Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[BrentAllen]

Put this in your intellectual pipe and smoke it.

 

[GaHillBilly]

Well, Beavuh, it's nice to know where you stand:

 

" But outside of the urban slums, yeh don't quite see the same tone of anti-intellectual culture that seems to be da stock of the old south. "

 

My Southern accent doesn't always show, and the last time someone said something like that to me, he was assuming that I was also a Yankee refugee, stranded in the land of Dixie. I let him wax on fulsomely, in the same manner as you were, before I dropped the hammer on him.

 

Your faith in those with higher degrees is rather touching. Does that faith include Yale's Pete Singer, who takes the implications of a purely mechanical universe a bit closer to their logical conclusion? What about the atheist . . . Wiccan . . . feminist . . . post-modern English teacher with PhD who tried to teach my son a thing or two about logic? Or all the PhD mathematicians who laid the ground work for your beloved "credit default swaps" and other bizarre financial instruments that played such an important role in our current economic meltdown.

 

I think the facts warrant the conclusion that education can give ideas power. But, as any good Southerner knows, power is like a gun, and the effect depends on where you are aiming when you pull the trigger. Much of what is worst about our society right know comes from those most educated . . . because of where they aimed.

 

Education, like money or strength, increases a man's power. It does not increase his goodness.

 

Oh, and don't you think it's about time that a man with "few degrees above undergraduate" drop the faux 'dumb slob' dialect? I realize that you're able to pull the wool over the eyes of us poor dumb slobs from the South. But don't you worry that some of your fellow Yankees will think you are a poser?

 

 

GaHillBilly

[HICO_Eagle]

Global Warming, maybe. Anthropogenic? No. Biggest scientific hoax of all time -- exceeding Piltdown Man at this point. I say this looking at it as a pure matter of physics, the specious computer modeling done by the AGW proponents (I've never seen any other discipline so willing to make extreme projections based on computer models sensitive to 1 percent variations when the input data is only known to within 5 percent), rampant fraud in the way they have "homogeneized" and cherry picked data worldwide (look at Briffa's selective use of 12 data sets of Yamal tree rings while ignoring 200 more appropriate data sets, CRU's selective preference for Russian temperature sets that show warming, unexplained massive "adjustments" made to historical data from stations worldwide starting approx Sep 2007 which increase or create a warming slope for the past 50-100 years, etc.).

 

As a pure matter of physics, the amount of energy contained in solar storms impacting the Earth and the gaseous content in volcanic eruptions simply overwhelm manmade sources by orders of magnitude. Physics usually also requires concrete theories with at least a modicum of evidence for a causal mechanism. Allegations based purely on statistical linkage are normally only accepted in the "soft" sciences and even then the soft sciences don't usually ignore things like trying to use proxies which fail to approximate the most recent and reliable 40 years of measurements.

 

The documents are more revealing about the "science" than the e-mail but the e-mails themselves show a shocking perversion of the peer review process and communal willingness to hide or distort data, analysis, even their own concerns about each others' papers (see Briffa's comments in 1998) in pursuit of the politically desired goals. I see Merlyn is doing exactly what Schneider hoped for which is jump into a numbers game without any regard for the population of those numbers (a large number of the "thousands" of "scientists" cited by Al Gore weren't even involved in physics or chemistry or geology at all much less in climate research).

 

I was relatively agnostic 20 years ago, perhaps mildly skeptical but open minded. What I have seen over the last 20 years -- even more so the last 2 months -- has shifted me to being extremely skeptical. If I had done what Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wigley, et al have done, I'd have been failed out my classes and program -- and deservedly so. I still support continued research in this area because Real Science is never a bad thing -- but AGW to date hasn't been Real Science.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

I see Merlyn is doing exactly what Schneider hoped for which is jump into a numbers game without any regard for the population of those numbers

 

People like you who claim it's an actual "hoax" are claiming that, literally, thousands of scientists all over the world are part of a conspiracy.

 

By the way, what degrees do you have related to climatology/weather/meteorology?

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn, I'm not sure if you read and understand what HICO wrote.

 

But, I've noted that few here seem to have any idea what any of the following are:

+ proxy measurements

+ order of magnitude

+ statistical linkage

etc.

 

These are all concepts that are critically germane to the debate about AGW and the CRU. Whether HICO is right or wrong, he shows considerable evidence of understanding key concepts in the debate.

 

Can YOU explain why the dependence of the ANY complex model on "proxy measurements" as a primary data input raises serious doubt about the validity of the model?

 

If you can't . . . you really don't understand one of the core issues.

 

GaHillBilly

[BrentAllen]

I am a skepticGlobal warming has become a new religion. - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

 

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

 

Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

 

The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists, - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

 

The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

 

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

 

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

 

After reading [uN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet. - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

 

For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

 

Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

 

Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

 

Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsenseThe present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

 

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another.Every scientist knows this, but it doesnt pay to say soGlobal warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and developing nations walking barefoot. - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

 

The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

 

Science by consensus? Yeah, right.

[Beavah]

The REAL intellectual elites think YOU are just as much of a dumb-bumpkin, anti-intellectual idiot as you think us Southerners are. Why? Because you believe in a supernatural being. Anyone with a REAL brain wouldn't believe in such nonsense. So, how do those shoes fit?

 

Oh, yah, they fit just fine, eh?

 

Most of da liberal academic folks I know think I'm a barely tolerable reactionary old fart. I reckon I earn "barely tolerable" just as a virtue of age and profession, in a roll-their-eyes sort of way.

 

Trust me, I pick on 'em mercilessly. I'm an equal-opportunity critic! And they even foam at the mouth better than southerners. Southerners often have their head screwed on better when it comes to commitment and family, and liberals just hate it when I tell 'em to stop worrying about poverty in Africa when their neighbors could use a hand.

 

Culture is a real thing, though, eh? There is an urban culture, and it causes some attitudes and actions which leave people in welfare and poverty when they could do better. There is a sort of east-coast elitist culture, and there is a sort of southern anti-intellectual thing, and a kind of northern midwest rural thing. And of course there's Texans!

 

What's wrong is to pigeon-hole or discriminate against individuals in any way, and that's not what I mean to be doin'. But I reckon its important to acknowledge cultural influences, since sometimes we have to fight 'em.

 

I think yeh have to take a look at that trend in da southern states, which shows up so strongly in your really low graduation rates. Why is that goin' on? We know you're not dumber than the rest of us, so what is it about the attitudes that folks are encouragin' in their kids that leads 'em not to value education? That's a pretty scary thing, since da job market ain't goin' to be kind to 'em, when they're competing against Asians and Indians who are hungry for work and willing to go great-guns for an education to improve themselves.

 

Maybe your example to 'em is that everybody's opinion is equally valid, so yeh don't need to get an education. "I know as much as any climate scientist, who are they to tell me what's happening!" Might not be what's intended, but sometimes our example speaks da loudest.

 

Beavah

 

[HICO_Eagle]

I won't go into too much detail because I'm a privacy nut but I have degrees and years of experience in "hard" science and engineering. My CV isn't germane here -- my points are either factual and cogent (they are) or you can offer a sound reasoned rebuttal (you haven't yet). Just don't try to argue science with the equivalent of trying to pit the NYC phone book on a balance scale against A Brief History of Time or Halliday & Resnick.

 

Most real scientists and engineers know it's dangerous to step outside their domains of expertise. Schneider and Gore didn't care about that -- you don't seem to either. It doesn't take a conspiracy of thousands either -- when you do the data traces, you find most of the AGW tree ring and temperature slope data coming from a handful of sources. Worse, you find those sources won't tell you which data sets they use, how they selected them, how they processed them, etc. Professional statisticians have managed to recreate the results of Briffa, Jones, Mann et al but only with very selective cherry picking of data that supported a predetermined AGW scenario and dubious application of standard statistical techniques.

 

GISS hasn't or won't explain the "homogenization" begun in 2007 which altered the temperature records for 1900-1950 to lower temps (and conveniently get rid of the ca. 1930 warmth) and increase temps for 1950 onward which increased the slope or actually CREATED a warming trend for the 20th century. There are numerous overlays available on the web showing station data captured prior to 2007 and the "same" station data from GISS or GHCN after the "homogenization".

 

Briffa himself expressed TEN YEARS AGO most of the doubts voiced by skeptics now -- then agreed to keep quiet about his doubts so as not to weaken the AGW argument. Probably the biggest problem AGW proponents have here is that skeptics like McIntyre or Spencer or Watt post their data and processes up for everyone to see and poke at -- peer review on steroids -- while Mann, Jones, Briffa et al have relied on a small incestuous cabal to "review" friendly papers and kill skeptical papers. They won't release data or processes even under FOIA request when the government has paid for that data or code. That's not Science -- but go ahead and argue that it is, I'll enjoy the show.

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

Keep diggin', that hole only gets deeper.

 

There are lots of variables regarding high school graduation rates (though probably not as many as there are re: the climate). I suggest reading http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm .

 

Please tell me how the high school graduation rate affects my opinion (or GHB's) on AGW just because we are from Georgia. Last time I checked, we had some of the top institutions of higher learning located here (Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory). I had a lot of fraternity brothers at Tech from the northeast. They could have gone to MIT but chose GT, instead. But, alas, none of this matters; your prejudices are set.

[BrentAllen]

More lunacy from the liberals...

 

Hey Eamonn, get ready to eat your dog.

 

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

 

But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.

 

But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.

 

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

***************************************************************

 

OK, all you AGW believers - let's hear the recipes you are using to cook up ol' Spot or Garfield. This is your chance to save the planet! I'm sure we will see Al Gore leading on this, just as he does with the rest of his lifestyle.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_eagle, you haven't presented anything showing an actual "hoax." If you want to discuss some of the science, what's you view about carbon dioxide levels? Or are they a hoax too?

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn, instead of endlessly sniping, why don't you explain what proxy measurements are, why they are germane to discussions of AGW, and how they add to the uncertainty of any predictions or models which rest on them.

 

Do so in a factual way, and you'll not only demonstrate that you have a clue (as opposed to a bad case of Gore-worship), AND you'll help a lot of people here on both sides who don't understand what proxy measurements are or why they are an issue.

 

Beavuh, if Murh-lun ducks da kwest-shun, perhaps ya can fill en for him, since ya got all dose advance duhgrees and all.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

GHB, you grow up in Chicago?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle, instead of sniping, how about something fairly directly measurable like carbon dioxide levels? Or are they part of a hoax, too?

[GaHillBilly]

Merlyn, you really don't get it, do you?

 

CO2 levels may, or may not have changed. I gather that they have been measured recently (over the past 40 years) and have increased. Before that, it's my understanding that CO2 was not measured directly. So, you have short period with relatively accurate atmospheric CO2 measurements, and much, much longer period over which they were estimated in a variety of ways, the accuracy and reliability of which is being questioned.

 

Beyond that, the integrity of the data regarding BOTH CO2 and temperature measurements is seriously in doubt, due to the recent CRU email release.

 

But . . . even that doesn't begin to address the scope of the problem.

 

There is NO proof that CO2 levels have significant effect on global temperatures. Even under best case scenarios, the best that can be achieved is highly significant correlation. Proof would require a scope of experimentation that is not possible.

 

But, we don't have highly significant correlation . . . which is why the CRU guys felt the need to 'improve' the 'normalized' data. We have somewhat significant correlation.

 

But, even highly significant correlation does not establish causation.

 

So . . . even if we could all agree on what the CO2 levels were over, say, the last 2000 years (which would include the warm Roman period, the Little Ice Age, and other historically verified temperature excursions), the dispute would be far from over.

 

Everyone seems to forget that 15 or 20 years ago we were being told that weather was a 'fractal' or was a "chaotic phenomenon" that exhibited "sensitive dependence on initial conditions". The colloquial expression of this was the term, "the butterfly effect". More recently, there was even a bad Ashton Kutcher movie made with that as the title.

 

So far as I know, those claims that weather and climate are chaotic (in the mathematical sense) have not been repudiated or discredited. But, if climate is chaotic, then even if you have ALL the data for the past 2000 years, accurate to the nearest 0.001%, you STILL would not be able to predict climate change because of that little issue of "sensitive dependence on initial conditions".

 

 

GaHillBilly