Follow Us 
Insider
-
Secure your seat before the music ends
-
Pioneering resilience efforts at the state level
Comments
New Forum Topics
lmcdel: 4 hours 4 min ago
Jim H: 18 hours 42 min ago
JamesTerry: 5 days 8 hours ago
JamesTerry: 1 week 1 day ago
Mohave: 1 week 1 day ago
nedyne: 1 week 4 days ago
FreeNL: 1 week 4 days ago
Judd: 1 week 4 days ago
sand_puppy: 1 week 5 days ago
JamesTerry: 1 week 6 days ago
Newest groups
-
A resource for planning for & reacting to the unexpected (storms, natural disasters and other shocks)
-
Members to support one another in investing endeavors
-
Preparing those people on Ise Lodge (Kettering) Northants, interested in the future post fossil fuel.
-
A meeting place for all who are interested in building or sharing a resilient lifestyle up here in the North.
-
A group to form alliances for survival
Les
Among the problems I have with your thesis is your #4 assertion that nothing needs to be done if your precedent conditions are met. Are you kidding? Even if it were assumed that we cannot reduce further warming, an assumption I don't share, then we'd better get busy adapting to that change. Doing nothing is not an option.
I understand your affection for greenhouses, but there is nothing to suggest that our world would become some kind of warm humid garden of Eden. Among the possibilities are increased desertification in Africa and the American southwest and higher sea levels and more intense storms affecting places like Bangladesh and Pacific islands. Cities like New Orleans probably will not survive much more warming.
Yes, any realistic effort to seriously reduce further warming will be expensive, but lets put it in context. The same measures necessary to combat climate change are also needed to deal with peak oil. That is conservation on a massive scale. We cannot escape those changes, so why not start them earlier rather than later when it becomes much more painful to do so. The subject of nuclear power is a possibility, but a very expensive one. As I understand it, we are also approaching peak uranium, a substance which is necessary for nuclear power.
The bottom line is that we need to start reducing our energy use at a time when the developing world is hugely increasing its production. Although China is building alternative energy sources on a large scale, it is also completing two coal fired power plants a week. China and India are both building more vehicles than the US. Again, we cannot escape change on a massive scale, we can only try to make the change as relatively painless as possible.
Les said:
Not enough.
Sorry, couldn't resist it.
Just to pick up on one of your points though. You say:
Would you be so good as to offer some supporting evidence that we have access to useable sources of uranium to last 1,000 years, even at current rates of usage? Or fill me in on what other nuclear technology you're thinking of.
"Based on visiting the Natural History Museum in Chicago, I developed the opinion that life seems to fare better on Earth when it is in a warmer phase rather than a colder phase."
Hmmm.... well, James Lovelock would disagree with you here. In "Gaia's Revenge", he explains how most of life on Earth exists in the cold areas of the planet, especially the oceans. The world's biggest trees and fish occur in the cold oceans, and, apparently, plankton as a proportion of biomass is very substantial, all in cold oceans.
"I know it's irreverent in certain groups, but, put simply, I like greenhouses. I enjoy visiting them. Things grow really well there."
Unfortunately, the term "greenhouse effect" might have confused you, but the Earth is NOT a greenhouse. No walls or roof for starters! If the planet warms up substantially, there will be substantially more energy in the atmosphere. It's that level of energy that causes hurricanes in the tropics, and one prediction of the experts is that more frequent, more powerful, and more widespread hurricanes (and cyclones as we call them here in Australia) will occur.
You may also be unaware that many of the things you eat actually rely on an occasional frost to occur for such crops to actually come to fruition. Lychees come to mind, only because I grow some here, and we haven't had a frost yet (so much for cooling..... we're having the balmiest winter ever!) which almost certainly means we'll get a very poor crop....
Mike
You may also be unaware that many of the things you eat actually rely on an occasional frost to occur for such crops to actually come to fruition. Lychees come to mind, only because I grow some here, and we haven't had a frost yet (so much for cooling..... we're having the balmiest winter ever!) which almost certainly means we'll get a very poor crop....
Mike
Earliest start to the ski season in 10 years here.
Half of Aussie has flooded over here to go skiing !
If each one of them filled their suitcase with of snow for the trip home I'm sure it would cool you off enough for some frosts
Cheers Hamish
More right-wing denial
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members.
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's Editorial:
Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.
Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.
#
Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?
Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.
#
I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved. The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.
R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas
#
Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!
Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?
Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.
Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas
#
I can't accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.
Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah, Tenn.
#
Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other "free-market fanatics," and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.
Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.
#
I would like to see the ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.
Wallace Embry
Columbia, Tenn.
#
In the interest of brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.
Louis H. Rombach
Wilmington, Del.
#
I am particularly offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."
Daniel B. Rego
Las Vegas
#
While Baum obviously has strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.
William Tolley
San Diego
#
I appreciate it when C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct, rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with you.
P. S. Lowell
Lakeway, Texas
#
I am a retired Ph.D. chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because "the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.
Charles M. Krutchen
Daphne, Ala.
#
Please do not keep writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives, people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD, climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers, is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream media and do not need it in C&EN.
Heinrich Brinks
Monterey, Calif.
#
Your utter disdain of CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you. The results presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by U.S. Global Change Research Program if the problem is settled?
William E. Keller
Santa Fe, N.M.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html
Here's a recent comprehensive report of the implications of climate change that we are seeing now and what to expect going forward. At this link there is a vid of the presentation of the report and links to various parts of the report and other resources. There appears to be a lot of info here produced by 13 Federal agencies concerned with various aspects of the issue.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
Get ready for a global heatwave
Duncan Clark, London
July 29, 2009
THE world faces a period of record high temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, heating the planet much faster than scientists had predicted, according to new findings.
The hottest year on record is 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led some global warming sceptics to claim that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. The new study firmly rejects that argument.
The research, to be published in a forthcoming edition of Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as carbon dioxide and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity; and the El Nino southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler conditions every few years.
It shows that the relative stability in global temperatures in thepast seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Nino events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
As solar activity increases, the study suggests temperatures will increase at 150 per cent of the rate predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Dr Lean said: ‘‘Our paper shows that the absence of warming observed in the last decade is no evidence that the climate isn’t responding to man-made greenhouse gases.
‘‘On the contrary, the study again confirms that we’re seeing a long-term warming trend driven by human activity, with natural factors affecting the precise shape of that temperature rise.’’
Dr Lean and Dr Rind’s research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998.
The new paper confirms that the spike was caused primarily by a very strong El Nino episode. A similar episode occurring in the future could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, shattering the 1998 record.
The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Nino warm spell. This development suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Dr Lean and Dr Rind’s paper suggests.
A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policymakers to reach a meaningful deal at December’s climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.
Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: ‘‘If El Nino continues to develop, it’s quite possible that the Copenhagen meeting will take place during one of the warmest Decembers in the global record.’’
He added: ‘‘To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn’t happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter.’’
Perspectives on power
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Barriers-to-decarbonisation-pd20090731-UG3JB?OpenDocument&src=ea&ir=3
The activist environmental think tank, The Climate Institute, has just published an interesting paper on its website that is based on a range of interviews with government officials, the private sector, academia, industry groups and “other stakeholders.”
It is part of a world-wide effort by the Global Climate Network and other surveys have been run in China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the United States, Germany and Nigeria. The international report can be found at www.ippr.org.uk – and they are both well worth reading.
What appeals to me about them is that, for once, they are quite unemotional and provide a useful broad-brush view of decarbonisation prospects and problems that run far wider than our own frogpond.
One of the core recommendations here and overseas – echoing a report in Australia earlier this year by the Academy of Technological Science & Engineering, on which I posted at the time – is that urgent attention needs to be given to an increase in low-carbon R&D spending. It is seen as a principle barrier to decarbonisation. The Global Climate Network wants to see a major “international technologies initiative” to accelerate research.
ATSE, as it happens, has been out and about again in recent days, calling for a greater focus on co-operation across research disciplines, arguing that current structures do not always accommodate the need for an inter-disciplinary approach.
Here, as well as in Brazil and South Africa, Global Climate Network interviewees complain of a lack of government strategy to cover R&D from invention to deployment.
Australian interviewees see the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme as providing little impetus for technologies still in the earlier stages of development. The government might grumble that it has allocated $14 billion over eight years for decarbonisation initiatives – $4.8 billion for energy efficiency drivers, $2.5 billion towards carbon capture and storage activity and $2.3 billion to kickstart some demonstration projects, mainly solar – but I think the overall point holds well.
Not surprisingly, there is a global view that a major R&D obstacle is the lack of finance, especially in the wake of the economic slump. Financiers, all complain, are highly risk averse now and the Australian respondents note that there is very little venture capital or speculative finance currently available. The latter, also not surprisingly, want to see a strong local price on carbon as a driver for the investors in clean-tech. They shouldn’t hold their breath, however, because there is no political appetite in the government or the opposition for a high-priced emissions trading scheme.
As The Climate Institute says, faced with rapidly-growing demand for energy in the current environment, there is a tendency for governments, suppliers, investors and financiers to favour technologies that are known and understood rather than those still untested.
Local interviewees told the institute that the upcoming Rudd government’s energy white paper is a crucial opportunity for federal cabinet to get its act together and present an integrated strategy for clean technology.
Considering how the Australian environmental movement likes to badmouth CCS, it is also interesting to note the international report’s interviewees saying that it and the related integrated gasification combined cycle approach to coal-burning power technology are “indispensible” in the suite of decarbonisation policies.
The local version acknowledges that commercial demonstration of CCS was highlighted by a number of interviewees as an area for Australian leadership if this country wants to sustain and grow coal exports.
American interviewees stressed something that is also highly relevant here – the need to resolve liability questions around the storage of carbon dioxide.
All in all, and in a pleasant contrast to the polemics that disfigure the debate so much of the time, these two reports are good value reading as perspectives on the opportunities and barriers to decarbonisation initiatives and the more useful because they draw together views from a number of countries.
Finally, we can resolve this pesky debate
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/01/the-rules/
And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:
1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.
2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…
3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.
4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
See? I’m a reasonable guy. I’m perfectly open to being convinced by real evidence — you know, the kind that doesn’t rely on scientific instruments, or corrected data, or computers, or results recorded by other scientists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sure you’d agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.
The rest of it's a chuckle also.
doug
"Gore's Hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record"
Ah........ Irony
More denial
Politics and the Greenhouse Effect
Hans Jelbring, Ph.D Climatology, Stockholm University, M.Sc, Royal Institute of Technology
The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Leaders of the
meteorological institution at Stockholm University have not only failed to do their duty as
teachers of science based on scientific methods, they have actively suppressed research results
presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma that they and the IPCC have set
without support of accepted scientific methods. The policy at the university is also to refuse
an open scientific debate involving the students. Instead the major preoccupation of the
leaders has been to influence politicians and to publish their dogmatic beliefs in newspapers
or appear on TV programs. This has obviously been used as a method to attract funding that
they do not deserve. These so-called leaders are far more like irresponsible politicians than
scientists and a good question to ask is why our elected politicians are letting them continue
with this behaviour.
Hence, that community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent
citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what
“science” has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.
http://www.tech-know.eu/NISubmission/pdf/Politics_and_the_Greenhouse_Eff...
And the ice keeps melting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/06/america-glacier-melt
The long-running study of three "benchmark" glaciers in Alaska and Washington state by the US geological survey (USGS) indicated a sharp rise in the melt rate over the last 10 or 15 years.
Scientists see the three - Wolverine and Gulkana in Alaska and South Cascade in Washington - as representative of thousands of other glaciers in North America.
"The observations show that the melt rate has definitely increased over the past 10 or 15 years," said Ed Josberger, a USGS scientist. "This certainly is a very strong indicator that climate change is occurring and its effects on glaciers are virtually worldwide."
Can one man really turn the tide on public opinion on global warming.
Success!
Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers. After I wrote an article attacking his claims, he challenged me to a public debate. Last week I told him that I would accept his challenge as long as he accepted mine. I would take part in a face-to-face debate with him as long as he agreed to write precise and specific responses to his critics' points - in the form of numbered questions that I would send him - for publication on the Guardian's website. Plimer rejected my challenge.
I wrote an article accusing him of cowardice. I sent him the URL in the hope that it would provoke him into changing his mind. It worked. He wrote back, suggesting that he would now answer my questions. So here's the letter I've just sent him. If Plimer answers them and accepts my condition that we can cross-examine each other, we will move on to his challenge - a face-to-face debate. Let battle commence!
Dear Ian,
I am delighted to hear that you have reconsidered your position, and that you are now prepared to engage with me in writing. Here are my questions. Please answer without resort to bluff or bluster. I am looking for precise and specific responses, with references attached.
There are dozens of grave concerns raised by scientists about alleged false claims, misrepresentations and distortions in your book Heaven and Earth. Were I to try to represent them all, this post would run to many pages. So I have chosen just a few. The criteria I have used are as follows:
- These statements are either right or wrong, sourced or unsourced.
- They are critical to your argument. If they turn out to be false, they torpedo your thesis.
- If your claims are correct, you should be able to answer my questions briefly and easily.
For a fuller list of the alleged falsehoods and distortions your book contains, please see the critiques by
Tim Lambert, Ian Enting, Barry Brook, Michael Ashley, David Karoly and Kurt Lambeck.
Once you have given clear and precise answers to these questions, we can confirm the date of our face-to-face debate.
1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11) shows global temperatures, as measured by the Hadley Centre (HadCRUT), falling by 0.3C between 2007 and 2008. In reality the fall recorded by the HadCRUT3 data series is 0.089C.
How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?
2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin's film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.
In your book it remains unchanged.
Tim Lambert has reproduced the graph here.
a. What is the source for the graph you used?
b. Where was it first published?
c. Whose figures does it use?
d. How do you explain the alteration of both the curves and the timeline?
3. You maintain that:
"the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase."
(page 25)
Again you do not provide a reference. As you can see here, the Met Office HadCRUT3 series shows that this claim is untrue.
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?
4. In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that:
"NASA now states that […] the warmest year was 1934." (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?
5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:
"the sea ice has expanded" (p198).
Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
6. You state that:
"If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv […] [a]n increase of 0.5C is likely" (p366).
Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.
7. You claim that:
"About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour." (p370).
Ian Enting says:
"In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth's temperature would be below absolute zero - a physical impossibility."
He explains this as follows.
You state:
"The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15C […] If the atmosphere had no CO2, far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3C." (p366)
Enting says:
"The implication of attributing 18C of warming to CO2 while saying […] 'About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour' is to imply that in the absence of CO2 and H2O, the temperature would be 900C lower, i.e. well below the physical limit of absolute zero."
Again you give no source.
a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true.
8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that:
"satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)
This is what the paper says:
"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."
a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?
b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
9. You state:
"The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998" (p391).
Again you produce no reference.
This is what the Hadley Centre says:
"The evidence is clear – the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded. […] Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming."
a. Please give a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between your account of what the Hadley Centre says and theirs?
10. You state that:
"Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." (p413)
This is similar to the claim in The Great Global Warming Swindle, whose narrator maintained that:
"Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together."
But you do not provide a source for it.
This is what the US Geological Survey says:
"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes".
a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
11. You maintain that:
"termite methane emissions are 20 times potent than human CO2 emissions". (p472)
Please provide a source for this claim.
Thank you,
Yours Sincerely,
George Monbiot
Mike
Thanks for posting the Plimer-Monbiot smackdown info. It should be entertaining to follow. However, I suspect that Plimer will either not respond to the written questions, or will just throw out a bunch of talking point generalities that have been so successful in convincing the poorly informed.
Doug
Ironical, I suppose, but then again .........
These moments in time have little to do with global warming - there will always be records set and broken which has only to do with "weather" The problem we are facing has to do with "climate" which can only be ascertained by analyzing weather conditions over lengthy periods of time
I still say, go find a glacier and look at it - you will be convinced of global warming. I did this first in 1958 and have been on dozens of glaciers around the world since and they are ALL in the process of disappearing
Jim
I still say, go find a glacier and look at it - you will be convinced of global warming. I did this first in 1958 and have been on dozens of glaciers around the world since and they are ALL in the process of disappearing
Hmmm some strange new defffinition of "ALL" that i was previously unaware off.......
The Fox Glacier growth/receading pattern over the previous years is:
- Growing at 1 mtr a day for the past year.
- Receding since 1998 until 2004/5
- Growing for the period 1983 - 1998
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/adeline/rtw2005/1128812940/...
Had been receding since 1865.........
Hi gyrogearloose
Thanks for the info on the Fox Glacier - haven't been there - according to Wikipedia - "Although retreating throughout most of the last 100 years, it has been advancing since 1985 at an average of about a metre a week." While this sounds like a lot, however I suspect that the growth has not begun to equal the loss over the past, say 50 years, so it may be premature to suggest that glaciers are coming back.
I meant to indicate that all the glaciers that I've seen/been on are receding - I remember being on the Homathko Glacier in BC Canada in 1958 and was shocked at the hundreds of (vertical) feet of barren rock that had been recently covered by ice. When I came back to civilization people had the attitude of "ho-hum" when I thought I had witnessed some kind of momentous change in our world going on.
Like climate change, the increase or decrease over short periods mean little in terms of global warming and one must look at the conditions over lengthy periods of time.
Many astounding pictures of receding glaciers are on the web, however they don't convey the impact nearly as strongly as standing on till that was recently covered by several hundred feet of ice. A recent article of interest in the Anchorage Daily News can be found at :
http://www.adn.com/news/environment/warming/story/890552.html
And Wikipedia has an excellent study at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Jim
I meant to indicate that all the glaciers that I've seen/been on are receding - I remember being on the Homathko Glacier in BC Canada in 1958 and was shocked at the hundreds of (vertical) feet of barren rock that had been recently covered by ice.
Jim
There was an amusing post a while ago, on the CM site from memory, that was quoting a news item about the extent with which the Arctic ice had receded and of the opening of the northwest passage.
Seem to remember it was followed by a flurry of "see, proof of global warming" comments
Problem was, the quote was from an newspaper in something like 1913........
Hmmmmm never even hinted that that, however they will make a comeback, ( look at global temperatures of the last few hundred thousand years ) When is the only question.
Here in New Zealand, on the top of the world, things work a bit differently, global warming causes glaciers to grow..........
Cheers Hamish
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386h/nzealand/nzealand2.html
All of New Zealand's glaciers have generally been receding since the beginning of the century (fig. 6), with fluctuating, but rising, end-of-summer snowline elevations. During the "Late Neoglacial" cool period, which persisted during the past 500 to 800 years, most New Zealand glaciers reached three main maximums, climaxing in 1750, 1850, and 1890 (Wardle, 1973; Burrows, 1975; Burrows and Maunder, 1975; Burrows and Russell, 1975; Salinger, 1976; Hessell, 1980, 1983; Salinger and others, 1983). From 1890 there was a general slow recession of most glaciers until the late 1920's, when a widespread rapid retreat commenced. This retreat is continuing, punctuated by only minor readvances in the more active glaciers (fig. 6). Associated with the retreat of glacier termini, most glaciers have suffered a reduction in size and a rise of snowline elevations. From 1971 to 1975, Ivory Glacier lost more than 30 m of thickness in the terminus area, less over other parts of the glacier (fig. 7). The total volume of ice and snow lost during this period for this glacier alone was 13.9 x 106 m3, or an average annual loss of 3.5 x 106 m3. During the same period the area of this glacier was reduced by 26 percent, from 0.80 km2 to 0.59 km2. Where the larger glaciers extend to low-gradient or ponded ice trunks at valley floor level, recession is evident by a steady lowering of ice-surface levels, accompanied by little or no change in terminus position, or by the development of a proglacial lake. These glaciers have glacier snouts that are normally debris covered, and many have recently developed glacierkarst features. The glacierkarst terrain on Tasman Glacier is well displayed on Landsat 3 RBV image 30324-21342, subscene A (fig. 11). Recently formed proglacial lakes of Classen and Godley Glaciers also appear clearly near the northern margin of this image. Figure 12 is an oblique aerial photograph of Douglas Glacier's proglacial lake, which has developed during the past 20 years. The change in size of proglacial lakes is possibly the single best indicator of glacier variations seen on satellite imagery.
In contrast to the slow response of glaciers with large low-gradient trunks, large glaciers with steep trunks have been very reactive to small mass-balance changes, and the long period of glacier recession during the 20th century has been manifested in a series of small advances superimposed upon a general recession, similar to waves on the seashore at ebbing tide. Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers are of this type (figs. 13 and 14), but unfortunately no usable Landsat images of these glaciers exist. Both glaciers lie in the corners of the available Landsat images and are either poorly displayed or obscured by cloud cover.
Hamish
My mistake -- I forgot you guys are upside down, so obviously things work in reverse
And, I agree that glaciers will make a comeback, just a question of when ........... on the 1913 thing, I don't go back quite that far, but the northwest passage does seem to be getting to be more of a reality today
Jim
You have been warned - the whole world is a threat to US security
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp
Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security
JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
An exercise last December at the National Defense University, an educational institute that is overseen by the military, explored the potential impact of a destructive flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure. “It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.
Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.
But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.
From 1890 there was a general slow recession of most glaciers until the late 1920's, when a widespread rapid retreat commenced.
S...T I just can't seem to keep up to date. So global warming got going in 1890 and realy kicked into high gear in 1920 ?
ARRRGGGHHHHH !!!!! Hamish
Hamish
I didn't write the article. The article makes no claims for or against climate change. It merely records the glacier history in NZ. I believe the overall point is that NZ glaciers have been in general retreat since the 19th century with fluctuations along the way. Other sources have attributed the shrinking NZ glaciers to climate change, this article didn't opine on that issue.
Hamish
I didn't write the article. The article makes no claims for or against climate change. It merely records the glacier history in NZ. I believe the overall point is that NZ glaciers have been in general retreat since the 19th century with fluctuations along the way. Other sources have attributed the shrinking NZ glaciers to climate change, this article didn't opine on that issue.
Doug, nothing in the article ever made me even suspect you wrote it. Why this comment ?
"makes no claims for or against climate change" . I could not spot anywhere on the article as to when it was written, but the most recent date that I saw was in 1983. A reasonable assumption could be that it was written prior to 1985, before anyone was really going on about "global warming" aka "climate change".
However it did state "Glaciers are particularly useful for the study of present and past climatic variations.", pretty close........
Since (in general terms) AGW supporters trumpet ice anywhere melting as proof positive of global warming, any reader could reasonably assume that the article was posted to support or counter a position on AGW.
So why did you feel it was necessary to point out "this article didn't opine on that issue" ?
Cheers Hamish
Oops, double post
Hamish
Because this is what you posted.
From 1890 there was a general slow recession of most glaciers until the late 1920's, when a widespread rapid retreat commenced.
You're right, the article is dated. I should have been more careful. I know I've read more recent info on NZ glaciers, I'll try to take the time to find it.
I think this is an unfair characterization. Your use of the phrase "AGW supporters" makes it sound like we're at a sporting contest of some kind where fans choose up sides based on whatever criteria are used for such things, i.e., our school vs. yours, our home town vs. yours, etc. It isn't a matter of choosing up sides, it's a matter of going where the science leads us. The fact is that ice is melting virtually worldwide, with the very few exceptions explained by geographical and/or weather peculiarities. The relevant question is what that observed fact tells us about our climate. So far the science is placing the blame on AGW. If further research changes that conclusion, then scientists will have to adjust their assumptions accordingly.
Because you made the connection:
Here's an interesting example of how perfectly valid scientific articles can be misconstrued by the denialist blogosphere to conclude something far different from the actual findings and conclusions of the papers. The article gets a little heavy, but without the math that normally accompanies scientific writings.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/11/climate-change-press
Since the know-nothings agree one hundred per cent with these two last statements, it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for 'alarmist' global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that 'climate models are wrong' with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make (another press release from U. Hawaii was much better in that respect).
Hamish
Because this is what you posted.
My bad... did not notice I had deleted the sub quote when quoting your quote.
But it is OK for you to call the other side of the AGW debate deniers ????????
You just broke my hypocrisy meter
. On two fronts non the less !!!! As well as an inability to follow through on stated intentions......
From me at post 29
Hmmmm from "Daily digest nov 21
Yet here you are again, without responding to my analysis of your posted link
Cheers Hamish
Global Warming ate my data
We've lost the numbers
The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Canadian statistician and blogger Steve McIntyre, who has been asking for the data set for years, says he isn't impressed by the excuses. McIntyre obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/