« More on torture | Main | Fellow Blogger Needs Some Help »

New Study Proves Global Warming Models Worthless

This is truly a glass half empty / glass half full study on global warming. On the surface it's a big win for the global warming crowd, but then we all know about the devil and the details.

Read the whole thing but I'll quote the important paragraphs. (Pay attention to the bolded part, it will be important later.)

PRESS RELEASE: Models Underestimate Loss of Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

Gloom and doom right? Keep reading.

The study compared model simulations of late twentieth-century climate with observations. "This technique gives some indication of the realism of the simulated sea ice sensitivity to climate changes," said NCAR scientist Marika Holland, a co-author of the study.

When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period. ...

There are a number of factors that may lead to the low rates of simulated sea ice loss. Several models overestimate the thickness of the present day sea ice and the models may also fail to capture changes in atmosphere and ocean circulation that transport heat to polar regions.

The joke in engineering school is that optimists see the glass half full, pessimists see the glass half empty but engineers realize you need a smaller glass. I'm going to look at this study for what it really tells us, not what we want the results to tell us.

Forget for second what this does or doesn't say about global warming. If this study is true, it eviscerates all 18 computer models. Let me remind you the computer models failed miserably to accuracy predict THE PAST! The study compared the way all 18 models predicted the ice loss from 1953 to 2006 to what really happened.

These models are off by a factor of 3X predicting THE PAST but the global warming crowd says we can count on them to predict 100 years in the future with precision accuracy.

It's time to admit that not only is the science not settled but the people who keep saying it is are the scientific equivalent of the emperor with no clothes. We really don't know much about what the climate is doing or is planning on doing but thanks to this new study we do know that all the models that the supposed "consensus" is built upon are meaningless.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Study Proves Global Warming Models Worthless:

» Joust The Facts linked with When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?

Comments (144)

Is it going to rain tomorro... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Is it going to rain tomorrow?

This is going to be seen as blasphemy to the religion of Gore. Heads will roll as he played on our fears.

There is a great lesson her... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

There is a great lesson here about the amarmism and knee jerk reaction to scientists' statements of what they think at the time. I am so glad we did not sign on to Kyoto. I also know many countries who have regret it big time. ww

idk.The general tr... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

idk.

The general trend among the alarmists is to accelerate the timetable of the Doom & Gloom. This is right up their ally.

Ramping up the pace is their response to more and more scientists going on the record against global warming alarmism. Increasing the threat as justification to ignore the growing "Hey wait a second" crowd.

If the models had been off ... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

If the models had been off in both directions, I might agree with you. But they weren't. They all underestimated the rate of sea-ice loss.

That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account. It doesn't say, suggest, or even hint that the elements which are being accounted for are being calculated incorrectly. So the models are incomplete, but not worthless.

THEY SAY WERE SUPPOST TO BE... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

THEY SAY WERE SUPPOST TO BE HAVING A INCREASED AMOUNT OF HURRICANES THIS YEAR BUT DID,NT THEY SAY THAT LAST YEAR? THIER TELLING US A BUNCH OF POPPYCOCK

On no media newscast will y... (Below threshold)

On no media newscast will you hear the mitigating factors you cite, Paul. It doesn't fit The Agenda, which I've always suspected is more about getting Democrats elected than any tangible concern about "The Environment".

Paul, your logic seems brea... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Paul, your logic seems breathtaking ..Because scientists and their computer models failed to predict the severity of the trend lines of ice loss, we should be somehow reassured that as margin of error was so great, that is the loss was much greater than expected that anything could possible in the future.
Scientists have been predicting that the ice loss will start to show an exponetial rate, very soon and based on photos of the last 25 years and the latest observations. Scientists note stunning loss of Arctic ice, snow this April, 2007 it looks that we are reaching this point. We are headed only one way..down..
Paul, this isn't the stock market with ups and downs..this is a meltdown reinforced by bio-feed back loops that is very difficult to reverse; the exact opposite of the snowball effect.

If we are "headed only one ... (Below threshold)
ts:

If we are "headed only one way..down.." then how do you explain the fact that there is more ice in Antarctica?

http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

Since ice variably accumula... (Below threshold)
kim:

Since ice variably accumulates and decreases variably according to local conditions, it is not a leading indicator of anything.

The Sillies.
=======

What seems clear is that th... (Below threshold)
groucho:

What seems clear is that the rate of polar ice melting is more accelerated that predicted, which should be the important point here. Things are warming up, and quickly. Even that commie-pinko leftwing rag, National Geographic, seems to agree. Cyclical? Man-made pollutant driven? A little of both? What's the difference? Where's the downside in assuming the worst and working to curb emissions and pollutants ASAP? If we are on a slippery slope, maybe we can slow things up a bit and avert some of the more radical climate shifts; if we're not, we have a cleaner, more eficient environment perhaps less dependent on imported oil. Where's the problem?

The head-in-the-sand crowd, with fingers inserted firmly in ears, ignores the obvious, choosing instead to beat the bushes for any shred of evidence they can spin to support their politicization of our climate. I think they are mortally afraid that when this does turn out to be more of a problem than they're saying, it will be a mortal blow to whatever little credibility they may have left

Egad! It's the dreaded "dou... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Egad! It's the dreaded "double mortal".

Hmmmm - so what exactly is ... (Below threshold)
GeminiChuck:

Hmmmm - so what exactly is the problem? Article didnt address impact, which, according to UN, seas will rise 18" by mid century while Algore says 20'. I say poppycock. The Artic is water, not land. When the ice melts it has no impact on sea levels. If all the ice in the Antartic and in Greenland melted off the land, than there would be a major impact on sea levels - but that just isnt happening. So what's the real downside of less ice over a certain period. Do they really expect us to believe it'll reduce the polar bear population - still plenty of room to live, I'm sure.

But I do agree with Groucho - we should be concerned about polution - and we have been. The US is the world's leader in cutting polution. Polution used to be the cry of the environmentalists - but they changed to "global warming" - not sure why, but I'm guessing they can raise more money that way. gc

The data for ice melting i... (Below threshold)

The data for ice melting is quantifiable from a historical perspecitve. One only has to look at the Great Lakes as evidence of melting ice.

Climate change is par for the Earth...what hasn't been convincingly argued is that the change in-and-of-itself (in any direction) is bad or that the Earth can't handle it.

If we go just on past evidence, the Earth seems to weather it (pun intended) just fine over the long term.

There are arguments for lowering pollution emissions (Mercury, Lead, Sulphur Dioxide) that aren't part of the natural atmosphere. But C02 is a by-product of oxidation (biological (think breathing) and industrial). If it is determined that there is too much carbon in the air, we can use human ingenuity to sequester it. For example: Soils offer new hope as carbon sink.

Here's some more food for thought. Dupont and BP are promoting the use of Biobutanol. In their presentation they conclude:

Today, biofuels account for less that 2% of global transportation fuels but this could increase to 30% in key markets in the future...

What's interesting about their approach is that they account for the recycling of C02 emmissions.

With any alternative fuels,... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

With any alternative fuels, the infrastructure has to be in place for it to be used. I firmly support alternative fuels so the arab countries can go back to what they do best and that is fight each other. And no, you cannot assume the worst. That is exactly the problem here. What should always happen is do what you are sure needs to be done, emphasis on sure. ww

Oh, lord, the dreaded 'doub... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, lord, the dreaded 'double variably'.
================================

Any late word from CERN?<br... (Below threshold)
kim:

Any late word from CERN?
==============

Paul,Please get th... (Below threshold)
LouisianaLightning:

Paul,

Please get the joke right:

When asked to comment about a glass 50% full of a liquid:
An Optimist sayes, "It's half FULL"
A Pessimist sayes, "It's half EMPTY"
An Engineer sayes, "It's TWICE as big as necessary"

My parents often said, "That boy ain't right."

An Aerospace Engineer

If the computer models are ... (Below threshold)

If the computer models are not correct then the conclusions about which elements cause the melt are not correct.

The world *is* getting warmer at the moment.

The controversy is in the "why" of it. And while reducing pollution is it's own reward, that's not what the AGW alarmists are demanding of us. The "why" of global warming is humans and denying it is heresy, or at the very least we're supposed to figure "better safe than sorry."

But human caused global warming requires a whole lot more than reducing pollution (which is good for us all) but requires solutions with very real potential for serious harm to real people.

It matters to get the "why" right. When melt is happening at much greater rates than the computer models predict it means that the *why* is not right.

Which means the "solutions" will not be right.

>If the models had been off... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>If the models had been off in both directions, I might agree with you. But they weren't. They all underestimated the rate of sea-ice loss.

>That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account.

Wolfwalker you are -to be blunt- an idiot.

If there is "an element that isn't being taken into account" that basically defines the models being worthless worthless.

If they can't even model the past, how can they model the future?

>Paul, your logic seems bre... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul, your logic seems breathtaking ..Because scientists and their computer models failed to predict the severity of the trend lines of ice loss, we should be somehow reassured that as margin of error was so great, that is the loss was much greater than expected that anything could possible in the future.

Steve Crickmore, Your lack of reading comprehension is breathtaking.

If the models are off by 300% predicting the past, how much faith should we put on them to predict 100 years in the future?

Your problem is that I'm talking science and you're talking about your religion.

BTW Steve, to show just how... (Below threshold)
Paul:

BTW Steve, to show just how much you have on the ball, the story you linked???

Yeah, that's a news story on the study I linked in the post.

Other than that, you made a good point.

So a study that shows ice i... (Below threshold)
jim:

So a study that shows ice is melting even faster than predicted...shows that there's nothing to worry about.

Come on, man. Really.

Let's say this study was a report on your daughter's cancer. The doctors had made computer models, and showed a mass growing at a slow and deadly rate; and a biopsy then showed a much faster and deadly rate.

Would you be relieved, because this 'disproves' their models?! I don't think so.

What do you have to gain by thinking this way? What does it get you?

Your problem is that I'm... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

Your problem is that I'm talking science and you're talking about your religion.

And that says it all. You get the same sort of stuff out of the guys that stand on the street corners with THE END IS NEAR signs. Global warming is based on wild guesses, jimmyed models, and political philosophy all wrapped up into something akin to the jonestown cult. God forbid you point out the errors in the dogma because you get people like Crickmore and his ilk who'll lay down the righteous indignation with a zeal that would make a Southern baptist preacher blush.

Jim,So, are you ta... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Jim,

So, are you taking Gore's "the Earth has a fever analogy" to a new level?

It would get you away from the doctors with the lousy models and on to someone who knows what they're doing! And that is about as much an answer as your stupid, emotional analogy deserves.

We know cancer can be deadly and we will take all necessary precautions to avoid and/or stop it. Global-warming is some scare tactic to use a rise in the earth's temperature as a means to bring about a political idealogy. There is nothing to suggest that a rise in the Earth's temperature is bad for the planet. Nothing to suggest that it hasn't happened before. Nothing to suggest that simply curbing emissions will do anything.

What this article does suggest is that we have no way of knowing what is going to happen and certainly no way of modeling the outcome.

Rex Tillerson believes the ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Rex Tillerson believes the jury is still out on global warming

Exxon Mobil chief cools global-warming
By BOB COX
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS -- Global warming was a hot topic at the Exxon Mobil Corp. annual meeting Wednesday, but Chief Executive Rex Tillerson continued his effort to cool some of the criticisms of the oil-industry giant.

groucho asks a good questio... (Below threshold)

groucho asks a good question: "Where's the downside in assuming the worst and working to curb emissions and pollutants ASAP?"

Here's the good answer: opportunity costs. When you spend money or time on one thing, you do not have it available to spend on other things. If you, for example, go out to dinner with your family, you cannot use that same money to go to the movies, or put gas in your car, or give up to have a job where you work fewer hours. It's all trade-offs.

So looking at that in the context of what to do about global warming, any money spent in some mad rush to do something now is not available to do anything else. If there were a definite, imminent crisis threatening life and livelihood, and if we could not adapt around it, and if we knew how to fix it, then it would be fairly easy to justify spending large amounts of money to prevent or mitigate the problems.

The doubt I, and apparently many others, feels is that we are not convinced that there is necessarily a coming crisis that will be bad for children and all living things, because all we are seeing is demands to stop asking for evidence, and ridicule for pointing out evidence contrary to the consensus that, we are informed, is absolute and beyond debate, again with a paucity of evidence. Whether we could adapt around any problems easier than we could prevent them is out of bounds of rational discussion, apparently, and any attempt (such as Paul's post) to determine if we even know how to fix the problem are derided and ridiculed.

Given that we are not convinced, shouting at us is unlikely to convince us. And given that the opportunity cost tradeoff is apparently that the government should reduce our wealth directly (through taxation) and indirectly (through imposing costs and limits on businesses that provide that wealth), in order to spend massive amounts of our wealth on this purported problem, you must pardon us for asking for something more than "because it might be true."

Wolfwalker sez: <blo... (Below threshold)
Lugnut:

Wolfwalker sez:

That suggests clearly there's an element that isn't being taken into account. It doesn't say, suggest, or even hint that the elements which are being accounted for are being calculated incorrectly. So the models are incomplete, but not worthless.

The models are indeed worthless, you numbnut. If the modelers are inaccurate or have missed even one variable, it blows their whole model out of the water.

Suppose we have a good climate scientist who decides to use 100 variables for his model. Further optimistically suppose he's nailed every variable down and is 99% accurate on all 100 of them. To know the probable accuracy of his model, multiply 99/100 by itself 100 times. This works out to about 36.6%, or about a one in three chance his model is accurate.

Yer sacred computer models ain't worth nothin'.

Exactly, J.R. Jim's "child... (Below threshold)

Exactly, J.R. Jim's "child with cancer" analogy is seriously off. Still, a medical analogy might work.

Say... growing. Growing is normal. Giantism is not, and is not healthy. Suppose a "cure" for giantism. Suppose every time a kid grows more than six inches in a year the doctor sticks 'em with the cure.

Or I suppose we could get the cancer analogy to work. Not all growths are cancerous. Suppose a doctor stuck a kid on chemo when the tumor was benign.

The study compared mode... (Below threshold)
marc:

The study compared model simulations of late twentieth-century climate with observations.

Isn't that like comparing a Hot Wheels model of a '57 Chevy and a real '57 Chevy?

OMG. Heidi Cullen is gonna ... (Below threshold)

OMG. Heidi Cullen is gonna have a cat over this.

"Essentially what's happeni... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

"Essentially what's happening is there's been so much warm weather, week after week, month after month, season after season, the environment is just not behaving the way it should" in the Arctic site I linked to at 10.08a.m.

The Arctic has been thought of as the canary in the coal mine of the globe. Paul, looks for the silver lining, that the ice loss was worse than was predicted by incremental computer projections, it nullifies the exercise, but this is precisely the point that has'n't been lost on the 'alarmist scientists. "Planet Earth does not do gradual change. It does big jumps; it works by tipping points" what I called exponetial change which is very difficult for a computer to predict exactly, but we sure as hang will know when it hits us. I suspect those living in Alaska already do, such as senator Ted Stevens who once was an avowed sceptic of anthropogenic global warming, but has become convinced since the beginning of this year, that we have to combat it.

So, are you taking Gore'... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, are you taking Gore's "the Earth has a fever analogy" to a new level?

So you're completely ignoring my analogy? Why, is it just too uncomfortable for you?

It would get you away from the doctors with the lousy models and on to someone who knows what they're doing!

And straight into the faith healing of "there must be something wrong with their model, because it's even worse than they say it is."

At least I'm comforted thinking you'll treat your daughter's life as coldly as you're treating the future.

Furthermore, your response is stupid and emotional. Nyah nyah nyah.

Here's what I don't get:</p... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's what I don't get:

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not?

- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome?

I mean, I honestly don't get it. Seriously. All arguments aside, can you just explain to me why you think this way?

Perhaps a bit off topic, bu... (Below threshold)

Perhaps a bit off topic, but it gives me endless amusement that the people who propose that the world spend a large percentage of its collective GDP on global warming mitigation in reliance on those computer models are often the same ones who oppose nuclear power -- an energy source that does not contribute to global warming.

Doesn't matter a bit to them that: (a) the nuclear fuel cycle has been studied in real time for 60-ish years; (b) that the chemistry and physics of nuclear power are well known and have been put to practical use for about the same amount of time; (c) with the exception of Chernobyl (an event that at root was due to an incompetent politico/economic system) the technology has been producing electricity safely for about the same time; or (d) that the global heat cycle is several orders of magnitude more complex than the nuclear fuel cycle.

And by the way, the geology special shown on The Science Channel last night talked about previous epochs when the glaciers in the Rocky Mountains had disappeared--long before humans ceased being hunter-gatherers. Finally, Greenland was not always covered with ice--why do you think the Vikings called it "GREENland?"

THIS is happening because o... (Below threshold)
greg:

THIS is happening because of AGW, and THAT is happening, yada, yada. Show me the temperature records. Show me the WARMING, not some tangential side-effect possibly caused by warming.

Oh, wait, the temperature data doesn't show warming (outside of urban heat islands in growing cities). Oops.
For temp graphs, see:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm

Pildown Mann's Crooked Hock... (Below threshold)
kim:

Pildown Mann's Crooked Hockey Stick, the fraudulent image which underlies much of the hysteria about AGW, is based on the Bristlecone Pine tree ring/temperature proxy which is in error. Those tree rings were thickening because of the fertilizing effect of increased CO2, not from increasing temperature. And on that monstrous tautology hang the horrific and worsening social costs of Kyoto.

Everytime The Gorebellied One vents, somewhere something sentient freezes. Bad Karma, ol' Bud.
====================================

Jim: Here's what I don't ge... (Below threshold)

Jim: Here's what I don't get:

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not?

Me: The world is getting warmer.

- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

Me: Yes.

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

Me: Yes.

- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

Me: Yes.

- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome?

Me: No. Though this is a "stopped beating your wife" question. What worldwide flooding?

Jim: I mean, I honestly don't get it. Seriously. All arguments aside, can you just explain to me why you think this way?


Me: I believe there are other possibilities because in the earths long history it has been both much warmer and much colder. Objective logic demands that I accept that things *other than* humans can and do cause global warming and cooling.

The problem is that the other things that we know cause global warming and cooling have no political or social utility since they don't involve something people have done.

Sort of the way no one is panicking about our magnetic field getting spotty and the poles flipping over. Could be a huge human disaster or a complete non-event but in any case there's nothing to do about it since Gaia doesn't give a flying crap about our feelings on the matter.

greg..I just looked at the ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

greg..I just looked at the samping of a few of your random temperature graphs and" they are in close agreement with observed changes; the surface has warmed by about .5°C (0.9°F) Also from a-NASA funded study from 1951-2000'' CLIMATE CHANGE: 50 YEARS PAST AND POSSIBLE FUTURES
Your point exactly..It may not seem like much now but as the authors predict if we don't do something, it will continue to rise for the next 50 years to be least double that.

Jim, Jim, so many questions... (Below threshold)
greg:

Jim, Jim, so many questions. Let's hit a few.

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not? -Yes. After it got colder (Little Ice age), which was after it got warmer (Medieval Warm Period), which was after it got colder (Maunder minimum, aka "the Dark Ages", cold was bad), which was after it got warmer (Roman Warm Period), and so on.
- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities? ---Other than the above succession of warming and cooling, actually, yes. It's called "The Sun." Fellow named Henrick Svensmark, a Dane, theorized and demonstrated the connection between cosmic rays, the effect the sun has in varying the amount of cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere, and cloud formation, which controls climate. See: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+PDF+%28502+KB%29&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1468-4004.2007.48118.x Or google on Svensmark cosmoclimatology.

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming? ---Other than the fact that it's been going on since recorded history, well, yes. CO2 absorbs a specific wavelength of infrared (radiated heat). The first dose of CO2 soaks up a big portion of it. The next dose soaks up less, because some of that wavelength has already been absorbed. The next dose even less. Eventually, all the radiation in that wavelength is being absorbed, and no matter how much more CO2 you put in the air, there is no increase in greenhouse effect. We're about there already. Oh, and another line or reasoning, the bulk of the warming took place prior to 1940, the bulk of the CO2 was released after 1940. Did Mother Nature anticipate the coming gas and crank up the thermostat? And with increasing CO2, why did we have a 35-year cooling trend from 1940 to 1975 (when the fear was the coming ice age)?
- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*? -- No. In all likelihood it will reverse. The next sunspot cycle is predicted to be a very weak one, which portends cooling. See the Svensmark piece. And see the previous answer, the greenhouse effect is not linear, doubling CO2 does not double the effect.

- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome? ----No, I think worldwide flooding is a stupid thing to worry about. Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice, and in a warming climate there will be more snowfall in cold places. Antarctica is actually in a 30-year cooling trend (except for the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed due to a shift in decadal-length circulation cycles, and it is out of the Antarctic Circle anyway), which is counter to all the global warming models, but is elegantly explained by the above Svensmark paper.

Any more questions?

The global climate is getti... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The global climate is getting warmer. It has been doing that for over 150 years.

The computer models were created to show the effect of CO2 forcing, and that's what they do. However, the models are completely wrong. Here's an excerpt from an April 5, 2007 article in the National Post. Emphasis is mine.

The "fluff," Prof. Dyson explains, comes from climate-change models that predict all manner of catastrophe. The models count for naught as predictive tools.

"I have studied their climate models and know what they can do," Prof. Dyson says. "The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

Prof. Dyson explains that the many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects.

"They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. [now we know they don't even do that - ML] But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere," he states. [mathematician and physicist, Freeman Dyson]

Other then CO2, the best theory going is that global climate is driven by solar cycles, which control the intensity of cosmic rays penetrating the atmosphere, which in turn causes low level clouds that cool the planet. This theory is being investigated at CERN this summer under the project name CLOUD.

If the CERN experiments show a strong link, then it's the Sun, not human activity, that's driving the global climate and the best prediction is that we will enter a global cooling phase in just a decade.

Even if CO2 is a significant contributor, it also cause rapid plant growth and aerosols given off by this growth cause clouds. This NEGATIVE feedback mechanism has already been observed in satellite photos of the south Pacific. The IPCC's positive feedback is just a theory and is likely just as wrong as the computer models. Without the positive feedback there are no tipping points.

We really need to understand the real reason for climate change before we sign a treaty that's going to damage our economy. Also, any treaty should have an escape clause that renders it invalid if future scientific investigations show that CO2 is not the major cause of global warming. Under that escape clause, any carbon offset payments already made should be refunded.

"...this is a meltdown rein... (Below threshold)
John S:

"...this is a meltdown reinforced by bio-feed back loops that is very difficult to reverse; the exact opposite of the snowball effect... "

Nonsense. There was an interesting science show on last night. Apparently two scientists didn't get the Al Gore hysteria memo. Both were standing on the largest glacier in Canada and noting that it was melting and would be gone in 100 years or so. A scientific fact. Then they also noted that 5,000 years ago the glacier hadn't been there. (Must have been the carbon emissions from the SUVs the ancient Egyptians drove.) The glacier had appeared about 4,000 years ago when the climate cooled slightly. "Glacier's come and go," one said. The other remarked in 5,000 years the area will be covered in an ice sheet deep enough to cover the surrounding the mountains. He spoke, of course, of the next ice age that will arrive in the next 3 or 4,000 years. The earth will be 50% covered in ice for about 2 million years and civilization (and most of mankind) will disappear.

If we pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere we may delay the destruction of the Earth's northern hemisphere by a few centuries, but I doubt it. The climate will do what it wants and the tiny amount of CO2 we add has no effect.

Here's what I don't get:</p... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Here's what I don't get:

- do you think the earth is getting warmer, or not?

Paul: Over what period of time? A year? a decade? a century? 10,000 centuries?

You're asking a silly question. Is the earth -which is about 6 billion years old- in a 3 decade long warming trend? Probably so. Do you think 20 years on a 6 billion year old planet is important?

======================
- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

WOW! DO you have any evidence that you didn't kill Nichole Brown Simpson? You're a murderer!

No, not a murderer but an idiot for asking such a stupid question. And Yet I'll answer.

I have no evidence of any kind that would make me believe why we are in a 2 decade old warming trend on a 6 billion year old rock that has has dramatic climate cycles since the day it was formed.
================
- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

Because we're insignificant pissants?

================
- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

SURE! Billions of years of history where the planet got warmer and colder. BTW did I mention you're an idiot?
================
- do you think worldwide flooding will be awesome?

Like I said. Idiot. Your whole argument is that since I can't prove it isn't true than it must be true.

Can you prove I'm not from Mars?

Nope? Well, I must be a martian.

I consider it a badge of honor that you don't understand the way I think. You're an idiot.

OK, well, at least it seems... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, well, at least it seems we're all agreeing that the Earth is getting warmer, and global flooding would be bad.

For the rest, I honestly don't understand how the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed scientific research in support of the human causes of global warming, doesn't stick more.

I'm curious where those of you grew up, who don't think global warming is caused by humanity. Was it in urban or suburban/rural locations? And was there a distinct change of seasons that included cold weather?

Paul: Over what period o... (Below threshold)
jim:

Paul: Over what period of time? A year? a decade? a century? 10,000 centuries?

Oh, come on. Put on your thinking cap. Which do you think I'm talking about? The amount of time that humans have been able to have an effect on the overall climate. Let's say, to put it on the outside, the past 150 years.

You're asking a silly question. Is the earth -which is about 6 billion years old- in a 3 decade long warming trend? Probably so. Do you think 20 years on a 6 billion year old planet is important?

No, I don't think it's important - to the earth. The earth couldn't give a crap if it were flooded with water, or covered in lava. It's of extreme importance to me, tho.

If there's a possibility of the Earth being flooded within my children's lifetime, I consider it the height of irresponsibility to think an uncaring earth will just take care of it for me.

- if you do, do you have any *evidence* that global warming is caused by something else *other than* human activities?

WOW! DO you have any evidence that you didn't kill Nichole Brown Simpson? You're a murderer!

That's really funny. See, in the situation we're talking about, the overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific research supports human-caused global warming...just as the overwhelming criminal evidence supports OJ-Simpson-caused wife murder.

You make my point for me. You have no evidence, but would want us to think humans aren't responsible...just like OJ would want us to think that he isn't responsible.

No, not a murderer but an idiot for asking such a stupid question. And Yet I'll answer.

Nyah nyah. YOU'RE an idiot. And a stupid poopyhead. But wait, I'll answer your answer.

I have no evidence of any kind that would make me believe why we are in a 2 decade old warming trend on a 6 billion year old rock that has has dramatic climate cycles since the day it was formed.

OK. Go read some of the many hundreds of peer-reviewed and undisputed scientific reports for evidence.

You're welcome.

- do you have any *reasons why* human activities can't be causing this warming?

Because we're insignificant pissants?

Compared to the earth, perhaps. Compared to the part of the earth that keeps us alive, we're not insignificant. Go drive the NJ Turnpike to Newark some time, if you think we can't have an effect on nature.

- do you have any reasons why global warming will just *stop*?

SURE! Billions of years of history where the planet got warmer and colder. BTW did I mention you're an idiot?

Sorry - what was that? I was distracted by the fact that YOU'RE an idiot. And a poopy stupid head. Poopy poopy crap pants stupid head. YOu.

Like I said. Idiot. Your whole argument is that since I can't prove it isn't true than it must be true.

So -asking for evidence, and you not having any evidence, means I'm wrong and stupid.

Riiiiiiight.

Can you prove I'm not from Mars?

Yes. Martians don't type on the human internet, or use English.

Any other weird non-sequitirs that disprove your own points? Please feel free.

I consider it a badge of honor that you don't understand the way I think. You're an idiot.

I hope it's a badge of honor that goes well with your poopyhead suit.

Oh, and Mac - Professor Dys... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and Mac - Professor Dyson is a physicist and a mathematician, not a climatologist.

So he is as much an authority on climatology, as a climatologist is on nuclear physics. Just sayin'.

And that, in case you were ... (Below threshold)

And that, in case you were wondering, Jim, is why the peer reviewed stuff doesn't stick more.

Because if it's from a AGW choir member it matters and if it's from someone of the stature of Freeman Dyson (who is *certainly* capable of understanding the limitations of computer modeling) then suddenly he's not a climatologist and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

Even when these "not an experts" point out errors that have to be corrected... they still don't count because they aren't climatologists.

And suddenly it's all about authority and who has it and who doesn't.

Many scientific fields have vibrant contributions from "not an experts." Yet in this one we find that the veracity of any opinion is dependent wholly on coming to the acceptable conclusion.

Jim,For t... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jim,

For the rest, I honestly don't understand how the overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed scientific research in support of the human causes of global warming, doesn't stick more.

Here's what's going on with that peer reviewed science.

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

"The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that -- it is a panel among governments. Any scientist who participates in this process expecting the strictures of science to reign must beware, lest he be stung."

Read the whole article if you dare to take your head out of the sand.

Jim,Oh, a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jim,

Oh, and Mac - Professor Dyson is a physicist and a mathematician, not a climatologist.

Are you kidding! A physicist and a mathematician is EXACTLY the correct area of expertise for computer modeling.

Prof. Reiter...an entomolog... (Below threshold)
jim:

Prof. Reiter...an entomologist. Well:

a) the IPCC he's referring to is a UN organization. It is responding to the overwhelming multitude of peer-reviewed scientific reports; it is not generating that multitude.

b) In that article, Reiter rightly pointed out how the IPCC was wrong about the effect Global Warming would have on insects. That's his field, and he's an expert there.

However, that just goes to show the importance of not stating opinions as facts, in areas outside of one's expertise.

So, this actually reinforces how, as Reiter is not an expert on climatology, his opinion may be just as much at fault outside his own specialty, as climatologiests may be outside of theirs.

Are you kidding! A physi... (Below threshold)
jim:

Are you kidding! A physicist and a mathematician is EXACTLY the correct area of expertise for computer modeling.

Are you kidding? I said Dyson wasn't an expert in *climatology*. We're talking about whether the computer modelling is accurate, for **climatology**. In which Dyson is not an expert. A smart guy, but not an expert in another highly complicated specialty field of science.

Just an expert in climatology, however smart, would not automatically be an expert in nuclear physics. So, that expert in climatology would not be an authority on whether computer modelling is accurate for experiments in nuclear physics.

Many scientific fields h... (Below threshold)
jim:

Many scientific fields have vibrant contributions from "not an experts."

Sure. And they're great when they disprove those contributions...with evidence.

Yet in this one we find that the veracity of any opinion is dependent wholly on coming to the acceptable conclusion.

That's interesting, because you're exhibiting the very definition of this behavior:

An overwhelming majority of the actual experts who've made this they're life's work, must be wrong because you don't like their conclusion.

And the people who aren't experts and are contradicting the vast majority, must be right because you *like* their conclusion. Without, I might add, any evidence.

Typing too fast - above sho... (Below threshold)
jim:

Typing too fast - above should read "Sure. And it's great when they prove their contributions...with evidence."

8,000 years ago, the earth ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

8,000 years ago, the earth was covered by approximately 14.8 billion acres of forests. The world's forest area has now shrunk to 8.6 billion acres as a consequence of human exploitation -- most of which occurred in the last 50 years
Deforestation: The Hidden Cause of Global Warming..and this only about 22 % of the cause the rest being the burning of fossil fuels.
The actions of 6 billion humans on a planet have consequences..What makes anyone think it wouldn't have an effect on climate you shouldn't have have to be a rocket scientist to understand ?...but then the Chief of Nasa says "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it (global warming) is a problem we must wrestle with."..No wonder the Europeans are perplexed with the Bush administration policy on climate change.

"An overwhelming majority o... (Below threshold)

"An overwhelming majority of the actual experts who've made this they're life's work, must be wrong because you don't like their conclusion."

No, Jim. The overwhelming majority of "actual experts" are overwhelmingly not actually experts in climatology at all but whole bunches of different areas of science. They get on the "list" by having the right conclusions, not by having the right study specialty.

Not that I think they shouldn't be on the list. The world is a complex place and a whole lot of people have made a lifetime study of examining some particular part of it. All are necessary to see the whole.

If you think that the huge "consensus" of AGW scientists is made up only of those who particularly study the particular question of global climate change then you're delusional.

Steve, I think planting tre... (Below threshold)

Steve, I think planting trees would be wonderful. There's all sorts of places that could be replanted and life would be made more pleasant.

Same with pollution. Clean air and water are an immediate good.

the IPCC he's refe... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
the IPCC he's referring to is a UN organization. It is responding to the overwhelming multitude of peer-reviewed scientific reports; it is not generating that multitude.

The IPCC is funding a lot of the science and they are imposing their rules on the peer review process as reported by Prof. Reiter. You don't need to be a climatologiests to notice that the IPCC "turns this on its head". The peer-review process imposed by the IPCC does not follow the "strictures of science".

In that article, Reiter rightly pointed out how the IPCC was wrong about the effect Global Warming would have on insects. That's his field, and he's an expert there.

And expert after expert tells the same story. Their own research doesn't agree with the IPCC, and the IPCC ignores them at best or attempts to discredit them, or block funding. The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific organization.

However, that just goes to show the importance of not stating opinions as facts, in areas outside of one's expertise.

Opinions should never be stated as fact even within one's expertise. Only facts should be stated as facts.

Are you kidding? I... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Are you kidding? I said Dyson wasn't an expert in *climatology*. We're talking about whether the computer modelling is accurate, for **climatology**. In which Dyson is not an expert. A smart guy, but not an expert in another highly complicated specialty field of science.

A climatologiest wouldn't have a clue as to how the GC models work or understand their weakness. Only a physicist and a mathematician can examine the algorithms and determine how well they model nature. You know, follow the laws of physics. As Dyson stated, "many components of climate models are divorced from first principles and are "parameterized" -- incorporated by reference to their measured effects. In layman's temrs that means they use circular logic, and that means they have no real predictive power.

Where's the downside in ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Where's the downside in assuming the worst and working to curb emissions and pollutants ASAP?

OK. Let's ALSO ban abortion, just in case life does begin at conception.

Where's the downside, really?
-=Mike

Oh, come on. Put on your... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Oh, come on. Put on your thinking cap. Which do you think I'm talking about? The amount of time that humans have been able to have an effect on the overall climate. Let's say, to put it on the outside, the past 150 years.

Except the figures don't bear that out.

Dirty Little Secret as to Why the 90's Were "The Hottest Decade on Record": There were A LOT fewer stations monitoring temperature. Most of the ones that ceased operations happened to be in the cash-strapped former USSR.

When you remove one of the coldest places on the planet --- shockingly, the "average temperature" increases. It's not really true, but the numbers sure seem nifty.

If there's a possibility of the Earth being flooded within my children's lifetime, I consider it the height of irresponsibility to think an uncaring earth will just take care of it for me.

There's not a scientist on the planet who thinks there's even a miniscule possibility. The average expected sea level rise is in the realm of a few cm.

Now, if you wish to forego all energy usage to prevent the sea from rising 3 cm, knock yourself out.

That's really funny. See, in the situation we're talking about, the overwhelming peer-reviewed scientific research supports human-caused global warming...just as the overwhelming criminal evidence supports OJ-Simpson-caused wife murder.

Except the evidence is MUCH flimsier than the reporting of the evidence. Heck, the IPCC ACTUAL data and the summary of the data barely correspond at all.

As for peer-reviewed data, the laughable hockey stick graph was peer-reviewed and is a known farce.

You make my point for me. You have no evidence, but would want us to think humans aren't responsible...just like OJ would want us to think that he isn't responsible.

You're the one demanding major changes. You have to present the case.

Compared to the earth, perhaps. Compared to the part of the earth that keeps us alive, we're not insignificant. Go drive the NJ Turnpike to Newark some time, if you think we can't have an effect on nature.

We are irrelevant to the planet. Hate to burst your bubble.

8,000 years ago, the earth was covered by approximately 14.8 billion acres of forests. The world's forest area has now shrunk to 8.6 billion acres as a consequence of human exploitation -- most of which occurred in the last 50 years

Funny since the US is one of the leaders in reforestation.

Dirty global warming secret #2: The computer models spit out the identical results when fed completely random numbers.
-=Mike

We are irrelevant to the... (Below threshold)
jim:

We are irrelevant to the planet. Hate to burst your bubble.

Hate to burst your bubble, but you didn't even respond to this statement of mine, below:

Compared to the part of the earth that keeps us alive, we're not insignificant.

Please respond to it. See, it's only a very small part of the Earth that actually has life on it. And we are not irrelevant to that part. With nuclear weapons we could wipe out this thin part of nature a thousand times over, without affecting the majority of the physical earth - so I think you can agree, from that example, that we clearly can affect it.

If you think that the hu... (Below threshold)
jim:

If you think that the huge "consensus" of AGW scientists is made up only of those who particularly study the particular question of global climate change then you're delusional.

Really, Synova?

If you think most climate scientists don't think global warming is influenced by human factors, then you're delusional.

So there.

Opinions should never be... (Below threshold)
jim:

Opinions should never be stated as fact even within one's expertise. Only facts should be stated as facts.

Obviously. The whole problem is, everyone thinks *their* opinions really are facts - and everyone elses facts are just opinions, if they disagree.

Which is why we have experts in fields - to listen to their facts and analysis of facts.

And that is why minority naysayers aren't given the credence that majority consensus has, unless they have a darn good reason why the majority consensus is wrong.

Scientists who are not experts in the field in question, who have minor gripes because they aren't listened to as if they're the big cahunas, just don't count in my opinion.

As for the rest, if you don't think humanity has an effect on nature, and if you don't think the earth is getting warmer, and if you don't think it would be a good thing to do something about it as opposed to just hoping the majority of experts are wrong - well that's where we just part ways, I guess. I've said about all I can say on the subject.

A climatologiest wouldn'... (Below threshold)
jim:

A climatologiest wouldn't have a clue as to how the GC models work or understand their weakness.

Oh, really? Says that on the diploma, does it?


Only a physicist and a mathematician can examine the algorithms and determine how well they model nature. You know, follow the laws of physics.

And what is the nature being modeled? Why, it's climate. Now, who might be an expert in that sort of nature? Climate Scientists. So who might be in a good position to know if the model fits what's being studied? Guess.

And there's an important reason why there is a separate field of climate science than physics - that's because storms aren't like electrons. There's a whole different set of principles and interaction. It may be that the level of precision Dyson thinks must exist, simply isn't possible at the macro level that climate science studies. Fractal and chaos math would be just one reason for this.

But whatevs. You think all of global warming can't be caused by humans, and humans can't hurt nature at all, because **some** scientists who aren't climate scientists disagree with this theory.

Your privilege. I just disagree, and as far as I can see the facts are on my side, and you don't have any counter-facts that destroy the main premise: humans are having an effect on the Earth's climate that is currently counter to our best interests.

You're the one demanding... (Below threshold)
jim:

You're the one demanding major changes. You have to present the case.

I think the case is pretty clear, and presented pretty clearly, and you haven't presented any reasons or evidence that anything else is causing this warming.

We all agree that the earth is getting warmer. The only observed changed condition on earth is the exponential increase in human population, the deforestation, the increase in fossil fuels burning.

And there's **no** evidence of increased non-human-caused CO2 output at these levels; there's no evidence of increased solar output; and there's no evidence of other geothermal or chemical causes for the heat.

So where's it coming from?

You tell me.

Just to finish tidily:... (Below threshold)
jim:

Just to finish tidily:

-Yes. After it got colder (Little Ice age), which was after it got warmer...

OK. So you fall into the camp that says this current warming we're going through has precedents. Nothing to worry about. Gotcha.


- Fellow named Henrick Svensmark, a Dane, theorized and demonstrated the connection between cosmic rays...[and] climate.

I googled him, and found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html

[After being previously proven wrong- read article] So Friis-Christensen and another author [Henrik Svensmark] developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7).

Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with "low cloud cover"(8). This too turned out to be incorrect(9)."

Nice, reliable scientist.

But wait, there's more:

" Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere(10). Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays(11).

As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work", Schmidt says, "but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we've seen."(12)

To my knowledge, Henrik has not acknowledged or addressed these issues raised by the climate scientists.

Go read this scientists' analysis yourself, if you like:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

For the rest of the CO2 argument, I'll see if I'll wade into it tomorrow. Some of that will depend on if you can see and acknowledge the huge holes in Henrik's argument.

----No, I think worldwide flooding is a stupid thing to worry about.

Oh, ok. Well, we part ways right then and there.

jim, your 12:36 is post hoc... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, your 12:36 is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The earth has constantly changed climate. There is no need to assume an anthropogenic cause.

There is a study correlating Nile River levels with aurora borealis. These have long periods of historical reporting.

The CERN cosmic ray and cloud cover experiments are promising and your critics main objection to them is the preliminariness of the findings. If the effect they are showing are borne out, then the effect of the sun on our magnetism and the impact of cosmic rays is ten times as strong as the theoretical forcing from CO2.

It is not certain we are warming beyond the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rising, possible from the effect of Urban Heat Islands. The surface temperature of the southern hemisphere is not rising. The ocean and atmospheric temperatures in both hemispheres are not rising. How is that temperature pattern caused by a universally distributed gas?
===================

jim, go back in the clear l... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, go back in the clear light of dawn and re-evalutate your argument about Dyson and 'expertise'.

I like Synova's point that you don't consider someone a 'climatologist' unless they believe the AGW. The area in which there is consensus is in proxy climatologists and computer modelers, both chasing fairy spirits. Tree ring proxies are inadequate for study and how do you model a chaotic system. The reason scientists from so many areas are getting skeptical is that their is a huge cohort of 'climatologists' who are all just in an echo chamber, locked in by belief in Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick.

jim, get that image out of your mind. The proxy they were measuring with the Bristlecone Pines was an increase in fertilizer, CO2.

Read climateaudit.org and learn. Real Climate censors.
===================================

Why argue words with Schmid... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why argue words with Schmidt? Numbers from CERN may drown him.
=============================

Actually, your whole contri... (Below threshold)
kim:

Actually, your whole contribution last night was an argument to authority, one we skeptics distrust because of their association with MHB and the hockey stick.

'Climatology' is 'under a cloud', because the whole AGW thesis is extrapolation beyond what we know, and scientists in other fields know that the doomsaying extrapolations depend on fishy science and doomed computer exercises.
==================================

Damn, the dreaded double do... (Below threshold)
kim:

Damn, the dreaded double doom.
====================

And what is the na... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And what is the nature being modeled? Why, it's climate. Now, who might be an expert in that sort of nature? Climate Scientists. So who might be in a good position to know if the model fits what's being studied? Guess.

As usual you're just guessing. We are talking about climate modeling, which is a different discipline then climatology. So what skills does a climate modelling require? Here's what I found:

Climate modeling is intrinsically an interdisciplinary field, as climate diagnosis, analysis and prognosis require a wide range of specialists in mathematics, physics, and chemistry.

A renowned physicist and mathematician like Professor Dyson has EXACTLY the right skills for understanding climate modeling. Dyson points out that the current GC models are flawed in ways that makes them useless for predicting future conditions.

It's relatively easy to create neural network software that backcasts the stock market, or the weather at a given location, but no one has been able to make one that forecasts the stock market or the weather at a given location. The reason is that both systems are chaotic in the scientific sense of the word. The fact that the GC models can backcast climate is meaningless. As Dyson states "They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data."

Hopefully I have dummied this down enough so you can understand it Jim.

So, does the claim that hum... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

So, does the claim that humans are the primary cause of recent warming imply "crisis"? The impact on temperature per unit CO2 goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of human-induced greenhouse gases does not relate directly to emission rate, nor even to CO2 levels, but rather to the radiative (or greenhouse) impact. Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming.

What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans. -- Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor, University of London, UK.

Here's a good historical vi... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Here's a good historical view of climate change.

Fire and Ice: Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming.

Greenland's glaciers have b... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Brys... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences).

Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor...

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Read the whole article, it's a real eye opener.

Ice, as is becoming obvious... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ice, as is becoming obvious, forms and melts according to local conditions, and is not a leading indicator of anything. Aren't the ice sheets thickening in Central Greenland, increasing total Greenland ice mass, despite increased fraying at the edges?
====================

Kim,Different stud... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Kim,

Different studies use different methods and come up with different results. Here's a good summary of these studies.

Jim: You quoted: "... (Below threshold)
greg:

Jim:
You quoted: "

[After being previously proven wrong- read article] So Friis-Christensen and another author [Henrik Svensmark] developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7)."

Moonie also said "The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen."

Moonbat's salient point about solar cycles is the the LENGTH of the cycle did not correspond with temperature. However the Svensmark paper did not correlate length, but rather INTENSITY (as measured by sunspots per time period) of the cycle, which has also been correlated to temperature using isotope sunspot proxies going back millions of years, with excellent correlation to temperature proxies by Nir Shariv. Again, a tangential and irrelevant argument against a simple, demonstrable alternative to CO2-induced warming, which of course is heresy, and must be silenced.


So the source for "debunking" the sun/climate connection is Monbiot (AKA Moonbat)?

Jim[After... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jim

[After being previously proven wrong- read article] So Friis-Christensen and another author [Henrik Svensmark] developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover(6). This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found(7)."

How much of this litany in the Guardian demonstrates actual errors by Dr. Friis-Christensen? In truth, none of it. Virtually all of the criticisms of Dr. Friis- Christensen, published and republished willy-nilly, stem from a lone advisor to the Danish government's Ministry of the Energy with scant research credentials -- he even admits that the government hired him largely for his communications skill.

There is no arithmetic error in Dr. Friis-Christensen's studies. Remarkably, his critics attributed someone else's error to him, and then kept doggedly repeating their assertion. Neither are there errors in methodology, although this charge likewise gets repeated without foundation. -- Lawrence Solomon, National Post, April 13, 2007


jim,did you pick up the dis... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim,did you pick up the disinformation that Greg and Mac both show at Real Climate? If not, where?
===========================

Thanks, Mac, for the link t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thanks, Mac, for the link to CO2 Science. The point remains that local ice is a poor proxy for total global climate.
============

I like Synova's point th... (Below threshold)
jim:

I like Synova's point that you don't consider someone a 'climatologist' unless they believe the AGW.

Um-hm. Well, I like the point I made, that Synova doesn't consider someone right unless they *don't* believe the AGW.

What do you think about that?

'Climatology' is 'under ... (Below threshold)
jim:

'Climatology' is 'under a cloud', because the whole AGW thesis is extrapolation beyond what we know, and scientists in other fields know that the doomsaying extrapolations depend on fishy science and doomed computer exercises.

Kim, any extrapolation is beyond what we know, by definition.

The whole notion that is the heart of this article, that things actually being *worse* than the models proves the models are wrong, therefore things might actually better too - that's nonsense.

We are trying to predict the future, because we want our children to not only survive it, but have the best future possible.

Now you want to take a wealth of science that says something is *likely* - and you want to:

a) say that it is worthless and wrong because it isn't certain
b) say that Henrik's theory disproves it because it is "promising" - which is another word for as-yet-uncertain

And you want me to hang my future on that?

I'll go with the majority of unbiased expert opinion on that one, thanks. If you're right, then in a couple of years I'll have to admit it. If you're wrong, then within a generation our whole civilization can take a hit.

As usual you're just gue... (Below threshold)
jim:

As usual you're just guessing.

Oh, are you a Climate Scientist?

If not, it would seem you're guessing too. And you're trying to imply you're not. How interesting.

We are talking about climate modeling, which is a different discipline then climatology.

And climatologists use climate modeling.

Your point is?

Actually, your whole con... (Below threshold)
jim:

Actually, your whole contribution last night was an argument to authority, one we skeptics distrust because of their association with MHB and the hockey stick.

I submit to you, that you don't like the argument because you don't like the implications. It looks to me as if you are ideologically opposed to the very idea that humans can be causing global warming.

Now, one could very easily make the same counter-argument, that I am ideologically driven to believe that humans cause global warming.

And we can, as I said earlier, push that around all day.

The only further step in this argument, since (i'm presuming) none of us are professional full-time scientists, is to see what the experts say.

A renowned physicist and... (Below threshold)
jim:

A renowned physicist and mathematician like Professor Dyson has EXACTLY the right skills for understanding climate modeling.

Mac, you conveniently ignore even your own self-serving definition. Dyson is not a chemist. Do you think chemistry is easy or simple? Guess what - there's a reason why it has it's own separate degree. The interactions of molecules and compounds differ hugely than the interactions of protons, atoms and fields.

Thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot, before it even leaves the gate. Got any other ones?

I hope I dumbed down what's wrong in your own argument enough for you to understand.

At this point, I don't feel... (Below threshold)
jim:

At this point, I don't feel like wandering further into the weeds of Henrik Svenmark et al. I'd have to read Mobiot's papers vs. Svenmark and the other guy myself, and frankly I don't have the time.

I'll just state that, from what I've seen, the majority of experts in climate studies think that our current global warming has human causes, and the majority of scientists in general think the same. And that's good enough for me.

All of you are of course entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.

Mac, your Lawrence Solomon,... (Below threshold)
jim:

Mac, your Lawrence Solomon, National Post does not refute the Monbiot post, just by saying that he's wrong. He's also:

a) not a scientist of any sort
b) responding to defend the National Post's ideological position.

Now, to prove that Solomon's wrong more fully I'd have to go into the weeds to read up on Monbiot's opinion of Svenmark, who is himself an isolated anti-human-caused-global-warming voice, and I don't feel like it.

Ditto for Reid Bryson, who from the little reading that I've done, went into semi-retirement in 1986, and appears to stand in the minority with his opinion.

But whatevah.

If not, it would s... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If not, it would seem you're guessing too. And you're trying to imply you're not. How interesting.

I actually looked up the information and linked to it. You have given nothing but an opinion that only a climatologist could determine if the GC models are correct or not. The link to what skills a climate modeler needs shows they have little to do with climatology and everything to do with mathematics and physics.

And climatologists use climate modeling. Your point is?

The question is are you that dense that you can't understand there's a difference between the inner workings of the models and what the models purport to predict. A climatologist can look at the output and determine if it agrees with current and past observations. A physicist and mathematician can look at the inner workings of the models to see if they work on first principles or rely on of fudge factors. Dyson says they rely on fudge factors, and thus, have no predictive power.

Give me a link to someone in Dyson's league who has examined the GC models and says they work only on first principles.

As a final thought, here's ... (Below threshold)
jim:

As a final thought, here's some information on the 'hockey stick is debunked' myth:


"Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let's skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.


The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

From a larger article, with a lot of other information on global warming myths you might find interesting:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

a) not a scientist... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
a) not a scientist of any sort

Irrelevant. A reporter is quite capable of reporting the debunking of Monbiot's criticism.

b) responding to defend the National Post's ideological position.

You don't even have a clue what their ideological position is.

Svenmark, who is himself an isolated anti-human-caused-global-warming voice.

You're so full of it jim it's hard to believe. The multi-million Euro CLOUD experiments being undertaken at CERN are based on the research done by Svenmark. He's well respected in the scientific world with real peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the validity of his theory through actual experimental science.

Ditto for Reid Bryson, who from the little reading that I've done, went into semi-retirement in 1986, and appears to stand in the minority with his opinion.

Many of the scientists you and Al Gore claim as part of your consensus are also retired. That just means they have more time to think and study. Minority or majority opinion is irrelevant in science; it's who's right that counts. Bryson is the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. I'm at least going to listen to what he has to say.

It's been positively determ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It's been positively determined that Mann's hockey stick graph was the result of a statistical error. Do other observations demonstrate the same abrupt change? Hardly.

There's no significant change in the Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet

In light of these several observations, we can only conclude that to truly know what is happening to the Greenland Ice Sheet - and to know why it is happening - will require much more work on the subject than has been conducted to date.

20th-century global warming - which climate alarmists describe as having been unprecedented over the past two millennia - cannot be detected in global sea level data.

The fact of global warming doesn't automatically mean it's a result of human activity. The Sun-cosmic ray-cloud connection is being researched at CERN had has been demonstrated in historical data. In fact, it's the only theory currently under international investigation that can account for historical warming and cooling cycles.

You don't even have a cl... (Below threshold)
jim:

You don't even have a clue what their [The National Post's] ideological position is.

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

"The Post was founded in 1998 by Conrad Black to combat what he believed was an "over-liberalizing" of editorial policy in Canadian newspapers

Beyond his ideological vision of a more conservative voice, Black was attempting to compete more directly with Kenneth Thomson's media empire ...When the Post appeared in 1998, its initial success as a neo-conservative newspaper forced the Globe towards the moderate centre.

When the Post launched, it had a stridently conservative editorial stance by Canadian standards. ...Its editorial page featured the opinions of well-known neo-conservatives and libertarians from the United States and Canada, such as Mark Steyn, Diane Francis, Andrew Coyne, and David Frum. "

I'll accept your apology.

He's well respected in t... (Below threshold)
jim:

He's well respected in the scientific world with real peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate the validity of his theory through actual experimental science.

Hey, maybe his theories will prove humans aren't causing global warming, at some time in the future. Nevertheless, they aren't proving that right now.

But, believe what you want to believe.

MYou have given nothing ... (Below threshold)
jim:

MYou have given nothing but an opinion that only a climatologist could determine if the GC models are correct or not.

And you have given nothing but an opinion that I'm wrong.

The link to what skills a climate modeler needs shows they have little to do with climatology and everything to do with mathematics and physics.

Sorry, what was that bit you mentioned in *your own definition*, that you're still ignoring that Dyson doesn't have?

Oh yeah, Chemistry. Oops.

It's been positively det... (Below threshold)
jim:

It's been positively determined that Mann's hockey stick graph was the result of a statistical error.

No, no such thing has been determined. Go read the National Academy of Science's report on this very subject.

Here's the analysis of it, that I already posted, above:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

Here's the full report, if that isn't good enough for you:
http://books.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf


20th-century global warming - which climate alarmists describe as having been unprecedented over the past two millennia - cannot be detected in global sea level data.

That's an entirely separate argument, that I don't feel like wandering into here. Suffice it to say that I'm happy to go along with the majority of expert opinion on the human causation of global warming.

The fact of global warming doesn't automatically mean it's a result of human activity. The Sun-cosmic ray-cloud connection is being researched at CERN had has been demonstrated in historical data. In fact, it's the only theory currently under international investigation that can account for historical warming and cooling cycles.

Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe it is all solar activity, and all the exhaust and deforestation we're doing isn't having any effect on our environment whatsoever.

but the majority of expert opinion says otherwise, the models make sense to me, and until they're proven wrong, I think it's wise to hope for the best and expect the worst.

Here's some other tidbits f... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's some other tidbits for you all, linked from the New Scientist article I posted above:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651
"Climate myths: It's all down to cosmic rays"

"Svensmark and others then pointed to an apparent correlation between low-altitude cloud cover and cosmic rays. But after 1995, the beguiling fit of Svensmark's graph depends on a "correction" of satellite data, and the satellite scientists say this is not justified. "It's dubious manipulation of data in order to suit his hypothesis," says Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, UK."

"...Finally, and most importantly, even if cosmic ray intensity does turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, it cannot explain the warming trend of the past few decades. Direct measurements of cosmic ray intensity going back as far as 50 years show no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming....."

I'll accept your a... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I'll accept your apology.

I was right, you don't have a clue. Just read further down and educate yourself.

Black finally decided to divest his Canadian media holdings, including the Post - a move that shocked Post supporters and delighted the paper's ideological adversaries. Black sold the Post to CanWest Global Communications Corp, controlled by Israel Asper, in two stages - 50% in 2000, along with the entire Southam newspaper chain, and the remaining 50% in 2001. CanWest Global also owns the Global Television Network,

Today the Post, without the personal backing of a colourful media magnate like Black or Izzy Asper, has been drifting without its original spark and sense of purpose. It has largely abandoned the neo-conservative ideology that, while sometimes controversial, gave the Post a distinct voice and loyal readership.

There's a bigger principle here, however. If we find information that supports the IPCC in a left leaning source does that mean it's invalid? If not, then neither is it invalid if we find information that opposes the IPCC in right leaning sources.

Direct measurement... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Direct measurements of cosmic ray intensity going back as far as 50 years show no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming....."

And there was no change in CO2 that can account for the little ice age or the medieval warm period.

Also, there has been no measurable warming since 1999.

Also, Direct measurements of cosmic ray intensity going back 50 years have been done from the ground, but the effect is taking place above 80% of the mass of the atmosphere. What's the intensity of less penetrating cosmic rays? No one knows.

Sorry, what was th... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Sorry, what was that bit you mentioned in *your own definition*, that you're still ignoring that Dyson doesn't have?

Oh yeah, Chemistry. Oops.

Dyson taught atmospheric chemistry for many year. Oops, there goes your last straw.

The CERN CLOUD collaborator... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The CERN CLOUD collaborators are:

University of Aarhus, Denmark
University of Bergen, Norway
California Institute of Technology, USA
CERN, Switzerland
Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland
University of Helsinki, Finland
University of Kuopio, Finland
Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia
University of Leeds, United Kingdom
Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany
University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
University of Reading, United Kingdom
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom
Tampere University of Technology, Finland
University of Vienna, Austria

Looks like Svensmark knows more about this than Haigh

Jesus, Mac! Do we really ha... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jesus, Mac! Do we really have to go paragraph by paragraph??

The paragraphs after the one you cite:

Politically, the Post has retained a conservative editorial stance under the Aspers' ownership, but has become markedly less strident....The Aspers had controversially fired the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, Russell Mills, for calling for the resignation of Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien.

However, the Post - careful to retain the loyalty of its conservative readers - endorsed the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2004 election when Fraser was editor.

So, the National Post started out a conservative paper, went neoconservative, and now is back to being merely ideologically conservative. So, it has always, and still is now, conservative.

Now, do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

Man.

Hey, maybe you're ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Hey, maybe you're right. Maybe it is all solar activity, and all the exhaust and deforestation we're doing isn't having any effect on our environment whatsoever.

Such activity have a cooling tendency.

but the majority of expert opinion says otherwise, the models make sense to me, and until they're proven wrong, I think it's wise to hope for the best and expect the worst.

I'm fine with taking a wait and see approach. However, that's not the plan. The plan is to saddle the U.S. economy with damaging burdens while letting China, now the world's largest CO2 producer and India (number 3) to increase their CO2 production. All that means is increased CO2 and a weakened U.S.

If we find information ... (Below threshold)
jim:

If we find information that supports the IPCC in a left leaning source does that mean it's invalid? If not, then neither is it invalid if we find information that opposes the IPCC in right leaning sources.

First, we're not talking about Solomon vs. the IPCC. We're talking about Solomon vs. a scientist who is refuting the over-reaching claims of another scientist.

My position is, an opinion that contradicts the position of an expert does not have the same weight as that expert unless that voice:

a) has expert-level credentials
b) has a clear lack of ideological bias.

Solomon has neither of these. So IMHO, quoting Solomon resolves nothing.

Such activity have a coo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Such activity have a cooling tendency.

Unless you're talking about a greenhouse effect...which is exactly what we're talking about.

So it's Now, do yo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
So it's Now, do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

So it's conservative? You could have just said that or quoted the part that's about how it its today rather than giving only the part the suited you.

That goes to my other point. Are you claiming that a citation opposing the IPCC is invalid because it's from a conservative source? If so, then by your rule, we can dismiss everything that has been cited that's pro IPCC if it's from a liberal source. How do you want it?

And there was no change ... (Below threshold)
jim:

And there was no change in CO2 that can account for the little ice age or the medieval warm period.

So?

The little ice age or medeival warm period may not have been caused by CO2.

Both of them were nowhere the extreme temperature chanegs we are now experiencing, and did not occur within the same short time span.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11645

Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.

Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one."

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11644

"The Medieval Warm Period may have been partly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature.

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence - such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers - is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years ...Even the temperature reconstructions that show the greatest variations in the past 1000 years suggest up until the 1980s, average temperature changes remained within a narrow band spanning 1ºC at most. Now we are climbing out of that band..."

Unless you're talk... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Unless you're talking about a greenhouse effect...which is exactly what we're talking about.

Cutting down trees (except in the tropics) cause cooling, not warming. Human activity creates dust and haze in the atmosphere, which causes cooling, not warming. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is 0.01 percent that of water vapor. Cutting down trees reduces water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes cooling, not warming.

So it's conservative? Yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

So it's conservative? You could have just said that or quoted the part that's about how it its today rather than giving only the part the suited you.

!!

You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, when I said it was conservative. So I linked to some information showing it was conservative, and quoted it for you.

I figured, you don't believe me, so I better put some quotes in so you can actually see what I'm talking about.

Also, there has been no ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, there has been no measurable warming since 1999.

Cna you define what you mean by measurable warming? Since, going by temperature measurements, 2006 was the hottest year on record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html

"Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday...

Average temperatures nationwide in 2006 were 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the mean temperatures nationwide for the 20th century, the agency said. It reported that seven months in 2006 were much warmer than average, and that last month was the fourth-warmest December on record."

Are you claiming that a ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Are you claiming that a citation opposing the IPCC is invalid because it's from a conservative source?

No. I'm saying citations opposing a majority of opinion need compelling reasons taht explain the data, and so far all the opposing citations do not.

If so, then by your rule, we can dismiss everything that has been cited that's pro IPCC if it's from a liberal source. How do you want it?

That's fine, on the surface. That depends on how you want to define conservative vs. liberal.

I consider the National Academy of Sciences to be an impartial group of scientists. They agree with
human causation for the current level of global warming.

Do you have a reason why the National Academy of Sciences must be a liberal organization?

And do you have a reason why the majority opinion of climate experts and scientists in general, are not credible because they're all liberal?

Cutting down trees (exce... (Below threshold)
jim:

Cutting down trees (except in the tropics) cause cooling, not warming.

Which is incidentally where a great degree of deforestation is going on, in the Amazon. But I digress...

Human activity creates dust and haze in the atmosphere, which causes cooling, not warming.

No. Some light is reflected, but more light reaches the earth, heats it, and then doesn't make it's way out of the atmosphere due to the haze.

Thus the loss of heat due to initial reflection of light, is more than made up for due to the rise in heat from the trapping of the rest of it.

But you must know this already. Why do I need to repeat it?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is 0.01 percent that of water vapor. Cutting down trees reduces water vapor in the atmosphere, which causes cooling, not warming.

Except that increased temperature of the Earth, which is due to the increased trapping of light within the Earth's atmospher, which is due to the increased haze of CO2...also increases the amount of water vapor. Thus one source of rising temperature exacerbates another.

CO2 and water vapor don't work against each other, they work in tandem.

Oh - and increased water va... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh - and increased water vapor also increases trapping of light. It is for this reason that water vapor is also considered a naturally ocurring greenhouse gas, which is increased as a secondary effect of human causes.

I'm fine with taking a w... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm fine with taking a wait and see approach. However, that's not the plan. The plan is to saddle the U.S. economy with damaging burdens while letting China, now the world's largest CO2 producer and India (number 3) to increase their CO2 production. All that means is increased CO2 and a weakened U.S.

At last we get to the heart of it.

It's not a plan. It's not some sort of anti-capitalist conspiracy. Really. At least, I have not been privy to any meetings in the Streisand compound.

I understand that is a major part of conservatives' fear.

Is Gore a socialist? Is Clinton? Hardly. They are businessmen. They were and are supported by business, and loving business. And business loves them. Or they would never have achieved any power in the first place.

Futhermore, I submit to you that NO candidate will ever come to great power in the US by being anti-business. Period. Business writes the very checks for their campaigns.

As for the scientists, they're paid to research.
Why would they possibly want and plan to cede the world to China? Why would they possibly want to weaken the US? What would they possibly have to gain?

What would all the US scientists possibly have to gain by this?

This kind of reasoning strikes me as rejecting the information, because you fear the possible reactions if it's true.

And the possible reactions are separate from whether or not the research is true.

For CO2 to be the cause of ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

For CO2 to be the cause of warming, the increase in CO2 would have to be consistent with global climate. We don't have to go back to the little ice age to see that this relationship does not exist.

Because the pre-1940 increase in temperature happened without much CO2, and the 1940-75 temperature decline happened after CO2 emissions began in earnest, "the large fluctuation between 1910 and 1975 can be considered to be a natural change. Contrary to the statement by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2007 Report, it is not possible to say with any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect." -- Dr. Akasofu, founder of the International Arctic Research Center

You told me I didn... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You told me I didn't know what I was talking about, when I said it was conservative. So I linked to some information showing it was conservative, and quoted it for you.

You started off by claming that an article was invalid because it was on the National Post as if their political leanings were so far off the chart that they couldn't even be trusted to report what scientists were saying. The NP being conservative doesn't prove your assertion.

Apparently you're afraid to answered my question. Are you claiming articles in opposition is the IPCC are invalid just because they appear on a conservative site? I will take it as a "Yes" unless you say otherwise.

No. Some light is ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No. Some light is reflected, but more light reaches the earth, heats it, and then doesn't make it's way out of the atmosphere due to the haze. Thus the loss of heat due to initial reflection of light, is more than made up for due to the rise in heat from the trapping of the rest of it. But you must know this already. Why do I need to repeat it?

Dust is not the only cause of haze there are also aerosols and aerosols cause increased low level clouds which have a profound net cooling effect.

Except that increased temperature of the Earth, which is due to the increased trapping of light within the Earth's atmospher, which is due to the increased haze of CO2...also increases the amount of water vapor. Thus one source of rising temperature exacerbates another.

The point is that very small reductions in water vapor greatly overpower increases in C02. When you cut down trees the air gets significantly dryer. That's why humans felling forests causes cooling. Remember, that's what we were talking about, the effect of human activity. Other than computer models, there's no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Being the computer models rely on fudge factors, that's not much to base economically harmful restrictions on.

I understand that ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I understand that is a major part of conservatives' fear.

Not wanting other to take advantage of the U.S. based on junk science has nothing to do with fear. It seems to me that it's the liberals who are responding out of fear; fear of the unknown. These become useful idiots in the service of an international environmentalist religion. I don't have my links handy right now, but I can give you a quote demonstrating the "social justice" purpose motivating some liberals to support the IPCC.

What would all the US scientists possibly have to gain by this?

You would think nothing, but these people have spent their life studying and they have careers. There are many cases where the global warming proponents get funding cut off for scientists who oppose the "human caused" dogma. The IPCC is not an honest broker and it's not a scientific organization.

Are you claiming article... (Below threshold)
jim:

Are you claiming articles in opposition is the IPCC are invalid just because they appear on a conservative site? I will take it as a "Yes" unless you say otherwise.

Dude, I answered your question at 4:16. Go there and read it.

Being the computer model... (Below threshold)
jim:

Being the computer models rely on fudge factors, that's not much to base economically harmful restrictions on.

a) That's not enough for you, you mean.
b) Restrictions don't have to be harmful.
c) restrictions aren't the only way to solve what appears to be the problem. One could also aid the Free Market by increasing green industries.

Not wanting other to tak... (Below threshold)
jim:

Not wanting other to take advantage of the U.S. based on junk science has nothing to do with fear.

Oh? What does it have to do with, hope?

No. I'm saying cit... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
No. I'm saying citations opposing a majority of opinion need compelling reasons taht explain the data, and so far all the opposing citations do not.

More nonsense. I have cited more studies by more scientists and more renowned scientists than anyone else on this thread. No one has proven any cause for climate change, so all we have are studies and theories.

I consider the National Academy of Sciences to be an impartial group of scientists. They agree with human causation for the current level of global warming.

I accept the National Academy of Sciences as an impartial group, but there are members who disagree with the human caused global warming dogma. How many is unknown.

And do you have a reason why the majority opinion of climate experts and scientists in general, are not credible because they're all liberal?

I'm not ascribing a political label to a scientist or reporter because of their position on the cause of global warming, that was what you tried to do. The "majority opinion of climate experts" has not been shown to support the human caused global warming position of the IPCC. The IPCC has been challenged on this and they say they will publish details this fall. Until then it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

a)That's not enou... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
a)That's not enough for you, you mean.

I mean unsubstantiated computer models don't meet any definition of proof.

b) Restrictions don't have to be harmful.

We are not talking about "pollution" as in smog or toxic chemicals. CO2 is produced when any hydrocarbon is burned. That's all forms of oil, gas, and coal. To have any hope of reducing atmospheric CO2 to any level that would have an impact on global warming (if CO2 is the cause) means the U.S. reducing emissions to half our 1990 levels. That's simply not doable without destroying our economy. Where's the push by the liberals for a massive nuclear power project, which would be needed to have any chance of success.

c) restrictions aren't the only way to solve what appears to be the problem. One could also aid the Free Market by increasing green industries.

Even organic farming is not a green enough let alone any form of manufacturing. Even having kids is considered bad. One environmentalist says we need to get rid of 5 billion people.

Oh? What does it h... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Oh? What does it have to do with, hope?

If human caused global warming is junk science then resisting unfair and usless restrictions is about justice and truth. What, you think we should just stick our heads in the sand and take the shaft in the rear?

Whew, I missed all this Pla... (Below threshold)
kim:

Whew, I missed all this Plaming away on several sites. Mac's right, jim; you're a moron. But aren't you more skeptical than you were last year? This is a good time to be skeptical, seeing as how we are all so ignorant. =========================

Every one should applaud th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Every one should applaud the desire that real policy decisions, with real social and economic costs, be made on the basis of real science, and the hockey stick IPCC provoked hysteria is not real science. The hockey stick is a tautology, measuring as a proxy the increased width of Bristlecone Pine tree rings thickened by increased fertilizer, the CO2, and not by increased temperature. On this tautology hangs the madness of Kyoto.
==========================

And the ice cubes tossing o... (Below threshold)
kim:

And the ice cubes tossing on the froth of chaos? Not a leading indicator of anything.
=======================

Whew, I missed all this ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Whew, I missed all this Plaming away on several sites. Mac's right, jim; you're a moron.

Hm, well, I think you're a poopyhead. Thanks for entering with such an adult argument, tho.

This is a good time to be skeptical, seeing as how we are all so ignorant.

The rising world temperatures don't make me less skeptical.

But whatever. believe what you want.

More nonsense. I have ci... (Below threshold)
jim:

More nonsense. I have cited more studies by more scientists and more renowned scientists than anyone else on this thread.

So? In none of those citations, have you provided any reasons why the majority opinion of human-caused global warming is wrong. You have merely presented:

a) one scientist who is not a climate expert's opinion on climate models being wrong - which is disputed

b) one entomologist who says climate experts didn't accurately predict impact on insects

c) one climate expert, retired, who thinks that most climate experts in the 20 years since he left full-time research are wrong

d) one 'Professor Emeritus' who is a professor of biogeography - not any sort of expert in climate change or meteorology

e) a couple of specific items on the size of Danish and Greenland ice sheets decreasing over the past century.

You also did bring up a bunch of items on why trees are supposed to result in global cooling, which I then shot down for you.

No one has proven any cause for climate change, so all we have are studies and theories.

No, what is going on is that you won't accept the level of detail that experts are currently presenting, as enough proof that you will support action on reducing greenhouse gases.

And you are doing this apparently because you are more afraid of the horrible possible effects of trying to change the output of greenhouse gases, than the probable effects of continued global warming.

And that's your privilege. Just know that the majority of experts in the field disagree with you, and as yet you have presented no reasons why they're wrong.

I accept the National Ac... (Below threshold)
jim:

I accept the National Academy of Sciences as an impartial group, but there are members who disagree with the human caused global warming dogma. How many is unknown.

OK. Well, the National Academy of Sciences supports the consensus that our current global warming is at least partly human-caused. I linked to their report, commissioned this year by Congress, upstream.

And I submit to you that if a majority of scientists in the National Academy disagreed with this, you would definitely have heard about it.

In the post above last, I t... (Below threshold)
jim:

In the post above last, I typed "trees causing global coolling" instead of what I meant, which was "deforestation causing global coolling."

If human caused global w... (Below threshold)
jim:

If human caused global warming is junk science then resisting unfair and usless restrictions is about justice and truth.

Sure -IF. But I think you are starting out from a position of *wanting* global warming to not be caused by humans - because if it is, then that clashes with your laissez-faire ideology.

Now, as I noted previously, one could just as well make the same argument about me. I'm well aware of that.

That's why I go to the majority of expert opinion.

As my final citing of majority of expert opinion, I refer you to the National Academy of Sciences.

What, you think we should just stick our heads in the sand and take the shaft in the rear?

No, I think you're attempts to write off the majority of expert opinion is an *attempt* to stick your head in the sand.

And apparently you think the same of me.

So maybe arguing will get us no further. At least, in your private thoughts, just consider that the majority of scientists, as represented by the National Academy of Scientists, might be right and what that might mean if they were.

To have any hope of redu... (Below threshold)
jim:

To have any hope of reducing atmospheric CO2 to any level that would have an impact on global warming (if CO2 is the cause) means the U.S. reducing emissions to half our 1990 levels. That's simply not doable without destroying our economy.

I disagree.

For instance, hybrid vehicles and fully electric vehicles reduce or eliminate vehicle emissions; the increased load on electric plants can be reduced by going to wind, water and solar.

Where's the push by the liberals for a massive nuclear power project, which would be needed to have any chance of success.

We're still pushing to get conservatives to realize there's a problem.

Mr Gaia himself doesn't bel... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mr Gaia himself doesn't believe the sun, the wind, and the water can provide our energy needs. He thinks we need to go with nuclear.

You do science by majority opinion? What was it Einstein said about the Nazis needing a committee to refute him. The arguments of the skeptics and agnostics have not been answered and the arguments for massive intervention against AGW have been. We don't know enough to effect the climate yet, let alone enough to predict it.
=============================

World temperatures have bee... (Below threshold)
kim:

World temperatures have been rising since the depths of the Little Ice Age. Also, what makes you so sure the temperature is still rising? Surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rising, possibly due to the effect of Urban Heat Islands. Surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are not rising. Oceanic and atmospheric temperatures are not rising in either hemisphere. How is that pattern caused by a universally distributed gas?
==============

Have you noticed, jim, that... (Below threshold)
kim:

Have you noticed, jim, that this late at night all your 'adult' arguments are to authority?
=======================

You do science by majori... (Below threshold)
jim:

You do science by majority opinion?

Freely arrived at without being under duress, and with arguments give logical time, yes, actaully I do.

What was it Einstein said about the Nazis needing a committee to refute him.

I don't know. National Socialism is not democracy and is not normally associated with free scientific inquiry.

The arguments of the skeptics and agnostics have not been answered and the arguments for massive intervention against AGW have been.

The arguments of the skeptics and agnostics have been answered. The skeptics and agnostics are the scientific community and large.

Some have refused to accept these answers, and so say they haven't been answered. In my opinion, most of those are refusing to listen because the answers, if accurate, create a situation they'd rather not deal with.

Such as, if global warming is real and is human-caused, they fear that something might actually have to be done that will violate laissez-faire economic policies.

We don't know enough to effect the climate yet, let alone enough to predict it.

That's your right to believe that.

The majority of scientists, both climate experts and non-specialists, appear to disagree.

Since there is no logical refutation of why the majority agrees that global warming is human-caused, I'm happy to go with the majority.

Sorry for the triple post -... (Below threshold)
jim:

Sorry for the triple post - some weird browswer/server lag.

As for the Little Ice Age r... (Below threshold)
jim:

As for the Little Ice Age recovery theory:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11645

"The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2°C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963).

Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850.

Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one."

And in addition, a recovery would be a return to a previous level - not an excessively rapid and extreme shooting past of all levels for the past 1000 years, to a degree far outside of cyclic ups and downs.

But as I say, believe what you like.

Surface temperatures in ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Surface temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere are not rising.

No, not true. The Antarctic peninsulas has in fact warmed up.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2004-05-26-peninsula-conf_x.htm

Do you mean *parts* of the Southern Hemisphere temperature aren't rising?

Surface temperature records in the Southern hemisphere can be difficult to find, going back.

However, due to the records we do have, the Southern Hemisphere shows warming over the past 40 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5643/236

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Change_Signal_Detected_In_The_Indian_Ocean_999.html
"The signature of climate change over the past 40 years has been identified in temperatures of the Indian Ocean near Australia. "From ocean measurements and by analysing climate simulations we can see there are changes in features of the ocean that cannot be explained by natural variability," said CSIRO oceanographer Dr Gael Alory."

And the cooling that's been witnessed, only over the last 20 years, and in what appears to be a cyclical manner. This is probably due to the influence of winds and ocean currents, which of course distribute temperatures and bring about pockets.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18
"It is important to recognize that the widely-cited "Antarctic cooling" appears, from the limited data available, to be restricted only to the last two decades, and that averaged over the last 40 years, there has been a slight warming (e.g. Bertler et al. 2004.) "

I see you make my point abo... (Below threshold)
kim:

I see you make my point about the southern hemisphere. How is all that disparity caused by a universally distribued gas?

And that's quite a duststorm about the Little Ice Age. It is one of the characteristics of the 'hockey stick' crew that they minimize the LIA and the MWP. Didn't one of them urge that the MWP be disappeared?

Your argument is fundamentally to authority, but I'm dubious about your authority. You've been suckered by the hothouse at RealClimate. These are the echo chamber climatologists that are insufficiently mathematical, and insufficiently skeptical. Read Climateaudit.org and CO2 Science, instead.

We don't know enough about the chaotic system that is climate regulation to have any idea what any attempt to affect it would have. It is almost guaranteed that any intervention is more likely to have worse unintended consequences, than good intended ones. It is on the basis of this, and of the fact that we still don't know with any reliability what this extra CO2 is doing, and on the fact that the science is inadequate to inform such a policy decision, that I oppose Kyoto and other efforts, AT THE PRESENT TIME. It has nothing to do with particular love for laissez-faire economics. It has a lot more to do with laissez-faire Gaia tending. Who are you to predict what would happen if we try to mess with the regulatory mechanisms?

And why on earth would short-sided people want to tap into those regulatory mechanisms to supply energy to people. The more we depend on the Sun, the Wind, and the Water, to provide our energy needs, the more we derange the earth's natural regulatory mechanisms.

Ya'll aspire to Apprenticeship to Sorcerer Gaia. You'll regret it if you try.
=======================

Look, tree rings are an ina... (Below threshold)
kim:

Look, tree rings are an inadequate proxy, ice is an inadequate proxy. Quit being bamboozled and look at the sort of thinking going into CERN. There is more out there now than a simple minded application of 'gas in a box' thinking, and there is more out there now than a cartoon bent out of bad statistics.

I actually worry that CERN will prove correct. Then someone will want to decide on an ideal temperature and attempt to control it with low level cloud formation. Talk about a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
================================

OK, watch, jim. The hockey... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, watch, jim. The hockey stick doesn't show the LIA or MWP. But the trees sampled were in the regions supposedly affected. Bore into that for awhile. And besides, the Bristlecone Pines, of much influence, grew thicker from CO2, so take that tautology out for a spin around your brain bucket.
==================================

Check out Alexander Cockbur... (Below threshold)
kim:

Check out Alexander Cockburn in the Nation. The world of the warmers is about to change polarity.
=======================




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy