So Sen. James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe (R-Okla.) issues a report in which he claims:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.
"Padded" would be an extremely generous description of this list of "prominent scientists." Some would use the word "laughable" (though not the N.Y. Times' Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
I'm not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as "prominent scientists," and many of those, like Freeman Dyson -- a theoretical physicist -- have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I'm not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.
Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post:
These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience ... None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years ... I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far -- 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen.
And people say I'm a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science -- rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims -- but thinks catastrophic global warming won't happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses ... everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we've seen, and it's even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades.
Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe's list:
CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a "consensus" about mankind's role in global warming.
Wow, a TV weatherman expressed skepticism. If only the IPCC had been told of this in time, they could have scrapped their entire report. Seriously, Wikipedia says "Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University." I guess Inhofe has a pretty low bar for "prominent scientists" -- but then again he once had science fiction writer Michael Crichton testify at a hearing on climate science.
I don't mean to single out Baskerville. Inhofe has a lot of meteorologists on his list, including Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. I have previously explained why Coleman doesn't know what he is talking about on climate, and why meteorologists in general have no inherent credibility on climatology. In any case, they obviously are not prominent scientists.
Then we have people like French geomagnetism (!) scientist Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist Louis Le Mouël, geophysicist Claude Allègre, geomagnetism (!!) scientist Frederic Fluteau, geomagnetism (!!!) scientist Yves Gallet, and scientist Agnes Genevey -- whose "research" on global warming is brutally picked apart by RealClimate here and especially here (and again here by other scientists), who together "expose a pattern of suspicious errors and omissions that pervades" their work.
So, yes, the Inhofe list is utterly ignorable compared to either the IPCC report or the Bali declaration by actual prominent climate scientists. The notion it is relevant to the climate debate is laughable, as even a cursuory examination makes clear. And yet in an article unhelpfully titled, "Climate Consensus 'Busted'?" the NYT's Andy Revkin amazingly writes of it:
The perennial tug of war over what average people should think and do about human-caused global warming has just experienced another big yank, this time from those saying actions to cut greenhouse gases are a costly waste of time.
Big yank? More like Inhofe is letting go of the rope. Revkin continues:
But when you sift through the studies, what emerges (to me at any rate) is not so much the shattering of a consensus as a portrait of one corner of the absolutely normal, and combative, arena in which scientific ideas emerge and either thrive or fade.
What does Inhofe's list have to do at all with the normal scientific process? What do meteorologists and economists have to do with the normal process of climate science? Should scientists really be influenced at all by one inventor's wild claim that nanotechnology will eliminate fossil fuels in 20 years. Or by a contrived and mistake-riddled study by geomagnetists?
One final (depressing) note: How effective is Inhofe's media outreach compared to that of the entire community of climate scientists? Well, according to technorati (PDF), as of today, Dec. 21, the IPCC Synthesis report has had 278 blog reactions since its release November 17, whereas Inhofe's "report," issued just yesterday (Thursday), has already had over 300 blog reactions.
We have a long way to go if we're going to triumph over the disinformation and preserve the health and well-being of the next 50 generations. Let's all redouble our efforts in the new year.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The new Senate global warming deniers
Do as Heartland says, not as it does
Inhofe’s plan: Stall climate action until the next president
Comments View as Flat
hayden Posted 10:59 am
21 Dec 2007
Romm
Romm: Freeman Dyson unified the Feynman and Schwinger versions of QED. He has forgotten 10 times more science than you ever knew. You have no fucking right to question him -- you have not earned that. You're just a scientific peon. Dyson is a legitimate scientist. So I suggest you shut up until you have proved yourself at his level.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:21 am
21 Dec 2007
hayden
You're a douchebag...
Sorry, slipped out.
Dyson is a physicist with no training in climate science, ecosystem ecology or any other science relevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, we have had several senile (you yourself mentioned 'he's forgotten more science than...') scientists that have proclaimed 'facts' that they thought to be true, for example the recent James Watson incident. So, until you get your ass out of Dyson's ass, please refrain from posting about climate related topics.
Peace, homes.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:25 pm
21 Dec 2007
Geographers Rule!
Being a professional geographer means I know everything and nothing about Climate Change - and I am glad it is that way. If you have to be a post doctorate asshole in some arcane porthole specialty with an IQ of 200 it doesn't mean chit to a tree, or the fish, or the birds, or even the bugs that are being affected by Climate Change already. Sorry brothers and sisters, we don't need you unless you have some fixes here ...
Mr. "hey buddy" Inhofe should not concern you in the least, as he is a piddling and muddled person without a scientific cell in his cranium. Why do you bother with fools like him? Why do you even bother with worthless and dried out old farty scientists and snake oil salesmen?
It should be clear what we have to do without these inveterate chumps.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:04 pm
21 Dec 2007
Romm & Dyson
But Joseph Romm is also PhD physicist and not a climate scientist. So shouldn't we disregard everything HE says about climate science?
Dyson, also a physicist, argument is essentially that the climate models are inadquate and require fudge factors to get them to validate the data. That more carbon is locked up in vegetation than in the atmosphere and that the relationship between CO2 and vegetation is poorly understood. Dyson believes that land management has the potential to sequester CO2 at a reasonable cost.
Wow, what a radical.
Permalink
enki Posted 1:23 pm
21 Dec 2007
Climate Confusion
I have been thinking about the this particular issue for a couple days and have come to some personal conclusions.
First, I think that the naming of the global circumstances that are being observed as either Climate Change or Global Warming was unfortunate. This is because both of these names imply a known outcome and yet this is not the case.
The evolution of any phenomenon of this scale certainly cannot be predicted with pinpoint accuracy simply because there are too many variables. I suppose that Climate Change is the better name of the two because it is less specific about an outcome.
I think that the current debate is, at least in concept, a valid one. There is certain data which exists and doesn't seem to be questioned by anyone involved in the debate. Such data would include the facts that 1) ice is melting all over the planet, 2) oxygen and petroleum are being depleted from the environment faster than they can be replenished by natural means (this applies more to oxygen) and 3) the products of the combustion of hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and water, are building up in the environment faster than the biosphere can absorb them.
These are facts. The only problem that exists is in how those facts are interpreted. For my part I would rather err on the side of caution then assume an "all is well" attitude and bury my head in the sand.
In addition I somehow find human induced climate change to be a more comforting than the "natural cycle" explanation which has been adopted by the side in opposition to climate change. Why? Because if it is human induced then it can be reversed by human effort. If it is a natural cycle then we may be powerless to predict the scope or duration of it and even more helpless to stop it.
Mike Johnston
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 1:30 pm
21 Dec 2007
Nevermind
Ok, maybe Dr. Dyson has gone around the bend a little bit. I read some of his comments on topsoil.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:09 pm
21 Dec 2007
Addendum
I have read Freeman Dyson's brief treatment of the climate change problem:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.h ...
I find that he understands the basic premises behind the complexity of biosphere-atmosphere-soil coupling. However, it is quite clear that he knows little of the numbers used in most climate models, most likely due to his lack of immersion in the scientific literature within the subject.
For example: 'We don't know how big a fraction of our emissions is absorbed by the land, since we have not measured the increase or decrease of the biomass.'
Current biometric and land-atmosphere flux models agree on ~1.5-2.5 Mg/ha/yr in eastern hardwood/mixed forests, which of course depends on the particular forest type and site quality. (I would love to provide the citations, but since they are safely stored on my computer about 2000 miles away, and I do not feel like looking them up, you will have to take my word for granted).
I do not have the immediate information on the amount of carbon stored within topsoil, but that is available as well. So, I do not disagree with Dyson's general conclusions about the effect of land management as a carbon sink (after all, that is one of my budding career's goals). But, I would like to leave him and his followers with one very important message: ~10-13% of US emissions is taken up by US forests (essentially the only C sink), with prairies currently burning away C due to agriculture, and freshwater lakes generally being a source of C as well. The ocean C sink has been strong, but is currently losing strength at a very rapid rate. So, even with improvements in land management, there is no easy way to balance out the equation between anthropogenic C output and vegetative uptake. We either need conservation measures, or a really quick technological fix. Until I see one, I'm banking on good prudent policy decisions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:54 pm
21 Dec 2007
Great metaphor!
Joseph, did you make that up yourself? Brilliant!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:32 pm
21 Dec 2007
Gonna be rough
It's going to be hard to sequester the massive amounts of CO2 humans emit with vegetation.
A study of Minnesota prairie grass found that 1.8 tons of CO2 per acre per year. Taking that as a maximum, and even assuming a switch to organic farming that might store half that per acre, there just isn't enough acres to take care of the GHG produced.
Dyson maybe a fine physicist, but his theory is highly dubious. I wish it were true.
This whole push to deny that it is worth investing in solutions to GHG climate change, that minimize the cost of climate change, and claim that the solutions are too expensive, falls on one important point.
A move to renewable energy and conservation will not cost economic growth. It will expand it.
High energy costs, GHG climate disaster, oil war and wars over nuclear proliferation, and the export of manufacturing jobs are killing real economic growth. All the US has left is corrupt multinational corporations feeding on the carcass of a once great, fairly free nation.
This is the same argument the corporate right made against FDR's efforts to get the country out of the great depression. Too expensive. Living with the depression until it worked itself out would be less costly. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Progress on energy policy and investment in renewable energy and conservation will impell economic progress, not hinder it. It will restore the US manufacturing base, good jobs, and quality of life for we the people. The pursuit of happiness, prosperity and economic security.
In case you corporatists forgot, that is the aim of the US outlined in the constitution. Adding to the corporate bottomline is a byproduct of that process, not it's goal.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:59 pm
21 Dec 2007
Informal fallacy
"...You have no fucking right to question him -- you have not earned that. You're just a scientific peon."
A perfect example of the appeal to authority fallacy. A standard topic in Philosophy 101 (right Canis?). Oooh, and he used the "f" word, hehey. Shocking bloggerel violence.
Joe is not claiming expertise in climate science, he is analyzing arguments based on the results of expert climate scientist's research. And comparing that view of GHG climate change, compiled from actual climate science, to the claims of the list of deniers of GHG climate change severity.
Revkin is merely fitting into his role as a journalist for the NYT, part of the mass delusional mass media. Standard operating procedure at most media outlets nowadays. Don't blame him, but certainly don't fall for his pronouncements that are designed to "pay the mortgage". Science is for sale and so are journalists who pretend scientific expertise.
To be fair, Joe ought not to have implied Dyson is a wing nut just because he favors rocket propulsion using a series of nuclear explosions. But considering the dangerous wackiness involved, it is understandable why he was tempted to transgress.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:01 pm
21 Dec 2007
Still Got BIG PROBLEMO
For the sake of argument, let's temporarily forget the greenhouse impact of CO2 and focus on the rise of CO2 itself. Does this rise not suggest serious environmental and ecosystem decay by itself? Does it not suggest a serious overpopulation problem? Is it not a serious sign of depletion of fossil fuel sources? Does it not suggest overreach enabled by fossil energy? Does it not suggest that we are living in a seriously unsustainable manner?
Global warming or no global warming, we have a really big problem folks that grows exponentially bigger by the day. There is an urgency that requires no pedigree or degree to perceive. We are screwing up big time and we are all going to get our chains jerked sooner that most realize. We are on the road to collapse and we could very well do it while we are still riding big on oil and coal. Complex systems can have their tipping points by the shear stupidity and blind ideologies of those controlling the levers of power.
One further point: there are some very bright people that willfully ignore some of the greatest scientific discoveries because they do not agree with their views of this world and the world after this world. To put your faith in some undiscovered or unproven technology is similar to putting faith in the next world being better than this world. Those who make it to the next world had better hope it does not start out as hot and inhospitable as this world did. I'll put my faith in maintaining the biosphere that evolved over billions of years on this world.
Permalink
enki Posted 12:12 am
22 Dec 2007
RE: Big Problemo
Yes, exactly what I have been saying. Also factor in atmospheric oxygen depletion. This is a real event that is ongoing and is well documented by scientists at Scripps Institute. The data was obtained via NOAA air monitoring stations worldwide.
I corresponded with Dr. Ralph Keeling who was one of the researchers involved and he set me a .pdf copy of a paper he co-authored which summarized his findings, Here is a link to that paper:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17569179 ...
Dr. Keeling summarized his findings to me like this: "My group has been tracking the decline in
atmospheric oxygen concentration since 1989. The plot from our web
site shows the decline at our network of stations....It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a
displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First,
some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the
oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which
have no effect on O2...Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2
molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.... A reasonable estimate for how much O2 has been lost since the
beginning of the industrial revolution can be based on the estimated
loss due to fossil-fuel emissions...So the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1 2005 would
have been (35.3)/(37050)x100 = 0.095% of the preindustrial amount.
For the past 15 years, we have direct measurements of the
decrease. But the observations before 1990 aren't good enough to
draw inferences. Hence the estimate based on industrial emissions
is about the best we can come up with."
These are excerpts from emails that Dr. Keeling exchanged with me which pretty accurately summarize the gist of our conversation. Why isn't oxygen depletion a bigger part of the climate change dialog?
Mike Johnston
Permalink
idris Posted 3:25 am
22 Dec 2007
Science and scientists
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:06 am
22 Dec 2007
Inherit the nanowires
Kurzweil plays Clarence Darrow to Al Gore's William Jennings Bryant in the Scopes Climate Trial.
My Log
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 6:57 am
22 Dec 2007
Dyson, Kurzweil, et al
- In science fiction, Dyson is most famous for the idea of "Dyson Sphere", of which Larry Niven's "Ringworld" is a famous offshoot. No doubt, those would solve our problems, but there's a minor matter of engineering.
- Ray Kurzweil is a fine inventor, and his book "The Singularity Is Near" is worth reading.
However, I think Ray falls into the "Moore's Law is great, therefore we can do anything" trap that sometimes afflicts (us) computing people, especially when we try to expect the same improvements in problems involving energy & thermodynamics.3) In general, when futurists tell you about things that will be easy, they are akin to "economists who predicted 9 of the last 5 depressions", and the further they get from disciplines they really know well, the more thigns get predicted.
-John Mashey
Permalink
qft Posted 8:29 am
22 Dec 2007
Go out and Conquer
If we want to counter Mr. Inhofe's latest move we must go to each Every One of those 300 blogs and post links to this discussion. We must argue point by point Mr. Inhofe's dubious findings.
We must take the fight to them, if it makes it easier you can make teams of people to post in each blog, 10 people each posting in 30 blogs.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 11:57 am
22 Dec 2007
Comparative coverage
Now Joe, don't start your hols all depressed over the disparity in coverage. (I'm not saying don't be depressed -- just don't do it over this!) I suspect most of the reaction to the synthesis report would have been to the major media stories rather than to the report itself, whereas the opposite would have been the case with the Inhofe piece.
Permalink
brewski Posted 1:49 pm
22 Dec 2007
Consensus
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
- the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
- the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
- the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
- if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
- a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
The following companiesagree with the consensus:
ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo
In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO's of the following companies:
A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink's Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere & Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc
I'll take this "consensus" over the 400 "scientists" handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:30 pm
22 Dec 2007
Now that is a..
List! Have a cool one on the house.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:21 pm
22 Dec 2007
Defining Consensus
But that's not a "consensus" at all...at least according to the WikiPedia:
The way you know that there is a true consensus is when there is quiet. As in, yes, there is no one who does not agree. But that's not the case here. In the case of anthropogenic global warming, you have people who keep getting up and shouting, "no, no, no" -- and the response of the Powers-That-Be is to smash them down and suppress us.
That is not consensus. To me, it's more like McCarthy-ism, where a small minority takes hold of power and terrorizes everyone who disagrees with them.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:23 pm
22 Dec 2007
The Link To Consensus
Oh, yes, here's that link defining "consensus"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
By the way, the current situation might be defined, from this article as collective disagreement:
My Log
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 9:28 pm
22 Dec 2007
LOL!
Yes, I'm sure that anyone who doesn't believe in abrupt climate change will run afoul of the House Committee on Un-Climate-Change Activities, and lose their jobs and livelihood as a result...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:54 pm
22 Dec 2007
We really do need to sort this out faster.........
.........because the "window of opportunity" to address the global challenges soon to be confronted by humanity is beginning to close. While we argue, too little action occurs.
The "powers that be" are evidently in denial of reality and unwilling to openly and honorably express their understanding of what 2000 IPCC Nobel Laureate scientists are reporting with regard to the ominous, distinctly human-induced predicament that is looming before the human community. That many too many economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and minions in the mass media adamantly support the soon to become unsustainable global enterprise of endless big-business expansion, come what may, does not favor our children's well-being or safety, I believe. The talking heads appear to have pledged their primary allegiance and selfish devotion to their benefactors and to the short-term `successes' of unbridled economic globalization, regardless of the long-term potential for catastrophe that such a recklessly unrestrained and unrealistic pursuit portends. For leaders of the political economy to conspicuously ignore --- much less debunk by using denialists from ideological 'think tanks' --- the carefully and skillfully obtained scientific evidence from the IPCC on climate change, and global warming in particular, is an incomprehensible failure with potentially profound implications for a good enough future of our children.
Plainly, what is necessary now is clarity of vision, intellectual honesty and courage as well as a willingness among leaders to begin "centering" their attention on the probability of threats to humanity that could soon be posed by the gigantic scale and patently unsustainable growth rate of the over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human population engulfing Earth in our time.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:19 pm
22 Dec 2007
A claim that James Watson said something untrue
Atreyger wrote: we have had several senile [...] scientists that have proclaimed 'facts' that they thought to be true, for example the recent James Watson incident.
What did James Watson recently say that was not true?
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:23 pm
22 Dec 2007
I've often wondered
if "Jabailo" is actually an avatar or alias of David Roberts, cheekily introduced by our ever witty moderator to keep us alert and on our toes.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:34 am
23 Dec 2007
science and political consensus
We might agree on one something.
There is a `science consensus' that global warming as it's commonly called is caused by man-made release of global warming gases in the atmosphere.
Then we might agree that there are some scientists who disagree with the `science consensus.'
That there are some scientists who disagree with the science consensus does not mean that there isn't a science consensus, just that some scientists disagree with the science consensus.
The same could be said about, did humans from the United States from 1969 to 1972 land on the moon and come back to earth or was what we saw on TV done in some back Hollywood studio lot. I would say there is a consensus of people saying that we did land on the moon. Some people disagree with that, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a consensus that we did in fact land on the moon.
Where science is being done, there is a consensus about global warming. Where politics, informing people, and on ideas of what we should do now, there isn't a consensus.
We have a science consensus on global warming.
Some scientists don't agree with that consensus.
We don't have a political consensus on global warming.
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:43 am
23 Dec 2007
The Experts, James Watson
At first, I was uncomfortable about this post because it seems to make the same argument that many of us make about climate; i.e., that laypeople should trust the "experts."
But I think the point is more that most of the people on the list are no more believable on the issue of climate than the rest of y'all. I may know about climate, but would you trust a book review written by me? You might be wrong to.
James Watson recently said that people of African descent are, according to "tests," not as intelligent as others. Of course, he doesn't mention that we're all of African descent.
From cnn.com, who need a new editor, or simply a better spell-checking program:
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:11 am
23 Dec 2007
Yes, We Have No Consenus
Did you read the definition?
You can't "disagree with consensus" or else there is no consensus.
Hence, there is no consensus.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:15 am
23 Dec 2007
Climate Blacklist
Well, no one has tried. That's why I laugh when one of the posters listed the members of his "consensus" -- they were all organizations, no people!
Meanwhile, the 400 who challenged the UN were all individuals who were willing to put their name to paper, publically.
Why are the scientists on the side of AGW hiding?
I have asked many, many times, give me the names...of the individual scientists, who are betting their careers on AGW -- absolutely.
That demand goes unmet...
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:16 am
23 Dec 2007
Another fast one...
"their understanding of what 2000 IPCC Nobel Laureate"
Er, yeah, that was a Nobel "Peace" Prize, not a science prize.
Just like in high school, I don't want the Glee Club manning the debate team.
My Log
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:32 am
23 Dec 2007
Is jabailo a creationist too?
Jabilo is using a definition of consensus that does not apply to the word consensus as it is used in science.
Its like people who say that evolution isn't a fact because its just a theory.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:35 am
23 Dec 2007
Nucbuddy
See mihan's comment above regarding James Watson.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:38 am
23 Dec 2007
Yes, We Have No Consenus -- Round Two
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consens ...
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:46 am
23 Dec 2007
Has Global Warming Stopped?
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
My Log
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 4:14 am
23 Dec 2007
Consensus
Jabailo has effectively drawn our attention to two overlapping usages of this word, so let's not be confused by them.
In a small or contained group such as a committee or an intentional community it is usually taken to indicate unanimity toward a proposed course of action. In that situation just one dissenting voice is sufficient to deny consensus.
In a larger context it has a less exclusive sense - e.g. "there is a general consensus among the inhabitants of the US that democracy is a good thing." We would have no difficulty finding Americans who disagree with this judgment, but there is overall agreement on this position amongst the population sufficient that the principle of democratic governance has an effective working mandate - i.e. the consent of the governed.
Similarly we say there is general scientific consensus on the theory of gravity or the conservation of mass and energy, without any expectation that there will not be some wacko with a PhD who will disagree. At this level critiquing scientific consensus on the grounds of absence of unanimity is purely a red herring.
This is the sense in which the term is applied to the IPCC findings: if Jabailo disagrees with this usage he can feel free to suggest another term, and see if he can find support for that alternate description. However, whatever word we use to describe the generally held scientific opinion represented by the IPCC report doesn't change what it is.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:23 am
23 Dec 2007
Who is pulling whose leg?
"Jabailo disagrees with this usage he can feel free to suggest another term"
Wait a minute. I posted a definition from the WikiPedia. You just pulled this definition out of your ear to support your biased views.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 4:29 am
23 Dec 2007
What Does Kuhn Say?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
I would say Climatology as applied to AGW is an "immature science".
There are no paradigms.
There is no consensus.
The "predictions" of IPCC at the 90% and 66% confidence levels are not being met.
My Log
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:07 am
23 Dec 2007
Reliability of evidence questions
Wikipedia, of course, is no authoritative source, as any fool can post anything anonymously on Wikipedia, and nobody need take any responsibility for what was posted...
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:45 am
23 Dec 2007
Refuting abrupt climate change
Here are the main pillars:
I don't really see how the skeptics are going to punch any holes in any of these theses. As Coby Beck asks, "Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature?" Eh?
Everything else has been answered in the links listed here: the "consensus issue" has been addressed here.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
trock Posted 8:09 am
23 Dec 2007
it's a science consensus
Where science is being done and the results published in peer reveiwed journals there is a science consensus that global warming is increased by the release of greenhouse gases from man made machines. There is a science consensus.
we just don't have a political consensus. That group of 400 from Sen. Inhofe wasn't a list from those that did science on global warming, but for one reason or another were skeptical or deniers of the science consensus that the senator wanted to promote.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:24 am
23 Dec 2007
Consensus and unanimity
consensus |kənˈsensəs|
noun [usu. in sing. ]
general agreement : a consensus of opinion among judges | [as adj. ] a consensus view.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Latin, `agreement,' from consens- `agreed,' from the verb consentire.
Let's just stipulate that the "consensus" or "general agreement" of qualified scientists on climate change is exactly that, and the usage does not include the expectation of unanimity. And let's move on.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:25 am
23 Dec 2007
Was it not true?
Atreyger wrote: Nucbuddy
See mihan's comment above regarding James Watson.
Why do you believe it was untrue?
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:50 pm
23 Dec 2007
Move Where?
There's no consensus.
The science is wrong.
The predictions of IPCC IV are not coming true.
Therefore, any policy decision is wrong headed.
There's no place to move.
But nice try -- ignoring arguments and ramrodding your own opinion despite the facts is a typical tactic of AGWs.
Oh, I expect you'll post this fallacious argument a third time and ignore all the facts, links and data supplied here.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 1:58 pm
23 Dec 2007
IPCC "Predicitions"
The value of a Theory is its predictive power. Einstein said gravity could bend like, and a decade later, that prediction was verified.
But what exactly does the IPCC "Theory" predict?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_C ...
According to Wikipedia:
First of all you will note that these predictions are not dependent on increased CO2, either manmade or otherwise.
The first is a tautology: its says, Global Warming increases temperature.
Duh.
The second, sea level rise, is just not happening...I already showed the NOAA tide and sea levels and there are actually more low anomalies than high anomolies! Most of all there are no anomolies!
#3: Global warming increases "warm spells".
Duh and Duh.
Global warming increases "heat" waves.
Duh Duh and Duh
Increased rainfall and #4 droughts.
Well, some places are getting more rainfall, which you'd expect in the absense of snow. The southeast has a drought -- but that's hardly a "global" climate change, is it?
As far as cyclones and high tides. Nope. Nothing.
So here are the "predictions" of this "Theory"
Most are self-reflexive. Warming creates heat.
The rest are not dependent on CO2 and don't conclusively prove that AGW is more badass than NGW.
That's all there is...read it and weep.
My Log
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:16 pm
23 Dec 2007
Boo hoo
Still afraid to address what it actually says?
Still can't disturb any of the premises I listed?
The fourth report came out this year, with predictions over the long run. Should these predictions have come true already?
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:28 pm
23 Dec 2007
If anything
If the IPCC 1995 report is any measure of a longer term, frankly that report was too mild in it's outlook compared to what has happened since.
Which is what a lot of scientists have been saying about this the IPCC 2007 report, particularly the sea level aspect.
(Which the IPCC claims themselves is an incomplete/limited estimate)
Permalink
MarkL Posted 4:00 pm
23 Dec 2007
Why the fuss?
None of this is new in any way.
As predicted (as long ago as 1950), the global temperature has not gone up in about a decade after rising a small amount in the cycle just ended (sure, there are some regional warming patches just as there are regional cooling patches like all of Antarctica except for the peninsula), but we are heading for something very like the Dalton Minimum again (1790s-1820s) with solar orbit cycles 23-26 reflecting the solar orbit cycles of that era. Things will return to normal (cooler than now, but warmer than 2010-2040-ish just as now slightly warmer than 1940-1970-ish) after the sun's chaotic phase of orbit around the solar barycentre concludes.
Yes, this is broad, but what else is possible in evaluating stochiastic processes with non-linear outcomes? (Yes, Giselle, that means that the much touted computer models are so much trash.)
So the wise get prepared for a much colder climate for a few decades, then a rise back to 1910 levels by mid-century.
Anyone reading the science over the last 30 years understands this provided that you have not ignored everything outside the troposphere. Ignoring THE major variables is not the way to come to any form of coherent understanding.
A basic understanding can be obtained from:
Fairbridge R.W., Solar Variations, Climate Change and related Geophysical Problems, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 95 (Art 1) 1-740
Fairbridge R.W., and Shirley, J.H., 1987, Prolonged Minima and the 179-year cycle of the solar inertial motion, Solar Physics, 110, 191-220
Fairbridge, R.W., 1997, Orbital commensurability and resonance, in, Encyclopedia of planetary sciences, Eds Shirley and Fairbridge, Chapman and Hall, London, pp.564-571.
(this is particularly important. You have to understand the chaotic nature of the suns orbit [it is epitrochoidic] around the barycentre and the role of orbital resonance. The sun's orbit is sometimes retrograde, which seems to have very unusual tidal impacts on the heliosphere)
Palamara, D. Solar Activity and recent climate change: Evaluating the impact of geomagnetic activity on atmospheric circulation, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, PhD thesis (340pp)
Reid, G.C., 1991 Solar total irradiance variations and the global sea surface temperature record, Journal of Geophysical Research, 96, 2835-2844
The impact of solar activity is distinctly non-linear, something studiously ignored in far too much of the discussion on this topic.
See Veerstegh, G.J., Solar Forcing of Climate. 2: Evidence from the past, Space Science Review, 120, 243-286.
Secondly, we have ample past evidence of steep warming over short timescales (such as occurred 15,000 years ago) without a corresponding CO2 increase. How this occurred is just not understood yet.
There is also ample evidence of quite remarkable eustatic fluctuations over short timescales, again without corresponding CO2 increases. These fluctuations are known as the Fairbridge Curve of the Holocene Eustatic Fluctuations: see his `Dating the latest movements in quaternary sea level, New York Academy of Science Transaction, 20, 471-482 and `Eustatic changes in sea levels, in, Ahrens, Rankama, Press and Runcorn (Eds) Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol 4, London, Pergamon Press 1961, pp99-185.
What all of this implies is that the UN, via the IPCC, has done us all a grave disservice through non-adherence to basic scientific method. Basically, from 1995 they have politicised their reporting. This is bad for everybody but charlatans and carpetbaggers who want to make a quick buck.
If the IPCC report does not even address the issues Koutsoyiannis or Cohen and Lind (let alone North!) raise, then how can it be regarded as having anything of value to say on the subject?
In moving to a political agenda of some sort, it is plain that there is a pseudo-religious dogma speaking in too much of this discussion and too little adherence to scientific method. People may as well quote Noddy and Big Ears in support of such `arguments', for just like the IPCC report, Noddy and Big Ears do not address the issue of the impact of solar variance on climate.
It is apparent that most people on all sides of the debate actually lack the background information and understanding to discuss this matter factually. This logically implies that actual "reading in" may be required, should people ever wish to understand the science versus participating in meaningless political /pseudo-religious discussions.
Too often the argument is little more that a few statements of religious-like dogma shot through with internal contradiction and a smattering of poorly understood data, most of which is either irrelevant or actually tainted.
MarkL
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:54 pm
23 Dec 2007
MarkL
We can know that it's not solar forcing otherwise the stratosphere would be warming proportional to the surface/troposphere. And yet the stratosphere is cooling.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
Even some of the bigger solar forcing skeptics like Scafetta or Friis-Christensen, have been forced to admit that solar radiance has only a limited effect on the warming of the past few decades.
Whats a far more realistic scenario is that we have a variety of radiative forcings to deal with.
Predominantly 1. Solar Forcing, 2. El Nino, 3. Volcanic/Other Airborne Dust, 4. And Greenhouse gases. You add all those together, and the result of the warming becomes far more clear.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070315/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2001/2 ...
Thats why they've been using radiative forcings in their recent report.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png
Permalink
MarkL Posted 5:51 pm
23 Dec 2007
Solar Forcing
Which, in the IPCC context, is very badly handled.
The IPCC notes that CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% during the last 10 years (1995-2005). As you'll know, radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature.
Now, given that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million (ppm) and that in 2005 it was 5% higher at 378 ppm. But it turns out that each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor - yet again it's a non-linear process in nested hierarchy of them. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1%, not 20%. The IPCC wound up exaggerating the CO2 effect 20-fold.
This is ridiculous.
Please do not believe me, go and check it yourself like I did. The maths ain't that hard if I can handle it.
All you have to do is to work out that the proportionate increase in CO2 between 1995 and 2005 was 5%, not 20%. This it's a simple calculation to work out the radiative forcing. That the IPCC can permit such a simple error to exist in its report invalidates much of it - you can only trust that of it which you can yourself check.
Once again we get back to the indiscriminate use of the famed 'computer models' to prove whatever one wants them to prove! So the process is not scientific, it's political (at the most optimistic).
Again, reading the actual science over a long period of time is essential. It is also important to understand that we do not understand the impacts of the known variables (they are immensely complex) and we keep discovering new variables.
If we do not understand the variables we know about, and we keep finding new ones, then a childishly simple model like 'it is a linear product of industrial CO2 output' is certainly wrong. All it can be is one variable, and a small one compared to insolation.
The rest is political gobbledegook and pseudo-religious gibberish.
MarkL
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 12:18 am
24 Dec 2007
Are we communicating as if ................
...........we are living in a modern day Tower of Babel? Is our unbelievable failure to communicate reasonably and sensibly about whatsoever is somehow real, and to widely share adequate understandings regarding both how the family of humanity "fits" within the natural order of living things and what are the limitations of the planet we inhabit, in evidence here and now?
Perhaps the human community is indeed in a serious predicament, but only in part because of the objective biological and physical circumstances defining our distinctly human-driven predicament. The global challenges in the offing are further complicated by our incredible failure to communicate effectively about the potentially pernicious results derived from having recklessly grown a soon to become patently unsustainable, colossal global economy, one that we have artificially designed, conveniently constructed, and unrealistically expanded without regard for the requirements of biophysical reality.
Could it be that the current gigantic scale and unchecked growth rate of the global economy is unsustainably driving both per human over-consumption and unrestrained human population growth toward the point in human history when the willful, relentless, unregulated growth of consumption, production and propagation of the human species precipitates the collapse of Earth's ecology, even in these early years of Century XXI?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:05 am
24 Dec 2007
"It's all a conspiracy!"
How many models is enough?
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
Remember, the bigger a "conspiracy" the more likely it will be found out.
That'd have to be one damned big conspiracy for there to be ZERO national scientific organizations which don't think climate change is predominantly manmade. (Would love it if you could point out even one)
It also assumes that peer review isn't involved in the underlying evidence. i.e. A scientific review process counter political influence.
Combine that with the Open Review process, and you got yourself a pretty solid defense against psuedo-scientific bullshit.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:19 am
24 Dec 2007
If anything
If anything I find it bizarre that in the face of uncertainty your approach is to BET on the side which leaves the world most vulnerable.
Thats like playing Russian Roulette with the equivalent of global thermonuclear war.
You buy car insurance, fire insurace, flood insurance, and we've invaded Iraq with even the slightest hint of nuclear warfare.
Why is it that we have to prove global warming to the same level of certainty of GRAVITY before you're willing to not bet against the safety of the world in such a high stakes gamble?
_
Especially since the "downside" of global warming being false but acting, is that every nation in the world would have it's own domestic supply of clean energy.
(Not to mention, a half decent preparation to deal with peak oil, and exponential population growth)
If you weight those two options
Benefits versus Detriments.
It's a no brainer that taking precautions to deal with global warming in the right thing to do.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:30 am
24 Dec 2007
Drought Ending Down Under
Recent news reports are telling us the Aussie drought for last 3 years is just about ending.
Southeast continues, but seriously, what do you expect when there's zero hurricanes and cyclones?
Looks like relief will hit in March 2008.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:33 am
24 Dec 2007
Events moving faster...
Whoops...looks like that drought is ending faster than we thought:
http://www.wral.com/weather/story/2210210/
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:36 am
24 Dec 2007
Give the Scientists the $$$
You don't have to convince me.
I love giving my tax money to scientists. Same with police, firemen and teachers.
I agree we need to pay the "protection money" to scientists and I really appreciate their work.
What I don't like is the bullying, negativity and downshouting of Al Gore and his Green Guard minions.
My Log
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:04 am
24 Dec 2007
I'm glad to hear it
"What I don't like is the bullying, negativity and downshouting of Al Gore and his Green Guard minions."
It's good that you want people to stop bullying and downshouting Al Gore, the greens and the scientific community. I agree, people should stop being negative towards Al Gore, environmentalists and scientists.
"Again, reading the actual science over a long period of time is essential."
Yes you should read the actual science. Let us know when you start.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:27 am
24 Dec 2007
Ah yes
Another "fringe benefit" of dealing with global warming is that we can deal with an uncontriversial threat to our world.
Ocean acidification due to putting a bunch of carbon into the ocean in a geologically short period of time. (30% increase in acidity in the last 200 years)
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:03 am
24 Dec 2007
As I was saying
josullivan58: "Yes you should read the actual science. Let us know when you start."
See, this is an example of a Green Guard in action.
This type of social networking bot will just down shout and reverse words without real argumentation.
I have yet to hear an answer to the data.
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:07 am
24 Dec 2007
Eyes on the Prize
I agree that the rubric of "global warming" could be one in which we can fund a lot of scientific work and understanding, as well as get money for new technologies and speed their introduction into the pipeline.
At the same time, I question the political decisions that may come of it and the danger of ceding power to unelected bodies and politicians simply because they cry "global warming".
My Log
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:14 am
24 Dec 2007
What are we really talking about?
And by "ceding power", what you are really talking about is a mere surcharge on fossil fuels and deforestation.
A far less involved set of trade agreements between nations than NAFTA or the WTO.
And far less influential on the American "way of life" than OPEC is.
Permalink
6degrees Posted 8:57 am
24 Dec 2007
50% VOLUME loss of Arctic in last 3 years
The Arctic ice sheet lost 50% of its volume in the last 3 years according to NASA.
Given the accelerating rate of melting, it is very likely that the Arctic ice sheet will melt off completely in the next two years. The Arctic temps are running 5-10 degrees C above normal right now.
Already the Arctic ocean is receiving 300% more solar energy than it did in 1980. Once the Arctic ice sheet melts off completely, the open ocean will warm rapidly, setting off rapid melting of the landlocked Greenland ice.
Also, lets not forgot that the effect of melting permafrost releasing gigatons of methane into the atmosphere.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 1:51 pm
24 Dec 2007
Sloppy numbers
Jabailo:
You asked for an answer to your "data."
"...what do you expect when there's zero hurricanes and cyclones?"
There were 15 named storms in the Atlantic Basin, compared to a long term average of 10. There were 6 hurricanes, with an average of six. There were three category 3-plus hurricanes, with an average of three. Though not as active as some predicted, "NOAA scientists are now carefully reviewing a set of dynamic weather patterns that yielded lower-than-expected hurricane activity across the Atlantic Basin. As a result, the United States was largely spared from significant landfalling storms. However several noteworthy events took place, including two back-to-back Category 5 hurricanes hitting Central America and the rapid near-shore intensification of the single U.S. landfalling hurricane." One storm, Olga, occurred in December, past the end of the season. Viewed at: http://www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/index.html.
And for your comments regarding NOAA's sea level anomaly tracking, I point out to you the definition of "anomaly" at this site: "A mean sea level anomaly occurs when the 5-month average of the interannual variation is greater than 0.1 meters (4 inches) or less than -0.1 meters."
First, not even IPCC predicts within five-month intervals. Second, sea-level rises attributed to AGW and predicted by IPCC would not appear in NOAA's tracking because the rises linked to global warming are far less than 4 inches in that time period. Third, though climate change won't routinely cause anomalous sea level rises under this rubric, occasionally it will. Follow this link, and you'll see what I mean:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/anomaly_prev.sh ....
At an earlier post (Tide Levels, 12/20/07) you cited this:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.sh ... ...
as a map of "sea level anomalies for North America." But when one visits this site, it references Charleston, South Carolina. Furthermore, this was an interannual variation from 1980 to the present. But what you failed to include--likely intentionally--was this link:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_statio ...
which includes the mean sea level trends at the same location since the 1920s. I think you'll agree the picture appears quite different, with sea levels rising significantly.
While you are welcome to post whatever you wish, your sloppy research approaches intellectual dishonesty, and you do all fair minded skeptics a disservice.
Permalink
maladapted Posted 4:52 am
29 Dec 2007
Follow the money
Friends,
I've been wondering where jabailo gets his information. He links to this article: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consens ...
Here's an excerpt from the Mission Statement of The Science and Public Policy Institute:
'The Institute urges critical appraisal of legislative "climate fixes" for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utility or futility.'
What I found more interesting was the SPPI's page of "Links and Resources". There are a lot of astroturf organizations on it. I hope jabailo knows they are informed by the profit motive, rather than by scientific objectivity.
Permalink
trock Posted 5:47 am
29 Dec 2007
selfish genration
Jabailo,
So, it's all about you isn't it.
The thing that some people feel is a good thing to do is reduce the problems that future generations might have.
You complain about `global warming' and how horrible it is to listen to people talk about it and that we might actually do something about it.
The real hope is that future generations aren't saying drought, rising water and heat wave worse than we have it now. This is the selfish generation in that they give no thought to changing the earth to a hotter climate and all the problems that will bring.
You have written about the southeastern drought might be ending. And then say, look we haven't had many hurricanes land on our country. But it's because of the southeastern drought that we haven't had the hurricanes land. As long as the drought was hovered over the southeast, the hurricane weather couldn't pass thru. The drought ends when the weather systems will pass thru again and the hurricanes will land again. That's what I have read.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:35 am
29 Dec 2007
Two questions......................
What are we going to say to our children when they ask..............?
Question One:
When did you know your generation was inadvertently precipitating the massive extinction of life as we know it and destroying the Earth?
Question Two:
Why did you and your generation of leaders not stop what you were doing and at least try to do something different, that might have given life as we know it a chance for a good enough future rather than keep charging ahead down the "primrose path" you could see would soon lead humankind to confront some kind of colossal wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
-- Posted by Steve Salmony
Permalink