This isn't the sort of thing society grows out of. It's the sort of thing that society grows into
Quote of the day
 Our writers |
 |
19,000 American Scientists refute Global Warming
Interesting articles that dare to question the sanctity of the Global Warming religion. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Peer reviewed research: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.
Submitted on Mon, 2007-12-03 19:55
A little knowledge ...
Mike, this has been around a while. It is very compelling unless researched in depth. Some of the data is rather selective. A particular item is the apparent correlation between global temperature and solar activity. In fact the solar activity they correlate with is sunspots which further correlates with solar flares. If you research further you will see that the shown correlation falls apart when the correct raw data is used. In fact one would expect some correlation but the randomness of the data over the relatively short period since 1880 is unable to confirm this. I will say this again, this is a complex subject. The main evidence is from computer modelling that tries to take into account as many of the contributary variables as possible. This is not something that is easily represented by a single graph of one or two variables because all the variables have a degree of interaction that makes simple visual correlations (for or against GW) not hugely valid. If the predictions could be deduced by me or you by looking at one or two graphs there would be no point in using these expensive computer simulations. I have to work with computer models all the time and I can say with certainty there is validity in doing such work and it is usually the only way. I regret that in order to get public opinion on-side and to get the political will to do anything, presentations have to be dumbed down. By definition this is inaccurate and usually exaggerated to make the case (either way) which in turn leads to others being able to debunk the trivialised arguments easily. This is not the way science works but it seems the way it has to be presented to get any necessary international (or even national) action. 
Complex, but not patronizing
My concern is the reliance on computer models which do not include suffcient data, a long enough timeline, or are sufficiently inclusive of all possible variables, to be accurate.
A particular item is the apparent correlation between global temperature and solar activity. In fact the solar activity they correlate with is sunspots which further correlates with solar flares. If you research further you will see that the shown correlation falls apart when the correct raw data is used.
The paper presented a remarkably strong correlation between temperature and solar activity. I guess you can suggest the raw data refutes the correlation. You might even be right, but you didn't provide any source to evaluate that assertion.
This is not something that is easily represented by a single graph of one or two variables because all the variables have a degree of interaction that makes simple visual correlations (for or against GW) not hugely valid.
How about the 29 graphs and charts representing interaction of key variables contained in the research?
I regret that in order to get public opinion on-side and to get the political will to do anything, presentations have to be dumbed down.
That's a wee bit patronizing, don't you think? That suggests that anyone who even questions global warming cannot possibly understand it unless the data is "dumbed down" and exaggerated? I've often found the mark of a truly profound intellect is the ability to communicate the complex in a non-complex manner. I find it interesting that over 19K scientists have signed a petition de-bunking GW.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." — Albert Einstein
It's all to do with the Sun?
It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong
link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of
sunspots on the Sun.
What does the science say? Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century. Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures. The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors both natural and human into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way. Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced volcanic activity. During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions. http://www.royalsoc.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
Depends on who is analyzing the data, doesn't it?
Richard, Much depends on who is providing the analysis. Have you actually looked at the per-reviewed study I provided? http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The U.S. temperature record has two intermediate uptrends of comparable magnitude, one occurring before the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use and one during it. Between these two is an intermediate temperature downtrend, which led in the 1970s to fears of an impending new ice age. This decrease in temperature occurred during a period in which hydrocarbon use increased 3-fold.
Seven independent records – solar irradiance; Arctic, Northern Hemisphere, global, and U.S. annual average surface air temperatures; sea level; and glacier length – all exhibit these three intermediate trends, as shown in Figure 13. These trends confirm one another. Solar irradiance correlates with them. Hydrocarbon use does not. The intermediate uptrend in temperature between 1980 and 2006 shown in Figure 13 is similar to that shown in Figure 14 for balloon and satellite tropospheric measurements. This trend is more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. Contrary to the CO2 warming climate models, however, tropospheric temperatures are not rising faster than surface temperatures. Figure 6 illustrates the magnitudes of these temperature changes by comparing the 0.5 ºC per century temperature change as the Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age, the range of 50-year averaged Atlantic ocean surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea over the past 3,000 years, the range of day-night and seasonal variation on average in Oregon, and the range of day-night and seasonal variation over the whole Earth. The two-century-long temperature change is small. Tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite give comprehensive geographic coverage. Even the satellite measurements, however, contain short and medium-term fluctuations greater than the slight warming trends calculated from them. The calculated trends vary significantly as a function of the most recent fluctuations and the lengths of the data sets, which are short. Figure 3 shows the latter part of the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of Arctic air temperature as compared with solar irradiance, as does Figure 5 for U.S. surface temperature. There is a close correlation between solar activity and temperature and none between hydrocarbon use and temperature. Several other studies over a wide variety of time intervals have found similar correlations between climate and solar activity (15, 34-39). Figure 3 also illustrates the uncertainties introduced by limited time records. If the Arctic air temperature data before 1920 were not available, essentially no uptrend would be observed. This observed variation in solar activity is typical of stars close in size and age to the sun (40). The current warming trends on Mars (41), Jupiter (42), Neptune (43,44), Neptune's moon Triton (45), and Pluto (46-48) may result, in part, from similar relations to the sun and its activity – like those that are warming the Earth. Hydrocarbon use and atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth (8,19,49,50). The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena. Mild ordinary natural increases in the Earth's temperature have occurred during the past two to three centuries. These have resulted in some improvements in overall climate and also some changes in the landscape, such as a reduction in glacier lengths and increased vegetation in colder areas. Far greater changes have occurred during the time that all current species of animals and plants have been on the Earth. The relative population sizes of the species and their geographical distributions vary as they adapt to changing conditions. The temperature of the Earth is continuing its process of fluctuation in correlation with variations in natural phenomena. Mankind, meanwhile, is moving some of the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result. This is an unexpected and wonderful gift from the Industrial Revolution. Pretty convincing argument I'd say. It's enough to make me pause before supporting the use of my tax money to de-rail the economy on behalf of GW theory.
Was the OISM article published in a peer-reviewed journal, Mike?
If so, please tell us it was not the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons ".
Critique
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM#Figure_2 deals with Mike's article, giving the background.
Realclimate.org = Realpropaganda.org
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73 deals with Richard's rebuttal, giving perspective to an agenda-driven critique. The same debate over and over
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." — Albert Einstein Of course it's possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid, the question is whether the barmaid would understand it. But in the spirit in which Einstein intended it, I'm afraid he is wrong. At the beginning of the 20th century this was thought to be a reasonable goal, but today I'm afraid not. This is not patronising (except to barmaids perhaps) but simply realistic. Nobody understands the laws of physics and only a few have a grasp of certain aspects. This is not just me who thinks this, Richard Feynman frequently said such things and included himself in this. Due to personal circumstances I have not got time to dig out the references that refute the various claims in the oism article. You can find them if you search, but I will try to do so when time allows (it may be some weeks). Scientists are all specialists and if you present a predigested set of graphs that all point in one direction many people will vote on what they take to be the interpretation of sound evidence without questioning the raw data to which they have not the time or interest to research. 19,000 "scientists" would need analysis in itself. I am sorry this whole issue has become politicised. Perhaps we should have a vote on which theory of quantum mechanics is the right one and avoid the expense of experimentation and the building of the Giant Hadron Collider.
I am sorry this whole issue
I am sorry this whole issue has become politicised. Perhaps we should have a vote on which theory of quantum mechanics is the right one and avoid the expense of experimentation and the building of the Giant Hadron Collider.
I share your regret the issue has become politicised, but I don't think its an issue of voting on which theory of quantum mechanics is right, but whether or not the Giant Hadron Collider deserved public funding. This goes beyond the academic debate over the existence or cause(s) GW phenomenon or whether or not man can even influence the outcome. When you craft public policy around a pseudo-scientific theory, you are stepping on Locke's social contract my friend. The government has an obligation to be a good steward of MY tax money. You better be able to explain it to a barmaid, or you're done before you start. Didn't like the Einstein quote? I came across this one I like better.
I’ll tell you what you need to be a great scientist. You don’t have to be able understand very complicated things. It’s just the opposite. You have to be able to see what looks like the most complicated thing in the world and, in a flash, find the underlying simplicity. That’s what you need: a talent for simplicity.’
Quite true
Well yes, you are right that when it comes to public funding you have to convince people that the expense is justified. This then comes down to a matter of trust between individuals. i.e. we, the public, have to trust our elected represenatives, they have to trust their advisors and the advisors have to trust the evidence from others. It doesn't always work and people are fallible. Work in fundamental science is a matter of policy as we all realise there is no direct financial gain that results. Personally I think this is a good idea because the advancement of knowledge has both tangible and intangible benefits from which we all would hope to gain in the long term. There is always much debate about which general area of science to invest, of course, but it would be impossible to throw the detail out for general discussion and expect a sensible answer. The quote by Wilson is not addressing the same point as Einstein. Einstein really did believe his quote literally at one time which is why he newver really liked the implications of aspects of quantum mechanics. Wilson is not saying the theory is easy but is saying that great scientists have the ability to see the beauty of the underlying structure which can be relatively simple compared to the apparant effects. This is the essence of reductive thinking and is the aim of all science. It is far from saying that the resulting theory is any more accessible to the rest of us mortals. It is saying that "I can explain this complex behaviour on the basis of a much simpler substructure". Great scientists have had the ability to "see" this solution and then develop the maths to justify it afterwards. Explaining things to the Barmaid
Global warming is easy to explain to a relatively sober and open-minded barmaid. "Carbon dioxide (the gas that fizzes your beer) and methane (the gas that people fart) and CHCs (what used to come out of spray cans until it got banned for wrecking the ozone layer... yes it does both, everyone gets confused over that) these gases trap the sun's heat, like a big fat duvet around the earth, or like a greenhouse, where heat comes in through the glass and can't get out again. This is happening big time, because we are releasing all the carbon dioxide gas that was stored as oil and coal in the earth millions of years ago. If it continues, the earth will get very hot indeed, so the weather will change, with more extreme events like floods and droughts. We are seeing this already, the recent floods are as predicted, and the icecaps and glaciers are definitely retreating, but unless we react, it is going to cause BIG problems for our children and grandchildren.
We can do something about it - I hope I am not boring you, by all means serve that gentleman, oh no he's got a drink already, he was just scratching his nose - we can do something about it, but it means changing our way of life, getting our energy from the sun, walking and cycling more and hopping on the bus, but that's all right because buses will be more frequent and go more places and we will all be much slimmer and fitter, not you of course, because you couldn't be more slim and fit if you tried. Another pint please, and have one for yourself if you like. What's holding us up you say? Well the scientists are all agreed, but the oil companies are fighting a desperate rearguard action using the media and that idiot Bush...and lots of people believe them because they do not want to change their way of life for the sake of their children... I dunno, maybe they haven't got any children, or maybe they just don't care. It's a mad world isn't it? When do you knock off? Five minutes? D'you want to come for an Indian? Brilliant. Yes but...
"But this bloke over there told me this wasn't true. He said that this global warming was due to changes in the sun and that there was nothing we could do about it. He said people like you want me to sell my Ferrari (I made a lot in tips last year) because this whole issue has become political and thinks that the left wing people just resent the fact that people like me can afford a Ferrari and want to, sort of, even things out. Actually I think I'll skip the Indian. The chap over there said he'd take me to the new sushi restaurant on the other side of town. Apparently they fly in the fish from Japan fresh every day".
Dodgy tips.
"That bloke over there is Rusty Mick and if I was you I would be a bit careful. He got into trouble last week kicking in the door of the kebab shop down the road - yes, it was him did that - made a terrible mess of the place, they still have'nt cleaned it up. Apparently he was after their supplies of cooking oil, but most of it got spilled. And he has been pinning threatening messages on the door of the Persian restaurant next door. He pays off the police, but the word is he is running out of money and luck. He's always on about his sunspots. Got a thing about it. They do have a part to play, but as walk-on extras. They really don't add up to much in terms of warming. It's like a splash of lemon in a pint of cider - adds a bit of taste, but doesn't really do the business. I didn't know that was your Ferrari. I think Rusty Mick dinged it with his SUV while he was trying to park it. If I were you I would get rid of it and buy a Civic, cos the price of petrol is about to go through the roof. Are you sure you bought it just with tips? You must have been here for about 1,000 years collecting enough tips off this stingy lot to buy a Ferrari. G'lord, is that the time? I've gotta go. See ya. The Barmaid's Contribution
Hey dont go, mate, I was only joking about Rusty Mick and the Ferrari. Have another pint on the house. I wanted to say I read the other day that Willson in 1997 used ERB data to provide cross-calibration between the non-overlapping
records of ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II and deduced that TSI was 0.5 Wm-2 higher during
the solar minimum of 1996 than during solar minimum in 1986. If this reflects
an underlying trend in solar irradiance it would represent a radiative forcing of 0.09 Wm-2 over that decade compared with about 0.4 Wm-2 due to well-mixed
greenhouse gases. I suppose what that means in terms that Rusty Mick would understand is that greenhouse gases are 4 times more powerful than susnpots in affecting global temperatures. But there's no point in trying to tell that to Rusty Mick. There's none so blind as them that will not see, is there? Oh look, he's slipped off his stool. Hope he's not going to be sick.
from a 5th grade education with love
Not a barmaid, nor do I go to bars, but I think that for most of us (the uneducated or not interested) this debate translates as a question of whether we should allow those loser hippies to guilt us into being environmentally reponsible (or not say the ruthless uncaring republicans)and then give them public funding to hug trees.
Can anyone convince me that garbage in the ocean is acceptable? Or that a garbage dump is a beautiful place to visit?
I must first be aquainted with the facts before I decide! Democratic structures
Candace, it is not something you should have to decide upon at a detailed level. As I said, we have elected representatives and these people have committees of experts who are supposed to advise them. It is a matter of who you trust to make the right decisions. These people are all fallible too and sometimes there is vested interest involved or simply prejudice. I don't know of any perfect way to make big decisions like those involved here but I do believe it isn't at all easy to convey the complexities of scientific data to the public at large, especially (and ironically) when there is so much at stake. There was a big problem in the UK in the last few years over the use of the Mumps/Measles/Rubella (MMR) vaccine. There was a paper written that suggested a link between the use of this vaccine and autism. This was disputed by the government and almost all other scientists in the field and eventually discredited, but the press coverage meant that a very large percentage of people refused to have the vaccine administered to their children. There was a subsequent, and detrimental, rise in the diseases as a result. This carried on for years. The press and the public did not adjudge the balance of the arguments at all well. Now I'm definitely not saying we should always trust our governments, but it is important to test for vested interests. In the case of the MMR, it was an issue stirred up by the media that played on parents' fears for their children. There was some idea that individual children were being put at risk for the greater benefit of the majority, which was not true but, of course, meant that many took the view "OK, but not my child". The fact that the UK had just been through the "BSE" problems and that the government had made incorrect judgements about this did not help. Here was a case where there was evidence of a problem, potentially a very serious one (though as it happens, probably not too bad), that the government chose to play down because of the difficulty and cost of fixing it. There was a lot of vested interest in it being played down too, because a good deal of beef production was affected. Here was a case were scientific and public pressure kept the government honest. This is not too dissimilar the the case of AGW in the USA. It is scientific and public pressure versus a government who is heavily lobbied and indirectly funded by those with huge vested interest in denying AGW. The US government has grudgingly accepted AGW now, at least to some extent. The difficulty here is that the case is much, much more complicated, is not 100% certain (nobody says this) and will cost a lot to address. In a nutshell the facts are that the best computer modelling available predicts that human activities are causing significant global warming. The models used rely on data that has a good deal of uncertainty in it, so there tends to be several "what if" scenarios to cover the extreme ranges of likeyhood of how the various subsystems behave. There are several groups at work doing such modelling and they don't all agree on the detailed outcome, but the majority do agree that there is GW and that man has had, and is having, a significant impact on it. I do intend to get the facts together at some point but I don't have time at the moment. The anti global warming camp have moved from 1. there is no GW to 2. there is GW but it's not man-assisted and we can't do anything about it to 3. OK, man has an affect but we can live with it as we can't do anything much about it. Position 3 is in process at the moment. It could then be 4. Well OK but the costs outweigh the benefits and it won't affect me much to 5. Well it was always too late to do anything about it anyway. Actually by the time it gets to 5 there won't be anyone who will admit to taking the anti AGW line at all.
Don't worry about GW...just pay for it!
Candace, it is not something you should have to decide upon at a detailed level.
That's right. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. just fork over your taxes and kid's college fund to the elected officials guided by "experts." Like Einstein's barmaid and Joe Sixpack, Candace points out what those of you with superior scientific intellects forget, WE pay the bills and need to be convinced. I don't care if it's tough. You have the 25 lb brains--get busy. There are several groups at work doing such modelling and they don't all agree on the detailed outcome, but the majority do agree that there is GW and that man has had, and is having, a significant impact on it.
So they can't agree on the modeling or detailed outcome, but are convinced that man had a significant impact on it? In full disclosure, a correlation is not causation. Increases of temperature also rose propotionally to the decrease in Pirates. Clearly we need to foster more piracy to fix global warming. I can only hope to revisit this topic in 10 years when, as Dr. William Gray predicted, proponents of GW will feel quite foolish. By then, Richard will have become a conservative.
Basic first BarmAid
Here, help me get him over into the recovery position. His coulour and pulse is all right. I think he's just had a bit too much cooking oil by the smell on his breath. Wait, he's mumbling something...something about ... pretty head...taxes...pirates...conservatives...god, its sad isn't it? Never mind, he'll wake up tomorrow, not know a thing about it. Best just leave him here.
I was not intending to patronise
I was not meaning just you, Candace, when I said that you should not need consider the subject at a detailed level. I meant most of us. I certainly would not want to study the subject for the requisite number of years to become fully competent in the subject. We all are sold ideas about all sorts of subjects all the time, and I don't think that many of us are in a good position to judge the quality of the arguments put. When it comes to politics we can all have a broad view based on the information we get, though much is speculation based on a more deep seated political outlook. A few weeks ago Mike was saying he didn't know much about GW but it does not stop him having strong opinions on it. The issue has become political so there are plenty of opinions put across forcefully and with great confidence on both sides, but these are the ones to beware of. There is so much crap talked and these arguments are the easiest to knock over so it does no good to the side promoting them either. I humbly apologise if you thought I was being patronising. That was not at all my intent. Mike, we are not talking about correlation here, though that exists too, we are talking about reasoned out models of atmospheric chemistry, for example, and then using this as one factor. There are other reasonably well known effects, like calculation of sea level rise based on ice melting in various parts of the planet and due to thermal expansion of the water due to the net temperature increase or, for example, there are the complex effects from the ocean's flux of CO2 which is based on measured data (and a basic understanding of the mechanisms) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GB002900.shtml The idea of plotting graphs and correlating two parameters is simplistic because of the other several hundred effects that can enhance or compensate the correlation. The best models try to take as many effects into account as possible. If you think the evidence is based on such a simple correlation then I can understand how you can use the analogy with the correlation to pirates and therefore think people who agree with AGW are wrong. Most of the models show that man is having an effect, and it is really a matter of how much the damage will be and how long it will take to be a problem. Some references
Actually Wiki is not bad here and gives other references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model Also here is the paper that refutes the solar data:
No need to apologize
No need to apologize englishman; I understand what you and Mike are saying. It's the barmaid routine that puzzles me.
Failed script
Well I am very sorry, I have totally failed to communicate the science. It evolved into a playlet: I try to explain global warming in turns of duvets, and then it turned out that the barmaid was a physics student, just doing the bar job to make ends meet. It is an evolving piece of group drama. Maybe it needs a re-edit.
Sorry
Richard
Mission Accomplished.
While I never believed Englishman to be deliberately patronizing to Candace personally, he (intentionally or unintentionally) revealed a common posture of the liberal left to which I take exception. That is an underlying assumption that the "great unwashed" masses are incapable and unworthy of decision and need to be led by those in power--for their own good of course--despite the fact it is these very people who will bear the cost of the "fix". Richard has been much more up front in that arrogance.
While those who are committed to AGW as a man-made phenomenon and man's responsibility to "fix" it will not be convinced otherwise, to the unbiased observer, there is significant credible disagreement within the scientific community and way too much politicization of the issues. No one here can claim universal consensus, because there is none. There is evidence that can be disputed and conflicts of interest present on BOTH sides.
Those with a socialist agenda have seized upon AGW as a means of crafting public policy that empowers government and enslaves the populace, while demonizing those who dare question the underlying science as evil oil mongers who hate children and puppies. I think my perspective is a common one in the US. I want more information to make up my mind. I want my government to convince me of the scope of the problem, the ability for a proposed public policy to fix it (without making the problem worse or creating new ones), and I want the ability to hold my government accountable for how my tax money is spent. If this is strictly an environmental issue, I want developing nations to be held to the same standards as developed nations. Einstein's barmaid wants no less. I outlined the conditions required for my support, and Richard thinks I've set the bar too high. Well, too fricken’ bad. In the US, the government works for me, not the reverse.
Perhaps those of you in the UK have been de-sensitized to the intrusion of government in your lives, while we in the US have a cultural history that is more libertarian. I don't mean that offensively--just acknowledging the reality in our two countries. BTW--I personally found the barmaid scrip very entertaining, even if divorced from reality.
Garbage in -- Garbage out
Englishman, Thanks for the references on Global Climate Models. Oddly, Wiki did not provide any dissenting views which are commonly found in Wikipedia. I did some quick searches and found an article you might find interesting. Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes
Actually, the monopoly of GCM’s in the climate research business is an interesting object of inquiry, and not just for sociological reasons. A GCM is a weather forecasting model in which the coefficients and parameterizations are tuned so as to obtain long-term results that have an air of realism. The model is then run for several tens of years. There are no penetrating studies of the way slight software mismatches might affect the average values of key output parameters fifty years from now. A forecasting model can make do with relatively crude parameterizations because the short-time evolution of the atmospheric circulation is primarily governed by its internal dynamics. Sloppy representations of boundary conditions, clouds, convection, evaporation and condensation do not mess weather forecasts up all that fast. But the long-term evolution of the general circulation is to a large extent determined by boundary conditions. This realization struck me with some force when I discovered last year that a simple algorithm for inversion rise above the daytime boundary layer I conceived in 1973 is still in wide use today. How can one be sure that an ancient forecasting algorithm is capable of performing the task assigned to it in climate models? At times it seems that no one in this business has learned about Karl Popper’s falsifiability demand. This is why I cringe at WCRP documents promoting Forecasting at All Time Scales. The obvious purpose of such propaganda is to defend the monopoly position that GCM’s have enjoyed for so long. It is strategy, not science.
I want to lobby for decency, modesty, honesty, integrity and balance in climate research. I hope and pray we lose our obsession with climate forecasting. Climate simulations are best seen as sensitivity experiments, not as tools for policy makers. I said it in 1990 and I am saying it now: the constraints imposed by the planetary ecosystem require continuous adjustment and permanent adaptation. Predictive skills are of secondary importance. We should stop our support for the preoccupation with greenhouse gases our politicians indulge in. Global energy policy is their business, not ours. We should not allow politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions. If IPCC does not come to its senses, I’ll be happy to let it stew in its own juices. There is plenty of other work to do.
In 1976, Steve (Stephen H.) Schneider published a book entitled The Genesis Strategy. It made quite an impact on me at the time, primarily because Schneider did not promote technological fixes, but a global strategy of what is now called Adaptation, an idea reluctantly and belatedly embraced by IPCC. Those were the days of Nuclear Winter, weather modification, Project Stormfury, stratospheric ozone destruction, and the sick idea of seeding all Arctic ice with soot to prevent the next ice age. In the preface to his book, Schneider quotes Harvey Brooks, then Harvard dean of engineering:
“Scientists can no longer afford to be naïve about the political effects of publicly stated scientific opinions. If the effect of their scientific views is politically potent, they have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions, and to try to be honest with themselves, their colleagues and their audience about the degree to which their assumptions have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence”.
Consensus
Mike wrote: No one here can claim universal consensus, because there is none. There is evidence that can be disputed and conflicts of interest present on BOTH sides. In a recent survey of climate scientists conducted by a leading sceptical scientist, Dr Roger Pielke Sen, 18% of those who responded said the IPCC had exaggerated. But 65% said the IPCC had got it right. And 17% said the prognosis was even worse. Bali
Mike, I really need to have your take on Bali. The world's scientists and government officials are gathered there, debating and worrying and manoeuvering around this huge global problem, the one that in your own personal view is not a problem. What is happening? How come that you and your dwindling band of sceptics have it right and the whole of the rest of the world has got it wrong? Is there some kind of conspiracy going on, in your view? Are the scientists and Government officials and Presidents and Prime ministers perhaps trying to bring the world's economy to its knees (as you see it) with some kind of ulterior motive? How do you explain a cock-up of this magnitude? I look forward to an enlightening response. Richard
Bali is irrelevant.
Richard, I'm not sure if you are not reading or merely ignoring the Hendrick Tennekes article I provided. He answers your questions far better than me and I haven't seen any checks with his name on it from Exxon, have you?
Bali is Political Showmanship
Can't be seen to question such a sensitive issue so all countries sit and nod knowingly and say all the right things, while doing nothing specific. Kyoto was a failure, any resulting agreement in Bali will surely fall short also. By "fall short" I mean both not meet it's targets AND have no impact on climate change. Fashionable rhetoric rarely makes any real impact. Now, please do excuse me, I left my car idling outside.
Corrections due
Coincidently, the article I provided came from the blog of the scientist YOU quoted...or misquoted as the case may be.
This news article, while quite good otherwise, also incorrectly stated information when referring to my perspective on climate;
“In a recent survey of climate scientists conducted by a leading sceptical scientist, Dr Roger Pielke Sen, 18% of those who responded said the IPCC had exaggerated.
So he believes that human beings have an impact, but the IPCC still has it wrong--despite 65% agreement. Where's the consensus? Here there is agreement that AGW exists, but not on its causes...so therefore, not on a "cure." You expect me to invest my tax money that kind of Jell-O logic?
But 65% said the IPCC had got it right. And 17% said the prognosis was even worse. “ First, I am not a “sceptical scientist” as should be clear to anyone who has read Climate Science, or my 2007 book with Bill Cotton Cotton, W.R. and R.A. Pielke, 2007: Human impacts on weather and climate, Cambridge University Press, 330 pp. On Climate Science, I state as a fundamental conclusion that Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur. Experimental error and Conspiracy
Tenneke is challenging the accuracy of long term forecasts. I was present to see the added sulphate particle effect to the model, bringing the prediction more in line with the observed. Sure, the models need to be fine tuned, and will be fine tuned, but we know enough to come off the carbon economy under the Precautionary Principle. If there is error in a scientific experiment, it is expressed as variation, plus and minus about a mean. If the models are erroneous, some will be excessive, some will show variations the other way, that is, cooling or no-effect as a result of the GHGs we have now and are predicted to have. Where are these variations? Now I have answered Tenneke, please answer my question: In your view, is this enormous mass delusion that you believe is taking place in Bali a conspiracy, and if so, what is the point of the conspiracy? Richard
Selective reading?
Richard, I think you are missing Tenneke's point.
We should not allow politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions. If IPCC does not come to its senses, I’ll be happy to let it stew in its own juices. There is plenty of other work to do. In 1976, Steve (Stephen H.) Schneider published a book entitled The Genesis Strategy. It made quite an impact on me at the time, primarily because Schneider did not promote technological fixes, but a global strategy of what is now called Adaptation, an idea reluctantly and belatedly embraced by IPCC. Those were the days of Nuclear Winter, weather modification, Project Stormfury, stratospheric ozone destruction, and the sick idea of seeding all Arctic ice with soot to prevent the next ice age.
In the preface to his book, Schneider quotes Harvey Brooks, then Harvard dean of engineering: “Scientists can no longer afford to be naïve about the political effects of publicly stated scientific opinions. If the effect of their scientific views is politically potent, they have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions, and to try to be honest with themselves, their colleagues and their audience about the degree to which their assumptions have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence”. The conspiracy is in the manipulation of scientific data to craft public policy, when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the policy will change the environment, but absolutely change the balance of power between governments and the governed. The atmospheric scientists' conspiracy
Mike said: "The conspiracy is in the manipulation of scientific data to craft public policy, when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the policy will change the environment, but absolutely change the balance of power between governments and the governed".
OK. Lets get this right. In the view of Iron Mike, the corpus of atmospheric scientists are deliberately manipulating their data in order to influence public policy in the direction of changing the balance of power between the governments and the governed. I take it that you mean that they are trying to disempower President Bush, because he is sustained by oil money, and empower the individual and the local community, because this is the Green way. Have I got that right? But I don't get the "insufficient evidence to demonstrate the policy will change the environment" bit. There is of course no evidence at all, because we have not yet begun to take GHGs out of the atmosphere. The evidence will accumulate after we have begun that process. Please clarify
Misrepresentation
"While I never believed Englishman to be deliberately patronizing to Candace personally, he (intentionally or unintentionally) revealed a common posture of the liberal left to which I take exception. That is an underlying assumption that the "great unwashed" masses are incapable and unworthy of decision and need to be led by those in power--for their own good of course--despite the fact it is these very people who will bear the cost of the "fix". " - IM Well I take exception to this comment. I was saying that you have to rely, and believe in, the experts you employ to make such analyses and to make recommendations. Your elected government makes decisions on your behalf based on those recommendations. This is the way western democracies work. Your suggestion leads to the extreme position that everyone votes on everything. I have no objection to such a system of greater democracy as long as everyone is well informed. The situation we have is that, contrary to this, there is a lot of well funded but erronious cases being put forward. I actually think that the message has got through to most people despite this, although I regret that the publicity machines, that are our media, seem incapable of presenting any case without resorting to spiced up extreme positions that have an effect of making reasonably solid science open to criticism. I doubt if you would have people vote on which multi-role combat aircraft the USAF should employ or have people decide what features should be in the next aircraft carrier. And climate change is far more complicated. The US government goes to war at huge national expense without asking the people first. I'm not sure that makes Bush a lefty does it?
Not the same thing.
Your elected government makes decisions on your behalf based on those recommendations. This is the way western democracies work. Your suggestion leads to the extreme position that everyone votes on everything.
I disagree. The public does not have to vote on everything, but does have to understand and consent to major changes in national direction such as wuold be required by GW. Empowerment to make decisions is not a blank check by the governed to the government. Elected leaders must still solicit support of the governed for major policy directions and will be held accountable for the consequences of decisions made. For instance, if the President has a major initiative on energy policy, he is likely to float several trial balloons to see how the contemplated policy will be received by Congress (who will have to endorse it) and the American people (who will be asked to pay for it). He will go on a media blitz to "sell" the intitiative and ensure support of the American people and ensure support before ever presenting it formally. He will work congress individually and as a body to build support or break down resistance.
Keep trying...
OK. Lets get this right. In the view of Iron Mike, the corpus of atmospheric scientists are deliberately manipulating their data in order to influence public policy in the direction of changing the balance of power between the governments and the governed.
Have I got that right? No. You're looking at it through a straw. As Tennekes points out, scientists can be politically naive and fail to appreciate (or deliberatly ignore) the public policy implications of their scientific conclusions. After all, their business is science, not public policy and who has to pay for it. Their data can be manipulated by governments and special interests seeking power and influence over public policy to achieve political agendas...regardless of the ultimate veracity of these scientific claims. While some scientists may be so agenda driven as to fabricate data or exaggerate claims, I suggest the majority are either politically naive or blinded by the science. Wouldn't that be nice
"Elected leaders must still solicit support of the governed for major policy directions" - IM I don't remember this happening for recent wars or, for that matter, Kennedy's man-on-the-moon race or too much of the vast military spending that is incurred. You could say that people get to vote in or vote out a government, but a choice of two bundled sets of policies is hardly taking much account of any individual policy. Sure, if the government came up with some really mad ideas that could lose them huge numbers of votes they would be more careful about employing them, but a good deal of governing is on the basis of coming up with what a few people think is best and then selling it to the people, and in the case of Bush and Blair, selling it with deception if necessary. The US government followed the advice of think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and even employed its members in key roles. In the UK Blair, in his second term, made executive decisions without consultation of his cabinet. He said in a recent interview he always did what he thought was right. You have to assume this could mean "whatever anyone else may think". This is not a left-right thing as you suggest but a government and power issue. Governments of both pursuasions in the UK have employed policies which have had little to do with what people want but more in line with what the particular government believe they should have. On occasions these goals may happily coincide, but this is not always the general aim. Unravelling the Conspiracy
Mike said: "The conspiracy is in the manipulation of scientific data to craft public policy, when there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the policy will change the environment, but absolutely change the balance of power between governments and the governed."
Ah. So it is the governments of the world, their officers and elected members, who are conspiring, not the scientists. They are conspiring to manipulate the scientific data: what data exactly? But surely if politicians are manipulating scientific data, the scientists will be up on their hind legs complaining at the manipulation? So the scientists have to be part of your plot. You must admit that, Iron Mike.
Now, Mike says "Governments and special interests [are] seeking power and influence over public policy to achieve political agendas". Which special interests? What political agenda?
I can guess, from what you have said before, that you imagine the political agenda is to wreck the oil and fossil fuel based economy of the world. But why would Governments want to do that? Their item on the politician's agenda is to keep the economy thriving, to get that feel-good factor going so people keep voting for them. Why would they suddenly turn this on its head? It just doesn't make sense for them to do that. Especially at a time when the sub-prime mortgage error is promising to wreck the economy without their help.
You did not criticise my guess that the desired change of power balance that you imagine is that the agenda is to shift away from centrally controlled big government to localisation of power, towards subsidiarity. Was my guess correct?
.
C'mon Mike, help me out here. I am trying to understand your thinking.
Richard
Socialist agendas and the AGW conspiracy
Richard, If I read you correctly, you are asking what advantage a government (special interest, political party, etc) would have by advocating AGW mitigation and if data is being manipulated, why aren't scientist complaining, right? When you manufacture a crisis and provide your own solutions, you achieve power. Everyone in or around government wants to achieve or retain power. That is especially true of socialist governments who feel duty bound to save the "great unwashed" from themselves. Why aren't scientists complaining? They are---you and your ilk demonize and dismiss them.
You did not criticise my guess that the desired change of power balance that you imagine is that the agenda is to shift away from centrally controlled big government to localisation of power, towards subsidiarity.
I must have missed that point. Where is it? In principle, I do support subsidiarity. Not sure the AGW tie-in though. please explain. Please re-read
Mike, Please carefully re-read my response above "Unravelling the Conspiracy". Your conspiracy theory begs a few questions. You are obliged to answer the questions raised. Richard
I'm not dodging...you need to be more clear.
Richard, A bit of formatting to your posts might make identifying specific issues more clear and answering your questions easier. I know that lately, formatting is sometimes removed after hitting the enter button, so this is probably more of an OD glitch.
They are conspiring to manipulate the scientific data: what data exactly?
Perhaps more precisely, it is the policy that is manipulated based upon theory, not fact. Like crafting "solutions" based upon the infamously inaccurate IPCC "hocky stick" graph. In particular, when politicians craft public policy consistent with political agenda, for the purpose of gaining or retaining power, by cherry picking theories under dispute, they have manipulated public policy and the people paying for it.
...the scientists will be up on their hind legs complaining at the manipulation? So the scientists have to be part of your plot. You must admit that, Iron Mike
Perhaps some are aware of and actively support the political agenda attached with AGW "solutions," but more likely it is the useful idiots who advance theory and claims without taking responsibility for the political manipulation to which Tennekes is addressing in his article...an issue you continue to ignore.
Which special interests?
Take your pick. There are literally hundreds of special interests...primarily radical environmentalists. The cases of environmental extremism are legion. The more notable incidents should embarrass any reasonable Green. Do we really need to review them and embarrass your party further?
What political agenda?...you imagine the political agenda is to wreck the oil and fossil fuel based economy of the world. But why would Governments want to do that?
The political party names are different in each country, but the common thread is a socialist one. As I've pointed out (and you have ignored), when you manufacture a crisis (including environmental, economic, etc.) and provide your own solutions, you achieve power. Everyone in or around government, regardless of party affiliation wants to achieve or retain power. That is especially true of socialist governments who feel duty bound (with almost religious fervor) to save the "great unwashed" from themselves. Of course such fraud will be eventually exposed. But entrenched power is difficult to remove at that point and some policies and consequences impossible to reverse despite their lack of effectiveness to address the problem for which they were enacted.
You did not criticise my guess that the desired change of power balance that you imagine is that the agenda is to shift away from centrally controlled big government to localisation of power, towards subsidiarity. Was my guess correct? .
Not quite sure what your guess is or where you guessed it. I didn't see it in earlier posts. Your statement above can be understood in more than one way. But if you are suggesting that MY desired shift in the balance of power is TOWARD subsidiarity, then you are correct. Is that what you mean?
Public support is a de facto vote of confidence in public policy
(Englishman)...don't remember this happening for recent wars or, for that matter, Kennedy's man-on-the-moon race...
Excuse me? You just provided a brilliant example of exactly my point.
May 25, 2001 Posted: 12:50 p.m. EDT (1650 GMT) (CNN) -- Forty years ago on this day, President John F. Kennedy presented a bold challenge before a joint session of Congress: Send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. Feeling a sense of urgency in finding a way to overtake the Soviets in the space race, Kennedy had huddled with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his science advisers to come up with a plan The president cautioned Congress that the cost would be significant, more than $9 billion in 1960s dollars. Congress accepted the challenge. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/05/25/kennedy.moon/
Scientists provided input. The president provided leadership and a plan, then "sold" it to Congress and the American people in 1961. There was no popular vote on the plan, but there absolutly was a public endorsement! If Kennedy had not communicated what he wanted to do and why it was important for the American people to support it, public out-cry would have killed it in favor of pressing domestic issues. The people provided a de facto "vote" of support and the rest is history with a moon landing in 1969. Clearly we need the same on the issue of global warming--just as soon as there is a consensus on the scope of the problem and a workable plan. Kennedy
I concede you are right about the man on the moon issue. It was not a good example. It had the advantage of getting the backing of a lot of high tech industries, socking it to the Russians and giving pride to the average American. It is just the way that AGW should be treated. Unfortunately Bush is not in the same leadership league as Kennedy. But then Kennedy was a liberal
[Iron Mike doing his "happy dance"]
Englishman, I will endeavor to be gracious in victory, though its hardly my American nature to do so.
We are in agreement that similar leadership is nececessary and that Bush is not the Pre |
Posts: 918
Joined: 2004-10-07