of future events …“
The theory of evolution does not provide predictions in the same way that physics or inorganic chemistry provides predictions. Are you suggesting that it therefore is invalid?
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have reviewed the contents of each of the sixteen urls you posted which, you suggested, provided evidence of a coercive environment that precluded AGW skeptical scientists from expressing their opinions. You raised the question that some participants in this debate may have had their right to freedom of speech curtailed due to their expressed position on the AGW hypothesis.
Summary:
Having examined the fifteen different urls, it seems that those who find AGW wanting expect to receive special, deferential treatment, so that they don't feel oppressed or put upon. Note that there was not one example in any of the urls where an AGW persuaded scientist oppressed one who finds AGW wanting.
Indeed, the reverse is true.
The page at url 1 comments on four scientists who find AGW wanting, who together starred in the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary (it seems that that is OK for them, but not for the unfortunate Heidi Cullen who argues the AGW position), but then feel sorry for themselves when those whose work they oppose fail to welcome them back into the fold.
If what is claimed by the self-admittedly biased reporter on the page at url 5 is accurate and can be substantiated, then that is reasonable grounds for concern.
The page at url 11 is highly critical of Heidi Cullen, a meteorologist with a doctorate on climatology who has a major role in a documentary critical of the government. That same government published the antagonistic web page.
The page at url 12 is highly critical of people who aggressively pursue the AGW program, Ross Gelbspan, George Monbiot, and Senators Boxer, Snow, and Rockefeller. That is to say, it is stridently at variance to the AGW proponents.
The pages at urls 10 & 15 illustrate the quite correct behavior of Senator Inhofe, derided in Mr. Rennie's article, in his attempt to discipline an antagonistic and pugilistic assault by an AGW supporter on someone who finds AGW lacking.
So, having read the 15 pages at the 16 urls provided, I can candidly say that there is precious little support for anyone's claims of oppressions or intimidation, especially by an AGW scientist, but much evidence indicating an active process to suppress people from criticizing AGW critics, who appear from the published pages to expect preferential treatment.
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, with this assertion from you, you are demonstrating clearly that you are an antiscientific catkiller (matagatos in Spanish, which means someone with an agenda without the minimal knowledge, science in this case).
@Trent1492...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBad references considering those databases were manipulated by the climategate team. Read the work of Bond, Holmgren, Loehle, etc. :)
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that a scientific argument from your part? That's an argument taken from the way of antiscientific people.
@Trent...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can read the evidence from Biocab's website. The problem is that you dismiss the work of scientists and put yourself on the side of catkillers. :)
@Trent1492...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're terrorized before clean science... Hah!
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mentioned my name as an example of people who say the carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. You are lying. I have never said the carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. What I have said and sustain it is that the carbon dioxide doesn't possess thermal capabilities as to cause a global warming or a climate change.
Besides, something I didn't mention before that me and the institution for which I work are affiliated to CONACYT, the organism which regulates science and technology in Mexico. So your silly accusations about my credentials are also "atole con el dedo" from your side.
On the other hand, getting back to the carbon dioxide issue, the carbon dioxide absorptivity is quite limited and cannot cause any global warming. It has been proved by many scientists through the scientific methodology, i.e. observation and experimentation:
Bakken, G. S., Gates, D. M., Strunk, Thomas H. and Kleiber, Max. Linearized Heat Transfer Relations in Biology. Science. Vol. 183; pp. 976-978. 8 March 1974.
Boyer, Rodney F. Conceptos de Bioqu�mica. 2000. International Thompson Editores, S. A. de C. V. M�xico, D. F.
Manrique, Jos� �ngel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
McGrew, Jay L., Bamford, Frank L and Thomas R. Rehm. Marangoni Flow: An Additional Mechanism in Boiling Heat Transfer. Science. Vol. 153. No. 3740; pp. 1106 - 1107. 2 September 1966.
Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill.
Potter, Merle C. and Somerton, Craig W. Thermodynamics for Engineers. Mc Graw-Hill. 1993.
Schwartz, Stephen E. 2007. Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System. Journal of Geophysical Research. [Revised 2007-07-16]
Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; Prentice Hall Inc. 1994.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10787
http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/7IMSC/Normals.pdf
http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html
Read at least one of them... It seems you don't read real scientific literature. :)
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say:
"The theory of evolution does not provide predictions in the same way that physics or inorganic chemistry provides predictions. Are you suggesting that it therefore is invalid?"
What an stupid thing you have said! Evolution is a reductionist theory!!! You see? You are a perfect ignorant on scientific issues.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHes baaaaaaaaaaaaak!
& getting back to the carbon dioxide issue, the carbon dioxide absorptivity is quite limited and cannot cause any global warming. It has been proved by many scientists through the scientific methodology, i.e. observation and experimentation
Amusing in and of itself, but if you scroll down to the next to the last url,
http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/7IMSC/Normals.pdf
if you open the pdf, youll discover that the article is titled Homogeneity, Data Adjustments and Climatic Normals, and the search terms CO2 and carbon dioxide returned No matches were found.
The paper is not even on the same subject!
Ill give him one thing, Mr. Nahle is cheap entertainment.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe’s baaaaaaaaaaaaak!
“… getting back to the carbon dioxide issue, the carbon dioxide absorptivity is quite limited and cannot cause any global warming. It has been proved by many scientists through the scientific methodology, i.e. observation and experimentation“
Amusing in and of itself, but if you scroll down to the next to the last url,
http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/7IMSC/Normals.pdf
if you open the pdf, you’ll discover that the article is titled “Homogeneity, Data Adjustments and Climatic Normals,” and the search terms ‘CO2’ and ‘carbon dioxide’ returned ‘No matches were found.”
The paper is not even on the same subject!
I’ll give him one thing, Mr. Nahle is cheap entertainment.
@Chryses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHah! Yeah, I'm back... Have you got terrorized again by my presence? Well, Your post shows also that you even don't know how to read a scientific peer reviewed paper.
On other order of ideas, the change of temperature caused by the carbon dioxide at its current Pp (Trent and Chryses... do you know what Pp is for? Heh!) is 0.01 K.
AGW is a lie perpetrated by people like the climategate's team.
Wooosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is true that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes only few degrees increase in the temperature but I think that is misleading to most people. Because just few degree change in global (mean) temperature is the difference between today and any ice age for example!
fb36,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are led to believe that the CO2 will double then BAM! we'll be hit by feedbacks on top of the CO2 warming, at which point we're all going to drown with the polar bears.
The facts are that the CO2 doubling began over a century ago, the feedbacks component to the warming is happening at the same time as the CO2 is increasing, and the CO2 warming is logarithmic, so it puts most of the warming at the front end (i.e., the worst happened in the 20th century).
We've seen 0.75 degree at most of warming already, the remaining increase will be greatly attenuated.
AGW is not something to worry about.
Fb36,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are quite correct. The impact of this human mediated portion of climate change has the potential to disrupt the lives of many people. Policymakers should plan for this.
One approach is business as usual, and ignore AGW. Fair enough. There are certain costs associated with doing so, as tens of millions of people currently live in areas that will be flooded, or will experience flooding more frequently. Significant amounts of previously arable land will come off-line due to salt from rising sea levels. Some may prefer these costs, both economic and social, particularly if they think that they will not have to pay for them
Another approach is to try to mitigate the flooding and the removal of arable land by reducing, and eventually eliminating what is considered by most practicing climatologists as the cause, anthropogenic global warming (AGW).This too has costs.
One notable difference between these two alternatives is that in the business as usual option, the costs are experienced by those living where the impact is greatest. In the second, prophylactic option, the costs of the man-made (sorry again for the lack of PC) portion of greenhouse gasses can be distributed across those who a) generate the pollutants, and b) are most able to pay to mitigate the pollutants.
There are other alternatives, but I elected to keep the distinctions clear.
I don’t think that anyone has yet proposed that humans can or should try to control any part of climate change which is not caused by and which is therefore the responsibility of mankind. I sincerely hope that no one displays such hubris.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe entertainment continues!
"What an stupid thing you have said! Evolution is a reductionist theory!!! You see? You are a perfect ignorant on scientific issues."
I cannot help but wonder if that poster is aware that both chemistry and physics are also reductionist theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Reductionism_and_science).
I haven't planted my feet on one side or the other on this issue. Part of the problem is articles like these. From the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnatural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus.
My response:
natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset human contributions, leaving the volcanos additions as a net surplus.
I would prefer an apples to apples discusion of the topic, but can't find one.
jimmysnyder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sizes of these apples and oranges should be examined.
Some people accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Some of those people think that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will probably exacerbate the warming trend recorded since the industrial revolution.
Mr. Rennie referred to the amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans and volcanoes as a 130 to 1 ratio. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php, click the Effects tab, then scroll down to 'Carbon dioxide (CO2)')
It seems reasonable to some people to concentrate or focus their attention on the pollutant which humans release into the atmosphere and can control, particularly when that portion is 130 times greater than that emitted by volcanoes, which humans cannot control.
Thanks Chyses. If there were no things in the world but humans and volcanoes, then this argument would be sufficient. There are and it isn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjimmysnyder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you only contrasted those two, I only pointed out which one of those two humans are responsible for managing.
For someone who claims to have not yet planted his feet on one side or the other on this issue, you seem quick to take exception to a reasoned response.
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent:Why is it you can not just admit you are arguing a case that no one is making?
Woosh Gushes Forth: Well gee, Trent. Maybe the problem is that you're incapable of comprehending the argument I'm making? Considering that you continue to be ignorant of the basics of global warming, I think that's the most likely case, don't you?
Again another non sequiter. You just refuse to engage what is being said. How sad. The only person you are fooling is yourself....and Biocab.
Woosh Vomits Out: Now, let's look at your laundry list:
Trent gets belligerent:
I find it telling that you think the citing of peer reviewed articles as getting belligerent. What next? Logic is an act of war?
Trent: Here is a challenge for you. Make the case.. Please reproduce the incriminating E-Mails in FULL with text and a accompanying text number. Then I want you to make a connection between a specific paper and the E-mail. I want to know what part is the paper that you think is "compromised". "
Woosh: So you failed to comprehend yet again. Prove that I said anything regarding "a specific paper and the E-mail."
You convict yourself with your own words. The claim is that paleoclimatic data is compromised. I ask you to provide specific evidence citing primary sources. Arm waving and speaking in generalities does not a convincing argument make. That you admit that it is all you have done is a stunning own goal.
"Now for that laundry list. Show me a link that disproves my assertion that we'll see more than 1 to 2 degrees C of warming total."
I will cite your own Wikipedia article that you put so much stock in.
"This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5�C with a best estimate of about 3�C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5�C. "
Remember you are the one who originally cited Wikipedia.
You are a walking own goal.
@Chrsyes,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not at all surprised that Biocarb is a creationist. Many of the Deniers have only a nodding acquaintance with scientific reality.
More evidence that a orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAttempted Burglary At Canadian Climate Research Center
The Canadian National Post reports that late last year men disguised as technicians tried to enter the University of Victoria's climate research center. In more recent months somebody actually did break into the offices of the research center twice. The post also reports that several cracking attempts have been made on the center's computers.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2300282
This comes in the wake of the conservative think tank Center for Enterprise Institute suing a climate researcher for his moderation policy on his own blog and the filing of over 50 Freedom of Information request at the University of East Anglia in a space of four days.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/25/competitive-enterprise-institute-to-sue-realclimate-blogger-over-moderation-policy/
The article compared human output of co2 to volcanic, I only wanted to point out that this will not help me to know what the issues are. Since no one can deny that humans put co2 in the atmosphere when we burn hydrocarbons, the only two questions worth bothering with are:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. How much, compared to other sources. You don't get to subtract natural cleansing processes from volcanic inputs. You have to compare all human inputs to all non-human inputs. Apples to apples.
2. How much, compared to other gasses, does co2 contribute to warming. You don't get to compare co2 in some wave lengths to water vapor in others. You have to compare co2 to all other gasses combined. Apples to apples.
It may be that there is a source for such simple information and it may be that there isn't. This article isn't. I have not read one that is.
Hi Trent, old chum, old bosom buddy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou never answered my query as to whether English is your native language.
As for "non sequiter", since you spell it that way so often, I assume it's "Laten". Now, if you were speaking Latin, it would be non sequitur, meaning "it does not follow". Do you see your mistake? (By "mistake" I mean it in the sense that you reliably misspell it and don't have a clue what it means.) Just because you can almost type the words doesn't absolve you of the obligation that they make sense in context. Just sayin'.
Back to the salt mines.
Trent, finally comes to the point:
============
I will cite your own Wikipedia article that you put so much stock in.
"This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5�C with a best estimate of about 3�C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5�C. "
============
Didn't I mention in one of our go-rounds that results based on general circulation models (GCM) are just guesses? If not, I just did.
Sing along with me:
The CO2 from a doubling increases temps 1 degree C.
Any increases beyond that are caused by feedbacks.
Nobody can predict what those feedbacks will do.
CO2 has been doubling for over a century.
The feedbacks have been doing their thing over that time.
All there is to show for that is maybe as much as 0.75 C of temp increase.
CO2 increases temps logarithmically.
The warming brought on by the CO2 doubling attenuates as time goes on, so most of the warming has already occurred.
That's true for the feedbacks as well.
We got it as bad as it'll get back in the 20th century.
To sum up, I can show that the effects of the CO2 doubling have been negligible up to this point.
This image of UAH MSU satellite data collected since 1978:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158824792/
...shows that temps have remained nearly flat except for 1998 & 1999. Since you're an AGW alarmist, be careful when you look at it - the image terrified Chryses so much that after gazing upon it, he refused to even speak of it. Quite tragic, actually.
So, cloud vapor's overwhelmingly negative feedback is holding any increase in temps down to the level of natural variability.
You can stop screaming "the sky is falling!" any time now.
The really weird thing I'm seeing, Trent, is that AGW alarmists don't want to have even a nodding acquaintance with the facts behind AGW. You guys might as well be Creationists for all the critical thinking you do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh that's just too funny. I guess nobody told the crooks that CRU had already deleted any incriminating files as a means of evading lawful FOIA requests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlas, is there no honor among thieves?
Your recent article on global warming has certainly left me confused. Statements such as "bizzare" to categorize other opinions, than those presented, do not seem unbiased. I believe that man's contribution to global warming is great and requires immediate action. However your article appears, to me, be just as biased as those "contrarians",
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You never answered my query as to whether English is your native language."
That is because that is none of your business. Now why is it you refuse to product any evidence for your assertions? Oh, that is right you do not feel any obligation to do so. Assertion for you is the same as evidence. You poor deluded thing.
"Latin, it would be non sequitur, meaning "it does not follow".
You are right it does not follow that assertions equals evidence. When are you going to produce this data for the "corrupted paleoclimatic" data?
"Didn't I mention in one of our go-rounds that results based on general circulation models (GCM) are just guesses? If not, I just did."
There you go again making those assertion equals evidence statements. You have no credibility on this. Get over it and present the evidence.
"Any increases beyond that are caused by feedbacks."
Which no one contests. Only you and your PHANTOM opponent engage in this argument.
"Nobody can predict what those feedbacks will do."
Argument from Ignorance. Logic Fail. Just because you are ignorant of the knowledge does not mean everyone else is as ignorant. When ice melts albedo decreases meaning more heat retention. When temperatures rise water vapor increases meaning more increased temperatures. Those are facts.
"CO2 has been doubling for over a century."
Factually wrong. CO2 has increased by 38% since 1750, it has not doubled. A doubling would be 560 ppm. Temperatures have increased by 0.7c. . Half of that increase has occurred since the late 70's.
Below are the links to my assertions:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/
See how that works? I make assertions, then I provide credible substantiation for my assertion. Perhaps you should try it sometime; that way someone, somewhere, just might perhaps give you more credit than they give the crazy guy mumbling to himself on the street corner.
"To sum up, I can show that the effects of the CO2 doubling have been negligible up to this point."
You can only show that if you close your eyes and click your ruby slippers three times. I am sorry to Toto but you are not in OZ anymore. You have to explain the why the Arctic is at has not been hot as it has been for at least 2,ooo years. You have to explain why the Arctic is 4C above anomaly. You see Woosh here in the real world we deal with the feedbacks.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract
/325/5945/1236
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I guess nobody told the crooks that CRU had already deleted any incriminating files as a means of evading lawful FOIA requests."
What evidence was deleted? Be specific. What papers and data bases where affected?
I can argue generalizations just as long as you can, Trent: You never respond with any valid points. Why is that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs always, you bestest buddy W
Feel free to ask *one* question or make a statement and back it up with a fact. I will then respond in kind. You will follow and so on. That's how a debate should go, but you've just been wasting my time up to now.
Look it up yourself. I'd oblige you if there was the slightest chance we could have a proper debate. But you and Chryses believe in passive/aggressive arguing where you either smother a person with empty generalities or deafen with incoherent shouting (I'll let you figure out which is which.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn second thought, Trent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't bother responding. You don't have the knowledge or temperament for an honest debate. Maybe someone will drop in who does.
wooosh writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For those with willing to challenge their preconceptions, the image is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4158824792/"
You seem to have cherry-picked, a common tactic of those who deny that humans can influence climate by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Cherry-pick data, cherry-pick emails, cherry-pick graphs etc. Try instead a linear trend line from the start of the UAH data to the present and you will see a clear warming trend (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend). Try it also for the RSS data (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend), HADCRUT3 (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend) and GISTEMP (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend). You will see the same warming trend in all those graphs. Different data sets, same findings, that is that the earth is warming. Note that we have 30 years of satellite temperature measurements (UAH and RSS) - 30 year time frames are what most would call 'climate' rather than 'weather'. The climate is changing for the warmer on a global scale, which will change climates at a local level, making life unnecessarily more difficult for us humans.
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I can argue generalizations just as long as you can, Trent: You never respond with any valid points. Why is that?"
Let me see now, only in that very special place on the short yellow bus does talking specifically about a place (The Arctic) and the effects that the Arctic is experiencing because of Global Warming does that mean that "generalities" are only discussed. How so special ed that is.
"Feel free to ask *one* question...."
I got a question! I have asked this again and again but maybe this time you are going to answer. What evidence did Cru delete? Be specific. What papers and data bases where affected?
See? I am asking for specifics. Now let us all ignore the fact that I have already asked you this set of questions three times before. OK?
@Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have explained this too you before but I am going to try again.
If you make an assertion then the burden of evidence is upon you.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHelp me through another issue please: on lying
+
(Biocab at 11:10 PM on 12/05/09) "AGW is a lie perpetrated by people like the climategate's team."
(Biocab at 09:31 PM on 12/05/09) "You are lying. I have never said the carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas."
Biocab at 12:08 PM on 12/04/09 "… AGW is a lie, a hoax, a swindle."
+
If one reads the posts in the forum, one will find the following:
Never said the carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, eh?
(Biocab at 06:19 PM on 12/01/09) "… The evidence, the scientific one, i.e. the evidence provided by nature or real evidence, eliminates the carbon dioxide as the culprit of any warming of the atmosphere …"
On peer-review:
garhighway requested, "a peer-reviewed article that says what you say is true." (garhighway at 12:36 PM on 12/04/09). This was regarding a claim made (Biocab at 12:08 PM on 12/04/09) that "Carbon dioxide is not an important greenhouse gas".
There was a post (Biocab at 01:06 PM on 12/04/09) in direct response to garthhighway's request. In that post, the author included several urls. I note that the last of those, http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Stored.html, was to the web site he owns (http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html, "BRIEF OF MY LABORAL HISTORY"). That website does not perform peer review on its published articles.
The url preceding it, http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/7IMSC/Normals.pdf, loaded, when clicked an article is titled "Homogeneity, Data Adjustments and Climatic Normals," and the search terms 'CO2' and 'carbon dioxide' returned 'No matches were found." The paper is not even on the same subject.
In a separate post (Biocab at 11:43 AM on 12/02/09) the same author claims that a different article he prepared (http://www.biocab.org/Insolation_Treerings_Growth.html), which was posted to the web site he owns was peer-reviewed. That website does not perform peer review on its published articles.
"Many of my articles have been quoted and cited in scientific literature and academic books." (Biocab at 12:16 AM on 12/03/09)
My wife was kind enough to search Scopus (a database of over 14000 science, technical & medical journals) which happens to do citation counts. Mr. Nahle is not cited at all (by anyone whose work appeared in the peer-reviewed journals indexed in Scopus). Nor is he cited in Science Citation Index.
I shall assume that the author published each post intentionally. What is the appropriate description to apply to one who knows that a claim he made is false at the time he made the claim?
Shorter Woosh,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRun Forrest! Run!
"I shall assume that the author published each post intentionally. What is the appropriate description to apply to one who knows that a claim he made is false at the time he made the claim?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure. It is right on the tip of my tongue. I think it begins with a L. Yep, pretty sure it begins with a L. I think it rhymes with buyer. Lyre? Firer? I will have to get back to you on it.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am ashamed of you. You are trying to change the subject to what you want it to be, and then debate a straw man. The issue was never anything about who was shot - but was and is always about who is being threatened. That was the question and I answered it (I can give you more links, but you appear smart enough to google it yourself).
A poster stated a disbelief that those opposed to AGW had been threatened (I dont care to go back and check who expressed the disbelief). Clearly they have been. No one asked if AGW had been threatened, and I am sure I can find one or 2 if the question is raised.
Threats are not actions. No where did I say (or the originator of that thread I believe) that punitive actions were taken (I guess I could research that, but the question was never asked). But a threat is an attempt to stop someone from doing something.
So that begs 2 questions: 1 - why? If you have god on your side, why do you need threats? and 2, what is the harm in letting your loony uncle express his kennedy theories?
Clearly then the answer to 1 is that god has not given the answer and some (note the word please) are afraid their position is built on faith, not facts. And the answer to 2 is clearly it is not your loony uncle, but reputable people that are skeptics (what the faithful deridingly cally deniers).
I have been intrigued with the debate that this forum has provided (weeding out the clowns like trent and fb36). Clearly there are still questions, there are no absolute facts yet, and the divination of the truth has not yet occurred. As with all hypotheses (again it is not even a theory yet due to lack of testing), there are going to be adherants and opponents. And until more data (honestly collected and analyzed - something CRU is trying to deny the scientific world) is forthcoming, and a valid model (none of the models created yet are even in the realm of competant as they cannot even answer simple questions or predict anything even remotely close) is created, then the debate will continue. And it is the right - no the duty - of the scientific community to continue to question every hypothesis put forward.
You argue your side well, but you do it a disservice to try to pull the old political trick (which this debate in the real world has become), by trying to put words into your opponents mouth.
I will respectfully request you do not try that again with me. I ask this so I can continue to read your posts as an honest debate, and not as a political diatribe. The choice is yours.
I love the way some of Rennie's arguments are stated: "But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burden of proof is on the proponents of global warming theory to prove that the source of climate change is not the sun or other astronomical phenomena, not the other way around. It is the proponents of climate change that are demanding action and the burden of proof that action is necessary is therefore on them.
"For now, at least, cosmic rays remain a less plausible culprit in climate change."
It doesn't sound like Rennie has much confidence in global warming theory. If he is not absolutely convinced that Svensmark's theory is wrong, then he should not be calling for massive changes in human behavior.
"And the apparent warming seen on Mars? It is based on a very small base of measurements, so it may not represent a true trend. Too little is yet known about what governs the Martian climate ..."
Again, a lack of evidence is not cause for action. If even vociferous proponents of AGW are this uncertain of their theories, how can they call for massive regulation of human activity?
The claim that we should err on the side of caution is absurd. I could equally argue that we should err on the side of caution by not regulating people without due cause. Giving governments massive power over people's lives could prove far more detrimental to human survival than any realistic amount of climate change.
Darrell
Continued from previous posting...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how does NASA and CRU keep their results even close to the satellite records? They manipulate each station's data manually! James Hansen and NASA continually change the GISTEMP records to try and account for UHI and other effects, but Phil Jones of CRU calls the methods and results "inferior" to CRU's CRUTEM3:
"GISS is inferior - not just because it doesn't use back data. They also impose some urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don't think is very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year variability - when I last looked"
www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1042&filename...
There you have it, GISTEMP is inferior in the opinion of a climate scientist. The problem is that scientist has had to step down from his position while an investigation into possible ethical violations is under way. So what does that say about CRU's CRUTEM3? We can't check their raw data because it has mysteriously gone missing, instead we've got CRU's "value-added" data to rely on. (See Jon Stewart's funny take on the nonsensical term "value-added" data here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8. CRU has belatedly begun the process of recovering that data, but since it comes from around the world, it may take a year or more to gather it all together.
Right now the most reliable data comes from satellites.
tomrech again:
"Note that we have 30 years of satellite temperature measurements (UAH and RSS) - 30 year time frames are what most would call 'climate' rather than 'weather'. The climate is changing for the warmer on a global scale, which will change climates at a local level, making life unnecessarily more difficult for us humans."
I disagree again. Current temps a not higher than they were during the Medieval Warm Period and times were very good for humans weather-wise back then. If things continue as they have been, the worst of the temp increase and feedback effects are behind us.
Continued from previous posting...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistomrech continues:
===========
(http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2000/trend). Try it also for the RSS data (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend), HADCRUT3 (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend) and GISTEMP (http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/plot/gistemp/from:1978/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1978/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend).
You will see the same warming trend in all those graphs. Different data sets, same findings, that is that the earth is warming.
===========
Try looking at this animation of UAH MSU, CRU's HADCRUT3 and NASA's GISTEMP showing the trends without including the 1998-1999 outliers. You're correct that GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 are higher than UAH MSU, but they also disagree with each other as to how much warming is occurring.
Let's talk about GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 for a moment.
GISTEMP relies on USHCN for data. Of the 948 USHCN surface stations that have been surveyed (http://www.surfacestations.org/) the vast majority have been poorly sited in locations likely to reduce the accuracy of temperature readings: 75 have errors of +/-5 degrees, 645 have errors of +/-4 degrees, 209 have errors of +/-3 degrees.
As I've mentioned here already, you can't get accurate data when two of the 5-degree-error stations could be reading the same temps and yet be 10 degrees apart! And the errors aren't consistent as the problems at each site can vary at intermittent rates! Also, there's the urban heat island (UHI) bias, the impact of which has been severely underestimated (http://co2science.org/articles/V7/N48/C2.php).
Muzak plays as tomrech sings that same old song:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have cherry-picked, a common tactic of those who deny that humans can influence climate by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Cherry-pick data, cherry-pick emails, cherry-pick graphs etc.
tomrech makes his point:
"Try instead a linear trend line from the start of the UAH data to the present and you will see a clear warming trend."
I could do that tomrech, but are you really suggesting that the 1998 & 1999 are representative of global warming? Is that the way you want to spin this?
It's obvious to anyone who isn't clinging desperately to his old time religion that those two years are outliers, responding to environmental pressures well beyond CO2 forcing. Logically, the thing to do with outliers is to ignore them, which I did. As a result, you see that temps have increased, but in a single step between 1999 & 2000. This is not the way global warming is supposed to work, certainly the warming (such as there is) isn't tracking with increases in CO2.
Why do you suppose that is? Unquestionably we are adding CO2 in amounts that by itself should cause a 1 degree C increase in temps. But the temps aren't rising with the CO2. Surely one reason could be that negative feedbacks are vastly overpowering the effect of a 1 deg C increase. If so, it shows that something is seriously wrong with an AGW theory that only give alarming results if positive feedbacks outweigh negative. As Kevin Trenberth, lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, put it in an October 2009 email:
"...Where the heck is global warming?...The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."
ATTN: tomrech
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll be bringing up an animation comparing trends between UAH MSU, CRU HADCRUT3, and NASA GISTEMP in one of the following posting.
I forgot to include the link but that's remedied here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toptechwriter/4162377332/
Ok, just for fun, let's take a bite on the GCM's and their lack of predictive ability. Now, this is admitted by the modelers themselvers. Indeed, they maintain that the "predictions" contained in the IPCC reports (pick your flavour) are not predictions at all, but "projections" based on "what if" scenarios. The models are not even initialized to the actual state of the current climate, and are unable to replicate certain material aspects of climate (including, most notably, clouds).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the comments made on behalf of Kevin Trenberth at: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html .
Gavin Schmidt, no shrinking violet in the climate date and a confirmed prognosticator of warmist doom, also concedes that models aren't good predictors of the future:
"Some models strongly suggest that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world; some models suggest that the Sahel will dry in a warming world. But other models suggest the opposite. Let's imagine that the models have an equal pedigree in terms of the scientists who have worked on them and in terms of the papers that have been published it's not quite the case but it's a good working assumption. With these two models, you have two estimates one says the area will get wetter and one says it will get drier. What do you do? Is there anything you can say at all? It is a really difficult question." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/schmidt09/schmidt09_index.html
There is a lot more, of course: numerous published papers which discuss the inability of models to replicate past climate and the divergence between (for example), their predictions of lower troposphere warming (as the "fingerprint of CO2 driven climate change"), and the results from actual satellite and radiosonde readings.
Yet, we are embarking on a path on the basis of the predictions of those self-same models.
The question of feedbacks is also in doubt. As noted above, the models don't do clouds well: indeed, to achieve their "multiplier" effect for increases in CO2 increases, the models assume that a specific cloud type (high cirrus) will form. This does not increase albedo as much as it absorbs additional LW radiation. A big assumption. Sources for "alternative" views on feedbacks - check out Richard Lindzen's publications. Or, check out S. Schwartz's paper on climate sensitivity (wherein he argues, in effect, that the doubling of CO2 will result in an increase of temperature by 1.1 deg. K, +/- 0.5 deg.). http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
Good post Ian005!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlong the same lines, did you read Lindzen's paper in the WSJ? Really clearly written and it tied up the problems with GCMs very neatly. I particularly liked the part where he shows how AGW scientists are using aerosols as a non-specific forcing to make their high sensitivity models emulate the low temps we're actually seeing.
Could people please calm down and stop insulting one another. This is the first time (well, second counting the first post I made earlier today on this site) I have ever posted on any blog/comment page, and it was not for the purpose of being insulted. This is a science website. Surely there is another forum in the whole WWW where those that want to shout, name-call and abuse one another can do so without interrupting proper discussion....parliament for instance (!). Seriously, can people stop and take a deep breath or two? None of our comments are so special that we have to defend them by personal attack; none of them are going to influence climate science one iota, one way or another. Neither will they influence other commenters if insults are flown. They certainly might stop people with valid arguments contributing if they think it will just beget vitriol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistomrech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHear! Hear!
If enough of us request that civility be maintained, and complain when it isn’t, then the discussion may improve.
tomrech:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to have cherry-picked, a common tactic of those who deny that humans can influence climate by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Cherry-pick data, cherry-pick emails, cherry-pick graphs etc.
tomrech:
Could people please calm down and stop insulting one another.
You might want to have a word with yourself, tomrech.
PhilJourden,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“… You are trying to change the subject to what you want it to be, and then debate a straw man …”
You are, I believe, arguing for a level playing field (sorry for the sports metaphor) so that the merits and demerits of the contested claims may be best assessed. Neither side in this argument is entitled to special treatment. The dataset for this is the list of urls you included in your post. I believe that you are not arguing the case that those who find AGW wanting should be exempt from all criticism, but only from unwarranted or unjustified criticism.
If my understanding of your position is accurate, then you are mistaken. The position you adopted, that those who find AGW wanting have been subjected to unwarranted criticism, is unsubstantiated.
url #5 makes your case best, even though it is self-admittedly reported by one who finds AGW wanting http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277. Keep in mind however that what was reported there was a claim that needs to be first verified and then substantiated. You will, I hope, excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical of claims made by some of the more passionate participants in this debate; I have lately had to invest some effort in exposing some from one of them.
Perhaps I overlooked it, but I was unable to find any threats to AGW skeptical scientists at the page displayed when following url #4, http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/making_space_for_skeptics.php?page=2 . The publications which presented the opinions of those who find AGW wanting were criticized, not those who find AGW wanting. I think that you will agree that criticizing an advocate’s supporters is not the same as criticizing the advocate. If you do think that criticizing an advocate’s supporters is the same as criticizing the advocate, then we will have great difficulty in resolving our differences on this issue. I will point out that doing so elevates the opinions of those who find a particular opinion (AGW is wanting) to a position that not only may not be criticized, but one that those who support those people may not be criticized. If, on the other hand you accept that criticism of those who find a particular opinion (AGW is wanting) is independent of criticizing the advocates of a particular opinion, then this page provides no support for your claim.
PhilJourden,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“… You are trying to change the subject to what you want it to be, and then debate a straw man …”
Continued
3: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/christ_gnostic.htm
As the page top is a cartoon of Cardinals sitting in the Inquisition with a caption "You dare challenge global warming with scientific debate,” you will excuse me if I presume that this article has a particular political POV. Even then, and I quote from the page "The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist." Again, please note that AGW skeptical scientists are not the target of the criticism, but rater those who share their opinion. Please refer to my comments in re url #4.
You provided a list of sixteen urls, which you suggested, warranted the claim. Two of them, 1 & 9 were to the same page, so I reviewed each of the remaining fifteen pages to see what they had to say. Having done so, and finding those who find AGW wanting, in aggregate, have been subjected to no more threats or intimidation than those who are persuaded that AGW is correct, I concluded that the evidence you provided failed to support your claim that those who find AGW wanting have been subjected to unwarranted criticism. There is no shame in critically assessing or being honestly skeptical of the claims made by others.
tomrech,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Could people please calm down and stop insulting one another.”
Your post was both calm and not insulting.
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will not play your game. Sorry, I came here to read honest and open debate, not to have my posts mis-represented by you or anyone else. Clearly, honesty is not one of your assets.
I was not asked to evaluate whether threats had been made agains the AGW crowd as well as the opposition, only to prove that threats (not deeds which you cannot seem to separate) were made against opponents of AGW. I think my links clearly show that to be the case.
If you want to provide links to threats to AGW proponents, please do, but I do not recall anyone asking for that information.
Clearly you dont know what you are talking about. And your dishonesty is revealing and telling. I am sorry I wasted my time reading your posts. You are a high priest of the movement, not an honest seeker of knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I presumed that both you and I shared the starting assumption that the debate between the opposing sides should be fair, I concluded that the evidence you provided failed to support your claim that those who find AGW wanting have been subjected to unwarranted criticism. I seem to have been mistaken that we shared the belief that the debate between the opposing sides should be fair.
PhilJourden,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I seem to have posted only a portion of my rebuttal to your previous post.
I am disappointed that you are unwilling to engage in reasoned discourse. You presented, and I reviewed the fifteen different pages you posted to see what they had to say. As I pointed out in my previous post to you, I found that in aggregate, those who find AGW wanting have been subjected to no more threats or intimidation than those who are persuaded that AGW is correct.
You seem upset that I pointed out that all save one (14 of the 15 different ones) of the urls you posted contained no threats to the scientists who find AGW wanting from scientists who find AGW persuasive, and even that one was a report by a participant in a meeting of scientists who find AGW wanting. Even then I did not dismiss the claim. Remember that you are the one who posted the data set, I merely pointed out that the contents failed to warrant your claim.
As I presumed that both you and I shared the starting assumption that the debate between the opposing sides should be fair, I concluded that the evidence you provided failed to support your claim that those who find AGW wanting have been subjected to unwarranted criticism. I seem to have been mistaken that we shared the belief that the debate between the opposing sides should be fair.
Sorry woosh, I really did not mean that line to be personal or insulting. I should not have used the term "cherry-pick". I meant to say that the start and finish times on those plots you linked to were inappropriate for looking at temperature trends. If you want to ignore 1998/99 and plot a trend line over ~30 years just remove those years from the data and the plot will be close to identical - that is clearly warming. I was not trying to spin anything. 1998 is not representative of global temperature changes, but then again neither is any single year. I included it (and all the other available satellite years) in my graphs becaue of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget it. Phil knows how to read. After what you did to biocab there was no way he was going to let you trash his data.
I can't take any of these articles seriously as long as they (and the mainstream media) continue to ignore the leaked C.R.U. emails indicating large scale fraud by the main climate scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since the earth was warmer during the Holocene Maximum and Medieval Warming Period, the consequences appear to be beneficial on the whole. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for one of the funniest lines I have seen all week.
Salt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not my data. It is an observation backed up by the links. Not of credible deeds performed against believers in one side or the other, but of spoken or written threats against one side. There may be threats against the other side. The question I answered was not addressed to that issue, so I did not post any (or research it).
All Chryses tried to do was to change what I had said from "threats" to "deeds" and then go about debunking what I had posted. Indeed, once the question is changed in that matter, my posts become irrelevant since I never claimed to have heard (note: I did not make the claims - I stated I had read of them) of any deeds against the opposition.
As for Chryses "debunking", I have read all the posts. And while he does a good job of questioning Biocab's credentials, he does not actually challenge Biocabs data. That can be illuminating in swaying undecideds, but I was hoping for a more meaty debate on the data itself. And so I read through his posts hoping that there was something more to it than "you are not qualified".
I will continue to read the posts by those who seek to honestly debate the issue, without name calling and denigration of the messenger (there is the question of the message and the messenger being the same with Biocab).
You dont always have to like or agree 100% with those who support your position, but I find those willing to try to twist what is evident in print and recordings to something only a contortionist would envy to be the religiously devout in the debate, not honest and open seekers of the truth. For in science there is always room for doubt, but in religion, there can never be.
SaltPeter,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilJourdan posted (PhilJourdan at 02:49 PM on 12/02/09) a list of 16 urls, and the following.
“Chryses, you were doing good until you made that challenge. Either you are not reading much, or chosing [sic] to ignore a very real threat against those who are skeptics. To wit (how many more do you need?): “
Note the second sentence, in particular “a very real threat against those who are skeptics.” The list of urls were provided to support his claim that there was a very real threat. If you read the pages at the urls (1 and 9 are the same, you can skip either) you can see that there is not “a very real threat against those who are skeptics.” What one would expect to read, that scientists who find AGW wanting, are being threatened, is not what you will find.
Strangely, url 11 is a verbal assault against a meteorologist with a Doctorate in Climatology and Ocean-atmosphere Dynamics from Columbia University who supports AGW. I am somewhat surprised that PhilJourdan included it in a list of urls that he claims supports his claim that there is “a very real threat against those who are skeptics.”
PhilJourdan’s urls simply fail to warrant his claim.
Ok - You smart morons. To quote Micheal Mann's "research" at this point is the equivilent of "Please check you brain at the door."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to operate under the "spell" that human inhabitation of the earth the God created (and you seem incapable of comprehending) then you just fo ahead with your flawed reasoning. Just don't ask me to underwrite your lame assertions with my $.
God CREATED the earth capable of sustaining us and your whining will not change a thing. Your faith is in your own rational understanding - so I don't put tooo much confidence in your ability/reasoning skills to understand the point I'm making. I suppose that's why the scripture (yes the Bible) says not to argue with an IDIOT lest I be pulled down and confused in your IDIOT logic.
@bhaughee
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ok - You smart morons. To quote Micheal Mann's "research" at this point is the equivilent of "Please check you brain at the door."
Why do you say this? I think it is pretty evident that you did not read the article. Because if you had then you would be aware that Mann's Hockey stick has been replicated using different methodologies and techniques. Perhaps it is time you admit to your ignorance and read what the experts are actuallly saying.
"If you want to operate under the "spell" that human inhabitation of the earth the God created (and you seem incapable of comprehending) then you just fo ahead with your flawed reasoning. Just don't ask me to underwrite your lame assertions with my $."
I want to be the first to welcome you to the concept of Democray. You do not get a veto over all your fellow citizens decisions. You get to VOTE along with ALL your other citizens. Get over it.
"God CREATED the earth capable of sustaining us and your whining will not change a thing. "
I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to Hindu creation myths. I prefer evidence as opposed 'just so tales'.
doug209,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Rennie did Address that issue on page five of this article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=5).
There is also another SciAm forum on this subject (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy&sc=DD_20091207#cid_6261438F-9C36-D7B2-A0123C3D236F0BD0).
@Doug,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I can't take any of these articles seriously as long as they (and the mainstream media) continue to ignore the leaked C.R.U. emails indicating large scale fraud by the main climate scientists."
Doug, using the ENTIRE TEXT and their text numbers cite the E-mail messages that you think reveal large scale fraud. I then want you to connect those E-mails to published papers and databases. Otherwise Doug I am going to put you into the category of a dupe of propaganda.
The article does a good job in confirming that there is so much variability in the climatic forces at work, that the study of climate is yet in its infancy, that there are a mountain of assumptions such as multiplying effects that no concrete action and certainly no large scale action should be proposed yet. The biggest assumption I see is that the unintended consequences will be small. The next is that warming isn't increasing the carrying capacity of this planet to the benefit of humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI simply don't understand how these scientists can even begin to comprehend Global Climate dynamics when they can't give an accurate 3 day weather forecast 90% of the time..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jayman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I simply don't understand how these scientists can even begin to comprehend Global Climate dynamics when they can't give an accurate 3 day weather forecast 90% of the time."
Perhaps your comprehension would increase if you learned the basics, like the difference between weather and climate.
Hi jayman30usa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I simply don't understand how these scientists can even begin to comprehend Global Climate dynamics when they can't give an accurate 3 day weather forecast 90% of the time.. "
That's a very understandable complaint. Weather reports rely on a lot of historical data, so if such-and-such conditions are coming together, the weather guys can compare the present conditions with similar ones in the past to predict how things will come out. The reason predictions aren't good for more than a few days in advance is because weather is a chaotic system. Even if the current conditions were an exact match for past weather at one point in time, the tiniest variations as time passes would eventually cause the current weather patter to veer into something unique.
As for climate, that's a whole other story altogether. Climate scientists know that increasing CO2 increases world temps by a tiny amount, and that's supposed to cause all kinds of scary additional warming that we're expected to pay trillions to prevent. Fortunately, people are getting wise to that scheme, helped by the fact that none of the scientists' predictions have come true so far and the planet refuses to warm as expected.
So, there's not that much difference when you come down to it, but the weatherman won't pick your pocket and tell you how to live your life whereas climate scientists....
Initially, I was pleased to read John Rennie's summary and responses to the arguments made by climate change contrarians. For the most part his responses are pretty well stated. However, I really dislike the tone of this article, starting with the title..."Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian NONSENSE." Why is it necessary to utilize such negative judgements against those who disagree with general scientific consensus on this topic? Why make it so negative and act like anyone who disagrees with the general consensus is an idiot? What could we hope to achieve from attacks rather than from reasoned and well though out discourse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to forget that science is always a give and take between "facts." It seems to forget that "facts" change over time. It seems to forget that even the IPCC states that we dont have all the facts. And it clearly seems to have forgotten that scientific discourse is a competition of well reasoned arguments based on evidence and ideas not on name calling and belittling those who disagree. Even when all the facts have been debated and consensus is developed there are no "truths," only a consensus that we can't disprove a given fact.
Climate science has come far and there are many areas that we agree upon. However, it is well recognized that there are many areas where we just don't have a high enough degree of certainty with our present state of knowledge to draw definitive conclusions. And thats OK! Therefore, just because someone disagrees with our version of the facts doesn't mean that their ideas are "nonsense." While I presume that the tone of this article is pointed at those that are intentionally trying to sabotage climate change science and policy simply to advance their own personal, political or financial agenda, we should not lower our standards relative to scientific discourse. That only belittles our own beliefs and contentions.
When I first saw this article, I was very pleased about the focus and content because I thought it would just lay out the facts and help me inform my cousin about what we know/don't know about climate change hes a self avowed climate contrarian& However, I cannot use this article because I would not presume that we so fully understand what is occurring relative to climate change that I can in good conscience tell him we know all the facts, hence, whatever he believes that disagrees with our facts is NONSENSE. In my mind, that would be the height of scientific hypocrisy and arrogance. This was not how I was taught to engage in scientific discourse and frankly I would be embarrassed to have to defend such contentions.
jayman30usa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people claim that none of the predictions of AGW scientists have come true so far.
In one sense, these people are correct. The current climate models employed by the bulk of climatologists are too conservative. Being cautious, and trying to avoid making unsupportable claims, these scientists, most of whom find the AGW hypothesis persuasive, predict less global warming than is actually recorded.
The world is warming even faster than the conservative AGW models predict.
Here are two references that support the proposition.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5990
http://ukcp09.defra.gov.uk/
In another sense, of course, this same empirical evidence can be read to show that not only is the AGW hypothesis, but that the impact has been even more severe than by the predictions of AGW climatology limited by the conservative current models.
Waterbug,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI share your criticism. It seems that there are very few places that one can go to actually get a good debate on the issue. Instead you are treated to a "baptism of faith" by one side or the other, with no regard to the truth and to the facts. Just their own hyperbole and spin. They are not even honest with themselves as they appear to think that they have been divinely inspired to speak the truth - as their religion states it.
Sadly, we have over 600 comments to this article, and out of the thousands (millions?) of words printed, perhaps 10% actually help with the debate.
I only hope that the rest of the scientific community reigns in this new gospel according to AGW, and restores some scientific integrity to the field. Right now, there is none, and so we are damned to continue to hear propaganda, and not honest debate. In the end, not only is this field of "science" (and I use the term sarcastically as there appears to be none in this Creed) suffering, but man will as well. Without knowing what you are doing or why, you often will do more damage than good.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... this new gospel according to AGW, and restores some scientific integrity to the field. Right now, there is none, and so we are damned to continue to hear propaganda, and not honest debate ..."
I couldn't agree with you more.
Waterbug,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, science is about asking questions, and finding answers. In this instance, the question is not if average temperatures are increasing over time around the world; that is well established.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400905.stm
Sensible people do not deny that. The question is why is it happening, or what is the cause?
One hypothesis is that the burning of fossil fuels by humans, which began in earnest with the industrial revolution, and has continued and increased to date, has inserted enough extra carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere to be responsible for at least a significant part of the recorded temperature increase. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide correlates with the increase in average temperatures around the world. This correlation is incorporated into the current AGW hypothesis, and the majority of practicing climatologists find this explanation persuasive.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
There are a few scientists who claim that the increase in greenhouse gases has made no difference in the recorded temperature increase. Their claim is that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy received by the earth from the sun. Nevertheless, most climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to the record of recent warming.
Obviously, either proposition could be correct. To date, however, the AGW hypothesis most closely approximates the empirical data. That is, in all likelihood, why so many more climatologists are persuaded that it is correct than the ones who advance alternative explanations for the recorded increase in average temperatures around the world.
Once the impassioned shouting and arm waving are set aside along with the wild accusations of religious fervor by one side or another about the other, the issue can be discussed rationally.
jercoobrian is a paid concern troll for Exxon, probably paid by Enhofe's staff. They are always on the watch for articles like this and try to pounce on them first to steer the conversation. Its not doing them any good at all. Fred Singer is a crazy flake with no credibility and his other references are equally fraudulent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscarlcaster,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"jercoobrian is a paid concern troll for Exxon, probably paid by Enhofe's staff ..."
A bold claim!
There is no debate. It ended long ago. Who is paying you to write this crap?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many rites do you have in your church of AGW? And what is the tithing for your membership?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThankfully, I can now discount all your posts since you have shown yourself to be a religious fanatic, not a seeker of scientific truth.
carlcaster,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear you have disagreed with one who does not countenance differing opinions, especially when corroborated.
Congratulations, carlcaster!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought it would be impossible for anyone to be worse at debating than Chryses and Trent, but you've done it!
Not a single fact mentioned in either of your posts, but that's par for the course as played by AGW alarmists.
"There is no debate. It ended long ago."
I guess if all you read is slanted Scientific American coverage of global warming, written by writers wh0 don't know the meaning of "climate sensitivity," your ignorance is understandable.
The debate is quite alive and the skeptics are winning.
For those who have claimed to not have access to the data or the code:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you see any consistency in the following?
(wooosh at 06:09 PM on 12/05/09) "... But courtesy must go both ways."
(wooosh at 05:11 PM on 12/08/09) "... I thought it would be impossible for anyone to be worse at debating than Chryses and Trent, but you've done it …"
Neither do I.
Yep, Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActions have consequences. When you don't debate in good faith, all bets are off.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWoosh and hypocrisy are synonyms.
The research mentioned by shoshin doesn't "blow a hole" in the climate change argument, it suggests that we have been underestimating the effect of certain greenhouse gasses and aerosols in combination with each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48940/title/Aerosols_cloud_the_climate_picture
Lt. Kijae,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the best material available on climate can be found on "realclimate.org" with articles for the layperson as well as links to the most detailed scientific pieces.
NOAA reports that the 2000's are set to be the hottest decade on the instrument record:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091208_globalstats.html
FTA:
Global Temperature and Precipitation Highlights:
* Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through October are the fifth warmest on record, at 1.01 degrees F above the long-term average.
* NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.
* The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.
"Woosh and hypocrisy are synonyms."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL!
World Meteorological Organization reports that the 2000's are the warmest on the instrument record:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
FTA:
"2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE
The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment."
I guess we will have to add the the scientist at W.M.O to the conspiracy list.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(wooosh at 06:33 PM on 12/08/09) "…When you don't debate in good faith, all bets are off."
Too true! I wonder when he will begin?
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... I guess we will have to add the the scientist at W.M.O to the conspiracy list."
The list grows ever onward.
1. Any article including the term Contrarian Nonsense in its title should be excluded from any respectable publication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Any system that is cannot be reasonably explained is not completely understood by any expert.
3. Any system which includes undetermined processes cannot be mathematically verified. Fudge factors are a modelers best friend.
4. When promotional opportunities and financial gain become significant factors in a social enterprise, reason is quickly abandoned. Please refer to the recent .com and mortgage debacles. Of course, such topics are great revenue generators for publications...
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... The decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989) ..."
We should pause to reflect that the above is likely to sway neither of the last holdouts, as these are mere facts.
@Jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou give no indication of having read no more than the headline. Your bluster fails to address not even one point in the article. If you wish to be taken seriously and not seen as a stooge at least appear to have read the article.
"We should pause to reflect that the above is likely to sway neither of the last holdouts, as these are mere facts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are for the "reality based community" as one Bush official put it.
"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community#cite_note-0
CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural,
5 % is manmade.
so we can influence a fraction of the atmosphere.
if we change one parameter of that very complex system that climate is,in such a small way, how can we so accurately predict the outcome?namely that global temperature will drop, or will not rise?
"CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Nitrogen and Oxygen which are transparent to IR waves make up 99% of the atmosphere. So our temperature regime on this planet depends on less than 1% of the total content of the atmosphere.
"95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural,5 % is manmade."
You left out the part where CO2 levels have accumulated to the point that 38% of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now man made.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5620
"if we change one parameter of that very complex system that climate is,in such a small way, how can we so accurately predict the outcome?namely that global temperature will drop, or will not rise?"
Physics. Glad I could help.
"How we communicate is obviously at least as important in this fight for hearts and minds as what we say."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you start with the title, "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense," use of the inflammatory word, "Nonsense" immediately closes minds.
At SeaTac airport today here in Seattle the temperature was 18 degrees F. this morning, the coldest on record. It has been abnormally cold all week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeather, famously, is not climate. Of course a lot of people who fanatically believe that recent global warming was manmade had a lot of predictions that 2009 would have beau coup extreme weather events were wrong (particularly about hurricances) but hey, who's counting?
From now on I am counting because it seems so much original data on climate was actually analyzed behind closed doors by secret protocols and then highly political conclusions were announced, following which the original data was eradicated.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We never need to shivver in the dark because our electricity is too expensive to use. We never need to not have natural gas or gasoline because both can be made from coal. Someday alternative energies will probably replace fossil fuels in a lot of applications, but that is OK as the technology truly is up to speed so that it can fill our needs without bankrupting our already strained economy.
The American people are one day going to wake up and realize that not only what their lifestyle should be, but what it is, has been highjacked by a bunch of know-it-alls who have no shame about destroying the value of other people's fossil fuel assets and investments in service of a convenient lie for the benefit of some scientific fiefdoms and cottage industries.
After reading this article, I, for one, am going to subscribe to SA. I find it absurd that the climate change contrarians posting here act as if they have insight into SA's circulation figures. Rennie's article was thoughtful, coherent and grounded in scientific research--in stark contrast to the ridiculous commentary by the contrarians posting here. As IF they know whether SA is losing subscribers because of articles like this. What a joke!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Rennie. How's tricks for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Weather, famously, is not climate ..."
Very true. Were that everyone knew that!
Why did Al Gore BAIL on the Copenhagen meeting ... "conflicting scheduling" ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am new. i have 2 questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1- yes or no, is global warming for real and if it is what can everyday retired citizens like me, realistically, do to help this cause? And it GW is real why is the message not getting across?
2-why did AL GORE bail on the Copenhagen meeting??!!
Those who would wish to control, create and nurture fear(s) in various populations around the planet. And then offer solutions to the very fear(s)/problems they have created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFascism (merging of corporation and government) exists and currently attempts to entrench itselves into our lives.
Climate change as presented by those pretending to be be in "power" is naught but another scam and an affront against large portions of this planet's population.....a move for more control/power.
Don't go into the woods............
cjl123456783,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, global warming is real. The decade 2000–2009 was warmer than the decade 1990–1999, which in turn was warmer than 1980–1989.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
There is very little any individual can do which would be better than reading, learning, and studying the problem. Once you know the potential impact of global warming, look around and see what you can change that could help
Here is a good starting point for learning about global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The message has been well received in the scientific community. Most climatologists agree that the observed warming trends are due in large part to human activity.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
I will email this to my skeptical friends who insist that Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' is the result of the biggest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind, that there is no such thing as global warming (they point to sunspots) caused by man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey will still insist they are right, however. That's the way they are.
@Michael Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"At SeaTac airport today here in Seattle the temperature was 18 degrees F. this morning, the coldest on record. It has been abnormally cold all week."
What? You have been parroting the line that the temperature record is unreliable for weeks, now suddenly it is? Hypocrisy much?
News Flash: If you think that the temperature record is unreliable then you can not use it as EVIDENCE or do thermometers suddenly become accurate when it is cold?
Consistency, Mr. Cook, it is not the hobgoblin of little minds.
Wildspirit,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll one can do is try to explain why AGW is the most likely interpretation of the empirical data. As more evidence accumulates, revisions and adjustments to this model are only to be expected.
On balance though, I think that this thread is representative of the all-too-human process of winnowing through the presented alternatives and identifying not the hypothesis that is right, but the one that is most likely to be right, given the evidence at hand.
your link shows the Keeling Curve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis states that the CO� concentration is 380ppm, is this 38%?
and is this manmade?
Your answer :"physics"on the thinkering with one parameter of a very complex and not yet completely understood system ,and accurately knowing the result of this thinkering is cheap and gives me no insight, what i'm genuinly looking for
jefden,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1 of 2
“CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, 5 % is manmade.”
Yes, that is what the measurements record.
“so we can influence a fraction of the atmosphere.”
Yes, although CO2 is only one of the greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere by human activities, the total amount of greenhouse gasses inserted by humans is only a small fraction of the total.
“if we change one parameter of that very complex system that climate is,in such a small way, how can we so accurately predict the outcome?namely that global temperature will drop, or will not rise?”
Reasonable questions. Here, loosely, is the AGW response.
Chaos theory is an area of inquiry in mathematics and physics that studies the behavior of certain dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Small differences in initial conditions yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. The deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is referred to as chaos. Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as the weather. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
You also ask, again quite reasonably, if the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide added each year by humans is enough to make a difference.
Is it possible for 5% (CO2 emitted by humanity) of 0.04% (total amount of CO2) to change the state of a system?
5% = 0.05. 0.04% = 0.0004. 0.05 * 0.0004 = 0.00002
We get a hint that it is possible by acknowledging that the earth’s climate is chaotic, in the way that Chaos theory defines chaos. If you have the time follow the link to the article on Chaos Theory on Wikipedia. It provides a good background for the climate change debate.
The AGW position would be that it is not the absolute amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that induces GW, but the amount in excess of what is captured by natural background processes. That excess is manufactured by humans.
So can a change in 0.002% in a system, have a significant impact on that system?
jefden,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscontinued, 2 of 2
So can a change in 0.002% in a system, have a significant impact on that system?
The answer is yes. Let me give you an example. It is not especially appealing, but it is vivid.
A fatal dose of cyanide for human can be as low as 1.5mg/kg body weight.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide_poisoning
To avoid accusations of picking best-case numbers, let us assume 2mg/kg.
2mg /kg= .002g/kg = .0002%
The human body is ten times more sensitive to cyanide than AGW proponents are suggesting that the atmosphere is to carbon dioxide.
Obviously, the objection can be raised that the complex systems are not the same. That is true. I used this example to show that, in principle, a complex system can be very sensitive to a very small input. If you can accept the principle described above, then the question changes to “is global climate that sensitive to carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases inserted into the atmosphere through human activity?”
Most climatologists think so.
"This states that the CO� concentration is 380ppm, is this 38%?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. The pre-industrial value of CO2 levels in the atmosphere was 280 ppm it now stands at 385 ppm, that is a 38% increase.
"and is this manmade?"
Yes. How we know this is that we can count the decline of 14/13C:12C ratios in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are depleted in 14/13 C while the atmosphere has a *steady amount of 14/13 C created by collisions with cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This is actually a prediction of AGW made
by Hans Suess and Roger Revelle back in the 50's. It is called the Suess Effect. Please go here to read more:
http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/radiocarbon/card/suess.htm
"Your answer :"physics"on the thinkering with one parameter of a very complex and not yet completely understood system ,and accurately knowing the result of this thinkering is cheap and gives me no insight, what i'm genuinly looking for."
If you want a short concise answer to why I say it is all about physics then go here:
The CO2 problem in 6 Easy Steps
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
The article is written by a geophysicist for laymen. Just do not read the article though. Read the first 200 comments, if there is something you do not understand in the article it is explained in the comments. If you have a genuine interest then go to that article and chew on it. Go to those links.
There is a huge amount of information at all levels out there for the interested lay man like you and me. Like the journey of a thousand miles that knowledge begins with the first step.
I can give you plenty of recommendations in regards to books recorded lectures, and articles but you need to get cracking with that article. If you do not understand all of it that is OK but you need to start somewhere and I can give no better recommendation than that article.
Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me just comment on this straw man assertion. As any examination of global temperatures will show, global warming indeed stopped increasing more than a decade ago. No one credibly claims that there has been subsequent cooling. But this period of stasis has already persisted for more than half the time of the preceeding warming period that originally gave us concern. It is hardly of no significance. Moreover, it is not explained by current climate computer models. as is evident in the hacked emails. So, this does not mean that global warming might not increase. What it means is that we don't know what is going to happen. So how much do we spend on an unknown?
John Rennie would be more advised to address the Freeman Dyson component of the doubters, rather than concentrating on the Sarah Palin wing. We are not idiots.
Melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks! You gave me some leads to research and learn more and that is the true purpose of these types of forums.
I am continually amazed conservatives self-induced ignorance. More than 70 percent don't believe in evolution. Now they use the same logic to attack the science of climate change. We no longer debate evolution deniers and we should do the same with climate change deniers. We should not scorn them but pity them. Imagine what it must be like to live a little black box of someone else's making and never knowing that there is another world out there. It is sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are straw man arguments. The weakness of global warming theory is total lack of any credible proof of warming. What counts is knowing global temperature trends and we are given a pack of lies about them. Take the twentieth century for example. We were coming out of the Little Ice Age and there was definite warming period from the middle of the nineteenth century until World War II. But world temperature since then has stabilized and yet we don't hear anything about it. That is because we are told that there was this "late twentieth century warming," the one that Hansen testified about in 1988, that is still supposed to be going on. But all this is a lie: satellite observations, available for the last thirty years, simply cannot see it. What satellite observations do see is a multi-year temperature oscillation about an average temperature that lasted for twenty years. There were five of these cycles until the super El Nino of 1998 put a end to it. That super El Nino itself was the only real warming incident within the last thirty years and it wasn't caused by carbon dioxide either but was the result of Indian Ocean overflow. The temperature oscillations themselves are caused by the ENSO system of the Pacific Ocean that has a global climate influence. Periodically an El Nino lifts the global temperature by half a degree, to be followed by a La Nina that lowers it again. After the super El Nino was over there was an unusually warm period from 2001 to 2007 consisting of two El Nino peaks with a La Nina in between. That La Nina, however, was abortive, probably because of the aftereffect of the super El Nino, and the result was a six year temperature plateau near the El Nino maximum that is responsible for the unusual warmth of the decade. But it all came to an end with the La Nina cooling in 2007 that bottomed out in 2008. With it, the climate oscillations have returned. While this was going on carbon dioxide was steadily rising and so were the temperature predictions of climate models that use it as input. But no way can carbon dioxide explain our oscillating climate. Climategate shows that their scientists were well aware of the failure of their theory to explain the La Nina cooling but kept this fact hidden from the public. Their theory is simply wrong and should be discarded, and with it all climate regulations from Kyoto to Copenhagen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Let me just comment on this straw man assertion."
I do not think you know what a strawman argument is. Why is it that you do not address what the article actually said?
"As any examination of global temperatures will show, global warming indeed stopped increasing more than a decade ago."
A baseless assertion. Take a look at what the World Meteorological Association says about the 2000's:
World Meteorological Organization reports that the 2000's are the warmest on the instrument record:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html
FTA:
"20002009, THE WARMEST DECADE
The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (JanuaryOctober) is currently estimated at 0.44�C � 0.11�C (0.79�F � 0.20�F) above the 19611990 annual average of 14.00�C/57.2�F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (20002009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (19901999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (19801989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment."
How about NOAA?
NOAA reports that the 2000's are set to be the hottest decade on the instrument record:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091208_globalstats.html
FTA:
"Global Temperature and Precipitation Highlights:
* Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through October are the fifth warmest on record, at 1.01 degrees F above the long-term average.
* NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.
* The 2000 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."
So much for your assertions and reality coinciding.
I am alarmed and disgusted by the biased and political bent of Scientific American. By entering into the political arena with the Obama administration, SA has now put all scientists in jeopardy of working for a particular political party, and especially for draconian, and alarmist socialism leading to government control. I do believe the Soviets already did this with disastrous results. There is no mention of how private industry through competition and a perceived need is working quickly to solve many problems, whether or not there is an increase in CO2 as the result of human interference. What are you people thinking at SA? And how did you become the paramour of Obama and his clueless, and uneducated thugs? I hope you correct this impression as being extremely biased and unscientific...and report a balanced, and fair view of climate changes. As far as I'm concerned there are so many errors in East Anglia's conclusions to throw it in the garbage or use it to line the cat litter box. By the way, why don't you report the research on Mars warming? Neither the GOP, human interference or CO2 emissions have anything to do with Mars warming up. So, now what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am alarmed and disgusted by the biased and political bent of Scientific American. By entering into the political arena with the Obama administration, SA has now put all scientists in jeopardy of working for a particular political party, and especially for draconian, and alarmist socialism leading to government control. I do believe the Soviets already did this with disastrous results. There is no mention of how private industry through competition and a perceived need is working quickly to solve many problems, whether or not there is an increase in CO2 as the result of human interference. What are you people thinking at SA? And how did you become the paramour of Obama and his clueless, and uneducated thugs? I hope you correct this impression as being extremely biased and unscientific...and report a balanced, and fair view of climate changes. As far as I'm concerned there are so many errors in East Anglia's conclusions to throw it in the garbage or use it to line the cat litter box. By the way, why don't you report the research on Mars warming? Neither the GOP, human interference or CO2 emissions have anything to do with Mars warming up. So, now what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMARS IS ALSO WARMING UP...HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"MARS IS ALSO WARMING UP...HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith a link all in lower case:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Weismonger I have one word for you: Paragraphs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeismonger,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"MARS IS ALSO WARMING UP...HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?"
Are you suggesting that the mechanism for Martian and Terran climate change is the same?
melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... As any examination of global temperatures will show, global warming indeed stopped increasing more than a decade ago ..."
The sentence from your post quoted above is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that the 'warming stopped increasing', or that 'warming stopped'?
If the former interpretation is correct, then my response is that the rate of warming increase could not continue indefinitely. Eventually the rate of warming increase had to decline. There is an upper limit on the rate of warming, whether the mechanism is that is driving the warming is natural or manmade.
If the latter interpretation is correct, then I challenge the claim. The warming has not stopped, ref http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
To Ian Pearson: By your reasoning, we should no longer trust the stem cell research community because one researcher from South Korea was found to have manufactured data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead what I said. By straw man, I refer very clearly to the suggestion by the author that critics are talking of a cooldown. No one is suggesting this. Your other statements do not in any way conflict with what I clearly stated, which was that global temperatures reached their present levels about 11 years ago and HAVE NOT GONE UP SINCE THEN. So, yes, the present decade is the warmest. Obviously. Because in the previous two decades temperatures were rising from lower levels to higher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... As any examination of global temperatures will show, global warming indeed stopped increasing more than a decade ago ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sentence from your post quoted above is ambiguous. Are you suggesting that the 'warming stopped increasing', or that 'warming stopped'?
I'm saying that they reached a certain level and have stayed there. We are in very big trouble if "warming stopped." Think "no sun."
Weismonger,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"MARS IS ALSO WARMING UP...HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?"
Are you suggesting that the mechanism for Martian and Terran climate change is the same?
"I'm saying that they reached a certain level and have stayed there."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is factually incorrect and demonstrates that you never read the article you have commented on.
NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Stop spreading disinformation.
The following is a direct response to this comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm saying that they reached a certain level and have stayed there."
Which is factually incorrect and demonstrates that you never read the article you have commented on.
NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Stop spreading disinformation.
I'm not sure what your problem is. That graph, like all others,
clearly shows that there has been NO INCREASE IN WARMING SINCE AROUND 1998. The curve has flattened out. It is NO LONGER RISING. That is all. Prior to 1998, IT WAS GOING UP.
melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... I'm saying that they reached a certain level and have stayed there. We are in very big trouble if 'warming stopped.' Think 'no sun.' "
Yes, that would be an awkward development.
If you follow the url (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm, and examine figures 2, 3,& 4, they show continued warming during the last decade. I find them persuasive, if not convincing.
There is also interesting reading in the comments section that follows.
@Melk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou need glasses. Nine of the ten warmest years on the instrument record have been in the 2000's. The 2000's are 0.2C warmer than the 90's, the 90's were 0.2C warmer than the 80's.
When will Melk read the article he so vehemently disagrees with?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks. I think that all the data that I have seen show a significant decline in the increase of global warming since 1998 as compared with the very sharp rise from, say, 1978-1998. Whether this recent shape is flat or still slightly rising seems to be a matter of opinion. It is clear from the leaked emails that many of these scientists are concerned that the slowdown was not accounted for in their models. And, of course, this slowdown obviously is not in contradiction with the fact that the most recent decade is the hottest. Clearly, we have reached a peak and maintained it. Ergo, the hottest!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I am just reading the available data, not passing an opinion. I can no longer bother with others who post
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
and then persist in arguing about the shape of that curve!
I think that we have a problem of comprehension.
@Melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thanks. I think that all the data that I have seen show a significant decline in the increase of global warming since 1998 as compared with the very sharp rise from, say, 1978-1998."
The 2000's are o.2C warmer than the 90's. NASA has ranked the ten hottest years on the instrument record as of 2008.
1. 2005
2. 1998/2007
3
4. 2002
5. 2003/2006
6
7. 2001/2004
8
9. 2008
10. 1997
"Whether this recent shape is flat or still slightly rising seems to be a matter of opinion."
No it is not. Have you ever heard of that branch of mathematics called statistics? Statistics show a positive trend. You can go straight to the data NASA data page open up Excel and input the last ten years to do a linear regression on it and you will find a positive change:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
"It is clear from the leaked emails that many of these scientists are concerned that the slowdown was not accounted for in their models."
Evidence? When I say evidence I want you to reproduce the full message with text number and connect it to a specific database. Go ahead do it.
"I think that we have a problem of comprehension."
No you do.
"True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this is true, why did CO2 levels change before human activities became significant CO2 contributors?
Because of inputs such as the Milankovitch Cycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...why did CO2 levels change before human activities became significant CO2 contributors?"
We know that the present warming is not being caused by Milankovitch Cycles.
The depth and complexities of this arguement cannot be understood simply within the harsh and passionless logic of pure science. For a true and universal understanding of such a multifaceted problem, we must ultimately turn to the only true discipline of humanity: Philosophy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile there are many learned and venerable philosophers who have imparted wisdom to mankind since before our recorded history, I believe that we should heed these words of the wisest of them all:
"Stupidity got us into this mess, and stupidity will get us out." - Homer Simpson
What a 'Wonderland' of dictatorship, deception and illusion. This house of cards has had a pre-tremor, so will likely shudder, then finally fall, as honest, intelligent, living people, without heavily-biased state funding, journal censorship, or corporate agendas, find and analyse the genuine raw facts and data e.g. Weather stations which have not had their data tampered with by state agencies, and where the Heat Island Effect can be quantified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is not _Scientifically_ proven, despite the propaganda, there are theories and extremists on both sides, but definitely not enough proof, either way, to assert gross effects or to justify colossal and bankrupting financial measures. In addition it is well known that Socialist states accomplish little of worth, at great cost, so any measures should be delegated to Capitalism and enlightened self-interest, not edict, otherwise the increasingly Capitalist East will take us to the cleaners.
Scientific American and New Scientist used to be a good source of Science news, but now appear to have been corrupted by fanatical Socialist and big money agendas, so now appear to mix genuine Science with what looks suspiciously like "New-Age" superstition, fantasy, and technocratic BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocialism, be it Marxism, Fabanism, Facism, Corporatism, Communitarianism etc., is ultimately the enemy of Science, because it is Mathematically and Economically illiterate, thus not grounded in reality, so corrupts all who accept or obey it!
Science should have no agenda but to seek the truth and facts as best it can, and The Scientific Method requires that ideas, hypotheses and theories are impartially tested periodically, as a reality check, to verify what actually happens. These checks require that the methods and any unadulterated raw data is precisely identified, and made available promptly; to not do so casts doubt on the reported results, because it gives dishonest 'scientists' time to destroy or corrupt incriminating details.
The ClimateGate leak of a (blocked) in-progress Freedom of Information request clearly illustrates what happens when 'scientists', at best, do not rigorously abide by The Scientific Method, at worst, commit fraud and actively obstruct verification.
Deception, including the deliberate, and dishonest, sabotage of independent verification and constructive criticism *, is not compatible with Science, but with superstitious dogma, so should be treated with contempt, not published without critique!
* This sabotage can include censorship, and debating tricks like: straw men, personal attacks, logical inversions, loaded questions, dubious 'authorities', the dishonest redefinition of language (e.g. words and phrases), the invention of bogus concepts, out-of-context arguments, false assertion of context, and various other social engineering techniques.
"Scientific American and New Scientist used to be a good source of Science news, but now appear to have been corrupted by fanatical Socialist and big money agendas, so now appear to mix genuine Science with what looks suspiciously like "New-Age" superstition, fantasy, and technocratic BS."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis message brought to you by Exxon-Mobil.
melk,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...
Again, I am just reading the available data, not passing an opinion. I can no longer bother with others who post
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
and then persist in arguing about the shape of that curve!
..."
The document at http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf opens with "There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward."
This Australian analysis uses two other data sets in addition to NASA's.
The trend line for all three data sets is positive for the last decade, indicating continued warming during that period.
Jabberwocky,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...
Deception, including the deliberate, and dishonest, sabotage of independent verification and constructive criticism *, is not compatible with Science, but with superstitious dogma, so should be treated with contempt, not published without critique!
* This sabotage can include censorship, and debating tricks like: straw men, personal attacks, logical inversions, loaded questions, dubious 'authorities', the dishonest redefinition of language (e.g. words and phrases), the invention of bogus concepts, out-of-context arguments, false assertion of context, and various other social engineering techniques.
..."
Alas, if you take the time to read the posts to this forum, you will read examples of many of these illicit debating techniques. It seems that this debate is sufficiently important to some that they will do whatever they think it will take to win the argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom Exon Mobile
Trent forgot to mention the category of unscientific discourse seeminly used as your fallback: that of charging your opponent with dishonestly representing some economic interest. He is winning the argument.
Re; ... "from Exon Mobile..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent forgot to mention your favorite fallback argument: that of charging your opponent with dishonestly representing some economic interest.
@Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Trent forgot to mention your favorite fallback argument: that of charging your opponent with dishonestly representing some economic interest."
I believe that the vast majority of Deniers are dupes of the fossil fuel industry. Being a dupe does not mean you are arguing dishonestly it just that you have been taken in by a disinformation. So when somebody mindlessly repeats a fossil fuel talking point they are (free of charge) defending the interests of the industry. A dupe.
Dupe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt remains an unpersausive argument... a cheap shot.
@Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDupe
1. An easily deceived person.
2. A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dupe
Wright says: It remains an unpersausive argument... a cheap.
shot.
It is not a argument, but an accurate LABEL. People who come here and posit conspiracy theories with out an ounce of evidence are acting in the interests of the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry.
Mr.Wright, do you have evidence of a multi-decade long conspiracy involving a Communist-Fascist-Environmentalist alliance in cahoots with the world's geophysicists? What is your primary evidence? Do you have primary evidence?
Like I said: Dupe.
I thought we were rid of Rennie, [good riddance]. How does he get so much current space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDang. You've caught me. I'm the top dog of the conspiracy. Wow, you jump to conclusions. I'm a contrarian-denier-conspiracy theorist because I don't like your ad hominem attacks?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dang. You've caught me. I'm the top dog of the conspiracy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou flatter yourself. I never accused you of being a conspirator just a dupe.
"Wow, you jump to conclusions. I'm a contrarian-denier-conspiracy theorist because I don't like your ad hominem attacks? "
Well OK, I could be wrong about you. I would have no problem admitting as much. So just tell me a few things.
1. Do you think the Earth has been warming over the past thirty years, as can be seen by looking at this NASA graph?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
2. Do you think that Humans are responsible? The evidence for this can be found in many places but this site is a good start:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.html.
3. Do you think that a cabal of geophysicist are out to defraud the public? This is the second time I have asked you this. Am I hoping to get your answer?
A yes on any on the first two means that you are either a merely ignorant (rectifiable) or willfully ignorant. A yes on the third places you firmly in the paranoid-hysteria crowd.
By the way you should go learn the difference between an insult and an ad hominem logical fallacy.
I am a scientist so of course I want a solid scintific basis before I reject or accept a theory. It´s that simple. If you call me by any adjective that comes in your mind is not primarily my problem but yours. But I can tell you it is not a proper way discussion issues wiht your opponents - whatever you think about them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately AGW is still not science and will not be as long its representants do not accept the normal scientific procedure but create their own. They can prove 1 billion flies can´t be wrong - eat shit - but still they don´t want to see the target. Most people, even "denyers" want the science "settled". Most of denyers want it settled the proper way what ever it will end up on. Trampling on them does not do anything better but cause unnecessary irritation.
So my question to you is: do you want to talk sciense or do you want to play at the sandbox? Think. And think again.
Dear Moderator,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you mind to comment on these views by Lindzen
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html.
Most grateful.
Only ignorant people call other people ignorant (I quote me). Because you ask questions I am willing to answer you: Yes I know there has been a warming period 1975-2004, that is app. eqivalent to the wariming 1912-1941. The period is the same 39 years and the slope is the same. As after 1941 the temperature has gone down since 2004 and is as it was in the 50:ies now. In rural areas, not in city-areas. 2. I do not know what causes these fluctuations, I had hoped for proper scientific answers but IPCC choosed not to use the normal procedures. So, unfortunately there is no adequate answer at the moment. 3. I don´t know why a random qeophysicist would lie or speak the truth. If it is about science I want to see his work before I can tell. But I do know something. When calling people hysterical-paranoid must mean you work in the field of psychiatry - am I right? Most likely as a doctor or researcher? I do not know if your diagnosis is wellgrounded either but I guess not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Moderator,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you mind to commento on Lindzen's views, as expressed in:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Most grateful.
Brilliant. One of the things that amazes me the most about the whole climate change controversy is how difficult it is to wade through the masses of mostly distorted half truths available, and actually find clear, concise, accurate information. Even reputable websites and institutions frequently leave significant gaps in evidence or reasoning that act as cracks in the concrete in which the weeds of doubt grow. As a person actively speaking out about climate and other environmental issues, this is a vast breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree on part of what you wrote because of what follows:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is a theory (like any theory) until it is proofed - which it is not done yet. Scientific theories gain the status of "science" only when their predictions correlate with reality. Historical events does not matter here, only future events. AGW-theory is not old enough so this could have been done yet, whatever you "think" of it, whether you are pro or anti. This means of course that everyone who says something ABSOLUTE about AGW is wrong.
Maybe it shows to be a good theory maybe not, we should know about year 2100 or so. Until then the theory SHOULD be objeckt for critisism from every possible angle. That is the normal procedure. Of course it is far too early to use AGW as ground for political descisions - but this is an partly other discussion. Not less important.
Jarmo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove your comments, but I do have to correct you on one point. AGW is an hypothesis, it is not a theory yet - in the scientific sense. if we wade through the hystrionics and propaganda, we see that the debate is very much alive, but the testing has not yet been accomplished. And the models are not working.
As one said in an earlier comment, the lack of testing does not prove or disprove anything scientifically. We hopefully will see some quality research and testing being done on this issue once the CRU scandal is cleaned up.
Dupe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course I flatter myself. No one else feels the need.
You Know, I haven't made up my mind about man made climate change, since I don't have enough information.
I don't think you do either.
What bothers me is the "concensus". That is politics, not science. I have my opinions, you have yours, both based on some science, nether blessed with the certainty we would like to possess.
@Richard,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You Know, I haven't made up my mind about man made climate change, since I don't have enough information."
You should try using this schmatzy-pantsy new fangled thing called the Internet. On it you can have direct access to the primary literature by the experts. I think if you did that instead of relying on talk radio, T.V news, and former mining executives you might learn something.
"I don't think you do either."
Your mind reading abilities leave much to desired. You need to go get a refund on your Jedi Mind Reading course.
"What bothers me is the "concensus". That is politics, not science."
So since their is a consensus on the basics of:
Evolution
Germ Theory
Theory of Relativety
Plate Tectonics
Theory of Relativety
You think that all those are just as suspect too? Do you ever stop to think before you write?
"I have my opinions, you have yours,..."
And so does Bozo the Clown. Everyone has a right to an opinion some opinions are grounded on fact and logic and others are based on fear, uncertainty, ignorance and doubt.
Not all opinions are equal.
"...both based on some science..."
Just what science are you talking about? I have asked you frank questions and you have remained silent. Why is it you pretend that those questions were never asked?
Mind reading
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhatever I believe, it isn't because of any consensus or lack thereof. The only reason I respond at all to you is my curiosity regarding the mindset of someone who makes such an argument. I don't see any benefit to myself or others in continuing with you.
Trent1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're such a putz. You think by citing some imaginary "consensus" on
Evolution
Germ Theory
Theory of Relativety
Plate Tectonics
That automatically makes a "consensus" on AGW:
1. Real
2. And proves that AGW is true
You are merely a scientific poseur.
The theories that you cite are testable, have been tested and have been shown to be valid... so far.
AGW is not testable. It is a mere article of faith. Do the world a favour, if you ar such a hot shot scientist as you want us all to believe that you are, devise an experiment whereby AGW can be tested.
So far all I see is 12 trees in Siberia (and every first year stats student knows that you need at least 32 to say anything remotely interesting) that may have been the favoured urinating stop for a herd of migrating horses for all we know.
Move along, and take your pedantic and pneumocephalic views of science with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
"You think by citing some imaginary "consensus" on
Evolution
Germ Theory
Theory of Relativety
Plate Tectonics"
Oh, so you think that the consensus is imaginary on the above list? Do tell.
"That automatically makes a "consensus" on AGW:"
I did not say that. What was being responded too was Wright's allegation that consensus smelled of politicization. I pointed out that AGW is not the only theory that has a consensus around it. Anymore dishonesty you wish to display?
I got a novel proposal for you. How about you address what is actually being said instead of what you want to be said.
"AGW is not testable."
What utter dishonesty. You have been over and over again provided with that evidence. You simply close your eyes to it and repeatedly scream, "No evidence!"
Here is a prime example. I have repeatedly pointed out to you a prediction of AGW. That as CO2 levels increases in the lower atmosphere the upper atmosphere will cool till equilibrium is reached. Prediction made and observed:
Stratospheric Cooling
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Direct Retrieval of Stratospheric CO2 Infrared Cooling Rate Profiles From AIRS Data:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024680.shtml
Here is the raw data:
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/data-holdings
Why is it you think no one notices your inability to do anything but bluster and engage in conspiracy theory? I am guessing never.
Another thing. You keep on claiming that I am scientist. I am not. I am an interested layman who has the motivation to learn. I do know how science is practiced in a totally different field but I have never claimed to be one. That claim is the product of your fervid imagination.
I have waged over the decade many a battle with the Anti-Vaccination crowd, Creationist, Holocaust Deniers, Stalin, Mao, Hitler apologist, Tobacco Defenders, Pearl Harbor Conspiracist, American Civil War Revisionist, CFC Defenders, Afrocentrist, Homeopaths, 9/11 Truthers and national chauvinist of all varieties.
My library at home has shelves filled with books on all these subjects and I have two file cabinets of research material. I have truckloads of digital of data on these areas of interests.
Here take a look:
http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Trent1492/allcollections
What I am trying to point out to you Shoshin is that there is not an argument, rhetorical trick, or bit of shystersism with data that I have not seen pulled half-a-dozen times in other subjects of my interests.
Capiche?
@Wright,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I don't see any benefit to myself or others in continuing with you."
Run Forrest! Run!
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this". . . We hopefully will see some quality research and testing being done on this issue once the CRU scandal is cleaned up."
This implies that quality research has not yet been done.
This is a mistake.
The document at http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf opens with "There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward."
Ref page #2. Several reputable data sets other than that from the CRU are available.
Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... AGW is not testable. It is a mere article of faith ..."
This is a mistake.
"The Suess effect is change in the ratio of the atmospheric concentrations of heavy isotopes of carbon (13C and 14C) by the admixture of large amounts of fossil-fuel derived CO2, which is depleted in 13CO2 and contains no 14CO2. It is named for the Austrian chemist Hans Suess, who noted the influence of this effect on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
This can be, and has been tested.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/
The results? The ratio of 13Co2 and 14Co2 relative to 12CO2 has decreased when compared to ancient ice-core samples.
The inference? The CO2 associated with the current warming trend is manmade.
AGW is testable, and has passed the test.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"AGW is testable, and has passed the test."
Shoshin has been repeatedly told this at least a half a dozen times. You want to know what the answer will be? Allow me the short version:
Shorter Shoshin: *Holding Palms out* Talk to the hand, because the face ain't listening.
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can but try.
To tell you the truth I do not write in hope of Shoshin suddenly gaining a cerebrum, but for the lurkers. He and his ilk repeat some of the most popular and easily debunked Denier memes that it provides a platform to try out various techniques of debunking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I thought that Shoshin was for an instant ignorant but willing to learn I would never subject him to ridicule. Yet he does continue to perpetuate his folly and it is a lot of fun pointing it out.
I have subscribed to Scientific American because of John Rennie's article. I support him in his efforts to counter the nonsense of many global warming critics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, I hope to counterbalance those who may have (who knows if they actually subscribed to SA) ended their subscription.
I prefer the 7 comments to these 7 answers provided by the physicist Luboš Motl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://motls.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientific-american-answers-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29&utm_content=LocalHost
Must have read about 15 - 20 blog posts related to 'ClimateGate' since the thing broke in mid-November, and there is a distinct pattern emerging in the comments whenever a blogger tries to defend the science behind AGW. It's as if somebody blows into a virtual alpenhorn, and all the deniers come scurrying out of the woodwork, drop a little factoid (which has probably already been debunked) like: "CO2 isn't responsible for GW" onto the comments page, get a quick dig in along the lines of "how can you possibly believe in AGW... it's all a conspiracy by those scientists who are in it for the millions in grant money... they should all be criminally investigated and locked up... blah blah blah", and then disappear without a trace. There is a strong parallel between this sort of behaviour and that observed with creationists responding to any blog post on the subject of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne bit of disinformation that keeps appearing in the comments is this little morsel: "They deleted the raw data. Now nobody can reproduce their results!"
Well, no, not actually (the raw data is still available on-line at realclimate.org). What happend was, *over 20 years ago* in the 1980's the CRU moved offices and had no place to store the paper records and tapes. From a Times Online article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece):
"The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."
And, further to this:
"[Phil] Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life's work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."
But the deniers neglect to mention this important fact in the little sound bites they are regurgitating all over the place. They would have you believe Phil Jones destroyed the data himself just a few weeks ago because he didn't want to divulge it in response to FOI requests. I'm sure that's what the deniers at the top of the food chain, who are orchestrating this hate war, would like their minions to believe. And in this, at least, they appear to have been successful.
You actually had a decent reply - if you can remove the religion from it. if you treat the issue as a science one, and not a religious one, meet the counterpoints presented honestly, then you may actually get some to start looking at your writings with a keen interest in finding out the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it is, your non-science bias yells at the reader to "ignore this disciple" of AGW.
Just some words of advice to one trying to read through the chaff to get to the kernels. Yours is half and half and at that better than Rennie's and most of the posters.
Phil, hi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'As it is, your non-science bias yells at the reader to "ignore this disciple" of AGW.'
My 'non-science bias'? Really! You have got to be kidding. Oh wait... now I get it. By equating the scientific method with religion/blind faith, you seek to put it on the same footing as belief in superstitious nonsense. Sorry, but the scientific method is the very *antithesis* of religion.
Way to try to denigrate the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on AGW that were produced using the scientific method. It is the AGW deniers like yourself that can be better equated with religion. You have no (proper) science to back up your cause, and you know it. You can only hope to chip away at the mountain of evidence that proves AGW by political means and subterfuge (as in quote mining of the hacked CRU e-mails).
The politicking of the AGW-deniers may serve to muddy the waters in the short term, but science will prevail in the end. It always does.
metzomagic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you have already discovered, some of the posters to this forum prefer to redirect the focus away from the facts and successful defense of AGW challenges, and toward an undefined promise of something better someday soon.
At least one of them does this rather than present specific criticisms. His one attempt embarrassingly backfired when the evidence advanced to support the criticism in re purported threats against those who found AGW wanting not only failed to support the claim, but one actually was a long winded critique of a meteorologist (with a doctorate in climatology at that) who supported AGW.
There is so little to support the position of those who find AGW wanting that they imply that in the absence of a formal proof of some sort nothing should be done.
Again you project what you want to argue, not what is there. Show me where I am stating anything that is contradictory to the hypothesis of AGW? I am just nailing you for injecting religion into what would have been a good post supporting it. And then you go off the deepend and attack. Not read, not debate, not even understand. just attack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is you practicing religion and to you, I am the heretic. So be it. I freely admit I am not a blind faith obedian of the church of AGW. But the only thing you did with your latest post is convince me that you can regurgitate talking points, but not discuss the subject rationally.
Beleive it or not, I have found ones on both sides of the issue that can debate and discuss AGW rationally and scientifically without calling names. My appologies for ever inferring you were a part of that group.
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... I am just nailing you for injecting religion into what would have been a good post ..."
Perhaps I am not reading the posts to which you refer, but I have not read the one where you claim metzomagic "injected religion."
Given: religion -noun
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
Then: where did he do that?
Or are you redefining the term 'religion'?
PhilJourdan said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Show me where I am stating anything that is contradictory to the hypothesis of AGW?"
Before I posted for the first time on this thread, I laboriously read through all the (719 at the time) posts to make sure I had a good feeling for what was going on, and who was on which side of the debate.
There are 10 - 15 posts back there that clearly, *quite clearly*, demonstrate that you are an AGW denier. So do you want me to go dig them all out and re-post them, or will you accept the fact that you are a lying hypocrite without me having to do that?
Dig them up, and repost them. Go ahead, I have time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr are you just trying to lie your way out of an indefensible position?
BTW: the debate on the single hypothesis of AGW have people falling into 2 camps. Those who are proponents, and those who are skeptics.
Guess what is missing? The central creed of the religious - deniers. if you dont want to look like a fool, dont write like one.
PhilJourdan said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dig them up, and repost them. Go ahead, I have time.
Or are you just trying to lie your way out of an indefensible position?"
Sorry, I can no longer carry on a discussion with a person I now realise must be schizophrenic. Go ahead. You can have the last word on this one...
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... The central creed of the religious - deniers ..."
Given: religion -noun
1) A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3) The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
etc.
"... if you dont want to look like a fool, dont write like one."
I couldn't agree with you more.
I am sorry to see that SA is taking the position of a theologist defending a religious position by implying the "contrarians to AGW" should be demeaned as marginal fanatics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs author Michael Crichton said in 2003 "I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Actually, if it were not for Gore's leadership in obtaining approval of funding for the projects that became the Internet, we might not have an Internet for our playground these days. Hate the man all you like, but don't try to ridicule him endlessly on this basis!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrarianBob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem that the author Michael Crichton was unfamiliar with the idea of a paradigm shift, or revolutionary science. This term was introduced by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science.
This has happened many times in the history of Science. In chemistry, the phlogiston theory was replaced by the atomic theory of combustion. In physics, Newtonian mechanics was replaces by Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory.
You may have noticed that in each case, one theory is replaced, or supplanted by another theory that has improved explanatory capabilities. Relativity Theory produced better predictions than Newtonian physics at very high velocities. Quantum Theory produced better predictions than Newtonian physics at very small distances
I suspect that the reason AGW has not been replaced by whatever it is that those who find AGW wanting propose as an alternative is because for all of AGW's deficiencies, it is better than, . . . what?
What is the proposed alternative?
I cannot discount my serious reservations about any atmospheric modelling beyond even a few days! Maybe a week at most. And this is just for trying to forecast based on the primary atmospheric parameters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC (and maybe a few thousand scientists) are trying to make a case for weather pattern projections for decades (and implying millennia) that are driven by secondary, tertiary and lower ranking effects that are much less well understood and not proven scientifically at all by firm measured data at the projected CO2 levels. And this unproven model is to serve as the basis for fundamentally changing human behaviour and to enforce a new economic and political regime that is a greater change than anything else was ever experienced in prior human history.
Would anybody be permitted to build a nuclear power plant on such flimsy evidence?
I cannot discount my serious reservations about any atmospheric modelling beyond even a few days! Maybe a week at most. And this is just for trying to forecast based on the primary atmospheric parameters. (TV wather forecasts!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC (and maybe a few thousand ‘scientists’) are trying to make a case for weather pattern projections for decades (and implying millennia) that are driven by secondary, tertiary and lower ranking effects that are much less well understood and not proven scientifically at all by firm measured data at the detailed parametric level at the projected CO2 levels. And this unproven ‘model’ is to serve as the basis for fundamentally changing human behaviour and to enforce a new economic and political regime that is a greater change than anything else was ever experienced in prior human history ("One world governance').
Would anybody be permitted to build a nuclear power plant on such flimsy evidence?
I've always wondered just one thing. If memory serves, aerosols are considered coolants to the temperature of the Earth. Aerosols are to blame for the hole in the ozone, but also for a cooling effect during the late 80's. Maybe, I am wrong about that. But, if I am right, why is it that we don't just use these aerosols to cool the Earth right now? If Global Warming is so bad for us, which is worse, Global Warming or aerosols in the atmosphere? Just asking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW model is not a testable hypothesis. If you don't have a testable hypothesis you don't have science. Therefore there is no alternative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you may recall, Michael Crichton was the author of Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park and hence was very familiar with science fiction. Thus, he was eminently qualified to opine on AGW, a well orchestrated public policy position posing as science...hence science fiction.
To quote further from a 2003 lecture by Crichton entitled "Aliens cause Global Warming"
"In 1960, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation: N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion."
Thus the IPCC GW models = The Drake Formula
@Hotfoot,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo learn the difference between weather and climate, K?
ContrarianBob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The AGW model is not a testable hypothesis ..."
This is a mistake.
"The Suess effect is change in the ratio of the atmospheric concentrations of heavy isotopes of carbon (13C and 14C) by the admixture of large amounts of fossil-fuel derived CO2, which is depleted in 13CO2 and contains no 14CO2. It is named for the Austrian chemist Hans Suess, who noted the influence of this effect on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect
This can be, and has been tested.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/papers-on-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-observations/
The results? The ratio of 13Co2 and 14Co2 relative to 12CO2 has decreased when compared to ancient ice-core samples.
The inference? The CO2 associated with the current warming trend is manmade.
AGW is testable, and has passed the test.
I read this with interest. I don't know the answer, but there are a few things I do know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. In my field, medicine, scientific fraud undoubtedly exists, the journals are full of it.
2. The medieval warm period causes a great deal of angst among climatologists. Is it really localised to the North Atlantic basin? If so wouldn't records from Antarctica, South America, and Australia refute it? If they did it would be a powerful argument in favour of a localised effect
3 I just spent a year on a small boat on the eastern seaboard of the US. it was the coldest winter for many decades. Edmonton, Alberta has had two successive cold snaps , 2008, 2009, which I know could be isloated but one spell was 10C colder thn any extant record.
4 Energy, whatever its source is expensive and likely to get more so. Regardless of any warming, wouldn't it be more productive to concentrate on conservation, rather that provide yet another bonanza for retrained currency dealers such as the " cap and trade" mechanism is likely to provide?
5. Ditto for population control, the worlds poor counties are much more likely to be overwhelmed with a 20% decadal population increase than any increase in global temperatures
6 I seem to remmeber that Mount Pinataubo, in Indonesia ( may not heve spelled it right) caused a 1.5C fall in global temperatures, which lasted several years. If a single volcano can do this, is it not at least reasonable , and not a sign of ignorance, to ask questions about current global science, which seems to be long on modelling and shorter than one would like on real observations
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Loss and Found,
"If memory serves, aerosols are considered coolants to the temperature of the Earth."
Some are and others are not. The most notorious being Black Carbon. The Himalayas are warming a lot faster than the global average and the main culprit is B.C.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html
.".. if I am right, why is it that we don't just use these aerosols to cool the Earth right now? If Global Warming is so bad for us, which is worse, Global Warming or aerosols in the atmosphere? Just asking."
Good question. Two items:
1.Even the lightest aerosols will stay aloft only a few years. So you got to keep pumping that stuff back up. If you do nothing about the emissions then you are committing to a very long term and expensive up keep.
2. Ocean Acidification: Even if you can inject massive amount of aerosols into the atmosphere successfully with low cost and little negative feedback you will still have the problem of the lowering ph of the oceans.
Address this question. If CO2 absorbs heat so efficiently in such small quantities, why is it not heating and cooling our homes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Address this question. If CO2 absorbs heat so efficiently in such small quantities, why is it not heating and cooling our homes. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You still need an infrared source.
2. Toxicity
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
3. How do propose to keep the gas inside the house?
Just because CO2 is an effective green house gas does not mean it can be used in place of your house furnace.
Thank you. Even though you do not have the balls to admit you're wrong, your post is validation enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if you want to discuss the science, please continue. If you want to spout religious rhetoric, go to a church.
1.The source of heat is the ambient temperature which is part of the infrared spectrum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Toxicity would not be an issue if gas is part of a sealed system such as a typical refrigeration system. In fact manufactured gases used in refrigeration systems are not only toxic but explosive under certain conditions.
"The source of heat is the ambient temperature which is part of the infrared spectrum."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if it is -20c outside you expect what temperature it to be inside?
"Toxicity would not be an issue if gas is part of a sealed system such as a typical refrigeration system. "
You want to fill houses with canisters of CO2? What happens with a leak? How do you detect where a leak is occurring? Do I need to tear out whole walls to detect it? Do I need a CO2 monitor in every room to safeguard against poisoning?
What do you think a insulation system as you describe it will cost?
PhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs best as I can tell, there is only one person talking about religion in this forum, and looking pretty foolish doing so, may I add.
"As best as I can tell, there is only one person talking about religion in this forum, and looking pretty foolish doing so, may I add."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny, that is it not?
Solution to lowering CO2 and provide energy at the same time: Technology
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe future energy sources will thus be based on:
1) Base load: Electricity from nuclear reactors. Problem: solve waste storage/proliferation problem incl. NIMBY-effect and provide safer nuclear reactor types.
2) Top off load: Local and/or Grid Wind/Solar/Wave/Thermal heat heat and electricity. Problem: Local and State investments necessary for power unit and grid build up. Provide and pay your own energy need ($).
There you have it, the problem solved in a nut shell.
IdeasTech ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes sir, that is one one of the possibilities.
The issue of climate change is often attributed to eco-facsists, eco-liberals and eco-marxists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbspanier (amongst others) aims at eco-liberals, it seems to me a hypothesis easily falsified. Are all of the governments and scientific bodies involved in attempting to solve the climate problem liberal in bent?
I would tentatively call myself a liberal, however i have not been included in the secret global conspiracy planning meetings supposed by many.
I would also hasten to point out that a body (US government for example) would be far more popular if it took the line that nothing is wrong, and as pointed out in the origibnal article, funding for the scientists in this area has actually dropped. If reputation is the goal, history shows that reputation is more often garnered by positing a theory that goes against mainstream thinking (assuming the theory holds true). So, if the motivation isn't popularity, or reputation, or money, what is left? Were they bored and needed a massive global hoax to brighten an otherwise dull friday afternoon?
The denier stance on climate change bares remarkable similarities to the creationist position. Both attack sound science on the basis that they do not like the conclusions.
The final nail in the coffin for the denier stance for me is that the argument always seems to boil down to money, cold, hard cash. It seems to me that given the predicted outcomes given by both sides of the debate would settle the argument. The scientists want us to stop polluting the only home we have to save life as we know it, the deniers want to maintain their current levels of income. In my opinion, even if we accept uncertainty, we would be foolish to listen to the denier camp.
Of course, all of this could be avoided if the deniers could just provide evidence that is more coherent, convincing and relevant than supplied by the climatologists. Sadly they are yet to do so. In the meantime, those eco-fascists-liberals-communists have my vote (despite their confused political leanings)
Since when is the environment a political platform?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe politicizing of this and other subjects of critical importance to human life is, frankly, absurd.
I do however, think it inappropriate for a supposedly scientific forum like SA to use emotionally loaded and polarizing phrases such as "contrarian nonsense." Please leave that to the political pundits.
Here's my proposed solution to end Global Warming by 2030:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.hicon.us/gpage3.html
The qualities of this debate are much more like the evolution/ creation debate than a purely scientific debate, as the dinosaur/bird relationship debate was and is. There was much data supporting both sides (dino-to-bird and reptile-to-bird) of the argument early on. Since then, the bulk of evidence has begun to accumulate on the birds-came-from-dinosaurs side of that debate. This disagreement isn't like that. The global warming skeptics use weaknesses admitted by researchers as their evidence rather than producing data themselves. This is one of the strengths of science, that we identify things we don't understand or can't explain with whatever data we've generated. Where is there significant data that the world isn't warming? That the sea ice isn't melting? That ocean levels aren't rising? That CO2 levels aren't higher? That the increased CO2 isn't anthropogenic? That sun cycle/luminosity is causing the increase in temperatures? That water vapor is the cause of warming? And on and on. Why aren't the skeptics producing research that supports their viewpoint? One can only assume that the reason we're not hearing of solid research supporting a dissenting viewpoint here is that there isn't any. So far, all we have from the dissenters is an emphatic "nuh-uhuh". Please don't couch personal discomfort or political opposition as scientific debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said, Tommy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit to not having read all the 700+ posting on this subject; so, if this is redundant, I apologize.
To the climate change contrarians:
What evidence would convince you that climate change (with all its effects, not limited to global warming) is anthropogenic?
In other words, what would it take to change your contrarian opinion?
It is sad to see Scientific American become a political journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I attempt to read the comments on this article I am presented with either an advertisement which blocks part of the comments or the entire screen is covered by a black square. Has someone hacked into your web site to obscure the comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who are so intent on altering the chemistry of the atmosphere in the pursuit of their own wealth should be required to PROVE to the rest of us that they are NOT harming the planet. This is the reverse of what they is required and we have 95% certainty that the climate is being altered in spite of them. The manufacturer's of doubt have their paychecks in hand. The fact that we won't be seeing another glacial period in this ice-age at current levels of CO2 is convenient, but the additional 20-30 meters of ocean that goes with our reversal of 3-4 million years of Carbon Sequestration is going to prove quite inconvenient. That's what we had the last time that CO2 was at the level it CURRENTLY is... much less what it will be when we finally stop. If there was a 95% chance of being struck by lightning because you just HAD to finish that round of golf, would you? That's the risk that deniers are setting up for all of human civilization, including my children. So I think I may be excused for hating their ignorant guts. They apparently operate on gut instincts, as they are clearly not thinking with their brains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, our greatest pundit has quickly pinpointed the heart of this problem:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson
this article is an embarrassment. science done in secret is not science. it is voodoo. if the data and the modeling were above reproach why were they not released the first time they were requested? i smell a rat regardless of your rationalizations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Nightmare,
I am giving you a 5 out of 10 in the Generic Rant Competition.
That is the type of loaded argument that the tax agency uses. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Pay the penalties and bankrupt your personal savings because we "think" you are guilty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is not science but politics and public policy similar to a communist ideology or religion.
Wow! the babel tower at my door.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this760+x comments, each one in a foreign language. Fascinating!
Wow! the babel tower at my door.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this760+x comments, each one in a foreign language. Fascinating!
This debate is not about science and so should not be in SA. The debate is about the creation a new world tax regime that makes the rich countries their eco-guilt for the CO2 they produce. This article in today's Canadian papers says it all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCopenhagen Grifters Plan $3,000 Con
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18011
Hold on to your wallets you gullible AGW converts
@Contrarian Bob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does tax policy make the physics more or less true?
yeah i agree PeterT. Most of the replies here scare me. They insist it's not political, and yet point the finger at "liberals" for supporting this theory as a "liberal agenda". Can't engage in anything fruitful about this issue without getting accused of supporting "liberal agenda". Hey CONTRARIANS, yes you! Focus on this issue at hand. STOP THE NAME CALLING. There're good, conscientious scientists out there; and yet those that deny climate change here, they're all some kind of conservatives, anti-liberals..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, Contrarianbob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet's leave tax out of this. Do you at least agree on the possibility of this climate change theory, or not? The scientific data for it are overwhelming, and yet you throw TAX into the debate?
John,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me, what it would take is an attained knowledge level appropriate to make such predictions. As it is, we do not have sufficient knowledge to input the correct formulas into these models to even remotely predict what the future may hold. The reason we know this to be true is because of those key words in these predictions, such as "may" and "could".
The problem for me with the whole debate is that there are many on both sides that consider the debate to be over...that the evidence is in. This is simply not true. Yes, it is true that CO2 is a GHG. No, it is not a pollutant, as it is being called. Yes, there are indications that the planet is warming. No, it is not clear, whether this warming is localized or is worldwide. It is also not clear whether this warming would be detrimental to society or beneficial. As it is not clear whether attempting to cool the planet would be detrimental or beneficial.
We simply do not know enough to go around acting like we do.
JohnS49,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Contrarian is not as spiteful as denier, but you ask a legitimate question. I am not convinced because the science is not in yet. There is a valid hypothesis that needs to be modeled and tested with open data sources, explanations on why some data is used and other excluded, and reproduceable results.
The problem with the issue now is not one of science, but of politics. It is no longer science, but a campaign of politics and politicians (and that includes Mann, Jones, and others who seem more intent on stiffling dissent than in proving their hypothesis.
As a political campaign it is a good one. But as a science, it is being contorted into religion. And that is the problem. Less Torquemada and more Copernicus would help.
no
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin short - no
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince when do scientists use the term "nonsense" to describe views that don't match their own..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since when do scientists use the term "nonsense" to describe views that don't match their own.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about because the vast majority of septics arguments are nonsense?
I'll admit I'm an anthropogenic warming skeptic. Oops I meant climate change. I've followed the issue on both sides and still remain a skeptic. In my opinion the science community has been too quick to jump into bed with politicians and interest groups. Certain scientists and politicians are being treated like faith healers instead of truth tellers. Also the contempt with which the politico-climate change complex treats the average person is appalling. Maybe Joe Six Pack doesn't know "how science works" but he knows how money and politics operate and that is what he sees. People around the world instinctively feel that their freedoms and rights are at stake, and before becoming serfs to the mega-state elites want hard and fast (not "consensus") evidence of anthropogenic warming. The politicians and scientists have been tone deaf to this fear. At one time the scientific and philosophical "consensus" was that the earth was flat. Only the "deniers" thought it round.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sad to see that so many of the comments on this site address not actual science (peer-reviewed scientific literature published in scientific journals and based on prior research) but on agenda-driven popular books, blogs and other "scientific" hearsay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific debate about whether global warming is real ended about 20 years ago with a resounding consensus that it is real, it's a severe problem, and a threat to our national security. Even the US military agrees that global warming is a bigger security threat to our nation than terrorism.
Naysayers: please address the real current questions about how to deal with global warming instead of trying to mislead the American public into thinking that there is no problem. Most of you naysayers wouldn't know real science if it bit you right on the posterior.
To Ian Pearson - You obviously get your scientific validation and form your questions from the popular press, so here is a popular press discussion of the scientific "misconduct" that you refer to. The most recent Time Magazine has a nice 1-page piece that concludes that one or two biased researchers that are "pro-warming" do not invalidate a vast body of data obtained by multiple agencies from different countries that all point in the same direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question is - why do so many people want to doubt that global warming is real?
Dr. Taylor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must be posting from the future, since no such event happened 20 years ago. The reason there was no such event is because there are still very many questions regarding climate change that we do not know the answers to and are only recently becoming close to being able to answer. Too bad you've closed your mind off to debate. It is really very sad.
Dr. Taylor,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt doesn't invalidate findings at all. But, it does call into question how formulations were made, the subsequent experiments that used such formulations and the researchers involved. The fact that inquiries are being made and formal investigations are being conducted proves that that is the case.
RE: Hexoaminidase A
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the contrary this issue is not just a political issue. You are only re-raising the spectre that all these climate scientist are in a huge cabal. To you the political issue is that we may eventually drive around in quiet electric cars, have more trees in the neighborhood, buy locally produced food and no longer wage wars on the other side of the planet to kill and subdue a population of people for "Our Resources!" Those are huge drawbacks indeed.
@Cosmo,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'll admit I'm an anthropogenic warming skeptic. "
Translation. No amount of evidence can convince me out my ideologically held position.
"Oops I meant climate change."
Your talking points are showing. Here is a hint. Go learn some history before regurgitating your propaganda.
E.G a ten second search on the Nature database reveals the following results:
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-advanced=true&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-m=0&sp-q=&sp-p=all&sp-q-2=&sp-p-2=all&sp-q-3=climate+change&sp-p-3=all&sp-q-4=&sp-q-5=&sp-q-6=&sp-q-10=&sp-q-11=&sp-q-12=&sp-start-month=&sp-start-year=1976&sp-end-month=&sp-end-year=1979&sp-date-range=0&sp-q-8=&sp-s=date&sp-c=25
Any more questions about the degree to which you have been hoodwinked?
"Maybe Joe Six Pack doesn't know "how science works" but he knows how money and politics operate and that is what he sees."
Who elected you the spokesman for Joe Six Pack? Got Hubris?
CO2 is by no means opaque in the infrared part of the spectrum, it has absorption rays, much like any other gas. Due to its tiny concentration, any action through CO2 is therefore bound to be relatively inefficient. This would be similar to driving a car around a curve by fitting it with a rudder instead of moving the front wheels. Maybe CO2 adds its effect to an underlying, as yet unknown cause. Also, the growing world population should be given more attention as the cause of a number of serious problems in the world. A comment on FT (William Bruce, dec 17, 2009) mentioned that the drought-stricken population of Kenya has increased from 8 millon in 1965 to 40 m expected in 2010 !!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a geologist that has seen the evidence of geological change due to climate in the geological record, I totally agree that the scientific data support climate change. But it is important to differentiate between agreeing that climate change occurs and agreeing that it is caused by man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have been totally hood-winked and conned if you observe or hear the words "climate change" and automatically assume that it is caused by man. Wake up and step outside your ego.
I bring tax into the discussion because that is the solution being presented in Copenhagen. $100 billion annually in eco-guilt wealth transferred from rich to poor countries.
This political agenda is endorsed by this magazine through loading their peer review process with AGW apologists. Read the CRU emails!!!!
Trent1492,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it with some people?
"... As a political campaign it is a good one. But as a science, it is being contorted into religion. And that is the problem. Less Torquemada and more Copernicus would help."
Again with the claims of religion. These seem to smack of, if you'll excuse the term, zealotry. I wish these posters would be kind enough to articulate their claims in clear unambiguous prose, rather than trying to cloud the issue, complex as it is, with bizarre religious claims.
The AGW hypothesis advances a theoretical process to explain the observed phenomena, and via the Seuss effect is a testable theory. This is straight up science. While I can think of no one who puts AGW on a par with the Electroweak theory as exemplars of rigor, at least these are examples of science, in contrast to the empty whining for "fairness" of those who prefer to politicize the subject.
I do wish they would present the science they claim to be true, if they have any. It would enable all of us to compare and contrast rival and competing ideas, rather than have one group repeatedly objecting to the. proposals advanced by another.
Dear Charles Taylor PHD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously your PHD is not in Science but in Politics since you state "debate ended about 20 years ago with a resounding consensus that it is real". No uncorrupted scientist would say this.
To quote a 2003 lecture by author Michael Crichton:
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
ContrarianBob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou, unlike others, seem reasonable. You acknowledge, I believe, the recorded change - increase - in global temperatures.
The question is about the driver. OK. Fair enough.
As I have posted below, the AGW hypothesis advances a theoretical process to explain the observed phenomena, and via the Seuss effect is a testable theory. To respond to the “CO2 is only a trace gas, and so therefore cannot be responsible for the measured warming” criticism, I have also described in a previous post how a complex system can be substantially altered by a change in - an addition of - a "pollutant" at concentrations one tenth that measured of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So, what are the competing testable theories that also explain the observed temperature changes?
The climate change not in dispute will have a considerable negative impact on a significant percentage of humanity.
In the absence of plausible, preferable alternatives, it seems reasonable to me to attempt to mitigate the most likely driver of the cause of the problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This political agenda is endorsed by this magazine through loading their peer review process with AGW apologists. Read the CRU emails!!!!"
That you think that Scientific American is a peer reviewed magazine, tells me all I need to know about your knowledge.
News Flash: Scientific American is a popular science publication.
That you think that the stolen E-mail from East Anglia reveal a vast conspiracy exhibits a level of gullibility that must makes the C.E.O of Exxon-Mobil weep with tears of joy. He must be in ecstasy that you equate his profits with freedom.
Disagree? Answer this then: Cite the stolen E-mail's that you think make your case. Post the FULL text with message number and connect that E-Mail with a specific peer reviewed paper or database that you think is compromised. I have not yet had one of you clowns answer this question yet. Surprise me or consider yourself a dupe if you can not.
@Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Again with the claims of religion. These seem to smack of, if you'll excuse the term, zealotry. I wish these posters would be kind enough to articulate their claims in clear unambiguous prose, rather than trying to cloud the issue, complex as it is, with bizarre religious claims."
I think it is a combination of the ignorance and authoritarianism. They think that science operates on a business or ecclesiastical model with top down command center giving and taking orders. This would explain the utterly stupid conspiracy theories and the repeated targeting of a few perceived "leaders". It is only thing I can think of that explains the Al Gore fixation.
They can not conceive of the decentralized nature of the scientific process or the vast and diverse evidence that supports the case for AGW. That so many of them repeat the same phrases over and over again reveals to me that they consider rhetoric the height of discourse and have little regard for evidence or logic.
Without singling out CO2 as the culprit, the AGW Hypothesis could also be interpreted as relating observed climate disruptions to the tremendous increase in world population since historic times (from +- 1000 m to now 6500 m). The increase in CO2 would then only be a consequence of the former, i.e. more people need more energy, hence more carbon burned, as carbon has been the main source of energy since the industrial revolution. This would nicely fit in to explain other historical calamities, like recurring famines in ancient Egypt, or similar events wiping out some Aztec kingdoms or in southern Lybia around 7000 BC, turning a green landscape into the present desert. Only the remedies would then look entirely different! In the first place family planning and decent education would have to be imposed on all populations receiving food aid, instead of "waisting" money to bury CO2! It is therefore not sufficient to "strongly suspect" CO2 to be the main and only culprit, R&D would be needed to further analyze the situation and in the meantime the most promissing issues in the sense of Bjorn Lomborg's list from his book "Global Crises, Gobal Solutions" should be addressed. A sort of Marshal Plan for the third world would be needed, as may well emerge from the Copenhague Summit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat's OK trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi give you a 1 in 10 in the scientific IQ test.
stop the arm-waving and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPROVE THE PHYSICS!!!!!!
i think the AGW advocates are missing the boat, and perhaps it is no accident.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe hacked emails were not hacked. it is becoming increasing clear that they were leaked by someone on the inside who was disgusted by this scientific fraud.
secondly, stop attacking the skeptics. if AGW is so obvious, release the data and the models and permit others to replicate the claims. claims that the data was lost or erased are beyond belief.
the fact that you personally attack the skeptic and refuse to take the path that would convince the skeptic is a tell-tale sign of fraud.
there are too many poets on this list (with a political agenda) who don't understand science and are hostile to those that do.
I completely agree with Chryses' post from yesterday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consensus from scientists on global warming (yes, it is real and threatening) does not come from one or a few persons, books, or blogs, it comes from hundreds of individual scientists, publishing their OWN data in peer-reviewed journals over decades.
You are right, it appears that most of the global warming critics just don't understand this kind of de-centralized consensus shared by real experts.
@Nightmare
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"i give you a 1 in 10 in the scientific IQ test."
Oh, look. The I am paper, you are glue method of insult. How original. Not.
@Nightmare,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Prove the Physics".
That you think science operates on proofs tells us mountains about your level of scientific knowledge. You want evidence? Here you go:
Stratospheric Cooling
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html
Direct Retrieval of Stratospheric CO2 Infrared Cooling Rate Profiles From AIRS Data .
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024680.shtml
AIRS DATA
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data_products/data_products_toc/
Mr. PHD (piled higher and deeper)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as "consensus science" only "consensus politics".
Therefore your "consensus" is political scientists for more government , thus more taxes for funding AGW studies....not science
@Nightmare,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The hacked emails were not hacked."
They were stolen. What do you call something that is taken without permission? I call it stealing.
"it is becoming increasing clear that they were leaked by someone on the inside who was disgusted by this scientific fraud."
Evidence? Oh, that is right you do not feel burdened by little inconveniences like evidence. Tell me, in this fact free story you are spinning how do you explain the fact that RealClimate shut down an attempt to upload that data at the same time?
"secondly, stop attacking the skeptics. if AGW is so obvious, release the data and the models and permit others to replicate the claims. claims that the data was lost or erased are beyond belief."
That you do not know that vast of amount of data and models is freely out there is telling. That the septics have never done any original research with that data should tell you something. Below is link that provide all that you asked for and more. Now go get to work.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw
Why is it that Contrarian Bob & Friends never ever answer the following questions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCite the stolen E-mail's that you think make your case. Post the FULL text with message number and connect that E-Mail with a specific peer reviewed paper or database that you think is compromised.
I have not yet had one of you clowns answer this question yet. Surprise me or consider yourself a dupe if you can not.
Charlie Taylor, Contrarian Bob is correct. YOu are convincing no one that you are a PHD, other than your delusional self. It is obvious you believe in AGW, but also equally as obvious you are no Scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharlie Taylor PhD,
As and when the BioCabs, the PhilJourdans and the nightmare52s of this forum respond honestly to the challenges that have been presented to them, you and those others who are willing to debate the pros and acknowledged cons of the AGW hypothesis need loose little sleep.
In re the measured warming trend in the generally acknowledged climate change; I still think that an open, honest discussion of the issue, without people introducing religious claims to distract others, will persuade those who have not already made up their minds (those who are not prejudiced) that there are