A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
I’m sorry gentlemen but I read both articles carefully and it seems that you are the ones guilty of cherry picking.Fortunately we can go to a place like Anthony Watts web site for 10x the amount of information which you supply and 10x the readership!
[Response: Congratulations on being first, and in spectacular fashion!--Jim]
They (‘The Moneyed Class’, that is; some of them, at least) simply don’t have the Courage to make the Changes Necessary; they don’t want to make ‘risky investments’ – they might LOOSE IT ALL, you know! – to convert our old ways of making a kw/h to the new ways of doing so that we so need to be advancing upon the course of, right now; so they pay men to whisper sweet nothings in their ears – and Nero Fiddles once more, though the Burning of Rome commenses apace, once more.
We all know what a boon to the economy it would be – a Total Conversion; all of the Contracts, the Jobs created to fulfill them – the end of our need to ‘save energy’, because it’d become so ‘clean’ that we can have Big Air Conditioners, and Cars with Giant Tail Fins and Chrome Pipe Organ front bumpers once again.
I mean, if it runs off of a totaly clean, fully renewable energy source – why not?
Just the fact that such Cars would be So COOL that everyone would want one….!!!!
It could do an Ailing U.S. Economy some Good!
We have both an ‘oil’ and a ‘usury’ needle stuck in our collective veins – and there poisoning us.
And, NO, it’s not Barack Obamas fault – it’s George W Bushs.
All this brainpower, time and effort to refute an article in Forbes? The desperation of the “Team” is palpable.
Not until harry read me file is investigated.
Where’s the original data?
It’s not good to whitewash foia requests.
Twenty-seven comments and none of them critical.
Why is that?
Just checking in on the bunker. Your numbers seem to be dwindling.
The ultimate motivation for all of this unpaid work is curiosity, so it makes sense to allocate funds in the way most likely to advance the field. In an ideal world this not only satisfies curiosity, but is most likely to open new avenues for the growth of the field. I agree with Ladbury’s statement money, money,money to prove what the secular climate preist want, growth of there alarmist agenda, Fossil fuels my ass.
Only a fool would believe that most people being paid to do in-depth scientific research to determine the extent of ‘Problem X’ would report that ‘Problem X’ is actually no problem at all and thus end their employment. In private enterprise there is only so much money to fund fraudulent ‘sandbox’ activities going on within their organization. In government there is no such limit and, making the problem even worse, the alternatives of making an equivalent salary in the private sector is nil thus increasing the impetus to lie, deceive and manipulate. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf
The true solution to ‘man made global warming’ is to stop the self perpetuating funding of the people employed to study it.
Over $32 billion in direct government climate research funding says I’m right.
Lots of money in climate science. Billions of dollars and perks. Most science has these issues at heart. No matter how legitimate or not.
Oh and here is the evidence for excessive funding in climate research:
Tobis and Mandia et al., seek to divert attention from the reality that there is in fact NO empirical evidence connecting the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gasses with the warming that has occurred (but which has ceased this century), if there was any we would have all heard about it by now ad infinitum.
Melting ice, rising ocean and atmospheric temperatures etc., are good evidence that warming has occurred but do not point to the cause.
Circumstantial evidence of this type may be caused by a range of natural factors, including some key ones which are not even included in the IPCC models. The IPCC has not been charged with investigating any other possibility including the natural ones that have always caused the ever varying climate that characterizes our planet.
The hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the principle cause has been comprehensively disproven.
To selectively ignore the readily available evidence in this way is a gross dereliction and abuse of the scientific method.
M. Joyce says, “Arguing religion is always a pointless endeavor so it is indeed frustrating that deniers’ positions are ultimately religion based. Remember, it is these people who believe that a deity granted human beings unalienable rights despite the fact that for hundreds if not thousands of years deities granted no such thing. A deity didn’t create the Magna Carta and neither did a deity create the US constitution and bill of rights. It might appear that I digress by bringing up religion in a science blog but I’m not. It is this religious sensibility of deniers that make their acceptance of science so difficult for in faith all things are possible when in fact all things are not”
Proponents of AGW theory would be much better served by not acting as if they are the only ones who understand and care about science. If they did, they’d join religious groups in expressing outrage every time Planned Parenthood or other pro-abortion mouthpiece calls an unborn child (fetus, if you prefer) “a blob of tissue” or tries to prevent the biology of human prenatal development from being taught in public schools. Interestingly, those “crazy” religious people know human embryology better than most physicians I know. Since most adherents to AGW theory appear to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum (anyway, that’s the impression I get from RC posts), it appears they are only concerned about “science” when it meets their political agenda. At least the science of human fetal development is something we can readily observe and, therefore, shouldn’t be open to anyone’s self-serving interpretation. At this point, we can’t even test AGW theory under controlled conditions in the laboratory.
Gavin, I totally agree. Take Darwin MSLP (1950 – 1996) for example, looks like a decent trend over 45 years (r = .5), Trenberth and Hoar got plenty of attention, but alas, what happens when you add some more data to the short trend?
It’s still positive to 2010, but is it noteworthy (r = .3)? Was it ever important?
Darwin’s MSLP now appears to be going down…. Eventually it will cancel?
Exactly the same will occur for global temperature, because trends over a few decades are meaningless?
Forbes, NYT. Climate Depot, Real Climate all have one thing in common, the readers who agree with them. The only difference with real Climate is if you disagree you will be moderated out. Because Real Climate only has one goal ( much like Jim Jones ) You either belong to the church of James Hanson, work for the US goverment to promote alarmist secular ideas. Take a look at who moderates RC are they real scientist or just diciples of James Hanson and the progressive movement for world wide goverment.. Another comment that will not see the light of day on Real Climate??
GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE (GMT) PATTERN
Here is the plot for the 30-years trend for the GMT:
1) 30-years of slight cooling from 1880 to 1910
2) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C from 1910 to 1940
3) 30-years of slight cooling from 1940 to 1970
4) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C (nearly identical to that 60 years before) from 1970 to 2000
Assuming this pattern that was valid for 120 years is valid for the next 20 years, we can reasonably predict:
5) 30-years of slight cooling from 2000 to 2030
How does the trend since 2000 looks like?
Here it is:
6) GMT trend flat at 0.4 deg C for 10 years!
Because of this GMT pattern, the cause of this pattern seems to be natural, and the effect of human emission of CO2 on the GMT appears to be negligible or non existent.
So, rather than deleting comments that question your “concensus” they now get put in a thread.
Sounds like real climate progress to me.
There is finally something worth reading on this site: The Bore Hole! I might even have to bookmark this website now…wait…no, never mind.
“I completely agree that the situation is out of control” – 157
Quite the contrary. The enemy is well organized very much under control of the message. It is the side representing the science that has no command structure or control of it’s message, or even any organized means of disseminating that message.
Historically science has not had to use publicity agents.
And in this forum we see all manner of opposition including the censorship of those advocating organized opposition to the denialist enemy.
Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware.. Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen
Ray you are making a deliberately false series of claims
Bpl Arrhenius was mistaken
. Tyndal’s work had many errors
There are methodical issues with Platz’s work too
I read weart too bud and the original papers discussing possible warming from green house gases
9 Jan 2011 at 6:11 PM
Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware.. Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen.
Nice try ( bore Hole) 26% increase is a fact for alarmist predictions From HANSON and his puppets.. Publish were it is placed or delete becuse you do not like facts,
With respect to my stance stated previously in this thread, I think you have nailed it. I hope that I am a normal, reasonably intelligent, thinking individual. I have no desire to see my grandchildren suffer because of what mine, and previous generations have done to the planet.
So why does my brain doubt the “consensus”?
I wouldn’t want to try and preach and convert the main contributors on this site to my way of thinking – any more than I would argue the toss with a Bishop or the Pope on the existance of a God. In the end, one would have to argue that the other person is dillusional, wrong-thinking or corrupt – and that is an extremely rude and unwarranted position to take.
The natural cynacism that I have towards the “establishment” is a result of my experience in other cases – where, I now judge, I was being “sold to” rather than being presented with all of the facts – including valid arguments for the opposing view which may, at the very least, have suggested less certainty.
When I only get told the arguments that prove a case – rather than a more pragmatic one that shows the areas of doubt or uncertainty as well – then cynacism is the result.
As an example of this, have a look at the stories going on in the UK about the UK Met Office. As far as I can make out, I am being asked to believe that the Met Office secretly warned HM Government of an impending cold winter – but didn’t tell the public!
This is happening in a background where the Met Office produce the CET graph (which in my humble opion shows nothing). All of the commentary on the site however talks as if the case is made and proven beyond doubt – it even has a section on how to deal with doubters! This qango, taking £150m a year from the UK tax payer, is run by a chap that is, or was, a director of various “green” businesses or organisations that receive income, or profit, as a result of the “consensus” AGW case.
Their short term weather forecasting is excellent. Their seasonal forecasting has been hopeless – to the point where they have stopped issuing them because of the ridicule they subsequently received.
Given the information above, why would I trust their view on the long term affects of AGW?
You said, \I am not being partisan or oppositional here. I examined every point with an open mind and came up with ten points that boil down to complete nonsense and the last one a bit heavy on the spin.\
What is nonsense to you makes perfect sense to others. It is with little wonder why you call yourself \group\. It fits perfectly with \groupthink\ mentality.
I go to this site for comic relief, seriously, I love your stuff, but no for reasons that you like. Keep up the good work with comic relief!
63, eric in response: I think the problem is that you’re conflating what is said in the scientific literature with popular interpretations of it that come across as too broad brushed. But no scientist actually makes claims like ‘global warming is going to ruin the planet’, or ‘threatans humanity’. These are hopelessly vague kinds of statements.
Barton Paul Levenson has forecast the end of human civilization by 2050 due to AGW. Paul Ehrlich has forecast the deaths of extra billions of humans due to starvation caused by AGW. We could if you wished find lots of predictions of extreme disasters due to AGW made by scientists. Most of these are removed from the peer-reviewed literature, but scientists have issued dire warnings in news conferences and Congressional testimony.
Blah, blah, blah.
If the believers in global warming want to be taken as true scientists, they should publish all the raw data, including its primary sources and measurements. Then they should explain how that data is used to build predictive models and the controlled experiments to validate these models?
There is no such thing as settled science, particularly not when controlled experiments are nearly impossible and conclusions are based on questionable statistical analysis.
The world is being asked to spend trillions of dollars of expense and lost economic activity. Projections of (say) seawater levels or mean temperatures a century hence without so much as a standard deviation analysis are junk science. The famous hockey stick is embarrassing to even mention in a scientific argument.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what a vote among self-selected “climatologists” shows. Remember that in science as in politics the standard is trust but verify, with most of the weight on verify.
Hank roberts on youtube check out exploring energy hurricanes where a NASA scientist and hurricane expert doscusses how the top of hurricanes radiate heat to space, form in oceans cause upwelling and thus cool oceans. After 1995 hurricane frequeny has gone down while their average force has gone up
Ray that statement about ifr and heat is not accurate but I can understand your confusion
Is this a joke? Everyone is trading bards, but no one is sure of the facts. If from this rebuttal we are expected to get it (if it is not obvious, I am on the skeptic side, we humans are o so arrogant in our analysis of historical fantasy), then scientific skepticism and method, and even basic logical argument are moot.
The concensus amongst those who argue that the current system is working seems to be that if its bad science it will be dismissed in review and not get funded, but once funded and especially once published then it must be justifiable as “science that needed to be done”. This is fraught with difficulties as it leaves the relative allocation of funds for the various sub-disiplines firmly in the hands of politicians.
With resources always scarce, you need to be more critical of where those resources go. By creatively inventing new subject areas politicans and scientist who lobby them can significanly dilute the effort in real science.
Anne oceans are huge heat reservoirs. Water has a high heat capacity. Water covers the majority of the planet’s surface. Hurricanes form on bodies of water. Hurricanes cool oceans through upwelling and expel heat/IFR to space. Excess heat is dissipated by hurricanes. Cloud formation not only acts as a positive feedback but as negative feedbacks as well. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. Heat/IFR leads to cooling processes too and not just warming, thus, as heat goes to the cooler body not only are bodies emitting heat and cooling but colder weather is also created. Hurricanes are but one natural system that cools the planet.
Ray Ladbury all you have to do is look in the mirror…
Maya @ 201,
You clearly do not understand science as you showed with your statement: “Well, part of your premise is faulty, as I stated above. And, you make this statement as if 1) the warming in the next century is expected to be the same as the warming of the past century (it isn’t), and 2) that the damage is only additive (it does not appear so to me, but if you think so, please provide evidence).” If AGW is not yet proven (and it is not), and it is proposed as a hypothesis, then it is up to the proposers of the hypothesis to support the claim, not for the people that disagree to prove it is not valid. Also, I agree that the warming of the last century will not be the same as the last. It will more likely be a period of mainly cooling. However, this is only my “guess” (based on the present downward trend, and the fact that we are likely on the down slope of the Holocene), not a hypothesis, and has as much or more validity as AGW.
Now this is a serious global warming comment or question.
One Mr Svante Arrhenius said in 1896 that (quote from Wikipedia & his paper) if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
This simplified expression is still used today:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
(end of quote)
So when I do an experiment on a nightly basis I find that every night, the temperature goes dDOWN inspite of all the CO2 that man has added that day & the IPCC & Arrhenius mantra that that more GHGz means more warming. Since the sun or number of photons is common to both the temperature and the grenhouse effect how can they be dirrent signs or go in different directions??
Does this experiment not say that Arrhenius as adopted by RealClimate & IPCC ,that “More GHGs means more warming” is totally absolutely WRONG half the time. Shouldn;t Arrhenius have said (obviously) that “more added energy photons means more warming” Which is obvious since it is the suns photons & Earths rotation that increases and decreases the number of photons which changes the temperature & GHE daily? Doesn’t this mean thst the IPCC Mantra that more GHGs means more warming (AR4, WG1, Ch 1 P116) is wrong. and that we should be trying to track the number of available absorbable IR photons instead of the number of GHGs? Doesn’t this then mean that any computer program model that adds warming just because an GHG is added is wrong” Why not?
Doesn’t this means that the whole NASA/GISS climate model is proven wrong every night? (that should get me banned!!)
There is also the fact that when the humidity doubles or triples when it rains, then the temperature (locally ) does not increase indicating that there is already excess GHGs in the air and the number of photons is limited and all in use by the existing excess of GHGs put there when the GHE decreases every night and results in more GHGs being freed to not be in use in the GHe,Doesn’t this means that it is the number of energy photons that is limited and limits the amount of GHE warming to the number of photons available, in which case we will observe why the GHE only goes up by 33C? and is limited by the number of absorbable photns?
Seriously why is this incorrect? because it only invalidate the whole “CO2 causes warming” science?
Gavin. I know you consider me a nut, because I am an abcolute denier. BUt you should know that everytimg I know about global warming I learned from you & your website AND simple logical physics that I learned in college.
I would appreciate knowing where I am wrong )if I am!)
I dare you to not print this and ban me for no reason other than upu don’t like the question or teh answer.
SIMPLE PREDICTIONS OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE
From the historical global mean temperature data shown below
the following patterns can be established:
a) 30-years of global cooling by 0.2 deg C.
b) Followed by 30-years of global warming by 0.5 deg C.
Let us start from the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) for the 1880s of -0.3 deg C, which was at the beginning of a cooling phase. As a result, we have:
1) For 1880s, GMTA = -0.3 deg C
2) For 1910s, a GMTA of -0.3 – 0.2 = -0.5 deg C
3) For 1940s, a GMTA of -0.5 + 0.5 = 0 deg C
4) For 1970s, a GMTA of 0 – 0.2 = -0.2 deg C
5) For 2000s, a GMTA of -0.2 + 0.5 = + 0.3 deg C
These results approximately agree with the data given in the link above!
6) For 2030s, an approximate GMTA of 0.3 – 0.2 = + 0.1 deg C
Global cooling until 2030!
30 year trends are not trends at all. Too short a time period in climate and geological terms
Milankovitch cycles are part of a natural process that affects both weather and
The concept of external forcings is mostly incorrect
Global warming began as a political movement. Al Gore fired William Happer because he didn’t believe global warming is a problem.
“The climate only changes when forced to do so.”
And yet every time a keen scientist tries to establish correlation with causation, what does the climate data do?
It flips, it twirls, too twisty, too curly. Positive correlations switch to negative correlations several decades later, leaving the scientist heartbroken..
But I guess this time its different with co2? Average out all the nasty flips, twirls, and bingo, an underlying trend!
This time we gonna show these data who’s boss!
>Plenty of room down here in the bore hole, I’ll save a spot for ya.
What a bunch of intellectual cowards, the adminstrators here must be.
Bottom line, if the science was sound it would be easy to say why. As it is, there is no piece of evidence that the climate junkies would accept as inconsistent with their hypotheses.
So go ahead and keep censoring my comments. But don’t expect ypour site to remain respectable.
There seems to be a consensus that the biggest problem facing climate change is communication. This is apparent from this discussion and sessions at the recent AGS meeting and upcoming AMS meetings. The first thing required when communicating is a clear message.
A clear message from sceptics is that the effect of CO2 and other global warming gases has been greatly exaggerated and it does not make economic sense to solve the problem by reducing emissions.
How do you credibly counter that message?
the re-capture ya plug (the ReCaptcha plug-in)fell on my house . it is the size of 3 normal sized homes… — DERR UFO
Say, did you hear about the Discovery that Lucy, the Austrolopithicene, could use Stone Tools to Butcher Game?
Yep! It’s true!
Just like Sarah Palin!
Palin/Lucy – 2012!
Jim I love how you make empty statements
Keep it up. Gavin as ice melts in one location it forms roughly in equilibrium elsewhere. Back to Jim:when I first arrived here I believed in AGW based on the papers and books you guys in climate science cite and publish yourselves: more IFR trapping,changing albedo,positive feedbacks,increased W2 forcing, etc. Please get that fact straight first, unless you are admitting your collective work is.flawed, which is no problem:we all make our fair share of mistakes. FYI many engineering problems were solved in 1930′s britannica in case you meant old statements like EV’s and blue lasers. Wikipedia and assumptive models are garbage. Oh and Jim I await a reply to my email. If I am so wrong.show me. Stop basing models on caloric theory and regional assumptions I’m ecology which entails weather and not climate,or climate without a demonstrated changing factor like GHG’s.
How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day
( pajamas media )
This is where I bid farewell to RC. I no longer trust the papers published by the scientists on AGW being a serious issue or the posters here who think we are heading towards disaster. I no longer trust the stats published and the so called data. I have no reason to trust RC anymore.
[Response: What you trust is up to you. You are welcome to post any time you want to engage in legitimate discussion and not just make unsupported assertions.--Jim]
Wow! Almost a year has gone by and you are still arguing about how Beer’s law works? It would seem to me that if the science was settled, as you all claim, it should be very clear exactly how many degrees the globe should warm per ppm of CO2.
Post 68 and your response are interesting. Thank you for drawing my attention to the work of Morner, which, given his experience, should perhaps be considered with care (all ‘dowsing’ ad hominem deemed piffle).
I read Church and White (2006) (goodness, can you really publish climate papers with that little contenet?) but it seems to me that their claimed, late 20th C acceleration of sea-rise rate is merely a schoolboy-exercise in selection of period to support a prejudice.
I don’t think you can find too many people who disagree that the climate is changing. You will find considerable disagreement over how much and how quickly. Where the biggest disagreement exists is over why it’s changing. The “it’s all rich people’s fault” fossil fuel eco-crowd is by far the noisiest but, as is often true of the noisy, they have lots of theories and no proof.
We will probably find out eventually that CO2, land use, clouds, cosmic rays, ocean currents, clouds, etc are all contributing in varying amounts. Trying to lump all the non-CO2 groups into an “anti-science” pen is ridiculous and probably plays a considerable role in your declining influence on the discussion.
15 Jan 2011 at 5:39 PM
“third panel discussion:…”
great reasoned arguments there ccpo. I’m enthralled.
“Curry: AGW understood, magnitude highly uncertain
1 . background info doesn’t indicate existential threat over century time scale. (no kidding.)”
NO KIDDING- the data is noisy, spotty, full of holes, and requires a great deal of sophisticated statistics to tease out any semblance of a signal. Not the kind of info that makes a thoughtful scientist sound the tocsin.
“2. more important for robust policy response rather than quick solutions that may not address problem (hurry up and wait)”
When you think you only have one shot, it had better be a good one. Show me an experiment that shows that reducing CO2 back to 280 ppm would stop global warming.
“3. 20 years of acrimonious debate of the science and policy (because your side lies their butts off and make lurid accusations about governmental control and conspiracies that don’t exist)”
I’ve seen enough acrimonious debate on this site that shows plenty of selective, cherry-picked arguments. Comments like this from Keith Trenberth:
“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].” Screwy logic just doesn’t cut it. Look at this carefully and also the IPCC report and you’ll see the logical sleight of hand involved.
“4 debates over arcane points substituted for real debate of politics and values.” The whole debate over what, if anything, to do about CO2 is about politics and values. More and more looks at finer and finer points of science aren’t what is needed. If changes are needed the policy changes have to help people adapt, since there is no credible way to adequately change the output of CO2.
6. need to better understand natural climate variability (it ain’t us!!!) and need more transparent and robust climate records (you’re hiding the data!!! ( at this point I’m wondering how Exxon/Koch brothers get her the money…), particularly the paleoclimate record (Mann, et al., you *&&^*&*!!!!)”
When anyone can look at the climate data record and see the huge variations in it one has to wonder why you call on Exxon and Koch. It doesn’t take huge statistical studies when the data is so obviously erratic and subject to the observer effect.
“7. climate impacts on decadal scale less important than population, land use and degradation (and how do you separate the four????); regions that adapt to current weather extremes and population will be better able to deal with any additional stresses from climate changes (apparently current stresses have nothing to do with climate)”
so how do you separate climate change, population, land use, and degradation? How you evaluate the data determines what is the best reaction to it. When you can’t get a clear answer adaptation is the way to go.
“(from you and yours, ya dirt bag!!! Stop lying to affect policy and all will be well!!)” ccpo, you don’t know the answers, so who is lying? All will be WELL? The dominant CAGW meme is that things are so bad nothing short of global dictatorship has any hope. Really now.
“10. and give us better paleoclimate data (stop hiding it!!) and make it easy to use (cause the bloggers are not skilled at doing your job, so you have to help them so they can lie about your work and the data?)
If the paleo data was clear and consistent there would be no argument.
Re: Trenberth on reverse hypothesis.
“Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”
I for one agree with Trenberth. The time to attack AGW is now. Enough of this dogma!
Trenberth must be getting old => Becoming more skeptical.
Powered by WordPress
Switch to our mobile site