Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

1005 posts / 0 new
Last post
Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/29/climate-war-lovelock>

Climate war could kill nearly all of us, leaving survivors in the
Stone Age

We need a climate change 'Churchill' to lead us away from planet-wide
devastation, writes James Lovelock in the latest edition of Conservation
magazine
<http://www.conservationmagazine.org/articles/volume-10-number-2/war-peace/>,
part of the Guardian Environment Network
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network>

* James Lovelock, from Conservation magazine

<http://www.conservationmagazine.org/articles/volume-10-number-2/war-peace/>,
part of the Guardian Environment Network
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/network>
* guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Monday 29 June 2009
12.18 BST

'We have enjoyed 12,000 years of climate peace since the last shift from
a glacial age to an interglacial one,' says Lovelock. Photograph:
NASA/Corbis

In a small way, the plight of the British in 1940 resembles the state of
the civilized world now. At that time we had had nearly a decade of the
well-intentioned but quite wrong belief that peace was all that mattered.

The followers of the peace lobbies of the 1930s resembled the
environmentalist movements now; their intentions were more than good but
wholly inappropriate for the war that was about to start. It is time to
wake up and realize that Gaia, the Earth system, is no cozy mother that
nurtures humans and can be propitiated by gestures such as carbon
trading or sustainable development.

Gaia, even though we are a part of her, will always dictate the terms of
peace. I am stirred by the thought that Gaia has existed for more than a
quarter the age of the universe and that it has taken this long for a
species to evolve that can think, communicate, and store its thoughts
and experiences.

If we can keep civilization alive through this century perhaps there is
a chance that our descendants will one day serve Gaia and assist her in
the fine-tuned self-regulation of the climate and composition of our
planet.

We have enjoyed 12,000 years of climate peace since the last shift from
a glacial age to an interglacial one. Before long, we may face
planet-wide devastation worse even than unrestricted nuclear war between
superpowers. The climate war could kill nearly all of us and leave the
few survivors living a Stone Age existence. But in several places in the
world, including the U.K., we have a chance of surviving and even of
living well.

For that to be possible, we have to make our lifeboats seaworthy now.
Back in May 1940, we in the UK awoke to find facing us across the
Channel a wholly hostile continental force about to invade. We were
alone without an effective ally but fortunate to have a new leader,
Winston Churchill, whose moving words stirred the whole nation from its
lethargy: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."

We all need modern Churchills to lead us from the clinging, flabby,
consensual thinking of the late twentieth century and to bind our
nations with a single-minded effort to wage a difficult war.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 479
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Irrespective of any science, this is the harsh reality of CO2 emmisions

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1171-Carbon-Credits-A-Scam.html

Cheers Hamish

foote2777's picture
foote2777
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 30 2008
Posts: 65
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Mike

I hope you don't expect to find the modern Churchills in our politicians of today.

Have you read the following thread yet.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/cap-trade-goldman-sachs-creates-another-ponzi-scheme/21426

Jon

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Harsh reality...?  I don't think so.....

Cap'n'trade, BTW is the wrong way to go IMO.  But going back to your posted article gyro:

"We're 1/15th of the population in question and nearly all of the rest of the people involved are going to dramatically increase their per-capita CO2 output whether we like it or not."

I don't think so....  luckily for us, there isn't enough Carbon for the third world to ape our idiotic behavious.  That Market Ticker guy is another one who obviously doesn't understand Limits to Growth and/or exponential functions.  To start with is is UTTERLY impossible for the third world to ever reach our "standard of living", there are simply not enough resources to do it....  we are alrready in overshoot! I recently saw a report on limits to ALL fossil fuel extraction which I don't have time right now to dig up for you, but will do later (if I remember!)

"That's not going to happen and yet without it happening no amount of bleating about  "climate change" or laws passed to curtail our CO2 output will do a thing for the climate of the planet.  It will not make any material difference to the outcome; indeed, oil companies have said that they will simply move refining and other operations to nations without such pacts (like India and China!) to avoid the tax, and pass through any impact in the US directly to consumers."

All you have to do is tax all imports based on their embodied fossil energy content and emissions caused thereof.  Then we will be on the same footing as the exporters..

Gottago....

Mike

r's picture
r
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

From MIT news:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Quote:

Climate change odds much worse than thought

New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.

Prinn says these and a variety of other changes based on new measurements and new analyses changed the odds on what could be expected in this century in the "no policy" scenarios - that is, where there are no policies in place that specifically induce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the changes "unfortunately largely summed up all in the same direction," he says. "Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming."

While the outcomes in the "no policy" projections now look much worse than before, there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions. Without action, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," Prinn says. "This increases the urgency for significant policy action."

To illustrate the range of probabilities revealed by the 400 simulations, Prinn and the team produced a "roulette wheel" that reflects the latest relative odds of various levels of temperature rise. The wheel provides a very graphic representation of just how serious the potential climate impacts are.

"There's no way the world can or should take these risks," Prinn says. And the odds indicated by this modeling may actually understate the problem, because the model does not fully incorporate other positive feedbacks that can occur, for example, if increased temperatures caused a large-scale melting of permafrost in arctic regions and subsequent release of large quantities of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Including that feedback "is just going to make it worse," Prinn says.

The lead author of the paper describing the new projections is Andrei Sokolov, research scientist in the Joint Program. Other authors, besides Sokolov and Prinn, include Peter H. Stone, Chris E. Forest, Sergey Paltsev, Adam Schlosser, Stephanie Dutkiewicz, John Reilly, Marcus Sarofim, Chien Wang and Henry D. Jacoby, all of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, as well as Mort Webster of MIT's Engineering Systems Division and D. Kicklighter, B. Felzer and J. Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole.

Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, "we do the research, and let the results fall where they may," he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, "we don't pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds."

Because vehicles last for years, and buildings and powerplants last for decades, it is essential to start making major changes through adoption of significant national and international policies as soon as possible, Prinn says. "The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies."

This work was supported in part by grants from the Office of Science of the U.S. Dept. of Energy, and by the industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on May 20, 2009 (download PDF).

joe2baba's picture
joe2baba
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2008
Posts: 807
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

THINK ABOUT IT

a friend just sent this to me. i found it fascinating. since most of the proponents believe the "science" put out by u.n. scientists

Just as this author says, the New World Order is moving very fast – to subjugate the world and bring all the survivors under their “scientific control grid.” The Overlords of the Ruling Class (ORCs) decided at the “Club of Rome” meetings in the early 80s that they needed a rationale to make humanity itself “the enemy” and that Man-Made Global Warming “would fit the bill” (their words).

 

This “climate bill” was rammed through the House in the same manner as the USA Patriot Act – without being read by what we nostalgically still refer to as “our congressional representatives.”  If you still believe that there’s any integrity left in our political system, I urge you to call both of your Senators (local offices) on Monday morning and scream bloody murder if they vote for this sham. It is projected to increase the cost of everything that uses energy (which is almost literally everything!) to every household in America between $7-8,000 per year. In that sense it could be the largest single tax increase in history.

 

Now just watch while they attack our remaining avenue of free speech – the internet – under the guise of “Hate-Speech” legislation.  There’s another bill in process that grants federal control over ALL sources of water in the USA – even the small ponds, creeks, cisterns and water-tables under private property.

 

If you don’t understand the modus operandi by now, then you’re either not paying attention or you’re using sources of information that are under control of the ORCs – meaning ALL the mainstream media, including the New York Times and NPR.  If you still believe that you’re getting truth from those sources, you are being successfully brainwashed.

 

 In a nutshell their M.O. is this:

 

1. the ORC policy-makers dictate the New World Order implementation plans,

 

2. their Foundation-funded “think-tanks” work with sophisticated mind-control techniques – primarily Orwellian use of language and complete control of the message in the media – to devise a methodology for the implementation of the policy. That methodology usually includes the writing and passage of a “legal framework” which sounds great and humanitarian and logical in name and talking points, but is in fact a step toward even greater vertical integration of power away from the people and their representatives and into the hands of the ORCs.

 

Folks, we are in BIG trouble.  The country we thought we grew up in no longer exists. Laws are being written in think tanks funded by the international banking cartel and passed without being read by politicians who are either bought or controlled by the ORCs.  Collectivist, totalitarian fascist control of the USA is now a stark reality.  They need to keep the truth from us as long as it takes to implement total control.

 

 

New World Order Rams Through Sham Cap & Trade Bill

Zachary T. Baker
Infowars
June 27, 2009

 

The U.S. House of Representatives are nothing more than prostitutes for the international banking cartel. Brothels in Washington D.C. were packed Friday afternoon with eager congressman who sold Americans out 219-212 in favor of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Also dubbed “Waxman-Markey” the bill will implement the infamous cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, signaling the NWO’s final moves towards total financial bondage.

featured stories   New World Order Rams Through Sham Cap & Trade Bill

 

 

featured stories   New World Order Rams Through Sham Cap & Trade Bill

 

 

 

Al Gore, part owner of carbon offset company Generation Investment Management, testified in front of a congressional committee that a cap-and trade system along with a direct carbon tax would be ideal.

 

 

 

[Look at this photo of Al Gore. He knows that Man-Made Global Warming is complete fiction. Now he’s thinking, “Now we ram this through the Senate and I’m a multi-billionaire! And all I had to do was sell my soul – this is GREAT!” – MDI]

 

Under the guise of philanthropic style environmentalism, the New World Order is blasting forward with draconian legislation every week it seems. Using thuggish tactics such as switching bill numbers & phone numbers to DC representatives and of course, good old fashioned disinformation got the job done. Cap and trade sets a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a factory, business, utility, or other energy producer is allowed to emit. The goal of the Waxman- Markey bill is to cut CO2 emissions by 17% by 2020.

 

Most energy producers and manufactures will be severely affected by these caps, but the increased cost will be passed onto their customers through higher prices. Companies will purchase permits that will allow them to exceed the “cap” These permits will be issued by our gangster government, and then auctioned off to the same companies participating in the cap-and trade system. The theory is to create a free market for carbon permits where the price is set by those being forced to participate in the new system.

 

Consumers will be affected the most by these new caps on energy. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Commission Budget Office testified before the Committee on Finance in May. He says a cap-and trade system would be devastating to the working poor. According to Elmendorf, the cost to for an average American household would be $1,600 a year, with low-income households carrying a heavier burden because they spend more of their income on energy than higher-income households.

 

Remaining scraps from revenue created by the auctioning off of carbon permits will go to the families with lower incomes, such as a whopping $161 per year tax credit for single persons and $359 for 5-person families. Here’s the rub. According to Elmendorf, “such price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households were encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2.”

 

The federal government will have an annual allowance of almost a trillion dollars worth of grants/ bribe money to use as they seem fit.. Much like the mafia acting as a middleman between people and businesses, the EPA will create a list of companies who are “trade sensitive” or rely on imports.

 

With General Electric’s “smart grid” technology in place, energy companies along with their customers will have no other choice but to convert to the communist style system of rationing vital utilities. What smart grid visionaries foresee are home thermostats and appliances that adjust automatically depending on the cost of power.

 

The availability of $4.5 billion in federal economic recovery money for smart grid technology gives incentives for companies to convert over to the new digitized grid.

 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu says, “If you want to create mischief one very good way to create a great deal of mischief is to actually bring down a smart grid system. This system has to be incredibly secure.”

 

“Is the average consumer willing to pay the upfront costs of a new system and then respond appropriately to price signals? Or will people view a utility’s ability to reach inside a home to turn down a thermostat as Orwellian?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said at a recent hearing on smart grid.

 

Lastly, there is the option for companies to avoid a cap on their CO2 emissions by offsetting them. Al Gore, part owner of carbon offset company Generation Investment Management testified in front of a congressional committee that a cap-and trade system along with a direct carbon tax would be ideal.

 

Limiting the amount of CO2 will do nothing to help make the planet less warm, make us energy independent or create millions of jobs. It will on the other hand destroy whatever is left of our industry here in the North American Union by leaving companies no choice but to move offshore. Some of the biggest oil reserves in the world are here in North America , yet we rely on foreign oil. The elites indirectly control every facet our life.

 

Citizens will never be energy independent until every home is off the grid. Green jobs will include heavily fluoridated drones enforcing new EPA laws/codes. Besides, the number of jobs that will be lost due to companies either moving offshore or going bankrupt will certainly be higher than the millions of government jobs promised by our Fuhrer. With the hookers in Washington granting dictatorial powers to the Federal Reserve last week, it seems as though HR 2998 is part a two-pronged attack. The New World Order is moving fast, and there is really only two more obstacles in their way: our right to speak freely and our right to protect ourselves.

 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2286
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

If Emissions could be double what they were previously expected to be, what does that say for the forumlated hypotheses that have taken flight?
Does it not seem like a damn wide margin of error when talking about an important issue?
More pressing, does it not seem like the understanding of this subject is extremely weak and possibly misleading?

If they now say that it "could be" more than double, I suspect the inverse could also be true.

Basically, this just makes me less confident that the people making all the noise know what they're talking about.
Cheers,

Aaron

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 479
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Damnthematrix wrote:

"I don't think so....  luckily for us, there isn't enough Carbon for the third world to ape our idiotic behavious

That won't stop them from trying, and I seem to remember they have a fair bit of coal.

Damnthematrix wrote:
  To start with is is UTTERLY impossible for the third world to ever reach our "standard of living", there are simply not enough resources to do it....

 

True, but they can make a hell of a mess trying.....

Damnthematrix wrote:
 

All you have to do is tax all imports based on their embodied fossil energy content and emissions caused thereof.  Then we will be on the same footing as the exporters..

Gottago....

Right...... All a politician has to do is tell the populace that they have to take a hell of a hit to their standard of living so that a Chinese dollar a day worker can increase his standard of living......

oh  I see....  Gottago is what the politician will be saying..... trying to stay ahead of the pitchforks

And yeh, I have never seen Denninger comment on peak oil, and a quick search found no connected refferences. But his commenty on the US financial system s..t heap is prety good. But his focus is too narrow. Chris's is nice and broard

On a personal side, My parents house had bad piles in one room and I have puersuaded them to let me dig it out and fill it up with stones for a mass heat store ( 100 kw hrs worth ), ducted heat from roof to be covered with cheap secondhand glass....one of their books from the 70's helped convince them !

Cheers Hamish

P.S. did you miss my question for you at post # 113  in  Re: Agenda 21; The Wrenching Transformation of America

Boy did that thread go to hell in a handbasket.......

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

 Who in the debate is playing fairly and who is not? (I have not yet gotten a complete answer to this question from your father, Stephen Schneider or Bjorn Lomborg--maybe you'll be the first...)

As far as playing “fair” in my experience in the blogosphere there are (remarkably) only two websites that have refused to allow me to comment on their site, even when they are discussing my work, and those sites are run by Joe Romm (Climate Progress) and Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate). They can run their sites as they wish, of course, but their actions speak loudly. Why are these guys afraid of open discussion?

More broadly and significantly, I have little sympathy for those who use legitimate processes such as journal peer review and government advisory reports to advance personal or political agendas. This is a failure of process and those in leadership positions who oversee those processes. The systematic misrepresentation of my research in climate science reports provides a troubling example of this sort of failure.
 

Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/q-with-tom-fuller.html

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Quote:
As far as playing “fair” in my experience in the blogosphere there are (remarkably) only two websites that have refused to allow me to comment on their site, even when they are discussing my work, and those sites are run by Joe Romm (Climate Progress) and Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate). They can run their sites as they wish, of course, but their actions speak loudly. Why are these guys afraid of open discussion?

I don't know why Pielke would make such a claim unless there is a very recent ban on him posting, because I've read many posts on Real Climate by Pielke.  This link goes to a long list or articles about his work and posts by him.

http://realclimate.org/index.php?s=Roger+Pielke&submit=Search&qt=&q=&cx=009744842749537478185%3Ahwbuiarvsbo&client=google-coop-np&cof=GALT%3A808080%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A34374A%3BVLC%3AAA8610%3BAH%3Aleft%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BALC%3A66AA55%3BLC%3A66AA55%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A66AA55%3BGIMP%3A66AA55%3BFORID%3A11%3B&searchdatabase=site

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

stocks321

Your link goes to a list of points by Pielke that he says he made in Congressional testimony:

Quote:
1. Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer.

2. Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades.

3. Consequently, costs (whatever they may be) are borne in the near term and benefits related to influencing the climate system are achieved in the distant future.

4. However, many policies that result in a reduction in emissions also provide benefits in the short term unrelated to climate change.

5. Similarly adaptation policies can provide immediate benefits.

6. But climate policy, particularly international climate policy under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been structured to keep policy related to long-term climate change distinct from policies related to shorter-term issues of energy policy and adaptation.

7. Following the political organization of international climate change policy, research agendas have emphasized the long-term, meaning that relatively very little attention is paid to developing specific policy options or near-term technologies that might be put into place with both short-term and long-term benefits.

8. The climate debate may have begun to slowly reflect these realities, but the research and development community has not yet focused much attention on developing policy and technological options that might be politically viable, cost effective, and practically feasible.

So, he agrees with everything climate scientists have been saying, he just wants shorter term action.  That's a curious point of view for one of the leading skeptical scientists in the country.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Aaron

Finally have a few minutes to respond to your previous charge:

Quote:
All the links ever provided on Global Warming were from subjective sources that I can personally verify "skew" data.


 

Following is a list of links to published climate scientists, their peer reviewed work and reports on their work that I have posted in this thread alone:

I may be overly sensitive on this issue, but I frequently have to respond to those in the denialist community and conspiracy theorists who make unfounded statements based on no or very shaky science and/or political beliefs.  There are many websites that cater to the denialist pov and endlessly spread half truths and fraudulent science to further their agenda.  That's why I try very hard to stick to the hard science.  The linked sources may have a pov, but the material is legitimate peer reviewed science.  In response I rarely see anything that can be characterized as peer reviewed science.  Rather, they are usually links to denialist websites whose specialities appear to be misleading the groupies who gather there.  So, I will request again that posters stick to the science.

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

There has been a lot of criticism from people who frequently don't understand the science of the IPCC reports.  This is a  post on the Real Climate website in which the author objects to the EPA accepting the IPCC report without independent review.  I think Gavin's response speaks volumes about the scientific credibility of the reports.  

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691  post #17

Quote:
MIke Says:

Basic problem is that the EPA is supposed to review all scientific data itself, and the IPCC reports possibly haven’t even been submitted for review. As written in the draft, just accepting these reports at face value is not acceptable procedure. They don’t do this with medical studies, chemical studies, etc. Why should IPCC reports get a special break?

[Response: Because the level pf peer review they got is vastly more than EPA could do on it’s own. From their guidelines:

“For the purposes of the Guidelines, EPA recognizes that if data and analytic results are subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, the information may generally be presumed to be of acceptable objectivity.”

, and from the technical draft:

“EPA is relying most heavily on these synthesis reports because they… 3)have been reviewed and formally accepted by, commissioned by, or in some cases authored by, U.S. government agencies and individual government scientists and provide EPA with assurances that this material has been well vetted by both the climate change research community and by the U.S. government; and 4) in many cases, they reflect and convey the consensus conclusions of expert authors.”

and

“In addition to its reliance on existing and primarily recent synthesis reports from the peer reviewed literature,it also underwent a technical review by12 federal climate change experts, internal EPA review, and interagency review.”

And you want to replace that with a bunch of blog posts and Miskolczi? Get real. - gavin]

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2286
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Doug,

In Nazi Germany, At least as many people believed that Jews were a subspecies worthy of extinction.

Just something to think about.

George Orwell once wrote:
"Sanity is not statistical"

Your "Peer reviewed science" is only publicly acknowledged by those who agree.
Anyone who disagrees immediately falls into your category of "right wing, blogospheric, nut-job".
I know this, because you branded me with that label at one point. Those who know me know better, I know better, but if you and all the folks who are die-hard about Climate change agree that I'm a nut job, how am I to argue?

I'm telling you - their science leaves a LOT of holes unexplored, crevasses unilluminated and uses arbitrary facts to extract preconceived opinions. I'm not saying it's ""wrong", merely incomplete.

People need to realize that the articles you're linking to are NOT hard and fast science. We're not talking arithmetic here.
We're talking about abstract, fluid, constantly changing generalities that are nearly impossible to predict precisely under the very best circumstances.

Just some things to consider. This issue is so dogmatic it's like arguing about religion. People absolutely REFUSE to see that they might not be correct.

Cheers,

Aaron

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

 Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving'

1. “rising sea levels”

NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”

NOT TRUE; see

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.  

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.
 

http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

 RealClimate.org Under Scrutiny  

Another sign of a changing climate can be found relating to the global warming promoting blog RealCliamte.org. The website, which much of the mainstream media has relied on for climate science developments, has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny from scientists. Lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was recently harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt’s “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”  
  

“Roger Pielke, Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” Tennekes wrote on January 29, 2009. Tennekes, is an scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is also featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims 
  

“Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have,” Tennekes wrote. “From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future,” Tennekes added.
 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,'” Shaviv's website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”

link in post above

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Aaron

Quote:
In Nazi Germany, At least as many people believed that Jews were a subspecies worthy of extinction.

A favorite ploy of the truly desperate.  Compare your opponent to Nazis.  Can't you do better Aaron?

Quote:
Your "Peer reviewed science" is only publicly acknowledged by those who agree.
Anyone who disagrees immediately falls into your category of "right wing, blogospheric, nut-job".

Again you display your profound lack of understanding of science and scientific method.  Science is a self correcting system.  Sure mistakes are made, but the beauty of it is that someone will come up with a better explanation of the phenomenon being tested and present it in peer reviewed journals.  That's what you seem to not get.  It doesn't matter who agrees or who doesn't.  Science will win out.  If your theory appears to explain something and it is repeatable, then it gains credence until someone with a better theory or a refinement of your theory takes science to the next step.  I don't categorize people as "right wing blogoshperic nut-jobs", they do it to themselves.  When you come up with peer reviewed science to defend your position, I'll listen and you stand a chance of changing my mind.  But, as long as you keep repeating long since dead myths of the right wing blogosphere, what else am I supposed to think?

Quote:
I'm telling you - their science leaves a LOT of holes unexplored, crevasses unilluminated and uses arbitrary facts to extract preconceived opinions. I'm not saying it's ""wrong", merely incomplete.

Science is never complete, but scientists do not use "arbitrary facts to extract preconceived opinions" or they are failures as scientists.  They still speak of electrical theory and nuclear theory because the scientific explanations have not been absolutely proven.  Yet, the lights still come on when you flip a switch, and the water still boils when heated by a nuclear reactor.  You don't reject the whole theory when there is an abundance of evidence supporting it.  Unless you can demonstrate through scientific method that a theory is mistaken or incomplete, then you should probably get on board or get back in the lab and work some more.

Quote:
People need to realize that the articles you're linking to are NOT hard and fast science.

Perhaps, but they are peer reviewed science.  That's the gold standard.

Quote:
This issue is so dogmatic it's like arguing about religion. People absolutely REFUSE to see that they might not be correct.

It is only dogmatic for those who choose to ignore the science.  They are the ones who "REFUSE to see that they might not be correct."

Doug

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

stocks321

At least your posts contain ostensible science, although it is curious how the same names come up whenever some new attack on climate science arises- Pielke, Inhofe, Guardian UK.  It's late and I'm going to bed, but in the brief glance I had at your links, there are more than enough obvious red herrings and straw men to keep a journalist busy for a while.  I'm not a journalist, but will come back to at least some of the points made in your links.

Doug

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

No Aaron, you've misread the article.....  it isn't the emissions that might double, it's the repercussions of the emissions.  The accuracy is ACKNOWLEDGED as being very elastic in the modeling, ranging from 3 to 7.5 degrees (from memory).  They KNOW they can't get it exact, they have never said they KNOW exactly what will happen, NOBODY knows for sure what will happen, because the system is way too dynamic, there are way too many variables, but you know what, I don't like ANY of the predictions, whether they be 2 degrees, 7.5 degrees [warmer], or a bloody ice age!

I like the Earth the way it is.....  or was 40 years ago.

Mike

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2286
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Mike,

40 years is well within reason for the amount of temperature change we've experienced. 40 years before that, I'm fair certain we would see similar patterns. Go back much further and we don't even have climotology. It's anyones guess whether any of this matters or not. Scared people like to stay scared.

Doug,

Nice redirection. I'm comparing dogmatic apples to apples. 
I'm not desperate at all, because quite frankly, I don't give much thought to this subject. It'll either happen or it won't.
Fairly certainly I'll be fine either way. The quivering masses always need a boogieman and protectorate. Every regime in the history of mankind has realized this. If you don't recognize a wolf, don't get upset if you get eaten. You might as well start buying products from infomercials.

Peer reviewed science is the Gold standard... And madness is contagious. Ever seen a stampede?

Aaron

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Stunningly stupid comments from a politician in a position of power
 

Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)
Henry Waxman:
 

Waxman: Well, there have been scientists brought together to see if they could figure out the science and make it clear whether this is a danger or not, whether it's a danger that's a great one or one that we can postpone for a while, and the overwhelming consensus of all the leading scientists that have looked at this issue is there is a warming of the planet, it's manmade, caused by our burning of carbon fuels, and it's happening faster than anybody ever thought it would happen.

We're seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point - they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn't ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there's a lot of tundra that's being held down by that ice cap.

If that gets released we'll have more carbon emissions and methane gas in our atmosphere than we have now. We see a lot of destruction happening because of global warming, climate change problems, so we've got enough warning signals and enough of a scientific consensus to take this seriously.
 

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200904/20090413_waxman.html

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

stocks321

As to Arctic sea ice, I refer you back to post #178 of this thread.  Nothing that Pielke has said changes the overall trend of decreasing Arctic sea ice.  Besides, the 2008 data point that he uses is only one year old.  One year's change is meaningless in the overall trend.  It is still within the limits of decreasing sea ice since 1979.  That said, it will still be interesting to see whether Arctic sea ice increases for more than a year.  Remember, we are measuring from the lowest sea ice extent on record in 2007.

Pielke's comments that you cited are discussed in responses to the Real Climate (RC) article Pielke criticizes.  First, a relevant comment about the sea level rise issue at post #192 at RC.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/#more-690

Quote:
Willis Eschenbach Says:

Stefan, thanks for the article. You say:

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels …

I don’t understand this claim. The TOPEX sea level satellite information at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.txt tells a very different story. Five years ago the 5-year trailing trend of sea level rise stood at about .4 metres/century. Since then, it has steadily decreased, and is currently at about 0.22 metres/century. This is the lowest it has been over the entire satellite record (1993-2008)

What sea level information are you looking at? Other sources agree with the Colorado information. For example, Anne Cazenave says in her most recent paper (Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry,
satellite altimetry and Argo, A. Cazenave et al., http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2009.pdf) that

This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/− 0.4 mm/yr) somewhat reduced compared to the 1993–2003 decade (3.1 +/ − 0.4 mm/yr).

All the data that I can find shows that the sea level rise is slowing, not increasing.

What observations are being used that show that sea level rise is “progressing faster than expected”?

Many thanks for your information on the data sources,

w.

[Response: You are talking about short-term variability of sea level over a few years, I’m talking about climate trends. I was referring to the fact that the observed rise (in the satellite altimeter data from Anny Cazenave that you refer to) over the full record (1993-2008) is 3.4 mm/year, which is about 80% faster than that projected in the IPCC TAR for this period (1.9 mm/year best estimate). Note that the AR4 models show almost the same as the TAR models in this respect. This is shown in detail in our Science paper of 2007, the results of which are shown and updated in the Copenhagen Synthesis Report. You could have looked it all up in the report. -stefan]

Then a specific discussion of Pielke's objections beginning at post #368:

Quote:
Gerry Beauregard Says:
  1. Roger Pielke Sr. takes issue with this realclimate post, specifically claims that “Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago”. See:
    http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/

    According to Pielke Sr:
    “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006″
    “Their [sic] has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.”
    “Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.”
    He points to some credible-looking references to back up his statements (e.g.

    Anyone at realclimate.org care to comment?

  2. Chris Colose Says:

    # 368, Gerry

    See Stefan’s response at #192, about cherry-picking vs. analyzing long-term trends. This is typical Pielke sloppiness and I’m not surprised.

  3. dhogaza Says:

    Gerry, I’m just a citizen lurker but …

    “Sea level has actually flattened since 2006″

    All you need to do is to look at Pielke, Sr’s graphic to see how he had to cherry-pick that exact range to make it appear “flat”.

    Knowingly cherry-picking data is a form of lying. Pielke, Sr is blatantly cherry-picking and doing so over a range that’s far to short to say *anything* of statistical significance. He’s a good enough scientist that he’s not doing it out of ignorance, he knows what he’s doing. Therefore Pielke, Sr is lying.

    [Response: Lying is too strong. “Careless” is reasonable and perhaps “over-eager in search of critique” is fair. But since there is still a strong significant positive trend in sea level over the period he selected, it does seem a little odd. And of course the trend from Jan 2008 is even more positive - one might ask him why that isn’t just as important as his cherry picked period? - gavin]

It's curious to me that Pielke seems to be trying so hard to polish up his reputation as a 'skeptic' when the points he made (post #221 above) in Congressional testimony essentially concede that AGW is real and a serious threat.  His quibble was with policy efforts to stop or reverse discharges of ghg's into the atmosphere.  He essentially said that mitigation and adaptation efforts should be increased while admitting that slowing discharges could also have immediate effects.  So, why he chooses to cherry pick data to make some point that is largely irrelevant to the overall issue is mystifying.  That said, I (and more importantly the climate science community) agree with him that serious warming is already programmed into the system and we have to figure out how to deal with that in addition to slowing and ultimately halting further discharge of ghg's.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

stocks321

Waxman's comments are certainly inexact with inaccurate sweeping generalizations ("all the leading scientists" should have ready something like 'virtually all' or the 'the large majority') and ("it's happening faster than anybody ever thought it would happen" should have read something like 'happening faster than the projections of the AR4 report issued just two years ago').  He also displays some ignorance of terminology and facts.  (The Arctic ice cap is not holding down any tundra, although the subarctic permafrost lands of Russia and Canada are receding northward, potentially releasing vast quantities of methane, a potent ghg)

But, his overall point that there are plenty of warning signs and enough scientific consensus on the issue is well taken.  We delay taking action at our peril.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Post Carbon Newsletter - June 2009
Post Carbon Institute logo
Post Carbon Newsletter - June 2009 Image of boy with coal.

All eyes were on Capitol Hill last Friday as the big climate bill squeaked by the House of Representatives. That same day and just a few blocks away, Post Carbon Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg gave a talk at the Smithsonian on his next book, Blackout: Coal, Climate, and the Last Energy Crisis.

The climate bill may or may not make it through the Senate (and if it does, it may or may not actually be effective), but the coal problem is here to stay. Here are two things you can do about it right away:

   (1) Educate yourself about the facts and fiction on coal: pre-order Blackout, which hits bookstores mid-July.

  (2) Take action on climate change: Mark October 24th on your calendar and join Post Carbon Fellow Bill McKibben and 350.org in the Global Day of Climate Action.

Before you whip our your credit card and calendar, though, there's plenty to read in this month's newsletter. Executive Director Asher Miller weighs in on the threats and opportunities presented by economic crisis, and Richard Heinberg looks for the bright side of decline. Fellow David Fridley features (with Miller) in a set of articles on local peak oil responses in the San Francisco area, and our recent Food and Farming report is translated into Italian. And as usual, we summarize the most thought-provoking content from Energy Bulletin and Global Public Media, plus updates from Transition US.

We start off, though, by welcoming seven very impressive thinkers to the Post Carbon team as our newest Fellows and Board members.
Photo: amuderick/flickr


Contents

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Continue reading page |1 |2 |3 |4

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster. The small helicopter he's riding in is slaloming between towering cliffs of ice - the sheer sides of gigantic icebergs that had calved off Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier. "It was like in a James Bond movie," Holland says afterwards. "It's the most exciting thing I have ever done."

Jakobshavn has doubled its speed in the past 15 years, draining increasing amounts of ice from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean, and Holland, an oceanographer at New York University, has been trying to find out why. Scientists like him are more than a little astonished at the rate at which our planet's frozen frontiers seem to be responding to global warming. The crucial question, though, is what will happen over the next few decades and centuries.

That's because the fate of the planet's ice, from relatively small ice caps in places like the Canadian Arctic, the Andes and the Himalayas, to the immense ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, will largely determine the speed and extent of sea level rise. At stake are the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, not to mention millions of square kilometres of cities and coastal land, and trillions of dollars in economic terms.

In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecast a sea level rise of between 19 and 59 centimetres by 2100, but this excluded "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow". Crudely speaking, these estimates assume ice sheets are a bit like vast ice cubes sitting on a flat surface, which will stay in place as they slowly melt. But what if some ice sheets are more like ice cubes sitting on an upside-down bowl, which could suddenly slide off into the sea as conditions get slippery? "Larger rises cannot be excluded but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood," the IPCC report stated.

Even before it was released, the report was outdated. Researchers now know far more. And while we still don't understand the dynamics of ice sheets and glaciers well enough to make precise predictions, we are narrowing down the possibilities. The good news is that some of the scarier scenarios, such as a sudden collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, now appear less likely. The bad news is that there is a growing consensus that the IPCC estimates are wildly optimistic.

<MUCH MORE>

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 479
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Doug 

Re John Daly ( sorry, have been a bit sluggish in getting back to you )

The site you mention states    "The late John Daly maintained a crackpot anti-global-warming-science site" 

In it one of the strikes against him on the site pointed to is

“It transpired that he had simply copied the figures from a slightly longer table posted by a Wilson Flood on the Yahoo discussion group climatesceptics on 11 Aug. 2003:

Birmingham

26

Bristol

28

Clacton

25

Hastings

23

Oxford

29

Leeds

27

Glasgow

23

Aberdeen

19

(Notice how John Daly did not even copy Wilson Flood's numbers correctly - he interchanged Birmingham and Bristol!)

The temperature values were indeed copied from the Times of 11 August. Unfortunately, one crucial figure (the temperature for Hastings) was incorrectly given in the newspaper - it should apparently have been 33 deg C instead of 23 deg C - an error which could so easily have been revealed by simply looking at the web site of the U.K. Meteorological Office”

WOW he is REALY BAD !!!! ( there were others, but this one amused me… )

You said   "I don't have time to go through every bit of data Mr. Daly wrote in his piece on the hockey stick, so I tend to rely on the peer reviewed science and the scientists who do it."

How much of it did you read?

You stated     “Below is an explanation of the 'hockey stick' graph and the context in which it exists.  The important thing is that the theory of AGW does not rise and fall on its validity. “

Coincidentally in a recent link supplied by you about the hocky stick http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html

Why not? According to the hocky stick graph touted by the AGW  supporters, temperatures over the last 1000 years have been stable and only just started to increase due to CO2 emissions by man.

If there were periods in the past 1000 years when the temperatures were higher than now, and there was a "little ice age" there is a serious problem is there not?

Any way from the site,

Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].

Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

He then states

“To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory.”

From amongst a number of similar "exhibits"

"Ice cores from this glacier high in the Peruvian Andes yielded oxygen 18 isotopes which are a direct proxy for temperatures existing at the time the ice was laid down [23]. The Little Ice Age stands out clearly, and while the Medieval Warm Period is less pronounced than at other sites, the 20th century is clearly shown to be no warmer than existed in pre-Little Ice Age times. Indeed, some of the medieval temperature peaks are warmer than those of today. See Fig.9

He summarises with

“The evidence from the `exhibits' is overwhelming. From all corners of the world, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age clearly shows up in a variety of proxy indicators, proxies more representative of temperature than the inadequate tree rings used by Michael Mann.

What is disquieting about the `Hockey Stick' is not Mann's presentation of it originally. As with any paper, it would sink into oblivion if found to be flawed in any way. Rather it was the reaction of the greenhouse industry to it - the chorus of approval, the complete lack of critical evaluation of the theory, the blind acceptance of evidence which was so flimsy. “

Cheers Hamish

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Goldman Sachs scams the eco-nitwits

Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it even collected. 

Looks like Goldman Sachs got the drop on us folks.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/26/747343/-Who-Will-Profit-From...

 

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Right-wing deniers infiltrate the National Academy of Sciences

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

The facts are: 

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
 

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS 

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. 

Robert H. Austin 
Professor of Physics 
Princeton University 
Fellow APS, AAAS 
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences 

William Happer 
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics 
Princeton University 
Fellow APS, AAAS 
Member National Academy of Sciences 

S. Fred Singer 
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia 
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service 
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU 

Roger W. Cohen 
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) 
Fellow APS 

Harold W. Lewis 
Professor of Physics Emeritus 
University of California at Santa Barbara 
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study 

Laurence I. Gould 
Professor of Physics 
University of Hartford 
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS 

Richard Lindzen 
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS 
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters 
Member National Academy of Sciences
 

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3666&linkbox=true

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2715
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

gyrogearloose

The original tree ring proxy studies have been correlated with other proxies since then.  With relatively minor differences the hockey stick still emerges:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-millennial-reconstructions/#more-597

The point about the Peruvian Andes may be related to a discussion at this link about the relative lack of data from the southern hemisphere.  One of the points made is that there are local variations that don't correlate well with more geographically widespread findings.

Quote:
This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

This is a silly accusation.  As is amply shown in the linked article (based on a peer reviewed study) there are ongoing studies as more data from different proxies become available.

As I understand it, no one is saying that the medieval warm period or the little ice age didn't exist, they did.  It's just that the current warming and atmospheric CO2 levels are unprecedented in at least several millenia.

Sorry I don't have time for a more serious exploration of the science.  This time of year baseball takes precedence.

Doug

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments