Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Lost in the coverage of the so-called climategate email controversy is a key point about the IPCC’s track record of climate change estimates. James McCarthy is on the faculty of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment. He spoke February 21st at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego:
“If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate. Even with glitches—clearly erroneous editing or sloppy editing that led to these erroneous statements that got us in trouble recently.”
—Steve Mirsky
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
62 Comments
Add CommentThe parallel is to the funding, the need to just plain LIE is for the money. (Get It) All that education and you still don't get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh good! I have long been a believer in global warming, but I felt my belief was being tested. The last few months of doubt had created a black vacuous hole of despair in my Canadian soul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if we can only get people to start their cars at 6 o'clock in the morning and leave them running until 9 am; clear cut all those carbon-dioxide gobbling spruce trees; and, feed metamucil to Alberta cattle in order to boost methane levels, we might still have the opportunity to sip Pina Colodas under Palm trees on the north shore of Lake Ontario.
But everyone has to do their part !
Soooo ... They've spent 20 years studying this and still don't have an ACCURATE measurement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInceebee... you probably meant "prediction", not "measurement" right? Because last time I checked, you can't measure things in the future. I also have been doing some window shopping, and have yet to find a magic ball that predicts the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNex time you want to slam scientists... stop and think. Might save you a little embarassment.
This makes me think the media needs to recalibrate the relative skepticism of scientists vs. some politicians when either bring different societal threats to our attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe made far bigger and costlier decisions based on less
information about the threat of pre-war Iraq than we will likely ever make in addressing the real threat of climate change.
This makes me think the media needs to recalibrate the relative skepticism of scientists vs. some politicians when either bring different societal threats to our attention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe made far bigger and costlier decisions based on less
information about the threat of pre-war Iraq than we will likely ever make in addressing the real threat of climate change.
Who is making the big bucks from energy and pollution? The energy companies or the IPCC scientists? It is easy to see on which side the bias lies...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnorance is bliss - and everyone loves a conspiracy. The bottom line is the science is solid and the measurements are very accurate. Unfortunately modeling a system at a global level is incredibly complex - the mathematics are incredibly complex with so many variables we still don't fully understand. Short term local temperature increases or decreases or snow storms are really meaningless in the 'big picture' of overall global climate change. The real take away from this piece is that so far - the predictions based on the models are, on the average, underestimating the changes that are taking place - so based on the probabilities, things are likely to get worse faster than the reports have even said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Engineer1: I don't understand why you give the climate change deniers the courtesy of a well thought out response. They are for the most part bigots and bullies practising the same type of intimidation as creationists. They are not ignorant, but rather self-centred and deliberately obtuse. They are playing a dominance game, trying to hijack a legitimate discussion that society should be having about our future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no empirical evidence that shows that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for temperature change. The temperature profile reconstructions used by the IPCC have never been replicated from the original temperature data. Many of the claims made by the IPCC have found to be false or not supported by valid peer reviewed studies. Many peer review studies that provide evidence against AGW have not been considered by the UN and government appointed lead authors. Many of the loudest supporters of the AGW myth would lose significant income and prestige if the evidence that falsifies the IPCC claims is publicized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I can see the IPCC has lost a great deal of credibility over the past few months and the entire AGW scam is collapsing. What I can't understand is why the editors of Scientific American would ignore the evidence and keep promoting the same lies. And what is worse is why are readers not up in arms as are the readers of Nature or New Scientist.
Bill,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to go back on the medication.
It looks to me Bill that you are the denier in this debate. It is clearly your side that denied the fact that the science was not settled. It was your side that denied the existence of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Optimum. It was your side that denied the fact that the climate is always changing and that nothing in the recent measurements show an unusual rate of warming. Now it is your side that is denying the fact that the IPCC's credibility has been shot and that even some of the leading proponents are abandoning ship and criticizing the data keepers for lack of transparency and improper record keeping as they slam the IPCC leadership for lying and engaging in self serving activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no empirical evidence that shows that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for temperature change. The temperature profile reconstructions used by the IPCC have never been replicated from the original temperature data. Many of the claims made by the IPCC have found to be false or not supported by valid peer reviewed studies. Many peer review studies that provide evidence against AGW have not been considered by the UN and government appointed lead authors. Many of the loudest supporters of the AGW myth would lose significant income and prestige if the evidence that falsifies the IPCC claims is publicized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom what I can see the IPCC has lost a great deal of credibility over the past few months and the entire AGW scam is collapsing. What I can't understand is why the editors of Scientific American would ignore the evidence and keep promoting the same lies. And what is worse is why are readers not up in arms as are the readers of Nature or New Scientist.
Who exactly is J. McCarthy and why does he lie about the projections? The IPCC overestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of warming. Even Phil Jones admitted to no statistical warming trend over the past 15 years and modellers like Keenlyside and Latif are now making speeches about how natural variation has caused no warming to be observed over more than a decade and calling for a further decade of no warming. Where exactly does Mr. McCarthy find any IPCC model predictions that made such predictions in the 1990s?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"IPPC ?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people are truly clueless.
Other areas of science (e.g., stem cells) also have controversy but, unlike other areas, in this case we have massive oil and mining companies with a public relations machine that is proving itself to be far more effective than the majority of scientists on this subject. It is time for the climate scientists to stand up and help take charge. We can start by getting Phil Jones to explain WHY his statement that there has been "no statistically significant warming since 1995" does not undermine everything else he says. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT UNDERSTAND and UNLESS and UNTIL this is clarified, the oil company public relations machine will continue to spew out more and more garbage and lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to see the author's data with regard to sea level changes. After all, the paper on sea level change submitted by the IPCC recently has now been withdrawn as it was found to be scientifically unsupportable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt strikes me as rather incongruous that an organization that does not understand mathematical uncertainty well enough to show error bars in its graphs should be publicly estimating anything.
As for the IPCC underestimating anything, I would suggest that their greatest underestimation was the wrath of the public at realizing that they had been duped, defrauded and swindled as has become apparent, at least to me, through the Climategate e-mails.
According to the Climategate e-mails, AGW is not happening. Even de Boer admitted that when he stepped down. The same e-mails also suggest that what little data that is accurate certainly does not support it if all of it is taken. Further, those e-mails show that it is only when data that is non-compliant with expected results is ignored and the remainder heavily weighted that any kind of warming is displayed.
I am astounded that a publication like the Scientific American will even accept articles from the IPCC or the CRU. They now have zero credibility in my view.
Oh dear, Skeptical of Skeptics sounds almost desperate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkepi, Phil Jones has stated quite clearly that there has been no warming as he got caught "with his hand in the till". You have been conned, it's as simple as that. It was all about money all the time and good ol' Phil earned very nicely thank you for doing his master's bidding. It is hard to admit that you have been fooled but don't be angry with the people who have been warning you, be angry with the conmen who did it.
The right wing has made a lot of noise about "Climategate," but that's just their Big Lie theory in action: accuse the other side of what you yourself are guilty of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause what is going unreported by the mass media is the real misinformation campaign: The research money that the right claims is behind assertions of climate change is CHUMP CHANGE compared to the money being spent by corporations on climate change-denying propaganda, which itself is CHUMP CHANGE compared to the billions that polluting industries would have to spend to clean up their act.
But even those outlays would be CHUMP CHANGE compared to their total profits. Of course, a tiny group of the already-wealthy may get smaller dividend checks for a couple of years, but to them even avoiding that inconvenience is worth wrecking the planet, apparently.
Speaking of chumps, what do all you freelance climate change deniers get out of the deal? You're working not only for free but against your own interests for those rich shareholders, having been brainwashed into believing that the science of climate change is part of some global left-wing conspiracy -- and that giving the “liberals” a “win” on climate change would give them the momentum to advance the rest of their agenda.
Such a conspiracy would be unheard of in the world of science but has plenty of precedent in business. Remember the “conspiracies” to link cigarettes and lung cancer? Smokestacks and acid rain? Explain why it is that the only country in the world with a large climate change denial movement happens to be the same country with the richest, most politically powerful polluters?
Wake up and smell the smog, deniers. You’re being played like a cheap violin.
What cracks me up is climate changed before man colonised Earth. Now the numberical models struggle to calculate climate change based on CO2 emissions - and disregard all the natural forcings that are there anyway. All the big bucks (research money and carbon trade dollars - like billions, projected to trillions) are going to CO2-related influences. How myopic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispkotta -- thanks, but how do we know these deniers are working for free? I bet some research would show quite a few of them are on the oil company dole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan someone help me here. I would like to see the ledger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPkotta, Pkotta YOU are the cheapest violin I have ever heard shriek....do you live in China or Australia or the US?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 does not cause smog and I assume you are ego-centrically thuinking that the USA or whatever country it is you are living in is the ONLY country with an AGW denial component. The carbon trade industry was projected to trillions last year, perhaps the biggest commodity ever - and where is the money coming from? It's all from CHUMPS like you, happily paying extra bank fees so your bank can claim zero carbon footprint and extra taxes to fund scientists who don't treat climate change as if it's all about CO2 and nothing else. Remember climate changes, will change, always will and if you dig deep you will see a lot of stuff on how CO2 is practically maxed out in terms of heat absorbtion. Water vapor plays a far greater role in climate than CO2. Plus other factors are at play. You just need to open your eyes.
And, if you think the big companies are resisting the mass opinion, think again, they are positioned to profit out of us, regardless. Companies that have invested in anti-CO2 concepts will want to see return on their investments (eg. hybrids, CO2 sequestration, wind farms etc.) and by now there are very few big oils out there (maybe none) that have not invested heavily in anti-CO2. Universtities don't want to see grant money dry up, so they shun skeptics, politicians say they believe what the masses believe in - or they lose their jobs, folks driving hybrids will struggle to admit they were duped but will see fuel savings anyway. Engineering firms positioned to build alternate energy plants are hoping that the CO2 boat does not get rocked too bad, 'cos they will lose their multi million dollare gigs. Entire government departments (yes around the world, in other countries) are backing the AGW theory, but more gingerly calling it climate change 'cos it's a safer name. Look back over geologic time and boggle at how much CO2 Earth has had in the atmosphere WITH NO RUNAWAY TEMPS!!!!!
Absolutely right on target. Who in their right mind could or would argue that an infinitesimal trace (.04%) gas essential to life on this planet, with an astronomical Global Warming Potential (GWP) index of 1 (one), is not responsible for runaway Global Warming? Keep the faith, baby, and beat these ignorant, Luddite, denier dogs to death.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC "science" is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you get global warming without adding more energy?
Arrhenius in 1896 said that to get greenhouse warming you MUST add an energy photon to a GHG. The IPCC ONLY adds a GHG to the air. They do NOT add the energy photon.They can't even do basic science.
Reality is that there is EXCESS GHGs above that needed to absorb all of the absorbable photons. Thus the amount of energy photons coming in dictates how much GHE warming we get. The amount of GHGs is irrelevant. When you add more CO2 to excess CO2 you just get more excess CO2, and more plant food, but no warming. The IPCC "Science" is wrong.
The smple proof is that when you add more CO2 to the air at night when the energy coming in is decreasing, then the temperature goes down. According to the IPCC rule, when you add CO2 the temperature should go up. 2nd proof when the water vapor concentration goes from 33% to 100% when it rains, the IPCC says that the 90C GHE temperature increase should raise the temperature. Everyone knows it doesn't. The IPCC global warming models DO NOT WORK.
See Excess CO2 Scenario at www.scribd.com for an alternate explanation of why cyclical gravity and eccentricity forces actually cause climate change.
The IPCC (AR4) is predicting a huge (2 to 7 degree Celsius) temperature rise by 2100 based on the idea that CO2 concentration is a major driver of global temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they are right many people reading this will live to see fine wine being produced in Northern England.
To keep the climate moving in the right direction, Al Gore needs to buy another jet and a few more houses.
@Vangel Why do you do this denying? What do you have to gain by this? Are you invested in oil or coal? What reason do you have to project and pretend ignorance? The evidence is overwhelming that the mean temperature of the planet is rising and our ice is melting. Birds and vegetation are shifting north. Perhaps, you are one of these people who look to television for answers? Try reading science papers, for a change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Case: "I don't understand why you give the climate change PROMOTERS the courtesy of a well thought out response. They are for the most part bigots and bullies practising the same type of intimidation as creationists. They are not ignorant, but rather self-centred and deliberately obtuse. They are playing a dominance game, trying to hijack a legitimate discussion that society should be having about our future." --Did you like looking yourself in the mirror? Do you see that the climate debate is a two way avenue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, you must now by now that Mark Siddal retracted his paper on future sea level increase: "Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century but the reports author now says true estimate is still unknown."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Siddall said: Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work."
What's worse, he also said a terrible thing to say: "Its one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science. What?! Isn't "peer review" supposed to spot mistakes in a paper before being accepted? What went wrong? Is this the kind of peer review that supports warmist's studies?
So how do we know there are no other embarrasing mistakes in IPCC's AR4 report -especially after all those shamefull "GlacierGates" and other "gates" that are bursting out as mushrooms after a rain? And what about mistakes (not spotted by the marvelous peer review warmists use) in ALL other studies promoting the AWG scare?
Hey deniers, why do you do this denying of fact and overwhelming evidence? Why do you choose to not believe those who have had more schooling in climate science than you have? Why do you think that you know better? Where do you get your information? Television? Radio talk shows? All of your sound bites sound the same. Who is paying you? If not, then why are you wasting your time trying to spoil otherwise productive conversation? Is it a game for you? The birds and plants are moving north, the ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, the ocean is getting more acidic. What kind of evidence do you need? The law of physics are in play here and you guys look like idiots and fools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOwl said, "Phil Jones has stated quite clearly that there has been no warming "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNO, he did NOT say that!!!!!
And exactly what anti-government, anti-Obama or oil company payroll are YOU on?
"Even Phil Jones admitted to no statistical warming trend over the past 15 years "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, what exactly do you think he meant by that? Or do you not understand what "no statistical warming trend" means in the context of his statement? Let me give you a hint: he also said in the same interview that he states that human-caused CO2 is causing global warming. Now, what does THAT tell you? P.S.: what oil company payroll or anti-government group do you belong to?
They aren't on anyone's payroll. They're deniers because to admit the truth, that our precious consumer lifestyle is a sick farce is too painful for them. Its as simple as that. When you look around you and see evidence that your way of life is evil you don't change the way you live, no you just kill the messenger. Its been the same story throughout history. There is simply no point in arguing with them people. No amount of reason will make them feel better. Only hiding from the truth does that, at least until it becomes entirely undeniable, then they'll all just blame it on someone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts pathetic, but then being pathetic is part of being human. Crack a cold one and watch the show people, cause we are going ALL the way down this here rabbit hole.
mcintee and other educated folks -- please, keep blogging. Out of nowhere come these hordes purporting to "be right" on science and climate change. Fair debate that acknowledges the other evidence is fine. But what we are confronting right here inside the world of mass internet media is an onslaught of anti-government, extreme right wing and oil company interests fighting extremely hard against specific legislation. Keep up the good work and stand up for what's REAL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this nonsense about AGW being a "fact"?? At the very best it is only a theory. If you want a "fact", about the only ones you will find around this debate are that the data from the CRU, IPCC and NASA have been fudged, ignored, creatively weighted to support pre-determined conclusions and the like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVangel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis forum is for discussion. You've made many accusations, but not one of them is dignified by a single verifiable reference. Like all climate creationists, you can't match your sox, let alone your facts with real science.
I know it's been said before, but instead of a scattergun approach to insult and invective, why don't you post just one verifiable 'fact' that we can debate with you. Or are you just too scared?
War was bigger and costlier? You are deluded by orders of magnitude. The consequences of the draconian COP and similar proposals will be in hundreds of trillions; it's the all-time master scambalooza!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC/CRU <i>explicitly</i> disregard natural forcings in their mandates. E.g., the 'heat pipe' of surface evaporation/cloud condensation that easily transfers far more heat up from the surface to the open edge of the atmosphere than CO2 can trap.
BTW, the 1st 20 ppm traps as much IR as the next 400 ppm. The effect was saturated 100s of m.y. ago. We can do nothing but fiddle at the edges. "Runaway" is not possible. (Venus is no model for this; it totally lacks water to move its heat out. It already radiates more than it gets, and temps are the same day and night there. Solar heating has 0% effect on Venus.)
So you refused to publish my coment sent yesterday telling about the retraction of Mark Siddall's 2009 paper on sea level rise, and other information I sent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt figures. Not that I had any hope you'd publish it. But many scientists I also sent the message were waiting for Scientific American to publish it. They were betting you wouldn't. No one accepted the bet.
Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources careless data acquisition and dubious data processing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal scientist don't anticipate much effect from carbon dioxide at all, much less "increasingly critical". Atmospheric carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect is logarithmic -- the first half of pre-Industrial Revolution-level effect was achieved by less than 20 parts per million, then needing the addition of 250 ppmv more to achieve the same warming increment to reach pre-IR effect and it will take a massive increase to repeat the dose again. (The "how much" depends on total sensitivity estimates but, utilizing A Field Guide to the Atmosphere (Houghton, 1983)'s commonly cited 7 K greenhouse effect for 300 ppmv (presumably from Kondratyev & Moskalenko but the origin of this common figure is obscure) then quadrupling pre-IR levels to 1120 ppmv can deliver a mere 1.71 K warming in total -- since there's already alleged to have been 0.7 K that leaves just 1 kelvin potential for adding another 740 ppmv to the current 380 ppmv.)
First there was Climate Gate, showing that the peer review process has descended into a criminal farce of scientific malpractice where adjusting and hiding data was the norm. Hello Fraud. ClimateGate also spread to the US, where 75% of worldwide data is systematically ignored or adjusted until it tells the right story.
Then there is PachauriGate, showing that the man in charge of the IPCC was chairman of boards of companies that profit handsomely as the scare-factor is ramped up.
Then there is GlacierGate: about the IPCC accidentally using a WWF report instead of peer reviewed science papers. After calling a 60 page Indian Govt report on glaciers voodoo science they were forced to apologize for that one paragraph that was wrong .
Now there is AmazonGate. The IPCC fabricates disastrous claims about the Amazon forest, and references a document written by activists that doesnt even support the claim.
Of couse don't forget
Carbongate and the collapse of prices.
Hensengate where NASA got caught using septemper tempertures for October to make things seem warmer.
and sea-level-gate &
and hurricane-gate.
After all of this how can any reptuable publication give any print to anything to do with the global warming scam.
Apologies for my previous post. You actually did publish it. But the link I get on my mail program takes me only to the first page of comments. The reference to previous or next pages at the bottom got unnoticed by me --and that's my feeble sight fault. So I am reporting it as abuse so you can delete it. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a BBC web page with the transcript of an interview with Mr. Jones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBBC-Q:Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones -A:Yes, but only just.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
It seems that even the people on the payroll of Big Carbon are starting to jump off the sinking AGW ship.
I agree with the amusingly self referential Skeptical about big oil. Take a look at this big oil/energy that funds propaganda:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCRU Funding:
British Petroleum (Oil, LNG)
Central Electricity Generating Board
Eastern Electricity
KFA Germany (Nuclear)
Irish Electricity Supply Board (LNG, Nuclear)
National Power
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (Nuclear)
Shell (Oil, LNG)
Sultanate of Oman (LNG)
UK Nirex Ltd. (Nuclear)
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
In 2005, Pachauri helped set up set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.
He is an internationally recognized figure in energy and sustainable development, having served on numerous boards and committees including Director of the Oil and Natural Gas Company of India; Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;&
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/advisors.htm
Our chemical lab in Houston is state of the art, custom built for purpose with one goal in mind to supply the US oil industry with world class biotechnology to increase oil recovery from mature fields.
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/technology.htm
Our research facility in India focuses primarily on long term R&D projects such as heavy oil degradation, methane biogeneration from coal beds, and other initiatives.
Source: http://www.glorioil.com/company.htm
-
CRU seeks big oil and big business cash
Source:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=171&filename=962818260.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=156&filename=947541692.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1041&filename=1254832684.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=973374325.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=185&filename=968691929.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=159&filename=951431850.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=362&filename=1065125462.txt
I fully agree with your text that AGW is a scam. I truly believe we have to keep on the backs of the scammers because they will do all in their power not to lose what control they can. I wrote about what they are doing in the UK (yesterday at my blog) http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010_02_01_archive.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is just in the UK, what is happening in the US? in Australia etc? how are they indoctrinating us, and at who's expense are we being indoctrinated?
Skepi said: And exactly what anti-government, anti-Obama or oil company payroll are YOU on? Answer: None
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkepi, stay calm, please read what Phil (lost the evidence) said and you will understand that there has been no warming (statistically significant) for 15 years. I am English and understand the English language perfectly well, why do you have such difficulty. Oh, Tata steel is picking up a cool billion by closing a steel works in England. Nice going, many, many jobs lost ans the british pay a billion in carbon credits to an Indian giant company. It stinks to high heaven. Start to think about what's going on, it ain't got nothing to do with science or climate!
As a meteorology student at the Univ. of Washington in 1983 we did a simple calculation whereby we increased global temperatures by 2.0 degrees C, and ran the simple model to see what the change to global temps would be. The net result was that a 2.0C warming led to a 2.5C net COOLING due to increased albedo from the increase in cloudiness. That was a simple model...interesting that 27 years later and we still don't have all the interrelationships and feedback mechanisms in our models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPkotta, Skeptical of Skeptics, Et.al.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, I for one am not being paid by anyone. I have never worked for the oil companies save for a three month stint pumping gas at a corner gas-station in my youth. I live on a disability pension thanks to some serious health issues that have affected my ability to work in a normal office environment. I assure you, however, that those health issues have not impaired my mind.
What is absolutely clear is that your very obviously left-wing bias is showing rather badly. I do not doubt that various organizations are putting their money up to help publicize the obvious lack of any credible science related to anthropogenic global warming ... any more than I doubt that the lunatic left are putting up lots of money to promote it in the hopes of achieving a "world government". Please note that this phrase was extent in the original text of the Copenhagen Agreement. Please note also that in the Climategate e-mails, Dr. Mann and others refer frequently to the "right wing" and "Republicans" as the evil-doers, when the "evil-doers" are clearly those responsible, if you read the e-mails, of trying to defraud the entire planet with the myth of anthropogenic global warming.
There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming. There never has been. It is all nonsense. Furthermore, if there was, the obvious target of emissions reduction would be production of methane gas -- you know -- the stuff produced by livestock and poultry among other things. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
I am a vegetarian. I do not require a lot of livestock. There are currently over 9 billion cattle on the planet, each producing about 120 liters of methane per day. CO2 emissions from human activity pale in comparison -- but no-one is suggesting that everyone become vegetarians to curb global warming.
AGW has become a religion. Religious zealots have never known when to let reason take the lead. Look at the Spanish Inquisition. Then look at your own writings. Look more closely and you may even come to the conclusion that some nation states might benefit from dialing down the economies of the so-called "developed nations" and might be willing to fund large scale disinformation campaigns to promote fear in the populace of those "developed nations" in order to achieve their goals of global dominance. Is that a possibility? I don't know. I have no facts to base it on. But then, Drs. Mann, Jones, Briffa, et.al. don't have any facts either, so far as I can tell!
How very convenient that in 2010 we are looking at sea level rise and temperature in 2000, rather than in 2010 when we have much better data -- and when temperature and sea level are both going down. Really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will Sci Am finally admit the obvious truth: that there is not now and never has been any evidence whatever that the current (slight) warming trend is due to CO2 at all, let alone anthropogenic.
For the supporters of AGW, why do you insist that the magnitude of the profits of the oil and coal industries are a greater incentive for fraud/deception than the political aspirations and security of continued funding are for the AGW scientists? Why are you trying to prove AGW though attacking motive and financial interests, instead of addressing the scientific claims? And why, in each and every comment and reply must you employ ad hominem attacks? If the science is so strong, it should be easy to demonstrate. But the arguments in support of AGW are not science; without a causal demonstration, including a trace back to human sources, it will remain a statistical correlation. Since the supporters of AGW made the positive claim of human sources, they have the burden of proof; those skeptical of the claim do not have the burden of disproof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, there isn't an assay available to trace the source of CO2 in the environment; this may be intractable. Another major failing, and the primary source of my skepticism (i.e. I’m not some company’s or luddite’s crony), is the lack of a second state variable; which anyone with an introductory class in thermodynamics knows is necessary to ascertain the amount of energy (or change in energy for that matter) in a gas-thermal system (i.e. read up on enthalpy and psychrometrics).
A change in temperature in a gas does not necessarily mean that the gas is warming (i.e. increasing in energy content); especially since the base claim is that the working fluid (i.e. the atmosphere) is changing (i.e. more CO2). What is the net effect on the atmospheric heat capacity? Never addressed. Can CO2 absorb heat, sure; so can *anything* with mass. Does the newly added, but yet to be sourced CO2 displace any other gasses? Not addressed. Finally, I’ve yet to see a satisfactory treatment of the mass transport of heat through water vapor; keeping in mind that the latent heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg (a lot of thermal energy stored with NO change in temperature). It is interesting that the greenhouse analogy is used to describe the heat retention by our atmosphere, when the fact of the matter is that a greenhouse is hot because the wind is precluded from 1) carrying away the ever heating air (the basis of the analogy), but also 2) lack of wind severely depresses evaporative cooling, which would otherwise buffer the temperature change.
Finally, If the proponents of AGW in this thread are genuinely concerned, then they should speak science, not class-warfare-based arguments from wealth/bribe, or arguments from authority, insisting that one need training in “climate science” as though said science isn’t wholly dependent upon physical chemistry and thermodynamics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are an AGW proponent, but aren’t skilled enough in the science to discuss the issue at the scientific level, then do you side a favor and keep quite (as a skeptic, I personally do the same to anti-AGW shills).
Vangel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"From what I can see the IPCC has lost a great deal of credibility over the past few months and the entire AGW scam is collapsing."
--------------------
Hardly! While the IPCC has lost a bit of credibility due to non-peer reviewed predictions from it's volunteer workforce, the science has not lost any credibility in the least and the glaciers continue to melt and recede rapidly. AR4 is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, involving thousands of authors from dozens of countries, so a couple of mistakes not caught by the volunteer workforce is understandable.
AR4 states in its summary, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
There is absolutely no "smoking gun" in all the stolen e-mails or a couple of minor mistakes in AR4, that change any of the science that shows anything different than a warming planet causing polar regions and worldwide glaciers to melt more rapidly than first reported in 1990 or subsequent reports.
You denialists have merely tried to change the science into the politics of global warming.
Vangel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The IPCC overestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of warming. Even Phil Jones..."
---------------------
While in WGII, there was a wrong PREDICTION about Himalayan glaciers, but the final summary of AR4 stated the truth: that "widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century".
But, to state that "the IPCC overestimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere," is not only ludicrous but delusional.
Measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide come from more than a single station on a Hawaiian volcano. There are ground based stations scattered across the globe taking direct measurements. Three independent satellites take global CO2 measurements: the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on the NASA Aqua spacecraft, Envirosat by the European Space Agency and IBUKI by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. For periods before direct measurements, CO2 can be determined from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores.
From all these sources, it is agreed that atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased to almost 0.04%, almost a 40% increase since 1832. From the longest Antarctic ice core showing CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years, we have found that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 to 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 to 300 ppm during warmer interglacials, and never as high as the current 388 ppm. More than likely, the Earth has not seen CO2 levels as high as the current levels for millions of years.
What's even funnier, is that you denialists have lambasted Phil Jones for years, and now use his words out of context to try to prove that the Earth is cooling and hasn't warmed since 1998. Why did you discount this from Phil Jones out of the same BBC interview? -- "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
It bears remembering that the HadCRUT record (Phil Jones)only covers around 80% of the globe. Analysis by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and NASA GISS (Hansen 2006) find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world. Consequently, the HadCRUT record underestimates the warming trend, as demonstrated by the NASA GISS record which covers the whole globe.
CraigG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How very convenient that in 2010 we are looking at sea level rise and temperature in 2000, rather than in 2010 when we have much better data -- and when temperature and sea level are both going down."
------------------------
Totally ludicrous, and even one of the biggest skeptics, dr. roy spencer, says you're just spewing denialist propaganda:
January 2010 Global Tropospheric Temperature Map
February 9th, 2010
Here’s the UAH lower tropospheric temperature anomaly map for January, 2010. As can be seen, Northern Hemispheric land, on a whole, is not as cold as many of us thought. Below-normal areas were restricted to parts of Russia and China, most of Europe, and the southeastern United States. Most of Canada and Greenland were well above normal.
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.
The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in April of 1998.
This record warmth will seem strange to those who have experienced an unusually cold winter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
CanuckDriver:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you want a "fact", about the only ones you will find around this debate are that the data from the CRU, IPCC and NASA have been fudged, ignored, creatively weighted to support pre-determined conclusions and the like."
-------------------------
And you "know" this because of stolen e-mails from the CRU?
Hardly! But....keep trying with your denialist garbage, since there was no "smoking gun" proving AGW is wrong.
While some of the private correspondance released is not commendable, an informed examination of their "suggestive" emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
An important point to realize is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.
There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.
Thomas Friedman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomas Friedman suggested that the scientific community create a 50 page report, stating the very best understanding we have on the topic of global warming, scrupulously sourced, and written in terms a 6th grader can understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould this be the way to get the conversation back on the right track again?
Michelle Wilson:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Thomas Friedman suggested that the scientific community create a 50 page report, stating the very best understanding we have on the topic of global warming..."
----------------------------
Thomas Friedman also stated in his 2008 book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green RevolutionAnd How It Can Renew America, My concern is about America&&Demand for clean energy, clean fuel and energy efficiency is clearly going to explode; its going to be the next great global industry. I know that as sure as I know that Im sitting here at De Anza College talking to you. By being big in the next big thing, well be seen by the rest of the world as working on the most important problem in the world.
http://www.freshdialogues.com/2009/09/18/tom-friedman-transcript-of-fresh-dialogues-interview/
Personally, I don't think that the conversation can ever get "back on the right track again," since too many come bearing preconceived thoughts driven by ideology, politics, and a well-funded manufactured doubt industry, leaving the science in the gutter fearing a fall from the flat earth.
soloar activity, activity of volcanoes, various emmisions of man, the changing currents of the oceans, what effect of the ice melt of the poles has on the ice melt of the poles,( just a beddining of the data) needed to say that your model of just the long range weather forcast is accurate for a week is to buy into the wisdom of using derivatives for your main investment strategy. Both reguire assumptions that humans historically suck at. Man has effected the weather, how much? there is the million dollar question. Neither the arrogance of science nor the denial of big business are the priests we should be following, but the realization that they are is start in the right direction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat all this ultimately highlights is how difficult it is for democracies to function in contemporary times when the population is scientifically illiterate, still practicing stone-age superstitions and in constant fear of losing their livelihoods. As a result, the vast majority of the population is not only ill informed, but incapable of rational thought, and motivated soley by short term gains. The deniers represent a wide range of these types of intellectual defects. There are those that clearly have malicious intent, which is to deceive the ignorant masses into ascribing to their worldview. I dont think they are the majority, but they are well funded. Another large group appears to be those who have become paranoid of big government as a result of right wing fear mongering. This is a mentality that was ridiculous in the frontier days of the old west, let alone in the current day when states are supported by complex webs of infrastructure and economic interdependence. Fear of government is fear of the people controlling their destiny. It is clear why corporations dont want that, but why would a person want to have no say in how their lives are affected by various, non-democratic agencies. It amazes me that right wing henchmen will invoke the constitution when spewing their "right to bear arms" and "seperation of church and state" yet forget its most important words, "We the people" when talking about reducing the role of government. The government is you. And you've allowed special interests to convince you not to trust yourself but instead cede control of your life to them. And finally there are those who fear what they dont understand. Science offers them a world that is complex and cold. They will believe anything that lets them feel at ease in their delusions rather then face that reality. Ultimately Americans have come to believe their own mythology despite the world crumbling around them and the decline of their empire. Instead of adapting, they cling to their outdated ideologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best way to treat climate change deniers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like, and move forward in the "digital age" is to teach logic at much earlier grades. Instead of the "3Rs" I suggest teaching "ALL"; Arithmetic, Literacy and Logic. It won't stop those of low moral character from trying to manipulate the feeble minded into signing onto their worldview, but you may be able to reduce the number "sheep" who are willingly led to the slaughter.
Taking actions to reduce additions of green house gases to the atmosphere seems wise even if understanding of climate change is far less than complete. However, some lines of argument made in the debate distort how science works, others fail to explain how uncertain longterm projections are no matter how sophisticated the models used. The correctness of a scientific result or theory is never determined by a vote or poll. That most climate scientists believe human actions are significantly modifying climate tells exactly nothing about the scientific truth of the proposition. Majority supported scientific beliefs have consistently proven to be false, often through the work of a single or a few dissenters. It is a disservice to science to have scientists and scientific organizations using the "majority" argument. Turning to projections, one need only recall that the further out the projection the more the outcome depends on higher order derivitives. Small errors in estimating these factors will cause large deviations in the long term result. In the case of climate change modeling uncertanties in both the models and in data used mean results from projections of fifty years and longer are very uncertain. Adverse consequences may be greater or less. Even more uncertain is how human individuals and societies will respond. I taught a course titled Global Problems at the University of Michigan in the 1970s. Many of the big problems of that era were based on projections: population, food production, catastrophic environmental degradation, oil depletion, nuclear arms race with the risk of nuclear winter following an exchange. One of the texts was Famine 1990 projecting major famines twenty years in the future. Peak oil was already upon us, run away population growth almost everywhere. None of the very smart people making the projections got it right. None saw the end of the Soviet State and the impact on population growth in Russia and the Soviet states, none imagined the demographic transition that occured in much of the third world. The green revolution was yet to occur. Oil fields assumed to be depleted have since produced more oil than that extracted prior to the assumed peak, and so on. Yes, the problems remain. Oil will peak at some time, agricultural productivity will likely not keep pace with increasing population and human impact on the climate will be significant, but when and how are very uncertain. We can have a more productive discussion if the integrity of the scientific process and its uncertanties are respected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article quotes James McCarthy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate.”
Not looking at the actual IPPC projections but following his instructions literally, he’s instructing us to compare the projections that have been made, referring to the growth in their projections and concluding that earlier projections must have been underestimated relative to current projections. I would conclude from this only that their projections are increasing.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, since I haven’t examined the IPPC projections, and the actual results have exceeded their past projections. In this case his point would be that they had underestimated actual conditions. Otherwise his point seems to be only that their projections are increasing.
What's an IPC?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant "what's an IPCC?" (Wasn't sitting where I could see the article.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant "What's an IPCC?" (Couldn't see the article from where I was sitting.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this