It's a forum. People pipe in and out, that's how it works.
I don't think you're wrong that education (in your context of the word) is important to advance a cause. That said, I think my point in claiming that your "education" attempts here are a waste of time was also really valid and should be read by all supporters of this cause as such.
For your last point, my viewpoint is outnumbered here. It's not some "feeling", it's reality. And that's OK, I'm still here, aren't I? But, to pretend that it's not, is silly. I've said it before, this place is not a sample of the real world. It's heavily tilted to one side. Those who think otherwise are lying to themselves.
dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...
and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...
and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...
We didn't know soda was bad for you? Then why did they bother inventing DIET Coke? Seems like a colosal marketing misstep. We didn't know fast food was bad for you?
These fact were widely known. And the problem is getting worse. Not better. And, to me this is a bigger problem than the other stuff. Who cares if the planet exists if we're all sitting around like the folks on The Axiom (the mother ship from Wall-E)? How can you expect people to care for the environment when they don't even care for themselves?
after time ... similar to cigarettes ... we didn't know as consumers originally that smoking was bad and that eating bad food was harmful ... it took time ... they didn't release diet coke at the same time as coke ... and we didn't start putting labels on cigarettes until much later ... global warming has to go thru the same learning process ...
dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...
and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...
and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...
OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.
OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.
bitterness won't get you anywhere ... haha ... embrace this forum for what it is ... an exchange of thoughts and beliefs ... no one is gonna change the world here ... we're just talking ... nothing wrong with that ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
Jeanwah, you make a good point here I've hesitated to state outright:
"I'm convinced that the deniers simply insist on spending their time on the argument, rather than admitting they could do things that would not only help the environment but also save themselves energy and money."
I think the same thing sometimes and I hope I'm wrong because if this is just a practice in arguing we're wasting our time. For those of you who have differing opinions on global warming than mine I want you to know this: I'm not here just to argue. This isn't about ego for me and I do not have a personal bias against you. I am against global warming and the powers that continue to ignore the problem but I am not against you personally. Just last night my wife and I had dinner with a friend who told me for the hundreth time, "global warming is a farce- yes "farce"- that was her word. We may never agree on this issue but I would never turn my back on her- ever. She is one of my very best friends.
Let's get off the endless debate. If you really don't believe the earth is warming at least give those of us who do credit for trying to do something to clean up the planet so your kids and grandkids will have a planet worth living on rather than a hot stinking junk yard of a planet gasping for air. Every good thing you do for this earth will help.
I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.
I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...
and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...
and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...
OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.
What rubbish, man. You haven't got the slightest idea how much work I do OFF the computer to do what I can to decrease my impact on global warming, educate myself on the topic and work with other on this issue. This is just another bating, childish attack. Can't you find something more constructive to do with your time?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
Other than renewable energy, I'm not sure what else to do. But I find it exciting to see new advances in many fields like wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power.
Also, I recall learning about some of these things in school, but it was never taken seriously back in the 80's and 90's. It will be very important that we educate kids these days about these things and get them interested in careers in science and engineering. I hope that a push for these things creates some new jobs and successful companies. I know here in Florida, there is a lot of research going into hydroelectric power from the gulf stream, which could be a huge potential for our state (we need a lot of a/c here!). Also growing algae for fuel is starting to take off all over florida.
I have done a few interviews with people in these fields for an educational science series that I produce, and we have received a lot of great feedback from teachers all over the country. Our focus is to get kids interested in the sciences... and renewable energy (although not in a lot of school curriculums), definitely holds their attention.
dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...
and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...
and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...
OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.
What rubbish, man. You haven't got the slightest idea how much work I do OFF the computer to do what I can to decrease my impact on global warming, educate myself on the topic and work with other on this issue. This is just another bating, childish attack. Can't you find something more constructive to do with your time?
Just because I disagree with you, does not make my point of view rubbish, man.
What I do know is what you do ON the computer here at this forum. You're right, I don't know what you do off the computer. But, I know you spend a lot of time hear preaching (to what I consider) the choir, which doesn't seem "constructive" way to spend your time (to quote you). I think you could do more for this cause by getting off of the device that, according to you, is contributing to global warming.
P.S. PM'ing me about ignoring my posts because I disagree with you... is childish, and supports my underlying point. Some here are certainly not tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Instead, they just want conversate with a select few that think exactly like them, and may be able to deal with several who don't confront them, when they step into their hypocritical bubble.
P.P.S. If you want to ignore someones posts, just do it. Don't PM them about it.
I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.
I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
I do not mean any of it as a personal attack. I am sorry I came across that way. My last point is for effect - there's irony in what you are saying. The last 2 sentences are meant to highlight that in a different way. I definitely see how one can feel attacked by that, and I'm sorry. When I'm talking amongst friends (I realize quite a leap here) that is how we speak. It's taken for what it's meant to be. But, we don't know each other, and I apologize for not editing myself as such.
However, I have been joining in the discussion, those small phrases aside. We are basically agreeing about intent and disagreeing on how to go about it.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
Other than renewable energy, I'm not sure what else to do. But I find it exciting to see new advances in many fields like wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power.
Also, I recall learning about some of these things in school, but it was never taken seriously back in the 80's and 90's. It will be very important that we educate kids these days about these things and get them interested in careers in science and engineering. I hope that a push for these things creates some new jobs and successful companies. I know here in Florida, there is a lot of research going into hydroelectric power from the gulf stream, which could be a huge potential for our state (we need a lot of a/c here!). Also growing algae for fuel is starting to take off all over florida.
I have done a few interviews with people in these fields for an educational science series that I produce, and we have received a lot of great feedback from teachers all over the country. Our focus is to get kids interested in the sciences... and renewable energy (although not in a lot of school curriculums), definitely holds their attention.
algae is definitely worth investigating some more ... i guess there isn't a huge corporate algae lobby - otherwise, we'd have huge subsidies and tax breaks for it ...
brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...
You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...
You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.
brianlux ... leave these two guys to me ... hahahaha ... they think reagan was great - so, it's always gonna be an uphill battle ...
You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.
right ... trickle down economics ... :?
We've totally derailed this thread. But, how could that theory be proven OR debunked when 4 years later the policies changed? Was the middle class doing better in 1988 or 2011?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
We've totally derailed this thread. But, how could that theory be proven OR debunked when 4 years later the policies changed? Was the middle class doing better in 1988 or 2011?
yeah ... feel free to make your case in the reagan thread ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
I believe me and another member of the board have been the ones making the point - who cares about the global warming argument, let's just find a way to stop the obvious damage whether it's causing global warming or not. Yet, you 2 continue that argument and go further saying WE want the argument. Too funny. You should read yourself sometime. It's quite amusing.
I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
I do not mean any of it as a personal attack. I am sorry I came across that way. My last point is for effect - there's irony in what you are saying. The last 2 sentences are meant to highlight that in a different way. I definitely see how one can feel attacked by that, and I'm sorry. When I'm talking amongst friends (I realize quite a leap here) that is how we speak. It's taken for what it's meant to be. But, we don't know each other, and I apologize for not editing myself as such.
However, I have been joining in the discussion, those small phrases aside. We are basically agreeing about intent and disagreeing on how to go about it.
Thank you for clarification! I'm sorry I mis-understood. Discussing is so much better than arguing and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful post here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The high cost of inaction
Filed under: Greenhouse gases— Jim @ 14 October 2011
In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation of seven “stabilization wedges” over the next 50 years. The idea was very simple: each wedge represented one in-hand technology or societal practice that could be implemented, relatively slowly at first and increasing linearly with time, to make a small but growing dent in the rise in CO2 emissions, stabilizing them at 2004 levels (about 7 Gigatons C/Year) over the next 50 years (see figure below).
These seven wedges would be chosen from among a larger set of fifteen possibilities that included standard mitigation approaches such as increased energy efficiencies in vehicles and buildings, carbon capture at coal plants, nuclear power increases, and reduced deforestation and agricultural tillage-based losses. These practices would collectively buy time while larger scale transformations to renewable energies on a global scale could be developed and implemented that would drive emissions to zero over the following 50 years. This drastic emissions drop in the second 50 year period requires an immediate start on the research needed to develop and implement these technologies five to ten decades out, and the wedges themselves require a deliberate and committed effort, starting now.
A couple of weeks ago, Socolow updated this work in a brief commentary piece to show where we are seven years later. The results are not encouraging. First, and most significant, rather than decreasing the emissions rate, the lack of implementation of these strategies has been accompanied by an accelerated rate of emissions, such that annual CO2 output is now just under 9 Gt C/yr, a 2 Gt/yr increase. Accounting for natural sequestration, this represents an increase of about 13-14 ppm CO2 over that time. But this is not the full story by any means. As Socolow notes, if we re-set the clock to 2011 and start the wedge strategy implementation now, it would now take nine wedges implemented at the proposed rate of the original seven, to accomplish the same goal (keeping emission rates constant over the next 50 years).
The stabilization wedge concept, circa 2004 vs 2011
Here is the real kicker however. Even if we were to do so, starting today, with stable emissions for 50 years and then falling gradually from there to zero emissions over the following 50 years, an additional ~50 ppm of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2111, relative to what would have been added had the seven wedge strategy been initiated in 2004. This equates to a roughly 0.5 W/sq m forcing increase, and a ~0.4 degree C global temperature increase, assuming an equilibrium sensitivity of 3 deg C per CO2 doubling and that the additional 50 ppm is added on top of the increase that would have occurred even if the 2004 wedge strategy had in fact been initiated. In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.
So are we ready to begin that now, and the research needed for the drastic drops from 2061 to 2111 that the strategy requires, or will we be repeating this same story in 2018, with a couple more wedges required, and another 50 ppm or more likely in the pipeline and no commitment to the needed advanced technologies?
You can read more about it, and commentary on it from some influential folks, here, here, and here.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).
Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 18.50 BST
The world is getting warmer, countering the doubts of climate change sceptics about the validity of some of the scientific evidence, according to the most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, found several key issues that sceptics claim can skew global warming figures had no meaningful effect.
The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.
This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said.
"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues."
Muller sought to cool the debate over climate change by creating the largest open database of temperature records, with the aim of producing a transparent and independent assessment of global warming.
The initial reluctance of government groups to release all their methods and data, and the fiasco over emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in 2009, gave the project added impetus.
The team, which includes Saul Perlmutter, joint winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, has submitted four papers to the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describe their work to date.
Going public with results before they are peer-reviewed is not standard practice, but Muller said the decision to circulate the papers before publication was part a long-standing academic tradition of sanity-checking results with colleagues.
"We will get much more feedback from making these papers public before publication," he said.
Climate sceptics have criticised official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are poor quality and that data are tweaked by hand.
However, the Berkeley study found that the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises. This is because urban regions make up less than 1% of the Earth's land area. And while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
"We have looked at these issues in a straightforward, transparent way, and based on that, I would expect legitimate sceptics to feel their issues have been addressed," Muller said.
Nevertheless, one prominent US climate sceptic, Anthony Watts, claimed to have identified a "basic procedural error" concerning time periods used in the research, and urged the authors to revise the paper.
Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming.
"Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive.
"As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers."
"As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury."
Peter Thorne at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways.
"Openness and transparency is a must, particularly now with climate change being so politicised, but more to the point, with the huge socioeconomic decisions that rest on it."
Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA who was at the centre of the Climategate incident, said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."
The Berkeley Earth project has been attacked by some climate bloggers, who point out that one of the funders runs Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "financial kingpin of climate science denial".
Muller points out the project is organised under the auspices of Novim, a Santa Barbara-based nonprofit organisation that uses science to find answers to the most pressing issues facing society and to publish them "without advocacy or agenda".
Other donors include the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (funded by Bill Gates), and the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Lab. The next phase of the project will focus on warming trends in the oceans.
Some scientists were critical of the project and Muller's decision to release the papers before they had been peer reviewed.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at Exeter University said: "These studies seem to confirm the global warming estimated from the existing datasets, which is pleasing but not exactly a surprise to those of us who know how carefully the existing datasets are put together.
"It is surprising, however, that the authors believe that this news is so significant that they can't wait for peer review, especially when their conclusions aren't exactly revolutionary."
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).
Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 18.50 BST
The world is getting warmer, countering the doubts of climate change sceptics about the validity of some of the scientific evidence, according to the most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date.
Going public with results before they are peer-reviewed is not standard practice,
First, I don't think anyone has doubted we're in a period of the earth warming. We've had ice ages, and we've come out of ice ages. The temperatures on the Earth have been warming and cooling for millions of years.
I do find it interesting they took the tact of publishing something before it's peer reviewed.
The point of contention is the cause of global warming and the economic impact of blindly following certain assumptions without worrying about other real world issues vs what you are really "solving."
Another good use of Bill Gates' money. Why doesn't he just give his wealth as taxes or pay off a bunch of people's college loans instead of wasting it on meaningless studies, so the OWS folks can go home?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The Bizarre World of Radical Climate Science
By Norman Rogers
Imagine that you are a climate scientist and the Earth is threatened with a climate disaster. You need to warn the people of Earth and lobby Earth's governments. If you are tired of poring over boring computer printouts, you may be only too ready to accept this mission of transcendent importance.
On the other hand, maybe you have lost touch with reality. Maybe you have become a true believer fighting a dubious battle. Maybe you are Dr. James Hansen, high civil servant, recipient of cash awards from left-wing foundations, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen was arrested in front of the White House, dressed up to look like J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 1950s scientific martyr. Hansen wants CEOs of energy companies to be prosecuted for "crimes against humanity."
When scientists are fanatical believers in a cause, the authority and credibility that attach to science are turned into political capital to be spent in pursuit of that cause.
The late Stephen Schneider, Stanford climate scientist, explained how this works:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
Global warming catastrophism is convenient for climate science. It is simplistic to claim that climate scientists are making up the global warming scare in order to promote research funding. But global warming catastrophism clearly does promote research funding. So there is a convenient congruence between catastrophism and the bureaucratic ambitions of research establishments.
Climate science deals with the energy balance of the Earth and the behavior of the atmosphere. This is a very complicated system involving convection, evaporation, precipitation, clouds, ocean heat storage, reflection, and emission of radiation, and more. Although scientific understanding of the system has advanced, especially with the advent of computers and satellites, the system is still quite mysterious in important respects. It's not at all clear that climate science will ever advance to a point where long-range predictions can be trusted, or, as they say, demonstrate skill.
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it. As a result, CO2 has been slowly increasing. Increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will probably exert a warming influence because CO2 has an inhibiting effect on the outgoing infrared (heat) radiation that cools the Earth. Nearly everyone, skeptic or believer, agrees with these basic facts. Another basic fact that the purveyors of global warming like to keep quiet about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow much better with less water. That's because plants in general struggle to extract the scant CO2 in the air.
What is controversial is how much warming can be expected and whether the warming will create practical problems. The evidence supporting substantial warming (i.e., 3 degrees C) is output from bad computer models. It's said that dogs come to resemble their masters. Computer models tend to reflect the aspirations of their creators.
The global warming promoters try to hang all kinds of supplementary disasters on their proposed 3-degree warming over a century. This is even more dubious than the warming itself. Some of their claims are absurd, such as the suggestion that the oceans are going to rise substantially, a claim for which there is zero credible evidence. The data has been running against the theories of global warming. The atmosphere has failed to warm since 1998, and, more importantly, the upper ocean has failed to warm since 2003.
The idea that we are on the verge of a climate disaster caused by modern civilization is a romantic idea that appeals to people who have lost traditional religion. It's another iteration of the environmentalist dogma that civilization is ruining the earth. It's a Garden of Eden story. Anyone can see that the landscape of areas where industry and technology dominate nature, like Germany or New Jersey, is in far better condition than the landscape is in most third-world countries -- countries that lack evil industry and that practice the precious local small-scale agriculture so loved by the ideologues who want remake the economy to prevent global warming. The idea that the Earth would be a paradise without civilization is contradicted by the wild climate swings that we know have taken place in recent geological time. Ice sheets a mile thick retreated from much of North America 10,000 years ago.
The reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) are often taken as the authoritative last word on climate change. These reports are are disorganized and unfocused. As a result, most people go no further than the introductory Summary for Policy Makers. If you dig deep into the reports, solid scientific support for the claims of impending catastrophe is not there. Computer models are the shaky foundation of global warming. Models from different modeling groups disagree with each other by wide margins. As the IPCC admits, the models have serious deficiencies. The IPCC uses misleading graphical illustrations to make it appear that the models can accurately mimic the Earth's climate.
The CO2 reduction proposals of the global warming gang are relentlessly ideological and impractical. CO2-free nuclear power supplies 80% of France's electricity and 20% of the electricity in the U.S. Nuclear fuel is very cheap, and vast supplies are available. The real problem with nuclear is that environmentalist groups have run a hysterical anti-nuclear campaign for the last 50 years. A reversal now would be a severe blow to their credibility. So, instead of nuclear, the global warming gang proposes that we use solar power and wind power, technologies that can cost 10 times more per kilowatt-hour. They don't seem to understand that solar doesn't work when a cloud blocks the sun or at night, and wind doesn't work when the wind isn't blowing. As a consequence, solar and wind need to be backed up by fossil fuel or hydro plants with spinning generators ready to quickly assume the load of the grid. People who are ignorant concerning engineering or science may accept the notion that wind and solar are realistic sources of electricity. It is more difficult to explain why the government is dumping billions of dollars into these technologies, both in the form of cash and in the form of mandates that shift the cost to electricity users.
Many scientists may have a predilection for green fashion -- for example, backyard compost heaps, organic food, bicycles, solar panels, or giant wind turbines. Nobody cares. But it is wrong to misuse the authority and credibility of science to scare the rest of us into embracing the green lifestyle.
Norman Rogers is a physicist and a Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute. He maintains a website: http://www.climateviews.com.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Watch Out for Science Reporting
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project today released some information about their research. Judith Curry, one of the co-authors, reports this here. The BBC has a story here, and the Economist reports it here.
These stories both play out as “the CO2-forced AGW model is confirmed,” which is a whole lot stronger than the actual results.
The BEP papers say that by re-analyzing existing temperature records, they get a close match to other temperature analyses of global average surface temperature for the last 200 or so years. This isn’t a big surprise: that fits what Wegman and others reported — agreement on warming over the last 400 years, but less clarity on temperatures 1000 years ago or more.
This is not in itself a confirmation of AGW.
I know I’ve said this before, but let’s just repeat: to confirm the CO2-forced AGW hypothesis, you need several steps:
•There must have been warming.
•That warming must be unusual.
•There must be a mechanism proposed for that unusual warming, and there must be a falsifiable way of confirming that mechanism.
•That mechanism has to be the result of human action.
•That human action has to be unusual release of CO2.
All we have here is confirmation of warming, the first step. This has been by far the strongest part of this chain and has been for a long time. It’s already well established — as I’ve said before, we know there’s been warming since the Little Ice Age — that’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.
There is one fairly unusual aspect to this, that the authors have put on a big PR effort for papers that haven’t been peer-reviewed or published in the formal literature. Here’s something I wrote on Google+:
The press embargo on this lifts today at noon Pacific time. I suspect there will be pretty widespread media coverage on this, with both sides of the debate spinning this to suit their purposes. I have had queries from several journalists, to whom I probably did not provide any usable sound bites. Lets see how it plays out.
As I was invited by The Economist to comment publicly, I would recommend rejecting Muller et al in the current form and suggest that it be resubmitted with meaningful and appropriate 30 year comparisons for the same time periods used by the Menne et al and Fall et al cited papers. I would be happy to review the paper again at that time.
I also believe it would be premature and inappropriate to have a news article highlighting the conclusions of this paper until such time meaningful data comparisons are produced and the paper passes peer review. Given the new techniques from BEST, there may be much to gain from a rework of the analysis limited to identical thirty year periods used in Menne et al and Fall et al.
Watts had been asked to review one of the papers, which was a follow-on to the site quality work he’s led over the last several years. He found some significant errors, and submitted his reviews just a few days ago; those errors weren’t corrected before the PR push.
Lesson: Be cautious about the reporting of a scientific paper that hasn’t been published yet, and be doubly cautious about how a paper is reported when it’s a politically sensitive topic.
Posted at 8:39 pm on October 20th, 2011 by
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Comments
dude ... no one is saying otherwise ... you are the one telling me that my typing is a waste of time ... yet you then say its a forum and people should be able to pipe in and out ... which is what i'm doing ...
and again - who says its reflective of the real world!?? ... no one is disagreeing with you ... it's like you have this chip on your shoulder about it and you constantly have to share it ...
and i don't think my education attempts are a waste of time ... lots of people follow threads ... not all post ... if we can get one person to educate themselves on GW ... it will be more than worth it ...
after time ... similar to cigarettes ... we didn't know as consumers originally that smoking was bad and that eating bad food was harmful ... it took time ... they didn't release diet coke at the same time as coke ... and we didn't start putting labels on cigarettes until much later ... global warming has to go thru the same learning process ...
OK. We can agree to disagree. I wish you and brianlux luck in your collective mission to rid the world of GW with post at a time here on the MT.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
bitterness won't get you anywhere ... haha ... embrace this forum for what it is ... an exchange of thoughts and beliefs ... no one is gonna change the world here ... we're just talking ... nothing wrong with that ...
I appreciate very much your view that it is important to find ways to "stop the obvious damage". But I'm sorry you think I'm being a commedian here. I mean it when I say I'm through arguing with you or anyone else about global warming. Like I said earlier- the lines seem to have been drawn. I always hope to be able to convince people that gloabl warming is real and we are responsible for the majority of it but I see no reason to argue that point endlessly with the same people. At this point, I want to move on and discuss ways in which we can, as you say, stop the damage. Rather than join in on that discussion, you chose to make another personal attack on me- not that this hurts my feelings or anything- I just find it vindictive and a waste of all our time. I'm done with this arguemnt.
OK, can we move on to discussing ways to stop the damage?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What rubbish, man. You haven't got the slightest idea how much work I do OFF the computer to do what I can to decrease my impact on global warming, educate myself on the topic and work with other on this issue. This is just another bating, childish attack. Can't you find something more constructive to do with your time?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Other than renewable energy, I'm not sure what else to do. But I find it exciting to see new advances in many fields like wind, solar, biomass, and hydroelectric power.
Also, I recall learning about some of these things in school, but it was never taken seriously back in the 80's and 90's. It will be very important that we educate kids these days about these things and get them interested in careers in science and engineering. I hope that a push for these things creates some new jobs and successful companies. I know here in Florida, there is a lot of research going into hydroelectric power from the gulf stream, which could be a huge potential for our state (we need a lot of a/c here!). Also growing algae for fuel is starting to take off all over florida.
I have done a few interviews with people in these fields for an educational science series that I produce, and we have received a lot of great feedback from teachers all over the country. Our focus is to get kids interested in the sciences... and renewable energy (although not in a lot of school curriculums), definitely holds their attention.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/200 ... -the-gate/
Just because I disagree with you, does not make my point of view rubbish, man.
What I do know is what you do ON the computer here at this forum. You're right, I don't know what you do off the computer. But, I know you spend a lot of time hear preaching (to what I consider) the choir, which doesn't seem "constructive" way to spend your time (to quote you). I think you could do more for this cause by getting off of the device that, according to you, is contributing to global warming.
P.S. PM'ing me about ignoring my posts because I disagree with you... is childish, and supports my underlying point. Some here are certainly not tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Instead, they just want conversate with a select few that think exactly like them, and may be able to deal with several who don't confront them, when they step into their hypocritical bubble.
P.P.S. If you want to ignore someones posts, just do it. Don't PM them about it.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I do not mean any of it as a personal attack. I am sorry I came across that way. My last point is for effect - there's irony in what you are saying. The last 2 sentences are meant to highlight that in a different way. I definitely see how one can feel attacked by that, and I'm sorry. When I'm talking amongst friends (I realize quite a leap here) that is how we speak. It's taken for what it's meant to be. But, we don't know each other, and I apologize for not editing myself as such.
However, I have been joining in the discussion, those small phrases aside. We are basically agreeing about intent and disagreeing on how to go about it.
algae is definitely worth investigating some more ... i guess there isn't a huge corporate algae lobby - otherwise, we'd have huge subsidies and tax breaks for it ...
You see the difference is everyone knows deep down Reagan did great things for the country and the world (Mr. Gorbachev - tear down that wall). Wish I could say the same for your guys' religion.
right ... trickle down economics ... :?
We've totally derailed this thread. But, how could that theory be proven OR debunked when 4 years later the policies changed? Was the middle class doing better in 1988 or 2011?
yeah ... feel free to make your case in the reagan thread ...
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What a nice way to end a Friday.
A toast... *clink* ...!! :thumbup: Thanks, man, that's great!
But watch yer back Tuesday!!
By the way, what are drinking? I'm having my latest favorite, one o' them yuppy beers, Fat Tire!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Brooklyn Pennant Ale '55 or as Jay Z would say Bolyn :?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -inaction/
The high cost of inaction
Filed under: Greenhouse gases— Jim @ 14 October 2011
In 2004 Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow published a paper in Science in which they argued that a pragmatic, but still difficult, way of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels over the long term was via the implementation of seven “stabilization wedges” over the next 50 years. The idea was very simple: each wedge represented one in-hand technology or societal practice that could be implemented, relatively slowly at first and increasing linearly with time, to make a small but growing dent in the rise in CO2 emissions, stabilizing them at 2004 levels (about 7 Gigatons C/Year) over the next 50 years (see figure below).
These seven wedges would be chosen from among a larger set of fifteen possibilities that included standard mitigation approaches such as increased energy efficiencies in vehicles and buildings, carbon capture at coal plants, nuclear power increases, and reduced deforestation and agricultural tillage-based losses. These practices would collectively buy time while larger scale transformations to renewable energies on a global scale could be developed and implemented that would drive emissions to zero over the following 50 years. This drastic emissions drop in the second 50 year period requires an immediate start on the research needed to develop and implement these technologies five to ten decades out, and the wedges themselves require a deliberate and committed effort, starting now.
A couple of weeks ago, Socolow updated this work in a brief commentary piece to show where we are seven years later. The results are not encouraging. First, and most significant, rather than decreasing the emissions rate, the lack of implementation of these strategies has been accompanied by an accelerated rate of emissions, such that annual CO2 output is now just under 9 Gt C/yr, a 2 Gt/yr increase. Accounting for natural sequestration, this represents an increase of about 13-14 ppm CO2 over that time. But this is not the full story by any means. As Socolow notes, if we re-set the clock to 2011 and start the wedge strategy implementation now, it would now take nine wedges implemented at the proposed rate of the original seven, to accomplish the same goal (keeping emission rates constant over the next 50 years).
The stabilization wedge concept, circa 2004 vs 2011
Here is the real kicker however. Even if we were to do so, starting today, with stable emissions for 50 years and then falling gradually from there to zero emissions over the following 50 years, an additional ~50 ppm of CO2 would be added to the atmosphere by 2111, relative to what would have been added had the seven wedge strategy been initiated in 2004. This equates to a roughly 0.5 W/sq m forcing increase, and a ~0.4 degree C global temperature increase, assuming an equilibrium sensitivity of 3 deg C per CO2 doubling and that the additional 50 ppm is added on top of the increase that would have occurred even if the 2004 wedge strategy had in fact been initiated. In other words, seven years of inaction, even if we immediately begin implementing the strategy now and fully carry it out over the next century, have larger climatic consequences over the next century than one might expect.
So are we ready to begin that now, and the research needed for the drastic drops from 2061 to 2111 that the strategy requires, or will we be repeating this same story in 2018, with a couple more wedges required, and another 50 ppm or more likely in the pipeline and no commitment to the needed advanced technologies?
You can read more about it, and commentary on it from some influential folks, here, here, and here.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns
Independent investigation of the key issues sceptics claim can skew global warming figures reports that they have no real effect
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 18.50 BST
The world is getting warmer, countering the doubts of climate change sceptics about the validity of some of the scientific evidence, according to the most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, found several key issues that sceptics claim can skew global warming figures had no meaningful effect.
The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.
This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said.
"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues."
Muller sought to cool the debate over climate change by creating the largest open database of temperature records, with the aim of producing a transparent and independent assessment of global warming.
The initial reluctance of government groups to release all their methods and data, and the fiasco over emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in 2009, gave the project added impetus.
The team, which includes Saul Perlmutter, joint winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, has submitted four papers to the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describe their work to date.
Going public with results before they are peer-reviewed is not standard practice, but Muller said the decision to circulate the papers before publication was part a long-standing academic tradition of sanity-checking results with colleagues.
"We will get much more feedback from making these papers public before publication," he said.
Climate sceptics have criticised official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are poor quality and that data are tweaked by hand.
However, the Berkeley study found that the so-called urban heat island effect, which makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas, is locally large and real, but does not contribute significantly to average land temperature rises. This is because urban regions make up less than 1% of the Earth's land area. And while stations considered "poor" might be less accurate, they recorded the same average warming trend.
"We have looked at these issues in a straightforward, transparent way, and based on that, I would expect legitimate sceptics to feel their issues have been addressed," Muller said.
Nevertheless, one prominent US climate sceptic, Anthony Watts, claimed to have identified a "basic procedural error" concerning time periods used in the research, and urged the authors to revise the paper.
Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as "a top-notch physicist". "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming.
"Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive.
"As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers."
"As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury."
Peter Thorne at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways.
"Openness and transparency is a must, particularly now with climate change being so politicised, but more to the point, with the huge socioeconomic decisions that rest on it."
Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at UEA who was at the centre of the Climategate incident, said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."
The Berkeley Earth project has been attacked by some climate bloggers, who point out that one of the funders runs Koch Industries, a company Greenpeace called a "financial kingpin of climate science denial".
Muller points out the project is organised under the auspices of Novim, a Santa Barbara-based nonprofit organisation that uses science to find answers to the most pressing issues facing society and to publish them "without advocacy or agenda".
Other donors include the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (funded by Bill Gates), and the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Lab. The next phase of the project will focus on warming trends in the oceans.
Some scientists were critical of the project and Muller's decision to release the papers before they had been peer reviewed.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at Exeter University said: "These studies seem to confirm the global warming estimated from the existing datasets, which is pleasing but not exactly a surprise to those of us who know how carefully the existing datasets are put together.
"It is surprising, however, that the authors believe that this news is so significant that they can't wait for peer review, especially when their conclusions aren't exactly revolutionary."
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
First, I don't think anyone has doubted we're in a period of the earth warming. We've had ice ages, and we've come out of ice ages. The temperatures on the Earth have been warming and cooling for millions of years.
I do find it interesting they took the tact of publishing something before it's peer reviewed.
The point of contention is the cause of global warming and the economic impact of blindly following certain assumptions without worrying about other real world issues vs what you are really "solving."
Another good use of Bill Gates' money. Why doesn't he just give his wealth as taxes or pay off a bunch of people's college loans instead of wasting it on meaningless studies, so the OWS folks can go home?
By Norman Rogers
Imagine that you are a climate scientist and the Earth is threatened with a climate disaster. You need to warn the people of Earth and lobby Earth's governments. If you are tired of poring over boring computer printouts, you may be only too ready to accept this mission of transcendent importance.
On the other hand, maybe you have lost touch with reality. Maybe you have become a true believer fighting a dubious battle. Maybe you are Dr. James Hansen, high civil servant, recipient of cash awards from left-wing foundations, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen was arrested in front of the White House, dressed up to look like J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 1950s scientific martyr. Hansen wants CEOs of energy companies to be prosecuted for "crimes against humanity."
When scientists are fanatical believers in a cause, the authority and credibility that attach to science are turned into political capital to be spent in pursuit of that cause.
The late Stephen Schneider, Stanford climate scientist, explained how this works:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
Global warming catastrophism is convenient for climate science. It is simplistic to claim that climate scientists are making up the global warming scare in order to promote research funding. But global warming catastrophism clearly does promote research funding. So there is a convenient congruence between catastrophism and the bureaucratic ambitions of research establishments.
Climate science deals with the energy balance of the Earth and the behavior of the atmosphere. This is a very complicated system involving convection, evaporation, precipitation, clouds, ocean heat storage, reflection, and emission of radiation, and more. Although scientific understanding of the system has advanced, especially with the advent of computers and satellites, the system is still quite mysterious in important respects. It's not at all clear that climate science will ever advance to a point where long-range predictions can be trusted, or, as they say, demonstrate skill.
Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it. As a result, CO2 has been slowly increasing. Increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere will probably exert a warming influence because CO2 has an inhibiting effect on the outgoing infrared (heat) radiation that cools the Earth. Nearly everyone, skeptic or believer, agrees with these basic facts. Another basic fact that the purveyors of global warming like to keep quiet about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow much better with less water. That's because plants in general struggle to extract the scant CO2 in the air.
What is controversial is how much warming can be expected and whether the warming will create practical problems. The evidence supporting substantial warming (i.e., 3 degrees C) is output from bad computer models. It's said that dogs come to resemble their masters. Computer models tend to reflect the aspirations of their creators.
The global warming promoters try to hang all kinds of supplementary disasters on their proposed 3-degree warming over a century. This is even more dubious than the warming itself. Some of their claims are absurd, such as the suggestion that the oceans are going to rise substantially, a claim for which there is zero credible evidence. The data has been running against the theories of global warming. The atmosphere has failed to warm since 1998, and, more importantly, the upper ocean has failed to warm since 2003.
The idea that we are on the verge of a climate disaster caused by modern civilization is a romantic idea that appeals to people who have lost traditional religion. It's another iteration of the environmentalist dogma that civilization is ruining the earth. It's a Garden of Eden story. Anyone can see that the landscape of areas where industry and technology dominate nature, like Germany or New Jersey, is in far better condition than the landscape is in most third-world countries -- countries that lack evil industry and that practice the precious local small-scale agriculture so loved by the ideologues who want remake the economy to prevent global warming. The idea that the Earth would be a paradise without civilization is contradicted by the wild climate swings that we know have taken place in recent geological time. Ice sheets a mile thick retreated from much of North America 10,000 years ago.
The reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) are often taken as the authoritative last word on climate change. These reports are are disorganized and unfocused. As a result, most people go no further than the introductory Summary for Policy Makers. If you dig deep into the reports, solid scientific support for the claims of impending catastrophe is not there. Computer models are the shaky foundation of global warming. Models from different modeling groups disagree with each other by wide margins. As the IPCC admits, the models have serious deficiencies. The IPCC uses misleading graphical illustrations to make it appear that the models can accurately mimic the Earth's climate.
The CO2 reduction proposals of the global warming gang are relentlessly ideological and impractical. CO2-free nuclear power supplies 80% of France's electricity and 20% of the electricity in the U.S. Nuclear fuel is very cheap, and vast supplies are available. The real problem with nuclear is that environmentalist groups have run a hysterical anti-nuclear campaign for the last 50 years. A reversal now would be a severe blow to their credibility. So, instead of nuclear, the global warming gang proposes that we use solar power and wind power, technologies that can cost 10 times more per kilowatt-hour. They don't seem to understand that solar doesn't work when a cloud blocks the sun or at night, and wind doesn't work when the wind isn't blowing. As a consequence, solar and wind need to be backed up by fossil fuel or hydro plants with spinning generators ready to quickly assume the load of the grid. People who are ignorant concerning engineering or science may accept the notion that wind and solar are realistic sources of electricity. It is more difficult to explain why the government is dumping billions of dollars into these technologies, both in the form of cash and in the form of mandates that shift the cost to electricity users.
Many scientists may have a predilection for green fashion -- for example, backyard compost heaps, organic food, bicycles, solar panels, or giant wind turbines. Nobody cares. But it is wrong to misuse the authority and credibility of science to scare the rest of us into embracing the green lifestyle.
Norman Rogers is a physicist and a Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute. He maintains a website: http://www.climateviews.com.
— Socrates
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project today released some information about their research. Judith Curry, one of the co-authors, reports this here. The BBC has a story here, and the Economist reports it here.
These stories both play out as “the CO2-forced AGW model is confirmed,” which is a whole lot stronger than the actual results.
The BEP papers say that by re-analyzing existing temperature records, they get a close match to other temperature analyses of global average surface temperature for the last 200 or so years. This isn’t a big surprise: that fits what Wegman and others reported — agreement on warming over the last 400 years, but less clarity on temperatures 1000 years ago or more.
This is not in itself a confirmation of AGW.
I know I’ve said this before, but let’s just repeat: to confirm the CO2-forced AGW hypothesis, you need several steps:
•There must have been warming.
•That warming must be unusual.
•There must be a mechanism proposed for that unusual warming, and there must be a falsifiable way of confirming that mechanism.
•That mechanism has to be the result of human action.
•That human action has to be unusual release of CO2.
All we have here is confirmation of warming, the first step. This has been by far the strongest part of this chain and has been for a long time. It’s already well established — as I’ve said before, we know there’s been warming since the Little Ice Age — that’s how we know it was the Little Ice Age.
There is one fairly unusual aspect to this, that the authors have put on a big PR effort for papers that haven’t been peer-reviewed or published in the formal literature. Here’s something I wrote on Google+:
You’d be better off reading Judith Curry (one of the co-authors) on her blog: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berke ... ent-124946
The press embargo on this lifts today at noon Pacific time. I suspect there will be pretty widespread media coverage on this, with both sides of the debate spinning this to suit their purposes. I have had queries from several journalists, to whom I probably did not provide any usable sound bites. Lets see how it plays out.
Roger PIelke Sr wonders about site selection:http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/comment-on-the-article-in-the-economist-on-rich-mullers-data-analysis/
Anthony Watts notes this is a PR press before peer-review, which is unusual: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/t ... er-review/
As I was invited by The Economist to comment publicly, I would recommend rejecting Muller et al in the current form and suggest that it be resubmitted with meaningful and appropriate 30 year comparisons for the same time periods used by the Menne et al and Fall et al cited papers. I would be happy to review the paper again at that time.
I also believe it would be premature and inappropriate to have a news article highlighting the conclusions of this paper until such time meaningful data comparisons are produced and the paper passes peer review. Given the new techniques from BEST, there may be much to gain from a rework of the analysis limited to identical thirty year periods used in Menne et al and Fall et al.
Watts had been asked to review one of the papers, which was a follow-on to the site quality work he’s led over the last several years. He found some significant errors, and submitted his reviews just a few days ago; those errors weren’t corrected before the PR push.
Lesson: Be cautious about the reporting of a scientific paper that hasn’t been published yet, and be doubly cautious about how a paper is reported when it’s a politically sensitive topic.
Posted at 8:39 pm on October 20th, 2011 by
— Socrates