Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-30-11, 02:39 PM   #76
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

More from Dessler:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.


NASA climatologist Gavin Schmid:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”


Nice job over at RealClimate giving his paper a good work over.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-11, 04:25 PM   #77
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
More from Dessler:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.


NASA climatologist Gavin Schmid:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”


Nice job over at RealClimate giving his paper a good work over.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/
If RealClimate didn't give the paper a "good work over" it wouldn't be doing its Hockey Team job. That's just the stuff Spencer answered. And it's their job to defend Mann's Hockey Stick no matter how discredited it is. They still defend Al Gore's movie and their original post on it is still the #1 item listed under "Highlights" as it has been since 2006.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-30-11 at 05:26 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-11, 05:22 PM   #78
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,087
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Typical response from RealClimate. Heavy on the ad hominen, light on any science. If someone thinks that these criticisms of Spencer's paper are equal to it being "torn to shreds", that belies just a tad bit of their own bias.

Thank god other areas of science are not practiced this way...

But I do find it humrous that the alarmists are accusing Spencer of using a faulty model. They are experts on that type of thing after all, so maybe they have a point!
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-11, 05:31 PM   #79
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
If RealClimate didn't give the paper a "good work over" it wouldn't be doing its Hockey Team job. That's just what Spencer answered. And it's their job to defend Mann's Hockey Stick no matter how discredited it is. That's just what Spencer answered. They still defend Al Gore's movie and their original post on it is still the #1 item listed under "Highlights" as it has been since 2006.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't think Gore's movie is fit to wipe my ass. Much of what he presented was sensational, now out-dated or flat-out wrong. As a real skeptic you have to examine the data and not get lost within the political movement. Not every scientist working as denier is full of bunk, but a lot are. The same way I don't trust any of the clowns over at Green Peace because of the way their ideology has overshadowed their work. Green Peace parades bad research that supports its cause, PETA distorts statistics to impresses other PETA zombies, denier blogs push whatever sliver of doubt they can find.

Spencer's study was bad science. The only people fooled by it are people entrenched within it's ideology already because they desperately want him to be right. Much of what you post is dead-on. Spencer just happens to be a misfire in my opinion.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-11, 06:44 PM   #80
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Don't get me wrong here, I don't think Gore's movie is fit to wipe my ass. Much of what he presented was sensational, now out-dated or flat-out wrong.
That's just my point. Why is RealClimate still supporting AIT?

Quote:
As a real skeptic you have to examine the data and not get lost within the political movement. Not every scientist working as denier is full of bunk, but a lot are. The same way I don't trust any of the clowns over at Green Peace because of the way their ideology has overshadowed their work. Green Peace parades bad research that supports its cause, PETA distorts statistics to impresses other PETA zombies, denier blogs push whatever sliver of doubt they can find.
I agree with you in many ways although I would never use the word "denier" for anyone except Holocaust deniers.

I honestly don't know of many skeptical scientists who are full of bunk. There are some skeptics I'm skeptical of myself. I tend to avoid posting Monckton (not always because sometimes he is not full of shit or it's just instructive to see how he's treated completely differently than Gore and other alarmist clowns) because I think he does exaggerate and has some problems although he's much better than alarmist nonscientist counterparts such as Gore, Suzuki, Flannery or Monbiot.

I remember when Ernst-Georg Beck died. He had published a paper claiming wildly fluctuating CO2 levels over several hundred years. It was a very bad paper and I said so at WattsUpWithThat. I got pilloried and was accused of falsely claiming to be a skeptic. I backed off, but only out of respect for the dead (I said this probably was not the right time to bring it up) but I showed them I was a real skeptic by linking to the DVD Talk global warming threads. It did appall me that many there were praising Beck and defending his work.

You can see all this at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/2...t-george-beck/

Quote:
Spencer's study was bad science. The only people fooled by it are people entrenched within it's ideology already because they desperately want him to be right. Much of what you post is dead-on. Spencer just happens to be a misfire in my opinion.
I don't really know whether Spencer's paper is good or bad science. I'm not a scientist myself, of course. I do know that the preponderance of the evidence, both in observations and history, favors low climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks. And I know I wouldn't wipe my ass with anything Dessler, Trenberth or Schmidt says.

I do find it interesting that Emanuel, who is a very strong alarmist (his work has been in trying to link increasing CO2 levels to increasing hurricanes), finds Spencer's paper good; he just finds what many are saying about it not so good.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-11, 09:31 AM   #81
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Follow up to Posts #54 and #66. Transcript released from an investigative interview with the co-author of suspended polar bear scientist Charles Monnett. The co-author's name is Jeffrey Gleason. As with Monnett, Gleason is grilled on their polar bear work.

Very long so here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...effrey-gleason

It is now being claimed by an investigator that Gleason's alleged misdeeds are not connected to his polar bear research. Tom Nelson comments:

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/0...view-with.html

Quote:
If you read through the Gleason transcript and the Monnett transcript, it's pretty difficult to believe that Monnett's current troubles have absolutely nothing to do with his junk polar bear paper.

After co-authoring the paper suggesting that global warming killed the allegedly dead polar bears, Gleason now suggests that evidence of AGW is "somebody else's issue".

Gleason is questioned about the ridiculous 25% survival calculation in his paper; he's asked why he could get clear pictures of whales, but not dead polar bears; he's asked why his only photos appear to be manipulated; he's asked whether he's sure that the same dead polar bear wasn't seen more than once. He's also questioned on the "pal review" on this paper (Monnett's wife was a reviewer). He's also asked why no more dead polar bears were seen in subsequent years, if global warming killed the bears in 2004.

Gleason says the airplane circled all dead polar bears to get a better look. On page 25 of the Monnett transcript, Monnett agrees, but then contradicts himself on page 29, when he says "I know some of them, we didn't circle on. We just kept going. We, we identified them, um, you know, flying by." Note that the paper says "Swimming and floating polar bears are difficult to see from the survey's standard 457m altitude even under ideal conditions."
Indeed, both authors are aggressively grilled on the polar bear work. Both come off as evasive. Their answers show their work was superficial, with silly extrapolations and appear to promote an agenda (that the polar bears, whose numbers have increased three to five fold in the last 50-60 years, are in serious trouble). Why were they asked about these things if they aren't the issue (or at least an issue)?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-11, 01:41 PM   #82
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
Follow up to Posts #54 and #66. Transcript released from an investigative interview with the co-author of suspended polar bear scientist Charles Monnett. The co-author's name is Jeffrey Gleason. As with Monnett, Gleason is grilled on their polar bear work.

Very long so here is the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...effrey-gleason

It is now being claimed by an investigator that Gleason's alleged misdeeds are not connected to his polar bear research.
Investigations can take awhile. So while he was likely officially suspended for something else as stated by the press release, it was probably done to buy time for further inquire. Or it might be easier to suspend/terminate if they go the route they are on. It'd be like firing a person for being late for work as opposed for performance issues because that'd be a much easier termination case to prove.

Or it might cast less embarrassment back at them if the suspension has nothing to do with research. Hopefully time will tell.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-11, 06:39 AM   #83
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

More on suspended polar bear scientist:

http://m.npr.org/news/front/138909083?singlePage=true

Quote:
U.S. Wildlife Scientist Gets New Clues For His Suspension
Published: August 01, 2011
by Nell Greenfieldboyce

An arctic scientist who was abruptly suspended from his work at a government agency on July 18 has now received a letter that hints at why he was suspended.

The Department of the Interior's Inspector General Office has informed researcher Charles Monnett that next week, investigators will ask him questions about his actions related to a polar bear study that was recently halted.

Monnett, who works at an agency of the Department of the Interior, is an arctic wildlife researcher who published an influential report in 2006 on apparently drowned polar bears that raised alarms about melting ice and the danger of climate change.

That controversial study seemed to be at the center of an Inspector General investigation that's been going on for months, drawing criticism that a climate change researcher was apparently facing persecution for his scientific work.

But last Friday, a spokesperson with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, where Monnett works, issued a statement that "the agency placed Mr. Monnett on administrative leave for reasons having nothing to do with scientific integrity, his 2006 journal article, or issues related to permitting, as has been alleged. Any suggestions or speculation to the contrary are wrong."

Now, a letter dated July 29 from the Office of Inspector General says that Monnett will be questioned about his work related to managing a study titled "Populations and Sources of the Recruitment in Polar Bears." Issues to be discussed included his compliance with regulations that govern federal contracts, as well as disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work.

This polar bear tracking study was being conducted with the University of Alberta, but a "stop work order" was issued shortly before the government placed Monnett on administrative leave, says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has been providing legal representation for Monnett.

"We're sort of at a loss as to why this kind of Inspector General fishing expedition has entered this inlet," says Ruch.

He says Monnett has only a cordial professional relationship with the primary investigator of the polar bear study in question. And Ruch says all of the scientist's work on managing that polar bear study was approved by his supervisors. "Every aspect of this study was approved by his chain of command, with a fairly transparent paper trail," says Ruch.

The July 29 letter further informed Monnett that the Department of Justice "has declined criminal prosecution" regarding matters that would be discussed in the upcoming interview, scheduled for August 9.
So it has to do with a different polar bear study? Or both? Or something else?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-11, 03:58 PM   #84
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

"It's not about Monnett's science or his 2006 polar bear paper."

Oh, really?

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...bear-research/

Quote:
August 2, 2011, 11:29 am
Second-Guessing Polar Bear Research
By FELICITY BARRINGER

An environmental advocacy group representing Charles Monnett, a federal wildlife biologist who has been suspended from his job, says that he will undergo a second interview next Tuesday with the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office, this time about his role in promoting and designing a five-year research project on polar bear populations.

Dr. Monnett was placed on administrative leave two weeks ago by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and was informed that his integrity was in question.

A missive that he received from the Interior Department says that he may still face questions about a peer-reviewed paper he published in 2006 after a sighting of four dead polar bears in open waters of the Beaufort Sea. Agents now want to pose questions about the the design of a long-term contract to study the bears’ movements and behaviors and how it was awarded.

Dr. Monnett (pronounced Moe-NEIGH) played an important role in setting priorities for $50 million worth of research studies at the Alaska regional office of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Shortly before his suspension on July 18, he was told he could have nothing more to do with this continuing study on polar bears because of doubts about his impartiality.

In 2006, the journal Polar Biology published a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Monnett and another federal biologist, Jeffrey Gleason, in which they reported having sighted dead polar bears during a survey of bowhead whale populations in 2004. The article and associated discussions at scientific conferences helped to make the polar bear a charismatic symbol of climate change and its impact.

When Dr. Monnett was suspended, the bureau halted the study. Asked about that study on Monday, Melissa Schwartz, a bureau spokeswoman, confirmed that the decision to halt it had been reversed and “the study is continuing to move forward.”

The study is led by Dr. Andrew Derocher of the University of Alberta, an institution that has led much of the Canadian research on polar bear populations. The stop-work order could have left the impression that the integrity of Dr. Derocher’s team was also in doubt; its withdrawal suggests that Dr. Monnett remains the focus of the case.

Dr. Monnett’s original paper, published in the journal Polar Biology, was what scientists call a “note,” or brief discussion of observations with limited analysis, all couched in the language of possibility. It suggested that the retreat of polar ice required the bears to swim longer distances. It hypothesized that the energy expended in these swims left the bears ill-prepared for a storm that brought high winds and waves.

It was not long before skeptics on the subject of human-caused climate change began to question Dr. Monnett’s findings, asking why no floating dead bears had been seen since.

A portion of an interview with Dr. Gleason by the inspector general’s agents in February goes into minute detail over whether the impact of a storm was given enough prominence and the retreating ice too much prominence. Dr. Gleason repeatedly responded in the fashion of other scientists whose findings have gone viral: I am responsible for the observations, not the spin.

The partial transcript was released by the group defending him, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The investigators also told Dr. Gleason that Dr. Monnett had made a “big mistake” in calculations that put the bear mortality rate after the storm at 75 percent. When Dr. Gleason asked what the investigation was about, he was told that it concerned “the validity of the paper.” In a later interview with Dr. Monnett, investigators said they were looking into “scientific misconduct.”

(One of the more lively moments in this transcript is the back-and-forth between the investigators and an increasingly exasperated Dr. Monnett over how to structure the mathematical calculations representing polar-bear mortality. He indicated, with consistent acidic references to “fifth grade” equations on percentages, that the investigators or their informants needed remedial work on their mathematics.)

Dr. Monnett confirmed for the investigators that after he observed the dead bears, he contacted Dr. Derocher and others about what to do about his observations, since they were polar bear experts and he was not. They encouraged him to publish them, he said.

Going forward, will such communications with these scientists be brought forth as evidence of bias? And what will Dr. Monnett be asked about the particulars of the awarding of the contract for or the design of the polar-bear study? Should his communications with other scientists be at issue, it will be interesting to compare how this issue is parsed in this case by comparison with other deconstructions of scientists’ communications.

I am referring, of course, to investigations of climate-change researchers at the University of East Anglia after their e-mails were stolen and climate change skeptics charged that the communications were evidence of ethical missteps. (The scientists were cleared of wrongdoing.) Or the ongoing investigation of the climate researcher Michael Mann by Virginia’s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, should he win his court battle appeal
to subpoena Dr. Mann’s research papers and his e-mail correspondence with scientists.

A transcript of the next interview with Dr. Monnett may answer some of these questions. Or raise new ones.
(I have to laugh at the second last paragraph. It doesn't really fit and seems awkwardly set up and crammed in by Ms Barringer so she won't lose her alarmist credentials. )

I find it odd that the group defending Monnett released the transcripts which seem so damning to him.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-11, 04:22 PM   #85
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

17 years ago Greenpeace said a whole lot of things and made a whole lot of predictions. None were or have come true. But will that stop them? Did it stop Paul Ehrlich? (That's the science equivalent of "Does a bear shit in the woods?")

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/...-fear-machine/

Quote:
Greenpeace’s Fear Machine
August 2, 2011
Donna Laframboise

Art Horn, writing at the Energy Tribune, calls our attention to a Greenpeace document titled The Climate Time Bomb. It was written 17 years ago – in 1994 – but it may as well have been yesterday.

The dramatic language, the glass-is-always-half-empty perspective on the world, the blind faith in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – it’s all there.

Back in 1994, Greenpeace had monitored “extreme weather events” and had already concluded from this catalogue of disasters that:
the first impacts of human-induced climate change are in fact already being felt.
Seventeen years ago, well before the bulk of current scholarship was even in the grant application stage, Greenpeace had already decided that:
Many plants and animals will face extinction…Entire island countries in the Pacific may disappear under the sea.
Even more telling, nearly two decades ago Greenpeace was already declaring that the problem wasn’t a shortage of reliable, scalable, non-carbon-dioxide-emitting energy sources but old-fashioned apathy:
Solutions to global warming do exist – the clean energy alternatives and the energy saving processes only require political will to be implemented.
This, of course, is exactly what these people are saying now. In 2008 a Greenpeace publication on renewable energy featured a huge pullout quote (see page 3) that read:
will we look into the eyes of our children and confess that we had the opportunity, but lacked the courage? that we had the technology, but lacked the vision?
But as the brouhaha over the recent IPCC renewable energy report demonstrates, it is only idealistic young people and groups such as Greenpeace that think such technology exists even today.

Moreover, the most optimistic estimates of renewable energy depend on a rather large fudge. One has to include the burning of animal dung by the poorest of the poor within one’s definition of renewable energy. As the person who blogs at ClimateQuotes.com observes:
Traditional biomass means cooking on wood stoves, it means difficult wood collection (done mostly by women), it means smoke inhalation and deforestation. Basically, traditional biomass is another way of saying abject poverty. It means no access to energy at all. Calling traditional biomass renewable energy is more than a strech.
If one spends a few minutes clicking through that 1994 report it becomes clear that Greenpeace has long been in the habit of making dire predictions. When those predictions fail, this organization carries on as if nothing ever happened.

This means it doesn’t learn much. Like a mindless furry rodent on a hamster wheel it continues on and on and on.

In 1994 Greenpeace told us coral reefs were “under assault” and implied that warmer ocean temperatures were causing bleaching. Eager to alarm everyone Greenpeace declared:
A severe coral bleaching episode is reported in the Tahiti lagoon, possible [sic] linked to warmer-than-normal water. Local experts predict 100 per cent bleaching by the end of May 1994.
That sounds grim. But less than 10 years later, when an IMAX film titled Coral Reef Adventure was released, it contained breathtaking footage of healthy Tahiti coral. According to the film’s website Tahiti’s coral continues to attract divers and snorkelers from around the world.

Back in 1994 Greenpeace implied that the fact that some insurance companies had gone out-of-business was proof the apocalypse was imminent. This section is a wonderful, early example of how activist groups have found it convenient to align themselves with certain business interests (and let us not be confused: insurance is, indeed, big business).

If you’re wondering how the insurance-companies-headed-for-oblivion prediction turned out, I recommend a series of articles that won US journalist Paige St. John a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting back in May. By the time you’ve finished reading them your sympathy for the insurance industry may be somewhat diminished.

(For the short version, see this blog post in which I discuss how the math that resulted in consumers paying $82 billion more in insurance premiums was dreamed up. Hint: it included a four-hour informal discussion with four climate experts – whose predictions were, in retrospect, rather wide of the mark.)

One of the more distressing parts of that 1994 Greenpeace report is the section on human health. It’s important to remember that the IPCC’s first health chapter didn’t appear until 1995. It was so badly botched that Paul Reiter, who has devoted his entire professional life to the study of diseases spread by mosquitoes – including malaria – later described it as “amateurish.”

Nevertheless, in 1994 Greenpeace just knew that climate change would lead to more disease. Its report includes a closeup photo of a person with a large open sore on their face, and declares that:
Our health is threatened by climate change. Malaria, asthma, encephalitis, tuberculosis, leprosy, dengue fever and measles are all expected to become more common.
How does Greepeace know this?
because Australian officials “believe hotter summer temperatures may be contributing” to an increase in malaria
because US researchers think the discovery of a new strain of mosquito suggests that these mosquitoes “may spread rapidly in a global warming world”
because a UK government report “suggests that malaria and other tropical diseases, and even bubonic plague, could be reintroduced to the UK as a result of global warming. ”
This is all that Greenpeace requires. Beliefs and suggestions – nothing more. Greenpeace is happy to take mere possibilities and translate them into the confident statement that Our health is threatened by climate change. It feels no shame in adding a lurid photograph which, one supposes, is intended to imply that we’re all fated to become disfigured if we don’t get with the Greenpeace program.

What does all of this add up to?

It says that Greenpeace is a fearmonger. It demonstrates that Greenpeace has spent the past 20 years trying to frighten us.

One wonders if these people will ever look into the eyes of their children and confess that, rather than getting a real job, they chose instead to blight the childhoods of youngsters everywhere with hideous images and terrifying tales.
Thee article says Greenpeace loves the IPCC. The feeling must be mutual given that the IPCC uses so much Greenpeace "science" (and WWF and some others too) in its reports.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-11, 12:38 PM   #86
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm going to become a devout adherent to this global warming nonsense if this oppressive heat continues. It's already 108 where I live. A high of 113 is predicted for today.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-11, 04:53 PM   #87
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

We've been told that Roy Spencer's latest peer reviewed paper is crap for a variety of ad hom reasons such as he's a believer in intelligent design and several alarmist on alarmist sites say he's full of shit. I am not a believer in ID but I fail to see how that disqualifies Spencer in the area of climate science in which he has published many papers and is the highly accomplished co-runner of the UAH satellite temperature record.

One of those alarmists, Andrew Dessler has claimed that Spencer does not know his climate forcings from his feedbacks, essentially making the silly claim that something can't be both a feedback and then a forcing itself.

String theory physicist Lubos Motl critiques Dessler's critique.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/ca...cings-and.html

Spoilerized for length

Spoiler:
Quote:
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Can one sharply separate forcings and feedbacks?
Lubos Motl

Andrew Dessler is employed as a climate alarmist in Texas (at Texas A&M).

He recently expressed his opinion about the new paper by Spencer and Braswell (reactions in the media via Google News). According to Dessler, the "paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times)."

Dessler himself who is never wrong (except when he speaks or writes) addresses his results to other scientists which is why he sent his reaction concerning Spencer's and Braswell's paper to Think Progress, a community server of militant Marxist guerillas.

I wonder whether he can see the irony. My guess is that he can't. Yesterday, alarmist Alexander Ač didn't manage to identify that a report about Bernanke in the pub came from the Onion and he presented it on his blog as real news. ;-)

These people are no longer capable to distinguish reality from fiction even in the most obvious cases. At any rate, Dessler's e-mail to Joe Romm also says the following:
[indent]To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.
The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak.
Dessler's text gets extremely repetitive so I didn't copy the whole thing. OK, his main claim is that clouds are "just a feedback" and "not a forcing" and this is the key dogma that every paper about clouds has to obey.

Oh, really?

Bosses and slaves in the climate

First, what does it really mean? He means that there are the "real forcings" which are like the "bosses", the important effects, and they're the only truly active, independent players who command everything else. All other players in the system are just "assistants" to these bosses who "amplify" the orders by the bosses (or present their commands in a softer, more diplomatic tone - "negative feedbacks"), or they're just passive spectators.

Quasi-mathematically, he says that everyone has to reconcile his theory of the climate with the following multi-step template:

EmissionsCO2=F1(Carbontax)ConcentrationCO2=F2(EmissionsCO2)Clouds=F3(EmissionsCO2)Temperature=F4(Con centrationCO2)…

and so on. So if you look at this hierarchical system of laws, clouds and everything else is ultimately a function of the carbon tax - the only "true forcing". But even if you forget about the carbon tax (which has no measurable impact on CO2 in the real world, unlike recessions and technological discoveries), this world view is based upon the belief that some quantities in Nature are "active" while others are "purely passive" and controlled or determined by the "active" ones.

That's how the dogmas of third-class scientists of Dessler's caliber are clearly built. But does Nature obey these dogmas?

In principle: it doesn't

In principle, when you're arbitrarily accurate, it surely doesn't. There are no fully passive players in the physical world. There is no exception. There are no observers that only react to the external changes but don't influence their environment. Dessler's reasoning is surely fundamentally flawed as a matter of fundamental physics.

The laws of classical physics may be expressed using the principle of least action:
δS=0
The action S is a function of all degrees of freedom - positions of particles, shape of things that can change their shape, values of electromagnetic and other fields at each point, and so on.

If you vary the action, you obtain the so-called Euler-Lagrange equations: they're like equations similar to F⃗=ma⃗ or Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. It's important to realize that in all realistic situations, a dynamical degree of freedom Φ enters more than one equation. If a degree of freedom Φ is dynamical, and not e.g. a Lagrange multiplier, there must exist at least one term in the action that is at least bilinear in Φ or its derivatives, e.g. (∂tΦ)2.

Consequently, it appears in the equations of motion obtained by varying Φ itself. But unless Φ is completely decoupled from everything else - a ghost that can't even react to other things - it also appears in the equations where another degree of freedom is (or other degrees freedom are) varied. It follows that Φ influences the other degrees of freedom, too.

If Φ is influenced by Ψ, it must also be true that Ψ is influenced by Φ. Maybe I have used an unnecessarily complicated language to convince you about Newton's third law, the law about action and reaction.

So Φ cannot be a passive player that doesn't influence anyone else. In particular, if you choose Φ to remember some information about the cloud cover, it cannot be the case that Φ is only a "passive respondent" that cannot influence other players in an independent way. It always can!

And we know damn well that clouds surely do influence the rest of the system. Tropical depressions have clouds in the middle. The clouds help to cool the interior - because they reflect the sunlight - which also helps to further reduce the pressure in the middle. Tropical depressions may later grow to tropical cyclones and hurricanes (which have a cloudless "eye" in the middle that helps to stabilize the system). This temporary instability wouldn't be the same if there weren't clouds - and it's likely that it wouldn't work at all. If clouds weren't important for a hurricane, you would probably get many hurricanes during sunny days which seem somewhat unusual. ;-)

The atmospheric-ocean interactions that lead to El Nino or La Nina conditions are affected by cloud cover, too, even if Dessler finds it inconvenient. But is there at least some approximation in which some degrees of freedom are "masters" ("forcings") while others are just "assistants" (feedbacks) or "slaves" (completely passive spectators)? Well, yes, there is.

Slow and fast degrees of freedom

In quantum physics, we know such things from the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. For example, the nuclei of the atoms are moving much more slowly (in the molecules) than the electrons. The momentum of the nuclei and the electrons are comparable - by the action and reaction principle (or momentum conservation, if you wish). But because the kinetic energy is EK=P2/2M, it is clear that for the same momentum, the kinetic energy of the nuclei that have a much higher mass M may be neglected relatively to the kinetic energy of the lighter electrons.

So you may imagine that the nuclei are sitting at fixed positions and you calculate the behavior of the faster electrons relatively to these fixed positions. In this way, you obtain all the wave functions for the electrons. They also tell you that there is an effective potential energy for the positions of the nuclei, V(R⃗1,…,R⃗N). This effective potential energy is calculated as the total energy eigenvalue corresponding to the motion of all the electrons.

At the end, you may include the kinetic energy of the nuclei as well, add it to the potential energy you calculated from the electrons' wave functions, and neglect everything else about the electrons. In another language, the "fast" degrees of freedom of the electrons have been "integrated out": you no longer have to look into the detailed motion of the electrons. You have just extracted how it affects the slow degrees of freedom, namely the locations of the nuclei.

("Integrating out" in quantum field theory, using the logic of the renormalization group, is based on the same principles although the mathematical realization differs.)

An analogous "hierarchic" treatment exists in classical physics, too. At least when there are fast processes and slow processes. For example, the change of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a "slow" process - it takes roughly a century for the concentration to make a substantial part of its return to the equilibrium value for the current temperatures which is around 280 ppm.

On the other hand, the change of the concentration of water vapor is a "fast" process. It takes a much shorter time for water to evaporate from the ocean - or condense into the ocean - and reach same value of the concentration that is expected for the existing values of some "slow" parameters. In this sense, the water vapor is analogous to the electrons in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation: they also immediately adjust their wave functions to minimize the energy, given some "nearly constant" positions of the nuclei.

So the only justification of the dogmatic proposition that "clouds are not a forcing" is that they are always a "fast process". And indeed, you may find situations in which this approximation is relatively OK.

But you may also find situations and effects in which this approximation is totally wrong. If the Solar System moves through a spiral arm of the Milky Way so that the amount of cosmic rays is higher, these cosmic rays almost immediately influence the cloud cover but they may be doing the same thing for - well - one half of 140 million years (the period it takes for the Solar System to "bubble" through the Milky Way from one spiral arm to the next). Or any other period of time if there are some faster patterns in the cosmic rays, e.g. those influenced by the slow 400-year solar cycles.

So you could say that the cosmic rays are the forcing, and not the clouds themselves, but that's just about your choice of words. It's still true that from the terrestrial viewpoint, you will see a change in the cloud cover that looks independent of other internal quantities and that may (and probably did) change the Earth's temperature by many degrees if not a dozen of degrees.

You could say that the cosmic rays play a similar role of an "external agent" as humans do when they add CO2 into the atmosphere. And you would be right. But that doesn't mean that the cosmic rays are necessary for the clouds to be able to influence other degrees of freedom as if they were the "local bosses" for a certain "project". Of course that the clouds can play this role themselves.

While Dessler assumes that clouds are "so extremely fast" degrees of freedom that they're just ultimately slaves that should never be considered "independent degrees of freedom", even little children know that this is rubbish. It can take quite some time for clouds to disappear if you experience cloudy skies. The Sun above the clouds may be doing the right thing, everything may be in place to make those nasty clouds disappear but they're still there.

(We know it in Czechia. July 2011 was the coldest and rainiest July of this century so far. So if you had 100+ degrees Fahrenheit in Texas, please don't forget that there are also places outside Texas where your experience doesn't necessarily generalize.)

In fact, there are all kinds of lags associated with the clouds and some of them are comparable to months. Note that the typical lags in changes of temperature associated with the heat capacity of the upper ocean are of order 5 years. It simply takes years for the oceans to heat up or warm down by their contact with the adjacent atmosphere.

If I borrow a part of Figure 3 in Spencer-Braswell, it looks like this:



What is drawn is a regression coefficient between two quantities (some energy flux and temperature) in W/m2/K as a function of some lag between them in months. When you understand some logic of this research, it's a pretty simple and fundamental a thing to try to draw. The green curve is extracted from the observations. The red and blue curves are calculated from the climate models. Within the accuracy we expect from the IPCC (and using clever approximations such as 2035=2350), you see that the green, red, and blue curves almost exactly coincide.

You may ask: which of the IPCC climate models - those with a lower sensitivity (blue) or those with a higher sensitivity (red) - are better in describing this feature of reality? The answer is that it doesn't really matter. All IPCC climate models are extremely far from the reality (even though the lower-sensitivity models are a little bit better).

First of all, the models' maximum achieved slope is about 3-5 times lower than the observations: that shows that the IPCC models strongly overestimate how much tightly the atmosphere wants to store heat when you raise the temperature. When the Earth gets warmer, it simply emits more thermal radiation. The slope of this dependence is substantial and many times greater than the prediction of the IPCC models that essentially say that the Earth doesn't respond (and doesn't cool itself) when the temperature rises.

Second of all, the optimum lag where the curve is maximized - around 4 months according to the observed data - is something that the models totally disagree with. The contemporary IPCC-sponsored models - and the third-class scientists who defend them - have absolutely no clue about such quantities and patterns. They have never tested any of them. They have never asked the question. They're never being fired if they utterly fail in their job even though they should be severely punished if the system were working and if science mattered. So they don't even have to try.

What they do is to prepare some presentations indicating that the models "look OK" that the laymen who are ignorant about physics and mathematics are ready to buy. The assumption is that the laymen can't understand that if Z(t)=X(Δt)Y(t−Δt), one may try to determine the quantity X(Δt), encoding the relationship between Y and Z, as a function of the delay Δt. The number of people who are ignorant enough to be unable to understand these tests is high enough for the alarmist machine to run. Well, it hasn't ever been about the equations, anyway. So the likes of Dessler never do any genuine science. They never try to ask and answer meaningful questions. They're just defending some blatantly wrong dogmas that are convenient from various personal and collective perspectives.

Dessler is promising us that he will find some actual problems with the paper by Spencer and Braswell. He doesn't know of any at this moment but he's already sure he will find some problems - well at least, problems legitimate enough so that they can get through the "peer review" done by his soulmates (whose standards are near zero when the paper is helping to create panic).

So far, he has only realized - correctly - that the results of the paper are inconvenient and contradict the IPCC's perception of CO2 as the only relevant "master", or "forcing", in the climate they want to be discussed. The idea that the cloud cover at a given place could be a real number and an independent piece of information that is not a function of the CO2 concentration - or, heaven forbid, that clouds could even influence the temperature - is as scary for the likes of Dessler as the heliocentric system was for the medieval Catholic bigots.

Even if the Earth were not the center of the Universe and even if clouds had the potential to independently influence the temperatures beneath them, we surely can't allow this heresy to be loudly articulated, can we? This would lead to a complete collapse of the society as Dessler et al. visualize it.

People like Spencer, Braswell, Lindzen, Choi and others are working hard and they're rather badly treated for this work. This won't change until at least 95% of the pseudoscientific likes of Mr Dessler will be eliminated from the scientific community where they have absolutely no moral right to oxidate. What they're doing is nothing else than sabotage. They do everything they can for the genuine scientific research to be suppressed and de facto impossible. That's what they are apparently paid for.

You see that as soon as Spencer and Braswell plotted the observational data - and the model predictions - in a slightly original and unusual way, the alarmists were just stunned. They didn't know how to react - except for vacuous ad hominem attacks (like claims that no one surely takes them seriously because they're not a part of the alarmed community). In the same way, if you wrote a paper comparing the regional variability of the warming trend (the standard deviation that I analyzed in a few previous postings) with the model predictions, they would also be shocked. They have never tested their models whether they predict these rather basic quantities correctly. More seriously, they don't want the models to be tested because every new test means one more failure. And every new failure diminishes their anti-God called CO2.

There are many independent players and degrees of freedom in Nature - and in the climate system - and they influence each other in many ways. Some of these influences are more important, some of them are less important. They may be described by one equation or another - and the right one can't be clear a priori. The right theories about these influences must be selected by their agreement with the data, and not just the most obvious laymen's data such as the overall global temperature change, but also the agreement in many graphs that only skillful scientists such as Spencer, Braswell, Lindzen, and Choi may design and quantify. One example was reprinted above.

These four people are doing real climatology, real theory, real phenomenology, and/or real observations and experiments; Dessler and dozens of others are doing nothing else than propaganda, mudslinging, and defense of their politically motivated but scientifically unjustifiable dogmas.

And that's the memo.

Now I don't claim to follow all of this but I do know a can influence b and then b can influence c. In this case b would be first a "feedback" and then a "forcing." b is clouds. And it is Dessler's argument that is crap.

I do ask OldDude to comment. Thanks.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-11, 06:37 PM   #88
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm in northern Wisconsin at my wife's parents' old house with no internet access and intermittent access from some network. I may not be able to post much now through Sunday. I was lucky to get the above post in.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-11, 07:15 PM   #89
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
We've been told that Roy Spencer's latest peer reviewed paper is crap for a variety of ad hom reasons such as he's a believer in intelligent design and several alarmist on alarmist sites say he's full of shit. I am not a believer in ID but I fail to see how that disqualifies Spencer in the area of climate science in which he has published many papers and is the highly accomplished co-runner of the UAH satellite temperature record.
So, it's crap because he's mixing causation and correlation to wedge in his prestated beliefs into a study. Your point on his background is also meaningless because if someone background meant they were right then all the scientists who don't agree with him would also be right. Many smart people believe in stupid things which is why the evidence counts more then who is saying it. The most important skill a scientist should have is a need to disprove their own theories... you have to want to be wrong!

When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research. If you deny evolution you are saying that your faith trumps empirical evidence (see, it pops up again!). There is a clear pattern.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-11, 08:32 PM   #90
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
So, it's crap because he's mixing causation and correlation to wedge in his prestated beliefs into a study.
You think he's doing that. I don't. I think his caution in his claims shows he is considering the difference between causation and correlation.

Quote:
Your point on his background is also meaningless because if someone background meant they were right then all the scientists who don't agree with him would also be right.
I don't get this. I've never said Spencer is right because of his background. I've never even said he's right. I think he conducted a legitimate study that implies the models are not right because, at least in part, they overestimate climate sensitivity and that is because they don't get clouds right. I certainly won't say he's proved it since he doesn't say that himself.

I've listed (a very few) of his credentials just to show he's not a far out nut like many alarmists like to portray him (and just about any other skeptic). He is a credentialed scientist with a distinguished record, with NASA and with the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Just as distinguished as any alarmist.

No one is right because of his or her "background."

Quote:
Many smart people believe in stupid things which is why the evidence counts more then who is saying it. The most important skill a scientist should have is a need to disprove their own theories... you have to want to be wrong!
I agree. Every scientist should do that. Or at least invite others to try to disprove his or her theories. Obviously many don't operate that way. I do know I've never seen alarmists who operate that way. One big difference is that skeptics routinely release all their raw data, work and codes. I have seen way too many alarmists who hide theirs and make it extremely difficult for skeptics to obtain (Mann, Hansen, Jones, to name a few). You see alarmists complain about skeptics but never because their work is not accessible. However, skeptics often have to spend months or sometimes even years reverse engineering alarmists' studies (such as the Hockey Stick) because the alarmists will not release much of their work unless absolutely forced to. Mann's Hockey Stick is legendary. McIntyre and McKitrick had to spend years (I cannot recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford too highly). Jones is famous for saying "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Please find me any such examples among skeptics.

Quote:
When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research. If you deny evolution you are saying that your faith trumps empirical evidence (see, it pops up again!). There is a clear pattern.
I think nature tends to balance the environment. I think there are many more negative than positive feedbacks. It has, obviously, nothing to do with religion as I'm an atheist. It has to do with the empirical fact that we have not gone completely off the rails. Cool periods are followed by warm ones and vice versa. It's what we have seen for 4.5 billion years. There are some very extreme periods (Snowball Earth, for example, which seem to come during periods of the Earth going through the spiral arms of the galaxy and, according to the Svensmark theory, we get a huge increase in galactic cosmic rays which cause much more cloudiness and cool the planet more than at any other times. Whether that particular theory is right or wrong, it takes a huge forcing to get us so far off the rails. And even then, we recover. (Thank goodness we are not always in a spiral arm or the Earth would probably never have evolved us.) We will not recover from the sun going nova (hopefully we will still be around and will have found somewhere else).

All I can say is I don't agree with you about the ID thing. We're at a dead end with it. And as I said before, Lindzen's work on climate sensitivity parallels Spencer's quite a bit. Lindzen is not a fundamentalist Christian (he's Jewish) and he's not an IDer. If Lindzen had done this study (which is conceivable because there has been so much overlap in their pursuits), would it be any better or worse? I think any particular scientist may or may not be able to separate religious or political beliefs from his or her work. The fact that not all do is evidenced by most liberal scientists believing in and apparently wanting to prove CAGW. I don't deny that most conservative scientists probably want to prove the opposite. I say most. This does not apply to all. And yes, what it comes down to is the quality of the work and the evidence. I'll put the work of skeptics up with the work of alarmists any time. I think the contrast is glaring. But then, I'm a libertarian.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 08-04-11 at 08:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-11, 09:09 PM   #91
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

New peer reviewed study in the journal Science. Arctic ice unlikely to reach a tipping point any time soon (or probably in the foreseeable future).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/0...ot-be-reached/

Quote:
New study suggests Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
Posted on August 4, 2011 by Anthony Watts

This is interesting. While there’s much noise from alarmists that we are on an “Arctic death spiral” the team for this paper’s press release today found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago. The paper references changes to wind systems which can slow down the rate of melting (something we’ve seen on the short term, even NASA points this out for recent historic ice retreats). They also suggest that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely saying that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return (i.e. a tipping point). From the University of Copenhagen:

Large variations in Arctic sea ice

For the last 10,000 years, summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been far from constant. For several thousand years, there was much less sea ice in The Arctic Ocean – probably less than half of current amounts. This is indicated by new findings by the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the University of Copenhagen. The results of the study will be published in the journal Science.

Sea ice comes and goes without leaving a record. For this reason, our knowledge about its variations and extent was limited before we had satellite surveillance or observations from airplanes and ships. But now researchers at the Danish National Research Foundation for Geogenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark (University of Copenhagen) have developed a method by which it is possible to measure the variations in the ice several millennia back in time.

The results are based on material gathered along the coast of northern Greenland, which scientists expect will be the final place summer ice will survive, if global temperatures continue to rise.

This means that the results from northern Greenland also indicate what the conditions are like in the ocean.

Less ice than today

Team leader Svend Funder, and two other team members and co-authors of the Science article, Eske Willerslev and Kurt Kjær, are all associated with the Danish Research Foundation at the University of Copenhagen.

Regarding the research results, Funder says, “Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which was absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.”

Driftwood unlocks mystery

In order to reach their surprising conclusions, Funder and the rest of the team organised several expeditions to Peary Land in northern Greenland. Named after American Polar explorer Robert E. Peary, the region is an inhospitable and rarely visited area, where summer blizzards are not uncommon.

” Our key to the mystery of the extent of sea ice during earlier epochs lies in the driftwood we found along the coast. One might think that it had floated across sea, but such a journey takes several years, and driftwood would not be able to stay afloat for that long. The driftwood is from the outset embedded in sea ice, and reaches the north Greenland coast along with it. The amount of driftwood therefore indicates how much multiyear sea ice there was in the ocean back then. And this is precisely the type of ice that is in danger of disappearing today,” Funder says.

After the expeditions had been completed, the team needed to study the wood they had collected: wood types had to be determined and it had to be carbon-14 dated. The driftwood originated near the great rivers of present-day North America and Siberia. The wood types were almost entirely spruce, which is widespread in the Boreal forest of North America, and larch, which is dominates the Siberian taiga. The different wood types therefore are evidence of changing travel routes and altered current and wind conditions in the ocean.

Beach ridges and wave breaking

The team also examined the beach ridges along the coast. Today, perennial ice prevents any sort of beach from forming along the coasts of northern Greenland. But this had not always been the case. Behind the present shore long rows of beach ridges show that at one time waves could break onto the beach unhindered by sea ice. The beach ridges were mapped for 500 kilometres along the coast, and carbon-14 dating has shown that during the warm period from about 8000 until 4000 years ago, there was more open water and less coastal ice than today.


Part of map showing the northern ice sea. The red marks illustrate beach ridges... (Illustration: University of Copenhagen)

Point of no return

“Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media,” Funder says.

Research could also benefit polar bears

In addition to giving us a better understanding of what the climate in northern Greenland was like thousands of years ago, it could also reveal how polar bears fared in warmer climate. The team plans to use DNA in fossil polar bear bones to study polar bear population levels during the Holocene Climate Optimum.

The team’s findings are to be published in the journal Science.
I thought the polar bears were not supposed to be able to survive with so much less ice.

It should be pointed out that polar bears (who, with the brown bear, are thought to have a common ancestor) are thought to have been around for about 100,000 years. They clearly didn't all drown as No, No Monnett thinks they should. They survived this theorized period of 50% less ice (if it really happened). But now a little CO2 is supposed to kill them all.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 09:27 AM   #92
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Those damn deniers and their oil money.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/...activist-cash/

Quote:
Naming Names: Marine Experts Tainted by Activist Cash
August 5, 2011
Donna Laframboise

Yesterday I blogged about how the Pew Environment Group, an activist organization, has been funding research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than 20 years. Those named as Pew Fellows each receive $150,000.

This is no small matter. The question of whether an entire generation of scholarship has been improperly influenced by activist funding must now be asked.

How many people with doctorates now owe part of their success to this agenda-driven organization? How many scholars, in gratitude for such funding, currently maintain ties with this activist group?

Is it really in the public interest for the line between advocacy and science to become blurred in this manner?

Below is the complete list of marine experts (Pew’s term) who accepted this activist cash. Take a minute to scan it. It contains an awful lot of people whom the public is likely to regard as neutral, objective experts. There’s a PhD attached to their name, after all.

But please also note that these people are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with full-blown political activists.

For example, one of the individuals awarded $150,000 in 2007 was Dorothy Childers. The first line of her Pew bio describes her as “an advocate for marine and coastal conservation in Alaska” (my italics). Lower down we’re told she has also been a Greenpeace employee.

Among the recipients of $150,000 in the year 2000 was the (now deceased) Marc Reisner – whose 1986 best-selling book Cadillac Desert was turned into a PBS documentary film. His expertise also appears to be closely connected to the series of activist organizations that employed him. For example, he spent eight years as communications director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Sarah Fowler landed her $150,000 in 2005. Her bio is another long list of activist outfits, including the Nature Conservancy Council, Naturebureau International, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Among those who became Pew Fellows in 1992 is a lawyer named Victor Sher who is described as “the former president of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund” and Jane Lubchenco – who now heads the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (see more about her activist ties here).

Here’s the complete list. You can read a bio of each person and see photos by visiting this page on the Pew website and typing any of these names into the search box.

Spoilerized for length.

Spoiler:
Alex Aguilar, Ph.D.
Angel C. Alcala
Richard B. Allen
Susan L. Anderson, Ph.D.
Shankar Aswani-Canela, Ph.D.
Peter J. Auster, Ph.D.
John C. Avise, Ph.D.

Scott Baker, Ph.D.
Andrew Baker, Ph.D.
Kamaljit S. Bawa, Ph.D.
Michael J. Bean, J.D.
Giovanni Bearzi, Ph.D.
Barbara Block, Ph.D.
Wen Bo
P. Dee Boersma, Ph.D.
Pablo Garcia Borboroglu, Ph,D.
Enrique H. Bucher, Ph.D.
JoAnn M Burkholder, Ph.D.
Rodrigo H. Bustamante, Ph.D.
Claudio Campagna, Ph.D.

James T. Carlton, Ph.D.
Stephen R. Carpenter, Ph.D.
Juan Carlos Castilla, Ph.D.
Mac Chapin, Ph.D.
Anthony T. Charles, Ph.D.
Dorothy Childers
Patrick Christie, Ph.D.
David R. Cline
Andrew N. Cohen
Theo Colborn, Ph.D.
Marcus Colchester, Ph.D.
Felicia C. Coleman, Ph.D.
Marla Cone
Daniel Conley, Ph.D.
Andrew Constable, Ph.D.
Robert Costanza, Ph.D.
Richard M. Cowling, Ph.D.
Benjamin E. Cuker, Ph.D.

Gretchen C. Daily, Ph.D.
Paul K. Dayton, Ph.D.
Omar Defeo, D.SC.
Rodolfo Dirzo, Ph.D.

Karen L. Eckert, Ph.D.
Roberto R. Enriquez-Andrade, Ph.D.
Mark Van N. Erdmann, Ph.D.
Peter A. Espeut, M.Phil.
Tim Essington, Ph.D.
James A. Estes, Ph.D.
Exequiel Ezcurra, Ph.D.

Philip M. Fearnside, Ph.D.
Miriam Fernandez, Ph.D.
Carl B. Folke, Ph.D.
Sarah Fowler
Rainer Froese, Ph.D.
Rodney M. Fujita, Ph.D.
Beth Fulton, Ph.D.

Madhav Gadgil, Ph.D.
Ashok J. Gadgil, Ph.D.
Steven D. Gaines, Ph.D.
Alwyn H. Gentry, Ph.D.
Kristina M. Gjerde, J.D.
Edgardo Gomez, Ph.D.
Thomas J. Goreau, Ph.D.
Russell S. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Anil K. Gupta, Ph.D.

Stephen John Hall, Ph.D., GAICD
Jean Mary Harris, Ph.D.
John Harte, Ph.D.
Vreni Häussermann, Ph.D.
Burr Heneman
Julia A. Horrocks, Ph.D.
Stephen P. Hubbell, Ph.D.
Malcolm Hunter, Ph.D.
David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Noah Idechong

Wes Jackson, Ph.D.
Dana L. Jackson
Narriman S. Jiddawi, Ph.D.
Robert E. Johannes, Ph.D.
Calestous Juma, Ph.D.

Anne R. Kapuscinski, Ph.D.
Les Kaufman, Ph.D.
Dennis Takah. Kelso, J.D., Ph.D.
Jack R. Kloppenburg, Jr., Ph.D.
William Kostka

Jessica C. Landman, J.D.
Glenn-Marie Lange, Ph.D.
Matthieu Le Corre, Ph.D.
Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D.

Georgina Mace, Ph.D.
Mauro Maida, Ph.D.
Helene D. Marsh, Ph.D.
Hiroyuki Matsuda, D. Sc.
Tim R. McClanahan, Ph.D.
Laurence J. McCook, Ph.D.
Judith McDowell, Ph.D.
Donella Meadows, Ph.D.
Laurence David Mee, Ph.D.
Fan Meng
Firoenza Micheli, Ph.D.
Constance I. Millar, Ph.D.
Vera Leoid. Mischenko, Ph.D., J.D.
Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.
Derek C. Muir, Ph.D.
Peter Mumby, Ph.D.
Dennis D. Murphy, Ph.D.
Norman Myers, Ph.D.

Gary P. Nabhan, Ph.D.
Rosamond L. Naylor, Ph.D.
Daniel C. Nepstad, Ph.D.
Magnus A.K. Ngoile, Ph.D.
Bernard O. Nietschmann, Ph.D.
Elliott A. Norse, Ph.D.
David W. Norton, Ph.D.
Reed Noss, Ph.D.

Thomas Okey, Ph.D.
Jose Orensanz, Ph.D.
Erdal Ozhan, Ph.D.

Stephen R. Palumbi, Ph.D.
Ana M. Parma, Ph.D.
Charles H. ‘Pete’ Peterson, Ph.D.
Ellen K. Pikitch, Ph.D.
Stuart L. Pimm, Ph.D.
Sandra L. Postel
James A. Powell, Ph.D.
Jurgenne Primavera, Ph.D.

Vo Quy, Ph.D.

Marc Reisner
Robert C. Repetto, Ph.D.
Robert H. Richmond, Ph.D.
Alison Rieser, J.D. LL.M.
Callum M. Roberts, Ph.D
Graham Robertson, Ph.D.
Alejandro Robles
Marie-Joelle Rochet, Ph.D.
Terry L. Root, Ph.D.
Garry R. Russ, Ph.D.

Andrea Sáenz-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Carl Safina, Ph.D.
Mark H. Sagoff, Ph.D.
Enric Sala, Ph.D.
Adelaida Semesi
Robert S. Seymour, Ph.D.
Peter Shelley, J.D.
Victor M. Sher, J.D.
Craig R. Smith, Ph.D.
Robert S. Steneck, Ph.D.
Gregory S. Stone, Ph.D.
Ben Sullivan, Ph.D.
Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Ph.D.

Mia J. Tegner, Ph.D.
John W. Terborgh, Ph.D.
G. David Tilman, Ph.D.
Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Ph.D.
Ronald L.. Trosper, Ph.D.

Christopher F. Uhl, Ph.D.
Amanda C.J. Vincent, Ph.D.
Peter M. Vitousek, Ph.D.

Johanna H. Wald, J.D.
Carl J. Walters, Ph.D.
Les E. Watling, Ph.D.
John B. Weller
Alan T. White
David S. Wilcove, Ph.D.
Norbert Wu

Alexey V. Yablokov, Ph.D.

Cheryl Ann Zimmer, Ph.D.
Perhaps the biggest joke in alarmist arguments is their referring to skeptics receiving cash from industry (there is some but very little and even that is a lot less than it used to be). BP and Shell have been huge funders of alarmism for years. Even Exxon has given a lot more to alarmism than to skepticism (see http://www.policestateplanning.com/id52.htm).
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 12:54 PM   #93
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,087
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
When your stated view is that God balances the environment and you use science to try prove that statement to be true, you are not conducting real research.
Although I can't 'fix' this here...if you replace "God" with 'C02', then you have a perfect summary of why the vast majority of alarmist climate science is utter crap.

The alarmist position is that CO2 drives the climate...damn the evidence! When the data doesn't fit with the theoretical model, you change the model, not the data.
__________________
"Have fun storming the castle!"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 01:21 PM   #94
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,002
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Although I can't 'fix' this here...if you replace "God" with 'C02', then you have a perfect summary of why the vast majority of alarmist climate science is utter crap.

The alarmist position is that CO2 drives the climate...damn the evidence! When the data doesn't fit with the theoretical model, you change the model, not the data.
Oh noes, the invisible gas in the sky does it.
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 01:24 PM   #95
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

The anti-CAGW studies are coming so fast, RealClimate (RC) and the rest of the alarmist Defense Team can hardly deal with one before another pops up. For them, "dealing with" means cavalier dismissal plus ad hominems about the researchers. I'm not saying every paper that reaches non-CAGW conclusions is automatically right but it's adding up. Also, many of the authors of these studies are not what the alarmists would deem "the usual suspects" i.e. skeptics they hate.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/ca...cle-questions/

Quote:
Carbon cycle questions
Posted on August 4, 2011 by curryja| 407 Comments

by Judith Curry

I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.

The abstract for his talk is here:
PROFESSOR MURRY SALBY
Chair of Climate, Macquarie University
Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011. Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.
The podcast for his talk is here. Unfortunately there is no video so you can’t see his graphs. But the talk is very lucid, you can certainly get the point. The entire podcast is an hour, with his formal presentation about a half hour, and questions for the remaining half hour.

This talk was given in June at the IUGG meeting in Melbourne Australia, and apparently created quite a stir. A journal paper is in press, expected to be published in about 6 months. Some of the results will be in his forthcoming book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate that will be available Sept 30.

Andrew Bolt has some reactions in the Herald Sun:
Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages.
The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise. A good overview article is provided by NASA’s earthobservatory.

Climate models have begun to include an interactive carbon cycle in the CMIP5 simulations. NASA has been trying to launch a satellite to measure global carbon, an effort which remains troubled and plagued by continuing delays.

JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
There are quite a few articles about this peer reviewed study which has been accepted and will be published in the future. I chose this one by Judith Curry because she is a former alarmist who is now somewhere around middle territory but seems to be drifting ever further into skepticism. I think it's because of her integrity and honesty. She has been battered by the alarmists for a couple of years for her "heresy" but she will go where the evidence leads her, regardless.

We do know oceans outgas CO2 when they warm and absorb CO2 when they cool. There is a time lag of around 800 years which can be a little more or a little less. 800 years ago is near the end of the medieval warm period so effects of that warming on CO2 levels could be felt today. So that warming could now be affecting CO2 levels, not necessarily CO2 levels of today affecting temperature.

I think it is at least a plausible factor. I am far from ready to jettison rising CO2 today as a factor for rising temperatures but I've always thought it was a very small factor because climate sensitivity is low and negative feedbacks dominate.

It appears that Salby's credentials are solid, or even stellar. I admit I have never heard of him but he is obviously not one of those "leading deniers" or, as I characterized it, one of the CAGW crowds "usual suspects." For example he's not a Lindzen or Singer or Spencer or Soon or Christy or Landsea or any of many others whose names they have done their best to drag through the mud.

I have not yet listened to the podcast. My connection up here in northern Wisconsin is just too slow. Please go to the link where you can click through to the podcast.

Joanne Nova has an excellent article here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blo...ls-not-humans/

She says Salby attributes 80% of the CO2 rise to temperature alone.

All in all there are numerous factors and the complexity is great as it always is in climate science. We'll have to see where it goes. But I don't think an alarmist dismissal will make it go away.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 04:47 PM   #96
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

^ That'd be fantastic if it holds up to scrutiny.

And while JC's creditials are very good, she's actually been beat up by both sides; I suppose that is the price you pay for trying to sit on the fence. I like her... she actually tries to get to a middle ground. I'm a bit annoyed with her for proclaiming a revolution without a single bit of data and analysis presented. And while a research paper is promised, it is sad that the book will come first. I hate books presented as "proof" of anything as there is no peer review and they are not held to ANY standard of truth. I'd be much more comfortable if he released his data in reverse order.

JC also admits "The Earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise" which is refreshingly honest (another reason why I like her) but sorta takes a bite of her game-changing comments.

Back to Salby, here is what I gather from scattered comments to be the issue with his lecture from people smarter then myself; if 0.8 C of warming is produces an increase of 120ppb CO2 then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative.

The CO2 feedback sensitivity to temperature is O(10 ppm/ C) and there is a multitude of paleoclimatic events in the past that would pick up on something off by a factor of 10. Just as importantly, the oceans and biosphere are acting as a sink for the CO2, in collaboration for isotopic and O2 decline signatures that provide a robust framework for the origin of the excess CO2.


Not only that, but his theory defies the conservation of mass principle. You can not have the mass atmospheric CO2 caused by warming be less than the mass of anthropogenic emissions. Where does the CO2 go? We know it goes to the ocean because the ocean is a CO2 sink, and not a source:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...67064508004311

I'd also like to note what the well credentialed and respected Judith Curry said of Spencer's paper above:

"It may be appropriate to use the word 'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics." and while she agrees with part of the paper, Spencer was "concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models," and "It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear."

__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 06:09 PM   #97
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I'd also like to note what the well credentialed and respected Judith Curry said of Spencer's paper above:

"It may be appropriate to use the word 'alarmist' in some circumstances, but not as an adjective to describe a computer model. This does not help the Heartland Institute to be taken seriously in the climate debate, even by skeptics." and while she agrees with part of the paper, Spencer was "concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models," and "It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear."
I know Curry was critical of Spencer's paper (and she agrees with some of it). There's nothing wrong with that. And yes, Curry has gotten it from both sides. I've been critical of her myself at times but I find her a couple of orders of magnitude more thoughtful than the likes of Dessler, Schmidt or Trenberth. And I wouldn't say she is sitting on the fence. She was once firmly in the alarmist camp and some things she was seeing got her thinking. As soon as she wasn't pure she was vilified by the alarmists. From what I see, she has been moving skepticward and is continuing to do so. I'd say she is more than half way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not just running up here saying "Spencer has slain the alarmists." Same with Salby. I'm not anywhere near convinced by Salby which you should have gotten from my post.

The point is that there are many peer reviewed studies that go contrary to CAGW. Almost all (not all, for example E.-G. Beck whom I talked about awhile ago) are by legitimate scientists who are conducting legitimate science. Some but by no means all of those studies are by skeptics. Some are not.

The alarmist crowd, however, does these things:
*Often they are still claiming that there are no peer reviewed studies (or maybe a few pieces of junk that somehow made it past peer review but should not have been published) that go against the "consensus." They're still quoting Naomi Oreskes for goodness sake.

*Although these studies supposedly don't exist, nevertheless they jump on many of them and cavalierly dismiss them with little analysis.

or

*They just ignore them.
Skeptics don't always behave in the best manner. But compared to alarmists (particularly the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU/NASA (at least Hansen) crowd) they are climate angels.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-11, 07:09 PM   #98
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,771
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I know Curry was critical of Spencer's paper (and she agrees with some of it). There's nothing wrong with that. And yes, Curry has gotten it from both sides. I've been critical of her myself at times but I find her a couple of orders of magnitude more thoughtful than the likes of Dessler, Schmidt or Trenberth. And I wouldn't say she is sitting on the fence. She was once firmly in the alarmist camp and some things she was seeing got her thinking. As soon as she wasn't pure she was vilified by the alarmists. From what I see, she has been moving skepticward and is continuing to do so. I'd say she is more than half way.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not just running up here saying "Spencer has slain the alarmists." Same with Salby. I'm not anywhere near convinced by Salby which you should have gotten from my post.

The point is that there are many peer reviewed studies that go contrary to CAGW. Almost all (not all, for example E.-G. Beck whom I talked about awhile ago) are by legitimate scientists who are conducting legitimate science. Some but by no means all of those studies are by skeptics. Some are not.

The alarmist crowd, however, does these things:
*Often they are still claiming that there are no peer reviewed studies (or maybe a few pieces of junk that somehow made it past peer review but should not have been published) that go against the "consensus." They're still quoting Naomi Oreskes for goodness sake.

*Although these studies supposedly don't exist, nevertheless they jump on many of them and cavalierly dismiss them with little analysis.

or

*They just ignore them.
Skeptics don't always behave in the best manner. But compared to alarmists (particularly the RealClimate/Hockey Team/CRU/NASA (at least Hansen) crowd) they are climate angels.
Thanks for the clarification; I agree with much of what you said. And I'm an equal opportunity skeptic who has no problem trashing studies on what you call "the alarmist side" as well. It's just that you and the other skeptics/deniers (depending on what side you are on) already do a great job of it here so I'm playing up the counter evidence. While I do think the consensus is pretty firmly in one direction, I think the research being done to counter them is exactly the sort of thing we need to do. Consensus is important when deciding what actions we need to take... but at the same time it breeds laziness, arrogance and scientific complacency. The more questions and new theories the better.

Even threads only pushing one side of a complicated science can fall victim to that same sort of thing.

Lastly, making it into a journal is only the start of a study. Peer review means we rip it apart. If your enemies have nothing to say about your work then you are not doing any science worth while and any hole they expose only puts you closer to the real truth.
__________________
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." --Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-11, 09:50 AM   #99
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Tim Flannery (Australia's A'l Gore, although he is a scientist, a mammalogist and paleontologist) is outed for owning beachfront property even as he claims rising seas will soon engulf such supposedly unfortunate places. He lashes back charging that a Norway style killer may seek him out if he revealed exactly where.

http://www.australianclimatemadness....y-style-attack

Quote:
Flannery fears "Norway-style attack"
Climate Add comments
Aug 062011

Because as we all know, anybody who dares question the ridiculous predictions of the Official Government Climate Prophet is only a whisker away from buying a machine gun and killing dozens of innocent people.

Desperate to regain what little is left of his credibility after it emerged this week that he owns a waterfront property, having previously warned of drastic sea level rises, Flannery makes deeply offensive remarks tarring all “conservatives” with the brush of Norwegian madman Anders Breivik.

As The Australian reports:
While his place was, he admitted, “very close to the water”, the issue was how far it was above the water — something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.
There really is no limit to the depths alarmists will go to protect their own interests and smear those who dare question them.
Flannery was named "Australian of the Year" (whatever that is) in 2007 when CAGW hysteria was at its height. He has made claim after silly claim (as I said, like Al Gore). He was named head of the Australian Climate Commission in February by PM Julia(r) Gillard who is famous for being elected on a promise of no carbon tax and then trying to impose one.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-11, 10:06 AM   #100
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,679
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This story in The Australian reveals even more about Flannery's flim-flam.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226109405774

Quote:
Do as I say, not as I do: Flannery's all at sea
Ean Higgins
From: The Australian
August 06, 2011 12:00AM

IF your dream home is right down on the water, and you had listened to global warming guru Tim Flannery, you'd be more than a little worried.

Professor Flannery, appointed climate commissioner by the Gillard government, is never backward in coming forward.

A few years go, he spoke of sea-level rises of biblical proportions, where walls of water eight storeys high would subsume all beneath.

"Anyone with a coastal view from their bedroom window, or their kitchen window, or whatever, is likely to lose their house as a result of that change, so anywhere, any coastal cities, coastal areas, are in grave danger," he said.

Since his most recent appointment, Professor Flannery has taken the cause around the country, warning in June of a clear and present danger.

"There are islands in the Torres Strait that are already being evacuated," he said.

Given all that, many have been surprised to learn Professor Flannery has his own pile right on the water in the trendy tidal region of the lower Hawkesbury River, north of Sydney.

"Yes, it is waterfront and his would be one of the biggest on the point," a neighbour, David, told Sydney radio jock Ray Hadley on 2GB last week. Almost immediately, the world of talkback and the blogosphere went wild.

In one chatroom, OS said doomsayers such as Professor Flannery "after having frightened the elderly to sell their seaside properties, are buying them".

According to property searches, in 1997 Professor Flannery bought one house on the Hawkesbury with his wife, Alexandra Leigh Szalay, for $274,000.

Five years later -- even as climate scientists, including Professor Flannery, claimed evidence of global warming and rising sea levels was even more solid -- the couple bought the property next door, for $505,000.

For a week, Professor Flannery declined to speak to journalists about his properties, but he broke his silence yesterday to tell The Weekend Australian that while waterfront property generally was at risk, his little bit of paradise was secure for his lifetime.

"There is no chance of it being inundated, short of a collapse of the Greenland Ice Shelf," Professor Flannery said.


While his place was, he admitted, "very close to the water", the issue was how far it was above the water -- something Professor Flannery would not reveal because, he said, it could help identify the location and subject him to a Norway-style attack by conservatives.

Professor Flannery also said his warnings of a 20m rise in sea levels should be put in perspective -- that, he said, had to do with a range of factors and could occur once every 50,000 or 100,000 years.

The relevant time period, he said, was between now and the end of this century when the best predictions were for a rise in sea levels based on thermal expansion of the oceans of 40-80cm, plus a less predictable additional rise from melting icecaps and glaciers.

Asked what Torres Strait islands were "being evacuated", Professor Flannery conceded no evacuations were under way, but authorities on one island, Saibai, were looking at the possibility of acquiring land on a higher one.
What rank hypocrisy and flim-flammery. First he says, any coastal property is in danger. Then, his is not. In other words (by his own standards), much actually isn't and in truth (given actual likely sea level rises, not his fantasies), very little or none is.

What is hard to believe is that he has owned these properties for so long and no one knew.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0