Comments cce has made

I, scientist, you scientist

See, here's the thing.  The lists of "skeptical scientists" are, in fact, lists of people who hold scientific degrees.  You might find the opinions of thousands of medical doctors, mechanical engineers, and mathematicians to have merit, but I don't.  I have a scientific degree.  Lot's of people have scientific degrees.  My professional opinion on AGW is as worthless as it is on brain surgery or rocket science.

It's telling that of the 31,000 names on the Oregon petition, only 40 of them are climatologists.  I'd like to see them identified, so we can determine if they have ever challenged AGW in peer reviewed work.  When it comes to that, these "skeptics" hide under rocks.  The people who do publish are the same ones we've all come to know and love.

And are you going to tell us which of the reconstructions in AR4 used oxygen isotopes in wood cellulose and thus back up your assertion that "most if not all" will need to be thrown out?On Previous warm periods don't mean we're not responsible for this one posted 1 year, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Link

Oreskes doesn't need to struggle to establish a link.  The research program that Seitz ran for R.J. Reynolds was established because "if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government's excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product."

Read the CEO's introduction of Seitz.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/29154.html?pattern=frede ...

Read Singer's defense of Second Hand Smoke:
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TICT0002555-2573.html?patt ...On Similarities between the skin cancer and climate change 'scams' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 173 Responses

Random accusations

1. You will find any number of people claiming that this past winter is evidence that the climate models are wrong.
   
2. The satellite analyses are, between themselves, contradictory, with rates of warming that differ by ~25%.  The RSS analysis excludes virtually all of Antarctica and is therefore not "complete."
   
3. Look at JohnV's graph again.
   
4. Hansen didn't take money from Soros.
   
5. Hansen accepted an award 14 years after his first Congressional testimony from the widow of Republican John Heinz who supported Hansen and considered climate change an important issue.
   
6. Hansen endorsed John Kerry because there is no way he was going to endorse Bush.

BAMS

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

1965-1979:
7 cooling papers (325 citations through 1983)
19 neutral papers (424 citations through 1983)
44 warming papers (1958 citations through 1983)On There was no consensus about global cooling in the '70s, says study posted 1 year, 9 months ago 12 Responses

Various

The temperatures in the southern hemisphere have been rising gradually and consistently.  There were warm years in both hemispheres centered around 1940 (either coincidentally or not coincidentally during WWII).  Most of the "cooling" occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, as expected, and temperatures for the globe during the mid century period were flatter than they were "cooler"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

The effect of aerosols is immediate, whereas CO2 is cumulative.  While CO2 levels were increasing incrementally, anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions began increasing exponentially, leveling off in the '70s, and peaking in the late '80s.

ENSO affects the short term climate as energy is transferred between the ocean and atmosphere.  ENSO does not affect the long term energy balance of the world.

If solar was increasing, the daytime temperatures would be warming faster than the nighttime temperatures (the opposite is the case) and the stratosphere would be warming instead of cooling.  Climate sensitivity has been derived from numerous methods, among them the ice cores and other paleo data, and from modern volcanic eruptions, in addition to simple and complex model calculations.  Additionally, we have measured the changes in outgoing longwave radiation from space.

About 1/3rd of the temperature change during deglaciation/glaciation is caused by the change in greenhouse gases, with the another third caused by the albedo changes of ice cover and sea levels and another third caused by vegetation, and atmospheric dust.  The temperature changes of ice ages cannot be explained if you remove the GHG component.  Ice ages themselves are initiated by orbital changes of the earth which redistribute energy to different parts of the earth at different times of the year, facilitating the buildup or destruction of icesheets on (mostly) North America and Europe, and thus increasing the albedo of the Earth.

The AGW signal is less than 0.02 degrees per year, which is dwarfed by natural variation on short time scales.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Wegman vs North

There are stastical problems with the Hockey Stick.  Both panels concluded that.  They were not material.  They had no effect on the conclusion.  They weren't the result of incompetence and they weren't the result of fraud. The quotations from the NRC report and panel members verify this.

And for Wegman to sign on to the "no net warming since 1998" statement does not lend credence to his impartiality.  The AGW signal is less than 0.02 degrees per year.   Year to year variability is several times that.  No one can look at the last 10 years and conclude that AGW has stopped because of "no net warming."

Other matters:
The direct effect of CO2 is something like 1.2 degrees for doubled levels.  The rest is primarily the water vapor feedback.  Increase the temperature of the earth, and you increase the moisture content of the atmosphere.  As to cloud feedbacks, we have good information on high level clouds and they can't explain the warming.  We have conflicting information on low level clouds, and best case scenario, they don't explain the warming either.  We have satellite measurements of solar output in the last 30 years with virtually no change other than the 11 year cycle.  The ocean does not create heat, the most it can do (on time scales we're talking about) is change the short term climate (el nino/la nino etc) or push energy around the earth.  It is not going to somehow change the energy balance of the planet.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Plausible deniability

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&pag ...

"'Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in the last millennium,' said John M. Wallace, one of the 12 panel members and a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/23/nat ...

"Where we speak of `less confidence,' we're more into level of sort of 2 to 1 odds, which IPCC, they interpreted `likely' as that level, roughly two to one odds or better."
http://video.nationalacademies.org/ramgen/news/isbn/03091 ...

The substantive "error" in the Mann et al (1999) paper was the specific language about the 1990s and 1998, which is a claim that cannot be made based on the resolution of the proxy data.  The problem with their PCA method was "not material" and "does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions."On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

A major error

One major error from the First Assessment Report that reverberates to this day, was the use of HH Lamb's temperature reconstruction for Central England to represent "Global Temperature Variations of the last 1000 years."  This was the graph used in "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It's used in Singer and Avery's "Unstoppable Global Warming."  It's used all over the internet by a great variety of skeptics.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

Points

1.  The Hockey Stick is in AR4, along with a dozen other temperature reconstructions, none of which show a "MWP" warmer than today.
   
2.  The likelihood that today's temperatures are warmer than the last millennium remain >66%, although it has been extended to 1300 years, instead of 1000 years from the TAR.
   
3.  Temperatures in Greenland in the early 20th century were at best the same as they are they today and were the result of decadal changes in ocean circulation, and not representative of global temperature.

And yet

And yet, somehow, stores have managed to demo TVs for decades under all those flourescent lights.On Brit blames bulb for TV-remote glitch posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

CFLs are better for the environment

1.  CFLs are better for the environment than incandescent bulbs because they use 1/4 the electricity.  Every incandesecent replaced with a CFL represents a net reduction of mercury and other pollutants on a electrical grid that is over 50% coal.
   
2.  A 60 watt incandescent or equivalent CFL puts out 900 lumens.  The brightest LED screw in replacement bulbs that I can find range from 200 to 600 lumens, cost $60 - $80, and are only incrementally more efficient than CFLs.

Authority

Do meteorologists contribute to the IPCC report?  Of course. Is the typical weatherman qualified to offer an expert opinion on AGW?  Of course not.  The typical weatherman is not an authority on the climate any more than a computer programmer is necessarily an authority on computer engineering or vice-versa.  To say that so-and-so meteorologist somewhere on earth doesn't believe in AGW is a worthless statement.  The AMS endorses the conclusions of the IPCC, and that's all we need to know about meteorologists.

The ONLY thing a layman can do is appeal to "the authority of scientists" or any other semantical construction of that phrase.  That the average person should sit back and decide for themselves what the science says is absurd to the point of being insulting.  The NAS was set up specifically to advise policymakers on matters of science, and for 30 years they have shown this to be a problem.  The idea that people and government should instead listen to Marc Morano's list of 400 scavanged names is stupiditiy in motion.

And when Exxon Mobil stops funding think tanks, it shows exactly where the CEI is in the spectrum of political interference.On Me on Hannity & Colmes posted 1 year, 11 months ago 22 Responses

Talking points

Another example of a talking point is comparing the world's energy infrastructure to the horse and buggy.  Based on that particular argument, we should be riding in flying cars that run on water by now.  Some things are harder than others.

We need a level playing field, aggressive emmissions targets, an increasing price on carbon, and real investment in renewables and efficiency.  If the result involves "clean coal," then so be it.On Jeremy Carl argues that coal will be with us for a long while posted 2 years ago 43 Responses

Facts

Hansen never predicted an ice age.  That's a fact.  You might as well say that Hansen predicted an ice age on Venus.  The code that he developed (for Venus) deals with scattering of light due to atmospheric particles, which, duh, happens.  The conclusions of the R+S paper were based on their own assumptions, and their greenhouse effect was a dramatic underestimate.  That was their conclusion.  Not Hansen's.

The "Climate Forcings in the Industrial Era" paper that was quoted (but not read) was emphasizing the need for multiple scenarios since the forcings are not known precisely.  Hansen has done this since day one and he was criticizing the tendency (then) to stake everything on a single "business as usual" scenario.

Cosmic rays do not explain the temperature changes we are seeing today.  The theory relies on changes in cloud cover and there has been no appreciable decrease in cloud cover despite the rapid increase in temperature.On Hansen erroneously accused of predicting an ice age posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

Cuckoo of the moment

All we need to do is get ahold of the "planetary builders that are men long ago" and we'll have this global warming thing licked.On New WRI report compares climate bills posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

At least 1 meter

Sea levels are rising, and will continue to rise even under the best circumstances.  The IPCC estimates give an additional 17 cm (max) due to scaled up discharge, which is woefully inadequate based on paleo data.  Expect at least 1 meter by the end of the century.On A must-read article from Science on the underestimation of climate change impacts posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Gunk vs. Gas

In the mid 20th century, the rate of increase of sulfate emissions outpaced that of CO2.  This, combined with a relatively high amount of natural particulates in the atmosphere caused the slight cooling period.  Sulfate emissions (which do not perisist in the atmosphere) have since flattened and then dropped, while CO2 emissions (which are cumulative) have only accelerated.
On 'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Murray Testifies

Watch Murray's testimony before the EPW committee yesterday.
rtsp://video.webcastcenter.com/srs_g2/epw062807a.rm?start=13:58

Biggest.  Bafoon.  Ever.

I didn't watch it too closely but I heard him repeat a lot of the common baloney, even the "Rachel Carson killed millions" canard.  Make sure you watch Boxer's exchange with him during the question period.On Coal exec whines about regulations on his ability to destroy the earth and his workers posted 2 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

You read it wrong

You are reading the table wrong.  California is 49th out of 51 (includes District of Columbia) in per capita energy use.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/ran ...

The columns you read from are ranked by total energy used from those sources.  Per capita is the final column.  Only New York and Road Island use less energy per capita.On All green eyes turn to the West Coast posted 2 years, 6 months ago 2 Responses

Measurements

We can measure how much CO2 is caused by burning fossil fuels by measuring the ratio of carbon isotopes which are different for naturally occuring CO2.

We know the expected range of CO2 in the atmosphere by studying the ice cores.  On short time scales, the level is kept more or less constant through the carbon cycle.  Burning fossil fuels short circuits this process.

The "volcanoes emit more CO2 than mankind" is such a preposterous statement and is demonstrably false.  Mount Pinatubo, certainly the most powerful eruption of the modern era doesn't even register a blip in the Manua Loa measurements.  In reality, all the volcanic activity in the world amounts to about 1% of human activity.

With regards to the cooling effect of volcanoes, that is true and large eruptions can cause significant disruptions in the climate (as we saw with Pinatubo).  However, these particles quickly rain out of the atmosphere.  CO2 takes many centuries to completely leave the atmosphere.On 'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

Wind example

In my area (Montana), there was a proposed wind farm that would eventually provide 600 MW.  The cost was $900 million, plus $120 million of transmission lines.  This was a traditional wind farm with no storage capability.On Shenanigans everywhere posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

Now and then

I stipulate that the "convergence of renewables, distributed generation, and smarter grids" will take decades, and I have doubts that it will accomplish what we all hope it will. That is, to replace or eliminate the 50%+ of the electricity currently generated by coal.  In that amount of time, many coal plants will be built.  We can either allow gasification to go forward, or we will build more pulverized coal plants with no hope of sequestering the carbon.  Not a tough choice.

Schweitzer is trying to get gasification plants built immediately.  He's building as much wind power as politically and economically possible.  He's also pushing native prairie grass as a biofuel (although, I'm guessing that Grist is against that).  Yet, somehow, he's "against" renewables and energy efficiency and should STFU because he believes that "abandoning" coal isn't in the cards?  A little less hyperbole and a little more reality.On Quit with the coal boosting already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 11 Responses

Hmm

If you assume that we will stop producing coal when production peaks, then no, we don't have centuries of coal left.  If we assume that 1) we will continue producing coal after production peaks, 2) most new plants will be be more efficient IGCC plants, and 3) coal will play a smaller role in future energy production, then the US has enough coal to last for centuries.

He didn't say we shouldn't develop renewables.  He didn't say that we shouldn't conserve.  He said that abandoning coal and nuclear (65% of current electricity production) would leave us naked and eating nuts.  Given the current state of conservation and renewables, that will continue to be the case for a long time. "Shift" yes.  "Abandon" no.On Quit with the coal boosting already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 11 Responses

Science Referencing Science

The synthesis report including the work of all three working groups will be out in November.  There you will find some 1000+ pages of supporting documents and footnotes.On We Hear Mars Is Nice This Time of Year posted 2 years, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Hansen + Biofuels

A somewhat relevent aside: one of Jim Hansen's proposals is to generate electricity with biofuels, and then sequester the carbon.  If this is done properly, carbon will be pulled out of the air.  He calls this "soft" geo-engineering, and believes it is necessary since we've otherwise passed the point that will keep CO2 below 450 ppm -- his threshold to avoid dangerous climate change.On Texas renewable energy schemes posted 2 years, 8 months ago 32 Responses