The limits of 'science'

Does Obama adviser respect them?

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 26, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

Text size

More Editorials

Comments

December 26, 2008

7:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Holdren seems to have trouble understanding that people can share concern over global warming while reaching different conclusions about the policies that will best enable humans to thrive in the decades to come"

quite so.

however, those folks who still cling to feelings about global warming being a hoax or not representing a problem are counterproductive at best, and as holdren said, downright dangerous at worst.
December 26, 2008

10:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

InEssence writes:

Anyone who uses the word, "greenhouse gas" is not a scientist. The so-called greenhouse gases have a permittivity of 1 (the same as air), so heat does not bounce off of them. If they did, you could use greenhouse gases to insulate your house. You wouldn't need to build walls to keep in the heat. The greenhouse gas theory is scientifically invalid. Then, again, this argument is about political and economic power. Science, mathematics, and physical laws are not relevant.
December 27, 2008

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

The Obama presidency has yet to begin. The transition is a work in progress. Many times through the years I have asked customers not to judge a work in progress. I have also read that the first 6 months of a presidential term are strongly influenced by the structures and policies set in place by the previous administration. Time will tell, literally, how appropriate Obama's choices for cabinet and sub-cabinet posts actually are. Thus far he seems to be choosing people of strong, divergent views of governance over which he will be the arbiter. I have yet to see the kind of yes man mentality that George Bush seemed to prefer.

Just yesterday an individual with an environmental slant wrote that he felt former rancher Salazar will be a poor steward of the environment based upon his former career. Today, we have the expressed fear that we will have an economy wrecking extreme environmentalist for science advisor. I contend that his voice will be balanced by Obama's economic advisors and others of differing views within the Cabinet and his collection of advisors. Much like a newly opened bottle of wine, we need to give this new administration time to breath. We need to try to resist the temptation to judge a work in progress.
December 27, 2008

8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

davis_x_machina writes:

One wonders whether inEssence is a scientist, and the source of their contention that there is in essence no "greenhouse" effect. Failing to provide any citations for their contention leads me to wonder whether the assertions they make derive from any one of the many denialist websites with their pseudo-scientific jargon served up in the interests of creating confusion and doubt a tactic developed and used to great effect by big tobacco in their long history of denying or avoiding the tobacco/cancer connection accompanied by the spectacle of then house majority leader John Boehner(R-OH) handing out checks from the tobacco industry to fellow house members on the floor of the house of representatives. The denialist industry obviously learned a lot from tobacco executives and lobbyists. My question arises because my understanding of science informs me that the term permittivity usually applies to electric and electromagnetic phenomenon which causes me to think this might be a case of failure to blind with brilliance substituted for by baffling with BS.
December 27, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

davis_x,

I am a scientist, a botanist/horticulturist, actually. While I can often detect a writer's misuse of scientific terminology, I'm not a climatologist or meteorologist, so techno-babble in those fields can easily escape me. This is why I let InEssence's comments slide. That is, until you raised the question in regard to permittivity .

I know that Wikipedia isn't the final word on any subject, but it is a good, mostly accurate quick reference. This is part of its definition of the term permittivity:

"Permittivity is a physical quantity that describes how an electric field affects, and is affected by a dielectric medium, and is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field."

According to this, you are right and InEssence is wrong. Permittivity has to do with electric fields, not fluid dynamics or any heat effects in the atmosphere.

There do, indeed exist many purposely misleading websites whose intent is to confuse the science and misdirect the public. Some of these, such as the George Marshall Institute and the infamous Petition Project have been shill organizations for the extraction and power industries. The G.M.I. also was part of the tobacco lobby campaign to muddy and contest the findings of health researchers. I am not paranoid, but I also believe that many posters who come out of the clear blue with screen names new to a forum that post information similar to InEssence are sometimes hirelings of these organizations.

So...I invite InEssence to return and explain him(her)self. If you have a science background, detail it and provide a link or two supporting your statements. If you have any intellectual integrity, that is the least you can do.

I am especially interested in your statement: "If they did, you could use greenhouse gases to insulate your house. You wouldn't need to build walls to keep in the heat." Just how would you propose to contain a gas without walls? That statement flies in the face of fluid dynamics and simple logic doesn't it?
December 27, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Though I agree with the Rocky Editorial that John Holdren is a loose cannon, I expect he will have some adult supervision in the next Administration. Mr. Obama is a politician, and the environmentalists - both fanatics and ill-informed - are part of his constituency. As LBJ said, "better to have him inside the tent....." I second Greenleaf's suggestion, let's give the guy some time.

For Jay and davis_ex_machina: please don't lump all us skeptics (a proper scientific attitude) with an ignoramus like InEssence, who writes nonsense. My opinion (not "feeling") that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud is based on comparing CO2 with a much stronger greenhouse gas, water vapor (H2O). Clouds also have much more radiative effect than CO2, and the human-produced component of atmospheric CO2 is tiny - about 4%. Man-made CO2 is a flea on the tail that doesn't wag the greenhouse dog. Detailed arguments at www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.
December 27, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckyleif,

Glad to see you have returned. The sad irony, of course, is that I suspected you of what InEssence seems to be doing when we first met online. I have since referred others to your website(see global warming from yesterday). I am not qualified to judge your statements as a professional meteorologist anymore than I can the many climatologists who support GW. I am just happy to see that you are continuing to post as that can only improve the quality of the debate on this subject. I also wish that this forum would attract a climatologist before its anticipated demise, then we might really have something.

Research from my field only supports the existence of Global Warming, but doesn't speak to root causes. The controversy as you are framing it is as to whether man, through his production of greenhouse gases is actually affecting the climate by doing so. This seems to be the root of the controversy. Am I correct in saying that?

Just for the sake of the discussion, would you restate in as simple a manner as possible why you believe greenhouse gases aren't the culprit? I wish a climatologist would then step forward to explain their position in similar terms but that probably won't happen. Thanks for participating luckyleif.
December 27, 2008

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Luckyleif,

I am rushing from thing to thing too quickly today. You have basically already done what I asked-sorry! Please feel free to add more if you have time or provide any other links that you feel would be helpful. I apologize again for responding and not adequately reading your posting. I shouldn't be posting today but I can't resist certain threads.
December 27, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Hi Greenleaf -

Thanks for energizing me to do some work on the website (www.colo-earthfriends.org). It's my intent to make as much of the science as possible comprehensible to reasonable folks.

Yes, you're correct that the difficult question is anthropogenic global warming. History tells us there was a previous (Medieval) Warm Period when the Vikings settled Greenland and Vinland and English wine (according to Chaucer) was as good as French. It all went to heck when The Little Ice Age (accompanied by an absence of sunspots) froze things again, without benefit of industrial CO2.

Since even I don't know everything (blush!), there's a page of References on my website. If you want to read climatology, Dr. Roger Pielke from CSU is as good as they come (http://climatesci.org/). Dr. Pielke believes in man-made global warming; he just doesn't believe CO2 causes it. One of his former students (Anthony Watts, Ph. D.) runs a site (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) that is polite, well-mannered, and occasionally presents pro-warming arguments.

Happy New Year to you and all Rocky Opinion readers.
December 27, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

coyote4 writes:

Re: The limits of 'science' Dec 26

The writer states, "And in a democracy, 'science' should not trump constitutional protections and public concerns about the costs of government policies." Hummmmmm. Independent thinkers thought that in a democracy, authentic science (no quotes necessary) and authentic long-term economics trumped the Constitution (amendments may sometimes be required), politics, and ideologies, and the public eventually became enlightened enough to push for the most appropriate policy and set of actions.

Next time the editorial staff writes about an Obama team member, they should at least get the person's name right. John Holdern will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, not Stephen.
December 28, 2008

6:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Using the logic employed in this op-ed,

Free market fetishists who liked "Dow 36,000" cannot be trusted.

See, they got it wrong. So everything else they did was wrong too.

Simple.

And putting "science" in scare quotes makes our point even more so!!!!!!

Less comedic ideology in our op-eds, please.

>>>>>>

The assertion above:

"My opinion (not "feeling") that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud is based on comparing CO2 with a much stronger greenhouse gas, water vapor (H2O). Clouds also have much more radiative effect than CO2, and the human-produced component of atmospheric CO2 is tiny - about 4%."

"Fraud" is a key indicator. This is not "skepticism", as the mind is made up. This is "denialism".

Nonetheless,

Here are two charts of the radiative changes at the earth's surface due to different forcings:

http://cce.890m.com/solar-gcr/images/...
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/...

Water vapor isn't on it. Why?

It is a *feedback*. WV is important, and the feedbacks vary: sometimes it cools (stratospheric WV increases albedo and cools, contrails too), sometimes it warms (low level stratus does not permit LW radiation to penetrate). The total sign appears to be positive (warms).

Note that the solar irradiance forcing is ~.2 W/m^2, out of a total of ~1.6.

And wrt the 4% assertion: I suggest increasing your Xanax or Ritalin dose by 34% (the increase in CO2 ppmv in the atmosphere).

So, from 5mg to 7mg ought to do it.

Let us know how you feel after a while. Thanks!

Best,

D
December 28, 2008

6:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

The assertion above:

"Anyone who uses the word, "greenhouse gas" is not a scientist... The greenhouse gas theory is scientifically invalid."

is very funny. I suspect the writer never took a basic science class, or has rejected the teachings as they do not comport with the ideological worldview.

What, pray tell, is keeping the earth at ~15ºC, and not ~-58ºC or so? Is gravity holding the heat from the sun down? Is it fairy dust? Everyone wishing real hard?

Best,

D
December 28, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Good Morning, Wxdano -

Congratulations on your insightful rebuttal to InEssence; kind of like beating up on women and small children. Ready for something a little more challenging? Good.

In my previous posts, I twice mentioned a website I maintain, http://www.colo-earthfriends.org. It contains a science section (www.colo-earth......../science.htm), where anyone can find my reasons for saying that:

Al Gore is a liar (i.e., a "fraud"). He deliberately lies about the Milankovitch Cycle and the time sequence between warming and CO2 increase. Pls read it, Wxdano. I (and anyone else) am entitled to have an informed opinion if he offers reasons for that opinion. That's not "denialism"; it's rational consideration of scientific fact. You'll also find an explanation of why atmospheric CO2 increases as the oceans warm (hint: they release CO2).

Anyone can also find there the first of the two figures you referred me to; it comes from the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC (FAQ 2.1, Fig 2). It supports my point, not yours. Along with it, one can find a cartoon from the IPCC FAR (FAQ 1.1, Fig 1) that shows, among other things, the radiative contribution of all greenhouse gasses - water vapor, natural CO2, manmade CO2, ozone, CH4, etc. That radiative contribution is 324 watts/sq meter; the contribution ("radiative forcing") from manmade greenhouse gas is (as you seem to recognize) 1.6 watts/sq meter. My point is the comparison of natural greenhouse (324 w/sq m) vs. manmade increase of the greenhouse effect (1.6 w/sq m). Is it not obvious that manmade radiative forcing is trivial in comparison with nature?? My website also offers a computation of the sensitivity of the atmosphere to this man-made forcing: 1.6 w/sq m causes a warming of 0.16 C, or 0.3 F. Which of these numbers do you not understand?

I presume that the IPCC authors (Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth) left water vapor out of the figure (FAQ 2.1, Fig 2) because it is, as they say, a tabulation of MAN-MADE greenhouse effect. Water vapor isn't man-made. Of course, it would also be terribly embarrassing to show, in scale, the total greenhouse (324) in the same scale with the terrible, dangerous, apocalyptic, life-threatening, all-consuming man-made greenhouse component of......OMG, 1.6. :-) LOL

More to come
December 28, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Continuing by Luckyleif

I also presume (I can't find it in their documentation) that they, like you, have attributed the total increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (approx the beginning of the Industrial Age), namely 385 ppmv (parts per million by volume) - 280 ppmv, or 105 ppmv (an increase of 37.5%) to humanity. There are a couple of things wrong with this assumption (if, indeed, it is the one they made):

The total atmospheric content of carbon (just C, not CO2) is 750 Giga tonnes (Gt C). Fossil fuel burning released, as of 2004, 7.5 Gt C/yr. The heavy hitters in carbon flow are terrestrial plant decay (60 Gt C/yr) and warm ocean release (90 Gt C/yr). Ref: http://serc.carleton.edu/files/usingd... and http://maps.grida.no/graphic/the_carb...
(guess I'll have to put that on the website - sigh!).

The other thing is, as I mentioned before (and ignored by Al Gore), warming oceans release CO2; cooling oceans absorb CO2, Like Coke! The world oceans have been warming since the end of the previous Glacial Age (20,000 years ago). Assuming (as you did) that every increment of CO2 comes from humanity is wrong. Proof: look at the trace of CO2, measured at Hawaii. See the little seasonal oscillations? That's Winter and Summer.

Hope that explains why water vapor isn't on the chart you referred us to. I've seen it; I'm well aware of it; I think I understand it, and where it comes from, and what it's for. No; water vapor isn't a "feedback"; it's - as I say over and over on the website - the most important radiative component of the atmosphere.

Quote from Wxdano: "Note that the solar irradiance forcing is ~.2 W/m^2, out of a total of ~1.6." No, that's the variation in solar irradiance. The total is (FAQ 1.1, Fig 1) 235 w/sq m. Don't quote me any more numbers until you know what the numbers are about.

If anyone thinks I've been unduly rude to Wxdano - though I've tried to restrain myself - I don't use, or need, Ritalin or Xanax. Nor do I need to "increase the dose." I feel fine, Wxdano. Keep your insults to yourself. We all have a lot to learn about this subject; your arrogant remarks are not appropriate.

If/when you come back, let us know whether you believe Mr. Gore? Think his claim of a "man-made global warming crisis" is valid? or a fraud? John Holdren is a lot more extreme than Al Gore. That, after all, is what the editorial (and these commentary remarks) are about.

Luckyleif
December 28, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Good afternoon, Luckyleif.

Shorter leif:

Algore is fat!

Seriously, I used to forecast weather (wx). I don't really care that you are a denialist, or that you can't read a chart that quantifies the change in total solar irradiance (TSI) as +.2 W/m^2.

At any rate, decision-makers don't listen to you. They listen to their staff, who are briefed on the science made by scientists, not some denialist with a blog.

That is why denialists are left behind, fulminating and ululating on comment threads, and not contributing to policy.

That's right: we are finally implementing policies - all across the country and around the world - to mitigate and adapt to man-made climate change. And where are the denialists in crafting policy? Why, they are nowhere! They still deny that the issue exists.

Shucky darns. Let us know when you catch up to the rest of the planet.

Best,

D
December 28, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LucyLeif,

It looks as though Wxdzno got your "viking" up. It was well deserved. Arrogance and condescension have no place in a reasonable conversation.
December 28, 2008

6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

From Wxdano:

"That's right: we are finally implementing policies - all across the country and around the world - to mitigate and adapt to man-made climate change."

From Luckyleif:

Good grief, Wxdano, do I have to teach you civics too? Policies are made by politicians, who are elected by voters - citizens. Understand the concept? Some of them might be interested in this editorial, and in the commentary you and I and others have offered them. That's why I offer them a website (www.colo-earthfriends.org) of information on this topic. Your silly policies would cost them money for no purpose. They might have some thoughts about the worth of that. Here's an example:

On Christmas Eve, Gov. Chris Gregoire proclaimed a state of emergency in Washington due to the state’s ongoing series of winter weather and storms. Gregoire notes snowfall has reached record or near-record level in 30 of Washington’s 39 counties.The proclamation enables the state to respond quickly to local requests for emergency support and assistance arising from new storms. Prior to the Governor’s declaration the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) convened an emergency meeting Wednesday to discuss current conditions and the forecast for two major winter storm systems that could bring another 18 inches of fresh snow to the region.

Our Seattle emailer also noted “Gregroire’s pride is enacting the Western Climate Initiative (Little Kyoto cap and trade system) involving 7 states and 4 Canadian Provinces. Already a hundred or so employees are busy inventorying emission levels and determining the CO2 emission quotas for all emitters notwithstanding the fact that WA has one of the smallest carbon footprints in the nation. A $6.5 billion deficit is anticipated for the current budget cycle, that is large enough to bankrupt the state. They seem determined to ruin the economy while solving non-existent problems." [Quoted from www.icecap.us]

Your policies are working nowhere - not in Washington, certainly not in Europe. My goal is to keep crackpots like you from bankrupting Colorado, Wxdano. I'll trust my fellow citizens to make the decision, based on facts, not hysteria. Fortunately, Mother Nature seems to be on my side. Look out the window sometime, EX-forecaster.

LL :-)
December 28, 2008

7:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Ah. Lots of snow means no globul warmin. Suuuuure.

Faulty premises aside, during the 2006 election cycle the incumbent Repub house member of my district came by my town and I showed him around that morning: popular café, town hall, senior center, all that.

At the senior center, one of the ladies took his arm and importuned him not to enact polices agin' globul warmin, cause globul warmins a SCAY-UM! Th' glaciers ain't retreatin', there's a conspiracy, yada.

The incumbent's campaign manager and I exchanged quick nervous glances, and the incumbent gave a pat answer to the elderly lady and sent her on her way, gently and gracefully. It was clear he had to deal with the undereducated deniers before. The campaign manager breathed a small sigh of relief and we went on to the next stop.

The point? Even the conservative Repub knows what the story is, as his staff briefs him on the science, not on the screed from some ululating web site that no one reads.

There are no denialist testable hypotheses to explain the multifold phenomena being observed as we read. There are no independent denialist data sets collected in the field, no body of denialist empirical literature, no denialist models to understand the world, no equations, no factors, no measured phenomena, no journal articles, no calculations, no scribbles on a napkin. Nothing.

Those that deny man-made climate change have nothing except demonization and conspiracy theories.

Holdren is merely the latest target of demonization campaigns because he dares to call out denialists for what they are.

The societal ship has sailed. The denialists are left behind on the dock, busying themselves carrying around "The Fountainhead" and with making ululating web pages that scientists, decision-makers and the informed public don't read.

The vast expanse of the planet's human population is trying to figure out how to adapt to and mitigate man-made climate change. Ideas are flying around all over the place.

To those who don't like society making decisions while ignoring you: start swimming and catch up. Do something useful. Otherwise, soon society's ship won't be able to see you standing alone on the dock, voice ululating into the empty wind.

Buh-bye. Buh-bye now!

Best,

D
December 28, 2008

7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckyleif,

I applaud your passion and I appreciate your intellectual integrity.

That said, I would pose a question to you regarding the science of Global Warming, or Climate Change if you prefer. As a PhD Meteorologist, you utilize similar analysis, mathematics, physics, data sets and computer modeling as the Climatologists. Is this a correct perception? I will continue to phrase my question under that assumption, knowing that you will correct any inaccuracies.

Assuming that you and the Climatologists are mostly kindred scientific spirits and are using mathematics and modeling that is well beyond the spectrum of knowledge employed by most otherwise well educated, informed individuals, how can you expect the general population to accept your opinion over that of the AGW supporting Climatologists?

I would expect that more conservative individuals, especially those who are vested in the traditional energy economy either as workers, suppliers, owners and investors would welcome your professional skepticism. What of the others? What of those who believe the climatologists associated with NCAR, or NASA Goddard, the U.N. and many universities, who take an opposing view to you regarding the human contribution to Global Warming? They don't understand you any better than they understand the other climate scientists. How do you convince them, or myself, for that matter? I'm just an old Botanist approaching 60 and retirement. I don't intend to learn advanced calculus and computer modeling at my age, and neither does the majority of the population regardless of age or intellect. We don't understand either of you past a few charts and graphs.

As a scientist, I respect the fact that you are at least posting and trying to educate and influence the rest of us. I have yet to encounter a climatologist on these threads. Kudos sir. but I must say that you are still glazing people's eyes. Climate science is dense stuff and I don't know how far you can simplify it without compromising the science.

It is a shame that this scientific debate is so entwined with politics. The general population has a hard time separating the two. Agendas are assumed both for and against. I confess, with all the misinformation projects out there that I think you have a difficult job convincing others that you are a scientific purist. I might believe you. but many others won't. That, I believe is your challenge.
December 28, 2008

8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

Hey, my friend, lay off Ayn Rand and, especially the Fountainhead, one of my favorite novels:>). a person can be a liberal and an environmentalist and still appreciate her celebration of individual creativity!

I do have to agree with you that luckylief is swimming against political currents that are likely to overwhelm his message. He does make a point though that many people are confused, thinking that today's weather is proof against global warming. Not everybody employs logic or they would realize that record heat could be employed by other naive AGW believers to support their own case using just as little logic.
December 28, 2008

8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckylief,

One more thing, the last statement in your post to Wxdano makes it sound as though your agenda is, in fact, political. So which is it: science or politics, or both?
December 28, 2008

11:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"My goal is to keep crackpots like you from bankrupting Colorado"

lucky, your position is based on what's called a false dilemma.

it implies that our only choices are to do nothing or go bankrupt which of course isn't very defensible.
December 29, 2008

8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

green:

"a person can be a liberal and an environmentalist and still appreciate her celebration of individual creativity!"

Right. It's just shorthand for a particular blinkered worldview.

At any rate, I aborted a bioclimatology degree for something more useful. Your text above makes me wonder whether I've seen ol' lucky give a talk; if it is the same person, he had a hard time with me in the audience, asking him questions about why he cherry-picked and left out key information in graphs (maybe that's why he got mad at the meds point above - he can't answer it). He certainly liked to refer to the ululating web site. See, I could easily tell he was misleading the audience. It's the best the denialists can do: cherry-pick, selective data, wish, dissemble, mislead.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

luckyleif -

"I also presume (I can't find it in their documentation) that they, like you, have attributed the total increase of atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (approx the beginning of the Industrial Age), namely 385 ppmv (parts per million by volume) - 280 ppmv, or 105 ppmv (an increase of 37.5%) to humanity. There are a couple of things wrong with this assumption (if, indeed, it is the one they made):

The total atmospheric content of carbon (just C, not CO2) is 750 Giga tonnes (Gt C). Fossil fuel burning released, as of 2004, 7.5 Gt C/yr. The heavy hitters in carbon flow are terrestrial plant decay (60 Gt C/yr) and warm ocean release (90 Gt C/yr)."

How, specifically, is this "a problem"?? Per your numbers, 37.5% of the 750Gt atmospheric carbon is 281.25Gt. At the rate of 7.5GtC/yr of fossil fuel C emissions in 2004 it would only take 37.5 years at the 2004 rate to produce the difference. Obviously the amount of C released by humans hasn't been constant at the 2004 rate, but this seems reasonable to me considering that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of about 100 years, that not all human CO2 emissions are from fossil fuel (concrete production, for example, is a significant source), and the numbers for the carbon cycle are estimates.
December 29, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

luckyleif -

"Hope that explains why water vapor isn't on the chart you referred us to. I've seen it; I'm well aware of it; I think I understand it, and where it comes from, and what it's for. No; water vapor isn't a "feedback"; it's - as I say over and over on the website - the most important radiative component of the atmosphere."

Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing agent. The reason is that water vapor has a very short (about 2 weeks) residence time in the atmosphere compared to CO2's very long (about 100 years) residence time. This means that while water vapor certainly does have a very significant "greenhouse" contribution, it's very short residence time means that water vapor cannot, by itself, drive temperature trends over any significant length of time.
December 29, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Interesting to see the conversation continue. I have a volunteer job on Mondays, so I'll respond to just one remark by Greenleaf: yes, I believe citizens who disbelieve the Anthropogenic Global Warming Crisis agenda should be informed (hence the website) and should let their political representatives know their concerns.
The AGW extremists (like Holdren) are very well organized; the opposition is not.
Of course, I also have a personal dislike for liars like Gore, who misrepresent scientific fact - such as the Milankovitch Cycle (remember that one, Wxdano?).
Nice to see you're following along, CL.
Later, folks.
December 29, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Jay wrote:

"lucky, your position is based on what's called a false dilemma.
it implies that our only choices are to do nothing or go bankrupt which of course isn't very defensible."

Yes.

Most new analyses of cost (not from Rush Limbaugh, AEI/CEI, Cato, Heritage et al, but real analyses) find minimal cost:

"The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005. Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries." [ http://tinyurl.com/8y7s8c ]

So, eliminate a couple of wars and the money is easy to come by. 'Bankrupting' my left hiney. Other analyses can be found here: [ http://www.envirovaluation.org/index.... ]

>>>>>>

CL:

We have known for decades that we are putting excess CO2 into the atmosphere - whomever thinks that the additional 34% is natural is in deep denial, as today's level hasn't been seen in ~850 k yr. We know the source is anthropogenic by it's composition (C14).

1. http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.co...

then sources:

2. http://tinyurl.com/4erdbs

Decision-makers know this. This is evidenced by the plethora of policies, discussion, and action taking place. CA is even regulating land use to ameliorate anthropogenic influences. It's happening despite a small minority in denial writing prolifically to the Editor.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Wxdano -

My point was that by luckyleif's own numbers it seems quite reasonable that the 34% increase is mostly due to human contributions, even though he calls it a problem.

"We know the source is anthropogenic by it's composition (C14)."

The C12/C13 ratio also points towards anthropogenic causes.
December 29, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Gore got almost all of the science right [ http://tinyurl.com/6tvbqp, http://tinyurl.com/gke7d , http://tinyurl.com/8r7p5o , http://tinyurl.com/77bhuo , http://tinyurl.com/8vnfor ], despite the flood of think-tank talking points [ http://tinyurl.com/8zrzqv , http://tinyurl.com/8r7p5o , ] and the usual suspects [Lindzen, Singer, Gray, Spencer, Ball] asserting otherwise.

This issue about AIT has, of course, been refuted and put to bed long ago. Yet some denialists deny this, because they have nothing else.

Focusing on quibbles (e.g we can't change Milank. or DO cycles) is like finding a crumb and declaring a picnic for the whole town - e.g. misleading, dissembling, disinforming.

The planet is warming. Plants are moving north and higher and greening earlier. These are testable facts.

Denialists cannot produce testable hypotheses/evidence/studies/body of work/equations/scribbles on napkins to explain why increasing CO2 ~34% , land use changes, black carbon, aerosols, etc wouldn't produce what we see today. Because they can't.

They can only quibble and create demons (Algoooooore!!!! Hollllldren!!!) and totems (poooolar bear! Hooooockey stick!) to promulgate disinformation. Oh, and scare quotes (like the editorial in the print edition) around words like "science".

Pffft. Denialists have nothing. Even Lomborg says there is warming and man causes it. How desperate do you have to be to hang out on the fringe so far? Is your identity so wrapped up in this one issue?

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

I was just reinforcing your point, CL.

Some local denialist presenters use ice core CO2 records, but don't put temps next to it, and don't point out that the current ppmv is unprecedented in the last 850k yr. Totally misinforming their (tiny) audiences.

D
December 29, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

CL, Wxdano,

Going back to my point to luckyleif, which he hasn't addressed as yet. We are dealing with a science that few, including most other scientists, simply don't have the mathematical and computer modeling skills to reasonably analyze. As one of the skills challenged old scientists out there who never needed these tools for my own work, how does one choose between the two scientific camps? I have perceived that the balance shifted long ago and that the AGW camp was far more numerous and had better professional associations than many of the skeptics. That I am aware of, no scientific polling of field appropriate researchers has ever been conducted, so my first assumption is anecdotal. The second assumption is more transparent. The strongest supporters of AGW are reporting from prestigious government and international organizations such as NASA and NCAR . Others are performing research for major universities. So many supporting opposing views seem to have industry connections, some going so far as to contribute to infamous"denier" sites where they deliberately seek to confuse the debate and the general populace. I dislike making such important decisions based upon non-empirical evidence and, even worse, a gut feeling. What would the two of you think of a scientific poll and a list of the qualifications of those on both sides of the debate as well as their associations? We already have dueling graphs and charts which can easily be manipulated. What would you think of a different set of data that speaks to the qualifications and numbers of supporters on each side? Remember that the debate is still afoot and will largely be determined politically by non-scientists.
December 29, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Reality_Check - you're certainly free to express your opinions,but you're not adding any substance to the discussion nor are you likely to influence anyone of whatever point you might have.
December 29, 2008

11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

greenleaf asks:

" how does one choose between the two scientific camps?"

No. There is only one camp.

Denialists have zero, zip, zilch, kein, nada testable hypotheses/evidence/studies/body of work/equations/scribbles on napkins to explain why increasing CO2 ~34% , land use changes, black carbon, aerosols, etc wouldn't produce what we see today. None. I have asked numerous times in many, many places for denialist lists of papers, hypotheses, etc. Nothing. Nothing but name-calling for asking ('crackpot', above, is mild).

"What would the two of you think of a scientific poll and a list of the qualifications of those on both sides of the debate as well as their associations?"

This would tell us what we already know.

And what you already stated - there is a large body of empirical work by science across numerous disciplines, and some op-eds written by various think tanks.

Most decision-makers are acting on the science; they count votes by the think-tank reaction, and IMHO they mistake the number of letters to the editor as a significant voting bloc, which is untrue (the denialists are merely energetic and motivated).

So, no poll is needed.

The societal ship has already sailed, with a new course plotted.

The issue is that the societal course is somewhere between 135º-150º. We know it is somewhere in that range, but we don't know the precise course or exactly when to spin the wheel.

Denialists, meanwhile, would have you believe the course should be 235º...or is it 260º...it is hard to hear them because they are still back on shore, shouting something...something... Eh. Hard to hear what they are saying. Probably something about no regulations and no gummints and whatever Rush said yesterday.

Best,

D (BTW, B.S. Environ Hort)
December 29, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

OK, so now we are back to Progressives versus Conservatives. Name calling, polarizing stances and all. Good work, very useful, very typical.
December 29, 2008

11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Response 12/29/08

This is a critical debate to get right, with inflamed passions and all at the forefront. Put aside all of the science for a moment and look first at the political drivers for this debate, and second at the possible economic effects of the global warming evaluations.

In the political realm, we have proponents and opponents of the thesis of anthropogenic global warming, the former generally progressives and the later, conservatives. These are the terms that these groups self-select, so I will use them here. Progressives are supporting a recognition of greenhouse gas as a pollutant like others in our environment, previously identified, with a major cause focused on the fossil fuels industry. Progressives and Conservatives both believe in agendas that includes many causes, from various kinds of social justice to a particular take on the role of the government in our personal affairs, with major divergence on a number of issues. Even if we could come to a final consensus on the science involved, the other issues would keep the two sides from agreeing.

In the Economic realm, recognition of global warming anthropogenic causes may result in enormously expensive mitigation efforts, with no certainty of success, and little understanding if we are addressing the right problem. Cost shifts are a major concern here – who pays the bill?

What if we do nothing? Let the glaciers melt, let polar bears disappear, let the seas rise. We may have more of some kind of climate and weather changes, including droughts, hurricanes, blizzards; we may have a more moderate climate for hundreds of years, and the social cost concerns may be limited. Our best computer capabilities do not give us statistical certainty in this regard. What if we do everything possible? The glaciers may still melt, the seas may rise, and the bears may disappear (or evolve, if you believe in evolution).
December 29, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

This is tough, but Politically and Economically, the science is irrelevant on both sides. Furthermore, this debate has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the ancillary issues of the progressives and the conservatives. Americans divide themselves according to these artificial divisions, one group looking longingly into the past, another painting a utopian future, if only everyone would see the light. It is as if both parties showed up dressed to play football – but the game we are playing is chess.

Here’s the deal: In the economic sphere, we are now conjoined with the rest of the world in an enormous number of regulatory efforts. We don’t manufacture much, and we need foreign sources of fuel, except for coal, which you can’t run a car on. The rest of the world via the Kyoto treaty believes that global warming is a fact. In the face of this, conservative opponents of anthropogenic global warming theories are proposing that we ‘go it alone’. OK, lets say we do that. Are we leaving ourselves open to sanctions from the rest of the world? Probably. Will they try to enforce those sanctions? Absolutely.

I think we are living in an illusion – we are not in complete control here, and the sooner we realize that we need to change our tactics and navigate the science, the politics and economics together, on a global basis, the sooner we will create the outcome we need.
December 29, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"In the Economic realm, recognition of global warming anthropogenic causes may result in enormously expensive mitigation efforts, "

No.

Most major economists and groups of economists say no such thing. This group recently said 2% a year:[ http://www.reuters.com/article/enviro... ].

Most proclamations are stating ~.5-4% of world GDP/annum. Eliminate a couple of wars and its paid for.

Denialist think-tanks, in this topic as well, have produced no numbers as to likely cost - just like in climate science.

Business as usual is not an option, and society agrees, as we are moving toward action. Today.

wrt to the rest of the argumentation, it is wrapped up in the 'we must be certain' fallacy. Nothing in human affairs has ever happened this way:

Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome. - Samuel Johnson.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Great post greenleaf, but I don't think there's an easy answer to your questions.

I don't see a poll of qualifications as being very useful - qualifications don't necessarily make for good science. There are numerous instances of highly qualified scientists doing poor science as well as those who are poorly qualified that do very good science. One thing I would look at though is who is actively participating in the science - publishing results and debating with others doing the science, and those who just want to tell us about the science - posting on websites and working for "think tanks". The latter is more likely to be pushing some sort of agenda - be it Al Gore or the Heartland Institute instead of having an actual interest in understanding what's going on.

What's needed, IMO, is to understand the nature and validity of the arguments put forth. To do that though often requires a pretty good understanding of the theory being debated (and with AGW there are many theories involved). On top of that, many arguments that actually have a basis in the science (as opposed to those that misrepresent the science) often have points & counterpoints that can span many years and much research - the role of solar variation and cosmic rays on the climate are good examples of that. For those it is helpful to know when someone presents a single piece of work to support their argument if there has been subsequent work addressing that point.
December 29, 2008

11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

REALITY_CHECK, do you ever say anything without personally attacking people? It's quite immature and undermines any creditablity you have. It's like everyone has to pause and deal with the temperment of a 2 year old. GREENLEAF, the science is still to inexact to pin it all on human activity. True the earth may be warming up, but with increased volcanic activity and so many other factors, could it also not be a natural cycle much like the Ice Age and the manner with which it also receeded? I like reading your comments, although I tend to disagree with some. It is a hard balance to be styruck between economic and enviromental issues. What is accomplished if we lose our industry because of harsh economic laws imposed here, but ignored elsewhere? EPA has made manufacturing very difficult here, but China could care less regardless of agreements. I believe the earths climates are cycles, man has little control over. Your a very well informed person however, I enjoy your comments very much. How is the balance to be struck?
December 29, 2008

12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

I understand that you have decided where you stand on the issue of AGW. What I am talking about here is the hearts and minds of many millions in this country who don't understand or don't trust the science or the scientists. I find that easy to understand with a scientific issue that is this complex. Add to that the fact that the issue has been so polarized and politicized that you can almost imagine armies on the move.

Until someone convinces me otherwise, as our friend luckylief is attempting, I do believe the greenhouse gas theory based upon logic and the one to one correspondence between temperature and CO2 data. At the core of my faith is the knowledge that scientific integrity demands a re -examination based upon new evidence as it arises. luckyleif states that the entire debate regarding the greenhouse gas effect is overblown. With an active peer review process, I do believe that counter theory would have been tested and retested to everyone's satisfaction by now unless this is a very recently arrived at concept. If validated, scientists with any integrity at all would be modifying their own positions. I simply don't see this happening. Perhaps luckylief can shed light upon the history and timing of his counter greenhouse gas theory. I am assuming this information isn't so new that it hasn't been examined and tested by others in the field.

So, Wx, you don't mind if I call you Wx do you? My question is how do we win more hearts and minds? We can't do it with the science alone, apparently. This is why I contrived the concept of polling and side by side credential lists. These are concepts that most people understand. Were they to see that the majority of field appropriate scientists with connections to major government institutions and universities were in agreement on this issue, it would probably decrease resistance at this critical time. At the very least it might put to rest the stupid Petition Project that I am forced to debunk about twice a month! I do believe that we are finally moving forward, but with political resistance can it be fast enough to make any difference?
December 29, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

GREENLEAF, I agree with CL, it depends on whose doing the enviromental impact study and their motives when evaluating the various aspects as to the degree of impact. A radical enviromentalist can be equally as damaging as a big business exec. How do you find an impartial judge to do the evaluation of the enviromental impact but what they have an agenda or a clear motivation one way or the other. The science can support either side depending on the author of the enviromental impact statement.
December 29, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

This set of posts has been better than many in avoiding the 'bumper sticker' approach to the issue of global warming - except for Reality Check.

With respect to the economics of mitigation, we've actually got a pretty good menu of options for where costs are distributed. Cap and trade, direct carbon capture and/or sequestration, alternative fuels, and conservation, to name a few.

I always like studying the arguments of the Conservatives, including the substance of their arguments, the age of the proponents, their education level, and their geographic distribution. The same factors are interesting with the Progressives.

What I'm finding so far is that Conservatives tend to be white older males, with a preponderance from the Southern US and with less than a college education. Progressives tend to be younger, have a higher regard for education and/or are more often college-educated, and often will not be from the Southern US.

This demographic split tends to affect the arguments that each groups supports on a wide variety of issues.
December 29, 2008

12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Greenleaf wrote:

"So, Wx, ... My question is how do we win more hearts and minds? We can't do it with the science alone, apparently. ...At the very least it might put to rest the stupid Petition Project that I am forced to debunk about twice a month! I do believe that we are finally moving forward, but with political resistance can it be fast enough to make any difference?"

I used to be a wx, now I am a green infrastructure guy. But wx is fine. Nonetheless, as much as I hate binary argumentation or logic:

We cannot do it with science alone. We have had, since the 70s, a concerted effort to frame issues along certain lines, and we now have a bifurcated society wrt politics.

Folks get their issues framed for them with phrases that appeal to their innate mindset and values, and receive their info via the media, who passes along the frame.

People think differently, and studies are starting to show us along what lines we think - to the point of prediction (what science does). That is: certain folk, when threatened, withdraw mentally as well. Others reach out. Brains are ordered predispositionally to prefer certain modes, which society orders into certain things. Sociologists call folk 'self-regarding' or 'other-regarding' and try to quantify their likelihood of responding one way or another.

Bottom line: you'll win some fraction of hearts and mind with science. Not many more than now. Schellenberger and Nordhaus tried to address the issue that you raise: [ http://tinyurl.com/mdcqv ], but I'm not sure that and subsequent work [ http://tinyurl.com/2fzwgk ] has done anything.

People choose to believe the petition project because it fits in their frame of reference, their worldview. They don't choose to believe it because it is factual, or because they adhere to Enlightenment Principles. That is human nature.

I'm reading a text right now in a particular scholarly discipline: "The Environmental History of the World", by a prof at DU. Environmental History is an inquiry of man's relationship with the natural world throughout history, and attempts to contextualize the relationship so we can learn from our past. Are we learning from our past environmental destruction? Absolutely not. Will we learn? I doubt it. This is why so many oppose the direction we are going in.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

DMISSEY,

You stated:

"I think we are living in an illusion – we are not in complete control here, and the sooner we realize that we need to change our tactics and navigate the science, the politics and economics together, on a global basis, the sooner we will create the outcome we need."

I agree, as scientists we ignore the political and economic realities at our peril. We can have the right message and "win" the scientific battle but still lose the battle on the ground and in the trenches based upon politics. Thanks for echoing and stating in slightly different terms the point that I am trying to make as well.

You stated:
December 29, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"Progressives tend to be younger, have a higher regard for education and/or are more often college-educated, and often will not be from the Southern US.

This demographic split tends to affect the arguments that each groups supports on a wide variety of issues."

Superficially this is true, esp on comment boards. However the antiwar protests in which I participated in San Francisco against the war for oil had many, many older Progressives. Many (incl me).

Also, I think Pew found [ http://people-press.org/report/303/gl... ] that education had no influence on whether US Repubs chose to accept scientific findings on man-made climate change, and IIRC increasing US Repubs' education actually made them slightly LESS likely to accept scientific findings (presumably the increased education wasn't in the sciences): [ http://people-press.org/reports/image... ].

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Seriously, who puts the word science in quotes?

I, for one, am happy we have a President coming into office that is interested in scientific research and what it can teach us, and how it can shape policy, instead of putting his own views in front true, scientific and proven research.
December 29, 2008

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

OK, here is what seems to be within the core of the current Conservative strategy, as described by Lee Atwater in his interview recapped in the book, 'Southern Politics in the 1990s':
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps...?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*, n*, n*.” By 1968 you can't say “n*”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

Lee Atwater spun out the strategy pioneered by Nixon that took the Civil Rights act of 1964, promoted by a Democratic President, LBJ and made it the new rallying cry of disenfranchised poor whites in the South. BTW - I think that Progressives carry much of the responsibility for this set of moves by treating the Southern whites like they're all characters in the 'Dukes of Hazard'.

Which brings us back to science. Beginning with the issue of evolution, Conservatives will not support scientific arguments. Science should be discounted when the science does not support the Conservative viewpoint. (BTW - Progressives will do this too - they need to be on guard about this) Conservatives arguments for intelligent design are the hallmark of this approach, and research on global warming, no matter how much there is, will never persuade them. This is, in part, because changing one's mind based on evidence is tantamount to defeat in Conservative jargon.

Bottom Line: Progressives know that that Conservatives do not believe in science, evolution, global warming or racial equality. So why have this argument at all?
December 29, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

All, with regard to the minority opinion, below is a link to the annual report to Congress, and some well-reasonned science types (compliments of lucky, and green):

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...

The list contains names, bios, and quotes of scientists who are thinking about the climate rather than extrapolating from model runs to worry folk about how much snow will fall in Vail this weekend in 2100.
December 29, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Jackson,

This is the fake report of Mike Morano's 650...no, 603 scientists* , well documented and not used in large-scale decision-making. Because it is a sham.

( o Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Inhofe, CO2 — but not the sun — “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850** ,

o "The Swedish researchers Svante Björk, Dan Hammarlund and Karl Ljung who’s names and research is used in the report don’t want anything to do with the list and think that their findings are being misused (page 208). Further they state that they have no complains about the main conclusions in the IPCC reports."***)

It is a sham because of the cherry-picking.

Cherry-picking you say?

One of the scientists in the list was selectively quoted:

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."**** (I guess he needs to be struck from the list too, if they were interested in the list being factual.)

And these scientists in the report, what do they say?

“I am a global-warming skeptic - not of the science of climate change (for I have no expertise to judge it), but a skeptic of combating climate change with increased government power.” *****

Denialists: they have nothing but making stuff up and misinformation.

o There is a project looking at whomever is left after their name is taken off, and here is the list of contrascientists: [ http://650list.blogspot.com/ ]

o Here is a compilation of reporting on the 400, then the 650 lists: [ http://tinyurl.com/9elntw ]

Did I mention denialists have nothing but making stuff up?

Best,

D

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

* Is it 650 today...no, 641...610...603...I'm not sure who is dead with their name still on there, and who is alive yet asked their name to be taken off, so who knows the real number.

** http://tinyurl.com/6jfy5y

*** http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.co...

**** http://tinyurl.com/998x8u

***** http://tinyurl.com/a56jj5

Denialists: the best they can do is make stuff up.
December 29, 2008

4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

Thanks wx, I am heading over to Senator Inhofe's site to see if I can get my name off the list. :)
December 29, 2008

4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

My Monday obligation is done. Nice to see so many informed, polite, reasonable comments. Where to begin?

CL made the comment (in response to a rebuttal of mine to Wxdano):
"Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing agent. The reason is that water vapor has a very short (about 2 weeks) residence time in the atmosphere compared to CO2's very long (about 100 years) residence time. This means that while water vapor certainly does have a very significant "greenhouse" contribution, it's very short residence time means that water vapor cannot, by itself, drive temperature trends over any significant length of time."

I seem to remember we discussed this before; maybe I got distracted before we finished the discussion. I'll agree with you that an individual water vapor molecule has an average residence time of about 2 weeks. It eventually gets caught up in the condensation/cloud/precipitation/evaporation cycle and leaves the atmosphere, and thus stops its greenhouse effect.

However, its place is taken by another H2O molecule; any meteorology textbook will certainly contain a discussion of the Hydrologic Cycle. Likewise, Chapter 3 of Roy Spencer's recent book, "Climate Confusion", contains a discussion in the context of AGW and greenhouse gas theory.

At the risk of being unduly contrary, I'm not so sure of the residence time you quote for CO2 (100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong; I don't think anyone really knows. Remember that green plants actively consume CO2, and there has been a measurable "greening" of the Earth due to the increased atmospheric CO2. I've seen estimates as low as five years, but that estimate didn't carry any strong authority with it.

Remember also, in the cartoon of the Earth's radiative energy balance (first figure in the section "Greenhouse Gas Numbers" (www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm), those are average values, over the earth, over an annual cycle. 324 w/sq m coming down, from atmospheric GHG's. Residence time gets averaged out.

Perhaps we disagree on what a "feedback" is. We're all aware of the howling that results when a microphone, amplifier, and speaker get too close together. Perhaps you're saying CO2 greenhouse effect is the "amplifier" that causes more H20 to evaporate? Environmental "feedback" - any process that reinforces or damps itself - is certainly of great concern in climate modelling. Unfortunately nature is full of feedbacks, mostly badly understood. I won't try to say more until I better understand your point, other than to point out the greatly disparate magnitudes of radiative forcing due to natural GHG's (324 w/sq m) and man-made CO2 (1.6 w/sq m).
LL
December 29, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

Actually, while there may be dentists on another list, the senator is still providing this:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index...

Are there really 650 misquotes in a senate document?
December 29, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Can you imagine, jackson, building a jet plane without model runs? Why, we'd never have bombed Eye-rack had we not done model runs on them. And modeling the bomb explosions that captivated the Shock and Awe crowd.

And chemistry? How'd we figure out if chemicals worked? Testing them on home-schooled fundamentalist kids?

Medicine: I guess some who project that 'The Other' wants us to go back to medieval times with certain policies would get their wish if we couldn't do model runs on medicines to see how they'd act in the future.

Yessir - there are many ways of knowing. Just because a couple do not comport with certain minority ideologies doesn't mean all of us should reject them [ http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2... ].

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL wrote:

"At the risk of being unduly contrary, I'm not so sure of the residence time you quote for CO2 (100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong; I don't think anyone really knows"

Sure we do: [ http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/... ]. 50% disappearance: ~40-50 yr. This is why scientists say we have ~.5ºC "in the pipeline".

"Perhaps we disagree on what a "feedback" is."

The scientists don't. Water vapor is a feedback, as I explained above. Here is a climate modeler explaining it: [ http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/... ], here is a post refuting the standard denialist talking point: [http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006... ], here is a journal paper discussing WV feedback: [ http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005... ], another paper observing warming and increasing WV: [http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15... ], yet another by different technique, with human attribution: [ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/... ], RC discussion: [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/... ].

"the greatly disparate magnitudes of radiative forcing due to natural GHG's (324 w/sq m) and man-made CO2 (1.6 w/sq m)."

Balance.

The earth was in relative energy balance until the anthropocene, then the Industrial Revolution. Here is a decent W/m^2 explanation: [ http://tinyurl.com/a7o4jx ]

Sure, there were fluctuations - e.g. after the Plague and resultant human depopulation, forests regrew and sequestered C, which contributed to the Little Ice Age.

But now, there is an energy IMbalance of + 1.6 W/m^2, which has a temperature effect. Which is why the planet is warming. Basic physics. Here is a history of the gain of knowledge about this change, and its quantifiation: [ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co... ].

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

From Wxdano: "Denialists: they have nothing but making stuff up and misinformation."

As you know, I maintain a website, www.colo-earthfriends.org. There's a section on AGW science, as I understand it.

Since Wxdano has called me a denialist in the past, he presumably accuses me also of "making stuff up and misinformation."

Website's out there, dano (ok if I call you by your last name?).

Show us the misinformation.

Show us what I've made up.

Defend Mr. Gore's lies, if you can.

As the saying goes, put up or........

Take your time. I'd rather converse with honest, reasonable, knowledgeable people.

LL
December 29, 2008

5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

wx, i just got back from a tour of your links:

none are from the us senate. if you want to continue, i won't send you to www.jameshansenisanidiot////.

with regard to simpson, i was also surprised to see her there, but on reading the complete interview, and not either of the cherry picked quotes, i will wager that she will not ask to be removed.

with regard to itoh, his current japanese-only book, gives an idea of why he may have been quoted "Preface: The worst scientific scandal in the history". i would also wager that he won't ask to be removed.

the scandahovians seemed quite upset and should send a copy of their work and conclusions to the senator right away.

650---640, even 600 still a bigger number than 52 in the IPCC. :)
December 29, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Algore! Algore! Algoooooore!

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. And he is, as a constructed totem, sooo last year. Hansen is the new totem. I suspect that the noise machine will find Holdren will soon replace Hansen.

Nonetheless. I have corrected enough of your misstatements above.

It is clear you are either confused or purveying FUD.

There is no need to spend any more time to determine the full extent of your incorrectness, as the extent is clear enough from just this thread (WV feedback, forcing imbalance at surface, residence time, "only 4%" [I guess you'll never understand medicine], lots of snow so it caint be warmin', mitigation policies are overly burdensome, hasty generalization fallacies, and so on).

A quick scan of your website shows the same standard talking points that have been refuted years ago, yet recycled over and over. A good list that long ago numbered "your" talking points and their long-ago refutation is here: [ http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered... ].

BTW, judging from your graph on your website about temp change, I think it was you I saw giving a FUD-filled presentation at the library in Castle Rock last winter.

I was the guy asking why so many of your assertions and charts were incomplete and cherry-picked and why you "forgot" to mention something. I asked why that chart [ http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/mila... ] didn't have CO2 on it, what were you hiding?

If you wish to take more of my time correcting your stance wrt current scientific knowledge, you'll want to pay my consulting fee ($105 to start, $45/hr thereafter) to educate you; we can arrange a PayPal site to begin.

In the meantime, again, the FUD on your website was refuted long ago, at the "ill-considered" link I gave above.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

5:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

I previously posted in response to CL's remark about the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In pursuing Wxdano's response about residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, I ran across the following (in Comments at http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/... :

"You say carbon dioxide doesn't rain out! Why not? Carbon dioxide is very soluble in water! Limestone dissolution is a direct result of the carbon dioxide dissolved in rain water (Solubility in water @STP 1.45 kg/m³, from Wikipedia). The formation of caves and the acidification of soils is a direct result of carbon dioxide solution in rain water. Humans have been burning limestones for many thousands of years (pre-industrial time) in order to use the lime to neutralize acid soils for agricultural use.

The only significant carbon sources and sinks are inorganic. The world's carbonate inventories exceed the biological carbon inventories by millions of times. Oceanic carbonate deposits and volcanic carbon dioxide emissions are the primary carbon cycle components.

Please provide a scientific basis for your statement: "CO2: no: the turnover time is very slow (lifetime is 100's of years) - rainfall removes very little." It appears contrived and baseless. "

I hasten to add I'm not a chemist; I am, however, aware of the effect of rainwater in creating caves and sinkholes. In addition, my neighbor and I once remarked on how much better the grass greens up after a rain than it does just from watering it with a hose (my water comes from a well). My explanation at the time was that rain picked up both nitrogen and CO2 from the air.

Thank you, Wxdano; you provided a link to an interesting, useful piece of information. Make sense to anybody else??

LL
December 29, 2008

6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

"Bottom Line: Progressives know that that Conservatives do not believe in science, evolution, global warming or racial equality. So why have this argument at all?"

Ah, folks, let's keep it on the subject at hand. BTW, I'm a conservative; I'm a scientist (my job description said so (:-)); I believe in evolution by natural selection; I think global warming is a natural, cyclical process; and I spent 20+ years in the most racially equal institution in the world - the US military.
LL
December 29, 2008

6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Louie,

If you are still following this thread. I had some actual money making work to perform today and needed to use my PC for some design work. I apologize for appearing to blow you off. I wouldn't do that my friend. Thanks too, for your kind comments.

I want to adress one point that you made:

"It is a hard balance to be styruck between economic and enviromental issues. What is accomplished if we lose our industry because of harsh economic laws imposed here, but ignored elsewhere? EPA has made manufacturing very difficult here, but China could care less regardless of agreements."

Indeed, it is hard to strike a balance between the economy and the environment, both in developed nations such as ours and in developing nations such as China and India.

I have never believed that environmental concerns and economic concerns need to be mutually exclusive. Consider energy efficiency in cars, homes, business, lighting and appliances. We can't solve all of our problems with efficiencies alone, but its a great place to start. Why? Because it resonates with fiscal conservatives, rich people, poor people, AGW believers and skeptics as well. It is the least controversial part of the solution. It is the least expensive and pays for itself in a reasonable time frame. Coal and gasoline not burned releases no CO2.

Alternative energy is another critter all together. You are right about the permitting for nuclear energy as well as the NIMBY factor which is always hard to overcome. Nuclear will be good in the long run for the economy and in some ways for the environment, but is realistically 10-20 years from making significantly greater impact. Wind offers great promise for Domestic industry. Vestas, the largest name in wind turbines recently opened a manufacturing plant in Colorado. These turbines are too big to profitably manufacture in China and then transport here. We will make our own. Hopefully, we will begin making improved hybrid cars in this country as well. I don't mean just cars, but light trucks, mini-vans and SUVs. With plug-in technology we can produce 70 mpg cars and 35-40 mpg larger vehicles. Even the parcel delivery giant UPS is planning to replace its diesel fleet with hybrid delivery trucks. Such a move over a period of 10 years should largely eliminate our need for Middle East oil. That would certainly benefit our economy, the environment and help to mitigate AGW as well.
December 29, 2008

6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"Make sense to anybody else??"

Ah.

Apparently all the Industrial Revolution emissions have rained out, then, and ended up in the oceans. Mauna Loa is incorrectly measuring (it's not really 385 ppmv CO2, it must be back to 280) - there goes the Keeling curve - and the ocean pH is much more acidic than they are measuring now. Another incorrect measurement - ocean pH (but where are all the dead corals in this new pH regine?). First surface temps, now Mauna Loa and ocean acidity.

Sheesh. Algoooore must be measuring it all.

I guess we'll have another ice age once all the CO2 rains out of the atm.

IOW: no, it makes no sense.

The completely and utterly basic carbon cycle: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_c... ].

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

6:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Greenleaf said:
"With an active peer review process, I do believe that counter theory would have been tested and retested to everyone's satisfaction by now unless this is a very recently arrived at concept. If validated, scientists with any integrity at all would be modifying their own positions. I simply don't see this happening. Perhaps luckylief can shed light upon the history and timing of his counter greenhouse gas theory. I am assuming this information isn't so new that it hasn't been examined and tested by others in the field."

I presume the response from Jackson Foi, giving a link to the Senate report (http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index...) is a step in the right direction?

LL
December 29, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL tries:

"I presume the ...link to the Senate report ... is a step in the right direction?"

Not if your two major findings come from somewhere other than the literature.

Yes, it's too bad none of the scientists in the Morano/Inhofe report publish in the climate science journals.

Oh, wait: one did, 20 years ago. And another hasn't had one pass peer review in a decade. And the papers already outlined above (and others) that were quote-mined.

Other than the not publishing climate paperspart, and quote-mining the ones that do part, none of the papers in the Morano/Inhofe report are papers in the climate sciences that support nonexistent denialist testable hypotheses. Op-ed pieces, mostly, not peer-review.

At least I think that's true.

See, there is no 'references cited' section to check the work of the good Senator's communications director (so which scientist will waste their time reading it - that's right: none).

That is: the "Senate" report is a sham, and does not move an iota toward the right direction.

Best,

D
December 29, 2008

7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckylief,

Yes, this is a step in the right direction and an effective way to draw attention to those scientists of opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, I do see one flaw to this old cynics eye. It begins with the first signature:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of Canberra, Australia

A "social scientist" luckylief and retired? I also found a social anthropologist, a paleontologist ( I considered going into paleontology and am still fascinated by it, but I don't see a direct connection to AGW), many economists, technology managers, an energy consultant. I'm especially intrigued by a fellow Biologist, I could easily understand an ecologist, or almost any botanist or zoologist, but a Molecular Geneticist? Then there are the engineers: chemical, mechanical and civil. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't engineers applied scientists not research scientists? There is also a large company of Geologists and Geophysicists. Aren't we considering atmospheric science? This bunch is pretty grounded don't you think ( sorry for the obvious pun, I couldn't resist).

Please don't misunderstand me, this is so much better than the very lame petition project. From what I can see, the majority of signers are field appropriate, PhD scientists. I'm afraid however, that a letter of this type doesn't go far enough. Maybe each signer included a separate explanation based upon their personal research that explained how, for example, an economist, PhD or not, could have the expertise to challenge AGW. That is the problem you see, luckyleif, not just credibility conferred by a PhD but credibility based upon personal research in a field specific. The signers must be held to a higher standard of credibility than their signature on a form letter.
It is a start, but only a start.
December 29, 2008

8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

luckyleif -
>>I'll agree with you that an individual water vapor molecule has an average residence time of about 2 weeks. It eventually gets caught up in the condensation/cloud/precipitation/evaporation cycle and leaves the atmosphere, and thus stops its greenhouse effect.

However, its place is taken by another H2O molecule; any meteorology textbook will certainly contain a discussion of the Hydrologic Cycle.<<

The last sentence is incorrect in the sense that there is one H2O molecule enters the atmosphere as soon as another is removed (I'm not sure that's what you are saying though). That would imply that the total # of H2O molecules in the atmosphere remains constant which I'm pretty sure you would agree is not the case - it fluctuates. It fluctuates because the sources and sinks (evaporation and precipitation if you will) are not constant.

My point is that water vapor can not be a long term forcing agent in global temperature change because of it's very short residence time. That short residence time means that atmospheric H2O levels will vary quickly in response to whatever influences it's sources & sinks.

>>I won't try to say more until I better understand your point, other than to point out the greatly disparate magnitudes of radiative forcing due to natural GHG's (324 w/sq m) and man-made CO2 (1.6 w/sq m).<<

I'm pretty certain you aren't using "radiative forcing" in the way it is commonly used in climatology. My understanding is pretty much the same as described by the Wikipedia article:
"In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the **change in net irradiance** at the tropopause."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiativ...
(note my emphasis on "change in net irradiance")

In that sense, the radiative forcing due to natural GHG's is not anywhere near 324 w/sq m - that sounds to me more like total IR absorption by GHG's, not the change. If it is the total IR absorption, then all you are really saying is that IR absorption from man-made CO2 is a small percentage of the total of IR absorption from natural GHGs - that's something I totally agree with. But that isn't relevant since the real factor is not total IR absorption, but the **change** in total IR absorption which man-made CO2 has increased.

FWIW, here's a recent article on work that better determines the role of water vapor's role in global warming:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/feat...
December 29, 2008

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

CL my friend,

I am so very impressed by how little I understand of what you are saying. It isn't much different trying to understand luckylief. I used to think that I could glaze people's eyes over with botanical nomenclature and explanations of basic biochemistry, DNA, photosynthesis and glycolysis but I have to say that you two truly "take the cake"! How in the world can the general public understand, let alone form any reasonable opinion based upon this kind of science?

This is my point! People simply don't understand; they can't even discern the difference between your two positions. We need a Rosetta stone!
December 29, 2008

9:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

With all of the discussion currently directed to the topic of CO2 emissions, is there a similar level of effort directed toward other gases with a possible climate effect, in particular bio-methane (the contented cows source) and methane hydrates, especially in permafrost areas? If the oceans and the permafrost both release methane locked in hydrates, is there any significant climate impact? If we are addressing a real problem with CO2 sequestration or limitation, do we need to duplicate this effort with more than one gas and source?
December 29, 2008

10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

I know I took this discussion in a political direction that even I can stand to back off of. The article that initiated this discussion described the appointment of John Holdren in political terms, even suggesting that increased costs of energy due to carbon cap and trade policies supported by Holdren (the nature of his support is unclear) was not accompanied by a suggestion by Holdren of tax cuts to offset the potential increases. We are in extensive discussion of qualifications here regarding science - I can just imagine the blowback from a scientist opining on tax policy.

If the science is debated but the policy needs to be far-sighted to have a chance to work, then a policy of aggressive conservation, as pointed out before, can gain support from every side. I agree that renewables are a tougher sell - they are not sufficiently proven technologies, and we do not have a means to capture collected energy of any kind, including fossil generation, efficiently. The need to maintain enough generation capacity
to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, means we are really building more generation capacity than we need just to maintain service. Utility electricity planning can take a decade, and the industry would be helped tremendously with some certainty (any certainty) that investor CAPEX and OPEX won't be suddenly altered by a change in government policy.
December 30, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Here is a good diagram expanding on CL's explanation, detailing how LL gets it quite wrong: [ http://tinyurl.com/8pvvgh ]. Here is the basic tutorial for LL to catch up so he can speak to the issue: [ http://tinyurl.com/7qpmlr ].

In the meantime, until LL is up to speed, I suggest he refrain from trying to "explain" the "fraud" of global warming until there is at least some understanding of basic principles.

Again, LL won't understand the chart that quantifies the CHANGE in radiative forcing (the ~+1.6 W/m^2 he didn't understand, thinking it was total GHG forcing). We have added energy to the system, as we do not capture 100% of the work performed by combusting FF. When you add energy to a system, the system changes. Period. End of story.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Some of us, especially Greenleaf, have wished for opinion from a climatologist. I've referred him to Prof Roger Pielke Sr in the past.

Dr. Pielke has a piece in Icecap (www.icecap.us) this morning (Dec 30), in the center column (Icing the Hype), commenting on a summary (alarmist) article in The Times. There's also a link there to a paper of Pielke's, discussing the many human effects on climate. All good stuff.

Pielke, BTW, supports controlling CO2 emissions. Hmmmmm.

LL
December 30, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

'Alarmist' is a key indicator. 'Chicken little' was the talking point several years ago.

Yet, the Arctic ice extent and volume are far below seasonal norms, and the norms have been declining in extent and volume for decades.

Arctic extent trend: [ http://tinyurl.com/5blke8 , http://tinyurl.com/9clyqr ].

Arctic volume trend: [ http://tinyurl.com/6x4tgo , http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/... ].

Why is Arctic ice decreasing in extent and volume?

The Arctic is warming.

Just as projected by climatologists. This is the "detection" portion of man-made climate change. The "attribution" portion is the man-made influences: CO2, CH4, land use changes, aerosols, black carbon emissions, etc. We have known for over a century that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would warm the surface.

The denialists would have you believe nothing is happening. That is not true.

If one wishes to understand the obvious changes happening to the planet, rather than reading the Emeriti, one should read what the current working folk are saying.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

DMISSEY -

>>If the oceans and the permafrost both release methane locked in hydrates, is there any significant climate impact?<<

Potentially, yes depending on how fast they are released. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocen...
was a mass extinction event about 56 my ago that is in part blamed on the release of methane from the hydrates during the warming period and exacerbating the warming.
December 30, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"If the science is debated but the policy needs to be far-sighted to have a chance to work, then a policy of aggressive conservation, as pointed out before, can gain support from every side"

i think the point you're missing is that there's no longer any credible debate on the "science"...unless you believe dissent equals debate within the scientific community.

lots of good info here...it would be a shame to see it go unread...particularly by those still having trouble wrapping their minds around the details of climate change.
December 30, 2008

10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Wxdano -

>>Again, LL won't understand the chart that quantifies the CHANGE in radiative forcing (the ~+1.6 W/m^2 he didn't understand, thinking it was total GHG forcing). We have added energy to the system, as we do not capture 100% of the work performed by combusting FF. When you add energy to a system, the system changes. Period. End of story.<<

Huh? Radiative forcing with GHGs is not related to the energy released from combusting FFs, but the increase in infra red (IR) radiation the gasses absorb and prevent from radiating into space. In other words, its the retention of energy in the system not the increase of energy into the system.
December 30, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

Yes, I have been hoping that a climatologist would actually post. That is interactive and allows folks to ask questions and to get answers. As I have stated before, examining the science as put forth in "Climatologese" is an exercise in futility for the majority of us. Since the topic is so critically important, I suppose I should drop everything and make a study of it and devote countless hours in classes and on web sites, trying to make sense of it. I doubt that any but the most determined would do that. Simply learning calculus would be a huge challenge at my age. Computer modeling, sure, I'm going to do that as well!

In my ideal world, Scientists of all disciplines would interact and share their opinions, rationale and research in such a way that we could have a discussion involving non-scientists. This is important as we all will be impacted regardless of which way the world is moving on this issue. This is about hearts and minds LL, and no offense, but as this forum has abundantly proven, you guys aren't very "user friendly". I appreciate your sending me to yet another climatologist's web site, but what I always get is the same unfathomable stuff you are putting out. I am dazzled by your formulas and graphs and charts, but the other guys are putting the same inpenetrable information out that says you are full of hooey. The public needs a better way to judge this argument. Maybe an active, spirited, open-ended discussion or two or a dozen involving field appropriate scientists and the general public would be useful. It might not be, of course, but I would love to have it actually attempted. I also believe that it would still be useful to have lists of scientists, their associations, the results of their research and when it was conducted and their conclusions. It would be useful to have a better idea of the degree of or the lack of consensus and who is saying what and under whose auspices .

It all speaks to the credibility of those presenting the research for non-climate scientists who make up 99.9999 percent of the population.
December 30, 2008

10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>Some of us, especially Greenleaf, have wished for opinion from a climatologist. I've referred him to Prof Roger Pielke Sr in the past.

Dr. Pielke has a piece in Icecap (www.icecap.us) this morning (Dec 30), in the center column (Icing the Hype), commenting on a summary (alarmist) article in The Times. There's also a link there to a paper of Pielke's, discussing the many human effects on climate. All good stuff.<<

I don't care much for icecap.us - I have read many of their pieces and have found major flaws in many of them.

realclimate.org is a good resource
December 30, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

greenleaf -

>>CL my friend,

I am so very impressed by how little I understand of what you are saying. It isn't much different trying to understand luckylief.<<

Thanks GL - I think ;)

I don't know how I can make it easier to understand given the limited space RMN allows and the limited time I'm willing to spend on posting here. The only thing I can suggest is that if something I write doesn't make sense, ask and I'll try to elaborate.
December 30, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

CL wrote:

"Huh? etc."

Right.

There is no total net increase in energy TO the system, there is a change in net energy outflow to space (from addition of GHGs to atm).

The change in forcing at the surface since the Industrial Revolution is the amount of energy added (measured in W/m^2) at the earth's surface.

The amount of incoming solar radiation has not changed markedly (TSI ~= +.2 W/m^2). So what has changed the energy balance? Addition of CO2/~CH4/HFCs change in albedo/deforestation/etc from man's activities.

The total change in forcing at the surface is ~1.6 W/m^2). There is an interesting new paper in preprint: [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth... ] that comes up with a different number, but it is still positive.

Sorry for the confusion.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

CL wrote:

"I don't care much for icecap.us - I have read many of their pieces and have found major flaws in many of them."

It's a denialist site.

But your point is valid in this case, especially since the "climatologist" conflated short-term fluctuations (weather) with long-term trends (climate) to mislead - presumably to imply the planet is not warming.

RP Sr was very adept at avoiding my comments on his site, and ended up changing the policy to exclude me (and others) from scrutinizing his points.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Hi Jay,

Debate versus dissent is probably a good nuanced description of what we are engaged upon; inductive versus deductive reasoning might be another - willingness to live with an open-ended process versus reduction of the process to achieve an actionable directive.

Personally, I believe in AGW, but don't think we know enough regarding the metrics to determine more than one course of action - act to reduce any gaseous emissions that MAY cause global warming. Both the Faith Based ( I Love that term) groups and the scientists seem to need certainty. The science group says it's there, the dissenters say they need to have the oceans die and the seas rise before they will believe it. There may be some political motivation in these points of view, but no one here wants to here about it.

I think Galileo went through this too. and - he was right.
December 30, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

>>That would imply that the total # of H2O molecules in the atmosphere remains constant which I'm pretty sure you would agree is not the case - it fluctuates. It fluctuates because the sources and sinks (evaporation and precipitation if you will) are not constant.<< from CL

Sorry, I don't agree that it fluctuates enough to change the radiative balance of the earth-atmosphere system. The total H2O in the atmosphere remains pretty constant, since mass has to be conserved. Updrafts (increasing H2O in the atmosphere) have to be balanced by downdrafts. I suspect we're not going to agree on this point.

I plead guilty to mis-using the "radiative forcing" term, as defined by the AGW community.Thank you for correcting me.

In any case, I'm looking at the cartoon by Keil and Trenberth, (FAQ 1.1, Fig 1, at www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm) assigning a value (324 w/m^2) to the greenhouse radiation back to earth. That number, like the others in the cartoon, is an average over the earth, over an annual cycle. That 324 w/m^2 is the magnitude of the Greenhouse Effect. In any given location, or at a given time/date, the Greenhouse magnitude can be less, or greater - greater in the Tropics (where there's lots of H2O), less in the Polar regions, where there's less.

Yes, I compare that number (324 w/m^2) to the 1.6 w/m^2 caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas. 1.6 w/m^2 is the magnitude of AGW.I calculate that such anthropogenic GHG has a warming effect of 0.16 C, or 0.3 F. Recognize that I'm accepting (for the sake of argument) a calculation from the AGW community. Because of the qualitative logic on my /science.htm page, I opine the radiative effect of man-made CO2 is really less.

I don't believe that's a crisis. Why do you, and others? Such a change is not even observable.

I realize, of course, the 0.16 C gets fed into a Climate Change model, where feedback mechanisms are invoked and all sorts of outputs can be generated, depending on the modelers' assumptions. That's a whole other world, where we probably also don't agree, but I submit climate models are not the same as real data, real observations. The real observation, 0.16C, tells me AGW is not serious.

LL
December 30, 2008

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL tries again:

"The real observation, 0.16C, tells me AGW is not serious...I calculate that such anthropogenic GHG has a warming effect of 0.16 C, or 0.3 F"

So what.

o First, the man-made warming is ~.6º C. Observed. Not .16. .6.

o Second,

"I compare that number to the 1.6 w/m^2 caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas. 1.6 w/m^2 is the magnitude of AGW"

No.

1.6 is not just from GHGs. You cannot or will not read the chart properly, nor listen to others who repeatedly correct this mistake.

1.66 is the forcing from CO2. .48 is from CH4 et al. .35 from LL O3. The magnitude of GHGs is ~2.5 before we subtract land use and aerosols (which will decrease and more warming will result under abatement scenarios)

Your inability to grasp the most basic facts makes "your" assertions of fraud specious at best (I listed some of this inability above). You are unqualified to judge whether "your" assertions are true. Actually, they are parrotted assertions from elsewhere, but immaterial for now.

o Third, here: [ http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth... ] is the latest in the global energy budget from Trenberth, a pre-print of a paper for BAMS. It disagrees with "your" assertions.

o Fourth, if you are correct and the hundreds of people who do this for a living are wrong, then you have a moral duty to correct these wayward scientists.

Why have you not subjected "your" calculations to the profession for review? You have an ethical duty to society to correct these wrongs, and you are failing in this duty.

Stop commenting here, Richard, and correct this deep moral and ethical failing. The world needs you, now, to stop this running over the abyss, and you fiddle with websites scientists don't read. For shame, sir! For shame.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

"RP Sr was very adept at avoiding my comments on his site, and ended up changing the policy to exclude me (and others) from scrutinizing his points" from Wxdano

I just can't understand why Professor Roger Pielke wouldn't be delighted to have the insight of Wxdano. Apparently I'm not the only one who's unimpressed.

Looking at the chart, one sees the caption on the bottom: "Radiative Forcing (w/m^2)". That makes me think it means radiative forcing.

In the last line within the chart, titled "Total Net Human Activities", is a magnitude bar with a value of 1.6, with an error bar extending from 0.6 to 2.6 w/m^2. That leads me to believe the total net radiative forcing from human activities - net meaning the positives and negatives have been totaled - equals 1.6 w/m^2. Of course, it could be as little as 0.6 w/m^2 - even more trivial.

Other than Wxdano's arrogance, how does one arrive at anything else? The conclusion remains the same. 1.6 w/m^2 leads at most to a trivial warming from radiative forcing. Or even less.

"First, the man-made warming is ~.6º C. Observed. Not .16. .6."

No, just more arrogance from Wxdano. That's the warming over the 20th century, from many possible causes. Repetition (though that's all "the consensus" has anymore) isn't proof.

"Why is Arctic ice decreasing in extent and volume? The Arctic is warming." (from Wxdano)

The same tired, single-minded attempt to blame everything on "global warming." NASA completed a study in October, 2007, led by Son Nghiem, which concluded that the decrease of Arctic ice that year was due to anomalous winds and currents. The ice was swept out of the Arctic into warmer waters, where it melted. The ice is back this year, and the Arctic is colder - not warmer.

As for Wxdano's final remarks, who does this guy think he is? What gives him the right to silence me? or anyone else?

LL
December 30, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

Wx, the chart in your chrisclose link looks like a bold effort by humanity to use CO2 to avoid the pending ice age. :)
December 30, 2008

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

I gave links with empirical, peer-reviewed evidence to back my claims, Richard. All of them.

Sea ice is decreasing in area and volume. Due to warming in the Arctic [ http://tinyurl.com/8wcfq3 , http://tinyurl.com/8phbfk ]. Per the links above.

You try to mislead again by cherry-picking. You have nothing to back your claim.

Who are folks going to believe - the scientists doing the work, publishing, discussing, presenting data, evidence, papers, results - or some guy with a website that wholly comprises long-ago refuted arguments?

"What gives him the right to silence me"

Please. This is another standard denialist tactic. I've silenced, attempted to silence, requested the silencing of nobody.

What I did was snarkily suggest that if you alone are correct like Galileo, you should stop wasting your time here and you need to - Galileo-like - correct the world by writing empirical work to correct (like Galileo) these poor, misguided scientists who don't have your wisdom and perspicacity, who are part of a conspiracy to lead all of us back to Medieval times with their green agenda.

We know you won't write a paper, I'm just calling you out.

You are singularly unconvincing, "your" argumentation not standing the slightest scrutiny. 4% - *snork*. Feedback - yer a hoot. At least you didn't blame Algoooore for something in your latest.

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

jackson, that's 5 points [ http://tinyurl.com/9t9w89 ].

The Inhofe was 25 points.

You're a long way from LL - go, man, go! You can do it!

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

WX, LL,

I guess the rest of us either need to leave the room or separate the two of you as if you are 5 year olds. Yes, we are all impressed with the hieroglyphics and the pyrotechnics, but do you realize that neither of you have actually accomplished much other than bashing each other? I don't think anyone but CL has even understood what you are talking about. Nobody's been convinced here, no one's been influenced to change their minds. All we are seeing is two educated people having a very public hissy fit. I have always called this UNprofessional jealousy!

This debate and the rest of us deserve better don't you think?

I do give rounds 1 + 2 to luckyleif as you stayed above the fray and remained focused to that point against what appeared to be an arrogant, rude challenger. You have lost the last 3 rounds to WXdano, as he succeeded in making you look as bad as he does. The rest of us have lost brain cells trying to follow you! Sheesh guys! Give the rest of us a break, please! Why don't you come back another day, reset and actually try to help the rest of us to come to grips with AGW? I think I can see what would happen if two climatologists of differing views were to post. I'm reconsidering that concept.
December 30, 2008

5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL wrote:

"neither of you have actually accomplished much other than bashing each other?"

On the contrary, GL, we have a record of LL:

o arguing from ignorance
o arguing from logical fallacy
o falsely accusing fraud

and misleading by:

o cherry-picking
o quote-mining

This is interesting and good to know, for future comments on this site and in assessing the veracity of future letters to the editor [ http://tinyurl.com/8r65ku , http://tinyurl.com/7haxvv ].

An aside - an individual's premise for commenting isn't always to bring clarity and perspicacity to a wide audience. It may be yours, and that is laudable, but there are many reasons to make comments (e.g. to mislead, as seen above).

Best,

D
December 30, 2008

6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wx,

OK my friend, I understand your aside, but do you really think that the rest of us know who the better BSer is? He could be right, you could be right, neither of you might be right. How the hell do we know? In my metaphorical boxing match above, I did give you the victory because you tumbled LL off of his PhD pedestal to roll around in the dirt with you. I still think its an opportunity missed to influence a larger audience. I read the results of a poll on blogging habits which found that nearly 20 people read blogs for everyone who posts to forums such as this. If that is true, we have had an audience of 250 non-posting individuals, a full house, reading our posts. I play to that silent audience because I believe they are the ones that we can influence. You and I are on the same side of the AGW issue unless an eloquent research qualified climatologist can find a way to convince me otherwise. Accordingly, I would encourage you to consider this unseen audience as well, and to work with me to influence them. If they don't understand you or are alienated by a combative exchange you(we) may have lost an opportunity. I have to admit that you remind me of myself as a young field researcher doing plant inventories in the shale hills of eastern Utah and western Colorado. I had more than a few heated exchanges with roughnecks and oil shale guys. We weren't good playmates either, but at least we didn't have a big audience.

Nonetheless I wish you good luck or as you say:

Best

gl
December 30, 2008

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL:

Well said.

But debating about attribution is over.

Societies are acting. Even Montana and Wyoming, fer chrissake, are likely to be passing carbon legislation soon [ http://www.missoulian.com/articles/20... , http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/12/... ]. They get it.

Best,

D
December 31, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

luckyleif -

>>Sorry, I don't agree that it fluctuates enough to change the radiative balance of the earth-atmosphere system. **The total H2O in the atmosphere remains pretty constant, since mass has to be conserved**.<<

Mass conservation has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of H2O in the atmosphere - the H2O doesn't disappear, it moves in and out of the atmosphere - it's mass is conserved not matter how much is in the atmosphere, the mass is just elsewhere.

Also, in an earlier thread, you said that "The amount of H2O in the atmosphere is very (exponentially) dependent on air temperature."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
11/24 @ 1:29 p.m.
That seems to contradict what you are saying here, that it remains pretty constant - which is it?
This quote supports my original statement that H2O can not be a forcing agent (which you seem to confuse with feedback) because it's levels are not sustained for very long periods.

>>Updrafts (increasing H2O in the atmosphere) have to be balanced by downdrafts. I suspect we're not going to agree on this point.<<

Updrafts and downdrafts by themselves do nothing to balance the H2O level in the atmosphere as a whole, they are just circulating/mixing the air. For H2O levels in the atmosphere to be balanced, the total sources and sinks must be equal - that is the rate of H2O entering the atmosphere (ie evaporation) is the same rate as that leaving (ie precipitation) - that's basic physics.

>>Yes, I compare that number (324 w/m^2) to the 1.6 w/m^2 caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas. 1.6 w/m^2 is the magnitude of AGW.<<

My point was that the comparison is no relevant, it's the 1.6 w/m^2 that matters - why then do you keep harping on the 324 w/m^2?

>>I calculate that such anthropogenic GHG has a warming effect of 0.16 C, or 0.3 F.<<

[shrug] Then publish them.

>>I realize, of course, the 0.16 C gets fed into a Climate Change model, where feedback mechanisms are invoked and all sorts of outputs can be generated,<<

Well, feedbacks most certainly are a factor - which I pointed out on my 11/23 @ 7:34 p.m. post on the thread I linked where I explained why Milankovitch Cycles alone are inadequate to explain the ice age cycles (a point which you did not dispute). So we know that feedbacks are a factor - you can not simply dismiss them out-of-hand.
January 1, 2009

9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

In its editorial, the Rocky (rightly, IMHO) criticized John Holdren as an extremist on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Such criticism is unacceptable to the idealogues who see AGW as their path to control of the economy, and the climate modelers who receive $billions to keep the alarm bells ringing. (The US Global Change Research Program spends $6billion annually on people who refuse the basic tenet of science: skepticism.

In actual fact, neither real-world data, nor the credibility of the alarmists (Gore, Hansen, etc), nor physical science, nor the recorded history of past climate change long before the Industrial Age support the alarmist claims. The recent change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the declining solar cycle seem to foretell more cooling, not warming - much worse for humanity and the natural world.

Support for these statements can be found on my website, www.colo-earthfriends.org. The scientific reasons for doubt are at www.colo-earthfriends.org/science/htm. The numbers there - which come from the alarmist modelers' own documentation - tell us anthropogenic greenhouse gasses have a warming effect of 0.3 F, and probably less. As readers can see in previous posts, they really don't like having that pointed out. Hey, it's their ricebowl, not mine. No, I've never worked for an energy company.

The burden of proof, before politicians spend more $billions to "save the planet from AGW", rests on the alarmists. What proof do they offer of their claims? Al Gore tells us there is a "consensus", that the "science is all settled." Real scientists disagree: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf... Mr Gore is spending $300 million to advertise his claims. How much did Einstein - a humble patent clerk - spend to advertise relativity?

It's a free country; persons who believe in AGW - or claim they do - are free to do so. Idealogues like John Holdren do not extend that freedom to the rest of us, dubbing us "dangerous." Congressman Kennedy of New Jersey says we should be brought to trial for treason. Their fanaticism grows stronger as more people express doubt.

LL
January 1, 2009

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckyleif,

Since you once again are providing Inhofe's "list of 650 scientists", I feel that I must repost a question to you that you never answered. Why is it that this source lists so many scientists, engineers and economists who have nothing to do with climate research? Inhofe is known as a fairly rabidly anti environmentalists. Are you letting this influence your scientific opinion as well?

greenleaf writes:

luckylief,

Yes, this is a step in the right direction and an effective way to draw attention to those scientists of opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, I do see one flaw to this old cynics eye. It begins with the first signature:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of Canberra, Australia

A "social scientist" luckylief and retired? I also found a social anthropologist, a paleontologist ( I considered going into paleontology and am still fascinated by it, but I don't see a direct connection to AGW), many economists, technology managers, an energy consultant. I'm especially intrigued by a fellow Biologist, I could easily understand an ecologist, or almost any botanist or zoologist, but a Molecular Geneticist? Then there are the engineers: chemical, mechanical and civil. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't engineers applied scientists not research scientists? There is also a large company of Geologists and Geophysicists. Aren't we considering atmospheric science? This bunch is pretty grounded don't you think ( sorry for the obvious pun, I couldn't resist).

Please don't misunderstand me, this is so much better than the very lame petition project. From what I can see, the majority of signers are field appropriate, PhD scientists. I'm afraid however, that a letter of this type doesn't go far enough. Maybe each signer included a separate explanation based upon their personal research that explained how, for example, an economist, PhD or not, could have the expertise to challenge AGW. That is the problem you see, luckyleif, not just credibility conferred by a PhD but credibility based upon personal research in a field specific. The signers must be held to a higher standard of credibility than their signature on a form letter.
It is a start, but only a start.
January 1, 2009

11:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

One more thing my friend, I googled your 300 million dollar Gore advertising budget and came up with the apparent source of the information: the Capital Research Center, a fiscally and in other ways conservative think tank is presenting this figure as being true. It sounds like more money than Gore would have at his disposal in his wildest dreams! My point is that I am beginning to suspect you are letting conservative bias color and dominate your scientific viewpoint. I'm trying to remain objective but I'm no longer so certain that you are. I'm beginning to think that you are pretty partisan. How about it?
January 1, 2009

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

What is probably a last thought for me on this thread: perhaps the author is correct, maybe politics does represent the limits of science.
January 1, 2009

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Hi Greenleaf.

I think your last post pegged this debate very well. My take is that there is a lot of transfernce of the fervor of issues unrelated to the AGW topic, and no matter what the science might show, neither side would yield on ideological grounds.
January 1, 2009

10:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jfkdem47 writes:

""unflinching commitment to evidence-based policy making,""

Which evidence? The scientific evidence that shows that the climate is cooling? Or the scientific evidence that shows it is warming?

The scientific evidence that a low fat diet is heathiest, or the scientific evidence that a low carb diet is healthiest?

The scientific evidence that taking extra vitamin C is good for you, or the scientific evidence that extra vitamin C makes no difference?

Perhaps the scientific fanatics can explain how people are supposed to flip flop back and forth every few days, as the latest scientific evidence contradicts the scientific evidence revealed last week.

Every scientific discovery refutes the scientific proof that was hailed as perfection in knowledge until it was revealed to be another example of the ongoing failures of science to prove anything.
January 2, 2009

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Happy New Year, all -

My friend Greenleaf suggests the story about Al Gore's $300 Million is perhaps exaggerated, having come from a right-wing think tank.

I remembered the announcement as having been made by the Goreacle himself, so I googled "Gore, $300 million, March 2008" and came up with a ton of hits. Among many others, the WashPost covered it (Juliet Eilperin, no less).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Mr. Gore's partner in the carbon credits business (which he sells to himself to "offset" his lifestyle) is Henry Paulson. Rumor has it that George Soros is also in it; that's rumor, not my assertion.

Yes, one certainly wonders how Mr. Gore came up with $300 mill. Think Paulson is bailing out the carbon credits sector now?? ;-)

Greenleaf and Dmissey raise other interesting questions, which I'd like to respond to - in a few minutes.

LL
January 2, 2009

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Putting the bottom line up front, yes, I’m partisan – but, I hope, not blindly partisan. As a conservative, in favor of smaller, less intrusive government, I see energy control (through Cap and Trade or carbon taxes) as the ultimate control over all aspects of American life. I think that’s bad.

Let’s remember that Anthropogenic Global Warming due to CO2 (AGWCO2) started out as a partisan issue, sponsored by Margaret Thatcher, in her campaign to lessen the power of the coal miners’ union. Britain had just begun to tap the North Sea natural gas (fossil fuel, but “cleaner” than coal). Not the first politician to see an issue taken over by the opposition.

For myself, I became interested in AGWCO2 as a touchstone of credibility in judging the Media (especially) and the politicians, with an attitude, going in, that “they have to be kidding.” That was based on experience modeling the transfer of IR radiation through the atmosphere, in support of development of precision-guided munitions. In my own reproach, that’s not enough information to judge AGWCO2, since that theory claims the climate is balanced on a knife’s edge (“tipping point”). In intervening years, I think I’ve learned enough to honestly reject the tipping point argument, even though (as GL reminds me) I’m not a climatologist ;-) . I think I know enough science to correctly disbelieve AGWCO2, but there are also other good reasons to disbelieve. 1) History (I call myself LuckyLeif in memory of a man who epitomizes the Medieval Warm Period) 2) Comparison of temperature data – especially from worldwide satellites – with measured CO2; the correlation isn’t there. 3) The credibility of spokespersons from the AGWC02 side. Sorry to be harsh, but Mr. Gore’s misuse of the Milankovitch Cycle brands him a liar. Claims of “consensus” and “the science is all settled” are equally repellant. Attribution of all possible climatic phenomena to the singe cause of AGWCO2 is another distortion of reality.

I think I’ve become an informed partisan. I try not to encourage people to blindly reject AGWCO2 just because Gore is a hypocrite; it’s Gore’s (and Hansen’s, and Mann’s) credibility that is at issue. If Einstein walked out on the stage and told us he will prove that E=MC^3, it might be entertaining, but I wouldn’t believe it.

My final objection to AGWCO2 is a broader aspect of science: the obligation to be skeptical, and to consider more than just one hypothesis. The AGWCO2 crowd not only don’t, they WON’T. BTW, there’s some intro material on other theories of climate change at www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm, I’m not religious, so that doesn’t persuade me one way or other. I’m not invested in coal mines or oil; I’m not so poor that my lifestyle is seriously threatened by carbon taxes. I’m an engineer, so I have no opposition to efficiency or recycling (which I practice). I think I’m capable of rational objectivity about AGWCO2. It’s invalid.

LL
January 2, 2009

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

LL gets to the impact point quickly, whether you believe the AGW argument or not, and that is the economic impact via taxes or increased energy costs, but didn't mention loss of service. Keep the last impact in mind - we are used to dependable utility service. The first time California 2001 style brownouts and blackouts strike for economic reasons, we'll wake up in a new age that California helped us pioneer. I don't mean this in a completely mean-spirited way, either. Proposition 31 pre-saged TABOR by a number of years, but so did rock music and emissions controls. True electrical shortages can occur in our lifetime, so get ready.

I definitely agree with LL (I can't believe I'm agreeing with him, but there you are) that AGW needs to be subjected to sceptical analysis, not just once, but repeatedly. I really cannot argue the science case, but can look fairly closely at the economic and legal effects. AGW is increasingly assumed around the world to be true, and plenty of anecdotal evidence supports it. Legislation is moving ahead around the world as well, and we can be pushed into a corner not of our making. Now, the howls of the 'we'll go it alone' group have probably started, but we are working within an economic ecology that we helped create. From the defeat of Japan and Germany in WW II to today, we won the Cold War and we have many properous competitors to prove it. If we can't manage our way through an attenuated response to AGW, we will lose our place in leading the world, not just on this issue, but on a host of others as well.
January 2, 2009

3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

It appears you are right regarding Gore's 300 million dollar advertising campaign. I apologize for questioning you but it sounded like such an outlandish amount that I had to examine the issue and, of course, I found a conservative source that mentioned it first.

Unlike you, I am uncertain of the science for or against AGW. The data sets are beyond my ability to analyze and the computer modeling is the stuff of Merlin or the ancient oracle at Delphi. The postings on this thread are making me rethink the efficacy of having climatologists and meteorologists interact and interpret the science for the rest of us on these threads. Besides the complexity of the science and mathematics involved, I have come to the conclusion that even good scientists such as yourself and many others cannot be totally trusted to be above the politics of this issue. With most science, the average person can understand the basic processes without too much difficulty, but climate science is beyond the ability of the average person to sort between what matters and what is being cherry picked, exaggerated or in other ways misrepresented. So lucky leif, my friend, your efforts with me have been mostly wasted, I'm afraid. I remain uninfluenced to change positions.Don't feel too badly though because I too am a fiscal conservative. I believe that we need to make some efforts to mitigate AGW just in case the proponents of AGW are proven correct ultimately. I believe, as I stated previously that we should aggressively pursue that concept before regulatory processes such as cap and trade. Should we pursue cap and trade however, I would prefer to see companies paying for programs that assist the infirm, the elderly and the poor to improve the efficient use of energy in their own homes. In this manner, should we find that it is actually AGW that represents incorrect assumptions then , at least. we will have done the greatest good for the largest number of people, even as we improve our overall energy situation (assuming we can get a little bit ahead of gains in population).
January 2, 2009

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Hi DMISSEY,

Good to see you still hanging in, this thread certainly has stamina doesn't it. I'll try to post more to you later, but I have a busy work day in process and must get back to it. Later my friend!
January 3, 2009

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

From greenleaf:

"The postings on this thread are making me rethink the efficacy of having climatologists and meteorologists interact and interpret the science for the rest of us on these threads. Besides the complexity of the science and mathematics involved, I have come to the conclusion that even good scientists such as yourself and many others cannot be totally trusted to be above the politics of this issue."

The Greeks had a word for it: "idiot" Honestly, and with no offense to greenleaf intended, the word idiot comes from the Greek idiOtEs (capital indicates Omega and Eta vowels), meaning someone who did not participate in politics - the governance of the state. Why should any citizen accept greenleaf's assertion that "...even good scientists such as LL and many others cannot be totally trusted to be above the politics of this issue"?? Because greenleaf can't understand the science?

Al Gore doesn't understand the science; in addition, he misrepresents it. James Hansen understands the science, and fudges it (and the data). Gore spends $300 million (and greenleaf doesn't understand how or why) to convince the public to act politically, and to their own detriment.

AGW doesn't represent "incorrect assumptions", as greenleaf claims. It's just a fraud, for political motives. Science says so, climate history says so, the world temperature data say so, and the credibility of its proponents - mostly politicians - says so.

http://www.colo-earthfriends.org

But nothing changes the opinion of greenleaf.

LL
January 3, 2009

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL

The reasons I am saying you have failed to influence myself and probably anybody else in this forum are several. As the skeptical scientific voice you have a burden of proof. In my opinion you have failed to counter the rebuttal of two other posters on this thread CL and Wxdano who dispensed scientific formulas and concepts with equal authority and assurance to yourself. Wxdano and I have raised the political agenda apparent in several of your postings. I even reposted a question regarding the 650 anti AGW scientists many of whom are economists and engineers and geologists not involved in the appropriate field of research. You have essentially ignored most of my points which are appropriate to any consideration of science in this highly politicized debate.

Wikipedia has a good overview of the way this otherwise scientific discussion has been made political through various industry sponsored and funded disinformation organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_w...

Funding for partisans

Both sides of the controversy have alleged that access to funding has played a role in the willingness of credentialed experts to speak out.

Funding for scientists who do not acknowledge anthropogenic global warming:

"Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism [171][172] (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.[173]

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian stated[174][175] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[176] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members. "

I confess to being a bit of a cynic but this is the ethical problem presented for other scientists such as yourself who are trying to present a dissenting voice to AGW. You have the burden of proving that the science you are representing doesn't come from such scientific saboteurs who are actually paid agents of industry. Certain of your statements and Wxdano's comments have raised more questions in my mind than you have answered with your science.
January 3, 2009

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

The US government's Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) spends $6 billion annually to support the people who claim there is a "global warming crisis." That's in addition to members of NOAA and NASA who make the same claims. That's in addition to small change like $300 million in propaganda from Gore (which greenleaf tried to claim was untrue).

And greenleaf claims that AGW skepticism has been corrupted by big bucks from industry? from IREA? 650 scientists who have stepped forward
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
disprove greenleaf......again.

No, greenleaf, before you and yours try to destroy the economy in order to "stop global warming", the BURDEN IS ON YOU/THEM TO PROVE CO2 IS THE CAUSE.

History shows the climate has changed often, long before industrial activity contributed to CO2 in the atmosphere. Never heard of Vinland? Greenland?

Satellite data shows world temperature is not increasing; is now decreasing. Can greenleaf show data to prove warming? No.

Greenleaf has often asked for analysis from a climatologist that disproves AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Prof Roger Pielke Sr. has been quoted to greenleaf many times. Greenleaf never seems to read Prof Pielke's analyses. Greenleaf doesn't wish to be confused by facts.

luckyleif is a skeptic. That's what a scientist is supposed to be. Not a cheerleader, whose income ($6 billion/yr) depends on politicians.

greenleaf says: "Certain of LL's statements and Wxdano's comments have raised more questions in my mind......" Such as? Greenleaf says he/she doesn't understand the science. Which is it?

Lots of answers at www.colo-earthfriends.org, greenleaf. Try reading it sometime.

LL
January 3, 2009

5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

luckylief,

Or should I address you as Richard? I think I am hitting close to the mark or your wouldn't be turning to such a personal attack. Am I right? This reminds me a little of debating in high school and college. I could always sense when I had drawn rhetorical "blood".

Let's examine your points Richard. You said: "The US government's Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) spends $6 billion annually to support the people who claim there is a "global warming crisis." That's in addition to members of NOAA and NASA who make the same claims. " These would be the same career government scientists who have worked for 8 years under the administration of George Bush? So you are saying these government scientists internationally regarded as the best in their fields are liberal hacks operating under the noses of the most environmentally unfriendly administration in the nation's history? Come on RS you expect us to take that implication at face value? You and I both know that Bush would have assembled his own dream team of scientists to refute AGW if he thought he could have pulled it off. He couldn't so he didn't!
January 3, 2009

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL/RS continued,

Next you stated:

And greenleaf claims that AGW skepticism has been corrupted by big bucks from industry? from IREA? 650 scientists who have stepped forward
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
disprove greenleaf......again.

OK Richard this is the third time I have posted this to you. Why don't you read my rebuttal this time and respond if you can.

I said:
"Unfortunately, I do see one flaw to this old cynics eye. It begins with the first signature:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President,
University of Canberra, Australia

A "social scientist" luckylief and retired? I also found a social anthropologist, a paleontologist ( I considered going into paleontology and am still fascinated by it, but I don't see a direct connection to AGW), many economists, technology managers, an energy consultant. I'm especially intrigued by a fellow Biologist, I could easily understand an ecologist, or almost any botanist or zoologist, but a Molecular Geneticist? Then there are the engineers: chemical, mechanical and civil. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't engineers applied scientists not research scientists? There is also a large company of Geologists and Geophysicists. Aren't we considering atmospheric science?"

Are you actually presenting all of these scientists to be climate scientists? Are you saying that none of the many economist signers have an agenda based upon anything more than economics? Do they understand climate science LL? What of the Geologists and engineers? Are you saying that these non climate scientists can actually judge research in a field they know nothing about? Then, of, course while you are at it please explain the presence of social scientists, anthropologists and a molecular biologist.
January 3, 2009

6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

RS/LL yet again,

You said: "No, greenleaf, before you and yours try to destroy the economy in order to "stop global warming", the BURDEN IS ON YOU/THEM TO PROVE CO2 IS THE CAUSE. "

You are presenting a false association, common to propagandists Richard. I thought that you were a scientist. perhaps you are more than what you would like us to believe that you are.

As an environmentalist and fiscal conservative, I believe in aggressively embracing efficiency in our energy usage. As I have stated in literally scores of postings in recent months, I believe that we need to invest in efficient lighting systems, more energy efficient transportation, building insulation and efficient appliances and electronics before we move strongly into regulation. As a businessman, I prefer market forces with a few accountable and limited incentives to jump start efficiency programs that can only make us more competitive in the world and less dependent upon foreign oil. The fact that this serves more than one master: The economy, the environment and helps individual's personal finances is that much the better. Hell, buddy, it would even buy more time for you to make your arguments! You should jump on my plan too!
January 3, 2009

6:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Can't greenleaf even have the courtesy to maintain the anonymity of posters? It's one of the conventions here: "invasion of privacy."

I don't attempt to learn greenleaf's name. Tsk.

LL, please, not RS.
January 3, 2009

6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL again!

Next you state:

"Greenleaf has often asked for analysis from a climatologist that disproves AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Prof Roger Pielke Sr. has been quoted to greenleaf many times. Greenleaf never seems to read Prof Pielke's analyses. Greenleaf doesn't wish to be confused by facts."

I don't think that you actually have read much of what I've said or you wouldn't say that Richard. I have stated in more than one post and more than one conversation that I wanted a Climatologist to post on these forums so that we could interact, ask questions and get answers to Climatological questions. I have also stated abundantly in this forum that I don't want what you just suggested Richard, yet another Climate Scientist presenting a paper full of graphs, charts and unfathomable interpretations of data using computer modeling. The fact that the vast majority of the population lacks the knowledge set necessary to understand Climate processes and Climatologists isn't a failing on our part. We make choices as to fields of study when we are young. Many of us are experts in our chosen fields, but no one understands anything more than the basics in others academic disciplines. I'm sure that I could glaze your eyes over with Botanical subjects too LL.

Finally, you stated:

" greenleaf says: "Certain of LL's statements and Wxdano's comments have raised more questions in my mind..."

I referenced these above Richard when It was beginning to occur to me that yours was a political, not a scientific agenda when you posted on this thread.

This was the statement you made that made me question your purposes:

" Your policies are working nowhere - not in Washington, certainly not in Europe. My goal is to keep crackpots like you from bankrupting Colorado, Wxdano."

This was my comment in response to that:

greenleaf writes:

luckylief,

"One more thing, the last statement in your post to Wxdano makes it sound as though your agenda is, in fact, political. So which is it: science or politics, or both?"

Well that's enough for tonight!

Ah, the screen just refreshed and I saw your comment. If you believe so strongly that you are right LL., enough to post a link to your website, why wouldn't you at least post your name there? Besides, as Wxdano pointed out you wrote a letter to the editor recently and you had to post your name on the letter. I respect everybody's anonymity except in cases such as this where your name would appear to be your bond. However, I purposely don't post my name, so, in the future I will certainly respect your wishes.
January 3, 2009

8:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

From greenleaf: "These would be the same career government scientists who have worked for 8 years under the administration of George Bush? So you are saying these government scientists internationally regarded as the best in their fields are liberal hacks operating under the noses of the most environmentally unfriendly administration in the nation's history? Come on you expect us to take that implication at face value? "

greenleaf seems - or pretends - not to understand that the vast majority of such positions are protected from termination or political interference by Civil Service regulations, and by Congressional oversight.

For example, James Hansen has claimed many times that he is "censored" by the Bush Administration. Yet James Hansen is on the record with literally hundreds of media interviews. Hansen recently flew to Great Britain to testify on behalf of defendants in a criminal trial; they caused 30,000 Pounds damage to an electrical generating plant. He suffered no penalty for that. A young NASA administrative assistant whom Hansen accused of censoring him was fired.

It's part of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) religion to claim that George W. Bush is The Devil - mostly for refusing to accept the Kyoto Treaty. The Kyoto Treaty was signed by Al Gore; the Clinton Administration never dared send it to the Senate. The Senate, in fact, went out of its way to pass a resolution - 95 to zero - saying the Kyoto Treaty was unacceptable. Gore, of course, never dared assert his championship of AGW salvation in the 2000 campaign. Somehow, by greenleaf's fantasy, this makes Bush The Fallen Angel, Lucifer. Humbug.

greenleaf claims to be a skilled debater. There is a rhetorical fallacy of assuming what is to be proven. Claiming these government bureaucrats to be "scientists internationally regarded as the best in their fields" is a good example. greenleaf further seems to assume that this is an army of climate scientists heroically producing the great science that will save the Earth from AGW. Poppycock.

Persons who refuse to consider any hypothesis other than one chosen by the UN for political reasons (CO2) are not scientists.

LL
January 4, 2009

8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

"...greenleaf claims to be a skilled debater." perhaps in another lifetime forty years or so ago. I'm a rusty old codger now. You however refuse to rebut. I'm thinking that you need a new screen name. I might suggest "artful dodger". I have posted regarding the "650 scientists" 3 times now. I can only conclude that you have no answer for my argument and seek to distract from that fact. In formal debate that would cost you dearly.

There isn't much point debating George Bush's attributes as there are so few, especially in the realm of science as you well know.

Finally, thank you my friend. You have now abundantly proven my point. You are a political hack hiding behind scientific terms and formulas that you know few have the expertise to understand let alone question on equal terms. Its a little like my in laws who spoke Polish when they didn't want their kids to understand what they were saying. You strike from behind your smokescreen of scientific hieroglyphics and sound so very certain you are right and all others are wrong. Well, I can be skeptical too.When challenged, you demonize your opponents, call people idiots and become dismissive of their arguments. You reveal an almost Rovian propaganda technique luckyleif. I question your scientific integrity when you mix it as freely as you have with politics. You had me fooled for a time LL, I actually thought you might improve the quality of our debate on Global Warming. I had hoped that someone such as yourself would take the time to explain their arguments pro or con in terms most of us would understand. Instead, we are given the word from on high; the gospel according to luckyleif. Thank you very much! Worse still, you try to hide your real agenda as a political operative using science, or perhaps pseudoscience to try to influence the debate. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. No longer.
January 4, 2009

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Poor greenleaf. Bad enough to have to defend Al Gore’s misappropriation of the natural, astronomical Milankovitch Cycle (www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm). Greenleaf is smart enough to not even try that. Now greenleaf is beginning to believe Gore’s claim that there’s a “consensus” – as if science is decided by consensus. Here’s a list of, and comments from, just a few of my fellow skeptics:

As Dr. David Gee at the University of Uppsala Sweden asks “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, has authored 130-plus peer-reviewed papers, and currently is at Uppsala University of Sweden.

 “I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize winner for physics Ivar Giaever.

 “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Centre.

 “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S. government atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

 “After reading (U.N. IPCC Chairman) Pachauri’s asinine comment (comparing skeptics to) Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs.

 “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” � Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, serving as staff physicist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 “The (global warming) scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

 “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the U.N.-IPCC. ... The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium ... which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

 Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.” “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,”
January 4, 2009

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

One wishes greenleaf would bother to read what is written.

I used the word "idiotes", taken from Greek history, in rebuttal of his absurd claim that I, a scientist, am somehow disqualified from taking part in a debate that has obvious policy ramifications - i.e., anthropogenic global warming. Greenleaf said:

"The postings on this thread are making me rethink the efficacy of having climatologists and meteorologists interact and interpret the science for the rest of us on these threads. Besides the complexity of the science and mathematics involved, I have come to the conclusion that even good scientists such as yourself and many others cannot be totally trusted to be above the politics of this issue."

I said in response:
The Greeks had a word for it: "idiot" Honestly, and with no offense to greenleaf intended, the word idiot comes from the Greek idiOtEs (capital indicates Omega and Eta vowels), meaning someone who did not participate in politics - the governance of the state. Why should any citizen accept greenleaf's assertion that "...even good scientists such as LL and many others cannot be totally trusted to be above the politics of this issue"?? Because greenleaf can't understand the science?

greenleaf's pretended indignation rings as false as much else - such as his claim that Gore's $300 million propaganda campaign is merely a right-wing exaggeration. Gore announced it proudly in March 2008.
January 4, 2009

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

It's instructive that dissembling and disinformationist LL must find the opinions of a few individuals to counter the statements of almost every scientific organization on the planet to push his wish fulfillment.

Yes, every major science organization - with tens of thousands of members - disagrees with the dozen individuals that LL cut-pastes here. These individuals are quoted with BS statements too - it has not cooled since "1998", we are not in a period of cooling, etc.

LL is full of it.

If LL's statements had any merit, he'd be writing the governments of ~20 states, dozens of countries, and uncounted businesses and corporations warning them of fraud.

Instead, the best he can do is fulminate on a comment thread.

That, my friends, is the real story.

Best,

D
January 4, 2009

11:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Yet another skeptic. Here’s a climate forecast for 2009, courtesy of Harold Ambler, The Huffington Post:

If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.

Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.

The complete article can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-...
January 4, 2009

11:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Luckleif,

And one wishes you would respond to what is written Richard ( I reexamined your luckyleif posting to your own letter to the editor. You made it clear who luckyleif really is -so much for your desire for anonymity http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...).

You still haven't responded to my repeated postings on the 650 economists, paleontologists, geologists, social scientists and other non research or not field appropriate scientists you have presented as proof positive of dissent on this subject. That from a letter foisted by Senator Inhofe the most anti-environment senator this country has ever seen. I'm convinced that you have no answer to that question, unlike my response to your statement regarding Gore's proposed advertising program. I was wrong and apologized about that. You chose to gloss over that as well.

And Richard, the idiOtEs crap is just that, regardless of how you couch it intellectually.

You are proving to be insufferable Richard, with your defense of your unfathomable equations and statements that have such a narrow range of applicability that only a tiny set of scientists even need to understand them. You are saying that the failing is in the rest of us. I contend that you either lack the skills to make the science more understandable or, worse, that you are cynically posting under a science cover to advance a political agenda. You could and I am now thinking, probably would, cook the science, cherry pick the data and purposely disiminate misinformation.

This is not without precedence in this forum. One poster, who called himself: An Engineer, quoted from the George Marshall institute, an industry front organization circulating misinformation regarding Global Warming, and before that, regarding research into the health effects of smoking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C.... An engineer appeared out of nowhere and posted briefly until confronted as to his political agenda. He was presenting himself as a an individual with special knowledge on the subject. More than a few of us decided he was an industry shill. I would like to think this isn't the case with you Richard, but I am very suspicious. I am bookmarking this letters page as it may prove useful later.

Don't feel as though you need to respond anymore Richard, we are the only ones left on this thread anyway. Just be aware that we can easily refer back to this conversation when others are present and what you say now and what you previously stated can be held against you in a new thread.

I am disappointed in you Richard, I thought you might actually contribute something valuable for the rest of us. Now. I see you as yet another propagandist and politically challenged scientist. Its never too late to change though!
January 4, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Poor greenleaf. He says the equations are unfathomable to him. What equations? www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm has no equations on it.

There is one statement to the effect that 324 watts/m^2 causes 33 deg C of warming, so the ratio of watts/m^2 to temperature change is about 10:1. That's about 4th grade arithmetic.

I tried to help greenleaf by offering the article from Harold Ambler, from the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-....
Guess that's also too much for greenleaf .

No wonder greenleaf believes Al Gore. As Ambler says. "Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. "

I encourage readers to read Mr. Ambler's article for themselves.

Those who wish to read a more scientific exposition from a renowned climatologist, Richard Lindzen of MIT, will find it at
http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/...

LL
January 4, 2009

6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

So now its poor greenleaf. Perhaps that is because I have been reading poor Richard's almanac to the point of distraction.

So Richard, now you employ condescension as a debating technique to add to arrogance, insult and evasion? Is it any wonder I have doubts regarding your science?

When we began this thread, I actually believed that you were a fellow scientist whose goal was to enlighten the discussion and to educate a few of us. Unfortunately, you revealed far more than climate science. You had ample time to reveal your true agenda. Yours is a case of the political tail wagging the scientific dog. This is something you accuse others of doing that you are in fact employing yourself. I have seen this before in my own field and have called others for manipulating data and misusing the Endangered Species Act. I'm not accusing you of cooking the books as the gentlemen I knew definitely did. I am saying that you are displaying a level of political bias that makes your scientific statements suspect.

You also have the propagandist's zeal for twisting statements and not addressing points you can't or don't want to answer.

I repeat that I am disappointed. I think you could serve your arguments better by being more open and honest in the debate.

B.T.W., I have never cared for Gore, didn't vote for him and consider him a hypocrite. Many other environmentalists feel the same as I do. Another clue to politics trumping science with you is your jumping on the bash Gore bandwagon and assuming that just because you were speaking to an environmentalist, you were scoring rhetorical points as well.You might just have well been quoting Rushbo! Maybe you should contact one of the social scientists in the 650 list to explain the science to you. I find it very interesting that you consider that list to be important enough evidence to submit it repeatedly yet not to defend it once when called to.
January 4, 2009

7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

As I said above, if LL (Richard) is such an Einstein, a Galileo, he will publish and correct the thouuuuuuusands of scientists who disagree with him.

LL has a moral obligation to the world to correct the thouuuusands of scientists who are wrong.

Publish, retired meteorologist. Publish.

You are failing ethically and morally. You are failing the human race by not correcting the thouuuusands of scientists who are misleading the world.

Will Richard publish?

Nah.

He's full of s- - - . Nothing but BS.

He has nothing.

Best,

D
January 4, 2009

7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

And BTW Richard,

You should also invite this board to one of your little talks like you did in Castle Rock last winter. Like the one I attended and pointed out your cherry-picking, quote mining, misinformation.

And you should invite me to speak with you. Or alongside you. Or debate you.

Since you alone are right and the thouuuusands of scientists are wrong, you should eat my lunch.

Arrange it. And invite the comment board.

Let us know when it is.

Best,

D
January 5, 2009

8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

From greenleaf: "I find it very interesting that you consider that list to be important enough evidence to submit it repeatedly yet not to defend it once when called to."

Why doesn't greenleaf simply read the science offered by other, better-known scientists than I? Several references have been offered. There are many on the website, www.colo-earthfriends.org.

And, from a post yesterday: "Those who wish to read a more scientific exposition from a renowned climatologist, Richard Lindzen of MIT, will find it at
http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/...

As noted before, no science will ever change greenleaf's mind.
January 5, 2009

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Richard,

Ironically enough, your link offers a page that is blank but for the message: " sorry but you are looking for something that isn't here.". What a laugh Richard. Why did you even bother posting your links to the 650 list in the first place? Had you not examined the makeup of the list before submitting it as a significant piece of evidence supporting your argument against AGW? Its obvious that you are now hoping that I will just forget the whole thing. If you could have defended foisting that very politically contrived list, you certainly would have done so by now.

" As noted before, no science will ever change greenleaf's mind."

And no science will ever be allowed to interfere with luckylief's politics.

There is a great deal of science supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming Richard. Like it or not, the international community and, after the recent election, the United States are moving on that science, not yours. A classic contrarian and eccentric thinks everybody else is wrong and only he is right. You had me convinced in the beginning Richard that your interest was purely scientific and you were performing the time honored role of the scientific skeptic. Now I realize that you are operating in a political manner first and a scientific manner second. You have lost this debate in both the limited , immediate sense and the larger, more important global sense.

I'm far more conservative than you think. You have ignored my postings regarding efficiencies and a distrust of regulations such as the proposed cap and trade. I believe in compromise and I'm coming from the apparent winning side of the scientific debate. You can continue along the lonely path of the contrarian and the eccentric, or you too can compromise and join the rest of us in developing common sense solutions to our energy, environmental and fiscal challenges. I've said it before Richard that I don't feel these concepts are automatically mutually exclusive. I don't think you do either. So my suggestion is that you either develop better debating skills to match your other qualifications or you abandon your confused attempts to influence the politics by promoting a minority scientific opinion. Even if you don't believe in AGW, we need to move forward on other environmental and energy fronts. Why don't you devote your time and energy to directing us toward efficiencies and away from arbitrary regulations. I could join you in that effort.
January 5, 2009

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Richard, tell us when you are going to publish your Magna Carta to sweep away the green conspiracy. No one reads your widdle website.

Let us know when the manuscript is published.

Best,

D
January 5, 2009

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

I don't know if I should encourage you, but I have to say your techniques did move Richard out of his comfort zone. Once he left his pedestal, he revealed two things: his political agenda and his weak debating ability, neither of which serve the elevated image he likes to present of himself. I don't think that he has been challenged enough in his professional life to have developed the skills he needed for this discussion. I have seen this before with those who spend too many years in the land of ivory towers. They take for granted that the endless stream of naive undergraduate and graduate students who regard them with awe is replicated in the greater society. I left that world 25 years ago and have operated in the world of immediate and continuous accountability; the world of business. I need to prove myself on a daily basis as an environmental consultant and designer. I doubt Richard has been so thoroughly tested. You, I must say, were a test he wasn't expecting and wasn't prepared for. He probably could have continued snowballing the rest of us until the thread was dead.

Its been fascinating to watch Richard go from controlling the tone, pace and message to thrashing on the metaphorical/rhetorical beach much like a grounded whale. Too bad for him really, it represents a missed opportunity to win hearts and minds. It also has convinced me to be more watchful in whatever future threads I participate in. Some will be more formidable than Richard and not so easy to expose as political operatives.

So Wxdano, I guess we worked pretty well together, unlikely team that we were.

Best

gl
January 5, 2009

12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL,

Thank you for your help. That's nowhere near the first time I've done what you described, to far more experienced and well-known people.

Best,

D
January 5, 2009

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

To bring this back and to wrap up the thread, IMHO the reason why Holdren is being howled at by the denialist right is that he has called them out for what they are, thus the demonization campaign is necessary:

.

"First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the sun's output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.)

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong. " [ http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/0... ]

.

That is, the contrascientists/skeptics/denialists have not shown anything to explain away the basic, simple physics of:

.

"In fact, only three factors determine the planet's energy balance: the sun's output, the Earth's reflectivity, or albedo, and the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which are affected by the level of certain trace gases like carbon dioxide and water vapor. ***Reduced to its essentials, the greenhouse effect is a problem in 19th-century classical physics, and the basic theory was worked out with pencil and paper in the 1890s. To say that increasing CO2 levels leads to more heat trapped in the atmosphere is really no more scientifically controversial than saying you'll feel warmer if you put on a sweater.***

The difficulty arises when you try to work out what this extra heat energy will do. Will it lead to increased rainfall, or more cloud, or higher winds? It will raise temperatures, but by how much? This is where the complex computer models and the (legitimate) scientific arguments come in" [ (emphasis added) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/prod... ]

.

The determined misinformation/FUD purveyor on this comment thread is unable to hide these facts.

The successful FUD purveyors that are able to distract away from these basic facts, however, all use the same rhetorical tactics and thus stand out like sore thumbs.

These tactics were evident in this op-ed piece above; in fact, in my experience The Rocky's editorial stance is denial, as I cannot get a LTE about man-made climate change published. I can get feel-good freedom stuff in, though.

Best,

D
January 6, 2009

6:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

It is quite a set of legs that this post has had, and wonk that I am, I've tried to read as much of the science site posts and LL's site and references.

If I set aside the the science arguments entirely for a moment and treat AGW, and the consequent adoption of CO2 management policies the same way that OSHA regulations were adopted a few decades ago,then many of the arguments that have been used against AGW are similar to the arguments that have been used against safety legislation since the Railroad Safety Appliance Act of 1893, and have subsequently been applied through food and drug safety, mine safety, automobile crash standards and up to our current scenario. In each case, the costs of damages in safety lapses was transferred to the victims, and the safety legislation transferred the costs to current users. This is where the rubber meets the road in nearly all legislation with a safety basis - the costs are transferred to users. Seat belts are now part of the price of your car, but in the sixties, the car companies argued that they should be an option. With each successive standard, the same argument is is used regarding total additional cost, (cars, safety scaffolding, electricity from coal plants) and cost transfer.

Will CO2 management really be any different?
January 6, 2009

9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Facts speak for themselves. “Global warming” is dead.

"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began."

And greenleaf is an "environmental consultant." We never would have guessed. And he accuses skeptics of being partisans?
January 6, 2009

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Hi LL,

Is this the site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu

Walsh and Chapman have authored most of the work here, and I like their reasonably sceptical approach to the application of statistical modeling of climates, sampling errors and systemic errors that may be present in the modeling exercise.

What I'm not finding is an emphasis on your characterization of AGW being a myth perpetrated for political purposes. The closest I can see in their papers and postings is that the speed of global warming may not be consistently reported.
January 6, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL:

your unattributed assertion about Arctic ice is bull---- cherry-picking. Try citing your source next time. Nonetheless,

I've already written about it above [December 30, 2008 9:35 a.m]. Arctic ice area and volume is in retreat. Declining. Because the Arctic is warming.

Why do you repeat your refuted bull----? Don't you have anything else, like facts? Oh, wait: the facts refute your assertion. Never mind.

When are you going to write your Magna Carta manuscript, stopping all these green scientists, correcting thousands of flawed studies, and reversing all these policies being enacted? No one reads your widdle website, Richard.

You are failing morally and ethically by not stopping this green conspiracy.

How sad that the poor little fossil-fuel companies have no funds to get the good news out! Gore and his shady conspiracy of university and government climate researchers, small time farmers, photovoltaics manufacturers, multitudes of third-world peoples living at or near sea level, and other nefarious types have used their vast wealth and power to utterly silence all naysayers! [ http://thepoorman.net/2008/04/09/the-... ]

Best,

D
January 6, 2009

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

You really are a political hack aren't you?

" And greenleaf is an "environmental consultant." We never would have guessed. And he accuses skeptics of being partisans?"

I consult regarding environmentally sensitive landscapes that support wildlife and natural plant associations that work with, not against nature. This is a melding of botanical and horticultural science and has none of the political overtones you imply. Its very unscientific to make as many assumptions as you do Richard. Oh, I forgot, you're an engineer. I guess engineers have wider latitudes to make assumptions and to employ innuendo and insult even as they are evasive and ineffectual in an actual debate of issues.
January 6, 2009

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Wx, GL & LL,

What we seem to be engaged in is a political debate, not a scientific one. Missing from both sides is the understanding that this debate may have NOTHING to do with science, or AGW.

The debate is really between Progressives and Conservatives; Progressives say they believe in science, full stop. The follow-on to this belief is that the results of scientific research should lead to action based on the science, hence support for AGW.

Conservatives believe that science should support the conservative political agenda, and where it does not, it needs to be disregarded.

The Conservative POV here is that the science is being skewed to support a political agenda of the Progressives. There isn't a lot of evidence for this, however. The Conservative viewpoint is that a world wide analog to Moore's Law is preventing us from reaching Malthusian levels of disaster, if only we would let it proceed without impediment.

The Conservatives are right, there is an analog, but perversely, it is the actions of the Progressives that make this so. The establishment of the EPA under Richard Nixon, the development of an increasingly well-organized food safety network world wide,
extensive activities to make the world safer, are all underway as a result of Progressive efforts.

Conservatives do not believe in institutional safety in a very broad sense. The drive to make each person stand on his or her own is deeply ingrained in the conservative mindset, and institutionalizing
safer behavior, whether it is limiting AGW, limiting traffic deaths from not wearing seatbelts or limiting smoking in public places are all about the same thing.

The problem I have with this is the cost shifting that takes place without the development of the safety standards. An example is the motorcycle rider who rides without a helmet, gets hit by a car, fractures his skull and becomes a quadraplegic, and then expects that he should be cared for the rest of his life at someone else's expense. Conservatives have the same mindset; they are sure that everyone else is taking something in personal freedom or money away from them, but they have no trouble taking money and freedom away from others, when it suits them.
January 6, 2009

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"What we seem to be engaged in is a political debate, not a scientific one. "

Of course. Denialists have no science.

They don't like the policy prescriptions, so they distract and dissemble all over the place to cast doubt on the policies.

Best,

D
January 6, 2009

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

DMISSEY,

Keen insights, my friend. I think you are right, we began this discussion as scientists and ultimately became caught in the political whirlpool. Rarely has a scientific concept been the subject of such divisive politics. The Theory of Evolution is the only one that comes to mind other than AGW. It may take a generation of scientific observation and analysis before we can totally transcend the politics of this issue. At some point, it will become obvious to everybody as to who is absolutely correct and who is off base in their computer modeling and assumptions. And "The world wags on.." in the meantime. You speak of standards and that is where the discussion becomes the most political. LL would probably say for, example, that no standards for CO2 and other greenhouse gases are needed because they aren't a problem. On the extreme other end of the controversy, some would say that we need to shut down the coal plants and stop driving internal combustion vehicles immediately. We will ultimately settle somewhere in between and not to the total satisfaction of anybody.

Thank you for the keen political perspective, I have bookmarked this, the longest thread I've ever followed. I will refer back to what you have just written. I would encourage you to save your last post as well. You may have a use for it later.
January 6, 2009

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

DMISSEY -

>>Hi LL,

Is this the site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu<<

Nah, he copied & pasted it either from Michael Asher's article on DailyTech
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx...
or some blog that that copied and pasted from there.
January 6, 2009

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Some misinformation site is trying out a new way of cherry-picking, as both Arctic ice and global temps - for a couple of weeks now - have been disseminated by gullible rubes as being the same as some year in the past.

This, of course, omits trendlines - but if you want to believe misinformation bad enough it sounds real purty.

Regardless of the source of the FUD, as I pointed out above Arctic ice area and thickness and volume are all in decline, due to warming in the Arctic.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

There are at least two copies of the data:

One at:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphe...

and a copy at the daily.tech site:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/99...

They seem to be the same.

However, the real pleasure for me is the source of the data: the SSMI Microwave Imager. I wrote the specifications for the SSMI; it's based on my dissertation. Working for Hughes Aircraft, I led the team of software engineers that wrote the software to process the SSMI data. We donated that software (free, gratis) to CU's Nat'l Snow & Ice Data Center.

No, greenleaf, I've never tried to impress any undergraduate students, or whatever your catty remark was. I have had, however, to convince USAF Program Managers and aerospace executives that my opinion was worth following.

I've not yet seen your rebuttal of Harold Ambler's criticism of Mr. Gore. If the "science is all settled", where is it? Can greenleaf or Wxdano offer any fact - any data - any evidence that CO2 causes warming? Can John Holdren - with whom this thread began?

Doesn't seem too much for such authoritative people to provide.

LL
January 7, 2009

10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Though I had "hoped to change" any further involvement with greenleaf and the likes of Wxdano, dmissey's thoughtful comments deserve acknowledgment and agreement.

I regret I must agree that both Progressives and Conservatives attempt to twist science for their own purpose - without any understanding or even care about the real content of the scientific debate. I don't condone this from either side, including the Conservative side - which is where I mostly come from.

I would point out, however, two aspects of the matter in which I think the Pro's are more guilty than the Con's:

The principles of modern science (a la Francis Bacon) demand consideration of all reasonable hypotheses (gathered from the scientific literature) and a skeptical approach to all of them. The IPCC/Gore/NCAR approach has been anything BUT skeptical, focussing exclusively on CO2 as the causal agent. Elementary physics (www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm) has reasons to be skeptical about CO2. It also has an elementary discussion of two alternate hypotheses - the PDO and cosmic ray effects.

People who seek to justify massive changes in the economy and the common lifestyle ought to bear the burden of proof. Instead, and as voiced by a most noxious advocate, Wxdano, Gore and the despicable scientists who cheer for him are the standard bearers; we who doubt are "deniers", who must provide proof.

Returning to dmissey's point: we have politicized science very easily, by funding it from the Federal gov't. Way too many people have found AGW to be their rice bowl. After all, what does one do with a degree in Meteorology? Forecast the weather? It's a tough racket, and there are only so many of those gigs to go around. Much easier to hypothesize about the effect of global warming on the left-handed spotted tree frog. As somebody said, "it's hard to convince a man of something if his livelihood depends on the opposite." Who guards the guards?

We need some guards. I respectfully, and humbly, (down, Wxdano) suggest that has been my part in this little discussion. I know enough to be skeptical, I have time to post occasionally, and to maintain a website on the subject. I don't get paid for any of this.

Better hope the Rocky - and equivalent fora - don't go away. Holdren dearly wants them - and the likes of me - to go away.

And, yes greenleaf, I see absolutely no reason for any restriction on CO2 emissions. I'm told it's good for plants. You're a plant guy, aren't you?

LL
January 7, 2009

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"Can greenleaf or Wxdano offer any fact - any data - any evidence that CO2 causes warming? Can John Holdren - with whom this thread began? Doesn't seem too much for such authoritative people to provide."

Wow. Pathetic.

The answer to this question was published over 110 years ago. [ http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ti... ]

Your question, sir, is a joke.

Your argumentation is a joke.

Are you a parody character? Some product of a comedian, making a new art form? Some sort of performance art?

Can it get to be any more of a joke than this?

You may want to go to a site where there are dumb people, because your dumb arguments don't work here.

>>>>>>

" I'm told [CO2 is] good for plants. You're a plant guy, aren't you?"

This is a standard denialist argument, long-ago refuted:

o [ http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics ]
o [ http://tinyurl.com/3ct5me ]

Folks, there is an entire library of findings about how this long-ago refuted argument is wrong:

o [ http://public.ornl.gov/face/ ]
o [ http://www.bnl.gov/face/ ]
o [ http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/8895 ]

This is the best they can do, folks - recycle long-ago refuted arguments. Richard is particularly weak in this recycling.

This strategy was recently outlined by a prominent Australian scientist (to be the next in line to be demonized after Holdren, surely):

""We have produced rebuttals of all of these arguments - they have all been addressed. But they just keep trotting them out. No matter how many times you tell them they're wrong, they just keep going. The general approach seems to be - if we keep banging away at an untruth, people will start to believe it"." [ http://tinyurl.com/a6dbgo ]

Just like our pal LL: repeat an untruth enough times, it'll become a truth!! Spread your FUD elsewhere, pal. It doesn't work here.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>The principles of modern science (a la Francis Bacon) demand consideration of all reasonable hypotheses (gathered from the scientific literature) and a skeptical approach to all of them. The IPCC/Gore/NCAR approach has been anything BUT skeptical, focussing exclusively on CO2 as the causal agent. Elementary physics (www.colo-earthfriends.org/science.htm) has reasons to be skeptical about CO2. It also has an elementary discussion of two alternate hypotheses - the PDO and cosmic ray effects.<<

The key here, and your problem LL is what is a **reasonable hypotheses**. For example, you bring up cosmic ray effects and mention them on your web site but what you fail (intentionally?) to mention is there has been considerable research on the effects and influences of cosmic rays and they consistently come up flat and in fact temperatures have gone in the **opposite** direction for example:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/me...

and

"Solar Total and Spectral Irradiance: Modelling and a Possible Impact on Climate"
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publi...

From the last article, here's a simple chart comparing recent temperatures and cosmic ray
counts:
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/18...
If you want to bring cosmic rays to the table then you really need to explain this glaring divergence.

But all you do is toss out these cosmic ray hypotheses but fail to mention **ANY** research that contradicts them - that's not very scientific of you.
January 7, 2009

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL weakly tries:

"Instead, and as voiced by a most noxious advocate, Wxdano, Gore and the despicable scientists who cheer for him are the standard bearers; we who doubt are "deniers", who must provide proof."

Noxious = thorough refutation.

Nice.

Ah, well. Better to wail Algooooooore!!! and rend garments than provide "proof", which Richard has provided zero. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

Denialists have nothing but repeating long-ago refuted arguments, which we see again, immediately above.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

I'll also point out that LL's statement that:

"The IPCC/Gore/NCAR approach has been anything BUT skeptical, focussing exclusively on CO2 as the causal agent."

is simply a lie - in my previous post I provided 2 examples that other "causal agents" have indeed been considered.
January 7, 2009

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

CL wrote:

"is simply a lie - in my previous post I provided 2 examples that other "causal agents" have indeed been considered."

Richard has, on his widdle website, a graph that way up above I pointed out he doesn't understand. The graph is from the IPCC and shows the various causal agents contributing to man-made climate change. I even broke them down quantitatively above at [December 30, 2008 2:40 p.m.]

So, I may disagree here a bit - Richard is either bleedingly stupid or a blatant liar. In this particular case I cannot tell; sometimes I lean to stupid, other times to liar.

Nonetheless, he shouldn't be speaking to the issue of man-made climate change, as he makes a hash of it either way. If this is the best the denialists can do (and there is scant evidence that they do better), then there is little to worry about from this self-marginalized fringe movement.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Wxdano -

Same here, that why I said the statement was a lie. I don't know if LL knowingly lied, or if he is just ignorant.

All I have seen him write is just rehashes from skeptic websites (including his last cut-and-paste) and when pressed either just repeats himself or trys to fake it - like when he responded to me on 12/30, 1:24 p.m that "The total H2O in the atmosphere remains pretty constant, since mass has to be conserved. " - that's just about the biggest crock of BS I've seen posted here. My take is that he lies to try and hide his ignorance.
January 7, 2009

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

"My take is that [LL] lies to try and hide his ignorance."

Ah.

I like that for part of the explanation.

Maybe the rest of the time he lies to prop up his ideology/self-identity/whatever it is he's propping up.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

BTW, CL:

Here is a possible reason why we see The Algooooooore! wail and thrash trotted out so often:

"Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

...the extent to which conservatives have turned opposition to global warming science into a personal jihad against Al Gore is breathtaking. He's "hectoring." He's "lecturing us." He's "holier than thou." Conservatives naturally oppose any government action to combat global warming, but as the childish campaign against Gore shows, they also oppose any effort to simply persuade people as well. Their excuse? Gore and other campaigners are hypocrites unless they themselves live in caves and cut their own carbon footprints to zero. It's the kind of argument you'd expect to hear from a six-year-old throwing a temper tantrum." [ http://tinyurl.com/94hvkv ]

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

CL, Wxdano,

I regret not being able to spar as effectively with LL as the two of you. Its been 35 years since I had the required Chemistry and physics courses for my undergraduate degree ( and nothing more was necessary for the advanced degrees). I'm glad that the two of you were here to sort out the complex details.

Sometimes though even the simple things are revealing. Old Richard posted Inhofe's "650" scientists link several times but when confronted 3 times never defended it. This, more than any other thing made me believe that he is operating as a political agent and not as a scientist. As I noted above, there have been many industry front groups staffed with PhD scientists that have been part of a thinly disguised movement to disseminate misleading information. It is a cheap way to slow progress on many issues that industries perceive as a threat, whether regarding cigarette smoke, second hand smoke, mercury pollution and now, of course, AGW. I would not be surprised to find at some point in the future, Richard's name associated with just such an industry fronted organization. His website, his lectures and even his web postings ( I found one in the Christian Science Monitor the other day) and letters to the editor, could be part of his retirement income.
January 7, 2009

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

I just posted and saw your 3:07.

I must say, I was extremely disappointed by the fact that Gore didn't green his own lifestyle before entering this fray. I have always tried to be accountable in delivering my environmental message. I bought CFLs when they cost $25/bulb 20 years ago. I recycled and encouraged neighbors to do the same 30 years ago ( I was considered the village eccentric!). I drive a Prius, I have solar panels on my roof and etc., etc., etc.. It speaks to what I believe, and it speaks to credibility and consistency in the message. I have spent my life trying to convince people that environmentalists aren't chicken littles, or the last of the commune hippies or control freaks. I respect Gore for his greater message and for not returning to politics. I just wish he had avoided giving the conservatives one more tool to sabotage that message. It could have been so easily avoided.
January 7, 2009

3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL:

" His website, his lectures and even his web postings ( I found one in the Christian Science Monitor the other day) and letters to the editor, could be part of his retirement income."

He's not competent enough to be a paid shill. At least the paid shills have taken a Rhetoric course.

>>>>>>

The key here is that there is an observable pattern to denialist rhetoric. It is always the same.

o There are rarely references to scholarly literature, and when there are, the literature does not support the assertion 100% of the time. I say again: 100% of the time. Denialist rhetoric counts on the targets of the rhetoric not following the citation or not being able to understand it.

o There are almost always, in the first paragraph of denialist statements, typical talking points or totems or demonization tactics.

- current talking points: cooling since (fill in non-statistically significant date), heavy snow means no warming, etc. The talking points are distributed regularly and change. The last batch was the surface station record is biased, since refuted.
- totems: Algore, Hansen, hockey stick, Mann.
- demonization tactics: Algore's energy use, Mann's first paper at exclusion of all others, updating GHCN network/USHCN algorithm for UHI.

o There are "dog-whistle" phrases that are common to denialist rhetoric, all eventually being related to regulation: alarmist, socialist, redistributionist (current example: [ http://tinyurl.com/8g3e25 ]), Algore, Hansen, "scare quotes", etc.

Anyway, there are rarely any new tactics in denialist rhetoric. The new talking point "same temperature as 1981" is a new version of an old cherry-pick and the first new thing I have seen in many months.

One last thing to think about wrt tactics: look up Andura Smetacek and Astroturf when you get a chance.

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL:

"I must say, I was extremely disappointed by the fact that Gore didn't green his own lifestyle before entering this fray."

No.

This is false. A right-wing talking point from a right-wing smear campaign.

If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot (this presumes the noise machine's 221,000 kWh number is accurate) is still well within the average range for his climate region. Uncovering this means, basically that there is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house. Of course, this ideology want their large house on a large lot, so here we have hypocrites calling 'hypocrite'.

Backgrounder on the right-wing smear campaign here: [ http://tinyurl.com/2h3l8l ]

Best,

D
January 7, 2009

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Ahh, Wxdano, not to worry, we're on the same side. I still have a few mixed emotions about Al even after reading the Anonymous Liberal article but I have never been in the bash Gore camp.Every now and then I reveal my feelings in a long winded forum such as this. That was a good rebuttal, but the truth is that he still didn't add the CFLs and solar panels until after the conservative firestorm blew up around that issue. I am also somewhat shocked that he still uses over 10K kwh/year even with solar panels? I used 3.6K before and reduced that to 1.6K after adding solar. That's a lot of energy. A power engineer told me it takes 1 lb of coal to generate 3 kwh. The man is burning over 3000 lbs of coal/year. I know he is offsetting and buying renewable energy credits, but here is a guy who could afford to directly reduce his consumption to very little and to showcase new technology. He could, for example replace his air conditioning and furnace with geothermal pumps. He could install LEDs to replace some CFLs. In doing such things he could hammer his message home in a way that the conservatives couldn't counter. Its all about the clarity,and consistency of the message.

I know, I know, you wouldn't be the first to say I'm too much of a purist, or even a Puritan on environmental issues. But understand, the environment has been the formative issue in my life, above all other things. I'll go to the grave in sack cloth , not embalmed and with the site restored to look as natural and undisturbed as possible just to preserve the clarity and consistency of my own lifelong environmental message. I guess in some ways I'm still the village eccentric and proud of it!

Thanks again my friend
January 8, 2009

9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Talk about some legs on a series of postings!!

LL brings up the rice bowl argument, as part of the reason for substantial support for the AGW support among Progressives. That can carry some weight, but the last time I checked, K Street in DC still had two teams, and they both go to the government trough as often as they can.

The Al Gore controversy is rather pointless. I don't need Al Gore to look through research and websites, I can do that on my own. I think both Progressives and Conservatives give him too much credit for anything except publicizing AGW as a developing phenomenon. I do think that the Nobel Prize committee is as capable of pitching the Nobel prize for political reasons as anyone else, especially the peace prize, and the prize for economics.

Which brings me to a phenomenon in scientific debates altogether, and that is the attempt for all sides to ALWAYS say that 'the science speaks for itself'. It doesn't - it never has, and it never will, and it doesn't matter which position you are playing.

I go back to the net ramifications for the American economy that were purported to be in the offing if we accepted the Kyoto treaty. This really started the firestorm we are in now, and the consideration at that point was that if we signed up for Kyoto, we were doomed economically. I can't emphasize enough that WE have the world where we want it, in large part because from the end of WWII through the end of the Cold War and up to now, we have expected the world to be free, capitalist, not communist, and following the rule of law. The UN is noisy, as is the court in the Hague and the ISO in Switzerland; all are clamoring with a very mixed bag of motives from great to abyssmal.

Americans are often uneasy in this new world we helped make, and we're not the only ones; ask OBL, or Putin, or a host of others. But we are up to the task, and we're still the good guys. LL seems to think that there is something unseemly and un-American in taking a position to limit AGW, hence the vociferous opposition.

I'm asked constantly to evaluate financial impacts of various combinations of energy sources, both on and off the grid, and carbon impacts have been reduced to a number in a spreadsheet. Pretty undramatic, but valuable when you are running simulations that take CAPEX and OPEX for 20 year horizons. And at 20 years out, carbon emissions controls are a fractional cost in capital expenditure, and a limited operating cost.

It's not very exciting or dramatic, but it seems to be the truth - it won't cost that much, or be that big a deal. You should see the other variables!
January 8, 2009

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Global warming has gotten really bad!

How bad has it gotten?

According to the Nat'l Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/r...),

the 2008 US Annual temperature was up to 53.0 F, a whole 0.2 F warmer than the 1901 - 2000 average.

It ranks #76 out of 114 years (1895 - 2008) of US climatic history, down 2 F just from 2006.

Ranking #75 was.....1997. Every year between 1997 and 2008 has been warmer.

Perhaps Gore, Hansen, and Holdren will have an explanation why temperature is not rising - in fact, is going down.

No doubt greenleaf, CL, and Wxdano will explain it to us. Or maybe they'll just continue to agree that anyone who disagrees with them is in the pay of Exxon. Nat'l Climate Data Center too?

Meanwhile, I think I'll go check the world record at Roy Spencer's new website.

LL
January 8, 2009

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Go on, LL, find more things to cherry-pick to spread your weak FUD.

While you're at it, go to a website to learn how to argue, as well, especially how to stop your Algooooore wailing.

>>>>>

Now. On the off chance someone is left who might still be wondering if LL isn't full of s--- and maybe correct about something,

2008 was rebounding from one of the strongest La Niñas in history, yet the the GISS, HadCRU and NCDC annual temps for 2008 were respectively at 0.43, 0.42 and 0.47ºC above the 1951-1980 baseline.

Not cooling, like LL falsely implies.

It was still the 8th or 9th warmest in the instrumental record. But LL wants you to believe it was cooling, in addition to using the logical fallacy that weather is climate or noise is statistically significant.

Richard, you aren't smart enough to spread your FUD here. Try somewhere with dumb people - hope it'll work there for you.

Best,

D
January 8, 2009

4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Richard,

I give you credit for tenacity (me too)!

OK! check the annual graph for 2008:

http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/...

Please notice the green trend line in the graph supplied by the same NCDC website you linked. Just to be certain that you understand the point: it takes more than one cooler than average year to upset a long standing trend that started circa 1900 A.D..

Interestingly, 2008 was still warmer than the plotted average world temperature for the last century.

Since you've returned, how about justifying all those economists paleontologists, anthropologists, social scientists and other non-climatologists in that 650 scientists list you have been touting but not defending?

P.S. Richard, I don't really think Exxon would like this data plot, do you? Ask your bosses, see what they think.
January 8, 2009

4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

The tie in to Roy Spencer is actually kind of interesting. Roy Spencer is a major advocate of intelligent design, as well as a sceptic on AGW. I'm sure there is no religious fervor on the part of anyone here; speak up now if I'm wrong.

Here is what really fires me up, GL, CL and Wx, is that you go for the bait every time. You keep thinking that this is a discussion regarding the technical merits of AGW.

This is ONLY a religious discussion on the part of anti-AGW partisians. It has nothing to do with science. The one part that I like about LL's arguments, continuous sceptical review, is negated by his firm belief in intelligent design and the non-existance of evolution. LL believes firmly that evolution does not exist - otherwise, how could he cite a person like Roy Spencer as an authority as a scientist?

What really comes across is that LL is not a scientist, and probably a middling engineer. I don't see any papers he's published in his field, so this is a guy who's a step ahead of programming mainframes. LL - correct me if I'm wrong - but you want to argue the science here, but you don't have a handle on it. You're relying on fellow travelers in the hyper-religious conservative cosmos, where intelligent design is still gospel, and your citation of a person like Roy Spencer is the proof.

Here is the real kicker - I keep looking for the case against AGW, because it would save my clients enormous amounts of money at the CAPEX in years 1-5. I'd be a hero, my kids would have their student loans paid off, etc. But the useable evidence is not in existance. So I read this casrefully, look up every reference, and make my best case to clients which is limit carbon emissions.

That's where I'm at.
January 8, 2009

4:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Last thing:

Compare the image Richard cherry-picks to make you think its cooling: [ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/... ].

To the trendline: [ http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/... ].

Both at the same site, yet Richard chooses to mislead.

Weak attempt.

D
January 8, 2009

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Gosh darn it LL, I was hoping you would defend your statements about cosmic rays, but no, so it's off on something else...

>>Global warming has gotten really bad!<<
...
>>the 2008 ***US*** Annual temperature<<

The US covers the entire globe???

>>No doubt greenleaf, CL, and Wxdano will explain it to us. Or maybe they'll just continue to agree that anyone who disagrees with them is in the pay of Exxon.<<

I can't continue something I never did to begin with, so this is just a lie.

You might want to try this LL:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
January 8, 2009

4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

I think you are wrong about Richard not being on the industry payrolls. He has sufficient credentials to fool many people. Actually, according to Richard, having a PhD in Social Science is qualification enough to dispute research climatologist's findings. PhD economists are even better, right Richard?

I guess selling out science for the benefit of the extraction industries is better than being a greeter at Walmart in your retirement LL.
January 8, 2009

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

DMISSEY,

Once again, good insights. Thank you!

I have some questions regarding your reference to OPEX/CAPEX. I vaguely remember this from a business management accounting course I took some 25 years ago. You are speaking of long term business profitability and investment. So, are you a corporate business consultant? If so, have you heard of Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute?

http://www.rmi.org/

If not, you might find him very useful. He has consulted large corporations such as WalMart (where Richard was recently fired as a greeter) on the subject of energy efficiency.
January 9, 2009

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Hi GL,

Actually I work in construction and engineering business development, mainly developing EPC programs for both fossil fuel and renewables. I know a fair amount about RMI and Amory Lovins, I'd like to meet him if I can ever get up to Aspen. The problem I have a with a some of the RMI approaches is that they do not scale well; good sustainable energy solutions are reproducible in ever larger cycles, at least enough to match foreseeable demographics and growth. I do a lot of life-cycle cost exercises, trying to push the horizon out to get some hazy idea of what the payback might be on generation projects in year 20, year 40, etc., and establish the replacement and maintenance reserves to get there.

I'm headed out to Walmart - I'll give Richard your regards.
January 9, 2009

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

CL - I apologize for not (yet) responding to your links to the cosmic ray literature.

DMISSEY - where did the bit about Intelligent Design come from? And why am I judged to believe in it? By definition ("falsifiability"), Intelligent Design isn't science. Whatever his personal beliefs, Roy Spencer is certainly a highly credible speaker on AGW. Especially since he deals in facts.

Incidentally, I didn't start the"rice bowl" argument. I was accused early on of being in the pay of Exxon or someone. That's laughable, coming from people who tried to tell us Mr. Gore's $300 million advertising campaign is just a right wing conspiracy.

Other things to do, folks. Later.
January 9, 2009

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

DMISSEY,

That's great, my friend. You are definitely part of the solution to our energy and environmental challenges. I have met Amory Lovins on one occasion.Of course, dozens of other people were vying for his attention as well, so our conversation was too brief. If you get the chance, I would appreciate having you expand on your comment regarding "scale" as it applies to your client's interests.

Thanks again!
January 9, 2009

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Richard,

You have been thoroughly "outed" buddy. You have revealed yourself to be so totally partisan by your own comments that you no longer have any credibility with the remaining posters on this thread. Its obviously important to you to have the final word, and you might achieve that hollow, empty victory. This thread is so old that, at most, only 5 of us are even following it. Four of us disagree with you intensely and with cause. Remember my comments about your being a contrarian and an eccentric?
January 9, 2009

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL wrote:

"I think you are wrong about Richard not being on the industry payrolls."

The lesser lights of paid shills still scream Algooooooore! like Richard does, that's for sure.

And it's true that industry shills generally do not have command of the facts and cherry-pick shamelessly like Richard does.

But I saw him speak in Castle Rock. He s*cks. No corporation is desperate enough to pay him money. There are plenty of other shills out there with better rhetoric and presentation skills. And mendacity skills - Richard can't argue his way out of a paper bag.

Bookmark this thread. When he reappears to spread his FUD (oh, he will, trust me), point to this comment thread.

Best,

D
January 9, 2009

1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

You may be right. I haven't seen him in person but I can confirm your assessment regarding his (written) debating skills. As for bookmarking this thread? I told Richard the following on Jan. 4, :

An engineer appeared out of nowhere and posted briefly until confronted as to his political agenda. He was presenting himself as a an individual with special knowledge on the subject. More than a few of us decided he was an industry shill. I would like to think this isn't the case with you Richard, but I am very suspicious. I am bookmarking this letters page as it may prove useful later.

Great minds think alike my friend!
January 9, 2009

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

For anybody who may be interested, here is a list of organizations to which Exxon Mobil contributes.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/list...
January 9, 2009

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

CL recently reproached me for mentioning the cosmic ray hypothesis of cloud enhancement, suggested by Svensmark and Calder (2007), saying "...all you do is toss out these cosmic ray hypotheses but fail to mention **ANY** research that contradicts them - that's not very scientific of you."

Again, CL and his fellow funded believers in AGW try to claim it's my responsibility to disprove the hypothesis that the US Global Change Research Program pay them $5 billion annually. Wrong, CL. My only obligation is the one I freely assumed - to point out the fallacies of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas hypothesis. One of those fallacies is its failure to explain pre-industrial climate changes, which are well known.

The papers on cosmic rays you pointed out - and others I looked up - all agree there have been major climate changes, long before the industrial age (i.e., not due to CO2) and that there is a strong correlation with well-known solar minima, such as the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum. From my website (http://www.colo-earthfriends.org), I presume you are also aware of a recent (1912 - 1913) minimum of solar activity that also correlates strongly with very cold weather in 1912 and 1917. That correlation, BTW, is much better than the infamous "correlation" claimed by Al Gore in his movie, Inconvenient Truth - with its 800 year time lag of CO2 behind the temperature change.

TO BE CONTINUED
January 9, 2009

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

CONTINUATION OF REMARKS ON COSMIC RAYS

Here's a quote from a recent paper: "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" by Lockwood and Frohlich, 2007

"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

"The third proposed mechanism is
considerably different from the other two—it has been suggested that air ions
generated by cosmic rays modulate the production of clouds (Svensmark 2007).
This mechanism (Carslaw et al. 2002) has been highly controversial and the data
series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect
solar cycle variations in cloud cover; however, recent observations of short-lived
(lasting of the order of 1 day) transient events indicate there may indeed be an
effect on clean, maritime air (Harrison & Stephenson 2006)."

The authors agree on "considerable evidence for solar influence"; they agree "there may indeed be an effect on clean, maritime air"; they seem surprised that only in the past 20 years have trends been in the opposite direction. However, they note "the data series have generally been too short (and of inadequate homogeneity) to detect solar cycle variations in cloud cover."

I think it's reasonable to say the jury is still out. In the meantime, Svensmark is proceeding with setting up his experiment at CERN, and the quiet Sun is giving us another opportunity to witness a correlation between minimal solar activity and cooling temperature.

LL
PS: "great minds (Wxdano and greenleaf?) think alike" giggle
January 9, 2009

3:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Richard, you are changing the subject.

There is no empirical evidence for CRF affecting earth's climate.

The long cut-paste above does not back your claim.

Not even a nice try.

Best,

D
January 9, 2009

3:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

BTW, Richard's long-ago refuted argument is #18 for recycled denialist arguments [ http://www.skepticalscience.com/argum... ].

Note how Richard's argument is based on a hypothesis with scant evidence, and the evidence is dependent upon an experiment that hasn't been completed yet and has not published preliminary results.

This is typical for denialist arguments: dependence upon nothing.

For the record, here is the thin reed to which Richard grasps:

o [ http://www.newscientist.com/article/d... ]
o [ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/... ]

Denialists: they have nothing. Yet they show up, again and again, peddling their BS. You gotta give them credit for not being embarrassed.

Best,

D
January 9, 2009

5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

And here's something Wxdano might be capable of understanding.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12314...

"How embarrassing is it when you produce a horror movie based on global warming and when the time comes to release it, the planet is experiencing some of the coldest weather in decades? Such is the case with The Thaw starring Val Kilmer. Filmed in Canada last summer, it should be ready for release by now but even though the trailer has been produced, no specific release date has been announced. Perhaps the producers realize how much of a laughingstock this movie would become if a movie based on the premise of global warming were released when their potential audience is freezing. Here is a description of The Thaw from Dread Central:

The Thaw will be produced by Anagram Pictures, the same team behind Andrew Currie's ****** debut Fido, with directing duties being handled by Mark A. Lewis. The story is about a group of ecological students who discover that a prehistoric parasite has come back to life after a woolly mammoth is defrosted and their race to stop the bug from infecting the entire world, even as they themselves fall victim to it.

We learned this week that The Thaw is finally getting ready to shoot in mid-June and that Val Kilmer (yes, that Val Kilmer) and Superbad's Martha McIsaac have both signed on to the film! This brings The Thaw to a whole new level of respectability since you don't attract that kind of talent with some throwaway script.

"I think ultimately where this story comes from is the idea or, more accurately, the feeling of vulnerability," Lewis told me during a recent e-mail conversation about the origins of The Thaw. "The discussion eventually evolved into one about the vulnerability of our species and how we're about to experience the wrath of Mother Nature as a result of global warming. Remaining faithful to our inspiration [an experience Thaw's co-writer's girlfriend had with bed bugs], we chose to make Mother Nature's device the most hideous parasite we could imagine."
January 9, 2009

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Another contradiction - real data - to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fantasy.

World temperature, according to Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-gl...) continued the 2008 downward trend, ending +0.18 C above the long-term average.

As recently as Jan 2007, world temperature was up to 0.6 C above the average.

Nothing on the chart looks like long-term "global warming."
January 9, 2009

6:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Independent thinkers continue to reject the alarmist herd thinking:

Another left-of-center atmospheric scientist who has dissented on man-made climate fears is the UK�s Richard Courtney. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Joining Courtney are many other progressive environmentalist scientists:

Former Greenpeace member and Finnish Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a lecturer of environmental technology and a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland who has authored 200 scientific publications, is also skeptical of man-made climate doom. Ahlbeck wrote in 2008, “Contrary to common belief, there has been no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent datasets. But so far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.”
January 10, 2009

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

luckyleif writes:

Having pointed out several of the fallacies in the anthropogenic global warming by CO2 religion (AGWCO2), having pointed out that solar physicists agree that diminished solar activity (as is now occurring) correlates with colder temperature, and having pointed out that world temperature has been going down for several years, I see little point in repeating these things to people like greenleaf and Wxdano.
I expect there will be an attempt to pass a Cap and Trade Bill this year, and the GAO will offer an estimate of its likely cost. (Last year's was $6.7 trillion.) Perhaps we will hear from CL and DMISSEY at that time. No doubt their comments will be considered and reasonable, as they have been in this discussion.
Until then.
LL
January 10, 2009

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

LL mendacicizes:

"Having pointed out several of the fallacies in the anthropogenic global warming by CO2 religion (AGWCO2),"

No you haven't. Not one. Zero. You are lying or stupid. Either way, you can't speak to the issue.

Your misleading statement about global temps was already addressed by me above. You are cherry-picking to mislead, as one La Niña year is not a trend, except for dissemblers and liars.

You, Richard, also hand-wave by changing the subject to a Hollywood movie instead of a scholarly paper.

This is telling, isn't it (Hollywood is anathema to conservatarians until it isn't): instead of defending your undefendable CRF assertion you trot out a movie - yes, Richard, the data don't support "your" (#18 on the denialist list) assertion: [ http://tinyurl.com/2r8b75 ] - everyone follow the link and note that Richard is full of s---.

I ask again: when are you going to write your Magna Carta and, Galileo-like, overturn the large empirical literature of the science community, Galileo?

Have you started writing your Magnum Opus to stop the envirogreennazis from taking over the worrrrrrld?

"It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals." [ http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/... ]

Your FUD is weak, Richard. How does it feel to be left behind, a dead-ender?

Best,

D
January 10, 2009

1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LL,

If you don't appreciate my"tone" remember that it was you who set the tone and changed to attack midstream.

"...The Greeks had a word for it: "idiot" Honestly, and with no offense to greenleaf ..." "Because greenleaf can't understand the science?" That was just the beginning, and your level of condescension and frustrating evasion of most of my points accelerated from there. That plus the twisting of my statements and taking them out of context is what led to a confrontational engagement in the first place. You do fine so long as people agree with you Richard but it deteriorates rapidly when opinions differ from your own.
January 10, 2009

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL,

here's an interesting Tamino [ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/1... ] that puts Richard's misinformation and FUD-spreading campaign in context:

"Every year this century is among the top-10 hottest years on record. In fact the clustering of hottest years is even more lop-sided than that would indicate; by the end of 2006 it was noted that the 13 hottest years on record had all occurred since 1990 (and we’ve added a couple more to that list since then). How unlikely is that?

Precisely that question is addressed in “How unusual is the recent series of warm years?” (Zorita et al. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters 35, L24706 doi:10.1029/GL036228). The conclusion can be summed up in a phrase best said with a strong Maine accent: ’tain’t likely."

IOW: there is a huge body of scholarly literature that finds we are in the midst of man-made climate change.

What does Richard trot out? A movie. A preliminary experiment. An unsupported assertion.

Pfffft.

That's the best they can do. And they are getting less and less access to decision-makers. I no longer "discuss" detection and attribution with denialists, as there's no point (denialists have no evidence to back their claims), so now I just point out their mendacious tactics. We are moving forward, GL. Denialists cannot stop facts, cannot stop societal action, cannot hand-wave away from reality. But they can bring up a movie and shout Algoooooore!

Best,

D
January 10, 2009

7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

I applaud your passion and determination. I admit that it has energized ne as well. See what you are up against Richard?
January 11, 2009

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

I didn't know there was a technical name for AGW denialists; I would like to know if they have a title for themselves.

Hi GL,
- On Scaling -
My evaluations for projects include scalability, the easist recent cases being ethanol projects. Ethanol qualifies as a 'renewable'fuel. It will qualify as a sustainable fuel if it is manufactured in relatively small amounts compared to the rest of the fuel matrix, but it is not scalable - you cannot reasonably expect ethanol to power more than a few percent of all vehicles, ever. The problem with many solutions that come out of the lab is that they do not scale well. Scaling calls for an economic evaluation, among others, but it may also include buildability, safety and fire code requirements, and availability of resources, including management, operations people, and equipment. It eventually calls for evaluation of the nature of the marketing effort and the impacts of subsidies within and outside of the production process. Hydrogen, fuel cells, litium batteries and other developing sources are also susceptible to scaling evaluations, although these may be subsumed under other parts of the evaulation, or in risk management matrices.
January 11, 2009

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

DMissey asks:

"I would like to know if they have a title for themselves."

Lemmings in search of a cliff.

Best,

D
January 12, 2009

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>Again, CL and his fellow funded believers in AGW try to claim it's my responsibility to disprove the hypothesis that the US Global Change Research Program pay them $5 billion annually.<<

What a crock LL. I never said anything about you having to disprove anything.
I wrote that
1) alternate hypothesis **HAVE** been considered, contrary to your statement otherwise
2) that these "alternate hypothesis" had failed to meet the mark in one way or the other.

Of these "alternate hypothesis" I chose cosmic rays specifically because you had also mentioned them. I specifically pointed out what was either your ignorance or hypocrisy in ignoring the research that ruled out cosmic rays.

>>Wrong, CL. My only obligation is the one I freely assumed - to point out the fallacies of the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas hypothesis. One of those fallacies is its failure to explain pre-industrial climate changes, which are well known<<

Bunk. AGW theory does a fine job explaining pre-industrial climate changes - in fact current AGW theory arose ***from*** and is in fact ***a part of*** the theories that explain pre-industrial climate changes. Your saying otherwise is nothing more than either gross ignorance or flat out lying of what AGW theory says and how it came about

An excellent resource is "The Discovery of Global Warming" from the American Institute of Physics:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/in...
Read through it and maybe you'll understand this.
<GL - you might like to read this too - it explains a lot of stuff in less technical term>

>>The papers on cosmic rays you pointed out - and others I looked up - all agree there have been major climate changes, long before the industrial age<<

No kidding. You act as though this is some big mystery - well, it isn't. If you read through the AIP link above you'll find out that modern AGW theory arose from advances in our understanding of these past changes.

>>I presume you are also aware of a recent (1912 - 1913) minimum of solar activity that also correlates strongly with very cold weather in 1912 and 1917<<

Yea, but if you really read the links I provided in my earlier posts, you would have learned that **ALL** correlations of solar activity and temps broke in opposite directions starting around the early 1980s (I even posted a chart showing this break in cosmic ray levels).

Point being those are just two examples of research showing that:

Your statement:
"The IPCC/Gore/NCAR approach has been anything BUT skeptical, focussing exclusively on CO2 as the causal agent."
was a lie

And that these "alternate hypothesis" have major failings that you (hypocritically) ignore.

Those two points still stand as you have totally failed to counter either one of them.
January 12, 2009

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

LL -

>>Another left-of-center atmospheric scientist who has dissented on man-made climate fears is the UK?s Richard Courtney. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Joining Courtney are many other progressive environmentalist scientists:<<

Know what an "IPCC expert reviewer" is?? It's nothing more than someone who asked for a copy of the draft IPCC report - something my mailman could do.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/...

And BTW - you really should cite your sources - this came from:
"Global Warming ‘Consensus’ in Freefall: Inhofe Speech - More Than 650 Scientists Dissent"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
which GL has roundly critisized.
January 12, 2009

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

.
.

Abstract

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs nvolved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them
espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

Summary

Our analyses of the sceptical literature and CTTs indicate an unambiguous linkage between the two. Over 92 per cent of environmentally sceptical books are linked to conservative think tanks, and 90 per cent of conservative think tanks interested in environmental issues espouse scepticism. Environmental scepticism began in the US, is strongest in the US, and exploded after the end of the Cold War and the emergence of global environmental concern stimulated by the 1992 Earth Summit. Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement coordinated by CTTs, designed specifically to undermine the environmental movement’s efforts to legitimise its claims via science. Thus, the notion that environmental sceptics are unbiased analysts exposing the myths and scare tactics employed by those they label as practitioners of ‘junk science’ lacks credibility. Similarly, the self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised ‘Davids’ battling the powerful ‘Goliath’ of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade, as sceptics are supported by politically powerful CTTs funded by wealthy foundations and corporations.

Jacques, Peter J., Dunlap, Riley E. and Freeman, Mark (2008) 'The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism', Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349 — 385 DOI: 10.1080/09644010802055576 [ http://ucf.academia.edu/documents/000... ]

Best,

D
January 12, 2009

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

A bit more elaboration:

LL -
>>Again, CL and his fellow funded believers in AGW try to claim it's my responsibility to disprove the hypothesis that the US Global Change Research Program pay them $5 billion annually.<<

Actually LL, when proposing alternate hypothesis it is indeed the onus of the proposer to at least argue that the proposed hypothesis provides a better explanation than the one it intends to replace.

This really is nothing more than a dodge - as we've seen (again) you really don't know what the heck you are talking about (or are just flat out lying).

Here's what I think - you either:
1) really don't know squat about the research IRT cosmic rays and climate
2) you do know, but realizing it falls flat choose to lie to cover up that fact

While I'm at it, lets take a look at another of LL's posts:

12/2/2009@10:41 a.m:
>>My final objection to AGWCO2 is a broader aspect of science: the obligation to be skeptical, and to consider more than just one hypothesis. The AGWCO2 crowd not only don’t, they WON’T<<

Well, I've already provided proof that the last sentence is nothing more than a lie.

But also contrast this the first LL quote - it appears his "obligation to be skeptical" doesn't apply to "hypothesis" other than AGW (actually AGW qualifies as a theory contrary to LL's less-than-scientifically-accurate propaganda).

Why does LL exhibit this schizophrenic skepticism?
January 12, 2009

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Junk Science From Wikipedia:

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, or other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

Here's the deal:

Junk Science has a twisted history from the time of Galileo all the way through the Tobacco Institute studies they used to prove that cigarettes are 'good for you'. We are not in the territory of scientific debate at all, and the tit for tat citations of web references doesn't get us anywhere. Nothing could be less scientific, or useful.

The eventual outcome will depend on a set of probabilities, (which may irritate everyone on this thread). A statistical set of tests will prevail to determine the nature and pace of global warming under the AGW hypothesis. I am reaching here, but the underlying simplistic exercise is that where certainty is in question, for whatever reason you chose, the next best test is probability.

I don't see much difference between the arguments used by the intelligent design advocates and the anti-AGW advocates. They both tend to argue strictly on political and life-style grounds.

There are a lot missing links out there in the science, and in the evaluation of the Monte Carlo simulations required to describe everything from methane hydrate releases to oceanic die-offs. I think that the AGW group should ask for more super-computers to get a handle on the model, and give us better odds than what we get in Las Vegas.
January 12, 2009

1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

DMissey wrote:

"I don't see much difference between the arguments used by the intelligent design advocates and the anti-AGW advocates. They both tend to argue strictly on political and life-style grounds."

Exactly.

They don't want to change their behavior, and they don't want to admit their worldview is shown to be wrong.

Best,

D
January 12, 2009

1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>I don't see much difference between the arguments used by the intelligent design advocates and the anti-AGW advocates. They both tend to argue strictly on political and life-style grounds.<<

I've noticed many similarities as well.

For example look at LL's list of quotes on 12/4/2009@10:46 a.m. then go and check out the Talk Origins Quote Mine Project:
http://toarchive.org/faqs/quotes/mine...
January 12, 2009

2:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gentlemen,

17 DAYS! this has to be an RMN record!

Now that LL has apparently abandoned the field, this is becoming very interesting indeed, with excellent links by all. Thanks CL, in particular, for your link to "the Discovery of Global Warming". I will examine that closely.

There have been few concepts in human history that have received such long term and intensive scientific examination or that have carried such potential for altering the world as we know it so dramatically. A spirited defense of the science of Global Warming is tantamount.

I am troubled to admit that Richard had me fooled for awhile as to the quality of his science and to his motives. I am not generally considered naive and gullible. My studies didn't require advanced mathematics and computer skills. That is why I have generally steered away from Climatological debates. This one was compelling, however and I was drawn in. I want to thank, the three of you: Wxdano, Cl and DMISSEY, for inspiring me to do better when I confront the next luckylief. I'm pretty fired up now!. Later my friends.
January 12, 2009

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

GL wrote:

"Thanks CL, in particular, for your link to "the Discovery of Global Warming". I will examine that closely."

It is instructive that my similar link on January 7, 2009 10:43 a.m. and December 29, 2008 5:01 p.m. were missed. Prolixity, surely. A lesson somewhere...

Nonetheless, there is a growing literature on denialism/corporate confusion as well that may be worth your time: Mooney's "The Republican War on Science" (disclosure: he's an e-buddy of mine), Wilkinson's "Science Under Siege", Beder's "Global Spin", etc. Barry Brook has a series entitled "Spot the Recycled Denial" here: [ http://bravenewclimate.com/ ].

Best,

D
January 12, 2009

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wxdano,

Prolixity; certainly the bon mot for this thread! Some books are shorter, and not as dense. I suspect that we have all passed over at least a few of each others posts and certain points within many others. It was inevitable. Thanks for posting a new link and referring to the others. I have decided to maintain a bookmark subfile specific to AGW climatotogy. In the dark ages(20 years ago), such research and reference would have been difficult, time consuming and frustrating. Today there is no excuse for being totally ignorant of any subject. Thanks again.

Best,

GL
January 12, 2009

5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wxdano writes:

Forgot:

Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy [ http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/... ]

In this article, we argue that a major reason the United States failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to ameliorate global warming is the opposition of the American conservative movement, a key segment of the antienvironmental countermovement. We examine how the conservative movement mobilized between 1990 and 1997 to construct the “non-problematicity” of global warming. After we describe how conservative think tanks mobilized to challenge the global warming claims of mainstream climate science, we examine how these countermovement organizations aligned themselves with prominent American climate change skeptics known for their staunch criticism of mainstream climate research and their affiliations with the fossil fuels industry. We then examine how the efforts of these conservative think tanks were enhanced by the shift in the political opportunity structure created by the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. This study demonstrates how a powerful countermovement effectively challenged the environmental community’s definition of global warming as a social problem and blocked the passage of any significant climate change policy.

Lomborg and Playing the Long Game [ http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009... ]

Best,

D
January 12, 2009

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>I expect there will be an attempt to pass a Cap and Trade Bill this year, and the GAO will offer an estimate of its likely cost. (Last year's was $6.7 trillion.) Perhaps we will hear from CL and DMISSEY at that time. No doubt their comments will be considered and reasonable, as they have been in this discussion.<<

Thank you LL.

I usually don't comment very much on the political side of the GW issue.

IMO, I think Cap and Trade is inevitable. By that I'm speaking of the political reality that, like it or not, its a train that's coming down the track. Personally I think that Cap and Trade can work in theory, but putting it into practice is a whole different matter. I'm very cynical about our politicians being able to put together workable Cap & Trade policies so I'll have to see the specifics of what's proposed before I decide if I would support it or not. This is where I think many AGW skeptics are setting themselves up to fail badly - by continuing to try and pooh-pooh the science, they are going to find themselves left entirely out of the process.
January 13, 2009

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

The GAO Report is GAO-08-605 issued in May of 2008, I think.

It doe not have a cost for implementation of Cap and Trade.

I'd also ask those pesky questions of whether this OPEX and what is in it, CAPEX and it's composition, etc.
January 13, 2009

9:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

DMISSEY writes:

Costs of Cap and Trade, and the GAO report

The GAO report on Climate Change is a fast read and a pretty thorough document. Alternatives to cap and trade are also discussed, but probably not fully described. The net recommendation is that a combination of a tax, and a cap and trade program, should be put in place. The biggest issue is on the first page in the summary - initial costs per ton of of CO2 emmitted would be between $1/ton and $18/ton.
In the real world, predictible costs are critical.

At $1/ton, emitters will probably pay the tax and let their equipment run to the end of useful life. At $18/ton, they may decide they cannot pass on the whole cost or afford to install capture technology, and shut down. However, with these as initial inputs you can start to give emitters an initial scope and cost.

One of the features of the GAO report is that it tries to identify, and begin to quantify, where the costs of CO2 emissions are being felt. But this is a tough nut and they do not quite crack it.

If you are a coal mine with an attached power plant in Gillette, WY with a payroll of 1,000 families and a baseload output of of 1,000 Mw, How do you demonstrate that their operations are impacting Vanuatu in the South Pacific to the extent that damage from rising seas is a cost that should be born by this plant? Partly, CO2 tax and/or cap and trade creates a 'currency' that allows for this calculation. But how do you mitigate the damage being done to Vanuatu with taxes paid in the US?

If China keeps emitting while we shut down, aren't they at least stealing a cost advantage from the US? And what about the other gases (methane?) and causes of AGW?

Home › Opinion › Editorials

The limits of 'science'

Does Obama adviser respect them?

Rocky Mountain News

Published December 26, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

More Editorials

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs