(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!
Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.
Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect.
With regard to the "grapes used to grow in England" bit, here is some fairly solid evidence that grapes are in fact growing there now, denialist talking points aside. If that is not enough, RealClimate has a remarkably in-depth review of the history of wine in Great Britain, and how reliable it is as a proxy for global temperatures. (Hint: not very.)
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
BobKC Posted 3:01 am
15 Dec 2006
After the NAS report, don't you think this is a bit misleading/over-reaching?
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 12:38 pm
15 Dec 2006
While the NAS report did discuss some general aspects of all proxy studies (like they get more uncertain the further back in time they go) don't forget it was primarily about the "Hockey Stick" (aka MBH89) which is a single 8 year old work. Time and science have moved on even if Michaels and Lindzen haven't!
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 4:27 pm
11 Apr 2007
http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/book.htm
A useful chart can be found:
http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/lecture.htm
which summarizes the meticulous historical detail of the book itself, showing the ebb and flow of wineries over the last 2000 years.
From this, it looks like we're now "about as hot" as during the Medieval Warm period.
The line is moving North.
He expects, that after 2100, there will be some fine Scots wineries, especially near Loch Ness.
[Of course, whether or not the MWP was as warm or warmer than now is irrelevant to the current reality of global warming, especially with 10X more people on the planet than ~1000AD, but there is more than anecdotal evidence of wineries in the UK!]
[www.amazon.co.uk has it].
-John Mashey
Permalink
k8tea Posted 10:01 am
16 Apr 2007
Well of course there's"no good evidence" of global warming during the Midevil warm period. Humans didn't have a thermometer at every port, or satelites. In fact world wide surface temperatures have only been recorded with the MOST accuracy since ~2001.
I got this off the NASA web site
"Analyses of global temperature change by different groups, particularly, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the NOAA National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and the combination of the British Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia (BMO/UEA), are generally in close agreement. The ranking of individual years, however, often depends upon differences of only several hundredths of a degree, which is finer than the accuracy that any method can claim given observational limitations.
Additional Sea Surface Temperature Data. Fig. 3 shows an absence of warming of 2001-2005 relative to 1870-1900 in the equatorial region of upwelling off the coast of South America. Fig. 7 shows that the same conclusion holds for linear trends of SSTs. Alternative choices for the beginning date, e.g., 1880 or 1900, do not alter this conclusion qualitatively. Maps of the temperature change for arbitrary choices of the beginning and ending dates are available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp.
Fig. 8 shows annual mean SSTs in the WEP and EEP based on ship and buoy data (6) for 1870-1981 and satellite data (5) for subsequent years. The satellite data are adjusted by a small constant, as shown in Fig. 8A, such that the mean 1982-1992 temperature matches the in situ data (6) for that 11-year period. The 1983 and 1998 El Niños stand out in these annual mean plots as well as in the 12-month running means shown in Fig. 3B.
Fig. 5, using the same data source as Fig. 4A, extends the paleoclimate data for the WEP back to 1.35 million years before present. At least several interglacials in this longer period were warmer than the Holocene. As discussed in the text, alignment of the paleo temperatures and the modern instrumental data are uncertain by up to 1°C. If the paleo temperatures are shifted upward (by about one-half degree Celsius) such that the temperature in the late 1800s is near the lowest value in the Holocene, the current temperature is still within »1°C of the warmest interglacials."
Hansen J, Lebedeff S (1987) J Geophys Res 92:13345-13372.
Hansen J, Ruedy R, Glascoe J, Sato M (1999) J Geophys Res 104:30997-31022.
Peterson TC, Vose R, Schmoyer R, Razuvev V (1998) Int J Climatol 18:1169-1179.
Hansen J, Ruedy R, Sato M, Imhoff M, Lawrence W, Easterling D, Peterson T, Karl T (2001) J Geophys Res 106:23947-23963.
Reynolds RW, Smith TM (1994) J Clim 7: 929-948.
Rayner N, Parker D, Horton E, Folland C, Alexander L, Rowell D, Kent E, Kaplan A (2003) J Geophys Res 108:10.1029/2002JD002670.
Medina-Elizade M, Lea DW (2005) Science 310:1009-1012.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 4:27 pm
17 Apr 2007
"Far better an approximate answer to the right question, which is often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question, which can always be made more precise."
"The combination of some data and an aching desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a given body of data."
Whether or not we are now warmer than the MWP is the wrong question, and in fact, as interesting as it might be, arguing it gives a perfect opportunity for anyone who wants to create clouds of confusion to do so.
The argument "it's warmer than the MWP, and therefore we should do something about AGW" invites the response "but we really don't know", and then lots of confusing side-tracks.
The stronger argument to me is: "Whether we are warmer or not already, we're going up fast, and the physics says we're going to keep going up, we have 10X more people on the planet, and 50% of the world's population lives within 120 miles of the ocean, and anything we can do to slow down the inevitable temperature rise will give more time for ecosystems adaptation, will likely cost less, and maybe will save some wars (over water, if nothing else)."
Suppose someone could magically duplicate our current temperature sensors 10,000 years back, and have a current-technology record from then. Climatologists would be ecstatic, and models might improve, but otherwise, what would you do differently if it turned out the MWP were global, and a little warmer than now? or global and a little cooler? or not global?
-John Mashey
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:05 pm
17 Apr 2007
It could be largely unimportant either way.
HOWEVER,
If you check the 2005 Moberg study chances are it's not.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Tempera ...
Especially when you compare it to the ones that say otherwise, which use near fraud to make their case.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4418_Mythsv ...
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 6:17 pm
17 Apr 2007
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"
-- unknown
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 10:51 am
18 Apr 2007
If you're a glutton for detail, I refer to a posting I did in Google Groups sci.environment July 3, 2003 [1], basically expressing concerns about the unnecessarily over-prominent role of the "Hockey-Stick" chart in the IPCC TAR. This came to unfortunate emphasis with McIntyre/McKitrick and then the Wegman Report. Via Joe Barton, it yielded the denialist-dream result of getting climatologists into public battles with (serious world-class) statisticians (over the wrong things, IMHO), and generating great chances for selective quoting, again. Sigh.
When paleolimatologists perform temperature reconstruction, they must extract a signal from noisy data. This is hard work, they only have one Earth, and it's not like working in a lab where you can rerun experiments ... and hence, there are heroic efforts to extract signals. Published primary research papers normally try hard to quantify uncertainty with proper error bars ... but later, for simplicity of presentation, these things tend to get deemphasized or disappear.
As cited Wikipedia entry correctly says:
"It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure."
THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE GRAPHS, which is why I usually go back to the original research articles.
When I see any kind of average, I also want:
standard deviation (or equivalently variance), to show the dispersion of the data.
confidence intervals/error bars[which include effects from both variance and sample size].
some idea of the randomness of the sample
some idea of the independence of the data
Summarizing complex data onto charts is hard work, and it is all too easy to do things that are accidentally misleading, and a striking chart tends to get replicated, often losing the caveats along the way.
For example, in that Wikipedia example:
-Various studies had their own error bars, and without careful work, it's hard to tell what they mean. I've seen studies in which the size of the error bars remained constant going back from 1600AD to 1000AD, despite having fewer and fewer data series. That seems counter-intuitive, unless most of the data series did't matter, or if the earlier data was somehow more reliable, not usually the case with tree-rings. The original Mann-Bradley-Hughes papers was carefully caveated, but caveats get lost, and error bars get lost or deemphasized, because they make graphs very busy.
- One must be very careful to understand the commonality of underlying datasets. In many cases, various reconstructions share the use of a lot of data (which is fine), but it makes those studies less independent than is obvious when looking at such a chart.
I recommend [2], from 1999:
"However, many more data and much work are necessary before we can reduce the large uncertainties associated with reconstructions of medieval and earlier temperatures on large spatial scales." and
"Unfortunately, very few of the series are truly independent: There is a degree of common input to virtually every one, because there are still only a small number of long, well-dated, high-resolution proxy records."
Now, data has improved since then, but it's a good warning that one must be very, very careful from drawing overly-strong conclusions by eyeballing graphs in which possibly-common data has already been summarized. Although I sympathize, the wish to emphasize certainty may give determined opponents an easier target.
Anyway, one more time: reconstruction uncertainties show up in primary papers, but they often disappear in graphs ... but fortunately, they don't really matter to any substantive decisions that we need to make.
I think Wegman [3] got it right (although denialists never quote this part):
'As we said in our report, "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change. The instrumented temperature record clearly indicates an increase in temperature." We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the "hockey stick" controversy behind us and move on.'
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm ...
[2] K. R. Briffa, T. J. Osborn, "Seeing the Wood from the Trees," Science 284 (5416): 926.
[3] energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07272006hearing2001/Wegman.pdf
-John Mashey
Permalink
manacker Posted 2:42 am
04 May 2007
For a comprehensive summary of evidence for a global Medieval Warm Period check:
Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)
Regards,
Max Anacker
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:05 pm
04 May 2007
I've been following the blogs on this subject and here are my thoughts:
Is the Medieval Warming Period Irrelevant?
A commonly heard argument among IPCC supporters is that it is irrelevant to the current reality of global warming whether or not the Medieval Warm Period was global, with temperatures higher than today (a fairly-well documented historical fact), because the climate models show in any case that our current higher CO2 concentrations will lead to DISASTROUS warming (a computer-generated virtual reality).
If it is REALLY irrelevant whether or not the MWP was global and that temperatures then were warmer than today, why does the IPCC have to rely on a discredited "hockey stick" curve to make the alarmist claim that "the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years"?
Wegman is quoted as saying "In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 (the "hockey stick") are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change", but as he summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in testimony: "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis," and "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
Why not just delete this bit of BAD SCIENCE from the report if it is so IRRELEVANT?
Any good answers?
I think we know the answer. The MWP is an embarrassment for "disaster scenario" claims, for example that polar bears, etc. are facing extinction due to the climate changes today, despite the fact that they have survived for a very long time, including some longer periods of even warmer climates.
The "hockey stick" is used to substantiate the IPCC disaster claims, even though it has been shown to be a fraud.
Let's face it: slight warming over the past century (and possibly the next one), for whatever reasons, is real, as the record shows; impending DISASTER due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is an imagined, computer-generated scare scenario, that does not pass the "sanity check" of common sense or the historical record, regardless of what the models, the media and the politicians may say.
I challenge anyone to prove that this is wrong.
Max Anacker
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:36 pm
04 May 2007
Except thats wrong.
http://greyfalcon.net/hockey.png
So wrong, that not only were Soon and Baliunas discredited.
But 5 of the editors involved in the Journal resigned.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:38 pm
04 May 2007
http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
The MWP is clearly expressed, but it's not even hotter than the 1940s.
Much less todays temperatures.
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:47 pm
04 May 2007
Thanks for your comment.
I fail to see in the references you cited that Soon and Baliunas were "discredited" (as Mann was earlier for his "hockey stick"), just that some editors disagreed and a couple resigned.
The "more" correct hockey stick, which you cite may be "more" correct than Mann's first one, but maybe "less" correct than some other curve showing a warmer MWP.
So far you have not been able to convince me that we are living in an unprecedented warm period today.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:07 am
05 May 2007
_
S Fred Singer's study,
And the Soon & Baliunas study did not even measure temperature. They measured moisture, and said if a period was wet OR dry. Then it was automatically "warm". A completely non-scientific way to measure temperature.
http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/84/0/feed
Then they used historically incorrect information about Greenland Vikings, and British Wine.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mw ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/med ...
Even though every person associated with the non-credible studies is highly attached to Oil.
http://greyfalcon.net/lobbyists.png
(S Fred Singer, in particular, he goes all the way back to Phillip Morris, and has personally taken no less than $100,000 direct from Exxon mobil)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=52278449904586781 ...
Even though McKitrick, the original guy who claimed that the hockeystick was wrong, couldn't prove any of his claims other than he didn't like one of the data sources, the bristlecone pine.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Even though McKitrick is continuously wrong about climate science. Mainly because he keeps making intentional "accidents" in his math that skew it in his favor.
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
And even though McKitrick isn't even a climate scientist by training. He's an economist.
And even though the National Academy of Sciences AGREES with the original hockeystick that temperatures are warmer today than they are now.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html ...
However the findings of this NAS/NRC report continuously get distorted by people like Richard Lindzen, and Senator James Inhofe.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM8llDzesGU
http://www.desmogblog.com/denier-specialist-solomon-offer ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:19 am
05 May 2007
Wow! Looks like I hit your hot button. Don't get excited. And don't try to discredit IPCC critics by tying them to Phillip Morris or Exxon, or just claiming they are "consistently wrong about climate science".
I am just questioning the validity of the claims in the IPCC report regarding "unprecedented 20th Century warmth".
Arguments used to support IPCC this claim include:
· There was no Medieval Warm Period, also no Little Ice Age (Mann "hockey stick").
· Greenland really wasn't "green" in 1000AD; it was just a "PR ploy by Eric the Red, to make the colony sound attractive".
· There was a MWP and a LIA, but these were only local to some parts of Europe.
· There was a MWP and a LIA, but temperatures today are even higher than in the MWP.
The first two of these arguments do not need to be refuted. They have already been shown to be false.
The next two should be taken more seriously.
The "only in parts of Europe" hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect by many studies that have been reported, covering not only Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, England, etc.), but also:
· Russia
· Greenland
· North America
· Sargasso Sea
· China
· India
· New Zealand
· South America
These are all available to the public.
The "not as warm as today" hypothesis is often backed up by statements such as (NOAA) "we don't have enough good data" for the MWP and therefore the current warmth is very likely unprecedented. The "not as warm as today" hypothesis has also been shown to be incorrect by many of the studies referred to above, which point to temperatures between 1 and 4°C warmer than today. These also show that today's temperatures, while clearly rising, are still closer to those in the LIA than they are to those during the MWP.
Not too many people deny that temperatures are rising today.
Not too many people deny that CO2 levels are rising today.
Why not just leave it at that? Why do "scare scenarios" have to be built up using false or questionable data?
There is no doubt that we should conserve energy where possible and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels plus end pollution, deforestation, and other environmental carelessness; but we should not use lies or distort science to scare the people.
And that is what the IPCC is doing.
So relax, we are just trying to find out what the real truth is.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:39 am
05 May 2007
The 2006 studies in china show the Medieval Warming was 0.5C warmer than the Modern Warming.
Why is it everone accepts the fact except the cultists who want to impose a Global Tax on the lower 97% of humanity so they can keep their 3% lifestyles intact?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:54 am
05 May 2007
Local temperatures and Global temperatures are not the same thing.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:58 am
05 May 2007
Please do name one.
With one detail, that it's not just a LOCAL temperature reading, and rather a global temperature reconstruction.
Singer
Soon and Baluinas
McIntyre and McKitrick
Those are the only ones I know of, and those have all shown to be invalid.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:19 am
05 May 2007
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:00 am
05 May 2007
Here are the facts:
Global temperatures are going up very slightly (for some time now).
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is going up (at least for the past 50 years, since we have measurements).
That's it, folks.
Global temperatures have been higher than today in the past (with lower carbon dioxide levels).
Disaster has not happened in the past.
Use your common sense, guys, and don't blindly believe the virtual reality of computer models that predict disaster.
Computers are great, but they cannot replace common sense, no matter how sophisticated they are.
We are not facing a disaster.
So you can relax.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:00 am
05 May 2007
Here are the facts:
Global temperatures are going up very slightly (for some time now).
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is going up (at least for the past 50 years, since we have measurements).
That's it, folks.
Global temperatures have been higher than today in the past (with lower carbon dioxide levels).
Disaster has not happened in the past.
Use your common sense, guys, and don't blindly believe the virtual reality of computer models that predict disaster.
Computers are great, but they cannot replace common sense, no matter how sophisticated they are.
We are not facing a disaster.
So you can relax.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:39 am
05 May 2007
Hey, I think jabailo has got it right.
CALCULATED "Global" temperatures are just a computer-generated composite of ACTUAL "local" temperatures.
If I am sitting in Hong Kong, I feel the "local" temperature there. If I am sitting in Antarctica, I feel another "local" temperature.
The "global" temperature (day or night, summer or winter) does not mean very much to anyone, does it?
The fact that many LOCAL temperatures were shown to be higher during the MWP than today (as jabailo points out for China) is very relevant to the question of whether GLOBAL temperatures were higher then than now. Don't you agree?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:52 am
05 May 2007
Disaster has not happened in the past.
Except that you can't prove anything about global temperatures.
All you have is some local temperatures.
And you won't even cite any of your sources.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:02 am
05 May 2007
"Except that you can't prove anything about global temperatures."
Nor can you.
So I guess we are even.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:48 am
05 May 2007
We cannot make any exact judgement on exactly the severity of the fallout.
Yet.
And even if we could, we couldn't be certain we made the right assumptions until it already happened.
We can however prove that we are causing significant manmade warming on a global scale.
And much change from the status quo means adaptation. And adaptation costs money.
Fighting global warming, on the other hand is relatively cheap.
And would create millions of domestic jobs.
http://greyfalcon.net/gdp
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:22 pm
05 May 2007
Let's see where you and I agree on things.
1. Energy conservation
Believe we both agree it makes good economic and environmental sense to reduce energy waste at the personal level (low energy light bulbs, more efficient automobiles, better home insulation, installing solar panels to reduce power requirement, etc.).
At the industrial level most energy is used in manufacturing processes. Cutting manufacturing costs through more efficient use of energy also makes sense, and most companies have programs underway to do this.
Anything we can economically do to reduce our dependence on imported oil is good. If it makes us feel better because it also reduces our "carbon footprint" (which I am personally not worried about, but you are), so much the better.
Do we agree so far?
2. New non-fossil based automotive fuels
The automotive industry has a lot of R+D work going on for developing and improving electric or hybrid cars, cars driven with hydrogen, etc.
This is all great, but these technologies still require a basic source of energy to produce the electrical power or hydrogen. The only way to solve this is to install new power generation plants, and near-term the only economically acceptable non-fossil fuel solution is nuclear generation.
I can live with that. Unfortunately many people in Europe and North America have been frightened by the anti-nuclear "scare" stories generated by environmental lobby groups (much like the CO2 "scare" stories that are now being promulgated by IPCC and spread via the media and politicians).
So it looks like we first have to undo the damage from these "scare" stories, before we could convince people to go nuclear. It's a real toughie for outfits like Greenpeace, that now have to choose between a nuclear and a carbon footprint.
Longer-term new economically viable non-fossil fuel generation methods could be developed. Fusion reactors (converting deuterium into helium) are still a long way off.
I don't give solar or wind power much chance to ever become economically viable or feasible on a scale large enough to make a major impact, unless basically new technologies can be developed. Do you?
Following Brazil's apparent success in converting to sugar cane derived ethanol (from corn, biomass or whatever) could be another way to get away from imported oil. As I understand it, the economics are still dicey for corn-based ethanol, but maybe these can be improved with new technologies or genetically modified high sugar yield corn. I could sure live with this, as well, but we might have trouble with the green groups who are opposed in pricipal to genetically modified crops and with people who have been influenced by "scare" stories spread by these groups.
Bio-mass as an economically viable source of energy at a large scale is still a thing of the future, but I am all for developing new technologies that make economic and environmental sense.
Are we still on the same track?
3. Carbon capture and injection
One proposed solution for CO2 emissions is "carbon capture" of the stack gases from large power stations and injection back into permeable underground layers of the earth. This does nothing to conserve energy. In fact the energy required to compress and inject the CO2 would be substantial so it is a solution that wastes energy rather than conserving it.
The long-term environmental unknowns of injecting massive quantities of CO2 into the earth seem to me to be a much greater risk than letting the CO2 go into the atmosphere, where it is already a minor natural component.
In addition, the technology for doing all this efficiently does not exist and, even if and when it is developed, it would do nothing for smaller energy users, such as automobiles.
So this is one "solution" that I would oppose. How about you?
4. Carbon taxes
IPCC promotes the "Kyoto solution" of establishing carbon taxes to "force" the price of fossil fuels upward. This opens a can of worms, such as bureaucratic "carbon footprint offset schemes", trading mechanisms, etc. NONE OF WHICH do anything to either conserve energy or reduce CO2 emissions.
IPCC estimates that we currently emit 26 Gt of CO2 per year, which is equal to 7 Gt of carbon. At a "carbon tax" of $30 per ton this represents an additional tax on mankind of $210 billion per year, a large part of which will go to paying the bureaucrats that will have to enforce and administer the schemes.
Sure, the money-shufflers will all make a buck on these schemes (International Herald Tribune reported on May 3 that it is a $30 billion business in Europe today, with hedge funds and other new entrants tripling the European trading volumes).
So I see this as an expensive, bureaucratic "non-solution" to what I consider to be a "non-problem".
I know you do not agree the CO2 emissions are a "non-problem".
But can you agree with me that this is a "non-solution", because it does nothing to solve CO2 emissions?
5. Using "scare" tactics to force people to think and act differently
This is where I have the greatest problem with the IPCC. They are spreading disaster stories under the guise of "science". The media love "scare" stories, as do the politicians and the environmental activist groups, so everyone hops on the wagon.
Then there are the guys that "scared" us out of nuclear power generation, and now we have to undo the damage in order to get non-fossil fuel power generation plants built.
The same "scare" tactics that got DDT outlawed worldwide, causing millions of new malaria cases and deaths, until the WHO finally lifted its ban on DDT recently.
Throughout the years, politicians have used "scare" tactics to increase their own power and justify all sorts of bad things. This is no different today, but it is hidden under the mantle of "saving the planet from man".
Teachers get our children all anxious by spreading these "scare" stories in school. Ask a 10-year old what his/her greatest fear is, and you are likely to get the answer "floods and storms caused by global warming". It is irresponsible for teachers to scare their pupils, no matter what imagined "good cause" is behind it.
The "scare" stories do not achieve any positive environmental result.
Can you agree with me that spreading environmental "scare" stories is not a solution to the problem?
Let's see on how many of the above we agree.
Then we can concentrate our discussion or debate on those where we disagree.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:17 pm
05 May 2007
Greesburg Kansas
Flooding in Bangledesh
Enough of that. I could spend all day searching out weather and climate impacts for deniers who NEVER reference their claims.
The so-called MWP wasn't all that warm, didn't last that long and had a much more gradual rise and decline than the current warming. All of this is detailed in the several thousand peer-reviewed journals detailing the IPCC's views on climate change.
Do any of you deniers have anything but pseudo-science and obfuscation? Anything with a link to a scientific paper? Not likely.
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:39 am
06 May 2007
Back in 1900 the USA's deadliest hurricane ever hit Galveston, killing over 8,000 people. There were not many pictures sent around and no TV or even radio broadcasts.
Nine of the ten deadliest hurricanes in the USA occurred before 1960, with Katrina (#3 in deaths) the only one since then.
Of the 25 deadliest US tornados, none occurred after 1955. Of the 30 deadliest US tornados, only 2 occurred after 1980.
I am certainly not a "climate denier".
I just find it hard to accept that these storms were caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Sounds like you may be a "MWP denier", though, as are the writers of the "several thousand peer-reviewed journals" you mention.
"Do any of you deniers have anything but pseudo-science and obfuscation? Anything with a link to a scientific paper? Not likely."
Tsk, tsk. Sounds like you are losing your temper and starting to call names. For shame.
For the MWP check out: Soon, W. and Baliunas, S., "Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", Climate Research, Vol 23: 89-110 (2003)
For the hurricane and tornado records, check out the NOAA websites. If you want these references, I can provide them.
In the meantime, cool off.
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:58 am
06 May 2007
Yes, you could use the weather pages at ask.com and find anything that varies from the norm and cite "global warming" as the cause.
But how about this (and I know you Crypto-Malthusians hate to be reminded of your past) -- what happened in the Gulf of Mexico?
I mean, where's the bigger Katrina? It's really quiet there isn't it? Since every year is the "hottest on record" we should have seen some Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:18 am
06 May 2007
"Since every year is the 'hottest on record' we should have seen some Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?"
Do you have a proved connection between 'hottest on record' and 'Cat sixes, maybe even sevens?'
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:12 am
06 May 2007
You should be more sophisticated than to make a naked assertion and then expect someone here to pick it up as their own:
I guess I responding to Crypto-Malthusianastic articles such as:
Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1099102,00 ...
Which were all the rage 2 years ago -- but suddenly as the Modern Warming ( what I call the Goldilocks Optimum ) settles into calm stable warm weather, there doesn't seem to be these big disasters that the CM's can pin on the myth of GW.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:56 am
06 May 2007
So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes--or at least they seem to if you live in the U.S. From 1995 to 1999, a record 33 hurricanes struck the Atlantic basin, and that doesn't include 1992's horrific Hurricane Andrew, which clawed its way across south Florida in 1992, causing $27 billion dollars worth of damage. More-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models, and as mean temperatures rise worldwide, it's hard not to make a connection between the two. But hurricane-scale storms occur all over the world, and in some places--including the North Indian ocean and the region near Australia--the number has actually fallen. Even in the U.S., the period from 1991 to 1994 was a time of record hurricane quietude, with the dramatic exception of Andrew.</blockquote.<p>
You're worried because they say "superficially, the numbers say yes?"
(The do go on to say that "more-frequent hurricanes are part of most global warming models" but that doesn't strike me as a strong claim either.
They certainly did not say that global warming impact would be strong enough to override every other aspect of the system (inc. random year to year variation).
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:57 am
06 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:36 am
06 May 2007
Make sure to check your sources to see if they are actually valid.
That paper was HEAVILY discredited.
They didn't even measure temperature, they measured moisture, counting both high moisture and low moisture as "warm"
and then took a leap of faith that that lined up with temperature.
Completely unscientific.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hockey.png
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/em.php?mapid=952
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:15 am
06 May 2007
But back to:
"Make sure to check your sources to see if they are actually valid.
That paper was HEAVILY discredited."
So was Mann's hockeystick. Right?
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/0714 ...
plus many others
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:53 am
06 May 2007
That paper was HEAVILY discredited.
So was Mann's hockeystick. Right?
In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html ...
Nope.
Only thing that stuck with with the Wegman / McKitrick comments was that they didn't like that he used bristlecone pines.
http://www.realclimate.org/dummies.pdf
Furthermore, the error bars in the Mann chart line up well enough with the Moberg 2005 study.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:31 pm
06 May 2007
But this year, it's been cloudy and cold all up until May.
Guess the Modern Cooling is happening faster than they thought.
Sorry Global Warmers, crisis over. Go back to looking for asteroids.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:44 pm
06 May 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/ ...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/19/australia.dro ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:04 pm
06 May 2007
"In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries."
Duh! That was the LITTLE ICE AGE.
"But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain."
Duh, again! That was the MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD.
He also said, "Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis".
Is there anything unclear in this statement?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:05 pm
06 May 2007
"Only thing that stuck with with the Wegman / McKitrick comments was that they didn't like that he used bristlecone pines."
We've covered Wegman's statement and committee report conclusion above. What "stuck" was that the conclusions of unprecedented warmth in the 1990s and the year 1998 were not supported.
M+M also showed that Mann's hockey stick reconstruction was flawed. Other statements that "stuck":
"The MBH98 [hockey stick] methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century values."
They showed that "results adverse to their [Mann's] claims were not reported" and that in some cases there were "actual misrepresentations"
Then they criticized the "lack of due diligence involved in peer review" and criticized the IPCC for using the flawed hockey stick in climate policy reports.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:00 pm
06 May 2007
MWP appears to be warm.
But no warmer than the 1940s.
http://greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
And with McKitrick, isn't that credible as far as understanding mathematics goes.
http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
It's almost like he intentionally botches the math to make it agree with him....
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:33 pm
06 May 2007
The conversation is starting to get repetitive.
Anyone can write a paper or article to defend a pet theory or put down a scientific report that disagrees with it.
Mann's hockey stick was DISCREDITED and with it the IPCC claim of unprecedented warmth in the 1990s.
Let's talk about something else. OK?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:30 am
07 May 2007
90% certain for here through the LIA
And 60% certain for the MWP
That isn't bad odds in science stats.
Trick being stats always helps to have more and more reconstructions.
Which is what Moberg is all about.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:47 am
07 May 2007
I wish you Crypto-Malthusians would show that chart w/o the CO2 line.
If you're showing temperature, then show temperature -- don't stick a gas concentration in the series!
It pains a much different (and the only accurate) picture.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:36 pm
07 May 2007
"Trick being stats always helps to have more and more reconstructions.
Which is what Moberg is all about."
Reconstructions, manipulations, justifications.
Whatever.
Bye,
Max
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 1:20 pm
09 May 2007
Let's consider Switzerland [from which my ancestors emigrated ~1830, i.e., LIA], which is of course rich, has no coast, and gets lots of rain.
With the exception of the ski business, Switzerland might mostly like warming, although it seems the Swiss government doesn't, and is doing carbon taxes, which must be irksome.
I believe Max is located in/near Maienfeld, Switzerland, [SouthEast of Zurich], and perhaps he can answer a few factual questions about nearby conditions:
From Maienfeld, can one actually see the Pizol glacier (which is shrinking, like most Swiss glaciers), or must one go up the hill to see that? I couldn't quite tell the viewing angle from GoogleEarth.
Apparently Swiss banks are refusing to lend to some ski resorts below 1500meters. Bad Ragaz and Wangs are at 510m, but of course the mountain goes much higher, and many European ski resorts have bases much lower than where one actually skis ... some not exactly sure what 1500m means. Max: do you know?
My German is really rusty, but I saw this:
http://www.seilbahn-nostalgie.ch/pizol.html; it sounds like there is funding for a new gondola, but fights between the two areas.]
== Many Swiss live where they can see glaciers, and since ski tourism is major business in Switzerland, Max must know all this, but for others: =
Switzerland keeps good glacier records, and ETHZ (an excellent institution, for those who've never visited) offers a fine website: (good graphs, easy access to raw data, typical careful Swiss:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
Pizol (across the road from Maienfeld, by eyeball, looks like glacier is gone in ~100 yers):
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glaciers/pizol.html
But then, almost all are retreating:
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html
Of the 85 measured in 2006, 1 was advancing and 84 were retreating. But that might be a fluke, so here are the Swiss totals for last 10 years, showing A(dvancing), R(etreating), S(tationary), and % R vs (A+S):
Year A R S %R
2006 1 84 0 99%
2005 0 86 7 92%
2004 8 77 7 84%
2003 0 96 0 100%
2002 3 76 6 89%
2001 9 77 6 86%
2000 5 81 4 90%
1999 9 79 6 84%
1998 1 79 2 95%
1997 6 84 9 85%
==
Tot 42 819 47 90%
SKIING
SwissInfo says:
Climate change threatens ski resorts in Europe
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Climate_change_ ...
and in more detail:
http://www.oecd.org/document/45/0,2340,en_2649_34361_3781 ...
Swiss resorts ponder snow decline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6420825.stm
Global warming melting magic of Swiss Alps
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=298027& ...
The first URL says: "Banks in Switzerland are refusing to lend money to ski outfits below an altitude of 1,500 metres.
Fortunately, Switzerland mountains are deemed better off than lower ones nearby.
-John Mashey
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:14 am
10 May 2007
Thanks for interesting blog.
You are 100% right; it is sad, but true, that the alpine glaciers in Switzerland are retreating today. They actually have been since the late 19th century.
I can see the Pizol out of my window. This year there was not much winter snow (in contrast to last year), and we had a warm, sunny month of April (again, in contrast to last year when it snowed well into April). So there is not much snow to see now, just on the very top.
The region where I live has an interesting history, which is tied closely to earlier climate changes, such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which had major impact on the alpine glaciers of this region at the time.
As a descendant from emigrants from Switzerland, some of this history made be of interest to you.
In the late 10th century, a Germanic tribe settled in what is now the upper Valais (or Wallis, as it is called in German). The climate then was milder than today, and the settlements high in the mountains flourished, resulting in a rapid growth of population.
According to the tradition then, only the eldest son inherited the entire land from his parents (in the case of feudal land it was actually the "right to farm" the land), so that soon there was a growing need for new land.
This trend resulted in an emigration of many families, already starting in the 11th century (much in the same way, I guess, that your ancestors emigrated from Switzerland due to economic pressures several hundred years later).
These German-speaking emigrants were called the "Valser" (after the Valais); they emigrated over the alpine passes into parts of Austria (Voralberg) and Graubünden in Switzerland, with some ending up in northern Italy.
This emigration continued over several hundred years, until the mid 14th century.
In the "Valser" regions of Graubünden, the new arrivals were welcomed by the feudal lords, who were looking for "able-bodied" mountain men to settle the lands and increase their wealth. Most of the feudal lords were also German-speaking, even though most of the local peasants at the time spoke a Latin language, called Rumantsch (or Rhätoromanisch in German). With this new immigration, the language border gradually shifted and German became the local language here, as the dwindling Rumantsch-speaking community was replaced by the new arrivals.
All during this period of milder climate, these settlements thrived and expanded. The alpine glaciers were then much smaller than today (it is estimated by around 15%).
With the 16th century came a change in climate. The glaciers again started growing into what had previously been forestland. The alpine passes, which the Valser had used in their emigration, again became closed in due to the glacial growth and the advancing glaciers destroyed alpine meadows and villages. This was the end of the expansion of the Valser into high alpine valleys
The settlers were forced to move further down into lower valleys. Some found new pastures there where they could continue, but many others were forced to take work in newly developing occupations, such as mining, handicraft or transportation.
It was a hard time and many starved. The fast growth of the Valser population slowed down dramatically, due to the consequences of the harsher weather.
The glaciers advanced, off and on, for several centuries and reached their maximum size around 1850 (at an estimated 20% greater size than today). Then they started to recede again, which they have been doing ever since.
Today you can't get "able-bodied" Valser to move back up into the newly greener valleys to herd cows and goats (they are all working in the Swiss "service" industries, such as tourism and banks).
While there still are cowherds on the alpine pastures, most of the people in the old Valser high valleys are now making their living in the tourist industry serving winter (and summer) resorts. Those that are relying on winter snowfall complain when it is mild (like this year) and make a better living when it snows a lot (like last year). The farmers and cowherds complain in either case that they have a hard life (which they do).
A glacier retreats (or loses net mass) when there is more summer melting than there is winter snowing. This is certainly the trend here in our region since around 1850.
So you see that glaciers receding, then growing, then receding again is part of our life here. As skiers, we are sorry that they are receding now, but who knows what they will do long term?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:24 pm
10 May 2007
This is not right.
They were 15% lower than the MAXIMUM length reached during the LIA, around 1850.
For example, Switzerland's largest glacier, the Aletsch, has a length of 23.6 km today, compared with the LIA maximum of 26.1 km in 1850, so it has shrunk by around 10% in length. Around 900 years ago it reached a minimum length of around 22 km. This is around 15% below the LIA maximum, and not 15% below today's length, as I said.
The calculated glacier surface or total volume in Gt of ice, have, of course, fluctuated even more that just the measured length. I believe the total volume loss of the Aletsch since 1850 has been estimated to be around one-third, or 13 Gt. It has been calculated to be around 27 Gt today.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:29 am
12 May 2007
Your message got me to thinking. So I did some checking on the current status and the history of the Alpine glaciers in Switzerland.
The glaciers in the Swiss Alps are currently receding. They have been receding since they reached their highest extension around 1850. Records show that some of the larger glaciers have lost as much as one-third of their maximum volume over these 150+ years, while some smaller ones have lost an even higher percentage of their 1850 volume and a few others have lost less volume. Some smaller, lower-lying glaciers have disappeared entirely [1,2,3].
As the glaciers recede, they provide evidence of periods when they were smaller than they are today. This evidence is in the form of remains of trees, other vegetation and insects, which lived at an earlier time, as well as, more rarely, of evidence of early medieval civilization (remnants of huts, mine shafts, etc.) before they were covered by the advancing ice.
In a recent interview, Reid Bryson, the now-retired climate professor from the University of Wisconsin, makes mention of one of these finds from a few years ago, where in addition to remains of a mature forest the remnants of an old silver mine were found [4].
Such physical evidence is rare but old local records of alpine gold and silver mines shutting down due to advancing ice can be found.
A study was made in 2004 by Christian Schlüchter and Ueli Jöri of the Institut für Geologie, at the University of Bern to determine the historical extent of the expansion and retraction of Swiss alpine glaciers, using the evidence provided by remains of trees, etc. [5].
The two most recent time periods that were identified by these remains were the Medieval Warm Period and the climatic period called the "Roman Optimum". In both periods the glaciers were smaller than they are today, as shown by this evidence. Similar evidence of other more distant periods of glacial retreat and smaller glaciers than today were also found.
The study found that during the "Roman Optimum" the glacier "tongues" were actually 300 meters higher than today, which may help to explain why Hannibal was able to cross the Alps with elephants.
The lowest level of glaciation in the Alps apparently occurred during a period around 7,000 years ago, according to the study. At that time the glaciers had apparently disappeared almost completely
The study showed that the maximum extension of the Swiss alpine glaciers in the past 10,000 years was around the year 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The study concluded that the expansion and retraction of glaciers is a far more dynamic process than had been assumed to date, with a concluding comment that glacial retreat is not necessarily a result of warming, since periods of dry, colder weather can contribute to glacial retreat just as much as a general warming can.
As you know, a glacier is a river of ice that is constantly flowing. If there is less winter snow than there is summer run-off, the glacier recedes. That is what is happening in Switzerland.
Based on the measurements made for the largest Swiss glacier, the Aletsch, it is true that the most recent rate of retreat (since 1980) is higher than it was earlier this century and around 50% higher than the overall average rate from 1886 to today. The year of fastest retreat was 2005/2006. Twelve (12) of the twenty-five (25) years of fastest retreat occurred in the 26-year period after 1980, with the other thirteen (13) occurring in the 94-year period prior to 1980. So we can say that the rate of retreat has increased [3].
I could not find any scientific evidence that the current rate of retreat of the glaciers is "unusual" compared to other periods in the paleoclimate record that preceded the Little Ice Age. Since records were not taken then, these data probably do not exist.
Since 1850, when the Swiss alpine glaciers reached their highest stand in 10,000 years, the Swiss glaciers have been retreating, as they have many times in the past. It looks like this will be the case at least for the near future, as long as the milder climate with fewer harsh, snowy winters continues here.
Regards and thanks for getting me interested in checking this all out,
Max
[1] http://www.pronatura.ch/aletsch/de/natur/aletschgletscher ...
[2] http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2006_Steiner ...
[3] http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glacierlist.html
[4] http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
[5] http://alpen.sac-cas.ch/html_d/archiv/2004/200406/ad_2004 ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:41 am
12 May 2007
Since 1850, when the Swiss alpine glaciers reached their highest stand in 10,000 years, the Swiss glaciers have been retreating,
So part of what your saying in this (great) post, is that why we may seem to be seeing heighten effects of "warming" is that the previous "cooling" was the extreme.
So we're merely pulling out in normal fashion from what was a 10,000 cold minimum!
I would say we should be dancing in the streets for this Modern (what I term the Goldilocks Optimum) Warming -- after centuries of extreme misery!!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:01 am
12 May 2007
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:12 am
12 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:37 am
12 May 2007
It's all Newtonian physics.
In order to make an evaluation, we have to look at.
What was the minimum and maximum temperature of the last 10,000 years, T-sub-0, T-sub-1.
At what rate is it changing, TV (temperature velocity).
What is the rate of the rate of change TA (temperature acceleration).
The AGWs focus on (3), the Temperature Acceleration, or how fast the increases are coming, year to year.
However, it's pointless to look at TA or TV unless you know what T-sub-0 is and T-sub-1 is.
In other words, if temperature has been higher in the last 10,000 years than the current TV and its TA make it, then who cares?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:52 pm
12 May 2007
Today we're facing a possible rate and magnitude of climate change that we have not seen since the rise of modern society in the last few hundred years ... which is why the experts judge a significant risk of serious impacts.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:04 pm
12 May 2007
Ok, so you're admitting it was hotter in 1300 than now...because you've restricted yourself to the "last few hundred years".
At this point, the whole Global Warming thing has completely collapsed.
All you can safely say is that it's hotter now than in 1850.
And you make the crazy argument that after 150 years of technological progress, we are more (not less) prone to disaster and less likely to adapt!
So, it would be better if we were still making buggies and living in wooden cottages?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:32 pm
12 May 2007
"The warming over the last 10,000 years has been about 8 deg C. That translates into a rate of about 0.1 per century."
Actually, it doesn't.
There was not a gradual, slow warming over the past 10,000 years.
Believe it is general knowledge that there were many periods of warming as well as cooling over the 10,000-year period, as the record shows there were periods of glacial advance and retreat.
I cannot tell you what the warming or cooling rate was in each of these periods, but a rate of 1 deg C per century could certainly have been possible. I have not seen any scientific evidence refuting this possibility.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:26 am
13 May 2007
The Crypto-Malthusians have a few millimeters of wax in their ears, but let's try.
The evidence shows the glaciers are far from their highest point. You must read The Chilling Stars by Svensmark and Calder.
I just got this book from King County Library's Central Kent branch yesterday, and I'm devouring it.
Examples galore:
p. 11
A less public-spirited finder might have put the oddity up for sale on eBay, so the archaeologists of Bern Canton were grateful when Ursula Leuenberger presented them with an archer's quiver made of birch bark. They were amazed when radiocarbon dating showed the quiver to be 4,700 years old. Frau Leuenberger had picked it up while walking with her husband in the mountains above Thun. There, the perennial ice in the Schnidejoch had retreated in the unusually hot summer of 2003, revealing the relic hidden beneath it.
The hiking couple had unwittingly rediscovered a long forgotten short-cut for travelers and traders across the Swiss Alps....By the end of 2005 they [archaeologists] had some 300 items - from the Neolithic Era, the Bronze Age, the Roman period and medieval times.
[...]
Here is a tale of natural variation in climate having a practical influenence on the lives and travels of Europeans over 5,000 years. The climate was particularly cold in two periods around 800 BC and 1700 AD. Effects of the latter episode, the Little Ice Age, persisted in the Schnidejoch for so long that even the locals forgot that a useful pass was ever there.
The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were an embarrassment for those who, in recent years, wished to play down the natural variations in climate that occurred before the Industrial Revolution.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:20 am
13 May 2007
I agree that the Earth has warmed and cooled over the last 20,000 years, but at a rate slow compared to today.
Over the next 100 years, the Earth might warm at a rate that is unprecedented over the last 20,000 years. This is documented in the IPCC report. If you disagree with that, please tell me your data source so I can fact-check it.
In the past, climate change has destroyed civilizations. See Linden's book, Winds of change for a good description of this.
The rapid warming of the next century poses a substantial risk of serious climate impacts. This is described in the recent IPCC report. For small warmings, rich countries will do OK, but for big warmings, even the richest countries will suffer extensive declines in standard of living and virtually any other metric you can think of.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:24 am
13 May 2007
The discovery of an ancient quiver near a receding glacier is fascinating.
I'm no expert on this, and don't claim to be, but it looks like there are a lot of people out there, like yourself, working on "keeping them honest" (as CNN would say).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:29 am
13 May 2007
I believe the key work here is "MIGHT".
Show me the EVIDENCE (not an IPCC report) that this is a realistic assessment.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:33 am
13 May 2007
You glossed over the arguments presented.
AGW shuffle, shuffle. Deal of the bottom of the deck, that's the con of Global Warmers...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:04 am
13 May 2007
So rather than listen to people who admit they don't know much, you should consult the experts. Luckily, the opinion of the experts is available. It comes in the form of the he IPCC reports, and it is the authoritative statement of what we know and how confidently we know it.
Why should you believe the IPCC reports? Read this.
Max: the case for possible (yes, I said possible; it is not a sure thing) serious climate change is laid out in the IPCC WG I reports. You can find the latest report here.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:18 am
13 May 2007
Which is why I quote original scientific research and books written by Ph.Ds.
You quote politicians and "committees".
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:24 am
13 May 2007
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?p=803 ...
The question is:
Should we disband the IPCC?
The IPCC has been in business since 1990,using scare tactics, falsifying research and creating biased analyses to justify its own existence.
It also suppresses the truth.
Isn't it time to disband the IPCC?
Vote here:
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?p=803 ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:45 pm
13 May 2007
Those opposed to action on climate change MUST attack the IPCC. Not doing so would completely destroy their position. That explains the comments above that attempt to cast doubt on the IPCC by suggesting it is made up of politicians, etc.
Why should you believe the IPCC? Read this. Here's what I say there:The IPCC report was written by hundreds of climate experts from 130 countries and was based on peer-reviewed scientific literature. The report has itself undergone several layers of scrutiny; it was evaluated by thousands of other climate experts, critiqued by over a hundred IPCC-member governments, and open to public review.
The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?
In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.Is the book that jbailo is pushing peer-reviewed? Has it undergone a public review? Has it been endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences? The American Geophysical Union? The American Meteorological Association?
Of course not. There is only one credible source here, and it's the IPCC.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 3:27 pm
13 May 2007
Thanks for the pointers; I think we share the belief that careful study of glaciers is useful in understanding climate gyrations. Combined with other evidence, they tell us more than just "the temperature changes up and down."
Thanks for reminding me of Grosser Aletsch - you may want to look at "Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years" [1]. Figures 2 (Aletsch, Gorner and Lower Grindelwald) and 5 (Aletsch + lakes) are particularly useful. From eyeballing the chart, it wouldn't claim assert that that the current retreat is noticeably slower or faster than the previous ones, although it's clearly retreating faster than it was ~1900, from [9] and [10].
Although glacier mass balance is certainly not a perfect direct proxy for temperature (since precipitation matters), it is still very useful, As mentioned in [1], glaciers offer helpful time-filtering effects, i.e., longer glaciers don't notice quick transients, like volcanic eruptions. They say Aletsch has a reaction time of about 24 years, and a response time of 50-100 years. I.e., if you suddenly raised the temperature and kept it there, it would take Aletsch a while to even notice, and then much longer before it shrank enough to get back into equilibrium. Thus, they say "The present-day position of the glacier front is therefore a reflection of the climactic conditions of past decades."
There is very strong known data, plus Ruddiman's hypotheses [3, 4], that offer reasonable explanations for most of these glacier gyrations, some of which are natural, and some of which are virtually certain to be anthropogenic. In fact, in some ways, the long-term Swiss glacier gyrations are among the strongest data we have for supporting anthropogenic influences before the current AGW, and of course, the last 100 years of data show AGW's fingerprints. A good discussion by a Swiss author can be found in[5].
Anyway, it's worth reading [1] and [3], at least, and if I get unbusy enough, I'll try to put all this together in one table: Figure 5 in [1] Figure 13.1 in [4], plus some other series on solar irradiance & insolation, plus sunspots (Maunder & oher Minima)... and maybe some population numbers from [8]. This is not as easy as I'd like given different scales, and fact that people draw dated charts both left-to-right, and right-to-left. maybe someone has one like that they can post.
In general, typical summer solar insolation (which drives glacier retreat if above some threshold) peaked about 10,000 years ago, and is still going down (Milankovitch cycles), i.e., why we've had cyclic ice ages for a while. There are of course 11-year (small) jiggles from sunspot cycles, and occasionally sunspots go away (Maunder Minimum), but the general long-term temperature trend should be downward, for a while, with jiggles. Specifically, typical Summer solar insolation is lower than it was 3,500 years ago [putting together [3], Fig 1 and [1], Figure 5.],
There are natural reasons for some jiggles. There are anthropogenic reasons for others[i.e., the plague part of Ruddiman's hypotheses to help cause coolings pre- and post- MWP]. Right now, the large anthropogenic CO2 effect is strong enough to overpower most jiggles, and that effect is clearly seen in Aletsch, especially with the effect since 1950. [Some of the earlier rise is thought to be due to increase in solar irradiance, which then leveled off a while back.]
In [1], they describe "periods when glacier size was similar or smaller than it is today." Aletsch:
1350BC-1250BC: ~1000m shorter than today
200BC-40AD: about same as today, or maybe somewhat shorter (Roman optimum)
750AD-1000AD (or so): about same as today (MWP)
If you see Figure 13.1 in [4], those periods line up pretty well with periods of good health & growing populations.
Three of the big advances in Aletsch, peaking at 600AD, 1369AD, 1666AD, 1859AD) mostly follow major pandemics ([4], p. 132. It's worth checking column "Census.gov" of [8], for periods when populations drop or are flat.
Correlation is not causation, and I certainly wouldn't ascribe all of these effects to humans, but they are certainly suggestive of spikey effects that happen on the necessary timescales. Read [4] for the detailed discussion of mechanisms to connect pandemics with colder temperatures, possibly explaining the some of the otherwise puzzling ice-core CO2 gyrations [3] Figures 7 & 10.
Roughly, one might summarize Ruddiman's second hypothesis as: "Growing populations cleared forests, burned wood, and when large enough, more or less canceled or slowed the natural cooling trend. Major pandemics caused subsistence farms to return to forest, absorbing CO2 and lowering the temperature."
Hence, even knowing that [8] has some wild guesses, one compares with Aletsch:
500BC-1AD: large population growth [retreat]
1AD-200AD: drop [stable]
200AD-700AD: drop/flat [slow advance, then faster]
700AD-1200AD: big rise [fast retreat, then stable]
[then, LIA, fast jiggles in population, fast jiggles in glaciers, with confounding factors of various solar Minima. I don't know if these population estimates include the effects of the massive die-off of Native Americans [11] ... but it is somewhat ironic if the diseases caught from early European settlers (a) caused a Native American (b) die-off that helped drop the temperature during the Little Ice Age, which caused grief in Europe, including migration from Switzerland (c) to the US.
Figure 5 of [1] shows that after earlier steep retreats, Aletsch decelerated, and then they think it stayed in a small size range for hundreds of years [i.e., Roman warming period & MWP]. If understand [1] Fig 5 right, the last data was 2002, and it's gone down ~250m since then ... which is quite interesting, given:
a) The lag times described by the authors, so that Aletsch is not yet responding to the last decades' strong temperature rises.
b) As noted earlier, typical summer solar insolation should be lower than it was 3,500 years ago, so that it should be colder. One would expect Aletsch to be longer than it was 3,500 years ago [which it seems to be], and slowly advancing....
c) But instead, it is plunging rapidly. I think the last data in [1] was 2002, in which case the glacier has already retreated another 250m. With another 750m retreat, Aletsch will hit the bottom of the 3,500-year chart in [5], probably sometime between 2020 and 2025, assuming no acceleration. Then it will keep retreating ... for a long time.
Barring another Maunder Minimum, a nuclear war, a really major pandemic, based on straightforward GHG physics, and assuming even conservative temperature rises, I'd say the Aletsch is headed into completely off-the-chart retreat over this century, with the main human-controlled variable being how far off he chart it goes. Fortunately for Switzerland, this isn't such a bad thing, unlike high temperatures, low rainfall, and (slower) sea level rise are for some others. [If what Los Angeles is seeing right now is any hint of what is to come, it is not going to be nice.]
Fortunately, I'm sure the Swiss will continue to keep fine temperature records, as these things are really quite helpful!
So, that brings me back to how I got embroiled in this blog: I said I didn't care about exact comparisons with the MWP, but rather the rate of change when we were were already at/near one edge of the usual range. I cared more about the first and second derivatives, rather than the current value.
I'd say the same for Aletsch, which seems a pretty good, well-smoothed, lagging indicator of temperature changes. I don't care that it ha not yet retreated as far as Bronze Age ... because it will fairly soon have retreated much further, although it is certainly long enough to hag in there, unlike a lot of other glaciers.
Regards
[1] Holzhauser, Magny, Zumbuhl http://www.unige.ch/forel/PapersQG06/Holzhauser2005.pdf
[2]
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/
[3] William Ruddiman, "The Anthropogenice Era Began Thousands of Years Ago." 2003
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Pap ...
(maybe start with the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plows,_Plagues_and_Petroleum ...
but it is well worth getting the main article, as it has information that does not show up in the book.]
[4] William Ruddiman, "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" [2005, book, well worth having].
[5] Wallace Broecker, Thams Stocker, "The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural".
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/broecker06eos.pdf, Part of an ongoing debate with Ruddiman, others are mentioned in Wikipedia.
[6] Fritz Gassmann. Seven Clues to the Reality of Global Warming,
http://people.web.psi.ch/gassmann/greenhouse/seven-clues- ...
[7] T Crowley, "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years" [2000], used in [3].
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html
[8] World Population Estimates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
[9] http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/glaciers/aletsch.html
[10] http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/data/aletsch.html
[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Americ ...
-John Mashey
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:46 pm
13 May 2007
And that is exact what I'm doing. The IPCC is a shadowy organization that has been in existence since 1990.
Each and every time its predictions were wrong, the models were adjusted.
The IPCC is a political organization -- it has no basis in scientific peer review. The IPCC steamrolls opinions and warps science to its own ends.
The IPCC must be disbanded.
Meanwhile, the IPCC has been sucking down funding like there is no tomorrow, and each year, in order to keep functioning, its reports get more and more shrill and removed from reality.
You ask:
Is the book that jbailo is pushing peer-reviewed?
Each chapter extensively footnotes peer reviewed papers that form the basis of its opinions
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:49 pm
13 May 2007
The objects of the IPCC prevent it from rational scientific discourse. It is a solution in search of a problem. To wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_C ...
The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:
human-induced climate change,
the impacts of human-induced climate change,
options for adaptation and mitigation.
Thus the IPCC can never make a fair judgment about the natural causes of Global Warming.
Case Closed.
The IPCC must be defunded.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:51 pm
13 May 2007
A true scientist would know the major works both pro, con, or simply adding to the knowledgebase.
After a few months of reading, I am far more literate in the science of climate change that you will ever be.
Your job is simply to troll Grist, and extoll the IPCC, which the scientific community is trying hard to disband.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:44 pm
13 May 2007
Since when has Henrik Svensmarks works ever been scientifically reproduced and validated?
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:24 pm
13 May 2007
"There is only one credible source here, and it's the IPCC."
Andrew, I would like to believe that you are right, and I guess I did a few years ago.
But the IPCC has done a lot to lose its credibility by predicting exaggerated temperature increases and disaster scenarios (floods, hurricanes, droughts, etc.), by creating and using questionable paleoclimate reconstructions to back up claims of "unprecedented 20th century warmth", by ignoring any data that do not support its predictions of impending disaster and by bending the facts - always in the same direction.
I do not want to get into a detailed discussion of each of the above points; they have been covered by many people, including some distinguished scientists, already.
I also do not want to get into a debate on "which scientist said what when, and was it `peer-reviewed' and has it since been refuted by another scientist defending the `mainstream position', etc."
I just want to point out that IPCC loses credibility through one-sided reporting, hyperbole and exaggeration.
Below is a quote from an IPCC defender on another blogsite:
"I agree with you that IPCC may be wrong in a lot of particulars, and at least judging from the media report - insufficiently humble regarding their ability to predict specific effects.
The high-end of IPCC are a bit too high, and I think even IPCC says it's unlikely."
Hyperbole and exaggeration are what I would expect from a group of politicians that are trying to gather support for a cause.
It is not what I expect from a scientific study group that is supposed to be giving us an unbiased report.
If even the supporters agree that IPCC exaggerates, it is difficult for a neutral observer to consider them the "only one credible source".
I believe that it is important to get as many opinions as possible; we cannot rely on the IPCC to give us "all sides of the story" since they are the political representatives of only one side: "disastrous man-made global warming".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:36 pm
13 May 2007
In checking out the history of alpine glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, I came across some interesting background information.
It is generally known and reported that the alpine glaciers were smaller during the Middle Ages than they are today.
It also seems to be general knowledge that some time in the 16th to 17th century there was a sudden drop in temperature and a rapid growth of the glaciers, which reached its high point in 1850, and that the temperatures then were around 1 degree Celsius lower than today.
In describing the advance of the glaciers during the Little Ice Age, one report states (translation from German):
"In the eastern Alps the glaciers advanced deep into the forests. In the higher valleys alpine mines were covered up by ice." [1]
In one record of an alpine mine that was shut down due to advancing ice it was reported (translation from German) that:
"The people could not believe that this was all happening due to natural causes, and began to worry that this was a punishment by higher powers for the sometimes godless living of both the miners and the lords."
"The punishment of the Lord came quickly. From one day to the next the green landscape disappeared underneath snow and ice, which extended down into the valley." [2]
So even back then, as indeed thousands of years earlier with the Great Flood (as recorded by the Sumerians and the ancient Jews), people held the anthropocentric view that climate disaster "is caused by the evils of man."
In those days we only had oracles, prophets and recorded legends, but today we have sophisticated computer models to prove the culpability of man in causing (an anticipated future) "climate disaster", which has not happened yet.
Should we all feel guilty?
Regards,
Max
[1] http://www.tk-logo.de/lexikon/g/rmenue.php3?li=./gletsche ...
[2] http://sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/salzburg/pongau/g ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:51 am
14 May 2007
Since when has Henrik Svensmarks works ever been scientifically reproduced and validated?
Svensmark has been theorizing about cosmic ray influence on cloud formation (and resulting climate change) since 1996. He has published in peer reviewed journals at all times. He is a physicist turned atmospheric scientist -- in other words, a real scientist, not a "policy maker".
From what I've read in the book, because he was not of the IPCC orthodoxy, his work was both praised by some, and criticized by many (not for scientific reasons).
His most recent publication regarding experimental evidence that cosmic (that is, radiation particles) are the basis of cloud formation was in 2006, so it's fairly recent. However, this year, an international group of researchers is being assembled to provide validation.
I really think that anyone in these fora, who wants to argue anymore has to read "The Chilling Stars" and "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" (the later is on the NYT bestseller list, higher than Al Gore's book). Whether pro or con, they present the most cogent arguments against AGW -- in fact, they pretty much destroy any hope that the IPCC could have of linking CO2 to Global Warming.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:56 am
14 May 2007
How does "Proceedings of the Royal Society A" stand up (see quote below).
BTW - this article is a great easy intro to Svensmark's work and includes a YouTube video to demonstrate his theory of cloud formation. I think the Svensmark-Deniers should at least take the time to read these two pages:
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_c ...
But in the Oct. 4 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Svensmark reports the first experimental evidence that his theory is at least feasible. Working at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, Svensmark recreated the gas chemistry of Earth's atmosphere in a plastic chamber and used UV lamps to simulate the Sun's rays. Cosmic rays from above also penetrated the chamber while instruments measured how these rays interacted with the gas mixture.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:02 am
14 May 2007
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/3163g817166673 ...
Abstract
Experimental studies of aerosol nucleation in air, containing trace amounts of ozone, sulphur dioxide and water vapour at concentrations relevant for the Earth's atmosphere, are reported. The production of new aerosol particles is found to be proportional to the negative ion density and yields nucleation rates of the order of 0.1-1cm−3s−1. This suggests that the ions are active in generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:07 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 2:28 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:59 am
14 May 2007
At CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory in Geneva, researchers are building the world's most powerful particle accelerator, the $2.4 billion Large Hadron Collider. In the upcoming CLOUD experiment (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) led by Jasper Kirby, investigators will generate high-energy particle beams in this accelerator simulating cosmic rays that they will use to validate and better understand the connection between cosmic rays and clouds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:00 am
14 May 2007
The day after he won his Academy Award The Tennessean reported that Gore's electrical and natural gas bills for his home in Nashville in 2006 were $27,360. This amount of energy, all of it generated from fossil fuels, is more than 20 times than that consumed by the average American household. A spokesperson for Gore pointed out that he buys "carbon offsets" to pay for his large "carbon footprint." Gore invests these offset funds in GIM, the company he chairs; and his apocalyptic climate forecasts (reinforced by those currently being made by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scare citizens and government leaders around the world and persuade them to invest in alternative energy programs, raising the value of GIM's privately held shares.
Can an individual who stands to make millions from the CO2 global warming paradigm be trusted to present an unbiased review of this subject and view with an open mind alternative theories of climate change?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:05 am
14 May 2007
CERN...ever heard of it?
New Experiment to Investigate the Effect of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Clouds and Climate
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006 ...
Geneva, 19 October 2006. A novel experiment, known as CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets), begins taking its first data today with a prototype detector in a particle beam at CERN1, the world's largest laboratory for particle physics. The goal of the experiment is to investigate the possible influence of galactic cosmic rays on Earth's clouds and climate. This represents the first time a high energy physics accelerator has been used for atmospheric and climate science.
The CLOUD experiment is designed to explore the microphysical interactions between cosmic rays and clouds. Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest that cosmic rays may influence the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth's energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate. The CLOUD prototype experiment aims to investigate the effect of cosmic rays on the formation of new aerosols.
This was from October, 2006 -- I'm trying to find the current state of the validation.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:06 am
14 May 2007
I imagine you in East Kent, WA
Great...just don't ask me what I'm wearing.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:15 am
14 May 2007
One thing I've noticed is that the people who criticize the IPCC most are the least likely to have ACTUALLY READ IT.
If you take the time to read the report, I think you'll find that it does not contain any of the "exaggerated" claims. Do you even know what the IPCC says about hurricanes? I sincerely doubt it.
As I said aboveThose opposed to action on climate change MUST attack the IPCC. Not doing so would completely destroy their position. That explains the comments above that attempt to cast doubt on the IPCC by suggesting it is made up of politicians, etc.I recommend you read the report yourself.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:29 am
14 May 2007
The IPCC's previous report, released in 2001 with similar conclusions, was reviewed and endorsed by a blue ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences, and its conclusions were subsequently endorsed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others. These groups are not composed of a bunch of funding hungry scientists screaming that the sky is falling, but rather distinguished researchers stating that the Earth is warming. Think about this. How often can you get at least 100 professionals, such as doctors or lawyers, to agree on any complex problem?
In the end, the IPCC reports are perhaps the most thoroughly vetted documents in the history of science. These reports are therefore widely regarded as the most authoritative summaries of what we know about global warming and how confidently we know it.Thus, the IPCC is the most authoritative statement of what we know and how confidently we know it.
Let's compare to the IPCC report to the books that jbailo is hawking ("chilling stars" or "unstoppable global warming"): I'm sure they both have footnotes. But does having footnotes automatically make something credible? The IPCC has many more --- so by that metric, the IPCC wins. Have these books been peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists? No. Have they been endorsed by a blue-ribbon panel of the U.S. National Academy? No. Have their conclusions been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union? No.
I think it's clear what the credible source of information on climate change.
PS: this also goes for all the press releases and web sites that jbailo links to. These have not undergone multiple layers of review ... so they cannot compare to the IPCC in terms of credibility.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:42 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:58 am
14 May 2007
"I recommend you read the report yourself"
Yes, Andrew, I have read it many times.
Have you?
"Do you even know what the IPCC says about hurricanes? I sincerely doubt it."
Andrew, your "sincere doubts" are unfounded. It says, among other things:
Under "Intense tropical cyclone activity increases":
"Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1960)" is
"Likely in some regions since 1970"
with a
"Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" of
"More likely than not"
and the
"Likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios"of
"Likely"
Did you catch that part when YOU read it?
This is pure conjecture and hyperbole.
Makes people think they are giving unbiased input and know what they are talking about (both of which are not correct).
Check the NOAA records and you'll see that nine of the ten deadliest hurricanes in the USA occurred before 1960, with Katrina (#3 in deaths) the only one since then.
Of the 25 deadliest US tornadoes, none occurred after 1955. Of the 30 deadliest US tornados, only 2 occurred after 1980.
Outside the USA tropical storms have also not increased since 1980.
What does the IPCC have to say about that? Is it "likely" or "very likely" that deadly hurricanes and tornadoes occurred more frequently before man-made global warming than afterward?
Whether IPCC says it is "likely" or "more likely" is sort of hypothetical, because it is TRUE FACT.
The same unfounded "scare scenario" statements are made for droughts, heavy precipitation events, heat waves and increased incidence of extreme high sea levels.
Do you REALLY believe this hyperbole?
I don't, because it is purely based on conjecture.
I'm sorry, Andrew, but this is not an unbiased scientific report. It is a scare scenario dressed up as "science". And, yes, Andrew. I have read this report "ad nauseum".
This is what makes the IPCC report less than credible, and why we need other opinions.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:03 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:09 am
14 May 2007
In the meantime, things aren't looking good for Svensmark third try at this same theory.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/cloudy-day-nexus-6-hav ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:15 am
14 May 2007
"I don't think it has anything to do with fewer tornadoes or storms..."
Give me the facts, not just what you "think".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:39 am
14 May 2007
I apologize for thinking you hadn't read the report. However, several of the things you've said are so misinformed that it's an understandable mistake.
So, the report says:
Under "Intense tropical cyclone activity increases":
"Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1960)" is
"Likely in some regions since 1970"
with a
"Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" of
"More likely than not"
and the
"Likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios"of
"Likely"Since "likely" means a 2 out of 3 chance a statement is correct, and "more likely than not" means a 51% chance, then (speaking as a scientist) these statements sum up nicely the peer-reviewed research on this topic.
Note that these express weak confidence since scientists generally consider 95% (19 in 20) to be a robust conclusion.
You might disagree, but these IPCC statements are carefully vetted by the authors of the report, the expert scientists who peer review the report, the member governments, etc. etc. Thus, they are the credible assessment of the scientific community.
As you yourself said up above, you're not an expert. Why should anyone believe you over the IPCC?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:39 am
14 May 2007
It's the intensity.
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11067
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:42 am
14 May 2007
We are a bit testy aren't we? Anyway, here's a link to a graph showing tornado frequency through the last century. Looks to be going up.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/us-tornadoes1916-2005.h ...
US tornado deaths:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/us-tornado-deaths1916-2 ...
"It is assumed that increased public awareness of severe weather threats (with media assistance) has caused the overall downward trend in tornado fatalities."
Not what I think. Facts. I hope you are a bit happier now. Honestly, when you smile the world looks nicer. Now go and find somebody to give you a hug and maybe next time there will be less throat jumping...
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:17 am
14 May 2007
Reply to Andrew Dessler.
"Since "likely" means a 2 out of 3 chance a statement is correct, and "more likely than not" means a 51% chance, then (speaking as a scientist) these statements sum up nicely the peer-reviewed research on this topic.
Note that these express weak confidence since scientists generally consider 95% (19 in 20) to be a robust conclusion."
In other words, you are saying the IPCC has "weak confidence" that what they are predicting regarding more intense and frequent tropical storm activity is true (speaking as a scientist, that is).
So do I.
Look, Andrew, I do not doubt at all that many scientists, like yourself, agree with IPCC's more disastrous predictions.
You must also agree that some others do not. Whether this is 49%, 20% or even just 10% does not really matter.
I just think IPCC has lost credibility by using too much exaggeration and hyperbole, and by "bending the facts". You obviously do not.
IPCC does not have the "monopoly" on climate science, regardless of what you may say. The IPCC report does not by itself represent the only "credible assessment of the scientific community".
I believe there will be someone way out there on the fringes like Einstein or Copernicus at the time (will it be Svensmark?) that suddenly comes up with a whole new theory that shoots all the IPCC model predictions down the drain, no matter how much "these statements sum up nicely the peer-reviewed research on this topic".
So I do not believe you have been able to convince me that "There is only one credible source here, and it's the IPCC."
And that is what this whole discussion is all about.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:34 am
14 May 2007
Thanks for tornado report. It looks convincing, except for caveat:
"Tornadoes prior to 1953 were UNDER-REPORTED. A national tornado data collection process was put into place in 1953. Some of the recent increased number of reported tornadoes is due to increased public and media awareness and reporting of tornadoes. That is, not all of the recent increase in tornado reports is real."
The NOAA statistics are real, but I agree with you, that we now have better ways to avert disaster from tornadoes than before 1950.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:11 am
14 May 2007
I'm sure that if you went back a few years, you'd find a similar split on the "does smoking cause cancer" question.
2) You continue to sayI just think IPCC has lost credibility by using too much exaggeration and hyperbole, and by "bending the facts". You obviously do not.but you haven't identified any exaggeration. The statement by the IPCC about hurricanes (in particular the confidence estimates) is completely consistent with the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
What you need to realize is that advocates misrepresent what the IPCC says as a strategy to paint it as an extremist document. But if you read the actual report, you'll find it is sober and backed by peer-reviewed science.
3) I believe there will be someone way out there on the fringes like Einstein or Copernicus at the time (will it be Svensmark?) that suddenly comes up with a whole new theory that shoots all the IPCC model predictions down the drain, no matter how much "these statements sum up nicely the peer-reviewed research on this topic".The IPCC estimates that it is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming. In other words, there's about a 10% chance that our understanding of the climate is wrong in some fundamental way. On the other hand, we're 90% sure that we're right. Which are you going to bet on?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:27 am
14 May 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:30 pm
14 May 2007
John,
You'll be glad to here that there is new snow on the Pizol.
Won't do the skiers much good anymore, though, since the old gondola is shut down and the new one won't be ready until 2008.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:34 pm
14 May 2007
Andrew, let's see if we can wind up this conversation before it becomes too repetitive.
"On the other hand, we're 90% sure that we're right. Which are you going to bet on?"
Most folks (scientists included) usually think they are 90% (or even more) sure they are right. Peer-review by folks that all believe the same thing is more like rubber-stamping.
I told you I do not want to get into a discussion with you on nitty gritty details. It's a waste of time for us both.
The IPCC report is a one-sided document, regardless of what you may think or believe. Its whole purpose is to alarm people that we are headed for a disaster due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
There are a lot of almost legalese sounding caveats sprinkled around like "likely", "very likely", "high level of confidence", "low level of scientific understanding", but no where do I see "This report and the conclusions reached are a summary of work done by many scientists and, to the best of our knowledge it is a realistic assessment. There are, however, other scientific studies and conclusions that disagree with our position that anthropogenic global warming should be a major concern or even exists at all as a significant factor, and that show that there are still far too many unknowns to make any realistic predictions for the future. While we disagree with these other scientific opinions, we realize that no one can be absolutely sure what the real cause is for current trends and, even less, what the future will bring."
We are living in a democratic society, not a totalitarian one. Being fed as "truth" a computer model based scientific report by people who are "90% sure they are right" and do not even admit that there is another side to the story cannot be the end of it. That is not the way democracy works.
It is important that we have all sides to look at, not just one.
And yes, Andrew, even "non-scientists" can have the common sense to figure out what is hyperbole and exaggeration.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:38 pm
14 May 2007
For the avoidance of doubt I was not really trying to make any point regarding an increase in tornado frequency. I am not sure actually what the story is regarding tornadoes and global warming. Dr Dessler, do you know anything about forecasts regarding tornadoes?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:37 am
15 May 2007
The other possibility is you're wrong --- and the IPCC does represent the opinion of the scientific community.
I don't want to sound elitist, but frankly there's only one side to the debate over human-induced AGW. You keep saying that there's another side, but I have not seen any evidence that supports that. The examples you've given about exaggeration of the IPCC simply don't hold up --- it is not an alarmist document, but soberly assesses what the scientific community thinks is true.
You can make the IPCC sound alarmist by misquoting it, but if you actually read what it says (e.g., about hurricanes), you see that it's statements are quite reasonable.
If there is another side to the debate, WHERE IS IT?
PS: MarkUK: I don't know if we have a good handle on trends in tornadoes.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:47 pm
15 May 2007
Andrew,
To my statement that the IPCC report contained exaggerations and that its whole purpose is to alarm people that we are headed for a disaster due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, you replied:
"For this to be true, there has to be a massive conspiracy that includes: thousands of scientists, 130 member governments, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc., etc."
A "massive conspiracy" sounds pretty ominous and sinister.
What the media and the politicians may be doing to create scare stories from the data that scientists are generating, is another story, but I do not believe that the "mainstream" scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to manipulate data and cause fear.
You have stated that the theory of probable negative effects on global climate resulting from AGW is accepted today by the majority of scientists and, again, I do not disagree. Whether the "majority" constitutes 51% or 95% really does not matter; the fact is as you state: this is the accepted theory in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific community. In other words, it is today's "paradigm".
Several years ago, one of the pioneers in climate science, Reid Bryson, caused a stir when he threw out the statement that humans could be affecting climate, because the accepted paradigm at that time was that climate was a purely natural phenomenon.
Later, James Hansen was one of the pioneers of the AGW theory and, at first, he was also laughed at.
But since then there has been a "paradigm shift": AGW is now accepted as one of the key factors that drive climate. Some scientists even believe that it is the overwhelming factor. This is the new paradigm.
For a "non-scientist" it can be crudely summarized as:
· Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising since 1959 when accurate measurements started. They are at around 380 ppmv today. Less accurate earlier records plus a proxy study show they were at around 280 ppmv in 1900. IPCC estimates that they grew on average at 1.9 ppm per year from 1995 to 2005. This rise is due to anthropogenic factors, primarily the use of fossil fuels.
· A doubling of atmospheric CO2 should increase temperatures by somewhere between 0.5 and 1.5 deg C, depending on whose numbers you believe. At the 1.9 ppm per year rate we should be there by around the year 2100 with 560 ppmv.
· But CO2 is only part of the story. The more important greenhouse gas is water vapor. A warmer atmosphere should be able to hold more water, which will cause more warming. This "positive feedback" will almost triple the impact from CO2 alone.
· Other anthropogenic and natural factors are also considered but AGW is considered to be the dominant driving force for the next 100 years.
· Warming will occur more rapidly at the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere than at the equator. As a result the currently observed melting rate of northern glaciers will probably accelerate. This can be seen in the non-polar glaciers and can be expected to be the same for the Greenland ice sheet. Antarctica is still an unknown.
· Melting glaciers plus thermal expansion of the ocean will cause sea levels to rise, as they have been for the past century. It is anticipated that the rate of rise will increase.
· With a lower level of confidence it is also generally projected that a warmer Earth will experience more droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and intense tropical cyclone activity.
Any data that support this paradigm are eagerly accepted by the mainstream scientific community as a re-verification of their belief.
But scientists, like all people, have a more difficult time accepting any new study or data that do not support the prevalent paradigm. The expected reaction to such data can be:
· Ignoring that it exists at all
· Discrediting the source ("is a crackpot or works for ExxonMobil", etc.)
· Reinterpreting the results of the study to make it fit the paradigm (RSS vs. UAH)
· Making a new study to get results that discredit the study (many in the on-going "hockey stick" saga to "prove" MWP and LIA did not exist)
· Finally, as Hans Kuhn said, they may just be physically unable to see the new data
Are these things happening today? I am not talking about a conspiracy, I am talking about human reaction to things that lie outside the accepted paradigm.
Now to get more specific:
IPCC 2007 says that ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet contributed an estimated 0.21 mm/year to sea level rise over the period 1993-2003.
An ESA study covering the period 1992 to 2003 (essentially the same period used by IPCC) showed that on average the Greenland ice sheet grew by 5.4 cm/year, which corresponds to a lowering of sea level by 0.27 mm/year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110 ...
This study has been available for some time, yet IPCC has ignored it and stays with their 1993-2003 estimate. I do not believe this is the result of a conspiracy by the scientific community.
I realize that NASA has quickly retaliated with a 2-year study (GRACE) showing overall shrinking 2003-2005, a time period much too short to be meaningful, and outside the IPCC period of 1993-2003 in any case.
This is just an example to show how difficult it is to accept things that lie outside the established paradigm and how there does not have to be a "conspiracy" for scientists to play into the hands of the media scare mongers and politicians who use fear as a source of power.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:07 am
16 May 2007
One thing I've noticed is that the people who criticize the IPCC most are the least likely to have ACTUALLY READ IT.
No -- they should not read it. It's polemic, not science. It misrepresents everything that is good and true in the world of the intellect.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:09 am
16 May 2007
The actual reports are not "written" by all these people, they are written by a very, very few members of the IPCC. The rest simply "go along" with it.
Why? Because otherwise they get no funding...and they get "the treatment" from their peers.
No one inside the system is capable of giving a truthful answer on climate change.
That is why Svensmark rings so perfectly clear -- because he's been outside, he can make correct assumptions and is insulated from the political soccer game of the IPCC.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:11 am
16 May 2007
All the IPCC says is their 90% sure that man contributes to "global warming".
Big deal -- all I have to do is light up a cigarette and boom, the earth is warmer by that much.
It's not 90% certain that man is responsible for all or most of climate change.
It's just that he's "contributing" -- but how much and in what way -- that, they are not really saying.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:22 pm
16 May 2007
Another integral part of the AGW paradigm I forgot to mention is the belief that:
We are living in a period of unusual warmth and warming, that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years and that this has been primarily due to anthropogenic influence since 1750.
This is a cornerstone part of the AGW paradigm, even though it is probably one of the weakest parts scientifically and really should be irrelevant to what is happening today.
It needs to be part of the AGW paradigm though because it indirectly supports the notion that AGW will probably lead to dangerous or even disastrous climate change. Even though things may be different today, it makes it much easier to sell to the general public that we are facing danger if you can say "it's never been this hot before".
So proxy paleoclimate temperature curves have to be constructed to defend it.
It is also why this blog site even started out with (How to Talk to a Skeptic):
"Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!
Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years."
But this has been discussed and rehashed ad nauseum and I think it would make sense to move on.
Your statements "I don't want to sound elitist, but frankly there's only one side to the debate over human-induced AGW" and "IPCC statements are carefully vetted by the authors of the report, the member governments, etc. etc. Thus, they are the credible assessment of the scientific community".
What you say clearly confirm what I said earlier:
AGW is the present "paradigm" in the "mainstream" scientific community.
The "mainstream" scientific supporters of and believers in the prevalent AGW paradigm defend it not only against skeptics, but also against any new conflicting theory.
This behavior of the "mainstream" is not only true today but has been so in the past.
Galileo has been mentioned as one example of a new theory being attacked by the defenders of the mainstream paradigm, but a more fitting example is Alfred Wegener, the discoverer of plate tectonics.
In his work, Wegener presented a large amount of circumstantial evidence in support of continental drift. His observation of the similarity between continental coasts and fossils convinced him there had been a separation of the continents, but he was unable to come up with a convincing mechanism. The new theory challenged the deeply ingrained scientific paradigm of the time and was widely criticised and universally dismissed by the mainstream scientific community.
The mainstream scientific community of the time organized symposia specifically to discredit the new theory.
The theory was largely buried in the 1930s and remained outside the accepted scientific paradigm for almost 30 years.
In the 1950s advances in geology led to the resurrection of the continental drift hypothesis and its direct descendant, the theory of plate tectonics.
Alfred Wegener is now recognized as a founding father of one of the major scientific revolutions of the 20th century. His theory has become the new "paradigm".
A modern-day contrarian is Henrik Svensmark, who together with Eigil Friis-Christensen suggested in 1997 a link between galactic cosmic rays and global warming. Like Wegener with his continental shift theory, they observed similarity between trends in global temperatures and solar activity, but were unable to come up with a convincing mechanism.
Most mainstream climatologists immediately rejected the idea, defending the current paradigm that human carbon production is the primary factor behind twentieth century warming.
Svensmark was told over and over again that this was only a theory, based on doubtful correlations, and that there was no experimental evidence to back it up.
So in a simple laboratory experiment the theory was put to an initial test. Svensmark's chamber neatly demonstrated exactly how cosmic rays could make clouds.
"Now after studying this for 10 years, I think it's completely certain that solar activity affects how much cosmic radiation reaches the Earth--and is changing the Earth's climate," Svensmark said.
Still, most of today's leading climate scientists remain unconvinced and continue to defend the prevalent paradigm of AGW as the only significant driver of climate change.
But some other scientists say the complicated nature of cloud cover is exactly why Svensmark et al may be right.
The calculations and model studies used to defend the AGW theory and the IPCC predictions all assume that there will be no change in cloud cover. This is a critical assumption although there is considerable doubt that it is correct.
The IPCC does include a small cooling effect for anthropogenic aerosols, but changes in natural cloud cover are not considered.
IPCC does say that "additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU (level of scientific understanding)", so that Svensmark's work may actually help to increase the LOSU of the impact of clouds, and should therefore be welcomed by everyone as new data to help in the understanding of what causes global warming.
A study is now underway at CERN to verify the results obtained in Svensmark's simple laboratory experiment.
If these confirm the theory proposed by Svensmark et al, they will bring new light on the impact of the sun on Earth's climate and present a radical new challenge to the current AGW paradigm.
As one could expect, the "mainstream' scientific supporters of the AGW theory have reacted violently to defend their paradigm against this possible challenging new theory.
In Wegener's day this was done by organizing symposia specifically to discredit the new theory.
Today we have blog sites to do this work and they are actively defending the AGW paradigm against this possible intruder. RealClimate a pro-AGW site has called Svensmark's theory "one of the skeptics' last trenches".
Who knows if Svensmark and Friis-Christensen will become the new "Wegeners" in global climate science?
Stay tuned and see. It will be fun watching in any case.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:05 am
17 May 2007
The IPCC says that it is very likely (90% confidence) that we are responsible for most (> 50%) of the warming of the last few decades.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:18 am
17 May 2007
Clearly, there is a chance that the dominant paradigm of CO2-induced warming is wrong. That's why the IPCC says that we're 90% sure that it is CO2. The remaining 10% is to take into account all of the other theories. However, the case against CO2 is quite strong --- which you can see in chapter 9 of the recent IPCC report.
As far as the temperature back 1300 years is concerned, the IPCC says it's likely that today is the warmest over that period. As we discussed below, likely is a pretty weak confidence interval, meaning something like a 2 out of 3 chance. The National Academy also reviewed the surface-temperature reconstruction analyses and concluded it was about a 1 out of 2 chance.
There is significant uncertainty in these surface-temperature reconstructions, and it would not surprise many people if the MWP turned out to be a smidge warmer than today. Importantly, that would not change our conclusion that humans are still the dominant driver of today's climate.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:31 am
17 May 2007
Remind me, since when has anyone scientifically reproduced and verified Svensmarks work on cosmic rays?
The "potential to have evidence" is not the same as having evidence in hand.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:42 am
17 May 2007
When there is no credible evidence IN HAND;
Why should we sit on our hands and do nothing to precaution against what could be absolutely devestating.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:38 am
18 May 2007
Thanks for reply.
"There is significant uncertainty in these surface-temperature reconstructions, and it would not surprise many people if the MWP turned out to be a smidge warmer than today."
Your statement on the MWP sounds more reasonable and less authoritative than IPCC's "Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years". To a layman it also sounds considerably less alarming (viz. if polar bears have survived temperatures as warm or even warmer than today in the past, there is no good reason to believe that they will not do so this time).
But now we are into semantics, which is a fruitless discussion.
It is also reassuring to me that, although you only give it a small chance, you agree that "there is a chance that the dominant paradigm of CO2-induced warming is wrong".
What the percentages here actually are, is another fruitless discussion.
Andrew, most of all I miss humility and admission of uncertainty in the IPCC reports, and I also believe the evidence shows that pertinent data have been ignored and other data have been exaggerated in order to strengthen the picture of a probable impending globally dangerous situation.
While this is probably not the fault of the scientists, I believe the above points have given the media, the politicians and the more extremist environmental advocacy groups food for their disaster predictions and scare stories.
But we have discussed all this before.
As far as Svensmark and Friis-Christensen are concerned, the next step is the CERN "CLOUD" study.
This may shed new light on the effect of naturally induced variations in clouds, a major "missing piece" and weak link in the current IPCC models that could be significant. It may also help solve the puzzle of earlier climate shifts, before there was any anthropogenic CO2.
Let's see what the CERN study tells us.
It has been interesting talking to you.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:42 am
18 May 2007
"Remind me, since when has anyone scientifically reproduced and verified Svensmarks work on cosmic rays?
The "potential to have evidence" is not the same as having evidence in hand."
We'll have to wait and see if CERN verifies this work.
And I am also still waiting for scientific "evidence in hand" for the projections of the IPCC regarding the impact on global temperatures of anthropogenic CO2 including the scientific "evidence in hand" supporting (a) the hypothesis that there will be a positive feedback caused by water vapor and (b) the magnitude of the positive feedback caused by water vapor.
Has anyone scientifically reproduced and verified the IPCC predictions?
As for your other statement:
"And considering there will ALWAYS be the potential to have contradictory evidence
When there is no credible evidence IN HAND;
Why should we sit on our hands and do nothing to precaution against what could be absolutely devestating."
Is this a serious question?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:06 am
18 May 2007
Lindzen was already debunked on this quite a while ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
In particular by the fact that we now know the Troposphere is warming faster than the Surface, and not the other way around.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalrep ...
http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png
_____
As for the exact degree of feedback forcing
Thats largely unknown.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/268.htm
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:13 am
18 May 2007
Yeap indeed.
Catch is what Svensmark really needs is a correlation between cloud behavior and cosmic rays.
Since the CERN stuff is largely irrelevant if it's not a critical factor in influencing cloud behavior.
He tried to get his correlation twice before.
And failed twice.
Largely due to cherry picking the data.
I find it hard to believe, what with his long record of acedemic dishonesty, that he didn't do the same for his third time around.
Not to mention his past work in this subject with Eigil Friis Christensen.
Also discredited for fabricating the data.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:20 am
18 May 2007
And I am also still waiting for scientific "evidence in hand" for the projections of the IPCC regarding the impact on global temperatures of anthropogenic CO2 including the scientific "evidence in hand" supporting (a) the hypothesis that there will be a positive feedback caused by water vapor and (b) the magnitude of the positive feedback caused by water vapor.
Has anyone scientifically reproduced and verified the IPCC predictions?
To your other point of "discrediting" Svensmark et al for his "long record of acedemic dishonesty", this is back to the old ploy of discrediting the individual.
All I can say is "ho hum"
Max
Permalink
Alastair Posted 7:19 am
20 May 2007
Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
In that case neither does the current "global warming" amount to a global assessment. The global temperature record is heavily biased towards the northern hemisphere as most of the land mass, hence temperature stations are in the northern hemisphere. Coincidentally, parts of the soutern hemisphere have been having record cold temperatures. In New Zealand for example, 2006 had one of the coldest and longest winters on record and a very cold summer with temperatures 5-10 degrees celsius below normal.
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 3:08 pm
20 May 2007
New Zealand's weather can be pretty changeable / complex (especially given El Nino/La Nina, Southern Annular Mode, etc), and there can easily be simultaneous opposite extremes in different areas.
But in any case, this was a misleading summary of 2006 as a whole. NZ did have a wild year ... but:
"The national average temperature in 2006 was 12.4 °C, 0.2 °C below the 1971 - 2000 normal. Thus, 2006 ended up very close to the 1971-2000 normal.."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0701/S00015.htm
The claim that summer was 5-10C below normal is not only wrong, but absurd: in NZ, this would have meant that the Summer averaged as cold as a normal winter, which probably would been noticed :-)
NIWA says of the Summer (Dec/Jan/Feb):
"The national average temperature of 15.7°C was 0.9°C below normal"
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/sclimsum_07_1_summer
It says of the Winter:
"The national average winter temperature of 8.1°C was close to normal, being 0.2°C below average."
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/sclimsum_06_3_winter
The official NIWA yearly summary is:
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/ncc/cs/aclimsum_06
"Notable snowfall events occurred on nine occasions, mainly in high country areas from mid-autumn to late winter, with ski areas having an extended season. Other climate extremes included a SUMMER HEAT WAVE, four tornado incidents, three severe hailstorms, and many damaging windstorms" (CAPS MINE)
"For New Zealand as a whole, there were three warmer than normal months (April, May, and September), and three cooler than normal months (March, June, and December). All other months had mean temperatures close to the climatological average."
I don't know where the 5-10C came from, but certainly the cold December was trumpeted
-John Mashey
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:34 am
21 May 2007
Hi John,
Don't be too hard on Alastair in New Zealand (a beautiful country, where the glaciers are apparently growing, unlike here in Switzerland) for "cherry picking". Everybody's doing it.
Unfortunately that is the way the human mind works, whether you are a supporter of the "disastrous AGW" paradigm or a skeptic.
However, the "deniers" do not have a monopoly on cherry picking.
Scientists and journalists are no exception to the rule. Let's not even mention politicians, who are known throughout history for thriving on scare stories and hyperbole supported by "cherry picked" (or even plain fabricated) data points (viz. Al Gore's Oscar winning documentary).
Blog sites like RealClimate and Gristmill are full of "cherry picked" data to support their "disastrous AGW" hypothesis.
http://wwwrealclimate.org/index/php?p=231
http://gristmill.grist.org?story?2007?5?19?131013/523
Pro "Disastrous AGW" media scare sites such as The Independent in the UK thrive on "cherry picked" data to predict imminent disaster.
Example: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1187005. ...
Even the Aussies have jumped in.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1541414.htn
Yes, and even the supposedly objective and scientific IPCC report is full of "cherry picked" data, ignoring the data that do not support the hypothesis.
Example: claim that Greenland ice sheet melting contributed 0.21 mm/year to sea level rise in the period 1993-2003 while ignoring an ESA study covering almost exactly the same period (1992-2003), which showed that Greenland ice sheet gained mass on average at 5.4 inches increased thickness during this period, which corresponds to a LOWERING of sea level by 0.27 mm/year.
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110 ...
And climate publications, such as NOAA Magazine, also fall into this trap.
Example: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2677.htm
So what's new?
Like the old song says " Ya gotta accentuate the positive and e-liminate the negative..."
Everybody's doing it. Not just the "deniers".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:57 am
21 May 2007
Guess you are not planning to reply to my last message regarding scientific evidence. This is OK. I did not think you would.
But another topic.
Saw the rebuttal to the UK Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by Chris Merchant, to which you referred me.
I felt that most of his points were rather weak, but his strongest point related to the curve showing solar activity and temperature anomaly. His point was that the curve only goes up to 1980. After this point the curve stops.
He then recreates the curve with data after 1980 (using the surface temperature record favored by IPCC), and the curve shows that temperature goes up sharply while solar activity is flat or only increasing slightly (which would supposedly only cause slightly higher temperatures).
Then he makes the point that the post-1980 data were left out on purpose (since they did not fit the story the documentary was trying to convey), with the conclusion that this was "shocking".
So I asked him to reconstruct the curve using the published UAH temperature record after 1980 to see if the results are still "shocking".
I have not yet gotten an answer from him (except that he is not available at this time).
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
P.S. I've done the plot myself, and it does not look too "shocking" to me. Hey, maybe the correlation is OK and the problem is with the "surface temperature anomaly" beyond 1980, which is exaggerated and not realistic. Just a thought. What are your thoughts?
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:15 pm
21 May 2007
We have had interesting discussions on several topics relating to the ongoing AGW debate. Our views may not always have been the same, but we have been able to communicate them openly and find a few points of common agreement. But I would like to come to another related topic: what is the role of the skeptic?
Environmental blog sites such as Gristmill and RealClimate regularly label anyone who is skeptical of the disastrous AGW hypothesis as "deniers". The discussion quickly degrades into "you're either with us or against us". Since the "time for action to stop this impending disaster is now (before it is too late)" the skeptic is cast into the role of not caring about the future of the planet or of blindly denying the obvious "handwriting on the wall" and, thus, standing in the way of progress.
Leaving out a few charlatans or limelight seekers (which exist in both camps) the DAGW proponents are honestly dedicated; they are strongly motivated (what stronger motivation is there than fear - tinged with a bit of anthropocentric guilt?); they are zealous in their support of the DAGW paradigm and in their call for "immediate action". They also favor the "consensus" approach, gathering agreement among like-thinking scientists, politicians and others to bolster their conviction in their paradigm (if 95% of the "scientific community" says it's so, it must be).
In their zeal to defend their paradigm they fall into the trap of labeling anyone who questions this paradigm as "deniers" (i.e. "non-believers" or heretics). This "black and white" view misses the point entirely.
The role of the skeptic is not to "deny". It is to do an independent assessment and "sanity check" of the prevailing paradigm: scrutinizing the claims and predictions, questioning the rigor of the science, digging in to the uncertainties and weak links, checking if pertinent data have been ignored, seeking out disagreement, looking for discrepancies and exaggerations, testing for weaknesses in the foundation or the logic, looking for other opinions and possible new scientific discoveries that point in another direction, etc.
It is also to determine whether science is being misused and misreported for political reasons or to feed hysteria to a sensationalist media.
Why should the skeptic even worry about this? Most are not expert climate scientists, so why should they be concerned about a scientific debate?
If we were talking about a purely scientific debate with no further repercussions, there would be little need for the skeptic. But here we are not talking about a purely scientific debate; we are talking about a debate that could impact public policy.
The Kyoto Protocol is not about science; it is about implementing a political solution today to avert a possible anticipated global problem before it happens some time in the future.
For this reason, the level of scrutiny must be much higher. The scientific foundation supporting the paradigm and the proposed policy changes must be much more solid than for a purely scientific debate.
The argument is often made, "we must rush into action now, even if we are not absolutely sure that there is an impending disaster because the stakes are too high if this really should be the case."
This logic is obviously flawed, because following the wrong course of action in public policy to attempt to avert a yet to be proven future disaster could be extremely costly and achieve nothing. Even more important, it could detract from finding solutions to many other more urgent problems that are real and with us today.
It is the skeptic's role to counter this flawed logic and bring reason back into the discussion, in challenging not only the scientific evidence but also the proposed policy changes.
Since these policy changes will involve the flow of very large sums of money, critical questions must be asked and answered before they are implemented. What is the objective of these policy changes? Will they achieve the objective? What could be the unforeseen but undesired "side effects" from this cure? What other alternates could there be that could achieve the same objective without these side effects? Who will profit from these proposed policy changes and how? Who will be the losers? How can the process be audited to prevent graft? Etc. (Polemic generalities or statements of faith such as "the planet will be the winner" should be avoided in such a discussion.)
True anti-pollution, energy conservation and alternative energy source measures are outside this discussion, since no reasonable skeptic is opposed to these measures. These measures will largely be achieved through the application of existing and new technology, not through regulation.
The argument that only the government can finance or subsidize new technical solutions and this can only be done through new "carbon taxes" also misses the point, as does the argument that "carbon taxes" will force people to change their "wasteful way of life".
It is these proposed Kyoto "carbon tax" measures, together with their off-shoots, such as money-shuffling "carbon footprint offset schemes" which are being challenged, along with the science that supports the notion that such immediate policy changes are required to avert impending disastrous AGW.
This is the role of the skeptic. It is (as CNN says in their news reports) "keeping them honest".
Climate change and its possible policy impacts are complex issues and, in a democratic society, the open debate on these issues should be encouraged.
And this is why the skeptic plays an important role and why the debate must continue.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 2:08 pm
25 May 2007
As a result, I'm always rationally skeptical of people who claim the mantle of rational skepticism & improvement of science, when their true feelings are so strong that there is no hope of fruitful discussion of evidence and uncertainnty, because their beliefs are driven by economic interests, politic, ideology, or philosophy, not by science.
As a 20-year participant in on-line bulletin boards, I long ago learned to use KILLFILEs, but since blogs don't generally support them, I just use virtual ones. Life is too short.
I don't see any point in continuing to attempt rational discussion (I did try, mostly because it was an excuse to virtually revisit Switzerland) with someone whose earliest visible posts on this were 3 separate copies of:
"Max Anacker says...
How foolish can we be?
To seriously believe all the hype that man is causing a climate disaster that will destroy the planet is not only basically stupid, it is extremely arrogant.
We insignificant humans do not have the power to destroy this planet. Never did.
We also do not have the ability to change the current climate trends, or even to accurately forecast what is going to happen over the next 10 let alone 100 years.
Let's hope things will get warmer, rather than colder. We don't need another ice age.
Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar "climate research scam".
Forget all the disaster reports being sold by environmental activists via the sensationalist media.
Forget all the self-righteous calls for action by power-hungry politicians.
Use your common sense. It's all a hoax."
-John Mashey
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 3:47 pm
25 May 2007
Being scientifically skeptical has absolutely nothing to do with the policy or economic consequences of the science. The best fitting theory should be the first choice.
The problem is that very few people are skeptical of AGW theory. Most so called skeptics are opposed to many of the proposed solutions and merely try to use the science to stop those solutions from being implemented. They are called deniers because their arguments and their style of debating is the same as those used by HIV deniers, creationists/ID types, etc.
If somebody brings up true scientific arguments, than great! I'm still waiting though... Every time you get hopeful you found a true skeptic and there's going to be an interesting debate within five paragraphs Al Gore, taxes, etc show up...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:18 pm
25 May 2007
Nor do I hold any trust within UAH's group since they openly denied the findings within their own report on Swindle.
However I have seen a variety of solar reconstructions.
And they all seem to show that after 1980, the correlation falls apart.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar7.png
Even a crude observation of the data would show that the solar radiation has been trending downward.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar6.png
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:31 pm
25 May 2007
It always brings up the concept of Tobacco Lobbyists for me.
Incidentally many of the more popular climate skeptics were former tobacco lobbyists.
http://greyfalcon.net/smoking
Desmog has a rolodex of scientists who signed onto a the Canadian petition against Kyoto.
Breaks them down into categories of Skeptic or Denier.
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball
_
Hah!
Looks like Steve McIntrye agrees that the MWP was colder than the 1940s.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1587
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:15 pm
27 May 2007
Hi John,
You wrote:
"I'm always rationally skeptical of people who claim the mantle of rational skepticism & improvement of science, when their true feelings are so strong that there is no hope of fruitful discussion of evidence and uncertainnty, because their beliefs are driven by economic interests, politic, ideology, or philosophy, not by science."
Believe you are referring to my skepticism of the IPCC 2007 SPM report, the sensationalist media scare stories that use this report as their basis and the politicians who use this report to create fear in the population for their own purposes.
And I believe you are making some assumptions regarding what drives my beliefs for which you have no rational basis. I do not question what drives your beliefs and you should not assume you know what drives mine.
So let's see if we can get you back on to the path of a rational discussion, which you say you prefer.
I do not doubt the AGW theory per se, but I do doubt the disaster predictions surrounding this theory, which are made by the IPCC and popularized by a sensationalist media.
There may be some exceptions, but most IPCC skeptics are not skeptical of the greenhouse theory. They are also not skeptical of the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (e pluribus unum). Nor do they doubt that temperatures have increased somewhere around 0.4 to 0.7 deg C over the past century, depending on which record you believe after 1979, or that CO2 levels have increased by around 100 ppmv over the same period. Most would even agree that there has been a portion of the recent warming that was caused by added CO2, and that at least a large portion of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.
Where I become skeptical is when I read alarming predictions, such as those published in the IPCC 2007 SPM report.
I become even more skeptical when I read media headlines such as "Man is destroying the planet!" and "we are rapidly approaching an irreversible tipping point", which have been precipitated by the alarming predictions of the IPCC report.
I will give you one example of these "alarming predictions" (and there are many more).
MarkUK wrote:
"If somebody brings up true scientific arguments, than great!"
Here is a scientific argument:
When I read in IPCC 2007 that intense tropical cyclone activity has "more likely than not" increased post 1960 due to a "human contribution", my first reaction is: wow! These guys have some data that show we are causing more intense tropical cyclone activity. (This is obviously the message IPCC wants to convey).
When I then look at the "fine print" (as a rational skeptic should do), I see that "more likely than not" means "51% probability", and I see a footnote that says "based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies", I get even more skeptical.
Are these guys really just saying we are guessing this might be so? (A rational skeptic's reaction.)
So I check the published literature and find a very good summary of trends in US hurricanes by Landsea et al, which tells me hurricane activity was greater before 1950 than afterward.
Landsea, C.W. et al, "Downward trends in the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes during the past five decades", Geophysical Research Letters, 23:1697-1799.
Now, I agree that the report was written before Katrina, but even if I add in the years after the report was written, there is still no "increase" as IPCC says.
Now my skepticism is really aroused, so I dig deeper.
And I find a report by NOAA listing the deadliest US hurricanes.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html
To my surprise I find that nine of the ten deadliest hurricanes in the USA occurred before 1960, with Katrina (#3 in deaths) the only one since then.
I also see that only two of the top eleven most intense hurricanes (adding Katrina into the top ten list) occurred after 1970.
I also see that only two of the top eleven most damaging hurricanes (adding Katrina into the top ten list) occurred after 1970.
I then check to see if the US hurricane record is an anomaly, and I find similar (admittedly less exhaustive) reports that indicate that there has been no increase in intense tropical cyclone activity elsewhere.
So I conclude that my first skepticism of the IPCC claim was justified and that the claim is doubtful.
But, alas, this claim has been used by less scrupulous media scaremongers and activists to insinuate that "Katrina was caused by AGW". And, unfortunately, there are people out there that believe this.
Some politicians have even hinted that recent storms are human-caused and that the time for "action" is now. The "action" they are calling for is NOT building a better and stronger levee system for New Orleans, for example, it is implementing Kyoto taxes.
That's when I say (as you quoted me) "Forget all the disaster reports being sold by environmental activists via the sensationalist media" and "Forget all the self-righteous calls for action by power-hungry politicians."
John, a true skeptic does not limit his skepticism to purely scientific argumentation alone.
Yes, I am rationally skeptical of a lot of the more alarming IPCC statements that are supposedly based on "science", which turns out to be shaky, like the hurricane example above. I am also rationally skeptical of the use of exaggerations or hyperbole in a supposedly objective report. I am rationally skeptical of media disaster predictions based on these exaggerated reports. I am rationally skeptical of politicians who use these disaster predictions for their own agendas.
And I am rationally skeptical of proposed "solutions" to the problem that involve carbon taxes, carbon footprint offset schemes, etc., because I can see that these are not bringing any true climate changes but will result in large sums of money being shuffled around by politicians and others.
That kind of sums up my rational skepticism, John.
Changing the subject: Today is a good day for your "virtual", rather than a "real", trip to Switzerland. The beautiful, warm weather we had for the past weeks has changed. It is cold, gray and wet in the lowlands, with snow falling in the mountains.
So much for global warming, just when we were getting used to it.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:37 am
28 May 2007
Not Frequency.
Intensity.
_
Also the number of deaths isn't a good measure of intensity. Since we have far superior warning mechanisms now.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:25 am
28 May 2007
You wrote:
"Not Frequency.
Intensity"
Gotta admit, greyfalcon, you've got an uncanny talent for getting it wrong every time.
The paper is called (caps by me): "Downward trend in the FREQUENCY of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five decades".
The other report talks about "most intense" hurricanes.
Check it out.
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:15 pm
28 May 2007
Apparently you have to pay a big fee to gain access to the report.
So all I'm able to do is link to reports that talk about it
http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html ...
However I did just happen upon a rather interesting report on this subject.
Same document different versions.
http://www.pewclimate.org/document.cfm?documentID=580
http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/ ...
_
Scratch that, I found it.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
Here's a direct link to the executive summary.
http://www.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11676.pdf
You need to sign in here:
http://orsted.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?record_id=11676
To get access to the whole thing:
http://orsted.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?record_id=11676&am ...
Here's a post I sent to someone else on this subject.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:35 pm
28 May 2007
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:02 am
29 May 2007
Hi MarkUK
As you know from earlier discussions, I am not a "denier" of AGW per se, but I am "rationally skeptical" of the IPCC 2007 SPM report, because of what I perceive to be exaggerations and alarmist statements in this report that are not backed by scientific data, which lead to disaster predictions in the alarmist press, by environmental activist groups and by politicians, who use this to support their own agendas.
In you last message you said:
"If somebody brings up true scientific arguments, than great! I'm still waiting though..."
So I sent a message questioning the "science" behind one claim in the IPCC 2007 SPM report regarding increased tropical cyclone activity caused by a human contribution, which contradicts the actual scientific evidence on this subject.
Now I will send you another one.
This one has to do with alleged loss of mass of the Antarctic ice sheets, leading to increased sea levels.
IPCC SPM 2007 says that ice mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet contributed an estimated 0.21 mm/year to sea level rise over the period 1993-2003.
On page 7 the report states: "New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ise sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM-1). Flow speed has increased for som Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of floating glacier tongues. Such dynamical ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred because losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall."
A study published in 2006 by Wingham et al of the U.K. Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling covering the period 1992 to 2003 (essentially the same period used by IPCC) showed that on average the Antarctic ice sheets grew by 0.5 cm/year, equaling a GAIN of mass of 27 Gt/year of ice, which corresponds to a lowering of sea level by 0.08 mm/year.
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.p ...
An ESA report covering the same period came up with the same result.
These studies have been available for some time, yet IPCC has ignored them and stays with their estimate.
So again, as in the example of the hurricane frequency I sent you earlier, IPCC ignores actual data to make claims that go in exactly the opposite direction.
IPCC estimate: Antarctic ice cap LOSING mass equivalent to 0.21 mm/year sea level RISE.
UKCPOM actually observed data: Antarctic ice cap GAINING mass equivalent to 0.08 mm/yr sea level LOWERING.
To me, as a "rational skeptic" of IPCC, this is disturbing.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:41 am
30 May 2007
Hi MarkUK,
Haven't heard from you for a couple of days, but since you said you wanted to hear some true scientific arguments, I'm back again.
Here is another "true scientific argument" questioning the "science" behind IPCC 2007 SPM:
IPCC SPM 2007 says that ice mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet contributed an estimated 0.21 mm/year to sea level rise over the period 1993-2003.
On page 7 the report states: "New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ise sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM-1). Flow speed has increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of floating glacier tongues. Such dynamical ice loss is sufficient to explain most of the Antarctic net mass loss and approximately half of the Greenland net mass loss. The remainder of the ice loss from Greenland has occurred because losses due to melting have exceeded accumulation due to snowfall."
Sounds like they have data that shows Greenland ice sheet has shrunk between 1993 and 2003 and this is causing sea levels to rise (which is the message they want to convey). .
Nobody remembers the very small 0.21 mm/year estimate, but they are all impressed with the statement on page 17 that says: "Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and continues "If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."
No one figures out that at the rate of 0.21 mm/year this would take 35 millenia, but they all remember the stated 7-meter number for sea level rise, and are reminded of the 20-foot waves swallowing New York City in Al Gore's documentary film.
In other words, the unsuspecting public believes Greenland ice is shrinking, based on the IPCC report, and that this could cause a major disaster in the foreseeable future. This is the message IPCC wants to convey. But is it true?
An ESA study covering the period 1992 to 2003 (essentially the same period used by IPCC) showed that on average the Greenland ice sheet grew by 5.4 cm/year, which corresponds to a lowering of sea level by 0.27 mm/year. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110 ...
This study has been available for some time, yet IPCC has ignored it and stays with their estimate.
So again, as in the example of the Antarctic ice mass balance I sent you earlier, IPCC ignores actual data to make alarming claims that go in exactly the opposite direction.
IPCC estimate: Greenland ice cap LOSING mass equivalent to 0.21 mm/year sea level RISE over period 1993-2003.
ESA actually observed data: Greenland ice cap GAINING mass equivalent to 0.27 mm/yr sea level LOWERING over period 1992-2003.
Again, as a "rational skeptic" of IPCC, this bothers me. What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:33 am
30 May 2007
The other problem is that it appears that the speed with which the ice is lost is not linear but increasing. The loss of sea ice and the increased flow of ice to the sea are likely to move more ice into the oceans and reducing the overall size of the ice sheet.
That's what I got out of it anyway. By the way, no need to get worried about me. I only ever respond to posts that pop up at the right hand side...
The other point to make is that I am not questioning there are plenty of issues to resolve...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:42 am
30 May 2007
In another sense, the sea level really is drastically lowering as ice melts...if you include all the "ice" as part of the "sea" -- that is, the totality of potential ocean water, then when an ice shelf melts, it sends that water 200ft lower into the current "sea level".
That notwithstanding, current ocean waters are due to recede quite a bit as forecast by my climate model.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:16 pm
30 May 2007
Thanks for your reply.
You wrote:
"As far as I understand the problem is that the ice sheet in the interior appears to be gaining in ice but the ice sheet at the edges, where it contributes to sea level rise, is reducing in height."
That is correct. But the NET AVERAGE mass balance shows that overall the ice sheet grew over the study period by 5.4 cm per year, including the growth of the interior and the reduction at the edges. This calculates out to a net gain of around 90 Gt per year of grounded ice, which has to come from somewhere. It comes from the added snowfall, which comes from clouds coming from evaporation from the sea, thereby contributing to a net LOWERING of the sea level by 0.27 mm/year.
But, speaking of sea level, I'm back again with another "scientific argument" supporting my skepticism of the IPCC 2007 SPM report:
IPCC SPM 2007 states that the Rate of Sea Level Rise (mm/year) was:
1.8 for the period 1961 to 2003 and
3.1 for the period 1993 to 2003
with a total rise in the 20th century of
170 mm or an average of 1.7 mm/year
The report also states "the rate was faster over 1993 to 2003" than either the rate for the entire century or the rate for the period 1961 to 2003, implying that sea levels have risen more rapidly toward the end of the 20th century than before as a result of anthropogenic global warming.
This acceleration supports the IPCC model forecasts on page 13 of the report of alarming sea level rise between now and 2100 (200 to 590 mm over the 100-year period), giving fuel to 10X more exaggerated "disaster" predictions in the media and environmental activist presentations, which show 6-meter waves swallowing New York City that I mentioned earlier (which, unfortunately, is what the broad public remembers).
A report by Simon Holgate of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool gives a detailed analysis of sea level changes during the twentieth century, covering the period from 1904 to 2003.
Holgate, S.J., "On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 34 L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml
This report shows that the actual rate of sea level rise in the first half of the century were HIGHER than in the second half (mm/year):
2.03 for the period 1904-1953, compared with
1.45 for the period 1954-2003
This clearly does not show the acceleration which IPCC claims.
The average rate over the entire period checks closely with the IPCC average:
1.74 for the period 1904-2003
The report also shows an annual rise of:
1.43 for the period 1961-2003 and
1.25 for the period 1993-2003 (less than half the rate stated by IPCC)
The maximum 10-year rise of 5.31 mm/year occurred in the period 1975-1984
In other words, IPCC postulates a significant acceleration in the sea level rise toward the end of the 20th century that is not supported by the actual record.
A 2003 paper by Nils-Axel Mörner of the the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution goes even further in concluding that "The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade."
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalprogram/abstract_5446 ...
This confirms the findings of Holgate and negates the IPCC claim of "accelerated sea level rise in the last decade of the 20th century".
As a rational skeptic, it bothers me that IPCC has to use exaggerations that contradict the actual scientific facts to sell their message of potentially disastrous sea level rise from AGW.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:35 pm
30 May 2007
Just realized that I forgot to include a reference in my post of 25 May regarding the decrease in tropical storm intensity outside the U.S. (this record is for the Western North Pacific)
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20070109/20 ...
Regards,
Max
Permalink
marron Posted 8:07 pm
31 May 2007
Do you know CO2Science website?
In particular, they have a Medieval Warm Period Project's database, which contains dozens of references for all continents:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/ ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:39 pm
31 May 2007
Am still checking it out, but it looks very comprehensive and compelling.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:16 pm
31 May 2007
Or are those actual full reconstructions.
Certainly we don't call it "Local Warming".
If it's not global scale, it doesn't mean much.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:50 pm
31 May 2007
Back again
You wrote:
"If it's not global scale, it doesn't mean much."
You mean sort of like creating a "global" reconstruction from bristlecone pines in the "local" region of the western United States to prove there was no "global" Medieval Warm Period?
Think I got it.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 11:27 pm
31 May 2007
You wrote:
"Certainly we don't call it "Local Warming".
If it's not global scale, it doesn't mean much."
Just going through the studies referenced by marron, I picked out the following "local" studies:
South Africa
China
Japan
Tibet
Siberia
Vietnam
New Zealand
Italy
Austria
Sweden
Finland
Spain NE
Spain NW
Lapland
Portugal
Norway
France
Switzerland
Iceland
Greenland
England
Czech Republic
Chesapeake Bay USA
Florida USA
Canadian Rockies
Azores
Peru
Venezuela
Bolivia
Sounds pretty "global" to me.
A statistical analysis showed that the highest level of agreement was that MWP temperatures were between 0.7 and 0.8 deg C warmer than today.
Check it out.
Max
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 5:17 am
01 Jun 2007
29 localities sounds like alot until you ask yourself how many local climatic regions one might define on this planet. I suspect 10's of 1000's would be in the useful range.
What CO2 science is doing here is the same thing they do with their "temperature record of the week" page and it is called cherry picking.
How many studies of local climate anomalies are out there that do not show a pronounced MWP? If you do not know then you do not have any valid reason to conclude the MWP was globally synchronized and pronounced.
I guarantee you that once you look into the details of all those studies you will find that there is a large variety in the temporal extent and degree of warming found.
The difference in the global reconstructions (ie the ones using "local" bristlecone pines) is that careful consideration is given to the distribution and nature of the proxy data sources. One cannot avoid using local data of course, but just as the global temperature reconstruction is made up of local weather station readings, the strength of the conclusion lies in the statistical properties of your analysis. Anything else is just anecdotal.
"A statistical analysis showed that the highest level of agreement was that MWP temperatures were between 0.7 and 0.8 deg C warmer than today."
Do you mind explaining what you mean by this and letting us know your source?
Thanks for the substantive comments!
"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?"
-- unknown
Permalink
marron Posted 7:18 am
01 Jun 2007
Here is another interesting document: The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle by S. Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/
and for the document in pdf format http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279.pdf
Of course, some people will tell you that Singer works for oil companies. But i find this argument irrelevant, as if you look at the end of the pdf document, you will find more than 100 notes. I didn't count how much locations there are in this document. But if you add the locations in this document and the locations in the CO2Science site, i feel it makes a lot of locations.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:22 am
01 Jun 2007
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:47 am
01 Jun 2007
Nice to hear from you again.
The source is the CO2Science summary for which marron gave us the link, under MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials.
Coby I have a hard time believing that a single study using bristlecone pines in one very limited region of the world gives more conclusive data than many sources covering many regions scattered around the world, no matter how you word it that "careful consideration is given to the distribution and nature of the proxy data sources".
"Cherry picking" would appear to me to apply more to a single-source reconstruction from bristle cone pines than from independent studies from 29 sources across the planet. (By the way, there were more on the list and some locations had more than just one study.)
It is human nature to "cherry pick" the data that fits the message you are trying to convey, and AGW skeptics do not have the monopoly on this practice. Both sides of the debate are doing it, as you know as well as I do. IPCC is a champion at this approach.
Do not believe we need data from 10's of 1000's of local climatic regions in order to confirm a global Medieval Warming Period that is already well documented from historical records as well as many climate studies throughout many portions of the planet.
It was real, it was significant and it was global.
This is just one of many hundreds of local data points, but as glaciers in the Alps recede today they reveal ancient forests and signs of civilization that were buried centuries ago when a period warmer than today was replaced by a colder period that covered everything up with new snow and ice for hundreds of years.
This is the kind of data that is important to observe, because it is real. As Reid Bryson has said recently, this sort of data is much more meaningful than "proxy reconstructions". Unfortunately, such data are not always available, so we often have to rely on the substitute evidence provided by proxy reconstructions.
You are right. The so-called "global surface temperature anomaly" is also just a composite of locally measured values. The composite is only as good as the individual records.
You apparently do not believe the MWP exists and I do. There are a lot of people that agree with me and I do not doubt that there are many people that agree with you. We both can show "cherry picked" data to prove our belief. You believe in Mann (or Moberg). I believe in historical records plus other reconstructions that show there was a MWP and it was global and it was warmer than today.
Arguing about whether there was a MWP at all, whether it was local or global, whether it was warmer than today or not, etc. sort of reminds me of the arguments about the "sex of angels" between medieval theologians. It is truly a waste of time.
But it is nice chatting with you anyway.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:13 am
01 Jun 2007
Have read Avery/Singer book. It is very informative. Your link ties in well.
I agree 100% with you that it is totally irrelevant who Singer works for. Nobody criticizes scientists because they work for environmental activist groups or for the IPCC.
But some AGW supporters like to attack those that question their belief by calling them "deniers" or linking them with the oil companies, etc. It is an often used ploy to attack the individual. Most people see through it, though.
CO2Science usually does a good job documenting their articles, as you say.
Believe it is important for rational skeptics to keep questioning the current AGW paradigm and the IPCC claims. Someone has to "keep them honest".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:28 am
01 Jun 2007
Thanks for link to "hockey stick" article and backup info.
Yes, this was one of the low points in "climate history". Fortunately, the "hockey stick" has since been shot down as a fraud by several respected scientists. But some environmental activist sites still refer to it, despite this fact.
This whole fiasco shed light on the weaknesses in the "peer review" process as IPCC practices it.
It also raises serious doubt as to whether we can rely on IPCC to give us unbiased scientific climate information.
For these reasons, we need rational skeptics to "keep these guys honest".
And it looks like there are quite a few rational skeptics out there.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:01 pm
01 Jun 2007
Do you know CO2Science website?
Don't you find it interesting that CO2Science's staff consist of:
CRAIG D. IDSO
SHERWOOD B. IDSO
KEITH E. IDSO
JULENE M. IDSO
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/cen ...
Sounds like a really credible organization......
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:12 pm
01 Jun 2007
And who might these unnamed scientists be?
Surely you aren't going to claim Singer, Baliunas, or McKitrick are "well respected".
Hell, even pulling a Wegman would be silly.
_
Is the peer-review now forfiet compared to whom you hold in esteem. (i.e. The people who agree with you)
_
All I've seen so far are statements made without merit, since proven to be invalid.
As well as some trivial point data, lacking any sort of major reconstruction.
_
Hell, most of the reports made for some reason all seem to come from a Social "Science" journal.
A political policy journal.
"Energy and Environment"
A journal which has nothing to do with studying the physical sciences.
A journal which is only availible in three dozen libraries around the world.
How in the world can you call that credible peer review?
_
Rational? Thats just raw belief, or as you call it "respect", being the only source of your rational.
If only you believe hard enough, then maybe the facts will start agreeing with you.
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:31 am
02 Jun 2007
You wrote:
"All I've seen so far are statements made without merit, since proven to be invalid.
As well as some trivial point data, lacking any sort of major reconstruction."
When you say "proven to be invalid", are you referring to the Mann hockeystick? Please clarify for me. (This one really HAS been proven to be invalid.)
You wrote"
"Surely you aren't going to claim Singer, Baliunas, or McKitrick are "well respected".
Hell, even pulling a Wegman would be silly."
I believe the individuals you listed, just like Schneider, Hansen and the others all deserve respect. Are you unable to respect someone just because he/she doesn't agree with you?
You wrote:
"Rational? Thats just raw belief, or as you call it "respect", being the only source of your rational.
If only you believe hard enough, then maybe the facts will start agreeing with you."
I am not sure I understand your statement. It sounds a bit convoluted. Can you tell me what you really meant here?
Do you mean, for example, if you believe hard enough in "disastrous global warming" the "facts will start agreeing with you" and it will start to really happen?
Let's see if we can get our discussion back to a RATIONAL basis, rather than an EMOTIONAL one.
Let's see if we can talk about ISSUES and DATA, rather than TRASHING those people or organizations that do not agree with us.
If you do not want to continue on this basis of rational discussion with respect for people, even if they do not agree with you, then there is hardly any point chatting with you.
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:36 am
02 Jun 2007
It has everything to do with,
1. Each of them having no credible evidence.
_
For instance,
Posting near idential reports, Singer and Baliunas insist that measuring whether a time period was wet OR dry, and calling both "Warm" is scientific.
They didn't even measure temperature.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/ ...
_
McKitrick, he isn't even a climate scientist, he's an economist, and has publically made dozens of crucial mathematics errors in nearly every analysis he makes.
Even gone so far as to invent his own temperature scale.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/mckitrick/
_
All I ask for, is credible evidence.
These people do not supply it.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:33 am
02 Jun 2007
You wrote:
"All I ask for is credible evidence. These people do not supply it."
Maybe the evidence is not credible to you, greyfalcon, because it raises doubts concerning your paradigm or emotional belief. But maybe it does provide credible evidence for those who are more open to rational skepticism of the disatrous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) hypothesis than you appear to be.
In actual fact, you do NOT ask for "credible evidence". You ask for complete "belief" in your paradigm, or else. This is almost like fundamentalist religion.
Let's face it, greyfalcon. The DAGW hypothesis has been challenged by many respected scientists, using some fairly compelling arguments.
They are not all by definition wrong just because they do not agree with you.
Claiming that "their science" is not as good as "your science" sounds rather childish to me.
I can show you many questionable claims of IPCC 2007 SPM, where "science" has been "bent" to sell a theory.
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:17 am
02 Jun 2007
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:35 am
02 Jun 2007
"So more or less, any evidence is credible evidence, as long as it agrees with you?"
If that's what you believe, greyfalcon, I guess you think it must be right.
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:55 am
02 Jun 2007
The paper that merron put us on to:
Singer's "The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle" is pretty strong stuff.
What are your specific objections to this?
(Don't tell me that Singer is a "nut" or works for Exxon-Mobil; I would like to know your specific scientific objections to Singer's paper, if you really have any.)
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:42 am
02 Jun 2007
And no, the National Center for Policy Analysis is not a Journal.
It's a thinktank.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55
Permalink
marron Posted 6:51 am
02 Jun 2007
Global warming will have negative and positive sides. Why we only speak about the negative sides? Because it's only politics, not science.
Even if we consider that anthropogenic global warming is true, the solutions i hear are totally utopian : switch off the lights, don't take baths anymore, stop eating meat!
If greens want to go back to middle-age, i don't mind, but why they want everybody to behave like them? In order to save the planet? Really?
I hear that oil companies are evil. But i don't think environmental associations are better. They use apocalyptic news in order to create fear.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:10 am
02 Jun 2007
Thats dumb.
All we need is:
Low carbon electricity (HDR Geothermal, and Solar PV primarily)
Switch our transportation fuel primarily to electricity. (Gasoline or something else as backup while we scale up quickcharger infrastructure)
Stop deforresting the rainforrests to raise cattle and grow biofuels.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/soy
http://www.greyfalcon.net/palmoil
In general, improve how effeciently we use energy.
Stop doing hydrogen and biofuels and focus on #1 and #2
Only fear mongering Republicans (and Far left nutjobs) say that we should all be forced to live like the Amish.
Or to even lift a finger to take precautions against global warming would doom us to an economic apocalypse.
Permalink
marron Posted 7:10 am
02 Jun 2007
I hope we will have someday a http://www.GreenpeaceSecrets.org! in order to show how they work as a lobby :-)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:13 am
02 Jun 2007
Point. The existence of the medieval warm and the Little Ice Age climate intervals, and the 1500 year D-O cycles in glacial climate, proves that the warming in the past decades is a natural phenomenon, not caused by human industry at all.
CounterPoint. The existence of climate changes in the past is not news to the climate change scientific community; there is a whole chapter about it in the upcoming IPCC Scientific Assessment. Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005.
_
Point. Hundreds of researchers have published on the Little Ice Age and Medieval warm climates, proving that there is no scientific consensus on global warming.
CounterPoint. Natural and human-induced climate changes both exist. Studying one does not imply disbelief in the other.
_
Point. Human populations of Europe and India thrived during the medieval warm time, so clearly warming is good for us.
CounterPoint. No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity, although perhaps some residents of Tuvalu or New Orleans might feel differently, and the Mayans may have been less than enthusiastic about the medieval climate. The projected temperature for 2100 under business-as-usual is another matter entirely, warmer than the Earth has been in millions of years.
_
Point. NASA identified a huge energy hole over the tropical Pacific, which sucked out as much heat as doubling CO2. NASA scientists asked modelers to replicate this, and they failed, by 200-400%, even when they knew the answer in advance!
CounterPoint. This appears to be a reference to Chen et al., 2002. Satellite data from the equatorial Pacific showed an increase in IR heat flux to space of about 5 W/m2 from 1985 to 2005, and a decrease in reflected visible light of about 2 W/m2, leaving a 3 W/m2 change in net heat flux.
Avery's implicit promise would seem to be that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out, a Lindzenesque mechanism to nullify global warming. The measured change in heat fluxes in the equatorial Pacific is indeed comparable to the radiative effect of doubling CO2 but the CO2 number is a global average, while the equatorial Pacific is just one region. The measurements probably reflect a regional rearrangement of cloud cover or ocean temperature, a decadal variation with no clear implication at all for the global mean heat budget of the Earth. The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean.
A word about models in science (as opposed to in think-tank economics, Mr. Avery's home turf). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bend into any answer we thought we knew about in advance. One can always be critical of models, but there is no model that avoids global warming by parting the heavens, or that is exquisitely sensitive to solar variability but insensitive to CO2, the worlds that Mr. Avery wishes for.
Avery's talk also dusted off many of the good old good ones, like the cosmic-ray / cloud connection, the temperature lead of CO2 through the deglaciation, the Antarctic warming, the cooling during the period 1940-1970, the now-resolved satellite temperature discrepancy from ground temperatures, and even the ancient CO2 band saturation myth.
In addition to Chen, Avery offered to us the work of Maureen Raymo and Gerard Bond. Bond didn't think his work cast any doubt on the possibility of anthropogenic warming, neither do Raymo or Chen. Hint: if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, the accent on the fourth syllable of foraminifera, not foraminifera.
_
Point. Environmentalists do what they do because they miss having their mommies reading Grimm's Fairy Tales to them. They like getting all scared.
CounterPoint. To hybrid-phrase Thomas Jefferson and Richard Feynman, I tremble for humanity when I reflect that nature cannot be fooled. You're damn right I'm scared.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:14 am
02 Jun 2007
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/nov_04_02.htm ...
Chinese researchers sharply disagree. Chinese temperature history, collected from such sources as peat bogs, lakebed sediments, ice cores, and tree rings, shows:
China was warmest between the year 1 AD and the year 240 AD (during Europe’s Roman Warming).
China then had a colder period from AD 240800, coinciding with the cold European weather of the Dark Ages.
China had warmer weather from AD 8001400, essentially the years of Europe’s Medieval Climate Optimum.
China cooled again between 1400 and 1820 (roughly the period of Europe’s Little Ice Age. (That’s when the Vikings who had settled Greenland during the Medieval Warming starved or froze to death.)
China’s current warming cycle began in the early 1800s, as did the recent warming in Europe and North America.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:17 am
02 Jun 2007
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
Journal Climatic Change
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:19 am
02 Jun 2007
We don't call it "local warming".
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:19 am
02 Jun 2007
Other researchers state, "Extreme [climate] events in the [South African] record show distinct teleconnections with similar events in other parts of the world, in both the northern and southern hemispheres."
A scientist from Stockholm University concludes, "The pattern of frequent and rapid changes in climate throughout the Holocene indicates that the warming of the last 100 years is not a unique event and is thus not an indication of human impact on the climate, as is frequently claimed."
The facts are simple. The Little Optimum and Little Ice Age were real. They were also widespread over the globe. The twentieth century is not the least bit climatically unusual. So why the recent media hysteria that the twentieth century is the warmest of the last 1,000 years?
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D., are colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:21 am
02 Jun 2007
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/st279e.html
Cave stalagmites vary with temperature and moisture, in their carbon and oxygen isotopes and in their trace element contents. Moreover, the stalagmites go back farther in time than the tree evidence. Cave stalagmites have been found in Ireland, Germany, Oman, China and South Africa whose layers all show the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages and the Roman Warming. Most also show the unnamed cold period that preceded the Roman Warming.48, 49, 50, 51
Figure 3: Temperature Change Inferred from South Africa StalagmitesOn the Arabian Peninsula, a stalagmite study also emphasized the “globalness” of climate. Germany’s Ulrich Neff found oxygen-18 isotopes yielded a very precise record of the 1,500-year climate cycle in the region’s monsoon rainfall. Neff says the monsoons were considerably stronger during the Climate Optimum (5,000 to 7,000 years ago), which also produced an era of heavy rainfall in the Sahel regions of Africa, in Arabia and in India. The Oman stalagmite’s cycles were also in phase with the temperature fluctuations recorded in Greenland ice cores 10,000 years ago, indicating that both were then controlled by glacial boundaries. Since the melt-off of the huge ice sheets, however, the stalagmite proxy says the Indian Ocean monsoon has been governed by variations in solar activity instead.52
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:21 am
02 Jun 2007
Their papers on this subject are not credible.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:25 am
02 Jun 2007
De'Er Zhang and other Chinese scholars...all of whom say that current temperature is below recorded highs.
What was the word Al Gore used?
Oh yea
SUPPRESSION!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:27 am
02 Jun 2007
Certain locations around the world likely were warming.
Thats not the same as a global reconstruction.
Permalink
marron Posted 7:28 am
02 Jun 2007
I don't know in other part of the world, but i can tell you that in France this is not the case.
Just to give you an example, here is what i read lately in medias about global warming:
Cellulars are increasing global warming. We should not use cellular too much.
Eat special diets which are not increasing CO2.
We should not take bath, only showers.
the global warming will cause 1 billion of people to leave their places.
I can give you the references of these news if you want, but they are in french.
I heard these news in 'major' medias. Not in a special Republican or Far left newspaper.
Of course these news are dump! But it's not amazing as there is a mass hysteria about global warming!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:28 am
02 Jun 2007
By David Evans
Posted on 5/28/2007
http://www.mises.org/story/2571
"There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.
The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:31 am
02 Jun 2007
Certain locations around the world likely were warming.
Local. Much in the same way that the "hockey stick" guy only used data from North America...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:32 am
02 Jun 2007
(You came close with "social science" journals.)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:32 am
02 Jun 2007
Well, at least there are now fewer stories about space aliens. The tabloids have Global Warming to spook us with!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:34 am
02 Jun 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:35 am
02 Jun 2007
Is there a kill file on this thing?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
marron Posted 7:50 am
02 Jun 2007
What is very amazing is that all important candidates have signed this pact, but also more and more 'important' people in politics and economics are supporting this pact in France.
So we are not speaking here only about 'fear mongering Republicans and Far left nutjobs'
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:16 am
02 Jun 2007
You wrote:
"Would you quit the circle jerk with Baliunas, Singer, and McKitrick. Their papers on this subject are not credible."
"Not credible" by whom? By people like you who cannot accept anything that does not support your irrational fear of disastrous anthropogenic global warming?
These are respected scientists and we should be listening to what they have to say, as much as we listen to Hansen, Christy, Hoyt, etc. before we make our judgement on the credibility of what they have said
McKitrick, for example, has shown IRREFUTABLY that the Mann "hockey stick" is a fraud and that the "peer review" process, which DAGW supporters love to cite as proof of their objectivity is not working.
Wegman has confirmed McKintrick's conclusion that Mann's reconstruction was flawed and did not support the notion of "unprecedented 20th century warming".
Is he also "not credible"? C'mon, greyfalcon, get serious. You are losing your rationality.
You wrote:
"To hybrid-phrase Thomas Jefferson and Richard Feynman, I tremble for humanity when I reflect that nature cannot be fooled. You're damn right I'm scared."
Go ahead and "be scared". It's your natural right. Some folks are worrying about an "alien invasion from outer space", and this is their natural right, as well.
Just don't try to pass on your "fear" to others, who don't need it. I would "tremble for humanity" if I thought all people were dumb enough to fall for this hysterical nonsense. Fortunately, many people are not, as you are finding out on this blog site.
Jefferson was right: nature cannot be fooled. You don't need to "hybrid-phrase" him. I'm sure he would find this whole DAGW hysteria as ridiculous as I and many other people do.
"Nature cannot be fooled" by the DAGW alarmists.
Wait 5 years and we will have a new "disaster fad", and this one will long have been buried along with all the others that have come up over the years.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:35 am
02 Jun 2007
You wrote:
"Just to give you an example, here is what i read lately in medias about global warming:
Cellulars are increasing global warming. We should not use cellular too much.
Eat special diets which are not increasing CO2.
We should not take bath, only showers.
the global warming will cause 1 billion of people to leave their places.
I can give you the references of these news if you want, but they are in french."
Appreciate if you would give me the references. I can read French and the articles sound interesting.
You are probably aware that animal respiration generates 60 Gt of carbon per year (around 9 times the amount coming from "anthropogenic sources") with human respiration accounting for around 0.4 GtC (around 6% of all "anthropogenic" carbon.
Humans still have far less impact than all the other animals, but still, maybe we should all stop breathing.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
marron Posted 8:48 am
02 Jun 2007
Here is a two references about the articles i was talking about. I don't believe in these articles. It was just to show the mass hysteria in france:
Réfugiés climatiques : un milliard en 2050.
http://www.naturavox.fr/article.php3?id_article=821
Le portable aggrave le réchauffement, selon des scientifiques
http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/instantanes/histoiredu ...
About the diet which is 'global warming' compliant, i have read this today in a 'free'newspaper, i will try tomorrow to find the reference. It's very late here, i am going to bed now.. :-)
Permalink
marron Posted 8:52 am
02 Jun 2007
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/sciences/20070514 ...
and
http://today.reuters.fr/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNew ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:36 am
02 Jun 2007
Uhm no. McKitricks claims were found to cause virtually no change to the the hockeystick graph.
Completely irrelevant.
http://greyfalcon.net/hockey.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:30 pm
02 Jun 2007
Everyone would love to live this way. It's not a matter of want -- it's a matter of can.
You cannot live in an American region and not have a car. It can't work. Even if you happening to live near a depot and your work is near one as well -- after dark you would be a prisoner in your house/apartment without a car.
Fruits and vegetables: Great...but how many places offer these in a convenient format for people who make minimun wage and get 15 or 30 minutes a day for lunch.
Thus, we address the symptoms...not the causes. The causes of our unhealthy lifestyle are not too much wealth -- but too little wealth. There is not enough wealth for spread to the majority for them to live a sane and healthy lifestyle.
Having Al Gore browbeat Wal*Mart workers to "reduce CO2" while they try to pay the rent and feed their kids is not helping anyone.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:32 pm
02 Jun 2007
Yes, it will.
People will move into the new arable lands freed up from melting permafrost in Canada and Siberia.
Land will be cheap again, and a new Homesteading Era will be born.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:04 pm
02 Jun 2007
To my statement:
"Wegman has confirmed McKintrick's conclusion that Mann's reconstruction was flawed and did not support the notion of "unprecedented 20th century warming".
You wrote to this:
"Uhm no. McKitricks claims were found to cause virtually no change to the the hockeystick graph.
Completely irrelevant."
This may be "irrelevant" to you (because it does not agree with your personal viewpoint).
Let's see if you can understand a VERY RELEVANT quotation from Wegman, made as a report to US Congress energy and commerce committee in testimony:
"Overall, our committee believes that Mann's assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."
Sounds RELEVANT to me, as it must have to the committee members when he said it.
He is also quoted as saying (when someone told him it really didn't matter whether Mann's methods were flawed because Mann's answer was right anyway):
"I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
Very RELEVANT. Bad Science = Bad Science.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 5:51 pm
02 Jun 2007
Greyfalcon, I have been observing your method of blogging about DAGW.
You are very convinced that you are right and that therefore anyone or any data that indicate you may not be right are automatically rejected as "IRRELEVANT". In other words, you deny anything that does not confirm your DAGW paradigm. And you do so emotionally.
Why would a blog exchange take this turn from RATIONAL discussion to EMOTIONAL defense of a paradigm?
There must be some reason, and I think you gave me a clue when you said (in a blog to John Bailo, I believe):
"You're damn right I'm scared."
Being scared (i.e. FEAR) is a basic emotion. If this is what is driving your logic process, it becomes clear to me why you have problems staying NON-EMOTIONAL and RATIONAL in your discussions.
I have observed this with other strong believers in the DAGW paradigm, as well, so it's not only you, and this is not only a personal observation. These people defend their paradigm with almost religious fervor.
Skeptics of the DAGW paradigm, however, can remain more RATIONAL because they are normally not driven by fear or any other emotion. They can look at the data that are out there and then make up their minds based on logic and not dogmatic belief driven by fear. They can run the data and predictions past their own "sanity test" and filter out those things that do not rationally pass this test.
The people who publish alarming reports predicting dire consequences may not always be doing this intentionally, but their result is to spread FEAR. They may justify their actions by saying "we are concerned about this predicted future disaster and want other people to become concerned as well".
Sounds noble. But what they are really doing is spreading FEAR, so that people like you become "scared" and emotional, rather than rational.
And FEAR is not a good thing, especially if it should become widespread public fear. It opens the door (as it has many times in the past) for political power grabs and "calls for action" that are driven by personal egos and hidden agendas, covered in this case beneath the mantle of "saving the planet".
Max
Permalink
red Posted 2:46 am
03 Jun 2007
Having worked professionally in this field for decades, and having watched glaciers in my own back yard advance and retreat over this period I have more than just a passing interest in this topic.
What I see missing from a lot of the studies and rhetoric that has been presented, is an understanding of really how complex the climate of the earth is. Nobody has discussed how the basic physics, the Navier Stokes equations are highly nonlinear 2nd order differential equations, or how the large sources and sinks of heat, mass, carbon, etc. influence climate. Or how the continuity equation shows that it can take decades and even centuries or millenia for these sources and sinks to play a role. (the enourmous methane hydrate sink of carbon, for example). Or how feedback and feedwardward mechanisms play roles.
There is no wonder that people are confused. Hence, they do what normal humans tend to do, choose a side, stake some turf, and try to defend it with selective datasets, statistical data analysis and manipulation, and standard propaganda techniques like shooting the messenger or creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt to galvanize their perspectives. Religion works a lot like this to rationalize difficult questions that don't have obvious answers.
So, based upon having a complex problem that "might" have serious consequences for humans, how should we move forward in dealing with it? Should we bury our head in the sand like an ostrich and just accept what comes next or try to "manage" the problem? That's where the difficulty arises perhaps. Is it even manageable? Is it worth managing? What are the costs versus the benefits? Who stands to gain and who to lose?
At this time, I'd have to say that based upon what little we know about the science, I'm in the ostrich camp for now. My opinion could change on a dime if we could prove that anthropogenic activities were truly the cause of the perceived problem.
Creationists probably shouldn't worry too much because they know that god created the problem and they are going to heaven anyway. Evolutionists who follow Darwin might suggest that if we indeed did screw up too badly, another creature might move in to occupy the space that we currently use. Perhaps they will be our silicon based offspring...
Permalink
marron Posted 2:57 am
03 Jun 2007
If you read french, i recommend to you the following sites:
http://skyfall.free.fr/
http://www.climat-sceptique.com/
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/
Permalink
marron Posted 3:04 am
03 Jun 2007
In this presentation, I will put forward a prediction of climate to 2030 that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling. And it is a prediction that you will be able to check up on every day.
I am going to start off by looking at the near term temperature record, and then go back successively further in time, looking at the range of temperatures in the historic record and then the geological record. Then we will examine the role of the Sun in changing climate, and following that the contribution of anthropogenic warming from carbon dioxide.
I will finish up combining a solar-driven prediction and the anthropogenic contribution to make a prediction of climate to 2030.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf
Permalink
marron Posted 3:15 am
03 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:12 am
03 Jun 2007
It's not relevant because the changes do virtually nothing to the graph.
At best you could call it nitpicking.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:27 am
03 Jun 2007
It is not a peer reviewed physical science journal.
It's a social science journal.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
_
Credible. Science. Please.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:31 am
03 Jun 2007
At this time, I'd have to say that based upon what little we know about the science, I'm in the ostrich camp for now. My opinion could change on a dime if we could prove that anthropogenic activities were truly the cause of the perceived problem.
I would say there are three strategies. The Ostrich as you say, would hide, feeling that we just don't know what is happening, and so, stays out of trying to create a policy.
The Giraffe is what most pro-AGW Gristers are...and what Al Gore is. They feel they are being courageous in presenting a case that the Earth is headed for a dire situation, caused by Man, and that we should do everything in our power to stop it. No one should discredit them for that intent (except in the case for those who get a finance benefit from selling the "cure" for Global Warming -- sort of like putting tacks on the road and then fixing the tire).
I have been advocating a new category: The Eagles. We not only accept the Earth is warming -- we look forward to thriving in it! We are aghast at the thought that warmer weather could not have highly beneficial effects for mankind.
In addition, you mention the possibly chaotic nature of the inputs to climate. I have written about this in the past. Just looking at simplistic cycles tells us nothing. The variables in climate could unite in a way that would possibly allow us to wake up tomorrow, open the door, and feel a blast of 150F degrees below weather.
At best, we are all sailors on the open sea...we wake up, take a look in the sky, and set our sails accordingly...each and every day...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:32 am
03 Jun 2007
Their "peer review" process doesn't even involve spell checking the document, or grammar corrections.
Much less actually checking it for adherance to scientific method and mathematics.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:36 pm
03 Jun 2007
"I mean come on.
Their "peer review" process doesn't even involve spell checking the document, or grammar corrections.
Much less actually checking it for adherance to scientific method and mathematics."
Are you referring to the peer review process as it was applied to the Mann "hockey stick"? As I recall, that process got trashed pretty badly in the committee hearings, which also concluded that the hockey stick was a fraud and could not support unusual 20th century warmth.
The whole discussion of "peer review" is a "smoke and mirrors" exercise. Get enough of your like-thinking scientist friends to agree your work is well done, and VOILA! by definition it is. I am not saying that this process is always being misused, I am just saying it is not perfect and CAN be misused, so should not be used as an automatic claim for the validity of any report.
The only REAL proof is a critical analysis of the report by a totally independent source, such as the M+M and Wegman analyses of the hockey stick, for example.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:26 am
04 Jun 2007
Thanks for a very thoughtful posting on the current climate debate.
Your analysis that the climate of the earth is extremely complex is indeed valid. By oversimplifying everything to putting the "blame" for current warming solely on a greenhouse effect primarily from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is, in my opinion, an oversimplification. To presume that this warming will lead to disastrous results for planet Earth is even shakier. I believe these are the principal weaknesses of the IPCC 2007 SPM report.
It is too focused on looking for a clear linear relationship based on only one possible explanation without truly considering others.
Your other point about the long lag times between cause and effect is also critical to the current debate, for example that it can take decades and even centuries or millenia for current causes to have an effect. The records show that glaciers do not recede as soon as temperatures rise; in fact, some glaciers may actually expand, as climate changes cause increased snowfall, and others may only start receding thousands of years later.
How can we be sure that the effects we are seeing today are not caused by something that happened a long time ago?
Your point about "feedback" mechanisms is also very important. Without these assumed "positive" feedbacks of water vapor and clouds as programmed into the IPCC climate models, greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide plus all the other anthropogenic greenhouse gases would only be a fraction of 1 degree C by the year 2100, and no cause for alarm. Are these assumed feedback mechanisms realistic?
How can we be sure that reducing human carbon dioxide emissions today will have any impact on climate over the hundred years?
To me, the real dilemma is the high level of uncertainty. To rush into "action" today with all the uncertainties still out there does not make sense to me. We just do not know enough today to pick the right course of action.
I personally believe it is irresponsible to drum up a high "sense of urgency" based on the fear of "disastrous climate changes" which are not certain or even probable to happen.
The argument of "at least we are doing something to manage this as an insurance policy in case AGW may be real and serious" is not valid. It begs your questions:
"Is it even manageable? Is it worth managing? What are the costs versus the benefits? Who stands to gain and who to lose?"
Regards,
Max
Permalink
red Posted 6:41 am
05 Jun 2007
I suggest this for a number of reasons. First, based upon what we know of the climatic history of the earth, what we are experiencing is not abnormal. The earth has been hotter and colder before, and CO2 concentrations have been higher and lower based upon the proxy measurements that we have been able to discern. I don't think we're going to hell in a handbag if we don't do something right away.
(as a short aside here I'd like to comment that it is human nature to feel fear about the unknown. We've all heard stories about what happens to primitive peoples when they experience a total solar eclipse for example. You also might recall the childrens story about Henny Penny and the Sky Falling In. Lemmings jumping over cliffs is another allusion that also comes to mind. If everyone is jumping, well, it must be alright to jump on the bandwagon and jump too. You get the picture.)
But, lets get our feet firmly planted back on the ground and do some serious thinking about what is happening, why it is happening, and what (if anything) we can or should do about it. I can honestly say that I don't have the answer. I have serious doubts about the IPCC report too, particularly when you consider how the report was written and reviewed by the scientific community.
Now, I'd be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the subject. However, I did spend about 10 years at a university working on a Ph.D. modelling boundary value problems related to surface mass heat and momentum fluxes so I do know a little bit about how non-linear systems respond to small changes in some input parameters. When I hear people say that they can model the climate some fifty years into the future I am somewhat skeptical, simply because I know how sensitive these models are to changes in some of the little dials and knobs like albedo, cloud cover, atmospheric emissivity, and a host of other physical factors that are likely to vary spatially and temporally as the climate changes.
Perhaps there is a silver lining to this debate though. I think everyone agrees that the current paradigm is not sustainable, that we cannot continue to live using relatively inexpensive oil forever. Hopefully some more efficient and less polluting technologies will arise to solve the energy problem. You see, with inexpensive energy comes clean water (distilled from the ocean), inexpensive food, and a host of other technologies that will elevate us to a higher intellectual level than we are currently mired in.
regards...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:41 am
05 Jun 2007
Except that issues M+M and Wegman brought up did not change anything.
And are therefore not important.
All the Proxy reconstructionsata, published in actual physical science journals agrees with Mann's statement about the relative temperature of the Middle Ages.
_
More or less, you are saying that
A Coal Executive, and An Economist published within "Energy and Environment".
(A largely unknown social science journal, NOT a physical science journal)
A Political Appointee who would not disclose any information about his methods.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanReques ...
_
That is NOT scientific peer review.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:57 am
05 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:08 am
05 Jun 2007
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/ ...
Turns out Wegman also isn't a climate scientist.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:57 am
05 Jun 2007
You wrote:
"Perhaps there is a silver lining to this debate though. I think everyone agrees that the current paradigm is not sustainable, that we cannot continue to live using relatively inexpensive oil forever. Hopefully some more efficient and less polluting technologies will arise to solve the energy problem. You see, with inexpensive energy comes clean water (distilled from the ocean), inexpensive food, and a host of other technologies that will elevate us to a higher intellectual level than we are currently mired in."
I could not agree more with your analysis.
Energy needs will undoubtedly grow in the next 50 to 100 years. Not only will there be a continued growth in world population, but in many parts of the world, where hundreds of millions of people do not have access to electrical power today, this problem will be solved. With electrical power comes the possibility of having clean drinking water, as you say, through distillation or reverse osmosis from seawater and through pumping, treatment and distribution systems.
Yes, we do need to get away from relying on cheap oil (mostly imported) for our energy needs. We need to get away from needless waste. I believe, as you apparently do, that we will find more efficient, less polluting new technologies to achieve this.
Current nuclear power generation technology is used in some countries, notably France, to generate a significant portion of the total electrical energy need. Based on the record there, it appears to be safe, despite the negative stigma it has in some other European countries and possibly North America, due to political "green" pressures. Nuclear waste disposal is still a problem, but this appears to be mostly political and not technical.
Power generation by nuclear fusion is not yet a commercial reality, but I am sure it will become one before too long.
Coal reserves are much more extensive than oil reserves, but coal is not a "clean" fuel, like, for example natural gas. Economically viable technologies exist today to make coal-fired power stations non-polluting, however (as long as we do not label carbon dioxide a "pollutant"; since CO2 is a naturally occurring trace component in our atmosphere that is absolutely essential for all life on our planet today it is silly to call it a "pollutant").
Solar and wind electrical generation are certainly good for smaller scale units, but will probably never provide a major part of the overall electrical power requirement due to limitations of scale.
New hydroelectric and tidal electricity generation facilities are probably limited geographically as are geothermal facilities, at least based on current technology. New and improved deep drilling technologies will undoubtedly be developed to enable using heat from deep inside the earth's mantle to generate electrical power.
Automotive fuel produced from renewable sources is an economically viable reality in Brazil today from sugar cane. In the USA the economics of using ethanol from corn are apparently still questionable, but other renewable sources, such as wood chips, stalks, switch grass or other biomass, appear to have more promise. I am sure that new technologies will be developed to make this a reality.
Using hydrogen, generated from nuclear power, as an automotive fuel will enable automobiles to move away from oil-based fuels. To make this commercially viable and safe will require new developments, since hydrogen is a highly diffusive and reactive material.
Another way to move away from oil-based automotive fuels is to use hybrid and electric automobiles. New technology is required to develop better batteries for this.
These are just a few examples that come to my mind.
So I am convinced we will be living in a totally different world 50 years from now, where many of these new technologies will already be providing commercially viable solutions to the world's growing energy needs.
Hopefully it will also be a world where the hundreds of millions of people who are deprived of access to clean water and electrical power today no longer have to suffer this deprivation.
These changes will occur, not because we urgently need to avert an impending disaster from AGW, but because they MUST occur.
As in the past, technological advances will continue to provide us an improved standard of living, which, as you say, "will elevate us to a higher intellectual level than we are currently mired in."
And they will happen regardless of what changes in climate "Mother Nature" deals us (with which we will also be able to cope using technology).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:27 am
05 Jun 2007
New technology is required to develop better batteries for this.
Why do people keep saying that:
1. The batteries we have had 10 years ago work just fine. It's what Toyota uses in their Prius.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J5f9x_RfHI
Especially if we added a small gasoline generator for extended range.
1990's tech batteries could charge up to 80% capacity in 12 minutes.
http://www.altfuels.org/events/otherafv/quikchrg.html
2. We have the batteries already in spades.
So good that you can charge up for a hundred mile drive in 1 minute. (6 minutes for a full charge)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/30/aerovironment-suc ...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/07/autobloggreen-qan ...
3. Major car manufacturers including Ford and Toyota have gigantic fleets of forklifts newly upgraded to quickcharge electric vehicles.
http://www.posicharge.com/ford.html
http://www.posicharge.com/5-0.html
http://www.towerautomotive.com/02.htm
http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/504773
4. Expect large car manufacturers to make excuses and drag things out forever.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/volt
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/30/toyota-to-delay-i ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:35 am
05 Jun 2007
Both of which are nothing more than bloated porkbarrel.
If money isn't an object, then sure.
Nuclear alone gets more federal subsides than all renewable and effeciency programs combined.
And it isn't even that big a portion of world energy.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuke.png
Therefore it has to scale up in the same way that renewables would. Which the director of the IEA says is impossible.
_
Meanwhile Hydrogen is just a craptastic loss of energy compare to electric.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
And unless you make it out of squeeky clean electricity, you're going to be worse off than burning gasoline.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
_
Meanwhile an electric car powered by the dirtiest coal availible, would be like driving a Prius in emmisions.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
And we don't need even 1 new power plant to switch over nearly the entire US car fleet to electric.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
Permalink
red Posted 3:44 pm
05 Jun 2007
I'm just trying to imagine the implications if this was to be applied fairly. Would it be applied on a per capita basis or on a country by country basis? How would C02 creation be monitored in each country? To whom would the taxes be paid? What would be done with the tax revenue? How would you account for countries that are densely forested and act as large sinks for CO2, thus offsetting the creation of this 'pollutant'?
I'm imagining huge government or UN type departments trying to come to terms with this. Gawwwd help us. Imagine the cost and inefficiency.
Help me out on this issue please. Are buying carbon credits to offset CO2 creation just a way of dealing with guilt? Does it really do anything to reduce CO2 emissions the way it is currently functioning? Am I just being cynical? Can people like Al Gore buy their way out of their CO2 emissions profligacy and still feel justified in terms of using carbon credits as a way of assuaging their guilt? Why should wealthy people like Al Gore be allowed to do this when billions of people on the planet can't afford to? Is this fair?
It seems to me that any attempt to mitigate for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is going to be paid for by the poorer people in undeveloped and developing countries who will not be able to afford the additional cost of offsets.
In addition, it is going to have significant geopolitical implications. Countries like Canada will no longer be able to develop and export petroleum products from their tar sands using the current technology. This in turn could destabilize the Middle East and Africa even more.
All of the media hype about global warming makes me really wonder about the underlying reasons for this debate. Is it a conspiracy theory being promoted by the nuclear industry? Surely the large oil companies don't want to change the status quo because their profit margins have never been better. Is it the environmental movement that has found a chord that resonates with people simply because of the perceived complexity? Or is it just a random series of events that has caught peoples attention?
I remember very clearly during the 1970's when global cooling and the next ice age created similar mass hysteria. There were headlines in Time magazine, just like there are today. Deja vu e all over again as yogi would say... lol
Permalink