Jump to content

Global Warming is Not a Crisis


Recommended Posts

it certainly is to the Inuit in the Arctic and the poor polar bears which are hunting for seals on non-existent ice. For the poor insects that are out of kilter with emerging food plants and the birds that arrive to find no insects to feed on.

 

Can you provide any actual evidence for these four things happening? Or are you just spreading more urban legends?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Zombie arguments, all. Debunked multiple times, yet they will not die.   Science does not depend on popular vote.   Global cooling was "alarmist rhetoric" of the popular media, not of the scient

Pff, I believe Cuthbert is the only one who actually addrEssed my post but I'll come back later on how far outta context you jacked up that remark. So as far as Cuthbert is concerned, I'm not sure t

The point does mean something; unfortunately you don't understand it.   There was a lot of carbon 14 in the in the atmosphere. Then we started burning fossil fuel which has no carbon 14. We dilute

Posted Images

Can you provide any actual evidence for these four things happening? Or are you just spreading more urban legends?

 

 

Yeah, the polar bear plight has been thoroughly debunked at this point. The original study that projected the death of polar bears was literally based on three dead bears spotted in the ocean from a float plane. Nobody ever actually recovered the bears to find the cause of death, they simply had a guess, and then did some baseless statistics to extrapolate three dead bears over X% of area means 3(1/x%) total dead bears for the entire arctic.

 

From that launched a world panic for polar bears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever "launched" the concern is irrelevant. The concerns since that "launch" are both valid and justified. Your tone and dismissal are very disingenuous and overtly obtuse to the central points people are making.

 

 

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.html

 

Polar bears and their prey have evolved to living in the extreme conditions of the Arctic. Polar bears and seals are dependent on sea-ice for foraging, resting, and reproduction. The Arctic ecosystem was shaped by climate and continues to be driven today by climate. Polar bears and ice seals, primarily ringed seals, serve as key indicators of the effects of climate change on the Arctic environment. Today, polar bear populations are facing threats previously unprecedented during recorded history in the Arctic. Recent climate change scenarios based upon modeling of climate trend data predict that the Arctic region will experience major changes in the upcoming decades. On the most drastic end of the spectrum one model predicts that the Arctic basin may be void of ice within 50 years. Other models have shown that ice thickness has decreased by 40% during the past 30 years and the average annual extent of ice coverage in the polar region has diminished substantially, with an average annual reduction of over 1 million square kilometers.

 

While the ultimate or progressively evolving effects of climatic change on polar bear populations is not certain, we do recognize that even minor climate changes could likely have a profound effect on polar bears. The following is from the IUCN/Species Survival Commission, Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) web site and in summary indicates the following:

 

  • Climate changes on prey species will have a negative effect on polar bears
    • increased snow can result in reduced success in successfully entering seal birth lairs
    • decreased snow or increased seasonal rain patterns could effect seal pupping by not providing adequate snow for construction of birth lairs or if rain fall by collapsing birth lairs thus reducing seal productivity
    • prey reductions could effect polar bear condition and ultimately cub production and survival

    [*]Changes that alter the period of ice coverage could affect distribution and impact polar bears

    • bears may spend greater amounts of time on land
    • extended use of terrestrial areas would ultimately effect physical condition of bears when forced to rely on fat stores
    • decreased physical condition could effect production and survival
    • bears using deteriorating pack ice may experience increased energetic costs associated with movements and swimming

    [*]Denning could be impacted by unusual warm spells

    • access to high quality denning areas may be limited or restricted
    • use of less desirable denning habitat could have impacts on reproduction and survival
    • rain or warming could directly cause snow dens to collapse or be opened to ambient conditions
    • loss of thermal insulative properties in opened dens could affect litter survival

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever "launched" the concern is irrelevant. The concerns since that "launch" are both valid and justified.

 

Are they? Really?

 

Let's have a look at that NOAA piece you quoted, the first two points.

increased snow can result in reduced success in successfully entering seal birth lairs

 

decreased snow or increased seasonal rain patterns could effect seal pupping by not providing adequate snow for construction of birth lairs or if rain fall by collapsing birth lairs thus reducing seal productivity

 

What a piece of brilliant deduction. Either increased or decreased snow could have an impact. In fact any change in the regional climate in either direction could have an impact. No sh*t sherlock. The NOAA piece doesn't actually say anything definitive at all. An increase in the regional amounts of unicorn poo could have an impact as well.

 

While I do applaud NOAA for its very careful phrasing, its information really isn't much use for predictive purposes.

 

So what is the situation and are the concerns valid?

 

Well the USA did declare the polar bear to be endangered. However the methodology used for that finding has been challenged. Personally I would think that if the bloke who wrote the textbook on forecasting says your methods are wrong, then they are probably wrong.

 

We do know that since the curb on hunting, the numbers have gone up since the 60s when the population was estimated to be about 5,000 to an estimated 25,000. So there is certainly less cause for concern than there was. The population figures IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group claim that a number of the populations are declining however this claim is at odds with the experience of local hunters. Again, and this is purely a personal view, but I would tend to think that people who live in the area all year round would have a better grasp of the polar bear populations than a bunch who come up for two weeks to count white bears on a white background from 1200 ft in a helicopter.

 

Now I could be wrong and this counting from helicopters could be extremely accurate. After all it gave us this headline back in 2009; "Warming blamed for dwindling caribou herds".

 

"The numbers are not getting better. There's no good news, no indication of recovery," J. Michael Miltenberger, the environment and natural resources minister, said by telephone from Yellowknife, the capital.

 

He said "there's a huge issue" with the Beverly herd, which numbered 276,000 in 1994, ranging over the Canadian tundra 1,000 miles due north of North Dakota.

 

"We've been flying north to south, east to west," Miltenberger said. "By our count, with the Beverly herd, they've all but disappeared."

 

Wow! 276,000 down to almost nothing! Sure is a reason for concern.

 

But last year; "Scientists find herd of 'lost' caribou in Saskatchewan".

 

Oh dear....

 

A vast herd of northern caribou that scientists feared had vanished from the face of the Earth has been found, safe and sound -- pretty much where aboriginal elders said it would be all along.

 

"The Beverly herd has not disappeared," said John Nagy, lead author of a recently published study that has biologists across the North relieved.

 

So a methodology that manages to lose a quarter of a million dark animals in a light background is accurate in finding white animals on a white background. Silly me, how could I ever have doubted.....

 

But back to the point. Is the concern both "valid and justified"? Given that it can be shown that this "concern" is based on head counts that are "suspect" to say the least and that the forecasts for the future of the polar bear are based on those same dodgy head counts and methods that forecasters say are wrong, then the only answer is "No". The concerns are neither valid nor justified.

 

Having said all that, I do think that 25,000 or so spread out over 19 populations could lead to problems due to a lack of genetic diversity in some of the populations. Numbers and health should be monitored (and more closely than we currently do) so that if valid reasons for concern about the bears survival do arise, they can be dealt with swiftly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the climate is changing. And in a changing climate the spread and/or behaviour of fauna and flora is likely to change.

 

Congratulations. You are now at the point we sceptics were at about 30 years ago.

 

WRT climate there are really only three things to discuss. In order they are;

 

1. Are the future predictions/projections accurate?

2. If so, does this constitute a problem?

3. If so, what can/should we do about it?

 

Dealing with just the first question for the moment. Firstly I haven't heard of the predicted 4.5 billion people dieing by 2012, but I don't watch TV much so I suppose I simply missed such a minor item. Nor, as far as I'm aware has anybody seen any of the predicted 50 million "climate refugees" that were supposed to be on the move by 2010. Not doing too well so far, are we? Let's try Sea Level rise, that's always good for a scary story.

 

Bugger. Only 1.7 mm per year and no acceleration.

 

I know! Antarctica is warming up and melting. That one was even worth the cover of "Nature". Which was exactly what the models predicted, you have a "hit". Oh wait, due to very poor statistical techniques the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula was simply smeared over the rest of the continent. In fact most of Antarctica has been cooling while the peninsula warmed. Interestingly there is a recent press release from the same Dr Steig concerning the calving of a very large iceberg.

NASA scientists recently documented that a section of the Pine Island Glacier the size of New York City had begun breaking off into a huge iceberg. Steig noted that such an event is normal and scientists were fortunate to be on hand to capture a video recording. Neither that event nor the new UW findings clearly link thinning Antarctic ice to human causes.

 

We've gone over the predictions for increased "extreme" weather and found that there is no joy there. No discernable increase in hurricanes, tornadoes, rain or hail.

 

Down here we had the predictions that drought was the "new normal", but then it rained, and rained, and rained........

 

We had the predictions that snow would be a thing of the past for the northern hemisphere because low snow was what the models said would happen. Then the north got socked in for 3 years running and suddenly (post facto) the predictions changed to "more snow".

 

How about the predictions that malaria would spread? Pity that got squashed by the malaria experts.

 

How about we compare the model predictions with reality? (A frightening thought for some people. ;) )

 

Lucia has been looking at that particular point.

 

CherriesAppliesOranges.png

 

As can be easily seen, with the model runs beginning in 1989 and using the SRES A1B scenario, the model predictions for temperature are now outside the 2 sigma range when compared to the major temperature series. So, put bluntly the models are currently incapable of getting it right when we already know the answer, so their predictive ability for the future is around zero.

 

But just for fun, here is a whole page of failed predictions.

 

There is also Figure 9.1 from AR4 WG1 9.2.2.1. Note section C in the figure. This shows the predicted enfanced warming due to increased GHG emissions, the tropical troposphere is supposed to be warming at around 1.5 times the rate that the surface is. Specifically this is a "fingerprint" for anthropogenic warming and its existence would prove the AGW case. What a pity the prediction is wrong and there is no "hot spot".

 

The only "hits" that the AGW theory has managed when it comes to predictions are the ones that are so general that they can be applied to a changing climate from any cause. "There will be more snow in some areas and less snow in others", "Some places will get warmer faster than others and some other places will cool a bit", "Some places will get more rain and some places will get less", "With a changing climate the spread of plant species will probably change". You can't fail to "win" if you place a bet each way. I could get the same answers out of a bunch of primary school kiddies.

 

So how about some specific and accurate predictions? Then and only then can you ask others to "do something" about "the problem". At the moment you can't even show that a problem will exist, let alone that it needs solving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of missing the forest for the trees? Okay... Polar bears, stupid... yeah, silly argument... sure. It sure is a good thing we also are negatively impacting other significant ecological domains so we can avoid tangents like this and accept the central position being put forward.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1559830/

http://www.umesc.usg...osium_2007.html

http://www.usgcrp.go...eport-jun06.pdf

http://www.google.co...eynoLgY-eYfd8JA

http://dels-old.nas....cal_impacts.pdf

http://epa.gov/clima...co_animals.html

Good point!

 

 

Don't confuse Red Herrings with Debunking. A Red Herring is bunk, and it can be debunked; as with the idea that global biogeochemical change is simply hype from a bunch of save-the-fuzzy-polar-bear fanatics. I think that Lomborgism was debunked long ago... or was that just another "think tank" media blitz.

===

 

 

While polar bears are cute, any given species shouldn't be the point about the problems of global warming.

 

The Arctic is one of the main modulators of our mid-latitude weather. The Arctic physically drives increased seasonal diversity, which then replenishes many of our mid- to lower-latitude ecosystem resources (especially water), and it drives the temperate seasonality of the mid latitudes--for which our main food crops are adapted. Monsoon paleoclimates always show shifts in responce to changes in the ice sheets, so that (along with other tropical effects) should be expected to affect tropical agriculture too.

 

The National Academies reports that CO2 will soon be at levels which the Earth had about 30 million years ago. That is a time back before the Arctic stabilized and before tropical (nutrient-poor) conditions, which had always prevailed in the mid latitudes, were replaced by the past 5 to 10 million-years worth of evolved, temperate-adapted, nutrient-rich conditions and biodiversity. CO2 levels will shift the climate back --2 to 3 times further back in time-- than what our current temperate world (and ecosystem resources) evolved to thrive in.

 

The Arctic ecosystem is also the basis for much of the oceanic food web; though continued acidification (from extra CO2) of the ocean will change the food web either way. So an important reason to reduce CO2 levels isn't about maintaining a particular population of polar bears or a particular sea level; it's about preventing acidification of the seas and soils, saving the sea ice, and maintaining an intricately evolved food web--our food chain.

 

It's not about saving any particular charismatic species, but about saving the biodiversity that took millions of years to evolve into species adapted for living in today's temperate world; it's about saving the source of our species' sustenance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting article relevant to the topic.

 

 

http://online.wsj.co...1838421366.html

 

This section of the article raises alarm bells:

 

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

 

H20 is not *normally considered* a pollutant. H20 is a colorless, odorless liquid, contained in high concentrations in all of us and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

 

You still don't want too much of it in your lungs and when there's an excess of it in the wrong place we call it a flood - which are generally considered bad.

 

I'm surprised anyone with a scientific background would sign off on a statement like this, whether or not you're a "warmer" or a "skeptic"- to clarify no substance is ubiquitously a pollutant. The term is relative to proximate location and concentration and almost any substance has the propensity to become a pollutant. For example, Nitrates in your garden are fertiliser and generally considered beneficial. Low relative levels of nitrates in your local river are a natural and important part of the water chemistry. Artificially elevated nitrates in the river if the fertilizer from your garden washes into it are pollutants with a detrimental environmental impact.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is not normally considered a pollutant because it requires large concentrations. It is actually toxic (that is why we need to get rid of it from our bodies :doh: ). It is bad, but our bodies can cope with the conentrations it is usually exposed to. Even O2 (yes, that is Oxygen) is toxic in high enough concentrations.

 

The problem with CO2 and Global Warming is that it reduces the amount of energy leaving the Earth.

 

Think of it like your bank account.

 

Say you have a bank that charges you for the amount of money you have stored in the account. It is only a fraction of it, but the more money you have in the there the higher the fees they charge.

 

IF you have a certain level of income, then the amount of money you have in the bank is easy to calculate. All you nee to know is that as you accumulate money in your account, the fees rise, and when the fees are equal to your income, then you get no more money in the bank. This is because the amount of money coming in is matched by the amount going out. If you have more money in there, then the fees are higher than your income and the amount of money in the account is reduced. If you have less money in the account, then the fees are less than your income and the amount of money increases.

 

It is the same with the Earth. Earth receives an "income" of energy from the sun. But the only way it can leave the Earth is by radiation out into space. this is because the only ways to move energy like that around is to conduct it away, (but the Earth is in a vacuum so this can't happen), or to radiate it away.

 

So, when the amount of energy radiated by the Earth is equal to the amount of energy coming from the sun, then we get a balance, an equilibrium. Just like in the bank account.

 

But, what would happen with the bank account if the bank reduced their fees? In this case, as the fees are lowered, the amount leaving your account is less, but, as the balance is between the amount coming in and the amount leaving, then this means the amount of money in your account will increase until the amount leaving again matches the amount coming in.

 

It is the same with the Earth too. If the amount of energy leaving the Earth is reduced, then the amount of energy on the Earth is increased until the new equilibrium is reached.

 

CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do just that. they cause the amount of energy leaving the Earth to be reduced, and this causes the amount of energy in the climate systems to increase.

 

That is what global warming is.

 

Because CO2 acts in this way, it is considdered a pollutent because it harms the environment's stability (or our ability to survive in it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The point I was making is that the statement "CO2 is not a pollutant" is disingenuous because the characterization of any substance as a pollutant/not a pollutant is relative to number of factors (location, concentration, form etc) and I was surprised/skeptical that a team of renowned scientists would have missed that and signed off on the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This section of the article raises alarm bells:

 

 

 

H20 is not *normally considered* a pollutant. H20 is a colorless, odorless liquid, contained in high concentrations in all of us and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

 

You still don't want too much of it in your lungs and when there's an excess of it in the wrong place we call it a flood - which are generally considered bad.

 

I'm surprised anyone with a scientific background would sign off on a statement like this, whether or not you're a "warmer" or a "skeptic"- to clarify no substance is ubiquitously a pollutant. The term is relative to proximate location and concentration and almost any substance has the propensity to become a pollutant. For example, Nitrates in your garden are fertiliser and generally considered beneficial. Low relative levels of nitrates in your local river are a natural and important part of the water chemistry. Artificially elevated nitrates in the river if the fertilizer from your garden washes into it are pollutants with a detrimental environmental impact.

 

Alarm bells only if one considers the current and projected concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to be detrimental. Obviously those that signed this statement do not consider current or projected concentrations of CO2 to be detrimental.

 

Those that have signed on to this statement obviously understand the implications of so doing. The statement includes accusations of blacklisting (Dr. Chris de Freitas) and persecution which was likened to that practiced by Trofim Lysenko. To make such statements in a respected national, if not worldwide publication, is not done casually by anyone.

 

An interesting shot across the climate change bow.

Edited by waitforufo
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting use of the word "interesting"

 

It's interesting, I suppose, that Dr. Giaever uses the mass of the proton as a counter to the use of incontrovertible. Whether the mass of the proton changes over time is an open question, not on for which there is mounds of data showing that it is happening. So yes, we can discuss it. We can discuss ways of measuring it, because if it happens it is smaller than what we can now measure. But nobody has yet stepped forward with any results saying that they have actually observed it. It's interesting he didn't use a more apropos statement, like "there is incontrovertible evidence that special relativity is an accurate description of systems traveling at high speeds." I wonder if he would agree with that, or perhaps something closer to his own area of research.

 

It is interesting that they claim a "lack of global warming for well over 10 years now" which simply isn't true. 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest years on record. "Including 2011, all eleven years in the 21st century so far (2001–2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ That doesn't sound like there is a lack of warming. 2011, despite being a La Niña year, was the 11th warmest on record, and the warmest La Niña year on record.

 

It's interesting that they cherry-pick a quote from Kevin Trenberth and remove the context, to make it sound like he secretly agrees that there is no warming.

 

It's interesting that they try and smear research by comparing it with Lysenkoism.

 

Yeah, it's interesting alright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's interesting that they try and smear research by comparing it with Lysenkoism.

 

 

I believe the article is more a commentary on the researchers and proponents of anthropogenic climate change than the research itself. The article claims that the researchers and proponents of anthropogenic climate change are blacklisting and practicing Lysenkoism. A serious charge.

 

Their primary commentary on the research is that the warming predicted by the research has not occurred. Also since the research has produced poor results “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their primary commentary on the research is that the warming predicted by the research has not occurred.

 

But they claim this without any analysis whatsoever. In the last 25 years the temperature has gone up about 0.35º C while the CO2 concentration has gone from 350 to 390 ppm. The dependence is logarithmic, so this gives us a sensitivity of ~2º C for a doubling of CO2, ignoring any latency in the system. If you go back ~35 years, it's about 0.5º C and we start at 330 ppm. Again, you get 2º C.

 

The predictions are that this sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5. How has the predicted warming "not occurred"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting, I suppose, that Dr. Giaever uses the mass of the proton as a counter to the use of incontrovertible. Whether the mass of the proton changes over time is an open question, not on for which there is mounds of data showing that it is happening. So yes, we can discuss it. We can discuss ways of measuring it, because if it happens it is smaller than what we can now measure. But nobody has yet stepped forward with any results saying that they have actually observed it. It's interesting he didn't use a more apropos statement, like "there is incontrovertible evidence that special relativity is an accurate description of systems traveling at high speeds." I wonder if he would agree with that, or perhaps something closer to his own area of research.

 

Perhaps Dr. Giaever is using this comparison because he has not seen convincing evidence for anthropogenic climate change. I can’t speak for Dr. Giaever but perhaps he feels that recent climate variation is within the limits of natural variation. I would guess that he feels that the burden on proof is on the climate researchers and that adequate proof in his opinion has not been provided. If one considers the evidence for anthropogenic climate change to be weak, then his comparison makes sense.

 

The predictions are that this sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5. How has the predicted warming "not occurred"?

 

My reading of the article is that the warming that has occurred is significantly lower than predictions. Based on the hockey stick plots I have seen on this site, I would have to agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a google search and found a link which says Ivar Giaever is involved with the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute. These organizations are reportedly funded by Exxon Mobil, Phillip Morris, and the American Petroleum Insititute (amongst others). To me, this makes his statements denying human-induced global warning suspect.

 

And, the link notes, Giaver has not submitted a single scientific paper on the subject for a peer-reviewed journal. Link:

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another story on how global warming is not a crisis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

 

What's with all the crazy talk about sun spots and ocean temperature cycles? We all know that that sun and the oceans are trivial compared to CO2. Just read the outrageous quotes from this article. Obviously these people do not appreciate "the consensus." While I'm sure many of the following people and institutions are already on the list of evil deniers, some effort should be made to keep that growing list up to date.

 

UK Met Office

University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit

Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina

Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre

Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

 

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Confirmed? I was just told a few posts back that the above quote is a lie. Who are these bozos from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit?

 

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Little Ice Age? Wasn't that just a tiny little local anomaly?

 

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

I have read may times here in science forums that the variation in solar output has a trival impact on climate.

 

. ‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ -Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’

Okay, now this guy is simply confused. I'm sure with time he will understand that computer models are more important the actual measurements.

 

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ - Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Models have shortcomings? Is this person even a scientist?

 

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

Oceans smoceans.

 

‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’ -Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Wow, I guess the warmest better cash in now.

 

I did a google search and found a link which says Ivar Giaever is involved with the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute. These organizations are reportedly funded by Exxon Mobil, Phillip Morris, and the American Petroleum Insititute (amongst others). To me, this makes his statements denying human-induced global warning suspect.

 

And, the link notes, Giaver has not submitted a single scientific paper on the subject for a peer-reviewed journal. Link:

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M

 

On those grounds we should reject the "science" from the University of East Anglia and it's Climatic Research Unit since it receives funding from Shell Oil and BP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't give a citation for or link to the actual paper they are purportedly using, and I don't find anything on the UEA web site.

 

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

 

NOAA, NASA and WMO say 2010 was tied for the warmest on record. How does that reconcile with "no sign of this happening"? And this warming is with the weaker-than-expected solar activity noted in the article (AFAIK the details of solar activity are not part of any climate models)

 

There's also the claim that "new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years" which is baloney. It may be true that there is no statistically significant evidence of warming — noisy data requires longer sets to show trends — but one cannot reverse this and say that there is evidence that no warming has occurred. That's a very, very different claim: the difference between being able to statistically exclude zero and statistically exclude an increase.

 

George Will made a similar claim a few years ago, based on a statement by Phil Jones

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4894

 

Here's more detail of why it's crap

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4942

 

So let's update the analysis. What I get from the NOAA data is this

post-239-0-74795700-1327863946_thumb.png

 

Avg anomaly is 0.54 ± 0.09 ºC (the standard deviation included, assuming the temperature was flat), with a slope of 0.0092

Over 15 years, the best fit shows a 0.14 ºC increase in temperature. But the scatter is too large to exclude zero. (If you include more data, it's easier to exclude zero slope, since all of the preceding years are lower than the average and all but one have an anomaly of less than 0.4 ºC) But you also can't exclude a larger slope, and thus rise in temperature, using the same criterion. You can't say "no warming" without being dishonest. (or clueless)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that the statement "CO2 is not a pollutant" is disingenuous because the characterization of any substance as a pollutant/not a pollutant is relative to number of factors (location, concentration, form etc) and I was surprised/skeptical that a team of renowned scientists would have missed that and signed off on the article.

I think the best way to look at it is in the way medicine look at things. Basically, if it is detrimental, then it is pathological.

 

So, until a substance becomes pathological to the environment, it is not really polluting.

 

take Oxygen. In the concentrations there are now, and even a bit higher, it is not pathological to life (it once was but life adapted to the situation), but if you increased the concentration too much, it would become toxic and thus be a pollutant (ie: pathological).

 

CO2 in reasonable concentrations is actually benificial (without it the Earth would be around 15oc to 16oc colder than now. This would likely lead to a runaway freeze and eventually to a snowball Earth. So in curent concentrations, CO2 is not pathological, and thus not a pollutant, but if you increase it, the effect of CO2 in warming the Earth pushes it in a real where it becomes pathological and thus would be considered a pollutant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to look at it is in the way medicine look at things. Basically, if it is detrimental, then it is pathological.

 

So, until a substance becomes pathological to the environment, it is not really polluting.

 

take Oxygen. In the concentrations there are now, and even a bit higher, it is not pathological to life (it once was but life adapted to the situation), but if you increased the concentration too much, it would become toxic and thus be a pollutant (ie: pathological).

 

CO2 in reasonable concentrations is actually benificial (without it the Earth would be around 15oc to 16oc colder than now. This would likely lead to a runaway freeze and eventually to a snowball Earth. So in curent concentrations, CO2 is not pathological, and thus not a pollutant, but if you increase it, the effect of CO2 in warming the Earth pushes it in a real where it becomes pathological and thus would be considered a pollutant.

 

The "CO2 is a pollutant" thought is in regard to whether the EPA has jurisdiction in regulating it. There are numerous examples of chemicals that are regulated when in high enough concentration or dose, even though they are readily available to the public. It's an exercise in equivocation, making it a fundamentally dishonest argument. Like the rest of the piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this warming is with the weaker-than-expected solar activity noted in the article (AFAIK the details of solar activity are not part of any climate models)

 

Weaker –than-expected by who? I seem to recall several papers on expected low solar activity in the last 10 or more years. Also with regard to your comment that “AFAIK the details of solar activity are not part of any climate models”, is this a defense or condemnation of current climate models? That would be like saying current climate models don’t include ocean current and temperature cycles. Oh wait, they don’t. So just what exactly are they modeling? Doesn’t sound like the earth to me. No wonder the WSJ article states “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.”

 

There's also the claim that "new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years" which is baloney. It may be true that there is no statistically significant evidence of warming — noisy data requires longer sets to show trends — but one cannot reverse this and say that there is evidence that no warming has occurred. That's a very, very different claim: the difference between being able to statistically exclude zero and statistically exclude an increase.

 

These models we keep referring to have been around for quite some time. With these models predictions have been made. So how are these predictions fairing? I would say they have been an epic failure. CO2 keeps going up and the best defense provided is that “It may be true that there is no statistically significant evidence of warming — noisy data requires longer sets to show trends — but one cannot reverse this and say that there is evidence that no warming has occurred.” That’s a bit like telling a bill collector that there is no evidence that my check isn’t in the mail.

 

I see quite a few people posting condemnations about WSJ and the signers of the WSJ statement. That is to be expected based on the content of the statement. The statement is rather harsh. In my opinion the signers are basically saying bullsh** to the current state of climate science. They signed this harsh statement to make sure that massage came across clearly.

 

My favorite defense of the statement comes from Burt Rutan in his response to an open letter about the article on Scholars & Rogues.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/

His response is the fourth comment posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weaker –than-expected by who? I seem to recall several papers on expected low solar activity in the last 10 or more years. Also with regard to your comment that “AFAIK the details of solar activity are not part of any climate models”, is this a defense or condemnation of current climate models? That would be like saying current climate models don’t include ocean current and temperature cycles. Oh wait, they don’t. So just what exactly are they modeling? Doesn’t sound like the earth to me. No wonder the WSJ article states “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.”

 

As far as I know, solar activity is an input to the climate models, but the solar activity itself is not modeled — that's a job for people who study the sun. So if solar activity is less than what was modeled, you fix the input to it. It does not affect the validity of the model itself. You aren't predicting the inputs to the model.

 

These models we keep referring to have been around for quite some time. With these models predictions have been made. So how are these predictions fairing? I would say they have been an epic failure. CO2 keeps going up and the best defense provided is that “It may be true that there is no statistically significant evidence of warming — noisy data requires longer sets to show trends — but one cannot reverse this and say that there is evidence that no warming has occurred.” That’s a bit like telling a bill collector that there is no evidence that my check isn’t in the mail.

 

It's a matter of what the data actually says. You cannot legitimately conclude that there is no warming. The best fit from the numbers I posted is an increase of 0.14 ºC. No warming is a possibility, because it can't be statistically excluded. But neither can you exclude warming of about 0.28 ºC. Saying that the data show no warming either demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy (and incompetence if the person is trained as a scientist) or out-and-out deceit. There's really no other option.

 

I see quite a few people posting condemnations about WSJ and the signers of the WSJ statement. That is to be expected based on the content of the statement. The statement is rather harsh. In my opinion the signers are basically saying bullsh** to the current state of climate science. They signed this harsh statement to make sure that massage came across clearly.

 

My favorite defense of the statement comes from Burt Rutan in his response to an open letter about the article on Scholars & Rogues.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/

His response is the fourth comment posted.

 

You'll also note that the signers are generally not climate scientists. That includes Rutan. They signed a harsh statement that includes very little science and a whole lot of logical fallacies that appeal to emotion, and outright lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.