Global warming suffered a fatal margin call this week and its investors are in the process of liquidating their position but hope to reopen soon under a new banner of global climate change. Due to a black swan event (Y2K) the quant model used to rank temperature performance failed to accurately measure events of extreme conditions. Thus 1934 was actually the warmest year in the continental US for the 20th century and 5 of the ten warmest were prior to WW-II in contrast to the old warmist assertions that 1998 was warmest and 8 of the 10 warmest years were all in the 1990s.
Bad models, bad assumptions, black boxes, no independent verification. The global warming hoax only gost us a few trillions in misguided public policy. The broken financial models are likely to be far more dangerous.
90 comments:
!Primer!
"o"
Rob,
Maybe trillions of wasted breaths but which government has done anything substantive (which they weren't going to do anyway)?
Kyoto. Carbon trading. Loys of things.
I missed this news...you got a link?
Thanks!
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/
Imagine that. You didn't hear about it because only the extremeist whacko blogs are reporting this. That's because the global warmist crowd is using this quiet time to figure out a counter offensive. Once they invent a plausible answer then the MSM will present both the news and the new lie together.
Click on my profile and go to my blog. I have a couple linkies to this.
This is also interesting:
http://www.surfacestations.org/
This is a very interesting story.
But remember, "the science is settled"!*
*except for errors that scientists haven't noticed yet
The interesting part of this has never been the so-called science, which was obviously flawed, but the naked grab for power by the left under this banner.
Well, I reckon this makes Gore the "Black Swan" Cheerleader.
oppsie.
Thanks for the link Mr. Dawg....I'll read it right after I post this. The 'global warming' issue has a direct impact on my career.
Off topic on another note: seems the administration is trying another crackdown on illegal workers. Of course California is perceived to be the canary:
http://tinyurl.com/3bx3ot
I'm getting together a nasty post on the local impact of the crackdown. What a freakin' POS. Ranchers, multimillionares to a man bitchin' that they'll have to pay $10-12/hr and take their margins from 40% to 38%.
I look forward to reading the new post then. I have purely Libertarian beliefs but exploiting illegal immigrant labor while ripping off the government isn't something I support. The companies hiring them should be HAMMERED to the maximum extent of the law. Screw the corrupt ranchers, homebuilders, restaurants, etc. I'll gladly see price inflation as a result of these actions (if they happen, I have my doubts that this isn't another all bark no bite deal).
It would be refreshing if EVERYONE had to play by the same rules. Yeah, I can be hopefully naive.
I blatantly ripped off the tiny url from a BillCara.com poster, but it appears cnn has picked up the story as well.
Ho Ho Ho - It's Santa Flipper Clause
All Dogs are black.
All Cats are black.
Therefore --- All Dogs are Cats.
Viola - Perfect Science!!!!
Santa F. Clause
Only an idiot like you would be denying global warming on a day when it is 110 in Kansas.
It's always so impressive when amatuer bloggers pick holes in the science of Noble Prize winners. I am sure that it is just honest inquiry, and that it has nothing to do with supporting the Angry White Male Agenda.
Can't you find something better to waste your brain cells on...drugs, for instance? At least you won't hurt anybody else.
I may be an idiot but this idiot knows the difference between AGW and global climate change. and this idiot has the scientific and language skills to express that difference without resorting to words like idiot even those who so richly deserve the appelation.
Lost one,
The "scientists" admitted that the blogger was correct and reissued and entirely different GISS series and credited the blogger.
You don't know what other people know. I don't know financials or climate but I -know- models. I really know models. I can test and break and validate the most complex, undocumented, Turing compatible simulation you can devise.
Dawg, you are so wrong!!! The Clean Water Action League came to my door on Thursday and told me how DANGEROUS global warming is and how they need my money and my signature to save the world!!! As a sustaining member (for $60 or more a year) I would receive the Clean Water Action News!!! Wow exciting! And they are going federal!
!!!!!!! You can Save the WORLD DAWG!!!!
Ya know, I wonder if she could tell that I was smiling because the whole thing reminded me of different South Park episodes. Hippies, Action News, Smug, Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow. Sigh... Wish I could have filmed it.
Rob Dawg,
Thanks for the post. As a scientist, it urks me to no end to see how political global warming has become.
Now, if were used so we would stop buying oil from people that hate us, that would be a good thing: I'm pro-nuclear, pro developing a domestic grown fuel (not sold on ethanol, but its a start), and solar. Not from a global warming perspective, but from a long term "how do we live like we want to" perspective.
Got popcorn?
Neil
Million year old ice caps and glaciers are melting. No global warming my ass. That kind of argument is made by people who like to spew CO2 and CO too.
There is no global pollution. Scientists have proved that the Earth is cleaner now than it was 200,000 years ago.
From a rather interesting article I read this morning...
“The notion that a company that creates a problem is exempted from trying to find a solution to that problem is like being in the elephant business but not having anyone in charge of going behind the elephant and cleaning up after it.”
Edgar,
Things are lot cleaner than any time in the last 1000 that's for sure. The icecaps that are melting are a lot younger than a million years. Except "they" aren't melting.
Can you point me to an article about the retraction that credits the blogger? I simply look at the link as a collection of anecdotes. Since you know models so well, how is it possible that a few weather stations can affect a prediction? Just the reasoning alone is suspect. Please pull one over on some unsuspecting right wing ideologue.
So Rob do you think that all models are useless? Do you know what specifically the models predict?
I am very sceptical of you, Rob. If you knew what the particular models predicted, you would not have grounds for such outrage. Because the science of modeling is very useful, but inexact. And rightly, Hansen has not predicted a global catastrophe, but only higher temperature in certain areas. I am guessing that you don't know what you are talking about.
@Lost cause,
Agreed.
@Rob Dawg,
Since you’re presumably more informed on the issue that the IPCC scientists, perhaps you could break it down and provide a Rob Dawg version of this primer for the Exxon Haterz in the house.
@Lost Cause
So because it is 110 degrees in Kansas we now have global warming? What about if we have the coldest winter in a long time, does that mean we have global cooling?
A House of Representatives subcommittee on Energy and Air Policy, that was scheduled to meet Wednesday to discuss global warming, was cancelled due to inclement weather. Inclement weather means it was freezing cold, and snowing bushels in Washington D.C. Committee staffers said the meeting would be rescheduled "at a date and time to be announced later." Perhaps that means when a little more of global warming has taken place.
And it was not only in Washington D.C. Maryville University in St. Louis area cancelled screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm.
I think somebody's brain cells got a little too hot in 110 degree weather....look at the big picture dude.
Sacramento has hot summers. Does anyone know if Casey uses a special non-melting hair wax?
I am seriously embarrassed for Rob for taking up this latest of a never ending list of Republican talking points. I know that Al Gore is not doing any favors for the scientific community where there is consensus concerning anthropomorphic global warming. And I do remember how Al Gore was razzed on a very cold day. Though I think that Rob is no Al Gore, he should be razzed nonetheless.
@Lost Cause
Only an idiot like you would be denying global warming on a day when it is 110 in Kansas.
And it is unusually moderate in San Diego. Nights are unusually chilly. Around 1968, it was in the 80s at night on Mission Bay in November. Last night got into the 60s in August. Day highs where I am are in the mid to high 70s, normally they should mid to high 80s to 90s (we are just north of Mexico), nights in the 80s. Alaska is cooler than normal this time. They are running mid 60s to low 70s in the day @ Fairbanks, AK. Normally they get into the 80s (20+ hours of sunlight does something to the climate during summer. Lovely birds err.. mosquitoes. And now, they are not because of global warming. There are pictures of surveyors in the early 1900's with full mosquito netting). About 2 years ago, Fairbanks reached a record low, -60F. So cold that steaming water thrown into the air does not 'land'. It becomes instant snow and makes a noise in the process. A single local datapoint does not create a map of temperatures.
@Lost Cause
It's always so impressive when amatuer bloggers pick holes in the science of Noble Prize winners.
The part that bothers me more, is that they can do it quite successfully with correct math. In fact, these amateur bloggers end up correcting the Noble Prize winners math. By the way, one of the most notable scientists disagree with AGW. Richard Lindzen, whom AGW proponents contend has sold out. If you know anything about MIT, these guys don't have to answer to anyone except their own reputation. MIT scientists don't sell out, nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing it. old article
The total number is far larger. I would need to get on my other computer that has the logs. The other problem is that many of the proponents of AGW are policy people. They don't explicitly study the physics of meteorology. See the quote here from IPCC.
Recognize that the authors are required to work within strict length constraints and must
present a concise assessment of current knowledge, not a scientific review of how that
knowledge was derived. The report focuses on policy-relevant aspects of climate change
science rather than all science relevant to the climate system.
Search for a sub-phrase of the above.
There is another good quote that I captured on my other computer.. summary: IPCC reserves the right to rewrite the scientists publications to be consistent with the summary. A quick google yielded this. And this.
No scientific paper I know of, puts out the summary 3 months before the discovered data.
NOTE: Interesting thing is the IPCC is not serving up the PDF for AR4 reliably. Here are the google search terms for finding the related info.
@Edgar
Million year old ice caps and glaciers are melting. No global warming my ass. That kind of argument is made by people who like to spew CO2 and CO too.
Humm.. so how come there was no ice on the north pole around 1400AD, yet the ice there was over 1 million years old.. time warp? To assume that white men circumnavigated the world first is just plain arrogant. Polynesians have been sailing large distances for years.
Correct data table:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Acknowledgement:
"(We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Scvore Idiots: 2 Believers: 0
@Lost Cause
Can you point me to an article about the retraction that credits the blogger?
Are you talking about the correction to GIS thermo data, per ?, search on "Stephen McIntyre"..
Steve's site is down for some odd reason. Conspiracy? don't know.
More info.
What should be plain to all of you is that the standard news service is not doing its job. The bloggers are doing a much better job at dispensing accurate news. Case in point: The whole Casey saga and RE bubble. QED!
@Rob Dawg
Looks like you beat me to the response.. got caught in the parser with an unterminated tag.
The claims made by Hansen using his models have nothing to with the attacks made upon him by the global warming sceptics, or critics of a few data points. Would you please say anything that indicates that you know what you are talking about.
@Lost Cause
The claims made by Hansen using his models have nothing to with the attacks made upon him by the global warming sceptics, or critics of a few data points
Two points you must prove here:
1) that the few data points were insignificant.
2) That it was a 'personal attack'.
Neither are supported by statement or references you have made. On point #1, any changes in 6 years of data that throws the entire summary out of whack are not insignificant. On point #2, there was no personal attack. He was informed of his error, correction was made and research continues. Please stop using emotionally slanted statement with scientific discussion.
@Lost Cause
Would you please say anything that indicates that you know what you are talking about.
Oh, by the way, you have not said anything that indicates that you know what you are talking about. My statements have references.. yours??
The claims made by Hansen using his models have nothing to with the attacks made upon him by the global warming sceptics
The attacks on Hansen have in some cases been personal. rightly so. Hansen will not release the process calculations thus denying skeptics the ability to check for other errors. This is Hansen's personal choice, not policy and not scientific.
Hansen has also been prickly in the face of legitimate scientific criticism of the work and often calls these inquiries personal attacks.
, or critics of a few data points.
Ahhh but they are not data points. they are calculations from a secret formula applied to data points. The criticism of the raw data is even more in question but outside the scope of your point. Go to surfacestations.org for an eyeful. Check out the pictures of Sensors surrounded by airconditioners.
Would you please say anything that indicates that you know what you are talking about.
No, that isn't necessary or productive. I've been at this a long time. I know exactly where this is going and it is not going to talk about the flaws in AGW theory the moment it can be turned to an attack on the motives and qualifications of the critics. I even know the next response. No doubt you will make the assumption I do not know what anything about the subject because I refuse to engage in an off topic CV measuring contest.
Science implies that the 'experiment' can be done over and over and over again, reaching results similar under similar circumstances and different under different circumstances (well, brief summary).
since there is just one earth, it will be hard to prove ANYthing on a global scale (unless the show Sliders was not bogus).
in fact, it's impossible. exit scientists (last call from the IPCC-train!) and enter politicians.
Here's a good place to start. As you can see, the only certain claims made by Hansen's 20 year old prediction were that he could only talk with any certainty about surface tempuratures, and mainly about North America. I do not see attacking anything else as relevant though. How much other 20 year old computer modeling is being subjected to similar criticism?
Edgar,
Things are lot cleaner than any time in the last 1000 that's for sure.
You need to quit smoking crack.
My problem is that they are attacking claims that he never even made.
My problem is that they are attacking claims that he never even made.
You mean like the hockey stick? You know the one that shows up with the input of random data, even some data tha otherwise show cooling plateaus? Or the curious ommission of the Mideaval Warming Period from the data set? Or the disproven accustions by Hansen of his being censored? Perhaps it was hansen's “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,”
No? How about when Hansen concluded melting ice caps can flip global warming suddenly into a runaway mode "out of humanity's control" and this would create "an inevitable and devastating sea-level rise." Seen the real sea level data recently?
In 1988, during an extremely hot, dry summer, Dr. James Hansen of NASA told a Senate subcommittee, "with 99% confidence...global warming is affecting our planet now." He went on to say "it is time to stop waffling," and that severe emission controls on carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" should be implemented.
This from 1988. Hansen's computer models showed that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause tremendous temperature increases -- 10-15 degrees F. Care to still stand next to guy?
Hansen is a loose cannon at best.
Who gives a rat's ass about global warming when there's porn Check out this yummy fishnet hottie.
Aside:
Is yummy like gummy
like a gummy bear?
Akubi,
Those eyes! Steel Blue and yet somehow warm. I am so glad that this wonderful stereochemical research scientist has blossomed and grown in the years since I knew her in horn-rims and practical footwear.
P.S. I don't think you'll find the same crossover audience at EN as in months past.
@Rob Dawg
Hansen has also been prickly in the face of legitimate scientific criticism of the work and often calls these inquiries personal attacks.
I think this part is more to the truth on the personal attack issue.
The real problem is that Hansen will not reveal the formula or adjustments being made to the data. In addition, I don't think that he is revealing the original data either. Unfortunately, Hansen is sitting in virtual control of the nexus of such data.
Go to surfacestations.org for an eyeful. Check out the pictures of Sensors surrounded by airconditioners.
Good point.. and sensors on asphalt surfaces.
Here is a , where scientific discourse is being quashed because it does not agree with the pre-determined agenda. Search for the phrase "White vacationing in Canada". Third paragraph from the bottom. You don't drive science by suing those that disagree.
@Lost Cause
That paper is 20 years old, there is much more recent data. In addition, a gridding of 8 degrees by 10 degrees is very coarse. It is stated as a 3 dimensional model, but when your dimensions are about 480 nautical miles by 600 nautical miles with 9 vertical 'layers', it is not really that much of a 3D model. I also saw no reference to topology which definitely has an effect.
The reason why that model is subject to criticism is that it is a bad model and has errors. If you want more info on the climate modeling group, I can give you references and links to more recent models..(would have to power up the other computer). The other problem is.. where is the source for the model-- peer review.
Equilibrium sensitivity of CO2 is defined, not a derived value. In fact the equilibrium sensitivity of CO2 per concentration is dependent on many things, and is not a constant. It has diminishing returns with increased concentration. The other problem is that the value of 4.2C is near the upper end of the range of 3C +/-1.5C estimated by a reference paper.
Climate feedback functions are defined, not discovered or derived. This is a fundamental flaw because the whole point is to discover the amount of feedback due to C02. Estimates for the amount of C02 feedback vary wildly. There is also a fundamental flaw in the estimates for feedback.
Another problem is that it ignores the full lensing effect of water vapor (only estimates on cloud type), and ignores the thermal energy transport by water vapor. Concerns are in the temperature change of 1 or 2 degrees centigrade in water temp (1 Calorie per degree centigrade per cc), but ignoring the energy transport represented with water vapor and condensation (about 1000 Calorie per cc ).
The final problem with the model is that it is based upon a short term weather prediction model that diverges drastically over time. It was a good first pass for 1988. But to use it now is wrong. A lot of the problems with models has to do with use of 'constants' that are estimated, that are really not constants.
The problem with feedback noted earlier is that C02 has a lower global warming feedback effect than H20 itself. One of the contentions of the AGW group is that C02 starts a 'run-away' sequence in H20. The problem with that argument has to do with control theory. If the primary driver (H20) has a higher feedback effect than a secondary driver(C02) and the variability of the primary driver(H20) is significantly higher than the variability of the secondary(C02), then for all intents and purposes, the secondary driver can be ignored. This is because the variability in the primary driver will have caused the system to cross any boundary which would have resulted in a 'run-away' condition before the variability in the secondary system even gets close. This is a basic 'sniff test'.
H20 is known and proven to have a stronger feedback effect on global warming than C02. Concentrations of H20 are known to vary significantly, well beyond a 2x factor being used for C02 variation.
@Akubi
Ok.. umm.. IQ went from over 140 to umm... I forgot.. what were we talking about here?...
I guess the internet is for Porn..
Everything is a coincidence. Four hurricanes in Florida in one year plus Katrina.
Computer models that match exactly patterns and concentrations of greenhouse gases.
All meaningless, because there are a few misplaced weather stations.
Forget listening to academics -- we have politicians manning the think tanks.
If I was running the most profitable industry in the world, that is running the most powerful country in the world, you can bet I could persuade a few brave souls like Rob to stick his neck out and risk all by agreeing with me.
Richard Lindzen Factsheet. Global warming sceptic for $2500 per day.
IQ tests leave you in crazy Montessori schools where you wander about trying to figure out wtf is going on!
Sweet Porn.
@Rob Dawg,
I was born with 20/16 vision yet it has deteriorated to 20/20. No horn-rims here.
Ho Ho Ho - It's Santa Flipper Clause
Santa remembers in the early 1980's all the talk about climate change. Yes, scientists had made computer models and guess what they concluded --- Global cooling, so much so, that they went to the government and said something had to be done.
Santa F. Clause
Forget the fact that LA has major smog, like many other majors cities have now also. Forget that traffic kills and causes asthma and many other associated social medical costs. Forget that it is is poisonous, explosive and flammable material, handled directly by consumers so that the oil companies could fire the lowest paid of workers and make even more money.
Let's ralley around the oil companies, because it is the Republican thing to do.
Everything is a coincidence. Four hurricanes in Florida in one year plus Katrina.
Computer models that match exactly patterns and concentrations of greenhouse gases.
I guess those computer models didn't work out too well in 2006.
Forget the fact that LA has major smog, like many other majors cities have now also.
This is called "change the subject."
Personally, I don't believe ALL oil companies suck, but ExxonMobil is an ethical travesty (as is the Bush Admin, yadda, yadda, same shit we all know).
I'll take the opinion of international scientists over the U.S. circle jerk of B.S., greed and self-serving interests thank you very much.
WTF happened to this country?
Lost Cause said...
Everything is a coincidence. Four hurricanes in Florida in one year plus Katrina.
No, everything is bounded and bracketed by an assigned assumption of chaotic variance. Why is it you fail to mentin the last two years of decreasing notable ewvents in opposition to all predictive models?
Computer models that match exactly patterns and concentrations of greenhouse gases.
No, backtested computer models that largely approximate the imputed concentrations of some GHGs with absolutely no confidence level assigned to independence.
All meaningless, because there are a few misplaced weather stations.
Gosh no. That's the nastiest accusation I've had in a long time. The placement isn't misplaced. That's stupid. "What do mean the station isn't where we said it was?" No the question is what the data say given where the stations are. If I may please beg an indulgence in the internet law of Goodwin. The Nazi were infamous for meticulous recordkeeping. Uncounted thousands og US and other soldiers survived from the knowledge gleaned from thusly tainted datum. "Data" has no tag. The evil is what we do with it.
Forget listening to academics -- we have politicians manning the think tanks.
You have that reversed if you wish to run for the protection of the IPCC.
If I was running the most profitable industry in the world,
Porn?
that is running the most powerful country in the world,
China, signatory to Kyoto?
you can bet I could persuade a few brave souls like Rob to stick his neck out and risk all by agreeing with me.
Gosh mo. I did not vote for his prominent opponent, that is true. I did vote for my local R labeled Congresscritter last time. Does that make any worse than most?
Weather simulation is one of the Grand Challenges. Why spend any computing power on it? Don't you think that prediction using computers is a worthwhile task? We don't have another spare planet. Why are you so troubled with the resultant predictions of global warming? This is not going away, because you change a few data points. It is very much key to climatology nowadays. Deny it all that you want.
Lost Cause asserts;
orget the fact that LA has major smog,
No, I shall not forget this. LA has "extreme" air pollution. It is a tewrm of art. There is no "major' in those spectra. My County by unfortunate virtue has "Severe" status.
you don't even know the terms. Do n't presume to lecture the enlightened.
Richard Lindzen Factsheet. Global warming sceptic for $2500 per day.
Albert Gore Factsheet. Climate change fearmonger for $50,000 per 1/2 hour speech.
Al has quite a racket going on, don't you think? He makes millions on dull speeches and is paid more millions for an equally dull movie. But Al needs that money to fund his private CO2-spewing corporate jets and numerous 20,000-square-foot mansions. Seems to me that if the "crisis" was as severe as Fatty says, he's be walking the walk. Don't you agree?
@ All,
Are you guys talking about hurricanes or fishnets?
Good thing my IQ can follow and my eyes can see.
PS, Global warming is a misnomer if taken literally; it simply means more extreme weather conditions, fiercer storms, more inches of rain, more extreme droughts, colder harsher winters, etc. It is not just referring to warming or climbing temperatures.
Now the up and coming "Pole Shift" would make this conversation irrelevant, not to be a kill joy.
Back to your regularly scheduled scientific debate.
TTFN, as Tigger would say.
I'll take the opinion of international scientists
********************************
DITTO, Akubi.
OK. Honestly, computer models will continue to be used to predict future climate, including the contributions made by human placed greenhouse gasses. Not because any of us think it is a good idea, or not.
So when we don't like the resultant prediction, blame away.
I am sorry to report to you that human caused global climate change aka global warming is now as central to climatology as plate tectonics is to geology or evolution is to biology.
You want recent liturature? How about from the Royal Society, where Darwin and Newton also published?
In the last 4000 years, temperature measurement has been scientifically precise for just about 250 years. Wide spread temperature records have been kept for about half of that time. We are making predictions based on sampling of about one quarter of a percent, which less than significant.
In North America, the Pika is probably our most reliable ecological "canary in the mine". I've personally climbed a particular mountain in the Sierras many times, to be enchanted by the lagomorph (or the offspring). These little guys accumulate about a cubic metre of hay over the summer to last through the winter. And they eat their own faeces to recycle important nutrients. (Eat shit _or_ Die!). Why is this so?. Because warming means they need to be higher, As they live in the scree on mountains, if they can't live below 10,000 feet & they live on a 10,000 ft. mountain, they become extinct.
Actually, It's more complex than stated. If the lags get enough snow to protect them during the winter (without freezing them), & enough moisture in the summer to produce hay-making plants, they they will be OK.
The product of temperature and moisture is the habitability index. Dendrochronology (the tree ring thing) measures ((in some areas for 4000 years) the variability of the habitability index. Confining ourselves to Southern California it seems to indicate that the last 200 years or so have been abnormally mild.
Things to consider: Solar cycle. Precession. Geomorphology.
So what is the man-made component? - ask me in a half-century or four.
So what is the man-made component?
The atmosphere can be examined for various concentration of isotopes, which can be compared to the concentration of the same isotopes in fossil fuels. Unfortunately for the deniers, the news is not good.
Whatever we have done to screw with the plant in the last few thousand years is minor compared to what has happened in the past. And what the future holds is anyones guess but I suspect that our impact will still be minor in the long run.
I don't think we should be stupid about the environment but I also don't think we need to go crazy in reaction to some changes.
@Lost Cause:
Very large earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, & heaven help us, asteroid & comet strikes definitely overshadow the man-made contribution to global greenhouse gas build-up. At least here (California Central Valley) we have harnessed cow farts for energy.
OK, I just received a message from a 'well known' young lady, asking me 'what's my point'.
This planet is a really, really, really large box, with a lot of variability. Our species lives in an extremely small slice of the box. This is our only beautiful blue-green planet.
A massive volcano, or earthquake or celestial visitor could put us out of business. Totally.
In the meantime, spend down as little as possible of the fossil fuel trust-fund & look to that fusion-furnace in the sky for all your energy needs.
And sand has a low nutritional value.
Climate is defined as a minimum 30-year average. Not "We had a hot/cold summer, therefore, there is/isn't global warming."
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/monitor/cal-mon/LATEST_GRAPHICS/TIMESERIES_TMEAN_LAST_STATEWIDE.png
There is a significant trend upward (meaning >95% chance the trend is nonrandom).
The worldwide data over the past 200 years show:
- The climate (>30 year temp. averages) is warming overall.
- The variability in the system is increasing (more heat energy => more entropy).
Does anyone have 1000 km-scale, >100 yr temperature data that show otherwise? I am interested in seeing it.
The snows of Kilimanjaro are almost gone. The polar ice caps are losing area at a never-before-seen rate.
It's not how warm last summer was in Southern California, it's the temperature of the oceans. Marine life once never seen outside the tropics is now found far to the north.
Tell someone in Alaska that the planet isn't warming; they'll laugh you back to the lower 48. They live with it, and it's obvious to everyone. Places that the Inuit have used as hunting grounds for hundreds of years are being claimed by the sea.
It makes no difference if you choose to believe otherwise; it's a fact, and it's really happening. Get used to it.
@Lost Cause: "It's always so impressive when amatuer bloggers pick holes in the science of Noble Prize winners."
Actually, the most dramatic scientific breakthroughs have been by the equivalent of "bloggers" poking holes in the science of "Nobel Prize winners." You see, the Nobel Prize is awarded *after* someone makes a major scientific breakthrough--often well after the fact. So, by definition, it is NON-Nobel Prize winning scientists who can be expected to produce the breakthroughs.
But the fixation with credentials points to a disturbing trend in science: the rise of the psuedo-religion of Progressive Science. "Science", or rather specific sections of science, such as the global climate debate, have become infected with a dogmatism and orthodoxy, where scientists who do not accept the politically mandated doctrine are publicly excommunicated from the scientific community.
Science is built around the understanding that what is proposed are theories that attempt to describe reality, and as such are open to constant questioning, testing, and revision. The disturbing trend has been toward "theories" that are presented as fact, beyond questioning, beyond examination and revision. That's not science, that's religion.
And, of course, behind it all are the political and financial motivations. Global Warming, in particular, has become a tremendous political force, and a gigantic money machine--yes, a money machine, that many people, not just Al Gore, depend on for their livelihood. As such, it's unfortunately not much of a surprise that straightforward questions--such as on the validity of the data or assumptions--is met with such bitter political rhetoric. If the data was sound and the scientific assumptions valid, then they would stand on their own merits, and it wouldn't be necessary to resort to attacks on the credentials or motivations of those who have questions, now, would it?
The snows of Kilimanjaro are almost gone.
You do know that the shrinking icepack on Kilimanjaro has nothing to do with global warming, right?
The Al Gore's of the multi-billion dollar climate change industry like to trot out "the snows of Kilimanjaro" because people know of it from that Toto song and it sounds pretty. "SUV's killed Kilimanjaro!"
It's a shame what the ecotards have done. We could have had most of our power generated by nice clean safe nuclear energy by now, but the ecotards put a stop to it. We should have taken the lesson from France (80% of their power from nuclear) and told the ecotards to pound sand.
@Lou Minatti: "We could have had most of our power generated by nice clean safe nuclear energy by now, but the ecotards put a stop to it."
I'm with you on that one. The fearmongering by eco-activists when it comes to nuclear power has been absolutely shameful. Nuclear waste has become the ultimate bogeyman, the shadowy figure that the anti-nuclear power lobby can invoke to inspire fear among the general public.
The problem is that environmental activists don't want a solution to the problem of dependency on fossil fuels--they want *their* solution to the problem of dependency on fossil fuels, which is to reduce the population (other than themselves, presumably) and to reduce consumption to subsistence levels (other than their own level of consumption, presumably.)
One positive effect of the run-up in oil prices is that it the general public has become more open to a wider range of solutions to the problem of fossil fuel dependence--including, much to the environmental activists' displeasure, nuclear power.
You're right, a couple numbers got screwed up, so let's just forget the whole thing. All the other numbers about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere are wrong too. ALL of them, we don't even need to check.
In fact, C02 doesn't even affect global heat at all! Venus is actually a balmy 80 degrees Farenheit, those numbers were wrong also. Just remember, we'll never run out of oil, which means we'll never run out of plastic, which means we'll never run out of places to put the plastic.
And yes, those massive chunks of Greenland and Antarctica that are just gone are perfectly natural things that happen all the time; the ice gets wanderlust and wants to go see the world. We just haven't noticed it happening before because our math was so bad.
Jon,
It is a lot more serious than a few numbers getting screwed up. What happened last week was enough to shift the 1990s from a trend confirmation to below the level of significance within normal distributions.
The impact of CO2 concentrations is not understood. Dependence has not even been ruled out. Seems Venus might be warmer because of the Sun which also causes algae. Oh gee, Venus is warmer because of the Sun but the Earth is warmer because of Hummers.
Both Greenland and Antartica are land masses. The land hasn't been changing. Perhaps in your haste towards a conclusion you skipped over the recent facts concerning accumulation at the higher levels at both places?
GW is significantly less understood than those who are selling and would profit from the "solution" would have us believe.
Beware of those selling fear, for their solutions always include power and profit for the salesmen.
Can we just blame global warming on nouveau hippies like Casey and their wheat grass? We all know how it makes one very gassy and that kind of C02 is not good for anyone, including the planet!
Seriously, I am on the fence regarding Global Warming. I need more data...
@Rob Dawg
Perhaps in your haste towards a conclusion you skipped over the recent facts concerning accumulation at the higher levels at both places?
They also forget that it often takes on the order of thousands of years for the snow in the central area to make it to the edge of glaciers. Too inconvenient for their want-it-now attitude.
Hum.. glacial pace.. I wonder what glacial means in this usage...
@Funny Circus Bears
Beware of those selling fear, for their solutions always include power and profit for the salesmen.
Amen! Hitler proposed the solution to the economic crisis in Germany was the persecution of the Jews.. after all, they had money and everyone else didn't.. stands to logic that they are the cause.. right? Besides, getting rid of the Jews gave the 'true Germans' more living space..
Amazing what you can justify using fear.
@Dolph
Umm.. the type of gassy you are talking about is Methane (CH4), which incidentally is a greenhouse gas.
I don't understand the willingness of people who claim to love nature and back to basics and simple lives embracing some of the most arcane technicalities of sparse matrix data handling formulae. Cafeteria Conservationism.
Yes and this just in smoking does not cause cancer. Just relax, we have unlimited oil and burning it day and night for the rest of eternity will not harm the Earth.
BJ, I was being dumb on purpose...guess I should have intimated that. Oh well...so much for my imitation of Casey.
"There is no global pollution. Scientists have proved that the Earth is cleaner now than it was 200,000 years ago"
Who cares 200,000 years ago there were no humans. 13,000 years ago Chicago was under a glacier. There are warming and cooling events, I jus tlike to keep the climate stable since we now have all these cities and farms and a huge population.
Will - bad news. There ain't nothing humans can do to keep the climate stable. It never has been. I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could destabilize it, but given the natural swings one would suspect that great caution is necessary before choosing to meddle with an oscillating system.
Lost Cause - you seem confused between the fact that there is more CO2 in the air. More CO2 in the atmosphere does not automatically mean that the global temperature is rising. Nor does it mean that CO2 caused any temperature rise. There is not necessarily a correlation. I have come to the belief that you really don't understand the science. Are you a climate scientist? I have read the most amazing non-scientific crap from a couple of them.
I do associate with some scientists, and it's amazing what they say about SOME climate scientists. A lot of this is laughable. Now the faked analyses and undetected errors do not make the case that CO2 isn't a climate driver, but as far as science goes, one is expected to produce evidence before a hypothesis becomes regarded as a theory. That is the lacking step here. When it was proposed it was a good, rational hypothesis. Then earlier data gave it more credibility. But recent data, such as cooling oceans, other planets warming in the solar system, and the CO2/temp lag in the ice core studies (CO2 appears to have risen AFTER temperature rises historically) make it far less plausible a hypothesis. One is expected to come up with evidence rather than to rail at those who refuse to believe in garbage statistical artifacts which have been demonstrated to be garbage statistical artifacts.
I am sure you are right we can pump unlimited amounts of carbon into the air and there will be no adverse effects. I don't even know why we are researching it.
I am sure you are right we can pump unlimited amounts of carbon into the air and there will be no adverse effects. I don't even know why we are researching it.
Straw man argument..
1) Oversimplification of a person's argument into a simple analogy which then can be attacked.
First let me say I have never been convinced by the Global Warming argument. Second, someone here (UK) pointed out that it has only become big news now that all the political parties have "jumped on the bandwagon" and are trying to out-green each other. Third, why is it that if the builder who is constructing the extension to your house wants the money up front, he is a cowboy, but if the government wants money up front for something (that they aren't even sure of the size of the problem) it's OK? Fourth, given the coming credit problems and financial situation, I can foresee a time when the choice for the taxpayer will be between healthcare, state pension and green initiatives and I know which will end up as priority 3 out of those.
@Dolph: "Seriously, I am on the fence regarding Global Warming. I need more data..."
That's how I feel as well. All the questions about the validity of the data are a strong indicator that it's too early to draw definitive conclusions. The vast majority of the data is from the populated areas of the North American landmass, a tiny fraction of the globe, and that's being extrapolated out to the entire planet?
In any case, the Global Warming hysteria isn't necessary to be motivated to make sensible changes, like reducing use of fossil fuels, reducing wasteful use of natural resources, preserving wilderness areas, etc. I'll be happy to do what I can to that end, but the Global Warming propaganda machine isn't getting any of my money or support, not as long as they continue to use fearmongering tactics and continue to twist the scientific process to meet their own needs.
It's a religion.
Dissent will not be tolerated.
If you accepted money for travel expenses from an oil company over 15 years ago, then somehow you must still be working directly for them.
You can thank organizations such as CARB for the relative inefficiency of U.S. vehicles.
They've done their best to block efficient diesel passenger vehicles here in the U.S.
And be sure to thank anti-nuclear activists for the next mountain that gets leveled to get at the coal within it.
Post a Comment