REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers
REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers
Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)’s environmental communications director, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine — of fifty-two people. Conservative columnist Fred Barnes recently refused to tell TPM Muckraker who’s informed him “the case for global warming” is falling apart, but all signs point to Marc Morano. Morano’s “entire job,” Gristmill’s David Roberts explains, “is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts” to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Morano’s email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.
Promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox News, Morano’s moronic misinformation enters mainstream discourse through columns by Barnes, George Will, Robert Samuelson, and others. Many in the Morano gang are funded by right-wing think tanks, though a few are committed activists, conspiracy theorists who believe their homebrew interpretations of climate data. Others are aging scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of pollution:
| Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers | ||
|---|---|---|
| Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Committee on the Environment and Public Works | ||
| The Scientists | ||
| Name | Website | Affiliations |
| Bob Carter | James Cook University, Queensland, Australia | |
| John Christy | University of Alabama at Huntsville | |
| David Deming | University of Oklahoma / National Center for Policy Analysis |
|
| David Douglass | University of Rochester | |
| Don Easterbrook | Western Washington University | |
| Stanley Goldenberg | NOAA | |
| Vincent Gray | New Zealand Climate Science Coalition / Natural Resources Stewardship Project |
|
| William Gray | Colorado State University (ret.) | |
| Ben Herman | University of Arizona | |
| Craig Idso | co2science.org | Arizona State University / Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change |
| Richard Lindzen | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | |
| Roger Pielke | Colorado State University (ret.) | |
| James A. Peden | Extranuclear Laboratories (ret.) | |
| Hans Schreuder | ilovemycarbondioxide.com | Rocky Mountain Research Station |
| Thomas P. Sheahen | Western Technology, Inc. | |
| Fred Singer | University of Virginia (ret.) / Science and Environmental Policy Project / National Center for Policy Analysis |
|
| Roy Spencer | drroyspencer.com | University of Alabama at Huntsville / Marshall Institute / Interfaith Stewardship Alliance |
| Philip Stott | University of London (ret.) | |
| Willie Wei-Hock Soon | Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics / Marshall Institute / Fraser Institute / Science and Public Policy Institute |
|
| Brian Valentine | Department of Energy | |
| The Bloggers | ||
| Michael Asher | dailytech.com | |
| Joseph Bast | globalwarmingheartland.org | Heartland Institute |
| Edward John Craig | planetgore.nationalreview.com | National Review |
| Dan Gainor | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Barry Hearn | junkscience.com | |
| Steven Milloy | junkscience.com | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Tom Nelson | tomnelson.blogspot.com | |
| Lubos Motl | motls.blogspot.com | Harvard University (ret.) |
| Roger Pielke, Jr. | sciencepolicy.colorado.edu | University of Colorado |
| Jon Jay Ray | jonjayray.blogspot.com | |
| Gabriel Rychert | co2sceptics.com | |
| Marc Sheppard | opinioneditorials.com | Frontiers of Freedom |
| Noel Sheppard | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Matthew Sheffield | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Anthony Watts | wattsupwiththat.com surfacestations.org |
|
| The “Think Tankers” | ||
| Dennis Avery | hudson.org | Hudson Institute |
| Mike Burita | accf.org | American Council for Capital Formation |
| Terry Dunleavy | climatescience.org.nz | New Zealand Climate Science Coalition |
| Robert Ferguson | scienceandpublicpolicy.org | Science and Public Policy Institute |
| Tom Harris | climatescienceinternational.org | International Climate Science Coalition |
| Christopher Monckton | scienceandpublicpolicy.org | Science and Public Policy Institute |
| Craig Rucker | cfact.org | Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow |
| James Taylor | heartland.org | Heartland Institute |
| The Weathermen | ||
| William M. Briggs | wmbriggs.com | statistician |
| Richard S. Courtney | CoalTrans International (ret.) | |
| Joseph D’Aleo | icecap.us | Weather Channel (ret.) |
| Art Horn | theartofweather.com | weatherman (ret.) |
| Alan Siddons | ||
| George E. Smith | Monsanto, Hewlett Packard (ret.) | |
| James Spann | jamesspann.com | weatherman, ABC 33/40 |
| Herb Stevens | weatherman (ret.) | |
– The Scientists: Ph.D.s, often with strong industry ties, who may or may not have experience in climate science, but are ready to denounce the scientific consensus
– The Bloggers: They flood the Web with “news” and opinion, ready to be picked up by Drudge, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber
– The “Think Tankers”: Ready spokesmen associated with impressive-sounding organizations, often founded by themselves
– The Weathermen: Meteorologists, statisticians, and corporate scientists not associated with a think tank or university, but happy to give reporters their “expert” opinion
Phil Valentine is not an associate of Marc Morano. I am an ethusiatic Morano supporter - as well as an absolute denialist. Brad you are picking on the wrong people - and you’re making a MISTAKE. You never know! You might be missing some really great material! I might be a fraudulent PhD! I might be a stooge for Exxon-Mobil! I might be out ther helping to expose the fraud you are promulgating!
Brian G Valentine PhD PE
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC
225 Responses to “REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Hi guys. William Briggs (”Weatherman”) here.
You oddly list us weather guys as having “expert” as opposed to expert (without square quotes) opinions. I gather this means you think your comments are expert and not “expert” on climatology.
It’ll be fun to see if you’ll have the honesty to publish this comment.
Just for fun, here are my credentials: PhD from Cornell in Mathematical Statistics, MS from Cornell in Atmospheric Science, BS from Central Mich in Meteorology. Associate Editor Monthly Weather Review; multiple publications in Journal of Climate and other such places; Member on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee. Etc. Interested readers can go to my web page for more.
Money received from anybody—government, grants, non-profit, industry, etc.—for journal articles or comments in climatology/meteorology: $0.
Industry contacts: 0.
Number of email blasts sent by me on any subject: 0.
Thanks for the interest everybody!
February 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pmActually, now that I remember, I did receive gratis travel to give an invited lecture in Spain at the Royal Science Academy last year. I also got some free grub at the Heartland Climate Conference last year. This puts my total dollars received far, far short of one month’s rent payment. But, dammit. Now I have to recant.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pmDr Briggs — can you provide a quick summary of the research that you’ve gotten published in the peer-reviewed literature (preferably high-impact journals) that challenges the scientific consensus re: global-warming?
February 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pmI am honored to appear among the scientists, although I most certainly do not rank among the likes of Dr. Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen at M.I.T., Willie Soon at Harvard, and the inimitable Dr. Roy Spencer, guardian of the Aqua Satellite data which is telling us what is actually happening in our atmosphere rather than computer models which haven’t a clue.
If these guys are “Jokers”, then count me in. Chicken Little has no clothes… and there is no “climate crisis” with any basis in real science.
February 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pmWilliam Briggs
“Just for fun, here are my credentials:”
Impressive, and certainly suggest that you should be able to understand the science, but are in no way any guarantee that you do.
To suggest that it might would be an ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy.
Only your work will tell how your understanding is. I go to your site and find … an adhominem straw man attack on James Hansen; two more logical fallacies.
Less and less impressed with the credential …
February 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pmSorry, should have cited the article I was referencing
“For I, James Hansen, Scientist, have spoken”
February 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pmhttp://wmbriggs.com/blog/2009/02/16/for-i-james-hansen-scientist-have-spoken/
Hi Folks
I’m a bit disappointed I was not named among the Morano “Jokers”. I can help with a little clue…I’m the Ice- and Snowmand taking care of Morano’s Arctic division in Greenland.
Svend Erik Hendriksen
Greenland Art Review
Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (Collectively)
February 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pmSay Mike,
If you think my listing my credentials are an appeal to authority, how do you know to accept the details of The Consensus? Do you, like others, trust what the scientists are saying? Are you ever influenced by their credentials? Or do you understand “the” science just as well as the rest of us?
Nope, no ad hominem attacks on Hansen appear on my site. Two satires of the man’s political—not mathematical or climatological—statements, do.
And how about the Wonkers casting doubt on the scientists because they might have industry relationships. Latin name for that fallacy, too, but I’ve forgotten it. I’ll let you remind me of it.
The Wonkers are also guilty of the argument from authority, are they not? I’ll leave it as an exercise to spot where.
caerbannog (cool name; of killer rabbit fame?),
Take a look at my resume page which lists the papers. See esp. the hurricane ones.
By the way, do not mention “high impact” journals. That’s an indication you’re ready to accept “arguments from authority”, right Mike?
February 17th, 2009 at 3:04 pmIt’s rather embarrassing that you would list a group of names that simply disagree with your beliefs. What is this supposed to accomplish? Perhaps we can begin to round up all scientists that don’t fit into the popular social and political agenda you pursue, and send them to prison? Then, if it becomes too cold to prove we’re too hot, we can let them out and put you in their place. As the climate fluctuates in temperature over the next million years (even though it seems established that THIS is indeed the most perfect temperature the Earth has ever seen and yes, is indeed what billions of years of our planets evolution has aspired to) we can rotate thousands of citizens in and out of prison depending on the latest climate scare. It will be a utopia of research and free exchange of thoughts as each bus pulls up to and away from the prison walls.
I realize that’s a silly thought. You don’t want these men in prison, you just want to ostracize them and strip them of credibility and ruin their careers. Through the snow, the wind and the cold of another below average year, you vilify those who simply ask that we do the almost unheard of, and admit that perhaps there is a chance we don’t have all of the answers and before we commit hundreds of billions of dollars we should at least talk about it a bit more, outside the prison walls.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pmBrad Johnson, stooge of Soros.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm@9
For those of us who have had the misfortune of being trollspammed by Morano, it’s quite revealing to see who actually makes up his email list and thus voluntarily receives his laughable, self-contradictory rubbish.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pmHow can I get on this list? This is something to be proud of.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pmDear Brad Johnson,
there was no and will never be a consensus in the evaluation of climate variability because consensus has nothing to do with science. Instead to denounce a lot of world-renown scientists to be members of a pack of climate denial jokers, you should learn what happens.
Let me give an actual example what scientific misconduct means: In the January 2009 issue of Physics Today Duffy et al. published a paper entitled “Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming”. In their paper they attacked the hypothesis of Scafetta and West that most of the observed global warming trend since 1950 is due to the variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) and stated that this hypothesis is at odds with observations and theory. Let me quote some of their statements:
1. “The historical surface temperature record does not support the hypothesis of strong temperature sensitivity to TSI changes.” Beside the fact that this statement is not correct, the historical surface temperature record does not support the hypothesis that the rise of the globally averaged near-surface temperature can be attributed to the increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (see http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~kramm/climate/co2_t.JPG). The fit of the CO2 concentration is related to Figure 4 of the paper of Kramm et al. (2008) (see http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~kramm/climate/Figure_4.jpg).
2. “…the energy content of the climate system increased between 1955 and 1995 by 2 x 10^23 J, equivalent to an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere of 0.3 W/m^2. Because incoming solar energy – that is, TSI – has not changed, the imbalance must result from increased absorption of outgoing energy, such as by increased greenhouse gases.” Duffy at al. argued on the basis of an image of satellite measurements of TSI. Unfortunately for these authors, our observation systems do not allow to determine the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing infrared radiation with such a high accuracy that an imbalance of 0.3 W/m^2 can be determined. It is sheer nonsense to claim such a value. In their image Duffy et al. TSI values show a large scatter – compared to this imbalance – ranging from 1374 W/m^2(ERB, Nimbus 7) to 1364 W/m^2 (ACRIM II). Furthermore, these authors completely ignored TIM launched in 2003. TIM suggests a TSI value of 1361 W/m^2 (see http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~kramm/climate/butleretal_2008.jpg). Moreover, these authors completely ignored that the upper layer of our oceans of a thickness of 10 m has a higher heat capacity than the entire atmosphere.
3. “The conclusion would be impossible to reconcile with what we know about temperatures during the ice ages and other paleoclimates, the climate of the Venus, and many other phenomena.” This statement of Duffy et al. only underlines that they have insufficient knowledge about these phenomena. To relate, for instance, the atmosphere of the Venus with that of the Earth is sheer nonsense.
4. “It also doesn’t agree with sophisticated detection and attribution studies such as that by Gabi Hegerl and her collaborators [Chapter 9 of the 4th Report of the WGI to the IPCC] that convincingly show that the pattern and magnitudes of recent changes in many climate variables are consistent with a substantial and dominant forcing by greenhouse gases.” Obviously, Duffy et al. consider this chapter as a scientific paper. Believe it, this chapter does not satisfy any scientific standard. It is only a politically guided assessment of scientific literature, nothing more.
Consequently: As long as such papers like that of Duffy et al. are published, there is no demand to establish a pack of climate denial jokers.
Sincerely yours
Gerhard Kramm
P.S.: I also exchange papers and messages with Marc Morano. I will do it even though I am denounced as a “climate denier” (what ever it means) by blogs like yours.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:20 pmHi Guys: In earlier times you would also have to add the names of Darwin, Copernicus and Galileo. They bucked the consus.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pmSorry that I don’t have the credentials to be put on this listing, but I will willingly buy any one of these fine folks the beverage of their choice should our paths cross.
There now. That ought to get me at least honorable mention.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pmBriggs: Meteorology /= climatology, and expertise in one does not equate to expertise in the other.
Peden: the Aqua satellite data is also being analyzed by RSS and the University of Maryland, and their conclusions are quite a bit different from Christy/Spencer’s conclusions. As of yet there is not agreement as to which analysis methods are correct, so selecting the UAH analysis as the “guardian of truth” is not scientific
I particularly like people claiming that Spencer is a AGW denier (including Spencer himself, AFAICT) when one of his own papers points out that there’s been 0.07 deg. C warming per decade as a result of increasing CO2 concentrations. His papers suggest a disagreement on degree, not ultimate cause. After all, we know where that CO2 is coming from, and it isn’t the ocean or volcanoes.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:26 pmI am not a scientist so I cannot explain why it is, however I can assure you that virtually all of the vegetation in New Jersey, and where I’ve lately traveled, that would be from Virginia to Rhode Island, is dying and dying fast. The pine trees looked okay last November – by now, you can’t find one that isn’t dropping needles if not already bare. The evergreen shrubs – such as rhododendron, boxwood, andromeda – are turning yellow. When these things happen it means the roots are already dead and there is no saving the plant. It isn’t a particular bug or disease, so there has to be an ecosystem-wide cause. By the way, the deciduous trees are dropping branches and full of holes, their bark is peeling.
I’m serious. If you live in this area go outside and do a cursory inventory and it will become obvious to you.
So whether it’s an intolerable level of ozone, or CO2, or ultraviolet radiation or just warming and drought, what are you deniers planning to eat in the future?
That’s what I want to know.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:28 pmGail, I am not a scientist, so I can’t explain it either. But here in Missouri all the trees seem to be dying too. They were so green in August and September and then all the leaves started turning brown and yellow. By December all the trees (except for the cedars and pines) were completely dead cause their leaves had fallen off. The grass is real brown too, so I don’t know what they are going to feed the cows next year.
We are all doomed.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pmInteresting comments on “global warming”. It seems to me that the global alarmist are becoming more shrill as it gets colder. The movement has become a cult and a political movement and not based in science. Why are the “global warming” advocates afraid of debate? With more and more CO2 in the atmosphere each year why has the temperature declined for the last 10 years? Why has James Hansen’s former boss denounced him? Why did James Hansen change the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pmThis is a very impressive. Very impressive indeed.
A nearly 100% Denier Response. Love the experts, but it’s the common folk who apparently “just happened” to wonder into the Wonk Room that are the real prize.
Great work, Morano.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pmBen: Global warming has caused Fall to occur in the Fall!
February 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pmExcuse me, I made an error – it was John Christy and David Douglass (two others on the list above), not Roy Spencer. Here’s the link to the paper, hosted on the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition site (also listed above): http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/0809.0581.pdf
February 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pmClassy ad hominem attack, Daily Kos style even.
“Congrats people, I mean, comrades! Let’s denounce the capital… I mean the Holoc…, I mean the Deniers! These pigs are mudding the waters! Infestating the deb… I mean there is NO debate! NO debate! The Science is SETLED. The Truth is the Consensus(tm), as been approved by the Goracl… I mean, the Infallable Pop… I mean the IPCC!! The IPCC! These pigs aren’t scientists nor even reasonable people! Their are CREATIONISTS! Yes, it’s true! Hansen SAYS SO, and he’s a True Scientist, unlike these people! They are OIL-BOUGHT PEOPLE! Ah, the nasty capitalists! They deny to see the truth, but worry not my comrades, we are here for the rescue! Bring these people onto me, my fellow comrades, and we’ll make a big nice Barbeque out of them, and the world will be such a nicer place!
Long Live MARX!”
February 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pmJoking aside, thanks for the list. I’d also add that Pielke Jr. also has a blog, Prometheus, so if you want to add that, be my guest, although I don’t know why you add him. He recognizes the IPCC’s conclusions, and debates de CO2 abatement policies.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:57 pmWhat do I have to do to get my name on that list? From what I can figure out from Mr. Johnson’s piece, it seems I have to be extremely qualified and maintain a belief that science is not about consensus but about proper application of the scientific method. Congratulations to all on the list. Keep up the good work.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:03 pmBen Montgomery,
Please write to me at witsendnj at yahoo.com
I am terrified. Seriously. The grass here, even considering the time of year, looks exceedingly brown. I believe we are in the process of a rapidly accelerating mass extinction. If it is due to dryness, then we can conceivably survive by irrigating. But if it’s too much ozone or CO2, we are in for a complete social breakdown, starvation and other things too horrible to contemplate.
I would REALLY like to know the cause and have been trying very hard to contact scientists who might know. The climate scientists see the larger picture, but the foresters and conservationists are in total denial. One particularly pompous individual wrote back to me that I should be more optimistic, and surely, with all the foresters out there, they would have noticed if something was as seriously amiss as I described.
I wrote back that, not to be over dramatic, but it is a fact that not too long ago, millions of people walked passively into gas chambers and millions more claimed to no nothing of the crematoria even when they were within sight of the billowing smoke.
My point is, clearly it is possible for huge populations to willfully and collectively ignore even the most horrific monstrosity when contemplating the truth is too agonizing to bear.
I notice trees. I have planted hundreds, and my earliest memories are of climbing them and playing under them. A lot of people don’t really look at them.
Go look, everybody. And check out the shrubs too.
We can either all band together to find ways to survive this, or, like the Easter Islanders, we can turn to cannibalism in the end.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pmSimple test for all the AGW people out there. It is a well known fact that CO2 absortion is directly correlated with overall temperatures. Our oceans, which are the greatest CO2 sinks on the planet, store much more CO2 when cold then when warm. The increase of CO2 is therefore directly related to the slight increase in ocean temperatures. Ocean temps have been steadily increasing since the last ice age (yes the world is warming), and CO2 is rising along with the increase in ocean temps.
Now the test. Take your favorite carbonated beverage in a bottle and place one bottle in the freezer and the other in a warm room. Let the one in the freezer reach almost a freezing temperature and set both of them side by side. Open each one and compare the release of CO2 from the bottles. You will notice that the warm bottle will release much more CO2 initially than the cold bottle. If you have the cold bottle at just the right temp you will also see CO2 slowly release from the liquid.
CO2 levels are an effect relationship to global tempertures, and our 0.01% addition is miniscule to the historical variations of CO2 within the atmosphere. Warm temps CAUSE an increase in CO2 levels, CO2 DOES NOT cause an increase in temps.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pmIs it too late to include me on your list? I have published plenty of peer reviewed (I know that is important to you) papers and I have my own website: http://www.davidarchibald.info
I have even published a book predicting a sharp temperature decline next decade. It is entitled “Solar Cycle 24″.
Thanking you in anticipation,
David Archibald
February 17th, 2009 at 6:23 pmDavid, Rob, Ryan: If you want to get on the list, contact Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov). Those on the list above are his elite contacts. Just being a run-of-the-mill crackpot doesn’t qualify.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pmIt is too bad so many of the Kool Ade drinkers follow the “consensus” instead of going at it tooth and nail.
I would like to thank you for placing such a well condensed grouping of all the people and websites. I actually printed it out and will use it to find the truth.
All this junk on computer models, “interpolations”, and high-pitched shrill about “flat-earthers” or equating to “holocaust denial” just makes your arguments less and less valid. Funny that now many are watching that big flaming yellow ball of fire in the sky and the hidden effects of magnetic poles, sunspots, etc. It just makes your efforts at trying to push some failed green agenda (failed because you do not understand thermodynamics, chemistry, economics- you just are pushing for some stupid Gaien fantasy).
The AGW crowd will go away as did the Drude model, aether, and mach wall.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pmWhy is Steve McIntyre of http://www.climateaudit.org not on the list?
February 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pmGail: Observed changes in regional North American climate can be found in this federal government report (produced, by the way, by the Bush administration). A very strong phenomenon is that nighttime lows have been getting higher.
Also of use is this extended Union of Concerned Scientists report on Pennsylvania and this factsheet on New Jersey. The climate of NJ has already shifted the equivalent of about 30 miles south since 1960 (see also this Audubon report on shifting bird migration and this NWF map on shifting plant hardiness zones).
Essentially, New Jersey’s climate today is what Delaware’s was 40 years ago (and Delaware’s climate is what southern Virginia’s used to be, etc.), which is disrupting the established ecosystem.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:43 pmI just noticed comments from Gail and Ben regarding dying pine trees.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pmWe have the same thing out in Arizona and it is NOT from our ten year drought. It is from a beetle larva…from China. It feasts on trees. Our drought has made it exceptional for the larva as the trees put out less sap and cannot defend the bark structure. Not global warming, so the AGW prophets can put down their Gore effigy crack pipes. Sorry.
Von, I do recognize that there are pests, invasive species, fungus, etc. that harm trees.
However, when EVERY SPECIES is showing signs of decline (a technical, forestry term for impending death) there must be something more at work.
I’m not sure what it is. But I have NO doubt, it’s related to humans burning fossil fuels.
You say your beetle feats on your trees due to drought.
Duh!!!!
The drought is from global warming!!!
Here’s what I’m expecting, and wondering how to deal with it. Wildfires like they just had in Australia, after 3 days of temps at 117 degrees!! After drought where the trees are dry tinder! And the fires spread so rapidly, that people couldn’t even outrun the flames in their CARS!!!
Go ahead, and blather about beetles.
It’s AGW that is making many many species extinct, and WE are on the endangered species list now.
Do you have children???
February 17th, 2009 at 7:03 pmGail, do you even know when was the record temperature set on the States? It wasn’t 2007, nor 2005. It wasn’t 1998. Nor 1988. It was 1934.
Talk about GW making species extinct is laughable at best. Please, stop, my belly is hurting of so much laughter. And what is this crap of asking if we have children or not?!? If one does not believe GW to be a big problem, or if one chooses other problems to be more severe and worrying, why should I be dragged towards your POV because of “what about the children”?
Well, at least you’re not asking about the kittens. That’s half good, I guess…
February 17th, 2009 at 7:25 pmSimple test for all the AGW people out there. It is a well known fact that CO2 absortion is directly correlated with overall temperatures. Our oceans, which are the greatest CO2 sinks on the planet, store much more CO2 when cold then when warm. The increase of CO2 is therefore directly related to the slight increase in ocean temperatures. Ocean temps have been steadily increasing since the last ice age (yes the world is warming), and CO2 is rising along with the increase in ocean temps.
Simple test for Todd:
What’s the difference between C12 and C13?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pmHi Gail,
Our drought is actually subsiding. It is Feb and we have more snow on the outlying mountains here that have not been like this since 1990. I know. I am an extended generation native that has been through this state all my life.
The bark beetle has been decreasing over the last few years.
We had a fire back about five years ago that was the result of enviroMENTALists who petitioned to stop any forest management. Our fire was about the size of Rhode Island. Both the AZ fire and the Australian fire were started by the same kind of person: an out of work, unemployed firefighter.
AGW is not the reason. If you are following this and this flavor of Kool Ade suits, then continue the conversion, become a drone.
Mankind is affecting the earth, but that amount is droplets compared to the amount the sun affects this planet.
Seriously, Gail, the suns energy on the earth over the course of one day is ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE THAN THE TOTAL OUTPUT OF ALL HUMAN ENERGY IN THE COURSE OF A YEAR. Sorry for the emphasis, but too many people are buying into this carbon stupidity.
BTW: Yes, I have two children and I am educating them on physics- my background. I will not allow them to be brainwashed by the little-minded green people.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pmLuis, I’m going to try to be polite.
Seriously. Where do you live? I don’t know what is going on in other places. But I do absolutely know that within hundreds of miles of my small farm, in western New Jersey, all the plants are dying.
No kidding!
Do you know why? I don’t.
But whatever the reason, I have children, and I’m absolutely petrified, wondering what they are going to eat.
Stop with the computer models and take a close look at the actual reality.
You’ll shit your pants.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:30 pmNo I am Spartacus.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pmjust noticed comments from Gail and Ben regarding dying pine trees.
We have the same thing out in Arizona and it is NOT from our ten year drought. It is from a beetle larva…from China. It feasts on trees. Our drought has made it exceptional for the larva as the trees put out less sap and cannot defend the bark structure. Not global warming, so the AGW prophets can put d
Some 30+ million acres of lodgepole pines are dying in British Columbia — and the culprit is a *native* bark beetle whose population is exploding due the fact that many beetles are surviving the anomalously warm winters there.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:37 pmJesus, don’t you get it??
The frigging beetles that eat on the trees are ENABLED by the warming and drying from climate change!
It seems I am never astonished enough at the gross ignorance of people who have been given every opportunity to be educated.
Almost enough for me to be a Republican in favor of school vouchers!
HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?
February 17th, 2009 at 7:42 pmWe had a fire back about five years ago that was the result of enviroMENTALists who petitioned to stop any forest management. Our fire was about the size of Rhode Island. Both the AZ fire and the Australian fire were started by the same kind of person: an out of work, unemployed firefighter.
Von is completely full of it here. The fire to which he is referring is the Rodeo-Chediski fire, nearly two-thirds of which burned on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation (which was not subject to environmental restrictions that folks like Von love to complain about).
The RC fire burned well over 200,000 acres of heavily logged and roaded Indian reservation before it burned a single acre of Forest Service land.
When all was said and done, over 280,000 acres of heavily logged and roaded IR land burned. There were over 2,000 miles of logging roads on that land (corresponding to nearly 5 miles of road per square mile). Yet yahoos like Von will ignore that fact and try to blame that fire on environmentalists even though most of the land that burned was not subject to any of the evironmental regulations that apply to USFS land.
February 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pmSo all of Gail’s plants(and virtually every living plant on the east coast according to her) are dying because New Jersey is becoming like…Delaware?
And none of those plants (including grass) ever existed naturally 30 miles south of where she lives?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:02 pmMaybe Brad should take a step outside. If global warming gets any worse, I’ll have to get a warmer coat.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:04 pmJohn M,
The climate is shifting faster than the fora and fauna can keep up with it.
That is from humans burning fossil fuels.
here’s my email:
witsendnj at yahoo dot com\
please, write to me in April, or May.
And then we can talk about how we (you,. your family,. and mine) can find food.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pmAren’t beetle eating birds skipping the migration? They just not hungry or what?
In that Audobon bird count did they ever get around to counting up the birds? Must be hiding it for some reason. I have read that 2/3rds of the bird species increased their populations, which means that the extra birds would have to range further abroad to find their dinner, nesting materials, happy home space, cover from hawks, ect.
Someone is going to have to explain to me how extra co2 is killing trees. I have a tangerine that’s planted out in the yard, which I am fairly sure started out in a greenhouse pumped up with 1000 ppm co2. It’s plenty green.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pmGail,
Are you seriously saying that the climate was so different within 30 miles of your house 40 years ago that nothing at all would have survived if you transplanted it 30 miles away?
And just so I’m clear, you are saying there will be no crops this growing season?
It’s not my style, but what was that word Brad used in #29…?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban, Israeli statesman, diplomat, and scholar.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:46 pmGail,
Thank You for demonstrating hysteria. Nothing you have said has any basis in scientific fact except maybe that the grass is brown in your yard. Your fears and uninformed observations are typical of non-scientists who have been scared to death by pseudo-science. Your statement “EVERY SPECIES is showing signs of decline” is ridiculous and you will find no peer reviewed research that supports this incredibly uninformed statement. Why don’t you actually investigate the science and I do not mean going to politically motivated web sites to get your information. Go find the actual peer reviewed research. If you do, you will find that your fears are misplaced. What you will find is that there is no real evidence of anthropogenic global warming. There are only computer models that can only model a fraction of the known variables and are essential useless for predicting future climate. The climate has been in a constant state of change ever since there has been a climate this is not going to change. There are many things to worry about. The end of the world due to burning fossil fuels is not one of them.
February 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pmGail
It has been a great ski season this year with all the cold weather and snow in the East Coast. But it has been tough on my tomato plants they just don’t seem to grow in the winter. But fortunately for my family they have these places called grocery stores and I’m able to feed my family when I can’t grow stuff outside. And what’s really crazy it seems to happen the same time every year. Maybe if it got a little warmer we could grow some plants in December like they do down south. :)
All kidding aside, I don’t know how you can live each day thinking the world is going to end. I sure hope you don’t pass that sort of attitude on to your kids.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:04 pmI’ve seen similar stuff to Gail. It’s all the same in financial doomer threads, peak oil doomer threads, religious nutcase doomer threads, etc. They are in a panic and just want to share it with the world. I would say to calm down, but in these cases, it’s no use.
I hope you get better, Gail. I honestly do.
February 17th, 2009 at 9:41 pmHi All:
Had to attend to family dinner and such.
caerbannog is full of brown dooky. Seriously dude, you need to stop going off the BS dribble of Wikipedia, which is only as accurate as you and your friends make it off your crack induced dream. The fire burnt over 750 sq mi. of land, which is 1/2 of the size of Rhode Island, however the total damage due to runoff and marred land from barriers, etc. added additional land effects. The fire started by two poeple: an idiot lighting a signal fire because she was lost and an unemployed firefighter. The burnt damage is documented here: http://www.floa.org/rodeo_chediski/fire_photos1.htm
I see this land all the time caerbannog, but of course you are one of the typical BS artists stating that these things either never happened, or are toning down the damage to avert attention to your subversions. It is real and anyone who wants to travel to Arizona and meet the people in these areas who had to deal with Sierra Club, WWF, Nature Conservancy, or other ass-hat mental goons, feel free to let me know.
BTW: None of the US Forest land was “heavily logged”. That is a total lie. caerbannog, I am calling you out as a complete and total liar. The Navapache Reservation has not “heavily logged” here since the McNary sawmill “left” overnight in 1980’s when the Navapache tribe decided they wanted to take over the sawmill. The McNary sawmill came to AZ from LA. So, caerbannog, what is your new “theory” on this? Gonna wiki this fact jackass?
The acreage you claim is also complete horse dooky. Again, caerbannog is a LIAR.
Ball in your court, caerbannog, or should I say charlatan?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pmcaerbannog Says:
Simple test for Todd:
What’s the difference between C12 and C13?
I would guess that you are implying that the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 is proof that Man is responsible for the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere. Man is increasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but this increase amounts to small fraction of the total increase, and does not change the fact that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. I am sorry if you think that it is, but it is not. Water Vapor is the main warming agent in the atmosphere.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:41 pmHere, here Todd!
Spot on! Can caerbannog or charlatan rebound now?
February 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pmSorry Von — that was a swing and a miss.
The RD fire burned through 280K of indian reservation land not subject to USFS environmental laws. And the fire burned through most of that 280K acres before it even got to USFS land. The IR land was not impacted by whatever environmental regulations were imposed on the USFS — but the fire blew threw 280K acres of I.R. land nonetheless. The fire burned every bit as intensely on land not subject to USFS regulations as it did on USFS land. Any reasonably intelligent person should be able figure out from that fact that factors other than USFS environmental regulations were responsible for the severity of the fire on non-USFS land. But then you are not reasonably intelligent.
And as for Todd, the IR absorption properties of CO2 guarantee that it is a greenhouse gas. And the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere (relative to that of CO2) means that H20 is a feedback, not a forcing, factor. CO2’s persistence in the atmosphere is what distinguishes its role vs. that of water vapor. But to understand that, you’d need to understand basic physics (which you obviously don’t).
February 18th, 2009 at 12:31 amAnd Todd, do you have any idea why the atmospheric C12/C13 ratio is significant? Do you have any idea why changes in the C12/C13 ratio rule out oceanic outgassing as a source of the extra CO2?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:34 amI seriously doubt that Todd knows, actually.
It’s changes in C12/C13 ratio combined with dropping O2 concentrations in the atmosphere that rule out the ocean as the source, but that’s a relatively minor quibble.
The C12/C13 ratio rules out an inorganic source for the extra CO2 (volcanoes), and the dropping O2 concentration means both that a) heating oceans can’t be the source, since oceanic heating = more CO2 AND O2 and b) the O2 must be getting locked up in compounds somewhere via oxidation (in this case fire). The reaction in question is generally:
fuel + O2 = heat + water + CO2
February 18th, 2009 at 1:03 am#36 — “What’s the difference between C12 and C13?”
Ooooh! I know! Pick me! Pick me! [squirms]
About 3%.
(Oh, dang. I thought you wanted the much vaunted ratio of the isotopes proving evil fossil fuel use. Never mind.)
Perhaps you can tell us the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Or better yet, explain how it is that the 12/13 relationships aren’t simply the result of ALL of man’s contribution since the industrial age. After all, the last molecule sucked up by the ocean is the first one emitted as it warms.
Is that the best you got?
February 18th, 2009 at 1:11 amCan I get on the crackpot list too? I post the occasional comment at Prometheus and Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre must be mortified that he wasn’t included).
Seriously – it would be one of the great honors of my life, especially if Gail starts wailing and screaming and calling me STUPID because her grass died and her kids & kittens are gonna starve.
But really seriously, folks (and I really mean it), I think Gail is some kind of sock puppet who’s really yanking your chains.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:44 amG Alston,
Read Brian Anliss’ post. And if you find it difficult to understand, ask him to retype it more slowly for you (with simple sentences and single-syllable words).
February 18th, 2009 at 2:51 amI demand that I be put on that list. I’ve never received any money before I started my work and was never promised payment for any of my research but ….
- I have exposed the sham of the IPCC review process and how the last draft open to individual reviewers of the pivotal WGI chapter 9 received comments from just 62 reviewers, 7 of which were “government of xxxx” and only explicitly endorsed by 5 of those reviewers none who was both credible and free of vested interest. In fact the only reviewer who appeared free of vested interest made just this comment of support as his total review of the 11-chapter WGI contribution.
- I was also the person who blew the whistle on the authorship of that 9th chapter and showed that of the 53 authors 10 were from one establishment (Hadley Centre) and 4 came from each of 3 others. The papers cited by that chapter showed that more that 40 formed a network of people who had previously or still do work with each other. It was also clear that the majority were climate modellers. All this is in contradiction to the IPCC procedures that demand that authors have a variety of views and experiences.
- I’m also the person that examined the supposed overwhelming consensus and found that no credible survey had been undertaken and that the number of published papers is no indicator when governments fund the research that follows the IPCC line and starves other climate research avenues of funds. Many academies of science released statements endorsing the IPCC’s but not one actually polled its members before the executives or their subcommittees released those statements.
Please show me why it is necessary to have a PhD in climatology to investigate the above issues. For bonus points please demonstrate that a consensus means anything to science.
The IPCC is a master of spin. It implies that 2500+ reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450 lead authors adds up to more than 3750 people and that all these supported the IPCC’s findings. Get rid of the duplication and there’s less than 2900, including many sceptics among the reviewers, and it can reasonably be said that through their work these people supported ONLY the production of the report.
Before slinging mud a wise person might take a hard look at what they were trying to defend. I take it that you’re not a wise person.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:56 amI’m disappointed not to be included in the ‘bloggers’ section.
Talking of the political term ‘consensus’ – can anyone define what the consensus actually is and who in the climate science community is on record of speaking in support of it?
February 18th, 2009 at 3:05 amI think it is Marc Sheppard over at Am. Think who does most of the denier posting.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:08 amBob thinks Steve McIntyre should be on this list. Tricky. He’s always said that he accepts an anthropogenic component of climate chane (actually, so has Anthony Watts) but he has trouble with some of the statistics used to demonstrate it. He even said that, if he had to make policy, he go with the IPCC reports as they represent the majority expert view.
Then again, the effect of his results hasn’t been especially friendly to the “consensus”. Tricky.
February 18th, 2009 at 5:00 amGail
Get a life
I have a Bsc Hons in Enc Sci and Physics – please spare me the AGW bullshit.
The climate is changing and always will – get on with life everybody.
And I agree, why isn’t Steve McIntyre on the list – oh I remember he is a statistician only interested in the process (I think). But please add Anthony Watts and Jim Peden to the list.
Keep up the good work Anthony, Steve et al.
February 18th, 2009 at 6:24 amWell done “The Wonk Room” I’m going to save this page for posterity…it’s priceless.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:07 amYOU HAVE LOST YOUR MINDS COMPLETELY!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:06 amHow can I get on this list? You seem to have chosen the only credible scientists left!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:29 amGood post. Keep up the good work.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:45 amcaerbannog Says:
And Todd, do you have any idea why the atmospheric C12/C13 ratio is significant? Do you have any idea why changes in the C12/C13 ratio rule out oceanic outgassing as a source of the extra CO2?
I stated that man is adding to CO2 in the atmosphere, but I also know that all additions to CO2 in the atmosphere is not man related. Warming temps cause an increase in CO2 into the atmosphere, to claim that all increases are related to man is to ignore the science you seem to be using to state your cause. I also know that the this relationship (C12/C13) is not completely understood, and that the type of vegetation in the biosphere can change this ratio as well (tropical vegetation has different ratios than temperate vegetation). I also know from our climate history going back thousands of years, that the feedback loop is not fully understood either. A review of historical temps and CO2 levels indicate that both CO2 levels and temps have been much higher in the history of the earth, the feedback loop should dictate that once the balance is out of place it should be a reinforcing loop, in that as temps increase CO2 increases which causes temps to increase further and so on. However, this does not happen. Historical readings show that temps cap themselves regardless of CO2 levels, and in fact once you reach a certain CO2 level temps can not go higher.
So stop looking for causual links, they do no one on earth any service. There are three major driving forces that affect temps on the earth. Solar Irradiation, Orbital Forcing and Techtonic Movement. The earth has been warming on its own accord for the past 11,000 years, with the only major climatic difference being directly related to changes in the sun, ie sunspots.
Correlation does not mean cuasation.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:15 amI think the list of deniers is a very impressive group. These 50 alone certainly refute Al Gore’s assertion that those opposed to the so-called “consensus” are similar to those who believe in a flat earth or think that man never landed on the moon.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:38 amI think it was a major oversight to leave off Freeman Dyson. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
February 18th, 2009 at 11:45 amthis is the list (league) of gentleman that saves the world from junk science, whoa bit of a plug there, I wish i was on that list but at least i get my name alongside them here.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pmI am VERY disappointed my site was not listed under bloggers. With nearly 80,000 unique visits per month, I think it qualifies or at least deserves an honorable mention for showing the *other* side of the story the MSM routinely disregards. And contrary to your silly statements, my site plus those you deemed list-worthy are not Morano’s lackeys. Many of us are private citizens simply disgusted by the politicization of science. Just like there is no role for science in religion, there is no role for politics in science.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pmHere is what I think is an appropriate quote:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm—— Richard Feynman
Oh wonderful irony! I doubt that the agnostics, luke-warmers, and “denialists” could ever come up with a better way of getting their point across than a post like this from a member of the “consensus!” ROFLMAO.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pmBrad:
February 18th, 2009 at 2:17 pmCan you please state the sources of funding and the principals behind this site and its affiliated web-sites. My understanding is that Mrs Edwards is involved in this site. Is this correct?
Beside the many past personal affiliations between the writers for this and its affiliated blogs, are any of you employees or do you otherwise receive paid compensation from the Republican Party? The Democratic Party?
More pointedly, how much of your funding comes directly or indirectly from George Soros? Are you registered as a non-profit organization?
Gail:
February 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pmSweetheart, take a chill pill. It is all going to be ok. In the mean time since it sounds like you have a bunch of land, install geo and reduce your footprint. If you like the geo, start a business and help out your neighbors. You will be able to create a bunch of green jobs and we will all benefit mightily. Don’t complain, do something concrete and constructive.
Wonk room, where can I buy the playing cards? May I suggest this picture for Emporer William brigg’s joker card:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/resume/
Gale,
Luis doesn’t mean it about the kittens, he’s a softie really. I’ll bet he’s got a cat at home.
Not sure if you are genuine as you seem so extreme and rediculous that I wonder if we’re being had. Some of the remarks are like blue touch paper to those of us who are of the opposite opinion to yours, so I’m reluctant to waste too much time replying.(although I already have.)
Panic or worry do not affect the outcome of any event, they simply interfeer with one’s ability to deal with the outcome. Remember that, it applies to all worries in life. If you do nothing else think on that.
If you weren’t from over there, I’d love to talk to you about this as if I am to take your comments seriously, I would say that you are anxious. Most anxiety is born of fear of the unknown. The best remedy for this is information; in this case to understand better the science. So my advice is that you look for the data that supports the arguments, do not read political or media driven information on the subject on either side until you have sought the data that is available and is that data which is under discussion. I am sure you will find this a fruitful exercise and quite surprising. Start with the four main instrumental temperature records for global mean temperature over the last 150 years.
Here’s the English one, it’s one of the four or five ‘outlets’ for global mean temperature and the Hadley centre that produces these numbers does subscribe to the IPCC’s predictions (which are not as dire as yours incidentally). Here’s a link, keep it on your desktop and check it every month at the time when you feel most anxious about the topic. They are always a month late with their figures, so January 09 is not out yet.) This is what global warming looks like right now:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/
Climate debate daily is an excellent site if only for the links on the left side, it attempts to present both sides of the debate. As someone who’s spent rather too much time on this topic I can assure you that if it isn’t linked on that page it is probably not worth reading or it soon will be included. Problem is one needs to know which sites are political/gossip/science/data/mathS/economic. You will have to trawl through them to find out. This takes time.
http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/
You wrote about what’s happening in your immediate environment. Remember that the globe is huge! Have you ever been outside the US? Do you genuinly think that what’s happening up your street is the same the world over? If so, why should the scientists try to locate temperature gages all over the world, in the oceans, in the Arctic and Antarctic? They could just come over to yours to collect all the data they need, that sounds sarcastic, but really that’s what you’re implying in your comment. (we have about twenty various firs and pines in our garden and they’re doing rather too well right now, we had them cut back about three weeks ago.) The grass is suffering because of the firs! I am an avid gardener and have noticed nothing unusual. This winter was cold though, and I think my orange tree, my favourite plant has pegged it in our recent frost.
Lastly, bear in mind that if “the deniers” are such an impotent minority then they need not be of any real concern to you or anybody for that matter. So no need to get your knickers in a twist about them. They do not hold the purse strings or the power, yet!
February 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pmI shan’t be sending you an email though, can’t help wondering if that’s some sort of trap!
Just like there is no role for science in religion, there is no role for politics in science.
When you start reporting on the findings of denialist science, the data collected by denialist scientists, the model output of denialist institutions, the equations included in the testable hypotheses in denialist journal articles, then the majority of the world will pay attention.
In the meantime, the majority of the human population on the planet will question the workings of your brain and how you make it thru the day in such a deep state of denial.
Best,
D
February 18th, 2009 at 2:35 pmBrad:
The first rule in consulting is size the problem. For that you typically need a few basic facts, some simple arithmetic and some logic. Your math and/or your geography and/or logic is screwy – which is pretty surprising for a MIT grad – but then perhaps it says a lot.
By my calculation the climate is moving north (not south as you suggest) by about 6 miles per decade. Which means that Camden, NJ (just outside of Philadelphia in Southern New Jersey) now has the same climate that Wilmington Delaware (actually Northern Delaware) had in 1960! Since I think Wilmington has a pretty pleasant climate compared to Boston I figured out that if the rate of climate improvement stays pretty much the same, Boston will be like Wilmington is today in say between roughly 300 and 500 years depending how you measure the distance between Boston and Wilmington.
Brad, please feel free to point out any errors in my geography, arithmetic, or logic in the above. If none, then think about why many of the folks who have come here think you guys are loopy.
P.S.
Gail, honey, do you see why many are not quite as upset as you seem to be.
P.P.S. Gail, how is that Geothermal business idea coming?
February 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pmComment deleted.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pmGail.. move to Los Angeles – west side of town. Although it’s been a bit cool here – my garden is doing absolutely great. But I’m worried about the future as well, as the average temperatures for CA (according to the official temperature records at NOAA) has been trending downward (cooling) for the last 22-23 years. Best of luck to ya.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:59 pmWhat an excellent list, thanks for providing a one-stop shop skeptical readers.
Feel free to add my blog to the list, I could use the traffic.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:53 pmIf you have something intelligent to say, go ahead. Teasing Gail just shows your true colors. You guys are nothing but those bloggers’ pawns. The listed jokers barely say anything, oh, I forgot, they don’t have to, they have you to do bad deeds.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pmGail, I may not know what is hurting your plants, but I can almost guarantee it is NOT too much CO2. If it was that, your plants should be thriving.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pmMy grass is brown too, and I live in Houston. We actually had something that resembled a winter down here this year. It even snowed a little bit.
I work in a high industrial area, and the trees around here are thriving. Or they were until Ike tore a bunch of them big fellers down and wiped out our power grid for nearly a month.
No, these people on the list have valid points to make in the AGW argument. I’m sure some of the scientists on the IPCC could make some good arguments. But that is precisely the problem. Too many people see factual disconnects, and there is no debate being offered. This scary scenario is being shoved down our throats. It is no wonder many of us don’t like it too much. We like to figure out the real reasons, not make them up to support our desire for more funding.
Sincerely, thank you Brad and David Roberts.
I know it looks like you kicked an ant-hill here (see crazy and desperate rantings above) but dont let it get you down. They are backed into a corner.
The email list isnt just to these quacks, it also goes to my family and freinds — like Obama-is-a-muslim emails of this past year. Its a horrible and criminal enterprise.
Keep up the good work and know many of us support you 100%.
Copenhagen will go through, regardless of the peanut gallery above on this list.
February 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pmFirst of all people, I am not complaining. I am simply reporting what I see, and looking for an explanation. The reason IF the grass is also affected by whatever it is that is damaging trees and shrubs, to me, is the possibility that annual plants may be affected as well. It is well documented by non-alarmist agricultural studies that high levels of ozone, HIGH levels of CO2, and too much UV radiation can all damage plants. So my thought is that logically there must be some level at which the high levels actually kill the plants, by interfering with photosynthesis and/or aspiration. The most likely explanation however is warming and drought since those are indubitably occurring. When people say the climate is shifting they appear to be referring only to temperature. Water, however, is just as important. There’s no question that snow cover has been tremendously reduced in the last 2 centuries in this area.
Somebody asked me how it feels to live with such a dismal prediction for the future and truthfully, it’s quite awful. I don’t have religion but I’ve always had a tremendous regard for nature in all its majesty, and the human efforts in art, literature and music that celebrate it. It breaks my heart to contemplate the losses to biodiversity we are already experiencing.
I try to appreciate every moment that remains in relative peace and calm, even a trip to the grocery store. I also try to keep a sense of humor. It actually hadn’t been my plan to provoke pompous AGW denier douchebags into blithering hysteria, but I have to admit now that it’s been almost as much fun as following the various websites that expose Caribou Barbie’s misadventures and various forms of theft. Themudflats.net is one of the best, Palinsdeceptions.com is great too!
Gotta go wash down a tranq with some koolaid!
Just wanted to pass that on, also!
February 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pmI just realized, the funniest thing about these deniers above:
They are expressing PRIDE in the fact that they need a hick Senator and his secretary to interpret climate science for them.
How whack is that?
February 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmAlso, thanks Brad.
Unbelievable the crack-pots who shill for almost anything.
I think I have read just about every anti-science assertion here, by the deniers. Like the cretin asserting that Siberia was getting more snow than ever, until I pointed out that the colder it gets, the less snow there is. Conversely, up to a certain point, the warmer it gets, likely, the more snow.
I remember a free lecture at Cal-Tech one night. the speaker said that many will be misled by “meterologists” citing local temperatures to prove their case, when, in fact, global climate is so much more. He also stated that, rather than observed local temperatures, look for more and more violent weather, at least until the ice-caps melt.
February 18th, 2009 at 7:51 pmThe radiation equations that Swartzchild and Milne developed in the late 19th and early 20th century have turned out to have a mathematical error in them. These are the fundamental theoretical equations of the Science of atmospheric GHG warming. The correct solution includes a term that limits GHG total quantities, on a planet in contact with a practically infinite supply of GHGs, such as the Earth and its oceans. Only when the Oceans dry up in three or four billion years could a “GHG water catastrophe” theoretically happen, but then where would the water come from for the catastrophe?
As a consequence of the error, they predict that there is no limit to rising GHG levels. While CO2 is a minor GHG it is such a minor one that it doesn’t qualify as a primary, secondary, or even tertiary warming GHG, as it is dwarfed by H20. Actual measurement indicate that CO2 doubling can raise the temeperature not 10 degrees; nor one degree; nor even one tenth of one degree; but some minor and there for totally innocuous few hundredths of one degree. And that would be benign for Mankind’s crops, and firstly the worlds flora, and then fauna.
Yet the AGW religious warmists have not yet proposed building a big roof over the oceans to prevent the addition of the deadly GHG hydrogen dioxide, to the atmosphere. Instead they dream up impossible CO2 residency time to make the CO2 appear to have much longer to work. Their desperate insistence that CO2 stays in the atmosphere, with out any proof, has grown from 25 to 50 to 100 then 300 and now 1000s of years, in order to make CO2 seem more powerful. Despite the settled Science that the IPCC now acknowledges Henry’s’ Law of Solubility says it is just 5.7 years, has always been 5.7 years, and despite their desperation it still is 5.7 years,and thousands of experiments repeatedly confirm it. And now the IPCC says it will agree in the AR5 unless the AGWarmists can produce some evidence at the 11th hour. Since they have been trying to do so for 60 years and failing, every single time, I don’t see any reason to expect any.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pmAre you talking about H2O2 (hydrogen dioxide) or are you trying to say dihydrogen monoxide (H2O)? From the general incoherence of your post, it’s hard to be sure.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pmBeta:
Are you suggesting that what Gail said made sense?
Are you suggesting that what I said about the rate of change of climate that Brad raised is not accurate?
Are you suggesting that the tone of this thread does not legitmate a response in a similar tone.
C’mon, you need to learn how to debate with people who hold different perspectives. Calling people deniers is totally inappropriate and unnecessary. I haven’t called anybody a cretin, though I might be induced by astoundingly insightful comments such as
Well that clears up everything!!
February 18th, 2009 at 8:20 pmFirst of all people, I am not complaining. I am simply reporting what I see, and looking for an explanation. The reason it matters, IF the grass is also affected by whatever it is that is damaging trees and shrubs, to me, is the possibility that annual plants may be affected as well. It is well documented by non-alarmist agricultural studies that high levels of ozone, HIGH levels of CO2, and too much UV radiation can all damage plants. So my thought is that logically there must be some level at which the high levels actually kill the plants, by interfering with photosynthesis and/or aspiration. The most likely explanation however is warming and drought since those are indubitably occurring. When people say the climate is shifting they appear to be referring only to temperature. Water, however, is just as important. There’s no question that snow cover has been tremendously reduced in the last 2 centuries in this area.
Somebody asked me how it feels to live with such a dismal prediction for the future and truthfully, it’s quite awful. I don’t have religion but I’ve always had a tremendous regard for nature in all its majesty, and the human efforts in art, literature and music that celebrate it. It breaks my heart to contemplate the losses to biodiversity we are already experiencing.
I try to appreciate every moment that remains in relative peace and calm, even a trip to the grocery store. I also try to keep a sense of humor. It actually hadn’t been my plan to provoke all you AGW deniers into blithering insults and invectives (did any of you bother to go outside and look carefully at trees and shrubs? oh and LA, I hear, is having water rationed), but I have to admit now that it’s been almost as much fun as following the various websites that expose Caribou Barbie’s misadventures and various forms of theft. Themudflats.net is one of the best, Palinsdeceptions.com and Palingate are great too!
Just wanted to pass that on to ya, also!
Gotta go wash down a tranq with some koolaid…
February 18th, 2009 at 8:49 pmI would like to express my deep regret for not being listed
as a climate joker by your editors. I am deeply disappointed by this lack of accusation. I will gladly submit the false claim that I am a schill for big oil, if that will help engender me to your fine list.
kindest regards,
Tom Chisholm
AMS Meteorologist
unabashed denier
former hippie
later day fascist, capitalist, money grubbing oil burning,
right wing, wonk.
Have a pleasant day
February 18th, 2009 at 9:17 pmThe other point that really makes all of this conflict on here completely moot is ocean acidification. Unlike AGW, its not complex, and it is 100% provable as coming from CO2 derived from fossil fuel burning. There is no such thing as alternative viewpoint on this.
If left unchecked it will get to the point where any calcium based (shell, coral) organism will literally dissolve. Most of the fish we eat depend on eating smaller organisms with small shells based on calcium.
The only way to stop it is to stop all fossil fuel burning of any kind.
That alone is reason enough to regulate CO2. You don’t even need global warming. So this whole denial campaign has no power to affect CO2 regulation –which is their goal.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:21 pmStas: Henry’s Law of Solubility is why the oceans are acidifying, but says nothing about how long CO2 takes to dissolve into the ocean. CO2 dissolves quickly into surface layers, but then it takes a LOT longer than 10 years to transport deeper into the ocean. To a first order approximation, it’s a simple differential equation that produces a logarithmic decay curve like any in thermodynamics, radioactive decay, electronics, etc.
It is, however, apparent that you’ve not read the literature – there’s no inventing of lifetime going on here. CO2 lifetime is reasonably well understood from the geologic record. Read this paper as a primer, and then read a few of the references – you’ll find they’re firmly grounded in data, not modeling: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
There’s a difference between a skeptic and a denier – a skeptic looks at climate science as if it were swiss cheese and finds the holes more compelling than the cheese. A denier believes there is no such thing as cheese. A skeptic deserves some level of respect, since his/her skepticism will ultimately produce better science as the focus on the holes enables them to be gradually filled. A denier deserves little more than disdain.
I’ve seen precious few avowed skeptics in this comment thread, and there precious few in Morano’s list either.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:22 pmHey Chris, let me ask you a question. What is hydrostatic equilibrium and derive its corresponding differential equation. That is the root of climatolgy/meteorology. Your rheotoric is empty.You’re all hat and no cattle.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pmTom
For all of the people attacking Gail…I don’t recall that she ever said she was a scientist. All she did was report what has been happening on her small farm in New Jersey, and express her alarm what she sees, and ask for some answers.
For all of the opportunity that those who are called “climate deniers” had here, to present Gail with science as to why her alarm was unfounded, and the science upon which such a conclusion rests, all you did was meet her concern and anxiety with derision.
All folks like Tom Chisholm, Brian, Angliss, Luis Dias, Von, et al. needed to do was explain to Gail why climate change, or the lack thereof, could not possibly account for what she is reporting.
Oh, and to Sandy @50, you’re full of crap. It’s been a mediocre ski season here for any kind of natural snow, we had in Novermber what would have been a normal start to the season that we haven’t seen in five or so years, and we have SPRING skiing here now during WINTER vacation week. The ski conditions this week are similar to what we usually have in April. The season isn’t great. Far from it, but not as bad as last year, when the local mountain was closed for much of January because it was too warm.
I grew up in Vermont, and after living in this region for going on fifty years, I will tell you that the climate has changed. And it hasn’t gotten colder.
My sister and I joke that we had always wanted to live in Virginia because of the milder winters. Now we don’t have to worry anymore, ’cause Virginia weather is coming to us!
And to Bernie: Take your own chill pill, Jackass. Addressing a random woman you don’t know as “sweetheart” doesn’t make you one of the sexy guys on “Mad Men”. It just makes you a loser with women you don’t know, as well as with the women you do know.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:01 pmGail:
Do you have a citation? Are you talking just snow cover or total precipitation? What area are you actually talking about? The charts here
February 18th, 2009 at 10:04 pmcertainly do not support your assertion for the last 100 years, which presumaly is where you would see the more significant anthropogenic effects. I am open to look at other data if you have it handy.
Ya’ll are using the oldest debate cheapshot, casting objective qualified atmospheric scientists with far more background than you, to prove a negative. iT IS you people who have not back tested the global warming hysterics. Yet, if
February 18th, 2009 at 10:17 pma “denier” points to the facts that we just broke the alltime record low temp in Maine, the Alaskan glaciers just advanced for he first time in 200 years. It snowed in Las Vegas, Malibu, North Florida, London 4 times this year, the polar bear is at 25k, up from 10k in 1975, record lack of sunspots
and we’re challenging the Dalton Minimum and on and on and on,
we’re accused of data picking. Really? So Hanson said in 1988 that New England would have the climate of North Carolina by now. HEY he was actually right! It snowed in Asheville this winter.
A denier
Chris…I’m still looking for that equation. Hint…You can find it in Petersons General Meteorolgy textbook. It even has pictures for you.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pmBrian and Tom,
Guess what, I’m not a climate scientist nor an ocean chemist nor an ocean biologist.
I dont HAVE TO BE to form my policy preferences. I just have to be well informed.
I read the abstracts and press releases from Scripps, Stanford, NASA, NOAA, and the AGU. After that its time for me to go back to my day job. And thats good enough for me.
If you have a problem with anything I’ve said, take it up with them. They say it takes only one year for CO2 to migrate from the atmosphere to the ocean. And the upper levels is where the pteropods are that other large fish eat, so I am sure you understand the concern.
Spare me the minutiae. Not interested. I only want to know the general findings from reputable sources. Thats not you.
Here’s the deal. Here is why we will sign at Copenhagen and you will have zero effect upon it. Because if one were to put the credibility of YOU vs. the credibility of the institutions mentioned above, well… its not really a fair fight is it?
Get to work. Senator Inhofe needs a cup of coffee.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:28 pmweather /= climate.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/01/16/weather-vs-climate/
February 18th, 2009 at 10:33 pmCLM Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 10:33 pm“All she did was report what has been happening on her small farm in New Jersey, and express her alarm what she sees, and ask for some answers.”
Simple! anyone who live on a farm would not say what she said.
How awesome!! You know While working on my Physics and Chemistry degrees, I also played football. Some years have passed and after some lackluster experiences in Semi-Pro and Arena ball, my NFL dreams have all but died.
But today I have a new purpose. This list is a who’s who of some of the greatest scientists and researchers in the world. You need only consider the fact that this small collection of rogues have derailed one of the most coordinated government and media conspiracies in the history of mankind, armed with only their wits and limited funding.
Having spent countless hours bemoaning the laughable compilation of “very probably likely”s and “observable statistical trend”s that pass for climate science, the hoax is quite clear to me. And my constantly refined skill for spotting cleverly crafted language, fallacious arguments, and just plain baloney-science, have me primed to undertake my new mission: MAKING THIS LIST.
So look out Lubos Motl, when you’re sleeping, I’ll be burning the midnight oil (and coal, sweet). Watch it William Briggs, while you’re doing all your work for free, I’ll actually be having bake sales to PAY for the right to be a thorn in the side of the alarmists. And to the Roger Pielkes, consider this our official throw-down!
Any good cause is worth fighting for right? My training starts today. Marc Morano, keep me on your radar. To be mentioned in such esteemed company would be an unparalleled honor. These men have selflessly given more for the benefit of science, humanity and the environment then our President Elect, the Sierra Clubs of the world, or the average, little known, Green Blogging hack journalist(<—Like you!).
February 18th, 2009 at 10:39 pmChris, I think you have me confused with a skeptic – I’m generally not. I’m someone who focuses on the cheese of climate science – there’s just so much more of it than there are holes.
Visit my blog and check out my Weekly Carboholic posts if you don’t believe me. Or my “Anti-global heating claims: a reasonably thorough debunking” post at the same site.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:40 pmOh Please can I get on this list? I’m just a lowly engineer, and not a member of the climate modeling Country Club, so you will probably reject me, but PRETTTTTY PLEEEEASE! I have never begged for anything before (my name’s not Julio, in other words). I am simply a denier, a realist if you may. One who recognizes that those most in bed with the climate shafters are those who wish to fulfill the role of looters.
February 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pmWell, because you’ve just said that you are not a scientist, let me suggest the following. If science were a referendum, then Einstein, Kaku, Aristotle, et al. would not have been published would they? Gee, do ya think the 6 billion dollars
February 18th, 2009 at 10:47 pmof grant money to the AMS, Universities, IPCC has just a teensy weensy part of this? Do you know that the department of comerce muzzled all state climatologists from denying global warming, even though 70% don’t agree with this nonsense?
Do you know that a tv met in Boston was ordered by the news director to do a pro global warming story even though the met disagreed stating “Fear sells” Do you know 3 tv mets from one news department were told by the news director that if they refuted global warming once, they would be fired? Do you do
think this might have something to do with it. Finally, how do you know that I’m not a reputable source, you don’t even know my background one way or another. Still, if you feel qualified to judge my knowledge base by concluding that I’m not reputable, I once again ask the question, where’s that equation? And, do you always believe institutions over individuals who hold them accountable by asking serious questions. If not you would have made a fine consumer of the genetics doctrine of the nazis and/or drinking the coolaide
at Jim Jone’s camp.
I’m not impressed, but gleefully enthused at the thought of being called a climate joker, please please!! Tell me it’s true
Oh, by the way, this little list of yours really is a juvenile petty trick. Reminds me of the gays in California who “outed” those who contributed to the Gay Marriage Amendment. What’s next? You gonna get in the street in leathers and high heels and go whip the boys who disagree with you?
February 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pmwait wait!! Using your argument, how about the 31000 scientists, 9000 with PHDs who signed the Oregon petition refuting global warming…hmmmm?..well???
February 18th, 2009 at 10:53 pmTom
CLM, Thank you for trying to slay some of the trolls, I do appreciate it. But actually, a couple of inaccuracies. I do not say that everything on my small farm is dying, rather that much of the vegetation from at least RI to VA is declining. Seriously. When you can see through the needles to the trunk of a pine, never mind through to the other side, it means the roots are irrevocably damaged. And they all are thinning.
Think of it this way. When you bring a cut Christmas tree into the house, it looks great for quite a while. But obviously, it’s dead! Once they start showing signs like needles dropping, they have been dead for a while. Ditto for the rhodies and boxwood turning yellow, and for the deciduous trees. When their leaves fall in August or look scorched, and they have branches shriveling up, which many of them had last summer, their roots have ceased to function. It may take a while for the entire tree to actually fall over, but it is on that trajectory.
I don’t know that it’s climate change per se although I strongly suspect it. It could be some combination and something for instance, like acid rain which depletes the nutrients in soils so forests don’t regenerate.
I haven’t got a link about the snow and don’t have time to look for one right now but I have read that in the 18th century it was usual to get 20′ or so in a winter.
Anyway thanks CLM. Look at the tops of pine trees, that’s where they often tend to start thinning although the blue spruce tend to start from the inside and work their way out. The crytomeria are all turning brown, and the cypress are black.
There is also a lot of rampaging fungus and lichens on trunks and branches.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:02 pmCLM:
I do not believe Gail is open to reason. Just read her comments. She has a problem and needs a different kind of help based on her comments here and her apparent willingness to share her email with total strangers – most of whom disagree with her.
On reflection, you are probably right I should not have been so flippant but c’mon she seriously needs to lighten up.
I will take all the above back if Gail comes up with the data to support her “observation” about precipitation in Western NJ over the last 200 years!!
February 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pmTom, thanks, by bringing up the Oregon petition, you just outed yourself.
I so wish I had the time, but I dont. This conversation is sooo 2006.
See you guys in Copenhagen.
And remember, the best standard of legitimacy is to want to be on the mailing list of a hayseed Senator’s secretary, whose sole purpose in life is to keep CO2 from being regulated.
THATS a sure sign of scientific purity.
Bye. Its been fun.
February 18th, 2009 at 11:32 pmChris J.
You really showed them Tom and Brian. I mean let’s face it, you’re not a scientist but you are “informed about policy” because you heard it from Scripps, Stanford, NASA, etc. Because obviously you personally visited these places, and spoke with the big heads personally? And likely you paid a visit to the National Archives and queried historical documents from all government weather reporting agencies? And you’ve probably had lengthy discussions with all 31000 signers of the Oregon petition.
Your acidification rant is priceless. That’s the most hilarious misinterpretation of scientific meaning ever. Though in your defense, I have seen some fringe publications running such stories. The fact is, increased oceanic CO2 will create abundant undersea vegitation, a thriving food chain, and well-fed, and thus adaptable species. Areas where CO2 bubbles from the ocean floor always are lush with vegitation and fish, coral reefs included. There have been many published pictures. Also keep in mind that the ocean floor commonly spews all sorts of nasty crap from sulphur and methane to heavy metals, oil, lava. CO2 is the least of our worries. Didn’t they tell you that at Stanford? Didn’t NOAA show you their OWN PHOTOS?
“Informed is bliss”
February 18th, 2009 at 11:41 pmSharing my email with total strangers? That’s supposed to indicate I am unstable, or promiscuous, or what? What can anyone do with my email? I have found it interesting in my quest to learn more about what is killing trees and shrubs, that I can get ANY academic’s email by going to the university website, but media, almost impossible. I wrote to Susan Solomon (carbon to persist for 1000 years) at NOAA, and Jim Hansen at Nasa. I found their emails easily. They both wrote back, neither disparaged my observations in the least, and Susan in particular gave me an interesting reason why the situation on the East Coast is not being looked at more closely, which has to do with overly complex influences on weather and precipitation patterns for which researchers have yet to develop satisfactory models with which to make reliable predictions.
Jim wrote back I think because he had just been handed an extremely large estimate from his arborist to remove several unsalvageable pin oaks from his yard.
I’m going to look for snow information for you, Bernie. And in return, I hope you will check around tomorrow in the daylight and take stock (assuming you don’t spend 24/7 wearing your pajamas in your mother’s basement…just kidding!)
February 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pmAnother Climate scientist who as not and want to be Included on this Prestigious list is Tim Ball.
” I would be extremely proud to be part of this list of skeptics. All true scientists are skeptics who must practice the scientific method of testing the validity of any hypothesis. Science and its practice are ideally apolitical so most prefer to simply practice good science out of the spotlight. The accusatory manner in which this list is circulated is testimony to the courage it takes for those identified to stand up and face the opprobrium and personal attacks directed at anyone who dares to question and challenge – that is practice science.”
February 19th, 2009 at 12:11 amGail…Susan Solomon and Jim Hansen told you what you wanted to hear! remember you told them what you though was wrong and it concur with what they have been telling you… Kind of Like Hiring the Fox to take care of the chickens.. Somehow being from a Farm myself I find it hard to Understand this weird problem you seem to have with a Normal land behavior. It just not add up.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:22 amWell, I’ve got chickens, and I’ve got fox. I’ve had my chickens, turkeys and peacocks eaten by fox. sigh. Now I am keeping the poultry penned up, rather than kill the fox, because I think they are beautiful.
My friend, Wilbert, let me tell you something.
I don’t know physics, chemistry, or biology. But, I know plants. I know trees. And they are dying. It’s really perfectly obvious if you just LOOK at them.
Why? I don’t know that, I just have some guesses.
But there is no question, the trees and evergreen shrubs for sure, at least in my vicinity (East coast USA), are expiring.
I don’t know yet about grasses or annual crops.
But the potential is terrifying.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:50 amMcCracken,
As a matter of fact, yes. Im an editor on a documentary and the crew just brought me 7 hours of fresh interviews with the top ocean and climate scientists from both Stanford and Scripps. Aaaaannnd they basically say the exact opposite of everything you are saying. So your credibility is in question.
Oh by the way, the sea grasses DO thrive in some areas of more acidification. But coral crumbles and dies.
I cannot believe I’m even replying to this.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:19 amOoops. Looks like the regulation is starting. EPA style. Elections have consequences!
Just posted on NYTimes tonight for tomorrows paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html?hp
Oh well, nice game denial crew. Better luck next time.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:23 amSirs:
Thankyou for including me on your list. Clearly, it is a great honour to be included among the truly great scientists whom you list.
I suspect you have given me this honour because I began promoting science in opposition to the pseudo-science of man-made global warming in the early 1980s when Mrs Thatcher (then UK PM) began to use the issue as a political ploy. Hence, I was among the first (possibly the first) scientist to speak out against the pseudo-scientific political promotion that is man-made global warming.
However, I write to provide a correction. You list my affiliation as being “CoalTrans International” but I have had no connection with that organisation for nearly a decade.
I have several present affiliations and I suggest that the most appropriate for you to mention on your blog is that I am “An Expert Peer Reviewer for the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”. This affiliation seems most appropriate because it states that I am one of “the thousands of UN scientists” whom your organisation asserts to be noteworthy.
The IPCC’s most recent scientific so-called reports are its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and its Synthesis Report. And I was asked to peer review the AR4 by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Synthesis Report by the IPCC’s Chairman (Rajendra Pechauri).
If you wish to know my other affiliations then we can negotiate the fee for the Disclosure Agreement.
Richard S Courtney
February 19th, 2009 at 3:59 amWow!
Nothing says “I am a dork who can’t get laid” quite like a bunch of dorks who make a super dooper list of people who don’t believe in AGW. Hahahaha. Seriously, step away from the computer models of weather from 1910, there are real live women out in the real world, who can make you forget about melting ice caps in 30 seconds flat. This is just embarassingly sad.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:32 amhttp://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/Historic_Events/va-winters.htm
It’s proving quite difficult for me to find records of snowfall, they don’t seem to go back more than one hundred years so it is all anecdotal. I’m still looking though.
Christopher S. Johnson I would be very interested to know more about your documentary. I went snorkeling in St. John twice, once 10 yrs ago and again last spring. The coral had gone from a brilliant range of colors to dull and grey. It was shocking. Also one of my children is majoring in environmental bio at Princeton and is going to do her senior thesis next yr. on coral reefs so any information you have would be of great interest to her as well.
thanks,
February 19th, 2009 at 8:56 amGail
I really wish all the naysayer “experts” were right. I really do. Life would be so much easier. I could blindly go along and not have to struggle to get an energy-efficiient lifestyle sans fossil fuels. I wish they could stick it to my face that I am just a namby-pamby, liberal, progress-bashing loser. I really do. But….they’re not……
February 19th, 2009 at 10:37 amI’ve been writing for years about how “global warming” is a massive anti-capitalist hoax. And I’m on Morano’s e-mail list as well. And I’m affiliated with the oh-so-evil Heartland Institute! I’m fairly bitter that you didn’t include my name and link in your list of people who are essentially heroes, defending us from the potentially devastating impact of policies and legislation designed to address “global warming”, which (1) is not primarily, if at all, caused by humans, (2) not necessarily bad, and (3) not happening for the last decade despite the IPCC’s models leaving no room for such a possibility!
http://www.rossputin.com
February 19th, 2009 at 11:20 amGail:
I found it also difficult to find an historical snowfall series. But given your concern with “drought” conditions, precipitation data would be a reasonable proxy.
P.S. Gail, I never for one moment described you in the way you suggested. I do strongly feel that your anxiety on this subject is hugely misplaced and that posting your email address in a public forum is not a good idea. I believe Al Gore’s PR express has done everyone a huge disservice. I strongly recommend that you take a look at the late Aaron Wildavsky’s book, But is it True? If nothing else, it will give you an idea of how skeptics like me think about these type of issues. Come to think about it, it would be interesting to see how many climate skeptics were taken in by Bernie Madoff as compared to the fans of Al Gore.
P.P.S. As to your comments on my lifestyle, I am not in my pajamas nor my mother’s basement (may she RIP). As for the trees and plants on my 10 acres, everything is doing very well, unlike 2 years ago when we had some pretty severe freeze damage. The icestorms damaged the lilacs, but then we hadn’t had a serious icestorm for 5 years – so I figure we were due. I expect the extended snow cover, as it was last year, will be very good for my grass, except where the road salt will have done its usual mischief. I figure it will still be a couple of hundred years before I get to enjoy snow free winters – if then. My personal carbon footprint is small largely because I am very frugal.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:47 amBernie, you could use a little lightening up yourself. I was referring to Sarah Palin’s infamous comment complaining about bloggers in their pajamas in the mother’s basement.
I was a JOKE Bernie!
What area of the country are you in?
And why is posting my email address in a public forum – which isn’t traceable to my physical location in any way – a bad idea when every professor in the country has his/her email posted in a public forum?
I don’t get it.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:36 pmSorry, IT was a joke! Was that Freudian? I hope not!
February 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pmWhat a GREAT read – all 124 posted comments. Spome real gems too, addressing real science and the rest adhominem attacks as varied as the structure of snowflakes on the Greenland ice sheet (although unlike the snow, some are alike). Sooner or later, if you concentrate on the science, you have to end up on Marc’s list, as joining in on the “consensus” oleo will deservedly keep you off. That said, there are still “green” groups that want to hear the non-politicized science and individual members therein who sincerely try to understand it. There are reasons for “going Green” that have a real basis in science, and those that do not. The trick is to find which, and learn something in the process, then go fashion your political agenda. I’ll keep enjoying repeat invitations to return because they realize that I have no political axe(s) to grind. NYC’s Sierra Club gets another shot at me on 2/26. I’ll try to make sure they’re not disappointed.
February 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pmGail:
February 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pmI took it as a joke and poked back at CLM who called me a number of nasty names when he or she came to your defense – I have lived with 3 teenagers, I can take most anything CLM or anyone else decides to dish up!!
I am 30 miles north of Boston near the coast with 6 of 10 acres as secondary forest – about 60 years old, mostly oak and maple with some locust and birch not mention deer, racoons, fishers and coyotes.
As for public email addresses – that is fine if you have a thick skin, are not easily shocked and have good spam filters. Since Monday I have about 1000 in my filter and my address is not readily accessible.
Well Wonkroom, thank you for your apology to George E. Smith, Bell Labs (ret), I appreciate that gesture.
I see just above here that you require e-mails but say they “will not be published”. Well I see you already published mine anyway.
You listed my background as “Monsanto, Hewlett Packard (ret).
Here’s a complete list:- Tektronix, Monsanto, Fairchild Semiconductor, Litronix, Siemens, Hewlett Packard, Agilent Technologies, Avago Technologies; and please note I am NOT retired. And I have a degree in Physics, Mathematics, RadioPhysics, and Mathematical Physics.
Now I am sure that none of those would be of ANY use in the study of “Climatology” which has about the same “Scientific” credentials as “Economics” and “Astrology”.
Perhaps if “Climatologists” actually employed some Physics, and a good deal less Statistical Mathematics, trying to correlate data which has no physical significance whatsoever; they might actually see where their chariot ran off the rails ages ago, and is slowly crumbling before their eyes.
But I see that about 80% of the IPCC’s list of “experts” actually have “no discernible experience in climate or earth sciences.” ; so clearly I am in good company.
“Climatology” can’t even define itself correctly; being officially designated as the Long Time Average of Weather.
If that is their idea of what their “science” is, then it is no wonder they keep on coming up with total nonsense.
So now that you have nearly mastered the ad hominem debating stratagem; why don’t you start studying up on the “Straw Man” strategy; that’s very popular with debating beginners.
I see the new Congressional stimulus package, has earmarked $140M for “Climate data modeling.” So now you can start making up your climate data, as well as making up explanations for it.
Cheers; George E. Smith
February 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pmSirs:
I write to thank you and to suggest that you are making an error which could further diminish your credibility (assuming that is possible).
My thanks are three-fold.
Firstly, I do not usually give thanks for flattery but in this case I do. I am grateful that you have flattered me by listing me among such illustrious names as Lindzen, Singer, Spencer, Pielke, Harris, Briggs and etc..
Secondly, I am grateful that you have given me such amusement. You promote the myth of a scientific consensus that ‘dangerous man-made global warming is a reality’ but publish a list of dozens of eminent scientists who dispute such dangerous warming exists! I laughed so much it brought tears to my eyes.
Thirdly, I am grateful that you did amend the “affiliation” you attribute to me, but the amendment was to add “(ret)” after the incorrect affiliation. (And that gave me another laugh so is part of the amusement that I appreciate so much.)
But – as I explained – my appropriate and present “affiliation” for inclusion on your list is “United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”. Failure to replace my historic “affiliation” with my present “affiliation” to the IPCC is a blatant misrepresentation because you have had a clear explanation that my “affiliation” with the IPCC is current and is pertinent.
In conclusion, and in a spirit of good will, I provide the following comment which I hope is helpful to you.
Your publishing the above list suggests that you lack expertise in smearing those who disagree with you, so I recommend that you desist from that and, instead, start to consider the science of climate change. I am sure several on your list would be willing to assist in your education of this science. Indeed, as an introduction to your education I point you to some information at
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf
It is a critique I made of some ludicrous nonsense published by Dr James Hansen.
Regards
Richard S Courtney
February 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pmRichard,
I recommend you read the following paper by Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood: “Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds” (abstract here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html)
You’ll find two things, especially if you look into the paper’s references. First, direct temperature measurements from radiosondes have a huge noise signal and uncompensated biases that make the direct temperatures nearly unusable. Second, by converting wind speed into temperature, the noise signal was much reduced and isolated from thermal biases on the radiosonde itself, and a tropospheric “fingerprint” you claim is missing was detected by proxy at the expected altitudes (Figure 3).
As with all science, more research needs to be done and is being conducted at present. But this paper’s results casts serious doubt on the proposal that the upper troposphere isn’t heating.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:32 pm“I really wish all the naysayer “experts” were right. I really do. Life would be so much easier. I could blindly go along and not have to struggle to get an energy-efficiient lifestyle sans fossil fuels.”
Well then relax, because they are right and any scientist or informed person with an open mind would come to realize it.
The climate ’science’ of the IPCC and the fellow Climate Fearmongers is a politicized fearmongering joke. Hanson has complained of the ‘court jesters’ in the skeptical community, yet the reality is: His estimates made in 1989 were off by a factor of 3 whe nyou look at subsequent trend (1C vs about .3C); his data has been shown on multiple occasions to be flawed, including the infamous Y2K error and NUMEROUS suspect data massaging and ‘adjustments’ that all curiously try to make the warming trend larger than the raw data shows; etc.
Models dont equal reality. They equate to a hypothesis not a conclusion. Reality is the conclusion. The reality is that earth is cooler now than 10 years ago, that cooling has happened in recent years, and this non-monotonic behavior proves to any open mind that natural climate variability is more significant, even today, than anything mankind is doing. And the total 50 year warming, the full impact of almost 100ppm of CO2? No more than 0.4C warming – IF THAT – since natural variability is indeed a factor. Much of the reality of non-warming of last 10 years, the reality of cooling antartica or cooling trends and non-confirmation of AGW models is simply ignored by the Climate Fearmongers!
Why? What are they so close-minded? It’s ironic. The people who uncovered some of Hansens errors and the ‘hockey stick’ error are denigrated by the very crowd peddling junk and flawed science, and pushing an anti-scientific hysteria. For a victim of such nonsense, consider Gail on this thread. Poor Gail wasnt informed that actual AGW models predict *more* precipitation with the warming for starters, so she sees a batch of brown grass and blames global warming. That’s abou as scientific as blaming foggy weather for malaria.
last thought: Publishing this list is unethical act of political intimidation and could possibly be illegal. We all hate it when people like spammers get our emails and abuse it. This is an abuse of people’s privacy. I hope it backfires. Maybe it will, as it is showing the list is a group of quality people. Even the ‘non-real’ George Smith is an impressive guy! Apparently, the Morano list has a lot of smart, informed, and knowledgeable people who could contribute positively to the debate over climate change. I guess partisan wonk room types reach for the ad hominems and attacks because they cant handle an honest discussion/debate over the science.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:55 pm“The other point that really makes all of this conflict on here completely moot is ocean acidification. Unlike AGW, its not complex, and it is 100% provable as coming from CO2 derived from fossil fuel burning. There is no such thing as alternative viewpoint on this.
If left unchecked it will get to the point where any calcium based (shell, coral) organism will literally dissolve.”
The oceans do not care if a Co2 molecule came from a coal plant or a deer exhaling. It’s all the same. … So when Co2 levels were 10X what they were today in the Jurrasic and Triassic, all the shells and corals went extinct? Curious, that.
If left unchecked, hypothetical extrapolations will lead you to unwarranted conclusions.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:29 pm“Here’s the deal. Here is why we will sign at Copenhagen and you will have zero effect upon it. Because if one were to put the credibility of YOU vs. the credibility of the institutions mentioned above, well… its not really a fair fight is it?”
If you think politically motivated special interests, eco-extremist ideologues and corrupt institutions suffering from GroupThink are more credible than individual scientists and informed individuals with no axe to grind except a desire for the whole true and not skewed junk Climate Fearmongering that brushes all the contridctions, model flaws and alertanitve explanations under the rug … then you are very naive. …. and wrong.
The real ‘deniers’ are those who keep lying about the science being settled and on the side of the fearmongerers. It isn’t.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:48 pm“I went snorkeling in St. John twice, once 10 yrs ago and again last spring. The coral had gone from a brilliant range of colors to dull and grey. It was shocking.”
Ten years ago was 1998. The earth was warmer than today.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:55 pmCheck the actual temperature measurements.
Perhaps you saw only what your mind wanted to see, or you saw something impacted by something else (too many tourists ruining a coral reef?). But it wasnt ‘warming’.
How wonderfully short that list is – from some 640 names on the actual list you have cherry picked a shorter one.
Anyone could accept the crank science which converts wind into a temperature proxy causes me much bemusement, but that is what happens in Whig Science.
How about detailing the whole list and thus do a proper smear job.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pmError, I left out “How” before Anyone.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pmBernie, snow and precipitation are not the same thing. Snow melt gradually permeates the soil. When I first turned from a normal person happily planting an orchard last summer, into what I am now, “Poor Gail”, (can anyone imagine why I would possibly WANT to see bleached coral? The first time I went snorkeling and saw all those rainbow colors was a high point in my life!) I contacted the NJDEP and asked them about the drought. “What drought?” they said. Well, I said, all the leaves are shriveling up, it hasn’t rained hardly at all this summer, and the ground is like concrete.
It turns out that pretty much the only way the DEP measures drought is by the levels in the reservoirs. But there is a vastly different effect on plants from more frequent, lighter rains, and snow cover in winter, vs. shorter, heavier, less frequent bursts. There may be the same total amount of precipitation but the plants don’t care. This is predicted by the climate change models, and it is happening now.
It’s funny that these denialist types are so disdainful of models but when they are presented with empirical evidence – wildfires, coral bleaching, stronger storms – they refuse to acknowledge that either.
I grew up on the Ipswich River, you are lucky to have so much property up that way! I miss the ocean.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:53 pm“”" Brian Angliss Says:
I seriously doubt that Todd knows, actually.
It’s changes in C12/C13 ratio combined with dropping O2 concentrations in the atmosphere that rule out the ocean as the source, but that’s a relatively minor quibble.
The C12/C13 ratio rules out an inorganic source for the extra CO2 (volcanoes), and the dropping O2 concentration means both that a) heating oceans can’t be the source, since oceanic heating = more CO2 AND O2 and b) the O2 must be getting locked up in compounds somewhere via oxidation (in this case fire). The reaction in question is generally:
fuel + O2 = heat + water + CO2 “”"
Well Brian; perhaps you also would believe that if you cut all four legs off a frog, it becomes stone deaf; after all you can yell at it till you are blue in the face and it still won’t jump on command.
Yes it is well known that carbon incorporated in plants has a C13/C12 signature that (some) fossil carbons don’t.
So a change in atmospheric C13/C12 ratio, might reasonably indicate that some fossil sources of carbon are being burnt and contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere; but it’s a far cry from proving that the INCREASE in atmospheric CO2 must be due to burning fossil fuels. The atmospheric CO2 content, could stay absolutely constant, with no increase or decrease at all, and the C13/C12 isotopic abundance would still change because humans burn fossil carbon fuels.
Same goes for the change in C14/C12 ratio; given that radiocarbon 14 is depleted in fossil fuels. The rate of C14 production in the atmosphere is well known to vary with cosmic ray flux on earth, which produces C14 from N14. But even as a signature of fossil fuel burning; it merely shows that fossil fuels are being burnt; not that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is all due to fossil fuels.
It just so happens, that the mediaeval warming period, was just 800 years ago; which is the known delay from global surface temperature increases to atmospheric CO2 increases; as can easily be seen by anybody just by looking at pages 66/67 in “An Inconvenient Truth” by Nobel Laureate, non climate scientist, Albert Gore. So maybe Honest Al has just proved for us that today’s well known increase in atmospheric CO2 is simply a signature of the mediaeval warming period; it certainly isn’t correlated with today’s falling temperatures (since circa 1995).
February 19th, 2009 at 6:54 pmLouis,
So you’ve read the paper I referenced and found that the thermal-wind equation they refer (and reference) to is “crank science?” Or is it crank science because you disagree with it?
February 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmGail:
I know the difference between rain and snow, Helpful precipitation and less helpful precipitation. The issue is whether the data supports the assertion of dramatic reductions in precipitation (and/or snowfall) over the last 200 years.
And yes, the salt marshes and Cranes Beach are still there, as is Plum Island and the Agawam Diner. Newburyport is still the best preserved and most interesting concentration of Federal Architecture in the US. End of commercial for a beautiful part of Massachusetts.
February 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pm“DeSmogBlog is “working to research the individuals on Morano’s list” and compiling this handy referral guide; we’re linking the names to their backgrounders as they’re added.”
DeSmogBlog
February 19th, 2009 at 11:12 pmFunded by James Hogan (James Hoggan & Associates) and John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group).
So who is James Hoggan? He’s a public relations man, based in Vancouver Canada. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the “right” public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.
One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
There has been no mention on the blog, of James Hoggan’s client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.
That takes some gall. Here’s a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. “If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate. It is also a little rich to have a member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity.
Multi-billion-dollar charges for B.C. man (The Vancouver Sun, Canada)Lefebvre, 55, was arrested by FBI agents at his Malibu home and charged with conspiring to promote illegal gambling by transferring billions of dollars of cyberspace bets placed by U.S. citizens with offshore gaming companies.
John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges. The DeSmog Blog is operated by a small group of public relations people who specialize in attempting to discredit respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory. Ironically, DeSmog Blog’s favorite tactic is to claim scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory are funded by “dirty money.” The revelation of the blog’s major source of funding as a convicted money launderer may undermine DeSmog’s attempts to smear the integrity of respected, law-abiding scientists who disagree with them.
George E. Smith,
You’ve made a rather large assumption that the MWP was global in scope, something that has yet to be proven. But even if it were, there’s still a number of holes in your hypothesis.
First, the papers I’ve read on the subject give a rather large range for the interglacial delay from initial temp rise to the increase of CO2 – 800 years +/- 200 years (source: http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf) or 800 +/- 600 years (source: http://www.clim-past.net/3/527/2007/cp-3-527-2007.html). So it’s mighty convenient that we’re sitting at 800 years when papers say the CO2 pulse could have happened as early as 1400 or may take another 600 years.
Second, deglaciations (which are the only places in the ice core records that have sufficiently rapid changes to show up clearly with an 800 year +/- several centuries delay) take 6000 years (source: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5501/112) or so to complete. That means that some change kicked them off, and then CO2 rose around 800 years later, but the ice continued melting for several thousand years more. In addition, ice cores show clearly that the last few deglaciations started in the southern hemisphere, but then the Northern Hemisphere melted after the rise of CO2, not before. This certainly suggests that thermal outgassing of CO2 from the southern oceans was a “tipping point” for melting the Northern Hemisphere (as per the CaillonTermIII paper above).
Third, you’re assuming that, just because CO2 came after the initial melt previously, this time has to be this way too. This is a logical fallacy called a “predictive appeal to history.” I deal with this entire subject in depth at scholarsandrogues.com (http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m21), but the gist of it is that the assumption of similarity, while a reasonable starting point, only holds for substantially similar situations. And when the CO2 is emitted first, that “substantially similar” assumption goes out the window.
Fourth, observations of the oceans and the atmosphere don’t support your supposition. The isotope ratios clearly point to an organic source, something that you agreed with above. If oceanic outgassing were the source of the CO2, then the amount of dissolved CO2 in the ocean would be falling as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were rising. This is exactly opposite of what’s been observed. Similarly, the amount of O2 in the atmosphere would be rising, not falling as has been observed. Therefore observations do not permit that the ocean is the source of the rising CO2 concentrations, especially rising concentrations of CO2 from organic (or previously organic) sources.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:55 amHi all,
I am happy to be on this list especially since there is a link to the ICSC Website, undoubtedly done to help increase our traffic – thanks!
Re – DeSmogBlog, the following piece historical climatologist Dr. Tim Ball (who has unquestionably has earned the right to be at the top of the list of climate realists) and I wrote 15 months ago gives some more details:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/537
Finally, I invite readers to sign up to endorse the Manhattan Declaration on Climate change – we have about 1300 endorsers to date, hundreds of them highly qualified scientists and hundreds also from the general public.
http://tinyurl.com/6znkpn
Thanks again!
Tom Harris
February 20th, 2009 at 4:12 amExecutive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
Brian Angliss:
Thankyou for contributing a scientific point. It is truly welcome – and unexpected – to get that in the midst of this blog which only exists to smear scientists.
You cite Allen, Sherwood and Steven and say to me:
I assure you that I have not merely read the paper but I have studied it in detail.
Louiss Hissink made the significant point in response but you dismissed it with a slur of Hissink. And that point is important; viz.
thermometers are designed to measure temperature but wind speed does not indicate temperature.
Allen, Sherwood and Steven do not like the temperature measurements because – as their paper admits – those measurements indicate that the ‘hot spot’ (i.e. the ‘fingerprint’ of man-made global warming) does not exist. So, they
(a) invented an implausible method to convert wind speed to temperature,
(b) devised an algorithm to do the conversion,
(c) then used the algorithm to estimate tropospheric temperatures.
Using that method they found that the errors of their temperature estimates are so large that the ‘hot spot’ could exist but cannot be detected by their method.
You assert of the work of Allen, Sherwood and Steven that “this paper’s results casts serious doubt on the proposal that the upper troposphere isn’t heating.” Sorry, but No! According to the scientific method it does not provide any doubt at all.
The scientific method says that
(1) the direct measurements of temperature should be trusted within their assessed accuracy and precision unless and until there is a detected error in the measurements
and
(2) indirect measurements of temperature should be trusted less than direct measurements of temperature
therefore
(3) the fact that the indirect measurements lack sufficient accuracy to discern the ‘hot spot’ provides no doubt to the indications of the direct measurements.
Incidentally, and for clarification’, I point out that the ‘hot spot’ is not simply ‘most warming’ but is ‘most warming relative to the surface beneath’.
Again, thankyou for trying to introduce some discussion of climate science into the mire which is this blog.
Richard
February 20th, 2009 at 4:17 amWilliam Briggs
“If you think my listing my credentials…”
I am quite clear that credentials have no meaning if they are merely used to try and bolster opinion that is not accompanying facts and evidence. “The consensus” as you call it, is about professionals certifying the quality of the science, NOT giving unsubstantiated opinion.
Was it really necessary to spell that out?
“because they might have industry relationships”
Naturally that is insufficient, but of course they are pointing to the fact that the “relationship” is accepting money to slander climate science, to act as Public Relations shills and not as scientists.
If your credentials actually have any foundation then you are aware that 99% of Denier “science” is scientific gibberish that depends on sophistry to have the appearance of legitimacy.
This is particularly true of the crap that Inhofe and Morano truck in. They are petty con men and frauds, pure and simple. Association with them should be a source of deep shame to any man of integrity, particularly a man of science.
Your reference to your publications is another appeal to authority. Your smugness might be excusable if you could point to specific peer-reviewed science that casts real and substantive doubt on climate science.
So where is it? Everything else is irrelevant. If you have the science, talk about it. If you have none, then you have nothing to say worth hearing.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:22 amWow – you got an email list!
Too bad email wasn’t big in the 70s or you could have gotten the scoop on the “Top Secret Cabal Of The Right-wing Global Cooling Denier Propaganda Machine” before they blew that hoax outta the water too!
February 20th, 2009 at 10:43 amMIKE:
Compelling statistic.
Can you provide a citation or is this a piece of gibberish masquerading as legitimate hyperbolic sophistry?
February 20th, 2009 at 11:00 am“can anyone imagine why I would possibly WANT to see bleached coral? ”
Gail, you are suffering from ‘confirmation bias’. You are seeing everything through the lens of a set of assumptions that you fervently want to be true, so you are blaming every squiggle of weather and nature change in local ecosystems on AGW, and every such change ‘proves’ it to you. Seeing every correlation as a causation is non-scientific self-delusion. You WANT to blame man for this, perhaps some guilt-complex enviromentalism thing.
Precipitation changes in the US is highly regional, so if your grass is brown, its probably because you are just not watering it.
Global temperatures were lower in 2008 than in 1998, so if you are insisting that you are sure warmer, its not AGW. etc.
There are two ways to look at these changes:
- Despite massive evidence of natural climate change in the past (eg ice ages previous natural warm periods), to insist that we are in a unique time when there is zero natural climate change and its all due to man
- to recognize that the natural world does not rest on the PPM levels of CO2 alone, but on many other factors, eg, sunspots to ocean current changes to geomagnetism, voclanoes, and biosphere/land use changes.
The latter view is the more scientific balancing and attuned to the facts view.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:03 pmAnd Al Gore has experience in what? A Degree in what? All I know is that this is one of the coldest winters I can remember.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:11 pm“They are petty con men and frauds, pure and simple. Association with them should be a source of deep shame to any man of integrity, particularly a man of science.”
Given the expose of the fraud con artist behind DeSmog blog posted earlier in this thread (news to me), this particular ad hominem was/is quite rich in irony.
ThinkProgress is a partisan political group. So are most of the most fervent “the science is settled” crowd. Most real scientists arent so unscientifically adamant. So we have one set of political hacks asserting they are carrying the true banner of ‘real science’ against another set of political hacks.
And they associate with the blog funded by …
“John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges. The DeSmog Blog is operated by a small group of public relations people who specialize in attempting to discredit respected scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory. Ironically, DeSmog Blog’s favorite tactic is to claim scientists and policy analysts who disagree with alarmist global warming theory are funded by “dirty money.” The revelation of the blog’s major source of funding as a convicted money launderer may undermine DeSmog’s attempts to smear the integrity of respected, law-abiding scientists who disagree with them.”
… if it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
Political hacks like DeSmog blog and ThinkProgress are slandering and abusing science by doing blatant political smearmongering in its name. Real scientists should feel real shame in being associated with their agenda.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pmPatrick:
February 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pmAre you the Patrick of Ross and Patrick fame? If so, it is an elegant and excellent piece of analysis.
What I find disturbing is the level of emotion that pervades the discussion. I am sure Gail, CLM, Mike, etc are nice people but as you say they seem predisposed to a confirmation bias, lack a sense of proportion and are given to over-reaction. Like I mentioned earlier, if (and it is a huge IF )climate is moving north at 6 miles per decade that means that it will take roughly 200 years for Boston to be like New York City is today. Jeepers 200 years from now or even 50 years from now, we could be living in a world where internal combustion engines are valuable antiques.
It is quite clear that William Briggs, by listing his credential, is not making an appeal to authority. He is responding to a blog post that in a rather snarky way implies that he is not an “expert” qualified to have credible opinion on AGW. He replies by listing his credential to show that he indeed has relevant expertise. He would be making an appeal to authority if he suggested that one should accept his opinions merely because he is an expert. He does not.
You then claim that he makes ad hominem and staw man attacks against James Henson at his website. http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2009/02/16/for-i-james-hansen-scientist-have-spoken/. He does not. An admoinem attack is one that a claim or argument should rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. Mr Briggs does not state any facts about Mr. Hansen in his webpost. Ironically, Mr. Briggs satorizes Mr. Hensen by pointing out that Mr. Hansen’s entire article is devoid of supporting facts and is simply based on an appeal to Mr. Hansen’s “authority” as a scientist. Mr. Briggs is not the only one to notice. Roger Pielke, Jr. makes the same point in a less snarky tone. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-political-philosophy-of-james-hansen-4961. Both are correct.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pmRichard,
Louis’ point was that the paper is “crank science.” Calling that a “significant point” is absurd, especially since he made the claim without providing any evidence. So I called him on it. If he wants to come back with proof that the paper isn’t to be trusted, I’ll happily read it. But anyone can claim that the sky is a beatiful shade of puce, but without data, I’ll remain unconvinced.
You, at least, provided some rationale for why you disagree with the paper.
You said:
In response to #1, this is correct. The point is that errors have been detected. From another paper by Allen/Sherwood (http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~rja29/Papers/Allen+SherwoodJClim07.pdf):
The nature of this information suggests that looking for an indirect method is, at a minimum, prudent. At the same time, further research in both areas should be completed in order to remove the error and biases from the direct measurements and to refine the wind speed proxy, and the data differences between the two need to be better understood. Both are proceeding at present.
In response to #3, what provides doubt to direct measurements is the errors and biases in said direct measurements, not the result of the indirect measurements. The proxy data is a useful, if non-ideal, tool specifically because the theoretically ideal tool isn’t good enough. Further, the equations weren’t invented by the authors – they were developed by others and, so far as I can tell, were well known in the early 1990s and later confirmed using wind data that is “considered as one of the most reliably analyzed” by Robert Pielke in the following paper: “Analysis of 200 mbar zonal wind for the period 1958–1997″ (http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-211.pdf).
In other words, they did not “[invent] an implausible method to convert wind speed to temperature.” It’s plausible and has been confirmed by other scientists. In fact, given that Allen and Sherwood referenced Pielke’s paper suggests that they chose this method precisely because it had already been confirmed.
Allen and Sherwood’s methodology appears to be sound at this point. But by all means, feel free to point me to referenced papers with data that prove it wrong.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pmIt’s interesting that people who do not know me in the slightest feel they have the ability to psychoanalyze me.
I have to make the point once again that climate change doesn’t entail only warming, it affects precipitation in unpredictable ways. The Southeast (Georgia, Alabama) has had a terrible drought for several years and if Bernie is correct that the trees north of Boston are still healthy, I think it’s quite likely dry conditions are creeping northward. The land behind my house built c. 1770 had been wetlands ever since at least the time of the colonies. It was for 2 centuries a dairy farm so they dug drainage ditches to use it for pasture. Once the farm was let go, around 1940, secondary growth trees took hold and, depending on the season, the land was either ankle deep or knee deep in water.
Until the summer of 2007, and 2008 during which the ground has been perfectly dry.
So if it is drought due to climate change, that is terrible but better in my mind than having all the vegetation unable to survive due to pollution.
Something is killing it people!
If anyone protective of their email privacy wants to take a couple of minutes and make up a free, untraceable account for this purpose, I would be happy to send you pictures of what the trees look like around here. I don’t think I can post them to this thread.
And if you don’t want to do that, fine, but please STFU about whether or not you imagine I suffer from “confirmation bias” or “eco guilt”.
Do you actually think I “made up” coral bleaching? I’d love to go back and take pictures there too but it’s not in my budget!
February 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pmNot to be “emotional” but the more I think on it, it’s quite ironic that I am accused of “confirmation bias” when I am merely making factual observations that can be easily confirmed, yet based on that, total strangers draw conclusions about my personality and motivations based on absolutely nothing verifiable.
Seriously guys, you gotta admit that is kind of Alice through the Looking Glass!
February 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pmGail: You’re yanking chains, right? If not, you really need a vacation!
February 20th, 2009 at 5:13 pmClimate change is not new. Climate has never stopped changing.
What is new, in climate, is the claim from politicians that they can control it.
February 20th, 2009 at 6:10 pmPaul, that’s not the point exactly. I was discussing this tree death with a friend and she said (having looked at them and admitting they are in their death throes) “But why so upset? That is the beauty of evolution, things change?”
My reply to her at the time (last fall BEFORE all the pines and evergreen shrubs started to show evidence of terminal decline) was “Well, we all know each of us is going to die but does that preclude wanting to mourn for the loss when something passes on?”
But it’s much worse than that because it misses the science of evolution, It took millions and millions of years for the biosystem of the earth to become so diverse, so complex, and so interconnected. In other words, it isn’t just the trees dying. It’s all the birds, and the fauna that live in the understory, and the fish that live in creeks that are cooled from the shade.
We are looking at a total collapse of the ecosystem and even worse, as heavy rains wash away fertile soil.
It’s a tragedy to horrid to contemplate, which is why most people don’t.
Jae…
This is actually giving me a bit of malicious fun. If I write at, say, climateprogress, everyone just agrees with me that we are screwed, and there’s not much else to say.
And it beats pestering my significant other, a Reagan Republican, about how RR gutted the alternative energy research funding.
You all doth protest too much!
February 20th, 2009 at 6:27 pmAnd Brad you still have my microbio wrong; I am not retired, and I don’t presently work for Hewlett Packard, although I did for 18 of my 50 years as a practising Physicist. Does Nuclear Physics, Ionospheric (plasma) Physics, Cosmic Ray Physics, Molecular Spectroscopy Physics, Optical Physics, Thermodynamics, Materials Science, Atomic Physics, and Statistical Mechanics have any “discernable connection to either climate or earth sciences. ”
I’m not embarrassed to be included with those weathermen luminaries above; specially Richard S. Courtney; who is one of those world famous IPCC chaps the UN keeps bragging about; but in the interest of accuracy in reporting, since my official job title does include the word “Scientist”, I’d be happier with Jim Peden; then we could swap some more fish stories; or does one have to be a present or past recipient of Government grant moneys to be classified as a real scientist; I admit to having never done that; come to think of it, Where can I get some of that filthy oil money those folks are supposed to dole out to scientists ?
Just asking.
George
February 20th, 2009 at 7:21 pmDear Brad Johnson,
Momma Roni here.
You!
And all bloggers on this site!
Get in this house right now!
OK.
Now.
Sit down.
Together,we are going to get this matter resolved once and for all.
You may not leave until I tell you you can.
Raise your hand if you need to go to the bathroom; and don’t leave the room until I give you permission.
Do not try to climb out the bathroom window, for your Dad is standing post outside and will swat your little bottom while pitching you back in here.
It has been publically established that some of you are members of “Man Makes Globe Hot Gang,” (MMGHG) follow a leader, who’s been identified as one Al Gore.
The rest of you are “Weather Or Not Bunch Quitters” (WONBQ). You’re the thousands of independent thinkers, doers and scientists who wouldn’t join a club that would accept you.
OK ready. I will give you questions, write them down and ponder on them earnestly.
Since you can’t really “get into this house,” arrangements have been made in the cyber house of: http://www.UniversalWeather.Blogspot.com
You may go there and fill out your answers.
Sign your real name. No pseudos.
Here are your questions:
1) Who will benefit from policies built upon this alleged global warming?
February 20th, 2009 at 7:45 pm2) Who will be harmed by policies built upon this alleged global warming?
3) Who will pay for policies built upon the alleged global warming?
4) Describe the facts upon which you base your theory.
5) Does there appear any oppression or fradulence surrounding alleged global warming dealings?
6) Have you witnessed any violations of constitutional rights, as a result of the alleged global warming dealings?
7) Are you aware of any species being considered for threatened or endangered status because of the alleged global warming claim?
8) Name all laws that have been -and or – are being considered for activation based on the alleged global warming claim.
9) Do you know of anyone whose character has been un-justly attack because of the alleged global warming claim?
10) Do you know of anyone who’s been silenced by the institution they work for, because they’ve denied the alleged global warming?
11) Are you aware of anyone who’s enjoying un-just enrichment from the marketing of goodies built on the idea man-makes globe hot?
12) If you answer Yes to #11, are you willing to report that person?
13) Are you willing to bring the alleged global warming to a wrap?
14) MMGHG’s and WONBQ’s, do you believe enough in your product to publically defend and debate it?
15) If you answer YES to # 14, let’s set a date, and get it over with.
Jeesh! Roni Bell, Talk about protesting too much, that has to be classic! Congratulations!
February 20th, 2009 at 7:55 pmGail:
You can explore precipitation data closest to snow for New Jersey here:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/timeseries_2006/trace.NJ-CD00.prcp.Winter.png
Frankly I see no dramatic trend here. There is some substantial year to year variability with the Winter of 2002 being particularly dry, but all in all the last 5 years have been pretty normal. Whatever is happening to your water table is likely a local phenomena based on this data. Of course you should “audit” this data yourself.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:56 pmBernie, I like you.
So, I’m going to ask you once again:
(as you wish to closely guard your private email address
Set up an account that is solely for this purpose (or you can write me directly honest I won’t pester you with junk in your inbox)
Let me send you some pictures of what is actually happening to the trees and shrubs in NJ. Let’s compare.
You obviously care about flora and fauna.
We aren’t adversaries. We are fellow seekers of facts.
February 20th, 2009 at 9:02 pmGail @ 158:
Generously assuming that you’re not a Trickster:
Ah, but we do know you, at least a little, and if you find that uncomfortable, look in a mirror: You reveal quite a bit of youself when you hysterically inflate a few unqualified observations from your little speck of the world into Global Armageddon.
Comprehension starts with observation, but then comes the hard part: Positing multiple hypotheses, carefully identifying and elimating variables – the last hyposthesis standing may be a good candidate for a Theory, but most of the time, the Theory will be disproven by some minor flaw (it only takes one!), so it’s back to the blackboard (or the field, for more observations). And of course, you must constantly guard against vanity and hubris.
It’s hard & tedious, but that’s how real science is done, which perhaps explains the Climatology crowd’s impatience of it, and their enthusiasm for Sony PlayStation simulations and statistical sleights of hand.
Slightly OT, but on the matter of skepticism, I always recommend Josephine Tey’s “The Daughter of Time” as the best general primer. Not a bit of science anywhere in it, but wonderfully instructive examples of how to carefully assemble the data (primary, contemporary sources only!) and infer likelyhood of competing scenarios; how a political regime coupled with the self-interest of assorted individuals (a self-generating conspiracy of converging interests) can and will distort history to further its own ends; how those distortions propagate themselves through the generations by the Inertia of Belief; and finally, if you’ve been paying attention, how to gain a healthy distrust of all received wisdom.
And, as the Brits like to say, it’s a cracking good read (Tey, AKA Gordon Daviot, AKA Elizabeth Mcintosh, was a Scot, but that’s close enough).
Speaking of confirmation bias, yes, it is possible (make that probable) to want to see bad things: Much environmentalism, “progressivism,” and social criticism is driven by the conceit (thy name is vanity) that the world is going to Hell in a handbasket, and that only I & pitifully few other enlightened souls can see it while the rest of the lumpen mass of humanity scurries for the cliff. It’s very seductive.
Was that too much protest?
Well at any rate, I’m off to pick up my wife who is at this very moment riding home on the front end of a nasty trail of CO2 & other noxious fumes.
Happy reading!
February 21st, 2009 at 12:18 amBrian Angliss:
I genuinely appreciate your attempt to discuss the science of the ‘hot spot’. And I notice that you also attempt to discuss ‘ocean acidification’. I would welcome a sensible email discussion of both these matters but this silly smear blog is not a place for that. So, if you do want a sensible debate on them with me then feel free email me at
RichardSCourtney@aol.com
If we resolve our differences on these matters then we may publish a joint paper (provided you have no objection to the resulting lies and smears about you being published on bogs like this one).
For now, I point out the fallacy in your argument in support of the Allen et al. paper by use of a direct analogy.
Consider that several medical practitioners each used different thermometers to take the temperature of a patient, and they each found the patient’s temperature was normal. Then somebody else said, “I know the patient is ill so I will try to take his temperature another way”. That somebody then said, “I have measured the speed of the air in the vicinity of the patient. And I have invented a method to convert air-speed to temperature”. Furthermore, that somebody said, “According to my air-speed method the thermometer measurements could be wrong so the patient probably is ill”.
Would you think the somebody was conducting “crank science”?
The ‘hot spot’ at altitude in the troposophere would exist if man-made global warming exists. But many thousands of temperature measurements indicate that the ‘hot spot’ does not exist. So, Allen et al. used a method of their own invention to convert wind-speed measurements into temperature, and they say their results show the temperature measurements could be wrong. On the basis of that, they claim the ‘hot spot’ may exist.
And it is not cogent to cite other papers that Allen co-authored as evidence that the temperature measurements may be wrong. Independent confirmation is required in science.
I fail to understand why you think Louiss Hissink was wrong to say the paper by Allen et al. is “crank science”.
Richard
February 21st, 2009 at 5:11 amThanks for all the good links boys. It makes it easier to get a balanced picture. I never did trust those climate denier deniers.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:46 amGail:
Thank you for the offer, but I will respectfuly pass. I do not doubt that you have pictures of blighted trees and shrubs. On Route 1 into Boston there are patches of blighted trees – normally from extended floodings or the tent caterpillar moths/gypsy moths. Three years ago I lost a pair juniper bushes to the critters because I was not paying attention. The question is what was the cause. The issue of confirmation bias is not the veracity of the observations or the particular data point, but the generalization that follows. The data I pointed you to clearly does not support any generalized winter drought or snow drought in New Jersey – therefore, it makes sense to be more circumspect about your assertions regarding the damage to your trees being due to AGW.
This thread has been interesting in itself. After the initial flurry of vitriol, snarks, barbs and jests things have settled down and data and paper citations have begun to emerge. This is a good thing.
If you want to see what adds fuel to at least my skepticism take a look at the debate around the infamous Naomi Oreske’s recounting of the early debates around global warming and the more recent partial cataloging of the failure of policy oriented academic research to police itself Of course, I still see Wildavsky’s book “But is it True?” as an excellent primer on checking the data before pushing the panic button.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:25 amBernie, no biggy. But I would just like to assure that, it isn’t merely the case that I can find damaged trees. It is that I cannot find any that AREN’T.
Also too, cataloging forests is valid data too. Now this and many other studies point to climate change killing forest in the west:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090122-trees-dying.html
You might argue it isn’t climate change. But you can’t argue that they aren’t dying.
Unfortunately I can’t find a comparable study in the East. The Eastern trees have received less scientific interest because the entire seaboard was cut at least once and so, the perception amongst foresters is that since there are more trees now than 80 years ago, there’s no worry.
This discussion will be moot most likely in 2 to 3 months when there isn’t a pine tree or an evergreen shrub, certainly in New Jersey, that has needles or leaves.
It will be completely moot when the last of the deciduous trees fall, some of which may stand for a year or two, but not more.
And then you can all be very proud of basing your science on empirical facts.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:50 am@ Bernie
“Can you provide a citation or is this a piece of gibberish masquerading as legitimate hyperbolic sophistry?”
I was being kind and allowing for the remote possibility of one percent that isn’t nonsense even though I have never seen it or heard of it. If you could point me to it I would be most grateful.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pmRichard,
First, I agree that independent confirmation is required of the Allen et al paper. My citation of their precursor paper was simply for the long list of citations that they use to illustrate that there are problems with the temperature measurements. It was a matter of convenience. And as I said already, my complaint with Louis’ claim was that he offered neither any logical argument nor any data to support it.
That said, though, your analogy has significant flaws that I’d like to point out and correct. Here’s your analogy for reference:
In this analogy, you’re comparing the earth’s global temperature to a human patient who may or may not have something wrong with her. Several doctors take the patient’s temperature with thermometers that are thus analogous to the radiosonde temperature measurements. A third doctor (Allen et al) believes that something is wrong with the thermometers (ie the radiosonde) and develops an alternate diagnostic test to detect the patient’s temperature another way.
Unfortunately, this is where your analogy fails.
You claim that the thermometers are fine and measure normally, but this is questionable. There are well documented errors and biases in the radiosonde data that make them less than reliable, and there are documented questions about biases that have not yet been removed from the instrument record. So your analogy would be more accurate if you’d said “Several medical practitioners each used different thermometers to take the temperature of a patient, and they found that the patient’s temperature varied from as low as 97 to as high as 100, and a few of the thermometers appeared to measure as much of the doctor’s temperature as the patient’s.” In medicine, this kind of range of temperatures can produce a massive number of different diagnoses.
The second problem is that you neglected to point out that the patient has numerous other symptoms that suggest illness.
The next problem with your analogy is that your alternate diagnostic method doesn’t parallel the method developed by Allen et al. First, the patient is sitting in the air – the analogous situation for the Earth is passing through space and the solar wind, and thus far Allen et al haven’t suggested that we measure the Earth’s temperature by monitoring the speed at which the Earth traverses the solar wind. Second, the alternative diagnostic method Allen et al developed is more analogous to monitoring the vibrations of the other doctors’ thermometers than it is to using an entirely different device. Given that there are known relationships between temperature and kinetic vibrations of matter, and similar known relationships between temperature and atmospheric wind speed, this is a far more accurate analogy.
Or, to claim your own analogy as my own, but without the errors I described above:
Consider that several medical practitioners each used different thermometers to take the temperature of a patient, and they each found the patient’s temperature varied from as low as 97 to as high as 100, with a few of the thermometers appearing to measure the doctor’s temperature as much as the patient’s. Then another doctor said, “I suspect the patient is ill due to the presence of other symptoms, so I will try to take her temperature a different way”. That doctor then said, “I know that the thermometers you used relied on infrared detection or electrical thermocouples, but both techniques have some problems the manufacturers haven’t worked out yet. Since I know that hotter objects vibrate slightly more according to the laws of physics, I should be able to measure the patient’s temperature by seeing how much your themometers vibrate. It won’t be perfect and it won’t be easy, but my analysis shows that it should be better than what you’re doing right now – here’s my analysis for you to look over and verify yourselves while I run the tests.” And then, after running the tests on the patient, that doctor said, “According to my thermometer vibration method, in concert with all these other symptoms too, I believe that the patient is ill”.
Given the newness of Allen et al’s proxy solution, more research will need to be done and the conclusions will need to be independently verified. But new ideas cannot be rejected as “crank science” just because you, I, or anyone disagrees with them. Again, simply claiming that Allen et al’s science was bad doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times the claim is made.
When this paper was released, I reported on it in my Weekly Carboholic climate/energy column. If the paper’s conclusions are shown to be flawed via new data and analyses, I’ll report that too. But at this point I’ve seen no data that contradicts it, just flawed logical arguments like your analogy above. I have too much experience in situations like this to accept any logical argument that’s not backed up by data, and right now the direct temperature data from radiosondes is suspect.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:11 pmGail,
February 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pmHow are the trees doing where you live?
Conifers and pines are evolved for dryer environments whether this be due to cold or warm climates. This is why they have needles and tap roots for maximum absorption and retention of water.
Deciduous trees generally are not so efficient so they lose their leaves to protect themselves from the colder conditions.
Why do you think the Tuscany landscape is famous for it’s pencil conifers. The Alpine areas for their firs and pines? The Scottish highlands and Norway for Spruce? This has to do with sharp drainage and or cold, dry air.
So, if you were correct in your assertion about the pines dying first, then the deciduous trees, this would not be the correct pattern of die-back due to water and transpiration. Of course if there’s a sudden reason for reduced water absorption i.e. root damage due to pest or disease, then a conifer has a smaller chance of recovery because it is less apparent that it is suffering in the first place, they are stoic and don’t show the signs until it’s too late. With a deciduous tree, their leaves harden or go limp dependant upon the type and it is clear very quickly that they are short of water.
If you study the trees on a ski trip, where there are only pines many look pretty ropy, where they grow on the edge of a patch of trees, or where they have become overcrowded. Nature sorts this out by culling the surplus trees, but never tidies up after itself. People look at this and decide that it is not picturesque. Have you seen the damage that a beaver can do? They are environmental thugs and should be put in prison for crimes against the earth.
As for your offer of off-site discussion, I’ll consider it. It would make for excellent blogging material at S&R if nothing else.
February 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pmBrian Angliss:
I tried to make a response to you but – for some reason – this system refuses it. If this message is accepted and you want to continue our discussionthen please contact me directly.
Richard
Ed. — Our imperfect spam filter often blocks comments with a large number of links. Apologies.
February 21st, 2009 at 6:17 pmJoy,
Thank you for a civil reply. In answer to your question, I actually FIRST became quite concerned about trees last summer, because the deciduous trees were dropping leaves by August. At that point the conifers looked normal.
It wasn’t until November that the conifers started to display signs of distress and I agree, that means from all I have read and seen personally, they are already in perilous condition by the time they are thinning.
Just assuming that the deciduous trees are internally in the same straits as the conifers, we are in for a disappointing spring.
Never mind, as I have mentioned previously, in just the past 3 weeks the evergreen shrubs, such as boxwood and andromeda and every other juniper and laurel and heather and cypress, have gone from looking healthy to turning yellow, or black, or brown.
It’s a very intimidating scenario.
February 21st, 2009 at 7:24 pmMike:
February 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pmI think you answered my question.
Brian Angliss,
Lubos Motl discusses the issue here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
It seems the scientific method is an alien concept here.
Coming to think about it, it’s better described as pseudo, rather than crank, science, though how one can decide which is which is moot.
As Richard Courtney politely pointed out to you, your slur ends any further interlocution with me.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:40 pmSo now The Proper Peer-Reviewed Certified-Climatologist-Acceptable Journals shall be only those having a High-Impact metric.
Doesn’t this requirement demand that the Certified Correct Numerical Value of the Metric be specified? Otherwise how are we to be able to make a proper judgement before we actually read the content.
Personally I like to skip reading even the Abstracts if at all possible.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 amGail,
My comments are always civil.
I would say that the reason for your localised observations may well be due to mineral content in the earth.
You mention juniper, heather, these are ericaceous plants. If the ground has neutralised you will see yellowing of the leaves as a result and heathers will turn their toes up very quickly. Has a local farmer overcooked it with his fertiliser mix?
If the roses are doing very well, I mean the leaves, then it may be this type of issue, although you ought to chop your roses right back now anyway if you haven’t already.
“Get your worst enemy to prune your roses” as they say.
Cyprus trees may have a tough time recovering but many firs and pines lose their lower leaves by way of a defence against bad conditions so you may find some of the trees just change shape rather than die.
My guess is that your issue ought to be with the soil rather than the water table.
All the plants and trees you mention are the tough cookies that prefer to grow in harsh conditions with low nutrient level in the soil, sandy soil, sharp drainage and are tolerant to alkaline conditions (excluding the heathers, which prefer acid and sandy soil.)
Heather (ericaceous), juniper, Box elder, pines don’t like rich soil, preferring sandy soils. (For sandy soil read sharp drainage such as might be found on sloping ground).
If it has been exceptionally dry remember this will effect the pH or function of the root system.
i.e. if you have rich, peaty soil, it is very hard to re-moisturise this once it has become dry. If the plant prefers sandy soil, which it sounds like your list mostly does, then the richness may be a factor both in terms of soil structure and pH.
If non-native trees are growing in less than ideal soil this will effect their longevity.
Why don’t you dig one up and look at the roots? You can send a soil sample off to your local authority on the matter. Look at the roots under a microscope and check the soil for fungus, the roots for vine weevil or other insects. It’s easy to test soil pH level.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 amCheck where your water source is. I find it impossible to believe that the whole of New Jersey is losing ALL its trees. Sorry. There must be an overzealous or clumsy farmer nearby or a herd of cows with chronic diarrhoea.
I’m just a lowly engineer and patent attorney, moderately liberal, a regular contributor to almost a half dozen environmental organizations, and I assumed Gore and the AGW consensus claims were correct. But the more I look into AGW, the more skeptical I become. Certainly, the “deniers” above seem more substantive, less hysterical, and more civil than the AGW true believers. The unscientific and often uncivil rants by the latter don’t prove that AGW is wrong, but they’re sure embarrassing. I smugly thought that only right wing-nuts like Sean Hannity and friends resorted to shamelessly content-free, name-calling diatribes, and that the liberals and environmentalists merely wanted good, non-ideological science. The appearance of a turn-about on this issue is cringe-inducing.
I take some comfort from a hope that policy decisions based on AGW paranoia will have salutary collateral benefits, such as: reduced particulate, metal and SO2 pollution due to reduced coal burning; reduced dependence on hostile countries for our energy supplies; improved national infrastructure; and unexportable jobs. That is, maybe we’ll do good things even if our reasons are wrong. [Indeed, maybe the AGWers are correct ... their rudeness, arrogance, and irrational paranoid don't prove they're wrong.]
But I have to believe it would be better to do the right things for the right reasons. GWB was so sure attacking Iraq was the right thing to do that he was willing to initiate it based on wrong reasons, and look how that turned out. I’d sure hate for Obama’s efforts at climate control to result in strategic, tactical and ethical disasters as humiliating as those produced by Bush’s war on terrorism. As I said about the absence of compelling evidence of WMDs, I think further inspection of this issue is warranted before we take drastic action.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 amJoy, I hope you didn’t think I was implying you were not civil. I was referring to nameless others.
And I don’t blame you, or anyone else, for finding it difficult to believe that the shrubs and trees, of all species and ages, in NJ (and CT, RI, PA, MD, and VA) are ALL dying, because the implications are unimaginably horrible. I have been finding it quite difficult to contemplate as well, and yet the evidence is right there for anyone who takes the trouble to look, and it’s not confined to one farmer or herd of cows (although acid rain does deplete the soil of essential nutrients, and that could be a cause of widespread damage).
Then again, it is also quite difficult for me to believe that the world stood by speechless while the Nazi’s gassed and burned millions of Jews, but I’m pretty sure it really did happen.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pmGail,
You are the only person who seems to have noticed. This is a blog that subscribes to your view. Where are the people from the states you mention, the initials I don’t know, that agree with what you observe? Do you think this is something that you could let go of if someone proved you wrong and if so, what would it take for someone to prove you wrong? How could your theory be falsified that: brown trees = evidence of global warming?
Did you look at the graph I posted? This is ’global mean temperature’ for the last 158 years:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
More interesting but less visual is the exact numbers and I have become quite the anorak about these and probably should get out more.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.dat
Note the shape for the last ten years. It’s going down. Now, for the purpose of your example, a claim that there’s not enough water, technically this could be true as in a colder world there will be less precipitation but more storms. In a warmer world, the opposite is true. However does cooling for the last ten years fit global warming? CO2 has continued to rise in that time! And
Why ten years? Why not 34? Which would be equally unfair as the temperature has gone down over that time as well. So why 158?
Because that’s the Instrumental record we have. So far, we’ve achieved 0.766 degrees of warming and it’s falling.
Can you imagine 5 billion years? Do you think 0.766 degrees is significant? So THAT is empirical evidence! That’s all the warmers have got. The rest is just commentary. What you seem to have is a belief, not evidence. Brown trees are not evidence of anything but that the trees are not healthy. It does not prove anything about cause. So I question your assertion about the health of the trees but even if your observation was spot on, it does not prove that the world is in peril.
You made another comment further up about CO2 damaging plants. This is surprising from a farmer. You know that plants currently live in a relatively depleted CO2 level by comparison with our earth’s history? They would like more. You know that CO2 is plant food, from junior school botany? Why would you assert that CO2 is damaging to plants? This is odd.
As for other pollutants, the air is cleaner today in the western world than it has been in the rest of the twentieth century. We have come a long way from burning wood and peat. This happened without any cries from alarmist propaganda. As I said, try and look at the data where you can. Both sides of the debate have the same data to play with, yet both sides come to a different conclusion.
The argument tends to be split between those that put emphasis on empirical evidence or real world observations and those who rely on computer models and their predictions. A computer model is a machine that calculates all the variables based on how the software is written to do the calculations.
So, for instance, if the scientist theorises that adding a set amount of CO2 results in a certain amount of warming, holding everything else still, then this is an easy calculation to make. Because the climate is so complex, the oceans are so deep and are a thermal and gaseous sink for example, then this also has to be estimated/calculated and fed into the computer. Same goes for all the hundreds of different factors that will affect the temperature.
It is not controversial to say that many of the variables are not well understood and so leave gaping holes in the computer’s calculation to add to the already mounting uncertainty in all the measurements and the theory that is somewhat understood.
So this is why in my layman’s understanding, it is not right to trust what the models predict.
Furthermore, temperatures have not matched the predictions of the models, period!
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pmSo what should we trust? Empirical evidence of falling temperatures with rising CO2, or models that can’t predict temperature as it actually happened?
That’s the choice.
Contrarians who associate themselves with the Inhofe crowd (which appears to be most of them) have zero respect within the scientific community. These clowns often refer to the scientific community as “Church of Gore followers”, a pretty absurd assertion. This post is actually evidence that contrarians are “Church of Inhofe followers”. I’ll give them credit for being well-organized. When any blog entry or article on global warming is posted, the zealous contrarian crowds are quickly all over it like a pack of hungry wolves.
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pmDano: “When you start reporting on the findings of denialist science, the data collected by denialist scientists, the model output of denialist institutions, the equations included in the testable hypotheses in denialist journal articles, then the majority of the world will pay attention. ”
It’s much easier and in most ways more rewarding for contrarians to rant on blogs and through willing media outlets than to quietly conduct scientific research in peer-reviewed journals. I think many are taken in by the nonsense that is perpetuated on the blogosphere and through many mainstream media outlets, which is why we have such a disconnect between public opinion and scientific opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
A specific study on the topic, published in EOS:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pmRe: #121
During the Bush years, contrarians political hacks were much more content. That administration was the infant’s blanket, which is no longer there to make them feel good. This explains their current level of shrillness. They are making a big push to influence public opinion.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pmPatrick M:
8 years ago, the Earth was cooler than today (by “today”, I’m assuming you mean the global mean temperature over the last year). 1998 was a super el Nino, which resulted a very warm anomaly, well above the trend line. 2008, in contrast (as well as 2000) was la Nina-influenced, resulting in somewhat cooler temperatures relative to the longer term trend. Climatologists see the big picture. Contrarians are quite selective to form the type of argument a prosecutor might make when supporting a weak case. It tends to make many of us question their motives.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pmJoy,
Demonstrably false. Models aren’t perfect or precise. Many are accurate within a reasonable range. One model:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
The Hansen model also used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C (higher than the current mean estimate of 3 C) yet it’s matched the data reasonably well to date.
Read more about the IPCC models and statistics:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/
Doesn’t look like it:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
Both Hadley and GISS show warming over 10 years – Hadley a bit less due to how they estimate Arctic data. Now you could make a good case of a flattening of temperatures over the last few years, which is pretty meaningless. Remember, we tend to see this during any stretch that begins with el Nino and ends with la Nina. We’re also at an extended solar cycle minimum (solar activity in general has declined over the last several decades). Yet 2008 was the warmest la Nina-influenced year and the warmest year by far at a solar cycle minimum – more remarkable when you combine the two influences. Why are temperatures still so warm? January 2009 had similar influences yet global temperature anomalies remain near their 5-year mean. What will happen when the next moderately-strong el Nino develops? The CFS ensemble (which forecasted the current la Nina) is projecting el Nino to develop by fall.
At this point, you appear to be making up things on the fly. I’m beginning to lose interest.
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 pmRe: #183
Bill,
Good rhetorical technique. When posting on a liberal blog, it’s important to identify with your audience. Let me take a crack at it:
—–
I’m just a lowly engineer and patent attorney, moderately conservative, a regular contributor to almost a half dozen conservative organizations, and I assumed skeptic claims were correct. But the more I look into the arguments of skeptics, the more skeptical I become. Certainly, the “alarmists” above seem more substantive, less hysterical, and more civil than the AGW deniers. The unscientific and often uncivil rants by the latter don’t prove that AGW is correct, but they’re sure embarrassing. I smugly thought that only left-wing nuts like Al Gore and friends resorted to shamelessly content-free, name-calling diatribes, and that the conservative folks merely wanted good, non-ideological science. The appearance of a turn-about on this issue is cringe-inducing.
—–
In all seriousness, Bill, I’ll assume good faith on your part for a minute. There’s no reason to preach about gloom and doom if we take steady action to reduce emissions. All credible economic studies on the topic show the long-term gross economic costs are manageable. Even if you’re generally skeptical of the virtual scientific consensus (as opposed to being a true zealot to the belief that the human impact is none to negligible), it seems more prudent to incur modest costs (some studies show a gain) over the next few decades rather than take on the much greater risks of inaction.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 pmMark:
You say:
If by contrarians you mean “climate realists” then you are plain wrong because the scientific case against man-made global warming is extremely strong. Indeed it is overwhelming. And that is why climate realists proclaim the science and do not set up smear blogs such as this one.
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of man-made global warming, and
(b) the perception and uses of man-made global warming by non-scientists.
The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic global warming (AGW.
The science
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.
1.
There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.
2.
Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
3.
Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present. This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by more than 4% since 1990, but there has been no significant warming since 1995 with global temperature falling since the high it had in the El Nino year of 1998, and it is now similar to what it was in 1990.
4.
Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have been since 1940 and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and there has been no significant warming since 1995 with global temperature falling since the high it had in the El Nino year of 1998, and it is now similar to what it was in 1990.
5.
The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons and MSU measurements from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.
The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules ofscience: i.e.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data and the opposite of the hypothesis’ predictions is observed in the empirical data.
But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc.). However, support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.
Richard
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pmNo. I mean contrarians – those intent on arguing like a lawyer would.
Theory actually. It was a hypothesis 50 years ago.
Yes there is. But remember, correlation is not causation.
Both, actually. Between ice ages, for instance, CO2 represents a feedback – and a significant one.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores
Aside from being a non-sequitur…First, global temperatures during mid-century only fell slightly and rose rapidly during the last 30 years (yes, since 1998 as well – see above). You’re presenting this as if both periods equate.
The CO2 effect was somewhat weaker mid-centuy, and was counter-balanced by the cooling effect of human-induced sulfates and a rise in significant volcanic activity.
An examination of the 5-year mean column below refutes your other arguments. One has to cherry-pick to make that sort of case.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
Your argument 4 is similar to argument 3. Note that even cherry-picking a warmer starting period reaveals the 5-year mean to be 0.40 to 0.45 C warmer.
Altitude or latitude? If latitude, it’s quite the opposite. More warming is predicted in the Arctic and in northern latitudes. There’s been warming at areas distant from polar regions as well.
http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
If altitude, warming is only predicted in the troposphere, with more warming at lower altitudes. Cooling is predicted in the stratosphere, and substantial cooling has happened. This is consistent with AGW, a decrease in solar activity, or cooling from human-induced sulfates. If the latter 2 are big factors, then some other factor (i.e. greenhouse gases) are overwhelming other cooling factors. Stratospheric cooling is just one of the many pieces of observational evidence that climatologists use to come to the conclusion about human activities and global warming. Those who see the big picture, which would be nearly the entire scientific community, aren’t foolish enough to call it a “hypothesis”.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pmHey CLM:
Not sure where you are skiing but Stratton and Okeomo just got another 1/2 foot of snow and are expecting 1 foot by tomorrow. In Connecticut we have had snow on the ground since November. I have been skiing and ice skating in the East Coast for the last 20 years and this is been one of the colder winters. Just take a look at your oil or gas consumption to heat the house – its up because of the COLD!!
Sunday, February 22, 2009 – Afternoon Update
To quote Buzz Bernard, Sr. Meteorologist at The Weather Channel, “Bombs away!” The snow has been falling all day here at Okemo and it will only fall heavier as the evening progresses. While total accumulations are still up in the air at this point, we believe we’ll see somewhere around 1 foot of snow by tomorrow morning!
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pmHey CLM
Maybe you want to look at the average snow falls at Killington. This year to date it is 39% above average – so more snow fall not less. Probably because it is getting colder. Of course I know when you get up in years like you do your memory starts to fade.
point of reference 1962-1963 267in
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 pm95-96 – 307in
96-97 – 305in
97-98 – 242in
98-99 – 185in
99-00 – 209in
00-01 – 315in
01-02 – 192in
02-03 – 291in
03-04 – 215in
04-05 – 236in
05-06 – 191in
06-07 – 294in
07-08 – 282in
09-09 – 223in (139% of Normal)
Hey AGWs
Opps. Gee another error, looks like there is more ice than they thought.
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pmSandy:
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 amCan you provide a link for the snowfall cumulations? I looked and was having a hard time locating an historical database. I am sure Gail would also appreciate it, if it covers Western New Jersey.
2007-2008 numbers look low given what I saw in Maine last season, but perhaps this is just regional variation.
So anybody with a PhD is associated with industry & thus lying. The boss of the IPCC is an engineer with an Economics PhD. Congartulations on proving how deep these sceptics can burrow in.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 amMark,
I am not remotely interested in whether you find my comment engaging. I was showing Gail where to start looking for data.
Show me where the facts I posted were wrong. Do not post a graph from a different outlet and try to claim that I am making statements “off the fly”. For that is dishonest. Kindly show where I did so or apologise for being rude.
If you want to argue about the Hadley temperature graph then that is a different issue. It would be strange if you did this since the guys at Hadley DO subscribe to the view that humans are heavily implicated in the last century’s modest warming trend and are one of the four high quality, (not controversial) outlets for global mean temperature.
Had I been less than fair minded, like yourself, I would have chosen one of the other centres as they are even further from NASA’s record which you favour.
Like this one:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
Why do you find NASA’s version of global temperatures more convincing than one of the others? Just suits your case? You OUGHT to pick one that’s in the middle, LIKE HADLEY! Especially if you think that every tenth of a degree is vital.
The Hadley temperature record is longer than NASA GISS and does not have the issue of all the cheating that’s clearly been going on. I call it cheating, you might use a different, more forgiving word, such as American ‘error’.
For further information, read Anthony Watt’s extensive surface station survey.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
If you are able, you may feel free to make a valid criticism of this work. If you have nothing to say but to hurl insults as is common on Realclimate when Anthony’s name comes up then I am not interested. I have heard enough from both individuals and have made up my mind.
How ironic is the name “Real climate” when they live in the virtual world! Computer modelling is Gavin Schmitt’s thing. When was the last time he left the fudge factory and took a look at the weather stations? You’d think his anorak would be well warm enough.
And, let’s be clear, that WAS a personal attack on Gavin Schmitt just in case you or anyone else was in any doubt.
As for
“demonstrably false” on climate modelling,
You did not show where this was false. Your Gavin method of frisbying a paper at your adversary will not suffice in a blog discussion on this issue. If you can’t show clearly with single graphs or simple explanations then I remain unconvinced and see your link as a smoke screen. This is precisely why Gavin turns so many people off apart from those who are easily conned by a quick link to an entire paper on a very basic point. I have even witnessed readers call Gavin on his paper links who happened to know the contents of the article where he has clearly not refuted the point at all by linking to the paper. If you have an argument you should be able to construct your own sentences with clear explanations to illustrate your point; a graph or a data file.
Otherwise, the argument becomes pointless gainsaying paper for paper, and the actual point in it’s purest form is not argued.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 pmYour word “reasonable” says it all about your way of thinking, and yet keeps the argument in the perpetual circle that keeps the AGW plates spinning.
Fortunately, most of the Real World is getting bored of this after so many years.
Bernie, this site looks like it might be a good source of information about snow cover but you need a particular sort of email address to access it which I am working on:
http://easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?act=Reg&CODE=00
Joy, I perhaps didn’t express myself well enough if you think I believe AGW is behind vegetative distress (the states are Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, which I have had occasion to visit in recent months).
I do believe AGW is real, and effects are already being seen (glacial and polar cap melt, wildfires in Australia, the western US and Europe to name a few). And I do think it is the most likely culprit for what I see going on here on the Eastern US. But I am not convinced, mainly because it is such an across the board problem, and includes all sorts of trees and shrubs at all ages in every situation – city, suburb, along highways, in deep undisturbed woods.
I realize increased CO2 accelerates plant growth but at some point, like humans breathing pure oxygen, I thought I had read it became poisonous. And the plants many eons ago that lived during periods of higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, had millions of years to adapt and perhaps require lower levels.
Just saying. I am not well enough educated to know for sure.
Just like the increase in ultra-violet rays from the thinning of upper ozone is leading to huge increases in skin cancer, perhaps there is something that is damaging to plants as well.
These are all just ideas that have occurred to me, in trying to fathom what is causing the destruction I observe.
And to answer your question, which is valid, how come nobody but me is noticing this?
Actually, there are a few other people who seem to agree with me. However, let me mention that humans seem to have a truly impressive ability to ignore that which is unpleasant, and to engage in self-destructive behavior even though it should be quite obvious that it is dangerous to do so.
Smoking comes to mind (I’m guilty even though I quit!), driving too fast, not buckling your kids in the car, over-eating and being over-weight, spewing pesticides that are known carcinogens all over, and how about war?
In a more precise way, I think that very few people actually pay attention to trees and further, this decline is happening so fast, most people simply haven’t noticed. For instance, you have to be actually looking to notice the pine trees losing needles, because it’s an absence of something. At this time of year, unless you are deliberately taking stock, the bare pine trees just blend in with the leafless deciduous trees.
All this is going to change very soon. The pine trees didn’t start shedding needles until late last fall and now many of them are completely bare and snapping like toothpicks.
When the general public figures this out, and they will, I fear for the panic reaction. Even if a snowstorm of 3 inches is predicted, the grocery stores get bought out in a few hours. Wait till somebody publicly says, and they will, oops, what if whatever is killing the trees is going to kill food crops?
It sounds to me as though you are from Britain or Australia? You can google forest death in Europe – it’s been documented for some time there.
And there’s a reason the wildfire’s in Australia were so horrific. Doesn’t matter if there was an arsonist or two! The point is, the trees are tinder dry, the winds were wild, and the temps before they started were 117 degrees for 4 days preceding the fires. The fires were so ferocious people couldn’t outrun the flames and were burnt to death in their cars.
Which is consistent with computer model predictions, as was Katrina. Sure the levees were neglected. But stronger, longer storms are predicted due to warmer waters.
I don’t know what it’s going to take for deniers to stop denying. Like my old friend who chain smoked and denied he had advanced emphysema until the night he died in his sleep.
Nothing wrong with me! He said.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 pmBernie:
There are a couple of links:
http://www.killingtonpaper.com/snowchart.htm
http://webpages.charter.net/tcrocker818/
Most total are within an inch of each other from the two different websites. The second website shows snowfall totals for a number of mountains.
Have fun,
Andy
CLM See you up a Stratton. :)
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pmFor all you AGW advocates, why do you use such a loaded term like “deniers”? The reference is obviously associated with “Holocaust deniers” like the wack job – President of Iran.
Would you feel comfortable if the “deniers” started calling you the “Brown Shirts” or “Nazis” of global warming? Enforcing and bringing forth the “Fuehrer’s” message and his propaganda. To use his fascism to intimidate people who dared to speak out and question the consensus?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pmPaddikj:
February 24th, 2009 at 7:52 amI have just finished The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey that you recommended. I had honestly never heard of Elizabeth MacKintosh before. This is a great book: Taut, provocative, compelling and jammed with information. It also serves as a wonderfully entertaining tutorial on how to think through an issue. Many, many thanks.
Gail,
I live right IN Epping forest in England. It’s doing VERY well and is managed beautifully by a team of workers that do what foresters do. I can assure you that I can see it from my window and its ok. No pines! But no dead trees. Behind me is an old wood, the wood from which was used for collecting a Rough tally of taxes paid/owed by marking notches into sticks that were stored in the houses of parliament. (and later set light to by a guy, not THE Guy, the real guy, that got away.)
In your earlier comments, you more or less did blame global warming for the plant issue you described. CO2 is never poisonous to plants. Be very wary of anyone telling you that it is, and there is simply no comparison with our breathing oxygen in high concentration and plants being supplied with extra CO2, as in many industrial greenhouses.
Ironically the effect of too much Oxygen on the human body throws off the respiratory drive centre in the brain which is driven by CO2! It also causes blindness in premature babies.
There is nothing in the air damaging the plants. Look at the root and nutritional issues.
Wildfires?
These are a natural phenomenon, especially in Australia, they are very common. Obviously if conditions are right there will be more. Remember that many shrubs and trees germinate by the heat of a forest fire. To get the bottle brush to grow from seed it must be placed under the grill!
Storms:
Look up the facts Gail, Katrina was categorised lower than you probably thought in terms of intensity. Google it, don’t take my word for it.
There is no clear evidence that there have been more storms with the twentieth century warming trend. There IS evidence that more, smaller storms are recorded/picked up. This means the method of measurement has become more sensitive. Note the subtle difference there. If someone says,
“We’ve noted more storms”
they would be correct.
“We have been capable of noting more storms” is also true.
Therefore,
“We have measured more storms” is true.
This information comes from reading explanations from, and looking at graphs produced by WM Briggs. I am sure you will find it or a link to it on his site.
In a warming world there will be less storms due to the reduced gradient or temperature difference between the tropics and the poles. In a cooler world, the opposite is true. Who knows whether the few tenths of a degree that is probable but not definite is even enough to effect the rate of storms in a measurable way yet, but if the cooling continues then we can expect more variability and more storms.
Precipitation will increase in a warmer world and reduce in a cooler world.
Keep these facts in mind when you are thinking about droughts, wild fires, and claims of increased storms.
To claim I and others of like mind on this issue are suffering from addictive behaviour or denial is a shame. It shows that you cannot think critically about this topic. Also, that you must dispute the facts as they are presented to you, which is odd considering that you claim that I am in denial! I have tried to present the facts to you and encouraged you to double-check even your favourite alarmist’s claims if necessary.
February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pmTake Mark just above, he clearly is attempting to imply that I am being untruthful. Yet anyone can check the facts themselves and see what is going on there. We all have access to the same data.
The models did not predict hurricane Katrina. Wildfires are occurring every year in certain places around the globe, just as right now there is lightening hitting the world. Volcanoes will erupt, earth quakes occur; giant hailstones fall; It rains frogs; The snow in Puis St. Vincent in the French Alps turns pink due to sand blown from the Sahara ( very pretty), and so on.
Now, do you think it is possible that the same is happening with your assumption that the latter list is due to global warming results from the same mechanism of thinking as your brown tree argument? It’s the same confirmation bias at work. “You see! I told you it was true, look here’s a wildfire!” It’s a neurosis if it becomes a strong enough feeling to make you scared. So, If we are in denial, you and your like could be described as neurotic.
What do you think?
Joy, I wish I was merely neurotic.
But, I’m not.
Time, in a very short window, will convince you. I do not claim to have the explanations – but I do see the results.
Hey, if I’m wrong, can we have a hobo party?
Honestly, I would love that.
Even though Bernie thinks I am somehow exposing myself to …abuse or, courting abuse? I’m not sure but he definitely doesn’t approve.
Here’s my email witsendnj at yahoo dot com.
I welcome any and all opinions and especially observations from around the world.
And now I think I am going to sign off from this thread because it is taking forever to scroll down!
Best regards to everyone who has posted here.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:17 pmGail
Sandy: You may have something there. The alarmists like Hansen want to jail CEO’s, everyting bad is blamed on CO2 and so “Deniers” are guilty of furthering humanity’s demise, no dissention is allowed, and our rights are being denied. I think Nazi is a close fit.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pmEd. — our buggy spam filter has been blocking this comment from Richard S. Courtney. Our apologies.
Mark:
I respond to your points that – except possibly for the first – are each very mistaken.
Your first point corrects my having said:
“If by contrarians you mean “climate realists” then you are plain wrong”
when you respond:
“No. I mean contrarians – those intent on arguing like a lawyer would.”
OK, but I do not know of any such “contrarians” among those who dispute the AGW hypothesis.
Then you assert that the AGW hypothesis is a “theory”. Sorry, but you are mistaken. In science a theory derives from a hypothesis when it has some supporting evidence.
There is no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind. Two decades of research have failed to find any.
A claim that man-made global warming exists is merely an assertion: it is not evidence and it is not fact. And the assertion does not become evidence or fact by being voiced, written in words, or written in computer code.
The existence of global warming (GW) is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) because warming of the Earth does not prove that human activity warmed it. At issue is whether human activity is or is not affecting the changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.
And all the observed recent changes to global temperature are within the range of variation that has happened in recent millennia.
You assert that there is a correlation between anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature. Sorry, but no. The IPCC uses 5-year smoothing of the data to create a correlation, but this cannot be justified because there is no known physical mechanism that would have that effect.
Please note that the annual anthropogenic emissions data need not vary precisely with the atmospheric rise. Some of the emissions may be accounted in adjacent years so 2-year smoothing of the emissions data is warranted. And different nations may account their years from different start months so 3-year smoothing of the data is justifiable. However, the 5-year smoothing applied by the IPCC to get agreement between the anthropogenic emissions and the rise is not justifiable (the IPCC uses it because 2-year, 3-year and 4-year smoothings fail to provide the agreement).
And you rightly say that correlation does not prove causation, but the important point is that lack of correlation indicates lack of causation. Atmospheric CO2 concentration and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration do not correlate.
I said;
“Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales”.
And you replied;
“Both, actually. Between ice ages, for instance, CO2 represents a feedback – and a significant one.”
I fail to understand the meaning of “Both actually”.
The Vostock ice core indicates a lag of carbon dioxide change behind temperature change of ~800 years. And whether or not there is a feedback is not relevant to that (except that the feedback is too small to prevent a rising trend reversing).
At shortest time scales a change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows a change to global temperature by months (6 to 9 months depending on latitude). This was first discovered by Kuo. Linberg & Thomson (Nature, 1990) and has been independently determined by several others since.
It is important to understand the difference between correlation and coherence. Correlation is a mathematical relationship between changing parameters. Coherence is when one parameter changes whenever another changes, and the parameter that exhibits the latter changes cannot be causing the other parameter to change (in the absence of a time machine).
Coherence in the absence of correlation is common and is strongly indicative that neither parameter is causative of the other but both are being affected by an additional (often undetected) parameter.
For example, leaves fall off trees soon after children return to school from their summer break. This is clear coherence: it happens every year. But the number of children returning to school does not indicate the number of leaves that will fall: this is absence of correlation. In this case, the other (and causative) parameter is the time of year.
You wrongly assert that I made “a non-sequitur” and – sensibly – do not attempt to justify that assertion when in response to my accurate statements saying:
“Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present. This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by more than 4% since 1990, but there has been no significant warming since 1995 with global temperature falling since the high it had in the El Nino year of 1998, and it is now similar to what it was in 1990.”
You replied with:
“Aside from being a non-sequitur…First, global temperatures during mid-century only fell slightly and rose rapidly during the last 30 years (yes, since 1998 as well – see above). You’re presenting this as if both periods equate.”
But I did not say anything equates. I stated facts which demonstrate that if any AGW existed it has been overwhelmed by natural effects in the period since 1940 (i.e. the period when the anthropogenic emissions have been significant).
And the temperature has fallen since 1998 according to RSS, UAH, HadCRUT3 and even GISS.
Furthermore, the rise was not “rapid” in the short period of 28 years from 1970 to 1998 (i.e. the period ow warming in the time since 1940). The rise had a greater rate in the period from 1910 to 1940 which was before there were significant anthropogenic emissions.
You go on to assert:
“The CO2 effect was somewhat weaker mid-centuy, and was counter-balanced by the cooling effect of human-induced sulfates and a rise in significant volcanic activity.”
Well, the aerosol excuse is an enormous supposition with no supporting evidence and it is denied by evidence. The aerosol excuse claimed anthropogenic aerosol provides greenhouse cooling that masks the AGW predicted by the GCMs on the basis that – as you say – anthropogenic sulphates form aerosols that result in cooling. But that excuse foundered 8 years ago when Jacobson showed that soot (i.e. carbonaceous material from combustion) combines with anthropogenic sulphate aerosol in the air and the combination provides strong greenhouse warming. So, the aerosol should have increased GW, not reduced it as the aerosol excuse assumed. The globally averaged warming (i.e. radiative forcing potential) from the soot/aerosol is calculated to be powerful (0.55 Wm^-2) and is between the potentials of carbon dioxide (1.56 Wm^-2) and methane (0.47 Wm^-2) that IPCC had claimed to be the two major trace greenhouse gases.
(ref. Jacobson MZ, “Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols”, Nature, v409, 695-697 (2000)).
You continue by saying to me:
“An examination of the 5-year mean column below refutes your other arguments. One has to cherry-pick to make that sort of case
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt”.
The unadulterated data proves my case.
And your justification for taking a 5-year mean is? Anybody can make any data fit anything by adjusting it in a way that suits their case. The 5-year smoothing is a ‘fiddle factor’.
(And it is an act of gall for you to accuse me of “cherry picking” when I accurately described all the data for the period of significant anthropogenic emission, but you ignored the actual data and cited processed data that distorts reality.)
You then display a lack of logical comprehension when you say to me:
“Your argument 4 is similar to argument 3. Note that even cherry-picking a warmer starting period reaveals the 5-year mean to be 0.40 to 0.45 C warmer.”
My “argument 4” and “argument 3” are very different. One concerned atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the other anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Your claim that these two parameters are “similar” suggests a prejudice.
Furthermore, I presented no “arguments”. I presented a list of empirical facts and described the data of those facts.
Additionally, the use of a 5-year mean to create a spurious fit (see above) is pure pseudo-science (i.e. adjusting data to suite a pre-conceived idea).
And you seem to be very confused in your response to my saying:
“The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons and MSU measurements from satellites both show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.”
When you reply:
“Altitude or latitude? If latitude, it’s quite the opposite. More warming is predicted in the Arctic and in northern latitudes. There’s been warming at areas distant from polar regions as well.”
Clearly, you have no understanding of the issue of the ‘hot spot’. I explain it on pages 5 to 7 of the item at
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf
Your confusion is further demonstrated when you add:
“If altitude, warming is only predicted in the troposphere, with more warming at lower altitudes. Cooling is predicted in the stratosphere, and substantial cooling has happened. This is consistent with AGW, a decrease in solar activity, or cooling from human-induced sulfates. If the latter 2 are big factors, then some other factor (i.e. greenhouse gases) are overwhelming other cooling factors. Stratospheric cooling is just one of the many pieces of observational evidence that climatologists use to come to the conclusion about human activities and global warming.“
Please see the explanation I provide at the URL above, and if that is not clear then refer to the NIPCC Report. It is at
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
You conclude by asserting:
“Those who see the big picture, which would be nearly the entire scientific community, aren’t foolish enough to call it a “hypothesis”.”
Well, I do not look at the issue with the ‘Nelsonian eye’ that you so very clearly do. And AGW is a hypothesis, not a theory: this is a matter of definition and I explain it near the start of this message.
Richard
February 25th, 2009 at 4:36 pmA link for this assertion, please.
February 25th, 2009 at 9:13 pmBrad,
You labeled a bunch of people as “Climate Denial Jokers” just because one of Inhofe’s staffers sends them regular emails.
Isn’t that rather blatantly McCarthyist behavior?
If this type of behavior bothers you, I recommend doing the right thing. Apologize.
Otherwise, the next time somebody labels Obama a terrorist because he knew Bill Ayers, you should stand up proudly and say “I am glad that in this day and age people are categorized and judged based solely upon who they receive email from. My name is Brad Johnson, and I helped make things this way.”
February 25th, 2009 at 9:58 pmTree:
You quote me as saying:
And ask me:
Well, the best link is at
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
It provides a compilation of hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than now around the world.
However, I suspect you would be more willing to accept Chapter 6 of the most recent IPCCReport (i.e. IPCC AR4) which can be seen at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Richard
February 26th, 2009 at 4:38 amAll:
Upon reading my post at 207 I notice that I made a serious misprint.
I wrote:
Of course, I intended to write:
The fact that nobody has commented on this mistake suggests that my meaning was clear to all, but I apologise for the error.
And, whilst writing, I also apologise for my double post at 210 and 211. This resulted from problems I have had when posting to here (one of my posts disappeared for ever and I submitted another that was put here as the item at 207).
Richard
Ed. — Apologies again for the comment problems. I’ve deleted the duplicate post. Thanks for your forbearance, everyone.
February 26th, 2009 at 5:06 amRichard:
February 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pmNeatly done. Some intriguing but pretty technical statistcal stuff is happening over at CA that may interest you.
The ~100ppm atmospheric co2 rise in the past 200 years has been caused by human co2 emissions.
Statements like this are just lame attempts to dodge that fact:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate.”
Human co2 emissions define the overall rise, not the year to year variation.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pmAlso, manmade global warming is not a hypothesis or a theory. It is a result obtained by running the numbers on current understanding of climate.
If manmade global warming is wrong then so are various equations in the physics textbooks.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:59 pmBrad I tried to write to you before – to tell you that in at least one other case, you have identified the wrong guy.
Phil Valentine is not an associate of Marc Morano.
I am an ethusiatic Morano supporter – as well as an absolute denialist.
Brad you are picking on the wrong people – and you’re making a MISTAKE.
You never know! You might be missing some really great material!
I might be a fraudulent PhD!
I might be a stooge for Exxon-Mobil!
I might be out ther helping to expose the fraud you are promulgating!
Brian G Valentine PhD PE
March 1st, 2009 at 2:40 pmUS Department of Energy
Washington, DC
Thank you, Brad. You have some more columns to correct in other blogs, I believe?
America really owes Marc Morano a lot. Among other things, his work helps to keep fuel proices low – so that people can survive snow storms like we see today!
Brian G Valentine
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 amAnd we call them irrational!
These denialists have shamed me with their lucidity and their grasp of what you posted, I tell you!
Shamed!
I meant to write skeptics not denialists! I blame you!
March 7th, 2009 at 3:28 amNot DiplPhil Richard S. Courtney. As far as Eli can see from his bios, Courtney has no degrees in either meteorology or climate studies.
IPCC Expert Reviewer is not a qualification. NOAA and the IPCC issued blanket invitations to everyone to look at the AR4 and submit reviews. They netted experts and clowns and everything in between. YMMV but a lot of people started calling themselves IPCC expert reviewers who sent in cereal box tops.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:21 amGosh Golly Gee-whiz Jeepers.
What do I have to do to encourage mud slinging in my diection – stick out my tongue? : P
March 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pmI see Courtney is peddling the usual confusion and rubbish.
Just for a laugh I looked at the url he gave, and went to the page for AUstralia/ New Zealand.
The first study for New Zealand stalgamites was published in 1979 and therefore does not cover the last 30 years of warming, and therefore does not compare anything like current temperatures with older ones. Its claimed warm period peaked around 1300 to 1400.
The second one has a peak around 1100 to 1300, with the peak in question then harldy moving at all since dropping to a low and hardly moving at all in the last 200 years, which is odd because when you look at modern temperature data:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/ncc/clivar/pastclimate
There has been a steady increase in temperature since 1900 or so. THis increase actually shows up in the first graph, but since the data finishes in the mid 20th century or so, you can’t draw a full conclusion from it.
The lesson from all this is that cherry picking studies to support your (non-existent and ignored by actual scientists) case is a bad idea.
March 9th, 2009 at 7:56 amSend carrots
March 9th, 2009 at 11:01 pmGeorge E. Smith, your credentials are quite impressive. I looked up Google Scholar but at first glance could not find any papers with your name (including the middle initial or not). Can you give references for a few of your favorite papers?
March 9th, 2009 at 11:41 pmI note for the record that the new discipline of science denial cannot even read.
Denialists:
This is not a list you are “put on” by the wonk room. This is a list with only one parameter – you were part of Marc Morano’s anti-science PR emailing. Your attitude to the details of global warming, or Al Gore, or anything, is not relevant.
In short, it’s not faked, and it’s not arbitrary. Unlike the petitions your crowd circulates, many of which are signed falsely, or by dead people, and which invariably cause people to have to threaten legal action because you put them on as signing something they don’t agree with. CF also your “documentaries.”
Hope this helps.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:27 pmThanks, Marion!
Keep those letters of appreciation coming!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pmMike Tosh
“Through the snow, the wind and the cold of another below average year”
You mean the past year with it’s cooling from La Nina? The 9th warmest year since 1880?
I’m not a scientist and even I can see the dishonesty in that statement.
Cherry picking again are we? Or just tying to get away with using one year’s temps to suggest something about long term climate change? It would help your argument if it actually was a “cool” year.
jcak m
You might want to read the comments by Obama’s new White House Science Advisor John Holdren, (Highly regarded Nobel Prize winner: Former President- American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Current director of the Woods Hole Research Center. (Woods Hole is one of the premier oceanography institutions in the world.): Professor at Harvard and Berkeley on environment:)
on skeptics verses deniers. He points out that skeptic ideas do sometimes upset the “mainstream” science, but far less often than some people imagine.
Sandy
It is most definitely not getting cooler. Who told you that?
“The movement has become a cult and a political movement and not based in science”
And who told you that? It is entirely not true.
It is urban legend is what it is. What people like you do is read the garbage junk science of the deniers, swallow it whole hog, never bothering to read what the mainstream scientists say and never checking your sources.
You are the one in a cult. Period
The information that refutes what you are saying is readily available, but that might be inconvenient for you. Simply by looking at a chart of global temperatures you will see that
the uptrend has never been broken. This despite the fact that 1998 was an anomaly for two reasons. The most severe El Nino event in 100 years, which warms global atmosphere, and being close to the peak of a well know 11 year solar cycle. The past year was also a double anomaly for the same but inverse reasons, La Nina, which cools the atmosphere globally, and being near the bottom of the same solar cycle.
A fifth grader would be smart enough to understand that choosing those two years as starting and ending points is cherry picking.
How does this chart show anything remotely like cooling?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Still not sure?
Since this is such a popular skeptic argument presently, here are more links on supposed cooling of late. If it’s not too inconventient or doesn’t upset your belief system too much, you might want to read these too.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/index.php?p=632
http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21/debunking-the-myth-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/yes-the-globe-is-warming-but-how-fast/
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-need-chill-about-global-cooling
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1866862,00.html
Debates mean nothing. They are media events and prove nothing about the science, just who is the most skilled debater and the most skilled at swaying the audience.
Todd
“Warm temps CAUSE an increase in CO2 levels, CO2 DOES NOT cause an increase in temps.”
It’s so reassuring that all that CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is imaginary, and it’s all really coming from some other source. Get real.
Brad
“Just being a run-of-the-mill crackpot doesn’t qualify.”
LOL
Von
“(failed because you do not understand thermodynamics, chemistry, economics- you just are pushing for some stupid Gaien fantasy).”
Gee if only all those scientists had checked with you first, they might have been aware of the laws of physics and chemistry that you are so knowledgable about. Who are you parroting?
“Our drought has made it exceptional for the larva as the trees put out less sap and cannot defend the bark structure
Not global warming, so the AGW prophets can put down their Gore effigy crack pipes. Sorry”
So you are absolutely sure that the drought is not an effect of global warming, is that what you are saying? It may or may not be from global warming, but when the entire world is experiencing changes like this, it just might be true that it is from global warming. just maybe
And when any skeptic mentions Al Gore, you can be sure there is not any science in their opinion, but political ideology that blinds.
I’m sure that every major scientific organization in the world, the earth science faculty of every major university in the world, and the Academy of Science of every country in the world that has an Academy of Science are all just following Al Gore.
And you actually believe that right? And you think the scientists are a cult? You must be kidding. And you believe it’s a scam, conspiracy or hoax, right? And you think THEY are the alarmists? OH, MY GOD!
Have you ever heard of the dumbing down of America? It’s much worse than previously thought.
Here a little nugget of information you might need.
It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth, by precipitating out of the short term carbon cycle, and being locked away in coal deposits and into the long term carbon cycle. Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation of carbon back into the atmosphere and thus, back into the short term carbon cycle, in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond. This is an unprecedented occurance, probably in the history of the planet.
Can you explain how this is part of a natural cycle, or is anything like any natural cycle that the earth has been through before. I mean ones that didn’t wipe out 90% of life on the planet.
‘Basic chemistry leaves us in little doubt that our burning of fossil fuels is changing the acidity of our oceans,’ said John Raven, professor of biology at the University of Dundee, UK. ‘The rate of change we are seeing to the ocean’s chemistry is a hundred times faster than has happened for millions of years. We just do not know whether marine life which is already under threat from climate change can adapt to these changes.’
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp
Care to explain to these chemists how they are wrong?
Luis Dias
Think you know more about species extinctions than this fellow?
“Lomborg’s estimate of extinction rates is at odds with the vast majority of respected scholarship on extinction. His estimate, “0.7 percent over the next 50 years” — or 0.014 percent per year — is an order of magnitude smaller than the most conservative species extinction rates by authorities in the field.
Before humans existed, the species extinction rate was (very roughly) one species per million species per year (0.0001 percent). Estimates for current species extinction rates range from 100 to 10,000 times that, but most hover close to 1,000 times prehuman levels (0.1 percent per year), with the rate projected to rise, and very likely sharply.”
by biologist Edward O Wilson – Harvard professor for fourty years, author of 20 books, winner of two Pulitzer prizes, and discoverer hundreds of new species.
Oh, but maybe you would rather believe non scientist and much debunked Bjorn Lomborg.
Maybe you read the Skeptical Environmentalist
by Lomborg?
So complete you education with the following analysis of his book.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
A whole website devoted to debunking Bjorn Lomborg’s work.
Joseph Romm – Debunking Bjorn Lomborg Part 1 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/13/105130/672
Debunking Bjorn Lomborg Part 2 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/14/142514/357
Debunking Bjorn Lomborg Part 3 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/151133/245
NY Times aricle by Andy Revkin on Lomborg’s book.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE5DB123EF93BA35752C0A9659C8B63
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/bjorn-lomborg-admits-his-intellectual-bankruptcy/
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/lomborg-yet-again-tries-to-mislead-on-slr-gets-taken-to-the-woodshed-by-rahmstorf/
Truth may hurt but truth will set you free.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:26 amGo ahead dive right in. The water’s fine.