Voting closed TODAY Jan 13 at 5PM Eastern, 2PM Pacific time.
Preliminary ending numbers are available here
Thanks to everyone who participated. The results won’t be final until reviewed by the judges/operators. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nichole said:
“Science Works by:
1) theory
2)experiment
3)evaluate evidence
4)publish data
5)reproduction of results by other scientists
6)publish new data
7)repeat 5 & 6 until evidence is overwhelming
8)consensus”
and seems to believe that AGW theory is at step 8. From reading this blog and many of the papers linked to it, it seems to me we are more at Step 5 and 6.
New data is coming in all of the time that doesn’t fit the original data published is step 4. Thus, consensus has not been reached.
Just posted my vote. They recovered from 2500 to 2000 rather fast, but then it slowed down and the trend just reversed and is going on the other direction pretty fast. I think those were the kos hardliners, and they’ve all already voted for the day.
I’ve no strong opinion on the subject, even after reading a bunch of papers on the subject. If I had to put my money on it I’d expect the oceans to drive the climate and c02 to be nearly irrelevant. By the way, I’m a solar physicist (that’s how I found the site) but I’m not convinced about the solar cycle thing (although it would be nice to have the kind of research money co2 people are getting here in Europe).
you all can’t put one foot in each camp. okay, so there’s climate change but we didn’t cause it. so let’s not do anything to affect it. it’s caused by carbon dioxide, but let’s keep making more of that. whether it’s your fault or not, don’t you want to help?
occasionally you have to get off your hands and do something before it’s a sure thing.
i have no “case to prove.” i am no “believer.” i trust science to its work. they trust me to mine. if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine. and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject. i’m here to defend the scientific method. it’s got great results so far. it’s a game, and like every other game, it has rules. you want to play, you got to follow them. you people are not following them. you just sit on the sidelines and criticize people who are working to figure this thing out. you mine some data, misconstrue it and raise a big stupid stink. all that serves to do is foul the waters. bad apples DO spoil bunches. i’m not here to argue science with you people, as you do not practice it. if you did, i’d be over my head. good thing for me.
and @ur momisugly mr. sowell:
i was under the impression that the majority of oil consumption was transportation, but not by consumer vehicles. i don’t recall where i heard that. sorry 🙁
and @ur momisugly squidly:
hughes, daily and ehrlich did a study on population extinction and the effects of loss of biodiversity. you could check that out, or you could characterize me as a PETA nut. how dark are your blinders?
first on the chopping block referring to sea level.
Niccole –
“unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject.”
Would you mind telling that to Mr. Gore please?
Apologies for long post (I tried to take just tiny snips). Also many apologies to Steve H for using you as an example of what maybe most of us have done here at some point. But this archetypal sequence suggests strongly to me how camps can become divided and ignorant of the best of each other.
Steve H. – That’s funny folks. A couple of you immediately play that “peer review” canard to avoid finding out how bad the AGW case is.
@Steve H. – Peer-review is the backbone of science, it’s a means for those who are informed on the matter to assess the merit of an argument as opposed to exposing it to the ignorant…. Look up “Burden of Proof”. We’re not arguing with the scientific consensus (that would be rather arrogant of me, anyway, being no climatologist). We’re not the ones making the assertion. You and yours are. If there is really a case, it should have no problem passing a peer review process…. Or you can just make a single stop: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
Steve H. – Kel & Paul, Take off your peer review helmuts and read. I am not preaching anything and have no burden of proof. Hansen does and has failed miserably. But again you wouldn’t know that because you have apparently missed or avoided the entire unfolding and lengthy discussions that go into extensive details on every angle of the IPCC assertions… Why do I get the feeling my comments should not be allowed here?
@Steve H. – That’s funny, I don’t see your comments being blocked, censored, or edited. Unlike some comments I’ve recently made at an AGW denial website…
Steve H. -…. [read] http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html
@Steve H. – I just read the article you linked too. Could you explain to me what homogenization is in regards to data analysis and why it is inappropriate to apply it in this case? In the article it notes that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Why is this considered significant? The article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant, in the field. Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that why? I ask because the article you cited seems to be unaware of these basic definitions.
Steve H. – Wow, impressive responses!… Trent, OK so you read the article and apparently missed the central point of it entirely. Your straw man diversion is silly. You can’t understand the piece? Read it again. It doesn’t make any claim of particular significance that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Yet you claim the article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant? Your silly stunt is useless…
@Steve H. – Somehow in all that, you forgot to answer Trent’s specific questions, so I’ll ask again. According to the GISTEMP documentation “The goal of the homogeneization effort is to avoid any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.”
@Steve H. – If you think this practice is inappropriate, why? If you think the algorithm fails to meet its stated goal, why? The article you linked to does not explain either of these things; it just complains that in one particular instance the trend line changes from cooling to warming. By the way, your post contains almost nothing but ad hominems. I thought the blog you hail from is supposed to be above that sort of thing?
@Steve H. – Gawds balls! Is this the best they have? The amount of restraint we are all showing in not trolling them is amazing.
To me, this all shows the need to be able, continually, to refer warmists to gold-standard write-ups of the climate science basics we all know. Gold-standard basics that are open to criticism and improvement. This is why I wrote a climate science skeptics’ primer; and why I now want to help develop, with the whole skeptical science community, a wiki that can aspire to such a gold-standard.
sorry, I didn’t say, the quotes are from Pharyngula.
To put a sense of urgency on the A in AGW vs N (natural) GW:
Here in California, the government passed AB 32 in 2006, known as the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006). This is the first such legislation in the nation, although Obama promises federal legislation virtually identical to California’s.
Using California as an example, here is what is at stake. The fear of sea level rising and flooding coastal areas, particularly areas near the delta and levees on the Sacramento River, and warming in the Sierra mountains that reduces the snowpack, were two of the key motivations cited for this law. The snowpack is the primary source of fresh water for California.
Some of the dire consequences from inaction are stated in the Act as:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf
The Air Resources Board was delegated authority to write specific regulations to enact AB 32, and they are requiring massive reductions in CO2. The requirements are approximately 30 percent reduction from business-as-usual by 2020, and 87 percent reduction from business-as-usual by 2050. The language states it differently, but that is the result.
The economic impacts of reducing CO2 are huge, with very little return on the investments. This places California businesses at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states, and relative to other countries. The likely result will be business relocation to more business-friendly places. Unemployment will increase, and the state will further increase taxes in an attempt to compensate. Economic analyses conducted by ARB state otherwise, but these were invalidated by outside, independent experts. ARB essentially ignored the independent experts.
Given all the above, it is crucial that the A portion of AGW be exposed as inaccurate, in clear and convincing terms, and quickly.
WUWT is doing a great job in this effort.
Thank you again, Anthony, moderators, contributors, and commenters. Keep it up!
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
see, i don’t have to do all the work you just did, because i just read the scientific consensus and i leave the professionals to their work. it seems disrespectful to do otherwise. nicole
Nicole, there’s nothing wrong with that. I do that every time I step on a bridge – I don’t stop first and measure the forces, I just assume the engineers did their work properly. That’s a normal way for a human to behave.
But it isn’t science. It’s faith – faith in science, if you will. This blog is about SCIENCE. It’s about doing science. That’s why we do all the work you seem to have a problem with.
If you want to be of use here, do some work or refer to some which supports your point of view. Then we’ll be interested. Honestly, we’re not interested in slanging matches, and insults just go over our heads. But point out somewhere where we’re wrong and WHY – then we’ll listen….
nichole:
and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject.
Well, that leaves you out of the discussion, nichole. That’s your rule, so you should certainly follow it, no?
It might be kinda nice to have this yearly intrusion. Reminds us how in some places people try to figure things out using anger and name calling instead of trading information and ideas. Kind of a nice reality check.
I’m still holding my nose after reading Prof. Meyers’ blog. He strikes me as the archtypical tenured professor who freely bullies those with whom he disagrees. I would love to be a fly on the wall of one of his freshman classes when one of the students says something that smacks of unorthodoxy or original thinking. On, second thought, maybe I’d like to be a venomous insect with a powerful sting.
@ur momisugly j. peden & g. alston:
i didn’t say it was bad to look into whether global warming was man-made or not. what i said was that it ::appears:: to exist and to be a bad thing since we built all our houses on the coast line like idiots. inaction would appear to be most imprudent. even if we’re wrong, cleaning up pollution is never a bad thing even just for the aesthetics of it and diversifying energy sources is also never a bad thing. even with falling oil prices, the political climate is right for achieving these two noteworthy goals and if you prove there’s no global warming, then it won’t be. even my dad, republican though he is, is looking into a 75,000 kw/h solar array for the shop. research dollars for technology have been a might bit scarce lately and that is most definitely a bad thing.
like hussein was a bad guy for twenty years, and some jerk from a different country had to smack us with a couple of planes before we had the political impetus to take his ass down. and now everybody’s concentrating on the WMDs, or lack thereof, and regretting doing something that probably actually had to be done. i would say that our reason for invading iraq was just as relevant as the cause of global warming. hopefully, it’ll all work out in the end.
but you two don’t seem like the type to drive an SUV out of spite and i had no intention of irking your ilk.
@ur momisugly watt:
i would most definitely not mind telling him.
“if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine. and unless you’re a climate scientist, you shouldn’t have anything to say on the subject. i’m here to defend the scientific method.”
nichole
from wiki:
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Please note the word “consensus” or anything alluding to it is not mentioned.
What’s the secret handshake to get in to vote? From the “poles” page clicking “vote now” does nothing. Going to the results page shows I have voted 0 times, which is true, but it also notes I have already voted within the last 24 hours. My chad is hung!
just keep trying…or try a different network…traffic is heavy
11,779 to 13,538
@ur momisugly G Alston (11:03:22) :
@ur momisuglyNichole
I would certainly agree with you that mankind has and is harming many species. I will not agree with you however that it is through AGW. I believe our whale hunting is a complete travesty, killing of elephants for ivory is absolutely stupid, etc… etc…, however, the supposed disappearance or our NH ice cap (which isn’t happening) is not jeopardizing the extinction of any species. So, instead of blaming AGW for species extinctions that don’t exists, why not concentrate your effort on those things that are causing extinction and address the real problems? duh… To me, this doesn’t seem to be too difficult of an issue to identify correctly.
If you spend up all of your money and resources to try to manage temperature, what will there be left to deal with the real root of these problems? Nothing, that is the point. You will have exhausted all of your resources on a problem that doesn’t exist, or, if the problem even does exist (giving you the benefit of the doubt), you still cannot convince me that you can do anything within reason about it, you are still left with the original problems of hunting and other things. You will have done absolutely nothing to solve these problems and yet your pockets will be empty.
Believe me, I am all on board with about protecting our environment, protecting our wildlife, protecting our natural resources. These are the precise reasons why I question AGW and primarily the current suggested approaches to control it. I am so concerned about our well being that I want to be sure we are not just digging a deeper hole, and, unfortunately, to date, I am finding that we are in fact doing exactly that. We are digging a hole with the AGW shovel that will become so detrimental that it is going to severely hamper our ability to solve or protect anything. I fear it will push us into a position of fighting for mere survival and we will have done nothing positive towards our global climate or any of these other problems.
You obviously do not understand the basic position of most of the people that post here on this blog. Fortunately, there are many people here that are willing to discuss these things in an intelligent and rational way. I would enjoy it, no matter your position on politics or issues, if you could join us in the same disposition and intellectually discuss the cause, effect and solutions to the climate issue. Otherwise, I really have no further comment as this discussion will lead to resolution of nothing.
Well, then, that leaves James Hansen, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Tim Flannery, and a whole host of other AGW proponents out of it doesn’t it. We can safely discount all of their hand-waving. Thanks!
@ur momisugly nichole:
“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?
Why not? I’m not suggesting that solar panels are MADE from oil (although I don’t know if any plasics are involved) but solar panels are an industrial product, and that inevitably involves energy consumption in manufacture and distribution – and oil is a major source of energy for industry and transport. I don’t think it is currently realistic to divorce any significant manufactured product from oil consumption in some way. Of course, you could postulate an industrial society run on solar power, but you would have to make a lot of panels first.
Nichole: “what is clear to me is that the nature of global climate change is not as pressing of an issue as the change itself. sure, it should be looked into. might help us find a way to reverse it”
Am I detecting a slight sway in your thinking? See what a nice friendly blog can do for you? And while I disagree with your thinking that we can “reverse it”, I most heartily agree that we should continue to keep looking into it.
I will now ask you the questions I have posted here before several times.
What is the correct temperature for our Earth? Who gets to decide what it should be? You, Mr Meyers, Al Gore? I vote for 85 degrees F with SST at 88 degrees F. My brother, who is visiting this week from New England and says even he has had enough of the cold this year, would vote for temps in the 60’s. So how about you, Nichole, what temperature would you like to see our Earth “fixed” at?
And BTW, Florida has been underwater in the past It probably will be so again in the future.
@ur momisugly ken:
if you can’t agree on anything because everything is “technically possible,” we wouldn’t get anywhere. it’s technically possible for me to walk through a wall. probability has to be assessed; sometimes that includes a risk dynamic. times like a dis.
Nichole:
we built all our houses on the coast line like idiots. inaction would appear to be most imprudent.
You have very little trust on the innate wisdom of old societies and how they adapt to the circumstances that nature presents them with, whether flooding ( like the netherlands) or heat ( like the dug out houses in the earth in northern africa).
When I visited Japan I was impressed how the coast line was not populated, and the sand dunes to the oceans were more like garbage dumps than scenic views. Until I remembered how earthquake prone they are and that huge tsunamis are quite probable. Of course Japan has been adapting for thousand of years to nature. Maybe Californians will learn a lesson the hard way, but it is the grand one that they should fear rather than global warming, whether natural or not. Even the IPCC predicts a minuscule rise of the sea in 100 years, less than we have with the tides every day, let alone storms etc. Nobody builds on the tide line.
As the water rises, AGW kooks believe the water is rising, when in fact their boat is sinking.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
nichole — “inaction would appear to be most imprudent.”
Action would be moreso, and if you think about it, that’s exactly why WUWT and such gets as much traffic as it does. What blogs like this do is clearly advocate that we understand precisely what is going on. Are temps what we think they are? Are they influenced how we think they are? Does our understanding jibe with what we know re solar influence (if any) and satelleite data?
The one thing that is annoying regarding climate scientists, which you seem to have not quite grasped, is that these are people who made models that were intended from intitial design to model the influence of CO2 on climate systems. Therefore, when they later report that there is, it’s not exactly a big surprise.
And from these models we are all supposed to immediately drive policy? Even those experts who agree that man influences climate (e.g. Dr. Roger Pielke) thinks this is a poor idea. In fact his blog is all about policy. (Interestingly he too gets labeled as a moronic denialist because he doesn’t march in modeler lockstep. But that’s a post for another day.)
And just in case you’re not caught up to the others before you who were a bit more eloquent stating your case, you are arguing a form of Pascal’s Wager, and this has been shown as inappropriate.
The problem is, if you really look into it, without an agenda to tint your glasses, you see there’s nothing to see.
It’s never been smart to build on coastlines, yet we’ve always done it. Now is no different than 5000 years ago. So tell me, why did Al Gore recently purchase waterfront property in San Fran? Doesn’t he really believe what he peddles?
i have no “case to prove.” i am no “believer.” i trust science to its work. they trust me to mine. if they changed their consensus, i’d roll with that just fine.
That’s laughable, nichole, as your actions here falsify that claim. Face it, you are an AGW Believer. The science showing AGW to be false is available, and accessible to the layman but it obviously doesn’t interest you. The so-called “consensus” claim itself is a complete fraud, and wouldn’t matter even if it were true, since science isn’t about consensus, which is the stuff of politics.