Of course there's no way to predict the future global warming and never before have global warming alarmists said there would be a halt or any anomaly in their warming theory.Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.
Meantime, the number of scientists who have signed the anti consensus global warming letter here is now up to 31,000.
So, the IPCC backs down on its global warming claims and scientists who believe the global warming 'consensus' is a sham outnumbers those who in the past have believed it.
Quick, let's destroy the US economy before anyone else finds out!
85 comments:
Look, the existence of global cooling - or of a period where world temperatures stay pretty much the same - are both caused by global warming. More rain or less rain - global warming. More hurricanes or fewer - global warming. More arctic sea ice or less - global warming.
See how that works?
Listeners ought to plan to attend the AFP-Oregon Climate Change Summit in Portland on July 26. Speakers of national note - including climate scientists - will detail what's really happening on this planet, as well as the costs of trying to do something about it.
Climate Change claims by those in the government already (I can tell you there is a LARGE ammount of government employees who believe in global warming.. no matter what evidence is put before them!).
The Candidates are touting it.. the Parties are touting it.. the masses are now brainwashed.
Al Gore and his minions have achieved un-official victory.. our economy is going to be done no matter what in the name of a non-event.
Another hint that the anthropogentic global warming boosters want to drive our economies off the cliff with red flags popping out of the woodwork. Who wants to bet that this latest inconvinient truth won't slow them down an iota?
For those of us who gleefully dance at every hypocritical spin from the lefty trolls out there, this continuing evidence of outright fraud from the global warming wackjobs is priceless. Way to go, algore! L.O.L.
Victoria Taft wrote:
> and never before have
> global warming alarmists
> said there would be a
> halt or any anomaly in
> their warming theory.
Pure baloney. Climatologists have always admitted and considered the importance of natural factors in predicting future climate. Nor has anyone ever said climate change would be a monotonic path straight upward.
Instead of making (incorrect) assumptions about what the IPCC says, and then criticizing them when you think they got it wrong, you might actually try reading their documents. Of course, that will require you to think a little bit.
Don't start the same discredited drivel, davey-boy. The ipcc has admitted their data was made-up, and we'll match 31,000 signatories to one phony u.n. study any day. You've already made a fool of yourself. Don't add redundancy to your problems. You and algore are BUSTED!
> Meantime, the number of scientists > who have signed the anti consensus > global warming letter here is now
> up to 31,000.
Few of these people are climate scientists, and few of them appear to be so proud of their opinion that they even list their institution.
Anyway, science isn't done by petition -- it's done by making hypothesis and testing your ideas against reality. Most of the predictions of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis have come true or are coming true.
Climate skeptics still have never -- not even once -- listed their own hypotheses and told us their predictions for the significant perturbations of our atmosphere in the last 200 years.
From the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, Vol 1, section 9.1.1:
"Climate change may be due to internal processes and/or external forcings. Some external influences, such as changes in solar radiation and volcanism, occur naturally and
contribute to the total natural variability of the climate system."
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Be sure to read FAQ 9.2, "Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?"
on page 702 of the same report.
BEAR wrote:
> The ipcc has admitted their data
> was made-up
Ugh... when did they admit this?
kitanis said...
> The Candidates are touting it..
> the Parties are touting it.. the
> masses are now brainwashed.
And do you also think the masses are "brainwashed" about the heliocentic model of the solar system? That HIV causes AIDS? That they have been brainwashed to believe the laws of thermodynamics that govern the internal combustion engine? That penicillin is effective against infections?
Maybe the fact that you are finding yourself abandoned means *you* are the one who is wrong and has been brainwashed? Has that ever occurred to you, at least in passing?
BEAR said...
> we'll match 31,000 signatories
> to one phony u.n. study any day.
As I said, you utterly fail to understand what science is and how it discerns the truth.
Again, show me the alternative theories of these 31,000 "scientists" and their predictions for the big changes in our atmosphere recently?
Kitanis,
Yes the masses are brainwashed.
(We agree on something).
Global Warming science was NEVER settled science.
Global Warming science was NEVER settled science.
Convince Algore and the candidates that wish to impose punitive taxes upon us to combat what has NEVER been settled.
Seems I recall many saying not too long ago that the Debate is Over!!!!!
Davey Apple's still trolling blogs because he can't find work, it appears. Although he did get his picture in the Trib last week. Wow, he's really something, now.
I wonder if it's ever occurred to the self-important wannabe that the most recent examples of scientific consensus include the "settled facts" that the Earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around the Earth?
David only trolls when it's about global warming.
The jig is up on this. Someone pulled the 'ho' card on this.
"And do you also think the masses are "brainwashed" about the heliocentic model of the solar system? That HIV causes AIDS? That they have been brainwashed to believe the laws of thermodynamics that govern the internal combustion engine? That penicillin is effective against infections?
Maybe the fact that you are finding yourself abandoned means *you* are the one who is wrong and has been brainwashed? Has that ever occurred to you, at least in passing?"
David, David, David
Your own comments are laughable. I have stated on this blog before that I believe the Global Warming is occuring. But not at the "crisis" levels that all the supporters are touting. Now you have some prominent scientists who are saying that they were wrong in touting those predictions, to a degree .. you still feel the need to make comments like that to me?
I don't believe in is having government punish it citizens in things like Carbon Credits.. Punishing people for just living their lives in the name of "leading the world" in fighting global warming.. while countries like China, India and others just keep on doing what they are doing, China is building more and more coal fire plants.. and if you see some photos of Bejing.. it proves it.. By the Way.. two weeks before they will shut off those polution plants for the Olympics and turn them back on afterwards.. they even admit it. The European Union has even started to reneg on its climate emissions strategies because they realized that their economies are starting to take a hit.. Thats in some international news sites..
Obama stood in our city here and stated we can't drive our SUV's, we can't cool our homes and expect the world to be fine with it.. Ok I will concede at SUV.. I never owned one in the first place.. but the implication is this.. If he is elected President.. he is saying that government will tell you what kind of car you will drive, how much you will cool or heat your home... He was talking about the US having to lead the world in fighting global warming.. McCain has also made simular speeches. In other words.. our economy will suffer more even as its shakey now. Thats what I was refering too David..
But I believe in freedom of the individual, I have the right to express those views and I thank Victoria for this blog to at least do that from time to time, You too have the same right. If I want to believe that Global Warming is something that is there.. and that mankind can not turn it off like a lightswitch (a slow one at that). then so be it. But I know you will not let it go...
kitanis wrote:
> our economy is going to be done no > matter what in the name of a
> non-event.
And how will your fishing industry do as the ocean increasingly acidifies? How will your farming industry do as its crops migrate north? How will the timber industry do as its trees are infected with new parasites? How will the southern economy do in the face of new infectious diseases? How will the west and southwest do as snowpack declines and its water supplies shrinks?
All of these things are already beginning to happen.
How will your economy do then?
kitanis wrote:
> But not at the "crisis" levels
> that all the supporters are
> touting.
That's because you don't understand that most of the threat is *in front* of us, from the GHGs we are emitting today and will emit in the next 50-100 years. The planet has already warmed about 1 C from GW. Even if we stopped producing all GHGs today and never did again, the planet will warm another 2 C (almost 4 F) by 2050. We will, of course, continue to emit much more GHGs, so we can probably expect about 3-6 C of total warming by 2100. And that's only if begin to migrate away from a carbon economy soon.
You don't think 3-6 C will have any effect on our planet and life on it?
> Now you have some prominent
> scientists who are saying that
> they were wrong in touting those > predictions, to a degree
No, not wrong. The basic physics of GW -- that GHGs cause a warmer atmosphere -- are as true as ever. Now, as scientists understand the climate better and better and as computers get faster and faster, they're able to model better and better. *Science progresses.* So a model -- one model -- says we will have essentially flat climate for a decade. It still needs to be confirmed by other models (that's how science works), and the lead scientist says AGW is still a big problem.
Besides, all you people usually say you don't believe climate models. But now that one predicts a result you like, suddenly you're all for them? What happened to all those model doubts you had earlier? Huh?
> If he is elected President..
> he is saying that government
> will tell you what kind of car
> you will drive, how much you
> will cool or heat your home...
That's simply paranoid and ridiculous. He will -- and should -- advocate for more efficient cars, more efficient A/C's, more efficient power generation -- all producing much less carbon. The market will still offer a wide variety of products, though more efficient ones. They have been improving efficiency for years -- do you object to that?
Do you object to the government "telling you" what kind of car to drive based on the gas taxes now applicable (you pay more as your efficiency decreases), or your power (ditto)?
Victoria Taft wrote:
> David only trolls when it's
> about global warming.
Why is expressing my opinion "trolling?"
Or do you only want people who agree with you here?
Young David, we need to talk.
Click here so we can have a
serious Man to Boy chat.
I did not realize that disagreeing with the blog host was considered Trolling?
Facts representing the opposite side of an argument, by someone with some level of credentials (or even someone without any credentials or knowledge, yet with an opinion), does not meet the definition of trolling, as I understand it.
A blog of this nature, without room for opposing views, just becomes a means for people (often with minimal knowledge) in complete agreement, to vent to each other about how stupid the opposing view is.
Is that the purpose?
Lew,
Taking action to prevent disaster, without being 100% certain that we need to, is not new with global warming.
Environmental damage is occurring.
Taking steps to slow or prevent damage is wise.
Why should we be certain we know the exact effects of the damage, before taking action to slow or prevent it?
David, you're exactly right: science isn't done by petition. The IPCC is a pretty nice-looking petition but in all of its scientific jargon and despite its admission that natural forces play a part, it's just one side of the opinion scale. I still take note of your refusal to make specific citation of your claims, i.e. that the ocean is getting more acidic and that new parasites and diseases are popping up everywhere.
You're right, Eileen... taking action before we are certain of what's going on has happened before and will happen long into the future. And guess what the effect of this policy tends to be? The forces of "action now!" swing into high gear and something is done--only to find out that, oops, we were responding to an illusionary crisis or our response actually did damage because we didn't sufficiently understand the problem.
We needed to take "action this day!" in response to DDT because, dammit, it was hurting the birds and was an evil chemical and... oh yeah, awesome way to fight malarial mosquitos and only harmful to people if drunk by the gallon. Oops. Now large numbers of Africans must choose between foreign aid and using DDT to protect themselves against malaria. Action now! We cannot delay! Must do it now! It appears to be a crisis so no time to think!
And what about nuclear power? Chernobyl melts down and there's a minor accident at Three Mile Island. Action now! We must fight nuclear power wherever we see it! It looks scary and Jane Fonda's movie says that it's eeevil so we should act today! No time for delay! Scare the people and make sure that it's tough as hell to build power plants used successfully and safely all over the world to provide cheap and abundant power! There's no time to waste, must do it now!
Caffiene causes cancer! Aspertame causes cancer! Aspertame is the new miracle sweetener! Everything causes cancer! We need action NOW to prevent this scourge that subsequent studies prove was nothing more than a pipe dream! Cannot delay, do it now, take action before it's too late, there might possibly be a crisis!
I hope you're getting my point, Eileen. Far too often, we take some knowledge, publicize it and make it seem like a crisis, attempt to solve it or take action to fix it, then wake up a few years later to find out that in acting before we understood the problem or could conclusively show that there was a crisis, damage was done without a lick of benefit. Sometimes it takes a long time to realize that our panic response was deluded; it was a considerable number of years after the Great Depression that economists looked back and realized that by responding to a massive apparent crisis that it didn't entirely understand, the government turned a temporary economic blip into a massive disaster. Already, our govrnment (and others) are following this course with the anthopogenic global warming "crisis", pouring forth legislation and rhetoric before the science is solid. As much as David dismisses all opposition to his beliefs as uninformed opinions from people whose professions are irrelevant, science isn't driven by consensus or petition and so long as there's significant scientific criticism of the theory, it's dangerous to act blindly.
By the by... I know David is physicist of a sort but it seems like his area of work doesn't neccessarily touch this field (I think he's a regular contributor to a magazine about the developments in lasers). So what's he doing lecturing us (and insisting that we track down proof for his claims instead of providing it)?
"Do you object to the government "telling you" what kind of car to drive based on the gas taxes now applicable (you pay more as your efficiency decreases), or your power (ditto)?"
In a short and consise answer.. your Darned Right I do.
What you are confused with is this.. Your view of What should happen runs opposite to what I believe in. I believe in individual liberty.. not government mandated living.
Government has NO buisness on telling a person what kind of vehicle to drive.. If a guy wants to run around with a 8 cylinder car that gets 10 miles to a gallon of gas.. so be it.. He has to pay for that gas and pay the tax that is laid on it plain and simple.
I myself drive a four cylinder car.. it gets about 31-35 MPG on the freeway. It once got about 38.. but that has gone done since the mandated enthanol gas was introduced.
But you stated "advocate" higher fuel efficient vehicles should be the proper terms.. but congress has Mandated higher fuel efficiency.. and there is talks to mandate more. Thats force.. not advocacy.. Your statement dose not bear out what is being legislated.
But my point is David.. you can not seem to let it go.. you come down from on high as tsk tsk tsk anyone who makes a statement against global warming.
Backyard oil drilling: Indiana Man Operates Oil Well in Backyard, Producing Three Barrels of Crude a Day. Backyard vegetable gardens out, Backyard oil wells in.
GREAT IDEA!
Keith Moore wrote:
> David, you're exactly
> right: science isn't done by
> petition. The IPCC is a pretty
> nice-looking petition but in all > of its scientific jargon and
> despite its admission that
> natural forces play a part, it's > just one side of the opinion
> scale.
The IPCC is not "opinion" -- it's science.
They're not a "petition" -- it's a massively peer-reviewed scientific document.
That's the whole point -- science is a way to find the truth, and is different from opinion. Scientists make hypotheses, work out the consequences and predictions, and compare those predictions to real-world measurements.
That is what climate scientists have done over the last three decades, and almost all the evidence points to a significant anthropogenic influence on the climate.
> I still take note of your
> refusal to make specific
> citation of your claims, i.e.
> that the ocean is getting more
> acidic and that new parasites and > diseases are popping up
> everywhere.
Keith, I'm not here to babysit you -- learn to do a little research yourself. Both these results are well known (especially the first), and you can learn more in Wikipedia, Google, or the archives of any science magazine in the world.
Honestly, if you can't do this little bit of research for yourself, I can't see how you believe you're entitled to a valuable opinion on the subject of AGW.
> science isn't driven by
> consensus or petition and so
> long as there's significant
> scientific criticism of the theory, > it's dangerous to act blindly.
Keith, I go to lots of science conferences where the latest findings on global warming are discussed, especially at AGU conferences. In several years I have never -- no once -- seen a presentation that disagreed with AGW.
You will also find hardly any/no papers in the peer-reviewed literature more that dispute AGW.
There *isn't* "significant" dispute about the science. What dispute you hear are from the same one dozen skeptics, many of whom are paid by the fossil fuel industry, amplified by think tanks and conservative opinion magazines that are built to service corporate America.
Again, you need to learn what science really is and why it has been so successful over the last 400 years in uncovering many truths about the world.
kitanis wrote:
> Government has NO buisness on
> telling a person what kind of
> vehicle to drive..
And government does not. It does, however, enact and enforce regulations to ensure that common resources (air, water, oil, climate, etc.) are protected and provide a healthy and sustainable living environment for everyone one the planet, not just the selfish gas hogs who often couldn't seem to to care less.
> If a guy wants to run around
> with a 8 cylinder car that
> gets 10 miles to a gallon of
> gas.. so be it.. He has to pay
> for that gas and pay the tax that > is laid on it plain and simple.
Sure. As long as the tax also includes all the externalized costs that taxes do not cover, especially damage to the environment. Why should society and not this car owner have to pay for the negative consequences of his unwise use of gas? Why shouldn't he have to pay for extracting the pollutants out of the atmosphere that he has put in there. If taxes *truly* accounted for these costs, the owner of a 8-10 mpg car would pay significantly higher taxes that one getting 30 mpg. And rightly so.
> But my point is David.. you
> can not seem to let it go.. you
> come down from on high as tsk tsk > tsk anyone who makes a statement > against global warming.
Only when their opinion is uninformed and especially when it is not backed up by good science.
Here you go, Keith. I Googled "ocean acidification." This was the first link that came up. It took about 10 seconds. Maybe 15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Eileen, we are probably doing more than any other nation to keep the environment clean. Yet, we are still blamed for any pollution worldwide.
And the answer? Raise taxes to a prohibitive and restrictive rate for America while countries that are polluting more get a pass.
The left isn't interested in raising other's standrds as high as ours, just dragging us down.
Lew Waters wrote:
> we are probably doing more
> than any other nation to
> keep the environment clean.
> Yet, we are still blamed
> for any pollution worldwide.
Hardly. The US has about 4% of the world's population, yet emits about 25% of the world's carbon dioxide.
In this list we're number 10 in per capita emissions, out of 206 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
David.
"And government does not. It does, however, enact and enforce regulations to ensure that common resources (air, water, oil, climate, etc.) are protected and provide a healthy and sustainable living environment for everyone one the planet, not just the selfish gas hogs who often couldn't seem to to care less"
Your words.. not mine.
Any legislation in this country should be for the citizens of this country. Not the citizens of the world. We are not living under a world government no matter what you believe.
kitanis said...
> Your words.. not mine.
So you think anyone should be able to pollute as much as they want, without paying, regardless of what it costs society?
> Any legislation in this country
> should be for the citizens of
> this country. Not the citizens of > the world.
Unfortunately, we cannot put a dome on top of the United States, which means you breathe the same air as the Chinese do. GHGs are therefore a global problem, and while there need not be a global government, there must be global agreements if the problem is to be solved.
(And not just the climate change problem. We live in a global world now, for better or worse.)
I would hardly call David a troll.
I disagree with David, but he makes his points very well.
Anyway, from the Washington Policy Center...
Earth Day: The Doomsayers Were Wrong
Another Earth Day (April 22) has come and gone.
Earth Day is a great time to celebrate our planet and discuss serious environmental concerns.
It's also a time to pause and remember that, during the first Earth Day in 1970, some of the world's leading (and loudest) environmentalists were terrifying the public with horrific predictions of planet-wide doom. Predictions that, thankfully, were spectacularly wrong. The Washington Policy Center (WPC), a free-market think tank, reminds us:
"Most Earth Day predictions turned out to be stunningly wrong. In 1970, environmentalists said there would soon be a new ice age and massive deaths from air pollution. The New York Times foresaw the extinction of the human race. Widely-quoted biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation by 1975.
"On this Earth Day 2008, new predictions will again be made about looming environmental disasters about to strike our planet. If past experience is any guide, most of these predictions are wrong. People concerned about our planet's future should be wary of statements from activists and other interested groups, so we stay focused on real environmental concerns, and don't waste time on fearsome predictions that will never happen."
(Continued Below)
Here are some examples from 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, gathered by the Washington Policy Center:
* "By 1985...air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by one half..." -- Life magazine, January 1970.
* "...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind..." -- biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
* By 1995, "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct..." -- Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
* Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born..." -- Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
* The world will be "...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age..." -- Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
* "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation..." -- biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
* "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible
extinction..." -- The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
* "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." -- Life magazine, January 1970.
* "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make..." -- Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
* "...air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone..." -- Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
* Paul Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.
* "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation..." -- Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
* "By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine..." -- Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Some of this may seem laughable now, but it was taken very seriously at the time. Had the nations of the world followed the prescriptions of these original
Earth Day prophets of doom, it is possible that millions or even billions of people would have suffered and died.
The Washington Policy Center notes: "By being skeptical about routine portents of doom, we can stay focused on the real threats that face our planet, and on
the reasonable and achievable actions we as a society can take to meet them."
Today -- as food prices are doubling and food riots taking place in impoverished nations as a direct result of the disastrous ethanol scheme pushed by today's statist doomsayers -- that's a vital lesson to remember.
Todash19, thanks for posting those interesting quotes.
You're right -- lots of people say lots of stupid things. You can find a PhD to say absolutely anything you are looking for, if you look hard enough.
But notice that all these claims did not come from the peer-reviewed literature, but from either (1) activists, or (2) scientists talking out loud.
I don't automatically believe activists either. They have agendas no less than corporations do.
But, if you tried, it would be easy to find a lot of warnings from scientists that *have* come true or been verified -- DDT, acid rain, nuclear winter, global darkening, worldwide fertility problems in several species (maybe including humans), climate change, traditional air pollution, peak oil, etc.
So it depends on what you're looking for.
But rarely has there been the kind of (1) peer-review of the science, and (2) consensus among scientists, as there is about anthropogenic global warming. Really, the evidence is in, and we will never be "certain" of anything, but if you value the future of your children and your grandchildren, you have to be at least a little concerned that we very well might be leaving them a seriously troubled world.
And unlike past predictions of famines or deathly air pollution, no technological savior is even close.
Klatu,
I love your idea.
I have been thinking about lawns, of these natural grasses, that have been determined to create more bio fuel per acre, than corn.
I also wonder if Honey would work well as a bio fuel, and maybe enslaving some bees.
Keith,
David brought up Externalities, you should tell him how irrelevant they are when discussing economics and the environment (or is it economic systems and environmental systems).
As many times as you have told me that Externalities are irrelevant, I am surprised you haven't brought that up here yet.
>>The IPCC is not "opinion" -- it's science.
Scientific opinion. Does that make you feel better?
>>They're not a "petition" -- it's a massively peer-reviewed scientific document.
Oh really. In what sense was it "peer reviewed"? The normal peer-review process is a lengthy affair and, depending upon the blindness level, a complex one. I sincerely doubt that a draft was written, subjected to review by multiple readers, compilated, returned, revised, subjected to further review etc until we got the present document.
>>Keith, I'm not here to babysit you -- learn to do a little research yourself. Both these results are well known (especially the first), and you can learn more in Wikipedia, Google, or the archives of any science magazine in the world.
Honestly, if you can't do this little bit of research for yourself, I can't see how you believe you're entitled to a valuable opinion on the subject of AGW.
You may be amazed to learn, David, that making a scientific claim requires citation of evidence. You refused to do so and continue to refuse which leads me to conclude that you're blowing smoke and relying on your command of terminology and your PHD to give it the authority that proper citation would. Until you cite proof, I have just as much right to consider my opinion valuable as you do.
Keith Moore said...
>> The IPCC is not "opinion" --
>> it's science.
>
> Scientific opinion. Does that
> make you feel better?
No. It's science.
It's the same science you rely on every day, when you get a shot of penicillin from your doctor, when you fly on an airplane whose computer systems run on transistors that obey the laws of quantum mechanics, when your government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fly a probe to Mars, or when you walk into a supermarket and expect the door to open automatically.
Why aren't you questioning any of those scientific truths?
Keith Moore said...
>>They're not a "petition" -- it's
>> a massively peer-reviewed
>> scientific document.
>
> Oh really. In what sense was it > "peer reviewed"? The normal
> peer-review process is a lengthy
> affair and, depending upon the
> blindness level, a complex one.
(1) Peer review is always blind.
(2) Usually it's not a very lengthy process at all -- 2-3 months, perhaps.
(3) The IPCC reports were peer-reviewed by hundreds of scientists, via email, and via their many meetings. Many of them flew around the world three or four times a year to discuss, in meetings, every dot and comma. Literally. I've talked with these scientists. I've asked them about the IPCC process.
And, by the way, *any* scientist is welcome in the IPCC. Even "skeptics." Lindzen, for example, was a member.
Keith, have you ever written a peer-reviewed article? I have. It's not a long process. A couple of months, maybe more if there are questions. The paper goes to 2, perhaps 3 expert reviewers.
Nothing like the IPCC.
Keith wrote:
> You may be amazed to learn,
> David, that making a scientific
> claim requires citation of
> evidence.
In the scientific literature, yes. On a blog, no. Especially for well-known results that are years-old and no longer disputed.
If you don't know the elementary facts about ocean acidification, Keith, and can't be bothered to spend one minute to look it up, then, I'm sorry, you are uninformed and you are not expressing a learned and worthwhile opinion.
I am not here to baby sit you through every scientific discovery since Isaac Newton. Learn to read.
MJ Murphy shows that anyone -- literally, anyone, even with a fake name -- can sign on to the OISM petition without any knowledge whatsoever:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-i-are-on-that-list.html
All you skeptics (you too, Victoria Tafr): please tell me again why this petition is worth even as much as a puddle of warm piss?
I am also waiting to find out why, Victoria, you believe this model of Keenlyside, when you have made it clear that you don't buy any of the other longer-term models by the IPCC?
Huh?
Afraid to answer?
I don't blame you.
The climate has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Nothing we are experiencing today hasn't happened before. At one space in time they were growing wine grapes in the UK. At another space in time the Brits were skating on the Thames. Through it all human kind, fauna and plants got along just fine. It is also fact that humans, animals and plants survive warmer weather much better than cold.
So, knowing that long term variations in climate are a given what makes present day environmentalists so sure that this climate we have right now is the right one? Knowing that nothing we are experiencing today climate-wise hasn't happened before, what facts show that this climate should be preserved at all costs?
Steve said...
> The climate has been warming and > cooling since the dawn of time.
But not at the rates it is changing now, the sharpest rates in about 600,000 yrs.
> Nothing we are experiencing today > hasn't happened before.
No, modern civilization, an entity that depends greatly on the climate we are accustomed to and which we thought we could count on, is changing fast. Ask the maple sugarers of Vermont. Ask about the pine beetles in the Pacific NW. Ask about the huge drought in the American southwest -- or Australia.
> Through it all human kind, fauna > and plants got along just fine.
Because only natural forcings were influencing the climate, and plants and animals could react naturally. Never did they see the ~0.1C/decade changes we're experiencing today -- a very, very fast rate of increase.
> It is also fact that humans,
> animals and plants survive warmer > weather much better than cold.
Some do, some don't. Have you seen the bleaching and die-offs of oceanic coral?
> So, knowing that long term
> variations in climate are a given > what makes present day
> environmentalists so sure that
> this climate we have right now is > the right one?
Because, simply, it is the natural climate that the earth's ecosystems have adapted to. Or was. That hasn't been true in the last few decades.
> Knowing that nothing we are
> experiencing today climate-wise
> hasn't happened before, what
> facts show that this climate
> should be preserved at all costs?
These rates of change have never been experienced before, not even during transitions to the ice ages. There has never before been anything like a 3-6 C change/century. We are in totally unique, unknown territory now.
Because they don't have the inconvinient feature of easily-known methodological and evidentiary flaws. You might claim that there's only a dozen or so critics (a laughable assertion in and of itself) but numbers mean nothing. If a billion scientists are wrong and one is right, the fact that a billion scientists believe one thing doesn't make their belief correct. Your mention of the number of critics is utterly irrelevant.
As a matter of fact, the knowledge that penicillian is no panacea is well-known by now and popular media is doing a good job of publishing the real phenomenon of drug-resistant bacteria (although the general public wouldn't understand the exact mechanism). I rely on transistors (although these have largely flowed into integrated circuits by now due to ministurization) because the scientific principal is solid enough to have been reliably converted into an engineering manifestation. Same with the motion sensors that trigger automatic doors. Ditto with the Mars probe. Naturally, climate science can't be converted into an engineering manifestation but lacking a PHD doens't deprive me of the ability to distinguish between a shaky scientific claim in a branch of science that is less perfectly understood than many others and a solid scientific claim in a branch that is understood to such a degree that it can be used to build functional mechanical objects (or effective chemical compounds in the case of penicilian).
1) No, it's not. But as a matter of fact, I never said that peer review wasn't blind. I simply commented that the level of the blindness affected its complexity. I'm sure you know that a blind peer review process is simpler than a double-blind process.
2) It depends on your discipline. I'm working on a social sciences type degree and so the process I'm familiar with may be longer than the scientific process (although I'd expect a lengthy report like the IPCC to take some time to be well-vetted).
3) I'm sure you've talked to these scientists and have also conducted seances with Max Planck. I'm pleased to hear all of this but it's not exactly evidence that the report is peer-reviewed.
Learn to read? I've been reading college-level material since I was a freshfish in highschool. Reading isn't the problem; the fact that you make claims then tell others to verify them themselves is. Making lofty pronouncements that your declarations are commonly-known fact is insufficient.
I'd like to also point out that the citation that Victoria made to start this entire thing off means something rather significant. It means that, if Keenlyside is correct, actual proof of AGW won't show up until 2015 or even later. That moves us rather close to the 2050 threshold that has been bandied around. Extremely convinient that the true believers are screaming for action now when they won't have their ammunition for at least 7+ more years.
Keith wrote:
> Naturally, climate science can't be > converted into an engineering
> manifestation but lacking a PHD
> doens't deprive me of the ability
> to distinguish between a shaky
> scientific claim in a branch of
> science
Lacking a PhD does not entitle you to escape the methods of science.
What, Keith, exactly, is "shaky" about the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?
Please be specific.
And, also, tell us what alternative theory you have to explain 20th century warming. Provide evidence, not hand-waving. Also, tell us how you expect the atmosphere to react, if any, due to the large perturbations forced upon its GHGs in the 20th century.
Keith wrote:
> I simply commented that the level > of the blindness affected its
> complexity. I'm sure you know
> that a blind peer review process > is simpler than a double-blind
> process.
Keith, very little science is double-blind peer-reviewed. Big deal. There are usually only a dozen or so scientists (quite often less) qualified to peer-review a given paper, and they can almost always deduce who wrote it simply because they are cognizant of the goings-on in their field -- previous papers, symposia, seminars, rumors, preprints, conversations on the phone and via email and at conferences.
> I'm pleased to hear all of this
> but it's not exactly evidence
> that the report is peer-reviewed.
No, Keith, it's not. Its only what I know from personal experience. Don't believe me if that's convenient for you. People often seek to hold onto their beliefs regardless of the evidence. For more, you will again have to get off your ass, ask some questions, do some research, read several things, and remain intellectually curious.
It's sad -- you think to have you mind made up, but you don't seem to have spent even a few minutes researching anything at all.
Keith Moore wrote:
> Reading isn't the problem; the fact > that you make claims then tell
> others to verify them themselves
> is. Making lofty pronouncements
> that your declarations are
> commonly-known fact is
> insufficient.
My "pronouncements" are facts that are well known to anyone who follows the field.
Do I have to explain every little thing to you? That the Sun comes up in the east? That the earth is round, not flat? That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? That 1+1=2?
Really: where should I start?
Learn to read, Keith. If I were you I'd frankly be extremely embarrassed not to know about ocean acidification and to have to ask someone to explain it to me instead of looking it up myself, like I was in 5th grade.
But that's just me.
As Richard Bach wrote, "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."
Keith Moore wrote:
> I'd like to also point out that
> the citation that Victoria made
> to start this entire thing off
> means something rather
> significant. It means that, if
> Keenlyside is correct, actual
> proof of AGW won't show up until > 2015 or even later.
Wrong yet again, Keith. CO2 was first shown to be a GHG circa 1825. The hypothesis of anthropogenic warming has made several predictions that have already come true: increased surface temperatures, increased ocean temperatures, increased global rainfall, sea-level rise, polar amplification, verification of anthropogenic factors via climate models (see the first graph on http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/), spread of infectious diseases, more heat extremes, radiosonde tropical temperature trends, etc.
What predictions have *your* theory made, Keith, regarding the consequences of the perturbation to the atmosphere in the last 200 years? Specifically. What do you expect to happen to the climate? Nothing? Natural forcings only? Prove it.
Keith, you apparently believe that the Keenlyside model gives accurate results, but you haven't explained why.
Do you believe all climate models are true?
If not, why not?
What is different about this Keenlyside model, that you apparently do believe in, and all the other climate models that you don't seem to believe in?
What's shaky about it is that it's suddenly become a for-sure no-doubt virtually-impossible-that-it's-wrong assertion after almost 100 years of no one being able to decide whether the patterns they were staring at meant catastrophic cooling or catastrophic warming in the immediate future. It's shaky because it's been asserted to be "settled" and entire apparatuses have been revved up for the purpose of slamming all dissention. It's shaky because in all ways except for the use of scientific terminology and a plausible interpretation of the past (I've never said that it's utter hogwash), it's a political crusade.
There's no need for me to provide an alternative explanation. You can doubt the veracity of an assertion without having something to put in its place. Moreover, you're STILL not doing any citation except referring to a very long report. I couldn't get away with that in junior high school but you want to be deferred to on the basis of your ability to assert things, call them "common knowledge", and demand that everyone look up your claims themselves instead of investigating your citations of evidence.
Of course I've researched this, David. I wouldn't be so sure that you're on shaky ground unless I knew something about the subject. I'm intellectually curious about what you can cite to show your assertions to be common knowledge and factually sound. Thus far, your method of satisfying this curiousity is demanding that I prove your assertions myself, condemning me for not doing research (with the implication that unless I agree with you, no amount of research is enough), and adopting a pitying tone. You seem to expect a level of professionalism from a wet-behind-the-ears history major than you are willing to exert, sir PHD.
So you say but refuse to prove. We're arguing in circles here, David. You consistently refuse to prove a damn thing (beyond referring me to Wikipedia) and I consistently refuse to just concede that you know your stuff without any proof of it. You proclaim that what you know is well-known in the field of climatology... but I see no citation whatsoever of this, no reference to papers in which it is shown that a knowledge of ocean acidification is presumed. You have to prove your bona fides beyond claiming to have been published, claiming to be a consultant in a field outside your practiced expertise, claiming that you know what you do, claiming that it's common knowledge in a particular field. I don't need to prove a damn thing because I don't just make claims up left and right and demand that someone else prove me right without me lifting a finger.
Increased ocean and surface temperatures. I'm impressed... someone predicted something that they knew would eventually happen regardless of the mechanism claimed. It's inevitable that surface/oceanic temperatures will rise eventually so someone claiming it will always be right eventually. Increased global rainfall? Side effect of increased temperatures, unimpressive prediction. Rise in volume of disease organisms? Side effect of increased temperature, unimpressive prediction. Rise in sea level? Side effect of increased temperature, unimpressive prediction. More heat extremes? Well, you get the idea. If someone predicts increased temperatures, most of the brilliant things you've claimed as accurate predictions are merely logical extensions of temperature rise and thus, predicting them requires nothing more than a basic modicum of logic.
What IS my theory, David? Oh, that's right... I haven't posited one nor do I intend to. Demanding an alternative theory from me is a red herring and I don't have much inclination to chase it.
Keith Says:
"It means that, if Keenlyside is correct, actual proof of AGW won't show up until 2015 or even later."
David Says:
"Keith, you apparently believe that the Keenlyside model gives accurate results, but you haven't explained why."
I took no position on the accuracy of Keenyside's model so there's no reason to explain why I believe something that I never claimed to believe. Try doing some reading, David... it's a useful skill.
"Unfortunately, we cannot put a dome on top of the United States, which means you breathe the same air as the Chinese do. GHGs are therefore a global problem, and while there need not be a global government, there must be global agreements if the problem is to be solved."
Yes David.. those pesky Chinese in the Peoples Republic are laughing at you as they build CO2 emitting coal fire power plants at a huge alarming rate.. and basically have told the world to screw off...but come to our Olypmics.
(And not just the climate change problem. We live in a global world now, for better or worse.)
Your not proving your point there.. its just a statement.. We have always lived in a Global world.. But other nations are not doing the same measures like you tout.. . Like Keith said, do some reading.. it might help
Keith wrote:
> There's no need for me to provide
> an alternative explanation. You can > doubt the veracity of an assertion > without having something to put in > its place.
But you, me, the world, are faced with a fundamental question, and it is a scientific question: what are the consequences to the climate and to the planet of the significant changes in the composition of our atmosphere over the last 200 years?
That's a vital question to answer. What is your answer, or that of the skeptics? You never say. They never say. They just criticize the work that *has* been done that has established the hypothesis of AGW.
The future of our planet may be in serious jeopardy. "Refusing to answer" is not good enough. Refusing to answer might just mean an utter catastrophe down the road.
Keith wrote:
> What's shaky about it is
> that it's suddenly become a
> for-sure no-doubt
> virtually-impossible-that-it's-wrong > assertion after almost
> 100 years of no one being
> able to decide whether
> the patterns they were staring at > meant catastrophic cooling or
> catastrophic warming in the
> immediate future.
That's because science *progresses*, Keith. Every science has progressed enormously in the last 100 years, and even since 1970. Physics. Biology. Genetics. Materials sciences. Computer science. Medicine.
Would you judge any of these sciences based on what they predicted back in 1908, or how they viewed nature? Or even 1970? No, you certainly would not.
So why are you doing that to climate science?
Climate science has progressed tremendously in the last 100 years, and even in the last 30. There are much better and many more monitoring devices in the environment. There are now satellites. Most of all, there are computers millions (if not billions) of time faster, allowing for some serious modeling.
Why, therefore, hold climate science to its 1970 predictions.
And, by the way, there was very little mention of "global cooling" in the '70s in the scientific literature. See the recent publication by John Fleck and William Connelly:
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2008/03/whack-a-climate.html
Also, by the way, Arrhenius predicted a 3 C temperature increase for a CO2-doubled world back in 1896, using pencil and paper. (He didn't get the physics entirely right, though.)
kitanis wrote:
> Yes David.. those pesky Chinese
> in the Peoples Republic are
> laughing at you as they build CO2
> emitting coal fire power plants at > a huge alarming rate..
So because our neighbors are polluters, we should be too?
The atmosphere doesn't care. It simple reacts to chemicals. It doesn't assign blame, or accept excuses.
We (governments, diplomats, citizens) need to convince the Chinese to abandon their coal-fired power plants and look at other solutions, especially nuclear power (IMO).
The Chinese are starting to get the picture that they can't ignore the environment and grow at any cost. Their air and water is becoming seriously dangerous in many places.
We're in this together, like it or not.
Kitanis wrote:
> We have always lived in a Global
> world..
No, the world has not always been global like this, only in the last few decades. Before that men roamed the earth and did what they wanted with no regard for the global environment.
> But other nations are not
> doing the same measures like you
> tout.. .
Then we must convince them to do more. And by the way, a lot of countries are doing *more* than we are, and see us as the bad guys (especially as we emit far more CO2 per capita than the Chinese, or even the Europeans,and we have been doing it for a far longer time).
Keith wrote:
> "It means that, if Keenlyside is
> correct, actual proof of AGW won't > show up until 2015 or even later."
Wrong. All it means is that there will be a decade or so with little-to-no warming.
AGW has already been proved. Have you noticed the 0.6 C increase in the last century, or the 0.3 C increase in the last three decades? Have you seen the rates of change of temperature, ~0.1 C/decade? Have you noticed the ice packs melting, Alaska melting, glaciers melting here and around the world, flowers blooming earlier?
More than anything else, this proves AGW -- please at least look at it:
IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp
Do you see those graphs on the bottom of the figure? Please take a minute and study them. They show very well why the last century's climate cannot be explained with natural factors alone.
Keith wrote:
> I'm impressed... someone
> predicted something that they
> knew would eventually happen
> regardless of the mechanism
> claimed.
Wrong. In fact, without AGW, many scientists believe we should be beginning to head, long-term, into the next Ice Age, that the Little Ice Age was the start of that trend and we have interrupted that with AGW.
(Yes, I'm sure you will tell me this is a good thing, as who wants to live in an Ice Age.)
It's not just that science predicted the temperature increase, but also the rate of change, which is nearly unprecedented. Business-as-usual would not explain that. It predicted polar amplification, not what one would have naively expected.
Global warming is a lot more complicated than just "increasing temperatures," which is why in recent years scientists use the term "climate change" instead of GW.
Perhaps, David, but the skeptics are not obligated to. The affirmative assertion is that of the adherants and theirs is the burden of proof. The only burden that the skeptics bear is demonstrating that the affirmative assertion is false or that there is a flaw in the premises that lead to the assertion (the second more than the first). It's on the adherants to show that the climate getting warmer is a product of something other than the typical cause of warming: various natural factors that, together, cause a trend towards greater surface and oceanic temperatures. In essence, the position of the skeptics is that the established pattern is holding true.
The future of our planet is indeed in serious jeopardy but some of those that believe in this peril are resorting to fantastic claims of a phenomenon that is discernable exclusively to them instead of pointing out the perils that are blatently obvious to the typical person. If someone was going around the planet screaming that rapid industrialization in certain segments of the world is converting the local air into a toxic soup of pollution (as in China)... who could possibly dispute them? Who could say that they're tilting at windmills when they claim something that anyone, even someone who has no understanding of science, can see for themselves? Pointing out perils that are visible, obvious, urgent, and solvable to drive the crusade to save ourselves is a virtually flawless strategy. The problem is indisputable. The solution is known and reasonable. Combine these factors and you have a convincing case for action. On those terms, you can convince virtually anyone of the planet's peril. The magical invisible AGW(yes, I know it's not magical or invisible... I'm being facetious)doesn't cut it.
Yes, Arrhenius did.. as did a Norwegian scientist (might be the same person) who celebrated it because his country would get warmer and life would be good. Very different reaction than the modern one, don't you find?
Well, David, we certainly need to convince the Chinese to do more about the problems that are without dispute but no country who is doing more is succeeding. The solution isn't to scream for everyone to drag themselves down (which is the result of all the measures that are being cried for by the AGW adherants) but for everyone to get better. We reduce carbon dioxide emissions by technological innovation and economic improvement, not by chaining people down and taking an axe to prosperity. The solution is untenable and, ultimately, simply not neccessary.
I've noticed the ice packs... not melting (the actual case). I've noticed Alaska not melting (which is why they had an additional month of load-bearing sea ice in the North Slope area). I've noticed some glaciers melting while others grow (as has been happening for a long time). And I've noticed flowers blooming right on time. So I've noticed evidence that makes your assertion sound absurd on the face of it. You asked.
If these are the same ones you've showed me before, me and Eileen had a real dust-up over these graphs. I pointed out that they prove correlation but without supporting evidence, they do not prove cause. I stand by that interpretation.
In fact, upcoming global warming IS a good thing. Cold is deadlier than heat except at an extreme. Thus, it is good that GW has come to our rescue.
Yes, indeed. The initial term became politically problemic when the average person could see that there wasn't noticable warming. Thus, a new term was used that's much harder to dispute with your own two eyes. As to unprecedented rate, it's possible although historically unlikely.
Keith Moore wrote:
> Perhaps, David, but the skeptics > are not obligated to.
No -- only if they want to be responsible members of society.
Our civilization has drastically altered our planet and its atmosphere, and your only response is to criticize the people who are trying to understand it?
That is not a wise way to live. The wise thing is to try and answer the scientific problem to the best of your ability, regardless of who you are. If you think it's not dangerous (and a priori, that's certainly not obvious), you have a responsibility to prove that. Because many, many very smart and well-qualified people do not believe you.
If you swallowed something you thought might be a problem, would you say it's up to your doctor to prove to you its dangerous, and until then you're just going to act as if nothing could possibly be wrong?
Keith Moore>
> Yes, Arrhenius did.. as did a
> Norwegian scientist (might be the
> same person) who celebrated it
> because his country would get
> warmer and life would be good.
> Very different reaction than the > modern one, don't you find?
Again, you think that science (and consequences) must be frozen in the past and not viewed from a modern perspective. Yes, Arrhenius was an optimist. Do you really want to plan your future based on what someone said in 1896, when science was primitive compared to today? Or do you want to use all the new, accumulated knowledge since then to make a more timely judgement?
My point was that even the relatively simple science of the 1890s showed that global warming would occur, long before we had computers, satellites, measuring devices all over the world, and 100 more years of modern physics.
Keith Moore wrote:
> The solution isn't t