Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated
Mark Twain, ever the wry observer of human nature, once famously quipped that “everybody complains about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it.” (Actually, Twain was quoting the essayist and novelist Charles Dudley Warner, but the colorful humorist gets credit for the line.) Whoever deserves the credit, the point was that there is a folly to human arrogance and some things cannot be “fixed,” are outside of the powers of man. The weather, for example, is governed by forces beyond human control.
But the arrogance of the race is boundless, and there are those who actually believe that man is in the process of destroying the Earth’s weather, or at least climate. Al Gore, the leader of the Gang Green, tramps about the planet in his fuel-guzzling, greenhouse gas-spewing jets to tell people that the world is burning — his speeches are usually given on days of bitter cold — because they are living too extravagantly by, well, heating their homes when cold and driving their cars to work. James Hansen of NASA gives hysterical lectures to Congress and the news media, claiming we face fire and brimstone. Repeatedly we have been told we have ten years left, starting in the 1980s; much like those old end-of-the-world preachers, the date for the end time keeps extending.
In short, there are people who believe that, yes indeedy, we can do something about the weather, or at least the climate. If we just live more frugally, share our wealth, eat lots of natural foods like tofu and pine nuts, and hold hands while visualizing world peace, we can bring carbon dioxide and methane levels down and the world will become a pastoral paradise.
The Gang Green — those who believe that man is destroying the planet via our release of industrial emissions — have struggled to convince the populace that their viewpoint, based almost entirely on computer simulations and not on actual recorded data, is correct. (I often refer to global warming as the Goldilocks theory; if it is too hot, too cold, or just right it must be global warming!) Every time Al Gore gives a speech the temperature drops into single digits. We haven’t had any real planetary warming since 1998, and this year has been unseasonably cool, a likely result of an anemic sunspot cycle and reversals in wind and wave oscillations in the Pacific. So the alarmists are forced to making desperate pronouncements designed to panic the average Joe.
One issue that they’ve employed to good advantage is the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. Just run a quick Google search on “Arctic sea ice vanishing” and you will find a series of breathless warnings of coming doom and pictures of drowning polar bears. The alarmist will triumphantly point to the opening of the Northwest Passage and the unusually low ice levels of 2007 and 2008, claiming this is absolute proof that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is wrecking the planet. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for example, recently released a dire warning that “between 1.5 and 2 trillion tons of ice have melted in Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska” and that this proves that we are in the throes of a man-made crisis, one that will trigger massive sea level rise as polar ice melts away. Clearly human greenhouse gas emissions are becoming a planetary emergency.
But are they?
Climate Science, the weblog of climatologist Roger Pielke Sr., discusses the issue of Arctic sea ice melt and explains why the freeze and thaw dates are important to establishing whether ice loss/gain is related to greenhouse gases.
The upshot of his argument is that the start of the freeze-up should come later in the fall, as the melt should likewise begin earlier. It’s not simply a matter of how much ice is lost, but when it is lost.
Dr. Pielke Sr. quotes from a recent paper on the matter:
Indeed, this is what is claimed in a recent talk by Mark C. Serreze of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences/National Snow and Ice Data Center (CIRES/NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder (November 10, 2008, titled “The Emergence of Arctic Amplification”) …
The abstract includes the statement “As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens.”
So, we should be able to discern if the season is actually lengthening by examining the melt/thaw dates.
Which is precisely what William Chapman, author of the Chryosphere Today blog, has done.
Here is a table showing the melt and thaw periods with the minimum and maximum ice level dates starting in 1979; you will note that this year’s maximum was equal to 1981 (at .1943), and the minimum at .6876 is likewise equal to 1981. So, does that mean we are in a greenhouse warming cycle reminiscent of 27 years prior?
Actually, the chart shows no discernible pattern whatsoever, with 1985 representing the high for the maximum and 2005 representing the nadir of the minimum, a close second to 1985. In short, there is no evidence for an increase in warming — at least not in regards to when sea ice freezes and melts.
One way or another, something has to be done about all kinds of pollution.
Just go to Mexico City or Beijing, then go to the Pacific Northwest. Compare.
What a joke. The MSM reports with great zeal the spring and summer artic melt, but fails to follow up with stories of the annual freeze. Leaving the avarage person to believe the ice is only melting…
Track the ice:
http://nsidc.org/
and educate a liberal
Lots of luck selling this; The socialist media have the upper hand in voluminous propaganda, and the left nut cases can’t be bothered by factual evidence or even God himself.
It shall be miraculous if the U.S. survives the next 4 years with these incompetent buffoons. We will probably get “mugged” by some mullah from Iran coming to our shores telling Congress and the White House to surrender and no one will get hurt.
And please don’t tell these nuts anything about “spring tides”.
Vivo;, why do you mention only the opposite ends of the spectrum? There is a middle ground where modern civilization can exist without massive pollution or Luddite extremism. A question for you vivo, do you drive cars?, eat food?, occupy a heated or cooled living space?, wear clothes etc?. Then you also contribute to pollution. But you seem to be a holier than thou nut case that thinks their shit doesn’t stink. Do you exhale co2?. The only way to save mother nature my friend is to kill yourself because your very existence stresses the planet. Get buried my friend and return your carbon to mother Earth and stop exhaling it into the atmosphere. Come on, don’t be a pussy, be a person of your convictions, end it all for all our benefit.
You are an idiot, plain and simple….nuff said.
Thank goodness for all that “global warming” otherwise we’d be freezing even more this winter.
This past week the American Geophysical Union had its large annual fall meeting, where there were very many papers presented on the Arctic (as well as a multitude of topics covering geophysics.)
You can go to the meetings website here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm08/ The various web pages under “Scientific Program” have links to abstracts. Furthermore, there is a huge online resource (virtually all scientific papers written in English are available online.)
If anyone is truly interested in these topics (arctic, ice, climate change), I suggest actually looking at what the earth scientists are saying, and not political polemicists such as Mr. Birdnow.
There are several problems with this article by Mr. Birdnow, not the least of which is a very spotty survey of the actual research and data of the topics included in this entry.
If only one baby polar bear is saved from physical harm, mental anguish or emotional scaring, then all our effort will have been worth it!
What is it with right wingers/conservatives and science these days? You can count on a maimed hand the number of scientists legitimately involved in climate research worldwide who have any real doubts about there being an anomalous global warming trend and mankind’s role in it. You guys act like scientists are somehow just liberals with a secret agenda, so it’s fair game to do whatever you can to combat, including parsing out random bits of info from the Internet out of context, and then do your own homemade “interpretation” of the data.
Climate science is messy and complicated, but the trends are not exactly in doubt:
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html
Show me a scientist that believes we can do something about climate change, and I’ll raise you two who do not.
Only when the waves are lapping at Wall Street in Manhattan will the right wing zealots believe that global warming is real and the nit will be too late. There are islands in the Pacific that are being covered by sea water and the people are having to immigrate and the same is true for the Inuit in the far North of Alaska. Is this caused by man? The evidence suggest that it is due the accelerated rate of warming over the past 100 years of industrialization. Even if it weren’t to take measures now and get off fossil fuels seems to be prudent in that we could eliminate wars for oil and air pollution.
Great article, but I take exception to one point. Maybe we can do something about the weather, at least eventually (we can already travel in space). The question is should we? As of now, this would be an extraordinary waste of resources.
Now energy independence is a different matter….
freetoken, who talks of the annual fall meeting of some group or another in a way that tells us he doesn’t know whether, like the autumn freezing of Arctic and Antarctic ice packs, it happens seasonally or once a year and — the while promoting the the political/religious agenda of a bunch of self-serving Earth worshipping faux-religion advocating nutjobs he dares to call “scientists — calls Mr Birdnow a “political polemicist.”
BC, meanwhile, takes a similar swipe at Truth Tellers (whom he calls “right wingers/conservatives) — and talks of “science” and of “scientists” in a manner that convinces us Truth Tellers only that he believes what he calls “science” to be the counting of the votes and the expression of the majority opinion of those he calls the “scientists.”
Every one of which empty headed lusters after power stands to benefit by way of increased unearned political power, by becoming more secure, career wise and/or by obscenely profiting from what is rapidly becoming, like social “security,” a Two Trillion Dollar per year scam.
Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles – CalifUBAMAcated 90028 and the Far Abroad
Timothy Birdnow = IDIOT!
He must have done his research at the Whitehouse with GWB!
Reminiscent of another quote attributed to Mark Twain: “There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”.
DEAR BC: Oh yes, count on one maimed hand. Do you include the 31,000 scientists who signed on to the conference this past year in opposition to the UN’s climate change conference upon that maimed hand? Are you counting them? Yes, 31,000 signed on to provide an opposition to the theory that mankind is the cause of “global warming” or “climate change”, or whatever nonsense is being spewed about the weather nowadays. Maimed. Yes. Now try to debunk me.
I somehow doubt you’ll see any major media outlet pick up this report, which was recently released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Minority Ranking Member Sen. Inhofe. The report titled, U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent OverMan-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9) demonstrates, rather effectively, that the debate over man-made Global Warming is far from over – contrary to popular belief. I suspect the G.W. fundamentalists will outright dismiss this as a “right-wing” propagandist document designed to sow seeds of doubt. However, that has been the problem with the debate from the outset, it lacked any truly open and transparent dialogue and the movement has been co-opted by people with an agenda that conveniently uses Global Warming as the mechanism to get their initiatives instituted. Whether you’re a Global Warming believer or not, I urge you to be open to each sides’ argument and open to the prospect that there are other points of view.
The Scholar
Ex scientia lux
(From Knowledge Light)
http://www.thescholarsforum.org
Vivo writes: “Just go to Mexico City or Beijing, then go to the Pacific Northwest. Compare”
Well, well…it apears that the pollution problems you cite belong to Mexico and China. Evidently, the Americans of the Pacific Northwest have their pollution “problem” under control, thank you very much. I live in America, thus care almost totally about the interests on my country. Why are you concerned for the pollution problems in Mexico City or Beijing? Have you ever been to those places? An old man once told me to “forget about you neighbor’s backyard and concentrate on cleaning up your own.” Wise words, indeed. And that’s the problem here. Unless you’re actually from those places, why concern yourself with what the Chinese and Mexican People do to the air in their largest cities. Now I know what you’ll say in response – you’ll cite wind patterns and argue that the pollution wafts to our land, or put forth some other specious argument to “prove” how we Americans, and all mankind, are effected by the emissions of Toyotas somewhere far, far away. Please spare me….
My god this is a steaming pile of stupid.
JUst a couple points:
“It should be pointed out that GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record.”
Confusing world and US temps are we? 1998 was the hottest year on record by far–until 2005. NASA never proclaimed 1998 the hottest year in the US.
“I’ll put my money on the IPCC in this instance.”
Typical rightwing hypocrisy. The IPCC is a scam unless it agrees with your POV.
“Oh, and glaciers in Norway were making a dandy recovery until someone tampered with the graph…”
Oh, it’s a conspiracy! COMMUNISTS ARE TAMPERING WITH OUR GRAPHS1!!111111!!!!
Thank goodness this point of view is pretty much irrelevant.
Dear BORIS: You know, thousands of years ago there were huge glaciers that extended well into what we call Wisconsion. Check a map out to determine the location. It’s pretty far south of the polar ice cap. Any hoo, the glaciers melted and left behind some spectacular landscape. The area is presently called the Kettle-Moraine. And amazingly, the glaciers never made a “recovery”. Are glaciers supposed to do that? Recover? I thought they grew and then receded, and often disappearing. “Recovery”? Hmmmm? We should start government subsidized “glacier recovery program”.
“Thank goodness this point of view is pretty much irrelevant.”
Thank goodness you understand English. Oh wait, you don’t. The sentence I’ve quoted above is devoid of any meaningful content. Look up the word “irrelevant” before you use it the next time.
And, keep in mind, no matter how popular a scientific theory is, only facts win out in the end. Does anyone really need to list for you the reams of scientific facts (consensus opinions all) that were swept away when newer, smarter, better theories came along to explain things?
My personal favorite is the tectonic plate theory. At one time, the ideas of the people who thought that the Americas and Africa were joined in the geologic past were “irrelevant”, to use your poor choice of words. Static continents was the only game in town. I daresay there was a greater consensus around that idea than there has ever been for the AGW theory. And yet, it was completely, entirely and utterly wrong. The fact that it was believed by thousands of geologists didn’t mean a thing, except to make the geologists smugly complacent. When one person with the truth came along, all those thousands were swept away.
The lesson is that overweening pride and hubris, whether in service to one theory or another, is a mistake. If science isn’t humble in the face of the complexity of nature, it’s asking for trouble. You, and everyone like you who forgets that lesson, should heed the warnings of history.
Dear James,
I didn’t use the word “recovery.” Note the quotation marks and address yourself to Timothy.
Dear kcom,
By your logic, we can get rid of all theories we don’t like. Evolution? Bah–remember plate tectonics?!? Germ theory of disease? PLATE TECTONICS!! In fact, when the experts tell us something, we should do the opposites because, one time, the experts were wrong.
That your nonsense comes with a prescriptive lexicographical viewpoint is hardly surprising.
stick that head a little deper in the sand you republican moron.
All I can say is wow. Absolute verification that a PhD doesn’t make you intelligent. The climate of the Earth is changing. Does it really matter whether we are the cause or not? The question you should be asking is, how is it going to impact things on a global scale? Who is going to run out of water, and who is going to have too much? How are these things going to impact the world socially?
If we are the cause, change isn’t going to happen anywhere near fast enough (thanks in a big part to people like you) even if people DID jump behind it 100%. If we aren’t the cause, then there’s likely nothing we can do about it and we had better start dealing with the changes rather than just blowing it off or arguing. By the time most of the world population gets enough “proof” that they need to do something, it will be WAY too late to make meaningful changes sociologically without major violence. But doing nothing is moronic. Call me a doomsayer, scream chicken-little bias all you want, but DO something to HELP instead of mouthing off at the people we hire to to tell us what’s going on with our world.
There is the science of global warming, and then there’s the politics. The science points to a gradual warming trend but it’s difficult to say what’s causing it, how fast its occurring, or what the real impact is on the environment and economy. The science certainly isn’t there to support the more outrageous claims like ten foot higher sea levels, droughts and massive hurricanes, etc.
Then there’s the politics. If global warming were really a crisis that needed to be averted immediately then there’s most likely an efficient private or free market solution to it, as there is to most of society’s other problems. People could certainly shift on their own to green products just like a lot of people are buying organics, or create foundations that research and fund potential solution. If the government did want to get involved the most efficient way would be to give tax credits for research related to energy efficiency, emissions reduction, clean energy production, etc or simply reduce regulations related to nuclear and hydro.
But the conclusion that we are being asked by our government to accept, which is that in order to prevent planetary destruction we must immediately raise taxes on American industry and transportation, fund new national and international bureaucracies, and transfer wealth from countries with industry to those without, is nonsensical. It’s simply a blatant power grab of the productive sector of society by those who have created nothing and mismanaged what they do have. It must be resisted unless you want corrupt Kofi-Annan-style bureaucrats shoveling your money to their favorite cronies while your children wear sweaters all day and three blankets to bed.
“The science points to a gradual warming trend but it’s difficult to say what’s causing it”
You couldn’t be more wrong. The science says that it is very likely that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels has caused the warming trend and it is very likely that it will continue–and get worse. Every scientific organization that studies the earth has issued a statement in support of this theory.
If the science is there then please feel free to share your model that takes as input a level of CO2 and outputs a rise in temperature and sea level and then let’s track its performance over the next five years. I hope your model is a lot better than the IPCC’s model or the original Al Gore “hockey stick” which have both been completely discredited.
BORIS: my apologies in attributing to you the words of another. I am humbled…
I would like Hannah Stevens to back up her claim about Pacific Islands being covered in water. She can’t because It’s an ugly lie to be believed only by the laziest amongst us.
But please share your knowledge with us and be specific. Which island? How much sea rise? In short, back up your silly assertion.
Recent ACTUAL observations of sea levels in these island purported to be awash with rising sea levels proves no sea rise has occurred. There is in fact evidence sea levels have dropped.
The only evidence of Global warming can be found in IPCC computer models. The IPCC will not release the method for their models. Wonder why?
There is nothing I enjoy more than the assured pronouncements of people like Boris, Hannah, Green Giant, Marjorie and BC that any questioner of AGW is a conservative luddite, a denier of proven truth, ignorant of all science, and a Bush/GOP shill. The very nature of their comments proves beyond question that they have no idea what they are talking about. While cogent arguments can be made both for and against AGW (or more recently the preferred topic of “Climate Change”) these people are not capable of such and should remember the old adage about it being better to be thought stupid than to open their mouths, thus removing all doubt.
And Dan. Lord, let us not forget Dan!
Mother Earth will be well long after man has gone the way of the dinosaur. The arrogance of people who think that mankind is a major cause of GW is only exceeded by their inability to think for themselves, and their ignorance of natural history.
Must say I do not believe man can change the climate. I will say that man should keep it clean though and we in the US do this better than anywhere else. To those of you who think this is a problem I honestly ask this question….Why is it called Greenland? It’s covered in snow and ice. How did those who first landed there (the Vickings maybe in their famous ships) and named it come to call it that? See if it was not frozen back then could there be trends in climate that take hundreds of years to work there way thru..and could we be in one now?
There is something very wrong with a mentality that loves useless ice but hates useful oil and coal. Even polar bears get along fine without ice when they live in zoos. I livre on the Florida coast and s no evidence of changing sea levels, and they would have to rise everwhere at the same time, not just at remote Pacific islands.
26. therealist;
Nice monologue. But I’m afraid you are trying to preach to people who believe in the Easter Bunny. We are drifting into a very hazardous mindset, here in the U.S. Lulled into stupidity by so called “Authorities”. Critical thinking, logical thinking, and comprehensive reading is going into the history books. People really believe every thing they read on the internet that falls into their realm of experience. And some have never read a good novel. Hey; The intelligent people are being discriminated against!
“By your logic, we can get rid of all theories we don’t like.”
No, I’m saying we have to keep in mind that nothing in science is set in stone. The experts have been wrong time after time after time (not just the specific instance I mentioned), in many different fields. Of course, they’ve been right time after time after time, as well. Which theories were wrong and which theories were right has often only become clear in hindsight, many times years after the initial disagreement. My complaint with you and others is your complete lack of humility in the face of a long history of such situations. Those who can’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, remember? If you believe you are right, make your arguments, but saying any counterargument to your belief is “irrelevant” is hubris. Humiiltiy and recognition of human fallibility (as I said, demonstrated on more than one occasion in science) is a valuable lesson to learn by all involved. If you’re right, time will prove the case. If you’re wrong, nothing you can say to dismiss your opponents will matter.
“prescriptive lexicographical”?
Who challenged a liberal to use a dictionary?
Next time ask them to look up “outre”
kcom,
That’s all fine and good–and of course AGW could be proven wrong in the future. However, this article misrepresents the science and concocts conspiracy theories to explain away inconvenient facts. That’s the point of view that is irrelevant.
Roger,
“Great article”
No, Roger, it’s crap.
#1) Pielke Sr. re melt-season length, flashes a table of figures as if it means something absent any trend analysis, uses the unusual definition of dates of ice extent maxima and minima (compared to the norm of surface air temperatures above and below melting point), and ignores at least three papers that use either surface or satellite measurments to show that the melt-season length trend is positive! So this guy (Birdnow) presumably used Google Scholar and found those other papers, and chose not to discuss their results, why? Or, he didn’t look for contradictory points of view, why?
– You guys are supposed to be better than the MSM.
#2) “the chart shows no discernible pattern whatsoever, with 1985 representing the high for the maximum and 2005 representing the nadir of the minimum, a close second to 1985″
… a trend is not the difference between two points, and visual inspection is not reliable or a replacement for trend-analysis.
#3) The claim “that GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”
They did not proclaim 1998 the hottest year, nor did they bury the temperature anomaly-correction. This was fisked long ago. Why are you not checking your sources?
– You guys are supposed to be better than the MSM.
#4) “It must be understood that the Arctic is subject to the effects of the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, the El Niño Southern Oscillation, etc.
[...]
There is every reason to believe that these cycles were warming the Arctic and that the recent reversal of these cycles will eventually lead to more ice.”
Yes, the Arctic Oscillation partially effects surface air temperatures and sea ice in the Arctic region. Radiative forcing due to increased CO2 also effects both SAT and sea ice directly *and* indirectly by changing the strength of the Arctic Oscillation. Disaggregating radiative forcing from AO effects is difficult, if not impossible. The impacts of AO have been quantified in many papers. Why doesn’t the author use google scholar and report these results?
#5) … “It is also reasonable to conclude that much of the warming we have witnessed — especially in the Northern Hemisphere — during the 20th century is at least partly attributable to these same oscillations.”
Nonsense. A regional *oscillation* cannot drive a hemispheric or global *trend* in sea and air (troposphere) temperatures, which implies an increase in heat content. The additional heat must come from somewhere. Oscillations just shift/redistribute the heat.
#5) “The Gang Green — those who believe that man is destroying the planet via our release of industrial emissions — have struggled to convince the populace that their viewpoint, based almost entirely on computer simulations and not on actual recorded data, is correct.”
Temperature rise due to CO2, and ocean acidification, result from simple radiative physics and chemistry, using “recorded data”. The “computer simulations” (presumable he’s talking of GCMs) simulate the spatial and time-evolution of such changes.
There are many, many, many more errors in the article which could have been corrected by 1) reading one of many excellent introductory climate physics books, 2) reading an IPCC report, 3) reading climate-science blogs and other sources.
Roger, I appreciate the aim of Pajamas Media as an open-source citizen-journalist effort to ‘send the MSM down the river’. At this time, for this issue (and speaking of other articles on this site too), you guys barely reach the level of WSJ op-eds, i.e. you can’t go much lower! Seriously, the quality is about as good a the reporting by leftist media on the Iraq war.
Please shape-up.
What becomes clear upon reading the comment thread is the inability of the “believers” to refrain from rhetorical constructions (a la Lazar’s “Please shape-up” (although I have to admit I never knew “shape-up” had a hyphen, since I always thought it was “shape up”. As Lazar’s phrasing stands, I think he’s made a noun out of a verb phrase. Maybe it’s the vocative and he’s addressing the great shape-up in the sky.)), which are hardly befitting the weight of the issue at hand, which is nothing less than the future of our modern way of life.
You simply can’t have modern social life as we know it in an “environmentally correct” society. Most of the parasitic losers that make up the environmentalist movement would never survive under such a “might makes right” context (which is essentially what all social contexts were until very, very recently in history, and I would argue that at least part of the reason was because there was never a cheap source of energy like fossil fuels, so human energy, in the form of slavery, was the next best thing. It’s probably not a coincidence that the end of human slavery and the beginning of the fossil fuel era are nearly contemporaneous). So, in essence, environmentalists are asking the human race to regress, but that very regression will mean their extinction or enslavement at the hands of less “sensitive” souls. Just look at the social mores that prevail in pre-modern parts of the world today.
It is really quite simple–
If you believe in MMGW, make the appropriate lifestyle changes.
and let me live my life how I want to live. My freedom trumps your theories.
From Yahoo answers: The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls (slaves), set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland (“Greenland”), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland (“Ground-land”) on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt (“Ground”), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green, at least in summer.
And to those who believe we can not effect the weather, climate explain the dust bowl in the 1920- “The event’s major cause was the expansion of agriculture and inappropriate methods of cultivation, which in turn has been linked to the proliferation of small farms promoted by the Homestead Act of 1862.” Wikipedia. Granted the drought was a normal cycle for the region but man made it much worse and interfered with the enviroment method of maintaining the top soil.
Let me put Global Warming in the longest personal perspective I can. I was born 75 years ago. In that year – 1933 – the average temperature in the U.S. ( we do not have reliable global averages for that year, but the U.S. temperature is a good proxy )was almost exactly the same as this year ( 2008 ). In the intervening years temperature was about 1 degree Fahrenheit higher twice ( in 1934 and 1998 ) and 1 degree Fahrenheit lower ( in 1975 ) once. During this period atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration – which is supposed to cause the temperature increase – went up by almost 30%. Does not look to me a good correlation.
5. Mike:
You are right: I pollute, but I’m not the one building diesel trucks or smoky factories and throwing garbage all over the place. What’s wrong with minimizing CO2 and planting trees?
19. James:
“Why are you concerned for the pollution problems in Mexico City or Beijing?”
Oh, boy! Don’t you realize that we all live on Earth? What happens on one end impacts another end. We are not an isolated bubble. Your idiotic thinking is pitiful. And, of course, we have to be concerned with our local practices.
You need to educate yourself. It makes your brief life better.
venividivici,
“What becomes clear”
… is your desire to distract and confuse the discussion.
“which are hardly befitting the weight of the issue at hand”
… such as quibbling over a hyphen. Lemme see, changing the discussion from one of climate facts and journalism, from one of facts to one of “rhetoric”, to “will to power”, and throw in some language quibbling… I’m guessing you’re a regular at Protein Wisdom! Copy-and-paste without any thought as usual.
Did you think no one would notice your ‘reply’ is devoid of content?
More embarrassing recent stuff…
“British upper class twits saving the planet”
“not a shred of evidence to suggest that the modest warming of the last hundred years or so is outside the natural range of variation in the earth’s temperature, or is man-made”
“Will Obama betray environmentalists?”
“The worldwide economic slowdown is causing a long-overdue reevaluation of global warming (if such warming even exists)”
And from this article…
“During the summer, the doomsayers — particularly the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado — and their minions in the mainstream media”
The doomsayers and the minions. Do PM editors really read this stuff and not cringe?
Now this a good Pajamas Media article… about the necessity of checking sources, and reading both sides in their own words.
Two cents more;
The “Authorities” have been subjects in our so called education system and taught bias by biased professionals; They then work for agencies and firms that have their agenda for profit; These professional authorities then program the computers and take polls with the end results predetermined. If your employer doesn’t practice the agenda you like, find another employer who does, or start your own business that can implement your desired agenda. And then you find a sympathetic legislator that will direct federal and local funding in your direction. (Indeed, this applies to many other articles, but, since there are so many authorities and agencies cited here, it applies.)
Any authoritative treatise should be examined with caution taking into consideration the possible end results desired by its authors.
Even my own.
We the People are still subjects of some ones agenda, but we still do have a secret ballot and a few liberties left.
Lazar:
Lemme see, changing the discussion from one of climate facts and journalism, from one of facts to one of “rhetoric”, to “will to power”, and throw in some language quibbling… I’m guessing you’re a regular at Protein Wisdom! Copy-and-paste without any thought as usual.
Did you think no one would notice your ‘reply’ is devoid of content?
My reply was devoid of content you could understand, clearly. My point is that trying to separate social relations from energy availability is a non-starter in any historiographical context, leaving the question of what type of social relations would prevail under an “environmentally correct” regime to be answered by looking at what forms of energy are considered “environmentally correct” and are feasible within my lifetime. The answers lead me to inevitably conclude that there will need to be a radical reordering of society to meet the new energy needs of a world based on “environmentally correct” ideological constructs. Unless you have an alternative hypothesis of how the world will “look” when we put in place all these emissions-limiting schemes, I’m not really interested in your opinion of my “reply”.
As for engaging with your “facts”, there’s no point. The earth has stopped warming and that is because the sun has stopped warming it, as is proven by temperature activity on other planets in the solar system. The proportion of warming cause by human activity was always very low, but the costs of ceasing that activity are very high. Environmentalists are the new Khmer Rouge and I don’t recall Cambodians being able to discourse dispassionately with the Khmer Rouge, so what’s the point of my bothering with the likes of you? 10 years from now, the earth will be colder and you’ll still be talking about warming, so obviously there’s a disconnect between reality and the words that come out of your mouth so large as to make it a waste of my time to try rectifying it.
To Tom:
It’s called “Global Warming,” not “US Warming”. The average temp for the US has indeed not changed very dramatically the past several decades, but worldwide it has, especially in the far northern regions. But even in the US, if you have been paying attention, you should have noticed little things like this:
http://arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
venividivici,
“The earth has stopped warming and that is because the sun has stopped warming it, as is proven by temperature activity on other planets in the solar system. The proportion of warming cause by human activity was always very low”
I’m amazed that those who repeat such trivially wrong nonsense as the above (four factual errors) also believe they know better than scientists; without ever having picked up a book on climate physics, engaged a basic course of study, read any science papers, or read any of the many pop-science summaries.
Dunning-Kruger effect?
“there’s no point.”
Quite.
I’m amazed that those who repeat such trivially wrong nonsense as the above (four factual errors) also believe they know better than scientists; without ever having picked up a book on climate physics, engaged a basic course of study, read any science papers, or read any of the many pop-science summaries.
I guess I missed all those citations to your work in the field of global climate dynamics you cited in your posts. Yeah, right. I also missed your citations of papers that show my conclusions about the sun and the relative proportion of human activity causing global warming. You “say”, but you don’t “show”. Which is exactly what someone does when the facts aren’t on their side.
I don’t agree with Crowley’s suggestion at the end to “keep fighting warming”, which I think is akin to saying “keep fighting your shadow”, and I’m not even sure that even if we pumped out twice as much carbon as we do now it’d make a difference, but evidence is increasingly pointing to an emerging Ice Age.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html
Notice their study is being published in “Nature” not “Greenpeace Quarterly”, which I would imagine is your idea of intellectual fare.
I know how to critically read the works of experts in various fields and assimilate their points and counter-points to reach a decision. It’s called being an “educated layman”. You might want to try it sometime.
Everything you think is wrong. Deal with it.
Boris:
Kcom,
That’s all fine and good–and of course AGW could be proven wrong in the future. However, this article misrepresents the science and concocts conspiracy theories to explain away inconvenient facts. That’s the point of view that is irrelevant.
Pretty good response.
I don’t know haw much AGW contributes to NET GW. I like to think we should start on areas of commonality before listening to exteme believers or extreme deniers.
Facts:
1. We are in a global warming trend.
2. CO2 is on a sharply upwards path and that can definitely be traced to human population growth, deforestation, and use of fossil fuels. (Hint: NOT a function of Evviiiiil Americans and their Evviiil SUVs.)
3. All the climate models employ great complexity, as years go by they add more variables then realize more exist and that certain factors may have synergy in certain circumstances. And they cannot state without doubt that CO2 alone is responsible for X, Y, or Z level of the warming. But they can state as scientists that CO2 definitely appears to be a factor in results of almost all climate models varying by level of CO2 and examination of historical periods of high CO2 concentration – like the Jurassic Age – also having high temps.
That said, we have AGE extremists that see it as a religion and those lacking Gorebulbs in all light sockets or failing to own a Prius or reuse grocery bags are sinful Americans. Who combine it with stupid instistance the country can run on solar and wind, and the world is free to continue it’s population explosion (1.5 billion in 1900, 9 billion in 2030).
On the other extreme, you have Right Wingers who say the more people the better, since it means the more GNP..And AGW is just a big lie from all those lying scientists who don’t know the Earth has limitless resources, Jesus will take care of us, any problem is easily solved by “New Miracle Technology”…
It seems to be the most prudent thing is to accept that human overpopulation and attendent AGW, resource depletion, arable land &acquifer losses and pollution effects – MAY indeed drive us to ecological disaster and cause mass species extinctions and put a good deal of humanity in dire circumstances. But the facts aren’t clear at all on how urgent the problem is and we risk wrecking our futures by adopting the most extreme environmental measures in a way we do more damage than by preparing for major actions, but deferring on them as much as possible.
In the interim, we should understand that:
10 MPH cars are not a bold statement of our Jesus-Given American Freedoms!!! – but a brainless squandering of resources.
That a Somali woman with 17 children seeking to come to the US, with endless planeloads of others, because a million others like her with 13 million offspring have destroyed their native ecosystem – is not a good thing. Nor overpopulation turning Mexico City, Lagos, Tinshin into hellholes.
That evironmentalists are stupid to try and put all the AGW “moral onus” on America while giving the 3rd world a pass.
venividivici,
“I missed all those citations”
‘Your’ conclusions are the same stuff copypasted everywhere from conservative activist blogs and forums. Trivially wrong, and trivially easy to find out why. There are sites dedicated to debunking those type of claims. If you care for the truth, you will test your information and check your sources and not wait to be spoonfed the answers. Google is your friend.
“but evidence is increasingly pointing to an emerging Ice Age.”
$100 says you read the MSM spin not the paper in Nature. How do I know?
Because the results rely on a climate sensitivity to CO2 which you deny.
Because the results show that an “emerging Ice Age” only occurs if CO2 concentrations are 2/3rds of their present value.
Do you perhaps not give a damn about the science?
‘Your’ conclusions are the same stuff copypasted everywhere from conservative activist blogs and forums.
Shoot the messenger much?
I love how your link is to Google Scholar, not a specific page. Typical of the exchange thus far. Here’s a newsflash for you: I know how to do research, so if you’ve got a paper that’s a “category killer” in the realm of global warming and shows conclusively that it’s both happening still and directly related to human activity, link it already. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing but the hot air coming out of your mouth.
$100 says you read the MSM spin not the paper in Nature. How do I know?
Because the results rely on a climate sensitivity to CO2 which you deny.
The point of going to that particular study versus other studies is to show that even those who think CO2 is a major contributor to global warming can’t maintain the hoax anymore. Studies that prioritize solar activity over human activity in the determination of global temperatures should be easy for even a half-literate like yourself to find.
Do you perhaps not give a damn about the science?
On the contrary. Unlike you, that’s all I give a damn about. That’s why I keep pressing you to actually produce some. I think you know that any study you produce as “definitive” has dozens of counterstudies showing its flaws because there is no solid foundation for your conclusions. That’s why you rely on rhetoric and attempts at intellectual intimidation rather than links to studies. It’s a joke, really.
I missed this.
There are sites dedicated to debunking those type of claims.
Please, link them. I dare you to link them, because I know for a fact there are debunkers of the debunkers whose debunking is more scientifically grounded than the original debunkers’ debunking. In the spirit of the season and the movie “Christmas Story”, I triple dog dare you to link them.
You show me one iota of undebunkable evidence that there continues to be global warming and that human activity is a large proportion of that warming and you win.
I know you can’t, so I doubt you will.
It doesn’t matter folks. All we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels, stop dumping so many chemicals in the atmosphere and landfills. Then way we won’t have to have this conversation, it will be a none issue. It seems that the people who are claiming that these global warming warnings are overblown, are the very same people who have a stake in the companies (or the political parties that have a stake in)continuing to pollute. You’d have to be complete idiot to not agree that these chemicals are toxic to life on the planet, so just do the right thing and let’s not allow them in our air, waters or soil, end of story.
venividivici,
“your idea of intellectual fare”
Journal of Climate
Geophysical Research Letters
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Climatic Change
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
International Journal of Climatology
The Holocene
Reviews of Geophysics
Climate Dynamics
The Quaterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Climate Research
Nature
Science
I’ve read more than 200 papers, which is a laughably small number in terms of understanding science, but at least it means I don’t fall for the conservative blogosphere copy-and-paste fringe crank denialist nonsense.
Now, climate science is extremely interesting.
Pick up a book.
Or continue to believe in the tooth-fairy.
That’s freedom, innit?
cedarford,
“All the climate models employ great complexity”
There are simple one-dimensional radiative-convective models e.g. Manabe & Wetherald 1967, their pioneering work employed radiative transfer + convective adjustment + constant relative humidity, and that’s all. IIRC sensitivity was 2.0C per doubling of CO2.
freetoken,
You need to do some research on exactly what the American Geophysical Union is. You are obviously not a geophysicist (I do thank you for at least spelling it correctly), but I am. Try the Society of Exploration Geophysicists if you really want to find out what geophysicists are actually doing. Don’t argue from authority, it will never prove anything.
venividivici,
“The point of going to that particular study versus other studies is to show that even those who think CO2 is a major contributor to global warming can’t maintain the hoax anymore.”
Oh, I thought “the point” was “evidence is increasingly pointing to an emerging Ice Age”
Your logic is off.
“if you’ve got a paper that’s a “category killer””
That’s not how science works.
Science works by multiple lines of evidence, replication, and redundancy.
If you’re seriously interested, you’ll do the work and check your sources, read books, visit your local library.
I’m not going to hand-hold you.
End of discussion.
Lazar –
40 years ago models had to be simpler because there just wasn’t the computing power to add other factors – like, say, moisture in varying concentrations in 500 macro and microclimates globally.
You are correct about – for some reason – ideological conservatives falling into the warming denier camp hard…and seeing the same thin science repeated in Right Wing Blogs, churches, and papers. I never get why, since conservatives should be the 1st to be out there fighting against change destroying ecosystems. The 1st conservationists, of course, were the hunters and conservatives that did not want a wildlife-free, wilderness free clear-cut America..
But now we have those models and they are complex and people should know the Hard Left extracts worst case from those models – not the range, not helpfully telling people other factors at play like solar outputs, cloud cover, people in jeopardy only because they poorly reclaimed land from the sea….or that polar bears did just fine in 4 previous warming periods, albeit with lower numbers..
What I object to is then seeing the Lefty activists then demand that possibly crippling changes be done to the US economy and we do stupid little trivial things like seek to ban plastic shopping bags (1,080 per pound) to show moral correctness. And fight every new energy project, including nuclear, and even some solar (All Cali Solar projects are now tied up in court by environmentalists insisting they are bad for delicate desert ecology).
All while they could care less about China building a pollution controls-free 3,000 MW thermal coal plant every other week. Or Pakistan having a 6.2 kids per family birthrate, or how too many people has now made half the water in Bangladesh and Jordan undrinkable..
I want honesty and I want balance and willingness to be objective about GW and overpopulation. I don’t see that from the Left or the extreme Right. I want our country to get some very objective, very expert people from the meteorology, physics, math, economist, transporation, utilities, oceanographic, and agriculture communities together and tell us what is the optimum course we should be taking…especially given we are already in near-economic collapse.
Then push that through the political center and if something in our comprehensive program is too urgent to wait on activists to get warm and happy and lawsuits to be resolved, declare it is an emergency and bull through the required actions.
But if something is tied to old dogma and does little or nothing to fix things, Get Rid of It. Burning through 2 billion in car emissions inspections no longer needed? End them. We figure out we vitally need 55 new nuke plants? Build them after a vote, with only minimal time alloted for lawsuits. Recycling glass and newsprint costs more in fossil fuels than it saves? Get rid of it, and burn the paper and plastic in trash to energy plants and feed the ground glass in to make safe sand ash…
Forget the arguments about AGW from both sides. It’s irrelevant. The facts of the current world wide squabble over climate are so buried in politics, lies, vested interests and clashing cultural perspectives, that no amount of argument will resolve them. Likewise, for ‘life issues’ (abortion, gender issues, euthanasia, embryo research, and a myriad of other like topics); The role and power of the State; Limits on social freedoms and the role of civil society; ….I could go on but I’m sure that you all get my drift. All od these topics are unsolvable for the reason that the first world is engaged in a Culture War and has been for the past 40 years.
Many thought that the fall of communism in the USSR meant the end of history, as was so irrationally argued by Fukyama in the 1990s. The reality is that the communist/ socialist/ collectivist/ communitarian, left or whatever ‘name’ they currently go by did not suddenly have the scales fall from their eyes. The Left just went underground for a decade to lick its wounds and gather strength to rejoin the War of Culture.
Trying to argue with these individuals is akin to attempting to push water uphill with a rake. The world wide Civil War that is the War of Culture will eventually go ‘hot’ as the protagonists can’t abide living on the same planet. One may enter the fray at a tactical level by hauling some green tinged neo-Marxist teacher into court for trying to infect one’s children with the latest communitarian fad ‘Orwellian ‘truthspeak’. Fine for a little diversion but in the end it is going to come down to blood. Currently the agrarian/ right/ conservative/ individualist/ small government side has most of the guns and the experience in using them to effect. For that i am grateful. As some wag opined, most of the liberal leftist (watermelons; green on the outside and red within) are narrowly educated urbanites with little or no capacity to survive outside their rather artificial social (ist) environment. More the better!
So allow me to say to the leftist and their loser fellow travelers. I look forward to seeking you on the field comrade. In the meantime the time for debate is long gone. Nothing will change as these Wars of Culture roll on until blood and treasure are spilled and the matter is decided once and for all. No quarter Comrades and I expect none from you. Enough of your inane name calling and falsehood. Just die.
The rest is just a waste of time, breath and electrons.
I’ve read more than 200 papers, which is a laughably small number in terms of understanding science, but at least it means I don’t fall for the conservative blogosphere copy-and-paste fringe crank denialist nonsense.
Notice that you again fail to NAME ONE PAPER YOU’VE READ. I’ve got to use all caps because that is the entire point. You’re relying on vague generalities to prove a point that can only be proven via specifics. I can say I’ve read hundreds of papers showing a relationship between matter and energy, but unless I cite the paper showing E=MC2 all I’m doing is spouting a generality, not proving a scientific truth. If the hundreds of papers I read said E=MC3, I’d merely be repeating inaccurate information, critiques of which would abound. Show me a paper supporting AGW that hasn’t been scientifically deconstructed by someone who isn’t a global warming “believer”, regardless of whether that deconstruction was published in a peer-reviewed journal, since any historian can tell you that at crucial turning points in scientific history peer review is actually not as strong a tool against falsity as it is during “normal” periods of scientific research. Read your Thomas Kuhn on that point. If you can’t show me that, you can’t show me anything. Where is the “smoking gun” that is supposed to justify my taking action to fight global warming? Tell me the “best of the best” proof of AGW that you have and show me its “bulletproof” analysis of the issue and how the conclusions you’ve stated must inevitably be drawn from the evidence. Otherwise, you’re just wasting my time, which is what I suspect anyway. I just pointed you a few posts ago to a new study in Nature that forecasts an emerging Ice Age. Presumably, if that study did not address all of the “evidence” for continued warming, it would not have been published. At most, the paper’s conclusions imply that slowing carbon emissions would be a potentially more damaging path to take than either maintaining or increasing them. Anyone with the slightest understanding of logic can see that.
You know that as soon as you “name names”, I’ll be able to find a study showing the inadequacy of any study you throw out. That’s how science works, until it reaches the truth. That’s why it’s impossible to write a scientific paper showing the earth revolving around the sun, but it’s not impossible to write a scientific paper showing human activity contributes little to global warming. That doesn’t mean that every scientific paper claiming to show human activity means little in the large scheme of climate is accurate, but it does mean that there is no way anything like certainty (taken in the scientific sense of hypothesis testing and confidence intervals) is available. In the absence of scientific certainty, I have no compulsion to act unless the benefits outweigh the costs, which I also don’t see here.
cedarford,
“40 years ago models had to be simpler because there just wasn’t the computing power to add other factors”
Indeed.
I agree particularly about the ideology of left and right and both sides behaving irrationally. I’m a conservative and find the blockhead response of conservative political activists as depressing as ‘environmentalists’ who oppose solar and nuclear plant construction whilst supporting fluffy feel-good schemes. Your pragmatic tone, clear insight and resoluteness are a relief to encounter. Thank you. It gives hope.
“Trust the people” — Churchill. Sites like PJM are a storm in a teacup, but it would be good to see activists accept science for what it shows, or cease putting out disinformation.
Lazar:
venividivici,
“The point of going to that particular study versus other studies is to show that even those who think CO2 is a major contributor to global warming can’t maintain the hoax anymore.”
Oh, I thought “the point” was “evidence is increasingly pointing to an emerging Ice Age”
Your logic is off.
Evidence is increasingly pointing to a new Ice Age. The reason behind this is disputed. Some, like the Nature study, say it’s due to falling “greenhouse gases”. Others say it is due to solar activity. I happen to agree with the latter, again citing evidence from temperature changes on other planets within our solar system, but merely pointed out that even those scientists who agree that “greenhouse gases” are an important driver of global temperature are not completely sure that warming will continue at current levels of “greenhouse gas” production. Clearly this is a retreat from the claim that “greenhouse gases” driver climate change, otherwise the conclusions of the study would have been “If we maintain or increase production of greenhouse gases, a new Ice Age is impossible”.
That’s not how science works.
Science works by multiple lines of evidence, replication, and redundancy.
I’ll settle for the paper that “kicks off” the multiple lines of evidence, replication and redundancy. You know, the “Principia Mathematica” of the AGW hypothesis. Even though the Principia didn’t answer every single question about mathematics, it laid down the guidelines upon which the remaining questions would be asked. There is consensus, helped in part by proofs in the Principia, that 1+1=2. Show me something of that level of solidity.
Still not a single current undeconstructed citation. Pathetic for something on which the “consensus” is so strong. The consensus is that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March. I can cite thousands of books that detail that fact. You’re claiming strong consensus of that sort for AGW, yet you can’t cite one journal article or book I can get all the information I need to know from. AGW surely ranks as one of the strangest “truths” in history, if no one has been able to collect all of the information in favor of its accuracy into one volume and have that one volume stand as a “one stop shop” for people getting up to speed on the topic.
Was the meeting actually in San Francisco? Or were they trying to make it seem ultra-liberal and it was in fact in silicon valley somewhere.
Given that nobody has been able to adequately explain the ice ages nor the warm phases of the past, I’m quite skeptical about the whole global warming alarmism.
You’d think that the climate never ever changed before.
Instead of fear-mongering, show us some real, measurable, honest numbers.
Instead what we get is when it’s warm, “it’s getting warmer due to global warming” and when it’s cold, “it’s getting colder due to global warming.”
Rather than attacking people who question the global warming dogma with personal insults, convince us. Please. If the science is there, then show us.
Eventually CO2 levels will get high enough to accelerate the current extinction event to the extent that human populations will be adversely impacted. Essentially, we can expect to drown in our own waste.
There has been no historical period where atmospheric CO2 rose as rapidly as the past 100 years. There is no way we can compare the current situation with past warming or cooling.
The sea ice melting is not widely disputed, and is subject to enough natural variation that it is easy to select data to support any scenario one desires. That does not change the fact that human beings have a direct and dramatic impact on the survival of other species. To deny this is simply idiotic.
DS
venividivici,
“Some, like the Nature study, say it’s due to falling “greenhouse gases”.”
No it doesn’t.
Read the paper.
Rest binned unread.
venividivici,
“Notice that you again fail to NAME ONE PAPER YOU’VE READ.”
I’ve named two.
Rest binned unread.
12. Hannah Stevens:
Only when the waves are lapping at Wall Street in Manhattan will the right wing zealots believe that global warming is real and the nit will be too late. There are islands in the Pacific that are being covered by sea water and the people are having to immigrate and the same is true for the Inuit in the far North of Alaska. Is this caused by man? The evidence suggest that it is due the accelerated rate of warming over the past 100 years of industrialization. Even if it weren’t to take measures now and get off fossil fuels seems to be prudent in that we could eliminate wars for oil and air pollution.
Hannah, you need to read the facts about your claims. The islands in the Pacific popularly mentioned are going underwater due to subsidence, not sea level rise. Sorry about their luck, but the evidence suggests their islands are sinking, which is quite normal in some locations of the earth. Sea level rise is going to continue as is has, but is irrelevant in this case. The arctic changes can be fully explained by ocean currents, just as the HUGE antarctic increases in ice area and continent-wide cooling are natural (I’m sure you haven’t heard of that, it doesn’t support the AGW theory. The accelerated warming you claim, in fact, is about normal for our exit of the little ice age, with normal oscillations around a perfectly natural increasing trend. Several of these oscillations are now showing signs of reversing (weak solar activity, PDO shift, etc). A large percentage of the temperature increase reported is due to UHI, while actual temperatures in good measurement sites with rural locations have generally shown little if any increase in temperatures. The data are so contaminated it’s difficult to compensate for the effects of station dropout, UHI, etc, but you can find information about this in many places.
Rather than spouting the same old junk science, you should spend that time researching the truth like I have for the last few years. If you know anything about science and do that for a month or two, I would bet you will find yourself on solid ground, instead of on sinking “science”, like those pacific islands.
The premise that man cannot affect the weather and is arrogant to think he can is a false one.
In addition to the oklahoma dust bowl example already given, the authour should do a quick google on ‘cloud seeding’.
A side-show to the main debate I know but to proceed from incorrect assumptions is not good practice.
To the climate extremists:
The theory of global warming is supported by modeling and simulation, not data. Models are useful in understanding certain principals but cannot be relied upon for forecasting beyond a short duration. Here are some of the problems with complex climate (and all) models:
(1) Do you think that modelers just crank the models and out comes the global warming answer? That’s not how it works. The modelers have to set initial conditions and play with the model coefficients and constants to get the model to come to a reasonable solution. That would be fine if it were one and done but it’s not. For every new data point comes a new set of intial conditions generally unrelated to the last set just to backcast. You can play all day and get the answer that you want. In another context Franklin Fisher once said he could write his name in Almon Lags. Well, I think I could write my name into a climate model.
(2) Given the way climate models are used, they don’t model climate but something like an annual weather forecast. The model time constant is typically a year. Does anybody believe that the time constant for climate is a year? It is at minimum the natural warming/cooling cycle measured over 2Pi. Taking the satellite data as a point of departure, it would appear that Pi is 25-30 years given that satellite temperatures have returned to where they were in the early 1980′s. So, let us call the time constant for climate a minimum of 50 years. That gives the models two or three real data points, not enough to make any judgement, modeled or otherwise on the direction of climate.
(3) All the global warming models set the CO2 equation boundry condition as an infinitely thick atmospheric boundry. Dr. Miklós Zágoni has examined this assumption and found that it violates basic atmospheric thermodynamics. Clearly, the atmospheric boundry is far from thick and this puts a limit on any greenhouse effect since the heat keeping capacity of the upper atmosphere is small. Remember heat flows from the warmer to the cooler and the upper atmosphere will remain very cold due to Charles’ Law relating temperature to pressure.
http://www.zimbio.com/Differential+Equations/articles/10/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally
Global warming theory is not science. It is merely some scientific principles applied to modeling and simulation.
These M&S results have picked up by scientific illiterates like Al Gore, Vivo, and Boris et. al to become a religion substitute.
Boris: Right wing hypocracy? How long has lib-tard infested G.E. been dragging their feet on cleaning up the Hudson river? Perhaps they’re a little light on funds from having to pay Keith (hung like a cashew) Olbermann a kings ranson to bloviate his nightly garbage.
The global warming alarmists are the asme ones that were clamoring a few years back that we were headed for another ice age.
Climate change is a natural part of our planet. When there were dinosaurs (you remember those giant lizards, right) most of the planet was tropical. Then we had an ice age where most of the planet was cold. Now we happen to be in what most normal people would call a mild phase.
The climate extremists have to cook something up in order to stay in the spotlight. Volcanic eruptions produce more ‘greenhouse gasses’ than modern automobiles.
jerryofva,
“These M&S results have picked up by scientific illiterates”
Actually, jerryofva, a scientific illiterate is someone who thinks
“The model time constant is typically a year”
… the characteristic time constant is around 30 years in GCMs, and it is an output of the model it is *not an input*. In fact there are several time constants associated with different processes. Maybe you’re confusing “time constant” with “time step”, and think the “time step” is a year because model output is sometimes plotted as annual averages? The “time step” in modern GCMs ranges from 1/2hr to 3hrs. GCMs used to model climate do not do “something like an annual weather forecast”, that is a stochastic process.
Someone who writes…
“I think I could write my name into a climate model”
You can’t, but you can at least try with this open source climate model.
Someone who writes…
“All the global warming models set the CO2 equation boundry condition”
There is no “CO2 equation” in climate models. And they are “climate models” not “warming models”.
Someone who writes…
“infinitely thick atmospheric boundry”
Climate models do not have an infinitely atmospheric boundary(!) (or did you mean “atmosphere”?… they don’t have an infinitely thick atmosphere), and Miskolczi’s work was rejected by at least three reputable journals probably for stuff like confusing absorption with absorptance and emission with emittance.
The following is nonsensical…
“For every new data point comes a new set of intial conditions generally unrelated to the last set just to backcast”
“Global warming theory is not science.”
Suggest you read a book.
Lazar:
Time step = time constant. Anything that happens in between is meaningless. That is the meaning of the time constant in a dynamic system, you know the “t” in f(t)?
A time constant comes from observation not the model. If you want good estimate of the system time constant run your data through an ARIMA process (see Time Series Forecasting and Control by George Box and Gwilym Jenkins) The endogenous time constant in the model is not indepentent of the model itself. The time constant should be found by a method outside the model.
The models are not cranked through to get an answer. They are manipulated like all complex models to find the intiial conditions that yield a reasonable solution. Only by sheer chance will a complex dynamic model result in stable solution since there is a lot of unknowns in the system. And yes every time new data is introduced into the system a new set of initial conditions is required and they are generally not related to the previous set.
If there are no greenhouse equation in GCMs then why do their advocates claim that CO2 is causing global warming? Greenhouse equations are essential to the model.
In today’s world a lot of work that doesn’t fit in with the politically correct position gets rejected. In Lysenko’s day articles on genetics were rejected by “reputable” journals.
The only thing melting the ice caps that is remotely man made is the hot air coming out of the global warming scare mongers. Notice how they discount ANY scientist that comes out against their theories? I guess Al Gore not only invented the internet, he knows how the Earth works too!
Maybe I am not seeing all the data and results, however, from every chicken loon vomiting the typical statistics, none of these individuals possess a technical degree, or even basic understanding of physics, chemistry, and at least pre-Calculus. Yes this is important; if you are going to endlessly spew the rhetoric through some sort of warped glossalia about this subject, then you really should know what you are talking about, and not from some elevator speach on the back of some membership card with typical talking points.
I have studied this stuff in grad school and left due to the seeming jihadistic attitude a lot of the people who were in these courses had taken as a stand: it is happening, ergo, continue to state that it is happening.
Computer models work well AFTER you have created a set of dictating equations, solved for the important variables, then take that MODEL and apply it to the real world. Worked for me in chemistry, chemical engineering, fluids, and processing systems. There are too many variables in this problem. Some of the factors are theory, I mean hypothoses, I mean scientific wild ass guesses (such as “forcing”).
In all my years of reading this subject, because I still believe the result has not been proven SCIENTIFICALLY, has shown me the following:
1. There has never been a model based on a rotating earth
2. The basic blackbody temperature previously sought has been questioned
3. There has been no resulting EQUATION(S) showing Temp(atmo) is a function of CO2 concentration. Only a bunch of graph from known CO2 levels and temperatures.
4. Most of the models do not properly account for the laws of Thermodynamics, and actually treat the atmosphere as a perpetual motion machine, which is a true failure of the model.
The problems encountered are truly represented by a scientific community biased towards a consensus as opposed to actual scientific principles. When one side gets $2500 for every $1 that the “deniers” get, one can see that there is more spin and marketing ammo.
My opinion is that this climate stuff really is a simple model made complicated with all the contrived theories as opposed to taking a simple starting point and gradually complicating it to test theories. The latter is what we learned in physics…
Re Boris: “”Every scientific organization that studies the earth has issued a statement in support of this theory.”" Really? EVERY scientific organization that studies the earth? How would you explain this Senate report on scientists not agreeing with the global warming hysteria? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Re #70 David S: “”That does not change the fact that human beings have a direct and dramatic impact on the survival of other species. To deny this is simply idiotic.”" So, do tell, how did the European cause the Little Ice Age back in the late 1500′s? The river Thames froze over and continued to do so until the early 1700′s. Now, if we cause the warming, then we must cause the cooling according to you. Again, how did they cause the Thames to ice over? I’m always interested in seeing how far a liberal will stretch to fit his “theory” into reality. I’m waiting….
jerryofva,
“Time step = time constant. Anything that happens in between is meaningless. That is the meaning of the time constant in a dynamic system, you know the “t” in f(t)?
A time constant comes from observation not the model.”
No.
Climate modeling is a discrete time integration, where the state of the system is evaluated over integer multiples of the time step until the program is halted. The time step in GCMs is approximately one (simulated) hour. I’m not sure why you think it is a year, but that is clearly wrong, and you can easily check. The time step does not come from observation but is chosen to avoid numerical instabilities under computational constraints.
The time constant is the time taken for the system to establish equilibrium following a perturbation, put another way, for the system to stop changing due to the effects of a perturbation, such as a change in forcing, and is measured in multiples of the time step. You surely do not believe GCMs are in equilibrium at every time step, do you? The time constant is *not* determined from observation, it is a measured output and part of the emergent behaviour, and the *characteristic* time step in GCMs is around 30 years. Validation of a model includes whether the time constant is consistent with that of the observed climate system.
“The models are not cranked through to get an answer. They are manipulated like all complex models to find the intiial conditions that yield a reasonable solution. Only by sheer chance will a complex dynamic model result in stable solution”
No. Climate modelling is a boundary value problem. For a given set of boundary values a climate model will approach a stable solution regardless of what the initial conditions are. Stability is obtained by getting the physics right and using appropriate time step resolutions, not by twiddling with initial conditions which only cause short-term stochastic variability corresponding to real-world weather.
“If there are no greenhouse equation in GCMs”
There are a number of radiative transfer equations, but there is no “greenhouse” or “CO2″ equation.
“In today’s world a lot of work that doesn’t fit in with the politically correct position gets rejected.”
So do fortunalely papers which confuse absorption with absorptance and emission with emittance.
A complicated multi-faceted subject. If we all had a time machine we could zip forward a hundred years and see the answer, unfortunately we lack that ability. Generally unless people can see it with their own eyes no amount of railing will change their position, once entrenched. All I can add is that I have worked with modelers before. In complicated problems they always ends up at a place where history can’t be matched and here they start to knob it. I don’t blame them, the reality is far too complicated; short cuts are made to get an answer that seems right to them. What seems right comes from their own history with data sets, which in this case is rapidly evolving. Related to this, the sad status is that a new science, that should be evolving in the background, has been thrust prematurely into the idiotic limelight of politics and money. So, do they dance for their cash? That’s what we all want to know.
Lazar, I LOOOOVE your comment of, ‘Google is your friend’. Hey smart guy, Al Gore is on the Google Board.. I’m sure you’ll find many man-induced climate change ‘factoids’ -hahahahaha!
The black plague occurred hundreds of years before the industrial age. Yet, it killed millions and lasted for so long because of years (not seasons) where the temperature allowed cultivation of the plague. Huh, can’t blame MMGW on tat.. darn!
How about England producing incredible weather and boasting of vast wineries? Why is it cold today..?
I was fortunate to have worked in both McMurdo and South Pole Station, Antarctica, respectively. 2006, the South Pole recorded its coldest winter-to-date at the time since implementing weather reading equipment in 1958.
I agree completely with cedarford’s comment in the 3rd World getting a pass after using up its natural resources decades ago. Though that predicament doesn’t stop the fact of Africans continuing to procreate with no protection and producing many offspring they’ll never care for. Who will continuously be wearing Unicef or U.N. soccer-like jerseys and blaming the Western World for their plight. I experienced this while in Bamako, Mali. Proposedly one of the more leading African countries… gasp! Many think corruption is blatant in the U.S. – check out South Africa, Burkina Faso (of course Zimbabwe) and many others..
Alas, Obama pledged to double the Peace Corps efforts/volunteers to the ‘hands out’ continent. Too bad Africans don’t stand up to their dictatorships, overthrow their Government and actually put in place leaders who care about their countrymen/countrywomen. For apartheid was infinitely horrible, the current state of affairs in most African countries is much worse than that ugly chapter. Then again, I wish the same for our own people and morally defunct politicians!
75. jerryofva:
“To the climate extremists: These M&S results have picked up by scientific illiterates like Al Gore, Vivo, and Boris et. al to become a religion substitute.”
So I am an extremist just because I would like a clean and livable World?
My “religion” allows people like you to choke in their own fumes, suffocate in the summer, freeze in the winter, dehydrate without water and drown in a flood. Luckily, many people are doing something about it.
#87 Vivo…I’m guessing the only thing you’re doing more of than most of us hear in regards to global warming is blowing more hot air into the atmosphere. We’re all packing energy saver bulbs (that will do MORE harm to the envoirnment when disposed of and leak toxic chemicals. Thanks Vivo for your kind pushing those on us!). We’re most likely all driving one or more gas saver clunker cars that are slow and fugly. We’re all probably recycling now that most municipalities demand it. So, Savior of the Planet, surely you’re going way beyond us right? Bicycling the kids to Disney World? A rainbarrel on every downspout perhaps? Growing veggies in your gutters? Filters on your pets to catch offensive gases? Do tell how you’re saving us all. It’s way beyond cold here and I could sure use a chuckle…..
86. Paul_Unalaska:
Nice post; High five; Fist bump; Kudos; Great feedback.
Paul_Unalaska,
“Hey smart guy, Al Gore is on the Google Board.. I’m sure you’ll find many man-induced climate change ‘factoids’ -hahahahaha!”
And I like your tinfoil hat.
Rest thankfully binned unread.
Lazar….Ever do any research at all on a topic before forming an opinion or are you led around by the MSM? Everytime I read a comment that includes the words “tinfoil hat” it send off alarm bells that the poster has no knowledge on the topic and spits that out as a quit (and lame) rebuttal. Just a thought…why not look up some data on global warming? Put down your copy of An Inconvenient Truth and step out into the fresh air (the landscape is not filled with smokestacks as you’ve been led to believe). I know it’s hard to realize that you’ve been sold a bill of goods by people who have political and monetary motives but I’m afraid you’ve been reeled in. Do yourself a favor and look behind the curtain once in a while. Haven’t you ever wondered where Al Gore is now that more and more skeptics (including scientists!) are coming out against global warming? Doesn’t his silence speak volumns to you? It should. If it doesn’t, that sums up your problem in a nutshell. You’re too easy (and willing) to be brainwashed.
Unthinking Person,
“Ever do any research at all”
Umm, yes.
Try reading the comment thread before posing… whoops, missed a ‘t’.
Rest binned unread.
Cybergeezer, thanks for the kudos.
Lazar, your rebuttal ‘tin foil hat’ to my #86 comment.
You may as well have said “My big brother will beat up your big brother.” Childish. Gore’s on the take with Google. You’ve been outed and your response is weak. And small.
Al Gore. Before you comment of his Nobel accomplishment, The late Yasser Arafat and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter received their Nobel for Economics. Unbelievable.
Can you honestly put your faith into the likes of folks in NCAR (I’m from Colorado and have worked with those kooks in Boulder. Their ‘findings’ conclude the way they ALWAYS do for one reason.. FUNDING) and their ilk? If you do, I’m sure Warren Churchill is still speaking the ‘truth’ to 19-21 year olds on or near the CU campus as well.
I suggest you pick up S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery’s, ‘Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years’ at your local library. It may go against your personal view but rest assured.. least you didn’t pay for it.
What year was it! I want to know what year it was when our climate, air and water quality, and the right number of all species were in proper place on this planet. And if there was such a date, how did we determine that it was? What is the baseline being used to determine that everything these days is all out of whack? This theory is just a baseless sham whose only existence depends on a large number of pseudo-scientists who collect government science grants in exchange for being proponents.
Lazar – compliments on your yeoman work to try and demonstrate to science & engineering-free conservative ideologues that modeling, science, and actual engineering challenges are not “simply Lefty pointy-headed bunk”.
The conservative ideologues fail to look at the data, or point out exceptions as their way to deny the larger compendium of work. They place their faith in “miracle technology” to solve all energy, GW concerns and differ only from Lefty faith in “miracle technology” only in they see Free Markets, more GNP with more people! as their pet answer – vs. Lefty faith that government spending creates new miracle science as it is needed…
Both the Left and Right political extremes tend to be populated with people adverse to science and engineering..indeed, just being in those fields tends to make people less dogmatic – more politically objective and centrist…open to possibly being wrong or being dispassionate.
And rather than facts, you also see the extreme Left Wingers and Righties focus on personalities and their old favorite, hypocrisy.
Examples:
“Al Gore is an idiot. And he uses huge amounts of fossil fuel and electricity! He thinks global warming is real, but since Algore is an idiot and a hypocrite…we Right Wingers therefore know he is wrong and there is no GW because of Algore! ”
“Billy Bob is a Jesus freak with an IQ if 80 who drives a gas guzzler, only wants to shoot polar bears, and wants nuke power…demonstrating the moral superiority we green-loving Lefties have.”
To which I say, so what? Personalities and pet demons trotted out to emotionally prove or disprove a factual argument have nothing to do with the argument. Just distracting non sequiters…..
Lazar…That’s it? That’s your response? Lame. I knew you were an unintelligent boob when you keep responding with “tinfoil hat” to everyone, but that just proves it. No reponse at all? No defense of your ineptitude when it comes to global warming? No defense of your lack of knowledge on the subject? Pathetic. Your posts will be disregarded in the future as coming from an unintelligent dishrag. I think you should limp back to the Huffington Post. They like “tinfoil hat” responses over there. No need for any facts or data to back up one’s responses. Pathetic.
@83
You’ve quoted me on extinction, yet you address global climate with your comment. I’m glad you are not disputing that humans are responsible for the most rapid extinction event ever.
Your comments on the little ice age don’t address the CO2 issue. This is the crux of the matter. Nobody us disputing that there are natural variations in climate. I am simply pointing out that no natural process has ever caused the extreme change in atmospheric composition that humans have in the past century.
DS
cedarford,
Aye to all that!
Generally they don’t ‘get’ science including statistics, probability, and inductive logic. “Bourgeois science” and all that. In my experience of uni departments, science and engineering are indeed politically centrist. Fundamentally very different patterns of thought, manners of approaching problems.
Conservatism going back to Edmund Burke has been something of an anti-ideology with broad horizons, very different to this market- and small-government fundamentalism, which is born of teaching 1980s pragmatic policy as a dogmatism, with adherents believing that new problems don’t really exist or that old solutions work. Unbalanced, and going up like a lead balloon with the electorate (thankfully!).
They congregate on these forums where they can put the world to rights. Except that they mislead the young and inexperienced, I really wouldn’t mind.
Unthinking Person,
“That’s it? That’s your response? Lame. I knew you were an unintelligent boob”
Post something reasonable and you’ll get a response with content. Try to waste my time and it’ll head to the bin unread.
“when you keep responding with “tinfoil hat” to everyone”
You’re lying.
I suggested before to you, that you read the comment thread before posing.
Rest binned unread.
Answer my damned question, all you smart guys! I am sick and tired of all these useless diatribes. If we are going to fix something, we have to have a clue about what the outcome of the fix will be. This is worse than listening to the burger fetch boy at the McDonalds declaring that “McDonalds don’t sell a small size soft drink, only medium, large, and extra large”. Sheesh.. Can I help who’s next? If you don’t know how the environment should be, how do you ever know what should be done about it. This whole environmentalism is just the religious dogma of far left liberal ideologues. Did you like that one, cedarford?
Three days ago I sent a message to the PJM editorial department. Hopefully PJM will acknowledge the error or provide proof of the author’s claim.
Dear Editor,
The author makes the claim
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”
As far as it is possible to prove a negative, “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record” is false, as shown by quotes prior to the identification of the error, from an AP report and from the then and
current director of GISS, Dr. James Hansen…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php
Unless the author can provide a direct quotation from GISS “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”, I request you issue a retraction.
Also…
GISS issued notice of the correction through their “Updates of Analysis” page, a standard procedure. The implication that GISS dishonestly hid the error is unfair.
The “Updates to Analysis” page is at…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
… and the relevant notice is dated Aug. 7, 2007
Regards
I should have also complained about this grubby insinuation…
“proclaiming it the warmest October on record (until they were caught)”
implying the error was deliberate.
Here’s a question for a conservative. The word conserve means what?
I’m not touching the global warming arguement, but I do wonder why the same people who like to hunt are so willing to eliminate the natural world for mere convenience.
You talk about energy independence. Does it not make sense to eliminate our need for fossil fuels so we can be truly energy independent? The US could lead the world in the energy revolution, but instead our inniovations are sold to the highest bidder and we get left behind.
Conservatives are conservationists. That is entirely different from enviromentalists.
Being a big believer in visual aids, here is a graph showing zero correlation between increasing CO2 and temperature.
Here’s another one.
And another one, showing that rises in CO2 LAGS temperature rises by 6 – 9 months.
So, who are you gonna believe? Al Gore? The UN/IPCC? James Hansen?
Or your lying eyes?
C:,
It appears you have already been taught all of the characteristics of a conservative. So, I know you know that hunters are conservatives. But please explain, how are hunters destroying the natural world for mere convenience? You read like a person who knows a lot about conservatives and hunters.
Smokey,
“Being a big believer in visual aids, here is a graph showing zero correlation”
All that shows is that a simple one-variable linear response + white noise is inappropriate for modelling a dynamical system. There are multiple time-varying forcings which operate at different lags. CO2 response extends out to 30 years due to large thermal inertia of the oceans. There is also large internal variability. If you’re going to go for statistical modelling, you will need to include lagged variables for *all* the forcings, use a sensible time-frame (i.e. much longer than the six years that icecap use), and model the residuals as an ARMA process.
“And another one, showing that rises in CO2 LAGS temperature rises by 6 – 9 months.”
If icecap have done the analysis correctly, which I doubt (e.g. what on earth does “Moving annual CO2 growth” mean?… are they using a moving average?… if so, why?… why not also for the temperature series?… it doesn’t look like a moving average), then the signal they’ve picked up is probably a lagged effect of temperature on CO2 sinks (oceans and plant biomass).
Lazar,
You can’t answer a simple question about the baseline for your correlative junk science, environmentalism. Smokey smoked you with his zero correlation graph, because while you are correct that his analysis is incomplete, I think he was chiding your for that very incompleted analysis in all of your posts. The earth is more than a couple of billion years old, you follow? Just like a religious nut, you are a true believer.
Jim Baker,
You are right. I make a big assumption that all hunters are conservative. I do know that many are and that is the point I am making.
Many of the very same people who love hunting will see us destroy the very forrest in which they would hunt to build a housing development we really do not need or to drill for oil when it might be more advantageous to commit to finding more sustainable, renewable, and yes cleaner fuel sources. Global warming will continue, and whether or not you believe that we are the cause or not, it is undenialbe that people are polluting and causing massive environmental damage. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to want to “conserve” our planet for as long we can. This seems like common sense, not politics.
C:
I most certainly deny your religion. But, I would fight and die for your right to practice it.
You have little evidence that global warming is even a problem, and you have even less that anything we do about it will even partially curb it. And that is why you cannot answer my questions from #94. You can’t put solutions on problems you don’t understand and expect to know they will work.
By the way, an acre of prairie grass will produce far more photosynthesis than an acre of forest. I think we need to cut down all the damned trees and plant grass, eh? But now I digress. My bad.
Jim Baker,
What in blue blazes does my religion have to do with anything? I never tried to answer your question in #94. I apologized for my assumptions about hunters and tried to clarify where I stood. I guess a person who would cut down the trees to plant grasses will not see my point. I would like to see some of our natural world preserved and see this country do what it has done best in the past, lead the world in creating sustainable energy technologies that do not pollute our air and streams and that will end dependency of foriegn oil.
Personally, I hope forrest are preserved and the animals that live them are not wiped out. If there is something we can do to curb global warming, I hope we do it. If this is a natural trend then so be it, but in the end, there is not denying that polluted water and food supplies are an issue and if for no other reason, we should handle pollution to persever the resources everyone would agree we need.
By the way, thanks for supporting my right to run around the woods naked and praise the moon goddess (that was a joke
)
C:
Who do you know that has polluted drinking water? How do you know there is global warming? Exactly how are you going to produce sustainable energy technologies?
Your religion is environmentalism. It is being preached K-12 in all of our government schools while whole colleges are being formed at the universities to, ahem, study it. It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in global warming than it does for christians to yap about Jesus. It is the very state sponsored religion that our founders were worried about when they wrote the constitution, not whether some christians get to say Jesus in public. I have been taxed to death so that I could watch more than a generation of American kids, including my own, get baptised with the words of the saviors of the environment. Most of them, including you, can not even articulate the desired goals of environmentalism because there is not a goal beyond the political. If you understood that fact alone, we wouldn’t have to have this discourse. The method is simple, indoctrinate the children because most of them will never have the intellectual curiosity(I lifted that from Democrat talking points) or ability to question what they have learned. Same method religions worldwide have always used. So, that is what in blue blazes I am talking about.
I am a geophysicist and I work very hard every day to help(it takes millions of us) bring you resources that can heat your home and power your transportation. Meanwhile, my brother will use a few trees to build you a home you can heat. This is not because we want to pollute the earth, but because you want a home that isn’t a cave, a heater and personal transportation. This keeps you from having to chop your trees down for wood and from polluting with your fireplace and your horse’s shit.
So, tell me, what sustainable technologies you are helping to provide so I can live better? Try this, just get started on your sustainable energy technologies so that 100 years from now my grandchildren can benefit from what you have produced.
Did you get all that, Lazar?
@111
You may be a geophysicist, but you are also failing to do any research – not a very scientific approach. Polluted drinking water is a problem throughout the world. Have you not heard of Superfund? Do you really think we can dump pollutants into our waterways forever, and reap no consequence? Have you not noticed the ongoing reports of pharmaceuticals in the nation’s municipal water supplies?
Global warming has been well established by observation and modeling – but if that’s not good enough for you, just reflect on the increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere. We are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a way that is bound to lead to massive changes in weather, climate, and species survival.
Environmentalism is not a religion. Science is a method, and using the scientific method, it is not difficult to see that humans have a profound effect on the environment. Failure to maintain a suitable environment for human life is a policy issue – and fundamental to our form of government.
It takes no leap of faith to see that humans are changing the natural world – your own eyes can see this. Jesus, on the other hand, may be a historical figure, but it would take a huge leap of faith to consider him anything more – there is no evidence.
Solar, wind, geothermal and wave power are all viable non-polluting technologies in use around the world for power generation. Electricity storage is improving by leaps and bounds, which will enable the world to be weaned off of coal, oil and nuclear power.
Hopefully the switch will not take all of the 100 years you have so generously offered, but if folks like yourself continue to protest a reduction in pollution, your grandchildren may live in the toxic mess of a planet that you think is a figment of environmentalist religion.
DS
David,
I agree with you.
Jim, what can I say to you. I am not a geophysist and I am not creating new fuels and the like. I am trying to change my life style to conserve more of our natural resources. I am trying to do my part. I work on myself and hope others do the same. Your calling is noble and I hope you are working to find better ways to heat my home and run my car. If the tech is their for me to buy affordably I will do it. Thank you for you work and I hope you continue to do the work. I depend on you because as a teacher, I am trying to make sure that the kids who become your successors are able to read and write and come up with the solutions. That is what I am doing to help.
I am not an environmentalist. I am a realist. My central point still remains. Believe in Global Warming or not, if we don’t change as a nation, landfills will get fuller, pollutants will increase, and we will continue to poison ourselves. people on this page say that there is not proof that the animals, plants, and other life are not connected. I can see through simple observation that when left alone, nature does find a balance. With in that balance, climate changes, animals and plants go extinct, and land masses alter. People have the ability to impact the natural world quite a bit and I hope that we don’t mess it up so much that we and our domesticated livestock are the only living creatures left.
David S,
You see way too many unproven facts and science where no science exists. You may be right, religion is possibly too harsh an indictment of what is really just a junk science. Thirty-five years ago we did have some serious pollution problems in this country, and I was around when the EPA was created to do something about it. A lot was done and now the USA is cleaner than it has ever been. Harmful auto emissions have been reduced by a factor of 100 times below the levels that existed then. Ther are now almost three times as many vehicles on our highways, but a net of 35 times lower ain’t bad. We used to have a lot of rivers and streams that were polluted with toxic chemicals and raw sewage. That has been nearly 100% eliminated. There was a situation where there was no effort made to prevent soil erosion due to land use. We now have relatively little soil erosion. These have all been good solutions to real problems. But now we are saddled with a huge government program that has outlived much of its usefulness. So now the EPA spends most of its resources trying to find new clean up projects where none are needed. No cost/benefit analysis is ever done before the regulations are made even more onerous. We are reaching the point where there is not much of a cost/benefit to more stringent solutions. So, in order to justify the EPAs continuance, they subscribe to any so research having anything to do with the environment, even if that so called research is based on computer modeling and other completely non-scientific methods.
I use computer modeling and mathematical correlations to put seismic data together, but you are right, what I do is not scientific. I leave the science to the scientists in my field and try to use what they discover, to improve my processing of the data. What science do you do? But I digress.
Let me pose just a couple more questions to you and C:, if you will. On what basis do you assert the following? “Global warming has been well established by observation and modeling – but if that’s not good enough for you, just reflect on the increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere. We are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a way that is bound to lead to massive changes in weather, climate, and species survival.” I completely disagree with the conclusions you make in this statement.
C:
Can you also see that humans are just as much a part of nature, and no matter what they are doing, nature is constantly adapting to find that elusive balance you speak about? Do we allow ourselves the belief that we are making improvements to nature’s balance when there has been no evidence that nature has ever done anything but fluxuate on its own hook and regardless of whatever we do? I have really gone out on a limb to even give you that nature is organized in any way beyond the human tendancy to the asthetic of perceptual harmony.
Finally, neither of you get to believe that it should be incumbant upon the oil and gas industry to find the alternative sources of energy you would like. Why should we create markets to compete with our own? Go start your own companies and try to create markets from your own ideas on how to provide “sensible” energy. If you can, and you can produce energy either better or less expensive than the oil busines can, we will all be better off. Get ready because eventually lots of other forms of energy will be cheaper than oil. But not if free markets are not allowed to work.
There is no armagedden on my horizon, but then, I am getting old, eh?
… still waiting for a response re the false attribution;
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”
A second attempt sent today…
Dear Editor,
The author of “Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exagerrated”, falsely attributed the following claim to NASA GISS;
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”
This is contradicted by an AP report dated 12 January 1999;
“While temperatures in the United States were the warmest in at least 40 years, final figures aren’t complete, NASA said. But, the agency added, it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934″
And a statement in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Geophysical research, by Dr. James Hansen, the director of GISS, in 2001;
“The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998″
Therefore I request that Pajamas Media issue a correction unless the author of the article can provide a corroborating direct quotation.
Further information can be found on this page;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php
I request that Pajamas Media also consider removing two insinuations of dishonesty levelled at GISS.
1)
“(they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”
As GISS released notice of the correction through their “Updates of Analysis” page, a standard procedure, the implication that GISS dishonestly hid the error is unfair.
2)
In relation to another error;
“proclaiming it the warmest October on record (until they were caught)”
The author implies this error was deliberate. In fact it was an inevitable result of the automated processing algorithm applied to station data. The author would have realized this had he done a minimum of research. If needed, I can provide assistance to show that this is the case.
Engendering public mistrust in a major scientific organization *on false grounds* is, in the words of the author, a “serious error”.
I have yet to receive acknowledgment of receipt for a similar email sent to PJM nine days ago, but I realize it is the holiday season, and you are busy, or may not have received the email.
The previous email is included below.
Regards
Lazar
[snip]
Jim,
I hope you are right and that free market does lead us to cleaner forms of energy. I do wonder how we can be more forward thinking. Americans are complacent and tend to lack the ability to look at the bigger picture, I include myself in this assessment. My impression is that so long as there is profit in oil, we will drill to the last drop and deal with an energy crisis when it happens. I have learned that those who fail to plan, plan to fail. Perhaps you can tell me if there are any plans in the works to move beyond oil dependency. It seems to me, if the Saudi’s do not have oil to hold over us, they will have less influence. If we produce our own energy sources independently of foriegn control, we will be better off. Finally if we keep in mind that eventually oil wells are going to run dry and plan for it, our markets will be more secure.
You say I don’t get to leave it to the energy industry to invent and find new forms of energy. I disagree. Who else is going to do it?Everyone has a calling in life and my calling is not science. We depend on an education system to educate. We depend of waste management to keep our streets clear of garbage. W depend on the energy industry and other similare organizations to provide services and innovation. That is what it means to be part of a society. We work together to further the whole.
Also, I never said that people can improve upon nature. I am saying that we can impact nature negatively. I acknowledge that the situation has gotten better in the US as far as pollution is concerned, but we are not there yet. Life is a process. We will never reach a pinnacle of knowledge, nor will we ever find the perfect way to opperate. When we become arrogant enough to believe we have “arrived” is when we will inevitably fall.
Finally, I don’t see armegedon in my future either. I am getting old as well. I am concerned about my 9 year old and 8 year old daughters and my 4 month old, 2 year old, and 3 year old nieces and nephews. Armegedon could be in their future if we are not careful.
@114 Jim Baker
On what basis do you assert the following? “Global warming has been well established by observation and modeling – but if that’s not good enough for you, just reflect on the increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere. We are changing the composition of the atmosphere in a way that is bound to lead to massive changes in weather, climate, and species survival.” I completely disagree with the conclusions you make in this statement.
…
Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere
The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating electricity.
It is not enough to disagree with my conclusions – you need to provide an alternative conclusion. What do you think will happen to our planet as CO2 levels increase?
Go start your own companies and try to create markets from your own ideas on how to provide “sensible” energy. If you can, and you can produce energy either better or less expensive than the oil busines can, we will all be better off. Get ready because eventually lots of other forms of energy will be cheaper than oil. But not if free markets are not allowed to work.
…
Our ‘free’ markets are not really free. The distribution of capital is a precondition which, in this case, has allowed the oil industry to strangle many efforts at reform in the cradle. There are also many costs associated with fossil fuels (such as pollution) which are currently externalized. The GWB energy policy has provided massive support to coal, nuclear and oil producers, while ignoring the potential for solar, wind and geothermal power to meet US energy needs. Fossil fuels are not a long term energy solution. Eventually market forces will overcome inertia and wrong-headed policy, but it may be a painful lesson if we don’t prepare now.
I appreciate your suggestion to create my own company – believe me, it is something I have considered at many times. Solar power distributed on urban rooftops would be my immediate solution – but there are already companies providing these services. I think my impact could be much larger by getting into politics and reforming the government policies that are currently promoting fossil fuel at the expense of sustainable technology. Wish me luck.
DS
to Lazar
The GISS data error was discovered by skeptic Steve Mcyntire, not GISS itself. They corrected the error after being informed by him, and only announced the error after it the issue became noteworthy. Your bizarre insistence that this somehow invalidates the entire article is illustrative of desperation, in that you haven`t found any way to impugne this article otherwise.
It is interesting that GISS, an organization controlled by the radical Hansen and also having Gavin Schmidt, coauthor of Realclimate with the Mcyntire-discredited Michael Mann (he of the hockey stick) keeps making these unfortunate errors that happen to advance their personal viewpoints.
Here is the story behind GISS`s correction http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/08/08/1998-no-longer-the-hottest-year-on-record-in-usa/
I would direct your attention to this summation of GISS Surface Temperature Analysis from 2005. Here are two quotes from GISS itself
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/:
“However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year“
and
“Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.“
GISS is clearly claiming 1998 was the warmest year on record, Lazar. If Hansen disagreed with his own staff he should have taken steps to stop the misrepresentation of facts. It is interesting that these errors suit his purposes. They had a duty to issue a press release that the information they had been using to hype the concept of AGW was erroneous (they had been providing this for years, after all) yet they simply quietly corrected the data. Irresponsible, at best; they had made the mess.
About the reissuing of September data in October; once again, strange how it benefits their viewpoints. The author of the Pajamas piece was pointing out that GISS is either biased or incompetent, and there is nothing to dispute here. What would the damage have been in the court of public opinion had GISS`s error not been discovered? Either way, the author of this piece is correct, Lazar, and you are not.
To David S.
Here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts is a paper that illustrates that CO2 has fluctuated over time, and was considerably higher in the not so distant past. (180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS by professor E.G. Beck)The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not necessarily the highest in 650,000 years, and it is not even certain that the rise is a result of industrial emissions. (Someone at Free Republic thoughtfully copied the pdf so it can be read more easily. The link to the pdf is provided.)
It should be pointed out that CO2 rises after warming periods with a lag as much as 800 years. Eight hundred years ago the Earth was experiencing the Medieval Warming Period.
Noah,
“only announced the error after it the issue became noteworthy”
No.
Steve McIntyre notified GISS of the error on August 5th or 6th of 2006. By August 7th, GISS had corrected the error, posted notification on their homepage, and sent an email to Steve McIntyre aknowledging the error.
“Your bizarre insistence that this somehow invalidates the entire article”
You’re lying.
I said no such thing.
“is illustrative of desperation, in that you haven`t found any way to impugne this article otherwise.”
Read the comment thread.
[snip]
“Here is the story behind GISS’s correction”
Do you realize that the title reads;
“1998 no longer the hottest year on record *in USA*”?
and that the title of the GISS webpage you linked reads;
“*Global* Temperature Trends”?
Notice any difference?
The kerfuffle over temperatures for 1998 and 1934 refers to temperatures in the USA upper 48. The 1998 global average temperature remained unaffected by the correction, it was globally the hottest year before and after. The quotes I’ve cited refer to USA average temperature.
I’m bored already.
Binned the rest.
@119
Noah,
You cite a study of historical data to refute decades of data collected and analyzed globally that shows a clear and steady increase in CO2. I am not impressed. Figures from 1800 have little bearing on the 650,000 year time scale at issue here. There is no doubt expressed regarding the modern rise in CO2 levels, and the human component of a cause is not in question here. There is great modern data on the subject.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
You can find a lot of very well documented evidence that there is a steady and accelerating rise in CO2 levels that coincides with human activities that generate the gas. If you have evidence to suggest a different source for the huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, something not related to human activity, please share. There are certainly CO2 sources that are not caused by man, but it is quite clear that human fossil fuel usage contributes massive amounts of CO2 (and many other pollutants) into the atmosphere.
There is also a wealth of data from ice cores that helps us to see the historical trend over hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
If you take a look at the graph, it is clear at first glance that CO2 levels that may have been naturally reaching a peak have been pushed far outside the most recent range of oscillation. This is a very clear record of the impact of human activity. The methane figures tend to get less press, but are similarly alarming.
You can pick and choose evidence to support any position, of course, but the best scientific data available, not to mention common sense, indicate that polluting the atmosphere on a massive scale is a Bad Thing™
Peace.
DS
David S,
“You can pick and choose evidence to support any position”
The evidence he chose are old, inaccurate measurments discarded almost 50 years ago.
Beck’s paper is discussed here, here, here, here, and here.
Lazar, you seem determined to confuse the issue-a minor point in this article, to be sure. You quote from a 1999 AP article (which you do not provide) and yet the piece at Anthony Watts` website makes it clear that Mcyntire attributes the mistake to a computer glitch in 2000. He states quite plainly that NASA data showed 1998 as the warmest on record in the U.S.-completely demolishing your argument. I do not know what it is you think you are proving with this. The point was, GISS had allowed the public perception to hold a mistaken notion, then quietly corrected the matter with little fanfare-which is dishonest. If GISS were really interested in fostering legitimate debate they would have sent press releases to the media to correct the misperception. I believe that is the whole point. Oh, and it clearly became noteworthy after McYntire corrected them (with no help from GISS on methodology, it should be pointed out.)
“`Your bizarre insistence that this somehow invalidates the entire article“
You’re lying.
I said no such thing.`
Maybe not, but you are implying that. Isn`t that the accusation you level against Mr. Birdnow here.
I`ve read the comment thread; you haven`t said anything that seriously damages the validity of the argument.
Perhaps global assessments aren`t changed, but the problems with GISS records remain, and their methods for collecting data are suspect-especially in the supposedly extra-warm Siberia. Until Giss operates with greater transparency and stops making mistakes, it will remain suspect.
Yawn, I`m bored with you already; binned the rest.
David S.
I`m not arguing that CO2 isn`t rising, but am claiming that there is no real evidence that this rise isn`t natural, or at least partly natural. Everyone is assuming here, based on a popular theory that has not met the tests of falsifiability. It should be obvious that a warming period includes an increase in CO2 and Methane; they always have. Whether greenhouse gases are driving the increase or the other way around has not been adequately established.
The Antarctic ice core data article had this to say;
“The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa–or whether they increase synchronously.“
In other words, correlation does not necessitate causality.
Here is a blogpost by Jennifer Marohasy which has a number of links explaining why ice core data are unreliable, by the way.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/07/co2-record-in-ice-cores-unreliable-a-note-from-paul-williams/
I agree; pollution is bad. But do we want to tilt at windmills ala Don Quixote? It`s going to reduce our standard of living, and doom the third world to poverty to boot. Is this really a crisis, or is it just a curiosity as Roger Revelle (the man who supposedly inspired Al Gore) believed?
Peace to you, too!
Noah
Noah,
“You quote from a 1999 AP article (which you do not provide) and yet the piece at Anthony Watts` website makes it clear that Mcyntire attributes the mistake to a computer glitch in 2000″
Sigh. The glitch occured in 2000. The identification and correction of the error occured in 2007. In 1999 and 2001 GISS stated that it was 1934, not 1998, that was the warmest year in the USA. This contradicts the author’s claim that GISS proclaimed the warmest year 1998, not 1934. Your point is?
“He states quite plainly that NASA data showed 1998 as the warmest on record in the U.S.-completely demolishing your argument.”
Ah, from GISS “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record” to “NASA data showed”, which it didn’t;
“The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the
GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station
history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.”
According to Steve McIntyre, immediately prior to the correction GISS analysis showed 1998 0.01C warmer relative to 1934, and immediately after 1998 changed to 0.02C cooler, neither of those differences are statistically significant, neither did NASA GISS proclaim 1998 the warmest year.
“Maybe not, but you are implying that.”
No I’m not. Cite please.
“Isn`t that the accusation you level against Mr. Birdnow here.”
No, the accusation I level is that he implies GISS acted with deliberate dishonesty, and I provide a direct quotation viz.
“proclaiming it the warmest October on record (until they were caught)”
“you haven`t said anything that seriously damages the validity of the argument”
Believe that if you will.
Binned.
Pajamas Media authors and editors,
Straight-forward science reporting;
“In 2007 Steve McIntyre identified an error in the GISS surface temperature data. Following a correction, 1998 in the continental US changed from being a statistically insignificant 0.01 deg C warmer than 1934, to a statistically insignificant 0.02 deg C cooler. In both cases 1998 was a statistical dead-heat with 1934 for the title of warmest year on record. Interestingly, GISS never released a statement claiming 1998 as the warmest year despite the 0.01 deg C difference. Instead GISS had the following to say about differences of this magnitude;
‘In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.’
GISS corrected their analysis and placed notification on the GISS home and “Updates to Analysis” pages within 1-2 days after being informed of the error, although they did not issue a press release.”
Compare with;
“GISS has made serious (1) errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (2) (they quietly (3) corrected it to 1934 without announcing (4) their error)”
(1) Spin.
(2) Lie.
(3) Spin.
(4) Lie.
Lazar you just don`t get the point.
“Sigh. The glitch occured in 2000. The identification and correction of the error occured in 2007. In 1999 and 2001 GISS stated that it was 1934, not 1998, that was the warmest year in the USA. This contradicts the author’s claim that GISS proclaimed the warmest year 1998, not 1934. Your point is?“
Sigh! The point is, GISS data was the basis of newsstories and articles that supposedly proved that 1998 was the warmest year on record, and yet they took only the minimal steps to correct the misconception when refuted. What Hansen said previously is of no account, because his staff processed the data and provided a result which he was doubtlessly pleased with.
You can`t have it both ways; either GISS data was wrong or it isn`t. Why are we having this argument at all if that isn`t the case? You provide an old quote (which you fail to provide a link to) to say you have disproved this, then you change tack and claim Giss made the necessary corrections. Which is it? You have had to undermine your own premise. You are doing a fine job of twisting like a pretzel.
You give kudos to Mcyntire for his objectivity. Well…
Mcyntire gives us the old data versus the corrected at his website, clearly proving my point:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
Also worthy of note is this from Mcyntire:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878
Would you take Gavin Schmidt`s word for it?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/
“There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC.“
Schmidt goes on to argue for “statistical insignificance“ which is laughable; the entire GW scare is based on statistical insignificance. You alarmists decry a rise in CO2 from 26 molecules per every ten thousand to 38 per ten thousand-and increase of 12 molecules per ten thousand (12 per 10,000 increase) as portents of the apocalypse, and you claim 1* warming is evidence of the Doom. The idea that one degree may fall within natural variations, that we do not know enough climatology to state with certainty that this is abnormal never seems to enter into alarmist heads.
It should be pointed out that surface temperature analyses are poor yardsticks to begin with; the source used by GISS
http://climatesci.org/2005/12/22/106/
http://yang.gmu.edu/nasacd/www/giss.html#202
You say;
Uh, perhaps you need to reread those statements. I think they speak for themselves. (I suppose I must explain; you are implying that he`s implying. You have no problem putting words into Birdnow`s mouth as long as they fit your paradigm. Nothing he said was incorrect or untruthful.
I notice you`ve given up on that business with GISS repeating September data in October. You cannot defend such incompetence, so you are concentrating on this business about 1998. It IS important, because it shows an unwillingness on the part of NASA to make data accessible and it suggests a certain incompetence or bias.
You say;
So, you are now reduced to playing little semantic games; you know full well that the public release of the data-and it`s subsequent usage by alarmists-did indeed make such a proclamation. NASA was duty bound to correct the false impression their data error made.
(1) Spin.
(2) Lie.
(3) Spin.
(4) Lie.
Yes, you are doing a great job of it!
Noah,
I get the point.
You would rather waste time splitting hairs on a point of no practical importance, rather than inspect the actual preponderance of the evidence that supports atmospheric composition and climate change having an intimate relationship that is subject to the impact of human activities.
That you would compare the statistical significance of a temperature variance of less than 3% with a CO2 variance on the order of 46% is just more evidence that you have no meaningful input to offer on the subject at hand.
Perhaps you prefer a world of excessive waste and filth, with massive human suffering due to toxic pollution. That is what you are arguing for when you try to explain away the changes wrought by humans on this planet. The first step to a better future is admitting that there is a problem. You would prefer not to take that step.
I get the point.
Peace,
David
Oops; I made a significantly significant error. It`s a rise in CO2 from 26 to 38 molecules per one hundred thousand, not ten thousand.
No, I`d rather have the truth.
David, CO2 is not “waste and filth“ as you suggest; it is a natural compound that you yourself eliminate when you breathe. There simply is no reason to believe (and that is exactly what alarmists do-they BELIEVE) that the end is nigh based on computer projections-projections that cannot even predict the present based on past data
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?articleid=22604
If you are seriously concerned about the environment, you would do better to look at other environmental problems like deforestation and bad land practices. You would encourage free societies and free markets in the Third World, because free societies and free markets produce both a better life for the poor and a cleaner environment. The old Soviet Union was a pigpen, and athletes at the Beijing Olympics had to wear masks when they trained because the air is so bad. These are things you can do to make the air cleaner. CO2 is not that serious an serious issue; temperature rise will stop (if, indeed, it ever started)as the wavelength becomes saturated, so to speak, after maybe a 2* temperature rise. http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html Earth isn`t Venus, although the alarmists have convinced you guys that it is.
The main argument is over feedback mechanisms; are they positive or negative? Well, if the world is cool this year because of global warming, what does that tell us? As water vapor increases the Earth`s albedo increases, cooling the planet and reducing water vapor. That is a negative feedback. Alarmists claim we have positive feedback, that the few extra molecules of CO2 will lead to an increase in water vapor, making the world hotter. This is demonstrably wrong, but there you have it.
If you want to worry about something, perhaps you should worry about Iran acquiring a nuclear device; there is far more immediate danger from that! Worry about world hunger, or terrorism, or a return of smallpox. Global Warming is a poor choice for a bogeyman.
Again, Peace to you, too!
Noah,
It would be helpful if you could cut down the length of your responses and not raise *new* points whilst other items remain under discussion.
“The point is, GISS data was the basis of newsstories and articles that supposedly proved that 1998 was the warmest year on record”
Learn to disaggregate issues. The issue I raised with the author, which you then took up with me, was that the author’s claim…
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”
…is false. I have asked PJM to provide a source statement “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”. And I have provided evidence to show that they didn’t.
Whether or not someone else (you don’t specify who) made that claim is *a seperate issue*.
Is ‘GISS data were used by others to make the claim’ your way of backtracking from ‘GISS proclaimed’? Ah well.
I’ll provide one comment; GISTEMP is an open source product. Any idiot can download the data to make false or exagerated claims, just as any scientist can download the data to produce useful research. It is the idiot who is responsible for those false claims, and the scientist for the research, not GISS.
“What Hansen said previously is of no account, because his staff processed the data and provided a result which he was doubtlessly pleased with.”
That is a meaningless, illogical statement.
“You can`t have it both ways; either GISS data was wrong or it isn`t.”
I acknowledged and never denied the error, how is this ‘having it both ways’?
“Why are we having this argument at all if that isn`t the case?”
Try and follow the discussion.
“then you change tack”
I have not ‘changed tack’. I stand by all claims.
“and claim Giss made the necessary corrections. Which is it?”
You are offering a false binary.
1) ‘GISS did not proclaim 1998 the hottest year’
does not contradict
2) ‘GISS made corrections to 1998′.
You are having problems with logic and following the discussion. Continuing is pointless.
PJM staff,
I’m still anticipating a reply to the issue of false attribution and other issues I have raised above and in two emails.
Even an acknowledgment that the issue has been raised in form of a comment or email to me would be appreciated.
I guess some people just have to play little games. Lazar, you continue to spin and prevaricate, and there really is no point in further conversation. You are obviously wrong, have been clearly proven wrong here, yet you continue to move the goalposts thinking that means you won.
There is no point in talking to someone who isn`t interested in the truth. Good luck in your delusional world.
Noah,
Let me point out that it is you who consistently “move the goalposts”.
First you repeat the author’s claim…
“GISS is clearly claiming 1998 was the warmest year on record”
After demonstrating that GISS did not make any such claim, and that they explicitly disavowed that interpretation, you changed the claim to…
“NASA data showed 1998 as the warmest on record”
After pointing out that the difference was within the margin of error, again as stated explicitly by GISS, you changed the claim to…
“alarmists-did indeed make such a proclamation”
Some unnamed, unsourced ‘alarmists’ allegedly said something like that is now your claim.
Which has nothing to do with my original issue with the author making a *false* attribution;
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”
remember that this was the original issue that *you* took up with me.
“There is no point in talking”
Bye!
David S.
“no meaningful”
Indeed.
‘CO2 has risen by x amount’ is not a test of statistical significance, nor is it an indicator of effect size.
Useful books;
Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate Methods (1986)
by Sam Kash Kachigan
ISBN 978-0942154993
Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences (2005)
by Daniel S. Wilks
ISBN 978-0127519661
Denialist logic…
’1 part cyanide to 10000 parts water sounds to me like a very small number, therefore I won’t die if I drink out of this cup, and the scientist who has quantified the effects is an ‘alarmist’.’
David S.
re significance, I was not directing the comment at you, just agreeing with your statement and giving references for Noah and others. You clearly understand the science that I wish others would.
On January 6th I sent the following email to Pajamas Media editors Stephen Green, Glenn Reynolds, and David Russin. As of today I have received one response, from Stephen Green, stating that he was not the editor for this article and did not know who the editor is, he also suggested that I contact the author.
—
Dear Sirs,
There appears to be a case of false attribution in one of your articles
(Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated)
where the author states
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”
I’ve been trying to obtain from PJM either a retraction or a corroborating source statement where NASA GISS state the above. I have yet to receive an acknowledgment of an email sent to the PJM editorial department (via the contact page) alerting PJM to this issue over two weeks ago. I have since sent another email by the same method and posted several comments on the thread, also to no avail. I would be grateful if you would look into this.
I’ve included the two emails below along with a comment from the thread which provides context of what the data showed and what NASA GISS said about it / interpreted from it.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Regards
Lazar [snip]
—
Following Stephen Green’s advice, since Timothy Birdnow does not give a contact email, on January 6th I left the following comment on his blog. The comment was deleted.
—
January 6th
Dear Timothy,
In reference to your article on Pajamas Media;
“Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated”
where you state;
“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”
Could you provide a corroborating source statement from NASA GISS? If you cannot, will you issue a retraction?
Thanks
—
So then, again on January 6th, I left the following comment on Roger L. Simon’s blog, but never received a reply.
—
Roger,
The following email was sent to Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and David Russin. Could you help? Could someone acknowledge the issue?
Dear Sirs,
[snip]
—