WEATHER »

Are you satisfied with the British panel’s conclusion that while ‘Climategate’ scientists were not always forthcoming, their science was sound?

Yes, the panel was correct to criticize the scientists's behavior while upholding key data. 69% 91 votes
No, I still believe those scientists fabricated data to support their beliefs on man-made climate change. 30% 40 votes
131 total votes

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

If you haven't seen any articles on the evaluation of the most recent investigation into the "Climategate" controversy, the New York Times has an article summing up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/sci...

webadmin (webadmin)
July 11, 2010 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NPR also did a review recently.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2010 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

1. The hid the raw data and then 'lost' it.

2. The computer models will output warmer scenarios with any data input, even colder data.

3. The Mann computer model has comments that show all data will be revised up. Mann also fought hard to make sure no peer review of his model would happen.

4. There is no consensus on AGW, more real scientists are skeptics than people with womens studies degrees that think it is happening.

5. Governments have spent tens of billions in research grants that start out with "Study of (insert anything) that proves man made global warming." It might be because it will be the biggest tax hike in the history of the world.

If you want some objective information concerning the global warming hoax: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

I look forward to the reasoned debate from leftists because.....

Make a conservative mad by telling him a lie.
Make a leftist mad by telling him the truth.

jukin (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What makes the link that you cite "objective" other than your belief that it supports your position? Your own objectivity is put into question by your claim about what "real scientists" believe. In fact, in a survey of more than 3000 earth scientists who were asked whether they think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures, 82% of the scientists answered yes. Of interest, 77% of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research answered yes, in contrast to the 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change who responded yes. In other words, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increased, so did agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. So much for your claim about what "real" scientists believe.

In addition, your claim that no consensus exists has to ignore the following list:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

You might want to challenge the consensus on human-caused global climate change, but it's hard to take seriously a challenge that claims that no consensus exists.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You must realize, pk, that our friend jukin prefers the advice and analysis of a former weather man over the body of research and peer-review as presented by actual scientists over the past 30 some years.

Jukin also confuses weather with climate, rather like mistaking a toss of the dice to the odds on the various combinations -- the common ignorance which keeps Vegas in the chips.

For the benefit of Mr. jukin, who listens to weathermen, this is from the American Meteorological Society last November:

""For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

binky (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I speak as an engineer with over thirty years of designing electromagnetic energy transfer equipment, what the sun produces.

And you?

Out of curiosity, did either of you go to the site and read it?

jukin (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How does the fact that the sun produces electromagnetic energy and you design "energy transfer equipment" qualify you to be a better judge of climate science than people who do actual research in climate science?

Yes, I went to the site. Out of curiosity, can you answer my original question concerning the grounds on which you declare this retired tv weatherman's site to be "objective," as opposed to the members of the organizations I listed, who you dismiss--on what grounds?--as not "real" scientists?

pk (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And since you ask, I just finished editing a textbook on physics and another on statistics. In fact, for many years I edited the Journal of Statistical Physics. Until earlier this year, I edited journals for the American Geophysical Union.

One night at dinner I asked a friend, who happens to be chairman of the Department of Earth & Space Sciences at UCLA and has more than 100 publications to his credit, what he thought about anthropogenic climate change, and he replied that he could think of no other way to account for the data.

How many basic physics, statistics, and earth science publications have you had a hand in?

pk (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jukin,

I am an engineer (ucsb, mechanical engineering, class of '83) and have been practicing in my field since graduation. If you'll pardon me, you don't really "sound" like one. Since you sort of opened a door here, would you mind sharing your qualifications?

Thanks!

GoletaEngineer (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jukin,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/
is a junk science website.

You would be better off going to this site:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/

This is a particularly good post:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010...

This person is also trying to set the record straight with a series of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2010 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poor Jukin, he tried to actually have an intelligent discourse and ran up against the seven dwarves... (you know how you are.) Here's another voice for climategate as a scam: MICHAEL CRICHTON and his novel "State of Fear." And don't miss the bibliography at the back.

That enough credentials and data for you?

maximum (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 12:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Intelligent discourse from Jukin? Still waiting to hear some from him or you.

Not too impressed that your credentials lead you to favor a novelist over the scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For a detailed discussion of Chrichton's arguments see http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fe...

Short answer: "Although Crichton attempts to use real-world data and studies within the novel to highlight some of the realities and uncertainties in climate science, the novel contains a number of strawman arguments, misinterpretations of the scientific literature, and even a few misleading statements drawn from the so-called 'skeptics.' Despite his research and the book’s many footnotes, Crichton has a less-than-commanding understanding of climate change science. The book is much more of a vehicle for his own opinions on the issue rather than an objective commentary on the state of the science and policy debate."

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maximum,

Quite frankly, no it is not enough credentials. jukin claims to "speak" as an engineer, but when asked a simple question regarding that claim, s/he remains silent. Now, one does not need to be technically trained to comment on climate change. I'll go out on a limb here and say perhaps you are an example of that.

However, if one wants to critique climate science, there are basically two choices: (1) having a technical background, which includes courses in physics, chemistry, and mathematics along with a willingness to personally tackle the actual science in some depth, or (2) taking somebody else's word for it.

Choosing (1) would give a person the necessary background, and the ability to comment knowledgeably on the technical merits.

If folks choose (2), be honest about it. You seem to choose (2), and are taking Crichton's word for it; I applaud your honesty. Crichton was a fine novelist and storyteller. Other folks here seem to prefer scientists. Go figure.

GoletaEngineer (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you guys are missing the point entirely.

Warming alarmists cite the .7 degree celsius increase in temperature over the last century. The implication is that this is due to the industrial revolution. They fail to mention that the previous 400 years the earth was in a mini-ice age and that any kind of warming should be expected, normal, and welcomed.

In the age of the Ceasars, Italy had two fig harvests a year, Greenland wasn't covered in snow, and citrus grew in Britain. This was well before the industrial revolution and demonstrates that warming is beneficial to all mankind.

Why is CO2 the bad guy? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jam...

The CRU was set up and funded by the petroleum and nuclear industry in 1971(with funding from BP, remember them? - "The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)" BP and Shell are pushing LNG (natural gas) to replace oil. The chief competitor to LNG is clean burning coal.

The main difference between the two technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

So is CO2 an environmentle bad guy, or is CO2 essential to all life on this planet? The same CO2 you expell with every breath. The same CO2 that plants use as a building block in their life cycle. The same invisible and nearly impossible to quantify magical gas that Goldmans Sachs executives have plans for a multi-billion dollar derivitives exchange.

Is it not a fact that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has greater effect on global temperature? Do we want to commoditze and trade water vapor derivitives as well?

Do you realize that we are being asked to go along with the creation of a Global Government agency that is not elected by, or responsible to us, to regulate our energy usage in the name of "climate justice" while redistributing our nation's wealth over seas?

Do you understand that if you accept CO2 as the problem; that you are making the human race public enemy number one? CO2 regulation includes government controlled reduction of human populations, including forced sterilization and one child policies.

Do you understand the proposed solutions will spread death and misery and so adversely affect life on earth, that the damage will far exceed any perceived negative consequences associated with warming?

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Disturber,.

It is apparent that you do not understand very much about this topic. There is just a lot of opinion and absolutely no science in your long comment. It is a rehashing of talking points of those who do not critique on the basis of science.

Because of the behavior of the carbon dioxide molecule, warming was predicted prior to the 20th century.

Many chemical compounds behave differently in different concentrations. Carbon dioxide is fine for humans at low concentrations, way below 1%. Start raising the level and it becomes harmful:

The effects of increased CO2 levels on adults at good health can be summarized:

* normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
* acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
* complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
* ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
* general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
* adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
* maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

Oxygen is vital for the survival for all animals that require it. But it can also be damaging to the body. Wonder why there are some that tout the use of anti-oxidants.

During chemical experiments, I learned that some reactions depended upon the concentration of the chemical, say for example, in water. If one did not have the right level, then the reaction would not occur.

The earth is one giant chemical factory, where it had achieved some balance with respect to many factors. I also learned at school long before global warming was an issue, that the temperature range for sustainable life on this planet was very narrow.

Try reading and understanding the science for yourself - do not allow others to do the thinking for you. Here is a very good place to start:

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010...

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a lovely comment thread. Jukin, Maximum and Disturber all attempt to provoke some kind of emotional response from the "left" but are instead met with reasonable, intelligent ideas instead and have no rebuttal.

This thread clearly illustrates the problems associated with focusing on name calling (libs, donks, leftists) and attacking individuals or groups rather than exchanging ideas calmly and agreeing to disagree when faced with an impasse.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So in addition to giving us a tv weatherman and a novelist, our latest denialist gives us a blog from a British newspaper. The link is incorrect, but perhaps it was meant to cite the article from last year in which the newspaper misrepresented a climate scientist’s work, refused to correct their errors when he wrote to them, declined to publish an apology or his letter to the paper complaining, and deleted his comments on the online edition of the article. On this exercise in biased journalism that Disturber thinks is more valid than the views of actual working scientists, see http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/the... and http://www.changecollege.org.uk/html/....

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is also typical of what I have found to be the left -right divide. Those on the right, not all but many, have a belief that something is true and then restrict their sources to those that support that belief, even if the sources are shown to be incorrect. Those on the left, many but not all, keep their egos and beliefs out of the way and follow the facts to reach a conclusion --- not the other way around. Although everyone has a little of both aspects in them, I do believe that the hundreds if not thousands of scientists who work in their own little worlds gathering data, are there primarily to find the facts. I can bet that every climate scientist that finds that their research supports Climate Change, wishes it were not so.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha:

You do a disservice to your cause when you mis- represent the facts. The CO2 concentrations you cite rarely occur unless you have a plastic bag tied over your head.

Fact; citrus grew in Britain in the time of the Ceasers. This is not in dispute. When the climate cooled, the British ceased growing grapes and grew grains which could withstand the increasingly cold temperatures.
That means it was much warmer than now, and humans thrived. It also means that the warming during that period could not be caused by humans.

You claim oxygen can be harmful to the body, "Oxygen is vital for the survival for all animals that require it. But it can also be damaging to the body. Wonder why there are some that tout the use of anti-oxidants? "

Oxidents, which are the by products of oxygen can have unwanted side effects. However, I wouldn't encourage you to limit your consumption of oxygen.

Other fact about CO2:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is tasteless, colorless, nontoxic to humans at concentrations up to 13 times present levels and is essential to life.

CO2 occurs naturally and accounts for 2 to 4 percent of the greenhouse effect (water vapor is responsible for virtually all of the rest).

Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have often followed rather than preceded warm periods.

Plants Need CO2. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in an atmosphere of much more concentrated CO2. Indeed, some scientists have argued that, until quite recently, many plants were starving for CO2.

Increasing CO2 levels speeds the time in which plants mature and improves their growth efficiency and water use. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth, which is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses.

In addition, higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:

•With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.
•With a 600 ppm CO2 increase, plant growth increased 51 percent under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219 percent under conditions of water shortage (see Figure II).

Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health. Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century, the anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial. Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Given your statements that addressing climate change will lead to a "Global Government agency" that will take away our wealth and distribute it overseas, as well as to forced sterilization, it isn't surprising that you cite a partisan hack who works for various right-wing outlets with an ideological committment to denying scientific evidence when it conflicts with their faith in the "free market."

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PK:

I didn't say addressing climate change will lead to Global Government, the U.N. said addressing climate change will lead to Global Government...

In the rough draft of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

From the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

"institutional arrangement under the Convention," that contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty."

And this from the UK's The Times Online:

"U.K.'s Gordon Brown is so dissatisfied with what transpired that he is now demanding that the "UN's consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails: One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...

What part of my original statement about Global Governance do you take dispute with? Because I think I stated it pretty accurately when I said:

"Do you realize that we are being asked to go along with the creation of a Global Government agency that is not elected by, or responsible to us, to regulate our energy usage in the name of "climate justice" while redistributing our nation's wealth over seas?"

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What you cite from the Wall Street Journal is not a news article but a somewhat hysterical opinion piece by a right-wing writer quoting a completely unqualified British intellectual fruit fly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christop...) about the draft of a UN proposal that he claims was promoted by people attempting "to impose a communist world government on the world." (For Monkton's confusions about the UN proposal, see http://www.salon.com/news/politics/wa....)

So to summarize the discussion so far, to support their views on the interpretation of scientific data on climate change, denialists have cited a former tv weatherman, a novelist, a blog from a newspaper known to be dishonest in its coverage of the issue, a right-wing propagandist for conservative "think tanks," and a right-wing opinion writer quoting a figure with "no training whatsoever in science" who engages in "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish" and thinks that communists are running the environmental movement.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Disturber, I know you are a quote-mining fiend, but you should cite your sources, especially when it looks like they might actually be YOUR original thoughts!

The sand-in-the-eyes defense of CO2 you toss off above, comes from the energetic Astro-turf organization "The National Center for Policy Analysis (don't they just love the Orwellian doublespeak labels?).

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba256

--

Secondly, if you read your source documents more carefully, you would not end up pasting online items which are patently foolish and wrong.

And of course when I say 'patently foolish and wrong' you can bet "Lord" Chris Monckton is in the house!

The Wall Street Journal opinion piece which has you a-froth is crazy; the Framework Convention on Climate Change document [ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/... page 38, in particular] details governance for the working group of cooperative countries who are participating in Climate Change -- how the committee will work together!

Only Chris Monckton, who presented this little gem as red meat for the New World Order conspiracy nuts, could create such a howler! And now he's got you, Disturber, and that shoddy WSJ opinion writer, as his followers! Onward, with the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley ...

:::: "The Hatter's remark seemed to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English."

binky (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You guys don't seem to be able to actually dispute any of the information I've presented. All you seem to want to do is dismiss it because it was written by a bunch of denier jerks.

So are the writers at Archeology magazine (a publication of the Archeology Institute of America) a bunch of partisan denier jerks?

Wine Lover's Guide to Ancient Britain:

" In Roman times, Britain had a slightly warmer climate than it has today. With 19 to 24 inches of annual rainfall, the Northamptonshire region was at the low end of the British precipitation range, which would have posed few fungal problems. The area's rich, limy soils also made it ideal for grape production."

http://www.archaeology.org/0003/newsb...

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting. And irrelevant.

The issue under discussion concerns the implications of recent human-caused global climate change.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But, CO2 absorption by the oceans is changing the ph. Here is a quote that is more meaningful than the vague one about the climate in GB in Roman times.

"Although the natural absorption of CO2 by the world's oceans helps mitigate the climatic effects of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, it is believed that the resulting decrease in pH will have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms. These span the food chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and molluscs. As described above, under normal conditions, calcite and aragonite are stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution. Even if there is no change in the rate of calcification, therefore, the rate of dissolution of calcareous material increases.[18]"

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

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PK

"The issue under discussion concerns the implications of recent human-caused global climate change."

How do you know recent global climate change is human caused if you refuse to accept warming occured prior to modern technology?

Even Phil Jones says warming happened in the past and not due to man. He also says that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in the last 15 years.

Are you implying that the current cooling trend is man caused as well?

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Disturber. Don't confuse weather with climate change.

GoletaEngineer (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Warming and cooling have occurred throughout the history of the planet for various reasons. Know any reasons?

At one time there was not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to sustain modern man. We breathe oxygen today because of organisms in the sea, that could very well be affected by acidification (dissolving of CO2), if plastic and pollution do not do them in first. I wonder how well we would do with say 15% or 10% oxygen?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha:

Njau and Ryabchikov think that the bulk of the worlds CO2 comes from the oceans. If this is true, then all of the CO2 acidifying the oceans, is caused by.... the oceans.

"In line with the implications of this paper, Ryabchikov shows that the main source of supply of CO2 to the atmosphere is not anthropogenic activities, but tropical regions of the ocean. These regions supply 21010 tons of air-borne CO2 annually to the temperate and circumpolar latitudes of the northern hemisphere."

Njau, Ernest C., 2007. Formulations of human-induced variations in global temperature. Renewable Energy Vol. 32, No 13, pp. 2211-2222, October 2007

But forget about the CO2 for a minute. Water vapor is responsible for 96% to 98% of green house gases.

Shouldn't we be focusing on regulating water vapor instead?

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Goleta Engineer:

I'm not confusing weather for climate change.

Phil Jones, the same man at the center of this discussion, who was found innocent of wrong doing, but guilty of poor record keeping; he says that there has been no statistically significant warming for at least 15 years. Is 15 years not sufficient enough time to extrapolate climate trends?

He also agrees that there were warmer periods prior to modern industry. He would acknowledge that the medevial warming period was global in nature; but he can't, due to the subpar record keeping in the southern hemisphere during the middle ages.

Per the afore mentioned Archeology newsbrief:

"At one Northamptonshire site, the team documented remains of nearly four miles of bedding trenches that they estimate could have supported some 4,000 vines, the fruits of which would have yielded more than 2,600 gallons of wine a year. According to Meadows and Brown, the grapes were grown in the Mediterranean Roman style, that is between parallel sets of poles, a manner that has been described in detail by classical authors such as Pliny the Elder and Columella."

Ae you saying the ancient Brits went to that much trouble cultivating winegrapes just because they had a few years of nice weather?

Or are you more inclined to agree with Phil Jones, that the ancient Brits grew wine grapes because the ancient, pre-industrial climate was warmer, and more favorable, than modern Britain?

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The ocean is a carbon sink that is why it is becoming more acidic. If it were discharging CO2 into the atmosphere it would becomes less acidic.

http://es.carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/oc...

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010...

Try weighing up the arguments from both sides. Try reading a book or two from both sides. You have a very shallow understanding and grab onto inconsequential simplistic facts to support your beliefs. All of the climate change supporters here have heard all the arguments you put forth and have read the rebuttals by more scientific people than yourself.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Disturber, you reveal a poor grasp of the issues in Anthropogenic Climate Change by the 'gotchas' you pose and the questions you raise:

This latest is a great example: "How do you know recent global climate change is human caused if you refuse to accept warming occured prior to modern technology?"

No one "refuses to accept" fluctuations in temperatures year to year. What you need to address is the overall trend of rising temperatures in the modern era, a fact which is overwhelming supported by a tremendous amount of various research.

A quick peek at, for example this collection of NASA graphs shows the upward trend from a number of angles:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...

And the past 1000 years is also easy enough to recognize the same trend.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/global...

And you mention "current cooling trend": again, you won't find that supportable, but just looking at the last 30 years puts the lie to what you forward as Phil Jones's definitive statement (interestingly enough it is based on work compiled by Jones and Moberg):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sat...

Since the Guardian seems to be a consistent source of for your arguments, you may also wish to see what one of the original Climategate pot-stirrers recently owned up to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...

binky (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, sorry Disturber, I didn't see your latest (old, answered, and dismantled) talking point from the Standard Denier's Quiver:

::: "Water vapor is responsible for 96% to 98% of green house gases. Shouldn't we be focusing on regulating water vapor instead?" -- Disturber.

Again, a deeper knowledge or look at the argument would help you here, but this stuff is dense, and I struggle through it -- you may have a simpler time wading through it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?...

The gist is, water in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, but is feedback effect as its concentration is dependent on temperature and balanced by rain and evaporatio. Burning fossil fuels putting CO2 in the remains in the air for years until being absorbed by natural sinks. During that time much mischief can occur to the climate system, and CO2 can act as a forcing agent, remaining there, interacting with water to multiply greenhouse effects -- providing the feedback.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

binky (anonymous profile)
July 14, 2010 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For the skeptics:

Global land and ocean surface temperatures in the first half of 2010 were the warmest January-June on record, the federal climate service reported Thursday.

January-June temperatures averaged 57.5 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.22 F above the 20th Century average, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Its records go back to 1880.

2010 has also surpassed 1998 for the most "warmest months" in any calendar year, the center stated.

"Each of the 10 warmest average global temperatures recorded since 1880 have occurred in the last fifteen years," it added. "The warmest year-to-date on record, through June, was 1998, and 2010 is warmer so far (note: although 1998 was the warmest year through June, a late-year warm surge in 2005 made that year the warmest total year)."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38263788/

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha:

We’ve been through this one before; from your above post:

No one "refuses to accept" fluctuations in temperatures year to year. What you need to address is the overall trend of rising temperatures in the modern era, a fact which is overwhelming supported by a tremendous amount of various research.”

Tabatha, you misunderstand, I do accept the overall trend of rising temperatures in the modern era. I also accept that temperatures during the mini ice age (1500 – 1900 AD) averaged about a degree lower than the averages we see today. The current warming trend is to be expected therefore, and is consistent with this view and the increase of .7 degree Celsius. The fact that we are coming out of a mini ice age, starting around the of the beginning of the century, which just happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution, confounds your Anthropogenic theory.

The medieval warm period isn’t confounded by industrial activities, and yet there were sustained warmer average temperatures for a period of 400 years. We’re talking average temperatures that were as much 4 degrees Celsius higher at altitude, than those observed today. We know that in Europe food production increased in yield and variety, and that the population prospered. When the mini ice age struck, populations needed to withdraw from previously habitable areas at high altitude.

To me this sounds like a little more warming would be a good thing. You also need to do a better job convincing me that the current temperature increase of .7 degree Celsius is harmful, and due to the activities of man.

English climatologist Hubert H. Lamb [1]. Lamb, who founded the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU) in 1971, saw the peak of the warming period from 1000 to 1300, i.e. in the High Middle Ages. He estimated that temperatures then were 1-2 ° C above the normal period of 1931-1960. In the high North, it was even up to 4 degrees warmer.

Furthermore, historical traditions show evidence of unusual warmth at this time. Years around 1180 brought the warmest winter decade ever known. In January 1186/87, the trees were in bloom near Strasbourg. And even earlier you come across a longer heat phase, roughly between 1021 and 1040. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot. This fact has been exploited to create foundation stones for the bridge in Regensburg this year [4].

During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29...

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Disturber: If you won't look at the scientific data provided, read valid responses carelessly, make no attempt to answer or address rebuttals, and skitter off into entirely different arguments when pressed, it becomes clear you will just reflexively quote-mine from the "Watts Up With That" website in perpetuating your game of Whack-a-Troll (tm).

Take a look at all these graphs -- the result of hundreds of scientists and researchers around the world from many different universities, countries, and agencies -- which chart warming, and show me where this "Medival Warming Period" exceeds modern temperatures and where the trend over time is moving toward a cooling.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/global...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/i...

I remember during the so-called "Climate-gate" threads on this website you had the same drive-by M.O., and a lack of original thought or contribution, just the automatic gainsaying of Climate Denier talking points.

binky (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Make that the Copenhagen Summit coverage where you smeared your comments throughout the website, Mr. Disturber, my apologies for the inaccuracy.

A quick review of your past comments shows you to be against the Healthcare Legislation, for Proposition 8, a defender of Sarah Palin, and a Clark Vandeventer supporter.

Do you take your Tea with one lump or two?

binky (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

binky:

Why do I need to show you more data that demonstrates the "Medieval Warming Period" exceeds modern temperatures?

Phil Jones says the same thing; is his word no longer good enough?

"The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
....if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented..."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

I am not in disagreement with Phil Jones, and he cautiously gives creedence to the MWP. It seems like you and Tabatha are in direct contradiction with Dr. Jones. You are also in dispute with archeological records and first hand accounts from that era.

If you can't reconcile your data with information observed in the archeological record, then your arguments hold little merit.

You haven't accounted for the causes of warming in the middle ages, and until you do, you can not say with reasonable certainty that the same factors are not at play in modern warming.

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"disturber" = (see my post above) ²

binky (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

binky:

So it's not about the science, it's about the politics?

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not quote Jones in full rather than in distorted snippets from an unreliable sensationalist newspaper?

For the full interview http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/na...

Q. Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A. Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

...

Q. How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
A. I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

On the MWP:

A. There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

...
Q. If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

A. The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.

Q. Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?
No.

For Disturber, it's clearly about the politics rather than the science.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 15, 2010 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's summarize:
Disturber: "I am not in disagreement with Phil Jones."
Phil Jones: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed." On whether it would be reasonable "to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade": "No."

pk (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's no way for a lady to act, pk.

All I'm asking is to show historical relevance that shows warming trends are harmful. If anything, the archeological evidence shows that cooling poses the greater threat.

To reiterate:

"During the medieval climate optimum, the population of Europe reached hitherto unknown highs. Many cities were founded at this very time with high-altitude valleys, high pastures and cultivated areas, which were at the beginning of the Little Ice Age again largely abandoned [9].

The Middle Ages was the era of high culture of the Vikings. In this period their expansion occurred into present-day Russia and the settlement of Iceland, Greenland and parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland even cereals were grown about this time.. With the end of the Medieval Warm Period the heyday of the Vikings ended. The settlements in Greenland had to be abandoned as well as in the home country of Norway, during this time, many northern communities located at higher altitudes [10]. The history of the Vikings also corresponds very well to the temperature reconstructions from Greenland, which were carried out using ice cores. According to the reconstructions, Greenland was at the time of the Vikings at least one degree warmer than in the modern warming period [11]."

This isn't theory, this is well established fact. So even if all of this warming only affected the Northern hemisphere, what factors drove it if it wasn't CO2 produced by man? And how do you know the same natural factors aren't at work today?

You didn't see the Vikings get all teary eyed because the glaciers melted.

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You shift the argument every time I point out that a post of yours misses the point or cites a biased and unreliable source, like the daffy Chris Monckton, who completely misconstrued a UN draft proposal as evidence that former communists are trying to set up a World Government agency to bleed the US, nonsense that you swallowed and expected us to believe as though it was gospel truth because you read it somewhere. You said that you agreed with Phil Jones because of what you read in another useless source of misinformation, and now you would like to ignore how ridiculous it makes you seem that he said the exact opposite of what your source made you think he said. It's clear that you have no clue about how scientists collect and interpret data and would rather rely on your ideological comrades for your information.

pk (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its not just Monkton and the U.N. who say we need a World Government agency to bleed the US dry; Gordon Brown said so too.

He also said we need to lower the standards of international negotiation from unanimus consent to majority rules in order to accomplish this objective:

"U.K.'s Gordon Brown is so dissatisfied with what transpired that he is now demanding that the "UN's consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails: One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news

Disturber (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2010 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You do know that Gordon Brown is no longer PM of the UK?

And what is wrong with majority rule? Is that not what we have?

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for bleeding us dry, I think US corporations have done a better job than any other world entity could, by exporting jobs to China and India and other places. You do know that the US borrows money from China to pay for the ME wars. So together with the US government and corporations, the US has been bled dry to the benefit of China. The UN was completely out of the picture.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 17, 2010 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Social psychologist Seth Kalichman has done a study on HIV denialist groups. Common to the deniers is "suspicious thinking" a term used by psychologists. In an interview in May by New Scientist, he remarks that the group leaders "display all the features of paranoid personality disorder," which present as intolerance to criticism and a heightened view of their own importance.

::: "The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere … All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.number of other irrational beliefs."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/m...
[subscription required]

binky (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have followed this thread with considerable interest. It has been a fascinating conversation. On both sides of the argument, the links provided have been very informative. So, kudos.

One thing that has at least struck me is the level of science literacy or lack thereof this conversation has displayed. pk, binky, and tabatha, the links you provided and your synthesis and integration of those links have certainly helped me understand the science, and its associated error bars. Disturber, you did not really attempt to synthesize and integrate the information you provide so much as simply parrot it. You weakened your arguments as a result, if for no other reason than your pension for cutting-and-pasting without quote or summary. I noted to that while pk, tabatha, and binky seem to provide direct links to the science, Disturber seemed to prefer third party sources who, after investigation, introduce bias into the information provided. Finally, Disturber did seem to keep shifting his/her points, often with items which had little or no relevance to the issue at hand. A class in forensics (not the CSI kind) might be helpful.

To close, it seems like the climate change debate will never be settled. The science is just too complicated to understand for anyone without a solid science education and an open mind. Further frustrated by the fact that the Scientific Method does not provide Black-and-White answers. Science continues to test Newton's laws of mechanics and Einstein's general relativity for Heaven's sake! Good enough to fly a satellite by a Saturn moon, but a scientist would still say they might be wrong and continue to test them. I suppose that is why climate scientists say Man has "likely" contributed to climate change, but they continue to refine their research.

I suppose if sea levels rose 10 feet in our lifetimes maybe a few would be swayed. Maybe. Probably not Disturber.

Anyway, thanks to all for such a great thread!

GoletaEngineer (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2010 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is what you get when you take rabid environmentalism to it's inevitable conclusion. Humans are nothing more than parasites who need to be sterilized and exterminated.

Discovery building hostage situation ends with suspect James J. Lee fatally shot:

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

...A manifesto posted on a Web site registered to a person named James Lee, who gave a post office box in Canada as his address, lists several demands to the Discovery Channel, saying the station "MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet." It lists 11 demands about airing shows that would promote curbing the planet's population growth, finding solutions for global warming and dismantling "the dangerous US world economy."

"All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions," it reads. "In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."

Disturber (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2010 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice unsubstantiated finger-pointing, "Disturber."

If that website actually belongs to this fatally crazed person, which it very well may, it reveals a mind driven by hatred of many things, including babies, immigrants, advocating decreasing all human life, stopping the birth of babies, changing and de-railing the current world economy.

Most of all, the ramblings on that website show a cracked mind filled with hatred of his neighbors:

::: "Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture."

::: "The humans? The planet does not need humans."

A weak move by Mr. Disturber, for attempting to push his feeble and speculative political point.

binky (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nothing unsubstantiated about the finger pointing, Binky. If you follow the logic of the radical environmental movement, the human population has gotten out of control, and that is one of the leading causes of global warming. The excess population is producing excess CO2. All life and it's activies produce carbon, thus the need to "scientificly" reduce and manage the human populations through education, and if necessary, forced sterilization.

"...Lee said at the time that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

“Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”

Sorry Binky, but James Lee has made his inspirations pretty clear. He was inspired by Al Gore's movie an inconvenient truth, and the population controls that are at the heart of the radical environmentalism movement:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.ht...

From Canada's Financial Post:
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy

"...The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures."

Also, Note NASA's James Hansen's, (Director of NASA's GISS) recomendations to President Obama regarding the implementation of Cap and Trade:

"..."The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts."

Note the subtle child limitation policy" ...up to a maximum of two child-shares per family."

Disturber (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2010 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Consul

Opera Santa Barbara presents "The Consul" by Gian-Carlo Menotti. Read More