Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[vol_scouter]

Beevah,

 

I am surprised that you consider people who do not believe in AGW to be 'hacksters'. There are legitimate climate scientists from Ivy league schools and other major American universities as well as major foreign universities that do not believe in AGW. PCA is one of many techniques to analyze multivariate problems though not necessarily the best in nonlinear systems (the climate is extremely nonlinear). There are all of the elements of a major hoax at this time. If the left allows an investigation, the question of a hoax may be answered. AGW is at best a belief and at worst a fraud. That does not mean that the country would not be best served to move toward energy independence - something that republican and democrat presidents have long promised but done little to accomplish. A reasonable program to decrease greenhouse gases makes sense if it does not wreck economies.

[BrentAllen]

pack,

Sorry about the Kool-aid/Flavor Aid. I'll try to remember.

 

This whole AGW subject remindes me of the "esteemed" Emory History Professor Michael Bellesiles and his Bancroft Award (from the esteemed Columbia University) winning book, Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture. When challenged on the data, he couldn't produce it (it burned in a court house fire that happened at the wrong time, his office flooded, his dog ate it, etc.). This is what happens when the outcome is determined before the investigation begins.

 

These AGW scientists sure are hiding a lot of data, and deleting an awful lot of email, considering "the science is settled."

[HICO_Eagle]

Beavah, I'm the one you apparently quoted and I don't believe I said anything about your ability to understand the science. In fact, the reason put the list up (including sources for the AGW proponents) was so you and others could read and judge for yourselves. However, I reject the charge that they are all bogus sources, bloggers and partisan hacksites. Spencer, Singer, Lindzen, Pielke (both), etc. are legitimate scientists. Watts is a professional meteorologist. I gather McIntyre is not a physicist but he IS an engineer and statistician -- and his beef isn't with the physics but with the way Mann, Jones and Briffa handle data. In fact, if you read Pielke Jr's website, he apparently thinks there probably are manmade effects on the climate but he objects to the way Mann et al are activists and pushing policy based on science with a lot more uncertainty than they're admitting to.

 

I inherently have more trust in scientists and analysts that put everything forward for others to replicate, comment and judge than those who try to hide it. Pons and Fleischman ended up eating some crow but they didn't try to hide data the way Mann/Briffa/Jones seem to have done. There's a reason NATURE's policy requires all data be available for replication of results before publishing papers (apparently a policy that was violated for one of the AGW proponents -- details are in the American Thinker article).

 

One of the big problems with Jones, Mann and Briffa is that they have NOT -- have in fact even discussed how to evade FOIA requests for their data and processing methods. Other statisticians have attempted to replicate their results and only been able to do so with some very spurious methods; they could always respond "that's not how I did it, I did this ..." but they haven't.

 

Hansen claims to have posted all his code but has a very lengthy defense on why he cut off free access to the raw data and is only releasing processed data slowly. I note that CRU is starting to release some of its data now although it appears to be difficult to determine which data has been adjusted and which is raw. The typical defense seems to be "we're just overwhelmed right now and this stuff is so easy to take out of context that we're reviewing it before we post anything." That is far more representative of political spin than the science I've grown up with -- I was always taught to put everything out there so you can have a free and open discussion about the data and analysis. If someone points out holes, you fix them and end up with a better product -- if they're wrong, the greater community will point that out. Spencer, Singer and McIntyre (among others) practice this way; Jones, Mann, Schmidt et al have not.

 

I do read RealClimate and some of the other pro-AGW sites but they strike me as more partisan hacksites than Climate Audit or Watts Up With That if you get past the comments. Climate Audit at least puts up links to websites in both camps including RealClimate, Revkin's dot Earth, Connolley and Tamino. Jeff Id at The Air Vent is a bit more strident but he does put up more "facts" (as opposed to allegations or character assassinations) than Schmidt at Real Climate.

 

Let's face it, a lot of the comments on any site are posted by some very emotional people. The difference is that the primary posters at Climate Audit or Watts Up With That ask legitimate questions about data, put forward analyses of data, etc. while Schmidt and the posters at RealClimate will get huffy or put up a strawman or red herring argument. I'd almost think Schmidt was trying to be funny with the "trust me, I'm a scientist" bit (was it Dan Akroyd or Bill Murray in Ghostbusters?) or the way he relies on someone like Ben Santer as "an independent view".

 

I also note Mann wrote an editorial in the Washington Post. I'll refrain from editorial comment on his essay but read it yourself along with the pertinent emails. Hansen also posted an essay called "The Temperature of Science" -- I personally found it unpersuasive after watching him for the past 20 years but YMMV.

 

Anyway, as I said, read it all for yourself. I purposely put out subjects and sources people could search out themselves so they can judge for themselves. I think most of us on this thread are fairly intelligent and willing to form opinions based on sound rational thought and have tried to act accordingly. I try very hard not to use terms like "alarmist" or "denier", opting for "proponent" or "skeptic" instead.

[packsaddle]

Vol, I wish people would not use the phrase, "believe in" with respect to scientific matters. I am not even certain what it means outside some kind of religious context. It seems to connote a matter of some kind of faith. It is unscientific. You will not find it in scientific journals. You will not hear it at science seminars and symposiums.

Sorry for the tirade but I guess I've read it just too often.

 

Edit: Brent, no problem. It just keeps coming up as Kool Aid and I keep trying to get it right. I know I'm paddling upstream.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[vol_scouter]

Pack,

 

I use believe in because at this time AGW is more a belief than scientific fact. The error bars on the data are sometimes larger than the effect being postulated. So those that say AGW is settled are believers. If they were truly scientists, they would say that their model predicts increasing temperatures as the CO2 level rises AND that their model has many limitations. They do not readily admit that all models have flaws and are especially bad for making long range projections. Instead, the AGW proponents are saying that their models are reality and that certain actions should be taken or otherwise there will be serious problems in the next several decades. So weather models which are not accurate for more than a few days are now accurate for decades? To make such statements is to be a believer because there does not exist enough hard evidence for a good scientist to make such claims. String theory likely explains our universe. To date, there are no experiments that have been conceived that directly test string theory. I am a scientist when I say that there is a good theoretical foundation for string theory to be correct. If I say that string theory explains our universe, I am a believer instead.

[BrentAllen]

First, they want us to eat our pets. Now, Build-A-Bear gets smacked down for trying to scare kids with AGW horror stories.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/23/christmas-back-on-build-a-bear-surrenders-and-pulls-alarmist-videos/

 

From the Build-A-Bear online Christmas video:

 

Girl Elf: Santa, its gone!

 

Papa Elf: Its gone, Its gone!

 

Santa: Whats gone?

 

Girl Elf: Tell em, Dad!

 

Papa Elf: The North Peak.

 

Santa: A mountain? A mountains gone? How is that possible?

 

Ella the polar bear: Santa, sir, thats why Im here. Thats why were here. The ice is melting!

 

Santa: Yes, my dear, we know, the climate is changing. Theres bound to be a little melting.

 

Ella: Its worse than that, Santa, a lot worse! At the rate its melting, the North Pole will be gone by Christmas!

 

Santa: My, myall of this gone by next Christmas? I dont think so.

 

Ella: No sir, not next Christmas, this Christmas! The day after tomorrow!

 

After this made the news (not the liberal MSM, just more "partisan blog hacksters", right Beavah?) it spread quickly and boycotts were announced. Build-A-Bear CEO and founder Maxine Clark couldn't understand why, but knew bad publicity when she saw it - the vidoes were pulled and she issued a letter. They didn't mean to scare the kids, they just wanted them to be inspired to "make a difference in their own individual ways."

 

Isn't that special.

[vol_scouter]

After Brent's post, here from www.drudgereport.com:

 

 

Minnesota braces for 'snowiest Christmas in 30 years'...

 

Winter freeze kills 79 in Poland...

 

Plummeting temps, snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan...

 

[HICO_Eagle]

vol_scouter --

 

While all that is true and it's sometimes fun to ask "who stole my global warming" when it's subzero out there, I would exercise the same caution about short-term cooling effects as about short-term warming effects. As one climatologist said, "The last 40 years? That's weather. The last 40 centuries? That's climate."

[vol_scouter]

HICO_Eagle,

 

I absolutely agree. The cooler fall that the northern clime is experiencing does not imply anything. I just find a certain amount of humor in the climate talks having a snowstorm and Obama returning to DC to one of the worst snowstorms in decades. Certainly a bad winter does not negate AGW. However, one of the predictions of the models was that the hurricanes in the Caribbean this past year would be larger and more numerous than in prior years while in fact it was just the opposite. The AGW model does not predict a downturn in temperatures as is currently being seen. So those are 2 failures of the model which does not negate the model but it does demonstrate that the model is incomplete or incorrect.

[BadenP]

vol scouter

 

While you seem to possess a good scientific background, I think what all this comes down to is that even the scientists don't know the answer. An Hypothesis is nothing more than an educated guess which until it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by empirical evidence remains nothing more than just a guess. Scientists are not gods, are not infallible, and are wrong more often than not. Who knows maybe the ancient Mayans got it right and in 2012 the world as we know it will end.

[vol_scouter]

BadenP,

 

Your observations are what several of us have been trying to make others understand. Wrecking economies over any consensus of scientific opinion is risky at best and foolish at worst. Consensus refers to what most believe and may have little to do with scientific truth. Those who wish to wreck western economies based on AGW are being foolish especially in light of evidence pointing to a hoax. To make reasonable adjustments in fossil fuels use is beneficial for many reasons and should be encouraged.

[packsaddle]

vol_scouter,

1) What ARE those reasonable adjustments to the use of fossil fuels?

2) Why do you think they are needed?

3) How would you implement them?

4) What makes you think the adjustments would accomplish whatever goal it is you think makes them needed?

[WAKWIB]

Have been enjoying this discussion for the most part. Learning a few things here and there.

My current views on climate change are a bit skewed at the moment, as it appears that part of the polar ice-cap has taken wing and landed in Kansas City.

♫ oh the weather outside is frightful...!! ♫

[HiLo]

Yes WAKWIB, we've even heard about your new climate on the news in Australia! Hope you're keeping warm and safe.

 

But I'm glad you used the term "climate change" rather than AGW. It was over 30 years ago that I first heard theories on major changes in global climate starting to happen, when I worked at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. The consensus even then was that, overall, there would be an increase in temperature globally, but locally, what most people would see was much greater extremes (hot, cold, and wind) than had been experienced in the previous 50 years.

 

Whether these changes are human induced was controversial even then, with peoples' views, sadly, seeming too often to align with their political views.

 

My own view is that it's obvious humans have an impact on the environment in many obvious ways. The deniers need to convince me it's not enough to have an impact on climate.

[WAKWIB]

HiLo, Actually, heavy snowfalls here in Missouri are not that strange. But over the last few years we have had fairly mild winters with not so much snow and ice. When I was a little kid it seemed like there was more snow on the ground for the entire winter.

In my opinion, climate change is a natural, cyclical process. The world's vast oceans are the primary weather engines. Humans only occupy a relatively small portion of the earth's surface and I do think that the general pollution controls we have employed over the last 30 years or so have greatly reduced the amount of junk we throw into the atmosphere. Continuing to make fossil fuel consumption a cleaner operation will be a help and should be a mandatory goal. Sometimes I get the feeling that the super hyper-AGW folks think the world would be a better place without humans. It also seems to me that the United States is styled as the chief villian, and somehow we need to pay a penalty for having a very successful country compared to many others. I happened to catch a clip of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela speaking in Copenhagen and the gist of the speech was largely "Capitalism Bad, Socialism Good", and if Capitalism would just die and go away the climate would be healed. I tend to think that the discussion of climate change (at least at conferences like Kyoto, Copenhagen etc) is very much infused with political and philosophical rhetoric which obscures whatever science that either supports or undermines the theory of AGW.