Q. Dear Umbra,
I know it’s a little early, but I had this great idea for a New Year’s resolution. Every month in 2010, I pick a certain eco-area of my life and focus on that for a whole month. So far I have: reduce energy consumption; reduce water consumption; reduce material waste; reuse; recycle; volunteerism/activism; eating local. Finally, I think December will be trying to use everything I’ve learned and put it all together cohesively. However, my list isn’t full, and I’m out of ideas. Do you have any suggestions?
Happy Hippie
Alexandria, Va.
A. Dearest HH,
It’s never too early to make good resolutions! I bet you are also stocking up on organic, fair-trade chocolate for Valentine’s Day. Three cheers for organization.
Personally, I think a better resolution might be to try to spend the year really, seriously improving on one or two of these areas, rather than flitting about from topic to topic. As you well know, you cannot just “reuse” for a month and be done with it. However, I admire the somewhat wackadoodle structure of your list, and I think you’ve made a great start on it. You have seven good categories, plus your December free-for-all. So here are four more ideas from me to round out your year: go carless for a month; serve as a public information officer on climate change for a month, helping your friends and family and perhaps strangers understand the issue; spend a month weatherizing your house; and spend a month without the TV on. This last step will help you not only reduce your energy consumption, it will help you reconnect with the real world. You could use the time instead to read deeply on the eco-topic of your choice, or to brush up on green classics.
Readers, any other ideas for HH? Or resolutions of your own? Please share in the comments section below.
Resolvedly,
Umbra
Q. Dear Umbra,
I was recently appalled when my 9-year-old son came home from school and related that his teacher had denounced human-caused climate change to the class. I immediately searched for the Grist link I once saw that listed scientists (and academic institutions) who believe otherwise. Unfortunately that link appears to be missing. If not for Grist, where can I find such a list? How should I deal with this situation?
A very worried mother stewing in the climate change pot,
Cate J.
Whitefish, Mont.
A. Dearest Cate,
Just the facts ... please?This really boils my butter. Let me direct you and others to our thorough series on “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” which refutes various attempts to debunk the science—it includes a list of some of the scientific organizations that agree about anthropogenic climate change. I’m not sure if it’s the list you had in mind, but it should help. And here is a letter sent in late October to every U.S. senator from the country’s leading scientific organizations, confirming that research has shown climate change is primarily human caused.
You might also point your child’s teacher to the U.S. EPA’s resource page for students and educators, or print out the agency’s climate FAQ. It is called, notably, “Back to Basics.” Because at this point in time, this is basic information: our current climate problem is caused by human activity.
Does this teacher also suggest that gravity may be false and the moon is made of cheese? If he or she insists on continuing to plant seeds of doubt in young minds about scientifically solid information, I would not hesitate to take your concerns to a higher authority.
Factily,
Umbra
Q. Dear Umbra,
I am looking for advice about purchasing the best low-flow and/or dual-flush toilet to replace my current one, which I’ve been told needs a complete replacement due to its age and inability to flush sufficiently. I’ve heard some use a very low amount of water, but that can often translate into a lack of, well, doing their duty. I’m having a hard time navigating all the brands and claims to fame. Help me wash it all away!
Erica
Portland, Ore.
A. Dearest Erica,
This notion that low-flow toilets are somehow not powerful enough to do their duty lingers on, despite being largely false. It’s true that the first generation of low-flows lacked a little oomph, but at this point the major manufacturers have figured out how to keep things moving. And it’s worth making the switch: toilets can use up to 30 percent of all our household water. A low-flow toilet uses just 1.6 gallons per flush compared to an older model’s three or more gallons, while a high-efficiency model uses a measly 1.28 gpf. Dual-flush toilets, which are my favorite option but tend to be more expensive, usually use less than a gallon for liquid waste and about 1.6 for solid waste.
To be honest, I think if you identify your price range and go with one of the major manufacturers, you’ll be fine. But if you are really in the mood to dork out, the California Urban Water Conservation Council has done some extremely thorough “maximum performance” testing, and makes various PDFs available that sort the results by performance, by manufacturer, and so forth. The EPA also offers a list of high-efficiency toilets that have earned its WaterSense seal, as good an endorsement as we currently have. Good luck.
Whooshily,
Umbra
Q. Dear Umbra,
In your last column, you talked about what people can do in the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen summit. I wanted to share a site called www.hopenhagen.org that is working on that very issue. There is a useful Facebook application that is associated that has a myriad of actions for just that audience: change out a lightbulb, turn down your water heater, etc.! Is there any way you can write a bit about it in the next post in response to the question? Thanks!
Mary
Santa Cruz, Calif.
A. Dearest Mary,
I think you just have. Thank you for adding to our resources.
Hopily,
Umbra
Ask Umbra on engagement rings, straws, and napkins
Ask Umbra’s pearls of wisdom on Valentine’s Day
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 7:43 am
09 Nov 2009
http://www.envirolet.com/vf.html
It uses a vacuum system to suck the waste outside to the composting chamber. No sewer, drain field or city sewer hookup necessary.
It works on the same principle as the vacuum system at a drive in bank. If there are no Envirolet dealers in your area, try it out the next time you drive by a (sh)Citibank branch. Place a suitable test substance in the tube and hit "send". Screaming/vomiting on the part of bank employees will signal a successful flush.
You gotta do a video on these vacuum/composting toilets Umbra. Maybe a video "test drive"? Hehey. What better way to make them trendy?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:09 am
09 Nov 2009
I mean, other than personal distaste, is there really any reason why we can't just let it stew there for a few hours until someone mixes some solid waste with it and then needs to flush?
Permalink
Mark McCaffrey Posted 12:31 pm
09 Nov 2009
But we can do much better. NSF, NASA, NOAA, EPA are all putting significant funding behind climate education efforts, using the Essential Principles of Climate Science Literacy, that was reviewed and endorsed by 13 federal agencies, as the framework for climate science and making informed decisions about climate change mitigation AND adaptation. You can download it here: http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/educators/climate-literacy
One other footnote: the Ocean Project (http://www.theoceanproject.org/) did a survey that included teenagers, and by far and away teens are tuned into climate change as the biggest environmental issue facing them, feel that personal responsibility toward the environment, and they are becoming the opinion leaders about environmental issues in their families.
Permalink
Matt N. Posted 2:42 pm
09 Nov 2009
Sorry I suppose that was a bit crude...
Permalink
raleighmclemore Posted 4:29 pm
09 Nov 2009
A great example of something that might influence a science teacher is a group called "Izzit" I got on their website when another science teacher told me they give "free dvds on science". Yup, "Those Unstoppable Solar Cycles: Rethinking Global Warming" was my first free DVD and it is 13 minutes of how climate change is only our regular solar cycles at work. It, in my opinion, is a well done piece, student spokesperson with scientists nodding in agreement on how the sun is responsible for any tiny deviations in temp.
Some other investigators traced some of the scientists who are quoted in the movie and found that they had no idea that their words were being used to attack the science of climate change. Pretty pissed off. The DVD is available to you or anyone for free. That's right, free. What in education is free anymore? Propaganda.
Well, I just had my brain washed and I can't do a thing with it.
With firm handshake,
Raleigh
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 3:40 pm
10 Nov 2009
It was written in response to Steve Milloy's investor group, and addresses their request to consider "alternative" scientific views.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 10:37 am
10 Nov 2009
Until then please stop the brainwashing.
Permalink
raleighmclemore Posted 8:56 pm
11 Nov 2009
"Thank God there are still teachers who require the use of the scientific principle in understandign climate." (sic)
I include myself in this group and I'm a skeptic about pretty much everything. That's why I checked on some recently received material from a group called "Izzit". My example, a group called "Izzit", producing a DVD that claims human activities are not the main cause in recent increases in CO2 and a predicted increase in temperature. The dvd proposes "Unstoppable Solar Cycles" as the reason for any global temperature change. My dvd included the use of a number of scientists in a fashion that made them appear to doubt the IPCC reports on climate change. Some of the people quoted in the film have since announced that their real views are hidden by the film and they fully support the IPCC data. It is clear from the outrage of some of the interviewees that they feel tricked by a group that was pushing a hidden agenda. That is the example I gave as propoganda.
These little snippets are a poor place to have a debate, but my skepticism has led me to believe that there are those with a vested interest in not changing how things are done on our planet. They merely have to "manufacture doubt" as they did so successfully with issues like smoking and asbestos exposure. I think we should be very aware of their potential for bias and give our students opportunities to see how it works.
As for your other statement: "I am a climate skeptic teacher as well (honors physics)and most of us are." I'm guessing by "...climate skeptic teacher" you mean one that teaches students to be aware of potential bias, especially when money and power are involved, and I would completely agree. I assume you use peer reviewed sources and information that are as free from bias as possible. You always make clear that material from groups that may have vested interest in producing doubt needs to be looked at with a more crictical eye. It is important to let kids know that scientists don't claim any absolute truth, but work towards understandings that are operational.
On the other hand, if you mean that "most of us" are teaching students to doubt human activity as a critical part of climate change it would be interesting to know how you scientifically found this out. It appears to me that leadership groups like NSTA are clear in their support of the science of the IPCC. I'm a science teacher and actually all of the science teachers at my school believe that the science of the IPCC represents science's best understanding of what is going on. You apparently are in touch with the majority of science teachers about what we are thinking, but how?
I would also use the same argument to your statement: "AGW is no longer a scientific hypothesis..." I guess it's enough for some if you say so, but you'll have to provide me with a bit more detail than to simply dismiss it because you think it is wrong.
Since you didn't respond to what I wrote I just wanted to remind people of my point as I think, in your desire to make your position clear, you entirely missed it.
There are groups that are trying to attack the best science we have on climate change and, in the case I described, they use distortion and half-truths to do so. We should make our students aware of this. I do. When I show the "anti-climate change" dvd it is always a lively class.
Having said that I appreciate your comments. They remind me to look at things with greater rigor and I think you for your reminder.
I suppose Groucho Marx sums up my feelings on some of the writings of climate change skeptics best when he said: "Who are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?"
With firm handshake,
Raleigh
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:22 pm
11 Nov 2009
No, obviously not.
Also, I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that regional damage, when taken cumulatively, would begin to have a global effect?
Once again, no, obviously not.
Look, you're obviously not much of a researcher, if you've labeled it a "popular religion". Your bias is pretty clear from the start. Real researchers don't generally have that kind of bias.
It's no wonder they don't pay you much.
Permalink
raleighmclemore Posted 10:47 pm
11 Nov 2009
With firm handshake,
Raleigh
Permalink
earthsong Posted 1:06 pm
10 Nov 2009
Permalink
earthsong Posted 1:09 pm
10 Nov 2009
use only green cleaning and green pesonal care products. This simple act will protect both you and the environment.I think they call that a "no-brainer".
Permalink
latecommer Posted 2:46 pm
10 Nov 2009
Still, through all of this, I have seen no empirical evidence that man has caused any climate change on a global level. Regionally I have seen a lot of damage... as in the cutting down of rainforests and the changes in local climate caused by this and the clearing of land and the burning of local vegetation (especially in S.A. to clear land for biofuel use).
These regional acts have changed precipitation patterns, caused the runoff of soils and destroyed productive land, but I have seen no evidence of human caused global warming. I am still looking and asking for it.
We are not really even very warm. Most of science agrees that it was warmer recently MWP (800 yrs or so ago) and we have had times in the past where we were as much as 10 to 15 degrees C warmer, and during those times there were no mass extinctions as some warn for the future.
For the majority of the Earth's lifespan we were warmer, and ice free. In fact during the time that man and other modern animals evolved we were in a much warmer wetter climate.
Please, if anyone has empirical evidence proving man's global footprint let me know about it.
Until then I will continue to believe in the natural cycles that thousands of scientists over hundreds of years have studied and confirmed.
To that end I believe that we are playing a very dangerous game... pretending that we have to deal with an imaginary problem while ignoring the real threats.
One, the threat of the damage we are doing regionally, and two, the fact that, if I am correct,that we are facing decades of cooling temepratures that could very well lead to food shortages and starvation.
The Sun is now at the lowest level science has seen (since we started measuring it about 40 years ago), following a 50 year period of hyper activity. The oceans serve as a buffer to slow the changes from one state to the other, but as they cool so will the atmosphere.
I am in the camp that hopes it will get warmer not colder, but do not believe that man is capable of doing anything to change natural cycles. Personally I am preparing for colder summers and dryer weather.
Oh, by the way, in all my studies and communications, I have yet to run into any of those nasty people who are paid by the energy companies to deny the popular religion of AGW. If anyone knows how to get in touch with them let me know.... I could use the cash. They don't pay teachers much in California.
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 4:00 pm
10 Nov 2009
Permalink
Mark McCaffrey Posted 5:14 pm
11 Nov 2009
If the author has seen no empirical evidence that humans have caused any climate change, then he is not looking very hard. The IPCC report has hundreds of pages of evidence based on peer-reviewed research. He claims that he has read 350 peer-reviewed journal papers on both sides of the issue. Then I'll assume that he claims to have read 175 pro-AGW and 175 anti-AGW. In terms of the anti-AGW papers, I would be quite surprised if he could find 175 such papers published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals. One would be hard-pressed to find that many, especially in recent years. As for 175 pro-AGW, that would certainly be easy to find. In fact, 175 would barely scratch the surface of the public literature, even in the last few years.
As far as what should be the earth's temperature. This is an interesting question. It has indeed been much warmer than it is now or even than it is forecast to be in the several decades. However, this is actually cause for concern. It means that the earth is indeed prone to dramatic climate change. It should be noted that those warm periods were accompanied by high concentrations of GHG - clear evidence of a link between GHG and temperate (see below) and confirmation of just how sensitive our climate is to GHGs.
One key thing to consider when talking about warmer climates. When average temperatures were much warmer, there weren't humans roaming the earth, but dinosaurs. The entirety of human civilization has developed in a period of very stable climate, relative to other periods. The stability of the climate has helped civilization develop. Now we are fiddling with the climate and taking temperatures into a regime not seen by any previous human society. And we are doing far more rapidly than we will be able to easily adapt to.
All science can do and all it hopes to do is to develop hypotheses, accumulate that support or contradict those hypotheses in the hopes that we can be confident enough to develop testable theories that explain that evidence. And then we keep collecting evidence to continually test those theories. As more evidence comes in, the theory is either strengthened, broadened, modified, or discarded.
For climate change, the hypothesis is that human emission of greenhouse gases have contributed to warming and will continue to do so in the future. Here is the evidence:
1. Greenhouse gases warm the earth. This has been known for well over 100 years. It has been tested numerous times and is a fundamental physical principle.
2. Greenhouse gases are increasing. This has been directly observed for over 50 years.
3. Temperatures are increasing. This has been directly observed for over 130 years. Over the past 30+ years we have global networks of satellites and ground stations providing coverage over the entire earth. There is also clear evidence in the shift of habitats of flora and fauna that are sensitive to temperature. Longer records are available from such things as tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores, and other sources.
4. Greenhouse gases and temperatures are closely linked and GHGs have accompanied major temperature shifts over at least the last several hundred thousand years. This is observed from numerous ice cores taken from all over the globe.
5. The recent rise in greenhouse gases is due to human emissions. This is pretty obvious - where else can much of our emissions go but into the atmosphere? But it is also clearly seen in the chemical signature of human-emitted gases compared to naturally-emitted gases.
6. Climate models cannot reproduce the recent warming unless human emissions are included.
This is the basics. Each of the above is supported by hundreds of individual research projects published peer-reviewed scientific journals. Note that only one of the above involves climate models and it is not fundamental, but rather is simply another line of supporting evidence.
The writer is indeed correct when he says, "AGW (anthropogenic global warming is no longer a scientific hypothesis"; it is now a well-established theory based on myriad lines of evidence. There is no other viable theory supported by evidence that can explain the observed warming.
_______________________________
Walt Meier, Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado, UCB 449
Boulder, CO 80309, +1-303-492-6508
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 103';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 99';l[25]=' 100';l[26]=' 105';l[27]=' 115';l[28]=' 110';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 116';l[31]=' 108';l[32]=' 97';l[33]=' 119';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
Catherine T. Posted 10:16 am
11 Nov 2009
Like your eco resolutions, and have a few suggestions that I hope will be useful.
First, put up a web blog before you begin and invite friends to follow your progress and post their comments. I’ve worked on various long-term projects and trust me, the support and enthusiasm you receive from your community will inspire you as much as you inspire them. And, there is no better catalyst to change than an amazing role model.
I live in Manhattan, and here are some practices I use at home to reduce waste.
• Grey Water: put a basin or bowl under your household faucets and collect that running water for a second use. Put a bucket in your bathtub to catch your shower water. I collect all this grey water and use it to flush my toilet, following the yellow/mellow, brown/down method. We all know that water is our most valuable natural resource, what better way to respect and preserve this great life sustaining resource than frugal usage.
• Electric Water Kettle: electric water kettles heat more quickly than gas stoves and use less energy. Also be more precise about how much water you need to heat, why boil 3 cups of water for 1 cup of tea? Being mindful of what you need saves time and money.
• No Paper Towels: haven’t used them in over 10 years. Instead have a bright and colorful collection of hand towels and beautiful cotton and linen napkins.
• No Plastic: our motto: “be fantastic…don’t use plastic!” Even after years of diligence, plastic is everywhere. But you can control your environment, don’t purchase food in plastic bags, mother nature has already made food in a portable package, and you can’t improve on nature. So put that beautiful head of broccoli, those red apples, onions, and sweet grapes, right into your canvas shopping bag. You’ll find it’s exciting to shop with more restrictions, so you want those potato chips that are packaged in plastic-foil bag…if you’re really putting your money where your mouth is, you’ll choose another snack food. In moments of weakness I’ve let myself purchase Pringles only because they come packaged in a cardboard tube which creates less waste than SunChips.
• Eat less meat: Commercial agriculture and factory farming is unsustainable and is introducing more toxins into our land and water than almost any other industry, save paper manufacturing and oil production. And it takes 4 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. If you’re not ready to follow a vegan or vegetarian diet, at least eat no meat 3 days a week, and be prepared to drop a few pounds and feel more energetic.
• Compost: compost vegetable scraps, plant cutting and garden waste and wait as the miracle of decomposition breaks this organic matter down into rich hummus. You can also save those vegetable scraps in the freezer until you have enough to roast up and turn into soup stock.
• Volunteer: I’m going to head over to my local food co-op right now and sign up for training, thanks for reminding me! See, you’re already creating a positive impact. Good Luck!
Catherine T.
November 11, 2009
New York City
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:12 pm
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
bailsout Posted 9:00 pm
11 Nov 2009
Permalink
latecommer Posted 11:26 am
12 Nov 2009
First, understand that the established theory of Milankovitch cycles, PDO, and AMO cycles, El Nino/La Nina (and several dozen other related cycles)is what I believe in.
The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is the challenger to this theory.
The Standard theory has been studied and improved as new research is undertaken, and there are really not that many questions left. The historic record and the pre-historic proxie evidence corrolate well with the actual climatic events of the past.
Now we all know that correlation is not causation so there are always questions and lines of research to pursue and the science is never settled, but still the standard theory is a much better fit than the AGW one. In fact there is no empirical proof at all to this date that shows the validity of the AGW hypothesis. All there is is opinion to this point.
Some one asked me to cite the papers that prove the standard theory, and all I can say is that almost all of them have a better correlation with what has happened in the past than the human causation theory. It is the job of the new hypothesis to prove it'self against the standard that is accepted. So I ask you...show me citations of proof in the new hypothesis. That is the proper way of scientific endevor.
Many people believe that the scienctific proof is in the reports of the IPCC, but those people have not read the reports. There is no proof there. In fact if you read the summery after you read the report you will see that the two documants have little in common. The science is much less sure (from the reports of the scientists) than the summery written by politicians and governmeent appointees portray. It is a common problem when scientific research is jazzed up to convince politicians to act.
I am open to evidence that man has caused warming, but my studies do not show anything happening today that hasn't happened many times, with much better documented data, in the past.
It has been estimated that more than 20 fields of science are involved in the makeup of climate, and more than one hundred factors determine what it is and will be. The idea that one factor (CO2) is causing a dangerous situation is unreasonable, once one understands all the known factors that produce our climate.(esecially since through out history there has never been a time when CO2 caused temperature change, but instead plenty of evidence that temperature change causes changes in CO2 levels.)
I have perhaps a different view due to my paleogeology background. I have seen global warming and cooling in the past record, many, many times, and believe the conclusions of past scientists far more than the computer models that are the only basis for believeing in AGW. Especially when all the "proofs" AGW claimed would happen havn't happened.
Of all the projected programs that cover the range of possible outcomes presented by modelers, not one has come close to actual observable climate. None of the climate models predicted the cooling of the last few years, while CO2 levels still rose, but the standard model did!
Theo. Landscheidt, and Dyson Freeman,(among others), predicted (in the late 70's early 80's) that we would have a quiet Sun period and subsequent cooling of temperatures. This is happening today.
Svensmark predicted that a queit Sun would have a diminished magnetic field, allowing cosmic rays to strike Earth at a higher rate, causing cloud nuclei to form at higher levels and now we see indications of growth in lower level clouds in the tropics, and a cooling caused by these extra clouds. His Hypothesis will be tested this year and next at CERN in Swit.
Don't misunderstand my POV. I am not ruling out any human impact, just looking for proof...which still is not available.
I also wonder where the idea of warmer being bad came from. Every high point in human history(including our evolution period) has been during warm periods, most of them warmer than today by as much as 2 or 3 degrees C.
Most of the truely bad times our race has had, have been associated with cold weather such as the Maunder Minimum, The Wolf Minimum, the Oort Minimum, and the Dalton Minimum.
We are I fear on the cusp of the next Minimum which will bit us in the butt because we are looking for all the wrong things in all the wrong places.
Last,
For those of you fond of saying "There are forces out there who are working hard to spread false information" ie. Big Oil or the like.
Do you honestly think that misinformation is only coming from one side here?
Do you understand the amounts of money and power in play?
The truth of the matter is that Big Oil has heavely invested in BIG GREEN.
That is one of the primary sources from which the money is rolling in... both research grants and product sales.
The people are being played by both sides for the usual stakes, your money and their power. Science is in the middle. I have no axe to grind in this debate, only that science is well served and not used dishonestly to gain money and power.
To this point in time there has been no reason for any scientist to forsake the old model for the new. In fact you can search all over and not find a scientist who once was a skeptic and now is a true bliever in AGW.
On the other hand I have the aquaintence of many who have shifted from AGW to the Standard model due to the years of unsucessful attempts to validate the AGW model. Among these scientists are former lead writers and reviewers of the IPCC, Vincent Gray, Richard Lindzen, Richard Courtney, Wm. Kinninmonth, Bob Carter, Bob Foster, Willie Soon, Will Alexander, and more...
The science is not settled...and certainly not enough to spend trillions of dollars on uncertain remedial actions.
Permalink
anotherID Posted 12:38 pm
12 Nov 2009
97% of the scientists in the world who atually peer review or an anonymous poster on the internet without any links to support his assertions. Who also conveniently ignores Mark Mcaffrey's post.
I am sure the objections are covered here but it simply isn't worth the time.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
My policy on climate deniers relies on the analogy never wrestle with a pig. Halfway through the process you are all dirty and you realize the pig is enjoying it.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 3:06 pm
12 Nov 2009
AGW has become purely a political/ economic, attempted power grab. Relying on uniformed people like you to win the battle. By the way where did you pull the 97% figure from? Your imagination?
check this out
http://www.populartechnology.net/209/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
At this site are links to 450 peer reviewed papers that deny AGW. Let's see.... using rough math... according to your figures, that means there are at least 15,000 peer reviewed papers that "prove AGW".
I don't think so.
Read these papers you speak of and then tell me what your proof is.
For almost 10 years there has been a $100,000 prize payable to the first person to show real proof of man caused global warming....still no takers, no applicants, no luck.
Finding man's trace efforts among all the natural variations of climate has proven allusive and so far unattainable.
All those peer reviewed papers you refer to will tell you the same thing. There absolutly HAS BEEN NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of AGW. If you have it show me or quit telling lies about it. I have been activly hunting for even one piece and havn't found it among all the peer reviewed papers,or the IPCC reports.
No scientist has ever told me it has been found, or showen me the evidence either. So who do I believe, respected scientists from all over the world who I talk to or some one who posts made up statistics on the internet?
As your science friend to give us a citing, Mark, and then we can both look at it and see if it constitutes proof. I trust this site to agree or disagree on what is or is not proof
In so far as Mark's post is concerned, there are many wrong comments.
First there is no question of warming...It has warmed for most of the last 10,000 years. That is what happens during an interglacial. Not hard to prove that, and that is exactlly what the IPCC proves...as if it needed to be done again. We have known this for centuries.
Now down to the gist of it. There is correlation of temperature and CO2 it is true, but always...yes always, in every proxie, and in every measured time period the levels of CO2 followed a rise in temperature, not the reverse. If anyone tells you different he is mistaken.
What the IPCC did is prove what we already knew and then tried to claim it was caused by man with models and NOT with observation.
Mark's friend is wrong in that I have studied and corresponded with some of the authors of the IPCC reports and they do not show empirical evidence of man's role...only likelyhood, probablility, and other weasel words.
To make the statement that "We have studied the problem and can not solve the situation without including Man's contribution" Or more crudely, "We can't find anything else so this must be it", is rediculous.
This is not a scientific statement at all. It is what is commonly refered to as an argument from ignorance.
That is no basis to spend trillions of dollars on... we are not sure we have a problem, we do not know what is causing it, and we do not know if our planned response will work.
That is the basis of the IPCC suggested response.
If you want to spend your money in this direction be my guest, but leave my money out of it. I am spending mine on isulation, and other things to prepare for the cold I believe is coming.
My advice to you alarmists. Do your own research. Don't trust anyone else's, mine or anyones. Do what I did and find out for yourself....until you do remember you are risking your own credibility when you quote others.
Scientists, especially research scientists MUST follow the AGW way right now in this political climate if they want to be funded for further research.
In this fact is the core of the problem. When foundations and political bodies with agendas dictate what gets studied, we are all in trouble.
A good place to start researching the skeptics side, with many many links and resources, is at ICECAP.com.
I have no scientific respect for anyone who hasn't studied both sides of the issue. They are flacs not sources of information.
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 4:59 pm
12 Nov 2009
Re your claim that everything can be explained by the "established theory" of natural causes -- the models indeed include the natural forcings. When they ONLY include those forcings, they do not adequately reproduce the temp records. When they only include GHG from human activities, they can't reproduce the records. Only when they include both natural and human forcings do they approximate the records. I suspect you know that.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 3:08 pm
12 Nov 2009
I tried to access the site of the 450 peer reviewed papers and it came up "error" with a link to the site. Hitting the link puts you right at the paper.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 11:13 am
13 Nov 2009
You also have wrong ideas about climate models. I spent two months communicating with Dr. Doug Hoffman, climate modeler and author of "The Resilient Earth", (Perhaps you should read it) questioning him about how GCM's work.
His thoughts were:
1) GCM's use linear methods to model a chaotic system. that doesn't work
2) No one knows enough about all the forcings to set values on them.
3) models are tweaked to produce past climate and then tuned to forward (would work in linear situyations but not in chaotic)
4) models do not have sufficient forcings based on cloud cover and water vapor (nearly impossible since it is a chotic system)
5) Every, yes every prediction of the IPCC climate models has been wrong. There is no tropospheric hot spot, there are no tropical responses as predicted. and then the fact that every model got it wrong when the sun turned to a less active state and cooling began.
6) the prediction of Antarctic warming was totally wrong with 2007 showing the greatest ice content since we began measuring and with temperatures still dropping on the continent.
7) the forcings used by IPCC's models are predominantly positive forcings, and a freshman science student knows that such will produce a runaway result.
8) we have been here before...many times in the past and there were not the results predicted by the IPCC.
What is different about this time around? Not a damn thing! The atmosphere does not care if the CO2 is man made or natural, it has dealt with this situation many times and equalizes on it's own. It doesn't need our help, and 5 years of research has proven to me that we couldn't do anything if we tried. It is pure hubrus to imagine that our puny efforts could modify the largest most complicated system on Earth.
You simply do not know enough about the subject to effectivly argue your points.
Study and then get back to me.
Permalink
Kevin93 Posted 8:01 am
16 Nov 2009
Look, I don't have time to put in "5 years of research" on this like you have, so I have to decide who to trust. So, do I go with someone on the internet who I've never met who claims an MS in geology, or do I go with people I know at MIT, the DOE, NOAA and other places? Oh, and I see the National Academy of Science has weighed in and says the IPCC did a good job. I also personally know some folks who are modelers and have been working on this issue for a long time and they tell me it is real. Who to trust?
Hmmm. I look to see what the guy on the internet has to say. He gives a lot of details of points which may or may not be cherry picked that I'll have to invest a lot of time in exploring.
So I check out the references he points me to. One is a web site which looks like a club of all the same people who have been screaming fraud since the 1990s. I am well acquainted with them and how they have characterized the problem. They provide such helpful "facts" that water vapor is the most important ghg (ignoring the role of water vapor vs. CO2) and other points that were brought up and refuted years ago. Ah yes, there is the "petition project" which started as a minor fraud and was finally published in a fake journal. His list of references that "prove" climate change can't be due to CO2 has about (quick estimate) 30% from fake journals that are not used by the scientific community (they don't appear in journal citation reports). I'd say that in the many years I've tracked the issue that most of the claims by the skeptics have been addressed and dismissed. I've also seen many of the extremely misleading attacks that unfortunately make me skeptical of the skeptics. So you see my problem?
But back to the question: if you were me and a stranger appeared and said either "trust me" or "do the research yourself" -- what do I do? I do some research and I rely on proxies -- the people I have met who are publishing in real journals and are respected in the field, and the reviews by the national academies and yes, despite the conspiracy theories touted by the skeptics, the IPCC.
So, unknown person on the internet, you lost me when helpfully pointed me to internet sources I can use to begin my research. You pounded the last nail in when you politicized the arguement by using what I imagine you feel is the ultimate insult. It causes me think you have filtered your research to suit your tastes. And to be clear, I am not accusing you of trying to mislead me -- I am sure you are sincere in your views.
But, sad to say -- I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
Permalink
latecommer Posted 2:07 pm
16 Nov 2009
If I were you, and I believe you do have a desire to know the truth about this, I would check things out for my self or be silent on the issue. What kind of credibility does a guy have that only repeats what he reads? Not really very much, and it wouldn't take you five days to see through the smoke screen of AGW and why for instance they refuse to debate highly respected scientists who disagree with their POV. ie. Richard Lindzen- MIT, Willie Soon- Harvard, Ian Plimber Austrailian climatologist and author of Heaven and Earth. Or Doug Hoffman "the Resilient Earth" A climate modeler who realized that he was on the wrong trail.
Check out sites such as ICECAP, and Climate Audit, both run by respected scientists.
And then look at what the leaders of the AGW movement have said:
They have acknowledged that they needed to put an alarmist tone to what they say to grab your attention.
Then take a look at the founder of this movements statement Maurice Strong:
In 1990 at a meeting of climate activists:
"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? and if the world is to surviv e, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? will they agree to save the Earth?"
the group's conclusion is no. The rich countries wouldn't do it. They won't change. So in order to save the planet the group decides :"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrial civilizations collapse, Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about"
This is a published quote from the man who became president of the World Bank. Does this clue you in a bit on the economic problems we have had in the last few years?
Then ask yourself how it could be so dangerous to have the temperature a couple of degrees warmer when that was aprox. the prevailing temperatures of 150,000 years ago....about the time homosapien and most of the mammals we have today evolved on the Earth.
Or the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was occupied by the Norse, and the Earth had its biggest population surge,( up to that time) because of the warm weather and abundant food.
Doesn't something strike you as wrong in todays panic over a very gradual .6 to .8 increase in the last 100 years? Where is the extreme weather they warned us about just 10 years ago...the natural disasters they claimed would pile up. Has the Ocean risen 16 feet as Hansen and Gore predicted? Of course they said by the end of the century so they would not have to personally answer for it, but there are no signs of an increase in the rate we have had for since the little ice age of the mid 1700's
But most of all do not trust me, or those "experts" you know...trust only what you personally learn. We have never in history had such a good tool as the net to learn from, and you can become much better informed, learn what questions to ask the experts, and it won't take 5 years.
No one argues that we are not in a long term warming trend. Don't buy the answers that claim that we skeptics deny natural warming. The question gets down to "Is man causing the warming through an addition of CO2 in the atmosphere?' Nothing could be easier to discount, with a highschool chemistry knowledge of greenhouse gases, and the effects of forcings.
They have it chemically wrong, they have it physically wrong, and that leads one to the only conclusion...their mistakes are so elimentary that they have to know they are wrong...so why are they trying to convince the world that they are right?
They want to be our shepherds, but for that they need sheep....don't be one.
As to politicizing this, I mearly ask you to list those who are pushing this agenda. What political persuasion are they all? Yes liberal.
What am I? I am a liberal as well, but not of the liberal progressive type. I am a social liberal who will not condemn people for abortion, gay marriage, and all the rest....only for misleading the public and for misusing what I love... which is science.
And as far as the rest goes....I will use any tool in the bag that convinces people to refuse to go along with a half baked idea that will cripple the economy (never doubt that) and starve people throughout the world.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:27 pm
16 Nov 2009
You are right, and the thousands of seasoned climatologists are wrong.
And we can obviously tell by your comments that you're right because you've you've done your own, independent, research without relying on any previous biased assumptions or articles whatsoever.
We will call the UN, all the thousands of climatologists, and all the major world governments tomorrow morning, present your unbiased, painstaking, and obviously independent research, and I'm certain they will agree that you are 100% absolutely correct.
They will all admit they are wrong and that you were right, and will all denounce AGW as a hoax and a mistake by week's end.
Oh, look, a flying pig!
Permalink
anotherID Posted 3:58 pm
16 Nov 2009
Well played my man well played!
Permalink
latecommer Posted 11:19 am
17 Nov 2009
I have nothing to say to sheep who want to remain sheep. If you don't do your own study of this you depend on someone you don't even know for your truth. That is not only dangerous but stupid.
To tell you the truth it is very hard on this site to find someone with any knowledge of science...most of you unfortunatly are those who believe in authority and somehow have the notion that if they are famous they won't decieve us.
In reality there are fewer than 1000 climatologists in the world...but that is not all bad since those who contribute to the study of climatology are those in such fields as radiative physics, solar physics, engineers, geologists, chemists, physicists, and a dozen other fields.
I for instance have spent many years piecing together the past of our planet; it's gelogical formation, its climate, its flora and fauna. Its called paleogeology and it is in reality the big picture, the long view.
I KNOW without doubt that to this point nothing has happened that is not natural and has happened many times in the past. I can give you dates and times when the Earth was very much as today, I can also direct you to times when we had 10x the CO2 in our atmosphere and life thrived. Also times we had at least 5X the CO2 and we were in the middle of an ice age.
If you know anything about math, you know how logarithms work. If you are a chemist you understand that the first 50 ppms of CO2 do 95% of the greenhouse gas work and each ppm after that has a decreasing effect.
If you are a radiative physicist you understand that there is finite amount of long wave radiation available for capture and re-emission, and that we already have more catchers than throwers. Increasing CO2 does very little to inhance greenhouse gases.
If you are a physicist you know that CO2 is not even in the big leagues with water vapor as a greenhouse gas. More than 90% of the effect of warming comes from water vapor.
But I am not here to convince you that the IPCC is wrong, I can do that point by point, and have done that in debate, but what I want from anyone who reads this is to stimulate them to prove me wrong. I mean prove it don't say it. By attempting this you will learn the facts for yourself and be your own man on this issue. You still may disagree with me, but then you will be informed not directed by "authority". I can live with that.
What I don't like to hear is that DR. So and So said this so you are wrong.
Well, I am not bragging by saying that I know a lot more about climate than many PHD's who are pushing the global warming cart. I have studied the entire spectrum of what makes up climate...99% of them know only their particular field of study.
Lets play a game....you name a climatologist that supports AGW (I mean someone who has a degree in climatology) and then I will name one that agrees with me. I will bet you money you run out of them before I go beyond my personal aquintances who ARE climatologists.
I teach highschool honors physics (for 16 years) I have had more than 20 of my students go on to get their doctorate. I also teach geology at the junior college level. I am not Joe Blow spouting off anti-establishment BS with no basis.
If anyone here wants to seriously understand instead of just accepting the science you can write me personally at a website I have set up for this:
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[25]='\"';l[26]=' 109';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 99';l[29]=' 46';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 104';l[33]=' 97';l[34]=' 121';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 114';l[37]=' 101';l[38]=' 109';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=' 111';l[41]=' 99';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 116';l[44]=' 97';l[45]=' 108';l[46]=':';l[47]='o';l[48]='t';l[49]='l';l[50]='i';l[51]='a';l[52]='m';l[53]='\"';l[54]='=';l[55]='f';l[56]='e';l[57]='r';l[58]='h';l[59]='a ';l[60]='
Permalink
raleighmclemore Posted 9:03 pm
17 Nov 2009
"I have nothing to say to sheep who want to remain sheep." Ok. Anyone who disagrees is a sheep and is presumably wrong, and yet you continue to write. Does this mean we are not sheep, or that you don't follow your own words? Poor logic on your part, surprising given your complete understanding of the entirety of the global systems. Name calling does work and I've now been won over...darn, I can't because I don't know if you are an authority. I hate when people do this to me.
"...most of you unfortunatly are those who believe in authority and somehow have the notion that if they are famous they won't decieve us." Now this is tough. Once again the climate change skeptics simply brand all that don't agree with a little name calling and bluster. I actually didn't know any of the scientists in the IPCC Report, don't hang with that sort of fry. Mostly I spend my days on the hillside munching on Fox News or MSNBC (whatever) and waiting to be sheared.
"Well, I am not bragging by saying that I know a lot more about climate than many PHD's who are pushing the global warming cart. I have studied the entire spectrum of what makes up climate...99% of them know only their particular field of study."
You teach? So do I. My room is pretty crowded as they increase class size on us. You must have a big room or a small class size as I don't see how students would have room to sit down with an intellect such as yours, one that has "...studied the entire spectrum of what makes up climate...". Glad you weren't bragging (what else could you say beyond your having studied the "entire" spectrum?). I'm glad you understand it, not like those world wide phonies with their stupid lab coats and us sheep.
You have a winning way with your words. Name calling and annoucing that anyone that disagrees with you is intellectually inferior has always worked, yup. I thank you for you taking a moment to try to drag me out of darkness. Oh well, gotta go, sheep have short attention spans you know. Keep up your attempts at convincing people as I think you represent your position well.
With firm handshake,
Raleigh
Permalink
anotherID Posted 11:31 am
17 Nov 2009
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead
Permalink
latecommer Posted 9:43 pm
17 Nov 2009
I am truely sorry if you took offense...I am just very tired of talking to people who take the likes of Al Gore seriously. My clue to the falsehood of AGW natural as I majored in geology with an emphasis in paleo geology. To understand the geology you must understand the climate of the time. I learned from this that we are not in any dangerous climate position, and that nothing that has happened is unatural in the course of our changing climate.
I have a question for every critic: That is; what do you think the optimum temperature is for man on Earth at this time? Do you feel that this is the best we can have? Who has decided that this is the case?
Man, and most of the mammals evolved at temperatures 3 to 5 degrees warmer.
We are at a near all time low (in the last 600 million years) in carbon dioxide,
The Earth has adjusted, for 4567 million years, to every extreme of climate, and we are nowhere near an extreme.
These are all facts, not opinion and easy to check out, yet there are those who would have us spend trillons to solve a problem we have not yet proven is true.
If you spend a week looking at both sides you would understand that no one knows enough to commit the kind of effort that is urged.
Permalink