Global Warming Thread, Dscuss it here. Be respectful, and support your claims Options

[Bilirubin]

OK, so I exaggerated some of your responses.

Yes, and that's not helpful.

[Gwydion]

OK, I'll start this up again.

What do you think of the ARGOS data?

The buoys have shown a slight cooling over the last five years.

Additionally, NASA figures from satellite based observations show a 30 year increase of just 0.14 or 0.177 degrees Celsius per decade, depending on which analysis is used. (Both figures are within normal variations as I understand them.) I would argue that the satellite and ocean based measurements are more accurate than ground based ones from these things.

Also, in response to this:

The prediction is that during the minimum of sunspot activity we'll get the coldest weather. Well, the minimum was in 2007. The second WARMEST year on record. Perhaps, though, there hasn't been enough time for this to affect weather.

You are correct, there hasn't been enough time. Even NASA says:

Temperature tendency associated with the solar cycle, because of the Earth's thermal inertia, has its minimum delayed by almost a quarter cycle, i.e., about two years.

I interpret this as meaning that it won't be until we have the 2009 figures that we can start assessing the current solar cycle's impact, and that the 2007 temperatures do not debunk the solar impact theory.

[Bilirubin]

Breaking research news

Ice cores are invaluable archives of past environmental conditions on Earth. In 1996, the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) set out to provide the longest ice-core climate record yet, by drilling a core from 3,270 m thick ice at a site known as Dome C in East Antarctica. The team's findings to date, including a complete Antarctic climate record over the past 800,000 years and atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide records from 650,000 years ago to the present, have significantly advanced our understanding of the Earth's climate over the past eight glacial cycles. Here Nature presents the latest results, the complete records of atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide over the past 800,000 years, along with some of the previous Dome C ice-core papers and a collection of related articles.

Free access as well. I have not read this yet, and will not have the time to do so for a bit, but I thought I would share since its on topic for the thread.

I have also not yet had the opportunity to consider your questions in any detail Gwyd. Am totally slammed for next couple of weeks, but will try to when possible.

[Kalie]

Short summation of Bili's link:


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/...ature06949.html

Atmospheric CO2 over the past 800kyr. (on the bottom) Note fluctuations between ~180 and ~280 ppm.



http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global

Atmospheric CO2 over the past 3 or 4 years. Note 375+ ppm.


i.e. We appear to be at the top of an upswing in atmospheric CO2, but we're currently at much higher levels than have been present at any time in at least the past 800kyr.

(I believe I've understood the data correctly, at least that which I've referenced)

[Bilirubin]

Nice work Kalie.

From the "News and Views" summary (which I read over a snack):

The fundamental conclusion that today's concentrations of these greenhouse gases have no past analogue in the ice-core record remains firm. The general long-term behaviour of methane and carbon dioxide, following patterns driven ultimately by slow changes in Earth's orbit, continues throughout the older sections of the records. The remarkably strong correlations of methane and carbon dioxide with temperature reconstructions also stand.

The data further reinforce the tight link between greenhouse gases and climate, a link maintained by as-yet only partially understood feedbacks in the Earth system. Variations in methane levels are most probably caused by variations in the influence of temperature and rainfall on wetlands in the tropics and boreal (high-northern-latitude) regions. Carbon dioxide variability is almost universally viewed as an oceanic phenomenon, a consequence of the large pools of carbon sequestered there. Changes in ocean circulation, biological productivity, carbon dioxide solubility and other aspects of ocean chemistry have been implicated, but the exact mix of mechanisms is not clear.

[Gwydion]

This is long, and I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's an interesting (and reputable looking) paper that disputes the UN conclusion that reported warming since 1979 is "very likely" to be caused by human emission of greenhouse gases. There are six sections on why they reached their conclusion, and two on ramifications of warming in general (anthropogenic or not). The lead guy is atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He maintains that on decadal or century long time scales the sun and atmospheric (cloud) effects are the prime movers.

[Gwydion]

Somewhat related, if you think about it.

Cool Jupiter photo.

[Bilirubin]

Very cool photo indeed! Jupiter must be in his awkward teenaged years.


Here is an article from the BBC reporting on recent research that refutes the sunspot and cosmic ray theory of global climate change.

[Bilirubin]

Here is an open letter from climate expert James Hansen (not the muppet guy) regarding the correction in the US data, specifically addressing the controversy the changes whipped up among right wing pundants and bloggers.

[Bilirubin]

This post and this other one seem to do a pretty good job of addressing fiction author Crichton's misunderstandings, such as the "wall of text" post above.

[Bilirubin]

How valid is "the list of 500 scientists" anyway?

[Bilirubin]

This is long, and I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's an interesting (and reputable looking) paper that disputes the UN conclusion that reported warming since 1979 is "very likely" to be caused by human emission of greenhouse gases. There are six sections on why they reached their conclusion, and two on ramifications of warming in general (anthropogenic or not). The lead guy is atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He maintains that on decadal or century long time scales the sun and atmospheric (cloud) effects are the prime movers.

The Heartland Institute. A 50 page "executive summary"? It even starts out with a logical fallacy: While it is true that all factors involved in global warming are not completely understood, it does not necessarily follow that nothing should be done as a result. I'll need a little more time with this obviously.

Clouds are of course tied to factors involved in climate change too, water being a surprisingly effective greenhouse gas.

[Bilirubin]

An interesting, and heavily footnoted, read on climate change denialism.

Another on the lead author, Fred Singer, which quotes a Newsweek story that cites leaked memos from a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute in which a $5 million campaign to sow doubt in the public was discussed, but never carried out because of the leak.

[Bilirubin]

This is long, and I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's an interesting (and reputable looking) paper that disputes the UN conclusion that reported warming since 1979 is "very likely" to be caused by human emission of greenhouse gases. There are six sections on why they reached their conclusion, and two on ramifications of warming in general (anthropogenic or not). The lead guy is atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service. He maintains that on decadal or century long time scales the sun and atmospheric (cloud) effects are the prime movers.

The Heartland Institute. A 50 page "executive summary"? It even starts out with a logical fallacy: While it is true that all factors involved in global warming are not completely understood, it does not necessarily follow that nothing should be done as a result. I'll need a little more time with this obviously.

Clouds are of course tied to factors involved in climate change too, water being a surprisingly effective greenhouse gas.

On page 2 of this ABC story you can see that unnamed scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton called this report "fabricated nonsense". I'm still trying to find the actual reviews, but it might have to wait for another day.

[Bilirubin]

One last post, before I get on with my day. A summary of scientific opinion on climate change.

Regarding above criticisms of the questionability of ground or sea based temperature measurement devices: while the image posted early in this thread of the old, rusty weather station may appear at first glance damning of the instrumentation used to measure temperature, you still bear the burden of proof that the instrumentation does not work. I have provided ample evidence that these instruments provide good data, especially in the past 50 years, and despite corrections in the data. In fact, BECAUSE of: corrections made demonstrate intellectual honesty, especially when corrections are made in directions opposite of what climate change deniers would say is the institutional scientific bias.

That said, there are some actual scientific differences of opinion (some more valid than others), which can only be addressed scientifically. I've posted one above on the "sunspot and cosmic ray" hypothesis (which I will note had been debunked before, as I had suspected).

[Bilirubin]

Another on the lead author, Fred Singer, which quotes a Newsweek story that cites leaked memos from a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute in which a $5 million campaign to sow doubt in the public was discussed, but never carried out because of the leak.

Actually, before I am once again accused of making an ad hominem attack, let me state that the link above speaks to his credibility as a neutral participant in the debate. Just because he was prepared to collude in perpetuating a misinformation campaign on the public in the past doesn't mean he currently is doing so.

[Gwydion]

leaked memos from a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute in which a $5 million campaign to sow doubt in the public was discussed

Actually, before I am once again accused of making an ad hominem attack, let me state that the link above speaks to his credibility as a neutral participant in the debate. Just because he was prepared to collude in perpetuating a misinformation campaign on the public in the past doesn't mean he currently is doing so.

There is a hidden assumption in the way you connect these two things. You assume that because the American Petroleum Institute funded the campaign, it is therefore "misinformation".

What personal knowledge of Dr. Singer do you possess that would make you conclude he is not honest? Why do you assume he tailored his conclusions for the API, rather than the API simply funding someone whose opinion coincided with their interest? Don't companies and foundations often fund scientists whose work advances their interest? If it all comes down to following the money, wouldn't you have to discount the opinions of scientists affiliated with "carbon offset" companies, beneficiaries of a "cap and trade" system, or even Sierra Club and Greenpeace, the same way?

How valid is "the list of 500 scientists" anyway?

I never linked to the 500 scientists. I linked to a letter from 100 scientists, and referenced a convention in New York. But since 100 or 500 aren't enough, how about 31,000?

Oh, and:

pundants

pundits


I'm going to sign out of this thread with some recent words from Freeman Dyson (who believes anthropogenic warming is real) that I think apply to this thread:

. . . Rahmstorf represents the majority of scientists who believe fervently that global warming is a grave danger. Lindzen represents the small minority who are skeptical. Their conversation is a dialogue of the deaf. The majority responds to the minority with open contempt.

In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time. . .

. . . In other words, if you disagree with the majority opinion about global warming, you are an enemy of science. The authors of the pamphlet appear to have forgotten the ancient motto of the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba, which means, "Nobody's word is final" . . .

. . . Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. . .

. . . Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.

[Bilirubin]

Oh, and:

pundants

pundits

Pedants

I stand corrected.

[Bilirubin]

leaked memos from a meeting with the American Petroleum Institute in which a $5 million campaign to sow doubt in the public was discussed

Actually, before I am once again accused of making an ad hominem attack, let me state that the link above speaks to his credibility as a neutral participant in the debate. Just because he was prepared to collude in perpetuating a misinformation campaign on the public in the past doesn't mean he currently is doing so.

There is a hidden assumption in the way you connect these two things. You assume that because the American Petroleum Institute funded the campaign, it is therefore "misinformation".

What personal knowledge of Dr. Singer do you possess that would make you conclude he is not honest? Why do you assume he tailored his conclusions for the API, rather than the API simply funding someone whose opinion coincided with their interest? Don't companies and foundations often fund scientists whose work advances their interest? If it all comes down to following the money, wouldn't you have to discount the opinions of scientists affiliated with "carbon offset" companies, beneficiaries of a "cap and trade" system, or even Sierra Club and Greenpeace, the same way?

If funding research was all it was, then that is one thing. But they were talking about funding a media campaign. Industry has proven time and time again that the will work against the general welfare in order to further their interests (see, the tobacco industry and smoking, the paper industry and clean alternatives to chlorine bleaching, the auto and oil industries and buying up and dismantling the extensive light rail transit system that existed in cities across the United States). And guess who funds the Heartland Institute (not a research institute, despite the academic sounding name)? Trick question, of course, as the Wiki link above already documented this.

It is, believe it or not, exceedingly rare for basic research scientists to receive industrial funding. Industry invests in R&D, sure, but it is internal (because of trade secrets), and they employ their own scientists, who are obligated to refrain from peer reviewed publication of their results.

And to suggest that your assertion about scientists receiving funding from ""carbon offset" companies, beneficiaries of a "cap and trade" system, or even Sierra Club and Greenpeace"--if true, and I see no evidence to the positive--are you honestly suggesting that all of those sources TOGETHER could approach the money available to one single oil company?

How valid is "the list of 500 scientists" anyway?

I never linked to the 500 scientists. I linked to a letter from 100 scientists, and referenced a convention in New York. But since 100 or 500 aren't enough, how about 31,000?

Ah, the Oregon Petition. Its not what it seems either. It probably represents only 200 climate researchers, which is a pretty small fraction of the total.

I'm going to sign out of this thread with some recent words from Freeman Dyson (who believes anthropogenic warming is real) that I think apply to this thread:

Dyson's right. Underscoring that the critics should marshal scientific arguments, and I've seen precious few of those offered so far from your side--the degree to which the sun vs. greenhouse gases being an exception, and according to my findings, cited above, it is invalid.

. . . Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. . .

Oh, SPARE ME Dr. Dyson. Please. Replace environmentalism with evolution and you'd sound just like a creationist.

[Gwydion]

In the news this week, apostasy in Australia and the United States.

[Maestro]

Michael Crichton quite eloquently explains why screaming about Global Warming or anything even remotely similar to that is the least of our worries. If I could find the other essay I saw by him specifically about Global Warming it would be even better since both essentially say the same thing: it's a fad, give it a decade and the whole thing will burn out.
In fact, read all of his essays. Most clearheaded stuff I've read, ever.

[Freelancer]

Climategate
climategate
climategate

I could go on a long rant but why bother? If the science was good the concerted lies, suppression of the truth, attempts to control journals and suppress others work, etc.. None of that would be necessary.

Lies+PR+Lies+Lies+Suppressing the truth=Money (funding/taxes/write offs) for (science/government/business)+power for the triad

[Thunderbolt]

. . . Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. . .

Oh, SPARE ME Dr. Dyson. Please. Replace environmentalism with evolution and you'd sound just like a creationist.

HEY! I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!

SOrry, so sorry, just HAD to toss that in. Carry on! (gets second bag of popcorn)

[empath]

{Climategate breaks revealing that "Big Green" has been 'selectively reporting' climate data, etc.}

I could go on a long rant but why bother? If the science was good the concerted lies, suppression of the truth, attempts to control journals and suppress others work, etc.. None of that would be necessary.

Oh, please. Stuff like that is rarely necessary; it's usually done BECAUSE THEY CAN; anytime an informal¹ organization comes about, it eventually WILL lie, cheat, steal, discredit, cover up, etc. to further the organization's agenda - or to further an individual's separate agenda - regardless if it HAS to or not. This is not a 'smoking bullet' that Global Warming Climate Change™ is false (or that it's true), just that the 'climate conservation' group has fallen prey to the same sins that every other sociocultural² entity with the tiniest slice of power and control does. *shrug*

Lies+PR+Lies+Lies+Suppressing the truth=Money (funding/taxes/write offs) for (science/government/business)+power for the triad

Okay, just a quick point to address first: your "triad" makes you look a teeny bit 'conspiracy prone' - collusion by multiple organizations in a unanimous effort towards a unified goal? You give them too much credit!

Cosmo: There I was in prison. And one day I help a couple of older gentlemen make some free telephone calls. They turn out to be, let us say, good family men.
Martin Bishop: Organized crime?
Cosmo: Hah. Don't kid yourself. It's not that organized.

Go flip over to C-Pac and let me know the next time you see any bill voted unanimously on: no dissenting votes, no abstentions by MP present (I'll let absences go since we can't tell the difference between "I'm not going to session today because I refuse to vote on <bill>" and "I'm not going to session today because I have to spend several hours in a dentist's chair getting this abscess treated")

Hell, U.S. Senate can't get uniformly behind a 'no-brainer' ammendment (heck, the G.O.P. can't even get unanimously against this bill, either )

THIS is the sociocultural organization that you believe has been conspiring with the scientific community to control the facts regarding historical climate data?

"Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice" H.L. Menken



ANYWAY, on to my point: The entity that's probably most to blame for this hiding the 'inconvenient truth' (take that, Al "Woody" Gore ) is not government - the herd of cats that is any representative government couldn't agree on a colour scheme for the seats in Parliament/Senate/Congress/National Assembly/etc, let alone organize a hush campaign - nor is it the 'scientific community' - a cutthroat mercenary recreation of high school with its popular cliques, ostracized misfits, petty feuds and popularity contests taking precedence over actual work, effort and accomplishment - but maybe business, which consistently asks "So how can we make money out of this?" because THAT'S IT'S PURPOSE FOR EXISTING. Again, likely not a collusion of businesses, but more a series of independent efforts to milk Climate Change™ for all the tax write-offs and government funding they can.

And this should come as a surprise to NO ONE.

A business is an organization CREATED for the purpose and goal of PROFITING; making MORE money than it spends.


And as I have repeatedly said throughout my tenure here, any organization of people will increasingly 'break the law', 'bend the rules', etc. as the organization becomes larger and larger. Not in any uniform conspiracy agreed upon by everyone in the organization, but because these individual members feel increasingly 'hidden' from scrutiny by being part of the larger entity, and also because a feeling of 'company/committee/governmental loyalty' to further its goals by whatever means necessary grows to overcome the individual's sense of morality & ethics "It was worth it; I <broke the law/falsified information/coerced whistle-blowers/etc> for the good of <insert org. here>"

In short, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And an organizational entity that collectively pools a group of individuals' power is a prime example of this.




So back to the 'Climategate' brouhaha - this just leads me to strengthen MY opinion on the whole mess:

WE DON'T KNOW. We haven't got enough consistent and reliable information going back far enough to make any reputable conclusions or predictions on future climate. Heck, this is arguably the most complex system of variables we've ever encountered and the sheer unpredictability of it all makes weather forecasts only reliable out to approximately three days.

INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

Sorry. Check back in another hundred years or so...




Footnotes - the other other other white meat™:

1. Yeah, the 'scientific community' - show me a consistent and comprehensible Org Chart for that, and I'll take back what I said.

2. Wow "sociocultural" is a word, and I actually spelled it correctly!

[Spiff]

In other news, Al Gore's grasp on the concept of time is a bit shaky.

Or perhaps willfully disinformative?

[empath]

In other news, Al Gore's grasp on the concept of time is a bit shaky.

Or perhaps wilfully dis-informative?

What? Ignoring 'uncomfortable facts' that weaken HIS argument and just fixating on a single instance that happens to vindicate him and his? Wouldn't that be 'damage control' or 'spin' or 'P.R.'?

Wait, what did this 'Al Gore' person before he became Defender of the Ecosphere™?

Oh yeah...

[DeathStalker]

*dig dig dig*

I dont know about Global Warming, but we are experiencing some extreme drying. Dang, we need some rain. Everything is crunchy. I believe global warming exists this last month, to be certain.

Edit: a few hours later, we actually get a drizzle. Not nearly enough, but rain, nonetheless.