Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 17219 of total 17219 in this topic
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 28, 2009 - 04:00pm PT
I read a funny quote: We're treating Mother Earth like Keith Moon treated a hotel room.

Just wondering, are there any more climate change skeptics out there? Or did they all die off from gagging on all the right-wing spin on the subject?
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:03pm PT
Hopefully they're as extinct as the Dodo, but with the amount of Christian traffic here lately, there might be a few left.
dirtbag

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:24pm PT
Sorry, but I think the "It's happening but you go first" response is a cop out.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:29pm PT
The dog ate it.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM
dirtbag

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:45pm PT
Okay Dingus, you say you're not sure that anyone really knows how to stop it.

What do you mean by that? We know several ways to do reduce CO2 emissions. Preferably we will act in coordination with the rest of the world, but I also think we have a responsibility to lead and do the right thing if some other countries aren't interested.

Otherwise yeah, I think waiting for someone else to make the first move is a copout. It's a great way to do nothing.
ionlyski

Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:49pm PT
DMT hits it right the first time. The issue is not about whether human activity is the cause of any changes in climates or if the changes are entirely natural. The question is "do any of the unaffordable targeted projects reduce the temperature of the globe, one fraction of a degree?" If reduce is what you want. Now they change the campaign from Global Warming to Global Climate Change, to include ice storms, heavy snows, huge rain events, etc. Or are they just more taxes, extracted in the name of fear, but this time on a global scale. Think of the great revenues involved in collecting a methane fee from every constituant on the plantet, in the name of the planet. So, I'm a skeptic too. I'm skeptical the governments have plans in place, that if only funded, will cool the planet; or change the planet, whatever is desired. Do I think our species is in trouble because of resource depletion and spoiling? You bet.

Arne
rmsusa

Trad climber
Boulder
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:52pm PT
I'm with Dingus & fattrad, but don't even care if it's human produced. We'll deal with it when it happens.
dirtbag

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:57pm PT
I think the answers would be a lot more honest if you guys simply said "I just don't give a sh#t."
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 04:57pm PT
I crossed the line towards accepting the science about a decade ago. I am also an earth scientest who approaches things with a fair degree of skepticism. That said, it should not change your mind. Arguments from authority, in a strict logical sense, are moot.

The subject is very difficult to wade through in the popular media. There are a lot of incoherent or downright untruthful methods out there to describe this. Within the industry I work in, acceptance of climate change conclusions is tantamount to painting yourself with a scarlet letter. Or the red badge of courage depending on how you want to look at it.

It IS something that would be tremendously difficult to address. Very expensive. So, I doubt many will admit that the emperor has no clothes as long as it is hitting them in the pocketbooks(see DMT and ionlyski posts above). Expense has nothing to do with science. I remember being taught geosynclinal theory (wiki that thing up) in college by an old fart who hadn't accepted plate tectonics. Humans can't stop volcanoes and earthquakes yet, so the pocketbook issue is moot. The science is what matters.

I find it very disturbing that politics and emotion has intruded and manipulated science .That is not the way to get good answers. Of course, either side of the issue claims the high ground here. In the past there is the great example of locking Galileo up in a room for the rest of his life, but it didn't change much looking back.

Things amost certainly WILL keep changing. It isn't like an asteroid hitting the earth that will end all life, but one of my meteorologist friends suggested that Saskatchewan would be a good place to invest in property.

For the grand kids.
ionlyski

Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:13pm PT
I DO care though Dirtbag. Most of my life, I'd probably side with the tree hugging, salmon saving, don't dirt bike in the wilderness types, whilst growing up in a predominant timber town.

I just don't believe our government is here to help. If it's conservation you want from me, I'll pitch in.
Arne



Edited above-Dirtbag, not Dingus
dirtbag

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:15pm PT
There are alternative energy sources available and in development, there are fuel efficient vehicles available, conservation improvements, etc, etc. etc. There are alternatives to burning carbon, maybe not complete alternatives, but they are there and would allow us to still have very comfortable lives.

What we have is a lack of will to make the necessary changes. Or maybe not...we might learn soon enough.
dirtbag

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:16pm PT
There is going to have to be government involvement, but I'm not a government hater like many here. Individual conservation is important, but there is going to have to be a larger scale coordination to make the kind of infractructure changes required.
ionlyski

Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:27pm PT
So, you want money from me, the little guy, for a plan the government you love so much, says is going to cool the planet (or prevent the climate from changing). Give me one good reason they should be trusted with my money to effect this change. What trillion dollar program do they have that will make things better?

Arne
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:27pm PT
Whoa! 17 posts and it's getting scary. Is this the forum for the flat earth society?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:36pm PT
Jim d,

There are 17 (now 18) posts because there are multiple issues here. Anyone skeptical of a change in overall temperatures on earth should contact Chiloe, who referred me to excellent and, in my opinion, irrefuatable, sources showing its existence.

The more difficult question is what to do about it. As ionlyski correctly points out, it is rather difficult to determine any rational cost/benefit of proposed actions. I've done some work on trying to estimate marginal costs and benefits, but am rather far from meaningful conclusions. The State of California has done some good work collecting sources from the academic community, but the conclusion from those sources was, essentially, "this is really hard, and there's no good answer yet."

When we decide on, for example, carbon emission goals, we are making economic decisions (i.e., how to use scarce resources). The problem is we lack the economic data (i.e. marginal costs) to make those choices with any rational basis. That dilemma is the real reason for the skepticism. It's less about the warming (although the need for statistical sampling to answer even that questionscauses some people pause) and more an aversion to making economic decisions with ad hoc, non-economic data.

John
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 28, 2009 - 05:38pm PT
It is a cynical con game.

Dingus, talk about sounding cynical...
Brian Hench

Trad climber
Laguna Beach, CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:45pm PT
My take on our response is this. Reducing carbon emissions is going to be expensive. However, reducing carbon will not come without benefits to our society beside slowing global warming.

Using less foreign oil means improving our balance of trade, supporting domestic industry, and improving security by reducing political leverage of foreign powers.

There are smart measures and there are dumb ones. Ethanol subsidies are an example of a dumb measure. Tax breaks for solar and wind power projects are smart. Government research dollars in support of lower cost solar panels is smart.
nutjob

climber
Berkeley, CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:48pm PT
Dingus, more data needed on your terlit reading... if ocean is at it's highest level in 125M years, that does not say anything about how fast or slow the process has been; it may be that all that change happened in the last 150 years or it may have been a gradual process.

It would be interesting to see consolidated real science that shows that present CO2 levels are outside of historical levels when accounting for hundreds of millions of years worth of cycles. Even looking back 10,000 years can be pretty misleading to understand the scale and natural cycles of geochemistry.


It would also be interesting to see a study that estimates the global CO2 emissions of human-related activity, and then use this volume of gas in simulations of the present Earth atmosphere (gas and volume compositions) and estimate the increase of trapping re-radiated heat.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 28, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
I am particularly of the 'we have 10 years to act crowd - lying motherf*#kers.

Dingus, I know a fair number of pretty serious climate scientists who believe the
time to act is fast running out, if it hasn't already. The phrase, "the sting is in the tail"
(meaning the consequences from greenhouse gas buildup will become much worse
later this century, when it's too late to stop them) keeps coming up.

So I wonder, how you came to "know" that these scientists are lying motherf*#kers?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 28, 2009 - 06:00pm PT
Global warming test


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 06:53pm PT
I flatly refute the statement that sea level is higher than 125 million years ago.

That was during the early Cretaceous. At that time practically any shoreline on Earth was unrecognizable in any but a general sense.

Also there is the whole problem of the Cretaceous Interior Seaway. That's right. During the Cretaceous, there was an inland sea that more or less split the middle of the North American plate in half. Just go Wiki a few things before you post them.

Sh#t, Dingus, the Dinosaurs didn't croak until the end of the Cretaceous, 65 ma.

edit: cut up some pointless chest beating.

I should say to Dingus: He is either reading a poorly written book very well, or he is poorly reading a well written book.

Sometimes I get a little dizzy from flexing on the crapper myself.
norm larson

climber
wilson, wyoming
Sep 28, 2009 - 06:56pm PT
The absolute best reason (from a Idaho Republican) that I'm familiar with blamed it on Daylight savings time. It seems they thought that extra hour of sun every day is warming the earth. Too much.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:06pm PT
I was just down at the coast (Long Beach) a couple days ago, and the ocean is still right where it always was.

It hasn't gone anywhere in at least 40 years that I know of.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 28, 2009 - 07:20pm PT
Almost hate to bring up a liberal media OpEd, but I found this interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html

"Even as climate modelers have been reaching consensus on the view
that the threat is worse than we realized, economic modelers have
been reaching consensus on the view that the costs of emission
control are lower than many feared."
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:26pm PT
Chaz,

You might have been cracking a joke, but it raises a good point.

In most situations that I am aware of, blaming things that happen on a short time period are not of statistical significance when dealing with something which happens slowly.

IIRC, Al Gore used photos of Katrina to make a point. The connection between global warming and hurricanes hasn't been worked yet, as far as I know. Certainly that it is driving things at present. When I saw that, I sort of cringed.

There are some interesting things, though. Summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is shrinking and thinning. We all know of retreating glaciers outnumbering the growing glaciers by a significant number. Those are easily measured.

Fewer are taking the position that the world is not warming. The numbers have been fairly clear that it is. So the argument has shifted more towards "Is it anthropogenic?" You can look at some of the statements already posted here that people have thrown out two arguments at once. Being, "It hasn't been proved that it is caused by humans, and besides it would be too expensive."

One at a time, please.

You can pull trapped atmospheric gasses out of very thick ice cores in Antarctica. Greenhouse gasses are the highest that they have been in 300,000 years. Pulling things out of rocks, crystals, etc. has a solid history, and is very useful in geochemistry, albeit in minerals. Now don't get us started on the question of whether ice is a mineral or not. The science is pretty simple and straightforward, though.

I wish that I could reference the above paragraph back to the publication. I should look it up to be thorough here. It is very meaningful, because I often see the mistake of people mistaking cause and effect. We see many causes and many effects. Are they meaningfully related? This is just how science works. You try to "explain" observation and reconcile it with theory, or the other way around.

An example of NOT statistically related or in other ways related would be:

A dog bit me in the ass, and there was a full moon that night.

I don't go out on full moons anymore because dogs bite you on the ass.

I shouldn't laugh. I can almost guarantee that there is stuff in the literature about this VERY topic!!

I am not trying to step on toes here. This topic should not be filled with too much emotion. I have it. We all have it. I think we should just talk this out carefully.

On Supertopo? Not a chance!!!

edit: I LIVE science every waking moment, so I like these discussions. They are all too often drowned in hysteria and machine gun fire ad-hominem attacks.

A good read is the chapter titled "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." in Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World. It will really open your eyes. You can occasionally find it on the web before the publishers take it down. The entire book is great if you don't mind some of your baloons being punctured.

We waste too much time here.
the Fet

Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:45pm PT
It's funny when people are ready to believe there's a big well funded industry of selfish people trying to fool us about climate change to create opportunities for themselves (those damn scientists with their intellect and computers), but they don't worry about the biggest industry in the world with companies like Rockefeller's Standard Oil (aka ExxonMobil) with revenues of $500 billion a year, and they aren't trying to sabotage efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Oh brother.
Brian Hench

Trad climber
Laguna Beach, CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:55pm PT
Chevron is the company that used to be Standard Oil, if I am not mistaken.
Conrad

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:55pm PT


Glaciers, ice caps and continental ice sheets are the most obvious physical manifestation of a warming climate. If the data presented by science and witnessed by climbers is not convincing of a hotter planet I must ask what evidence do you have do counter this?

The science is here and it is dire.

Extent Northern Ice
This was the 17th of September. The ice began growing back that day and winter is returning for all of here at the lower latitudes. 2007 was the thinnest ice year.


The trend is....


350
The parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is another indication of a warming planet. In the Cretaceous (the last period of the mesozoic era) the ppm level was around 1000. The sea level 65.5 to 145 million years ago was estimated to be 200m above current sea level. There were no glaciers.

We are now increasing the C02 in our atmosphere at a rate that the natural climate can not absorb it.

For all us us... we'll live though this on the coat tails of the big carbon orgy. For humans 200 years from now their climate and planet is something we can only imagine. Will there still be carbon? What will the earth's temperature be? How many billion people will live on our planet?

We owe it to the future to care about our planet.

Cool ice studies from a fellow climber.

http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 07:57pm PT
Almost every american oil company is a descendant of standard oil.
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:00pm PT
Oh my god! Data!

Buy you a beer, Conrad

The eskimos up on the north slope believe in global warming. The open water between land and ice during the late summer whale season has been increasing for quite a while, and makes it harder to get a whale in the increasing open water. I have heard an earful.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:04pm PT
k-man,

Reading Krugman's piece could lead one to think the costs of combatting global warming are relatively low. This surprised me, because I have been scouring the economic literature looking for studies of marginal costs and benefits. As I posted earlier, such data has eleuded us.

Re-reading his opinion piece, he says economic modelers have "been reaching consensus on the view that the costs of emission control are lower than many feared." This says nothing. What are the costs? "[L]ower than many feared." That really nails it down.

The issue is whether the marginal cost of pollution control is worth the marginal benefit. Krugman, a Nobel laureate economist, knows this. The fact that he doesn't confront that in this piece essentially admits what those who've studied this already understand, namely, we don't know in anything but the broadest strokes.

Krugman's work in economic geography was path-breaking. Unfortunately, he's branching out in his opinion pieces to areas where he has no recognized unusual expertise, rather like Linus Pauling (Nobel laureates in Chemistry and Peace) and his crusade for vitamin C, which was distracting but harmless, or worse, William Shockley (Nobel in physics) with his theories on intellectual abilities.

So I guess what I'm really saying is that you're right -- you should be reluctant to cite a liberal op-ed piece.

John
the Fet

Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:06pm PT
I don't think we should or need to do anything so drastic that it would have a significant negative impact on our economy.

But there are so many things we can do with little or no cost, or actually save us money, that we are not doing.

I can't believe people buy into the bullshit propogated by big oil (on which they spend tens of millions of dollars) to spread doubt about the science. But they are skeptical about scientists working for non-profits, NASA, and NOAA. Seriously who has the greater incentive to lie? Who has the funds to spread the lies?
Conrad

climber
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:07pm PT
Of the 612 glaciers that the Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research (Chinese Academy of Sciences) is studying 95 % are retreating. Fully 1/5th of the world's population get their water from the Himalaya (recall the range splits China and India).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html?em

Thomas Friedman on China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/opinion/26Schell.html?sq=orville&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1254193205-7p2+ZPgyWpbI3zGwaNsdGA

Orville Schell on glaciers.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:11pm PT
Where'd all that melted ice (water) go?

bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
in 2007, nat geo predicted that ALL arctic ice would be gone by 2013...the prediction was made using COMPUTER MODELS, you know, the models al gore bases his hysteria on

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070820-global-warming.html


doh!

last week, nat geo declared that the arctic ice would last until 2030...or was that 2040?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090921-arctic-sea-ice.html


damn those computer models!


then, of course, there's this little tidbit:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html


you'd think the two poles would get their stories straight though i suspect the arctic senses an opportunity to steal some tourist dollars with the world's recent love affair with polar
bears

on the other hand:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

and...

http://www.troymedia.com/NewsBeats/Environment_News_Beat/2009/09/TMC092409.htm

here's one for dingus:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=

then there's this...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

or more recently:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=618074

of course, you can't trust this guy--he's obviously a flip-flopper:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/20/u-s-media-ignoring-about-face-leading-global-warming-proponent
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:18pm PT
Water runs downhill. Half of my geology degree was about just that topic....

Much of the glacial ice is not going to cause a significant sea level rise. They are dramatic examples, though. Two things can cause a glacier to shrink. Less precip, higher temps, or some of both.

Even ice in the Arctic is pretty thin stuff.

Where the real ass kicker is, is the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. On land, ice can be incredibly thick. If those two places were to melt, the coast would be near Denver or something (joking. Conrad could probably answer this).

Under any circumstances, those two places would take a LONG time to melt. However even a small percentage would probably put a lot of shoreline under water. I am not saying that this would happen quickly.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:29pm PT
"in 2007, nat geo predicted that ALL arctic ice would be gone by 2013...the prediction was made using COMPUTER MODELS, you know, the models al gore bases his hysteria on

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070820-global-warming.html


doh!

last week, nat geo declared that the arctic ice would last until 2030...or was that 2040?"

Bookworm, you have your articles confused. Read the article you linked (the 2007 article):


"Just last year the National Snow and Ice Data Center's Serreze said that the Arctic was "right on schedule" to be completely free of ice by 2070 at the soonest. He now thinks that day may arrive by 2030."
Brian

climber
Cali
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:50pm PT
I have often agreed with things DMT has posted in the past, and I haven't read the whole thread so there may well have been a retraction...

However, "we DO NOT KNOW several ways to reduce CO2 emissions. WE... don't know any" is frighteningly inaccurate. If Dingus meant that implementing those several ways is fraught with political and economic uncertainty and that they would be difficult to enforce, well that's another matter. However, the fact is that we can list multiple changes in land use and fossil fuel use that we know, yes know, would decrease the CO2 saturation in the atmosphere.

I keep up to date on the science, economics, and politics of climate change as part of my professional interests. I don't know everything, but I'm probably closer to the issues than most folks. It aint pretty.

Although I put a substantial effort into addressing the issue in personal and social terms--the former through fairly serious changes to my lifestyle and the latter through writing and political activism--I'm sad (and frightened, and ashamed) to say that our collective ignorance, selfishness, and laziness is very likely to be our undoing.

Brian
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 28, 2009 - 08:56pm PT
The crux is "how".

What do you do with the Americans who don't feel like making serious changes to their lifestyles?

Do you want to lock up people who don't go along with *the program*?

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:06pm PT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:12pm PT
Dingus, not sure what's got you so belligerent and certain here, but you're way off target.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:34pm PT
I think Dingus is skeptical of our government being able to enact anything that will truly affect global climate change, mostly because this is a global problem and as he says, if we reduce and the rest of the world increases, then we likely wont affect much, yet we will have incurred more debt.

The problem I see with this is that someone has to lead the way and to have the greatest affect, that someone should be the most powerful country in the world, the country that uses the most resources, ie the good ol US of A.

.........

Now here is a spiritualist point of view. I know, I know, most you you think spiritualism is crap. Well, I guess I am going to write this anyway.

The spiritualist point of view is that global climate change/warming is not happening because of too much CO2, it is happening because of too much greed and a lack of spiritual awareness by the average man. It is caused by the friction between ones higher self and ones carnal self/ false ego. Most of the world admires the ego, ie they admire things like physical beauty while ignoring inner beauty, or they admire the wealthy and look down upon the poor and within all of this there is no balance. ( Please try to understand that I am not saying that all wealth is bad, I am saying that when greed and lust control ones desires, rather then a basic desire to do well and achieve success, and that when success is based on doing better then anyone else, then you have a false, ego centered goal and this creates friction. )

This greed and friction plays out in the abuse of nature and its abundance. We can have the abundant life, but we will have to reevaluate what we think of as abundant.

The Dirtbag philosophy is actually closer to what true abundance is all about, but that would take too long to explain, so I will stop here.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:36pm PT
Lead the way by doing what?
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
And I would love for you to cite a single peer-reviewed article stating that global sea level is at its highest point in 125 million years.

I am a petroleum geologist. All I do is look at sedimentary basins. Sedimentary rocks are like an EKG of depositional environments. The only reason I am wasting my time on this is that I am supposed to be revising an exploration agreement, and I hate that legal crap.

Sea level has been incredibly cyclic over time. The entire premise of sequence stratigraphy is based on high and low stands of sea level.

I have no axe to grind with DMT. I just find that 125 million year statement just that. A statement. I know of no evidence that supports it. I mean, nothing. And lots of evidence to refute it.

"Sea level" is in itself rather ambiguous in the long term. The most rigourous definition would probably be what is the distance from the center of the earth to "sea level," at any point in time. You are going way back in time, Dingus.

Southern Oklahoma, and much of Texas, has cretaceous shoreline deposits covering it. The entire cretaceous interior seaway is lined with cretaceous marine sediments.

Go to Amazon and buy yourself a five star textbook on historical geology, DMT.

This has totally distracted me from replying to Bookworm.

Supertopo is EVIL. I won't get home until tomorrow morning at this rate.
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:47pm PT
Not a skeptic... and I care a little.... But I just can't care too much...

Not going to be here long enough to notice



but.... carry on...
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 28, 2009 - 10:31pm PT
Thank goodness Ed is here. I can't type fast enough to keep up with this stuff.

I am still waiting on the Lower Cretaceous data, though.

Calm, reason, think critically. Be skeptical.

Thom

Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
Sep 28, 2009 - 11:30pm PT
Base104 - You

mention "statistical significance" and mention that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in 300,000 years.

Mr. Gore mentions in his hysteria producing video (with great dramatic effect, I might add) that CO2 levels are the highest in 600,000 years. 300, 600, whatever, HUGE numbers for sure - but completely insignificant in the scope of geologic time. Mr. Gore (and others) seem to have overlooked the remaining years of the 600 MILLION years of ice core data from which they pull their 300/600,000 years of hysteria producing propaganda. These guys know full well what the remaining data shows and deliberately leave it out; afterall, 600,000 years is a long time, isn't it? Certainly long enough to convince others of this ecological crisis, No? Others are just too lazy to do their own research, and Gore (and others) rely on this laziness to promote their garbage.

600,000 years of data is ABSOLUTELY insignificant relative to the 600,000,000 years of data we have. For those too lazy to do the math: it equals 1/10 of 1%; that's 1 in 1000. If the average global temp for the past 1000 years is 54 degrees and I show you ONE year of data with an average of 70, then began screaming about a global warming crisis, you'd deem me a nut-job.

Based on the 600,000,000 years of data available, our atmosphere is DEFICIENT in CO2, COOLER than average, and LESS humid than average. In the last 600 MILLION years there's only been ONE geologic period that has had less than 400 ppm of CO2 (other than our own): The Carboniferous Period. We should EXPECT temps to be going up, along with CO2.

Incidently, the late Ordovician Period had CO2 levels nearly 12 times higher than present (apprx. 4400 ppm) - AND WAS AN ICE AGE.

What this all means to the human species 2,000 years from now is another thing altogether.

Personally, I'm not questioning global climate change (or global warming). I question our part in it, whether we can (or should) do anything about it, and the questionable motives behind the use of the science.

(Al Gore promotes this CO2 "disaster", starts Generation Investment Management to sell "carbon offsets" on the Chicago Climate Exchange [basically a futures exchange] and starts raking in the $$ promoting this hysteria.)

People, do some frikin' research, for cryin' out loud!

T.
Conrad

climber
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:13am PT
Hi Thom,
Seems as if you have more of an issue with Al Gore (garbage, laziness and propaganda) than with climate change per se.

While the the Ordovician / Silurian boundary is recognized to be glaciated and the first of the five major extinctions the early part of the Orodvician was exemplified by widely separated continents and tropical shelf areas. The result was the greatest increase in bio-diversity at the order, family and genus levels. The same tropical shelf as a rich bio habitat concept reflects our present understanding that these regions have a great amount of bio diversity. (Think great barrier reef in contrast to a desert.)

I will check on this, yet I think ice cores are accurate for to 40,000 years. Much of the climate data is from sea sediment core samples, they date older. Going back 600 million years requires analyzing the fossil record.

Our planet is in a stage of flux. This much is certain. How we address this is our generation's challenge.

And hopefully we can have a constructive conversation and leave the name calling for Glenn and Rush.
BASE104

climber
An Oil Field
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:36am PT
Hey Conrad, I'm typing here!
Thom

Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:41am PT
Yes, correct; my bad. Didn't mean to state 600 million years of ice core data. Meant to say 600 million years of data "in general". The fossil and sediment records are older. I believe the ice core dates go back about 750,000 years, or so. The point is the data is there, and it's ignored.

You are correct in that I have a real problem with how the science is being used by some individuals.

As stated, I don't really have a problem with the whole climate change/global warming issue (glaciers ARE melting, no doubt). But again, based on the TOTAL of available science, we should be expecting this, and the impact of our human contribution is questionable.

Contructive conversation? On this forum? Surely, you jest? At least some of us can try to keep things civil.

Cheers,
T.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 29, 2009 - 01:30am PT
Just remember that scientific data in isolation cannot lead to sound economic decisions. This has become so political because people are pushing economic decisions without the necessary economic data.

Anthropogenic climate change is exceedingly important to our future generations. So is disease control, agricultural practices, and the whole palette of choices of good things. We cannot make a lexicographic ordering of importance. Put into English, we can't say we must do everything to prevent anthropogenic climate change before we do anything to improve our food supply or medical care, for instance.

Again, despite what Krugman states, the peer-reviewed economic literature remains bereft of all but the most crude estimates of marginal costs and benefits of any proposed remediatory actions.

John
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Sep 29, 2009 - 04:17am PT
It's too bad lack of beer isn't causing Climate change or we'd get a lot more support curing the issue.

Sort of reminds me of the old debate about whether cigarette smoke causes cancer or not. For some time it was "not enough data" "those people would have got cancer anyway" and so on.

This is the same story except that the health of the whole planet is at stake.

Any study of ecology reveals that species increase in population and impact until those very effect cause a decrease in population. Seems we're content to face that as long as we don't suspect we will be the part of the herd facing culling.

It's not just climate change where we're willing to roll the dice at the expense of the future. We're burning up all the oil with little regard to how or if the future will live without it.

Guess that's human nature. If we reincarnate, we'll get to taste our own medicine and blame those bastards that handed the mess down to us, except that those bastards will be us!

Peace

Karl
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Sep 29, 2009 - 04:32am PT
Here's an article that discusses climate change in more economic terms

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/09/28/climate.insurance/index.html

Brian Hench

Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:27am PT
Thom, why should we care what the climate was 600 million years ago? I'd like to think we care about what it is now. You'd like to have us believe that man is playing no part in climate change, which is dead wrong. We've doubled the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in less than 200 years. And it continues to increase. Regardless of past CO2 levels, increasing current levels WILL drive warming. IT MUST. There is no escaping that conclusion. It WILL increase global temperatures. Period.

The only questions remaining are exactly how much temperatures will increase and who has the resources to adapt. Some of the poorer nations of this world are really going to suffer in the future.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:42am PT
Poor countries are always going to suffer, no matter what happens.

That's why they're poor, they can't get their sh#t together.
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:51pm PT
Ice cores go back to 700,000 years last I heard, they get deeper ones all the time.

The whole "but co2 levels were higher in the cretaceous" is a specious argument. Might as well mention that in the Cambrian it was 20 times higher than now.

co2 levels alone are not a analog for temperature in the geologic record. However, if all other variables are controlled, and one raises co2 by adding co2 to the system, one can only expect temperature to go up. That isn't to say some previously unknown feedback wouldn't cause something else to happen. However, you can just say "I think there is an unknown feedback that will negate the doubling of co2 in the atmosphere" without some kind of hypothesis for what that feedback would be.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Sep 29, 2009 - 01:40pm PT
and it continues to pile up:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE

from ed morrissey:

"Global-warming activists insist that we can’t take an assumption from a single year. However, if the CWS forecast turns out to be correct, we will have gone eleven years without any warming at all — eleven years in which carbon emissions did not decline in any significant manner. How does one begin to explain that?"
wbw

climber
'cross the great divide
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:10pm PT
What is certain, is that in 50 or so years at the rate we are going, CO2 levels will be double what they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That indicates that humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by driving cars, using electricity, and farting. Most scientists from a wide range of disciplines seem to think that at those CO2 levels, there will be problems of such magnitude as to be essentially unsolveable. Those problems will change the way humans live on the planet.

It's either find a different way to live now, or do it later.
LB4USC

Trad climber
Long Beach
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:22pm PT
I'm single. No kids. No grandkids. No nieces. No nephews.

I'm more than happy to risk the future of your kids and grandkids, and drill for oil in the ANWR, off the coast and any other pristine land to gas up my Hummer. Unlocking the water in the frozen ice caps by warming the planet is the least I can do.

That's why I vote Republican.
gazela

Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:27pm PT
I recently attended a lecture by an eminence in the modeling of asteroid impacts on Earth. He stated two principles that guide his science. The first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the second is that theories or models are inherently untrustworthy that must be modified on an ongoing basis to fit the observed data. However, his uncritical acceptance of mainstream climate-change theory made clear that he doesn't adhere to either of those axioms when it comes to global warming. On one hand, even he seemed to acknowledge that the evidence that man-made CO2 emissions will shortly render the planet uninhabitable is hardly "extraordinary" or conclusive, despite his assertion that drastic action must be taken (the economic effects of which will be extraordinary, indeed). And the recent "equilibrium" hypothesis, injected into the climate models to account for the fact that the Earth hasn't had any net warming for over a decade, should raise a few suspicions.

I'm all for conservation and the development of alternative energy sources, something we should have started doing in earnest a generation ago; however, one key element is more nuclear power plants, the one part of the European energy model that libs in this country refuse to follow. And will hydrogen-powered cars, which give off water vapor as exhaust--the number-one greenhouse gas on Earth--actually aggravate whatever warming may actually be happening?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 29, 2009 - 08:46pm PT
Thanks, Ed. I have looked at all three reports and their references, but I have not studied every reference carefully, of course. In fairness, I wasn't just looking for information; I was looking to make sure any of my thoughts on papers weren't preempted.

I think WGII has a description of the state of affairs in its technical summary -- mainly saying we've made very little progress in measuring cost of mitigation and cost of non-mitigation.

My personal belief is that we'll get marginal costs of mitigation more easily than those of non-mitigation. Everyone knows how much extra they pay for a particular mitigation procedure fairly quickly. The cost of not mitigating is more amorphous. That's why we write papers, I guess.

John
tooth

Trad climber
Kelowna, BC
Sep 29, 2009 - 09:37pm PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 30, 2009 - 03:55pm PT
Just read this:

The Nike corporation said Wednesday it would abandon its position on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing differences with the business group on climate change.

...

"Nike believes U.S. businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth," the company said in a statement. "Therefoce [sic], we have decided to resign our board of directors position."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60889-nike-resigns-from-chambers-board-citing-climate-differences

Me, I thought that was cool...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 5, 2009 - 05:47pm PT
First Nike, now Apple:

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/apple-resignes-from-chamber-over-climate/
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Oct 5, 2009 - 07:28pm PT
I'm with Karl in thinking the denial about cigerettes is a good analogy. Including all the "scientific" hacks that the industry hired to cast doubt.

I no longer try as much as I did to convice people about warming. Those that still deny it aren't going to be changed by arguments. Its like trying to use science on creationists. When something is an article of faith, not much can be done.

But I think discussing the economics has merits. For a start, we could decide how much to spend fighting global warming. For instance, the US could decide to spend about 1% of GDP (an arbritrary example). We could then decide what would give us the most bang for the buck, but the cost is limited.

Many of the things that would help in the fight would be good for other reasons. I think it is a matter of national security to wean the country off of petroleum.

Better insulation and more efficient apliances will eventually save consumers money.

A $40,000 electric sport car more fun to drive and just as big a status symbol as a $40,000 SUV.

"Green spending" will certainly create winners and losers but it can create jobs as well as destroy them.

The hard one is coal power plants. Ignoring the environment, coal is cheap and it doesn't look like this country has the stomach for nuclear. Alternative energy will take time to ramp up.

These types of regulations, while never attempted on this scale, have typically cost far less than the doomsters predicted (see replacing CFCs, adding air bags, fighting acid rain from coal plants). Once there is a gaurenteed market, the technology can really take off.

But given the politics, I don't see the US or China making meaningful cuts. I feel sorry for our grandkids.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 5, 2009 - 07:32pm PT
Its like trying to use science on creationists.

Aw, for f*#k's sake....
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 5, 2009 - 08:19pm PT
Here's how serious things could be

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/index.html

Millions, if not billlions of people rely on Himalayan water.

"...(CNN) -- The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The result of this deglaciation could be conflict as Himalayan glacial runoff has an essential role in the economies, agriculture and even religions of the regions countries.

The Himalayan glaciers form the world's largest ice body outside of the polar caps. Popularly known as the "Water Tower of Asia," they are the source of water for rivers that flow across the continent: the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Myanmar, the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China and a multitude of smaller rivers that flow through the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India.

Satellite data from the Indian Space Applications Center, in Ahmedabad, India, indicates that from 1962 to 2004, more than 1,000 Himalayan glaciers have retreated by around 16 percent. According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China's glaciers have shrunk by 5 percent since 1950s.

Dr. Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, physicist and leader in the International Forum on Globalization, has just returned from a "Climate Yatra," a research journey to the Himalayas to study the impact of climate change and the glacial melt upon communities in Asia.

"Himalayan rivers support nearly half of humanity," Dr. Shiva told CNN. "Everyone who depends on water from the Himalayas will be affected."

One area of increasing concern for Shiva is flooding. "In Ladakh villages have already been washed away due to flash floods," she said.

The situation has exacerbated the occurrence of Glacier Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs). Impacts include loss of lives, domestic property, cultivable land, mountain infrastructure downstream, forced migration and long-term secondary environmental degradation....."
Thom

Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
Oct 5, 2009 - 08:55pm PT
There are no solutions, only compromises. What is the priority? Every action has an equal, and opposite reaction.

Today I heard that factions of the Enviro movement are fighting amongst themselves: seems a certain windfarm is supposedly killing over 10,000 birds each year (eagles, red-tailed hawks, falcons, etc.). One solution attempted resulted in MORE bird deaths.

CFL's must be disposed of properly due to their MERCURY content.

Electric cars use more batteries which will turn our landfills into lead and cadmium wastelands (do you really think everyone will dispose of these batteries properly?), that will eventually affect the water supply.

Where will all this electricity come from, since we can't build new power plants anywhere and our power grids are over-burdened?

Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology produces water vapor as a by-product. Water vapor is the primary Greenhouse Gas, contributing approximately 95% of the greenhouse affect of our planet.

And on it goes...

There are no solutions, only compromises.

T.
Smike

Ice climber
Gunks, NY
Oct 5, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=41870064001
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 5, 2009 - 10:13pm PT
Del Cross, isn't water vapor the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 5, 2009 - 10:42pm PT
This is incorrect since additional H20 added to the atmosphere is gone within a matter of weeks so the effect is essentially nil.

I understand your point and the theory of water vapor, but is it still true if it is persistently ADDED on a growing basis (more of those cars) and, therefore, not given time to dissipate. It would be overwhelmed, in theory, no?


August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Oct 6, 2009 - 02:03pm PT
Thom

I agree there are not going to be perfect solutions. But some outcomes, such as business as usual, are going to be much worse than others.

I can't see how we can maintain our throw away society without destroying the planet. Technology can help solve some problems but will throw up new problems. We really need a major rethink in how we live and what we value, but I'm not optimistic.

However, regarding batteries, for instance: This doesn't have to be a problem. The price of dealing with batteries can be included in the price of the car. So if you have to buy replacement batteries, you trade in old batteries at no cost. Or if/when the car is junked, the junk yard can give them back to the manufacturer or designed recycling center at no charge. Of if the no charge is not sufficient, they can have a deposit so you actually get money back for turning them in.

And I don't think it is that far out before recycling becomes profitable. Electric cars aren't powered by lead batteries and lithium is pricy enough to make it worthwhile to recover. For that matter, I expect it is likely that companies will start "mining" landfills in my lifetime. Society has landfilled a lot of valuable metals.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Oct 6, 2009 - 06:52pm PT
I just red Boreal ski area is opening this Saturday Oct. 10, the earliest in it's history. Doesn't this prove the Earth isn't warming?

Sure it took millions of dollars of state of the art snowmaking equipment to make a postage stamp zone of snow and the glaciers are melting but... I was cold last night.

Bluey, add more water to the atmosphere and it comes out as rain. Also creationists doesn't mean religous folks, it means people who think man was created in his current form and deny evolution from earlier organisms.
morphus

Mountain climber
Angleland
Nov 6, 2009 - 01:01pm PT
i bet the yank denialists are liking Lord Monckton, what with his accent and that..he's just proved global warming is balls-'end of scare, the end of the climate change debate'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oclDw5HlP7w&feature=related

he also went down well at minnesota's free market institute..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 6, 2009 - 01:23pm PT
Monckton??? How 'bout some Lomborg too. Some people are so willing to let people with absolutely no credibility make their arguments for them.

Monckton is well known for just making stuff up:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/


And publishes papers that are not peer reviewed:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
morphus

Mountain climber
Angleland
Nov 6, 2009 - 01:37pm PT
Prof Lindzen's (MIT, IPCC) peer-reviewed research appears to show that 'outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts'?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html
eg more like 1deg warming, not 7..
Lee Bow

Trad climber
wet island
Nov 6, 2009 - 01:49pm PT
Look,don't anyone fool you. This phenomena has been seen befoere... on the decks of the Titanic...and this time there are no life boats..
But don't worry, the ship can't sink.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 6, 2009 - 02:34pm PT
Spencer (who is himself a GCC skeptic) has shown that Lindzen & Choi 2009 used shoddy and faulty analyses.

http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/story/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback/

Lindzen's, as well as Spencer's, research has been debunked many times in the past. It's a pity that Lindzen and his mouthpiece, Monckton, are getting so much press. When the next wave of peer-reviewed re-analyses of the ERBE data shows how mistaken Lindzen is, I doubt that Glenn Beck will give it much airtime.
213

climber
The Biggest Little City
Nov 6, 2009 - 03:44pm PT
I think the debates would be a whole lot more interesting if those (many, er most, but not all) involved had at least a slight understanding of the dynamics and thermodynamics of the atmosphere (ocean and land systems, too while we're at it). Lindzen certainly does...
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 6, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
Just spent 2 days in a room full of Arctic scientists. Always an educational experience.

There's a growing belief that the changes in water cycles (e.g., when and where the rain and snow fall) will have greater human impacts than the changes in temperature themselves.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 6, 2009 - 09:03pm PT
Great! How soon will it be warm enough for some
modern day Vikings
to resettle Greenland like Erik the Red did way back in 986 AD ?

counting coup on you again Dr f!

Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Nov 6, 2009 - 09:18pm PT
yup, going into a global melt. Even while the ice age tries to resurge.

i guess summer is cool.... not for me, personally

Hope everyone knows how to swim. You do know how to swim, don't you? Put your head n the air and paddle for your life...
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 6, 2009 - 11:57pm PT
aww c'mon Dr F,
we need to support Patagonia so they can
fix the problem for us...

in fact, I can't think of single word
of any value that's been whored-out
as badly as the "environment", its a giant living
in the hills, right? Push the right button, buy
the right product, make bad giant go away...

no problem, see how easy that was?

don't know why folks are uptight about this,
I mean, as long as we keep making the same
mistakes over and over expecting different
results...something "good" will happen, right?

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 7, 2009 - 12:03am PT
But the most complete record of Sea Level
rise is from Barbados.
Here, dates largely from submerged in situ Acropora palmata,
a reef-forming coral that is regarded as the
best available sea level indicator from such
environments because of its fast growth rates and
considerable size, have permitted the construction
of a sea level curve beginning** 18,000 years ago
, when sea level was 121 meters below present sea level**.

So we're not responsible for Sea level rise.
Its been going up for a long time.
Can't stop it no matter how much you tax people.
guyman

Trad climber
Moorpark, CA.
Nov 7, 2009 - 12:52am PT
So what is the government going to do about SUN-SPOTS?

Those have been acting differently in the last few years.

Maybe we we need to pony up a lot more tax money to fix the sun.

Anybody who thinks we (humans) can adjust the Climate is a moron.

Just saying.
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2009 - 01:01am PT
Anybody who thinks we (humans) can adjust the Climate is a moron.

I remember when I was in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania back in the 50's the steel mills created so much smog that it changed the climate there to a very disturbing quality.

Much worst than anything you've ever seen in LA on it's worst smog day.
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 7, 2009 - 11:31am PT
The truth is its already too late.

The Artic and Greenland are melting faster than all predictions

and the high CO2 levels take years to make any effect, but will more quickly now, as the changes are just catching up to the raising levels

When a scientist makes a prediction about an outcome and it is wrong, he realizes that there is a mistake in his theory, (or the measurement).

When a non-scientist reads about an outcome that is worse than predicted, he uses that to confirm the theory! You see he simply accepts the theory without question.

Skepticism separates the good scientists from the bad.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 7, 2009 - 03:17pm PT
When a scientist makes a prediction about an outcome and it is wrong, he realizes that there is a mistake in his theory, (or the measurement).

When a non-scientist reads about an outcome that is worse than predicted, he uses that to confirm the theory! You see he simply accepts the theory without question.

Skepticism separates the good scientists from the bad.





When a scientist finds that an outcome is worse than her model predicted, she realizes that not having enough data and processes in her model to make it a successfully predictive model does not necessarily negate the theory.

Subsequently, a scientist would form hypotheses to help explain and fix her model and/or theory to try to improve predictability.

She makes educated guesses based on what is possible and probable. For example, it is more probable that worse outcomes are related to incomplete models rather than a flawed theory, since the theory and outcomes point in the same direction; of course the opposite--and monkeys flying out of your butt--is still possible.

When someone is so obtuse he can't see the forest for the trees, he might not realize that worse is worse.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 7, 2009 - 07:34pm PT
Well think of it this way...

Let's say your penis was withering and you were afraid it was going to fall off.

You go to doctor number one and he says it's just a factor of age and other natural causes like genetics.

You go to doctor number two and he say that YOU are causing it with your indulgences.

Perhaps you don't want to stop indulging so you believe doc #1 but the bottom line is

>.."Your dick is still falling off! Better plan on doing something about it!"

If sea level is rising fast, no matter what is causing it, we either have to start moving the coastal cities and stopping growth there NOW, or figure out a way to reverse the natural or unnatural warming.

Rational enough eh?

Peace

Karl

Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 7, 2009 - 07:53pm PT
We are going to get it together. I believe that.

Sustainable manufacturing philosophy is an
American invention. Something we could all
be proud of, if we knew anything about it.

And so we being learning at a geometric rate :-)

With a little unity, we can get on that horse and
ever so gently kick it; just touch it with our spurs,
and it will go...

In the mean time we can all help our environment
by expressing a little compassion toward others, by
smiling and being patient with the person in the mini-mart,
by driving with courstesy, sending positive ripples into our
very own and very real environment.

We are going to get it together, because we have to.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 7, 2009 - 08:18pm PT
wind farms, lithium batteries, new power grids to distribute power to all these electric cars. Solar cells, mirrors, gallium cesium, lithium, copper, copper, and more copper.

Wow. Just think of all the new MINING jobs ya'll are creating. Sweet!
nature

climber
Tucson, AZ
Nov 7, 2009 - 08:32pm PT
of a sea level curve beginning** 18,000 years ago
, when sea level was 121 meters below present sea level**.

So we're not responsible for Sea level rise.
Its been going up for a long time.
Can't stop it no matter how much you tax people.

Listen... maybe you know more about the subject than you lead onto with this post. Perhaps as a grad student you studied Holocene/Pleistocene glacial/interglacial sequences (like I did). But I'm guessing you didn't. Maybe I guess wrong. But if you did then to somehow come to some conclusion that what's going on now has anything to do with the transition from the OIS stage 2 to OIS Stage 1 sequence yer... uh... a college grad student flunky.... (at least in paleoclimate studies and Quaternary (Glacial) Stratigraphy/Geology)
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 7, 2009 - 09:44pm PT
I like Karl's analogy.

So your dick is falling off.

But Dr. QuackIsGood says that because it is rotting faster than either doctors number 1 or 2 predicted (based on their models), their diagnoses must be wrong and so don't worry about your putrefying penis; your dick isn't actually falling off.

Actually, your dick is falling off.

So you have a few choices. Just wait until gangrene kills you. Or you could chop it off now and keep the rest of your body from rotting too. Or you could try to follow the advice of doctor number 2 and possibly save/improve your dick and the rest of your body.
Porkchop_express

Trad climber
Currently in San Diego
Nov 7, 2009 - 09:59pm PT
The whole withering dick needs to be put in context...If your dick is withering at an age of 85 and the doctor claims that you need to pay him half your pay check for his magic pills that will put you in the league of a younger Ron Jeremy, then you might want to still cut out the indulgences as Karl points out, because there is no sense in being irresponsible, while saving your money to enjoy what life you have left via alternate means than your dick.

However there is a difference between responsible use and going to extremes of abuse or complete avoidance. Balance is the key. People who trash the environment and are slobs (small scale or massive corporate scale). People who advocate that everyone walk (not drive) around in burlap sacks and restrict bovine flatulence to fund their own private jets are equally reprehensible.

Balance should be found somewhere between the two since science is used to support opinions at both ends of the spectrum.
tithaf

Trad climber
Colorado Plateau
Nov 9, 2009 - 12:42pm PT
Dingus wrote:
I am not convinced any global warming legislation will have any positive effect on any of this, ever. We have a bunch of people assuring us they know what they are talking about. I am not convinced they know sh#t from shinola when it comes to cures for global warming.

Dingus, I am a climate scientist and I do know sh#t from Shinola. www.dadadean.com/shinola.pdf

thp

wildone

climber
GHOST TOWN
Nov 9, 2009 - 12:52pm PT
If you want to make a difference, quit crapping out kids like they're little goddamned miracles.
We had 1 billion people on the ENTIRE planet in 1930.
It took us until 1960 to hit 2 billion.
Now we're at about 7 billion, and it's gonna go exponential soon.
The earth's carrying capacity for people is between 2 and 3 billion people (BBC). I'm praying for a plague.
WBraun

climber
Nov 9, 2009 - 01:06pm PT
wildone -- "I'm praying for a plague."


Whenever I hear these type of thoughts it is the highest form of selfishness.

Unless of course you volunteer to go kill yourself first .....
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 9, 2009 - 01:41pm PT

So we're not responsible for Sea level rise.
Its been going up for a long time.


And since non-smokers sometimes get lung cancer smoking is not responsible for lung cancer.
ydpl8s

Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
Nov 9, 2009 - 01:48pm PT
As a working geoscientist (geologist/geophysicist) the one thing I am aware of is that yes, we have gone through cycles like this in geologic history, long before there were greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, I do believe that we are contributing to the problem, how much? enough that it makes sense to do what we can.

Do I think that we can realistically make a dent when emerging economies like China and India are not fully on board? No!

Do I think that we are being a bit ignorant and arrogant about what we will be able to accomplish with our endeavours? Yes!

Do I think that natural phenomena like one single volcanic eruption can make years of Kyoto type measures irrelevant? Yes!

Do I think that the whole global warming bandwagon has become a cash cow for academia? yes!

That being said, I do think that we need to develop as many new energy sources as we can. Sadly, as altruistic as we may be, these won't become viable UNTIL they become economic.

We are, after all a race that is more reactionary than forward thinking.

We did develop some good data back-up systems leading up to Y2K. But I guess that even though I agree in the more basic development of energy sources and emission control, I'm afraid I believe that a lot of what is happening strikes me as "Chicken Little" philosophy.
wildone

climber
GHOST TOWN
Nov 9, 2009 - 09:52pm PT
Werner, I bust my balls on a bike everyday so that I can survive the coming plague. I've done 180 miles in the last 4 days (gotta work off this belly). My plan is to be so healthy, I'll have the cookie all to myself.
BrianH

Trad climber
santa fe
Nov 9, 2009 - 10:34pm PT
Lead the way by doing what?

Stop spraying our sh#t hither and yon?

Look at how we live and what we consume to Get Stuff Done?

Question most everything we are told?

I know it's rude to answer a question with a question, but please indulge me. At a certain point doesn't it make sense to stop crapping where you eat?
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 10, 2009 - 01:31am PT


If you want to make a difference, quit crapping out kids like they're little goddamned miracles. --Wildone







It's a small world after all.


corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 10, 2009 - 01:45am PT
Brian - guess you mean Planet wide
does it make sense? Well of course not.
The problem is Civilization has got to crap,
and there are no means to toss the crap off the planet
(example: into the Sun).
Yet.
So bury it, recycle it, or sell it to China.

What other options are there?
Reilly

Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
Nov 10, 2009 - 01:50am PT
ydpl8s,
Nicely and succinctly put! End of discussion...
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 10, 2009 - 02:09am PT
corniss chopper,
check out Subaru USA's
web site for a peek at an
"option."

there you will see the Deming
model pretty much fully realized
producing powerful PZEV vehicles
with emissions cleaner than the air
in some cities.

Financing for hybrid/electric cars
is happening too, re: Fiskar.

and, I wouldn't be so sure the Asian
countries are as unaware of what's
going on as some might think...


ydpl8s

Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
Nov 10, 2009 - 12:06pm PT
Ray, I'm not saying they're unaware. But when the majority of 2 1/2 billion people are using coal and wood for basic heating and cooking, even the idea of converting them over to a somewhat "cleaner" fuel of heating oil or natural gas is a daunting project of herculean proportions, not to mention getting them converted to greener sources.

I know that they have plenty of people who realize the problem and are working on it. Their top priority at the moment is economic growth, which hopefully in the future will enable them to have the luxury of a green conversion.
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 10, 2009 - 12:18pm PT
^^^
that's some really good info, thanks.
rotten johnny

Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
Nov 10, 2009 - 05:17pm PT
every cloud has a silver lining...when the ocean rises , it will flood most of newport beach and displace hundreds of thousand climate change skeptics that call reagan country their home....ha , ha ....
crazygremlin

Trad climber
index, WA
Nov 10, 2009 - 05:50pm PT
its everybodys problem, but its a problem that isnt gonna affect us.. itll affect our kids blah blah blah rant rant rant you get the point...
course, it is still a magor problem grdd#mn sceptics
213

climber
Where the Froude number often >> 1
Nov 10, 2009 - 07:20pm PT
"We have gone through cycles like this in geologic history, long before there were greenhouse gas emissions"

Whoa. So you are saying that in the past there were NO atmospheric constituents which were emitted from the Earth's surface that participated in radiative forcing processes?!?!?! No water vapor? No SO2? No CO2? No 03? In other words, the Earth did not have an atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution?! Based on that reasoning we can certainly through out the Miller-Urey experiment!

However, you are right on the money when you say that economics will drive all future change (simple argument based on externalities and marginal costs) as well as academia making tons of $$$ out of the whole dealio.
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 10, 2009 - 08:37pm PT
hmm, doesn't sound so bad really.
just need to know where the new
beachfront property's gonna be so
I can get some and cash in on the
disaster.
ydpl8s

Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
Nov 11, 2009 - 11:05am PT
Sorry 213, should have read "manmade industrial greenhouse gases", and of course I'm excluding those fumes exuded from T-Rex after partaking in Sauropod Burritos:-)
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 11, 2009 - 11:19am PT
"a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels."

here's the full text from wsj:

The Economic Uses of Al Gore
Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.

Last spring Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked Al Gore during a House hearing if his investments in green energy meant he would benefit personally from cap and trade.

"If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," Mr. Gore responded (and, yes, according to two reporters present, he sighed).

Mr. Gore is quite right that his arguments should be judged on their merits, not on his investments. He's wrong to think his investments are irrelevant, and, even more, that sincerity is dispositive of anything. Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.

Here are a couple questions: When so much of his position and prestige are invested in a predicted climate crisis, is Mr. Gore likely to be open to contrary evidence? Is he likely to be particularly fastidious about whether proposed steps will actually have an effect on global warming if they also happen to benefit his investments?

Ms. Blackburn's challenge was in a sense late. Mr. Gore long ago jumped over to the side where salesmanship, by whatever means, was the trumping priority. As far back as 1989, he insisted there was "no dispute worthy of recognition" about the danger of manmade climate change. By now, he titularly heads a vast establishment with a stake in one side of the argument.

Notice, for instance, after a decade in which the earth appears to have stopped warming and even cooled, that global warming advocates have rushed to embrace a computer simulation that predicts this cooling (in retrospect, of course) and allows for indefinite future cooling, even while assuring that the world is destined to face disastrous warming anyway. Isn't this what forecasters of doom have done since time immemorial when their deadlines for doom haven't been met?

Mr. Gore's own predictions of a climate catastrophe have not lessened, but every time he opens his mouth, the costs of meeting the emergency become easier and easier to swallow. They aren't even costs anymore; as he says in his new book, they are "profits."

All policy salesmanship naturally defaults toward the proposition of huge benefits and negligible costs (i.e., free lunchism). Isn't that where Al Gore is today?

Mr. Gore notes that he has poured his own money into two climate action nonprofits, but, whatever his self-felt motives, aren't these nonprofits functionally propaganda arms (i.e., advertising) that benefit his for-profit investments?

The truth is, evidence of man's impact on climate remains maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. This is not Mr. Gore's position, of course. If anything, however, the case for action has become less closed since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.

In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.

These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.

For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.

We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.

Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?

213

climber
Where the Froude number often >> 1
Nov 11, 2009 - 08:34pm PT
Ah thanks for the clarification, ydpl8s. I'm partial to the triceratops tortas myself.
Interesting wall street article with some respectable points.
Not sure if has been mentioned here yet, but if you read the recent IPCC report chapter on modeling and downscaling, all of the suite of gcms (global climate models) used for future predictions have been set with the initial conditions of the past 20 years and spun-up through this period. Hmm, given that these were anomalously warm years (why has yet to be determined), is it not surprising that the future outcomes are of course going to show future warming when compared to the past several hundred years mean temperatures? Endless invocation indeed...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 11, 2009 - 08:40pm PT
Everyone Out of the Water!
Damn the pesky models! Full speed ahead.
By George F. Will | NEWSWEEK

Published Nov 7, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Nov 16, 2009

In last week's NEWSWEEK, the cover story was a hymn to "The Thinking Man's Thinking Man." Beneath the story's headline ("The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet") was this subhead: "Al Gore's views on climate change are advancing as rapidly as the phenomenon itself." Which was rather rude because, if true, his views have not advanced for 11 years. (Click here to follow George F. Will)

There is much debate about the reasons for, and the importance of, the fact that global warming has not increased for that long. What we know is that computer models did not predict this. Which matters, a lot, because we are incessantly exhorted to wager trillions of dollars and diminished freedom on the proposition that computer models are correctly projecting catastrophic global warming. On Nov. 2, The Wall Street Journal's Jeffrey Ball reported some inconvenient data. Soon after the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—it shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Thinking Man's Thinking Man—reported that global warming is "unequivocal," there came evidence that the planet's temperature is beginning to cool. "That," Ball writes, "has led to one point of agreement: The models are imperfect."

Models are no better or worse than their assumptions, and Ball notes how dicey these assumptions can be: "The effects of clouds, for example, are unclear. Depending on their shape and altitude, clouds can either trap heat, warming the earth, or reflect it, cooling the planet." It gets worse: "The way that greenhouse gases affect cloud formation—and how clouds in turn affect temperature—remains a subject of debate. Different models treat these factors differently."

Some scientists say the cooling is a product of what Ball calls "the enigmatic ocean currents." Others say that even if the cooling continues for several decades, as some scientists think it might, warming will resume.

And if it does not? A story in the April 28, 1975, edition of NEWSWEEK was "The Cooling World." NEWSWEEK can recycle that article, and recycling is a planet-saving virtue.

Meanwhile, however, the crusade against warming will brook no interference from information. With the Waxman-Markey bill, the House of Representatives has endorsed reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 83 per-cent below 2005 levels by 2050. This is surely the most preposterous legislation ever hatched in the House. Using Energy Department historical statistics, Kenneth P. Green and Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute have calculated this:

Waxman-Markey's goal is just slightly more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050. The last time this nation had that small an amount was 1910, when there were only 92 million Americans, 328 million fewer than the 420 million projected for 2050. To meet the 83 percent reduction target in a nation of 420 million, per capita carbon-dioxide emissions would have to be no more than 2.4 tons per person, which is one quarter the per capita emissions of 1910, a level probably last seen when the population was 45 million—in 1875.

Such nonsense is rare, but nonsensical fears are not. In their new book, SuperFreakonomics, Steven D. -Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner revisit the great shark panic of the summer of 2001. Eight-year-old Jessie Arbogast was playing in the surf near Pensacola, Fla., when a bull shark bit off his right arm and gouged a piece of his thigh. The country, with an assist from the media, became fixated on the shark menace. Time's cover proclaimed "The Summer of the Shark"; Time's story began:

"Sharks come silently, without warning. There are three ways they strike: the hit-and-run, the bump-and-bite and the sneak attack. The hit-and-run is the most common. The shark may see the sole of a swimmer's foot, think it's a fish and take a bite before realizing this isn't its usual prey."

Jeepers. Everyone out of the water!

Or not. Time, to its credit, let the air out of its story by noting that the numbers of shark attacks "remain minuscule." They were small during all of 2001, all over the globe. That year there were 64 shark attacks, only four of them fatal. Between 1995 and 2005, shark attacks worldwide varied between a high of 79 in a year and a low of 46, averaging 60.3. Fatalities averaged 5.9, about 50 percent higher than in 2001. The unfortunate Jessie Arbogast became an occasion for the fun of experiencing a frisson of synthetic fear. The real thing arrived in late summer 2001, on September 11.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 11, 2009 - 09:51pm PT
99% of the people said the world was flat at one time
also. They were wrong as you are now on CO2 linked GW.


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 11, 2009 - 10:12pm PT
I wonder how many months, years of record low temps is it going to take for some to admit maybe it is a little more complicated than they surmised?
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 18, 2009 - 09:07am PT
the goracle doesn't know what he's talking about; last night, he told conan that the earth's core is "several million degrees"...it's actually around 6000 C

so is this debatable or is the "science" done?
dirtbag

climber
Nov 18, 2009 - 09:24am PT
the goracle doesn't know what he's talking about; last night, he told conan that the earth's core is "several million degrees"...it's actually around 6000 C

so is this debatable or is the "science" done?


Wow, you're so brilliant.
Reeotch

Trad climber
Kayenta, AZ
Nov 18, 2009 - 09:34am PT
Yep, and a lot of people are going to get really rich off the proposed cap and trade system (which is so full of loopholes its like a piece of swiss cheese).

I accept that climate change is a human caused problem, at least in part, but what is currently being proposed will do next to nothing to solve the problem.

Climate change is now being used to fear-monger us into accepting this new legislation which will essentially turn pollution into a commodity.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 18, 2009 - 09:56am PT
A really "inconvenient truth"

http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

All this has been known for a while now, but this is the clearest presentation I've seen that doesn't involve wading thru pages of battling statistics. Even if it is in Finnish with subtitles.

Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 18, 2009 - 10:17am PT
thanks for all the edification everyone
really helpful info: guess I've been living
in a naive cave, for real - huh, imagine that?

my sincere thanks, again.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 18, 2009 - 10:47am PT
"Ray, I'm not saying they're unaware. But when the majority of 2 1/2 billion people are using coal and wood for basic heating and cooking, even the idea of converting them over to a somewhat "cleaner" fuel of heating oil or natural gas is a daunting project of herculean proportions, not to mention getting them converted to greener sources.

I know that they have plenty of people who realize the problem and are working on it. Their top priority at the moment is economic growth, which hopefully in the future will enable them to have the luxury of a green conversion."

Here's the thing. The way the earth is powered HAS to change as population continues to grow, economies continue to develop, and yet oil is about to peak.

If you look at how places like Thailand and India have developed infrastructure for say telecommunications, you see that when better technology is available, they skip right to it when possible. Cell phones are ubiquitous and cheap to use there.

America doesn't produce much these days. Obama is right that we can actually produce something again and make bank if we focus on new energy and clean energy technology that we can sell to the developing world as they continue building their "American Dream"

Still, we need to do the science and act according to what we are finding to a large degree. If science is telling us that we are screwing up the planet badly and that our coastal cities will be flooded within 100 years, we better devote some money and attention to the threat before the sea covers Miami. It's not like a wise person would say "I'll quit smoking the minute I find the smallest bit of malignant tumor in my lungs"

This whole "global climate change is a left wing conspiracy theory" thing is really a gimmick of big business speaking via the conservative right that they don't want to change cause they fear it will cost money. It's the same crowd that said "Government regulation of the banking industry will kill our business" got their deregulation and ran the banks into the ground, costing the nation trillions.

"As a working geoscientist (geologist/geophysicist) the one thing I am aware of is that yes, we have gone through cycles like this in geologic history, long before there were greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, I do believe that we are contributing to the problem, how much? enough that it makes sense to do what we can.

Do I think that we can realistically make a dent when emerging economies like China and India are not fully on board? No!

Do I think that we are being a bit ignorant and arrogant about what we will be able to accomplish with our endeavours? Yes!

Do I think that natural phenomena like one single volcanic eruption can make years of Kyoto type measures irrelevant? Yes!

Do I think that the whole global warming bandwagon has become a cash cow for academia? yes!

That being said, I do think that we need to develop as many new energy sources as we can. Sadly, as altruistic as we may be, these won't become viable UNTIL they become economic.

We are, after all a race that is more reactionary than forward thinking.

We did develop some good data back-up systems leading up to Y2K. But I guess that even though I agree in the more basic development of energy sources and emission control, I'm afraid I believe that a lot of what is happening strikes me as "Chicken Little" philosophy."

All that is true but the fact is, the changes we may need are like turning a battleship, very slow to take effect. If we waited for space flight to be economical, we wouldn't have even begun yet. If we waited for nuclear energy and weapons to be economical, they wouldn't have started either (mixed blessings on that one) The point being, we better friggin invest from our collective pockets in developing the technology that will power the planet BEFORE the sh#t hits the fan or it will be too late

Peace

Karl
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 18, 2009 - 03:21pm PT
Fracking stupid climate change. First its summer,
then its Fall, and pretty soon it'll be damn winter.
And unbelievably it becomes Spring!

And then its repeats again and again!

Who is responsible for the endless demoralizing climate change!
This cannot be happening naturally.



Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 18, 2009 - 03:44pm PT
I'll make one of my random posts here to note once again that it's not Al Gore or the
Green party or any standard boogeyman of the right who is driving the climate-change
concerns -- it's the leading-edge climate scientists. They're the ones with the data from
ice cores to satellites, time lines from seasons to millions of years, and calculations from
sverdrups to petajoules. They're aware of complexity, and by large margins they take
anthropogenic climate change quite seriously.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 18, 2009 - 04:09pm PT
the solution



bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 20, 2009 - 10:52am PT
smoking gun!

hacked emails reveal efforts to hide evidence refuting global warming

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 11:37am PT
Uh oh...

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/007984.html



bookworm beat me to it.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 08:43pm PT
Amazing how this thread went silent so quickly...
WBraun

climber
Nov 20, 2009 - 08:56pm PT
Bluering

What does all this mean?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:01pm PT
The sun is responsible for Global Warming...

duh?

There has been a coincidal cooling of temperatures and lessened solar activity. We are now entering a period of lessened solar activity that is cyclical.

Al Gore is so screwed. The game is over.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:03pm PT
Basically the released docs reveal that some scientists were 'cooking the books' to make their theories jive with the agenda of GW.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:04pm PT
It doesn't mean sh!t Werner.

A bunch of stolen, cherry-picked, out-of-context, spun e-mails is the best the wacked out right-wingers can do to try to discredit ACTUAL EVIDENCE of GCC.

Idiots.



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
WBraun

climber
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:04pm PT
I got that part.

But which side?

The ones denying or the ones saying we are the cause?
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:08pm PT
from RealClimate.org

"No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context.

One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.

Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:08pm PT
Then why are even former 'believers' saying that GW seems to have stopped?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:25pm PT
More evidence the GW research has been falsified
for the last decade. Climate Criminals!

All are Flat Earthers/Sky is Falling/Chicken Little/Dead
Carbon Credit Tree Plantation: They all get a stick in the eye.
Hah!



bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 20, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
From my DerSpiegal link;

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. "Warming has continued in the last few years," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: "I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn't gotten warmer in recent years."

and

Marotzke and Leibniz Institute meteorologist Mojib Latif are even convinced that the fuzzy computing done by Rahmstorf is counterproductive. "We have to explain to the public that greenhouse gases will not cause temperatures to keep rising from one record temperature to the next, but that they are still subject to natural fluctuations," says Latif. For this reason, he adds, it is dangerous to cite individual weather-related occurrences, such as a drought in Mali or a hurricane, as proof positive that climate change is already fully underway.

"Perhaps we suggested too strongly in the past that the development will continue going up along a simple, straight line. In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal," says Latif.
jstan

climber
Nov 22, 2009 - 12:12pm PT
latimes.com

Rising sea levels threaten Caribbean region

The Colombian city of Cartagena is trying to plan ahead as scientists say cities nearer the equator, where temperatures are already higher, are at greater risk if global warming isn't checked.

By Chris Kraul

10:09 PM PST, November 21, 2009

Reporting from Cartagena, Colombia


The effect of climate change is anything but hypothetical to retired Colombian naval officer German Alfonso. Just ask him about the time his neighborhood in this historic coastal city became an island.

For five years, Alfonso, 74, has watched tides rise higher and higher in the Boca Grande section of Cartagena. This month, tides briefly inundated the only mainland connection to his neighborhood, a converted sandbar where about 60 high-rise condo and hotel towers have been built in the last decade or so.

"Before, people thought it a normal phenomenon. But we're becoming more conscious that something is going on," Alfonso said. "If the sea keeps rising, traffic could just collapse."


According to a recently updated World Bank study on climate change in Latin America, Alfonso and his neighbors have reason to be concerned. Not only are the effects of global warming more evident in Latin American coastal cities, the report says, but the phenomenon could worsen in coming decades because sea levels will rise highest near the equator.

Colombian naval Capt. Julian Reyna, a member of a government task force monitoring climate change, said the sea level around Cartagena, renowned for its Spanish colonial fortifications and beaches, has risen as much as one-eighth of an inch each year over the last decade, an increase that scientists expect to accelerate in coming years.

According to some scenarios that the authors of the World Bank study say are not that far-fetched, Cartagena and the rest of the Caribbean coastal zone could see sea levels rising as much as 2 feet, possible more, by the end of the century. Even at the lower end of projections, parts of this city would be knee-deep in sea water.

One of the authors, climatologist Walter Vergara, cautions that the projections are based on trends and factors that could change, buthe is worried that Colombia's entire Caribbean coastal zone could see relocations of urban centers. Other Latin and Caribbean cities especially at risk include Veracruz, Mexico; Georgetown, Guyana; and Guayaquil, Ecuador, he said.

"The projections are based on assumptions generally accepted by the scientific community and do not include the cataclysmic effects of possible advanced ice melting in the Antarctic or Greenland," said co-author economist John Nash................

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-cartagena22-2009nov22,0,7731005.story



bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 23, 2009 - 04:22pm PT
from wsj online:

"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach," the New York Times reports. "They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic." But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said. This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press's contention that global warmism is settled science--a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that "few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate," and that "nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal." (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC's conclusions.)

The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one."




good to see "vigorous debate" is still critical to science...too bad the debate focuses on how to keep "peer reviewed" studies out of an international report that will significantly impact legislation and global economics just because the findings of the "peer reviewed" study contradicts preferred conclusions

Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:59pm PT
Is anyone still skeptical about the globe getting a bit warmer?


take a look at this story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_afp/australianzealandantarcticaclimateiceberg


Ice Bergs are floating away from Antarctica.. more and more as time goes by....

What?

Should we care about this at all.. I mean... I'm gonna be gone before it gets much warmer... So I should live as if I'm the only person on the planet and burn everything I can... For Profit!!!
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 24, 2009 - 08:22am PT
wsj online provides several of the controversial emails:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html



here's my question: why try to suppress contradictory evidence (or even opinions)?


i would have much more respect for gore if he actually debated any of the many challengers who have asked (rather than mocking/berating reporters)...his continued refusal to engage in an open debate hardly bolsters his credibility...this is why i admire/respect/even like christopher hitchens so much; i find his attacks on christianity repugnant but he at least is willing to debate anyone on the subject matter in a public forum

i think the best defense of free speech is the simple fact that all idiots will reveal their idiocy if given the freedom to express their beliefs...so if you think climate scientists who reject anthropological global climate change are idiots, prove it by engaging them in debate...refusal to do so only makes you look fearful


another question: the climate change faithful always claim that skeptical scientists are simply motivated by money...so what motivates the climate change scientists who conspire to suppress evidence or intimidate those who disagree?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 24, 2009 - 10:23am PT
A good synopsis from the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

This isn't the first time. The field of Cultural Anthropology went thru a spate of fraud a few years back. The reactions aren't unexpected either. Academia hosts petty rivalries that dwarf those in the real world. Why expect cheating and fabrication to be any less prevalent than within the society as a whole.

Only the truth suffers.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 24, 2009 - 10:29am PT
ummmm...i read it on the internet

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PhillipChan.shtml




Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Nov 24, 2009 - 10:59am PT
Research fraud maybe more widespread than thought . . .

An article in this week's Nature suggests that research misconduct is often going unreported, and that as many as 1000 cases a year are never discovered.

By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Last updated June 20, 2008 12:55 PM
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/06/research-fraud-maybe-more-widespread-than-thought.ars


Also:

"Contrary to their public image, scientists are normal, flawed human beings."13 They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.” David Weatherall, "Conduct Unbecoming," American Scientist (vol. 93, January-February 2005), p. 73.



There is fraud in science. Yes, when it works as it is supposed to, it will be found out. But how long will it take, and how much damage will be done in the mean time?

There are those who will hide the truth to protect their interests no matter what side of the issue they support.

I think all scientists should be required to take an intensive course in scientific ethics and morals in their degree programs, and how to prevent it from happening. The problem is pervasive, and often goes undetected until someone questions the results of a study and then maybe it still isn't detected.


Case in point, how long will the truth be embargoed and held down regarding this phenomenon by governments (especially the US) and the corporate owned media? How long will people continue to lie to hide the truth?

The Best UFO videos Caught on Tape:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/30998/The_best_UFO_videos_caught_on_tape/


Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Nov 24, 2009 - 12:43pm PT
I would not say that the majority of science or scientists participate in fruad, far from it. But the problem exists, there is no doubt for whatever fraudulent reasons they do so. The articles I listed are from very respected journals and the scientific community is acknowledging the problem. It does exist.

The issue with global warming is a prime example of perhaps both sides "cooking the books."

I do think that GW is occuring due to green-house gases. We are releasing copious amounts of green-house gases artificially that would have been locked up and safely stored within the carbon cycle. There is no doubt about that. There can be no doubt it has an effect. Are there other ways of producing the energy we need by clean and renewable resources, there sure is. So why don't we do it? We all know the answer to that. Greed and power by the oil cartels around the world that enslave us and our control our oil based economies, so they have an incentive to fund and find scientists willing to compromise and say what they want them to say. Try working in Envirinmental consulting and see how much fruad goes on with EISs, EIRs, and CEQA. Anything will be said and fudged to get a development put in.

But are there some other influences possible also? I think so. Remember Sun-Spots stopped for a period of time for 60 years or so during the mid 1600s to early 1700s,


"1700s early 1800s During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. There is a still very poor understanding of the correlation between low sunspot activity and cooling temperatures."

and there was a documented cooling world-wide and a "Little Ice-Age." Glaciers grew and advanced considerably during this period of time.
See "Causes":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Nov 24, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
Don't even bother talking about it here, bluering. They will refuse to believe what you say, and refuse to look at it for that matter. The last thing the left wants is for you to take away their reason for guilting people into tax cuts and giving up freedoms.

Just like the republicans were said to use Terrorism to fund an 'unjust war,' the democrats used global warming to say 'the world is ending - spend money on these things now!'

Welcome to the two party system.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 24, 2009 - 03:08pm PT
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

Posted By Iain Murray On November 24, 2009 @ 12:42 am In . Feature 01, Computers, Environment, Media, Politics, Science, Science & Technology, US News, World News | 137 Comments

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.

In 1999, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, wrote to activist scientist Michael “Mike” Mann that he has just “completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps … to hide the decline”(0942777075 [1]). This refers to a decline in temperatures in recent years revealed by the data he had been reconstructing that conflicted with the observed temperature record. The inconvenient data was therefore hidden under a completely different set of data. Some “trick.”

Mann later (2003) announced that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP,’ even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back” (1054736277 [2]). The MWP is the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may have been higher than today. Mann’s desire to “contain” this phenomenon even in the absence of any data suggesting that this is possible is a clear indication of a desire to manipulate the science. There are other examples of putting political/presentational considerations before the science throughout the collection.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249 [3]) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a “fundamental problem w/ GRL now,” referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because “they have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so” and “it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible.” Tom Wigley responded that “we could go through official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted” (1106322460 [4]). A few months later, the editor of GRL having left his post, Mann comments, “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there” (1132094873 [5]).

Having seemingly succeeded with Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters, the most recent target of the scientists’ ire has been Weather, a journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS). Phil Jones commented in March 2009, “I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS” (1237496573 [6]).

This issue is all the more important because the scientists involved in these discussions have repeatedly accused their critics of being irrelevant because they fail to publish in the peer reviewed literature. For example, in October this year, Mr. Mann told Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.

If you are saying on the one hand that you will not take notice of someone until they have been published while on the other you are working behind the scenes to stop any such publication, I would venture to suggest that you are not operating with any degree of bona fides either towards the media or the legitimate scientific process.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom. Nowhere is this better evidenced than in the email [7] reproduced in full below (minus Dr. Jones’ contact details):

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance [8] in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted [9] by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.”

The Freedom of Information Act, however, explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOI request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university. A complaint has been made to the British information commissioner.

This is, however, just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to attitudes toward FOI. Numerous other references are made about ways to avoid divulging information (the following summaries are by the blogger Bishop Hill [10]):

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them.”(1106338806 [11])


Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172 [12])


Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. (1107454306 [13])

There appears to be a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to prevent the release of information subject to FOI.

There are many other disturbing revelations in the CRU Papers, including a particularly disturbing assessment [14] by a computer programmer of the state of CRU data. These have yet to be fully analyzed.

So what does this all mean? It does not mean that there is no warming trend or that mankind has not been responsible for at least some of the warming. To claim that as result of these documents is clearly a step too far. However, it is clear that at least one branch of climate science — paleoclimatology — has become hopelessly politicized to the point of engaging in unethical and possibly illegal behavior.

To the extent that paleoclimatology is an important part of the scientific case for action regarding global warming, urgent reassessments need to be made. In the meantime, all those responsible for political action on global warming should stop the process pending the results of inquiries, investigations, and any criminal proceedings. What cannot happen is the process carrying on as if nothing has happened.

This could prove to be climate science’s Vietnam.

bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 25, 2009 - 08:46am PT
funny vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded


serious article; the most salient point? that global warmi...er, climate change alarmists may be guilty of more than a lack of ethics; because their claims have been used to enact legislation, at huge costs to the public, these scientists might be guilty of several felonies, including conspiracy (racketeering?) to commit fraud and larceny (if accusations of fraud are proven, then the funding for their research was stolen)...i'm not a lawyer so i don't know the feasibility of charging these guys, but i think they (including gore) deserve some jail time (though i'd be satisfied if gore was forced to liquidate his assets and donate the cash to "skeptical" scientists

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 25, 2009 - 08:50am PT
Climate of Fraud
What do hacked e-mails tell us about global-warming research?

An NRO Symposium


The University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit’s e-mail account was hacked earlier this month, exposing communications among CRU faculty members and researchers that reveal their willingness to distort climate-change data. Do those e-mails mark a sea-change moment in the global-warming debate? National Review Online asked environmentalism experts to weigh in.


H. STERLING BURNETT
Why anyone should be surprised by this, I don’t know. Twenty years ago, Steve Schneider of Stanford stated that to be effective advocates on the issue of global warming, scientists would have to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” His disciples have tried to suppress criticism of the “hockey stick” graph; when that proves impossible and researchers such as Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick expose the graph’s deep flaws, they settle for ignoring or downplaying the problem.

And all of this with the cooperation of the mainstream media. Even when errors are found and admitted to, “legitimate journalists” such as those at the New York Times and the Washington Post, rather than asking hard questions of the scientists who have made the errors or conducting independent investigations, have simply given these scientists a platform to say, “Yeah, we were wrong, but the error was not important.” The reporters never question the claim that the errors aren’t important.

Whether these e-mails are game-changers depends largely upon two things. First, the willingness of other scientists to stand up and speak out about the way these researchers’ deception, professional malfeasance, and attempts to suppress dissent and subvert the peer-review process undermine the credibility of science in general and climate science in particular. Second, the ability of analysts and other concerned parties to force this issue from the blogs into the mainstream media. So far, it’s same old, same old: The Times and the Post give climate alarmists a forum in which to downplay the incident, and broadcast media largely ignore it. We need a Van Jones moment, a moment in which people at CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, the Post, the Times, and the AP have to admit that there is a significant story and hard questions should be asked. So far, they’ve been focusing on whether the e-mails were obtained legally — which shouldn’t be an issue, since most of the disclosed material should have been available under FOIA request.

At the very least, the scientists featured prominently in these e-mails should be precluded from participating in further efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for the sake of the IPCC’s integrity, if nothing else. Their continued involvement with the IPCC can only serve to raise a cloud of suspicion over future IPCC efforts and publications.

— H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.


DANA JOEL GATTUSO
While many may regard the release of the e-mails a major victory, particularly on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, it is and should be viewed as a tragedy.

How else can one describe the intentions and acts of leading climate scientists who, if the e-mails are authentic, conspired to censor scientific research that didn’t conform to their vision of a global-warming crisis, illegally plotted to conceal their own data from climatologists with different findings, and perhaps even manipulated data for what one of the e-mails refers to as the “common goal”?

Moreover, this episode illuminates how one of the world’s leading climate-research institutions — the CRU provides key data and studies to the IPCC, thereby greatly influencing environmental policy worldwide — put its agenda far above the science, cherry-picking studies and gagging experts who disagreed.

If there is a win here, it is that extremism and alarmism in the debate on climate change may be put to rest, or at least put on leave for a time. No longer can these scientists, who have driven and dominated the climate debate, speak with authority or credibility.

— Dana Joel Gattuso is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.


KENNETH P. GREEN
The recently released documents from the CRU may not mark a sea change in the debate over anthropogenic climate change, but they will certainly increase the public’s skepticism. They will also stiffen the spines of those who have long doubted climate science but have found it expedient to accede to the science and simply argue about policy.

The purloined letters show a climate-science community in full tribal mode, conspiring to suppress contrary findings in the peer-reviewed literature; excluding contrary peer-reviewed publications from IPCC reports; concealing the shoddy nature of climate data; colluding to hide data and destroy correspondence; and using mathematical tricks to produce ever more alarming-looking charts.

While much of the CRU material is banal, some of it clearly suggests intentional subversion of the scientific process by an incestuous group of scientists from major climate-research centers in the U.S. and U.K. Now, more than ever, we must demand transparency from the climate-science community, whose research is being used to justify Al Gore’s “wrenching transformation” of our technological civilization.

— Kenneth P. Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.


BEN LIEBERMAN
The wheels were already coming off the cart of the global-warming crisis before Climategate hit. But the recently released cache of e-mails and other documents showing that data were manipulated to hide a lack of warming, that other data were suppressed, and that contradictory research from “skeptics” (the pejorative term for those who dissent from climate-change dogma) was shut out of the debate just accelerates the process.

Those in the media and elsewhere straining to argue that Climategate is no big deal have had quite a bit of practice making far-fetched claims. For example, temperatures have been fairly flat since the late 1990s, but some have treated the complete lack of warming over this decade-plus stretch as a non-issue. The upcoming Copenhagen climate conference is tasked with replacing the supposedly inadequate provisions from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but, ironically, temperatures have barely budged since then.

If influential scientists’ being caught manipulating and suppressing data is no big deal, and if the absence of any additional warming since the late 1990s is also no big deal, one wonders what if anything would be a big deal.

With Copenhagen coming up in two weeks, the revelations are very timely. As with cap-and-trade legislation currently stalled in the Senate, international efforts to ratchet down fossil-fuel use would be enormously expensive and likely ineffective even if global warming really were a serious threat. And now there is even more reason to believe that the costs will be for nothing.

— Ben Lieberman, a specialist in energy and environmental issues, is a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.


JIM MANZI
A set of very damaging e-mails have apparently been hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit; they purportedly show climate scientists there manipulating and deploying historical climate data to reach predetermined conclusions, coordinating messaging, and attempting to control the definition of expertise in order to marginalize those who disagree with them.

I have not read the full set of e-mails, nor have I seen authoritative evidence of their provenance, but for the sake of argument let’s assume the allegations are correct. None of this surprises me. I argued over two years ago that: 1) Long-term climate reconstruction was one of the two key trouble spots in climate science; 2) mathematically sophisticated critics had debunked the methodology used to reconstruct long-term climate evidence that is the basis for the famous “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures; and 3) excellent evidence had been presented to the U.S. Senate that, in climate reconstruction, academic peer review meant, in effect, agreement among a tiny, self-selected group of experts. The root problem here is not the eternal perfidy of human nature, but the fact that we can’t run experiments on history to adjudicate disputes, which makes this less like chemistry or physics than like economics or political science.

In human terms, the scandal is obviously a PR disaster for those who believe that climate reconstruction is “science” in the sense we normally use the term, but what it does not change is the basic physics of how CO2 molecules interact with radiation. As I have always argued, this is the real basis for rational concern about greenhouse-gas emissions, and is a key reason that all the major national scientific academies agree that the greenhouse effect is a real risk. Recognizing this risk, however, does not entail accepting the political conclusion that we need laws to radically reduce emissions at enormous cost.

— Jim Manzi is a contributing editor of National Review.


HENRY PAYNE
Do the Climate Research Unit e-mails mark a sea-change moment in the climate-change debate? They certainly constitute one more leak in the hull of a global-warming movement that has been taking on water recently from allegations of faulty science and political hypocrisy. But given the vested interest that media, governments, and rent-seeking industries have in CO2 regulation, even news of cover-up will not easily turn the juggernaut.

Consider what we already know about global-warming science. Its advocates have a 40-year track record of crying wolf, from warnings of pesticide-induced species extinction to predictions of the world’s running out of food by the 21st century to warnings of a global freeze.

Its lead advocate, Al Gore, lives in a 10,000-square-foot home while pushing government subsidies that will boost his profits from business investments. Even green journalists privately concede that the movement’s leading climatologist, James Hansen, is a nut — a view whose soundness was dramatically illustrated in 2008 when he testified on behalf of Greenpeace activists that power plants should be vandalized. Contrary to predictions, the Earth hasn’t warmed in a decade.

Yet this January, the Detroit Auto Show will be themed green as automakers hype their tiny, government-subsidized electric-hybrid vehicles, designed to meet federal miles-per-gallon standards — while show attendees freeze through one of the coldest decades in Midwest history.

And the assembled green media will ignore the irony and write the hype.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 01:53pm PT
I always enjoy reading your posts and links, Bookworm, but I'm not sure that the NRO comments really mean much. I don't find it news when climate change zealots minimize anything that contradicts their preconceptions. For the same reason, I don't find the comments NRO posted all that helpful.

To me, the real issue will be how the MSM treats this. Already, AP failed the test. They've assigned all sorts of reporters to find holes in Palin's book, and to defend ObamaCare. I doubt that they've devoted even a tenth of those resources on this story.

Also, the fact that science has politics (as opposed to political science) is nothing new. Even if the climate change zealots have been trying to suppress data, there is a substantial amount of data supporting their position. Accordingly, I'm not nearly as sanguine as the NOR commentators on this being a sea change.

John
Robb

Social climber
The Greeley Triangle
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:09pm PT
Isn't economics almost always at the root of everything?I say the truth will be told when people follow the money on this one.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:09pm PT
This is the Green equivalent to Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

It was all bullshit all along.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:12pm PT
Yawn.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:27pm PT
I say the truth will be told when people follow the money on this one.

Umm, no, the truth will be told by nature. We can act or not act, see what's happening
or refuse to, but outside there's a real world of ice, water and air. It is changing.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:44pm PT
Robb

Social climber
The Greeley Triangle
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:44pm PT
Chiloe,
I agree that it's changing-no debate on that. What I have trouble w/ here is how much it's changing & what the real cause(s) is/are.I see so much money in play with this situation that it's difficult for me (w/ my econ. background)not to consider the $$$ aspect as being a primary "driver" of events rather that a known, rational fact-based approach being taken.No offense meant & sorry for the above blathering sentence.
Have a great Thanksgiving!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
Robb, could be we're just seeing different pieces. I don't see so much money, I see
a lot of climate scientists and their data, spanning many disciplines and scales.

Our policy response (or it seems likely, nonresponse) will be shaped by politics and
money, but those can't trump physics.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 25, 2009 - 03:33pm PT
chiloe, the climate ALWAYS changes; it's been changing for BILLIONS of years...all those big rocks we like to climb were carved by glaciers; thank GOD it got warm enough to melt them


is human activity contributing to climate change? probably

should we do something to try to minimize our impact? absolutely

do i think we should risk crippling our economy based on debatable and, in light of recent events, dubious claims? no


consider...

in just my life time, that's 44 years, i have seen the following environmental "crises":

--ddt

--radiation poisoning from nuclear power plants

--new ice age by year 2000

--acid rain

--ozone depletion

--global warming

--climate change


in those cases where legislation was enacted, i argue that the results were more harmful than beneficial because the legislation was extreme and driven by fear-mongering...the total ban on ddt resulted in thousands of children dying from malaria in africa; a ban on building nuclear power plants is partly responsible for our dependence on foreign oil; the push for biofuels, primarily ethanol, has lead to food shortages and deforestation in third world countries

i long for the good old days of conservation...when legislation was designed to strike a balance between nature and industry...i do think it's possible to achieve such a balance

by the way, has anyone else noticed that the ones who scream the loudest about preserving the wilderness are also the ones who complain the most about paying the fees to preserve the wilderness?
MH2

climber
Nov 25, 2009 - 03:53pm PT
I clicked on this thread by accident. After looking through most of it I made a big effort and took off my cynics' cap.

Yes, the planet is being affected by human activity, from disappearing fish and frogs to rising CO2, and government is not good at long-term planning, but the U.S. put men on the Moon and there are dreamers who still think we can go to Mars.

Somehow the Hudson River got cleaned up and during the energy crisis of the 70s improvements in conservation and efficiency made a big difference in oil and electricity demand. Isn't it better to cooperate and look for answers to problems than to throw up your hands and say the problem isn't there and even if it is I can't or don't want to do anything about it?

A Mom's adage: "If you don't take care of that it will come back around and bite you in the ass."


There will remain people who look at every situation for opportunity to improve their own lot at the expense of others', such as wealthy people who pay as little tax as they can get way with, who drop a few thousand bucks in the gas tank of the yacht while other people try to scrape up change for the bus, but that is just part of the picture. Don't let behavior you don't like give you an excuse for apathy.


There are also wealthy people who do a lot to help the less fortunate.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:03pm PT
great joke from james taranto (wsj online)

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:12pm PT
chiloe, the climate ALWAYS changes; it's been changing for BILLIONS of years...all those big rocks we like to climb were carved by glaciers; thank GOD it got warm enough to melt them

Bookworm, you're being silly.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:20pm PT
"such as wealthy people who pay as little tax as they can get way with"

Remember, the top 10% of the people pay 90% of the tax.



I'll give a readers digest of the events that transpired the last few days:

1. The earth is getting warmer - we know that.
2. Carbon emissions are causing it to be warmer than it would normally be.
3. Global Warming models were created to show that, at our current rate, we are in the line of fire of a worldwide disaster.
4. The same people who created these models were hacked, and in their email accounts were 70mb worth of information pertaining to altering said models to show greater and far more dire consequences.


Here's the next step. The company (and the far left, for that matter, who receive a good portion of their grants from the basis that the world is ending) have claimed that the emails were shown out of context. That is all well and good, but for that claim to be substantiated, they would need to provide the context in which these discussions are not blatently falsifying data and misleading billions of people (and dollars).

With the exception of providing documents that say something to the effect of "Hey, lets all pretend we corrupt our data in the interest of achieving a certain result just for fun, for the next several years" they will be hard pressed to show how these emails were 'cherry picked.'

Think of it as walking into a bank and accidentally dropping a note that says "Hand me all your cash and safety deposits or I will kill the bank tellers." Sure, you could claim it was taken out of context, but then you would have a lot of explaining to do.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:23pm PT
I'll reiterate my note, in classic Craig Fry style.


You are wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:25pm PT
Ya can type "wrong" a thousand more times, but it won't truthify the points you make up (3 and 4).
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:32pm PT
It was an analogy to our favorite Revolutionist, but I'm glad you caught the reference ;D

3 and 4 are fact. The emails are found. You can keep your head in the sand, thats fine with me.

I heard the news same as everyone else. Nothing will change. Those on the far left will still be begging for more money, those on the right will not have changed much of their beliefs. Fact of life. There is still a flat earth society and people that believe the world is ten thousand years old.

To each his own. I am honestly not trying to convince people of what is already available.

Little known fact by many Climate Change Chaos subscribers - in the last hundred years the east coast sea level has raised over a foot. No one has noticed, or will. The world adapts, as it has, as it will.

Sure, I respect the environment and take care of it, but I don't believe in preparing for a doomsday scenario. I want my mountain air clean and my rivers clear. But that doesn't mean I want to put the future of my children in more debt because Al Gore and his cronies have an idiotic agenda to push.

First 'green' Billionaire. Seriously guys?
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:39pm PT
ban on DDT kills 500 million Africans, typical Glenn Beck bullsh#t. DDT use in malarial regions didn't stop due to the environmental lobby, it stopped because it wasn't effective anymore and the cost associated with it wasn't worth it. Go spray some DDT on a mosquito in Africa and watch nothing happen. Also, in those countries it wasn't used indiscriminately to protect cash crops from pests the way it was used here. They used it only in living areas because it was understood that it was extremely harmful to the environment.

slowing the growth of nuclear power. I propose that before you build a new plant, you first make a place to put the waste. There is currently not one single waste repository in the entire USA. All nuclear waste generated sits on site at the plant. Solve that problem before you propose building more.

The ban on CFCs has done a lot to save the ozone, and it is quickly recovering. UV radiation rates can be directly measured and have shown a decrease, that is bad how???

Acid rain does cause damage, much of which has been averted by much more strict sulfur scrubber requirements on coal plants (made due to acid rain concerns, oh those terrible environmentalists).

Environmentalists tend to line up in the anti-ethanol from corn side of the debate. That is a Bush era non-solution to the problem of foreign oil and greenhouse gas.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:46pm PT
ManBearPig

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies
I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind
the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth
(aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed...

Jail time will be the least of the climate hoaxers worries.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

franky

climber
Davis, CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:48pm PT
Glenn Beck told me so daddy, he told me so!!! I didn't know I was supposed to think for myself!!! WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I'm sorry everything is f*#ked up now, it is his fault not mine!! He lied to me!! WHAAAAAAA WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:50pm PT
3 and 4 are fact

No, they're false. Climate models were not invented to show doom, they were developed to try to untangle natural from anthropogenic effects in complex dynamic systems. One possible outcome would be that all the observed changes in recent climate are accounted for by solar or other natural factors, but that has turned out not to be the case -- you cannot account for observed climate changes from natural forces alone.

There are a number of different climate models and many climate modelers; I'll be spending all of next week associating with a bunch of them who have nothing to do with the Hadley Centre. (Not that they're a lost cause, though the blogosphere is spinning at full speed.)

By their nature the big climate models tended to show gradual change, unfolding over centuries. But the paleo scientists, GISP 2 and GRIP projects f'rinstance, were bringing back hard evidence that real climate had changed drastically and rapidly, on scales of decades to years, in the not-too-distant past -- like the Younger Dryas transitions. How could that be, the modelers wondered? It seemed the answer must lie with circulation, because big things like oceans and ice sheets have too much thermal inertia to warm or cool quickly. So what could switch circulation quickly, like turning off the Gulf Stream? While the paleo data posed this challenge to oceanographers, and they started talking more about MOC, the SHEBA data from an icebreaker transit found the Arctic Ocean had changed a lot since the 1970s, glaciologists phoned in that a lot of their ice was melting, biologists noticed changes in the ranges of birds, fish, insects and even vegetation ... the field data kept coming in. Modelers were scrambling to keep up, trying to make the models more accurate in reflecting the real world which seemed to be changing faster than the models could, at first.

I've attended meetings where glaciologists, oceanographers or paleoclimate folks sounded more worried, looking up from their data; and climate modelers looking at their data sounded much less alarmed -- though concerned about the obvious discrepancy.

That's just a sketch, but one example of how political spin has inverted what actually happened.
thetennisguy

Gym climber
Yuba City, CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 04:55pm PT
If by "climate change" you mean global warming ... as in Al Gore's global warming ... check this surprising or perhaps not so surprising development:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

latest in the list ...

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



JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 05:02pm PT
I find myself in the bizarre position of agreement with much of what you say in this thread, franky. I think you overstate the DDT issue, but so does Beck, which is your point.

While I have no doubt that some people in climate change research have preconceived notions of both nature and the political solution, it doesn't mean that those who claim that anthropogenic warming is the major reason for climate change aren't right. There's enough good science to support that position.

I do, however, have a particular disagreement with your statement on nuclear power: "slowing the growth of nuclear power. I propose that before you build a new plant, you first make a place to put the waste. There is currently not one single waste repository in the entire USA. All nuclear waste generated sits on site at the plant. Solve that problem before you propose building more." When you say this, you're committing the "grass is greener" fallacy.

Specifically, you've shown that nuclear power currently has undesirable environmental consequences. You then conclude that we should not build more such power plants. That's a non-sequitur. Showing something is imperfect does not make its alternative better. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar power all have issues that make them imperfect, too. I rather suspect that more envirnmental degradation occurs from our current non-nuclear methods of power generation than from nuclear power.

John
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Nov 25, 2009 - 05:08pm PT
The nuclear power thing is a funny issue. The waste isn't nearly as toxic as some things that people don't mind having in their backyard, but somehow it is more scary to people.

I don't think that the nuclear waste problem makes nuclear power non-useful, I just think you need a cradle to grave plan for what to do with radioactive material before you generate it. A plan that has some common sense in it. Most radioactive waste is just clothing or other material that was worn or used in radioactive areas, no more radioactive than table salt. The lack of understanding and fear people have of radioactivity make even that waste a political problem.

There is almost a complete lack of understanding on the nuclear issue. One side thinking everyone is going to glow green if a plant is within 100 miles, one side thinking it is totally consequence free energy screaming "build baby build".
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Nov 25, 2009 - 06:35pm PT
tip-toe thru the tulips
in the garden
that's where I'll be
come tip-toe through
the tulips, with meeeeeeee!
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Nov 25, 2009 - 07:34pm PT
Chloe

Duly noted. Thanks for the information, I've got to pour through some more research. The science aspects usually leave me somewhere in the dust - not surprisingly given my background (climbing bum). However, the realities of the events, as they pertain to the participating parties (and not the community as a whole) I feel I've made a good point on. The emails, if they are real, warrant explanation. So far we haven't seen that.

Let us know how your meeting goes, and heck, post a trip report. If its environmental its definitely "OT."
WBraun

climber
Nov 25, 2009 - 07:41pm PT
JEleazarian

Nuclear Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar are not answer.

We are all looking outward for the solution.

We ourselves and every individual on the planet are the problem.

The transformation starts with us.

This is the root .....
jstan

climber
Nov 25, 2009 - 08:12pm PT
I hate it when ideas show up on threads.

I think data is showing the cheapest solution to the energy problem is reduced use. That alone could allow us to bridge to the time when we actually have a solution. Werner has called it out. I wish the transportation problem had such an excellent "out."

John E has pointed out the critical point that we need to have a plan for the hot waste whose economics support nuclear as a viable answer long term. No "externalization" of hidden costs onto the taxpayer!!!! That is not economy. That is fraud and special interest. We have more fraud than we have garbage. They both need to be beaten into something useful. I wish we would get on with that task.

Right now alternative energy, and specifically solar plants located in the desert areas of CA and NV are involved with nimby. This is normal and it is to be expected. May I suggest something? Rather than continuing to treat industrial plants as a corporate fiefdom, as we do now, we can work our way through nimby by making local communities partners in power generation. Then people have a positive to weigh against what is otherwise, simply a negative. Municipalities could float bond issues and become true functional partners with the power companies. They would negotiate a measure of control on operation, building plans, and would benefit from the power generation itself - long term.

Power companies willing to work with the municipalities would be the ones getting the go-ahead from the state. We would hear all manner of principaled objection until it became clear this was what the business is. Profit always trumps principle.

That, in a nutshell, is what business is.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 25, 2009 - 08:38pm PT
GDavis:
The emails, if they are real, warrant explanation. So far we haven't seen that.

I haven't seen anyone claim the emails were false, just cherry-picked and misinterpreted. They could make a hash of your emails or mine with those tactics too.

Haven't seen any explanations? Here's a start, by real climate scientists who aren't affiliated with Hadley. Follow any of their links.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/


Let us know how your meeting goes, and heck, post a trip report. If its environmental its definitely "OT."

If the weather is nice Saturday there might actually be an on-topic TR outta this gig. If not, maybe just sharing a few beers with the Boulderite tacos.
MH2

climber
Nov 26, 2009 - 04:32am PT
The transformation starts with us.



The London Times once asked several emminent people to say what they thought was wrong with the world. Most of them pointed to such evils as the threat of nuclear war, poverty, and such. The shortest response came from G.K. Chesterton:

Me

dirtbag

climber
Nov 26, 2009 - 12:10pm PT
Happy Thanksgiving.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 26, 2009 - 02:52pm PT
"Nuclear Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar are not answer.

We are all looking outward for the solution.

We ourselves and every individual on the planet are the problem.

The transformation starts with us."


OK.... Now can we be realistic? Or do you really want everyone to stop, change their behavior, live in a teepee, and not bother pursuing energy efficiency and solutions such as nukes, gas, wind, solar, etc.? I'm not at all disagreeing the quotes such as the following:

"The London Times once asked several emminent people to say what they thought was wrong with the world. Most of them pointed to such evils as the threat of nuclear war, poverty, and such. The shortest response came from G.K. Chesterton:

Me"

But a lot of good people are putting a lot of energy and brainpower into changing the energy makeup up this country, climate change or not ... ClimateGate or not, so that ya'll can keep posting on the Taco and driving to Yosemite every weekend. We could all live in smaller houses, drive less, buy less crap, but it is absolutely hypocritical to post BS like "The transformation starts with us" and "nuclear Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar are not answer" without recognizing this. Get off the computer and go live in a tent.... Oh wait, well get off the computer anyway...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 29, 2009 - 07:17pm PT
a thoroughly devastating assessment of the current situation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 29, 2009 - 07:20pm PT
from the timesonline:

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. "
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 30, 2009 - 03:51am PT
Interesting tidbit about where some of the CO2 is coming from.

Humans and our machines -about 24 Gigatons CO2 a year

Termites(a type of bug) -about 50 Gigatons CO2 a year.




Eric Beck

Sport climber
Bishop, California
Nov 30, 2009 - 11:30am PT
A recent conjecture (not mine): "Daylight time is the cause of global warming. It's that extra hour of sunlight."
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 30, 2009 - 01:35pm PT
ok, skeptical scientists were indiscriminately and unswervingly derided and denounced as being motivated by greed, as toadies for various industries...while the agw/acc scientists were glorified as being interested only in saving the planet

now, several of the most outspoken and lauded scientists working for institutions that formed the most critical components of the ipcc reporting base have been proven to be frauds and guilty of hiding their reseach, destroying data, intimidating and actively seeking to discredit scientists who opposed them, and manipulating the "peer-review" process that is supposed to be the cornerstone of legitimate research

so what do you claim was their motivation, now? were they motivated to save the planet from a threat their very own research showed was nonexistent?
gazela

Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
Nov 30, 2009 - 04:37pm PT
As one pundit put it, the science is indeed settled--at the bottom of the CRU's dumpster. The whole climate "peer review" process reminds me of a criminal trial in which the defendant gets to pick his twelve best friends as jurors. I mean, is the verdict ever really in doubt? No matter what the climatological evidence shows (warming, cooling, whatever), herd science's conclusions are always (a) that mankind is destroying the planet, (b) that we're already at the "tipping point" past which no remedy exists, and (c) that immediate, massive regulation and taxation are the only things that will save us from ourselves. It's time everyone recognized that science, when driven by politics, isn't science at all.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 30, 2009 - 06:18pm PT
Whatever else, would it not be consistent with important American values such as thrift, prudence and self-reliance to reduce consumption of energy, and resources generally? It would almost certainly be good for the environment and atmosphere, and there's little chance it would harm the environment.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 30, 2009 - 07:12pm PT
Anders, I'm reluctant to answer a rhetorical question, but it isn't always wise to reduce energy consumption. The question is what else must we reduce, and what else must we use more, to accomplish that reduction?

I think the reason for the skepticism on anthropogenic climate change comes in part for this reason: many of its most vocal proponents were economic reactionaries who wanted to undo the industrial revolution and capitalism, and return to an 18th century sort of localized economy and a neo-mercantilism. The idea that burning fossil fuels damages the climate seemed like too convenient a fit with their preconceptions about what sort of society they wanted.

While I remain skeptical of some of the proposed actions in response to this, I found the material in the references Chiloe and others have provided too compelling to ignore.

John

Edit: Eric, I think your source must be on to something!
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 30, 2009 - 07:27pm PT
Mighty
Reducing energy consumption from sources that produce CO2 while increasing
overall Gigawatts consumed is fine by me. Time to go nuclear!

The old soviets have thousands of useless bombs that we and the world are
buying the cores out of to fuel the existing N power plants. Can't
hurt to use them up now rather than later in new power plants.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 30, 2009 - 08:03pm PT
John, you're quite correct. Using less resources may have other social, environmental or economic effects, which can't always be foreseen. Bearing in mind that if citizens voluntarily choose to reduce their consumption, out of principle, then no amount of goverment policy, commercial sales or promotions, or other tactics can change that. Also that most of us could significantly reduce our consumption without significant effect on our quantity or quality of life.

As a thought-experiment, disabling all televisions and video game systems would likely lead to people (especially children) getting more exercise, and perhaps spending more time with family and learning. All socially valuable things. It might not do much good for the significant percentage of the economy that relates to entertainment.

A conundrum is that governments and countries depend on reasonably stable economies and populations. But more than half of the economies of developed countries is based on want rather than need. So if everybody suddenly buys less stuff, the economy goes to hell, and so everything else. One of the interesting aspects of the current recession is demographics - an aging population buys less stuff, and they may never revert to buying as much as many formerly did. Another is that world capacity to produce many things may now exceed the world's capacity to consume them, or at least to consume and pay an acceptable price for them.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 30, 2009 - 08:38pm PT
Anybody post this yet?

from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

"Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica.
Conducted by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), it says that warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.
Ozone loss has cooled the region, it says, shielding it from global warming.
Rising temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula are making life suitable for invasive species on land and sea.
The report - Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment - was written using contributions from 100 leading scientists in various disciplines, and reviewed by a further 200.

SCAR's executive director Dr Colin Summerhayes said it painted a picture of "the creeping global catastrophe that we face".
"The temperature of the air is increasing, the temperature of the ocean is increasing, sea levels are rising - and the Sun appears to have very little influence on what we see," he said."

"The Antarctic Peninsula - the strip of land that points towards the southern tip of South America - has warmed by about 3C over the last 50 years, the fastest rise seen anywhere in the southern hemisphere, according to the report.
But the rest of the continent has remained largely immune from the global trend of rising temperatures.

More and more tourists are visiting the exotic Antarctica shores each year
Indeed, the continent's largest portion, East Antarctica, appears to have cooled, bringing a 10% increase in the sea ice extent since 1980.
This report backs the theory that it has bucked the global trend largely because of ozone depletion - the chemical havoc wrought over 30 years by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other agents in the stratosphere above the polar region.
"We used to have a big blanket of ozone, and when we took it away we saw a cooling," said Professor Turner.

"The Antarctic has been shielded from the impacts of global warming."
But, the report concludes, that will not last forever.
The ozone hole is expected to repair itself in about 50 years, now that the Montreal Protocol has curbed the use of ozone-destroying substances.
As it does so, the SCAR team predicts that greenhouse warming will come to dominate the temperature change across Antarctica, as in other parts of the planet.
Doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere would warm the continent by 3-4C, it says."

CFCs and the depleted Ozone layer. Isn't that another issue that the GOP and corporations refused to believe in. Ironically, now we have to worry about the OZone layer COMING BACK! and warming the south pole further

PEace

Karl
'
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Nov 30, 2009 - 09:08pm PT
Stay clear of the chicken little zone there Karl. To think humans
can't adapt to 3-4C rise or lowering of the temp is to do
our race serious disrespect. 1C is more realistic anyway.

The Medieval Warm Period was great from all accounts and we
have not reached those temps yet. Nothing to worry about except the
IPCC, cap and trade grifters pulling the biggest con in history.

Luckily they've been exposed for what they are. Hoaxers.
Global Whiner is their new label.




Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 04:22am PT
CC writes that we'll be just fine, that he knows the future climate and that humans will adapt.

but from the Article...

""Sea levels are likely to rise by about 1.4m (4ft 6in) globally by 2100 as polar ice melts, according to a major review of climate change in Antarctica."

Isn't that going to create a very serious need for adaptation in our coastal cities? Mega-trillions of dollars worth? How about the whole country of Bangladesh.

Hundreds of Millions of people displaced. Untold killed.

Easy to brush that aside when Rush is crying foul.

Thing is, real data is consistently showing the sea is rising faster than what scientists have been predicting, and many right wingers called them extremists even when their predictions were more conservative.

Don't you guys worry that you'll be naked when the world decides that making up the science you want to believe is transparent in hindsight?

Peace

Karl



bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 1, 2009 - 07:22am PT
"Isn't that going to create a very serious need for adaptation in our coastal cities? Mega-trillions of dollars worth? How about the whole country of Bangladesh.

Hundreds of Millions of people displaced. Untold killed."

and what is the projected death toll (from starvation, disease, and war) if the global economy collapses?

and when are predictions of environmental disaster "conservative?

i haven't read anyone on this site say we should do nothing to protect the environment; only that we should be careful to balance those efforts with the needs of society...can we create energy without doing any damage to the environment? NO...even solar panels take up a huge amount of space and windmills certainly don't blend in with the landscape

technology has made drilling safer and cleaner, and better that we do it here where concerned citizens can closely monitor the process than to leave it to third world countries that don't have and don't care about environmental protection

nuclear power has its drawbacks, but the navy has been using nuke power for decades without serious problems...and europe is doing well, too

of course, when the wh continues to insist that "there's no scientist basis for this dispute", karl's question about hindsight becomes especially relevant
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 1, 2009 - 09:18am PT
"But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way [hiding/destroying data, blackballing dissenters, rejecting foia requests, and corrupting the peer-review process] to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them."

here's the whole article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html


i especially like the comparison to religion, which seems even more valid now as so many of the faithful blindly reject the facts
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 1, 2009 - 09:25am PT
ahhh, debate is so refreshing:

The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth's atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let's refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called "climate forcing."

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

Of course, none of the articles stressed this. Rather they emphasized that according to models modified to account for the natural internal variability, warming would resume—in 2009, 2013 and 2030, respectively.

But even if the IPCC's iconic statement were correct, it still would not be cause for alarm. After all we are still talking about tenths of a degree for over 75% of the climate forcing associated with a doubling of CO2. The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

Yet current climate models predict much higher sensitivities. They do so because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback. But as the IPCC notes, clouds continue to be a source of major uncertainty in current models. Since clouds and water vapor are intimately related, the IPCC claim that they are more confident about water vapor is quite implausible.

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 10:48am PT
I think Dingus and worm have jumped to some conclusions.

I didn't site a sensationalist study but a serious one reported by the BBC, not fox news.

Worm writes

"and what is the projected death toll (from starvation, disease, and war) if the global economy collapses?

and when are predictions of environmental disaster "conservative?"

Such predictions in the past have turned out to be conservative when the actual change is later measured to be happening faster. You assume that millions might die because the world might to bust straining to clean up it's act but it's just that sort of producing change that stimulate economies and creates jobs. We don't make jack squat in this country anymore but if we geared up for change and focused on being the technology provider for new energy, we'd be back in business.

Conservative handwringers fret about money spent on saving the damn world from a real threat while never suggesting we spend less than the whole world combined on our military when there is virtually NO chance of our homeland being invaded EVER.

Wake up, The sea is slated to invade our land and it bothers you not.

Now Dingus, the sea level rise is plain science (however inexact but the sea is rising dammit) and that doesn't demand cap and trade necessarily or borrowing extra money from China. It's just reality that we can respond to in any number of ways.

But first, we have to call BS on the BS of "Tobacco isn't addictive" science being tossed in by the right wing

PEace

Karl
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 1, 2009 - 12:32pm PT
from ed morrissey:

"This has long been one of the credibility issues with the AGW movement from the beginning, although one built into government grants for research in general. Government grants create a market for research, which universities and other institutions create supply to meet, as Stephens rightfully notes. That gives government a great deal of power to distort academic markets, if you think of them in those terms — and a massive incentive for the providers to endorse the reasoning behind the supply. After all, concluding that an issue is negligible or nonexistent means the end of such grants.

But researchers have ethics and a sense of responsibility as scientists, some will argue in return. That may be true in many or even most fields, but the e-mails exposed at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — one of the premier institutions pushing the anthropogenic global-warming theory — show that the AGW field was not among them. The e-mails repeatedly discuss ways to hide bad and contradictory data and ways to attack other scientists arguing against their conclusions. The charitable conclusion to draw from this is that they believe in AGW so much that they became high priests instead of researchers; the less charitable conclusion was that they didn’t want the gravy train to end. Either or both, they stopped doing science a long time ago.

With the discarding of the raw data by East Anglia CRU, the pretense at science has ended. The cash incentives for reaching those conclusions should end as well. If AGW is real, then let the scientists build a transparent and complete data set for all to review openly that proves it, instead of only publishing subsets of “adjustments” and destroying the raw data. Science welcomes critical review; corrupted advocates shrink from it and conspire to block it. While some may argue over the benefits and problems with government funding of the former, no one can argue that the latter deserves a red cent of public money to encourage it. Hopefully, Stephens’ optimistic assessment of the end of the AGW bubble will be borne out, but that will take a discipline with public money that this administration and Congress have yet to demonstrate on any level."


my response to karl is that national defense extends beyond our borders (as clinton showed when he bombed kosovo)...we also have an obligation to allies who have supported us and are closer to threats...and 9/11 proved that an army is not necessary to "invade" our homeland and endanger our people...and how many real jobs are created (not "saved") by the 'military industrial complex' versus the "green industry"?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 01:52pm PT
Maybe we have our priorities wrong BW

The Climate change threat is far more real than a military invasion and we could argue that our wars have just made them hate us more and killed thousands more americans in the process. If we dumped more research and money into green than bombs, it would create jobs and the money wouldn't be going to waste

PEace

Karl
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 1, 2009 - 02:24pm PT
"The Climate change threat is far more real than a military invasion"

"real" based on what? fraudulent data? unscupulous scientists pushing a political agenda to ensure continued funding?

9/11 was REAL

iran's ongoing attempts to develop nuclear weapons is REAL

noko's aggression is REAL

again, if we wait until we're invaded, it will be too late (i'm paraphrasing jfk)
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 02:27pm PT
Dude
Go breath the air in LA and you'll be in far worse danger than one in a million via terrorist attack.

Go look at the air that we humans have created in big cities around the world in 100 lousy years of driving cars and tell me we should be investing strenuously in lower emissions of everything.

Or would you just rather get yours and let the kids choke on it

PEace

Karl
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Dec 1, 2009 - 04:05pm PT
Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 04:10pm PT
The Wall Street Journal

The Great and Powerful Climate Oz

Global warming fearmongers say restaurants must stop serving ice water.

(some more sharp criticism of the CRU and IPCC)
(Its just dawning on them they're F'ed)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569922635570260.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Dec 1, 2009 - 04:24pm PT
" You wanna talk solution lets talk tariff, labor protection
and building clean American industry that is PROTECTED -
BY LAW."

^^^
count me IN on that one.


corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 1, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
Ray
I seem to recall hearing about some sort of negative affect
of protectionism that outweighs keeping other countries
products/services out by using tariffs.
Would you know what?



UK climate scientist to temporarily step down. AP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAM0VG0
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 2, 2009 - 07:24am PT
"Go look at the air that we humans have created in big cities around the world in 100 lousy years of driving cars and tell me we should be investing strenuously in lower emissions of everything.

Or would you just rather get yours and let the kids choke on it"

the straw man striketh again...i've never claimed we should do nothing; nor has anyone else on this thread

but guess what...america lowered its greenhouse emissions MORE THAN ANY NATION THAT ACTUALLY SIGNED ONTO KYOTO... we don't have to enact crippling legislation (i.e. cap and tax) to deal with pollution

but since you're so concerned about the kids, what about the monumental debt your preferred approach will leave behind? somebody has to pay for it, and we'll probably be dead before the bill comes due


"Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs."

oh the irony...fet, you cannot prove god doesn't exist, but i have 3000 emails that prove your evidence for climate change doesn't exist...and never existed...and that so-called "deniers" were persecuted specifically for "reason and logic"
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 2, 2009 - 12:59pm PT
"The emails do not have anything in them at all regarding a global conspiracy to foist the idea of Global Warming on the world. They mostly address scientific issues, both technical and sociological, tightly focused on research issues. You can see in this thread that people who are passionate about an idea will use passionate language, so it is in science too."

ed, the "subset" proves some of the most highly touted (and certainly the most vocal) agw scientists willfully ignored legal freedom of information requests; made a concerted effort to stifle, blackball, and intimidate scientists whose research presented contrary findings; manipulated (one might say maliciously) the peer review process, thereby destroying the integrity of the most important step in the validation of scientific research; and admittedly threw out the raw data that is the basis of their entire research

granted, there's no proof of a "global conspiracy", but the research of these scientists is the basis of the ipcc report, which is being presented to the globe and used to form legislation that will have global consequences

of course, you might consider hiding and manipulating information to "research issues", but i will continue to believe in my naivete that not all scientists agree that such practices simply show their "passion"

bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 2, 2009 - 01:19pm PT
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/01/the-scientific-tragedy-of-clim/

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 2, 2009 - 01:38pm PT
I would state a subargument of Ed's points this way.

1. We don't have the context of those emails, and we can't judge their significance without that context; and

2. Assuming that the scientists involved in the emails were actively trying to influence the scientific community by disparaging and/or withholding unfriendly information, much other independent research supports the global warming hypothesis.

I agree with both of the statements above, however, I think there's rather more to say. As to the first point, the lack of context can be supplied by those who claim to be misinterpreted. The lack of anyone supplying a mitigating context makes me suspect the quotes are just as damning as they appear.

As to the second point, the measurement of anthropogenic global climate change still leaves much to be desired. If, in fact, the database of the anthropogenic "hawks" is now unavailable, how can we consider their research and conclusions confirmed?

I am not a physical scientist, but I have a great deal of experience with statistical inferences from non-experimental data. Despite its basis in physics and chemistry, the climate change models all deal with non-experimental data, because we have no "control" Earth to compare with the current, human-populated, one.

The fact that the inferences we can draw about the quantity of anthropogenic effects on climate change are quite uncertain, and because the proposed "solutions" have such high cost, people's skepticism of those "solutions" (such as Australia's rejection of "cap and trade" yesterday) do not represent an irrational reaction.

John

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 2, 2009 - 01:39pm PT
Whether climate change is caused by man or not, it looks like Sea Level is going to rise within 100 years and hose some of the world's biggest cities.

What do you propose we do about that? Should we start to move the cities now?

Here's the thing, those who propose this sort of head-in-the-sand approach to climate change are obviously in the "denial" camp. They aren't asking for more money for other independent research, or money to address mitigating the results of climate change that's unavoidable. They just want to pretend we can fart in the bathroom and it won't stink

Peace

Karl
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 2, 2009 - 01:50pm PT
Karl,

What we should do depends on how confident we are that we can change the rising sea levels by changing carbon emissions. If we can do that, it's probably cheaper than moving the cities, although possibly not as cheap as other mitigation measures such as dikes and sea walls. If we can't, we incur all the other costs of mitigation, because we can't stop the rise. That, in fact, is why the confidence levels of the statistics of fit matter so much.

Incidentally, I'm not so sure you aren't exaggerating the extent of the damage from a rising ocean level. That's happened continually, and somehow the cities survive.

John
pdx_climber

Sport climber
portland,or
Dec 2, 2009 - 01:57pm PT
its not the emails so much as the fortran source code showed where the model was manipulated to get a desired result. Fully commented.

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;


http://www.zerohedge.com/article/global-warming-exposed-un-funded-fraud
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Dec 2, 2009 - 02:01pm PT
"Why do you try to reason with climate change deniers and creationists. These people believe what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They don't use reason and logic, they have beliefs and will latch onto any scant evidence or controversy to support those beliefs."

oh the irony...fet, you cannot prove god doesn't exist, but i have 3000 emails that prove your evidence for climate change doesn't exist...and never existed...and that so-called "deniers" were persecuted specifically for "reason and logic"

Of course you can't prove God doesn't exist, but I mentioned creationism, but of course you argue against something else. So typical of right wingers. e.g. Instead of arguing against a public option, you argue against a govt. takeover of health care, much easier to argue against some extreme position that doesn't exist, too bad it's so dishonest.

3000 emails that prove the climate change doesn't exist? Or 3000 emails that show a subset of the scientists were not honest? So again you argue against something else. Attack the few dishonest scientists on the side of climate change rather than debate the overwhelming amount of solid evidence.

As mentioned believe what you want to believe even in the face of evidence to the contrary if you want to feel comfortable in your delusions. I'd rather live a life of reason and honesty.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Dec 2, 2009 - 02:04pm PT
If we end up with all the possible negative effects of climate change (rising sea levels, crop failures, disease, etc.) do you think the right wingers will admit they were wrong? Or will they come up with some way to justify their positions were right all along? Gee, I wonder...

If we did pass cap and trade and it had a significant negative impact on the economy we could just reverse it with further legislation of course.

Perhaps the Repulicans don't want cap and trade because it's a market based system, since they really are for the opposite of many of their stated positions, like fiscal responsibility.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 2, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
The Fet wrote: "If we did pass cap and trade and it had a significant negative impact on the economy we could just reverse it with further legislation of course."

That seems to imply a rather cavalier attitude toward those whose lives are devastated in the meantime.

Understand, I'm not saying that if anthropogenic global warming is the driving force of permanent climate change, we should ignore it. I'm simply saying that we also cannot ignore the potentially economically devastating effects of all potential actions, including both forced reduction of carbon emissions, and a lack thereof.

John
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Dec 2, 2009 - 11:47pm PT
That seems to imply a rather cavalier attitude toward those whose lives are devastated in the meantime.

Understand, I'm not saying that if anthropogenic global warming is the driving force of permanent climate change, we should ignore it. I'm simply saying that we also cannot ignore the potentially economically devastating effects of all potential actions, including both forced reduction of carbon emissions, and a lack thereof.

I don't think people's energy bills possibly going up 10-20% is going to devastate too many people's lives. A lot of people could easily cut their consumption by the same amount and break even.

But some of the effects of climate change could devastate peoples lives. There are whole island nations that may disappear and these people will become refugees.

No one except a few crazy enviro-nazis says we should ignore economic consequences. Most people who want to protect the enviroment understand there has to be a balance, and also it may be better economicaly to protect the environment now than deal with much more expensive consequences later.
Ray Olson

Trad climber
Imperial Beach, California
Dec 3, 2009 - 02:07am PT




thread drift:
corniss chopper, I will level with you, I am a bona-fide retard and a hard
headed zealot in my grass-roots belief that for some kinds of stuff at a
certain volume, we can manufacture in a clean sustainable way in the US.
Enough to help toward a more stable economy, and enough jobs to help
reduce crime etc.
and if it takes regs (not tarrifs, you got me) to keep future manufacturers
from screwing the american public in the long term so they can get rich in
the short term, then I am reluactantly throwing in with that idea. Not that
it means jacksh*t - am just a hard headed fool, and we both know it :-)

end drift

*

Ed, sorry of this post detracts from the awesome data you posted, not my intention.
MH2

climber
Dec 3, 2009 - 04:39am PT
I'm not sure you even need a climate scientist to tell you that the rising CO2 level in the atmosphere is going to have major consequences, eventually.

A different tack is from the folks who ask: Given the amount of money that would be invested in trying to mitigate climate change, with hard-to-predict outcomes, would it be better to use the money otherwise, by providing food, water, and medicine to the already disadvantaged on the planet?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 3, 2009 - 06:12am PT
I'm always reluctant to disagree with you, Ed, but the climate models are, in fact, statistical inferences. Consider a physical model such as Newtonian mechanics. If we don't have relativity complications, it can predict very precisely the relationships between mass, force, velocity, position, time, etc. When we discovered discrepancies between our obsevations and the predictions of Newtonian mechanics, relativity again provided not only an elegant explanation, but an exceedingly accurate one that took no statistical inference to determine. Einstein didn't run regressions to determine the parameters of his equations.

Climate change models, on the other hand, are attempting to predict the outcome of a chaotic system, and that "fine tuning" to which you refer most certainly requires statistical methods to estimate the values of coefficients in the climate prediciton equations. The significance of this comes into play in estimating statistics of fit. Most climate change models with which I'm familiar do an excellent job of predicting the past, but a less excellent job of predicting the future. We estimate the statistics of fit (R squared, t values of coefficients, etc.) from how well the model predicts the past. This overstates the true accuracy of the models.

The earliest technical explanation of this I know comes in Specification Searches by Ed Leamer (Wiley, 1978). Essentially, when we are using data to try to specify the parameters of a model (for example, just what factors cause climate phenomena) using nonexperimental data, the traditional methods of calculating statistics of fit overstate that fit because they overstate the true degrees of freedom in the statistical estimators. They do this because we do not know all of the parameters that make up the real system, and some of the degrees of freedom should properly be "used up" to account for that lack of certainty.

Having sid that, I've found the Realclimate site exceedingly helpful, although not entirely free from non-objectivity. I, too, highly recommend it for those with more interest in this subject.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 3, 2009 - 06:18am PT
MH2, your statement "A different tack is from the folks who ask: Given the amount of money that would be invested in trying to mitigate climate change, with hard-to-predict outcomes, would it be better to use the money otherwise, by providing food, water, and medicine to the already disadvantaged on the planet?" is my concern exactly. Thanks for stating it so well.

John
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:08am PT
the entire climate change theory is based on 1) speculation because nobody fully understands how the globe regulates its temperature, and 2) computer models that are only as good as the data entered into those models (which the emails clearly show cru changed to fit their preferred outcomes and the raw data was destroyed...if you don't believe me, just ask your news icon jon stewart)...so, technically, gore is correct, according to the data entered into the models, the earth's sea level will rise 27 feet--though the ipcc report claims only 17 inches

also, sea level has been rising and glaciers have been melting for about 11,000 years...true, there was an evident trend upward in global temps (though many of those temps were taken in urban areas, which skews the data) starting from about 1850, but the sharpest spike of the 20th century came before 1930, BEFORE the industrial boom that agw scientists claim is the biggest threat

again, NOBODY is saying we should do nothing or that humans are not a factor...we're just saying any action we take needs to be thoroughly considered and, most importantly of all, based on FACTS...the 3000 (that number is context enough for me) emails prove that some of the most important voices in the non-debate have been lying for a very long time; trying to diminish the significance of mann and jones is like saying charles manson is only one man and can't be blamed for all those murders...the "research" done by mann and jones is at the heart of the ipcc report and cap and trade legislation...their efforts to squash dissent and blackball other scientists and to manipulate/destroy data to achieve predetermined results should make EVERYONE question the "science" of anthropogenic climate change

this is a great opportunity for cooler (get it?) heads to prevail and say, "STOP...let's start over...let's hear from everybody...let's look at ALL the data before we pass any legislation that could do more harm than good"

in the meantime, america can continue the procedures already in place that reduced our emissions more than ANY NATION that was a part of kyoto...what we're doing clearly works both environmentally and economically better than what any other nation is doing
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 10:38am PT
Here's the thing. The models, as compared with accelerating observed glacial melt and sea level rises, have almost universally been shown to be TOO conservative, with observed changes happening much faster than we expected.

Often times because factors contribute to one another and create tipping points (like melting snow uncovers earth which in turn absorbs heat instead of reflecting it.

So come on science bros. I keep hearing this debate among legitimate scientists is practically settled on "Just how much and how fast is man adding to this accelerated change, but we obviously are doing so in a serious way" while the camp that says "man is not responsible" are basically tobacco company scientists paid to obscure the debate by giving Cornis and Bookworm types data for doubt.

Quote from BBC today

"E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator. Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions..

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability.

Some other countries shared this view, he said; and as a result, governments would not be prepared to countenance agreeing anything that would affect economic growth for many years, until "new evidence" settled the scientific picture...

..As the world's leading oil producer, Saudi Arabia has previously fought attempts to agree curbs on emissions, and has also argued that it should receive financial compensation for "lost" revenue, given that constraints on emissions might restrict oil sales.
To some long-time observers of the UN negotiations, Mr Al-Sabban's comments indicate a continuation of this strategy..."

Meanwhile "...A spokeswoman for the European Commission said that with or without the CRU hack, evidence for man-made climate change was "irrefutable".

"The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree that what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation in the climate over time, but due to human activities," she said.
"If we do not act, climate change will continue apace and lead to major damaging impacts to the natural world and society."

What does Europe know? The Saudis know if it's hot!

"Other academics prominent in developing the mainstream view of climate science maintain that the contents of the stolen documents make no difference to the picture outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its landmark 2007 assessment.

"There is a consensus among the world's scientists that climate change is real and there's a need to confront it," said Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, a leading palaeoclimatologist.

"Those who are advocating inaction, that don't want to see progress in Copenhagen, don't have science on their side.

Peace

Karl

IPCC PROJECTIONS FOR 2100
Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
Sea level likely to rise 28-43cm
Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
Increase in heatwaves very likely
Increase in intensity of tropical storms likely

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 3, 2009 - 11:26am PT
What a bitch!!!

http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=284755&D=2009-12-03&SO=&HC=3


I'd say it's unbelievable, but...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 3, 2009 - 11:42am PT
Ah, for f*#k's sake....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Former-NASA-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-to-contract-fraud-8613137-78268862.html

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 3, 2009 - 01:26pm PT
Ed,

Thanks for the reply. While I agree with your description of the goal of climate models, the fact remains that they predict the past better than they predict the future, which suggests to me that we're still on a "specifcation search" for the models.

The American Statistical Association has issued a statement on climate change, supporting both the existance of global warming and the anthropogenic contribution to it. This would hardly be necessary if statistical considerations were not part of the puzzle.

Bookworm,

You and I almost always agree, but I think you may overstate the importance of the uncertainty in this area. We, of course, cannot measure precisely how much human activity affects climate. That imprecision, however, does not negate the relationship between human activity and climate. It simply leads to a wider confidence level of predictions.

I agree that the imprecision suggests that we deal with a range of possible scenarios (which, as Ed pointed out, current modelling is trying to do). This also means that we don't put all of our solution eggs into one basket (e.g. spend all our effort reducing carbon emissions, rather than ameliorating effects). After all, there is also rather strong evidence that variance in solar activity has a direct influence on our weather, too.

My bottom line: we'll make our best decisions if we let science be science, view all climate models with the degree of skepticism appropriate to any other research, and then use economics to decide what to do about it. The climate change science involves physics and chemistry. The question of how to use scarce resources to deal with this, and all other problems of humanity, is the province of economics, which most certianly is not science.

John
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 01:34pm PT
Well put john. I have some reading to do in this thread before jumping in, but I really want to know what you guys think of this "e-mail scandal" and its implications in the scientific community. Is it a big deal? Blown out of proportion? Who exactly are these guys?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 01:37pm PT
That's some serious discussion you are quoting Bluering. Just a quick unbiased, rational excerpt

"6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Hmm, guess they have dittoheads in England too.

Seems to me that this email scandal proves just as much about the climate debate as finding pedophile priests show proves about God or Bernie Madoff proves about wall street. Human Nature and greed taint actions in every sphere but that doesn't negate a bigger picture

Peace

Karl
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Dec 3, 2009 - 01:45pm PT
The climate models are by no means perfect, but I think there is more than sufficient confidence to know that a bussiness as usual scenerio is going to be pretty bad.

But the question I have: for those that think that the climate models are very iffy, why does the assumption seem to be that the models are overstating the problem instead of understating? If you don't have faith in the models, it would seem more intellectually honest to think that the problem is just as likely to be far more worse as it is to be trivial.

When engineers build/design the emergency spillway on a dam, they try to size it so it can pass the 1 in 10,000 year storm (without endangering the dam).

People buy life/disability/fire insuarance even though they don't expect to ever use it.

But for global warming, it is do nothing unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt? WTF?

Instead of looking at what is most likely to happen. Think about, what is the really bad 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 outcome. The physical outcome such as droughts etc are pretty bad. Add to that, many or our other institutions are more fragile than we would like to think. Imagine that prolonged droughts in some places, combined with extreme weather events (like Katrina) and more failed states (such as Darfur) had weakened (and bankrupted) governments, and then add on top of that something like the 2008 financial meltdown. Beside the loss of life, imagine how much money and lost economic output that would cause. I don't think it is hard to imagine 15~30% loss in world GDP from a combination of events like that.

Wouldn't it be worth buying some insurance against this? Say spending 1% of world GDP? You don't have to bankrupt the economy to do this. Many things wouldn't even cost any extra, for instance, society can start buying $40,000 electric sport sedans instead of $40,000 SUVs. Jobs get shifted but the economy is not going to be static anyway.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 3, 2009 - 01:56pm PT
Seems to me that this email scandal proves just as much about the climate debate as finding pedophile priests show proves about God or Bernie Madoff proves about wall street. Human Nature and greed taint actions in every sphere but that doesn't negate a bigger picture


Werd Karl!

The skeptics are just using the stolen e-mails as a convenient, lazy, and fundamentally dishonest excuse to trash all the climate science when in fact, the science behind it has been quite thorough.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 3, 2009 - 02:53pm PT
And on the other side of the coin this should come as no surprise . . .

Source: Raw Story

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 -- 10:22 am
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/climate-skeptic-group-nipcc-extensive-ties-exxonmobil

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4169488

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon MobilA group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.


The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.

...................

"Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie," Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. "It's important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science."

...............

Heartland has received at least $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the year Exxon launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the two groups that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also, the institute's self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.

The study's two principal authors and NIPCC leaders S Fred Singer and Craig D Idso are both associated with various organizations that have gotten generous funding from Exxon-Mobil.
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 04:13pm PT
Are the e-mails public domain at this time?
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 04:17pm PT
Has the CRU, and Phil Jones in particular, been a reliable source of information for those in scientific climate circles over the past decade? Can somebody answer this for me?

Has the University of East Anglia's CRU been a big player in the IPCC's consensus? If so, those who believe strongly in the IPCC's conclusions really need to look at this rather than dismiss the "e- mail scandal" as some rogue scientists who's behavior shouldn't change anything.

I'd love some input here.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 3, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
August, I think you have a reasonable way to look at this. The only tweak I would add is this: there are costs for being wrong in both directions. If anthropogenic warming is causing more climate change than our models state, we pay a cost by doing too little. If that warming causes less than our models state, there is also a cost for doing too much.

We look at both of these costs when, for example, we buy life insurance. I'll pay $500 a quarter for a $250,000 term policy, but I won't pay $5,000 a quarter -- at least not now. If I were 90 rather than 58, though, I'd pay $5,000 a quarter for a $250,000 term policy. There is no reason not to look at the range of possible outcomes and costs in the climate change debate. That's why I spend so much time harping about confidence intervals and statistics of fit. They affect errors in both directions.

John
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Dec 3, 2009 - 06:02pm PT
Thanks Ed. I've dug through the IPCC report and am familiar with its findings. For those who are full on believers in man-made global warming, do these recent findings present cause for concern in what they believe in? In medicine, when we see something like this in say, a defective orthopedic screw or medication with longterm side effects, we look hard at it. We put aside our preconcieved notion and pride.

My feeling is that those who fully believe in Global Warming caused by manmade Co2, etc hear this kind of thing and dismiss it, unwilling to look hard at the fact that maybe their camp is wrong. Maybe it isn't a big deal and maybe it won't shift the consensus, but it seems to me it isn't being given much credence by those who would stand to lose the most (from an pride standpoint) should it turn out that climate change isn't very dependent on human factors. Just my two cents. Any thoughts?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 3, 2009 - 06:36pm PT
This is an interesting read with regard to the techniques used by NASA to collect temperature data.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:27pm PT
so nasa also refuses to release data

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/


they originally claimed 1998 was the hottest year of the century...then additional tests showed 1934 was hotter (an inconvenient truth)...then they re-released the report to show 1998 was once again the hottest...and now they refuse to release their data

what are they hiding? ed, don't you want to know?
dirtbag

climber
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:49pm PT
Washington Times is a crap source.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:51pm PT
Washington Times is a crap source.

Actually you are a source of crap, the Times is a source of ink and paper. On a side note, does your crap stink?


EDIT: BTW, it is a documented fact that he's been requesting the data from NASA for 2 freakin' years!!!!
dirtbag

climber
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:53pm PT
Of course it doesn't stink. I also fart perfume.
Seamstress

Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
Dec 3, 2009 - 07:58pm PT
I just know that a bunch of government officials tinkering with mother nature is scarey.

Let's remember that the govt. had the brilliant plan to put carp into fish hatcheries to control algae naturally in the 70's. Now they want to poison an entire canal system, kill all the fish, in order to save the Great Lakes from an imminent carp invasion that threatens the other fish species in the Great Lakes.

Moral of the story - whenever man/govt thinks they can engineer a solution, the unintended consequences can be even more dangerous.

There are changes in nature beyond our control. We should put our energy into adapting.
WBraun

climber
Dec 3, 2009 - 08:02pm PT
Seamstress

That's the dumbest sh'it I've ever heard.

Let man screw up the environment and then just adapt to the fuk up.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 4, 2009 - 07:03am PT
very impressive, ed, then why don't you use your impressive network of experts and contact "someone who knows" about the data nasa refuses to release despite repeated foia requests...i'm sure you'll be able to get the data (and a logical explanation as to why a government agency would refuse to obey the law), then you can share that data with the world via st and clear up this whole mess once and for all


until that information is released, i'll continue my skepticism rather than taking the word of scientists who have either been proven to be frauds or continue to support/excuse the proven frauds
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 4, 2009 - 10:47am PT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/

key point: emails tell us nothing, but computer code tells us everything we need to prove these guys are frauds
dirtbag

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 12:19pm PT
I'm sure it's riveting, honest, and factually correct reading.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 12:33pm PT
Anyone know of a link to any blogs that the students at
East Anglia University are posting at?

I bet we'd get an interesting perspective
on this Climategate scandal.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 4, 2009 - 12:37pm PT
There’s a legal concept known as “fruit of the poison tree”. Basically, it states that any evidence or conclusions derived from improper or illegal techniques are inadmissible in court.

In the world of science, “fruit of the poison tree” would be any research that did not follow the well-established methods of scientific proof. Methods which include maintaining the integrity of observed, raw data. The reproducibility of results. Open availability of data for independent review and confirmation. Accurate prediction of future data by any model or theory derived from that data. At a minimum any theoretical model should completely and accurately predict past data points and phenomena.

As a for instance, Freud’s theories are no longer considered scientific. Why? The major reason is that they are completely useless for predicting future human behavior. Despite the nearly complete consensus of psychiatrists a generation ago that Freudianism represented hard scientific reality, it doesn’t.

Today, no one would take you seriously as a scientist if you based your work upon Freud.

The theories of Karl Marx were once considered scientific. They no longer are. Why? Lack of predictability for one and the use of outdated and thus irrelevant data in the formation of his theories, poor modeling.

Margaret Mead, once a giant in the field of Anthropology, is now regarded as nothing more than a fraud. Why? She made up false data to buttress her fantasies of what human behavior should be. Incidentally, and perhaps tellingly, she ended her days practicing witchcraft.

The scary thing about the above three is that while we know their theories are nothing but nonsense. Their work is still used as pillars of leftist thought and policy.

Thus, we come to global warming and Copenhagen.



Rest of article.

http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/fruit-of-the-poison-tree-tarts-from-the-poison-fruit/

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 4, 2009 - 01:21pm PT
The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine not only makes all evidence obtained from improperly-obtained evidence itself inadmissible, it puts the burden of proof on the party seeking admission of such evidence that it was not obtained by improper means.

Legal restrictions on evidence exist for two purposes: (1) to insure that those enforcing the law abide by Constitutional limitations; and (2) to guard against juries' tendencies to decide cases irrationally, because experienced members of the legal system know that logic and jury are incompatible concepts. One could argue, in fact, that virtually all of the American evidentiary jurisprudence comes from these two principles.

Fortunately, science has no such restrictions. Rather than rejecting evidence, we discount or accept it based on the reliability of its sources and the methods used to obtain it. Unless others can duplicate reported results, we tend to discount the findings.

Despite the best of Ed's pleas, I, at least, find the emails and other actions of those involved very strong evidence of polemics used to support their preferred positions. The fact that the findings were published elsewhere does not disprove that others sought to suppress the publication and dissemination of this same work. This does not mean, however, that I should dismiss the work of everyone who ever used the work of the CRU or Mann, nor even their works. Exaggeration still contains truth.

While I remain skeptical of the remedies suggested, I think we do our cause a disservice by claiming that the emails invalidate all climate change studies. They do much, much less than that -- but what they do remains important. They show that major actors in this play aren't approaching the problem with a blank slate.

John
dirtbag

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 01:28pm PT
Funny Ed :-)
rotten johnny

Social climber
mammoth lakes, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 01:40pm PT
the climate is changing....polar ice caps are melting and winters are getting shorter...having lived in the sierra the last 30 years it is pretty obvious that weather patterns have changed....one doesn't need a phd. in climatology to notice this.....so why are all the climate change deniars' clutching at straws desperately trying to disprove this reality..... ? i guess when Rush is the deniars' source of data then science fiction can become reality......
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 02:02pm PT
Britain’s Lessons From The Winter of 2008-2009


The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter in several decades, and hopefully policymakers have learned a few basic lessons from this. Here is my wish list, which seem painfully obvious.

1. Britain can’t rely on global warming to stay warm in the winter.
2. Britain can’t rely on solar power to stay warm in the winter. There just isn’t enough sun (which is why it is cold in the winter.)
3. Britain can’t rely on wind power to stay warm in the winter. During the coldest weather the winds were calm (which is one reason why the air temperatures were so low.)
4. Britain can’t rely on Russian natural gas to stay warm. The gas supply was cut off for weeks due to politics.

The only large scale energy supplies the UK can rely on in the near future are coal, oil and a small amount of nuclear. So next time you see a “coal train of life“ remember to wave at the driver. And I hate those ugly, motionless windmills popping up all over the countryside.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 02:12pm PT
Ed, I definitely don't consider myself an expert. I have a layperson's knowledge with some science training in other areas. So I can appreciate the years of painstaking work and expertise gathered. And I try to listen to them.

Frankly, I'm appalled by most of the claims of the denialists. It's a combination of arrogance--because they think they know much more than they do--ignorance, and greed. If climatology was a discipline like medieval basketweaving I wouldn't get so pissed off. But it isn't like that: it has very real implications.


The Washington Times is like the National Enquirer. Sure, it nails things sometime, but I've got better things to do than read things with an axe to grind, left or right wing. If it was a more objective source then fine. But I just don't trust it. And if someone is going to present it as a reliable source proving some great vast climatology conspiracy, then I'm calling out the crap.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 02:32pm PT
Groan...skip, I'm not an expert in climate science. Not even close.

Are you?

Funny how you seem downright offended by expert opinions, by scientists, by the fact that there are people who might know a lot more about a topic than you. You view it as elitist.

I do know a thing or two about IDing dubious sources. That doesn't take expertise as much as common sense and a BS meter.


BTW, thanks for quoting me out of context.
jstan

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 02:37pm PT
"The UK has been experiencing the coldest winter in several decades"

Even without detailed understanding one can come up with a hypothesis for this. The UK's weather is strongly affected by the North Atlantic conveyer belt. A cold bottom current driven by Arctic melt water the complementary surface counter current being the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current. Abnormal arctic temperatures could be affecting both the magnitude of seasonal flow and also the location of the North Atlantic Current. Were the warm surface current to be pushed further west away from Ireland's shores I would expect there to be change. The North Atlantic sea currents and thermoclines are monitored extensively for the purposes of sonar so this data should be out there on the net. The unclassified parts at least.

Here on the Left coast we have known for years that a change of a couple degrees in the South Pacific water temperature gives us El Nino and its counterpart la nina.

It does not take much to affect the climate/weather and the North Atlantic is a throttle point for the massive flows existing there. This is why there are waves "going rogue" off the Irish coast. Such as the one that carried off Mike Reardon.

Edit:
And I appreciate John's correction. That's how one hopes to get better.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 4, 2009 - 02:40pm PT
jstan,

I always admire your posts, so I'm a little reluctant to say I found something I can correct: It's "la nina." :-)

John
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 4, 2009 - 04:06pm PT
Here's some other questionable data that was being discussed before the Climategate crap.


Briffa tree ring analysis;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/more-yamal-tree-ring-temperature-data-this-data-is-flat-as-roadkill/

and to be fair, the counterpoint;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

(dude sounds a little cocky...)
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 4, 2009 - 04:45pm PT
ed, i can't understand the science any better than al gore, but i do understand when i read scientists from mit and other prestigious institutions claim there is no definitive proof of agw...i understand something is off kilter when gore and others refuse to debate with opponents...i understand the whole notion of science, which in simplest terms is all about skepticism, can no longer exist when "scientists" claim "the science is settled" or actively and maliciously seek to squash dissent

dirt and others refuse to acknowledge that the ipcc is made up of as many bureaucrats as scientists...and accuse highly credentialed scientists of being motivated by greed...and reject clear and indisputable evidence that scientists have committed fraud...and ignore the fact that these same unethical scientists have taken BILLIONS of taxpayers' dollars themselves

by the way, who created the whole idea of carbon offsets and green futures? ken lay of enron infamy...and paul krugman worked for him, too
jstan

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 05:06pm PT
Time to throw Base104 into the snake filled pit.

It's a "socialist" conspiracy.

We really must purge our ranks of the people who won't get it right.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 05:31pm PT
Hide the decline from the ClimateGate e-mails is all
busy people need to know.

(multiple .pdf's) from our CBO on all
the ways cost of living will go up if cap and trade
is passed.



http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=9

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 4, 2009 - 08:20pm PT
Fraud is found out by practicing science..

The fraud has been found out and now there's a lot of obfuscation going on!



Now there may be other evidence that supports the anthropogenic hypothesis, but it's evident now that this body of work is past suspect and into the worthless column.

You may as well use it to prove that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is responsible for climate change.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 09:15pm PT
Climategate Emails Force Al Gore to Cancel Talk at Copenhagen !

Al Gore's scheduled December 16th 2009 speech with
the auspicious title "Climate Conclusion" has been canceled
amid the scandal of Climategate.

About 3,000 Danes had tickets for the Berlinske Media event that was announced in August...

.. **Penn State's Michael Mann was placed under investigation
**
(hockey stick graph guy)

(more)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/gore-cancels.html
dirtbag

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 10:11pm PT
Citing Lew Rockwell: that's funny.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 4, 2009 - 10:13pm PT
Looks like thy are even anti "local warming"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,665182,00.html

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 10:54pm PT
Serious consequences to millions might not be so far off as you might imagine

from

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/green/story/799994.html

"KAROLA PASS, Tibet—The glaciers of the Himalayas store more ice than anywhere on Earth except for the polar regions and Alaska, and the steady flow of water from their melting icepacks fills seven of the mightiest rivers of Asia.
Now, due to global warming and related changes in the monsoons and trade winds, the glaciers are retreating at a startling rate, and scientists say the ancient icepacks could nearly disappear within one or two generations.

Curiously, there's little sense of crisis in some of the mountainous areas. Indeed, global warming is making the lives of some high-altitude dwellers a little less severe.

Here at the foot of the towering Nojin Gangsang mountain, an ice-covered 23,700-foot peak, herders notice the retreat of the glaciers but say they feel grateful for the milder winters and increasing vegetation on mountain slopes in summers.

But for people living in the watershed of the Himalayas and other nearby mountain ranges along the Tibetan Plateau, glacial melt could have catastrophic consequences.

Himalayan glaciers release water steadily throughout the year, most critically during the hot, dry, sunny periods when water is most needed. Once they vanish, major lifeline rivers such as the Ganges and Indus could become more seasonal, and large tributaries may dry up completely during non-monsoon periods.

"The presence of glaciers is very vital to the Himalayan river systems," said Anil Kulkarni of the Indian Space Research Organization, who has used satellite data to measure the glacial retreat. "It is really alarming. We have to be really concerned."


The pace of glacial retreat around the Himalayas varies. Smaller glaciers fragment and melt faster than bigger ones, and those facing south are also receding more quickly.
In a stark forecast, the United Nations body studying global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned in early May that the glaciers in the world's highest mountain range could vanish within three decades.

"Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate," the report said. The total area of glaciers in the Himalayas likely will shrink from 193,051 square miles to 38,600 square miles by that year, the report said.

While some scientists dispute the assessments of the U.N. body and the rate of retreat is highly variable, experts on glaciers in China, India and Nepal already see the short-term impact of glacial melting....."

"...In India, a team led by Kulkarni recently completed a study of satellite images that determined some glaciated areas had retreated 21 percent from 1962 to 2004. It described potentially catastrophic effects on cities and towns relying on fresh water from melting ice for irrigation, drinking and hydroelectric power.

Glacial runoff in the Himalayas is the largest source of freshwater for northern India, and provides more than half the water to its most important river, the Ganges.

Glacial runoff also is the source of the headwaters for the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Burma, and the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China.

Scientists say 1.3 billion people reside in areas affected by glacial retreat, either in flood-prone areas or in locales that rely on year-round supplies of fresh water from glaciers rather than from the monsoon rainfall of only three or four months...."
pc

climber
East of Seattle
Dec 4, 2009 - 11:12pm PT
Just darting in to the campfire to see if anything's cooking. I just see Skipt doing the classic, go after the individual when all else fails.

Paraphrase...'Ed Dude, yer pretty smart. But are you really certified to be that smart?'

;) Carry on. BTW ymmm this rumandeggnog is gud.

pc

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 11:25pm PT
the men behind the AGW curtain has been exposed.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions.

Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies.

Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.


(from)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html

WBraun

climber
Dec 4, 2009 - 11:28pm PT
Karl

Isn't that what Conrad is researching? Glacial receding.
pc

climber
East of Seattle
Dec 4, 2009 - 11:30pm PT
Clarification accepted Skipt.

Funny thing is I've been debating this topic with a couple relatives lately. They're a strange and unique pair of extremely well educated conservative Berkeley residents. The debate is ongoing in the loopy nature of these kinds of mysteriously personal foundation type issues. I'm fairly convinced though that they agree with me and most of the scientists out there (though they argue otherwise) that we're in deep man made do do but...Want "man" to take this path so there'll be a gigantic "Darwin event", and the population of the earth will decline massively, solving this and many other problems.

But this might be the rumandeggnog talking...

pc
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 4, 2009 - 11:42pm PT
Don't know Werner

But it's funny. Climbers are witnessing the glaciers receding and it's going to affect Billions but folks are still willing to say "nothing to worry about, it's a scam!"

Peace

Karl
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 5, 2009 - 01:06am PT
Skip,

I hope you aren't too lonely in the Great Northwest tomorrow. I'll be in blue and gold watching tomorrow, but from the warmth of California.

GO BEARS!

John
jstan

climber
Dec 5, 2009 - 01:54am PT
I watched a part of the lecture series for Ed's link. I think the most hopeful thing I saw came when the students in the hall used their clickers to express their opinion as to the most serious danger that may be posed by climate change.

INADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF FRESH WATER

And this coming from a group of people living just four or five blocks from Lake Michigan.

I wish I thought the people in LA felt this way.

Their water comes from the Owens Valley, or further.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 5, 2009 - 10:44am PT
Can You Believe It? Alleged Carbon Fraud in...Denmark
First, there were those infamous hacked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Now, a mere seven days before the Copenhagen Conference on climate change, this breaking news story takes the breath away. The whole ‘global warming’ shambles is falling apart. Today, The Copenhagen Post declares: “Denmark Rife With CO2 Fraud”:


“Denmark is the centre of a comprehensive tax scam involving CO2 quotas, in which the cheats exploit a so-called ‘VAT carrousel’, reports Ekstra Bladet newspaper.


Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.”


And the fraud may be of massive proportions:


“Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.


One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.”


What can one say?


We all knew from the start that carbon trading could prove, by its very nature, a crooks’ charter. But such an allegation relating to Denmark, of all places, at the precise moment of the Copenhagen Conference, where such cap-and-trade measures will be at the forefront of debate, must have the Little Mermaid crying so much that sea-levels may indeed rise.


Simply staggering! How long can this ‘global warming’ nonsense be tolerated? As Marcellus declares, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”


http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/12/1_Can_You_Believe_It_Alleged_Carbon_Fraud_in...Denmark.html
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 5, 2009 - 11:05am PT
The real question here is whether climate change is a result of mankind. Anthropogenic. Climates do change, always have, even before the industrial revolution. Look at the little ice-age.

Glaciers retreating? Maybe. Are we causing it, is it because of fossil fuels, or something else? That's the real question.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Dec 5, 2009 - 12:26pm PT
That's the real question.


And if you want an answer you can choose to have it handed to you by Fox or rantburg, etc., or you can educate yourself and look at all the raw data and research that Ed has linked.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 5, 2009 - 02:39pm PT

And if you want an answer you can choose to have it handed to you by Fox or rantburg, etc., or you can educate yourself and look at all the raw data and research that Ed has linked.


They'll pick Rantburg.

And Rush, and Lew Rockwell, and the Washington Times...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 5, 2009 - 06:00pm PT
yeah, this is a long essay, but it's worth reading


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp
dirtbag

climber
Dec 5, 2009 - 06:07pm PT
or the Weekly Standard
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 5, 2009 - 10:34pm PT
Forget all those Bookworm links or cut-and pastes, you just need to read this one.

CLIMATE CHANGE EMAILS STOP GLACIERS FROM MELTING
25-11-09
GLACIERS in the Alps, Andes and Himalayas have stopped melting after the release of secret emails showing climate change scientists are at it.

The Donnelly ice shelf has seen the error of its ways. Vast ice sheets across the globe gained up to four inches just hours after it emerged experts at the University of East Anglia had been manipulating data in a bid to knock-off early.

Meanwhile in the Antarctic the 200 square mile Donnelly ice shelf changed direction and headed back towards the continent where it then reattached itself to the slightly larger McPartlin ice shelf.

Climate change sceptic and fully-qualified blogger Martin Bishop said: "As soon as these emails were released the world's glaciers resumed their normal, icey behaviour, as long-predicted by some of London's most important journalists."



There's more...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 02:41pm PT
Ed
Which is a more efficient use of resources: to adapt
to climate change or try to stop it?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 03:07pm PT
Ed wrote

"Someone said in some letter somewhere they hoped that science would get back to "finding the truth," but that is not what science does. Science seeks understanding and knows that "truth" is provisional, Newton's universe is different than Einstein's universe, in their own physical regimes they are both true, I would hesitate to proclaim Truth, however, as we never really get there. That is not saying we don't understand things, and amazingly well in some cases. One of my colleagues, weary of my arguing this point once said in an exasperated English accent "that's truth enough for me." "

Nice, Climate change scientists have been happy to admit they miscalculated things as the data and science unfold. Unfortunatley, the crow they have eaten has been almost universally something like "Observed changes in glacial melt and sea level rise continue to outpace the models and expectations."

Peace

Karl
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 6, 2009 - 03:45pm PT
chiloe, ed, et al

you act as if we "skeptics" are unaware of the "evidence" of agw...quite the contrary, for the past 2 1/2 decades (ever since the hysteria over the disappearing ozone disappeared) we've heard practically nothing but...ummm, al gore won an oscar and nobel; you can't pick up a newspaper or magazine or tune into a news program (local, national, or international) or even a network sitcom/drama/childrens' program without being reminded of how we're destroying the planet with our emissions...the media campaign to support agw is unprecedented (yes, many people have made billions of dollars promoting agw)

what we haven't had ready and immediate access to is the many highly credentialed scientists who doubt that warming is caused exclusively or even primarily by humans...and yet you accuse us of having our heads buried in the sand; in fact, we're the ones craning our necks, on high alert for danger while all of you continue to roll merrily along downhill at an ever increasing pace and lack of control...you're the ones rejecting debate; ignoring evidence; attacking, personally and professionally, any who voice dissent

as you continue to blindly promote economically crippling legislation, consider these tidbits from george will's column in wapo:

"China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate-change theater, promises only to reduce its "carbon intensity" -- carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."

"The Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer-review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over."

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 04:58pm PT
Ed - I think you know I was not referring to adapting to some
economic ruinous climate change policy.

If its cold outside you put on a coat - adaptation to the climate.
 or you could arrange propane powered space heaters along your
projected outside path to keep you warm - not as efficient as a coat.

I think the AGWarmers are in effect proposing just such inefficient solutions.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 06:30pm PT
Sounding a bit chicken little'ish there Ed.

..but the glacier melting has been attributed to black carbon
and not AGW.

So if the water will not be stored as
as ice up in the mountains there will be many more dams built
to store it lower down. Jobs!

Scroll down to see a simple back yard experiment
on the speed up of melting.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/20/climate-models-missing-black-carbon-and-resultant-co2-emission/



dirtbag

climber
Dec 6, 2009 - 07:39pm PT
I for one want to see the data for this sh#t.

Oh really?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 6, 2009 - 10:26pm PT
Meanwhile Copenhagen will involve 1200 limos, 140 private aircraft, caviar, (but the working girls have been dis-invited)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 10:43pm PT
Ed - Sorry but your example was so artfully insipid I did not get it.
People filter well water then add chlorine. Elementary tech being done
everywhere it can be.

CO2 is a gas, a plant food, and odorless. The Federal Standard for carbon dioxide limits in breathing air is 5,000 ppm (parts per million).

---


You can't think there was a time when the climate was not changing?

People have been adapting and will continue to adapt. Having our
resources taken/taxed to support AGW high priests so they can, in
effect, shake their juju rattles at the sky makes it harder to adapt.






TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 6, 2009 - 10:57pm PT
I've seen this movie before.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

So 'scuse me for wanting to see something more convincing than computer models based on disappearing data or a few carefully selected trees.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 6, 2009 - 11:03pm PT
Gee Ed. That's a question? Let me think.
Ok. I've been to Yosemite Valley. The glacier is gone. Climate change happened.

But you seem unable to admit being wrong Ed due to your emotional linkage to AGW. CO2 cuts will have the same effect on the climate as burning witches did in the dark ages.
None.




Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 7, 2009 - 01:11am PT
Some truth to the arguement finally . . . good video . . . he hits it out of the park.

I think all GOP GW deniers should watch this.



Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x410597
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Dec 7, 2009 - 02:27am PT
Ed mentioned the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society, arguably the first scientific society in the world. Isaac Newton was a prominent early member. The interesting thing being that he, and especially his supporters, had a vicious fight with Karl Leibnitz and his supporters with regard to who had discovered/invented calculus. An ugly personal fight, which made both look worse.

Scientists are human, too.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 7, 2009 - 06:39am PT
"Climate activists claim the receding ice is evidence of the need for developed countries to reduce carbon output. Actually, the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro have been receding since 1890, according to research by G. Kaser, et al., published in the International Journal of Climatology (2004). They note that when Ernest Hemingway published "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in 1936, the mountain had already lost more than half its surface ice area in the previous 56 years. This is more than it has lost in the 70 years since.

According to this study, and another published in Geophysical Research Letters (2006) by N.J. Kullen, et al., the reason the ice is disappearing is not warming temperatures, but a shift around 1880 toward drier climates. What we see today is a hangover from that climactic shift."

this is a great example to illustrate my point(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574577892593153408.html);; here are two studies (presumably "peer-reviewed") that appeared within the last 5 years that claim the melting ice on kilimanjaro is not due to agw...now, i don't know the science behind these studies, and i'm not asking anybody to accept these findings as "certain", "settled", "beyond debate", or "without doubt"...all i'm asking is that the debate ensue...make ALL the research available...require ALL scientists to defend their conclusions

and require that ALL legislators be able to accurately summarize and coherently explain any scientific research that is the basis of their voting
dirtbag

climber
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:06am PT
You're not interested in the science bookworm.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:29am PT
thanks for making my point, dirtbag
dirtbag

climber
Dec 7, 2009 - 10:34am PT
Thanks for proving my point bookworm. All your stuff comes from sources with a right wing spin. You've even posted crap like "25 reasons why global warming is BS" from a right wing blog. When a few of the forum scientists who know something about this topic try to clarify some things you dismiss it.

You're not interested in science. You embrace the right wing spin because it fits your world view.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 7, 2009 - 12:04pm PT
dirt, who cares where i found the references to scientific studies? instead of addressing the conclusions of these scientists who have different theories about kilimanjaro's melting ice, you just attack the messenger (be it me or some member of the imagined vast right-wing conspiracy), which proves my point that you're not interested in the debate...and the fact that i have to use blogs to find these references proves my point to chiloe that the opposing views are not being heard and, according to the emails, deliberately and maliciously hidden from the public


i've openly admitted i don't understand most of the science, and ed is very good about explaining the agw claims; however, counter arguments by scientists (NOT bloggers or reporters or "deniers" or corporate shills, etc) are dismissed or ignored

i'm interested in the science enough to ask for an open debate between scientists...you?
dirtbag

climber
Dec 7, 2009 - 01:05pm PT
dirt, who cares where i found the references to scientific studies? instead of addressing the conclusions of these scientists who have different theories about kilimanjaro's melting ice, you just attack the messenger (be it me or some member of the imagined vast right-wing conspiracy), which proves my point that you're not interested in the debate...and the fact that i have to use blogs to find these references proves my point to chiloe that the opposing views are not being heard and, according to the emails, deliberately and maliciously hidden from the public

I'm skeptical that I get the full truth from news sources with an axe to grind. If a more mainstream or reliable news source prints contrary views, then fine. But you or someone else would probably call me on my sources if I posted from a bunch of left wing journals to prove my points.

We need reliable news sources, not spin. There is way to much spin, and too little knowledge about science, in those sources you usually cite to be even half way reliable. They all want to influence opinion.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 7, 2009 - 01:17pm PT
The funny thing is, most other countries are far more serious about climate change than we are, and most have nothing to gain economically from such a policy (unless saving themselves from going underwater or being spared from extreme drought is an economic benefit)

THere are all these counties meeting over it now. They all are willing to work, sacrifice and take it seriously? Are they all dupes? Are the only wise ones in the world our right wingers?

It's the right wing US that fears climate change science...why?

It would be fun to see what you all said about CFCs, Asbestos and other fake threats.

Peace

Karl
dirtbag

climber
Dec 7, 2009 - 01:20pm PT
Karl, what's interesting too is that a lot of the conservative governments in Europe want to take action.
jstan

climber
Dec 7, 2009 - 03:51pm PT
Here is the IPCC site where one can read the technical publications.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.htm

Just Google "IPCC" to find the main site.


If the populace at large is unable to comprehend scientific research written for the layperson you have to conclude our educational system has failed so badly we are now a "shaman" based culture.

As Ed has explained "evaluation" of scientific work does not proceed by each of us being qualified to repeat the work, even given the data. The lay person's task is to access the appropriately written texts from primary sources having the appropriate bona fides, to compare different sources and to look for inconsistencies. This is even what a trained person does at the start of their independent research.

An objection has been posted as regards the use of blogs as primary sources. We have no way of knowing whether a blogger claiming to provide correct and unbiased data is being truthful or even knowledgeable.

We can not treat all sources as being primary sources.

micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Dec 7, 2009 - 03:59pm PT
I've been quietly chugging through this debate, trying to read as much as I can from both sides, and it seems that there isn't much of a scientific community who refutes the major findings of the IPCC.

I'm curious as to why this is such an emotionally charged topic. I find myself smack dab in the middle. I consider myself a scientist, a fairly smart fella and a reasonable thinker (couple of doctorates, surgeon for a living, a couple published papers in bone physiology, etc..) but because I am skeptical about the large scale effects of man on climate change I get labeled by the Lefties as a "close minded" right winger.

It just seems to me that we, the U.S., stand to make so much far reaching legislation that will cost so much effort, time and money that potentially may have no long term effects on the global climate. I truly believe that in ten years all the hardcore whiner Global Warmists will find that they were all worked up for nothing and that it cost us, the taxpayers so much because our administration charged ahead with its (Obama's) preconcieved plan. It feels like a George W. Bush WMD plan. We look back and realize his desire to go in outweighed rationale. I think the current liberal administration is doing the same thing. Bummer.

I am all for making our skies and streams and oceans "bluer". I want to start a "Blue Movement." Going Green is so 2001. My Go Blue Movement will be based on making ground level changes in an effort to lessen our smog, chemical dumping by big business, carbon footprint, waste, etc... The point will be to be a good steward of your environment without buying into the fact that man is killing mother earth and will continue to do so until the seas rise, we become a desert and the Liberal Government Agenda either bankrupts us or leads us into Socialist mediocrity.

Get your Go Blue shirts now at GOBLUE.org.

Micronut
Out
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 7, 2009 - 07:15pm PT
dirt, your criticism would be valid if i was using lomborg as a scientific source...i didn't ask you to consider his OPINION; i asked about the specific SCIENTIFIC STUDIES he referenced in his article

ok, ed, what about the emails that clearly show a concerted effort by agw scientists to squash dissent including intimidating editors of scientific journals that actually publish dissenting studies and admittedly manipulating the peer-review process

that's just like the un climate chief scoffing at the emails and declaring he will rely on the "peer review process" that the emails clearly show has been manipulated to favor only "consensus" research


and what is the result of this "consensus"? the epa has just declared co2 to be a pollutant...that's right, the trillions of animals who have been exhaling since that first fish crawled out of the muck are all guilty of contributing to the imminent destruction of the earth...hey, wait, that explains why the dinosaurs are extinct...they all died because they breathed too much...of course, that doesn't explain why plants survived while breathing out so much o2

on the bright side, we've found a solution to our "crisis"...all the agw alarmists who are convinced that humans are destroying the environment should simply stop exhaling...i'll guess that's about 1/10 of the world's population...the rest of us will start drilling in, oh, about 10 minutes
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 8, 2009 - 09:49am PT
ok, here's a rational and balanced assessment of the climate issue, scientific, political, and economic:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTZmMGYzNzRiMmFkZTFlMjllYmJkOTc2NzIyYTVmMjI=
dirtbag

climber
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:03am PT
Bookworm, Lomborg is a well-known skeptic and not a scientist. I'll read it but he too has an axe to grind. It's just another opinion piece: but at least WSJ treats it as such. Do you really think you're getting the whole story here? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell you.

Again, this sort of kind of proves my point. You're not really interested in the science. You're presenting a non-scientist skeptic opinion piece on this as some kind of authority.

And btw, National Review is hardly objective, which is fine, but let's not pretend it is.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:05am PT
Just look at their own damn charts!

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
dirtbag

climber
Dec 8, 2009 - 12:25pm PT
not quite a pollutant... but a threat to the public health and welfare... an endangerment finding

http://www.epa.gov/

this is a part of the policy arena

I think this is really going to be a big deal as far as making some progress. Yes, whatever the EPA ends up proposing will likely face immediate lawsuits but it will also send a message to Congress to get serious about addressing the issue or else EPA will.

This is great news.
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 8, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
Hi Ed,

I am just reading a paper from a skeptic that states, with some support, that all of the climate change models use some measure of positive feed back and no negative feed back in the impact of CO2 on temperatures, with the effect that all models project a large impact of temperature rise from C02. More importantly, the author makes the point that most natural processes depend on negative feed back to remain stable and that it seems reasonable that the earth's temperature over long periods of time also relies on negative feedback.

Do you know anything about these issues and whether or not the IPCC has tried to address the inherent biases of assuming that increased CO2 only provides positive feedback?
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 8, 2009 - 01:23pm PT
Roger
Politicians don't know positive from negative feedback but they're in charge of writing checks to these climate researchers. They must be made to look like fools for being hoaxed by these scam artists and that will
stop the money.



dirtbag

climber
Dec 8, 2009 - 01:32pm PT
Wow, more scientist-bashing from corniss. What a surprise.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 01:34pm PT
Dirtbag, I agree with your statement that

"this is really going to be a big deal as far as making some progress. Yes, whatever the EPA ends up proposing will likely face immediate lawsuits but it will also send a message to Congress to get serious about addressing the issue or else EPA will.

This is great news."

I probably disagree, however, with the meaning of "great," as I prefer to use the now rather archaic meaning of large, immense, etc. In particular, I think that when the public starts to realize the great cost of EPA regulation and enforcement by environmentalist lawsuit, you may not like the way Congress feels compelled to act.

John
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Dec 8, 2009 - 01:46pm PT
TGT beat me to it but these antarctic core sample charts are pretty revealing, showing a wider picture of how the earth's climate has been.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

The hockey stick is there, until you expand the timeline and see the 'hockey stick' is probably a natural cycle. The sun maybe?


Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 8, 2009 - 02:11pm PT
John, I appreciate your consistent economic position. I think if you sat in on a few science sessions with people doing current paleoclimate, ice sheet, permafrost or marine work, however, you'd come away with a new understanding of the many ways in which physical response to greenhouse forcing (like other climate changes in the past) could be nonlinear, rapid and (on human timescales) irreversible. The probability distribution of consequences likely is not Gaussian, as it's comforting to imagine, but instead has a heavy right-hand tail.

The global models don't capture this stuff very well, though they're trying to improve. Discussion of future climate "surprises" is more likely to come from field workers looking at their data on abrupt change in the past, or huge resevoirs of potential trouble like permafrost carbon, marine clathrates, ocean acidification.

Can economists model the impacts of dustbowls, new storm and fire regimes, insects, population relocations and so forth? That sounds difficult enough so that waiting for their success becomes a prescription to do nothing -- meanwhile running our experiment with the planet.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 8, 2009 - 02:49pm PT
dirt, again, i didn't ask you to read lomborg's OPINION; i specifically quoted the paragraphs that refer to published scientific studies that present alternative theories for kilimanjaro's melting ice and specifically commented on the fact that such alternative theories/studies are not covered by even the science media and reminded all that such alternative theories/studies have been targeted for blacklisting or cited as valid reason to manipulate the peer-review process

still, you can't get past the fact that i found a reference to these studies in the wall street journal...

now, maybe your point is that it's only lomborg's opinion that these studies exist despite the fact that he provides authors and publication dates...perhaps you'll insist that lomborg is lying or just trying to distract us from the truth...perhaps you'll claim these particular journals are not valid or that these scientists are just corporate hacks

and who cares who makes the claims or where they are published? if it's about the science then debate the science instead of mocking the publication

WBraun

climber
Dec 8, 2009 - 03:20pm PT
The worm said: "...if it's about the science then debate the science instead of mocking the publication"

Oky doky I'll gives some wernerism science.

I put you in a the garage and feed the exhaust pipe from car into garage.

You can turn up the heat or turn it down and no matter what the weather in there will eventually kill you.

Huh ?????????
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 03:27pm PT
I know I swore to stay away from this, and I do not actually expect there to be much reasonable discussion (much less sway any opinions) here, but I think some of you might find this interesting and useful food for thought.


Article on what the scientific consensus really means, and what it doesn't mean.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?paged=78

Expanded paper - lots of explanations on how science and climate science works, addressing many questions of the general public.
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 8, 2009 - 03:49pm PT
The paper I am reading starts with a 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1880, equal to about a 33% increase. During this time, the author states the temperature has increased about 0.7 degrees C. He states the relationship is logarithmic and from this data estimates the climate sensitivity parameter to be about 1.0C.

He then goes on to state that the IPCC models use sensitivity parameters about double due to positive feedback, specifically stating that the sensitivity parameters used in 2007 are double those used in 2001.

His particular gripe with the IPCC4 report is that they say that they do not know the sign of water vapor’s impact in climate change models, but claims are made for the ‘certainty’ of the forecasts.

The author also makes a statement that the models used by the IPCC don’t use plausible alternatives of drivers of warming—the ones he discusses are changes in solar irradiance, cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, and variations in the Earth’s orbit—in addition to increased CO2, and thereby let the math and statistics determine the correlations. He goes so far to say that the IPCC only tests the sensitivity of the forecast to variations in CO2 levels, not sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to CO2 or other plausible drivers.

The author also includes a graph of the IPCC’s 2007 90% confidence range of temperatures through 2100. The IPCC shows a range from about 1.5 degrees to 6 degrees, with a Best Estimate reaching 3 degrees. Estimates made investigators outside the IPCC’s sphere of influence (his words) show Best Estimates that range between about 0.8 degrees and 1.6 degrees (Farster & Gregory 2006, Schwartz 2007, Douglass et al 2006, Spencer & Braswell 2008).


As I have read the different issues being debated, it seems to me that the crux issue comes down to the feedback loop and what the impact of water vapor on it will be.

BTW the date on this paper is February 2009.
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 05:45pm PT
The author also makes a statement that the models used by the IPCC don’t use plausible alternatives of drivers of warming—the ones he discusses are changes in solar irradiance, cosmic ray influence on cloud formation, and variations in the Earth’s orbit—in addition to increased CO2, and thereby let the math and statistics determine the correlations. He goes so far to say that the IPCC only tests the sensitivity of the forecast to variations in CO2 levels, not sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to CO2 or other plausible drivers.

Yes, they do. All of those things are considered, and they certainly have an effect, but they do a poor job of explaining the increasing temperatures on their own.

Edit: meaning the rate of change is too fast for those other factors. On a geologic time scale things like orbit variation and the position of the continents (!) are thought to be major drivers, as well as CO2 in the atmosphere (which has varied greatly in earth's geologic history).

I haven't read that paper, Roger, but it sounds very interesting, and sounds like falls under the "mode and tempo" research (e.g. not disputing that climate change is real and driven in part by anthropogenic activities just that exactly how things fit together is still a subject of current research).
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 8, 2009 - 09:18pm PT
Cleo, thanks for the response.

I ran a regression on a chart the author shows on sun spots and temperature from the 1890s (I think)--R2~.91. Now, what do sunspots have to do with temperature? Is the sunspot data any good? Is the mean temperature change any good? I have a hard time accepting data in a paper that goes to great lengths to show how the opposing view’s data has been cooked (the temperature of the middle ages and the hockey stick). If you want a copy send me an e-mail; it is a word document.

If the models are back casting regression models, I would like to see the data sets and the statistics--Al Gore and I will go over them. Then I would like to see the statistics of the inputs for the forecasts. I am a little stunned at the stories of investigators not publishing their data (or destroying it--might as well let our CIA do the analysis).

My friend sent me the paper probably because he knows I am skeptical of all claims of simplicity and certainty, without regard to the side. I had stated that global warming skeptics all seem to be right wing nut cases (I had had one too many—obviously) and he took offense. He is a right wing nut case himself, but he is very smart and doesn't have any evil intent. So he sent me the paper.

You are right that the author is not claiming that CO2 levels do not affect climate, he is questioning the rate of temperature change per CO2 ppm (the feedback question) and the ability to get to sensible answers given the politics. I share that concern since I put up with similar (albeit easier) issues in diesel engine NOx emissions and technology to reduce them. Full disclosure: I make a ton of money on our technology if the world adopts rules to limit fuel consumption to reduce GHGs.

All that said, the paper gives me a good idea of the best shots the skeptics have of the 'consensus' view. To counterbalance it, I found a long paper on NASA's web site that purports to be the current state of the science for Copenhagen. I only just glanced at it and it is contrary to the skeptic’s paper.

I will post up the differences in the science and see if folks with more knowledge can sort it out.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:30pm PT
Al Gore: [quoting Mark Twain] "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

Meanwhile..
The real weather is ignoring the Hockey Stick model again:

Dec 8, 2009
"It's just a sheet of ice from Amarillo to here," Dodson said. "It's a disaster."

Misty Willis, the assistant manager at the plaza, said I-40 had become a "skating rink."

"I drove 20 miles an hour to get here," she said. "I literally slid into my parking space."
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:36pm PT
Funny, I have a good friend who studies the sun and "space weather". Here's a webpage on what he does:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/spaceweather/lenticular/

So, I'll have to ask him.

My limited knowledge is that that sunspots seem to cause lower solar activity, and lower solar activity can be measured by the amount of certain isotopes (in trees? ice? soil?). Sunspots are thought to be one of the causes of the "Little Ice Age" in the middle ages.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:40pm PT
Here ya go Cleo.

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:42pm PT
Oooh, that's a fun page, CC!


Here's somebody's response to the skeptics. If I had more time, I'd sort through and verify it, but I'd rather have lunch with my trusted sun and climate science friends and ask them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:42pm PT
I wonder what Mandelbrote's take is on all this.

Anything out there published by him?
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:46pm PT
Did you guys see this cool picture? On their message board, no less!


(edit: okay, back to work)
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 8, 2009 - 11:20pm PT
Ed- Nice info. But since human activities are only contributing 3.4% of the annual CO2 being added to the atmosphere we should go after some of the big
emitters rather than screwing up our economy.
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 9, 2009 - 12:12am PT
That's awesome, Ed.

I'm impressed you're hanging in here... and grateful for you!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 9, 2009 - 12:16am PT
Yep, Ed is an absolutely irreplaceable asset to this forum.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 9, 2009 - 12:24am PT
Ed,

The last graph very interesting. Summarizes it really well. Good stuff.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 9, 2009 - 09:03am PT
yes, ed is an indispensable contributor to this thread...even if it's all greek to me

anyway, can somebody explain this guy who claims the raw data from australia shows no warming but the "adjusted" data shows a 6 degrees/century rise in temps that just coincidentally coincides with the cru graph?

according to him, all climate data comes from three sources...cru's raw data is gone (some say lost, some say destroyed), and we're still waiting for the raw data from nasa

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

dirtbag

climber
Dec 9, 2009 - 09:43am PT

and who cares who makes the claims or where they are published? if it's about the science then debate the science instead of mocking the publication

Because sources do matter. If you want to gather fodder for an honest debate, then find an honest source that isn't going to cherry pick its facts. I'd bet money you are only getting 1/10 of the whole story from Londborg.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 9, 2009 - 12:05pm PT
dirt, lomborg is NOT the source...the published scientific studies on kilimanjaro's snowmelt are the sources...lomborg isn't claiming he knows why the melting occurs; he's simply pointing out that there are scientists who have published different theories

ed, i was being somewhat facetious; i'm not a scientists but i'm doing my best to understand the science...some people say co2...some people say water...some people say solar activity...some people say natural climatic changes that nobody really understands...all of the theories make sense to me

but all i hear from you is co2, co2, co2...it's all people, people, people...so, yes, when i find scientists with different theories, i want to understand them, too, and i'm highly suspicious of those who keep insisting there are no other theories, especially when those 'deniers' are admittedly guilty of hiding data and manipulating the publishing process

and i'm especially resistant when the agw crowd supports ridiculous proposals like barry's promise to take us back to the 1800s...
WBraun

climber
Dec 9, 2009 - 12:16pm PT
Whatever anyone's take on this subject matter is, ya all better get your sh'it together because this planet right now is in a very unhealthy state.

cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 9, 2009 - 01:47pm PT
^^

HA! I love it, Werner!
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Dec 9, 2009 - 03:22pm PT
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 9, 2009 - 03:26pm PT
Werner's cartoon says it all

Peace

Karl
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 9, 2009 - 04:14pm PT
What if what we create isn't a better world?

John
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 9, 2009 - 10:41pm PT
If you are no fan of the seemingly continual strategic planning that now goes on in the govt and associated entities, you need look no further than this piece of legislation.

<light bulb goes on>
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 9, 2009 - 10:48pm PT
Thanks Ed, for the links. I have downloaded and copied a few hundred pages of reports, which I will read. I think that everyone who has posted or read along should read the summary report for the IPCC fourth report (2007) and the The Copenhagen Analysis just published to update the science since the IPCC report. In this debate, I don’t think anyone should have an opinion one way or the other unless they are willing to put in that effort.

There are two camps of true believers that say either that global warming will be so damaging to all forms of life that we must shut down all CO2 and N2O production now or, that no significant global warming is caused by humans. Both of these camps are making it difficult, either by fudging data or withholding it, or cherry picking and setting up straw men to trumpet their true beliefs.

What I am looking for in the reports Ed points to are the scope and robustness of the findings of the IPCC--this is the main complaint of the skeptics, but it can be checked. (If the 2007 IPCC report shows the plus and minus estimates of all plausible effects, then the skeptic's paper that I read falls apart.) This doesn't mean that the science has it right but we should expect to have unbiased estimators: the commitment of money and coordinated action amongst all the economies needs a very robust basis for action--the fix is gonna hurt. Everyone should be demanding robust science in light of the impact of both global warming and the cost of avoiding it.

Thanks again Ed.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 10, 2009 - 12:32am PT
Theories about AGW are legion. So I thought why not propose my own.

The Corniss Chopper Theory: Accelerated Melting of the Sierra Nevada Snow Pack Caused by Albedo Change Due to Black Carbon from Wood Fires to Heat Homes, Prescribed Burns For Controlling Wildfires, and Wildfires but Not Global Warming.




http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-030/CEC-500-2009-030-D.PDF
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Dec 10, 2009 - 01:02am PT
My Oceanography professor called the climate change debate more fear mongering last quarter and many of my business professors have noted that these carbon tax credits and such are just trade tariffs in disguise for trade protectionism.

I for one think there are holes in the argument but I do acknowledge that pollution is a major problem.

The planet has gone through ice ages and super warm cycles in the past. The amount of CO2 in the air is much higher, but that doesn't prove that we could be in the midst of a climate shift due to Earth's natural cycles.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 10, 2009 - 01:45am PT
Ed - I say the albedo change is overwhelming and reject the proposed linkage to the rise in CO2 for the accelerated snow pack melting.

As other Climate Change researchers say, "I'm right and they're wrong".
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 10, 2009 - 11:30am PT
I say the albedo change is overwhelming and reject the proposed linkage to the rise in CO2 for the accelerated snow pack melting.

You got new data and calculations to show why you're certain it's all due to black carbon, with no contribution from other shifts in temperature, winds, precipitation or seasonality? Good for you if you do, write that up, send it off to a journal, find out what the folks who know most about snow and carbon think of your evidence.

Black carbon certainly is a hot research topic these days; I haven't seen anyone disagree that it contributes substantially to observed snow and ice melting in some places, including the Arctic. At the Arctic Observing Network meetings last week, it came up often in discussions and proposals. A lot of the focus has been trying to quantify the relative contributions of carbon and albedo changes, compared with other forcings. Some of that Arctic Ocean ice is melting top-down, where carbon can clearly play a role. Some of the melt occurs bottom-up, however, due to warmer waters, which have other drivers. Also, some of the ice attrition reflects air pressure changes creating winds that bring in warmer air and water, and also push ice around -- even out through Fram Strait.

Then there's the Greenland ice sheet, which experiences some top-down melting related to black carbon, but also some from other forces including winds transporting heat from the no longer ice-covered seas to the north. I was sitting next to a guy recently back from the field, taking measurements near the Jakobshavn outlet. What's that like? It sounds awesome, watching a gigaton of ice pushed into the sea every week or so. Recent articles (regarding Greenland and West Antarctica) have looked particularly at the role of outlet conditions as a control on the rate of flow upstream.

But Antarctica is a whole 'nother story. Anyway, lots of people are looking and thinking hard about black carbon these days, along with the many other things that are changing. I don't think you'll find any scientists (unlike bloggers) claiming this huge suite of changes reflects just one process.
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 10, 2009 - 11:48am PT
So are you saying that if we could cause black carbon to mutant through some process to albino carbon, the world would be saved? Would that have to be spontaneous, ala Dan Brown, or do we have enough time for a Dawinian process?

Maybe I missed something.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 10, 2009 - 12:07pm PT
Some thoughts for my skeptical friends by Thomas Friedman. It's not really an argument about science.

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.


and


If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1260464414-kC/ToUV3uX1elcTsi09Cmw
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Dec 10, 2009 - 12:09pm PT
Ed - can you post a direct link, I'm not spotting this post of Roger's.

I do have to say that even if I read this post, which I will, I'm not here to argue a case.

Debating with you guys about this stuff, while it might be fun and opinions might sway one way or another, is not really going to make a difference.

The governments of the world are going to do what they want to do.
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 10, 2009 - 01:04pm PT
Mason, this is what I posted upthread:

Thanks Ed, for the links. I have downloaded and copied a few hundred pages of reports, which I will read. I think that everyone who has posted or read along should read the summary report for the IPCC fourth report (2007) and the The Copenhagen Analysis just published to update the science since the IPCC report. In this debate, I don’t think anyone should have an opinion one way or the other unless they are willing to put in that effort.

These two reports cover the establishment science. It is all in pretty much layman terms. If you hear skeptics raise issues, many of which are valid, they have to be evaluated in light of all the underlying work that has been going on and reported since 1993 (formation of the IPCC).

I don't agree with your assessment that understanding the arguments about global warming doesn't matter. This is not an academic debate nor is it religious. It is not like evolution where we as individuals the only vote we get is how our children turn out or religion where we can have private views and let the world go to hell, or bolting on rappel on the South Face of Half Dome. Climate change is all for one and one for all. The timeline for global climate change is out 90 years for the current debate. You will probably live that long. More importantly, our Senators will have to ratify any agreement that is reached with the rest of the world--The Copenhagen meetings are going on right now. I seriously doubt that either party has a real handle on how to balance the costs and benefits of doing our part in the world—we are one of the highest emitters of CO2 on both a relative scale and in absolute terms, but no politician can stay in office by urging any voter to support any sensible plans to reduce C02.

There are a large proportion of Americans (and politicians) who are confusing the uncertainty of the science--the range of estimated outcomes--with fraud and conspiracy. Most don’t have access to trusted folks like Ed and others on ST to dig up reasonable stuff. That said, since it is all for one and one for all, everyone is obligated to sort it out. Just as you should exercise your right to vote to support our right to have a say, you should be able to sort out the drift of argument and counterargument in the climate change debate.

Here are the basics: the science has overwhelmingly reached the conclusion that C02 and its equivalents from human sources is causing an increase in global warming. The estimates for the temperature rise by 2100 is 1.1 to 6.4 degrees C. There are fringe elements that don’t believe the science, but the real issue is that the range is uncertain. There is a general view that anything less than 2 degrees is livable and anything above is increasingly risky, but it is hard to pin down the risk. The idea posted above about buying insurance sums up the issue in not having to face the prospect of 2+ degree warming. There is a real debate about how much to pay for the insurance versus living with the consequences--the same issue you face when buy any sort of insurance. The reason it is so real is that while the economics and the rates of change and effects of warming are sliding around, there are likely tipping points beyond which efforts to make corrections are not possible. The fact that it sounds like fear mongering doesn't make it any less probably (or improbable).

So I would say that whether or not you take the time to understand the issues, the range of uncertainty, and the potential solutions, you will vote both for politicians with particular points of view and in the way you live your life; it is just a matter doing so based on an informed judgment.
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 10, 2009 - 01:09pm PT
Egads! My jokes have to be explained by Ed?

Did you guys see Steven Chu's statement that painting roofs white and using concete colored road surfaces would be the equivalent of removing all cars from the enviroment for 11 years? Time to invest in TiO2 feed stocks.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 10, 2009 - 01:27pm PT
Careful what you wish for because you could get it
Mountain communities in the Sierra's likely target for this ban.

EPA to regulate CO2: Wood burning in home fireplaces may be banned!

A Fireplace Ban Realistic? - Associated Content .

Non-gas fireplaces banned in new homes - Care2 News Network

Wood-burning Fireplaces May Be Banned in California - by James M .

Ban on Wood Burning Fireplaces? (Colebrook, Washington: for sale...

Fireplaces Ban in California Bay Area - Smog Fighters Target Air ...




Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 10, 2009 - 02:02pm PT
dc, at lunch today, I was reading a summary (The Economist 5 Dec 09) of the economics of mitigating climate change--very interesting issues about calculating the trade off of current costs versus the very long term future benefits--and realized that the analogy of insurance is somewhat misleading. Insurance transfers the risk of a particular bad event from one person or small group to many: if on average one in 1100 houses catches fire per day, I am willing to pay to insure against the damage of mine catching fire. Global warming is different since it will affect all of us, maybe not equally, but all of us.

CC, I think it is a mistake for the EPA to be writing regulations to reduce GHGs. From an economic view the best estimate is to tax carbon at $40 per ton. Our politicians and the voters like regulations such as the EPA will institute or cap and trade schemes that can be gamed by business and politicians. A straight tax is much more efficient. In Europe, there are no fuel consumptions regulations, just high fuel taxes for cars. Their cars get fuel consumptions rates that are significantly better than we can ever hope to achieve.

In the US, we have been given the world's fist place prize for "the most counterproductive 'green' policy" with low carbon taxes, corn-based ethanol subsidies, and tariffs on cheaper, greener imports. (I would wager that most of ST campers who believe themselves to be 'green' would object to paying more in fuel taxes and repeal of ethanol subsidies.)

If burning wood had a tax with a relative value to NG, oil or electricity, then everyone could make sensible decisions. I can count on one hand the number of people I know personally who would agree with this approach.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 10, 2009 - 02:38pm PT
Excellent posts, as usual, Roger. I've spent parts of the last couple of years trying to estimate marginal costs and benefits of carbon reduction. This is an exceedingly difficult problem. A State of California report about a year ago summed it up by saying, in essence, we know next to nothing about these costs.

That shouldn't surprise us, for the very reasons you state. The obvious externalities with climate change, and the seemingly long-term nature of the problem preclude the normal ways of measuring cost, supply or demand functions.

I think there's also one other problem, however, that produces skeptics in this area. There is a certain segment of the intellectual community that purports to be progressive, but is in fact economically reactionary. In particular, they've never come to grips with the industrial revolution, the inherent production efficiencies of large private organizations, or the concept that specialization is productive.

When a perceptably large number of such people latched on to anthropogenic climate change, the theory seemed a little too politically convenient. If they could quickly dismantle an economy by banning energy derived from carbon combustion, perhaps they could re-shape it more to their liking. Not surprisingly, they've campaigned to make it so. That campaigning gives the impression that this is not a dispassionate inquiry, but more in the nature of a tobacco company's study minimizing the dangers of smoking.

For this reason, I think the campaiging plays into the hands of the skeptics. The polemics contained in the purloined emails from CRU, and the attempt to make consensus sound like unanimity don't help, and aren't needed. Consensus doesn't require unanimity. I would say there's a consensus that quantum mechanics is our best description of certain physical phenomena, but Einstein never really accepted it.

Sorry for the ramble, but the obvious insults, distortions and condescension by some who want immediate economic changes do no good. I'm just grateful that we have Ed, Chiloe, you and others who respond with data, references, logic and facts. Thanks to all three of you.

John
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 10, 2009 - 04:03pm PT
Well hurry up Ed.

John and I are ready to run the economic models (clear, unequivocal, precise, repeatable, transparent, fast, uncontroversial--as you can imagine) as soon as you give us the answer.

One of the economic debates is the discount rate to use for long term investments. Lord Stern, author of the Stern report on climate change economics, used a very low discount rate when other economists think that a shorter term market rate should be used. These positions have also been summed up as moral issues: we are obligated to fund the protection of the climate for future generations (low rate) versus the the people in the future will be richer than we are and can figure it out (high rate)--or more colloquially, should peasants in the 18 century have eaten less gruel so we are able to buy more computers.

Someone pointed out that a one cent investment in Caesar’s time compounding at 2% would be worth $1.5 quadrillion today (30 times the value of entire world economy.) That calculation probably would have taken a few months in Caesar’s time (1.02 raised to the 2000th power) and there would have been a lot of debate about the purpose, method, accuracy, range of uncertainty, work of the devil, etc. It takes only a few seconds today.
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 10, 2009 - 05:18pm PT
^^^ and THAT is what is flawed about many aspects of economics!

not to get off on a tangent
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 10, 2009 - 05:51pm PT
Ed, the Malthusian answer to your question is an uncontroversial "no, we cannot so maintain that growth." No one seriously questions that resources (now inlcuding, many of us believe, climate) limit growth. The tough question is whether they regulate growth. We all know that at some population level, we'd all barely subsist. The tougher question is always whether we've reached the point where the population is increasing faster than its access to resources.

The pro-population growth folks think we haven't because, historically, peoples' access to resources has increased faster than the population, so people seem to be better off materially now, with our higher populations, than they were before. My personal view is to the contrary, viz. that our present population, and likely growth in population, is straining our resources to the point that is making people materially worse off. We already see it in housing prices and, I believe, we'll see it in commodity prices generally, and in a sort of locust-like destruction of our own habitat if we continue at this pace. That, however, is just my personal opinion. I have never tried to study this rigorously, although I've been nibbling around the edges with my marginal cost and benefit studies.

John
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 10, 2009 - 07:19pm PT
An interesting article

Fredhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8405108.stm
WBraun

climber
Dec 10, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
The planet can handle 3 times more than there are now.

With proper management.

The modern man does not know the art of proper management.

It was lost ....
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 11, 2009 - 12:23pm PT
Ed, I think that the evidence is that the Plant can sustain many more people as economies grow. During the food shortages in the last few years, the issue was not the lack of the ability to grow food but the lack of economic incentives to grow food cheaply and the lack of income to pay higher prices. So on this basis, increasing the world's GDP more or less keeps the equation in balance. This has been going on for at least the 200 years since Malthus published his theory that population would increases would outstrip food increases.

There is another element in the equation that bears mentioning: birth rates go down with increasing wealth.. This seems to largely be a result of developing societies being able to increase wealth without having more field hands and also better medical care which allows more babies to grow up.

All that said, the issue with regard to CO2 emissions is that developing counties use much higher rates of CO2 to fuel their wealth than developed countries do, even inefficient ones such as the US. China and the US have about the same number of tons of CO2 emissions in total but China has a population that is four times larger than ours. If it continues to grow its economy, it will likely increase its CO2 emissions to four times its current level. India has steadfastly refused to promise to reduce its CO2 emissions in total except to say that it will never exceed the rate of GHG emissions per person as the US--clever diplomacy since no US negotiator can deliver on a promise of the US reducing its CO2 emissions. I have friends who are convinced that energy intensity is constant with regard to GDP—lower CO2 levels can only be achieved by lower levels of national income. My counter to that, since most of them drive expensive gas guzzlers, is to ask if their personal productivity would be reduced if they drove a Prius to work. (I am losing friends fast!)

The trick with controlling CO2 emissions is to find a way that developing countries can cost effectively increase their wealth at much lower CO2 intensity levels. China build a very state of the art power plant with relatively low levels of CO2, but its power costs are double the cost of the old coal plants.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 11, 2009 - 12:44pm PT
There is another element in the equation that bears mentioning: birth rates go down with increasing wealth.. This seems to largely be a result of developing societies being able to increase wealth without having more field hands and also better medical care which allows more babies to grow up.

Roger raises a topic that is interesting and complicated in its own right, the subject of much discussion and research. The "demographic transition" from rough population stability within high-birth-rate/high-death-rate societies in the bad old days, to rough stability in low-birth-rate/low-death-rate societies of the new age, can be understood as a description of what happened historically in Japan and some parts of Europe. The transition is more controversial as a general proposition about what is happening or will happen elsewhere; developing countries aren't necessarily following the same pattern, or if they are it is at much higher absolute levels of population and under more time pressure, which makes everything harder.

So, while birth rates do tend to fall where infant mortality declines *and* women's economic opportunities expand, it matters a lot just how far and how fast they fall -- often, not enough to stabilize large and rapidly growing populations.

Anyway, interesting topic, but I don't mean to hijack this thread.
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 11, 2009 - 01:49pm PT
The birth rate question is interesting, however, it raises some concerns

1 - first world low-birth-rate countries (like US) emit a magnitude or two more carbon (and other nasties) than developing countries. So even if birth rate falls to zero, if they all become like us, we're in trouble.

Hence, we need to look in the mirror and fix ourselves first.

2 - World fertility rate has dropped at an unprecedented rate, we don't really know why, and NOT just in first world countries. At least, according to a recent Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589


"SOMETIME in the next few years (if it hasn’t happened already) the world will reach a milestone: half of humanity will be having only enough children to replace itself. That is, the fertility rate of half the world will be 2.1 or below. This is the “replacement level of fertility”, the magic number that causes a country’s population to slow down and eventually to stabilise.....The move to replacement-level fertility is one of the most dramatic social changes in history.

....

The fall (in fertility rates) in developing countries now is closer to what happened in Europe during 19th- and early 20th-century industrialisation. But what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) took place in South Korea over just 20 (1965-85).

Things are moving even faster today. Fertility has dropped further in every South-East Asian country (except the Philippines) than it did in Japan. The rate in Bangladesh fell by half from six to three in only 20 years (1980 to 2000). The same decline took place in Mauritius in just ten (1963-73). Most sensational of all is the story from Iran."

Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 11, 2009 - 02:28pm PT
Birds of a feather!

I posted the entire article here Population growth: is there enough band width for forums with comments from other Economist readers.

cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 11, 2009 - 02:39pm PT
^^ Ha! maybe it was one of those wormhole-cosmic string things connecting our brains. Or God.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 11, 2009 - 03:01pm PT
For a moment imagine the horrible scene of a forced abortion, while from the gallery, the President and his Science Czar look on smilingly.

President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a

"Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial

ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

John Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won

the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science advisor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 11, 2009 - 03:08pm PT
CC...

yes, that would be horrible. but is it more horrible than watching children die of starvation? (I think both are pretty horrible myself, the question is rhetorical)


We STILL have a problem to solve, regardless of your or mine or anybody else's feelings on abortion. We as a society will have to make some tough decisions (and I'm not talking about abortion, more along the lines of consume less, save more).

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 11, 2009 - 03:20pm PT
Well that's an important question. Would I rather die by being aborted
or the possibility of starving to death later in life?

Hmmm. Give me a minute...
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 11, 2009 - 04:42pm PT
CC -

we still have a problem, and abortion isn't the issue here. lets work on solving it and leave abortion for another debate?

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 12, 2009 - 06:58pm PT
Roger that Cleo.
No more talking about the Czar's proposal of abortion as a solution to AGW.

(Climategate story)

At gunpoint--reporter stopped from asking Climategate questions.

..as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider..


http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d12-At-gunpointreporter-stopped-from-asking-Climategate-questions
dirtbag

climber
Dec 12, 2009 - 07:13pm PT
Wow CC, that disproves everything.
Roger Breedlove

climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dec 12, 2009 - 09:33pm PT
Intersting take on negotiations at Copenhagen from today's WSJ.

Temperature is increasingly at the mercy of the developing world.

By RICHARD MULLER

Imagine a "dream" agreement emerging from Copenhagen next week: The U.S. agrees to cut greenhouse emissions 80% by 2050, as President Barack Obama has been promising. The other developed countries promise to cut emissions by 60%. China promises to reduce its CO2 intensity by 70% in 2040. Emerging economies promise that in 2040, when their wealth per capita has grown to half that of the U.S., they will cut emissions by 80% over the following 40 years. And all parties make good on their pledges.

Environmental success, right? Wrong. Even if the goals are all met, emissions will continue rising to nearly four times the current level. Total atmospheric CO2 will rise to near 700 parts per milion by 2080 (the current level is 385), and—if the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are right—global temperature will rise about six degrees Fahrenheit at mid latitudes.

The reason is that most future carbon emissions will not come from the currently industrialized world, but from the emerging economies, especially China. And China, which currently emits 30% more CO2 per year than the U.S., has not promised to cut actual emissions. It and other developing nations have promised only to cut their carbon "intensity," a technical term meaning emissions per unit of GDP.

China claims it is already cutting CO2 intensity by 4% a year as part of its five-year plan. President Hu Jintao has hinted that at Copenhagen China will offer to continue such reductions. By 2040, that will add up to a 70% reduction in intensity.

Sounds good, but here's the catch: With 10% annual growth in China's economy, a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions. India and other developing countries have similar CO2 growth. That 6% yearly increase is what is shown in the nearby chart.

True, China's CO2 per capita is only a quarter of the U.S. emissions rate. But warming doesn't come from emissions per capita, it comes from total emissions.

China's carbon intensity is now five times that of the U.S.; it is extremely carbon inefficient. By the time the Chinese cut emissions intensity by 45%, its yearly total will be over twice that of the U.S. And in the proposed Copenhagen dream scenario, by 2025 China's emissions will actually surpass those of the U.S. per capita.

If the issue is rising emissions in the next several decades, the bottom line is simple: The developed world is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Every 10% cut in the U.S. is negated by one year of China's growth. By 2040 China could be the most economically dominant nation on earth. The West might be able to cajole it, but won't be able to impose sanctions on China. Temperature will be at the mercy of the newly powerful economies.

Moreover, an expensive effort to reduce Western emissions sets a worthless example. Only emissions cuts that provide measurable economic benefit to the developing nations will be adopted by them. If the 80% U.S. emissions cut winds up hurting the U.S. economy, it guarantees China will never follow our example.

Cheap green energy is not going to be easy. Coal is dirt cheap, and China has been installing a new gigawatt coal plant each week—enough to supply five completely new cities the size of New York every year.

Technological change can help a great deal. For now carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from coal combustion is unproven, but so is cheap solar. I expect we can make CCS work. Perhaps the West can subsidize CCS in China or pay to make its plants CCS ready. A dollar spent in China can reduce CO2 much more than a dollar spent in the U.S.

There is another alternative: luck. Here's how it could help. Scientists are aware of a phenomenon that would counter the greenhouse effect: warmth evaporates water; water creates clouds; clouds reflect sunlight. A small cloud increase would significantly reduce predicted warming. The IPCC gives such cloud feedback only a 10% chance. My estimate is 30%. Clouds may already be kicking in, responsible for the negligible global warming of the past 12 years. Maybe, but we don't know. That's why we need luck.

Perhaps we could geoengineer a solution: Squirt a few million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, emulating the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption. We'll certainly get pretty sunsets. Or we could foam up the oceans to increase reflectivity. Many people find such ideas scarier than warming because of the threat of unintended consequences.

Another option is that we could learn to live with global warming. Despite claims to the contrary, storms aren't increasing. The rate of hurricanes hitting the U.S. coast has been constant for a century, and the number of damaging tornadoes has been going down. Will Happer, a former director of research for the Department of Energy, argues that additional CO2 may have helped the agricultural revolution. And chilly Berkeley might be nicer with a few degrees warming.

But the bottom line is that 80% cuts in U.S. emissions will have only a tiny benefit. The bulk of our effort is best directed at helping the emerging economies conserve energy and move rapidly toward efficient solar, wind and nuclear power. Developing cheap carbon capture and sequestration is also a priority. Above all, we need to recognize that make-the-West-bear-the-burden Copenhagen proposals are meaningless.

Mr. Muller is professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of "Physics for Future Presidents" (Norton, 2008). References and a spreadsheet with the numbers for the chart are at www.mullerandassociates.com.

bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 13, 2009 - 07:19pm PT
interesting video (click on the second one); i'd be interested to hear your response, ed

http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/more-fallout-from-climategate/

by the way, the associated press assigned 11 reporters to "fact-check" palin's book...and 5 to "fact check" the climategate scandal...i think that qualifies as an obsession: palin derangement syndrome

also, anyone notice those peaceful demonstrations over in copenhagen? almost as scary as those tea-partiers
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 13, 2009 - 07:46pm PT
profile of a "denier"

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 13, 2009 - 08:12pm PT
Ed mentions the Nov 27 Science article on the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly.

The article includes this striking graph showing temperature reconstructions based on "more than a thousand tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment, and other assorted proxy records spanning the ocean and land regions of both hemispheres over the past 1500 years." Following the naturally-caused Medieval Climate Anomaly (red box) and Little Ice Age (blue box), the recent anthropogenic warming stands out.


Fig. 1 Decadal surface temperature reconstructions. Surface temperature reconstructions have been averaged over (A) the entire Northern Hemisphere (NH), (B) North Atlantic AMO region [sea surface temperature (SST) averaged over the North Atlantic ocean as defined by (30)], (C) North Pacific PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) region (SST averaged over the central North Pacific region 22.5°N–57.5°N, 152.5°E–132.5°W as defined by (31)], and (D) Niño3 region (2.5°S–2.5°N, 92.5°W–147.5°W). Shading indicates 95% confidence intervals, based on uncertainty estimates discussed in the text. The intervals best defining the MCA and LIA based on the NH hemispheric mean series are shown by red and blue boxes, respectively. For comparison, results are also shown for parallel ("screened") reconstructions that are based on a subset of the proxy data that pass screening for a local temperature signal [see (13) for details]. The Northern Hemisphere mean Errors in Variables (EIV) reconstruction (13) is also shown for comparison.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 13, 2009 - 08:29pm PT
And in the Nov 20 Science, yet another reminder that the ocean-atmosphere system has a reality independent of what the blogosphere thinks.

A summary of "Aragonite Undersaturation in the Arctic Ocean: Effects of Ocean Acidification and Sea Ice Melt:"

One consequence of the historically unprecedented level of CO2 in the atmosphere that fossil fuel burning has caused, in addition to a warmer climate, is higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in the oceans. This dissolved CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, and thus less saturated with respect to calcium carbonate. This has important ramifications for organisms that have calcium carbonate skeletons, which depend for their survival on the saturation state of calcium carbonate in the waters where they live. Yamamoto-Kawai et al. (p. 1098) report that in 2008, surface waters of the Canada Basin became undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a relatively soluble form of calcium carbonate incorporated into the shells or skeletons of many types of marine plankton and invertebrate. This undersaturation occurred much sooner than had been anticipated and has important implications for the composition of the Arctic ecosystem.

Not just the Arctic ecosystem; the authors suggest broader impacts.

Because they are important elements of the food web, the Arctic ecosystem may be at risk and requires observation in order to predict future possible impacts on marine organisms, fisheries, and biogeochemical cycles on both regional and global scales.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:29am PT
Climategate: Warmist's are the new 'deniers.

A couple of years ago, supporters of global warming theory began referring to skeptics as “deniers” — implying that anyone who doubted climate change should be lumped with Holocaust deniers.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, thanks to the eye-popping e-mail dump that hit the Internet recently and quickly became known as “Climategate.” The response of much of the global-warming “community” has been … denial.

http://www.kansascity.com/275/story/1626919.html?storylink=omni_popular


Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 14, 2009 - 12:45am PT
Geez

Rest assured that corporate profits will be maximized until the friggin sea rises and swallows your grandkids. The stock options will be long exercised by then.

They have a propaganda machine poised to keep everything in doubt enough to prevent any action.

Devil is in the details of all these climate talks that trade imaginary pollution for imaginary savings, all making money and maximizing political advantage without regard to real change

We trade for credits to pollute by buying them from places that don't have the money to make the pollution they planned for.

Peace

Karl
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 14, 2009 - 01:34am PT
Karl
Just had a thought that this carbon credit trading could get bloody with
forced population reductions in exchange for CO2 cash. Money makes people do crazy things.

After Rwanda nothing seems too over the top.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Dec 14, 2009 - 01:59am PT
Population reduction is an elephant in the room for everybody with money and resources and the desire to use them.

It's the kind of thing nobody talks about in public but god knows what those with statistics and power do when they run the numbers.

But carbon trading is just your boogeyman. Forget it and you still have billions of people burning up all the remaining oil and leaving the world economy in ruins if the pumps run short before we have real solutions in place and ramped up

peace

Karl
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 14, 2009 - 07:00am PT
portrait of an agw believer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 15, 2009 - 12:30am PT
Shocking that the WARMISTS are not relieved that the hoax
has been exposed and all is well with the planet.

Could be that they are in it for the cash and are F'ing grifters.

Warmists are the enemy of humanity!

.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 15, 2009 - 01:13am PT
Just lies Ed.
Rejoice in the good news.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Dec 15, 2009 - 01:24am PT
Corniss Chopper your name is so appropriate.

Like Wile E. Coyote, shrewd yet foolishly heedless while sawing through the bridge which holds him up, you and the rest of humanity tromp along, blissfully and ignorantly melting the ice which supports us.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 15, 2009 - 06:54am PT
"Once scientists are engaged as advocates, science is in trouble. Like intelligence agencies fitting the facts to the policy, they are no longer to be trusted. The IPCC may be serving a righteous cause, but it is not the honest broker this process needs. It has made itself a political agency – at times, a propaganda unit. All this, the public can see.

For the sake of their own credibility, scientists should maintain a cautious distance from politics, and those who take up politics should not expect the deference to disinterested scholars they would otherwise deserve.

Governments should be honest and base their case for action on what they know – that is, on a balance of probabilities, not on exaggerated certainties. The public, they will find, can cope. Voters are not fools."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc90fb80-e817-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

ydpl8s

Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
Dec 15, 2009 - 12:15pm PT
I just wanted to point out that China and India are posturing and taking the stand that I thought they would. That is, "our economics are more important than your stinking warming. We're for it as long as you western "developed" nations pay for it. Please don't inhibit our advancement to economic superiority."

Without them fully on board, it ain't gonna happen. China's coal use alone represents more carbon emission than most of western Europe.
dirtbag

climber
Dec 15, 2009 - 09:33pm PT
Do the GCC denyers have anything to prove their contention ??

or just that there were some confusing e-mails,

so that must prove that the 1000s of scientists are wrong,

and the fear monger lyers are right


Yes, liars.

Their claim that the e-mails disprove everything is even more dishonest than the e-mail scandal they claim happened.


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 15, 2009 - 11:24pm PT
Our future may be in the clouds

and determined by the stars.


(8mb download)

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Dec 15, 2009 - 11:26pm PT
Thanks Roger.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 16, 2009 - 07:51am PT
yeah, i'd say i'm more fair and balanced than my critics:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news


i haven't given this a proper perusal, yet, but i will when i have time; by the way, i found the second link on hotair.com...can any libs here show me a lib source that gives ink to the opposition?



dirtbag

climber
Dec 16, 2009 - 08:35am PT
can any libs here show me a lib source that gives ink to the opposition?


Oh cut the bullsh#t. You don't care about the science. It's out there if you are interested. You are interested in grinding your political axe.

Talk about politicizing the science...
C-dog

Social climber
from under your favorite rock
Dec 16, 2009 - 11:38am PT
Ed Hartouni: Thanks a lot for the post about the Fermi discovery of Gamma Ray bursts. Normally I get this kind of info through other sites related more directly to my job. Getting this important piece of info from the taco is way cool!

Dr. F: Reversed polarity of lightning pulses is not new. We formerly subscribed to a lightning database for years and polarity is one of the parameters. It's just rare, maybe 1 in a 1000. Interestingly bluering and I got lightning'ed off of Marmot Dome twice after that hmph of an approach. When I returned to the office, and tried to locate the lightning bolts that we saw in the database we were paying $$$ for, they were not to be found! Yes, the climbing reality took over and we canceled.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 16, 2009 - 11:52am PT
And guess what? I am a filthy dirty petroleum geologist.

One who keeps his hands dirty with data, it sounds like! Good contribution to the thread.

I grew up in a geologist-headed household, back in the days when you could get denied tenure for writing that continents moved. Watching a scientific revolution from the inside provided quite an education.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:17pm PT
skepticism from a non-skeptic:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/16/video-east-anglia-crus-below-standard-computer-modeling/

watch the vid
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:23pm PT
Before the page goes all goofy again ... the graphic below does a good job of visualizing
some ideas about the consequences of greenhouse buildup, as currently understood (a
couple of years ago anyway). It's from a talk by Bob Correll, Senior Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society, chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, etc.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:36pm PT
"Before the page goes all goofy again " Chiloe, you're right on target about several recent posts. There's another thread, with almost 15,000 posts, for partisan ranting. This one has been an outstanding OT thread precisely because it had, until recently, been free of partisan name-calling.

John
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:39pm PT
Three more slides from Correll's talk, setting out paleoclimate timelines as context for
the 21st-century figure above. NOTE: time runs right to left in the first graph below
(but not the other two), a common convention with paleoclimate data. In the third
graph, time has a (sort of) logarithmic scale.



jstan

climber
Dec 16, 2009 - 10:56pm PT
This infrared stuff seemed pretty interesting to me back in 1958. My first job was scanning around
using, would you believe, a PbTe detector. Imaging did not even exist back then and the data was
all strip chart recorder data. Here are some AIRS data showing the CO2 on earth is not uniformly
distributed.



http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 17, 2009 - 02:19am PT
Excellent posts, Base104. This page seems to have returned to the best of this thread.

One note on modeling: I've been using -- and estimating -- econometric models since 1973. These necessarily use nonexperimental data, which present unique theoretical problems, particularly in determining the statistics of fit. Classical statistical theory has problems in that circumstance and, in my opinion, Bayesian theory is more accurate both from an epistemological and statistical standpoint.

The climate models most in use have the tremendous advantage of drawing on substantial experimental data. Unfortunately, however, they, too, rely to a certain extent on non-experimental data. That fact, and not just the incredible compexity of weather systems, causes most of our uncertainty.

As Ed and several others have pointed out, though, uncertainty does not mean we do nothing, but it does mean we hedge our bets. The degree and nature of those hedges are for the political, not the scientific, process to decide.

John
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 17, 2009 - 07:20am PT
once again, dirt, you're deflecting and attacking

my challenge wasn't about the science (i know where to find it, and ed is doing a superb job on his own) but about political media presenting both sides of a story...any story

you always trash me for articles i find on admittedly right-wing sites but never address the points made; you simply attack the messenger

my challenge, again: show me a lib political site that presents both sides of the climate issue...i proved hotair.com is willing to give the opposition a voice by posting to a link that debunks claims by the "deniers"
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 17, 2009 - 07:48am PT
looks like those evil ruskies are up to no good...again:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 17, 2009 - 12:24pm PT
DMT,

While I'm not so sure about empires with extended supply lines (after all, Rome/Byzantium and England/U.K. lasted a very long time), your comment about unilateral first world action having a severly adverse effect on manufacturing there has a strong basis in reality. That makes dealing with this issue such a daunting task.

John
Deemed Useless

Social climber
Ca.
Dec 17, 2009 - 09:15pm PT
I think DMT is barking up the right tree here. However, I also think there is a "witch hunt" out there for newly industrialized nations. I think the ability to produce is at the fore front of all of this climate change demonology.

As this is a climbing forum.


When did the glaciers in Yosemite begin to retreat?... and also...Is the modern age a part of its progress of retreat?
Deemed Useless

Social climber
Ca.
Dec 17, 2009 - 10:32pm PT
Ed, I took this from your reply.


(A Yosemite Glacier re-formed at least twice since then but never again became nearly so large as that of a million years ago. The most recent glaciation was at a maximum only about 20,000 years ago, but the glacier was not very large. The ice extended only as far as Bridalveil Meadow and did not erode high on the valley walls. Retreat of this last glacier left moraines; Lake Yosemite; and waterfalls at hanging valleys, such as Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall; and at glacial steps, such as Vernal Fall and Nevada Fall. Moraines and waterfalls remain, but Lake Yosemite was filled with river-borne sediment to form the nearly flat valley floor on which the Merced River meanders today)

Sooo, why did it reform?

Did this glacier retreat along with other glaciers and "snow fields" along the Northern Hemisphere during the same time period?

Are we now a part of that same time period?
Deemed Useless

Social climber
Ca.
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:24am PT
Well, I guess my question is,... Is this time period a part of the same time period that melted the last "big" glacier to inhabit Yosemite Valley?
Deemed Useless

Social climber
Ca.
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:26am PT
20,000 years as it stands geologically does not sound like a lot of time.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 18, 2009 - 01:49am PT
Thought Ed did not believe that Yosemite Valley was ever glaciated.
Should we believe him or our lying eyes?

Breaking News!
Russian report kicks the CRU and IPCC AGW theory in the nuts.


It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.

The pain in Copenhagen must be severe. Alcohol sales probably are spiking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/




corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Dec 18, 2009 - 02:33am PT
You went back and deleted your post Ed? How 'East Anglia' of you.