The "Global Warming's a crock" or "Global Warming is real" thread.

[trysail]

I do have to correct you, at least on the topic of glaciers. For glaciers, we have pretty good evidence (photographs, written records, measurements) that indicate that a large portion of world glaciers (Alps, Rocky Mts., Himalayas, Mt. Kilimanjaro) have been in retreat over the last century.

The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed?
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553/page/7;jsessionid=baa9

The short answer: no.

"The shrinking glacier is an iconic image of global climate change. Rising temperatures may reshape vegetation, but such changes are visually subtle on the landscape; by contrast, a vast glacier retreated to a fraction of its former grandeur presents stunning evidence of how climate shapes the face of the planet. Viewers of the film "An Inconvenient Truth" are startled by paired before-and-after photos of vanishing glaciers around the world. If those were not enough, the scars left behind by the retreat of these mountain-grinding giants testify to their impotence in the face of something as insubstantial as warmer air.

But the commonly heard—and generally correct—statement that glaciers are disappearing because of warming glosses over the physical processes responsible for their disappearance. Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behavior of the glaciers and plateau ice on Africa's Kilimanjaro massif, just 3 degrees south of the equator, and to a lesser extent other tropical glaciers."

 

[Weird Harold]

would someone please explain the point of turning coal to gas, then burning it? why not just burn it? i realize that lots more particles etc would be produced, but they could be filtered.

i have the feeling that the coal to gas plan is going to be a boondoggle.

coal is non renewable, and what's available is of deteriorating quality, and probably deteriorating concentrations in the earth, meaning more land has to be torn up and processed.

I don't know why coal gasification is going to be a boondoggle -- it's how cities were lighted and heated for about a hundred years before they were electrified.

And that's really the simple explanation of why gassification rather than direct burning: It's the difference between cooking on a gas range and cooking on a wood/coal burning range; it's the difference between half a basement devoted to coal and ash storage and a gas meter on the outside of the house; it's the difference between controling temperatures with a valve or a shovel/auger.

Gasification of coal simplifies distribution, control, and waste disposal while removing the "contaminants" from low-grade, high-sulphur coal (or other source material)

That "other source material" comment is another reason for gassification over direct combustion -- coal is NOT the only source material that can be gasified, but the infrastructure for distributing and using the end result doesn't need to be changed when the source material is changed from non-renewable coal to renewable biomass like sawdust or sewage.

what concerns me is that even though the energy from burning gas may be greater, it would clearly take lots of energy to make coal into gas. i wonder what the final energy balance looks like?

The "final energy balance" is, IMHO, a very over-rated statistic. Especially when something like gasification of coal or biomass is involved; the total cost comparison has to involve the distribution infrastructure and waste management considerations -- i.e. is more energy consumed in the conversion than would be consumed by delivering coal to consumers and hauling away the ash?

The bottom line question is whether or not we can generate sufficient coal-gas to replace Natural Gas supplies and deliver it at a comparable cost? The simpler distribution, increased versatility, and waste disposal advantages of coal-gas over solid coal make even a relatively high degree of inefficiency acceptable from a cost/benefit standpoint.

it seems to me we should talk more about cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and 'syngas' generated from biomass. the article makes the basic point, i think important. if you work from plant material, the plants have already absorbed CO2; hence in the final burning of whatever substance derived, there is no more CO2 than was absorbed.

There is no one solution or even a finite range of solutions, and every "solution" has a downside.

It is possible that mankind will eventually reduce CO2 production down to just human respiration, but in doing so they will probably increase the production of water vapor by converting to a "hydrogen economy" -- and water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas," not to mention the localized climate changing effects of increased humidity in highly populated areas and decreased humidity where water is electrolyzed for the hydrogen.

"CO2 Neutral" Math is meaningless double-speak, IMHO: While there is some value to not adding to the total volume of CO2 in the active "Carbon Cycle" the localized effects of CO2 (or CO) concentrations remain the same wherever the carbon originated (or how long it has been sequestered/fossilized.) IMHO, the solution to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is to restore some of the natural carbon sequestration mechanisms we (as in mankind world-wide) have mowed down and burned away through malice or negligence.

any thoughts, however about nitrous oxides produced? how to handle them.

Isn't that why every gasoline powered vehicle (in the US) has a catalytic converter? I really dont know, but nitrous oxides used to be a serious urban pollution concern before the catlyic converter and other smog control measures became nearly universal on gasoline engines. The measures taken to reduce NOx emmissions for gasoline engines can be applied to methane/natural gas/bio-fuel powered engines.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's easy to say, "Every little bit helps," but there isn't enough capital in the entire world to finance the kind of wholesale economic and social transformation that you're talking about.

There might not be "enough capital in the entire world" for "wholesale" economic and transformation; there certainly isn't enough for an "instantaneous" transition.

However, there IS enough capital available for individuals to invest in their personal budgetary considerations by increasing the insulation in heir homes or opting for "heat-pump" HVAC systems in new construction. Most people are "numerate" enough to understand that spending an extra hundred on insulation can save them a few thousand on fuel/electric bills each year.

as to scale, i see the general problem: what you seem to ignore is that ways of life may have to change, e.g. trucking foods for thousands of miles, burning gas to make 'hot water' for homes. so the place to start would be to reduce energy demands, not all the hysteria about freezing in the dark and the necessity of nuclear.

Joe Average isn't going to be terribly concerned about the environmental cost of buying fresh fruit yer round, but he's certainly going to be concerned about the personal cost of children with scurvy and rickets.

Joe Average is going to worry about getting the foods he's come to rely on to maintian variety and health first and the cost to the envoronment second. He's going to get enusiastic about conservation and environmental issues when you can demonstrate how they impact his checking account and how conserving energy make good financial sense -- in the form of HVAC bills.

Like it or not, sooner or later, the U.S. is going to have to build (a lot of) nuclear generating facilities. The only question (and it is one that keeps me up at night on occasion) is just how dark and just how cold it's going to have to get before people wake up to the fact.

There are MANY non-polluting options that will get better receptions than Nuclear generation of electricity. Many of them even address the needs of the mobile portion of society by providing locomotive power as well expensive stationary and vulnerable infrastructure.

Every single individual who believes in "every little bit helps" and removes themselves (either partially or completely) from the power grid or even just those whose economic self-interest leads them to reduce consumption through various passive measures (like more insulation in the attic) makes the necessity of a nuclear generation facility just a little bit less necessary.

There is no one solution -- every individual who can reduce the demand for energy helps; every new technology that can extend or replace fossil fuel supplies helps; every government study that demonstrates the viability of a new technology helps. (repeated studies that repeat old studies and claim to be new studies are a waste of money and time.

I don't have anything against nuclear power generation -- I think there should more of them, but Nuclear is NOT the only solution an are explicitly NOT the solution in some places -- For example: anyone suggesting building a nuclear plant along the Pacific Rim should be stuffed into a strait-jacket and locked away someplace dark and dank until they sober up.

There is however a LOT of "geo-thermal" potential along the Pacific Rim to compensae for the inadvisability of nuclear power there.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Wow. I've read this entire thread. I'm wondering if I should just retreat from Lit entirely, or whether it's worth it to at least formulate and give vent to arguments that I'm sure I will have in 'real life' at some point.

First of all, why is it accepted to call scientists and politicians trying to form policy based on the science, Alarmists? They are talking about processes that take decades or centuries to produce the effects that they warn about. In contrast, Roxanne and the skeptics point toward economic disruption that is clearly short-term, unless one has no faith in the global economy's ability to self-correct and adapt to change. Even the Great Depression, a global economic condition, lasted about a decade, plus another five years or so of global conflict. It's not something I'd care to live through, but it certainly demonstrates the ability of the global political and economic market to re-invent itself within a lifetime.

For people who place such faith and confidence in the marketplace, you take an unusually alarmist view of climate change research. Moreover, you embrace findings that suggest new economic opportunities (agriculture in new latitudes, blah blah blah...) yet decry those same findings when they have negative effects on current industry (fleet gas-mileage standards). What is the calculus you use to determine which economic sectors are 'acceptable' to disrupt, and which are not? The disruption is happening, in any case.

Amicus announces proudly that he formed his opinion 20-some years ago, and thereby forgoes the need to address two decades of advancement in climate research, which he characterizes as nascent. How convenient! Call the science too recent to accept, while ignoring the greater portion of learning in the field.

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period are largely documented as Northern/Western Hemisphere events. While that is certainly the only area that matters , global temperature and climate during those years is largely modeled, just as the more historical data are. And the predictive, as well.

If a bunch of hacks on a porn site can point at the Little Ice Age, why do you think that the overwhelming global scientific community has somehow overlooked that phenomenon in their studies? Do you honestly believe that the lure of petty government funding dollars skews the research more than the lure of energy-company funding? Energy companies are posting record profits, in the tens of billions/quarter, and the records are for ANY company, not just energy sector. The proposed budget of the entire NOAA for 2007 is less than $4 billion.

As to the argument that "all the GW proponents are on the Left", that's ridiculous on two fronts: First, the Right is the side that denies GW - that makes any scientist who acknowledges GW 'Left' by definition. What's the point? Second, and more importantly, we don't know anything about these scientists' political views on issues other than GW, and attributing all the accompanying political baggage of 'Right' and 'Left' is based only on the one issue. That's just stupid.

 

[cantdog]

That's a pretty succinct rundown of the political content here, Huck: I wish we could shelve it and look beyond it.

 

[Darkniciad]

Truth:

First of all, why is it accepted to call scientists and politicians trying to form policy based on the science, Alarmists? They are talking about processes that take decades or centuries to produce the effects that they warn about.

"An Inconvenient Truth"

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

 

[amicus]

Hey, Huck, quite a rant ole man, covered a lot of ground and trampled on a few toes, mine included.

I suggest you dismiss too lightly the population of the Author's Forum and Literotica is somewhat more than a 'hack' porn site. I suggest it is one of the largest open forum gatherings of writers and thinkers you will find on the net and the quality is sometime impressive.

And it is more like forty years of constant intellectual pursuit in understanding the political and scientific world when it comes to Environment issues.

Science aside for the moment, the Global Warming firestorm is an outgrowth of the old environmentalist and ecologist movements born in the 'free love' sixties, our resident, aging, old hippy population, many part of the 'baby boomer' generation, post world war two.

I describe no vast left wing conspiracy, merely a gathering of like minded individuals who share common fundamental beliefs about the nature of human society.

It is a complex and complicated association of many different priorities and I am not certain that any one priority is any more basic than any other.

Part of it stems from the residual horror that permeated the entire world and truly devastated the rational hopes of peace among people following world war two and the emergence of the cold war between east and west, socialism and freedom.

People in general would not suffer to imagine another conflict of that magnitude and opted for a compromise between what one might loosely identify as left and right.

Another 'general' feeling of many people was that the population of the world was just too large for the earth to support. This was voiced by the intellectuals, suspect in every case, as Malthusian projects and Marxist class struggle.

But Marxism and Socialism are no longer attractive labels to which intellectuals wish to be tied to and thus the adopted "Liberal" as their password and set about to corrupt classical liberalism into contemporary 'social' liberalism with intellectual roots in socialism and Marxism spiritually in essence but they bypassed the traditional dialectic and transcended the totalitarianism into a more lofty, 'greater good' concept that sells quite well.

Women, with their newly found political voice, play a large role in contemporary politics. As an illustration I paraphrase a recent pundit who stated, "If magically, no woman was permitted to vote, there would never be another Democrat elected in the United States."

Social, liberal, left wing issues in the past half century have been driven largely by women's issues. Of course, hungry men pander to women's issues in search of sex, even I can understand that.

At the very heart of the Global Warming and Environmental movements, is the desire by the left for control of the environment.

In the United States, that conflict, between those who want a strong federal government and those who do not, has been going on since the Constitution was ratified.

There are those who believe that all the natural resources of a nation should be controlled and directed by a central authority for the benefit of the masses.

There are those who believe that an open free market place with private ownership of all the natural resources of a nation is the best means to allocate resources.

There is valid, objective scientific research that has documented global climate changes far into the past.

There is no, repeat no, valid, objective scientific research that documents man made influences upon global climate change; none.

You also dismiss too lightly, I think, the fraternity of scientists that do indeed depend upon grant monies to continue their projects.

Global weather is a fascinating field of study and a very useful one in terms of managing agriculture and related human endeavors. And yes, indeed, mankind and the free market will easily adapt to what ever changes the future may bring.

But I predict a great deal of suffering will occur as a direct result of political intervention in the quest to fulfill energy needs in coming decades. There will be an energy crisis and industries will go dark and our standard of living will decrease as the scarcity of energy becomes critical.

I place the full blame for this squarely on the left, the environmentalists, whose short sighted restrictions and regulations have brought energy production and innovation to a halt for over thirty years.

Our quality of life is going to deteriorate until the political atmosphere changes and energy providers are given the freedom they require to supply the demands of an ever growing population.

I wanted to reply to a poster, SummerMorning, I think, who questioned some statements on the condition of Glaciers world wide and who seems genuinely concerned about the future. But it is not the faulty information this poster has accepted, rather a mindset I have tried to describe above, that has become petulant and pessimistic about the future and I do not know how to address that on a personal level.

I regret the long winded rambling nature of that...I had hopes it could be said briefly.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

Just a couple of counterpoints to a very good examle of why the science should predominate the debate instead of politics.

First of all, why is it accepted to call scientists and politicians trying to form policy based on the science, Alarmists? They are talking about processes that take decades or centuries to produce the effects that they warn about.

Because they are "sounding the alarm" -- more importantly the ones who ARE alarmists and doomsayers are the "squeaky wheels" tha are getting all of the attention. Note, that applies mostly to the politicians, who do have track records on other issues to help define them as "left or right," "Liberal or Conservative" -- would you deny that the most prominant spokesman for global warming is a liberal Democrat? I can't think of any other (political) label for Al Gore (I can think of a lot of non-political labels for him, but they're irrelevant to this discussion.)

Yes, they are talking about ponderous processes that take decades to show detectable changes: The reasonable and responsible environmental spokespeople always make it a point to emphasize that; the "alarmists" don't bother with mentioning minor details like time spans.

In contrast, Roxanne and the skeptics point toward economic disruption that is clearly short-term, unless one has no faith in the global economy's ability to self-correct and adapt to change. Even the Great Depression, a global economic condition, lasted about a decade, plus another five years or so of global conflict. It's not something I'd care to live through, but it certainly demonstrates the ability of the global political and economic market to re-invent itself within a lifetime.

Roxane and the "sceptical alarmists" are just as guilty of failing to mention minor details like recovery times.

They do have one relevant point about economic impacts: If the economy crashes, even over a short-term like a decade or less, there won't be any money available to fund the long-term measures required to protect the environment. Ecological and Environmental awareness are luxuries we can afford during the good times, but in a global economic crisis like the Great Depression, ecology and environment take a second place to a full belly and a roof over the head; when the immediate problem is survival, problems decades or centuries in the future don't get much attention -- or funding.

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period are largely documented as Northern/Western Hemisphere events. While that is certainly the only area that matters , global temperature and climate during those years is largely modeled, just as the more historical data are. And the predictive, as well.

The MWP and LIA may be documented or presented as Northern/Western Hemispherical phenomenon, but that dos NOT mean they weren't global in scope; it just means that the majority of the period records referenced in WESTERN studies are in European universities and in european languages with existing translations into English for the English Language documentaries we Litizens are generally familiar with.

If a bunch of hacks on a porn site can point at the Little Ice Age, why do you think that the overwhelming global scientific community has somehow overlooked that phenomenon in their studies?

The fact that the "global scientific community" does appear to have overlooked periods of GLOBAL warming and GLOBAL cooling in their studies -- without even dismissing them as aberations or fluctuations within the tolerances of the data -- is certainly one of the reasons I find much of the popularized evidence for Global Warming suspect.

As to the argument that "all the GW proponents are on the Left", that's ridiculous on two fronts: ... Second, and more importantly, we don't know anything about these scientists' political views on issues other than GW, ...

It isn't the scientists who are being labeled as Liberal GW alarmists, it is the alarmist liberal politicians -- like Al Gore -- who give the entire issue a liberal/conservative dynamic.


It isn't the scientists who drafted things like the Kyoto Accord that "punish" devloped nations with economy killing restrictions while giving the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gases and ozone killers a complete pass.

But then, I've seen very few names of Scientists bandied about in this debate. I've seen novelists, politicians, statisticians, celebrities, and "talking heads" (who generally don't deserve the label 'journalist,') but very few scientists. That's not to say that there are no scientists at the forefront of the issue, just that they tend to be overshadowed by more fervent non-scientists that bear a close resemblence to Chicken Little.

 

[Weird Harold]

"An Inconvenient Truth"

Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.

You don't consider that quote exagerated and alarmist?

For starters, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" are NOT climatologists or meterologists and are thus no more knowldgeable about global warming than the general public.

"we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves" is not "alarmist?" If it isn't, I'd hate to see what you DO consider "alarmist."

 

[Darkniciad]

You don't consider that quote exagerated and alarmist?

For starters, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" are NOT climatologists or meterologists and are thus no more knowldgeable about global warming than the general public.

"we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves" is not "alarmist?" If it isn't, I'd hate to see what you DO consider "alarmist."

I presented the two quotes as counterpoints, WH. Truth and... Al's movie just replaces the logical word association Al's exactly what I'm talking about when I say envirovangelist. Read his speeches in a television preacher's voice, substitute in god and devil in the appropriate places - no difference. Tip your money into the plate and we'll build an enviorment theme park with time-share condos to raise awareness.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You don't consider that quote exagerated and alarmist?

For starters, the "vast majority of the world's scientists" are NOT climatologists or meterologists and are thus no more knowldgeable about global warming than the general public.

"we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves" is not "alarmist?" If it isn't, I'd hate to see what you DO consider "alarmist."

erm...., it's pretty obvious in the context, and made explicit in the published research, that Gore is referring to the vast majority of the world's climate researchers, not the scientific community at large.

Even if your premise is true, that Gore is referring to the global community of scientists, I would grant more credibility to 'Scientists' than 'Right-wing fellatists' or 'Right-wing pundits'. Or whatever overlap constituency you care to define.

 

[Darkniciad]

As to the argument that "all the GW proponents are on the Left", that's ridiculous on two fronts: First, the Right is the side that denies GW - that makes any scientist who acknowledges GW 'Left' by definition. What's the point? Second, and more importantly, we don't know anything about these scientists' political views on issues other than GW, and attributing all the accompanying political baggage of 'Right' and 'Left' is based only on the one issue. That's just stupid.

erm...., it's pretty obvious in the context, and made explicit in the published research, that Gore is referring to the vast majority of the world's climate researchers, not the scientific community at large.

Even if your premise is true, that Gore is referring to the global community of scientists, I would grant more credibility to 'Scientists' than 'Right-wing fellatists' or 'Right-wing pundits'. Or whatever overlap constituency you care to define.

So it's wrong-minded to classify someone who worships at the pulpit of GW as a "leftist", but it's perfectly acceptable to classify anyone who doesn't as a "right-wing fellatist"

Got it.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]Read his speeches in a television preacher's voice, substitute in god and devil in the appropriate places - no difference. Tip your money into the plate and we'll build an enviorment theme park with time-share condos to raise awareness.

ROFL, substitute 'god and devil' in the appropriate places in ANY speech and it will sound evangelist.
The difference is that there is some science bolstering one side, and the other is reduced to attacking methodologies.
Where's the science disproving GW? oh wait. there is none. only alternate interpretations of the data. like, "okay, it's warming, but not for the reasons you think..."
On the side of "Not for the reasons you think" - Republicans, Energy (Oil) companies, researchers funded by Energy companies, Economists with no climate expertise...
On the side of "It's warming, and we're getting better at pointing out some regional effects" - researchers under fire for funding because their research goes against major political contributors.

Clearly, if I were a craven climate researcher, I'd gamble on the dwindling government research budgets instead of the record-setting energy company profits as my meal-ticket.

You people attribute craven motives to people who demonstrate behavior that is clearly not in their own self-interest! You think that scientists are bought and paid for with sums that are trivial compared to what they could receive if they were truly motivated as you think they are.

Are you really that foolish and gullible? Have you ever thought about how ridiculous it is that you characterize your opponents as driven by special interests, when your own side's 'special interest' funding dwarfs that of your opposition?

 

[Huckleman2000]

So it's wrong-minded to classify someone who worships at the pulpit of GW as a "leftist", but it's perfectly acceptable to classify anyone who doesn't as a "right-wing fellatist"

Got it.

No, I said "Even if..."
So, if you "classify someone who worships at the pulpit of GW as a 'leftist'", then it's equally valid to "classify anyone who doesn't as a 'right-wing fellatist'." In either case, we know nothing about their political views outside of GW. So, 'leftist' and 'right-wing fellatist' are equally valid, as they are merely name-calling about an opinion we know nothing about.

Going further, we can categorize them by ideology, or by self-interest - those categories are equivalent by your definition - so, those scientists in the budget-limited, competitive, peer-reviewed world of academia are somehow to be given less credibility than those working within the most-profitable-in-history energy industry, where research is given credibility and publicity only when it reinforces the company's goals?

Have you ever worked in a research position? Even in the smallest company, there is immense pressure to produce results that reinforce the prevailing wisdom of senior management. Consulting companies get rich by telling senior management things they won't accept from their own employees. While there may be an academic ideological pressure stemming from a growing scientific-community consensus, that's hardly the direct leverage of controlling your employment. I've personally lost several jobs when my research didn't support management, and it didn't matter if I was ultimately validated or not.

 

[Darkniciad]

You people attribute craven motives to people who demonstrate behavior that is clearly not in their own self-interest! You think that scientists are bought and paid for with sums that are trivial compared to what they could receive if they were truly motivated as you think they are.

Are you really that foolish and gullible? Have you ever thought about how ridiculous it is that you characterize your opponents as driven by special interests, when your own side's 'special interest' funding dwarfs that of your opposition?

Now read that back in Rush Limbaugh's voice after too many Vicoden. You even have his "You people" catchphrase down.

Opponent? I never said Al and his ilk are opponents. The science behind the overblown prophecies of the coming tribulation is still in its infancy, but certainly points toward the conclusion that we could stand to take some common sense steps toward reducing CO2 emissions.

Combine this with other, more visible reasons to take those steps ( smog, contaminated water, etc. ) and I can accept the current data at face value as having enough potential to bolster the reasons anyone with eyes can see outside their door.

I just don't believe in the church of Global Warming. There's a big difference between the climate phenomenon and the preaching of Al.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[snip]Opponent? I never said Al and his ilk are opponents. The science behind the overblown prophecies of the coming tribulation is still in its infancy, but certainly points toward the conclusion that we could stand to take some common sense steps toward reducing CO2 emissions.

Combine this with other, more visible reasons to take those steps ( smog, contaminated water, etc. ) and I can accept the current data at face value as having enough potential to bolster the reasons anyone with eyes can see outside their door.

I just don't believe in the church of Global Warming. There's a big difference between the climate phenomenon and the preaching of Al.

Well, if you accept the research and the need to take steps, your objection is with what? The marketing?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Now read that back in Rush Limbaugh's voice after too many Vicoden. You even have his "You people" catchphrase down.

I meant 'you people' to expand my argument beyond your post in particular. It introduced a more general rebuttal.

I don't have quibble with Rush Limbaugh's oratorical skills - they are considerable, if blunt-edged. It's his arguments that don't measure up.

 

[Weird Harold]

Even if your premise is true, that Gore is referring to the global community of scientists, I would grant more credibility to 'Scientists' than 'Right-wing fellatists' or 'Right-wing pundits'. Or whatever overlap constituency you care to define.

You apparently missed the "premise" -- tha quote comes NOT from "scientists," but from a man whose occupation is using his personality and the English language to persuade people to vote in his favor. The fact that it's phrased in a way that makes it an ideal "sound-bite" is probably NOT coincidental.

Given Al Gore's vocation, the imprecise phrasing of "a majority of the world's scientists" is likely a deliberate rhetorical choice intended to make the citation sound more impressive -- especially when taken out of context as it was here.

But Al Gore IS a politician, and he's allowed to be ambiguous, imprecise, and hyperbolic. Politicians are supposed to be alarmist when they're trying to raise money.

OTOH, the very few scientists I've seen quoted here or elsewhere on the subject of "global warming" (or as the real scientists prefer, "climate change") tend to be very precise about the difference between generic "scientists" and specific climate related specialties.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the Politics and panacea merchants like Al Gore.

I have aproblem with government bureaucracies tasked with "protecting the environment" that make it virtually impossible to build and test any new tecnology that might actually help the environment and usually quadruple the cost of anything they do eventually permit, making it economically unfeasible no matter how scientifically sound it might be.

I"m against Political solutions -- like mandating increased Ethanol production via laws tailored to enriching big agro-corporations at the expense of both the evironment and the consumer.

The political aspects of the debate cloud any real "science" availble to the general population; there are lies, counter-lies, distortions, exagerations, errors and histrionics galore on all sides of the issue that overshadow rational, honest scientists and their research.

 

[Darkniciad]

Well, if you accept the research and the need to take steps, your objection is with what? The marketing?

Any time something takes on the smell of religion ( which "Global Warming" certainly has in recent years ) I start getting really suspicious. The best of intentions and the best of people always seem to go wrong once too many people are mindlessly accepting whatever the voice behind the curtain is saying. We've already seen it. I know I sound like a broken record, but what did we accomplish with the massively expensive rush to replace freon?

Nothing.

The replacements aren't any better and we spent a frikkin' mint to implement the knee-jerk, poorly thought out suggestion. Someone at the pulpit clucked, and the flock took off - feather's flying - before anyone had the chance to say, "Uhm, wait a minute..."

What could we have accomplished with all that wasted time and money?

 

[DrHappy]

Pure, do you dismiss the findings of the Wegman report, specifically that MBH misused principle component analysis in which the end result produced a hockey stick.

i'm in agreement with the NAS conclusions, which give qualified support to Mann et al. i don't think you adequately represented them in posting #88. there are more excerpts below, so readers can make up their own minds.

perhaps your distortion was unintentional, and perhaps you were using a secondary source with a bias. you harp on the word "plausible" far too much, in the italicked sentence. its context shows general, though qualified, support for Mann.

Distorted? The word plausible is critical in interpreting the meaning.

the report is available online as i indicate below. to put the findings in a nutshell, the report affirms Mann with some qualifications, and shows reservations about Mann where the data is older than 500 years. in other words, the hockey stick is bent a bit. but the blade is evident, sharp 20th century rise. see some of the graphs cited below, e.g. at 112

I'll have to disagree with your assessment of the hockey stick. I'd say that it is broken since it simply dissolves near the beginning of the LIA. Not only do the mean temperatures rise for the MWP (relative to the 20th century) when the analysis is properly performed, but the uncertainties are much greater than indicated by the gray area shown in Figure O-4. R2 = 0.02.

Wegman reproduced the work of McIntrye and McKitrick and shows what the MBH graph looks like when principle component analysis proper is used properly (Figure 4.3). They hockey stick is definitely gone. It also disappears when the bristle cone pine cores are removed. It is indisputable that the bristlecone pine sites are not good temperature proxies. Removing the thermometer data which is spliced to smoothed proxy data makes it look much less like a hockey stick as well.

I actually agree with much of the 2006 NAS report, but not all. I was disappointed that the 2006 NAS panel side stepped many of the key critical questions that were the basis for the panel's report in the first place. They somehow managed to find time in include features such as chapter 10 (Climate Forcings and Climate Models), which has nothing to do with the MBH Hockey Stick debate. They seemed eager to insert some basis for stating that anthropogenic forcing is the largest contributor to late 20th century warmth, though the evidence that they cited is extremely weak in my opinion. Figure 10-6 is essentially an exercise in curve fitting. There are several variables and the unknowns are huge. The IPCC TAR is more thorough in this type of analysis, and it shows that they could only estimate the aerosol values within a factor of ten. The 2007 IPCC report has somewhat smaller uncertainties in their estimates, but they are still large and numerous.

I think that it's important to note that the spaghetti graphs (like Figure 11-1) which are used to promote the idea that independent studies have similar results tend to use similar datasets and methodologies. Moberg and Esper, like MBH, have been reluctant to make his raw data available for replication. Hegerl 2006 appears to have some of the same problems as MBH in they are using common tree series that are known to be poor proxies for temperature.

Is the hockey stick graph the answer to my original question? (What specific scientific data do you find compelling?)

 

[amicus]

Daniel Botkin

18 October 2007
Global Warming Delusions at the Wall Street Journal
Filed under:

* Climate Science

— david @ 6:58 PM

Daniel Botkin, emeritus professor of ecology at UC Santa Barbara, argues in the Wall Street Journal (Oct 17, page A19) that global warming will not have much impact on life on Earth. We'll summarize some of his points and then take our turn:

Botkin: The warm climates in the past 2.5 million years did not lead to extinctions.

Response: For the past 2.5 million years the climate has oscillated between interglacials which were (at most) a little warmer than today and glacials which were considerably colder than today. There is no precedent in the past 2.5 million years for so much warming so fast. The ecosystem has had 2.5 million years to adapt to glacial-interglacial swings, but we are asking it to adapt to a completely new climate in just a few centuries. The past is not a very good analog for the future in this case. And anyway, the human species can suffer quite a bit before we start talking extinction.

Botkin: Tropical diseases are affected by other things besides temperature

Response: I'm personally more worried about dust bowls than malaria in the temperate latitudes. Droughts don't lead to too many extinctions either, but they can destroy civilizations. It is true that tropical diseases are affected by many things besides temperature, but temperature is important, and the coming warming is certainly not going to make the fight against malaria any easier.

Botkin: Kilimanjaro again.

Response: Been there, done that. The article Botkin cites is from American Scientist, an unreviewed pop science magazine, and it is mainly a rehash of old arguments that have been discussed and disposed of elsewhere. And anyway, the issue is a red-herring. Even if it turned out that for some bizarre reason the Kilimanjaro glacier, which is thousands of years old, picked just this moment to melt purely by coincidence, it would not in any way affect the validity of our prediction of future warming. Glaciers are melting around the world, confirming the general warming trends that we measure. There are also many other confirmations of the physics behind the predictions. It's a case of attacking the science by attacking an icon, rather than taking on the underlying scientific arguments directly.

Botkin: The medieval optimum was a good time

Response: Maybe it was, if you're interested in Europe and don't mind the droughts in the American Southwest. But the business-as-usual forecast for 2100 is an entirely different beast than the medieval climate. The Earth is already probably warmer than it was in medieval times. Beware the bait and switch!

—

Botkin argues for clear-thinking rationality in the discussion about anthropogenic climate change, against twisting the truth, as it were. We couldn't agree more. Doctor, heal thyself.

For years the Wall Street Journal has been lying to you about the existence of global warming. It doesn't exist, it's a conspiracy, the satellites show it's just urban heat islands, it's not CO2, it's all the sun, it's water vapor, and on and on. Now that those arguments are losing traction, they have moved on from denying global warming's existence to soothing you with reassurances that it ain't gonna be such a bad thing.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…well..uh..you ain't gonna fool me again.

From a news blurb I heard and searched...

ami

 

[Pure]

note to dr h

dr h: //Is the hockey stick graph the answer to my original question? (What specific scientific data do you find compelling?) //

i rely on the data on which the NAS based the conclusions i quoted, which are reflected in various graphs.

various earlier portions of the report cite the specific data of Mann and other researchers, not connected, supporting the NAS conclusion:

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.


this forum is hardly the place to debate pine cone data. i have no assurance of your expertise in the field, unless you care to give your name and publications. so picking out random bits to undermine the NAS and consensus positions (e.g. Kilamanjaro) does not engage me.

nor is it the place to debate 'smoothing' techniques, noise reduction procedures, signal-to-noise ratios, 'curve fitting' methods and alternatives and 'goodness of fit'; probable error figures, etc. the climatiologists have crunched the data with numerous methods.


you greatly misrepresented the NAS report in your previous posting, and now you have apparently read it. the data are cited for the sentence about anthropogenic sources of the 20 cent warming rise. your dismissal does not impress me unless you are a climatologist or other expert in the field.

 

[Huckleman2000]

//Is the hockey stick graph the answer to my original question? (What specific scientific data do you find compelling?) //

i rely on the data on which the NAS based the conclusions i quoted, which are reflected in various graphs.

this forum is hardly the place to debate pine cone data. i have no assurance of your expertise in the field, unless you care to give your name and publications. so picking out random bits to undermine the NAS and consensus positions (e.g. Kilamanjaro) does not engage me.

you greatly misrepresented the NAS report in your previous posting, and now you have apparently read it. the data are cited for the sentence about anthropogenic sources. your dismissal does not impress me unless you are a climatologist or othe expert in the field.

Thank god you wrote that.
I was in the midst of an exercise in WTF???.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You apparently missed the "premise" -- tha quote comes NOT from "scientists," but from a man whose occupation is using his personality and the English language to persuade people to vote in his favor. The fact that it's phrased in a way that makes it an ideal "sound-bite" is probably NOT coincidental.

Given Al Gore's vocation, the imprecise phrasing of "a majority of the world's scientists" is likely a deliberate rhetorical choice intended to make the citation sound more impressive -- especially when taken out of context as it was here.

But Al Gore IS a politician, and he's allowed to be ambiguous, imprecise, and hyperbolic. Politicians are supposed to be alarmist when they're trying to raise money.

OTOH, the very few scientists I've seen quoted here or elsewhere on the subject of "global warming" (or as the real scientists prefer, "climate change") tend to be very precise about the difference between generic "scientists" and specific climate related specialties.

I don't have a problem with the science, I have a problem with the Politics and panacea merchants like Al Gore.

I have aproblem with government bureaucracies tasked with "protecting the environment" that make it virtually impossible to build and test any new tecnology that might actually help the environment and usually quadruple the cost of anything they do eventually permit, making it economically unfeasible no matter how scientifically sound it might be.

I"m against Political solutions -- like mandating increased Ethanol production via laws tailored to enriching big agro-corporations at the expense of both the evironment and the consumer.

The political aspects of the debate cloud any real "science" availble to the general population; there are lies, counter-lies, distortions, exagerations, errors and histrionics galore on all sides of the issue that overshadow rational, honest scientists and their research.

WTF, Harold?? Gore gives an independently verifiable fact ("most of the world's scientists" or climatologists or whatever...) and you don't believe him simply because he's a politician? He got his figures from somewhere, didn't he? There isn't a fucking department of "political" facts separate from verifiable sources that one can examine and form a reasonable opinion about.

 

[Pure]

Note to trysail

Youre doing what dr happy did. Picking a sentence out that suits you, and not informing readers of your piece about the whole report, and its gist.

In your case, the sentence that gives away the game is quoted by you just before the one you highlighted: so i will highlight it and reproduce more of the report which is clearly supportive of the general thesis linking glacier retreat and global warming.

Who gets you guys going about Kilimanjaro? The authors clearly state it is an exception to the general finding. Watching too much Fox news? Why not bring up Gore's speeding tickets?

American Scientist, "The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming be Blamed"

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553/page/1

But the commonly heard—and generally correct—statement that glaciers are disappearing because of warming glosses over the physical processes responsible for their disappearance. Indeed, warming fails spectacularly to explain the behavior of the glaciers and plateau ice on Africa's Kilimanjaro massif, just 3 degrees south of the equator, and to a lesser extent other tropical glaciers. The disappearing ice cap of the "shining mountain," which gets a starring role in the movie, is not an appropriate poster child for global climate change.



What factors may explain the decline in Kilimanjaro's ice? Global warming is an obvious suspect, as it has been clearly implicated in glacial declines elsewhere, on the basis of both detailed mass-balance studies (for the few glaciers with such studies) and correlations between glacial length and air temperature (for many other glaciers). Rising air temperatures change the surface energy balance by enhancing sensible-heat transfer from atmosphere to ice, by increasing downward infrared radiation and finally by raising the ELA and hence expanding the area over which loss can occur. The first and only paper asserting that the glacier shrinkage on Kibo was associated with rising air temperatures was published in 2000 by Lonnie G. Thompson of Ohio State University and co-authors.

---
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553/page/8

If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro's ice, it could only have joined the game quite late, after the result was already clearly decided, acting at most as an accessory, influencing the outcome indirectly. The detection and attribution studies indicating that human influence on global climate emerged some time after 1950 reach the same conclusion about East African temperature far below the peak.

The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence.

But the special conditions on Kilimanjaro make it unlike the higher-latitude mountains, whose glaciers are shrinking because of rising atmospheric temperatures. Mass- and energy-balance considerations and the shapes of features all point in the same direction, suggesting an insignificant role for atmospheric temperature in the fluctuations of Kilimanjaro's ice.

===

Additional ref: On the retreat of tropical glaciers, see

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat