News Scientists jumping off the warming train

[LowlyPion]

It might simply be that the phenomenon is more complex, and that the "simple and evident" indications that had to serve as proof beyond reasonable doubt turned out to be much more twisted and complex.

I agree with that. I'm not convinced about some of the reasoning on CO2 for instance.

But then again there are those that would rather study the thing until the planet incinerates. What is the balance between prudence for future generations and unnecessary concerns?

The opportunities to be colossally right or wrong are staggering and border on being brilliantly circumspect or being inevitably futile regardless of what is undertaken to prevent or change things.

 

[drankin]

I agree with that. I'm not convinced about some of the reasoning on CO2 for instance.

But then again there are those that would rather study the thing until the planet incinerates. What is the balance between prudence for future generations and unnecessary concerns?

The opportunities to be colossally right or wrong are staggering and border on being brilliantly circumspect or being inevitably futile regardless of what is undertaken to prevent or change things.

We should be concerned and climate study should never be dissuaded. Pollution needs to be controlled as much as economically possible. No one on either side of the issue argues this. It shouldn't be a right-wing/left-wing battle (I'm so bored with this). It needs to be studied without bias. Scientists that have determined that the end of the world is eminent need to continue to compare their studies with scientists that show otherwise. Core samples have shown that the Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere at times in the past and has not "incinerated" (for example).

No question that the climate is changing. It always has. If the entire Earth simply stopped fossil fuel consumption overnight, the climate is still going to change. There are still going to be natural disasters.

All these scientists that disagree with IPCCs stand simply reinforce my suspicion that the hype is just that. 20-30 yrs ago we were supposed to expect an ice age because of human fuel consumption. Challenging popular conclusions has always been a healthy quality of science.

 

[LowlyPion]

20-30 yrs ago we were supposed to expect an ice age because of human fuel consumption. Challenging conclusions has always been a healthy quality of science.

I missed that. Can you provide some actual peer reviewed citations for that claim. I've seen that mentioned before, but haven't seen any actual scientific citations for the claims for a anthropogenic global cooling hypotheses from years past. I know there was a Newsweek article from 1975, but that hardly qualifies as science or as representing any consensus on the issue to the extent that has developed on the AGW hypothesis. I surely hope this counter-argument attempting to discredit AGW is not solely based on a Newsweek article, undoubtedly published to sell magazines as opposed to advancing the boundaries of climate science.

Personally I find such a conclusion counter intuitive and have some difficulty believing that much momentum was ever developed for such a hypothesis.

 

[LowlyPion]

The thing that I find most puzzling is this marriage of agendas from the Republican Party and the Evangelical Right in disclaiming any possibility of Global Warming.

Is the right wing Evangelical idea that warming is not a rightful concern of Christians, based on something other than just being anti-science? (The reason I ask I see that Rev. Richard Cizik was forced to resign from the NAE today over comments expressing support of gay marriage. But he was already in the outhouse with other evangelicals for believing in AGW.)

Are they smarting still over being made fun of for thinking the world only started 6K years ago? And hence they embrace anything that is anti-science?

Is this where the Republican Embrace of ignoring it comes from or are Republicans really just drawn to the profit motive to exploit and pollute as long as profit can be realized?

I just find it a curious bond and can't really see where one begins and the other leaves off on the issue.

 

[Bystander]

"Ice age coming?" Sunday supplement science from more like 50 years ago. "AGW hypothesis?" Not an hypothesis --- it is a speculation; it appeals to unidentified "feedbacks," unidentified coupling mechanisms, and generally ignores established physical principles (conservation laws, thermodynamic laws, radiation laws, laws governing transport phenomena).

"Right wing, religious agenda?" CBOT is looking to be skimming trillions in "carbon futures, emissions futures, and other derivatives;" insurance companies and other underwriters stand to take in hundreds of billions in anticipatory rate hikes; the ABA stands to make hundreds of billions in liability claims --- who's got an agenda?

Science is science. If the bookkeeping on the conservation principles doesn't balance, if it's necessary to appeal to unidentified mechanisms and effects, if predictions are made and modified after events falsify them --- then you're dealing with the preschoolers in the Kraft Singles commercials, or something even less sophisticated.

 

[drankin]

I missed that. Can you provide some actual peer reviewed citations for that claim. I've seen that mentioned before, but haven't seen any actual scientific citations for the claims for a anthropogenic global cooling hypotheses from years past. I know there was a Newsweek article from 1975, but that hardly qualifies as science or as representing any consensus on the issue to the extent that has developed on the AGW hypothesis. I surely hope this counter-argument attempting to discredit AGW is not solely based on a Newsweek article, undoubtedly published to sell magazines as opposed to advancing the boundaries of climate science.

Personally I find such a conclusion counter intuitive and have some difficulty believing that much momentum was ever developed for such a hypothesis.

Where would a peered reviewed citation have to be published to satisfy your inquiry?

 

[Art]

Here's an interesting article detailing the 4 climate change scares in the past 100 years starting with the global cooling fears of 1895. Followed by the global warming fears of the 30's followed by the global cooling scares of the 70's followed by the global warming scares of the 80's. Anyone notice a pattern here??

Much of the hype from each of these cycles is virtually identical with what is being published today. No doubt in a few years time when global warming is shown to be non-existent we shall once again move seamlessly into the global cooling fear scenario and once again we can be sure we will be told it is our polluting ways which are to blame.

Reminds me of the story of 'The boy who cried Wolf'

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

an extract

“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.”

If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.”

There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global cooling worries. “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said.

If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the Earth could be plunged into an ice age, Mitchell continued.

Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

A city in a snow globe illustrated that March 1, 1975, article, while the cover showed an ice age obliterating an unfortunate city.

In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” said Nigel Calder, a former editor of “New Scientist.”

He claimed it was not his disposition to be a “doomsday man.” His analysis came from “the facts [that] have emerged” about past ice ages, according to the July/August International Wildlife Magazine.

 

[LowlyPion]

CBOT is looking to be skimming trillions in "carbon futures, emissions futures, and other derivatives;" insurance companies and other underwriters stand to take in hundreds of billions in anticipatory rate hikes; the ABA stands to make hundreds of billions in liability claims --- who's got an agenda?

How does that address the issues when none of those groups are the ones doing any advocating?

That sheds no light at all on the Religious Right/Republican agenda to deny deny deny.

When you have Jerry Falwell saying AGW is Satan's tool you are not exactly viewing the science dispassionately.

 

[BoomBoom]

all you have to do is watch al gore's video for yourself to see whether the information is persuasive or not.

It's been a while since I saw this film, but if I remember correctly, there were a couple things that didn't seem to jive when I watched it.

-While describing the warming trend as exponential, that didn't seem to match the data they showed from temperature measurements taken since the 1950's where the graphs showed the trend to be clearly linear.

-Also, in the graphs they showed depicting the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over Earth's history, it appeared that the spikes in temp preceded the spikes in CO2 levels, so that it almost seemed as if the raising of temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels and not the other way around.

...just a couple things that made me go "hmmmm"

 

[Evo]

A lot of the "global cooling" scare in the 70's was as a result of this National Science Board report.

During the
last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but
more sharply over the last decade.

The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But
there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not
only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures
over the last century. According to this view, activities of the
expanding human population — especially those involved with the
burning of fossil fuels — raised the carbon dioxide content of the
atmosphere, which acts as a "greenhouse" for retaining the heat
radiated from the Earth's surface. This, it is believed, may have
produced the warming temperatures after the mid-19th century. But
simultaneously, according to this view, growing industrialization and

24

the spread of agriculture introduced increasing quantities of dust into
the atmosphere which reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching
the earth. By the middle of this century, the cooling effect of the dust
particles more than compensated for the warming effect of the carbon
dioxide, and world temperature began to fall.

The colder temperatures have been accompanied by marked
changes in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere, which are prime
determiners of weather. Several consequences of these recent climatic
changes have been observed: midsummer frosts and record cold
autumns in the midwest of the United States, shortening of the crop
season in Great Britain, and the southward intrusion of sea-ice on the
shores of Iceland. Possibly linked to these changes in temperature and
circulation is the occurrence of an unusually large number of severe
storms in many parts of the world, and the development of a
calamitous drought belt extending around the world, passing through
the sub-Sahara, Middle East, India, China's Yangtze Valley, and
Central America.

The state of knowledge regarding climate and its changes is too
limited to predict reliably whether the present, unanticipated cooling
trend will continue, or to forecast probable changes in precipitation if
the trend persists. The practical consequences of an extended cooling
period — the effects on food production, energy consumption, and the
location of human settlements — make it important to monitor climatic
changes closely and widely, to determine their cause, particularly the
role of human activities, and to seek countermeasures.

The atmospheric sciences have advanced considerably in the last
20 years, in part because of access to sophisticated devices and facilities
developed for national defense and space purposes (e.g., high
resolution and doppler radar, high altitude aircraft, and rocket and
satellite observation platforms). One small indication of the progress
is the current ability to make 48-hour weather forecasts that are
comparable in quality to earlier 24-hour forecasts. While segments of
the total weather and climate system are yielding to understanding,
only in the most recent years has it been possible to begin studying the
system as a whole. Even now, only the broadest limits can be placed on
the magnitude of natural and man-made influences on weather and
climate. There is probably less agreement now, for example, on the
likely effects of carbon dioxide than there was a decade ago, when the
complexity of the overall system was not yet appreciated. There is also
lack of agreement as to whether the particulate content of the
atmosphere is primarily the product of human activity in agriculture
and industry or of natural causes such as volcanic dust.

Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances
must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the
atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates
through the system. Comprehensive models which integrate the

25

many interacting components of the system must be developed and
tested. Advances in technology are needed for measuring and
monitoring the system, as well as for ameliorating the deleterious
effects of man and nature. Finally, greater understanding of the
economic, legal, and social implications associated with changes in
weather and climate are needed.

http://www.archive.org/stream/sciencechallenge00nati/sciencechallenge00nati_djvu.txt

Let's stick to facts, there wasn't a whole lot of research done into climate change at this point, like today, media hype is just that, media hype.

 

[mheslep]

and a nobel prize does have some credibility to most people.

It was a peace prize, which has become increasing political, not a science prize.

 

[LowlyPion]

-Also, in the graphs they showed depicting the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over Earth's history, it appeared that the spikes in temp preceded the spikes in CO2 levels, so that it almost seemed as if the raising of temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels and not the other way around.

If temp rises are preceding CO2 rise, what is the explanation for current data? And with any current short term temp dips does that mean that CO2 levels will drop accordingly?

Even with the eons more data that we have now it doesn't seem to me necessarily clear what exactly is cause and effect.

 

[Proton Soup]

ok, here's a repost without the offending URL

 

[LowlyPion]

Really. 9,000 PhDs?

And only Fox is giving them a platform? Now there's a shocker.
Jerry Falwell won't give them time?

I guess PhDs aren't worth what they used to be?

Maybe they sprained their ankles jumping off the train?

 

[Gokul43201]

Much of the hype from each of these cycles is virtually identical with what is being published today.

Published today in which journals? How many of these journals do you keep track of and roughly how many papers do you read? I'm curious how much time a person needs to spend reading papers to be able to arrive at such conclusions. Could you cite references to some of these papers being published today that are virtually identical with the hype you described? I would like to read some of them, to get an idea of this hype.

 

[Gokul43201]

all you have to do is watch al gore's video for yourself to see whether the information is persuasive or not.

Whether a video is persuasive or not to a lay audience has little or no implication on the quality of science it is based on.

Magicians, mediums and psychics can be persuasive too.

 

[Phrak]

Yes, but all of the scientists in that so called pro AGW "consensus" aren't climate scientists either, and neither were all of the scientists that contributed to the IPCC report.

Does the IPCC constist of all scientists? Things have changed, then.

 

[Phrak]

I am not sure i care about the politicians, it is the scientist who advise the politicians, not the other way round.

Edit

The question is, are main stream warmer leaving the fold.

I want to know how many global warming scientists will be cleaning toilets if-and-when this fraud has run its course. My guess is none.

 

[Gokul43201]

ok, here's a repost without the offending URL

Here's a quote from that clip - the words of the Founder of the Weather Channel:

"We have been burning fossil fuels for over a hundred years, and what have we done so far? We might have raised the temperature by one-tenth of one degree ... maybe!"

I'd like to hear what Andre has to say about that statement.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here's a picture of climate change evidence on Mars. It's not like there aren't climate forces outside anthropogenic causation. Apparently the Martians have minimized their marsopogenic impacts and still there are notable variations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/12/081204141801-large.jpg

Here's the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204141801.htm

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree with that. I'm not convinced about some of the reasoning on CO2 for instance.

But then again there are those that would rather study the thing until the planet incinerates. What is the balance between prudence for future generations and unnecessary concerns?

The opportunities to be colossally right or wrong are staggering and border on being brilliantly circumspect or being inevitably futile regardless of what is undertaken to prevent or change things.

This is one of the issues I have with the AGW movement. So far most of the action I have seen taken to "fix" the problem has all been about money and not so much any realistic solutions. From taxes, fines, and the purchase of "CO2 credits" to everyone and their mother tauting their personal alternative energy schemes as a cure all. Some of these ideas are good but so far I have seen little in the way of comprehensive (and realistic) solutions while governments and others are cashing in on the popularity of the "green" trend.

Core samples have shown that the Earth has had more CO2 in the atmosphere at times in the past and has not "incinerated" (for example).

What I remember is that the core samples have shown historic fluctuations in CO2 levels and temperatures that have been higher but that current CO2 levels far outstripe any historic CO2 levels. The question asked then of course is: What then is the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels if temperatures have been higher than now with lower CO2 levels than now? Answer from AGW proponents of course is that the temperature changes are slow and CO2 levels have been increasing at a rate far faster than the climate can change in response.

 

[franznietzsche]

-Also, in the graphs they showed depicting the correlation between temperature and CO2 levels over Earth's history, it appeared that the spikes in temp preceded the spikes in CO2 levels, so that it almost seemed as if the raising of temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels and not the other way around.

A few things:

1) The physics of the greenhouse effect are not in dispute. Carbon dioxide has a higher opacity in infrared than a Nitrogen/Oxygen mix. If the opacity rises in a medium that must pump heat out radiatively, then the temperature gradient must rise. No one disputes these facts.

2) The Earth is a very complicated system with a number of cycles that moderate the concentrations of different substances in different places. Water cycle, carbon cycle, etc. All of these are affected by temperature (among many other variables).

3) The amount of energy that the Earth must radiate into space is equal to the amount of energy it absorbs from the sun, however this is not a constant. Albedo of the Earth is a variable--high albedo, less energy needs to be radiated thermally, lower albedo, more energy needs to be radiated.

So, if carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere, the opacity of the atmosphere to infrared radiation rises. All other things being equal this will cause the temperature to rise. If the temperature rise either a) alters the carbon cycle to lower the concentration back down, or b) alters the albedo to decrease the amount of incoming radiation then the effect will be damped, and possibly self-correcting. There are also mechanisms where the initial temperature rise can drive further increases in CO2 as well--gas solubility in water is a function of temperature for instance. The thing we do not understand well is how these various feedback mechanisms interact. The fact that carbon dioxide raises opacity in the infrared portion of the spectrum we know for a fact however.

The idea that rising temperatures would also raise carbon dioxide levels by altering the carbon cycle is not absurd. The idea that this fact is somehow evidence that increased carbon dioxide levels do not cause warming is absurd.

 

[LowlyPion]

Population reduction is by far the clearest way to control anthropogenic loading effects, but that requires humankind to entirely change its nature. Reproduction is too fundamental and no group or individual would want to be short changed.

If you think the Evangelicals got their undies double tucked in their creases over Gay Marriage, try moving them, or any other group for that matter, to a reproduction lottery based society.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Population reduction is by far the clearest way to control anthropogenic loading effects, but that requires humankind to entirely change its nature. Reproduction is too fundamental and no group or individual would want to be short changed.

If you think the Evangelicals got their undies double tucked in their creases over Gay Marriage, try moving them, or any other group for that matter, to a reproduction lottery based society.

Certainly. I have my doubts about the benefits of reducing the population in general though there are areas where it would be a definite benefit to living conditions if nothing else.

Perhaps its just my choice of news sources but I see a focus on penalizing people and companies for not conforming to certain standards. Personally I am a fan of incentive based policies. Maybe its already being done in some places but perhaps we could defer and eventually forgive student loans for persons who specialize in alternative energy sciences and take jobs in that sector. Significant tax breaks to companies that specialize in production and implimentation of alternative energy solutions, if it's not already being done. I would even support not taxing them at all if they could show that they are making significant progress in their sector.
The oil companies are eventually going to be outmoded and start to lose profits, save for any action they take to try preserving their importance, so it should not be hard to convince them they ought to be working on alternative energy sources and give them tax breaks if they make significant progress on that front. Maybe that could be dangerous now that I think about it.. I'm not sure.

 

[Phrak]

Population reduction is by far the clearest way to control anthropogenic loading effects, but that requires humankind to entirely change its nature. Reproduction is too fundamental and no group or individual would want to be short changed.

If you think the Evangelicals got their undies double tucked in their creases over Gay Marriage, try moving them, or any other group for that matter, to a reproduction lottery based society.

No, no. You forgot all about euthanasia. That will get rid of those pesky Christians.

 

[Art]

Published today in which journals? How many of these journals do you keep track of and roughly how many papers do you read? I'm curious how much time a person needs to spend reading papers to be able to arrive at such conclusions. Could you cite references to some of these papers being published today that are virtually identical with the hype you described? I would like to read some of them, to get an idea of this hype.

By definition hype does not refer to scientific journals, it refers to the mass hysteria the media try to create in their reporting of the matter.

To 'sell' AGW to the public politicians need a press sympathetic to their viewpoint in order to push through unpopular legislation - tax increases and the like. It may surprise you to know but most of the public obtain their 'scientific' information from mainstream media sources rather than scientific journals and so the impact on the public conciousness from the mass media is far more important in practical terms than anything written in some relatively obscure journal.

Having said that every now and again even scientific journals cross over into the newspaper realm of hype - the publishing of the now infamous hockey chart being a good example.

 

[LowlyPion]

No, no. You forgot all about euthanasia. That will get rid of those pesky Christians.

We can always find less palatable ways to reach a sustainable humankind loading. Free markets is one way. Those without food and energy ... well. War is another.

Regardless of how though, we know eventually that it must be bounded. And regardless of what the pressures are that will result in such bounding, it will surely be accompanied by great unpleasantness whatever it may be - because unpleasantness is apparently the only way I see that humankind will likely ever agree to limit itself.

 

[Evo]

We can always find less palatable ways to reach a sustainable humankind loading. Free markets is one way. Those without food and energy ... well. War is another.

Regardless of how though, we know eventually that it must be bounded. And regardless of what the pressures are that will result in such bounding, it will surely be accompanied by great unpleasantness whatever it may be - because unpleasantness is apparently the only way I see that humankind will likely ever agree to limit itself.

So true. Aren't we a bit overdue for a pandemic that would bring the world's population back? We used to have constant wars wiping out entire populations, spread of disease, and severe weather controlled the rest. We are now in serious trouble from world overpopulation.

 

[NeoDevin]

We used to have constant wars wiping out entire populations, spread of disease, and severe weather controlled the rest.

So you're saying you should have voted for McCain and Palin?

 

[Andre]

So true. Aren't we a bit overdue for a pandemic that would bring the world's population back? We used to have constant wars wiping out entire populations, spread of disease, and severe weather controlled the rest. We are now in serious trouble from world overpopulation.

Really? The total number of people that died during WW-II was estimated to be anywhere in the order of magnitude of40-75 million on a total world population of problably some 2billion:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/images/world_population_growth.jpg