Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

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

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 09-09-11, 07:12 PM
  #301  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Do I need to? I mean he is one guy. I've seen the stuff he says, he's basically a good scientist who uses activist rhetoric. I don't care much for his politics... I don't see any real use to handcuffing yourself to buildings and getting arrested for civil disobedience, but see him as being no different than other out-spoken members of each side. And his apology and clarification was at least published, which is more than most offenders.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...ingOurEyes.pdf

I don't see much difference between him and Senator James Inhofe who said "It kind of reminds . . . I could use the Third Reich, the big lie," Inhofe said.

"You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their strategy."


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic..._A1_Heatw72040

And that global warming was "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."


http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9236

I am not say mainstream scientists are any better or worse then skeptics, I'm merely stating that the skeptic position I hear constantly, that most offenders are "alarmist scientists," has a burden of proof that has yet to be filled. (Either is the similar claim from those on the other side). I believe what both sides is feeling is confirmation bias, plain and simple.
The difference is that one is a scientist (and one of the lead scientists on this issue) and the other is not. That was all I was pointing out using in him as an example.
Old 09-10-11, 04:52 AM
  #302  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
The difference is that one is a scientist (and one of the lead scientists on this issue) and the other is not. That was all I was pointing out using in him as an example.
I get your point... but, wouldn't an elected politician have a greater duty towards civility? I mean he's a former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and has given sworn scientific testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. When asked about his expertise since he isn't a scientist, he actually testified that he’d already given “five speeches on the science” and is currently writing a book about it. He is easily the most influential political figure for climate skeptics and is on record comparing the EPA to the Gestapo.

But even with just your one example, it really does not mean all that much. Any scientist or politician is capable of being an ass, regardless of affiliation to any particular cause. I just personally think it is rather disingenuous to suggest generalities like that... it just reeks of propaganda.
Old 09-10-11, 06:51 AM
  #303  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I get your point... but, wouldn't an elected politician have a greater duty towards civility? I mean he's a former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and has given sworn scientific testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. When asked about his expertise since he isn't a scientist, he actually testified that he’d already given “five speeches on the science” and is currently writing a book about it. He is easily the most influential political figure for climate skeptics and is on record comparing the EPA to the Gestapo.

But even with just your one example, it really does not mean all that much. Any scientist or politician is capable of being an ass, regardless of affiliation to any particular cause. I just personally think it is rather disingenuous to suggest generalities like that... it just reeks of propaganda.
I personally hold scientists to a much higher standard than politicians. There are few professions I have more disdain for than career politicians. So while it would be nice to think politicians have a duty to more civility, this is not something I'm going to hold my breath on. Scientists on the other hand, I believe cease being scientists at all when they lose perspective, lose their sense of skepticism, and lose their civility. Hansen is just one (big) example of this. He is certainly not the only one. I have no resepect for any scientist who cannot tolerate opposing views. Have you read through the climategate emails yet? I know you are still catching up but I'd be interested in your opinion about the behavior and comments that were revealed in those emails.
Old 09-10-11, 11:08 AM
  #304  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

A cosmic ray study published ten days ago (just a week after the fairly highly published CERN Nature study) has gone almost completely unnoticed.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/0...s-disappear-4/

Do clouds disappear? (4)
Warmer days and cooler nights when cosmic rays are scarce
Nigel Calder
September 10, 2011

Here’s a reminder of a climatic footnote to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, ten years ago this weekend. With civilian aircraft grounded for three days, and without the contrails that usually criss-cross the skies of the USA, the difference between daytime and night-time temperatures at the surface increased. (See the Travis reference below.) Apparently like many other clouds (not all) the contrails reduce sunshine during the day and blanket the loss of heat at night. Take away those man-made clouds and the days become a little warmer and the nights a little cooler. In the jargon: the diurnal temperature range (DTR) increases.

An echo of that mini-climatic event comes with the news that the DTR in Europe increases when there’s a big reduction in cosmic rays arriving at the Earth. With the implication that the skies are less cloudy at such times, it’s strong evidence in favour of Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that cosmic rays help to make clouds. The report comes from Aleksandar Dragić and his colleagues at the Institute of Physics in Belgrade. I’m grateful to Bengt Andersson for drawing their paper to my attention. It was published on 31 August and the full text is available here http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans...7-315-2011.pdf It’s typical of the pathetic state of science reporting that I still seem to have the story to myself ten days later.

More than a year ago I began a succession of posts on whether or not observations in the real world support or falsify the Svensmark hypothesis. The most explanatory was the first – see http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/0...uds-disappear/

The focus was on the “natural experiments” in which big puffs of gas from the Sun block some of the cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy towards the Earth. The resulting falls in cosmic ray influx, called Forbush decreases, last for a few days. The game is to look for observable reductions in cloudiness in the aftermath of these events. The results are most clearly favourable to the Svensmark hypothesis for the Forbush decreases with the largest percentage reductions in cosmic rays. Scientists keen to falsify the hypothesis have only to mix in some of the weaker events for the untidiness of the world’s weather to “hide the decline”.

The Serbs avoid that blunder by picking out the strongest Forbush decreases. And by using the simple, reliable and long-provided weather-station measurements of temperature by night and day, they avoid technical, interpretive and data-availability problems that surround more direct observations of clouds and their detailed properties. The temperatures come from 184 stations scattered all across Europe (actually, so I notice, from Greenland to Siberia). A compilation by the Mount Washington Observatory that spans half a century, from 1954 to 1995, supplies the catalogue of Forbush decreases.

The prime results are seen here in Dragić et al.‘s Figure 5. The graphs show the increase in the diurnal temperature range averaged across the continent in the days following the onset of cosmic ray decreases (day 0 on the horizontal scales). The upper panel is the result for 22 Forbush events in the range 7−10%, with a peak at roughly +0.35 oC in the diurnal temperature range. The lower panel is for 13 events greater than 10%. The peak goes to +0.6 oC and the influence lasts longer. It’s very satisfactory for the Svensmark hypothesis that the effect increases like this, with greater reductions in the cosmic rays. The results become hard (impossible?) to explain by any mechanism except an influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation.



To be candid, these results are much better than I’d have expected for observations from a densely populated continent with complex weather patterns, where air pollution and effects of vegetation confuse the picture of available cloud condensation nuclei. Svensmark’s team has emphasised the observable effects over the oceans. Now the approach taken by the Belgrade team opens the door to similar investigations in other continents. Let a march around the world’s land masses begin!

References

USA: diurnal temperatures post-9/11

D.J. Travis, A. Carleton and R.G. Lauritsen, “Contrails reduce daily temperature range”, Nature 418, 601, 2002

Europe: diurnal temperatures after Forbush decreases

A. Dragić, I. Aničin, R. Banjanac, V. Udovičić, D. Joković´, D. Maletić and J. Puzović, “Forbush decreases – clouds relation in the neutron monitor era”, Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions, 7, 315–318, 2011.
Studies on Forbush events have been done before, most notably by Svensmark and those trying to refute him.

Forbush events are precipitated by large energy outputs from the sun. These increases in energy "blow away" large numbers of cosmic rays and thus decrease the amount reaching the lower atmosphere. There is a sudden decrease followed by a recovery over a few days. The intensity of the decreases vary by the strength of the solar "blasts."

This study looks at the DTR - the diurnal temperature range. When it is more cloudy the daytime temperatures are lowered and the nighttime temperatures are increased (everything else being equal) and vice versa. If the Svensmark theory is correct, when Forbush events occur, there are less cosmic rays, cloudiness should decrease, so the DTR should increase.

The study notes that there are many factors to weather, climate and thus temperatures, so for smaller Forbush events, the signal may be lost in the noise. The current study thus concentrates on the larger Forbush events where the signal is more likely to stand out.

Here is the paper:

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/...7-315-2011.pdf

The abstract:

Abstract. The proposed influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation is tested for the effect of sudden intensity changes of CR (Forbush decreases) on cloudiness. An attempt is made to widen the investigated period covered by satellite observation of cloudiness. As an indicator of cloud cover, the diurnal temperature range (DTR - a quantity anticorrelated with cloudiness) is used. The superposed epoch analysis on a set of isolated Forbush decreases is conducted and the results for a region of Europe are presented. The effect of Forbush decrease on DTR is statistically significant only if the analysis is restricted to high amplitude FDs (above the threshold value of 7% with the respect to undisturbed CR intensity). The magnitude of the effect on DTR is estimated to be (0.38±0.06) C.
The conclusion:

The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statistically significant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state of the atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceeding the threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data) are considered. The result strongly supports the idea that cosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate. The natural variability of atmospheric parameters makes the CR contribution difficult to detect. The DTR appears to be a useful quantity to consider in connection with CR intensity, avoiding some of the difficulties associated with satellite measurements of cloudiness. The present study should be considered as a preliminary one. Several consequences of DTR-CR connection remain to be tested:

- DTR vs. FD behavior in different regions of the Earth

- DTR vs. CR increase if sufficient statistics are available. On the basis of the present result, the response opposite in sign and with different temporal development should be expected.

- Dependence of the effect on geographic latitude. CR-related events should exhibit a latitude effect.
Of course the usual caveats are invoked. The study was just for the DTR records of 189 European meteorological stations. Much more work needs to be done. This is, of course, true.

I will say there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence building up. Svensmark, Shaviv & Veizer, CERN, Dragic. Regarding CERN I think it's significant that the 63 scientists from dozens of academic and research institutions who put their names on the Nature paper (which was always only meant to be preliminary) seem to think it's worth it for them to have devoted so much time to this study and that they seem to be committed for what will probably be at least five more years. I don't think they would be doing this if they thought the result would be "never mind." Of course that could be the result but they must think there's a good chance it won't be.
Old 09-10-11, 02:21 PM
  #305  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
I personally hold scientists to a much higher standard than politicians. There are few professions I have more disdain for than career politicians. So while it would be nice to think politicians have a duty to more civility, this is not something I'm going to hold my breath on. Scientists on the other hand, I believe cease being scientists at all when they lose perspective, lose their sense of skepticism, and lose their civility. Hansen is just one (big) example of this. He is certainly not the only one. I have no resepect for any scientist who cannot tolerate opposing views. Have you read through the climategate emails yet? I know you are still catching up but I'd be interested in your opinion about the behavior and comments that were revealed in those emails.
Ok, I think I'm half with you i think. I personally think Hansen is a cool-aid drinking activist with both great skill, and great biases. I automatically have doubt on his published work as he grows in his alarmism. Less so his civility as he has no public duty to refrain from saying callous remarks.

I' have not yet dug really deep on climategate emails outside what Lib posted before (I actually emailed those early articles to a friend because I first thought it was a smoking gun as well). I've read since then a few explanations that have put things in a more middle-ground perspective, but I didn't go back to the original source to compare.

I'll look into it in a few weeks, I'm certain there will be a lot of back and forth.
Old 09-10-11, 07:43 PM
  #306  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Ok, I think I'm half with you i think. I personally think Hansen is a cool-aid drinking activist with both great skill, and great biases. I automatically have doubt on his published work as he grows in his alarmism. Less so his civility as he has no public duty to refrain from saying callous remarks.

I' have not yet dug really deep on climategate emails outside what Lib posted before (I actually emailed those early articles to a friend because I first thought it was a smoking gun as well). I've read since then a few explanations that have put things in a more middle-ground perspective, but I didn't go back to the original source to compare.

I'll look into it in a few weeks, I'm certain there will be a lot of back and forth.
Yeah, I definitely am curious to get your take on those. It's good to get a fresh perspective. It's been a while for me, but what I took away from them was that some scientists were caught acting badly (but not nearly as big of a deal as made out to be). It's funny, because I thought the biggest part of that whole fiasco that was an actual big deal was largely ignored more than the sensationalized quotes. It was the peer review stuff and the code manipulations that triggered my skeptical spider senses more than anything.

Anyways, I've had a chance to read through more of the Spencer stuff. It looks likely to me that while Spencer's work is indeed flawed, I think that it has been far from debunked at this point. I think both sides in this spat come out looking less than clean. I do think that Spencer has answered his critics with some fair points and he has also deftly dodged some of the criticisms that have been tossed at him. I think Drissler also made some good points, but came off like an ass with an axe to grind (which is too bad, because I think that takes away from his credibility on this issue). Anyways...my 2 cents.
Old 09-11-11, 07:14 PM
  #307  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I've been meaning to do this since some of the skeptical blogs unloaded on Geophysical Reasearch Letters (GRL) for its quick publication of Dessler's reply to Spencer. I counted the number of papers published in GRL on the list of 900+ skeptical papers (http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html).

I came up with 85 that were published in GRL (I could be off by a few due to the tedium factor of scrolling of counting). This is probably about 9% of the total, in other words, a lot.

I also spotted many prominent skeptical or at least leaning skeptical scientists (and a couple of very important skeptics who are not scientists) including Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Choi, Soon, Baliunas, Landsea, McIntyre, McKitrick, Michaels, Knappenberger, Pielke Sr, Klotzbach, Balling Jr, Idso, Feynman, Scafetta, Douglass and Svensmark (I hope I spelled everyone's name correctly). I'm sure I must have missed some. There are also many others I may not be familiar enough with to call them "prominent" but that may be just my ignorance.

Clearly, it's absurd to charge GRL with being biased against skeptics.

Last edited by movielib; 09-11-11 at 07:35 PM.
Old 09-12-11, 10:45 AM
  #308  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

It's two days (only one day if you are just west of the International Date Line) until Al Gore's "24 Hours of Reality." For this desperate event, Gore is combining what is arguably the weakest CAGW scientific argument - trying to link CO2 emissions with extreme weather events - with what is arguably the weakest CAGW political argument - that all "deniers" are just crazies or corrupt individuals being paid off by industry (which gives far more money to the alarmist side). It's as yet unknown what the "carbon footprint" from this extravaganza will be but I'm sure it's OK because they will no doubt be purchasing carbon offsets - probably from Al Gore's company, Generation Investment Management, where Al "purchases" his - to be "carbon neutral."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...78B2GT20110912

Al Gore in 24-hour broadcast to convert climate skeptics
LONDON | Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:58am EDT

(Reuters) - Former Vice President Al Gore will renew his 30-year campaign to convince skeptics of the link between climate change and extreme weather events this week in a 24-hour global multi-media event.

"24 Hours of Reality" will broadcast a presentation by Al Gore every hour for 24 hours across 24 different time zones from Wednesday to Thursday, with the aim of convincing climate change deniers and driving action against global warming among households, schools and businesses.

The campaign also asks people to hand over control of their social networking accounts on Facebook and Twitter to it for 24 hours to deliver Gore's message.

"There will be 200 new slides arguing the connection between more extreme weather and climate change," Trewin Restorick, chief executive of the event's UK partner Global Action Plan, told Reuters on Monday.

"There will be a full-on assault on climate skeptics, exploring where they get their funding from."

Gore tried to raise awareness about global warming in the 2006 documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth," which earned $49 million at the box office worldwide. The film was criticized by some climate change skeptics for being one-sided.

Concern about climate change in the United States, the world's second biggest emitter, has fallen steadily to 48 percent in 2011, from 62 percent in 2007, an opinion poll showed in August.

Gore's presentation will be available at: climaterealityproject.org/
We know this will be great and persuasive because, well, look at these great promos:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oyW-1PRtJdE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/q60fA9btksc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There won't be a "denier" left on the planet, especially after Al kills the denier fat lady with the (should be invisible) "carbon pollution" emitting from her horns. Or whatever the hell that's supposed to be.

So go Al, the more you do the more your credibility nosedives.

Last edited by movielib; 09-12-11 at 03:50 PM.
Old 09-12-11, 12:34 PM
  #309  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 21,236
Likes: 0
Received 102 Likes on 65 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
There won't be a "denier" left on the planet, especially after Al kills the denier fat lady with the (should be invisible) "carbon pollution" emitting from her horns. Or whatever the hell that's supposed to be.


"Well what did ya expect in an CAGW video —- a happy ending?"
Old 09-12-11, 03:41 PM
  #310  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by wishbone View Post


"Well what did ya expect in an CAGW video —- a happy ending?"
Polar bears falling from the sky, animals committing suicide, children being blown up, Australian scientists gangster rapping... You're right, they never end well.
Old 09-13-11, 03:31 PM
  #311  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

While I don't think that there is much credible connection between extreme current weather (if it even is extreme or not comparatively), it'd probable be a good thing and try and look up.

Oh, and I'm still digging through climategate posts from both sides. My early interpretation is the skeptic's smoking gun isn't really there, but Mann & company sure didn't come off looking too good. And speaking of Mann, I got to read the request to the court regarding his ATI case about disclosing his emails. ATI wants full access to everything. Meaning, all correspondence between and everyone, regardless of topic or content. The argument is Mann is on a public computer paid by the public, therefore anything is fair game to anyone in the public (basically). Mann says he agreed to only his climate research and anything related to it, but he does not want to grant full access because he has private university and personal related emails. Student questions, grades, personal correspondence and such are what Mann is fighting to keep out of ATI hands. ATI does not want Mann to pick what to share since they do not trust him... so we get a stalemate. It's not so much that he is playing favorites, it is that Greenpeace only asked for his climate research. Since we are comparing apples to oranges, I think the skeptic claim otherwise is a bit misleading.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument that I oddly didn't see represented in Watts blog (maybe he did in comments, I dunno where I stopped reading). Did you guys hear that brought up? I'm curious as to what the reply is there.
Old 09-13-11, 04:58 PM
  #312  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
While I don't think that there is much credible connection between extreme current weather (if it even is extreme or not comparatively), it'd probable be a good thing and try and look up.
One of the most made (probably the most made) claims is that hurricane activity has increased with warming. Ryan Maue, in a paper recently published in Geophysical Research Letters (not an anti-skeptic journal!), showed that Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE, the most comprehensive measure of all tropical storm activity in the world, is at its lowest point since the 1970s and that hurricane activity is closely linked with ocean cycles such as ENSO and the PDO. In fact, El Ninos (warmer ocean waters) cause less and weaker tornadoes than La Ninas (cooler ocean waters) because of increased wind shear. And a warmer planet would probably see less severe hurricanes for yet another reason: the difference in temperatures between the tropics and the temperate zone and the poles will be less on a warmer Earth because the cooler areas warm more than the warmer areas. Previously, Chris Landsea also has done (and continues to do) a lot of work on hurricanes.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/1...kly-highlight/ (I tried linking to Maue's paper but found dead links. I'm sure with a little more searching it can be done.)



Regarding other things, I'm not that familiar with every study on droughts, floods, heatwaves, coldwaves etc. But I do know that whenever there is any "extreme" weather event that some alarmists (and this is not exclusively nonscientists by any means) are out there calling such events "unprecedented," "record breaking" and/or a hundred or thousand year event or some such. But the historical record always says something different and more extreme events (usually a lot) are found for whatever region is supposedly suffering the worst ever whatever. Last year's heatwave in Russia coupled with flooding in Pakistan was talked about for weeks, if not months, as if it proved how we humans are ruining the planet. It was found to have been caused by an Omega blocking event involving the jet stream. While unusual, it is hardly unprecedented and is a perfectly natural phenomenon (note there is a name for it!).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...asia-fire.html

Oh, and I'm still digging through climategate posts from both sides. My early interpretation is the skeptic's smoking gun isn't really there, but Mann & company sure didn't come off looking too good.
I've never claimed a smoking gun and I don't think most skeptics have either (I'm sure some have). What is present is a nastiness, a cliquishness and more importantly, evidence of trying to keep skeptical papers out of journals, and with the HarryReadMe file, evidence that CRU's record keeping was a total mess. As dave-o said (and I have said previously), these latter are the more important things. As you said, CRU and The Team don't come off looking very good.

And speaking of Mann, I got to read the request to the court regarding his ATI case about disclosing his emails. ATI wants full access to everything. Meaning, all correspondence between and everyone, regardless of topic or content. The argument is Mann is on a public computer paid by the public, therefore anything is fair game to anyone in the public (basically). Mann says he agreed to only his climate research and anything related to it, but he does not want to grant full access because he has private university and personal related emails. Student questions, grades, personal correspondence and such are what Mann is fighting to keep out of ATI hands. ATI does not want Mann to pick what to share since they do not trust him... so we get a stalemate. It's not so much that he is playing favorites, it is that Greenpeace only asked for his climate research. Since we are comparing apples to oranges, I think the skeptic claim otherwise is a bit misleading.
I wasn't aware of the difference between the Greenpeace request and the ATI request but I'm not so sure it's as apple-y and orange-y as you may think. First, let's leave Mann out of it. It's always been between ATI and UVA (and earlier, Cuccinelli and UVA). That is why Mann is now belatedly trying to insert himself into the process and ATI says he has no standing as he doesn't have any property right in the materials. And remember how this started. UVA was ready to turn over Michaels' material immediately. But the university spent upwards of $500,000 (their figure) to try to keep everything from Cuccinelli and ATI. They are still only releasing to ATI what the court is making them release and they have still not agreed to the release of all of Mann's stuff.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument that I oddly didn't see represented in Watts blog (maybe he did in comments, I dunno where I stopped reading). Did you guys hear that brought up? I'm curious as to what the reply is there.
I think probably few are aware of this difference. I wasn't. But as I argued above, I don't think it's that important. If the skeptical argument is a "little misleading" it's a very, very little. Do you think if Greenpeace had asked for Michaels' nonscientific correspondence UVA would have spent upwards of $500,000 to fight it?

Last edited by movielib; 09-13-11 at 05:07 PM.
Old 09-13-11, 06:21 PM
  #313  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I don't know why Greenpeace would ask for that data, nor I can I come up with a reason why Mann would give out private data on students to Greenpeace. And I should restate what I said as I was maybe condensing a bit too much (I get wordy enough as it is), but UVA also thought API was just asking for climate research, they didn't know they wanted full access to everything. One of the reasons they are saying that this request is harassment is because of its absurdness. Imagine if private tax records, court evidence or police reports were all just public data that anyone could request to see just because a government funded organization was handling it. It is just silly.

Wanting the truth isn't silly, but going about it this way sure is.

A second claim is that this issue for emails is being pushed is because you can bring up both the "Mann has lied before and have organized record destruction so we need full access" argument repeatedly (not say that is what happened, but that is the claim at least) and do a good job of harassing the university and Mann. It is a win-win situation for them to continue doing it.
Old 09-13-11, 08:45 PM
  #314  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I don't know why Greenpeace would ask for that data, nor I can I come up with a reason why Mann would give out private data on students to Greenpeace. And I should restate what I said as I was maybe condensing a bit too much (I get wordy enough as it is), but UVA also thought API was just asking for climate research, they didn't know they wanted full access to everything. One of the reasons they are saying that this request is harassment is because of its absurdness. Imagine if private tax records, court evidence or police reports were all just public data that anyone could request to see just because a government funded organization was handling it. It is just silly.

Wanting the truth isn't silly, but going about it this way sure is.
ATI may be overdoing it in their requests but if that is the case they will be limited. They have been limited. I just don't see the big deal. If they had just asked for the scientific work, would that make you happy? That's all they're getting anyway.

It seems to me that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. ATI had to go to court to get (about Mann) what UVA said they'd give to Greenpeace (about Michaels) with no resistance whatsoever. ATI still had to fight like hell to get anything. There is a clear double standard and I don't see how there's any question of that. UVA, CRU, UEA, whatever, they all resist every FOIA request in the US or Britain if it concerns their alarmist scientists. They would give absolutely nothing if they could get away with it (and they get away with a lot). The work that is paid for by our (or Britain's) taxpayers is supposed to be subject to the respective FOIAs but they resist every request. Except, it seems, if it concerns a skeptic like Michaels.

A second claim is that this issue for emails is being pushed is because you can bring up both the "Mann has lied before and have organized record destruction so we need full access" argument repeatedly (not say that is what happened, but that is the claim at least) and do a good job of harassing the university and Mann. It is a win-win situation for them to continue doing it.
Of course, that originated with Phil Jones' email request to Michael Mann to destroy emails with Keith Briffa and pass on the request to another Team member, Eugene Wahl. Jones also said he'd ask the same of Team member Caspar Ammann. Mann did forward Jones' request to Wahl. There are tons on this stuff and here are two articles:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/08/to-serve-mann/

http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/23/n...te-any-emails/

Mann denied actually ever deleting emails at Jones' request and his claim has never been disproved. But that the request would be made by Jones and Mann would pass it on (without objection or further comment) is just more "not looking good" stuff. Clearly, it was Jones and not Mann who was "organizing" things here. He may not have succeeded with it all although Wahl admitted that he did destroy some emails. But Mann has done enough in this instance and many other times (the constant resistance to sharing data and codes is just one thing but enough all by itself) that if people are suspicious of Mann, it's because he has done things to make himself look suspicious.
Old 09-14-11, 05:31 PM
  #315  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post

And speaking of Mann, I got to read the request to the court regarding his ATI case about disclosing his emails. ATI wants full access to everything. Meaning, all correspondence between and everyone, regardless of topic or content. The argument is Mann is on a public computer paid by the public, therefore anything is fair game to anyone in the public (basically). Mann says he agreed to only his climate research and anything related to it, but he does not want to grant full access because he has private university and personal related emails. Student questions, grades, personal correspondence and such are what Mann is fighting to keep out of ATI hands. ATI does not want Mann to pick what to share since they do not trust him... so we get a stalemate.
Well, you read Mann's request. ATI disputes it. They say: "ATI seeks no “personal” records or records that discuss private information such as students’ statuses, grades, etc."

Here is the whole press release from today:

http://www.atinstitute.org/michael-m...ase-of-emails/

ATI Release: Michael Mann, Science Colleagues Make Case for Release of Emails
September 14th, 2011 | Author: ATI

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, [email protected]

On September 2, lawyers for Dr. Michael Mann filed requests to allow them to intervene in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against University of Virginia, citing Dr. Mann’s alleged personal interest in the disclosure of the records that he created or received as part of his employment there. Among the legal filings are a letter from Dr. Mann to UVA, as well as letters from four of his scientist colleagues to UVA president Teresa Sullivan, which urge the university not to provide the records sought by ATI.

Despite talking points designed to distract, ATI seeks no “personal” records or records that discuss private information such as students’ statuses, grades, etc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Mann and his fellow scientists — as part of his lawyers’ filing with the court — attempt to make the case that their research discussions should be withheld from the taxpaying public who funded them because their correspondence is “personal.” But in their letters to UVA, the scientists make statements that inarguably illustrate how the nature of their messages are of public interest.

The four scientists who wrote to Dr. Sullivan are: Rosanne D’Arrigo, senior research scientist at The Earth Institute at Columbia University; Dr. Benjamin Santer, climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Kevin Trenberth, climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Raymond Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts.

Following are comments made by each scientist to Dr. Sullivan which highlight the public nature of their scientific work, implicated in discussions with then-Professor Mann:

D’Arrigo: “My research over the past three decades includes the use of tree-ring reconstructions for the past millenium to infer past temperature trends and the magnitude of recent anthropogenic impacts on climate.”

Santer: “Professor Mann’s only ‘transgression’ is that he has performed cutting-edge research in the public and national interest. His research has given scientists and policymakers an invaluable long-term context for the late 20th-century changes in Earth’s surface temperature.”

Trenberth: “The moral is that even innocent emails can be taken out of context and distorted. This has also happened with Dr. Mann in an even more pronounced way—not because he did anything wrong but simply because he did high profile and important research, that has implications for political actions.”

Bradley: “This is part of a larger campaign to confuse the public about the important issues of climate change, and intimidate climate scientists who have been at the cutting edge of this research.”

Finally, Dr. Mann’s own letter to UVA shows why his work and correspondence while employed there are of national public interest, writing, ”Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom.” But Dr. Mann is not challenging “indiscriminate release” of the records, but release under seal of a Protective Order — one agreed to by University of Virginia more than three months ago, to no legal response by Mann until the records were due for production.

Considering how Dr. Mann’s colleagues clearly identify how their collaborative work fed into “cutting edge research in the public and national interest,” which “has implications for political actions,” it is vitally important that the public see and understand how the scientists collectively arrived at their conclusions — and as Dr. Mann curiously hints, why the revelation of those public records would “damage” their reputations.

“How far out on — or perhaps off — the ‘edge’ was Dr. Mann’s research?” wondered ATI executive director Paul Chesser. “That’s what we want to find out.”
It seems to me that what Mann and his Team are saying is that the "personal" stuff they don't want released has everything to do with Mann's scientific work. ATI doesn't want students' grades (despite Mann's claim). The "personal" stuff they want does pertain to the scientific work. My understanding is that the court has already ordered UVA to turn over this stuff. It's not students' grades, which are not being released and, according to ATI, it never asked for.

WUWT also reported this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/1...f-information/

A couple of comments are worth repeating:

Garry says:
September 14, 2011 at 10:31 am

Mann was employed by the Commonwealth of Virginia through UVA, and the Commonwealth makes starkly clear in its official computer use policy that there is no such thing as “private” or “personal” correspondence on any workstation or server owned and operated by the state and used by a state employee (which Mann was at UVA). The University also makes this clear in its own local policies. I’m not sure that the press release above really hammers enough on that matter of law. Should there be a separate court-adjudicated computer use policy and law for academics at state universities?
From the handbook UVA supplies to its faculty and staff:

From: Responsible Computing at UVa
A Handbook for Faculty and Staff

http://its.virginia.edu/pubs/docs/Re...mp-facstf.html

IV. Email: Rules, Responsibilities, and Privacy

You can expect that, except in specific circumstances, the content of the email files associated with your account will be treated as confidential by the University because it does not routinely examine or monitor such content, except when you have been notified in advance that such examination or monitoring is an expectation in your specific workplace. You should be aware, however, that email messages can sometimes be records that are subject to review with sufficient justification. They may be subject to Virginia Freedom of Information Act if they were produced, collected, received or retained in pursuance of law or in connection with the transaction of public business. They may lose whatever confidentiality they have if their release is compelled by orders issued through courts of law. Also, officials overseeing the University's disciplinary processes may rule that email or other files are evidence that may be reviewed as part of investigations. Under these circumstances, the privacy of your email is not guaranteed. To understand how ITS system administrators deal with requests for individual-account log or content information by persons other than the account holder, see http://www.virginia.edu/abuse/info.html.

Although you might have downloaded and/or deleted your email messages, ITS's delivery systems work in such a way that messages may be preserved for a time as computer files on centrally-administered disks and at system back-up locations, so your capacity to control if and where copies exist is not absolute. The array of storage locations is another factor making the confidentiality of your email conditional. And, although some email programs allow for use of encrypted email, most still produce messages in plain text; they are like postcards in that others might view the messages in transit or those left in plain view.
This does make it clear that faculty and staff are not guaranteed privacy. Email can be subject to the Virginia FOIA (as in this case). It can be subject to court order (as in this case).

And this comment for fun:

Garry says:
September 14, 2011 at 10:38 am

Given the insults that Trenberth and Santer hurl in public, I can only imagine they might be embarrassed about what they say in their “private” correspondence with a state employee such as Mann.
Old 09-14-11, 06:07 PM
  #316  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I dunno, that still seems shaky to me. If you want the "collaboration" all you need to do is look at the sources cited and who's names are on paper's themselves. Are you advocating that skeptics provide several months worth of email data when they publish work? It feels like they are fishing for editorialized comments between colleges that sound bad rather then focusing on data at hand. I suppose "Mann called my research 'crappy' and said mean things about me in email #23345!" is worth more then refuted research. It just sucks that is what they are going for.

I don't blame Mann for being gunshy about releasing them as many of the emails already slipped out both looked bad and were taken out on context (like the "trick" comment).

I get why ATI want the emails so bad... Its something that I've done at work many times before for companies. I've reviewed email accounts, tracked twitter accounts, profile pages, and back doors into online journals for clients so I'm probably uniquely qualified to see their request for what it really is. I suspect the lawyers are going to argue the familiar "spirit of the law versus letter of the law" to death... it'll be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
Old 09-16-11, 08:37 AM
  #317  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,844
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
I don't know why Greenpeace would ask for that data, nor I can I come up with a reason why Mann would give out private data on students to Greenpeace. And I should restate what I said as I was maybe condensing a bit too much (I get wordy enough as it is), but UVA also thought API was just asking for climate research, they didn't know they wanted full access to everything. One of the reasons they are saying that this request is harassment is because of its absurdness. Imagine if private tax records, court evidence or police reports were all just public data that anyone could request to see just because a government funded organization was handling it. It is just silly.

Wanting the truth isn't silly, but going about it this way sure is.
Where I work, we are told to keep our personal and work stuff completely separated. Don't let people send personal e-mails to your work address, etc. Our lawyers tell us to do it so that if a lawsuit is ever brought and discovery happens (I work for an auto insurance company), you won't run the risk of all your personal stuff being gone through. Obviously an FOIA request and a court ordered discovery process are two different animals, but I think the big take away from this for most people should be that if you are going to do anything personal at work, get a gmail account.
Old 09-20-11, 10:54 AM
  #318  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I've been lax. Here are four updates.

1) New peer reviewed paper says clouds are negative feedbacks.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/2...iation-budget/

New peer reviewed paper: clouds have large negative-feedback cooling effect on Earth’s radiation budget
Posted on September 20, 2011 by Anthony Watts


Figure 3. (a) Short wave (SW), (b) long wave (LW) and (c) Net cloud radiative effect relative to clear-sky conditions calculated from CERES satellite data for the period 2001–2007. Missing data is shaded grey. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/met

Oh dear, now we have three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that. What will Trenberth and Dessler do next? Maybe the editor of Meteorological Applications can be persuaded to commit professional suicide and resign? The key paragraph from the new paper:
…the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.
After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Spencer and Braswell paper in Remote Sensing, and the stunt pulled by its former editor who resigned saying the peer review process failed, another paper was published last week in the journal Meteorological Applications that agrees well with Spencer and Braswell.

This new paper by Richard P. Allan of the University of Reading discovers via a combination of satellite observations and models that the cooling effect of clouds far outweighs the long-wave or “greenhouse” warming effect. While Dessler and Trenberth (among others) claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics. This is key, because since clouds offer a negative feedback as shown by this paper and Spencer and Braswell plus Lindzen and Choi, it throws a huge monkey wrench in climate model machinery that predict catastrophic levels of positive feedback enhanced global warming due to increased CO2.

The cooling effect is found to be -21 Watts per meter squared, more than 17 times the posited warming effect from a doubling of CO2 concentrations which is calculated to be ~ 1.2 Watts per meter squared. This -21 w/m2 figure from Richard P. Allan is in good agreement with Spencer and Braswell. Here’s the paper abstract, links to the full paper (which I located on the author’s website) follow.

Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere

Richard P. Allan

Abstract: Satellite measurements and numerical forecast model reanalysis data are used to compute an updated estimate of the cloud radiative effect on the global multi-annual mean radiative energy budget of the atmosphere and surface. The cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation dominates over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of -21 Wm-2. The short wave radiative effect of cloud is primarily manifest as a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed at the surface of -53 Wm-2. Clouds impact long wave radiation by heating the moist tropical atmosphere (up to around 40 Wm-2 for global annual means) while enhancing the radiative cooling of the atmosphere over other regions, in particular higher latitudes and sub-tropical marine stratocumulus regimes. While clouds act to cool the climate system during the daytime, the cloud greenhouse effect heats the climate system at night. The influence of cloud radiative effect on determining cloud feedbacks and changes in the water cycle are discussed.



1. Introduction

Earth’s radiative energy balance (solar radiative energy absorbed and terrestrial radiation emitted to space) determines current patterns of weather and climate, the complexity of which is illuminated by satellite observations of the evolving distribution and diversity of cloud structures. Representing clouds and the physical processes responsible
for their formation and dissipation is vital in numerical weather and climate prediction, yet many approximations must be made in these detailed models of our atmosphere (e.g. Bony et al., 2006; Allan et al., 2007). Observations of cloud characteristics from satellite instruments and in situ or ground-based measurements are crucial for improving understanding of cloud processes and their impact on Earth’s radiative energy balance (Sohn, 1999; Jensen et al., 2008; Su et al., 2010). The energy exchanges associated with cloud formation and precipitation are also a key component of the global water cycle, of importance for climate change (Trenberth, 2011). In this paper, initially presented at a joint meeting of the Royal Meteorological Society and Institute of Physics on Clouds and Earth’s Radiation Balance (Barber, 2011), the utility of combining weather forecast model output with satellite data in estimating the radiative effect of cloud is highlighted. Using a combination of models and satellite data a simple question is addressed: how do clouds influence the radiative energy balance of the atmosphere and the surface.

As an example of the radiative impact of cloud, Figure 1 displays thermal infra-red and visible channel narrow-band images of the European region from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infra-Red Imager (SEVIRI) on board the Meteosat-9 satellite (Schmetz et al., 2002).


Figure 1. Satellite images from the SEVIRI geostationary satellite (a) 10.8 μm infra-red channel and (b) the 0.8 μm visible channel for 2 March 2011 at 1200 UTC. (Copyright 2011, EUMETSAT/the Met Office).

In both images clouds appear bright: this denotes relatively low infra-red emission to space and relatively high reflection of visible sunlight to space. The hot, generally clear regions of northern Africa are also noticeable in both images since they are associated with substantial thermal emission to space (dark regions in the infra-red image) and high surface reflection from the desert surface (bright in the visible image). The brightest clouds in the thermal image correspond with (1) a trailing cold front extending from the coast of Norway, across Scotland and to the west of Ireland, (2) a developing low pressure system to the west of Iceland, and, (3) a low pressure system in the Mediterranean centred on Sardinia.

These are regions of ascending air with relatively high altitude, low temperature cloud tops which depress the thermal emission to space compared with surrounding regions. These features are also present in the visible image. However, many more cloud structures are also present. There is a prevalence of low altitude cloud over the oceans: this cloud contains large amounts of water droplets which are highly reflective (e.g. Stephens et al., 1978). The imagery captures the complex cellular structure of this cloud (e.g. Jensen et al., 2008) over the region surrounding the Canary Islands. These cloud types are thought to contribute strongly toward uncertainty in climate projections (Bony et al., 2006). While these clouds also strongly attenuate infra-red radiation, their impact on the thermal radiation escaping to space is modest since cloud-top temperatures are not dissimilar to the surface at night and so they do not contribute significantly to the strong natural greenhouse effect of the clear-sky atmosphere.

The altitude and optical thickness of cloud determines the overall radiative impact of cloud, a combination of the warming greenhouse effect and the surface-cooling solar
shading effect. Yet, probably an even stronger influence does not relate to the cloud itself. The time of day and time of year dictate the incident solar radiation and, therefore,
modulates the strength of the short wave reflection: clearly at night the solar influence of cloud is absent.



7. Conclusions

Exploiting satellite measurements and combining them with NWP models initialized through assimilation of available observations enables the effect of clouds on the Earth’s radiative energy balance at the surface and within the atmosphere to be quantified for the present day climate. Consistent with previous results (Ramanathan et al., 1989; Su et al., 2010), the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found
to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.

The short wave radiative effect of cloud is primarily manifest as a reduction in the solar radiation absorbed at the surface of −53 Wm−2 for the global multi-annual mean. The magnitude of this effect is strongly modulated by the incoming solar radiation and the dominance of cloud short wave cooling over long wave greenhouse trapping is maximum around local noon (Nowicki and Merchant, 2004) while the cloud long wave heating effect dominates at night.

The long wave greenhouse effect of cloud measured at the top of the atmosphere is manifest primarily as a heating of the atmosphere in the moist tropics, consistent with calculations by Sohn (1999).

Over the marine stratocumulus regions and across higher latitudes the cloud-base emission to the surface becomes substantial and dominates over the reduced outgoing long wave radiation to space resulting in enhanced radiative cooling of the atmosphere and heating of the surface. The cloud radiative influence on the exchange of radiative fluxes between the atmosphere and the surface are intimately linked with the water cycle through radiativeconvective balance. While tropical, high-altitude clouds act to stabilize the atmospheric profile radiatively, clouds over polar regions tend to cool the atmosphere while heating the surface through enhanced atmospheric longwave radiative emission to the surface. In future work it would be informative to categorize these effects by cloud type further (e.g. Futyan et al., 2005) and compare with climate model simulations. These analyses are vital in constraining cloud feedback processes further and in linking to future changes in the water cycle (Stephens, 2005; Bony et al., 2006; John et al., 2009).

A particular challenge is the accurate quantification of surface radiative fluxes due to the sparse ground-based observing network (Roesch et al., 2011) and also monitoring current changes in cloud radiative effect in satellite data, reanalyses and models (Wielicki et al., 2002); combining meteorological reanalyses with satellite data and surface observations provide a vital methodology for meeting these challenges.

Abstract is here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...t.285/abstract

Full paper is here: http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02r.../Allan11MA.pdf
Richard P Allan does not appear to be a CAGW skeptic. In fact he seems to have ties to places with lots of alarmists. I had not heard of him. Here's his CV:

www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~rpa/CV_RPA3.pdf

The CV says he has "strong ties with the Met Office and the IPCC." The British Met Office is a hotbed of alarmism. We know about the IPCC. He has also worked for the Hadley Center, yet another alarmist nest. I can't see that he can be "accused" of skepticism like Spencer and Lindzen. Also, he probably isn't a creationist.

Watts' article is a little snarky (of course) but I think the cracks about the editor of the journal that printed Allan's paper are deserved.
Old 09-20-11, 10:54 AM
  #319  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

2) Times Atlas of the World misplaces 15% of Greenland's ice.

Long time CAGW alarmist journalist Richard Black reports:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399

Times Atlas 'wrong' on Greenland ice
Richard Black By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News
19 September 2011 Last updated at 06:08 ET


Scientists say the Times Atlas map (left) does not follow the ice extent line as viewed from space (right)

Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change.

Publicity for the latest edition of the atlas, launched last week, said warming had turned 15% of Greenland's former ice-covered land "green and ice-free".

But scientists from the Scott Polar Research Institute say the figures are wrong; the ice has not shrunk so much.

The Atlas costs £150 ($237) and claims to be the world's "most authoritative".

The 13th edition of the "comprehensive" version of the atlas included a number of revisions made for reasons of environmental change since the previous one, published in 2007.

The break-up of some Antarctic ice shelves due to climate change, the shrinking of inland waters such as the Dead and Aral Seas, and the drying up of rivers such as the Colorado River are all documented.

But the glossy publicity sheets begin with the contention that "for the first time, the new edition of the (atlas) has had to erase 15% of Greenland's once permanent ice cover - turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland 'green' and ice-free.

"This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet forever - and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate."

The Scott Polar group, which includes director Julian Dowdeswell, says the claim of a 15% loss in just 12 years is wrong.

"Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands," they say in a letter that has been sent to the Times.

"We do not know why this error has occurred, but it is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world.

"There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature."

Many of the institute's staff are intimately involved in research that documents and analyses the impacts of climate change across the Arctic.

As such, they back the contention that rising temperatures are cutting ice cover across the region, including along the fringes of Greenland; but not anything like as fast as the Times Atlas claimed.

"It is... crucial to report climate change and its impact accurately and to back bold statements with concrete and correct evidence," they say.

The Times Atlas is not owned by The Times newspaper. It is published by Times Books, an imprint of HarperCollins, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

A spokesperson for HarperCollins said its new map was based on information provided by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

"While global warming has played a role in this reduction, it is also as a result of the much more accurate data and in-depth research that is now available," she said.

"Read as a whole, both the press release and the 13th edition of the Atlas make this clear."
The NSIDC has disputed the Atlas's attribution:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/1...ce-loss-claim/ (excerpt):

I [Anthony watts] wrote to NSIDC to confirm this, my regular contact Dr. Walt Meier was out of the office, but Dr. Julienne Stroeve responded with this statement:

Statement from NSIDC regarding the Times Atlas citing NSIDC as the source of its information on Greenland:
[indent]NSIDC has never released a specific number for Greenland ice loss over the past decade. However, we archive and distribute several Greenland data sets and imagery. While it is possible that the Times Atlas obtained data from NSIDC, they may have made their own interpretation of the data, independent of advice of NSIDC.

While mass loss in Greenland is significant, and accelerating, the loss of ice from Greenland is far less than the Times Atlas indicates. People interested in this topic should refer to the peer-reviewed literature for the latest published studies estimating ice loss in Greenland. For further information or questions, contact NSIDC at 303-492-1497 or [email protected].
Edit:

The Times Atlas has a "trailer." In it, an "expert" is said to claim that the new Atlas is a "useful tool against climate change skeptics." He is then quoted on Greenland. Apparently, someone is making an effort to disappear the trailer (since they couldn't disappear the ice), for example, here:

http://www.onearth.org/blog/times-at...climate-change

The video is now "private."

But this is the internet and someone always saves such things. See the relevant portion of the trailer here (while you can):

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cqoZ9HPcsL4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cqoZ9HPcsL4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

They even brag about how the new Atlas "show[s] an inconvenient truth, highlighting just how much global warming is changing the face of our planet." The other changes mentioned are, of course, being blamed on global warming but, while those changes are real, they are not necessarily due to global warming. For example, sea ice extent has shrunk in the arctic but it has increased in the antarctic. But even in the arctic, the low 2007 record (only since satellite monitoring began in 1970) still stands (as does the high antarctic record, also set in 2007). Blaming changes to Lake Chad on global warming is also bogus as it is blamed on land use changes (in this case, mostly overgrazing) rather than global warming (like the shrinking snows of Kilimanjaro, which, by the way, are now increasing again - which you haven't heard about). See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...shrinks_2.html.

It may seem odd that the atlas is published by Harper Collins which is owned by News Corp which is owned by, as you probably know, Rupert Murdoch. But a few years ago, Murdoch announced he was going green and was not a CAGW skeptic (see http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...en-448652.html). In the aftermath, however, it could be seen that he was not preventing his properties such as Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and the Herald Sun in Australia from continuing to be skeptical about CAGW. I assume he likewise gives the Times Atlas people their independence and they are obviously warmists.

It is a sad day when what was arguably the most authoritative atlas in the world reduces itself to just another propaganda tool.

Edit #2: By the way, if Greenland lost 15% of its ice it would mean a sea level rise of about a meter. The Times people never asked themselves or a competent scientist (i.e. not the one they put in their trailer) why that didn't happen.

Last edited by movielib; 09-22-11 at 04:51 PM.
Old 09-20-11, 10:54 AM
  #320  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

3) Nobel Laureate resigns from the American Physical Society over its endorsement of CAGW.

http://www.dailytech.com/Nobel+Laure...ticle22744.htm

Nobel Laureate Resigns from APS Over Global Warming Policy
Tiffany Kaiser - September 15, 2011 4:20 PM

A well-known physicist has resigned from his position with the American Physical Society (APS) due to its recent policy stating that global warming is real.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Prize winner in physics and former professor with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, announced his resignation from the APS on Tuesday, September 13, 2011.

The APS' official policy supports the theory that human actions have inexorably caused the warming of the Earth through heightened carbon dioxide emissions.

Giaever responded by refusing to pay his annual dues, and writing an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, saying that he disagreed with this policy.

The following is the email sent from Giaever to Kirby on September 13:
From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX
According to the Wall Street Journal, Giaever announced he was an avid global warming skeptic in 2008, saying that global warming was "becoming a religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?," said Giaever in 2008. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993. Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."

Giaever, who earned his Nobel Prize for his experimental discoveries with tunneling phenomena in superconductors, joined more than 100 signers of a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama criticizing his position on climate change in 2009.
Is this a big deal? I don't know but Giaever is hardly the first to do something like this.

I think Gliaever's biggest problem is the APS' "science is settled"-like proclamation and its promotion of political action.
Old 09-20-11, 10:55 AM
  #321  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

4) Last and least. Al Gore's "24 Hours of Reality" (September 14-15) falls short of reality and of attention.

So what did you all think of Gore's comeback attempt to link every bad weather event in recent history to CAGW and call every skeptical scientist in the world (of which Al knows there are only a handful) paid lackeys of Exxon? Didn't watch any of it? Didn't know it was going on? Didn't hear about it even afterward? Fret not, almost no one did any of those things.

But here's an hour by hour summary (click cartoon for article on each hour):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-f...-thon-on-wuwt/

Also, it was panned by alarmists as well as by skeptics:

Even Leo Hickman from the thoroughly alarmist British Guardian newspaper was dismayed (you can see he is an alarmist from the article):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...change-reality

A roundup of many opinions:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12848/...ming-activists

I didn't watch any of it either but my understanding is that for 23 hours, different presenters showed Gore's 200 new slides (what said he had) of bad weather events and attributed every one to CAGW. Of course, showing slides of bad wether doesn't prove that even one of them, let alone all of them, could be blamed on CAGW. In fact, for many there have been studies (by those such as NASA and NOAA) which refuted those very claims (such as for the 2010 Russian heatwave and Pakistani floods). Then Gore was on for the last hour which probably was even more boring and error filled. Someone needs to tell Al it's no longer 2006 (AIT) or 2007 (Nobel). And it never should have been.
Old 09-20-11, 06:16 PM
  #322  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

They found Trenberth's missing heat!

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth from one of the Climategate emails.

It hasn't been warming like the alarmists' models say it should so Trenberth fretted about that a few years ago. Now they claim they have found the heat. Through the ever present, never validated, computer models.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0918144941.htm

Deep Oceans Can Mask Global Warming for Decade-Long Periods

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2011) — The planet's deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, based on computer simulations of global climate, points to ocean layers deeper than 1,000 feet (300 meters) as the main location of the "missing heat" during periods such as the past decade when global air temperatures showed little trend. The findings also suggest that several more intervals like this can be expected over the next century, even as the trend toward overall warming continues.

"We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future," says NCAR's Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study. "However, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line."

The research, by scientists at NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, is published online in Nature Climate Change. Funding for the study came from the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, and the Department of Energy.

Where the missing heat goes

The 2000s were Earth's warmest decade in more than a century of weather records. However, the single-year mark for warmest global temperature, which had been set in 1998, remained unmatched until 2010 [That 2010 was warmer than 1998 is disputed. - m].

Yet emissions of greenhouse gases continued to climb during the 2000s, and satellite measurements showed that the discrepancy between incoming sunshine and outgoing radiation from Earth actually increased. This implied that heat was building up somewhere on Earth, according to a 2010 study published in Science by NCAR researchers Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.

The two scientists, who are coauthors on the new study, suggested that the oceans might be storing some of the heat that would otherwise go toward other processes, such as warming the atmosphere or land, or melting more ice and snow. Observations from a global network of buoys showed some warming in the upper ocean, but not enough to account for the global build-up of heat. Although scientists suspected the deep oceans were playing a role, few measurements were available to confirm that hypothesis.

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures.

The simulations, which were based on projections of future greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, indicated that temperatures would rise by several degrees during this century. But each simulation also showed periods in which temperatures would stabilize for about a decade before climbing again. For example, one simulation showed the global average rising by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) between 2000 and 2100, but with two decade-long hiatus periods during the century.

During these hiatus periods, simulations showed that extra energy entered the oceans, with deeper layers absorbing a disproportionate amount of heat due to changes in oceanic circulation. The vast area of ocean below about 1,000 feet (300 meters) warmed by 18% to 19% more during hiatus periods than at other times. In contrast, the shallower global ocean above 1,000 feet warmed by 60% less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation.

"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," Trenberth says. "The heat has not disappeared, and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."

A pattern like La Niña

The simulations also indicated that the oceanic warming during hiatus periods has a regional signature. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes, especially around 30°S and 30°N in the Pacific and between 35°N and 40°N in the Atlantic, where surface waters converge to push heat into deeper oceanic layers.

These patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event, according to Meehl. He adds that El Niño and La Niña events can be overlaid on top of a hiatus-related pattern. Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer.

"The main hiatus in observed warming has corresponded with La Niña conditions, which is consistent with the simulations," Trenberth says.

The simulations were part of NCAR's contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). They were run on supercomputers at NCAR's National Science Foundation-supported Climate Simulation Laboratory, and on supercomputers at Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, both supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Note that no one took these temperatures (we cannot do that at this time). It's really all up to the models and no one has ever confirmed the computer models are any good.

Roger Pielke, Sr (and many others) has already come up with several big problems (besides that it's all just computer modeling).

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...lobal-warming/

September 20, 2011 · 7:00 am
Torpedoing Of The Use Of The Global Average Surface Temperature Trend As The Diagnostic For Global Warming
Roger Pielke, Sr

There is a new paper by Gerald Meehl of NCAR and other collaborators that has been announced in the media; i.e. see in the International Business Tribune [h/t to Watts Up With That]

Global Warming on Temporary Hold Thanks to Deep Oceans

First, I am glad the authors implicitly acknowledge the importance of the ocean heat changes as the primary diagnostic of climate system heat changes, as I have urged in my papers [Pielke has been pushing this idea for many years. - m]

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.

There are two major issues, however, with the new study that the authors [that the news article reports on] did not seem to recognize:

1. If heat is being sequested in the deeper ocean, it must transfer through the upper ocean. In the real world, this has not been seen that I am aware of. In the models, this heat clearly must be transferred (upwards and downwards) through this layer. The Argo network is spatially dense enough that this should have been see.

2. Even more important is the failure of the authors to recognize that they have devalued the use of the global average surface temperature as the icon to use to communicate the magnitude of global warming. If this deeper ocean heating actually exists in the real world, it is not observable in the ocean and land surface temperatures. To monitor global warming, we need to keep track of the changes in Joules in the climate system, which, as clearly indicated in the new study by Meehl and colleagues, is not adequately diagnosed by the global, annual-averaged surface temperature trends.

The news article has the text [highlight added]
Global warming is temporarily on hold as the deep ocean currents and circulations absorb the sun’s heat before releasing it finally, scientists said on Sunday.

The study conducted by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia was published in the Sept. 18 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.

The last decade saw an incessant growth in greenhouse gas emissions which ideally should have increased Earth’s temperature. However, Earth’s temperature didn’t increase vastly. Where was the “missing heat” going?

To find out the mystery, Gerald Meehl, lead author of the study that revealed the connection between global warming and temperature hiatus caused by ocean’s heat absorption, and scientists at the NCAR in Colorado ran five simulations on a computer model that studied the complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans and sea ice.

The study revealed that temperature has already increased by several degrees in this century and will increase more in the coming days but the hiatus period will interrupt the increase. During this period, the missing temperature will lurk inside the deep ocean.

“We will see global warming go through hiatus periods in the future, however, these periods would likely last only about a decade or so, and warming would then resume. This study illustrates one reason why global temperatures do not simply rise in a straight line,” said Meehl.

Kevin Trenberth, a study author and NCAR scientist, said: “… this study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean, the heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences.”

They found the vast area deeper than 1,000 feet (305 meters) warmed by about 18 to 19 percent more during the hiatus periods than at other times. Meanwhile, shallower global oceans above 1,000 feet warmed by 60 percent less than during non-hiatus periods in the simulation. [They didn't find the heat. They didn't take the deep ocean's temperature. They modeled the heat. - m]

The study also revealed the regional signature of oceanic warming during hiatus periods. During a hiatus, average sea-surface temperatures decrease across the tropical Pacific, while they tend to increase at higher latitudes.

Meehl says these patterns are similar to those observed during a La Niña event.

“Global temperatures tend to drop slightly during La Niña, as cooler waters reach the surface of the tropical Pacific, and they rise slightly during El Niño, when those waters are warmer,” he added.
A final comment on this paper, if heat really is deposited deep into the ocean (i.e. Joules of heat) it will dispersed through the ocean at these depths and unlikely to be transferred back to the surface on short time periods, but only leak back upwards if at all. The deep ocean would be a long-term damper of global warming, that has not been adequately discussed in the climate science community.
Pielke is saying that if the CO2 actually drove temperatures as high as the alarmists say it should, and it was transferred into the deep ocean, it needed to make it past the Argos buoys. They would have detected the heat. They didn't. He is also saying if it is hiding in the deep oceans it would take a lot longer to make its way back up than the study's authors are accounting for. He is also making a point about the surface temperatures. If the heat hides in the oceans, they need to stop putting so much emphasis on the temperatures they are always fretting about at the surface.

The larger problem, in my view, is that the alarmists are always coming up with some study to do away with their biggest problems (which they often try to ignore at other times). The missing hotspot, the Medieval Warm Period, the cooling Antarctic continent (overall; the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica are warming (a lot and a little respectively) but the much larger East Antarctica has been almost universally acknowledged to have been cooling for quite some time). They seem like so many epicycles. Every time they publish these studies, they are highly criticized and not just by skeptics.

Last edited by movielib; 09-22-11 at 02:30 PM.
Old 09-22-11, 03:39 PM
  #323  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I'm not sure that this belongs in this thread but I don't think it's significant enough to warrant a thread of its own. And it does have to do with environmentalism which is within the penumbra of this thread. And I find it quite interesting.

Probably many of you are aware of Jared Diamond's book Collapse, in which one of his stories is about why the Easter Island society collapsed. I admit I have not read the book but I have read about this part of the book and it has seemed rather dodgy to me. This article is by a very prominent environmentalist and uber-warmist, Mark Lynas, author of a book called Six Degrees, wherein he tells us that without drastic CO2 emission reductions the world will warm six degrees C and that will destroy the earth as we know it. He is also known for throwing a pie in the face of the "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg. I have also not read this book. I mention these things only to establish Lynas's indisputable enviro credentials.

http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the...lands-ecocide/

Mark Lynas
The myth of Easter Island’s ecocide
19 September 2011

Few historical tales of ecological collapse have achieved the cultural resonance of that of Easter Island. In the conventional account, best popularised by Jared Diamond in his 2005 book ‘Collapse’, the islanders brought doom upon themselves by over-exploiting their limited environment, thereby providing a compelling analogy for modern times. Yet recent archaeological work suggests that the eco-collapse hypothesis is almost certainly wrong – and that the truth is far more shocking.

Diamond’s thesis is that the island’s original lush tree-cover was destroyed by the Polynesian colonists, whose cult of making massive statues (for which the island is now famous) required prodigious amounts of wood to transport these huge rock idols. He suggests that as the ecological crisis brought on by deforestation worsened, the islanders tried to appease their apparently angry gods by making and transporting yet more statues, creating a vicious circle of human stupidity.

Lest we fail to spot the parallel, he writes:
“I have often asked myself, “What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it?” Like modern loggers, did he shout “Jobs, not trees!”? Or: “Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we’ll find a substitute for wood”?
Diamond was not the first to draw this specific analogy: over a decade earlier, in a 1992 book entitled ‘Easter Island, Earth Island’, Paul Bahn and John Flenley (both palaeoecologists) wrote:
“…the person who felled the last tree could see that it was the last tree. But he (or she) still felled it. This is what is so worrying. Humankind’s covetousness is boundless. Its selfishness appears to be genetically inborn. Selfishness leads to survival. Altruism leads to death. The selfish gene wins. But in a limited ecosystem, selfishness leads to increasing population imbalance, population crash, and ultimately extinction.”
And just to show how nasty things can get in a collapsing society, Diamond makes sure to include tantalisingly unpleasant allegations that the islanders actually ate each other on a large scale:
“In place of their former sources of wild meat, islanders turned to the largest hitherto unused source available to them: humans, whose bones became common not only in proper burials but also (cracked to extract the marrow) in late Easter Island garbage heaps.”
Diamond rounds off the chapter with the kind of call to arms that will be familiar to any environmentalist:
“The parallels between Easter Island and the whole modern world are chillingly obvious. Thanks to globalisation, international trade, jet planes, and the internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter’s dozen clans… Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future.”
But what if almost none of this is actually true, in straightforward historical terms? More recent archaeological work has now challenged almost every aspect of this conventional ‘ecocide’ narrative, most completely and damningly in a new book by the archaeologists Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo entitled ‘The Statues That Walked’. Hunt and Lipo did not set out to challenge the conventional story: their initial studies were intended merely to confirm it by providing some greater archaeological detail. However, as they dug and analysed, things turned out very differently.

Take the deforestation issue. Hunt and Lipo discovered that initial estimates of the date of first colonisation by migrating Polynesians were out by several hundred years. So whilst human arrival on the island did indeed lead to near-total deforestation, it was nothing to do with statue-building, which came later. Certainly people would have cut and used some of the trees, but the more likely explanation for the extinction of the island’s native palms was the proliferation of rats – brought by the human immigrants – which ate the seeds of the trees and prevented them regenerating. (The same thing happened on many other Pacific islands, including those in Hawaii.)

And instead of the statue-building cult being evidence of stupidity and ecocide, Hunt and Lipo suggest that it was actually an important contributor to the success of Easter Island society – which (again in contradiction to the assertions of Diamond) maintained a relatively peaceful nature over many centuries. Moreover, the statues were never transported by being dragged using wood rails – they were instead ‘walked’ along specially-constructed roads in a similar way to how you or I would walk a heavy refrigerator across the kitchen.

So deforestation happened at the beginning of Polynesian colonisation, and Easter Island’s new inhabitants then developed ingenious methods for eking out a sustainable existence in their infertile and climatically hostile new home. These included lithic mulching (using stones as mulch), erecting multiple wind-breaks (again out of stone) and making very effective string and rope out of plant fibres.

As the authors write:
“The truth of cultivation on the island was that only the ingenuity of the islanders made it possible to produce a reliable food crop.”
They continue,
“In light of this knowledge, we can readily see the unwarranted nature of claims for a prehistoric environmental catastrophe that turned a once-productive island into a barren landscape. If anything, the islanders contributed to an increase in the human carrying capacity of the island over time.”
This is a very different picture from the conventional one of ecocide and cannibalism. Regarding the latter charge, according to Hunt and Lipo, the first mention of this is a sensationalised hoax published in a French tabloid newspaper in 1845, which alleged that native cannibals had tried to eat a French ship captain. The suggestion of cannibalism was also an old ploy by Christian missionaries – and used in many other islands – both to convince the Polynesians that their own culture was abhorrent, and to convince outsiders that that the natives desperately needed conversion to Christianity.

Hunt and Lipo are not the first to point out the inadequacies of Diamond’s scholarship – and that of his intellectual antecedents. As Benny Peiser points out in this 2005 paper, fish supplies were abundant, and reports from early European explorers that the islanders were thin and miserable-looking are highly contradictory (others report that they lived in comparative luxury). Certainly Diamond’s reading of this seems highly partisan. As Peiser puts it:
“Together with abundant and virtually unlimited sources of seafood, the cultivation of the island’s fertile soil could easily sustain many thousands of inhabitants interminably. In view of the profusion of broadly unlimited food supplies (which also included abundant chickens, their eggs and the islands innumerable rats, a culinary ‘delicacy’ that were always available in abundance), Diamond’s notion that the natives resorted to cannibalism as a result of catastrophic mass starvation is palpably absurd. In fact, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for either starvation or cannibalism.”
Where Diamond’s ‘garbage heaps’ full of cracked human bones are located I have so far not been able to discover, for there does indeed seem to be no evidence for them reported in any of the academic literature I have found.

As Hunt and Lipo report:
“When we first arrived on Rapa Nui (the original name for ‘Easter Island’), we expected that the archaeological record would divulge plenty of evidence of conflict, but it didn’t. Instead our archaeological investigations have shown that Rapa Nui’s history is notable for its lack of violence.”
Falsely accusing the islanders of killing and eating each other is bad enough. But it gets worse. Whilst the conventional narrative blames the islanders for committing a kind of collective ecological and social suicide (hence the term ‘ecocide’) this reading of history is almost certainly perpetuating a monumental injustice. For the Easter Islanders were indeed subject to a genocide – but it did not come from within. Instead, visiting ships brought epidemics of new diseases which wiped out the majority of the population – with most of the remnants later carted off in slave raids.

It is grimly ironic that Jared Diamond, of all people, missed – or misread – this more realistic version of history, given that it forms the central thesis for his earlier and much more convincing book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’. In this work, Diamond provides compelling evidence for how diseases unknown in the New World decimated whole populations, facilitating European invasion and setting the scene for appalling crimes committed against native populations from the silver mines of Potosi to Tenochtitlan.

So why could he not understand that the same thing happened at Easter Island? Hunt and Lipo again:
“For Rapa Nui, Fischer reports that of the approximately 1,500 Rapanui who were blackbirded to Peru, the vast majority died there. In the repatriation from South America to Polynesia, eighty-five of the survivors died at sea, leaving a mere dozen or so Rapanui who actually made it back home. Then in 1871, a majority of islanders left for Tahiti and Mangareva; and even in their neighboring islands of Polynesia, the Rapanui met with death in large numbers. By 1877, the native population on the island had reached its all-time recorded low of just 110. Through a series of disastrous encounters with foreign visitors, the Rapanui population had collapsed, rebounded, collapsed again, and then recovered to a degree, only to be ravished in slave raids.”
Nor was this the final insult. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the island was converted into a massive sheep ranch, with its surviving human population held in virtual captivity. The sheep converted it into a true ecological wasteland, eliminating the remaining smaller trees and causing large-scale soil erosion – for which the early Easter Islanders would once again later be blamed by latter-day environmentalists.

So the history is wrong. But what of the analogy? Hunt and Lipo end their book by drawing a much more positive parallel between Easter Island and the rest of the world.
“Thus, despite the long history of disease, population collapse, external rule, and enslavement, the Rapanui have held on and thrived. A swelling population spurred by a booming Chilean economy has brought prosperity to the island in the form of growing tourism.”
Like all of us, modern Easter Islanders are inter-dependent with the rest of the world. Perhaps the more recent studies of their history will help challenge the Hobbesian and pessimistic view that human nature necessarily tends towards destruction and violence. Resilience and sustainability are just as likely outcomes, even over the longer term. This, I think, is the true lesson of Easter Island.

I’ll give the last word to Benny Peiser, whose paper on the subject should be required reading for anyone convinced by the collapse story in Jared Diamond’s book.
“The real mystery of Easter Island, however, is not its collapse. It is why distinguished scientists feel compelled to concoct a story of ecological suicide when the actual perpetrators of the civilisation’s deliberate destruction are well known and were identified long ago…

As a final point, I would argue that Easter Island is a poor example for a morality tale about environmental degradation. Easter Island’s tragic experience is not a metaphor for the entire Earth. The extreme isolation of Rapa Nui is an exception even among islands, and does not constitute the ordinary problems of the human environment interface. Yet in spite of exceptionally challenging conditions, the indigenous population chose to survive – and they did…

What they could not endure, however, and what most of them did not survive, was something altogether different: the systematic destruction of their society, their people and their culture.”
Furthermore, and in support of Lynas, he extensively quotes from a paper by Benny Peiser. Peiser is a strong CAGW skeptic. Lynas is bashed in the comments for as much as even mentioning Peiser's name, let alone quoting from this evil "denier." Lynas defends doing so because, even if he disagrees with Peiser on CAGW, that doesn't mean he's wrong about this.

I say, good for Mark Lynas. Recently, he also rufflled warmist feathers by questioning whether the IPCC should be basing some of its claims on information from Greenpeace and its members. (See http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new...by-greenpeace/.) He also took a lot of shit for that.

I think Lynas is still very wrong about CAGW. But he is at least open minded enough to listen to those who disagree with him and sometimes even agree with them on some points. Would that all warmists (and skeptics) were like that.
Old 09-22-11, 05:24 PM
  #324  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Followup to Post #319.

Hilariously, some newspapers in the Maldives took seriously a column by skeptic journalist James Delingpole that said the next edition of the Times Atlas of the World would remove some islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu as well as parts of Bangladesh (these places are allegedly in danger of being overcome by rising sea levels due to the dreaded CAGW). This is, of course, after they erroneously removed 15% of Greenland's ice cover in the present edition.

This article was obviously satirical, about as obviously as could be. See:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...manhattan-etc/

and tell me you could possibly have any satire-recognition gray matter in your head and not realize this.

Here's our main story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15027163

22 September 2011 Last updated at 15:09 ET
Maldives government complains of spoof atlas omission
By Charles Haviland BBC News, Colombo

The government of the Maldives has complained after the London Daily Telegraph website carried a satirical blog post saying the island nation is to be omitted from the Times Atlas of the World.

The supposed omission was said to be due to impending climate change.

The low-lying islands of the Maldives are at risk from rising sea levels.

The spoof blog post was taken seriously by several media outlets in the Maldives.

The Telegraph blog post was written by a climate change sceptic, James Delingpole.

On Monday, scientists said the new edition of the Times Atlas had exaggerated the scale of ice-cover reduction in another part of the world, Greenland.

Mr Delingpole's blog said the next edition of the famous atlas would continue what he called its "Climate Change alarmism", by completely erasing some very low-lying areas - the Maldives, Tuvalu and "major parts of Bangladesh".

He quoted a fictitious "spokesman" for the atlas as saying that in map-making, "emotional truth" was more important than actual truth.
Apology sought

Some Maldivian websites and newspapers took the satirical blog seriously.
Maldives Cabinet meets underwater When the Maldives cabinet met underwater, it was not because the island nation had disappeared

An opposition politician sent out a mass text message blaming the Maldives' president for the country's omission from the map, because he'd staged events such as an underwater cabinet meeting.

A spokesperson for the atlas's publisher, HarperCollins, has confirmed to a Maldives website, Minivan News, that the blog post was bogus.

The Maldives' acting high commissioner in London has written to the newspaper's editor seeking a clarification and apology.

He said the post had implied that his country's climate change plight was a con-trick, and this, he said, was despicable and hurtful.

However, he added that Maldivians had as strong a sense of humour as anyone.

A Maldives government official told the BBC the Telegraph should not publish such "nonsense" under its brand name when it could be mistaken for news.

But he said Maldives newspapers should also confess to having been duped.
I looked it up and I see the national language of the Maldives is Divehi. So maybe this can be blamed on their not having English as their first language. But it's still funny.

I would say the Telegraph would not have thought such an obvious satire would be mistaken for real news. I would also say no one was "duped" because there was no intention of duping.
Old 09-23-11, 12:25 AM
  #325  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

A lawyer (I think he's British but not certain) explains why he thinks Michael Mann doesn't have a leg to intervene on in the UVA FOIA case.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...o-mann-up.html

Time to Mann up
Sep 21, 2011 Climate: Mann FOI
This is a guest post by Richard Brearley

There has been quite a lot of coverage that I have seen of Mann’s attempt to intervene in the UVA FOI case. None of it has given sufficient detail to enable me to understand the specific issues involved and so I decided to have a look at it myself.

We need to remember that the order requiring “protective disclosure” of all of Mann’s emails during his six-year stint at UVA was by agreement between ATI and his former university. Further, that order specifically stated in its text that its purpose was “protecting information that may be exempt from disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act”. Any documentation that the university unilaterally deems to be exempt cannot be disclosed to the public without a further order of the court. This means that the university can decide without agreement from anyone else what is exempt and it can only thereafter be disclosed if a judge says so. This would only ever happen if the ATI then took back to the court a challenge that some or all of the information the university had deemed to be exempt should not be so treated. That issue would then be decided by the court.

Mann says in his intervention documents that in agreeing to release all documents under this protective umbrella the university has not protected his proprietary rights, such as they may be. There is no mention in those documents of any obligation on the University to do so. Mann says that in agreeing to the order, the university has agreed to disclose to the court documents that are in fact exempt from disclosure under FOI, but of course that is the purpose of the original order which seeks to facilitate negotiation and, if necessary, further court orders as to what is in fact disclosable to the public. Mann maintains that the documents that are exempt are documents of a personal nature. But what does Mann mean by “personal”? He specifically refers in this context to documents that contain his “thoughts, ideas, and statements regarding numerous scientific issues”. And later he refers to his personal emails “relating to climate change and other scientific issues”. So Mann is not trying to stop the disclosure of emails to his gran or his wife/girlfriend, but very specifically those relating to his thoughts, ideas, and statements relating to climate change.

Let’s have a brief look at the stated purpose of the Virginia FOI legislation:

§ 2.2-3700. Short title; policy.

A. This chapter may be cited as "The Virginia Freedom of Information Act."
B. By enacting this chapter, the General Assembly ensures the people of the Commonwealth ready access to public records in the custody of a public body or its officers and employees, and free entry to meetings of public bodies wherein the business of the people is being conducted. The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government. Unless a public body or its officers or employees specifically elect to exercise an exemption provided by this chapter or any other statute, every meeting shall be open to the public and all public records shall be available for inspection and copying upon request. All public records and meetings shall be presumed open, unless an exemption is properly invoked.

The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to promote an increased awareness by all persons of governmental activities and afford every opportunity to citizens to witness the operations of government. Any exemption from public access to records or meetings shall be narrowly construed and no record shall be withheld or meeting closed to the public unless specifically made exempt pursuant to this chapter or other specific provision of law. This chapter shall not be construed to discourage the free discussion by government officials or employees of public matters with the citizens of the Commonwealth.

All public bodies and their officers and employees shall make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with a requester concerning the production of the records requested.
However, Mann’s intervention is based, as his lawyers point out, on the Code of Virginia. He states that following VA code 2.2-3075.4(4) these documents cannot not be released.

That part of the code (which is part of the Virginia FOI regime) states as follows:
§ 2.2-3705.4. Exclusions to application of chapter; educational records and certain records of educational institutions.

The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter but may be disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law:

……………………

4. Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education, other than the institutions' financial or administrative records, in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the institution alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or a private concern, where such data, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented.
Three issues are immediately obvious. The first is that this part of the Code relates to educational records or the records of educational institutions, not people who may have worked for them. It says nothing about, and therefore presumably provides no exceptions for, the staff of such institutions.

The second is that the “custodian” of the records in question may release them at its discretion even if they would otherwise be exempt except where disclosure is illegal, and of course the university has agreed to disclosure in the terms of the order already made by the court. And yet Mann in his documents in support of his intervention uses the fact of the University’s agreement to release documents as a reason why he should be protected. But the custodian has discretion, i.e. it can lawfully make a decision to release without recourse to former employees, but Mann makes no mention of this in his papers submitted to the court.

The third is that this exception applies to information of a “proprietary” nature “in the conduct of or as a result of study or research”. The meaning of this appears to be clear. It refers to the ownership by the educational institution itself of information relating to study or research. Mann and his lawyers repeatedly refer to Mann’s “interest” in these documents. So far as I can see he has none. The university has already agreed to disclose the documents knowing that some might be exempt and knowing that it can flag as exempt those that it chooses. And yet Mann’s complaint in his pleadings is that that the University previously agreed that many documents were exempt from disclosure. (Yes, Dr Mann – that’s what the original order says and was for – to allow the University to flag some documents as exempt and for the court to decide whether they are in fact are exempt).

In my view Mann has no basis in law to suggest that this part of the code protects him or any proprietary rights that he claims to have in the information. Note that the exception relates to study and research, the very things that Mann was employed to do. I cannot say for certain since I have never seen Mann’s contract of employment but it would be incredibly unusual for an academic at a university not to have a contract that states that his research and study is the property of his employer. Note that we are not talking about publications here, but the everyday cut and thrust of study and research. That would seem to me to include any conversation Mann had with other scientists about climate change or any other matter touching on his discharge of his position as an assistant professor at this university. Thus it is almost certainly the case that Mann has no proprietary interest whatever in documentation he produced whilst an employee of UVA that was as a result of study or research. Of course none of Mann’s email musings that he now considers to be his property and “personal” would have occurred on the UVA email system but for his employment at that university.

The memorandum of Law in support of Mann’s intervention states that it seeks to stop the “upcoming and improper disclosure of thousands of his personal e-mail exchanges with professional colleagues”. The language of Mann’s documentation in support is inappropriate. He talks of the release of documents to “the very activist petitioners that are on a mission to scapegoat him”. There is so much wrong with this in the context of a FOI case and I am surprised that his lawyers allowed this phrasing to pass muster. It is completely irrelevant. The motive of the requester is not a relevant consideration and this is a central tenet of FOI regimes pretty much wherever they exist and certainly so in the US or the UK. One could make an FOI request stating on its face that the intention was to use any information disclosed to discredit the very public authority that is asked for the information. It doesn’t effect the obligation to disclose one iota. So why would a lawyer bother to include such improper language (in the context of relevant legal pleadings in these cases)? The only answer that shouts to any lawyer from the pleadings is desperation. Having, as we all have, seen a deal of Mann’s personality revealed over the years in various circumstances, all that can be said is that we see a pollution of the lawyer’s drafting with Mann’s feelings of persecution as an academic. This is a theme widely, but I suspect fruitlessly, posited by the utterly irrelevant (in a legal context) letters from Trenberth, D’Arrigo, Santer, and Bradley in support of Mann’s intervention and a theme we see regularly regurgitated by other scientists and warmists.

It must be accepted that one can have personal email exchanges with professional colleagues. We all do this since many professional colleagues are also friends or acquaintances. Emails thanking colleagues for a good night at their recent barbecue, or thanking them for the birthday card received by one’s wife or child, or arranging a round of golf. These are clearly personal. But they are also trivial and in reality would be of no interest whatsoever to anyone. Remembering that the documents are to be disclosed under seal and under the eyes of the court and only two attorneys from ATI, one would imagine that such emails would be glossed over and that no-one would be wasting their time arguing for their public release.

But other than emails like the examples above between “professional colleagues”, what other correspondence is “personal”? Well, I can’t think of any myself. Perhaps Mann and his lawyers are blurring the distinction between personal emails and academic freedom. Certainly the flavour of Mann’s pleading is that there should be an exemption for academic freedom and that in this respect those documents should be considered as personal. But if an email is sent or received from those colleagues on the “work” email system then there is no expectation of privacy. That is clearly the case for Mann in the context of UVA’s policies and, it would appear, his own employment contract with his former employers.

But Mann is clearly intent on seeking to block even the court from seeing these emails. Not the public, but the court, and two lawyers who are bound by their professional obligations to keep secret any information they have seen that is not subsequently released – professional men who risk being struck off if they breach this obligation. Let’s not forget that Mann’s intervention seeks to excuse these documents from production to a judge, let alone the public. Judges, particularly in criminal cases, are often required to see correspondence or documents in order to decide whether they can be admitted in evidence. It is often the job of a judge to examine documents that are subsequently disallowed as submittable evidence and which the judge is required to exclude from any assessment of the case or weighing of the evidence, even though he has read them. That is what judges do. But Mann is seemingly determined to ensure that not even a judge gets to see what he was writing about when employed at UVA.

Further, Mann’s lawyers exhibit to their documentation a copy of the University of Virginia’s policy in respect of disclosure of university records. The part of the policy the rely on is, in fact, no more than a rehash of the Virginia Code, 2.2-3705.4(4) set out above. The wording is pretty much identical. In addition Mann’s lawyers highlight clauses in that UVA policy relating to the remedy available to persons who have been denied their rights under the policy. But those clauses appear to relate to someone seeking information from the university, not someone who used to work there who is seeking to block disclosure of his communications whilst an employee.

Mann further states that release of documents will damage the reputations of dozens of scientists around the world (although he does not specifically include himself in this group). Now, if you are a judge, and bearing in mind that the existing court orders require only that documents be examined within the jurisdiction of the court and not in the public arena, what are you going to think about this surprising statement? It can only mean what Mann says. If you see these documents reputations will fall. If I were the judge in this case that statement in support of an attempt to block not only release to the public, but scrutiny under the supervision of the court, would cause a raised eyebrow – it is not a huge leap of the imagination for some to say that this is pretty much a statement, on its face, that there is something in there that Mann doesn’t want anyone to see – perhaps the concern is that if the court sees them it will immediately accept that it is manifestly in the public interest for them to be released to the public. The reason for my view in this regard is that if I were presenting a case that there should be an exception in respect of academic freedom, or that some of the documents should be classified as personal, then I would argue that the consequences may or are likely to result in…I would never, ever, say will result in… I wouldn’t be referring to any actual consequences of disclosure but possible consequences. And of course in making an argument for academic freedom or for a classification of some documents as personal my arguments would be framed around the good reasons why this should, in general, apply. That is not being done here. Mann has unequivocally stated, in court documents, that disclosure will result in a loss of reputations for dozens of scientists.

In short Mann’s intervention seems to me to be destined to fail. Of course he has secured a delay in the release of documents. And but for this intervention the documents would have been released about now. There is a hearing listed in November to decide on his intervention application. Once this has been disposed of (which I am sure it will be) then no doubt the documents will be required to be released immediately.

Perhaps Mann has an interest in delay.

There is undoubtedly a theme here that is starting to resound throughout the US and the UK. Scientists are starting to realise that we, the public, are legally empowered to see what they have been up to. As the wonderful Clive Dunn used to say in Dad’s Army – they don’t like it up ‘em.
Is it not clear that what Mann did in his professional capacity at UVA is (a) the property of the university and (b) subject to FOI laws because UVA is a public institution paid for by taxpayer money?

And one wonders how Mann can claim emails regarding his scientific work for UVA can be deemed "private." If he wanted to correspond with scientific colleagues in a way to keep it private he should have used a personal email account. His attempt at "intervention," particularly at such a late date, long after the court order, can be deemed meritless. Of course, such a late attempted intervention does make for a maximum total period of delay, which may be part of the strategy. But I don't see how it will benefit him in the end. All these tactics do is reflect even more poorly on him.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.