This is not the sort of op-ed we are used to seeing in the Washington Post. But I found it funny nonetheless. – Anthony
With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009; Page A03
The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.
What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.
“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”
Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.
A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.
The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”
It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.
“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”
Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.
The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.
As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”
Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”
The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.
The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.
The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”
The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”
Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.
Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.
Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”
Of course not. He’s the Goracle.
It seems someone at the Post has been paying attention. A very good start.
The Goracle won’t give up!
Abit off topic but… the most recent (Feb 2) ENSO update http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
…shows that La Nina conditions are indeed currently prevalent (although weak)
Another problem for Al is that Copenhagen will come and go just like Poznan. They’re basically just seat warming now. And once the press begin openly lambasting you, as they are increasingly inclined to in the US, then the climate is changing alright. I’m looking at the march conference as a tipping point.
“The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it…”
One of the great advantages of speaking in riddles ~ as savvy sages have throughout the ages ~ is that you cannot then be wrong, as only the sage know what he means anyway.
Bring on the clown… oops! He’s here…
I managed about 1 minute and 20 seconds. Yuk!
“The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,”
Hmmmm. Well, does this diminish the reality . . .?
The daily high temp in Barrow, AK, has been running -5°C colder at -28° than any monthly average for the entire year up there. The daily low at -31° is also running a degree or two colder than any monthly average. There must be some accumulation of ice under those conditions. Good news, right? Crisis averted!
The spectacle, the pomposity, the absurdity. The perfect storm of buffoonery. Lovely piece. It almost makes me forgive the “profession” of Journalism.
There was a time in england when the politicians tried to make cartooning and lampooning illegal. Humour is a powerful weapon against pomposity and hubris.
I have a picture in my minds eye of a cartoon showing the good ship AGW sinking following a collision with Antarctica. Gore says to Hansen as they climb into a lifeboat:
“I thought you said the onboard computer was sure this would have melted by now.”
How can any leader of a cause be committed to it when he refuses to debate with those that oppose it? Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be all about?
A Gore/ Monckton clash on global warming would smash TV ratings and attract as much public excitement as the Muhammad Ali/Joe Frasier thrilla in Manilla. Isn’t there a fight promoter out there somewhere that can make it happen?
I watched most of that spectacle and found it amusing to watch Gore’s face when more than one Senator asked if it would be better to refund any profits from the Cap and Trade market to the taxpayers. ::gulp:: went the Goracle. “it’s possible” he said with a worried look “though I’m sure there needs to be some profit for the brokers”. Of course, said the Senators. “Thank you and good night”
Refreshing to see the main stream press recover their sanity.
Climate Dyslexia Strikes the Senate!
Senators Fall for Global Warming Crisis AS EARTH COOLS!
Goracle says: “Warming CAUSES Cooling!”
Deadly Infection Expected to Spread to House!
News at 11.
Refreshing to see the WP still has got the belly to print such a piece.
I never would have thought it possible. Could it be that the media is getting ready to throw Gore, errr the Goracle, onto the scrap heap of exposed charlatans?
Are journalists waking up to his charade?
By the way, has anyone managed to get footage of the Goracle sneaking out of Washington on his private Pegasus after the hearing?
He’s the Goracle… let’s sacrifice our economy to him and his pocketbook.
One question no-one asked the Goracle:
‘Oh great one, you have prophecied with great lucidity, belief and fervour. Are you, however, a humble servant of the United States or, like Hernan Cortes before you, do you ‘seek to serve God, but also to get rich?’
Perhaps the esteemed Senators might have a conflict of interest if they had the temerity to pose such a question??
I abhor the Gore
Whose predictions are poor
But I can’t ignore
How pathetically sure
These politicians are
While endless manure
Made fresh from their fear
Makes headlines that jeer,
“Armageddon is here.
Obey! Death is near!”
But I cannot hear.
The Gore is no seer.
The chill makes it clear.
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”
It sounds like Silvio trying to Challenge Tony Soprano.
I propose a new sobriquet for the Goracle: let us proclaim him Don Al!
If you looked really closely you could see a shiver sweeping round the room, trying to find a spine to run up.
Where did reason go? And maybe that spinning sound isn’t the shiver after all, but Ayn Rand turning the grave.
“He’s the Goracle.” That’s a bit blunt. How about “His Grace, the Goracle”?
Off topic: The BBC is on about population control again. I am tired of reading articles by wealthy people telling us that the biggest problem with the world is that poor people have too many children.
“Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet, warns John Feeney. In this week’s Green Room, he calls on the environmental movement to stop running scared of this controversial topic.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7865332.stm
Just two words spring to mind, but my professionalism & my dear mother have taught me to always display politeness whatever the situation.
This is becoming farcical! Treating the man as if he is that knowledgable when we know he’ been caught out numerou times telling the odd proky here & there, as all good & true politicians do! No more papal indulgernces/carbon credits for me!
It’s still cold here in Devon UK, the snow is crisp, & an article in the newspaper read out over the radio this morning @ 6:50am said, yep, you got it in one,”this is completely consistent with our understanding of global warming & how it affects our climate”! Hot = Cold = HIWTYL!
PS Please forgive the spelling mistakes, it’s the cold weather affecting my typing!
[snip]
“I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,”
So Gore is a skeptic? A damn flat-earth? A denier? Despite all the science behind nuclear power, he refuses to accept it?
Instead he wants to be a James Bond supervillian, and drill holes into the Earth’s molten core and cover the Earth in liquid magma. He truly is Dr Evil. (Well he would be if he knew anything about science.)
BTW The Met Office said yesterday afternoon & early evening that the west country would be freezing with icy conditions but no snow. Guess what. It is snowing right now. Can these guys get anything right any more than a few hours in advance? Back to the sea weed & crystal ball me thinks! There is indeed a patch of clearer sky to the south & a weak & feeble sun, but the clouds seem to be heading that way too. Oh well ne’rer mind I spect the puter model said it would ‘appen!
Reminds me of a certain scene from the movies. “I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Who are you, and why do you seek me?” Dorothy should have been present, to ask a few inconvenient questions, and Toto should have been there, to pull the curtain aside. :o)
As Allan the Brit might also say
GORE_BLIMEY!
Alan the Brit:
On the beeb, where penshioners in Dartmoor couldn’t get cold weather payments because their temperature is measured in Plumouth, the quote is “the government took the professional advice of the Met Office in determining which post codes are linked to which weather station. ”
More sound advice from the Met Office! The Met Office obviously only measure temperature in Plymouth where there’s a good bit of warming from the sea and a good urban heat island effect.
Dartmoor and Plymouth – chalk and cheese.
“BTW The Met Office said yesterday afternoon & early evening that the west country would be freezing with icy conditions but no snow [today you mean?] . Guess what. It is snowing right now.”
No Alan, they did not say that. They did not say ‘no snow’ for the south west of England, where you and I are based (and, from a weather forecast pov, the west country is not the south west either – as you must know?). The Met Office forecast snow showers and we have had snow showers.
Somebody should’ve asked the Goracle why implement a cap and trade model in the US, when we know it has failed in europe.
Alan the Brit (01:52:17)
Snow here in Pembrokeshire.
The scary part of this story is that the US senate are sucking up to him.
alexjc38 (01:54:12) :
Reminds me of a certain scene from the movies. “I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Who are you, and why do you seek me?” Dorothy should have been present, to ask a few inconvenient questions, and Toto should have been there, to pull the curtain aside. :o)
I was thinking more of the Al Seeing Eye of Sauron on the mountain of Goredor looking for his precious proof of AGW…
“The Goracle”?
A blogger writing like that would be called all kind of things – yet it seems ok if somebody writes like that for the washpost. Make no mistake, I think what Gore does is wrong and potentially very dangerous. Ok, call him “the goracle” in opening paragraph, to make a point, hit a punch – but almost twenty times throughout this op-ed? I think it shines quite a bad light on the washpost if they have to resort to this kind of ad hominem attack. I think they don’t care for such things as facts, they just try to roll with what sells – not a very good guide.
You might think it is funny, because have factual reasons to detest Gore – heck, his entourage is using the same slander against “sceptics”, accusing them of being on the payroll of the oil industry. But ask yourself: Does this help? Should you be happy about this?
OK Gory is a toxic dangerous maniac but that is not a scoop .
Do NOT complain .
Do NOT comment .
Do NOT lament .
Fight politics with politics .
Write letters and mails to your senator , representative , mayor .
Make friends write letters and mails .
Put a letter to be sent to comitees , presidents , senators , deputies , newspapers on your web site if you have one .
Make people sign and provide them links and adresses .
That is what the eco-terrorists of Greenpeace , WWF and such do with success because they know it works .
Fight them with their own weapons .
Who of the thousands of posters and readers on these threads has already written to HIS representative telling him what he thinks and demands as a VOTER ?
That is what I am doing and what everybody should do .
You will be surprised by the capacity of politicians to listen when it is their voters who talk .
From listening to talking and from talking to handling is a long way for a politician .
But if you don’t begin with the first step , the journey will never start .
It is all your own responsability .
Just DO it !
“Does this help? Should you be happy about this?”
Sauce for the goose?
Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
“You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!”
Can’t do that old chap. Too much CO2 already. Perhaps we could sequester him. Six feet deep should do the job.
It strikes me as extremely disturbing that some mature, experienced and (I assume) intelligent people take this man seriously.
How can anyone with a functioning brain not reel with incredulity or burst out laughing at his proclamations?
Though I’m not really surprised, it is none the less very disturbing that so few people seem to understand the concept of knowledge & the scientific process (with its strengths & weaknesses).
I see very little difference between the utterances of this man, along with the reaction he got, and the way a witch doctor would foretell of some impending doom to his tribal gathering.
Actually TonyS, I’m ecstatic!
Alan the Brit (01:10:00)
You quote “this is completely consistent with our understanding of global warming”.
Too true! It’s a shame they understand so little.
He sounds just like a globaloney promoter on this site: “AGW is crystalline for those of us who don’t understand it.”
Funny article. Maybe the insanity has peaked, and we can get back to discussing reality.
I sent email to Mr. Milbank thanking him for his piece.
We should encourage such efforts.
JimB
I agree with Al Gore:
….“I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand” the Goracle spoke.
In Europe Cap & Trade is a huge success.
Take Germany for example.
It has been the the objective of the German Government to reduce CO2 emissions.
Now they are building 24 new coal power plants, nothing wrong with that, but the emission rights were handed over to the power companies for free.
These power companies however charge their consumer a whopping 8 billion Euro in emission costs per year.
This is really a huge success, a real cash cow.
The German power generation industry will do everything to produce the absolute maximum amount of CO2 per Kw/h, maintain optimal energy independence towards Russia and tax the hell out of the consumer.
But there is more to come.
Some geniuses calculated they only need to produce 6% more electrical power to support a huge fleet of battery powered cars.
These electric cars (90% efficiency compared to a conventional combustion engine that achieves 35% efficiency max) will provide the “real” CO2 reduction.
Don’t ask me what the German’s will pay for a battery charge when the future has arrived. Make a guess…!
Just something to keep in mind. While Mr. Milbank did write this satirical account of the hearing, his position on Climate Change becomes clear in this take on Senator Inhofe:
http://www.danamilbank.com/inhofe.html
REPLY: That could be a year or more old, based on the copyright notice. Views can change as people learn new information, except when they don’t learn. – Anthony
tallbloke (23:35:12) wrote: “I thought you said the onboard computer was sure this would have melted by now.”
Classic!
I’d love to see it drawn and in print, tallbloke.
It is always good advice to humor an insane person and then to just move on.
Perhaps the lawmakers are more intelligent than we think. Either that or Gore has a whole lot of dirt on most of his former colleagues.
12-35 p.m. NW London A beautiful sunny and cold day. Side roads were very icy at 7 a.m., but the main routes were not and they were so devoid of traffic that I drove a typical 40 minute suburban journey in 16 minutes. It was a pleasure to be out. Alas, such good conditions will not last and the “stop at homes” will be out tomorrow to clutter up my route with their inadequate abilities to handle the conditions. Get out of my way.
Signed,
A typical Volvo driver.
Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
“You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!”
No. He’s probably a very likable and passionate guy, but we hate what he represents. The triumph of irrationality.
I still would like to get inside his headto find out if he is:
a) concsiously deceiving for financial gain.
“We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
“would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”
yet: Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.
The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”
It will happen within a century and is rushing at us with speed and force, but I don’t have the expertise to answer that. At least he told the truth once.
We’ve been looking at CO2 growth in the atmosphere at this blog for some time now. Going by the different analysis shown, …
CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere by about 12,000 MegaTonnes to 15,000 MegaTonnes per year.
That is 12,000 Million Tonnes.
CFL Lightbulbs, wind energy, solar energy, more efficient cars, wearing a sweater at home in the winter, is not even going to put a dent in those numbers at all. Not even a dent.
The trend hasn’t changed at all since Kyoto was implemented or since An Inconvenient Truth came out. It is still rising at a slightly exponential rate.
If we are going to change the growth rate at all, we need really big projects that get rid of CO2 at 3 or 4 MegaTonnes at a time, not a light bulb that gets rid of 0.00001 tonnes over its lifetime.
An entire coal plant’s emissions must be eliminated, replace 6 old coal power plants with a nuclear one, the entire State of Oklahoma has to use Zero-Till on the farms, CO2 from a coal plant in North Dakota needs to be captured and sunk in an oil field to increase production, we even need a new cement since its production is one of the biggest contributors to GHGs.
And we would need 1,000 such projects around the world to cut the 12,000 MTs by 30%. We would need 4,000 to cut the net increase in CO2 to Zero.
The problem is the cost. The average cost to get rid of each tonne is about $15 and higher per year, each year.
12,000 million X $15 = $180 billion per year.
Gore wants you to wear a sweater, or spend $20,000 on geothermal heat. That would leave about 11,950 MegaTonnes still to go.
Oops didn’t finish…
b) consciously deceiving because his real, unstated end justifies the means
c) Believes the story because he is suffering from cognitive dissonance or is really unable to grasp the science which says CO2 is a bit player.
I think its probably (b).
We are witnessing one of the biggest ego ever seen on earth. It has lasted longer than the sun´s cycle!; will it become a Nova or a black hole?
THAT is the truth and the problem. The government answers to their clients, not to science, not to the productive, but to the mass of compliant leeches attached symbiotically to the government teat. They are now in the majority and the future is dark.
King of Cool
I’d prefer to see Philip Stott.
He knocked out Gavin and Co. in last year’s NPR debate big time.
Alan the Brit,
“this is completely consistent with our understanding of global warming & how it affects our climate”!
How many listeners will actually believe that?
You’s have to be a total idiot among morons to fall for that one.
Ah, nothing is more vomitous than hearing Senator’s prostrate themselves. Bunch of obsequious apple polishers. [sarcasm]Nice to see our tax dollars at work.[/sarcasm]
“Frankly, the science is screaming at us,” said the committee’s chairman, John Kerry.
This statement of Kerry’s pretty much sums up the extent of these buffoons knowledge of what science is. It is politicians and the media that screams, and what they scream has nothing to do with science.
Gore has become a parody of himself. What is most revolting about all this however, is the fawning, indeed the near worship of this bloviating Fraud by these brainless politicians who seek to further harm our economy by making energy more expensive through Cap n’ Trade scams and/or “carbon taxes”.
TonyS: Al Gore doesn’t have any “facts”. He pontificates and prophesizes much the same way as the oracles of old did, based on “divine inspiration” or some such thing. The term “Goracle” fits perfectly, and as such is not ad hominem.
Smokey,
We are no where close to the peak of this insanity, unfortunately.
Eugenics only ended at the cost of many millions of lives.
AGW is to climate science what Eugenics was to Evolution.
Orwell called it ‘groupthink’.
Glad I have retained the capacity for independant thought.
I have always been thoroughly repulsed by “something that looks like a donkey and rymes with pass” kissers and this ‘love fest’ in the commitee hearing is frankly nauseating.
I find each time Gore opens his mouth my striving to remain open-minded about this subject becomes even more of a burden – sorry I can’t do it. The man has every sign of a being totally self absorbed and conceited which, in my experience, renders them incapable of dealing with information contrary to their strongly held opinion.
Someone posted this yesterday and it was so appropriate I shamelessly lifted it:
Tolstoi provided another explanation for failing to acknowledge the growing evidence.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
MartinGAtkins (03:28:07) :
Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
“You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!”
Can’t do that old chap. Too much CO2 already. Perhaps we could sequester him. Six feet deep should do the job.
…and as the coffen is lowered into the grave, a voice will be heard from within: “I tell you, it is getting warmer!!!”….at that point he may just be right!
Seriously Peter, you don’t hate a snake oil salesman…you respect that he is very good at what he does and try and limit the damage he causes until his lies finally catch up with him….cdl
It appears that the “fix is in”.
One of my hopes for global understanding of global warming this year is for the Mainstream media to realize that AGW has more problems than just a few relatives of flat earthers being stupid. The skeptic community has had three strikes against it until the recent PDO flip:
1) The climate really was warming for much of the last few decades. The 1998 peak, thanks to an El Nino, provided cover for cooling (La Nina) for a few years after that.
2) Respected people in the AGW movement derided the skeptics forcefully enough and frequently enough so it must have been true. The flat earth comments from Al Gore on 60 Minutes and other venues were lies, ad hominem, and effective enough to discourage efforts to understand the other side of the story.
3) Not just the mainstream press, but science end enviromental reporters are discouraged from reporting the skeptic side.
Point 3) has not been discussed much here, but this is a good thread and a good time to call attention to http://www.sej.org/ home of the Society of Environmental Journalists. In particular, I want everyone reading this thread to read their Climate Change Guide and look at the subtle (and not too subtle) pro-AGW and anti-skeptic bias it shows.
It does mention the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change and does have contact information for scientists “who have more substantial climate science research publications and who have accepted little or no fossil industry and advocacy group money. However, it’s completely accepting of pro-AGW groups, e.g. “When somebody is spinning the latest climate story, RealClimate posts authoritative, research-based articles in language accessible to lay readers while the controversy or deception is still fresh in headlines. The site is a collaborative effort of at least 11 scientists actively working on climate research – with Michael Mann of Penn State (author of the famous “hockey stick” graph of global temperature adopted by the IPCC) playing a principal role.” Thankfully, that’s worst paragraph in the guide, but if Environmental Journalists can’t understand that “debunked” is a mild word to use with the Hockey stick, how can we expect any other journalist to understand?
I don’t have time to analyze that whole page, but if someone were to score each paragraph on it friendliness toward AGW, it would score highly, even if you skipped that RC abomination.
I don’t know the reach the SEJ has, but but one of my favorite Science publications (that I don’t have time to read because I spend all my time here!) is Science News. I’ve subscribed continuously since 1969 and for a long time read every issue. Their lead environmental reporter is an active SEJ member and has referred very positively to Dr. R. K. Pachauri speech to the SEJ 2008 conference. See http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37758/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__Eggs%2C_Tea_and_Mr._IPCC . Her blog does allow comments, and I’ve been quick to mention the other side on a number of topics, as have a few other WUWT readers.
Finally, while I understand why the SEJ guide has links to the IPCC, National Academies, NASA, NOAA (and NCDC), DOE, and other scientific organizations, it’s disappointing that they leave no place to include skeptic blogs like WUWT or CA.
I’ll drop them a note tonight and point them to this thread, so be on your best behavior. Ah, just don’t go beyond the attitude in that OpEd piece. 🙂
Sorry for the OT
Remember all the articles which say the ice melted at the fastest rate in history in 2008 and 2007. Using the gridded ice data I wrote some R code which regenerates the daily trend curve and guess what?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
We have record increase rates in 07 and 08 but the record 30 day decreases are actually in 1999.
Peter Hearnden:-)
You are quite correct if you want to be accurate, as it was a radio announcer who actually said it, & therefore was probably not a representative of the Met Office!
As to the South West & West Country you are also correct. However, it was just a slip of the keyboard for which I feel suitably admonished. However, I am quite fed up with the Met Office (although I don’t classify local weather guys in this group), & many others taxpayer funded organisations who refer to the West Country & the South West as one & the same whenever they feel like it. The South West for these people includes Gloucestershire, Somerset, Avon, Dorset, West Hampshire, West Wiltshire, & the usual suspects of Devon & Cornwall. Just depends on who, where, & when really! We all have a laugh at it from time to time!
Philip Bratby;-)
Yes Plymouth & Dartmoor are indeed chalk & cheese. I remember working for a National Plymouth based consultancy at the Prison for a refurbishment job around 10 years ago. It was mid-April, bright warm & sunny in the city centre with blue skies. A few miles up the road on Dartmoor it was grey, bitterly cold, & a keen wind to boot! Chalk & Cheese indeed!
Steve Milloy did a nice piece on Gore’s Venus theory that he put before the senate
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485064,00.html
from today’s CCNet
========
AND FINALLY: FREEZING COLD CONSISTENT WITH GLOBAL WARMING
The Daily Telegraph, 3 February 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
Britain may be in the grip of the coldest winter for 30 years and grappling with up to a foot of snow in some places but the extreme weather is entirely consistent with global warming, claim scientists.
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Temperatures for December and January were consistently 1.8 F ( 1 C) lower than the average of 41 F (5 C)and 37 F (3C) respectively and more snow fell in London this week than since the 1960s.
But despite this extreme weather, scientists say that the current cold snap does not mean that climate change is going into reverse. In fact, the surprise with which we have greeted the extreme conditions only reinforces how our climate has changed over the years.
A study by the Met Office which went back 350 years shows that such extreme weather now only occurs every 20 years.
Back in the pre-industrial days of Charles Dickens, it was a much more regular occurrence – hitting the country on average every five years or so.
During that time global temperatures has risen by 1.7 F (0.8 C), studies have shown.
“Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford.
“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.
“As for snowfall that could actually increase in the short term because of global warming. We have all heard the expression ‘too cold to snow’
and we have always expected precipitation to increase.
“All the indicators still suggest that we are warming up in line with predictions.”
FULL COMEDY at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4436934/Snow-is-consistent-with-global-warming-say-scientists.html
The most disappointing aspect of the Post article for me was the deference paid to Gore from both sides of the political aisle. Even my own Republican senator Richard Lugar apparently buys into the AGW story hook line and sinker. He’s also just released a statement advocating a substantial gasoline tax, ostensibly to cut dependence on foreign oil. He claims that the net tax burden would be kept unchanged with schemes to return the additional taxes to the public. Can you imagine the government actually doing this? Even if they tried, they would almost certainly make bad economic choices, and I don’t recall government ever being able to resist diverting tax revenue toward political whims of the moment.
Okay folks, lets get down to debate. The snarky stuff is fun but it won’t fly in serious situations. I am a raging liberal. I voted for Obama, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, marriage licenses for committed couples of legal age with none of the restrictions that are commonly thrown about, etc, etc. Mainly because science does not support the arbitrary rules that many conservatives adhere to. That’s not a bad thing, it just is what it is regarding one person’s morals compared to another. But Gore is not sticking to science here. No even close. He is promoting an emotionally ladened vision that doesn’t follow the CO2 science, if you are versed in it. Needless to say, this emotional response from him and from us is no where near science that is discussing weather patterns over the short and long term. Emotional injection into science discussions does not promote it.
Rather than burning the Goracle, why not handcuff him to John Kerry in Barrow AK. Their cooing about each other would hasten the arrival of warmer weather.
And we wouldn’t have to listen to either of them in the lower 48.
The only word to describe the Goracle is delusional.
Something to think about, the NAZIs used science propaganda(lies) to push their notion of Germans as the super race, and look where that got them. Taking advantage of ignorant people is stock and trade of the communists and their brethren ilk for over a 100 years.
Scientists need to take a stand, for science, regardless who pays their grant money.
Good heavens. Proof positive that I should not post until my second cup of early morning coffee.
the Goracle!
LOL!
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn’t seem like the most relevant forum to discuss global warming. I wonder if it was chosen by the Goracle because he knew he would not be confronted by any skeptics on this committee?
Our representatives don’t take the time to gather facts and data.
PERIOD
It does not matter if were talking about Global Warming, Gun Control, Welfare or Polar Bears. Facts and data are useless to them. It is all about perception and pleasing special interest. Or pleasing the masses of the uninformed and misinformed.
The questions to Gore prove it…
Perhaps WaPo will lead the way to expose the propaganda techniques the likes of Dr. Spencer et al. have had to endure with the MSM enablization. See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/al-gores-propaganda/
“I am a recovering politician.” “I am on step 9”
From his Post-Politician actions, we can imagine steps 1 – 8 to be:
1) self pity
2) anger
3) hypochondria
4) preach
5) exaggerate
6) conceit
7) hypocrisy
8) smugness
Here’s a link to a Bloomberg story today, “Environmentalists Press Democrats with “Non-Negotiable Demands”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=awfEVQGtBzJo&refer=home
I had dinner with the Publisher of the WP about 60 days ago, she knew little about the global warming theory, so I had the chance to ramp her up on why it is not accurate, she genuinely seemed neutral on the subject and open to criticism of it.
You should watch Gores actual speach before the Senate. He seems to have new material.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4g49Bdm_0
Gore compares Venus to earth, saying Earth could end up being hot like Venus at 850F. I did some basic research and found Venus’s atmosphere is 97 times larger than earths, that its CO2 is 97% of its atmosphere compared to earth’s .04%, and he is saying the two planets are very similar! I just dont see it but the Senators took it all in.
It is worth watching his testimony.
“D Johnson:
…Even my own Republican senator Richard Lugar apparently buys into the AGW story hook line and sinker.”
Wanna swap?…I’ve got Kerry.
JimB
“Steve Sloan (06:56:05) :
Rather than burning the Goracle, why not handcuff him to John Kerry in Barrow AK. Their cooing about each other would hasten the arrival of warmer weather.
And we wouldn’t have to listen to either of them in the lower 48.”
I’d much rather handcuff them both to a windmill off the Cape. Oh wait…Kerry opposes that.
Wouldn’t you love to hear the offshore windfarm debated between Kerry and Gore?
No hypocracy here, folks, move along, move along.
JimB
JimB (07:45:22) :
“D Johnson:
…Even my own Republican senator Richard Lugar apparently buys into the AGW story hook line and sinker.”
Wanna swap?…I’ve got Kerry.
JimB
Lol! Go fish!
Re: Pamela Gray and Tony S
The WaPo story may not meet the level of civility expected from a scientific debate, but it is still useful. Satire has been a useful political tool for centuries because it has an impact in the court of public opinion. Let’s face it, if AGW were all about science, sceptics would have a much easier row to hoe. It is Al Gore’s popularity with Joe Public that has given him his power, and Joe Public isn’t likely to understand the complexity of the climate system. He does have a sense of humor, though. And lampooning Gore gives the public an easy out. They can laugh, and call him an idiot, as if they knew it all along, and were never taken in by his shenanigans. However petty you may think the article is, it probably has more impact than 20 scientific debates.
Probably been posted before
Even the left now laughing at global warming.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/40464
DaveE.
” Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!”
No, I don’t hate Al Gore. He is quite an entertaining chap.
However, I do hate his lies, deceit and his gross hypocrisy and the massive amount of damage they cause.
I do not think he should be burned either. that is the kind of over reaction that the hysterical end of the alarmist camp would have against people who they disagree with. Please do not tar us with the same brush. The vast majority of people posting here are decent, reasonable people who seek truth, not retribution.
Most climate realists would rather Al Gore had the courage to debate with other real climate experts, admit his mistakes and then apologise for them.
On Sunday, Gordon Brown, again urging action on economy and climate change: “Global problems:Global institutions.” THAT is the agenda of the moneyed elite and a really interesting conglomeration of bed-fellows fueling the fire, and they won’t give up easily. Return carbon tax proceeds to the masses? Not likely!
There are natural phenomenon like gravity or electricity, which everyone knows about and accepts. We make adjustments in our daily lives for these influences because we can feel them as they impinge on us.
When some knowledge is said to be real and I don’t feel it, see it, or smell it, then it takes some good priests, preachers, teachers, or scientists on a continuous campaign to convince me. It helps if I’m around a lot of people who believe the message.
The amount of lies in a message is inversely proportional to the time spent in examining the contrary points of the message
Perry Debell (04:46:38) : “12-35 p.m. NW London A beautiful sunny and cold day.”
Ditto here in West London. It has been just great on the main roads coming in to work – no school-run traffic, for a start. The ice has set hard, though, on some of the minor roads down my way – looks like slush, feels like lumpy concrete under the car wheels.
I expect we shall have some fun and games later on this week, when the 20% of the work force currently “resting” start to venture forth, also when the schools re-open.
And, of course, when it starts to thaw and we have all the pipes bursting and the floods! :o)
“Wanna swap?…I’ve got Kerry.”
And I live in Chicagoland, Illinois. I win 🙂
Every once in a while I feel compelled to mention that IMO everyone in the US should be required to read Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand). Very scary how much of what she wrote is happening today.
It’s a bit dated in style, but a darn good story, and given her personal history of growing up in the Soviet Union, a bit too real at times. OK it looks intimidatingly long, but give it a try and you too can say “Who is John Galt?”
“Geothermal Energy”
Besides being the answer to Senator Kerry’s request to “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy”
Also probably answers the following question:
“Share with us, if you would, your personal investment strategy”
Pamela Gray (06:48:44) :
“Okay folks, lets get down to debate. The snarky stuff is fun but it won’t fly in serious situations.”
Since when has being faced with a serious situation stopped people having fun?
Well he’s just launched Google Ocean along with Google
“Burch Seymour (08:42:25) :
“Wanna swap?…I’ve got Kerry.”
And I live in Chicagoland, Illinois. I win :-)”
Well…yeah…maybe.
Mine’s been around a lot longer?…and I bet maybe he’s got a higher hypocrisy score due to that?
Besides, Kerry windsurfs. C’mon…take him.
JimB
Peter Hearnden (01:21:22) :
You people really hate ‘Gore’ don’t you. Burn him, burn him!
That’s because he is a post-modern Elmer Gantry
TomVonk, I could not agree more!
I am writing my Congressmen, and I am writing letters-to-the-editor for my local paper. I have also put together a power-point presentation and I am showing it to everyone I can. Every one of us that knows the truth must be active in fighting this hoax. The governments of the world see this as an excuse to take even more power and we must stop it or we deserve the consequences. We can only defeat the AGW sham by burying it with facts until everybody knows it for the boondoggle that it is.
The scariest part that I take from this are the words, and implication of such, used by John Kerry, “…as we move into this new economy…”—-people, they haved moved on. Nothing like actual temperatures, invalidated stats nor models that don’t replicate reality will stand before this jaggernaut that has welled up over the last 5 months.
Cap and Trade is here with a vengence for two reasons—culpable deniability and a new source of revenue.
Pamela (06:48:44): Now that Obama has been elected, will share with us your assessment of several of his key appointments, including Chu, Holdren, Browner, Jackson, and Sutley?
I had chimed in about the ice storm I just endured, but that article has been removed. I won’t recant all the woe, but I will reiterate a sentiment I’ve been reading in this thread:
I live in Arkansas (duh) and just endured a massive ice storm. I’d watched the forecast at http://www.weather.gov for days as it approached. The forecast repeatedly called for amounts under an inch of accumulation. It depended on when you looked – the forecast changed hourly for days in advance – but there was never a call for greater than an inch of accumulation. I have local papers from the days preceding the storm. They parroted the mainstream and did not anticipate the horror until the day it began. North Arkansas Electrical Cooperative has submitted visual evidence of 2.5 inches of ice on most of its power lines. I looked around and found areas where the ice was greater than 3 inches.
Why say all this? The forecasters repeatedly placated us, telling us the accumulation would be less than an inch. They were dead wrong. Dead wrong right up to the day the storm began. I would have been better off listening to psychics. AND I NEVER LISTEN TO PSYCHICS! Hey, I know there are meteorologists on this site, and I’m not want to cast insults, but if you can’t forecast an isolated tragedy that is one day away – how can anyone forecast calamity decades in the future?
Again, no offense is intended, and I’m sorry if there’s a hostile tone to this comment. I assure you I’m not at all that way. I’m well aware that most folks on this site are hip to what I’m saying. If I’m hostile towards anyone – it’s Al Gore (.etal).
The storm began a week ago on Monday. As of today (Tuesday) there are still thousands without power. There are tons and tons and tons and literal tons of branches on the ground. People’s houses burned to the ground. People were killed and paralyzed by falling limbs. No one here was unaffected. But this seems to have slipped under the radar? Is anyone even aware that we were just massacred by a major ice storm? It’s weird. I can’t see anything about us on the national news.
The joke about all this? FEMA is supposed to be on the way. 8 days after the storm began. Can I be sick now?
…It is Al Gore’s popularity with Joe Public that has given him his power,…
Popularity? He lost…. to George Freakin’ Bush. OK, you could debate that and say Gore lost because GW cheated, but had Gore been at least popular enough to at the very least win his home state of Tennessee, Florida would have been moot, and you wouldn’t have had Bush to knock around all these years. Al Gore is more popular to the media than he is to the public.
HEADS UP Anthony!
And to add to the fun consider how the Goracle’s partner in grime, IPCC is faring these days:
“I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.”
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.
http://tinyurl.com/btbzgf
Gore is advocating geothermal energy for domestic use. Is he referring to groundwater heat pumps? Does that mean that water (lake, river or saltwater bodies) are aquathermal and air sourced are atmosthermal energy sources?
Look at the tilt of his head, eyes gazing at a distant vision on a far horizon.
Save me from politicians with a vision — their vision, my wallet.
“Al Gore is more popular to the media than he is to the public.”
Well, he did win the popular vote (though not mine). And I would argue that his popularity has grown since then, maybe partly from pity. You and I may not like him, but I can’t tell you how many otherwise rational people I hear talk about how they like Gore, because he “really seems to care.” That means more to some people than all the facts in the world, so it isn’t surpising that so many politicians want to ride his coattails.
Pragmatist (09:41:09) :
HEADS UP Anthony!
……Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.
I take it you do know what very little being an ‘Expert Reviewer’ amounts to? He asked to see the draft report and was able to make comments. He was not invited to do so by the IPCC. You might as well say I’m an ‘Expert Reviewer’ for this blog!
Still, if you’d like to cite any scientific points he has to make then go ahead. He claims that Ernst Georg Beck’s ‘90,000 measurements’ have been “suppressed”, for example – an odd idea, given that Beck’s paper was published in E&E (perhaps he meant ‘ignored’ rather than ‘suppressed’?).
I think he’s referring to the use of the natural temperature gradient there is between the underground and the surface. Typically extracted by circulating water in a closed circuit. We already have a lot of these in Europe.
BTW, do you know that there are more and more houses in our “old” continent that are completely energetically independent? Take a house, with thermal and photovoltaic panels, and geothermic pumps, and tadaaaa! You don’t pay any gas or electricity anymore! Full freedom! Not depending on some profit-eager company!
Just great, you should try it, really…
I shook his hand in 1999, then…
…I voted for Gore in 2000…
…I liked the guy while most people found him really boring…
The problem is he assumes the scientists he talks to are right, and is so far into this thing, he can not back out without destroying his legacy. He ends up being a Williams Jennings Bryan with the theory of global warming turning into a monkey trial waterloo
A challenge/poll: When you first see Al Gore, what is the first word that goes through your mind? Do you smile or frown? For me, it is KOOK, and I smile.
Is Green No Longer Chic?
From Houston’s Chronicle online, an analysis of Super Bowl ads shows very few had a “green theme.” Interesting…very interesting!
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/02/is_green_no_lon.html
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California…where it is 80 F at 10:30 a.m.
Simon Evans (10:06:41) :
“He asked to see the draft report and was able to make comments. He was not invited to do so by the IPCC.”
Invited or not, this is yet another nail in the mainstay of Climate Change. The current action to reform IPCC and its unsound practices HAS invited Dr. Gray’s comment. Diversion to discuss science claims cannot refute the statements made by Dr. Gray and their implications for the demise of IPCC and its agenda.
Whatever this guy’s been smoking, it’s just got to be illegal 😉
The comments here are the most disturbing thing I have read in a while. There are a thousand pieces of concrete data, from carbonized oceans, dramatically melting ice caps, methane chimneys rising from the melting permafrost in the arctic, and increased drought and flood around the world to show that global warming is a catastrophically deadly reality, yet most of those making comments would prefer to mock Al Gore, and point out single pieces of data they don’t understand. (Global warming science does not predict that every place on the planet gets uniformly warmer, but that we will have more and more frequent extreme weather events, including colder than usual temps in some places, such as the snow they experienced in Baghdad last winter – or is that a good thing too?)
But hey, let’s just all make jokes and mock the people trying to do something about it….
Pragmatist:
The link you provided on Dr. Gray doesn’t work.
(It was
http://tinyurl.com/btbzgf )
Pragmatist (10:37:51) :
Simon Evans (10:06:41) :
“He asked to see the draft report and was able to make comments. He was not invited to do so by the IPCC.”
Invited or not, this is yet another nail in the mainstay of Climate Change. The current action to reform IPCC and its unsound practices HAS invited Dr. Gray’s comment. Diversion to discuss science claims cannot refute the statements made by Dr. Gray and their implications for the demise of IPCC and its agenda.
Dr Gray is a founder member of the ‘New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’, which has lobbied government in recent years against mitigation strategies, so he has hardly just broken out as a ‘sceptic’. Describing himself as an IPCC ‘Expert Reviewer’ suggests an authority which is actually meaningless. He’s entitled to his views, of course, just as you and I are to ours. I’m puzzled that you think discussing what he has to say about the science is a diversion, but suit yourself.
“Can I be sick now?”
Please do. Thank you for your witness. Indeed, we only began to hear of the deaths and anguish yesterday or the day before.
“You might as well say I’m an ‘Expert Reviewer’ for this blog!”
Now that really is over the top. Have a care, will you?
Jae,
I have thought Gore is deeply disturbed for several years now.
When I see video of him talking, he just does not seem *right in the head*.
His voice and speaking cadences are off.
His speech patterns seem very evasive.
Since the article names one of my Senators, Richard Lugar, by name, I took the occasion to send Senator Lugar the following email:
Pragmatist (09:41:09) :
HEADS UP Anthony
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.
http://tinyurl.com/btbzgf
Unfortunately the link you gave does not work (atleast for me).
Geothermal really is an excellent type of power.
Instead of polluting our environment by burning coal or tearing atoms apart to generate heat to make steam to run turbines… we could be taking advantage of the pretty much inexhaustible supply of heat from within the Earth itself.
DOOMED, SHMOOMED
He’s desperate to get laws passed before people realize temps are dropping and his gloomndoom scenario is a crock. He can’t cash in on the warming snake oil bonanza if he can’t get laws passed that require people to buy his phony solution.
link
DOOMED, SHMOOMED
arrrgggg
link
DOOMED, SHMOOMED
I don’t know if anyone else has commented on this, but the ‘Antartic warming after all’ idea has blown up in realclimate’s face big-time http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054 Wonder if the world’s media (hello BBC, are you watching?) will report the fact that the scare was based on wrong data?
@ gordonsclark (10:57:41) :
One of those concrete evidences is the march of Malaria to the north, Right?
Wrong, i live in the Netherlands and here Malaria was known as the “Zeeland” Fever in the 17th century when it first was diagnosed in or about 1640, it was an endemic disease until 1956, it took the WHO another 14 years to declare the Netherland Malaria free in 1970, the Netherlands where one of the last countries in Northern Europe to be declared Malaria free.
I only recently found out that my father suffered from Malaria as a child.
Are you sure that emitting less CO2 will stop Malaria in its track?
Because i think otherwise, good use of pesticides, good health care and sufficient food, clean drinking water and energy will do much more stopping Malaria, and above will be a hell of a lot cheaper, especially for developing countries.
Gripegut (09:34:09) :
“TomVonk, I could not agree more!
I am writing my Congressmen, and I am writing letters-to-the-editor for my local paper. I have also put together a power-point presentation and I am showing it to everyone I can.”
Hey – how about this as an idea – that we colectively assemble some documents like this. A wiki project of sorts, but broken into easily digested chuncks that could be sent out via email – either as pdf’s or ppt’s. Maybe a big picture one to start with but follow ups with smaller sub-sections, such as geologic perspective, influence of oceans, influence of the sun, etc. Nice concise documents , but with key data plots and tons of links to follow up material. Send them to your friends, family & govt representatives. They can fwd on to others. Could educate a lot of people.
A problem I have found is that if you dont have a passion for the subject matter, you probably aren’t going to spend the time to learn about it, but people will spend 5 minutes looking at a pre-digested version sent to them via email & will hit the fwd button to send it to others. Problem is having that nice condensed version to send out.
It would be nice to keep the documents evergreen – so as new data & research become available they can be linked in.
Any ideas of how to make something like this happen?
My guess would be a black hole … out of which no useful information can be got.
Flanagan (10:12:28) :
“BTW, do you know that there are more and more houses in our “old” continent that are completely energetically independent? Take a house, with thermal and photovoltaic panels, and geothermic pumps, and tadaaaa! You don’t pay any gas or electricity anymore! Full freedom! Not depending on some profit-eager company!”
Show me how? Everything I try results in a pathetic improvement. I have insulated my home in accordance with all the Governments recommendation only to achieve next to diddely squat. I think you, and many other people, live in cloud cuckoo land. Don’t believe everything you here just because it fits your agenda. Sorry mate but it ain’t that easy.
“Geothermal really is an excellent type of power.”
I can just see the headlines in 2109 … “humanity must act fast to end the potential destruction of the earth caused by sucking the life giving heat from the earth to stave off the current glaciation.” said Morrie Gore, former vice president and great-great-great grandson of Al Gore. He continued, “glaciation is a normal earth process and humans should bundle up rather than destroy our great Gaia.”
Gore needs us to IMPLEMENT his ideas so that he can take credit for the coming cooling.
Had we ratified Kyoto while he was VP, all would have already worked out perfectly for him. The MSM would be shouting about the currently reduced (if not reversed) cooling and he would be in line for even more prizes.
But, alas, that didn’t happen and now the Chinese coal based electrification project really puts his scam in a bind. Atmospheric CO2 levels are easy to measure and not in dispute. They are rising, and fast.
Oh well. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, eh?
With the Goracle as the chief spokesman for AGW, is there any wonder why so many people believe it’s a scam, hoax and/or fraud?
Not only can Dr. Gore diagnose your problem, he can sell you the snake oil to fix it! Too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry — the cause and the cure are all the same. Of course, Dr. Gore’s expert knowledge doesn’t come cheap and his potion is much too valuable for him to give it away. After all, doesn’t he deserve some sort of reward for all his hard work?
gordonsclark (10:57:41) :
The comments here are the most disturbing thing I have read in a while. There are a thousand pieces of concrete data, from carbonized oceans, dramatically melting ice caps, methane chimneys rising from the melting permafrost in the arctic, and increased drought and flood around the world to show that global warming is a catastrophically deadly reality….
Good Sir…you must be new to WUWT…if so, please join the disscussion…however, please do also go back and read some of the threads over the last few months. Humor, without bitterness, is one of the high spots of this site. Satire is common, personal attacks are generally frowned on…attacks on data are to be expected.
Most here are agreed that there is no supportable data that proves AGW. There are a great many bits of cherry picked data that are tossed into arguments to try and support AGW, however none that I have ever seen stand up to examination. Again, most here are open minded about the data and do not have a political ax to grind…we just believe that AGW can not be used to explain more than more than very minor, probably immeasurably small, changes in the earths climate.
Please check to see what has already been discussed in the recent past. Then begin discussing your thousands of points of data and see how they stand up to the various experts [of which I am clearly NOTone] and see how they fair…and we will surely all learn from it….
Most respectfully…cdl
Craig D. Lattig (13:13:29) :
most here are open minded about the data and do not have a political ax to grind…
As you said earlier in the post, “Humor, without bitterness, is one of the high spots of this site. Satire is common…” Thanks for such a good example of it! 😉
gordonsclark @10:57:41:
Gordon my friend, you’ve been listening to this guy too much. Here, let me help:
There are no dramatically melting ice caps: click
The planet isn’t getting warmer. In fact, lately it has been getting cooler: click
And “carbonized” oceans?? Assuming that by ‘carbonized’ you are referring to CO2 [carbon dioxide], the oceans have always been, um… ‘carbonized.’ See, the oceans breathe CO2 in and out, depending on many factors — the most insignificant of which appears to be human produced CO2: click. Notice the “cumulative man-made emissions” [blue line @ the bottom of the chart].
To claim that “global warming is a catastrophically deadly reality… we will have more and more frequent extreme weather events” is to deny the factual record:click. Catastrophic weather events are becoming much less common.
You’re on your way to a possible epiphany by simply visiting this site, Gordon. So forget the wild-eyed alarmism of Al Gore and the IPCC; all it takes is an open mind.
gordonsclark, yes a large number of things are predicted and observed regarding global warming. i think you will find, if you read enough material online, and this is a particularly concentrated site, is that most every point you will have heard supporting AGW, has a reasonable counter argument. it will take some time to go through them all, but most everything is covered. i personally find this interesting, and continue scanning stuff looking for something, just ONE thing, that is so thorough and concrete that it is indeed very reliable, either in favor or against AGW. see, the problem is that nature is very very complex. natural systems are very very complex. take for example the field of medicine. you can run a medical trial, give all patients the same drug, and you can find that half of them don’t respond, a quarter get worse, a quarter get better, and one has a heart attack. (i am not a doctor so feel free to check my characterization of that). natural systems are very very complex. or take for example the medical trial where the drug tested absolutely fine in animals, there was no evidence to suggest it was risky, but within ten minutes of administering it to humans, all the patients developed a horrific and very serious adverse response. nature is complex. the planet is complex. the climate is complex. ecosystems are complex. you could find thousands of little bits of evidence that together form all you know, and as a whole lead to one inescapable conclusion. and the nature of complex systems is that you will still be 100% wrong for practical purposes. so all the evidence suggests that global warming is real, and all the smartest and best funded minds agree. meanwhile nature goes off and does her own thing. see the problem? we need humility. lots and lots of humility. now that is not to say that we can never understand the planet, just that we need gigaquads of data and many many years of careful study. none of these climate models have been tested. not one. they make a prediction about an even 100 years in the future. the ONLY way to know if that prediction is correct is to wait. nature of all things is capable of doing something very surprising. she often does. this is not simple newtonian mechanics. think about the technologies we have today, from mp3 players to space rockets. all of that stuff gets tested in laboratory conditions under careful repeatable experiments. engineers build models but then they test the real thing. they always test the real thing. that’s why your mp3 player and that space rocket work. but climate models have not undergone such testing. the argument is then that it will be too late if we wait. too late for what, the predition that was never going to happen anyway?
Stan Needham,
“My simple question to you is, what kind of climate would you like to legislate? Do you have a specific level of temperature, relative humidity and precipitation in mind. If so, what scientific principles will your legislation address to ensure that the desired parameters are met. Be very specific in your answer because my future support for you is at stake.”
My I use your wonderful question to Sen Lugar on my own legislators? You phrased it perfectly.
There is an old tradition in England of swearing by certain personages although they are not necessarily the ones you might imagine them to be.
Thus ‘What the Dickens’ is not Charles of that ilk, it actually refers to Richard the Third [Dickon]. Thus when I was small, a long time ago, ‘Great Scott’, ‘Gordon Bennett’ and such like were commonplace but are seldom heard today.
For some time I have being trying to persuade people to use ‘By Gore’ instead, so you can say ‘By Gore it’s cold today’.
It hasn’t caught on I am sorry to say perhaps because Gore is not much known over here.
Mind you I rather like Gore Blimey. And the Goracle, given his travelling circus, should he become the Great Goracle do you think?
Kindest Regards
Copenhagen will be a boom for alcohol sales, and limo companies.
It will be a great time for people to meet and see each other, some for the first time.
Otherwise it will have no baring on the planet.
The real tragedy is if MAN ‘fixes’ the planet and causes a real problem.
Many of us accepted these assertions (since we had no other viewpoint at the time) until we started to dig a little deeper. The further we dug the more alarmed we became at the gaping chasms between the actual facts and the reports being widely and repeatedly distributed. It was at that point that we became ‘skeptics’ – which is in fact the necessary initial position of any scientist.
My suggestion is to stick around, do some research and keep an open mind on everything you read, whether it’s in comments on a blog or in a peer-reviewed scientific paper from the most prestigious journal in the world. You may be surprised what you find.
Greg, Geothermal is great until Al Gore comes up and says we are cooling the core and he can prove it by fluctuation in global magnetic field. (as if it doesn’t move and change now!!) but you ignore the truth and anything can sound realistic.
Even the groundhogs are sceptical of the Goracle.
A news update per my previous comment. Evidently FEMA has already came and left. Seems there was nothing for them to do. We had it all under control, I guess. There has been a massive outpouring of help locally and from neighboring states. People around here help one another – the churches are working triple overtime. I guess FEMA decided nobody needed any bottled water, and there were just too many limbs and branches for them to trip over…
Just another example of how WE DON’T NEED the federal government to “help” us. We don’t need Al Gore and we don’t need FEMA. We didn’t need George Bush and we certainly don’t need Obama. “We the People” have the ability and the answers. It’s high time for America to re-wean itself from kings and queens.
To tie this comment to the article: it’s all about letting go of leviathan. I’m serious. There are many bright and gifted individuals on this site. People interested in the truth about weather, climate, etc. When you include tax dollars you immediately attract sharks like Gore. This is why he swims around Congress. The amount of money granted to that place is scary. Currently Congress is blowing out bills faster than they can be printed. Literally. Very very scary. I fear national bankruptcy much more than I do a warmer planet.
Geothermal energy is limited by geology. Only limited areas of the world can put geothermal energy to practical use.
However, geothermal heat pumps and similar technologies make geothermal heating and cooling available for many of us. In a nutshell, these system circulate water or other liquids through an underground closed-loop system. Since the earth is cooler than the air during summer, the liquid is cooled by the earth and then circulated throughout your home. Likewise, the earth is warmer than the outside air in the winter and warms the liquid.
I don’t know the return on investment for these systems. How long does it take to recoup the initial costs? Do they add to the resale value of your home? These factors must be taken into consideration before installing them.
Smokey (13:22:32) :
“all it takes is an open mind.”
Was your sequence of cherry picked graphs supposed to be evidence of having an “open mind”? I’m rather astounded that you should think anyone will be taken in by a six-year graph carefully cut off at a La Nina low point as showing a negative climate trend! Although my favourite was the one employing the reconstructions of Ernst-Georg Beck, whose work I rather suspect even Anthony Watts would not endorse too enthusiastically.
Stefan says, in the following post “most every point you will have heard supporting AGW, has a reasonable counter argument”. It is certainly true that there is a counter argument for everything, though whether or not it is reasonable is a matter of judgment. What is just as true, of course, is that for every such counter argument there is a rebuttal. The difference between the arguments/ rebuttals and the counter-arguments is that the former are consistent, whereas on the other side of the ‘debate’ just anything goes, however self-contradictory. So, for example, one will argue that the ice core CO2 record is consistent with solar variation, then another will reference Beck’s obscure ideas (suggesting that the ice core record is nonsense and his reconstruction is the truth), then another will say that the ice core records are indeed rubbish in their suggestion of past temperature extremes, then another will say that the ice core records are a spot on accurate indication of CO2 lagging temperature (which no one is disputing anyway, by the way – CO2 was a feedback!), and so on. Do these various parties leap at one another’s throats over their contradictions? No, of course not, because they are consistent in this one thing – they are all anti-AGW! No matter how obviously self-contradictory they are, that’s not the point. Taken as a whole, the aim is not to establish the truth of the matter but to attack the hated ‘consensus’, and any weapons will do. This is what having an “open mind” means then – opening your mind to any collection of anti-AGW stuff that you can, regardless of the nonsense of the sum of the parts.
gordon, how many of those “concrete pieces of data” only exist in computer models? How many are actual facts, versus speculation?
Do you know the earth has warmed and cooled many times over? Are you aware that in the last few thousands of years, the climate was naturally warmer than anything experienced during the 20th century? Are you aware the Medieval Warm Period had a much more desirable climate than the Little Ice Age?
There is no factual evidence that warming is catastrophic. The actual evidence contracts that assertion. Cold kills. Warmth increases the growing season and improves harvests. Cold brings famine, starvation and plagues.
Of course warming won’t affect all parts of the earth evenly. Some places will get drier and some wetter. Overall, it’s likely that renewed warming will be like previous warming — overall beneficial.
Do a little more research and you’ll find those events you’re worried about have all happened before. Anybody have a link to the New York Times articles about the polar ice cap melting in the 1920s handy?
Smokey (13:22:32)
You put a lot of trust into a 6th degree polynomial trend line. I have taken the liberty of updating the data up to and including December 2008, that’s all the data available now (the grey data in the plot).
t2lt data and trend speculation
You will notice, that as of December 2008 the anomaly has rebounded to the level observed in the period 2002 to 2007, deviating strongly from your “trend”. The plot contains also a speculative scenario of mine. Let us assume that the anomalies in 2009 will be an exact copy of the data in 2005 (the red data). How does this affect a 6th degree polynomial “trend” line? It would flat line with a small upward bend. A single year of data could overthrow your hailed “trend”.
My conclusion? A 6th degree polynomial “trend line” is anything but. It may highlight weather (as in interannual variability), but it is useless as a predictor for climate trends.
@Robert van der Veeke (12:21:44) :
re.: Malaria,
Agree, was same here:
Germany, Lower Saxony, East Frisia, last frequently occurances of malaria was around 1919, the tidal creeks behind the dykes were an area where mosquitos did survive for long.
@Stan Needham (11:29:31) :
Well done, Sir
(From a CPO, Federal German Navy, Reserve)
@all
from ScienceAndPublicPolicy – The Real Hockey Stick – Carbon Credits, Another Corrupt Currency?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/corrupt_currency.pdf
@ Ross (12:24:13) :
Re.: My guess would be a black hole
– out of which no useful information can be got.
Even black holes emit radiation.
And even some men can, at least glitter as bad examples.
(Goracle, Gorexample)
@ Richard M (12:32:16) :
re: geothermal
Yeah, agree. We too, here did have some projects running. Some OK and some ugly. The areas fitting best for larger geothermal projects are too, sometimes rather instable. We’ve here a town where the ground below peoples houses got instable after a few years using geothermal in that town. Even slight quakes did happen.
It can be of good use, but do plan carefully. By the way, the Icelandics have quite some expirience – and data – on it.
Okay, okay, now they have quite some expirience from financial/currency quakes, too.
@Bob D (13:48:37) :
Many of us accepted these assertions …
yep, me too…
until I recognized – 2002/2003 – there is something totally wrong.
Thank you, all of you folks, have a good night
klausb
Arkansas (09:38:48) :
Im so sorry to hear your troubles. We have to stop relying on the Government to save us. I stocked up on firewood this year for the very reason I suspected it would be very cold. If our pwr were to go out here I have two elderly neighbors that I would be taking in to my house to keep warm. Our communitys need to be more aware of themselves we need each other now because basically we are on our own.
Seems like the only thing our gov is good for lately is figuring out ways to tax us more. Its the only true transparent bi-partisan thing they can agree on and both parties are equally guilty.
If I could advise folks, we never know when disaster will hit. If we could forcast it properly it would be one thing but its a guessing game and hit and miss. When I lived in CA. we had an earthquake kit. All the supplies (including water, and the little camp heater) you would need to survive for a week. I suggest others across the country adopt this, our world is a chaotic place and we, the human race have no clue on where and when nature will reach out and slap us on the back of the head.
gordonsclark (10:57:41) :
But hey, let’s just all make jokes and mock the people trying to do something about it…
I want to do something about it, too…if there is something wrong to fix. And, I want to adjust the handle that gives us a good chance of correcting the problem. From all my research and understanding of both sides of the AGW argument, there is nothing to fix, and even if there were, there is no handle to adjust.
The polar ice masses are not melting — they are growing.
The seas are no longer rising.
Droughts and floods occur and have occurred regularly throughout history.
CO2 is not a good handle to adjust, as there is ample evidence that temperature both rises and falls with very little regard to the CO2 level.
The oceans are pretty well saturated with CO2, and have been apparently for millenia. Witness limestone formations.
For the futility of adjusting CO2 to control global temperature, this reference should be required reading for the AGW alarmists: the Letters to the Editor of January, 2009 of Hydrocarbon Processing magazine.
Greg (11:47:06) :
Geothermal really is an excellent type of power.
Instead of polluting our environment by burning coal or tearing atoms apart to generate heat to make steam to run turbines… we could be taking advantage of the pretty much inexhaustible supply of heat from within the Earth itself.
Geothermal power is not as environmentally benign as some would think. Depending on the geo-source, there are sulfur compounds and other noxious components. As others above wrote, there are limited areas where it is economic.
Far better power sources are wave-power, and turbines powered by large ocean currents. I do agree with you on no need for nuclear power. Fortunately, that has priced itself out of consideration.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Tom in about to freeze again Florida,
By all means, feel free to use my question verbatim with your own legislators. I’m flattered that you would ask.
oh a ps.. all that cold has been following the jet stream. Seems when its kicking down from the artic it brings a mess of cold and nasty with it..
http://squall.sfsu.edu/crws/jetstream.html
every now and again.. look where the wind thats gonna hit ya is coming from:) Time for us to put away the toy models and start observing again.
sorry if im off topic, but if I say anything about Gore, you would have to snip it anyhow.
Regarding CO2 as an inappropriate control variable for global temperature, the Letters to the Editor for February 2009 Hydrocarbon Processing magazine is out, and Temple and Dr. Pierre Latour, PhD, P.E. Control Engineering and Chemical Engineering, have another go. My money is on Latour.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
Link did not work, so trying this again.
Latour’s Letter Feb 09
Roger E. Sowell
Can I refer Gordonsclark to Al Gores rather good 1992 book ‘Earth in the balance’ in which he researched numerous examples of former warm periods.
Unfortunately he has obviously forgotten about it and didn’t tell Dr Mann about his research either, or we wouldn’t have the nonsense of the Hockey stick as Dr Mann decided “the medieval warm period was an outdated concept” to the astonishment of thousands of historians.
Please read some of the threads, as I and many others have posted numerous historic links to warmer periods.
TonyB
John Galt,
No link to the NYT article, but I have a link to the 1975 Newsweek scare story about global cooling: click
And is somebody nipping at my heels again? Simon’s emotions are showing. Attempting to frame the AGW argument as a 50/50 discussion about whether measurable AGW exists or not violates the scientific method — something the AGW contingent does routinely.
As Dr. Roy Spencer points out:
Natural climate variability must be overturned by the [repeatedly falsified] AGW hypothesis, if their hypothesis is to succeed.
Those pointing out that the climate is well within its normal, natural historical parameters have nothing to prove; it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right. So far, they have completely failed. Thus the emotional response.
Allan M R MacRae (06:31:40) :
“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.”
I wonder what excuse the Met Office will invent when next winter is just as cold. When exactly does weather turn into climate?
For Feb 09 Latour letter, click on the Feb 09 link, then scroll down past the turbine issues. Temple has his letter first, then Dr. Latour responds.
Roger E. Sowell
sorry guys/gals, made a hash of this. mea culpa.
OT here, BUT
[sarcasm on]
What was the worst decision made by US of A?
To choose the english language vs german language.
Hence, lots of your jobs were outsourced ot India, due to the language.
If you had decided different, you would have quite some jobs now, outsourced by/from Germany.
I do know, that was tough.
So, [sarcasm off] and I hope the very best to all of you.
@pkatt (14:57:31) :
Thank you, wise words.
When the worst comes, we should take care of family, friends, neighbours.
Because that’s the people we live with, and that’s the people who do count.
By the way, here’s a 45-min video from the ‘six days war against snow’
Germany 1978/79. Okay, okay for quite some people from the lower 48′ and the cannucks – the alaskans will laugh their pants wet on it – this
is nothing, at least only business as usual, but hence, for us it was quite unusual. Have been there, in 1978/79, was no fun.
Now the the link (unfortunately, language is german, but pictures are ‘interesting’)
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5616993840761940811
klausb
Smokey (15:11:35) :
Simon’s emotions are showing.
There was nothing emotional in my response at all – you appear to be diverting from the issue by targeting the poster rather than the content of the post (not for the first time). Stop engaging is such tedious tactics and stick to discussing science, please.
Actually, I shouldn’t have implied that all ‘sceptics’ accept anything that’s anti-AGW, regardless of the contradictions, it’s only the apparent majority. Here, for example, is Ferdinand Engelbeen’s demolition of Ernst-Georg Beck’s findings (which Smokey relies upon) –
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
You quote Spencer saying “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.” He would also say, of course, that nobody has falsified the hypothesis that the we are the product of ‘Intelligent Design’, and I could just as well say that nobody has falsified the hypothesis that there might be fairies at the bottom of my garden. One cannot falsify a hypothesis that presumes unknowns! Spencer’s statement is thus, effectively, a verbal trick. What has been shown is that known natural variability cannot account for observations. Natural plus anthropogenic GHGs gets very, very much closer, and it is therefore a much more useful hypothesis!
Those pointing out that the climate is well within its normal, natural historical parameters have nothing to prove
Well, you could start by ‘proving’ that, if you want to, though it’s not of much consequence to me personally. “Natural historic parameters” do not include the contribution of substantial anthropogenic GHGs to the atmosphere. I’m concerned about what will happen rather than about the natural variability of the past, and that concern rests upon physics rather than upon hand-waving towards the Vikings in Greenland, or whatever. Of course, if you actually want to consider the natural past then I’d be interested to know how you explain the long-term evolution of the climate without considering the significance of GHGs?
it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right.
No, Smokey, no one has to do any such thing. Firstly, this is science, and it doesn’t deal in “proof” but in evidence. I am actually rather surprised that you don’t understand that already. Secondly, there is no such practical need, since virtually every body across the world with a significant influence upon policy accepts the basic science (and I don’t think your citing Ernst-Georg Beck is going to change their minds). And thirdly, ‘the AGW contingent’ has better things to do, such as getting on with scientific research rather than seeking to convince the unconvincible. I’m not really sure why the ‘AGW contingent’ here is wasting its time, beyond it being a sort of obsessively fascinating irritant that must be scratched. What must be done is to find a good way of turning the understanding into effective action. I’m pretty dubious that will happen soon enough, actually. We’re disinclined to pay the costs of mitigation (or unable to reach global agreement on an effective level) so we’ll end up paying the greater costs of adaptation later, IMV.
Oh, and the last reason that nobody has to ‘prove’ AGW is that the climate will do what it will do. So, I’ll catch up with you at the next El Nino when you will, doubtless, still be arguing that it’s all ‘natural variability’ whilst linking to some newly cherry-picked graphs to support your conviction.
Simon, the arguments against AGW theory don’t have to be consistent. Consider a crime scene: two witnesses say they saw the defendant pull the trigger, whilst another eight witnesses each claim they saw the defendant somewhere else at the time–each somewhere different–giving you testimony that the defendant was in any of nine places. All you can conclude from this is that it is a mystery. You will need to carefully examine each of the ten witnesses. Maybe they were all lying or mistaken, and the defendant happens to have a virtual twin. What you really want is a set of incontrovertible evidence–say gun residue on the had, ballistics report, gun ownership certificate, clear CCTV footage of the murder, DNA tests, and so on. Bear in mind that nature’s complexity is such that you might indeed have a wide variety of conflicting evidence. There doesn’t need to be a concise and consistent arrack on AGW, there merely needs to be evidence of confusion. And I wonder that the PR people tried to preempt this with the “debate is over” image. Well see how well that worked.
So yes, it is true that the counter arguments also have counter arguments and I don’t know now how many times I’ve heard someone claim that a skeptic has been “debunked”.
But I am genuinely curious–see I’d like to be right, be on the right side of this debate, whichever side that is. Can you tell me what is the very STRONGEST and most undoubtable specific evidence for the truth of AGW? If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?
Simon and Smokey
Did you ever find the comprehensive answers to Simons questioins on Beck’s data that I posted a few days ago?
tonyB
Antarctic warming fiasco becoming headliner is it the end of the triumvirate Hansen Schmidt and Mann? Its looking pretty much in concrete now
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360
OT, but it’s amazing that splicing two unrelated data sets “produced” Antarctic warming that wasn’t there before…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360
Steve’s original article…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
and
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044
Simon Evans:
You speak of scientific evidence for AGW. Please present such evidence. More to the point, please show the evidence that C02 has driven climate change in the past.
Take your time, we’ll wait.
Leon Brozyna (09:51:48) :”Look at the tilt of his head, eyes gazing at a distant vision on a far horizon….”
I try to quickly get upwind of anybody who looks like that.”
Wonderful, I had pretty much given up on the mainstreamcorporatemedia.
Jeff L:
Hey – how about this as an idea – that we collectively assemble some documents like this. A wiki project of sorts, but broken into easily digested chuncks that could be sent out via email – either as pdf’s or ppt’s. Maybe a big picture one to start with but follow ups with smaller sub-sections, such as geologic perspective, influence of oceans, influence of the sun, etc. Nice concise documents , but with key data plots and tons of links to follow up material. Send them to your friends, family & govt representatives. They can fwd on to others. Could educate a lot of people.
Others have mentioned something like this on various threads. I am willing and have some time even though my computer skills are not great. HasItBeen4YearsYet linked to the “Global Warming Petition Project” (copyright 1998-2008; CISM.org). It needs to be simplified, but it seems to hit all the bases.
A scientific opinion which does not jump to conclusions:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1
A political opinion which does jump to conclusions:
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/GoreTestimony090128p.pdf
Why should we believe the Goracle? He is biased beyond belief. In fact, he is biased to such an extent that his statements are likely to do more harm than good.
Stefan (16:14:05) :
Ok, I accept from your analogy that one of the ‘anti-AGW’ arguments may be right despite the existence of multiple wrong arguments. I’m probaly expressing the frustration/exhaustion that comes from responding to so many mutually inconsistent arguments!
You say:
“There doesn’t need to be a concise and consistent arrack on AGW, there merely needs to be evidence of confusion.”
and I can’t help being reminded of the ‘doubt is our product’ mantra of the tobacco campaigns (campaigning against an acceptance of the deleterious effects of smoking, that is). It is certainly the case that confusion in the minds of the public is being generated by anti-AGW arguments, not particularly by whichever one might be ‘right’ (if there is such a one) but by a whole range of self-contradictory arguments which, by definition, must largely be wrong.
I referred to the ‘consistency’ of AGW theory, and I should clarify by saying that the science tends towards consistency as it progresses. There will be apparently conflicting results along the way, which must be addressed and, if seen to be robust, must be understood within the theoretical framework.
You ask –
Can you tell me what is the very STRONGEST and most undoubtable specific evidence for the truth of AGW? If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?
I don’t think I’m particularly qualified to make that choice, but I’ll give you a personal response. It’s tough to stick to three, and I’ll have changed my mind by tomorrow, but here goes:
1. The basic physics of IR absorption by CO2. No climate scientist that I know of really disputes this – not Spencer, not Lindzen, not Christy.
2. The evidence of relative humidity being maintained as temperature has increased, which is supportive of water vapour feedback theory.
3. The evidence of the temperature record, which is well-explained by anthropogenic + natural forcings but is not explained by natural only forcings.
Now, of course, I know that those points may be ‘attacked’ by those with different views, but you ask for my choice, and that’s it.
I will now, for balance, add three points that I am clearly uncertain about:
1. The net effect of clouds, and how that may develop as the climate evolves.
2. The ‘precision’ of current climate model projections.
3. The dynamics of ice sheets.
My view is probably best summarised in terms of risk assessment (and no, I am not proposing ‘the precautionary principle’). Whatever the uncertainties, and whatever the disagreements that exist amongst scientists, I cannot think it is a bright idea to go on pumping a positive forcing into the atmosphere. This is a dangerous experiment. There is indeed a 10% chance, say, that anthropogenic GHGs will not cause very serious consequences – but there is also a 10% chance, say, that they may cause very extreme consequences, IMV. In between, we have all the other chances. I wouldn’t get onto a plane facing such rotten odds.
Indeed, environMENTALists should take a long leap off a tall cliff to correct the “problem”.
Stefan (16:14:05) :
“If there were just three incontrovertible facts you could quote, what would they be?”
As a Natural Factors Climate (NFC) theorist, it is amazing to me that the only incontrovertible one is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and radiation physics says an increase will result in more absorbed outgoing long wave radiation. There really aren’t any more than that are there?
Global Circulation Models….no better than random walks.
Surface temperature data……influenced upward by UHI and undisclosed massaging methods that makes them significantly in question.
Supposed experts …. appear to be propagandists by their statements and writings…. some use poor methods (or possibly manipulate data and methods to produce &%$#$&^& results) …….which forces folks to question almost everything they say or write.
The AGW theory is so obviously a massive distortion/illusion that it is almost unbelievable. If nothing else it illustrates some of the worst traits in people who manipulate the good hearted environmentalists.
Somehow, I’m reminded of a short story of Wiiliam Tenn:
Satirical SF of its best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tenn
There was a short story, named as far I do remember, with the title
‘Occam’s razor’ -> reference to William of Occham (1288- ca. 1347),
possibly in the collection of short stories ‘The Human Angle’.
There was: How do you recognize if earth is already occupied by aliens?
When policy goes generally against the people.
Still his very best was: ‘ Of Men and Monsters’
…. and there some of his stores online:
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/constantinople.html
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/poulanderson.html
http://www.noreascon.org/guests/tenn-remembrances.html
http://www.templeton.org/powerofpurpose/winners/printer_klass.html
Good Night
KlausB
http://dpsinfo.com/williamtenn/welles.html
He’s already a bloated, Red Giant.
Climate Change Legislation is Running Smack Dab into Economic Rescue.
Here is an Example…
Rescue Plan has a protectionist measure that all steel used in the projects be produced in America.
What do you use to power a smelter? a) a Solar Panel b) Wind Power c) COAL
Now throw a Cap and Trade on that puppy and you basically throw away taxpayer dollars by driving the costs higher for steel and redistributing taxpayer funds to other non-profitable industries that due to economic conditions will sell their permits at the cost of production, and jobs. Thus degrading the amount of money available for worker wages on these projects, the stated goal of the Rescue Plan is to put people to work.
Simon Evans (15:56:49) :
“it is the AGW contingent that must conclusively show that they are right.
No, Smokey, no one has to do any such thing.”
Sorry, Simon, you’re dead wrong. It is the “AGW contingent” that must prove they are right. Why? Because it is the “AGW contingent” that proposes we crater our economy [such as it is, right now] to “solve” a problem that no one knows for sure is a problem. No more drilling, no more nukes, no more coal, no more hydro-electric, no more internal combustion engines, no, no, no…. And for what? Assuming that AGW is real, the ephemeral “changes” that we, in the US and the Western world, can make are so miniscule that they will have virtually no effect on the “problem.”
And what will be the cost for these miniscule changes? Trillions upon trillions of dollars spent on something we do not know is needed. Our farms and our economies will no longer be able to feed the poorest of the world. We will no longer be able to afford and provide the medical advances we’ve made for the last century, for the entire world. When a crisis such as a tsunami hits, we will not be able to respond with the speed and resources that we have historically. Forget for a moment that the “AGW contingent’s” proposals will inevitably lead to a lower standard of living for us, what will our shift of resources mean to everyone else on our planet? Sorry, Simon, but you’ve got a very heavy burden of proof, and you haven’t come close. Your cure is, at present anyway, worse than the disease.
And just for grins, what is your proposed optimum temperature/climate for the planet? Exactly what it is today? What it was in 1998? What it was in 1970? What it was in 1780? What is it you really hope to accomplish?
Further proof that our government is run by morons.
How can “climate change” go into reverse? Unless you mean change in only one direction, then you must mean “global warming” which isn’t global or warming.
Wow, that’s scientific? I don’t think it’s possible to get “too cold to snow” on this planet unless the sun suddenly dies.
“Natural historic parameters” do not include the contribution of substantial anthropogenic GHGs to the atmosphere.
But they do include, in geologic terms, increases of naturally occurring GHG’s (code word for CO2) and there is not much evidence that the gas increases caused temp increases (CO2 increases lag temp increases). I’m still not sure why “man-made” CO2 is supposed to create different climate reactions than naturally occurring CO2. That said, one of the biggest problem in determining the past reaction to GHG’s is that the farther back you go geologically, minute details of climate reactions are lost forever – you only get a general idea of what went on.
I have a question – How do you disprove anthropologically caused global warming… er, I mean climate change. If it gets warms, it’s our fault. If it gets colder, it’s our fault. If we get too much rain, not enough…. you get the idea. Everything that happens is assumed to be because of the extra gasses we’ve spewed into the atmosphere. The theory of climate change borders on fraud because it seems that, by design, it CAN”T be disproved. If it can’t be disproved, it’s not science.
That said, I’m all for a cleaner environment. I’m even for reduced CO2 emissions (what can it hurt). What I’m not for is purposely damaging an already weak economy, based on a theory that, as it has currently evolved, is impossible to disprove.
You obviously haven’t seen Heidi Klum in a bikini… 😉
So nobody in the senate dared to ask Al how he got to the Testimony?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate’s top environmental lawmaker offered a preview on Wednesday of major component of climate change legislation she said could be introduced “in weeks, not months.”
“We are not sitting back and waiting for some magic moment,” Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters. “We’re ready to go.”
TonyB,
My apologies for not promptly responding to your very interesting post [on 1/31/09 @06:26:32] on this thread: click
First, let me say that an attempt is continually being made by Simon to frame the argument in a way that makes it appear that I accept and defend everything Dr. Beck has said. I do not accept that characterization. But I have an open mind regarding Beck’s findings, which appear legitimate and technically unrefuted.
I also note that Beck has been completely open, forthright and transparent regarding his methodology and data collection, and as can be seen in your post of January 31, he has taken the time to respond in great detail to Simon’s questions. I urge anyone interested to read Beck’s responses in that post, and decide for themselves [and for those interested, Dr. Beck’s website is here: click]
I would like to make one further comment: If Drs. Mann and Hansen were as open and forthright regarding their data and methodologies as Dr. Beck is, the AGW/CO2 issue would have been put to rest long ago. The only reason that CO2 is still taken seriously as the central culprit in global warming is the refusal of Hansen and Mann to provide transparency, and to respond directly to their critics. Instead, they hide out, and refuse to provide the raw data necessary to falsify their CO2/global warming hypothesis. That is not science; that is advocacy.
Dr. Beck repeatedly makes the point that he is not arriving at global assumptions, but rather, he is doing a comprehensive study of over 90,000 extremely accurate CO2 readings, taken over many years and in many locations, often by prominent scientists.
Beck’s work adds substantially to our knowledge of past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Believers in the AGW/CO2 hypothesis intensely dislike the fact that CO2 levels have been much higher in many locations in the recent past such as 1940, and also at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, than current levels. That fact derails the AGW/CO2 hypothesis.
Dr. Beck’s work has withstood falsification. If anyone believes otherwise, Beck is, as always, ready, willing and able to explain the data and his methodology. His is a prime example of how a scientist should conduct research.
In refuting Simon Evans’ simplistic reasons for his belief in AGW and therefore Evans’ willingness to choose or vote for our contemporary society to walk the plank, Walter Cronanty wrote:
Sorry, Simon, you’re dead wrong. It is the “AGW contingent” that must prove they are right. Why? Because it is the “AGW contingent” that proposes we crater our economy [such as it is, right now] to “solve” a problem that no one knows for sure is a problem. No more drilling, no more nukes, no more coal, no more hydro-electric, no more internal combustion engines, no, no, no….
Returning to Jeff L’s (and others) wiki project idea, a great quote from the Global Warming Petition Project could headline each unit of information distributed. It clearly suggests what our future might be like if we could sideline The Goracle and his ilk: “Thus, rather than a $300 billion trade loss, the U.S. would have a $200 billion trade surplus — and installed capacity for future U.S. [energy] requirements.” (P. 36)
just a profit-eager government.
Just have a look at Scott’s diary when he got caught in 40 below weather and find out if that’s too cold to snow.
When asked by Kerry if some of the cap & trade profits could go to the taxpayers footing the bill, Gore replied icily …”possibly”. Told me right then & there what’s on his mind. We must bear the sacrifice while the energy companies increase thier profits, which he was very careful to ‘safeguard’.
I really don’t like to see science being a political puppet, but they are the ones doing it.
As one current example of government wasting precious resources on anti-GW boondoggles, we have a serious water shortage in California, which is about to lead to a serious food shortage of various items. California supplies a big part of the fruits and vegetables in the U.S., but that is likely to change this year due to lack of fresh water.
So, what is our state government doing about it? Well, let’s consider the past. When we had a shortage of electric power, the state purchased power from other states, including nuclear from Arizona, hydroelectric from Washington and from Nevada, and coal-based power from Utah. We purchase crude oil from Alaska, and other countries because there is not enough oil production in California to supply the refineries.
We also take some water from the Colorado river system, under a pact with a few other states including Nevada and Arizona.
But, now that we are in a dire water shortage, our government enacts a Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32, in which CO2 and other GHGs will be dramatically reduced by command-and-control plus a bit of cap and trade.
And the farms will continue have no water, so the grocery stores across the nation will have fewer and therefore more expensive produce and fruit.
Does anyone else think that maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to build some seawater desalination plants? Oh wait…those take electric power…and those create CO2.
My suggestion is to get used to fewer veggies and fruits, folks.
And, that will have a world-wide ripple effect on food prices. Count on it.
Thank you, Al Goracle. Just what we needed, right when we needed it.
I miss guacamole already. (tasty Mexican dish made primarily from avocados, a major crop in California).
Smokey (18:04:14) :
Well, since you mention my name 🙂 –
I have an open mind regarding Beck’s findings
Do you?
CO2 levels have been much higher in many locations in the recent past such as 1940, and also at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, than current levels. That fact derails the AGW/CO2 hypothesis
Ah, it seems that you don’t! Maybe what you and I understand by ‘having an open mind’ is just entirely different?
It’s fine, Smokey – you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless, but that’s just my opinion!
(Incidentally, I haven’t finished reading through the CO2 thread, having been away at the weekend, so I’ve no idea whether or not Beck has responded to my questions as you suggest).
@a jones (13:41:37) :
[…] “For some time I have being trying to persuade people to use ‘By Gore’ instead, so you can say ‘By Gore it’s cold today’.” […]
You just rustled up an instant convert here. I’ll use that tomorrow at work. The temperature is forecast to drop like a stone in my neck of the woods. We’re expecting 0-4 deg F tonight and not much of a warmup tomorrow.
Simon Evans (18:06:23) :
“I am in favour of nuclear research (which should not have been held back all this time) and consider nuclear as a necessary part of an energy strategy going forward,”
As you appear to be defending Sen. Gore, I thought you were in agreement with his statement: “Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. ‘I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,’ the Goracle spoke.” You say you are for nuclear power, yet no one truly believes that a nuclear facility will be coming on line soon in the US. Rather easy rhetoric, like President Obama saying he is for nuclear power – as soon as we solve the problem of spent uranium – never saying when, given our current, and soon to be expanded, EPA regulations, he expects that “problem” to be solved, nor what he expects the solution to be.
Many AGW alarmists often are “cafeteria” alarmists. That is, when the results of their polices are considered, this proponent is for nuclear, that one isn’t. When internal combustion engines are discussed, some [most notably, Sen. Gore] recoil in horror, while others, such as you, apparently, say you can live with them, but wish that they more efficient [on that, I can agree]. The problem is, when the arguments are hammered into policy, we end up with no new energy production- be it coal powered, petroleum powered, hydro powered or nuclear powered [or wind powered, if it’s in Sen Kennedy’s backyard – or if it might impact on migratory birds – must do an environmental impact study, doncha know].
As to hydro-electric, I do not know what you consider “(sensible considerations applying),” but no prominent “green” proponent that I have read lately has ever applied “sensible considerations” which would allow for the construction of new hydro-electric facilities in the US. Again, like President Obama and his “support” of nuclear power.
“The Chinese, Indians, etc. need to cut emission trajectories. ‘We’ need to help stimulate that response.” And how, pray tell, do you expect to do that?
Nice words – little reality.
That is, perhaps, what bothers me most about AGW proponents. No one, including me, wants to increase man-made CO2 emissions – not because I have a great fear of them, but because it seems common sensical [if that’s a word] that the more that we can use renewable resources, the better. That being said, the cost of the cure of lowering our CO2 emissions to the levels espoused by Sen. Gore, et al., is ridiculous. To say that we could do that without significantly lowering our, and the world’s, standard of living is, at best, disengenuous.
Finally, we get to this sentence: ” Action in respect of AGW seeks to protect our future standard of life, not to damage it.” First, while this may be true as to you, I believe it is absolutely false as to many of your allies. Some of the most virulent, leftist, anti-indultrialized world luddites I’ve ever encountered were rabid AGWers. They simply want us all to live in caves.
Second, I’ve read some projected figures on mitigation – but none, repeat none, have been realistic when looking at all costs, including the costs of lost opportunities. It reminds me of projections of LBJ’s “Great Society” – not even close [when has a grandiose government project come in under budget?].
So we get back to the burden of proof – until someone can prove that AGW exists, I’ll take cautious baby steps towards renewable energy because it makes sense in many ways. But if you want trillions and trillions of dollars, to wrench our basic economy from carbon based energy production to something else, you’ve got to do better than you’ve been doing.
You seem, Simon, to be an intelligent proponent of AGW. Looking at the points above, I have some thoughts (not proofs, not arguments, just thoughts). I’m not a climate scientist, but physics was my major, and I understand some of what I see flying through the air from left to right and back again. Not all, mind you, and I’m more than happy to be shown to be wrong – that is after all how we learn.
1) On your first point, I agree (to a certain extent) that there is an understanding of the basic physics of IR absorption by CO2. There are other scientists who disagree, though, I should point out. The problem is that the magnitude of effect of this IR absorption on global temperature is not as well known experimentally (ie: at the level of our complex planet) and is in any case theoretically relatively small. Do we really believe that a gas making up 0.03% of our atmosphere by volume can cause the whole thing to run out of control? Really? Enter your second point.
2) This is the kicker. Water vapour (95% of the GHG effect – that’s more like it!) must be employed as the positive feedback mechanism, otherwise the whole alarm thing peters out. However, this effect is unproven, beyond the relative humidity evidence you mentioned. In my opinion this is where more research could be directed. If it turns out that the positive feedback is true, then yes I believe we may have a problem. I’m keeping an open mind on the issue but right now I don’t see a lot of convincing evidence. Also, it appears it hasn’t happened in the past. Not proof, of course, but something to bear in mind.
3) This is the weakest of the three arguments, as I’m sure you know (since it’s not #1 or #2). The lack of understanding of other forcings is hardly a good argument to use, especially since the downward temperature trend over the past decade is not well explained by previous models (otherwise they would have predicted it), and is itself therefore probably due to some “other forcing”.
As a further discussion of other forcings, what happened during the MWP is troublesome. How did global temperature soar higher than it is now, stay high for ages (but not run away uncontrollably), then dip down into the LIA all without the slightest regard for CO2 levels? I just don’t see the sensitivity to CO2/water vapour positive feedback that is being assumed. Even the Team recognize the MWP as a major problem, and explains why they have tried so hard to re-write history.
Just in case you believe the assertion that the MWP never happened, may I say that the only evidence against it comes from the Team and associated bench members. Not good enough – history and many other scientists back up the existence of the MWP, and it’ll take a lot more than some rather dubious statistical magic to make it disappear for me (and I suspect, most other people).
Al Gore is my shepherd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians
His jet emits the holy co2
His excise doth make my pockets empty
His movie makes children sleepless
Yea, though I walk dark in my house his 3 are comfortable lit
Surely his condition for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on Thanksgiving forever
Whatever, Simon. If you can falsify Dr. Beck’s findings, I look forward to seeing it. But so far, Beck has answered every last one of your points — which are no doubt the best you’ve got.
Now, about that repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2 hypothesis…
Simon Evans (18:36:28) :
“you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless”
Now, what was that about an “open mind”?
One more thing on the “cost of mitigation” of CO2, or more properly said, the cost of banning man-made production of CO2.
Well let’s look back at another “scientific consensus.” What was the cost of banning the use of DDT? Really, in dollars and cents, probably not much, except for the manufacturer [evil capitalist, no doubt]. But, what of the real cost? The unintended consequences? Roy Innes, national chairman of the Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE), wrote this article:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=19127
The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT has been a travesty worse than colonialism ever was, a human rights violation of monstrous proportions.”
He wrote: “Not surprisingly, there has been another holocaust of Africans every few years, and malaria deaths since the 1972 DDT ban may in fact exceed the entire World War II death toll.”
So, what was/is the real cost of the “mitigation” of DDT? Until we are sure of what we are doing, we should at least do no harm.
Roger Sowell (18:26:50) :
You can thank the Dept. of the Agriculture for running precipitation enhancement stations that eventually result in the precipitation getting up and going elsewhere in California.
Just like the did in 1975 in Nevada County, and lo & behold, the 76-77 drought in California had it’s epicenter in …. guess where?
They did it again in Modoc County, driving the precip to Ore/Wash and sending the remnants around to the Southern Sierra.
We should thank them profusely for making 2009 a really bum year for agriculture in California, adding insult to injury. They are getting quite good at steering the water away from this state.
Just think of what miracles they can perform once they get the green light to combat Global Warming with even more sinister Climactic Experiments.
Walter Cronanty (20:52:17) : The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT has been a travesty worse than colonialism ever was, a human rights violation of monstrous proportions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DDT-3D-balls.png
shows it as a simple 2 Benzene rings stuck to one end of an ethane with one CL each on the rings and the other end of the ethane CL saturated. First made in the late 1800s. Looks easy to make.
So why doesn’t one of these countries suffering so badly just withdraw from the Stockholm Convention and make their own? If my population was croaking off from malaria, I’d “roll my own” in a heartbeat…
Can’t take much more than a college chem lab to make pounds of it.
Likely because they were threatened with the cut off of foreign aid if they did.
E.M.Smith (00:37:08) :
Walter Cronanty (20:52:17) : The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT
The wiki states:
The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.
The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted the use of DDT to vector control. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, the public health use of DDT was exempted from the ban until alternatives are developed. The Malaria Foundation International states that “The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations…For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.”[26]
Despite the worldwide ban on agricultural use of DDT, its use in this context continues in India[27] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[11]
I don’t see the problem. You can buy it from China and India. It is still legal for vector control (and keeping off the crops makes it less likely to fail for vector use).
Looks to me like a ‘non-problem’. If you have a malaria problem you can buy it and use it. Doesn’t seem like anyone is stopping this use.
“Hey – how about this as an idea – that we colectively assemble some documents like this. A wiki project of sorts, but broken into easily digested chuncks that could be sent out via email – either as pdf’s or ppt’s. Maybe a big picture one to start with but follow ups with smaller sub-sections, such as geologic perspective, influence of oceans, influence of the sun, etc. Nice concise documents , but with key data plots and tons of links to follow up material. Send them to your friends, family & govt representatives. They can fwd on to others. Could educate a lot of people.”
A problem I have found is that if you dont have a passion for the subject matter, you probably aren’t going to spend the time to learn about it, but people will spend 5 minutes looking at a pre-digested version sent to them via email & will hit the fwd button to send it to others. Problem is having that nice condensed version to send out.
It would be nice to keep the documents evergreen – so as new data & research become available they can be linked in.
Any ideas of how to make something like this happen?”
Here’s what I submitted on another thread:
Anthony: When your $10M WUWT-earmarked-slice of the recent appropriation for climate research reaches you, I suggest the following project: set up a sister site, or a portion of this site, that contains the best posts, including point/counterpoint exchanges, from WUWT’s threads, organized by topic. Topics would be such things as:
Antarctic
Arctic Ice
Glaciers
Urban Heat Islands
Temperature Records
Siting Problems
Hockey Stick
Sea Level
Ocean Oscillations
Computer Climate Modeling
Hansen’s Intemperance and Crusading
CO2’s posited feedback cycle with water vapor
Soot
Etc., etc. The editing could be a minimalistic rough cut (eliminating small irrelevancies, for instance), and no segues or commentaries need be inserted (at least initially) to smooth transitions between segments within topics, or to provide introductions–and yet the result could still be fantastically educational in getting new visitors up to speed. It would also simplify the task of responding to posts by naive AGW-ers: They could simply be referred to the appropriate thread in the Summary Section (as I hereby dub it).
Hi Anthony,
Europe is reeling from cold temperatures and the results of incompetent energy policies, since they have relied on intermittent wind power when they really needed fossil fuels or nuclear power to survive.
Here is one of my newspaper articles from 2002. It is a much more accurate indicator of recent climatic events than the IPCC reports, and includes a prediction of global cooling. The global cooling predictions was provided in a phone conversation with paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, who based his comments on the Gleissberg Cycle.
My predictions on energy are proving correct. It is deeply regrettable that politicians worldwide have been so badly advised on this critical issue for the survival of our societies.
Best regards, Allan
*********************************
Kyoto Hot Air Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels
Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002
The Kyoto Accord on climate change is probably the most poorly crafted piece of legislative incompetence in recent times.
First, the science of climate change, the treaty’s fundamental foundation, is not even remotely settled. There is even strong evidence that human activity is not causing serious global warming.
The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common. Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
The last big Ice Age, when Canada was covered by a one-kilometre-thick ice sheet, ended only about 10,000 years ago, and another big one could start at any time in the next 5,000 years. Mankind clearly didn’t cause the rise and fall of the last big Ice Age, and we may not have any ability to control the next big one either.
It appears that increased CO2 is only a minor contributor to global warming. Even knowing this is true, some Kyoto advocates have tried to stifle the scientific debate by deliberate misinformation and bullying tactics. They claim to be environmentalists — why do they suppress the truth about environmental science?
Some environmental groups supporting Kyoto also lack transparency in their funding sources and have serious conflicts of interest. Perhaps they are more interested in extorting funds from a frightened public than they are in revealing the truth.
Do they not know or care that Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment by causing energy-intensive industries to move to developing countries, which are exempt from Kyoto emission limits and do not control even the most harmful forms of pollution?
The Canadian government wants to meet its Kyoto targets by paying billions of dollars a year for CO2 credits to the former Soviet Union. For decades, the former Soviet Union has been the world’s greatest waster of energy. Yet it will receive billions in free CO2 credits because of the flawed structure of Kyoto. No possible good can come to the environment by this massive transfer of wealth from Canadians to the former Soviet Union.
Kyoto would be ineffective even if the pro-Kyoto science was correct, reducing projected warming by a mere 0.06 degrees Celsius over the next half-century. Consequently, we would need at least 10 Kyoto’s to stop alleged global warming. This would require a virtual elimination of fossil fuels from our energy system. Environment Canada knows this but doesn’t really want to tell you all the economic bad news just yet.
What would the economic impact of 10 Kyoto’s be? Think in terms of 10 times the devastating impact of the oil crisis of the 1970s (remember high unemployment, stagflation and 20 per cent mortgage rates) or 10 times the impact of Canada’s destructive and wasteful National Energy Program. Be prepared for some huge and unpleasant changes in the way you live.
Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) account for 87 per cent of the world’s primary energy consumption, with 13 per cent coming from nuclear and hydroelectricity. Is it possible to replace such an enormous quantity of fossil fuels?
Hydrogen is not an answer — it is a clean secondary energy currency like electricity, but it is made from primary energy such as fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.
Kyoto advocates want expanded renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, and solar power and biomass to provide our future needs. Is this possible?
In 2001, there was a total global installed capacity of eight gigawatts (GW) of geothermal power and 25 GW of wind power. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, this equals only one quarter of one per cent of worldwide primary energy consumption. The contribution of solar electrical power generation is so small as to be inconsequential. To replace fossil fuels, we would need to increase all these renewables by a staggering 33,000 per cent.
Of course, wind doesn’t blow all the time — wind power works best as a small part of an electrical distribution system, where other sources provide the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it will probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1,000-megawatt wind farm would cover a land area of 1,036 square kilometres, while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers about 36 square kilometres. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible for miles due to the height of the towers and kill large numbers of birds.
What about solar? The electricity generated by a photovoltaic solar cell in its entire lifetime does not add up to the energy used to manufacture it, not to mention the requirement for vast areas for solar farms. These solar cells make sense only in limited special applications or in remote locations.
Hydroelectric power is another renewable, but environmental activists don’t want more hydro because it dams rivers.
What about biomass solutions such as ethanol? Canada, the United States and a few other countries may have available crop land for ethanol to partially meet our local needs, but it is clearly not a global solution.
Many developing countries will reject renewable energy due to higher costs, since renewables usually require subsidies to compete with fossil fuels.
Conventional nuclear fission or, someday, fusion are the only two prospects that could conceivably replace fossil fuels. But Kyoto activists hate nuclear.
Conservation is a good solution, but Canada has been improving its energy efficiency for decades, in response to rising energy prices. Significant improvements have been achieved in heating and insulation of homes, automotive mileage and industrial energy efficiency. However, Canadians live in a cold climate and our country is vast. There are practical limits to what we can achieve through energy conservation.
So where will all the energy come from if we eliminate oil, natural gas and coal? Kyoto supporters have provided no practical answers, they just want to ratify this flawed treaty. It would be nice if our energy supply solutions were simple, but they’re not. In the long run, if we implement Kyoto we will have only two choices — destroy our economy and suffer massive job losses and power blackouts, or break the terms of Kyoto, which will be international law.
Instead of Kyoto, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a much better understanding of science, industry and the environment. It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil — and no country should be exempt.
Then there might be a chance to actually improve the environment, rather than making it worse and wasting billions on the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord.
*******************************
E.M.Smith (00:58:24)
“Looks to me like a ‘non-problem’. If you have a malaria problem you can buy it and use it. Doesn’t seem like anyone is stopping this use.”
The question is not DDT’s availability, it is the economic penalties for using it. I suggest you read some of the articles at:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org
“Consider what happened with DDT, a highly-effective insecticide banned by the EU. Many developing countries have stopped using DDT — even though it is only sprayed indoors and not on crops — for fear that their agricultural exports will not be allowed in Europe.”
Thus, developing African countries can “pick their poison” [pun intended]. They can use DDT and exacerbate their already grinding poverty due to EU banning agricultural exports, or they can not use DDT and die of malaria.
On balance, I’m not at all sure that “environmentalists,” whether they are attacking CO2 or DDT or nuclear power or hydro-electric power or the myriad of other items they seem to be constantly attacking [the latest I’ve read about is an initially successful attack on a proposed transmission grid for a solar power farm in California because the wires would go through a state park], are benefitting the world. While many of their concerns may be valid [not at all sure that CO2 fears are well-founded], many of their ill-thought out, unrealistic solutions do incredible harm.
Stan Needham , well done . That is an example of what I meant .
Dear Senator Lugar,
….
My simple question to you is, what kind of climate would you like to legislate?
Do you have a specific level of temperature, relative humidity and precipitation in mind.
If so, what scientific principles will your legislation address to ensure that the desired parameters are met.
Be very specific in your answer because my future support for you is at stake.
That is the spirit !
Be all sure that when a politician receives a dozen of such letters from HIS voters , he notices .
When it is hundreds , he begins to think .
And when it is thousands he begins to be afraid .
Very afraid .
Do NOT complain that your local representative is a moron !
Make him change or kick him out .
It should be very clear to everybody that the support of politicians for AGW came only because they came to the conviction that the votes come without a price .
They only need to say that they will save the planet from the hell that is upon us and people will blindly accept everything and vote for them .
In every single other isue they must take risks , arbitrate , choose and with every decision potentially loose voters .
AGW is a god blessed issue for politicians – everybody wants to save the planet and nobody will be here anymore after 100 years to see how badly they screwed up .
So it is my , our , your duty to tell them that THERE IS A PRICE .
There is a short term price because spending trillions to destroy economy will show in destroyed jobs and plummeting standards of living and be very sure that people will notice THAT .
And there is a short term price for them personnaly because when people notice and become angry , be very sure that those responsible will be happy if they find a carwasher job afterwards .
It is irrelevant if some average temperarature will increase by 0.5 or 2°C or not at all in 100 years .
Peopole whose jobs get destroyed today , whose living standards decrease today , get angry tomorrow and that is what is relevant .
Tell them that , write them that .
Be sure that they will listen and it is not written that Obama’s and Gore’s environmental delirium must come true .
Walter Cronanty (19:31:08) :
Simon Evans (18:06:23) :
“I am in favour of nuclear research (which should not have been held back all this time) and consider nuclear as a necessary part of an energy strategy going forward,”
As you appear to be defending Sen. Gore, I thought you were in agreement with his statement
I’m not ‘defending’ Gore, I’m just saying what I think – and no, I won’t agree with everyone else concerned by AGW (though I do actually agree that the pace of nuclear development will be restricted by supply constraints, if nothing else).
As for how we relate to China etc., we need global agreement on emissions, and I don’t believe that will happen until we recognise the weight of the per capita responsibility argument.
I’m surprised that you expect absolute proof before pursuing policies, which science will never be able to provide anyway. Businesses commit expenditure without proof of what will happen in the future. Do you think we should not pay for the future training and provision of armed forces because of the lack of proof that they will be needed?
Bob D (19:49:05) :
1) …. Do we really believe that a gas making up 0.03% of our atmosphere by volume can cause the whole thing to run out of control? Really?
As you’ll know, 99% of the atmosphere has no greenhouse effect anyway, so it’s a matter of the proportional contribution to that part which does. If we agree that we already have a greenhouse effect from that part then I don’t see why it’s counter to reason to consider changes in effect from changes to its size.
2) This is the kicker. Water vapour (95% of the GHG effect – that’s more like it!) must be employed as the positive feedback mechanism, otherwise the whole alarm thing peters out. However, this effect is unproven, beyond the relative humidity evidence you mentioned. In my opinion this is where more research could be directed.
I agree that more research is always welcome, though I certainly don’t agree with your figure for water vapour’s share of the G effect! You may not find current research convincing, which is fair enough, whereas I think it’s very persuasive. The basic proposal is not controversial in itself, I think – that is that if temperature rises whilst relative humidity remains constant then there will be increased water vapour in the atmosphere. What is questioned by some (such as Roy Spencer) is whether there might not be a ‘thermostatic’ control, or a negative feedback. Personally I think it is that hypothesis that is lacking evidence, on a global scale at least.
Also, it appears it hasn’t happened in the past.
I’m not sure why you say that. I am not aware of satisfactory explanations of the evolution of past climate that can dispense with climate sensitivity. Are we to think that the response of water vapour is not a significant aspect of such sensitivity?
3) This is the weakest of the three arguments, as I’m sure you know (since it’s not #1 or #2).
I put it at 3 since I was proceeding from basic physical theory through to the observational record!
The lack of understanding of other forcings is hardly a good argument to use, especially since the downward temperature trend over the past decade is not well explained by previous models (otherwise they would have predicted it), and is itself therefore probably due to some “other forcing”.
Models don’t predict the timing of the ENSO cycle or the solar cycle – perhaps some day they will. There is definitely uncertainty, such as in net cloud response or in projection of aerosol effect.
As a further discussion of other forcings, what happened during the MWP is troublesome. How did global temperature soar higher than it is now, stay high for ages (but not run away uncontrollably), then dip down into the LIA all without the slightest regard for CO2 levels? I just don’t see the sensitivity to CO2/water vapour positive feedback that is being assumed. Even the Team recognize the MWP as a major problem, and explains why they have tried so hard to re-write history.
Just in case you believe the assertion that the MWP never happened, may I say that the only evidence against it comes from the Team and associated bench members. Not good enough – history and many other scientists back up the existence of the MWP, and it’ll take a lot more than some rather dubious statistical magic to make it disappear for me (and I suspect, most other people).
I really don’t want to do the whole hockey-stick debate again if I can avoid it (energy is limited), but I’ll sum up what I think:
1. Yes, I think there was an MWP, but I am not persuaded that it was global and regionally synchronous.
2. I don’t know the basis of your assertion that “global temperature soar[ed] higher than it is now, stay[ed] high for ages”.
3. I think if we are to be cautious of proxy evidence then that caution must apply to proxies that suggest evidence of elevated temperatures during that period, just as we should be cautious of proxies that suggest otherwise.
4. I’m not concerned anyway about whether or not today’s temperatures ‘could have been produced naturally’. I’m sure they could. Whether they have or not over the past couple of thousand years is interesting , but the fact remains (I think!) that we are adding a warming influence to the atmosphere and thus I am concerned regarding the consequences of that.
5. If the MWP & LIA were global effects (and I think there is much firmer evidence for the latter) and that is then explained, as is commonly suggested, by solar variation, then it implies a high climate sensitivity. Therefore, such an explanation should increase our concern for the effects of anthropogenic GHGs rather than giving us comfort!
Smokey (20:01:01) :
Whatever, Simon. If you can falsify Dr. Beck’s findings, I look forward to seeing it. But so far, Beck has answered every last one of your points — which are no doubt the best you’ve got.
I’ve had a browse, but can’t see where he’s answered my particular points (for example, that 70%+ of his data is from one suburban location over an 18 month period). How is one to ‘falsify’ the assertion that CO2 measurements taken in such a location, and suggestive of implausible CO2 flux over a few weeks equivalent to up to two thirds of the carbon contained in all land flora, are representative of background CO2? I could refer to the ice core data, of course, but Beck’s view seems to be that the ice cores are wrong when they disagree with his data though they offer confirmation of his findings when they agree with him! As I’ve said, Smokey, it’s fine with me if you are convinced, though I might continue to point out that such findings are questionable when you assert them as matters of fact.
Richard M (20:22:48) :
Simon Evans (18:36:28) :
“you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless”
Now, what was that about an “open mind”?
I never claimed to have an open mind on Beck’s papers – on the contrary, I’ve made up my mind – I think they are crucially flawed. I think it was Smokey making the broad claims to be open-minded on, apparently, all subjects! Many people here seem to have made up their minds on Mann et al 98/99, so I don’t feel too embarrassed to do the same on Beck’s papers.
@ Roger Knight et al:
Sincere apologies for bad link. For Dr. Gray’s detailed comments re: IPCC reform, please see New Zealand Climate Coalition –
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
My URL shrink apparently failed.
Copenhagen reminds me of two things: quantum theory and Hans Christian Andersen.
It was in Copenhagen was it not, that the brave little boy told the naked truth about the Emperor’s deshabille?
Simon Evans (07:25:25) :
“I’m surprised that you expect absolute proof before pursuing policies, which science will never be able to provide anyway. Businesses commit expenditure without proof of what will happen in the future. Do you think we should not pay for the future training and provision of armed forces because of the lack of proof that they will be needed?”
If a businessman wants to “commit expenditure [OF HIS OWN MONEY] without proof of what will happen in the future” – god bless him. I wish him well. When my government wants to take my money by force of law and begin a massive program that will likely never end [see, the “Rural Electrification Administration”, a New Deal program that’s still spending our money – mission creep] to solve a problem that may not exist by instituting policies that will be detrimental to our economy – well, that’s just a bit different. And as to our armed forces – I believe that we have an historical record of their need that’s a bit more compelling than the historical record supporting the theory of AGW.
I’m not surprised that Gore is still off the rails, but I’m amazed that he’s picking up speed when he should have come to a crashing halt. And, that so many of America’s lawmakers are climbing on board the Goracle express to nowhere, is the icing on the cake. It’s like a bad dream. This is not going to end well, especially with Barack HUSSEIN O’Bummer at the helm.
@Pragmatist
Thanks for that link. It’s interesting to note that the author’s criticisms of the IPCC all reflect on it’s nature as a mega-bureaucracy. They have an agenda, and are only using the cover of science to advance that agenda. His letter is a beautiful exposition of that.
“The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.
I guess the 3 steps would be:
1. Keep the populace alarmed and misinformed about climate and C02.
2. Keep the pressure on Congress to ramrod through a cap-and-trade system in order to avoid “dangerous climate change”.
3. Continue to ignore the actual, and ever-increasing amount of scientific evidence that the overall warming of the past century was due to natural causes, just as previous warming periods were, as well as the increasing number of scientists who reject the AGW claims.
The Goracle sees “temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change”; but like all AGW morons, he has it completely backwards. It is the idiotic, and completely senseless war on “carbon” which could bring human civilization to a “screeching halt”, and “threaten the fabric of life everywhere”.
Roger Sowel, if you’re still hanging around, I wrote a post on California’s dire water situation just a few days ago. And there are updates.
The new Dep of Energy is warming California will have dire effects on its water supply due to global warming. Uh, some should tell the good Energy Secretay It’s already happening, and its got nothing to do with global warming!.
Pragmatist (09:41:09) :
Dr. Vincent Gray, whose comments looked like this?
1. Insert after “Bayesian” “(or super-guesswork)”,
2. Insert after “to” “the utterly ridiculous assumption of”,
3. or more typically like this
You can find more at the Collection of the Havard College Library. AFAIK 97% of his comments were rejected because he did not give any evidence or reasoning for requesting the changes. Compare the quality of his comments to those by other commenters, which got accepted. I’d be obliged, if you could point me to a substantial contribution of Dr. Gray.
P.S.: I have previously posted as “blue”. I have now registered at wordpress, but that moniker was already taken. So I settled for “bluegrue” instead.
sonicfrog, yes, the water situation is dire. I posted a comment a few minutes ago on the “temperature anomaly makes significant jump in January” post, and for the past couple of days elsewhere on WUWT.
Politicians! As if cutting CO2 will create more fresh water…
Ah well. They apparently believe that cutting CO2 will cool the planet, and that will increase the snowfall and chill the Sierra mountains so the snow hangs around long enough to melt and run into the reservoirs behind the dams.
Even if any of that were true, how many decades or hundreds of years does it take? We need the water NOW…not in 500 years!
OT: I haven’t heard anything new lately about the sun. I see no spots. Has SC24 started yet? Or has the sun still been absent of activity?
Remember this, oh ye of little faith (and confirmed “skeptics” and “deniers”).
Yasser Arafat also won a Nobel Prize. And look at how history remembers him. A criminal, terrorist, and failed leader who used and took advantage of the very people for whom he claimed to be advocating, for his own personal benefit.
Given enough time, the end result will be no different for the high priest of global warming hyperbole and fearmongering, Al “The Goracle” Gore.
Just be patient and watch.
This may have been asked as I am late to the conversation, but why didn’t any public officials asked him something along the lines of “Mr. Gore, are you in anyway in a position to profit from the enactment of laws you are recommending enact?”
Seems to be a standard question everywhere else I think we all know the answer.
Mike from Canmore (13:24:54) :
I think you’ve answered your own question.
Mike, have a read here.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care
Some interesting facts on our friend Mr. Gore, and from a leftist writer no less: click
Simon Evans (13:20:09) :
Craig D. Lattig (13:13:29) :
most here are open minded about the data and do not have a political ax to grind…
As you said earlier in the post, “Humor, without bitterness, is one of the high spots of this site. Satire is common…” Thanks for such a good example of it! 😉
Simon…Thank you for the veiw from your side and the smile it gave me. However, if you can ignor the extremists on both sides, I stand by the intent of my words…most here are interested in getting at the truth of the data, concider the politics to be getting in the way of the truth and would prefer that if politicians are making serious decissions based on science, that they at least get the science right first….now, back to covering plants as Florida is taking its turn in the current round of global warming…..cdl
bluegrue (10:17:24) :
“Dr. Vincent Gray, whose comments looked like this?”
Thanks for the link to select Dr. Gray comments. Indeed his sarcasm would fall on deaf IPCC ears and likely reflects his frustration with their process. Most of his comments at your link demonstrate requests for “uncertainty” language as opposed to “accepted fact” language. IPCC notes they have now adopted “uncertainty” language as a standard.
It was, however, Dr. Gray whose comment on the First Assessment Report resulted in IPCC’s change of the chapter on “Validation of Climate Models” to “Evaluation” of same – since there has been no validation of any climate model.
His climate science papers are not published in peer-reviewed journals. His recent paper, “Global Warming Scam” is the result of 18 years critiquing IPCC and AGW theory, and is a reasoned overview of AGW skepticism.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmingscam1505.pdf
Craig D. Lattig (18:06:04) :
Craig, thanks for taking my remark in good humour :-). I agree with you in a way, that the debate suffers from being politicised on both sides and at all levels – we’d probably have less polarised discussions if there were no great practical consequences upon the matter! Good luck with the plants :-).
To Simon Evans:
You expressed doubt that water vapor accounted for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here’s your answer:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.”
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
Note that this a U.S. Dept. of Energy report. Credible enough for you?
@ Pragmatist (05:51:07) :
Most of the changes Dr. Gray proposed were changes of the formalized language, indicating a higher level of uncertainty than in the draft; however he consistently failed to substantiate, as to why there is more uncertainty than indicated. No arguments, no sources, no nothing whatsoever, other than his assertion.
So Dr. Gray demanded to change the whole meaning of the draft, without offering any reason other than him saying so, and sprinkled in some “sarcasm”. Do you really expect me to take him seriously?
Anyway, I have skimmed over Dr. Gray’s paper.
I’ll skip over his “religion” allegations and mischaracterization s in 1.3 (for a better reading see e.g. The Discovery of Global Warming on the American Institute of Physics site instead), yet again he offers nothing but his word for this.
His arguments in 1.4 simply don’t hold up.
1. The network we have is not perfect, but good enough. In order to observe changes, the determination of anomalies is enough, which makes the determination easier. Keep in mind, while average global temperature has high visibility as a measure of climate change, it is not the only one.
2. We are looking for changes in CO2 background, not the absolute, average concentration. This can be measured with few dedicated sites, as CO2 is a well mixed gas, i.e. it’s concentration changes little in the vertical column and also laterally, as you can see in satellite data.
3. You cannot predict, where the ball in a roulette will fall next. Yet you are able to calculate the percentage going to the house in the long run pretty well. Similarly it is easier to model long term climate trends than short term chaotic weather.
In 2.1.1 he starts citing Hansen on SAT from this page, yet conveniently cuts of the quote before Hansen goes into “Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful?”
2.1.2: Stations need not be placed randomly or uniform, as long as they are representative. His analogy with opinion polls fails, as pollsters routinely either try to not select randomly or try to correct for differences between the sample composition and the general populace composition.
I have given up at this point. I find Dr. Gray’s paper to be ill argued and misleading. If there is a point made, that you think warrants further attention, please point it out to me.
Chris R (11:43:57) :
At face value, I’d be a bit cautious, as the report itself is of 1994 and the climate model they reference for your numbers (#105) is of 1978, that is 30 years old. However you are in luck, it turns out, that the numbers seem to hold up pretty well for instantaneous changes, i.e. neglecting feedbacks. I know RC is highly unpopular here, but I think this one is well worth reading: Water vapour: feedback or forcing? by Gavin Schmidt.
@ bluegrue (15:47:26)
Oh, yeah. We should be cautious of a report that was written in 1994 because… why? Has water vapor physical chemistry changed so much since then? Golly, I shouldn’t have been so careless as not to keep up with the literature on that.
Perhaps this will be more to your liking?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Though somehow I doubt it, even though the references are much more recent (like this century, even).
And why on earth would I want to read anything by Gavin Schmidt? He’s been wrong (I’m being kind, here) far too often for me to bother with him, though if I have time and need a good laugh I may take you up on it.
@ bluegrue (15:47:26); Re my last.
I guess I owe sort of an appology. The 1994 paper attributes far less importance to H2O vapor, and far too much to CO2. Hmmmm, maybe those are the numbers the warmers are using?
@Carbonicus (12:37:11) :
Oh, I don’t have to be patient, or watch even. I know how it will turn out, hopefully BEFORE the warmers have done too much damage. And, if you don’t know already, here’s one of the contenders that the ignoble Nobel committee rejected in favor of little big Al…
http://www.auschwitz.dk/Sendler.htm
I saw a good cartoon of the Nobel committee deliberating (as if they really meant to pick anyone but the Goracle). It speaks volumes.
And don’t forget they gave that “prize” to Jimmy Carter, too. What a bunch of clueless PC idiots!
Also, there was one member of the committee that was considering Arafat who resigned rather than vote for him. G-d bless that man!
This is why we don’t follow the majority all the time. They are frequently wrong. And the more wrong they are, for some reason the more in the majority they seem to be, at least till they are shown to be totally wrong.
@ HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Hmm, I had been under the impression, that for example Lindzen’s iris hypothesis was tested and the CLOUD experiment is on track. However, I’ll take your word for it, that nothing of importance has happened in the understanding of the atmosphere over the last 30 years.
@ bluegrue (15:47:26)
Oh, my, this is sweet. Your wonderful Gavin Schmidt is Schmuck…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/gavin-schmidt-is-his-own-mystery-woman.html
“[G.S.] has stolen McIntyre’s discovery, sent it to the British Antarctic Survey with the explicitly stated intent to get “credit” for it, and he has lied about it to tens of thousands of readers of their blog. And he is not a random reader of the blogs: his funding – millions of dollars in total – actually depend on this type of “credit”. You know, this is just way too much.”
What a putz! And you want us to read the bilge he writes?
Chris R (11:43:57) :
To Simon Evans:
You expressed doubt that water vapor accounted for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here’s your answer:
“Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.”
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html
Note that this a U.S. Dept. of Energy report. Credible enough for you?
Yes indeed, Chris, but may I suggest that you should quote the whole paragraph for proper understanding? I’ve used some bold to clarify –
Partly because the infrared absorption bands of the various components of the atmosphere overlap, the contributions from individual absorbers do not add linearly. Clouds trap only 14 percent of the radiation with all other major species present, but would trap 50 percent if all other absorbers were removed [105] (Table D2 and Figure D1). Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth’s atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues [106] have reported the overlap of carbon dioxide and water absorption bands in the infrared region. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor. It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal.
As can be clearly seen, your source confirms my statement that water vapour is not 95% of the total greenhouse effect, as previously asserted. Thanks for the link, though, since I hadn’t realised before how this false assumption had taken hold.
@ HasItBeen4YearsYet?
Let’s see. There is smoke over a house. Person A sees it and reports at length about what that could mean to Persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K. One of them walks over to a discussion Q is holding with some other people and mentions the discussion to Q. Q looks up, notices the smoke that was pointed out to him, goes over to the house, finds the fire, notifies the house owner and the fire brigade so that the house can be saved.
A was the first to see the smoke, Q the first to take action. Please tell me, who is going to be credited for saving the house?
apples and lugnuts
Someone who acts the hero gets the credit in action situations, but intellectual property belongs to whoever came up with it first. Maybe it has to do with the difference in adrenalin levels, or something?
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (21:17:58) :
Monte Hieb, the author of that page, lists in his table 1 the “natural” and “man-made” additions to CO2 from pre-industrial levels to today, indicating that just 14% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio is man made. He claims that the data is from U.S. Department of Energy in the table description. Tough luck, the DOE page he references (or see an older version at Archive.Org) holds no such “man-made” vs. “natural” information, only the well-known GHG increase data, which constitutes the rest of table 1. At a minimum, the table description is misleading, as it attributes the numbers of “man-made additions” and “natural additions” to the DOE and takes its name to give it credibility. In the footnote 1 Hieb offers an additional source, namely the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, where the data section is not publicly available. Cool, no source for the two data columns Hieb bases his entire argument on. But hey, if you look at the IEA pages you will find, that they defers readers to the IPCC for details. Now, if you look at sections 2.3.1 and 7.3.1.2 of the IPCC FAR WG1 report, the IPCC attributes the entire change from pre-industrial about 280ppm to todays about 370ppm in atmospheric CO2 to human activities.
So your “source” uses unsourced data, which is in stark contradiction to generally accepted findings, to make the argument that human contribution to climate change is negligible. You do not expect me to trust anything on that page, do you?
P.S.: Before you ask, yes, I have e-mailed the above info to Hieb, too, including a link to this discussion.
@ bluegrue (07:50:24) :
I was having trouble finding a suitable reference, but thanks to Anthony Watts, here’s one…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
Human contribution is 3%, according to that IPCC report. The number used in the ref I gave was 3.25%. So, yeah, I believe him, even though the specific numbers differ, and I would like to see more detail on how he does his derivations. And don’t use that, “he’s in the pay of big coal” and I won’t use the “your sources are in the pay of big green,” OK?
Sorry, the IPCC does not say that just 3% of the Carbon in the atmosphere is anthropogenic, as implied in the table. Anthony’s table is about annual contributions, not accumulated. I’ve hunted down the info in this reply on the “madness” thread. It seems to have been a kind of Chinese Whispers, where from the IPCC via IEA via whoever to Anthony each step dropped a crucial bit of information.
Each year we add CO2 equivalent to 3% of the natural flux into the atmosphere. About half of these 3% stay in the atmosphere, the other half goes almost entirely into the ocean.
A LINK I JUST FOUND
CO2 IS A PLANT FERTILIZER, NOT A POLLUTANT!
http://www.geocities.com/profadrian/ScienceOfGlobalWarming.html
(and they have a bit more on the how much more important water is than CO2 for greenhouse)
He rests his argument on “How well do water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb heat energy from the sun?” Greenhouse effect is about absorption of outgoing infrared radiation; fundamentally flawed, sorry.
Fertilizer, yes to an extent, until other limiters like water and nitrogen kick in. Deserts will not turn into green pastures.
Do we need CO2? Of course. However remember, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. A large part of the problem is the speed at which AGW is happening. Ecosystems are adapted to the current climate and will not adapt readily on a timescale of decades, neither will new ones develop that fast.
I’ve played around a bit with google search. As you type “co2 is not a” in the google bar it offers “co2 is not a pollutant” and “co2 is not a greenhouse gas”. Let us stick with the former.
“co2 is not a pollutant” 18,100 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -heartland 9,900 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -Bush 9,450 hits
“co2 is not a pollutant” -Bush -heartland 967 hits
heartland as in Heartland Institute.
I find the above interesting, I don’t know about you. I admit, using Bush is a bit unfair, given all the EPA clean air coverage.
Does Rosie Odonnell write for AlGore??? Remember “fire can’t melt steel”. Just a thought.
Walter Cronanty (06:07:03) : The question is not DDT’s availability, it is the economic penalties for using it. I suggest you read some of the articles at: http://www.fightingmalaria.org
OK. I looked. seems to be mostly 2 issues. 1) price of an insecticide goes up when not widely used in agriculture. 2) fear of a ban on ag products.
Those look to be very valid for all the newer non-DDT pesticides. DDT not so much…
“Consider what happened with DDT, a highly-effective insecticide banned by the EU. Many developing countries have stopped using DDT — even though it is only sprayed indoors and not on crops — for fear that their agricultural exports will not be allowed in Europe.”
The cost issue has an offset in that the development of resistance will be much less with narrow use. Since DDT is very simple to make and made in low cost countries like India and China, I don’t see the cost issue being much for DDT (if at all.) Maybe for newer harder to make or patented insecticides, but that’s not DDT.
Fear? Sorry, there is no way to deal with what people choose to fear. It can only be ignored. So show me a real impact, a real ban on imports (despite approval of DDT for interior spraying), not a ‘fear’. An African government making a stupid choice out of fear? Not much can be done to stop governments from making stupid choices; even in the E.U. and U.S.A.
Thus, developing African countries can “pick their poison” [pun intended]. They can use DDT and exacerbate their already grinding poverty due to EU banning agricultural exports, or they can not use DDT and die of malaria.
This looks like an argument of false dichotomy. There are many malaria control methods, not just DDT, and the use of DDT indoors or on nets ought to have no impact on crops. (Your point has clear validity for other ag pesticides and EU banning imports with those on them.) There are also other markets for goods.
The only way DDT ought to end up in an EU test banning imports is if it were used on crops. In that case, your argument becomes: The EU needs to allow use of DDT on crops so that it is more widely used for malaria control. That seems a bit stretched to me…
But if there is a real case of a country having exports banned from E.U. import due to DDT traces consistent with non-crop use, then yeah, I’m with you. That would be a bogus rejection that ‘chills’ the use for vector control… (And any legitimate ‘ban’ needs to be restricted to the lot or farm of origin, not the whole industry or country, lest you get the same bogus chill…)
On balance, I’m not at all sure that “environmentalists,” […] are benefitting the world. While many of their concerns may be valid [not at all sure that CO2 fears are well-founded], many of their ill-thought out, unrealistic solutions do incredible harm.
Yup. That’s why I gave up on the environmental movement when it went off the rails and stopped my (prior) support for Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, et. al. They moved from legitimate concerns to paranoid dementia. I don’t “do” irrational fear well …
I live in a Malaria state. The history of malaria in California is long, strong, and interesting, and the native mosquito is quite a nice vector. I grew up with ‘spray trucks’ from the mosquito control district driving our streets putting out big clouds of “something” (that we kids liked to play in as ‘fog’…). I’m much less concerned about what ‘something’ was or pesticide exposure than I am about any mosquito that lands on my arm!
Even today, vector control is a big issue here and anything that threatens the control of malaria will cause me to have an immediate reaction! (We still have a case every year or three so it takes constant vigilance…)
My heart goes out to those in 3rd world countries dealing with the same control problem. But it can be done. We did it. And the U.C. system has an active program to export our control methods to the rest of the world.
The case that “the E.U. wants clean food and that somehow spells doom for Zimbabwe due to DDT shortage” seems rather weak, though. I suspect that more hinges on the action of the folks in Africa than the actions of the E.U. If nothing else, India and China are large hungry markets… (Especially with the drought unfolding right now in a major grain region in China!)
I’d suggest a strategy of promoting exports to Russia & Asia. Just see how long the E.U. ‘holds the line’ when you resurrect the song “Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas today!” 😉 And just think of the fun of scheduling a meeting with the “import minister” then canceling with an apology that the Chinese minister was only available at the same time 8-}
bluegrue (12:01:50)
It appears that Prof. Freeman Dyson does not agree with your view click
I agree with Prof. Dyson, based on common sense: if you put bacterium in a Petri dish with ample food, the bacteria will rapidly multiply until they are in balance with the available food supply.
It is exactly the same situation with atmospheric CO2, which is plant food. With more food available, plants — from single-celled plants, to cereals, to giant Sequoia, will multiply and grow faster. Life on Earth will become more abundant, converting CO2 into cellulose and sugars, and emitting oxygen.
Finally, the central issue is once again being skirted: an increase in atmospheric CO2 is beneficial, not harmful.
Falsify that statement, if you can.
Prof. Freeman Dyson agrees, that the increase in background CO2 levels is anthropogenic. He supports the creation of bio-engineered trees, which by his estimate will take 20 to 50 years to accomplish, that will sequester carbon, because current flora is not up to the job.
Are we even reading the same article?
An increase can be beneficial if and only if CO2 is the limiting factor; usually the limiting factor is nitrogen or minerals or simply sheer lack of soil to root in. You also neglect, that the expected changes in precipitation patterns will for the most part be detrimental, as plants are accustomed to current conditions. It’s easy to turn acres into deserts, it’s pretty hard the other way around.
Or is this about the 12 year turn-about time? Please follow this little Gedankenexperiment of mine:
@bluegrue (12:01:50) :
From the comment of yours you link to… “Each and every year humanity adds 3% to the 100% of natural CO2 flux into the atmosphere, and of these 103% only 101,5% are taken out again.”
And you can prove that the 3% becomes a problem, how? (references, please).
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=185802
Also, CO2 has clearly been shown to be beneficial to plant growth…
http://books.google.com/books?id=3BoqRF1fNYMC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=elevated+co2+has+resulted+increased+food+production&source=bl&ots=xH6-TNr–V&sig=Uu6XvP-WT1SoU1YtBaNpECcNXxg&hl=en&ei=y0CjSf60MZmatwfol82cDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA132,M1
The best way to depopulate the globe (kill off more of those nasty human parasites) is to limit the availability of food and energy, which is EXACTLY what all the fuss over AGW is REALLY all about.
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/12/28/world-population-carbon-dioxide-and-eugenics/
Well, hopefully what they wish for us will instead happen to them, and soon.
And, I repeat, the effect of increasing [CO2] will be ever more negligible as that increase occurs.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
But the benefits will be enormous.
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html
Too bad the selfish power hungry Leftists can’t figure a way of profiting from naturally occurring good, rather than thinking they can become rich by imposing their own short sighted and always harmful prosperity-destroying restrictions on the victims of those social engineering experiments.
CO2 isn’t the only factor, and it is a MINOR factor at that (relative to water vapor which is by far the predominant greenhouse gass). One needs a balanced approach, and Hansen’s is not only not balanced, it’s borderline insane.
bottom line, HARMFUL AGW IS BUBKAS!
http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/
DON’T YOU DARE PUT ME ANYWHERE NEAR ADVOCATING EUGENICS OR MASS KILLING!!!!! First and final warning: if you ever want to get any reply of mine at all again, steer well clear of this kind of smear attack.
The respiration argument is idiotic at best, as it leaves out the fact, that we only emit carbon in the form of CO2 that we have taken up in the form of plants either directly or indirectly via meat.
Read your sources, the book reference you link to is about nitrogen fixing plants. How much of our flora do they make up?
REPLY: Suggestion. If you want to garner respect, don’t use words like idiotic in describing others rebuttals while at the same time making one that has problems of its own. Just saying. – Anthony
@Anthony,
Just for clarification:
– the “idiotic” was not directed at HasItBeen4YearsYet,
– the argument I called “idiotic” is not one that HasItBeen4YearsYet supports
Humans turn food (plants or meat) into CO2, which in turn is recycled into fauna and flora. If a third party – the article on Atmoz site – lists humans only as a source of CO2 and makes the case that it is a major cause of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, without acknowledging where the carbon comes from in the first place, then I have no idea what else to call this, I am sorry. Maybe you can help me out.
BTW, if another poster paints people, who are convinced of anthropogenic global warming to be a major problem (which happens to include me), as willing to “kill offf more of those nasty human parasites”, then “garnering respect” really is the least of my concerns.
@Anthony
I take a break from this blog.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=185802
link was supposed to go in next paragraph.
your interpretation of freeman dyson is more than a bit strained…
DON’T YOU DARE PUT ME ANYWHERE NEAR ADVOCATING EUGENICS OR MASS KILLING!!!!!
Ok, than you’re just their “useful tool?” (gently tiptoeing past the “i” word to avoid the censor)
That’s the effect it will have, and the goal they intend to achieve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133682/Melanie-Phillips-Why-Green-zealots-think-dictate-children-allowed-have.html
AGW is just their latest cause célèbre to get people to panic, because panicky people don’t think rationally, and are easily manipulated, and workers united ungainst unjust exploitation by capitalist pigs doesn’t sell as well as polar bear extinction in this day and age.
If you cared about humanity, you would want more CO2, not less…
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/happer.pdf
greenie – “COMMIT SUICIDE, OR DIE”
victim – “Are those my only two options?”
“3. The Green Party of Canada recognizes that failure to stabilize and reduce human population within a reasonable time will result in the inevitable reduction of human population by means of high death rates as the earth’s human carrying capacity is not only exceeded but reduced by the consumption of resources and the destruction of biological capital, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, great human suffering and possibly social disruption.”
http://www.greenparty.ca/convention/motions/p94
It’s a Leftist thang…
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lefteug2.html
http://www.noonehastodietomorrow.com/eugenics/population/784-784
http://www.infowars.com/bbc-journo-enviros-need-to-embrace-eugenics/
greenie – “Now, just hold still so I can get this rope around your neck. After all, it’s either you or the planet.”
The Left has ALWAYS been known for murderous insanity, and as long as you keep trying to sell me their defective products, blue, I’ll know the company you work for, no matter how loud you shout that you don’t.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (11:36:00) :
tramadol online
tramadol
http://www.kaboodle.com/leopardchikatilo?tramadol
[url=http://www.kaboodle.com/leopardchikatilo?tramadol]tramadol[/url]
generic cialis
http://www.patinenlinea.net/foro/members/williamnicole.html?generic-cialis
[url=http://www.patinenlinea.net/foro/members/williamnicole.html?generic-cialis]generic cialis[/url]