...I think the point is that we need to be able to talk about this or else it's going to be pushed into a closet just like the abortion discussion.
Skeptics and deniers will be called heretics, and vilified if they even ponder bringing up the subject.
Red Tory responded:
...Funny, I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m agnostic when it comes to climate change and that this is the only reasonable position for a skeptic and rational empiricist like me to take. The vast majority of my liberal friends respond with “fair enough” or something along that line. Perhaps you can explain why I am not denounced as a heretic or vilified as you assert will always be the case regarding those even pondering such unorthodox thoughts.
Well, I'm not exactly sure which segment of humanity Red's liberal readers represent, but I digress...
In the wars of the Professors Emeritus this morning we have a Jon Van Loan decrying Kevin Libin's Gore smack-down:
Al Gore's well researched An Inconvenient Truth, even with its over-simplifications and the odd error, is still an excellent approach to jolting the public conscience into considering a problem that is now occurring and will -- if left without immediate and proper redress --lead to irreversible disaster...
Odd error??? Pull-eeze!
Here is the dangerous part:
A large panel of Nobel Prize science winners, along with greater than 90% of the scientists who have examined this problem in detail, believe that human-induced climate change is occurring. Thus, I would say to contrarian individuals that it would be time wasting, misleading and counterproductive to give "The Other Side" much of a mention.
In other words, ignore the dissenters. Shut down debate - just as we have with the discussion to limits on abortion.
This very frightening viewpoint is brought up again by Prof. Kenneth Paradis, Contemporary Studies (English), Wilfrid Laurier University in Brantford, Ontario:
...However, almost the the entire community of climate change scientists agrees with the basic reality of the global warming situation Mr. Gore describes. Why, then, would you argue that there is a "debate" on this issue and that classroom treatments of it should give equal time to an opposing view?
Instead of using the lack of absolute consensus as an excuse to manufacture a "debate," perhaps we should advocate that the positions be given an amount of classroom time in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature. So after Mr. Gore's film, there certainly might be a minute or two presentation of alternative theories, but even that goes against good pedagogical practice and common sense...
Read the whole thing. You won't believe it. These illustrious professors are forming the minds of our kids, folks!!
Fortunately the Post has published a few letters from the side of reason, that request that skill of critical thinking be taught in the classroom, rather than outright propaganda. Professor W.G. Hopkins of the University of Western Ontario writes:
...Our schools are clearly failing on the critical thinking part, at least when it comes to the global warming controversy. When An Inconvenient Truth, with all of its distortions, scientific inaccuracies and pure propaganda is thrust upon the student as the only and final answer, then this is no longer education. This is now indoctrination. It is also a distressing commentary on the quality of both the school system and its teachers, not to mention our prospects for the future.
You see, what's at stake here isn't so much the environment, as is the state of democracy in Canada.
Because if we shut down debate and only teach one side of an issue without encouraging critical thinking, we are churning out a country of sheeple.
With that, democracy is in serious peril.
* * * *
Update: Ah, finally some sanity from the left (H/T Steve Janke):
David Suzuki will not be impressed!
Also please check out Conservaparanoia - Thinking Deep.
And speaking of David Suzuki, check out Steve's Hypocrite or Henpecked?
A top United Nations official says he is no longer alarmed by Canada’s stand on the Kyoto Protocol now that he better understands the Conservative government’s position.
“I must admit, I was worried for some time, but I was much encouraged by the clarification,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in Montreal Tuesday.
He said he now understands that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government wasn’t rejecting the value of the Kyoto accord, but rather observed its objectives cannot be met within the target deadline.
David Suzuki will not be impressed!
Also please check out Conservaparanoia - Thinking Deep.
And speaking of David Suzuki, check out Steve's Hypocrite or Henpecked?
95 comments:
To Red Tory I'd say:
Your Liberal friends don't oppose your global warming agnostism because you're not actually taking a stand and opposing their view. By being "agnostic" you're in effect saying "Hm, you might be right, I'm not sure".
To carry through with the abortion comparison, its similar to how pro-abortion people don't oppose those who say "I'm personally against abortion but don't think we should reguate it."
I’m not quite sure what you’re point is here, Joanne. I stand by what I said and see nothing here to dissuade me from the opinion expressed then. You can go over to my place and look through the comments on that thread from the other day dealing with Creationism (it quickly and deliberately moved on to a discussion about climate-change) where you will see that I made my skepticism/agnosticism about the issue known and was not denounced or vilified as an idiot or knuckle-dragging fool, not a heretic nor an apostate. My point was that most sensible people (yes, my whacky liberal readers) will accept such doubts provided they are based on reason and are not just a reactionary knee-jerk response that imagines climate-change to be some vast conspiracy of the left.
As I said, you propound the idea that people will be denounced, vilified, etc. because it reinforces your argument that supporters of climate-change are deluded, faith-based, cultish bunch of zealots that have been gulled into belief by a nefarious cabal of leftists in the scientific community and the environmental movement. What’s the label of this post after all? “Kyoto Kult.” (Gee, if there was another “K” in there for say “Kreepy” it would be just perfect.)
Yes, scientists with legitimate theories outside the mainstream of consensus do tend to get marginalized and their arguments perhaps aren’t given the weight they deserve. There are also those who are pedaling concepts and theories that have already been debunked that are generally dismissed with contempt by the vast majority of their colleagues.
I would have to agree with the position put forward by Prof. Paradis. The film, despite being somewhat of a polemic and a “call to action” and notwithstanding its minor inaccuracies, is generally regarded as fairly sound science and represents the consensus of opinion within the scientific community on this issue. It should be presented that way in the classroom and notations should be made that there are alternative theories that take differing positions. As yet however, there hasn’t been a good film about the alternative POV put together and I would definitely NOT include the “Swindle” film in that category. It’s full of misstatements of fact, falsehoods, distortions and the same tired old, hackneyed arguments from the usual bunch of professional deniers. Plus it advances a rather odd conspiratorial idea about the nefarious motives of those promoting climate-change.
With all due respect to Prof. Hopkins and his concerns about “critical thinking” or the lack of by not presenting the information as a “debate” I think he’s off the mark here by supposing that the alternative theories in this instance have equal validity and merit. This would be something akin to advancing the idea that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution should not be taught as science, but should be presented as a “debate” with other theories such as “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” offered up as legitimate alternatives for consideration. I don’t think that would do much in the way of “critical thinking” although it is always an interesting topic of discussion with those who believe that Darwin’s theory is bunk or so tragically flawed as to be not worth teaching as science.
I guess this all begs the question of when do controversial scientific theories become generally settled matters that aren’t presented as a “debate” and to that I don’t really have an answer. As I said, for now I think if Gore’s film is going to be presented in classrooms, it should be done in the context of making it clear that this is the generally accepted scientific opinion at present, but that there are detractors and some doubts about the issue. If students wish to look into those alternative theories they’re free to do so. They should be made aware that they are out there, but I don’t think they should be taught in the classroom as being equally valid or as having the same degree of legitimacy.
I'm sure these professors and eco-advocates are smart when it comes to this hi-fallutin scientific stuff. But when it comes to political smarts, they are dumber than a bag of carbon credits.
After all, they keep badgering Harper non-stop, even though he won't budge. But do the eco-fanatics get the hint ? Nope, they keep beating their heads against the Conservative wall.
Meanwhile, cowering in the Liberal corner, hoping to be left alone is Professor Dion. He of recent Captain Kyoto fame. Shouldn't the eco-fanatics be pressuring him to carry their crusade into the political arena, and take up their battle with Harper ? Seems to me their Kyoto "saviour" needs his spine stiffened a bit. Maybe the eco-fanatics should prop Dion up in the House of Commons. Hand him a ready-made script so that he can denounce that evil climate-change denier Harper, and finally bring forward a non-confidence vote to end that evil regime.
Time to turn your attention to that there Dion guy, you eco-fanatics. He's obviously not pulling his weight for your "team".
Cool Blue — That’s an excellent point. My position is not one of hostility and I don’t presume to have all the answers. I think those who are ardent foes of anthropogenic climate-change are very close-minded on the issue, and that’s never a very good sign. I tend to suspect that their thinking on the matter is not terribly sound and often wonder what makes them so certain in their beliefs that they are unwilling to even consider that they may actually be wrong. I’m also quite wary of the eco-fanatics who regard the matter as 100% incontrovertibly true and cannot suffer the idea that anyone would not agree with them completely.
As I said, reasonable, fair-minded people have doubts and are entirely justified in having them, especially when considering such a complex issue such as this; one that most of us haven’t a clue about and are not even remotely close to being “experts” on. For me, personally, the jury is out, although I’m inclined to side with acceptance of climate-change. As circumstances change, new evidence arises or new theories come into play, I’ll be quite happy to change my mind accordingly.
Well, I see Calgary Junkie has arrived on the scene to turn it into a partisan political slanging match. Good luck with that.
I guess this all begs the question of when do controversial scientific theories become generally settled matters that aren’t presented as a “debate” and to that I don’t really have an answer.
Good question. Whatever the answer is, I still don't think that independent thought should be stuffed into the closet.
Red Tory, I didn't mean that you were being "hostile".
What I meant was that you're not countering the Y2kyotists.
It isn't necessary to be hostile to disagree with a person.
As long as you don't actually oppose their views they'll accept you. As long as you say "you might be right" they'll accept you, but if you say "We'll have to agree to disagree" you'll be vilified.
I love the smell of rhetoric in the morning!
Just so you know, Joanne, I saw you replying in RTs where I had mentioned you had disabled anons.
I saw that you had disabled anons while visiting and seeing some anon mouthing off. I forget what the anon was on about, but I was preparing to rebuke him, mainly for not bothering to add a name, even just using the "other" option on the page. It was just as colourful a rebuke as I might provide at RTs to trolls there, since I rarely use swear words anymore, so I have to resort to the unpleasant necessity of thinking (this is my shred of continuity with the current topic).
Then I saw the "other" option was not available. I've been away from a computer since then (extra long weekend!).
cool blue: Please continue to use the phrase "Y2Kyoto", as often as possible. Kindly weave it into every discussion of climate change that you can.
Thank you!
Joanne — I certainly wasn’t suggesting that “independent thought” be shoved in a closet.
To be honest with you, I’m not a big fan of showing this movie in the classroom unless it is as a discussion topic. If I were a teacher I certainly wouldn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. If it were to be incorporated into the curriculum, that’s another matter of course. But that raises the question of how the subject, in general terms, is to be taught to students.
By the way, here's a story that you'll doubtless find pleasing.
so I have to resort to the unpleasant necessity of thinking (this is my shred of continuity with the current topic).
Then I saw the "other" option was not available. I've been away from a computer since then (extra long weekend!).
Sorry I missed that literary gem. I was having trouble with comments over the last little while; first of all not realizing that in disabling anonymous comments, I was also disabling anything other than a blogger account.
Then Blogger itself messed me up by not allowing comments as a default.
All in all, a very confusing time. Sorry about that.
But that raises the question of how the subject, in general terms, is to be taught to students.
Absolutely. I wish some teachers would chime in here. I'd like to know how much leeway they have in teaching these types of subjects.
Thanks for that very interesting link.
Harper did in fact attempt to explain the 'reality' of Kyoto, but unfortunately that didn't fly.
So then we got the John Baird version.
I think it's pretty hard to have a legitimate debate in Parliament about this when three of the opposition parties have formed a virtual coalition government on the subject and hold all the cards.
Red Tory, I'll leave the scientific debate to others. But on the political side, there are those numerous anti-Kyoto "positions" that Dion and the Liberals have taken over the years, some of which are conveniently summarized here .
Strange how the following hasn't been more fully explored by the media ...
"As senior Liberal advisor Eddie Goldenberg admitted, the Liberals had no plan and weren’t ready to take any action on Kyoto: "Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done. The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short-term deadlines would at the end of the day have to be extended." (Globe and Mail, February 23, 2007)
I do have a point to make so hang
in there until I finish.
I have Bell express view and whenever a certain Bell commercial comes on about some of their movie features; it is so loud and annoying that I immediately hit the mute button. So not only that commercial gets voided but each one after that until what I am viewing comes back on.
The same thing is applied to all the Kyoto and extreme views such as Al Gore’s self glorification, money making commercial on the environment. We get so sick of hearing about what we know is flawed, that we pick up the inner remote and click the inner mute button.
I quote the following from Tom Winter’s newsletter April newsletter:
“His sycophant Hollywood pals call him "the Goracle."
That's right. Al Gore is no longer a former Vice-President turned failed presidential candidate. He's a prophet. A seer. A messiah who will save our world and our civilization with his new gospel of conquering "climate change."
And all it took was a dull, factually challenged propaganda documentary called An Inconvenient Truth.
Naturally, it won an Oscar.”
Mary, I hear you about annoying commercials. I tend to turn off the radio or TV and do something else when they come on (or switch to another channel/station).
And I too am experiencing a kind of automatic revulsion response to "Kyoto Kult Klaptrap" (How about that one, Red?)
I'm thinking about starting my own Backlash Party. It will be an environmental pig of a party. We will use plastic bags with wild abandon, stockpile incandescent bulbs and leave our carbon footprints all over Al Gore's face!
Thank you for your humorous words!
I laughed out loud! Keep us laughing Jo, so we can endure all the nonsense we are hearing.
Mary, so glad to provide a little sunshine in your environmental angst.
;)
Joanne — Kyoto Kult Klaptrap... Kudos! I knew you’d hit on a winning KKK formula.
Calgary Junkie — I won’t disagree with you about the Liberals’ sorry track record on Kyoto. It’s indefensible. Simple as that. Sure, I understand all of the reasons that they did not move forward on this front; both the stated and unstated ones, but it still doesn’t fully excuse their foot-dragging. Their actions did not match their words and we are in a worse position for it now. I know that’s a bitter pill for many Liberals to swallow, but it’s the fact of the matter.
Would things have been different if they had been re-elected and their Action Plan had been implemented immediately rather than the government spinning its wheels for a year and half (soon to be longer)? One presumes that it would have. Would things have moved faster during the period of inaction under the Liberals had the Conservative opposition been encouraging that action be taken rather than being obstructionist and denying the problem even existed? Yes, I would like to think so. But who can say for sure? Is it a bit rich for them to be getting on their high horse about the environment? Most definitely.
The Liberals may take comfort in the findings of the IPCC that were released recently concerning the costs involved, but I’m deeply suspicious of those numbers. Personally, I think both the Conservatives AND the Liberals are wrong on this. Baird’s plan is too backloaded and Dion’s new one (when we see it) will likely be overly optimistic in terms of actually meeting goals set out in Kyoto and the costs involved.
All of the above of course presumes that you accept Kyoto as a valid and practicable concept. And furthermore, assumes that you accept in the first place the premise of anthropogenic climate-change, which it is intended to address.
So we have a lot of presumptions and assumptions, hypotheticals, theories and speculations involved in all of this. Quite the recipe for complete and utter confusion.
"Odd error??? Pull-eeze!"
Joanne, Would care to list all of these errors that you seem to believe are in Gore's documentary?
Thanks. Furthermore have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth or do you just rail against it based on what you read from skeptics?
I have said in a previous post here that I don't care if they show the "swindle" in classroomms as I am sure that it would spur debate in which most teenagers could easily find within minutes of research how poor the swindles arguements are.
However, as much as I think it is great to show opposing points of view to students, I wonder at what point do we stop. There appears to be a larger percentage of scientists who disagree with Einstein's theory of relativity then the percentage who advocate that's humans are not the prime cause of current global warming. In highschool when students are taught the little that they are about the theory of relativity should we also go into the alternative theories and confuse them even more - or should we leave that until university when it can be properly taught. If we were to teach students in history class about all the alternative views then we would have to expand classroom time to about 24 hours a day, but it certainly would be more fair. At a minimum we should teach them out of Howard Zinn's "A People's History" which has a lot of support from intellectuals. Let's teach Chomsky's views on American abuse of power and influence on the world too. Then we should teach students about the views of those who feel that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory. Follow that up with the views of prominent hallocaust deniers (all of which claim to have significant historical and/or scientific facts on their side and all of which have convinced thousands and thousands of people that they are right. Unfortunately those people don't challenge the facts they are presented with, much like people are not challenging the "facts" presented in the swindle or Gore's doc. If they did they would find a couple errors in Gore's doc and they would find the swindle to be almost 100% wrong and deceitful).
The article posted by RT:
First the author makes it appear as though Gore is trying to explain all past climate change by volcanic eruptions, which is completely ridiculous. Gore uses volcanic eruptions to show the effects (environmental and social) of short term changes in climate. He uses well known examples such as Mount Tambora in 1815 which is believed to have caused the year without a summer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
In no way does Gore imply that volcanoes are responsible for long term climate change such as ice ages of which the causes are well known: Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics and solar variation. All of which have been well studied and are not contributing to any climate change since at least 1970.
"For example, Swindle notes that in An Inconvenient Truth Gore has got his cause and effect wrong in claiming that more (human-caused) carbon dioxide is causing higher global temperatures. In fact, the geological record shows rising global temperatures come before increases in atmospheric CO2."
Of course it does. No scientist would deny that. I don't remember Gore saying in his documentary that CO2 goes up first. I believe he says that when one goes up the other does. Most of the scientists who appear on the swindle (at least Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and Wunsch) have admitted that it would be impossible for an increase in CO2 (or other GHGs) not to lead to an increase in temperature. This is very basic science. However historically there has been no natural way for CO2 to go up on its own, as there is presently with humans emitting billions of tons a year. So historically it has been the temperature which has started going up first (via the Milankovitch cycles) which has lead to decreased ice at the polls, changes in ocean currents and increased surface area for plants all of which have led to an increase in CO2 which has amplified the temperature increase. The skeptics are claiming that temperature begins to rise 400 years before CO2, but warming trends inbetween ice ages have lasted for thousands of years of which 80 - 95% of that time CO2 and temperature were increasing together.
This recent article explains it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
"The British film basically demolishes almost every one of Gore's points,"
The only real points I can think of it demolishing is that global warming is not the primary cause of the decreasing snows of Kilimanjaro and the ocean rise levels that Gore shows in the doc are not going to occur in the next 100 years, although he never gave a time frame for that ocean rise, the skeptics just presume that Gore was saying that the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica would disappear in a century. In his two books he makes it clear that such melting could not occur in such a short time frame. However on the other hand skeptics seem to conveniently give an overly low estimation of the expected rise. The latest IPCC report (which they use) gives an estimate of 7 to 23 inches in the 21st century. However they fail to mention that that estimated rise is strictly from expansion of water due to temperature rise, and does not include glacier melt. The reason why they didn't include glacier melt? Because it has been occuring much faster than any of their predictions and they felt that they couldn't accuractly give a number. Ocean rise is occuring 4 times faster than it was 40 years ago. If glacier melt continues to increase at the same unexpected rate then you can add several feet to the IPCC4's projections.
Furthermore have you even seen An Inconvenient Truth or do you just rail against it based on what you read from skeptics?
What are you implying? That I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the importance of presenting both sides of an issue in the classroom unless I've seen the Goracle's film?
"What are you implying? That I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the importance of presenting both sides of an issue in the classroom unless I've seen the Goracle's film?"
If I was to say something like this: "Odd error??? Pull-eeze!" about something you can damn sure that I would have read or watched whatever I was condemning as being wrong. You have said before on your blog that you do not know the science, yet you think it is fine to claim that something is full of errors?
Yes, keep saying "Goracle" too, but please try to mention "Y2Kyoto" in the same sentence.
Thanks!
W.S. - James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws."
About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming - something refuted by storm experts - Mr. Hansen said, "we need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is."
Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).
(From recent NP article)
You ever had a discussion about Intelligent Design vs. evolution? Next question - Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
Wayward Son — LOL. I was going to bring up History as it’s something I’m more comfortable with than Science, but then I figured that would get blown off as different in nature and therefore not a valid comparison, so I’m glad you did.
Here’s a funny thing in that editorial, by the way. The writer says there’s a condensed 10 minute version of “Swindle” on YouTube. Evidently he is so phenomenally lazy that he couldn’t even be bothered to discover that the entire program is freely and widely available on the Internet. So obviously he didn’t even watch the whole thing or he’d know that. A minor quibble perhaps, but indicative of a general sloppiness and disregard for the facts on the part of the writer.
"So after Mr. Gore's film, there certainly might be a minute or two presentation of alternative theories, but even that goes against good pedagogical practice and common sense."
...au contraire. He's a professor of contemporary studies, and if this is his opinion, then that opinion is probably being spread in the classrooms where university students are taking education classes to become teachers.
This is what I find so frustrating about the education system, which should be based on teaching children how to think. Is the system teaching children to become adult thinkers? or robots?
I just happened to see on CTV a piece on an elementary school that is "going green"...the Grade 1's have a new mascot in the form of a little stuffed polar bear. They are making posters to save the polar bear, and as one child put it, I don't want them all to die in the Arctic because of pollution.
Now....I just read this morning (forgive me for I can't remember where)...that the polar bear population is up...not down.
So...is our education system an "education" system or an "mis-education" system?
What about the idea of Socrates who asked questions and more questions and then more questions....this way you encourage curiosity on the part of the learner to actually seek the facts.
It's wrong to burden little 6 year olds with the plight of the polar bear (which isn't a plight at all), because schools are jumping on the bandwagon for political reasons. They certainly couldn't be educational ones, now could they?
raz
Raz, yes. I hear that polar bears' numbers are on the increase too. Another inconvenient sham.
2005: warmest year in the last 100, according to NASA
from the article: "Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA"
"Absolutely. I wish some teachers would chime in here. I'd like to know how much leeway they have in teaching these types of subjects."
I'm not teaching now, but I can assure you that I would teach the same way I taught in the past....theory, experiment, conclusion or more theory??? All I would ask of my students is to provide proof of what they are proposing.
Sad to say though, that in a few classrooms I've been in as a substitute teacher in the past year, science classes consist of Bill Nye videos. So, you can bet your bottom dollar that An Inconvenient Truth was shown and that there was very little discussion, if any at all, after.
There wasn't any discussion after the Bill Nye's videos.
Very few teachers, especially in the elementary grades, have the science background or even interest to teach the subject well.
raz
Raz — What's wrong with Bill Nye's videos? Just questioning...
I googled "an inconvenient truth elementary schools" and found this article from The Province.
http://tinyurl.com/37wutt
Someone is standing up for education.
One of the comments in the article of interest was that neither An Inconvenient Truth or The Global Warming Swindle was approved for classroom use, and therefore should not be used.
Before schools jump on the bandwagon of an issue that certainly hasn't been settled, it would be so much smarter for them to concentrate on teaching kids about cleaning up our own backyard...in terms of pollution...but to attach it to global warming is just wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
Now I'm going outside for a nice long walk. I'm glad that the globe has warmed up where I live. :-)
If Austyn is reading, I'd love to know where he lives in Alberta???
raz
Raz, thanks for the insight.
But Bill Nye? The science guy? I have to join Red in asking what is wrong with him?
"James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws.""
Imperfections and technical flaws are a long way from saying it is full of errors.
"About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming - something refuted by storm experts - Mr. Hansen said, "we need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is."
Yes this is an error in Gore's documentary.
"Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record"
As I pointed out on a previous post here that is not true. Both NASA and the NOAA show that 2005 was the hottest year on record.
"(temperatures have been receding since 1998)"
This is total B.S. The hottest years on record are in order: 2005, 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2006 (the sixth hottest year by the way is 2004). No scientist could ever find anyway to say that temperatures are receding and keep any credibility.
"that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing)"
The truth is we have no idea if polar bear numbers are growing or shrinking - it hasn't been studied enough. Every study that I have seen is on a local population of polar bears and most of those studies show decline. But very few of the bear populations have been studied at all. On the opposing view our communities which are stating that the bear populations are on the rise due to more contact with polar bears inland. However scientists give two equally possible reasons for more contact. 1 more bears or 2. less sea ice leaving starving bears (especially females which have a shorter season of hunting on the ice due to giving birth) with no choice but to go inland for food. Scientists also believe the obvious which is that polar bear populations will shrink if the arctic warms too much leaving less ice. Again did Gore say that Polar bear populations are in decline right now or that global warming would will affect the population in the future. I don't know, I would have to watch it again, but if he stated the second he is right, if he stated the first then it is not known whether he is right or wrong, but it is certainly not a fact.
"that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling)"
First of all I am not sure that Al Gore said that Antarctica was warming. He said that the polls warm faster which is true. However the interior antartica is several kilometers of ice. Standing on top of that is like standing on top of a snow covered mountain - cold. Scientists predicted that Antarctica would gain a significant amount of mass due to warming surrounding the countinent leading to increased snowfall, they also predicted that it would not warm in the interior. More recent studies are showing that Antarctica is not gaining mass, but intead is losing significant amounts of mass and those same studies are showing that Antarctica as a whole is warming.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-06-02.asp
"and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches)."
This is B.S. Gore never gave a time frame for the sea level rise and stating that the IPCC predicts a few inches is thoroughly dishonest. IPCC3 predicted up to 3 feet of rise in the 21st century and they point out in IPCC4 that they can't accuratly predict sea level rise anymore because it is occuring much faster than they have expected.
"You ever had a discussion about Intelligent Design vs. evolution?"
I don't think I know anyone who believes in intelligent design, but I have had conversations about evolution vs creationism.
"Next question - Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?"
Yes, despite being a lifelong atheist I have read the bible twice (the second time involved a lot of skipping of sections that I find dreadful, but the first time was thorough). I have also read the Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (which includes Mere Christianity along with many of his other christian works) I have watched several of the tapes by Dr. Dino (Hovind) which I have talked about at RT's site. You can find the tapes on youtube and google video (he allows free copy and distribution of his tapes, of which there are dozens, so it is not illegal). and I once started going through Thomas Aquinas's several thousand page Summa Theologica when I was going through an ancient philosophy kick, but I didn't make it more than 150 pages or so on that one.
Probably not of your liking, but more to mine, I have read 3 books by Bishop John Shelby Spong (Jesus for the Non-Religous, A New Christianity for a New World and Sins of the Scripture) as well as God's politics by Wallis, The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur and Thomas Berry's "The Great Work." I have not read the Da Vinci Code, which seems to be where most of friends religious education comes from, nor do I plan to read it :)
My post should have said that the 5 hottest years are 2005, 1998 (not 1999), 2002, 2003 and 2006
W.S. - You're well-read, I'll give you that. And the temperature thing seemed a little suspect to me as well.
I'll have to get back to you on the rest. It's way too nice outside to be sitting at a computer!
After considerable thought I remembered what the first relgious book I read was: Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
I used to work at a christian bookshop (well the bookshop was one of four stores in the same building, employees worked all four) and the book was given to me as a gift by the owner.
A lifelong atheist working in a Christian bookstore? Well, now I've heard everything!
"I'll have to get back to you on the rest. It's way too nice outside to be sitting at a computer!"
Agreed, I am enjoying my backyard. Although I do have my laptop out here, I am mainly reading Conrad Black's new book. I guess unfortunately I must be financially supporting his legal defence, but his book on FDR was too good for me pass on his new one on Nixon.
If all you're using to teach science is a video, then that's not good enough. That's what's wrong with Bill Nye the science guy's videos as a substitute for actually "teaching".
As a supplement, fine....but considering constraints of time to teach curriculum, you have to make a choice....teach science, or show a video which allows for no hands-on, or for discussion. This is what passes for science in one of the classrooms I know of.
raz
"A lifelong atheist working in a Christian bookstore? Well, now I've heard everything!"
Most people find it pretty amusing. It was in highschool. I started out working at a shoe repair (the money was surprisingly good) shop and then the owners moved the shoe repair into a different building which included a appliance shop, a craft shop and a christian bookshop. If I had no shoes to repair then I found work in the other sections.
Today where I live it's 16 degrees C.
Here's the record high for this day from the almanac...weather data.
31.1°C 1919
The record low was
-5.6°C 1888
Warming...cooling...warming...cooling...few people...lots of people...few cars...lots of cars...???
This record high from 1919 isn't a one day occurrence....there was a warming period it seems, because I look at the extended forecast and it shows the records for each day.
Interesting, no?
raz
Raz, I agree. I don't see what temperatures have to do with global warming or climate change when we're just talking about the last 100 years.
Temperatures have fluctuated over the centuries due to various causes.
Raz there are always anomolies. 1919 may have been warm where you live but globally it was a colder than usual year.
People at many blogs complained that February was colder than normal, so how can global warming be occuring. Yes we had a cold February, but it was actually the 6th warmest February on record. While it was cold here, it was record setting heat in China, Mongolia, southern Russia and the far north in Canada.
The following picture of the globe for February of 2007 shows which parts of the world were experiencing much hotter than usual temperatures and which ones were experiencing much colder than usual temperatures.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/feb/map_blended_mntp_02_2007_pg.gif
I don't look at day to day weather, I look at long term trends.
I don't look at day to day weather, I look at long term trends..
On that we can agree.
Raz, I agree. I don't see what temperatures have to do with global warming or climate change when we're just talking about the last 100 years.
...well, of course they have. I stated that the temperatures were much higher in the early 1900's than today, according to what the weather advanced forecast history data showed.
The climate is made up of the weather and its trends....daily weather comes together as climate.
I thought that it was made clear in the Global Warming Swindle that there were warming trends before man and his evil automobiles took over the planet. It was for me anyway.
I give up though. I'm not going to argue about this anymore...rather than arguing about it, I'll continue to read some of the science.
I was trying to make a point about the vast difference in temperature from 1919 to 2007....a difference of 15 degrees Celsius....and I didn't say that it was a one day occurrence. I said that it wasn't, and that I noticed a trend of warming. This is data from the online newspaper where I live, and it's historical data.
Anyway, enough from me on this topic....not interested anymore.:-)
raz
Raz — Hmmm. I’m not surprised by your response regarding the Bill Nye viddies. Very big on this “hands on” stuff you are, it seems. Greatly over-rated in my opinion. I don’t see what the benefit is in have a bunch of groups in a classroom performing the exact same “experiment” at once. It’s not like they’re actually testing the theory, just demonstrating it for themselves according to a strict formula. I suppose it has a certain novelty value or amusement if you like mucking about with beakers, Bunsen burners and such, but I fail to see how it provides anything of great value in terms of instruction that seeing the same experiment performed on tape/DVD in a somewhat entertaining fashion wouldn’t give students. Perhaps you feel resentful at having your own role as a teacher minimized or supplanted by such means? It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that as a teacher you might feel that way.
Wayward Son — You and your pesky facts. Can’t you see how tiresome they are to people? ;)
Well, this whole thing is giving me a headache!
I always had science teachers who taught us to be sceptical and to be critical thinkers. One (a smoker of course) showed us that the "smoking causes cancer" link was not very strong, though he did say it was more likely than not. He said it makes sense not to smoke, but it was by no means proven.
Another teacher discussing statistical analysis would tell us that if the data perfectly fits a bell curve, then that is probably where the data came from, a book of tables and not from an actual experiment.
Finally there was the one who asked how rockets go to the moon. After a few students talked about rocket science, he gave his theory. His theory was that Superman, moving faster than the human eye can follow, picks up and throws the Saturn V into space. He then demanded we refute his argument.
All this Krazy Kyoto Kackling is making my head spin.
I’m still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that the world isn’t flat, like 90% of the leading scientists at the time claimed as an undisputable fact and labeled anyone with a different idea as a heretic.
I think you nailed it Red, when you said this earlier:
So we have a lot of presumptions and assumptions, hypotheticals, theories and speculations involved in all of this. Quite the recipe for complete and utter confusion.
concerned, please mention "Y2Kyoto" whenever you talk about this.
Thanks.
And most scientists did understand the earth to be round. However the Church decided it knew better and scientists who spoke the truth were imprisoned or killed. Not like today where thousands of scientists agree that climate change is happening and that half of it is likely caused by people. And the dissenters get to make their own movies and make money. Hardly persecution.
Some temerature indicicators: prehistoric butcher yard(8000-9000 years ago, Holocene maximum)found containing bones of elephant and rhino, location France, English Channel coast.
Tree line in Siberia north of current one, actually at arctic ocean(Holocene maximum.)
Elephant,hippo and rhino fossils found(Ermian interglacial, previous interglacial), locations England and Germany. Many other indications of temperatures that are warmer than current temperatures world wide, but at lower CO2 levels.
But what is the current temperature? Since 1979 we have had satellite observations. The satellite data did not agree with the data from Climate Research Institute(CRU)at the University of East Anglia(probably the source of wayward son's information.) The satelite data was checked and two errors were found, caused by orbit drift and decay.) The data was adjusted for these errors but the two temerature changes from 1979 still did not agree. CRU was asked to provide the information so that their figures could be checked. They refused, and still have not provided the data. This is a blatnt violation of the fundamental principal of science: there are no secrets. Unfortunatly it apears that none of the other global temperature records have been checked either, althoughone is in the process if sufficient information can be obtained. Thus we have no scientificly acceptable estimate of the temperature change since 1850 from surface instrmental records. And if we finally get an acceptable estimate from temperature records, there remain large questions about the accuracy of those records.
One final thought about what causes the rise in temperatures at the start of an interglacial period. Ice ages are very dry, because the evaporion rate for cold water is much lower than warm water. With the rising temperatures this evaporation rate increases and the planet becomes much more humid. this is magnified by the fact that warm air holds much more water vapour than cold air. Water is the greatest contributer to the greenhouse effect by far. To claim that much of the warming is caused by the increase of CO2 means that you must ignore the increase in water vapour. There is a reason that global warming theorists want you to forget about water vapour.
And the dissenters get to make their own movies and make money. Hardly persecution.
And L.S., when you make statements like that, please keep using the word dissenter. Thanks. Oh and don't forget denier. And skeptic.
thanks.
swift "But what is the current temperature? Since 1979 we have had satellite observations. The satellite data did not agree with the data from Climate Research Institute(CRU)at the University of East Anglia(probably the source of wayward son's information.) The satelite data was checked and two errors were found, caused by orbit drift and decay.)"
I use the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA. Furthermore when you say how do we know what the temperature is, we know exactly what the temperature is, we measure it on the surface and keep track of it. The Satellite observations are attempting to calculate the temperature in the troposphere (not the surface) and those are compared to computer models simulating warming. The satellite doesn't measure temperature directly it measures radiances of different wave lengths to detected through a series of satellites and then through a complex series of calculations and comparing to weather balloon measurements they attempt to calculate what the temperature is. The two main examples are Christy and Spencer's data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) which I believe has been in operation since 1979. It has been corrected on many many occasions (not two like you suggest), but this is to be expected as there is such a high degree of error involved in such a complicated system. Their current analysis suggests warming of 0.168 Celsius per decade (prior to the latest corrections it was 0.133 C/decade). The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group which has found the troposphere is warming at 0.208 C per decade. (less known are Fu 0.19C/decade and Vinnikov/Grody 0.22 - 0.26 C/decade). 1 out of the four studies shows warming at the same rate as the surface since 1979 (which is 0.17 C/decade) the other three show that the troposphere is warming faster than the surface which is in line with models which predict that global warming due to ghg's should have faster troposphere warming than surface warming. All four studies are peer-reviewed.
"The data was adjusted for these errors but the two temerature changes from 1979 still did not agree. CRU was asked to provide the information so that their figures could be checked. They refused, and still have not provided the data. This is a blatnt violation of the fundamental principal of science: there are no secrets."
I have no idea what you are talking about. Link please. As far as I know the CRU has no connection to any of the groups that I have mentioned which are all American not British.
*Vinnikov - Department of Meteorology at U of Maryland.
*Grody - NOAA National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
*Fu - Department of Atmospheric Sciences at U of Washington.
"Unfortunatly it apears that none of the other global temperature records have been checked either, although one is in the process if sufficient information can be obtained. Thus we have no scientificly acceptable estimate of the temperature change since 1850 from surface instrmental records. And if we finally get an acceptable estimate from temperature records, there remain large questions about the accuracy of those records."
We have dozens of different organizations keeping track of temperature through several different methods: Surface, ocean, satellite and weather balloon. They all seem to telling the same story.
"One final thought about what causes the rise in temperatures at the start of an interglacial period. Ice ages are very dry, because the evaporion rate for cold water is much lower than warm water. With the rising temperatures this evaporation rate increases and the planet becomes much more humid. this is magnified by the fact that warm air holds much more water vapour than cold air. Water is the greatest contributer to the greenhouse effect by far. To claim that much of the warming is caused by the increase of CO2 means that you must ignore the increase in water vapour. There is a reason that global warming theorists want you to forget about water vapour."
Really? I have heard many major scientists talk about water vapor, how it is a feedback factor in the rise of the temperature. Water vapor only increases in the atmosphere if a forcing factor causes water vapor to increase. CO2 is a forcing factor which increases temperature which leads to increased water vapor further increasing temperature. It is included in every single computer model.
Loosen up L.S.
My comment was not meant to be taken word for word as the gospel truth.
I realize that religious beliefs were a major roadblock of true science.
(Ex. The earth being the center of the universe, among others)
A little levity was in order here.
However, where did that “climate change is happening and that half of it is likely caused by people” come from? I’ll grant you that you did say “likely”, but “half” seems to be a number picked by convenience more than anything else. I agree that human influence has an effect on climate. But to what extent, and what we can realistically do about it, or more to the crux, what we are willing to do about it, well, I’d say the jury’s still out.
My true feelings on the entire matter is that mankind is a cancer on the face of the planet, and that slowly but surely we will devastate it and in turn ourselves. Call me a pessimist, I’ll accept that.
P.S. - "Y2Kyoto"
If all you're using to teach science is a video, then that's not good enough. That's what's wrong with Bill Nye the science guy's videos as a substitute for actually "teaching".
Raz, I get what you're saying now. Thanks. I totally agree.
Before schools jump on the bandwagon of an issue that certainly hasn't been settled, it would be so much smarter for them to concentrate on teaching kids about cleaning up our own backyard...in terms of pollution...but to attach it to global warming is just wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with that statement too, Raz. Too often pollution and global warming are grouped together as synonymous concepts, which of course they aren't. They may be related, but they're not the same thing.
It seems to me that everyone is so concerned about dying because of the environment somewhere down the line in time and space but what about the real danger here and now, about terrorists sneaking across the borders both on here in the North and across the Southern border in the States. Seems to me that this is the most immediate threat that everyone seems to be ignoring. There could be thousands of suicide would be bombers pouring across many borders waiting till a co-ordinate time to inflict damage wherever and whenever they are so inclined.
Concerned posted the following:
”My true feelings on the entire matter is that mankind is a cancer on the face of the planet, and that slowly but surely we will devastate it and in turn ourselves. Call me a pessimist, I’ll accept that.”
My feeling about mankind is, that some of mankind is like a cancer on the face of the planet, and like most cancers if they are ignored and hope that they will go away will surely invade the total body and yes mankind will die under this kind of devastation but I hope and pray that the good people on this planet will soon wake up and realize the imminent danger to the whole body of mankind and start to focus their attention to the real and present danger!
W.S. - There are a few other examples of errors in the film that the print version of the Post carried on Saturday.
One was the "dramatic images of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea".
The science, however, suggests that "the breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon, due to the normal advance of a glacier, according to marine geology experts such as Finland's Boris Winterhalter and Sweden's Wibjorn Karlen."
Also, you haven't addressed the hurricane controversy, although this thread is getting so long, I may have missed it. ;)
The CRU estimate of temperature is the one used by the IPCC in its reports. There are many potential problems with using ground temperatures in estimating the average global temperatures. Scientists make errors and any result has to be subject to verification. Mann Bradley and Hughes wrote a paper in 1998 that was featured in the 2001 IPCC report. The graph from this paper was repeated eight times in the report and also sent by the Liberal government to all Canadian households. The graph was the result of at least ten errors. They still will not release information that would allow one or more suspected mistakes to be verified.
That there has been a recent warming trend is notin question. How much it as warmed and the cuse of that warming is very much in question. can we rule out absolutely that CO2 causes significant warming? Not quite, but many ings show that it is very unlikely. Will Kyoto solve the problem of whatever CO2 caused warming? Absolutely not. Is reducing CO2 emissions the best way to halt global warming if CO2 higher levels are going to be a problem. No.
what we need is smereal scientific investigation into the factors that influence the climate, rather than a lot of so called research designed o support a particular theory, and which nobody can verify because the details are not released. If such research proves there is a problem with higher CO2 levels, then we need a real solution, not the hysterical promotion of a non solution, such as Kyoto.
Canada has a greater interst than many countries in finding out the real causes that effect climate. There is one thing that every body agrees on. Sonner or later this interglacial period is going to end and if we do nothing, much of Canada will be covered in ice. When will this happen? Nobody really knows, however recent discoveries have shown that there is a period of global warming immediatly preceeding the end of an interglacial period.
What is the reality of the situation? Nobod knows. But the mney that is wasted on Kyoto would be much better spent on finding out what realy is going on, and developping an effective countermeasure if one is needed.
Swift — I sense an investment opportunity! ;)
RT much to early unless you want to get into a nonstarter technology like hydrogen fuel cells. You can make a lot of money on something like that IF you get in early enough and get out early enough, before most everybody realizes its never going to fly big time.
My prefered investments are long term, large capital gains type, or at least they are now that long term big capiital gains big distribution trusts are being killed.
swift - "The CRU estimate of temperature is the one used by the IPCC in its reports."
The IPCC reviews all available data. If they were to strictly use CRU, it wouldn't matter much as NASA and NOAA have come up with basically identical temperature results and their work is freely available on the internet.
"There are many potential problems with using ground temperatures in estimating the average global temperatures."
Yes I have heard this a thousand times from skeptics who at the same time had no problems claiming that the satellite data by Spencer and Christy was reliable. Turns out S&C's data was not reliable, but I have yet to see the surface temperature by NASA or NOAA overturned.
"Scientists make errors and any result has to be subject to verification."
Certainly. But, you have still shown me nothing about how CRU's data is secret.
"Mann Bradley and Hughes wrote a paper in 1998 that was featured in the 2001 IPCC report. The graph from this paper was repeated eight times in the report and also sent by the Liberal government to all Canadian households. The graph was the result of at least ten errors. They still will not release information that would allow one or more suspected mistakes to be verified."
You are talking about the Mann/Bradley hockey stick curve:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf
The study was called "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" and true to the title they mention many times that there are many uncertainties and limitations to their work. It was a first kick at the can in presenting a temperature graph going back a 1000 years, so the fact that errors were found is not surprising. The fact since then a dozen or so new studies have been done which show basically the same thing, although with slightly more variability in the past shows that Mann et all’s work, while far from perfect, was not wrong in its conclusions.
I suspect that you get your information from climateaudit.org (which appears to be down at the moment, so I can't check it).
McIntyre (of climateaudit.org) and McKitrick brought forth issues of errors in the Mann hockey stick curve. It went as far as a congressional hearing. Were there errors in the Mann hockey stick? Yes. Have there been another dozen or so peer reviewed new hockey sticks which are so far without error and show basically the same thing as the Mann one did (within the margin of error)? Yes.
The US congress asked the US National Academy of Sciences to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick. Their 2006 report said:
"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".
Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century."
http://books.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf
Furhtermore the Wall Street Journal takes issue with the accuracy of McIntyre and McKitrick's work here (which I imagine you can't find at climateaudit.org):
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113027943843479277-5reMaU4_37mSf3Us8BhDeHITDyA_20061026.html?mod=blogs
"That there has been a recent warming trend is notin question. How much it as warmed and the cuse of that warming is very much in question."
Yes the fact that surface, troposphere, balloon and ocean temperature readings are all showing very similar warming trends does warrant a whole lot of doubt.
"can we rule out absolutely that CO2 causes significant warming? Not quite, but many ings show that it is very unlikely."
Name them please. This is completely ridiculous, most skeptics who appeared in the "swindle" (Lindzen, Spencer, Christy and Wunsch) are even on record as stating that CO2 must cause warming. I would really like to know what "things" make it very unlikely that CO2 would cause warming. Solar radiance, sun spots and solar flares have been ruled out as the cause of the warming over the last 30 to 40 years by the best specialists in the field including Dr Sami Solanki who was profiled in the National Post "Deniers" series. Other factors that caused past climate change like Milankovitch cycles have also been completely ruled out.
"Will Kyoto solve the problem of whatever CO2 caused warming?"
No, but it is the first step. Scientists never thought that Kyoto would solve global warming, but they hoped that it would lay the groundwork for more intensive action in the future.
"Is reducing CO2 emissions the best way to halt global warming if CO2 higher levels are going to be a problem. No."
Ummm, if higher levels of CO2 are the problem then the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce those levels.
"what we need is smereal scientific investigation into the factors that influence the climate, rather than a lot of so called research designed o support a particular theory, and which nobody can verify because the details are not released."
How is that wonderful land of conspiracy you live in? There is no scientific conspiracy here. If money was the motivation then you would find a lot more skeptics as no scientist has made the kind of money that skeptics like Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer have. A gold mine for them, despite doing very little work. If prestige was the motivation then certainly their could no better guarantee then being the scientist or team of scientists who disproved global warming and in the process saved their country a whole lot of cash. Seeing as there have been some very good scientists, with a lot of financial backing, who are skeptics and they have yet to find anything to disprove man-made global warming....oh you are right a conspiracy of thousands and thousands of scientists makes more sense.
"If such research proves there is a problem with higher CO2 levels, then we need a real solution, not the hysterical promotion of a non solution, such as Kyoto."
Such research has proven there is a problem with increasing levels of CO2. If you have a better solution then lets here it.
"Canada has a greater interst than many countries in finding out the real causes that effect climate. There is one thing that every body agrees on. Sonner or later this interglacial period is going to end and if we do nothing, much of Canada will be covered in ice."
Glad to see that you are more concerned about a problem that will effect us in a couple thousand years then a problem that will affect us in the next century. Using the Milankovitch cycles scientists predict that the next ice age is a mere 50,000 years away, better start getting ready now.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5585/1287
"When will this happen? Nobody really knows, however recent discoveries have shown that there is a period of global warming immediatly preceeding the end of an interglacial period."
There may be, but did those discoveries find that the period of warming was caused by human ghg emissions? Or did they find that they were caused by factors of the sun, tectic plates and Milankovitch cycles all of which have been studied thoroughly and dismissed as the cause of current warming.
"What is the reality of the situation? Nobod knows. But the mney that is wasted on Kyoto would be much better spent on finding out what realy is going on, and developping an effective countermeasure if one is needed."
First of all how do you know that nobody knows the reality of the situation? Thousands of scientists conducting thousands of tests might not have worked out the complete picture with complete accuracy, but they have a pretty good idea.
As I said over at RT's a little while back:
For human GHG emissions not to be the primary cause of global warming requires two things. First it requires another cause which has escaped the scientific communities knowledge despite it also needing to be large and influential enough to cause such a change (as solar radiation, sunspots, solar flares, plate tectonics Milankovitch cycles and other orbital features have all been studied and disproven, please tell the scientists what they are missing - maybe angry trolls under bridges are creating heat and then sending that heat into the oceans, troposphere and surface at the same levels as would be expected by increases in ghg levels?). Second it requires that GHGs are not behaving in the manner (or at least the intensity) which scientific experimentation has concluded they must.
So to find an alternative theory, swift, requires you not only to find the natural heat source but at the same time you need to dismiss human ghg emissions which means that you must discover why it is that the ghg's which we have been putting into the atmosphere and thus significantly increasing the level of natural ghg's from pre-industrial times are not behaving like the natural ghgs which have created the greenhouse effect ( allowing this planet to maintain life for hundreds of millions of years). Why is it that human ghg emissions are defying the laws of physics? That seems like a pretty simple task swift. I wish you and all the skeptics the best on coming up with a solution.
Sorry Joanne, I didn't see your post until now.
"One was the "dramatic images of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea".
The science, however, suggests that "the breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon, due to the normal advance of a glacier, according to marine geology experts such as Finland's Boris Winterhalter and Sweden's Wibjorn Karlen."
Yes, calving as it is called is a natural phenomenon with glaciers. However the disintigration of the Larsen B ice shelf (the size of Rhode Island and 220 meters thick) was caused by warm air causing hundreds of large pools to form on the ice shelf and the shelf to just collapse (a shelf which had been intact for 12000 years and the collapse of it was a shocker for scientists).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/Larsen_B_Collapse.jpg
Showing calving was certainly less impressive than showing Larsen B collapse which would have been, in my opinion anyways, far more scary. Yes calving has always occured but most scientists appear to suggest that with global warming it will occur more often:
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/news/features/2007_03_21_e.htm
http://www.viamagazine.com/top_stories/articles/vanishing_glaciers06.asp
"Also, you haven't addressed the hurricane controversy, although this thread is getting so long, I may have missed it."
At 3:33 yesterday I said:
"Yes this is an error in Gore's documentary."
I said that more due to the Katrina connection than anything else, as I don't agree with associating a specific event with global warming. Hurricanes and global warming is a very complicated issue of which I know little about.
The IPCC4 said in the Q&A that: "There is evidence from modelling studies that future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. Studies suggest that changes may already be underway; there are indications that the average number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has increased over the past 30 years etc. (see page 29)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_FAQs.pdf
None of that has much certainty to it. However, there will be much study in the field in the upcoming years and I would have preferred Gore left hurricanes out of the Doc.
The issue has been controversial because Landsea resigned from the IPCC over their official position.
However, the well known skeptic (Pielke Jr) who broke the story of Landsea resigning then looked at the position that the IPCC took and said that it was inline with the majority of experts in the field.
Even Landsea's (who is the most reknowned skeptic who is an expert in the field of hurricanes) position is that GW will enhance the effects of hurricanes by 1 or 2%.
Darn know-it-all Wayward Son...
Joanne,
Reviewing Red Tory’s comments here one finds that he:
- defends Gore’s propaganda flick;
- denigrates opposing or skeptical views at every turn;
- admits he sides with the global warming promoters;
- supports the Kyoto protocols;
- is enthusiastic about getting on with climate change ‘action’;
His claim to be neutral, ‘agnostic’ or skeptical on the subject is not very credible. It’s small wonder that his liberal ‘friends’ give him an easy time.
JR - Yeah, but don't you just love him anyway?
I am mainly reading Conrad Black's new book. I guess unfortunately I must be financially supporting his legal defence, but his book on FDR was too good for me pass on his new one on Nixon.
W.S., I see that the Post is running excerpts from Black's book this week.
A little bad news for Wayward's blind trust in the accuracy of the NAOO temperature record. The NOAA claims that it uses the raw data from each reporting station in a grid cell to create an unweighted avererage temperature for that cell. There are two parts to this, is this the proper method to create an accurate global temperature, and do they actually do this. The answer to both qestions is no. I will give a little explation of how the global temperatures are calculated for those who have been lost already.
If you just added up the temperatures for all the weather stations on the earth, this would give you a very innaccurate idea of the average temperature. This is because some areas would have many stations and other areas very few. To overcome this inequality the surface of the earth is divided up by a grid into cells. These cells are used to give an equal weight to equal areas when calculating the average temperature of the earth. A particular cell may only have one station, or it may have five or six or even more. NOAA says it takes the temperature records from each station in a cell and averages them to calculate the temperature of that area. There are a number of ways that this could give rise to inaccuracies, but I will just concentrate on one that is of particular importance to the estimate of temperature change.
It has been long known that cities are warmer han the surrounding country side. this effect is known as urban heat islands. The larger the city, the greater the difference between the city temperature and the countryside temperature surrounding it.
When you compare the temperature of a city fifty yesars ago wth the temperatre today, you have to allow for the different heat island effect if it has changed in size. hwever the NOAA admits that it does not do this. Since the average city of today is much larger than even fifty years ago, ignoring the heat island effect gives a greater temperature rise than actually is the case. The heat island effect is routinely ignored by global warming suporters unless forced to asknowledge it by deniers. Perhaps we should start calling the global warming crowd water deniers or city deniers as the try to ignore the greenhouse effect of water and the heat island effect of cities.
Back to the top and start on the NOAA claim of how they calculate the temperature of a cell. If one looks up the NOAA data for Dulan in China, you will find that March is missing many minimum temperature records. This is not unusual for this weather station. In the eighties and early nineties the records for Dulan rarely are missing data. However more recent times show consistantly missing minimum readings. March set a new record in this regard, a least since the cultural revolution days of Mao. Despite the missing data NOAA does give the average monthly temperature of Dulan for March of minus 0.2 degrees celsius. Unfortunately nobody can fgure out a way of dealing with missing data that gives this figure by using the stated method of the NOAA. It appears that they have used some method of adjustment, contrary to their stated method, or used some unknown, unique method of compensating for missing data. However other sources do have the data that NOAA is missing, and the average temperature for March is plus 0.7 degrees. So much fo the unuestioned accuracy of NOAA temperatures.
Unlike global warming supporters, the deniers do not insist that there is only one cause of the current climate change. They recognize that CO2 concentrations can cause a change in temperature. Professor Lindzen has estimated that the expected rise in CO2 levels by the end of the century will increase the temperature by 0.05 degrees. Surely not a cause for panic.
You claim that all other theories have been discredited, however if the same standards that are used to discredit other theories, are applied to the AWG theory, it also is discredited. It simply cannot explain the much greater temperature rise for a smaller CO2 rise, that occured from 1850 to 1940, when compared to the greater Co2 rise, and the smaller temperature rise from 1940 to the present. Two attempts have been made to save the theory. One is that the missing heat from the latter period was stored in the oceans. This was proven invalid even before the recent unexplained drop in sea temperatures. The other is that pollution reflected the required amount of sunlight back into space between 1940 and 1975. The reduction of sunlight reaching the earth's surface was reversed by the cleanup of polution that occured starting in the seventies. This has also been discredited, even without taking into account the huge increase in pollution that is occuring in China, which should show an even faster decrease in temperatures than occured in the 1940 to 1970 period if this theory was correct.
Sorry to disagree with you Joanne, but it appears that wayward son doesn't know it all. I have discovered that there is a website that does have as it's reason d'etre training global warming supporters on how to answer the criticism of deniers. I haven't done more than given it a cursory glance as of yet, but I'll likely find most of wayward's points mentioned there.
Sorry to disagree with you Joanne, but it appears that wayward son doesn't know it all. I have discovered that there is a website that does have as it's reason d'etre training global warming supporters on how to answer the criticism of deniers. I haven't done more than given it a cursory glance as of yet, but I'll likely find most of wayward's points mentioned there.
Yay, Swift! Wayward Son has been exposed. Awesome detective work.
Joanne I am not sure exactly how I have been exposed.
No I didn't see the NP piece on Black's new book. There was a piece in MacLean's but I haven't bothered to read it as I have the book anyways.
Now on to Swift's post.
Swift – “Sorry to disagree with you Joanne, but it appears that wayward son doesn't know it all. I have discovered that there is a website that does have as it's reason d'etre training global warming supporters on how to answer the criticism of deniers. I haven't done more than given it a cursory glance as of yet, but I'll likely find most of wayward's points mentioned there.”
Sorry Swift, but unlike you I have the ability to research many sources. You confirmed my previous opinion that all of your talking points come from climateaudit.org with your latest post. I think it would be easier if you just told me to walk through their site piece by piece and attempted to discredit every bit of it. I would love to, but unfortunately I lack the time. I have made it an issue to leave as many different links to as many different sources as I can at the many different blogs that I post at. So far you have left no links, and I am pretty sure I know why, they are all from the same source as is your source for the Dulan station as discussed below:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1456
(furthermore, I never said that I was a know-it-all)
“Despite the missing data NOAA does give the average monthly temperature of Dulan for March of minus 0.2 degrees celsius. Unfortunately nobody can fgure out a way of dealing with missing data that gives this figure by using the stated method of the NOAA.”
Nobody? Or Stephen McIntyre at climateaudit.org? You seem to have elevated the man to “everybody.” How many people other than McIntyre has actually tried to find the answer? If indeed McIntyre actually did try to find the answer as the quality of his research is pretty lazy.
“It appears that they have used some method of adjustment, contrary to their stated method, or used some unknown, unique method of compensating for missing data. However other sources do have the data that NOAA is missing, and the average temperature for March is plus 0.7 degrees. So much fo the unuestioned accuracy of NOAA temperatures.”
Yes, climateaudit.org shows us that its beloved “weather underground” has the “missing data” but can you guarantee the accuracy of that site? I sure wouldn’t. If you go to their site for Dulan it often says “Please, note this station is not reporting.” If you look a little further by going to their own wiki-site you will see that “weather underground” in fact DOESN’T have the missing data: From their own wiki site about how they get weather at International stations – um… they wing it. They take information put out from the AVN model and “comes up with” forecasts for 6000 international cities. “comes up with?” Well I am sold. Furthermore it uses the weather stations which are reporting twice a day to estimate the weather for ALL stations 8 times a day. Hmmm? Then it says and I quote: “The forecasts do reasonably well for a large number of locations, but do poorly in some locations, particularly mountainous areas. We are developing new software enable us to improve these forecasts in the near future.” No in other words, they are NOT reporting actual weather! They are PREDICTING it.
http://wiki.wunderground.com/index.php/FAQ_-_Sources
So where is this Dulan weather station that McIntyre decided to use as an example of the accuracy of weather underground? Qinghai! One of the most mountainous places in the world! Within the Tangula and Kunlun mountain ranges and on the border of Tibet. Isn’t it isolated mountainous regions exactly where weather underground said that their predictions were poorest? Sure was. Is there any place where weather underground probably does a worse job of “coming up with” temperature guesses? Probably not according to their own website methodology.
So maybe you and McIntyre should do a little research before making claims that other sites have the data that NOAA is missing.
The NOAA has made it clear that there are spots in the world where getting accurate weather data is challenging. To try to remedy that situation the NOAA and NCDC among others are trying to improve the situation with their GCOS Regional Action Plan for Central Asia:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/RWCA_Action_Plan_English.pdf
That might not make the approval of you or McIntyre who seem to prefer “weather underground’s” method of just making stuff up, but it is the only way to lead to long term accuracy in places where standards are not high enough. Really the fact that you and McIntyre would espouse that weather underground had more accurate data than the NOAA without even bothering to check the source of that data is pretty disturbing and sad.
“It has been long known that cities are warmer han the surrounding country side. this effect is known as urban heat islands. The larger the city, the greater the difference between the city temperature and the countryside temperature surrounding it.”
No the NOAA doesn’t consider heat islands for the simple reason that it would be impossible. As NASA has shown in its attempt to account for heat islands requires it to analyse every single reporting station and then estimate what the effect might be. This will take years (probably decades) and considerable resources and is unlikely to be anymore accurate then the current estimate of the factor of heat island contributions as stated by the IPCC. There have been several peer-reviewed studies that have shown that the effect of urban heat islands is negligible and appears to be zero peer-reviewed studies which show that UHI is significant, although skeptics sure like to write about it in their books. Maybe one of them should use the money that oil companies provide and actually do a study to show that what they complain about is true. So far I can’t find an example of them bothering.
(This is from the Fourth Assessment report pages 243 – 245, any spelling errors are mine as I am copying it out)
The relative warmth of a city compared with surrounding rural areas, known as the urban heat island (UHI) effect, arises from these changes and may also be affected by changes in water runoff, pollution and aerosols. UHI effects are often very localised and depend on local climate factors such as windiness and cloudiness (which in turn depend on season), and on proximity to the sea.
Many local studies have demonstrated that the microclimate within cities is on average warmer, with a smaller DTR, than if the city were not there. However, the key issue from a climate change standpoint is whether urban-effected temperature records have significantly biased large-scale temperature trends. Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (eg. Jones et all 1990; Peterson et al, 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanization (Parker, 2006). Over the conterminous USA, after adjustment for time-of-observation bias and other changes, rural station trends were almost indistinguishable from series including urban sites (Peterson 2003 see figure 3.3 on page 244 of IPCC FAR) and similar considerations apply to China from 1951 to 2001 (Li et all 2004). One possible reason for the patchiness of UHIs is the location of observing stations in parks where urban influences are reduced (Peterson, 2003). In summary, although some individual sites may be affected, including some small rural locations, the UHI effect is not pervasive, as all global scale studies indicate it is a very small component of large scale averages. Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006 Celsius per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002 C/decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
Li et all 2004 can be found here:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/704/2004/00000079/F0020003/art00003?crawler=true
Where it says: The average UHI effect for the entire country, during the last 50 years is less than 0.06C, which agrees well with the IPCC (2001).
You can find Peterson et all - Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%282003%29016%3C2941%3AAOUVRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
And Parker - A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17914987
From the third assessment report as shown on wikipedia:
However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
Also from the same site:
Note that not all cities show a warming relative to their rural surroundings. For example, Hansen et al. (JGR, 2001) adjusted trends in urban stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record. Of these adjustments, 42% warmed the urban trends: which is to say that in 42% of cases, the cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer. One reason is that urban areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are often sited in "cool islands" - parks, for example - within urban areas.
Swift, If UHI are as pronounced on the overall climate change as you suggest then I imagine that you can certainly provide examples of actual studies which say so.
Furthermore your statement that the global warming crowd are “water deniers” and “city deniers” is a blatant lie as water vapor and the minimal UHI effects are taken into consideration in the IPCC reports as well as every single climate model.
“Unlike global warming supporters, the deniers do not insist that there is only one cause of the current climate change. They recognize that CO2 concentrations can cause a change in temperature. Professor Lindzen has estimated that the expected rise in CO2 levels by the end of the century will increase the temperature by 0.05 degrees. Surely not a cause for panic.”
Please provide a link to an actual study in which Lindzen shows why he believes that CO2 levels will only cause temperature to rise by 0.05 C. Without such a study there is no way to tell if his statement is his “guess” or whether he actually has some work to back up his statements. There are dozens and dozens of scientists who have provided work (and subjected that work to criticism through the peer review process) showing that increased CO2 levels will lead to increases in temperature significantly higher than Lindzen has proposed. I am aware that Lindzen has peer-reviewed work, but have not yet seen his work showing a 0.05C increase. So I would appreciate it if you could direct me to it.
“It simply cannot explain the much greater temperature rise for a smaller CO2 rise, that occured from 1850 to 1940, when compared to the greater Co2 rise, and the smaller temperature rise from 1940 to the present.”
Solar factors can explain most, but not all of the warming prior to about 1975. The swindle was very good at showing the solar radiation vs temperature connection up to about 1975 and then it failed to show (by removing the solar radiation line but keeping the temperature line for some strange reason) that there has been no correlation since that time.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif
Global warming experts do not contend that CO2 levels were high enough to have been the primary cause of climate change prior to the 70s, but they do contend and have been showing that CO2 has been the primary cause since that time. Experts in solar radiation, sunspots and solar flares such as Dr. Sami Solanki have done work showing that solar factors effected climate change in the past, but has not been effecting present climate change since the 1970s in any meaningful way. Other factors such as CFCs and the ocean may have contributed slightly, but research has shown that their contributions were minor if at all.
At Wed May 23, 01:32:00 PM EDT, wayward son said, "Ummm, if higher levels of CO2 are the problem then the only way to deal with the problem is to reduce those levels." That is a big if. Why not prove the theory first before we try to reduce those levels?
Oh, but wait. You later said, "Such research has proven there is a problem with increasing levels of CO2." Great. Glad to hear it. Since "the sun, tectic (sic) plates and Milankovitch cycles [have] been studied thoroughly and dismissed as the cause of current warming," then the cause must be anthropogenic greenhouse gases as you suggest.
Perhaps then it would now be an easy thing to answer some of the nagging questions that keep coming up. Let's start with a simple one shall we?
Why was 1998 the warmest year? I know you already gave a NASA link:
"Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic."
What would happen to 1998's overall temperature if they suddenly included Arctic data? Even if 2005 was warmer, it was only by a few thousandths of a degree not 6 hundredths of a degree like would be expected if CO2 levels caused an increase in temperature. The CO2 level has continually increased since 1998, and as you say, "[t]his is very basic science." If the warming has been 0.1 C per decade, then why are we not 0.08C warmer now than in 1998? Or is it not a causal relationship after all? This is after all after the 1970s.
JMR - "Why was 1998 the warmest year?"
1998 was unusually hot and far above the the surrounding years due to the strongest El Nino of the century.
"Even if 2005 was warmer, it was only by a few thousandths of a degree not 6 hundredths of a degree like would be expected if CO2 levels caused an increase in temperature. The CO2 level has continually increased since 1998, and as you say, "[t]his is very basic science." If the warming has been 0.1 C per decade, then why are we not 0.08C warmer now than in 1998?"
Why not instead use the years 2000 - 2005? Over that 5 year period the temperature increased by about 0.75 or 0.8 C which would be about 1.5 - 1.6 C/decade. Scientists look at the trend lines instead of picking out a specific point to ensure that the results are not swayed by natural factors such as volcanoes or el nino. Otherwise you could say that the temperature was 32C on July 15th 2006 and -15C on January 2007 despite the fact that we continued emitting CO2.
Apologies, I doubled these numbers, so it should be 0.375 - 0.4C and then .75 - .8C/decade
"Why not instead use the years 2000 - 2005? Over that 5 year period the temperature increased by about 0.75 or 0.8 C which would be about 1.5 - 1.6 C/decade."
W.S. - Thanks for all this. I've had a few complaints about problems leaving comments tonight. Is anyone else experiencing this?
If so, please contact me at the addy on my profile. Thanks.
Thanks Joanne,
I seem to be getting through.
No opinion on whether or not 1998 should take in to account the Arctic temps? Okay then.
El nino is regional not global.
And check the graphic. The NASA list was 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, then 2004. That means the temp was dropping since 2002 until 2005. Check the http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html page that shows 2006 being above 2004, but below 2002 and 2003. So 2000 and 2001 may have been cooler than 2002, but the temp did decline again for a few more years after 2002. It declined. It did not go up. You already ruled out the other forcings like tectonic, sun, and Milankovitch. What caused the drop in temp in 2003 and 2004 though the CO2 levels continued to rise?
JMR - "No opinion on whether or not 1998 should take in to account the Arctic temps? Okay then."
Based on your post and the NASA webpage I am unsure as to whether or not NASA included Arctic temps in their 1998 temperature measurements. My belief is that it is stating that NASA uses Arctic temps in its yearly measurements (including 1998) whereas the groups which find 1998 to be hotter than 2005 do not. In that case both NASA and the other groups are being consistent. It is possible that it is meaning that NASA included Arctic temperatures for 2005, but not for 1998 which would be inconsistent, but that is not the way I am reading it. I could very well be wrong. However, without actually knowing I can't comment at this time.
"El nino is regional not global."
El Nino effects the Pacific and Indian Oceans at basically the same time and effects the Atlantic several months later. While it doesn't cover the entire globe, it is far more than a regional phenomenon. The El Nino of 1998 is blamed for killing 16% of the world's coral reefs and those were not specific to a couple locations, but instead where ever coral reefs exist.
It talks about it a little bit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
"And check the graphic. The NASA list was 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, then 2004. That means the temp was dropping since 2002 until 2005."
Do you seriously believe that the temperature should be rising each and every year like a set of stairs? When the world goes into a ice age due to Milankovitch cycles do you think that it gets colder each and every single year? By your logic it should as it, but if you look at the graphs which have been worked out it is far from a perfect straight line. Of course they could be wrong, but I don't imagine that any scientist believes that with Milankovitch cycles the world would uniformly get colder each year, nor do I imagine any would think that an increase in CO2 levels would mean that world will get warmer each and every year. An increase in CO2 levels still has to react with natural processes. Next time you suspect you are getting a fever measure your temperature and see if it is rising at a uniform rate or breaking at a uniform rate (i'll save you the suspense, it won't). But if our bodies were incredibly simple than rate of change should be uniform, afterall the body just elevates its thermoregulatory set-point and then increases the heart rate, muscle tone and shivering to achieve that new desired temperature. The body is more complicated though, and the planet is more complicated as well.
It should be pointed out from my post on: Thu May 24, 05:08:00 PM EDT on the topic of weather underground vs NOAA that I am not sure if McIntyre is wrong or if I am wrong, although I have presented my case and believe that I am correct. I have sent an email to weather underground in the hopes that they can set the record straight.
"An increase in CO2 levels still has to react with natural processes." Great. I understand from your post that those "natural processes" last only a few years. Is that correct? What about longer time frames? What about 25 to 30 years? From 1945 to 1975 the CO2 levels increased, but the temp did not. I have heard the theory that aerosols were reduced in the West in the 1970's, but there is no data to show that the level actually went down globally because other countries simply increased their output. Was it one or more of the "natural processes?"
Sorry Wayward. It seems like you already provided an answer to my last question.
At Thu May 24, 05:08:00 PM EDT, wayward son said "Global warming experts do not contend that CO2 levels were high enough to have been the primary cause of climate change prior to the 70s, but they do contend and have been showing that CO2 has been the primary cause since that time. Experts in solar radiation, sunspots and solar flares such as Dr. Sami Solanki have done work showing that solar factors effected climate change in the past, but has not been effecting present climate change since the 1970s in any meaningful way. Other factors such as CFCs and the ocean may have contributed slightly, but research has shown that their contributions were minor if at all."
The CO2 level around 1950 was 280. Since that was not high enough to have been "the primary cause" of climate change, what is the limit? What level is high enough for CO2 to be "the primary cause" of climate change? The ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png ) page shows that the CO2 concentration for the mid 1970s was around 330 ppm. Is that the turning point or have I misunderstood you?
I used 280 ppm for 1950 from other sources. The wiki graph shows that it was around 310 in 1950. So the 20ppm rise from 1950 to 1970 was the amount needed to move CO2 to the primary driver status?
JMR - "Great. I understand from your post that those "natural processes" last only a few years. Is that correct?”
How could natural processes only last a few years? I can’t figure out what you are getting at. I specifically stated that when the world goes into an ice age due to Milankovitch cycles that it does not get colder each and every year which can largely be contributed to the other natural processes as the world as a complicated system. Those other natural processes did not last only a few years, they occurred for the thousands of years time frame that it takes to cover much of the world with ice, just as they always occur. Sometimes those other natural processes slowed the temperature decrease, sometimes they contributed to it.
“What about 25 to 30 years? From 1945 to 1975 the CO2 levels increased, but the temp did not. I have heard the theory that aerosols were reduced in the West in the 1970's, but there is no data to show that the level actually went down globally because other countries simply increased their output. Was it one or more of the "natural processes?"
I feel like I am answering the same questions over and over again. I stated above that I didn’t see much evidence to support that aerosols had anymore than a small effect. The reason that I gave is the same reason that most skeptics are promoting - the sun. Skeptics love to point out that temperature followed solar brightness for at least 100 years. Their argument has been made stronger by them pointing out that the temperature fell in the mid 20th century as did the solar levels. They don’t often point out that the relationship stops around 1975 +/- a couple years when temperature starts to rise sharply, but the solar factors stay the same. I believe I left a link for a graph in one of my previous posts.
Here is a quote for Dr. Sami Solanki (who again was profiled as a Denier in the National Post series):
“Researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.”
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
“ The CO2 level around 1950 was 280 (edit 310 from your following post). Since that was not high enough to have been "the primary cause" of climate change, what is the limit? What level is high enough for CO2 to be "the primary cause" of climate change? The page shows that the CO2 concentration for the mid 1970s was around 330 ppm. So the 20ppm rise from 1950 to 1970 was the amount needed to move CO2 to the primary driver status? Is that the turning point or have I misunderstood you?”
I do not believe there is a specific number that makes CO2 the primary driver of climate change. It depends on the natural factors. For instance the evidence suggests pretty strongly (and most proponents and skeptics of AGW I am sure would agree) that Mount Pinatubo which erupted in 1991 was responsible for the temperature drop in 1992 and 1993. In fact computer models done at the time of the eruption simulated the temperature change month by month with strong accuracy.
http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/4/index.html
So the level of CO2 required for humans to be the primary driver of climate change depends on the natural factors. Since the late 70s I believe that CO2 has been the strongest factor most of the time. However in 1992 and 1993 Pinatubo was the strongest factor and cooling ensued. Similarly if the Milankovitch cycles were bringing us into an ice age then I doubt that our level of CO2 could remain as the primary factor for very long and cooling would ensue. Also if Solar factors were to appreciably increase or decrease then they might very well become the primary factor (for that period of time in which they are stronger or weaker) with our human CO2 emissions either potentiating the heating effect or slowing the cooling effect. It seems likely that the higher our CO2 levels increase the more prominent our effects will be in comparison to natural effects.
"Researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years."
So, it is possible then that the sun was a small part of the warming 30 years ago -- enough to get the water vapour feedback going. Or it could have been one of the other natural processes some of which contribute to the warmth that got the water feedback going.
I mention this because you say, "Since the late 70s I believe that CO2 has been the strongest factor most of the time." Perhaps this is the biggest problem of all. It is only a belief. I get what you are saying. There are many cyclical processes working together and against one another at the same time at different intensities. Some, like the sun or Milankovitch cycles can overpower all others over long periods of time. Others like large volcano eruptions affect only a short period of time. The Swindle movie even suggests that cosmic rays whose intensity varies due to the sun's magnetic field could have some level of effect indirectly through cloud production or lack thereof.
My main problem is that I can show within the data that there are times when CO2 rose, but the temperature did not. There are other times when the CO2 stayed high while the temperature dropped. There are also other observations that do suggest other natural processes are more powerful even now. These need to be addressed and the anthropogenic CO2 theory should to be proven before we waste our time fighting what could easily be natural causes over which we will have no effect.
Wayward and JMR - Both of you are highly articulate and knowledgeable on this subject. Thanks so much for this discussion.
I think what this is showing is that the debate is far from over, and that it should be encouraged in the classroom; not shut down.
Wayward, you admit that the NOAA data does not allow for the effect urban heat islands. I doubt your claim of decades to fix the problem, however a great improvement could be made very easily. Simply eliminate those stations that show a significant increase in population. Many cells will have enough stations left, and nothing else need be done. For the rest, a quick check of the exact location of the station, may provide enough information to show which stations are least likely to have their results contaminated by a UHI effect. This is not perfect, and would not help somebody who was interested in the temperature change of one of the remaining suspect cells, but it would be a distinct improvement.
As for your claim that there is no problem any way, your references don't back that up. Jones et al 1990 has to be thrown out, because he will not release the data. He is at the Climate Research institute that I mentioned earlier. The Li and Peterson papers both suffer from the same defect, they both study a small non randomly selected subset of the data, and thus they can not be deemed represenative of the whole data set.
The Parker paper is the most interesting as a suggestion that there is no problem with heat islands. He has a very plausable theory that the heat island effect will be stonger on calm days than on windy days. He then takes a world wide sample of stations, which avoids the problem of Li and Peterson, and finds no difference in most places. This would be evidence that there is no problem, except that he finds that windy days are slightly warmer in Eurasia. This result completely destroys his origional premise. However he is a real scientist, even though it invalidates his theory, he published it anyway. The most famous experiment that backfired in this way, is the Michealson-Morely experiment that was supposed to determine the absolute speed of the earth, but instead found out that the speed of light was constant.
I don't generally supply references because this is not a scientifically oriented blog. Most of Joanne's readers would probably just give up if I started getting to technical. I may be doing them a disservice by this, but I have some experience that many people have that attitude. Blame the education system for at least some of that. The Lindzen reference came from a radio interview by him, however I think I also read it somewhere else. I couldn't find it in a quick search, but I don't think it was in a scientific paper. The real world is calling, but I'll be back with more.
Swift – “Wayward, you admit that the NOAA data does not allow for the effect urban heat islands. I doubt your claim of decades to fix the problem, however a great improvement could be made very easily. Simply eliminate those stations that show a significant increase in population. Many cells will have enough stations left, and nothing else need be done. For the rest, a quick check of the exact location of the station, may provide enough information to show which stations are least likely to have their results contaminated by a UHI effect. This is not perfect, and would not help somebody who was interested in the temperature change of one of the remaining suspect cells, but it would be a distinct improvement.”
Swift, how about instead of tossing out results due to population growth in an area, your side actually do some research for a change and show that UHI is an issue. The data is there and I keep on hearing about how there is no scientific consensus because there are “so many skeptics.” Well then why is it that all of these skeptical scientists are not doing any research? Several studies have been done showing that the UHI is negligible, so there is no scientific indication for the NOAA to remove stations from their calculations. You want the NOAA to remove stations then you show them a reason to. You seem to so apt to call everything lousy science, but at the same time you want the NOAA to remove stations based on the most flimsy of evidence – your feeling that UHI is having a much greater effect then any of the scientific evidence has indicated.
“As for your claim that there is no problem any way, your references don't back that up. Jones et al 1990 has to be thrown out, because he will not release the data. He is at the Climate Research institute that I mentioned earlier.”
I can find no evidence online that that study has been “thrown out.” I have one link about data not being released (by surprise, surprise climateaudit.org) where non-scientist McIntyre requested the 17 year old data of which stations were used and is upset that the university didn’t bend over backwards to produce it for him, pointing out that most of data is already publicly available online. McIntyre also stated that the remaining data is being released
“The Li and Peterson papers both suffer from the same defect, they both study a small non randomly selected subset of the data, and thus they can not be deemed represenative of the whole data set.”
Seeing as you know this to be true I am sure you can provide me with evidence that both studies were “non random” and small. The Peterson study for instance used almost 10 times as many stations as Jones did. Furthermore if UHI is significant then it certainly does not necessitate a world-wide sample. Surely a sample of the US or China would provide the same evidence.
“The Parker paper is the most interesting as a suggestion that there is no problem with heat islands. He has a very plausable theory that the heat island effect will be stonger on calm days than on windy days. He then takes a world wide sample of stations, which avoids the problem of Li and Peterson, and finds no difference in most places. This would be evidence that there is no problem, except that he finds that windy days are slightly warmer in Eurasia. This result completely destroys his origional premise. However he is a real scientist, even though it invalidates his theory, he published it anyway. The most famous experiment that backfired in this way, is the Michealson-Morely experiment that was supposed to determine the absolute speed of the earth, but instead found out that the speed of light was constant.”
So scientific data should not be released unless it completely 100% validates your original theory? Wow if scientists were only to follow your beliefs we would still be living in close to stone age conditions. In fact very often the research leads the scientists in directions which were originally unexpected. Furthermore the research did show that throughout the world there is no area in which UHI is more than negligible. If UHI was more significant than it would have basically made it impossible for an area (like Eurasia) to be ever so slightly warmer on windy days. If UHI is negligible then it means that temperatures on windy days vs calm days should have very similar temperatures. The fact that the temperatures are more similar between windy days and calm days due to the negligible contribution from UHI makes it more likely that an area can be slightly warmer on windy days. Eg.
Lets say there are 10 areas being studied if the UHI effect is strong then you would expect to see something like:
Temperature difference between calm vs windy nights:
+1 C in 7 areas; +.7 C in 2 areas; +.5 C in one area.
But if the UHI effect is weak then it is possible to get something like this:
Temperature difference between calm vs windy nights:
+.4 C in 7 areas; +.1 C in 2 areas; -.1 C in 1 area.
The temperature range is the same between both examples I made up.
“I don't generally supply references because this is not a scientifically oriented blog. Most of Joanne's readers would probably just give up if I started getting to technical. I may be doing them a disservice by this, but I have some experience that many people have that attitude. Blame the education system for at least some of that. The Lindzen reference came from a radio interview by him, however I think I also read it somewhere else. I couldn't find it in a quick search, but I don't think it was in a scientific paper. The real world is calling, but I'll be back with more.”
Nice to see the consistency you show. A comment made by a skeptic on a radio program that does not appear to be backed up by any scientific is listed by you as a reason not to be concerned. And at the same time that you couldn’t care less about the lack of scientific process that brought Lindzen to his “conclusion,” you complain that every piece of scientific research is unscientific. Again I have showed you several scientific studies that conclude that UHI is negligible, if those papers and the methodology used are so poor then certainly a skeptic should have done a study by now refuting the conclusions of the papers I have mentioned. The fact that there is no such research study speaks volumes.
JMR – “So, it is possible then that the sun was a small part of the warming 30 years ago -- enough to get the water vapour feedback going. Or it could have been one of the other natural processes some of which contribute to the warmth that got the water feedback going.”
No. Water vapour only stays in the atmosphere for a matter of about 2 weeks not 100+ years like CO2. For your theory to have work it would need consistency would it not? What you are saying is that increased solar radiation 30 years ago would have led to a water vapour feedback cycle which is still intensifying 30 years later. If that were possible then certainly in the 1950’s when solar radiation was stronger than it was 30 years ago a similar process would have been started, but it was not. Similarly a counter factor would be able to stop the intensifying. A counter-factor such as the eruption of mount pinatubo which cooled the planet. How do you explain increased solar radiation 30 years ago leading to slightly more heat which starts a chain reaction of increased water vapour (which in turn increases heat and so on) and that chain reaction not being stopped by the 2 or 3 year cooling caused by Pinatubo? That would have broken any feedback cycle and to start the water vapour feedback cycle again would have required another forcing factor. Solar radiation was not increased in the 90s (or anytime since the 70s) so another forcing factor would be required. Of course CO2 is a forcing factor and it is increasing in the atmosphere, but that would make too much sense.
“There are also other observations that do suggest other natural processes are more powerful even now.”
Really? Name those more powerful natural processes. And who has observed this? And why are they not publishing their observations?
"How do you explain increased solar radiation 30 years ago leading to slightly more heat which starts a chain reaction of increased water vapour (which in turn increases heat and so on) and that chain reaction not being stopped by the 2 or 3 year cooling caused by Pinatubo?"
Is that your counter question to suggest that water is not the most important green house gas as wikipedia, the IPCC and others suggest? Perhaps it is one of your other "natural processes" that countered the 1991 eruption.
"Really? Name those more powerful natural processes. And who has observed this? And why are they not publishing their observations?"
Name those more powerful natural processes? If it were that easy, you would have named them yourself instead of simply calling them natural processes. Who published the observations? Vostok scientists for one. I am simply showing that there is doubt in the power of CO2.
Though you did not ask for a description of one of the observations, here is one. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png Vostok graph that shows CO2 rising from 260 to 280 ppm over the past 10,000 years while the temperature remained quite constant. It also shows that dust was negligable during that time. Can you name the natural process that kept the planet's temperature fairly consistant for 10,000 years despite forcings like CO2 increasing?
Obviously wayward son has absolutly no grasp of some of the basic concepts of statistics. He claims that you can tell there is no problem with heat islands world wide from a study that restricted to the US, or one restricted to China. For those familiar with the results of the last Canadian election here is an example of what wayward son says is possible. You can predict then total results from the results in Montreal. Or use Toronto. The results from Calgary and Edmonton are very similiar, two cities, but are they indicative of the national results? A study done on US cities does not mean that the same result will hold world wide.
You point out that Jones et al 1990 has not been rejcte This is true. And this is part of the problem: the acceptance of a study as valid when it violates a fundamental principal of science. It is not science if it does not follow the rules of science. The Jones paper is far from the only one that man-caused global warming theory depends upon that does not meet the requirements of an acceptable scientific paper.
The Parker paper suggests (but does not prove) that there is a heat island effect in Eurasia data. It disproves the theory that the lack of difference between calm and windy days implies there is no heat island effect. If we look at the raw data, if available, we might find there are cities that are much warmer on calm days in the summer but somewhat cooler on calm days the rest of the year, giving an overall neutral effect for the year. This demonstrates why data MUST be made available.
As for the value of Professor Lindzen's opinion on the amount of warming that will be caused by CO2 in the next century, it is the opinion of an expert in the field. After the disclosure of the mistakes in Mann's 1998 paper, plus other actions by Mann, such as refusing to supply information that is needed to check his results when requested to do so, I give much more weight to Dr. Lindzen's opinion than I do to Mann's. The amount of temperature rise in the next century caused by CO2 is just an opinion, no matter who makes it. The models that predict the temperature are known to be innacurate.
Until the global warming supporters stop citing papers that violate the fundamental principals of science, stop citing papers to counter criticisms that do not counter them, and stop trying to prevent any criticisms of papers by those that disagree with them, then I will not believe that there is really any solid foundation for their position. If the science is sound and the theory correct critics will fail.
If I don’t reply to future posts in a timely manner it is because the Stanley Cup finals and candidate matches (for the chess world championships) are both occurring at the same time and they take up much of my time.
JMR – “Is that your counter question to suggest that water is not the most important green house gas as wikipedia, the IPCC and others suggest? Perhaps it is one of your other "natural processes" that countered the 1991 eruption.”
I have never suggested that H20 is not the most important ghg. I have said that it is a feedback factor and I have said that water vapour stays in the air for about 2 weeks. If their was another “natural process” that countered the 1991 eruption it would have had to have been significant enough that surely some scientist or skeptic would have found that factor. None have. Similarly if there was another “natural process” which did counter Pinatubo, then we would still have to find out why the ghg’s which we are emitting into the atmosphere are not acting like ghg’s always have (the greenhouse effect). So I think that increased ghg’s acting as ghg’s are supposed to and therefore increasing heat trapping is more plausible then some some unknown “natural process” causing the warming and at the same time human ghg emissions not acting like the natural ghgs which have caused the greenhouse effect since the beginning of life.
“The Vostok graph that shows CO2 rising from 260 to 280 ppm over the past 10,000 years while the temperature remained quite constant.”
The Vostok ice cores were never meant to show an accurate measurement of CO2 over the past 10,000 years, there are far better examples for that. The Vostok ice core was meant to show a CO2 vs temperature relationship over almost a half million years. I checked the data from that ice core a long time ago. If my memory serves me right there were only 6 or 7 data points for the last 10,000 years. So it would be impossible to tell the picture of the last 10,000 years based on 7 (or less) data points. I also believe that only the last data point showed a significant rise in CO2, the other ones were basically stable. I believe that last data point has CO2 which is about 1000 years old which would be in the medieval warm period. To get a more accurate picture using ice cores would require using the data points from the last 10,000 years of all ice cores drilled to reduce the level of error.
Swift - “Obviously wayward son has absolutly no grasp of some of the basic concepts of statistics. He claims that you can tell there is no problem with heat islands world wide from a study that restricted to the US, or one restricted to China. For those familiar with the results of the last Canadian election here is an example of what wayward son says is possible. You can predict then total results from the results in Montreal. Or use Toronto. The results from Calgary and Edmonton are very similiar, two cities, but are they indicative of the national results? A study done on US cities does not mean that the same result will hold world wide.”
Are you for real? You are saying that because people in different areas vote for different political parties therefore urban heat islands should behave differently on different continents. How about gravity? Does it behave randomly? The theory of relativity? If there is no significant UHI found in the US or China then there should be no significant UHI found in other countries, unless you are implying that heat behaves significantly differently in different places. Is that what you are implying?
“You point out that Jones et al 1990 has not been rejcte This is true. And this is part of the problem: the acceptance of a study as valid when it violates a fundamental principal of science. It is not science if it does not follow the rules of science. The Jones paper is far from the only one that man-caused global warming theory depends upon that does not meet the requirements of an acceptable scientific paper.”
B.S. It is not a principal of science that methodology be released to McIntyre whenever he asks for it. Neither you or McIntyre know whether the methodology was available 17 years ago when the study was done and subject to peer review.
“The Parker paper suggests (but does not prove) that there is a heat island effect in Eurasia data.”
No it doesn’t.
“It disproves the theory that the lack of difference between calm and windy days implies there is no heat island effect.”
Ridiculous. Wind carries heat out of cities at night. If it is calm more heat remains. What it shows is that UHI is negligible, matching the other studies which have been done.
“If we look at the raw data, if available, we might find there are cities that are much warmer on calm days in the summer but somewhat cooler on calm days the rest of the year, giving an overall neutral effect for the year. This demonstrates why data MUST be made available.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. The temperature data is available and you can find it easily online. The same data which Parker used. The problem is so far skeptics haven’t bothered to do the work themselves. If skeptics felt that UHI was significant they would do a study to show that it was significant. The failure of any skeptic to take such a simple step is pretty strong indication that skeptics know they are just screaming for the sake of screaming. Instead of actually doing science, you bitch about the science of others.
“As for the value of Professor Lindzen's opinion on the amount of warming that will be caused by CO2 in the next century, it is the opinion of an expert in the field. After the disclosure of the mistakes in Mann's 1998 paper, plus other actions by Mann, such as refusing to supply information that is needed to check his results when requested to do so, I give much more weight to Dr. Lindzen's opinion than I do to Mann's.”
Who brought up Mann? There have been dozens of scientists who have done studies on what the perceived increase in temperature will be due to the projected increase in CO2. Lindzen is not one of them. So the fact is you take his unscientific “guess” as gospel while rejected all of the science that has been done.
“The amount of temperature rise in the next century caused by CO2 is just an opinion, no matter who makes it. The models that predict the temperature are known to be innacurate.”
The most recent IPCC report (fourth assessment) shows that models, while still poor at modelling precipitation patterns, are actually getting pretty good at modelling temperature trends. There have been dozens which have modelled temperature backwards to the year 1880 with pretty good accuracy. The fact that they can model backwards with temperature should mean that they can model forwards using the same factors. No one claims that a model is going to be exactly accurate in predicting temperature which is why the IPCC gives a range for temperature for a hundred years from now.
“Until the global warming supporters stop citing papers that violate the fundamental principals of science, stop citing papers to counter criticisms that do not counter them, and stop trying to prevent any criticisms of papers by those that disagree with them, then I will not believe that there is really any solid foundation for their position. If the science is sound and the theory correct critics will fail.”
So far you have shown that you know nothing about science, let alone the principles of science. Your side flings mud at the science, while failing to do any science yourselves. You complain about certain scientific reports not having their methodology released to the public, yet you used skeptics Spencer and Christy’s satellite data as the basis of your first post (something McIntyre has also frequently used as well). Their methodology has also never been released to the public (but strangely McIntyre is not demanding that) and the frequent errors which have been fixed have been found by scientists who had not seen their methodology (as Christy admits that only RSS has seen their methodolgy, that was recently and it was only part of it).
You said at least a couple of times that water vapour only stays in the atmosphere for a matter of about 2 weeks. That is not the whole story. There is much more water in the air it is constantly cycling. As water is removed from the air as rain, more is replaced. To say that a single water molecule stays in the atmosphere for only two weeks as though it is not constantly being replaced is misleading.
You said that from 1945 to 1975, the sun caused the cooling of the planet. You suggest that the rise in CO2 from 310 to 330 ppm was not enough to counter this effect since the sun's effect is much stronger.
I went back to the Vostok data. While it was never meant to show an accurate measurement of CO2 over the past 10,000 years, it does show the trend. Sadly, there are few data points for CO2. They don't exist for every meter like the Temperature readings. I would love to know of a better source of data that I can download. If is is good enough to show a correlation before 10,000 years, then why not after that time too? While the temps go right up to 1950, the latest CO2 value is 284.7 ppm from 5679 years before 1950. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png graph is of the Vostok data. You can clearly see the rise in CO2 there.
In parts per million, the CO2 concentration was
182.2 at year 24315
259.6 at year 11334 (12981 years)
310.0 in 1950 (from non-vostok data)
With 1950's temperature representing 0, the temperature difference in Celcius was
-8.68 at year 24272
-0.27 at year 11334 (12938 years)
0 in 1950
An 8.41 C increase in temperature had an 77.4 ppm increase in CO2 concentration for about the same time period. Meanwhile, the past 10,000 years saw a 50 ppm increase (260 to 310 ppm) in CO2 and a fairly consistent temperature. You suggested that other natural processes, like Milankovitch cycles, affected the first period. What about the second period? The sea level data also confirms the leveling off. My question still is why would the past 11334 years have been so consistent? What natural process kept the effect of rising CO2 on temperatures to a minimum? My suggestion is that CO2's effect is essentially negligible -- closer to the 9% than the 26% that wikipedia has for CO2.
I think wayward son should do some research on the scientific method before he makes any more comments. He can start by checking out the Wikipedia article. The he should take a good university course in logcal arguements. ♠When he finds out how real scientists do their work, and can differentiate between valid and invalid arguements, he will know why I find the evidence for CO2 causing global warming is completely unconvincing.
I wasn’t going to bother responding because I have no intent on continuing this conversation.
Swift with his belief that all climate scientists are not conducting proper science, yet he and McIntyre (two non-scientists) can judge what proper science involves, is so laughable and complete stupidity. It reminds me of meeting a guy outside of Toronto city hall once who told me that he was being followed by silent and invisible CIA helicopters. I think that he believed what he said, as I suppose one might if you are living in a mind that believes that the whole world is a conspiracy and at the same time believe that you are of some great importance. If swift seriously believes that the scientific consensus on climate change came about through a vast conspiracy of improper science by scientists who have years of training (compared to swift’s likely high school science education) then I can safely put him in the same group with the guy I met outside city hall. There is a reason why long time skeptics like Ronald Bailey (who has written about a dozen books trashing environmentalists, environmentalism and climate change – many of which I have read) have changed their mind and are now calling for action concluding that “Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.” There is a reason why both “skeptic magazine” and “the Skeptical Inquirer magazine” (which had both long been very skeptical of human caused climate change) have in the last 2 years changed their position and now say that there is no legitimate skeptical research opposing the scientific consensus (the reason is because there really is NO legitimate skeptical research). Both magazines have dedicated whole issues to showing that the current skepticism is trash and “junk science” and that the real science is overwhelming. There is a reason why even head in sand politicians like Stephen Harper have had to admit that climate change is real. You would see the reasons too swift if you bothered to look at research and information from a greater range of sites than “climateaudit” but I don’t expect you to so, as that is what normal intelligent people would do and conspiracy theorists have a tendency to avoid what normal and intelligent people would do.
JMR – simply put there is no sense trying to match CO2 increases caused by temperature increases with temperature increases caused by CO2 increases. While either one can cause the other, that does not mean that the increases must be the same. Going back through the Vostok ice core it is easy to see that the maximum that natural warming has been able to increase CO2 is to about 280 or 285. In the current alignment of the continents it may be very hard for nature to push through that limit by expanding plant growth etc. It is easy for us to push through that limit of 285 because we take carbon from deep within the planet and burn it, nature can’t do that.
Post a Comment