Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[jimmygu3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Don't give up your day job.

Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.

Jimmy

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.

Jimmy

I second Jimmy's motion.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

That talk of Lord Monckton is delightful. He rips the Global Warming alarmists to shreds. Thanks for posting.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

That talk of Lord Monckton is delightful. He rips the Global Warming alarmists to shreds. Thanks for posting.

I hope everyone views the last minute of Lord Monckton's talk that xela linked above. It seems Obama is about to sign a devastating treaty in Copenhagen.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Bet the same audience wont take the 1h36min to watch this
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking at Bethel University

Honestly, I tried. Here's my report on the 1st 30 minutes:

After making a lame joke about the President’s citizenship, and wasting 11 minutes making sure we know he’s an ultra-conservative sycophant and assuring us he’s only presenting the TRUTH, he finally launches into his rhetorical diatribe. First it’s an all out attack on the DDT ban with a sneaky inference that THESE SAME PEOPLE are going to SHUT DOWN 5/6ths of the economy. This is what passes for proof in the denier world. This is what passes for science. DDT has nothing to do with global warming but let’s start the presentation by damning science with a broad brush. Let’s soften up the audience with an irrelevant FACT and proceed to damn climatologists by association. Slick and slimy like Limbaugh and playing to the same intellectual level.

But I soldier on, listening to the buffoon in the 3 piece suit without even an undergraduate degree in science as he goes on a name calling binge; intolerant, Communistic, [murderers of children], they want as much of humanity as possible to be wiped off the planet…but of course, he’s not REALLY talking about climate scientists, he’s talking about DDT scientists. Then we get a bullshit speech about how the left is responsible for the mounting population and the poor in the world. And then a polemic on HIV…blah, blah…same left wing murderers, blah, blah. Fuck! I’m 18 minutes into this and the bastard hasn’t mentioned one FACT on global warming.

Ah..the main harangue begins. Biofuels, blah, blah…sorry shithead, no one on the left and no one in real science wanted corn based fuels. But he goes on to make the same slipshod correlations here. But that’s how they work. Get you to waste your time defending crap they make up. And what does this have to do with climate science and global warming? Minute 21, now add in crazy and wicked to our nicknames. Mud pies in Haiti - as if he gives a shit about the third world. Monster!

And at minute 23, he mocks, and mocks and mocks. This is great science. Great PROOF. Great TRUTH….blah, blah. Beats up Al Gore, hell I beat up Al Gore so I guess I can’t say much here. But at 28:25 he refers to himself as a climatologist! “We climatologists”, he says. His degree from BSU one supposes.

I can’t waste one more minute of my life with this idiot.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yes, santafe2, please don't give up your day job as an insider in the solar energy industry. Your insight is invaluable! Thanks for remaining a stalwart and eloquent advocate of scientific climate change facts in the face of junk science and propaganda.
Jimmy

Thanks Jimmy, (and ggirod). I think the science for AGM is fairly solid and the downside for ignoring it, catastrophic. C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists. While I try to be civil, I dispise these mouth pieces for the denier right. The science is not perfect but it's robust and climate scientists will get the details worked out.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I can’t waste one more minute of my life with this idiot.

I gather that Lord Christopher Monckton's sense of humor does not agree with Mr. Santafe2.

[xela]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Biofuels, blah, blah…sorry shithead, no one on the left and no one in real science wanted corn based fuels. But he goes on to make the same slipshod correlations here.

Not being a scientist and only a regular guy I try to listen to both sides (usually via realclimate.org, got interested in the matter after reading John Houghton's Global Warming, 3rd ed.).
He makes some very serious accusations, which I cannot check but the answer I see on the net is usually "he's a crook/idiot/no scientist/skews,makes up the data", well he says the same.. in a funnier way.
Maybe one of those days scientist make a good case of why the climate was warmer 10 centuries ago and quite colder 4 centuries ago, until then those "idiots" are not idiots in my book.

Btw, my personal stance is GW cannot be denied, but how much of it is manmade cannot be quantified yet, and the effects cannot be reasonably predicted. I don't buy their "models", I don't buy "biofuels", "cap&trade" or whatever financial scam they come up.

I quoted this sentence of yours because it shows just how AGW is captured by the gov/corps. A nonsense measure which costs a shitload of money, apparently does more harm then good to the environment, but sure good for the select few corporations... a big scam basically.

The scientific community should have done their best to blast those things immediately, hopefully they are not as captured as we see it in the financial sector (just a couple of years back presuming what is revealed about Goldman today would have put you solidly in the conspiracy corner).

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists.

So far you've posted a few news stories, but very little scientific nor logical contradiction to the many discrepancies in the AGW argument I have raised.

As I posted earlier, the method of your arguments is identical to that which you assert is being used by the Moncktons (Al Gore), McIntyres (Hansen), and Watts (Trebarth) of the AGW movement: IPCC, peer review, and Look! Its getting warmer!

Unfortunately these arguments all boil down to (as follows):

IPCC (appeal to [false] authority): I've already posted many examples of both IPCC misrepresentation of its contributors as well as slanting of its conclusions

peer review (appeal to anonymous authority): again, numerous examples of peer reviewed papers which contradict AGW core assumptions

Look! Its getting warmer (also polar bears, sea levels, hurricanes, etc etc): Confusing correlation with causation

I have yet to hear why there could be an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm.

I have yet to hear why there was global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred.

I have yet to hear why there is now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility.

I have yet to hear why temperatures 10000 years ago were 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 - and why it is different this time.

I have yet to hear why a climate model can predict 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, but cannot predict behavior 2 years into the future. For that matter, cannot model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency.

I have yet to hear why $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years is more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government.

So you can continue to attack the sources of these questions (ad hominem), but from my view your failure to address these questions points to a religious conviction and not a scientific one.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks Jimmy, (and ggirod). I think the science for AGM is fairly solid and the downside for ignoring it, catastrophic. C1ue and to a lesser extent, others on iTulip, have a contrary view but they draw from people like Monckton, Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, (a jounalist, business person and weather man), who sit on the scientific sidelines yelling obscenities at trained, published, peer reviewed scientists. While I try to be civil, I dispise these mouth pieces for the denier right. The science is not perfect but it's robust and climate scientists will get the details worked out.

Nice try Santafe2 but you are wasting your time. You try to discuss science with the denialists and they talk fox news, misinformation, and out of context accusations from crazy web sites. They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.

It really is like trying to convince UFO believers that there is no evidence of their claims. No matter how many fuzzy pictures you prove are fake, they'll always come up with another for you to disprove. If you ask them to have a scientific discussion with verifiable evidence, and a testable, well reasoned hypothesis, they come up with another fuzzy picture.

You tried to make a moral argument that following the unsuported claims of the denialists could be catastrophic to many people throughout the world, while fixing the problem is doable and affordable, but the denialists have shown that not raising their taxes takes priority over their childrens future.

The readers of this thread have to decide for themselves, are they going to follow the science that has led to the technical civilization that makes life possible for many people alive today, or are they going to live their lives based on fuzzy pictures of UFO's.

[Master Shake]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

So you can continue to attack the sources of these questions (ad hominem), but from my view your failure to address these questions points to a religious conviction and not a scientific one.

Michael Crichton: Environmentalism as Religion

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...aseligion.html

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Nice try Santafe2 but you are wasting your time. You try to discuss science with the denialists and they talk fox news, misinformation, and out of context accusations from crazy web sites. They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.

It really is like trying to convince UFO believers that there is no evidence of their claims. No matter how many fuzzy pictures you prove are fake, they'll always come up with another for you to disprove. If you ask them to have a scientific discussion with verifiable evidence, and a testable, well reasoned hypothesis, they come up with another fuzzy picture.

You tried to make a moral argument that following the unsuported claims of the denialists could be catastrophic to many people throughout the world, while fixing the problem is doable and affordable, but the denialists have shown that not raising their taxes takes priority over their childrens future.

The readers of this thread have to decide for themselves, are they going to follow the science that has led to the technical civilization that makes life possible for many people alive today, or are they going to live their lives based on fuzzy pictures of UFO's.

Let me make it simple for the Hansen bunch at NOAA, Greenpeace, BBC, Al Gore, and the others who believe in man-made global warming: WHY ARE THE ATOLLS AROUND THE WORLD ALL STILL ABOVE SEA-LEVEL AND REMAINING HIGH AND DRY?

As the carbon rises in the atmosphere, the atolls are still rather unchanged. Why is that?

The AGW bunch proclaimed that CO2 leads to AGW, and AGW leads to de-glaciation, and de-glaciation leads to rising sea-levels. SO, SHOW ME THE ATOLLS BEING FLOODED AND DISAPPEARING FROM THE MAP OF THE WORLD? .... My mind is open. Start with Sand Islet at Midway or French Frigate Shoals: show me the new flooding caused by mankind since WWII. ( We have pictures of these atolls dating back to WWII. )

SHOW ME THE FLOODING, at least above the baseline rate of 6 or 7 inches per century which has occurred since the end of the Ice Age, 10,000 years ago.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

They simply can't provide a single piece of scientific evidence, nor a single article in a respected peer reviewed journal to support their claims, or that would counter the mountains of data and overwhelming informed consensus of man-made global warming.

I've provided many 'peer reviewed' articles which contradict key AGW assertions, but apparently you still choose to speak in incorrect generalized terms.

As for the overwhelming informed consensus - how many of this consensus make a living from the $70B+ overall and $5B+/2009 funding from the US federal government? From the UN? From other governments? What about the many AMS/ACS examples who clearly are not in the consensus? The 31000 signatories to http://www.oism.org/pproject/?

This assertion stated by santafe2 and the toast'd one has yet to be demonstrated outside of IPCC, IPCC, IPCC.

More importantly, the AGW faithful continue to display tactics completely at odds with the concept of scientific inquiry and objectivity.

An example:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...nd-update.html

Note how even an assertion that AGW is not yet proven is considered an attack on the Holy Gospel - leading Trenberth (an IPCC lead author) to publish in a newspaper comments on how the peer reviewed article (In the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society for something involving hurricanes) should be withdrawn and is shameful.

And that a subsequent attempt to openly discuss the objections raised have been ignored.

The implication is clear: We (AGW) are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Much like the attitude the toast'd one and others also assert.

The "Shameful Article": A Review and Update

[ATTACH]2341[/ATTACH]

As the world continues to suffer a "depression" in global tropical cyclone activity with activity at 30-year lows, and hurricane forecasters try to keep busy while watching the listless Atlantic, I thought that for those who haven't been reading this blog for the past 5 years (which I assume is most everyone;-) it would be worth reviewing a bit of the history of the science on hurricanes and global warming, and how that science was ignored by the IPCC.

In 2004 and 2005 (before Katrina), I led an interdisciplinary effort to review the literature on hurricanes and global warming. The effort resulted in a peer-reviewed article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (here in PDF). Upon its acceptance Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at NCAR here at Boulder and the person in charge of the 2007 IPCC AR4 chapter that reviewed extreme events including hurricanes, said this in the Boulder Daily Camera (emphasis added) about our article:

I think the role of the changing climate is greatly underestimated by Roger Pielke Jr. I think he should withdraw this article. This is a shameful article.

Here is what the "shameful article" concluded:

To summarize, claims of linkages between global warming and hurricane impacts are premature for three reasons. First, no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes . . . Second, the peer-reviewed literature reflects that a scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability . . . And third, under the assumptions of the IPCC, expected future damages to society of its projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes are dwarfed by the influence of its own projections of growing wealth and population . . . While future research or experience may yet overturn these conclusions, the state of the peer-reviewed knowledge today is such that there are good reasons to expect that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or their impacts will not be made in the near term.

When Trenberth called the article shameful I responded on Prometheus with this comment:

Upon reading Kevin’s strong statements in the press a few weeks ago, I emailed him to ask where specifically he disagreed with our paper and I received no response; apparently he prefers to discuss this issue only through the media. So I’ll again extend an invitation to Kevin to respond substantively, rather than simply call our paper ’shameful’ and ask for its withdrawal (and I suppose implicitly faulting the peer review process at BAMS): Please identify what statements we made in our paper you disagree with and the scientific basis for your disagreement. If you’d prefer not to respond here, I will eagerly look forward to a letter to BAMS in response to our paper.

Climate change is a big deal. We in the scientific community owe it to the public and policy makers to be open about our debates on science and policy issues. We’ve offered a peer-reviewed, integrative perspective on hurricanes and global warming. I hold those with different perspectives in high regard — such diversity makes science strong. But at a minimum it seems only fair to ask those who say publicly that they disagree with our perspective to explain the basis for their disagreement, instead of offering up only incendiary rhetoric for the media. Given that Kevin is the IPCC lead author responsible for evaluating our paper in the context of the IPCC, such transparency of perspective seems particularly appropriate.

Not surprisingly the IPCC chapter that Trenberth led for the IPCC made no mention of our article, despite it being peer reviewed and being the most recently published review of this topic prior to the IPCC publication deadline (the relevant IPCC chapter is here in PDF). Even though the IPCC didn't see the paper as worth discussing, a high-profile team of scientists saw fit to write up a commentary in response to our article in BAMS (here in PDF) . One of those high-profile scientists was Trenberth. Trenberth and his colleagues argued that our article was flawed in three respects, it was,

. . . incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits any mention of several of the most important aspects of the potential relationships between hurricanes and global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts; and 3) does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.

Our response to their comment (here in PDF) focused on the three points that they raised:

Anthes et al. (2006) present three criticisms of our paper. One criticism is that Pielke et al. (2005) “leaves the impression that there is no significant connection between recent climate change caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics and impacts.” If by “significant” they mean either (a) presence in the peer-reviewed literature or (b) discernible in the observed economic impacts, then this is indeed an accurate reading. Anthes et al. (2006) provide no data, analyses, or references that directly connect observed hurricane characteristics and impacts to anthropogenic climate change. . .

In a second criticism, Anthes et al. (2006) point out (quite accurately) that Pielke et al. (2005) failed to discuss the relationship between global warming and rainfall, sea level, and storm surge as related to tropical cyclones. The explanation for this neglect is simple—there is no documented relationship between global warming and the observed behavior of tropical cyclones (or TC impacts) related to rainfall, sea level, or storm surge. . .

A final criticism by Anthes et al. (2006) is that Pielke et al. (2005) “does not take full account of the significance of recently identified trends and variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to increasing societal vulnerability.” Anthes et al. (2006) make no reference to the literature that seeks to distinguish the relative role of climate factors versus societal factors in causing impacts (e.g., Pielke et al. 2000; Pielke 2005), so their point is unclear. There is simply no evidence, data, or references provided by Anthes et al. (2006) to counter the analysis in Pielke et al. (2000) that calculates the relative sensitivity of future global tropical cyclone impacts to the independent effects of projected climate change and various scenarios of growing societal vulnerability under the assumptions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This series of exchanges was not acknowledged by the IPCC even though it was all peer-reviewed and appeared in the leading journal of the American Meteorological Society. As we have seen before with the IPCC, its review of the literature somehow missed key articles that one of its authors (in this case Trenberth, the lead for the relevant chapter) found to be in conflict with his personal views, or in this case "shameful." Of course, there is a deeper backstory here involving a conflict between my co-author Chris Landsea and Trenberth in early 2005, prompting Landsea to resign from the IPCC.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I have yet to hear why there was global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred.

Necron tried to explain this much earlier on this thread but your response was something about the 'discredited hockey stick'. This, I suppose, is from McIntyre who's a blogosphere entity with no credentials. If that's the one, he's challenging the work of a scientist with his crank-a-riffic junk science. More denier noise.

There is a simple answer to your question above. It's called natural oscillation. The earth will naturally go through warming and cooling cycles. I know you know that and I know you'll try, like all deniers do, to use that to deny AGM. Or maybe you'll call all of the data into question. As I said before, the cigarette companies perfected this approach years ago - doubt is our product.

Here's the graph previously posted as it appears on the GISS site.
WorldMeanTermperature_2008.jpg
Using the 5 year mean temperature we see a warming trend start in 1919. That trend peaks in 1942. Then we see a moderate cooling trend from 1943 through 1966 which retraces less than 40% of the increase measured between 1919 and 1942. Then in 1967 the increase in unrelenting for 40 years.

Is it possible global warming will take another break? Maybe, but the trend is obvious...well to most without an agenda.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I gather that Lord Christopher Monckton's sense of humor does not agree with Mr. Santafe2.

Gathered correctly.