Comments on: Back To The Stone Age

By: DoctorF

DoctorF — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:10:24 +0000

Thanks for the links - I will certainly read them. Just right off the bat, have you followed the cryosphere link back to its front page? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ It’s run by a couple of climate change scientists at UI. Most of their work is focused on documenting climate change in the arctic. Here’s a quote from their web page: Observed Climate Change Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover) archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%. Decreases observed in winter are more modest. Seems like you cherry picked a little there. Unfortunately, there is little analysis regarding the increased ice on the other pole on the site, but I found this article in Science regarding the Antartic ice sheet, I have copied the citation and the concluding paragraph below. Apparently, a lag of up to 50 years in the rise of the average temperature in Antarctica was predicted by several climate change models going all the way back to 1979, and is featured in the IPCC model. Here’s the article (bold is mine): Science 24 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901 Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise Curt H. Davis,1* Yonghong Li,1 Joseph R. McConnell,2 Markus M. Frey,3 Edward Hanna Our results show that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior increased in overall thickness within the ROC from 1992 to 2003 and that this increase is probably the result of increased snowfall. Both of these observations are consistent with the latest IPCC prediction for Antarctica's likely response to a warming global climate (6). However, the IPCC prediction does not consider possible dynamic changes in coastal areas of the ice sheet. Moreover, these results have only sparse coverage of the coastal areas where recent dynamic changes may be occurring (4). Thus, the overall contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global sea-level change will depend on the balance between mass changes on the interior and those in coastal areas. Best, F

By: Gaius

Gaius — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:26:09 +0000

DrF,

You are aware that Hansen has been paid a very large sum of money by the Heinz Foundation? And that he refuses to release his data or algorithms? Are you aware that Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre uncovered a substantial error in the GISS data – which was downplayed by Hansen and ignored by the media?

Have you heard of the Cascade Effect?

A couple of places you may not have heard of. Climate Audit : http://www.climateaudit.org/ and ICECAP: http://icecap.us/

I am not a post doctoral fellow, but I am an engineer. I can read a graph. Please do look at this one:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

And reconcile that with the claims that the Antarctic is losing ice.

You are a scientist. Ask some questions.

By: DoctorF

DoctorF — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:36:21 +0000

Gaius, Regarding the Douglass paper, I would like to submit the following article in rebuttal. It was published in Science in 2008 and authored by a group of NASA scientists. I have copied only the summary here, you can follow the citation data to the entire article. Science 14 August 1998:Vol. 281. no. 5379, pp. 930 - 932DOI: 10.1126/science.281.5379.930 Perspectives GLOBAL WARMING:Global Climate Data and Models: A Reconciliation James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, Jay Glascoe The debate over the existence of global warming and climate change has been muddled because of satellite data showing a cooling trend in Earth's troposphere. This apparent cooling is in disagreement with measurements at surface stations and with climate models. In their Perspective, Hansen et al. discuss a correction to the satellite data published by Wentz and Schabel in Nature that may have profound implications for discussions of climate change. Wentz and Schabel discovered that the original satellite data, published in 1995, was not adjusted for the natural decay of spacecraft altitude caused by atmospheric drag. When this adjustment is made, the satellite data agree with both surface data and model calculations. The authors of the Perspective conclude that the question now is not whether global warming exists--it clearly does--but what should be done about it. The authors are at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, New York, NY 10025, USA

By: Khornet

Khornet — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:25:47 +0000

‘course you don’t know a single colleague who doubts AGW. Like the Upper East Side socialite who didn’t know a single person who voted for Nixon in ’72.Most GW science is being done on the assumption that AGW is real. That is, they’re studying how much sea levels will rise, or how bad it’s going to be for the polar bears, or how many species will become extinct. Or they assume CO2 levels explain GW, and predict future climate. When you get to the few studies which confront the question of whether AGW is real at all, you start to run into skeptics. Then we find that Mann’s celebrated "hockey stick" was fraudulent science. That the tropospheric phenomenon predicted by CO2 modeling isn’t there. That Al Gore’s CO2 spikes follow warming instead of preceding it. That NASA’s numbers were wrong. That the original models for CO2 and climate assumed an atmosphere of infinite thickness, instead of the actual 100 km, and when you use the real number GW goes away.As far as money influencing one’s position, keep in mind the millions it’s making for Al Gore and the various Enviro advocacy groups. There’s a heck of a lot more money in pushing GW than in questioning it.

By: kidrob

kidrob — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:38:48 +0000

i thought al gore said the debate was over?

By: DoctorF

DoctorF — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:08:11 +0000

Forgive me if I put a little more credence in the following scientific organizations, all of which have issued statements explicitly endorsing the findings of the IPCC. These are not fly by night advocacy groups like the Heartland Institute, but established and respected professional science institutions that represent the collective opinion of tens of thousands of scientists. This is what we are talking about when we speak of consensus.
National Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
European Geosciences Union

By: Maggie

Maggie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:25:13 +0000

DoctorF
Wow! Well, you’ve converted me …
I bow to Sheryl Crow, Al Gore, Ted Danson, the band members of Greenday, Cameron Diaz, everybody on Nickelodeon TV (including Sponge Bob) … I could go on, but my back is killing me from all the bowing.
I just can’t seem to be able to get my mind around an idea that there is nothing greater than myself …

By: Gaius

Gaius — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:08:19 +0000

And Al Gore is what, DrF? By the way, I’d be interested in your bona fides to your claim of who you are. Drop me an email from your .edu email (I will not publish the address. You can hold me to that in the blogosphere.) Right now you are showing as a gmail address from a Comcast IP.

Comment email address is on the "about" page.

By: DoctorF

DoctorF — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:41:04 +0000

Maggie,
This doesn’t look like any kind of scientific conference I have ever been to, more like an agenda driven PR stunt. In fact the agenda was stated clearly in the invitation:
"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”
This is not surprising as the sponsoring body, Heartland Institute, is clearly a policy advocacy group, not a research institute or university. I’ve never been to a conference that paid the speakers honorariums, paid the way of any elected official who wanted to come, or featured so many non-scientists as speakers (I am talking about the economists and policy wonks on the speakers list – oh, and John Stossel? ).
Not convincing.
It reminds me of the strategy used by the intelligent design people.

By: Maggie

Maggie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:39:45 +0000

Gaius -
Soylent Green is … people!

By: Maggie

Maggie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:38:29 +0000

what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind?

A bolt of lightning to my skull …
An erasing of the historical facts that after the last Ice Age there was a "warming", but … {gasp!} … there were no light bulbs to be found.
I’m STILL waiting for the new ice age I was promised by these same people 30-odd yrs ago …
Just last week there was a conference held in New York City with global warming opponents … Sorry you missed it … I believe there were more than just two there, (SOME of whom had to fight to get their names removed from the UN climate fiction … er … report} .
You might have seen it on the news, although the MSM seemed to be covering something else at the time …
Funny how the MSM only finds time for pro-man-made GW coverage.

It seems with all the "deniers" and "skeptics" name-calling, those using those two terms seem to be the ones denying debate, and are skeptical about how their side would hold up in the light (incandescent … thank you) of close comparison against opposing science.
Simply because you haven’t looked for or read/heard much of the opposing science, doesn’t mean it doen’t exist.

By: Gaius

Gaius — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:28:02 +0000

Here’s one:

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/12/15/vast-majority/

By: DoctorF

DoctorF — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:14:09 +0000

Can someone point out to me where all this contrary data is? As far as I can see, the vast, vast, vast majority of papers in the primary literature support the theory of man made climate change. Also, does anyone have a list of the "thousands" of scientists who doubt global warming theory? I only know of two: Singer and Lindzen – a microscopic minority. And one more question for the skeptics: what kind of evidence would it take to change your mind?

By: Gaius

Gaius — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:42:30 +0000

No, I’ve been busy today trying to keep the lights on. Jay K, normally, your insults directed at me and other would have gotten your comments deleted and you banned. I am leaving them stand because others have responded to you.

I will not allow another one, however.

Unlike you and other true believers, Jay K., I happen to work – every day – at keeping those lights on and the power on line that you need to live the modern lifestyle you live. Including gratuitously insulting people in terms that would get you a quick trip to an emergency room if you used them to the wrong person’s face.

I happen to understand – as you do not – what the engineering realities are – not your echo-chamber answers – the actual realities. And more importantly, the real costs.

By: Neo

Neo — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:20:10 +0000

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10866The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.