Comments
LOL! All the data we have and the deniers say "well, we need more, this isn’t enough." One bit of data MIGHT suggest something different and the deniers say "it’s over, Gore is out of a job." The hypocrisy is delightfully amusing. I guess the evidence that matters only includes those that fit your interpretation. (And, of course, while people like me easily admit that the science is unfinished and conclusions could be wrong, the deniers treat it like a religion, sometimes claiming it is irrational to believe global warming real).

And of course, this is uncertain data about a small period of time. Hilarious.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Deniers" eh?

Should we start calling you "true believers" then?

Written By: shark
URL: http://
All the data we have
Yes, and it has not matched the models since 1998. No matter how Mann and Hansen jig their models it still does not match.

The skeptic side has been pointing this out for many years and you (that you I am pointing at Erb) secular religionists have been shouting heresy.

Well, as someone who used to believe in global warming and stopped believing (due to a decided lack of facts) in it in 2000, I say finally!



Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
No matter how Mann and Hansen jig their models it still does not match.
Actually, anything at all you did with Mann’s math wouldn’t change anythng. They tried it with all zeros, and they got the same freaking graph...

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Politics parading as science is never a pretty picture

Written By: daroh
URL: http://
Actually, anything at all you did with Mann’s math wouldn’t change anythng. They tried it with all zeros, and they got the same freaking graph...
And you could have every living nobel laureate (the Goracle included) sign a petition stating that AGW is hogwash and you would still get the same BS from Erb. It seems the rest of us "deniers" ask questions trying to sort somthing out this mess while Erb sits on the fence (And, of course, while people like me easily admit that the science is unfinished and conclusions could be wrong) and spouts his usual crap. Why do you even bother to come here, Erb? Then again, why do I even bother to ask that fool anything at all.

For the record, that last was a statement - not a question.

Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
In brief, one piece of evidence against trumps 10000 pieces of evidence for, which is why we know that Newton was not entirely correct (Einstein showed that pretty conclusively, and his predictions have borne out). At the moment, it’s looking like the theory of gravity is also a bit shaky (some spacecraft on flybys of the Earth got the wrong speed delta, and there has been some evidence that the gravitational constant isn’t actually constant.

Before we put AGW up beside phlogiston or humors in the aether, or for that matter up beside thermodynamics and the germ theory of disease, let’s have some time available for the scientists to actually get a coherent, testable theory. As far as I can tell, all the theories so far have failed to predict accurately even over a few years. With that record, the only possible rational course of action is to wait for more evidence and further theory. I’m perfectly willing to accept that man could be causing global warming, that it could be a real problem for us, and that there are policies that we could adopt that would mitigate those effects — but until I’m convinced of the first, I cannot accept the third, and with all the rush to put in place policies that are based on theories that are not yet clearly right, I am more likely to doubt every step of the way, because it looks like the real motive force behind AGW theories is not science, but policy, and I cannot accept that. When the science is actually settled, and we have theories that make accurate predictions, then I would be willing to look at policy changes that might mitigate the effects.



Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
One bit of data MIGHT suggest something different and the deniers say "it’s over, Gore is out of a job."
Erb you’re an idiot - the temperature record is the ONLY relevant piece of data.
Everything else is just speculation or various bits of anecdotal evidence.

It’s Deniers 1 - Believers 0 I’m afraid

Written By: emmess
URL: http://
Well, Scott, that’s generally how it works. If your model purports to predict something, it only has to fail once, and it’s pretty much useless.

Written By: Kevin
URL: http://
Actually this is far from the first hint. THere is basically ONE source of data that has been used over and over to hype global warming. The surface temps. These surface temps have not agreed with the satelite temps all that well since we started gettting the sat data. You can say that they roughly agree using graph mashups from GLobalWarmingArt, but that still does not explain why the surface data shows headlong warming this past decade while sat data, and now ocean data, do not show it.

The "overwhelming evidence" comes from two inc*stuous [language filter... go figure] sources. The surface data, and the models that have been tuned to match it. The counter evidence comes from multiple lines of investigation.

The more evidence that comes in, the more the surface data touted by Hansen has become the odd man out.

The term "denier" can now be justly affixed to uber warmies like erb.

Written By: yorick
URL: http://
Why do you even bother to come here, Erb?
Because you guys are reinforcing each others’ biases and need a dose of an alternative perspective. And you amuse me when you try to respond by personal attacks because, well, they are meaningless. You should no by now I am completely unfazed and in fact amused by insults hurled at me.

Kevin, you don’t understand science or the science behind global warming if your sentence is serious. Trends are over decades, and the models note that there will be ups and downs, some places will get colder, others much hotter. Also, due to multicausality there will be even cooling periods in a generally warming planet.

Don’t be surprised if this small bit of evidence interpreted in a particular way doesn’t convince the real scientists. But you guys have your faith! The rest of us gather data and take it ALL into account, not just that which fits our biases.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’m a skeptic because I do not think the climatologists know all the forcing functions that control climate. There are about 160 known factors including green house gas effect. Dr Mann uses only 6 in his model. There must be more.

The basic premise, that man made carbon dioxide is causing global warming, is obviously false. CO2 levels rise after warming, not before, so they cannot be causal.

Erb is right about one thing. We cannot ignore the problem because of cooling or level temperatures over the past ten years. It’s too short a time span. Climate changes occur over centuries not decades.

Apparently, there are other natural methods the earth uses to counteract increased CO2.

Written By: Arch
URL: http://
It is unfortunate that Scott Erb does not understand science and how it works. One counterexample will destroy the hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is that CO2 emissions are causing global warming. The counter example we have here is that global warming has either decreased or plateaued (depending on your reference point) while CO2 emissions have increased.

Hence, the hypothesis is not correct as stated. It is hard to see what additional data Erb would like, since the temperature data is pretty well agreed upon and we are pretty sure that world wide CO2 emissions have not decreased since 1998. If anything, because of the urban heat island effect and the sprawl of the suburbs, we can expect the surface temperature data to be read as higher than it actually is.

It is important for Erb to understand that data confirming the hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis, but a counterexample destroys the hypothesis. Erb needs to distinguish between the politics of global warming and the science of global warming.

Rick

Written By: Rick Caird
URL: http://
Scott: actually the Mann stick was recreated not with an input of zeros but with red noise (read as correlated - like day-to-day and year-to-year temps are).

Written By: Jody
URL: polyscifi.blogspot.com
"...you amuse me when you try to respond by personal attacks..."
You’re just stupid, Erb.
"...I am completely unfazed..."
That’s a symptom, fool.


Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
No Jody. They did it with purely random numbers, and the did it with zeroes. Same graph every time...

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I am so amused by you deniers, who seize on any flimsy evidence to denigrate global warming. You’re such hypocrites. Yes, I said hypocrites, even though I can’t see anything in your writing that would remotely be construed as hypocrisy, we wise leftists know that the label "hypocrite" is a nice all-purpose label to denigrate those with whom we disagree but have no solid evidence for doing so.

I’m also amused by those of you that lecture me on science. I’m a political scientist! Of course I understand science and its methods. I’ve been trained to know that good, post-modernist science is not really about evidence, it’s about consensus. And we wise leftists have collectively decided that global warming is real, and that we need to take control of society to save us all from complete disaster, and we then need to consolidate that control to eliminate all these ridiculous ideas you righties have about "freedom" and "choice". All for your own good, of course.

And I’m completely unfazed by your personal attacks. Just like everyone on the left, I’m so sure that I’m always right and that you are always wrong that no hint of self-doubt ever creeps into my consciousness. Of course, I magnanimously say that I’m open to new ideas from the people that post and comment here, but that’s just part of the standard leftist playbook, in which we keep up the appearance of fair-minded discourse while we gradually build up the popular perception that only we can save society. Because only we can. Really. You should believe us, and stop all this contrarian thinking. It’s just slowing down our ultimate domination of political and civil society, and that hurts everyone because the sooner you righties acknowledge your betters on the left, the sooner everyone will be living in a leftist paradise.

So forget all this contrary evidence, and the pernicious idea that such contrary evidence could possibly undermine the magnificent edifice that is global warming. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we leftists have worked tirelessly to come up with a rationale for our domination of society, and global warming is by far our best effort, especially after HillaryCare failed to take hold. (Of course, we need to get moving on that track too. We leftists are so smart and so much better at running society that you just can’t have too many collectivist policies being implemented.)

Oh, and Iraq is a complete and irredeemable failure, and America is in decline, and Europe has it all figured out, and Jimmy Carter is a genius. Did I leave anything out? Oh, yes, if you disagree with any of this, you’re being emotional.

Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
the models note that there will be ups and downs, some places will get colder, others much hotter.
But they haven’t. The models have to make predictions with defined statistical limits. Mann and his guys created a model out of a cherry picked set of data that in retrospect we know to have been corrected from poor equipment and faulty methodology.

The true test of a model is not that it fits data collected in the past (any monkey with a calculator can do that), it is to make predictions and have them them come true. Every real valid theory does that. That is what science is about.

I still follow the science even though I haven’t worked in atmospheric science since the early 90s when I designed Ozone DIAL systems. I still remember the hype over the danger of losing our ozone. I was in the middle of all that. Turned out that the system was resilient to the model then as well.

But hey, an arts professor definitely knows more that us libertarian troglodytes. After all, like soviet man and other wonderful theories of left wing science, it is more about your political pedigree than any real facts, isn’t it.

;)

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
LOL! All the data we have and the deniers say "well, we need more, this isn’t enough." One bit of data MIGHT suggest something different and the deniers say "it’s over, Gore is out of a job." The hypocrisy is delightfully amusing. I guess the evidence that matters only includes those that fit your interpretation.
The last six years have not shown any increase in temp. Understand?

This isn’t the odd data, BTW; the data that fits GW is the odd man out. Ocean and satalite data don’t match GW predictions.
And of course, this is uncertain data about a small period of time. Hilarious.
Well, the data that showed warming was for a relatively short term, and the last six years where we haven’t seen warming is the most critical.

These results may upset your view of the world, but I suggest you stop arguing about GW. Maybe if you shut up, you won’t look so stupid when GW is fully rejected.

Written By: Don
URL: http://
You’re just stupid, Erb.
And you’re scared — you know that if you move away from insults towards actually trying to counter what I write and defend your position, I’ll tear your arguments apart. I’ve done so in the past, and you’ve whined "he’s like mercury, I can’t pin him down’ and ran away. I see through you.

Oh and Don, here is the global temperature trend over the past century. Note there have been many brief downturns (perhaps a decade or so) in the general path upward. There have been many six year halts or even downturns in the past century’s temperature rise. Thus the "evidence" presented is hardly in contradiction to what those concerned about global warming claim. I hate to upset your faith that you have found truth and all those real scientists are deceived or part of some political conspiracy, but clearly, you’re cherry picking evidence and reading into it a whole boatload of stuff that’s not there.

Rick, an hypothesis can be falsified (if you’re a positivist, at least) by evidence showing the hypothesis wrong. Yet the global warming hypothesis is NOT that there is a consistent and constant move upward, and in fact does not rest on one particular set of predictions. By your logic, in the chart above, global warming was "disproven" a number of times in the many downward trends of temperature the last century. Of course, it hasn’t. And, of course, given how many scientists are convinced that human global warming is real, you’re not just saying I don’t know science, you are saying that a vast number of people with Ph.D.s in science, who publish and do lab work, don’t understand science. Obviously, that’s absurd. You are the one who clearly needs to educate yourself on this.

Final note: None of this convinces me that the political solutions put forth by those who want extensive regulations to combat global warming are sensible. In fact, you help people like Gore if you make the choice "either believe global warming and have regulations, or deny it and don’t have regulations." The former is going to win politically. You need to have allies like me who say "global warming is likely happening, but we have to be very careful how we respond, and not just go with a knee jerk ’let’s regulate’ approach." Instead, since I don’t fit into the dueling dogmas and simply cherry pick evidence to support my view and demonize evidence that does not, you are unable to grasp that part of my argument.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, to throw more cold water in your face, check out this website.

This shows decline in ice, rise in C02, and a table of average temps. It totally debunks the myth that we’ve stopped warming since 1998. Totally. You bought another one of those efforts to mangle facts to try to spread a faith. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not only does the data show number multi-year dips in temperature during the upward movement but here’s the data since 1996:

1996 -14.39
1997 -14.41
1998- 14.72
1999 -14.46
2000 - 14.42
2001 —14.57
2002 -14.69
2003 -14.67
2004 -14.60
2005 -14.76
2006 -14.66
2007 -14.73

1998 was a high peak, jumping up dramatically from 1996 and 1997. 1999 dropped from that peak, but was above 1997. There was a drop in 1999 and 2000, but then it rose back up, and is significantly higher than in 1996 and 1997. Put this in the context of the rest of the chart, and it continues the same kind of trend of the past. And, of course, if 1998 is seen as just an especially hot year (likely for other factors than global warming), there was a large increase in the past decade (large in terms of what average global temperature means).

Oh, this chart is in degrees centigrade.

Telling is how McQ and others jumped on this study without really checking out the trends and its interpretation and unquestioningly tried to think this was a disproof. It’s not even evidence against global warming, it actually shows the trend continuing, but with one peak year. The way you guys tried unsuccessfully to twist this data into something it is not is proof that many of you are not thinking critically, you’re just looking to try to support your bias. Supporting your position seems more important than seeking the truth.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Ott, I understand you plan to move to North Korea, to replace Kim Jong Il and institute a purer form of leftism, more like Pol Pot’s Cambodia?
Kim Jong Il just isn’t doing it right. He doesn’t have enough political scientists teaching at universities. If he did, his people would realize the wisdom of collectivist thinking and be working hard to make their society into the leftist paradise that it should be.

However, I can’t replace Kim Jong Il because my calling is to be a political scientist and continuously lecture you righties on the nuances of leftist thought and how you’re always wrong. My ultimate goal is to use my massive-word-count comments to completely demotivate the righties, as they realize they can never, ever compete with my perfect record of always being correct and always proving them wrong. I am completely committed to that end. That’s why I come here and post and post and post, even though most of the stuff I say is so repetitious that a trained monkey could type it.

And I know I’m having an effect because I am constantly insulted. See, that just proves that I’m able to outlast you. If you attempt to make any real attempt to engage me, as that Medcalf fellow is trying to do these days, I’ll just keep on saying the same things over and over and maintaining that you really don’t know what you are talking about and coming up with ridiculous reasons why whatever you say is wrong. You’ll eventually give up, as so many others have, and be reduced to hurling insults against me.

As long as I get the last word on just about every thread, eventually I will prevail over you all, and the proprietors of this site will gracefully turn it over to me so that I’ll have the readership I deserve. (Of course, I’ll keep Jon around. He’s not quite as tiresome as the others.)

Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Right on schedule, the news arrives to show the the Nobel Peace Prize Committee managed to make idiots of themselves .. again.

I don’t blame Al Gore for any of this. He’s just trying to make ends meet as an "enviro call boy". The fact that there is an fool born every minute doesn’t make it his fault. The environmental has been asking .. no, demanding to be proven wrong as they bounce around in the self righteous "smug."

Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Just for giggles, I ran a least squares analysis on Erb’s data. It shows a slope of 0.027 Celsius degrees per year for the 12 data points.

Oh, the graph Erb links to looks dramatic, until you look at the Y-axis scale and realize that the total change is just over 1 degree in 120 years.


Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
How about some 2008 numbers .. Scott.

Those temps and these temps.

Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Oh and Don, here is the global temperature trend over the past century.
Right. GW "started" in 1980 . . . a whole whopping 20 years, way more than the flat period of the past decade . . .







Written By: Don
URL: http://
Scott:

1. Increases on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of global warming, not a cause. CO2, trapped in the oceans, takes eight hundred to several thousand years of warming to be released into the atmosphere. The increases we are experiencing today are after effects of the Medieval Warm period 900 to 1400 AD.

2. NASA has estimated that 168 billion metric tons (BMT) of CO2 are being deposited in the atmosphere annually. 100 BMT from oceans, 30 BMT from decaying biomass, 30 BMT from respiration and only 8 BMT from human activity. Deforestation adds 1 BMT; industrial production of steel, bread, wine and other products add 1 BMT. Burning fossil fuel accounts for only 6 BMT - 3.57% of CO2. Man made CO2 is trivial.

3. In the 20th century, temperature increased 0.6° C. 85% of the increase occurred before 1940, prior to widespread global increases in energy consumption. From 1940 to 1970 when energy use increased, temperatures dropped significantly. From 1970 until the end of the century, temperatures increased again to 15% over the 1940 levels. Throughout the century, CO2 levels increased at a linear rate.

4. Green house effect is linear and immediate. If rates of atmospheric GHGs increase, surface temperatures rise immediately. The mechanism is simple. Solar energy is reflected from the surface and gasses very near the surface absorb the energy and begin to move rapidly heating the surrounding atmosphere. If green house effect had been the forcing function in climate change, 1940-1970 would have seen a dramatic temperature increase. We did not.

5. What else could be causing climate change? Astrophysics (Milankovitch cycles), variance in solar radiance, plate tectonics, solar wind....I do not know. Perhaps I am wrong about green house gasses.

6. Academic freedom is a concept I strongly support. We need get all the ideas out on the table and evaluate them based on their merits. It’s how science works. We do not vote on science; we challenge and test and analyze and evaluate and never accept anything. Global warming advocates are not interested in facing a technical challenge. University grant funding is being restricted to AGW advocates and away from skeptics. This practice alone worries me. If the science was "settled" why impose cloture?

I know enough to know I don’t know enough. Before we shoot, we owe it to ourselves to select the correct target, aim carefully and fire (in that order).

Cheers

Written By: Arch
URL: http://
At risk ..
Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions

Such predictions represent a huge gamble with public and policymaker opinion. If more-or-less steady global warming does not occur as forecast by these models, not only will professional reputations be at risk, but the need to reduce threats to the wide spectrum of serious and legitimate environmental concerns (including the human release of greenhouse gases) will be questioned by some as having been oversold. For better or worse, a failure to accurately predict the changes in the global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, ocean average heat content change, or Arctic sea ice coverage would raise questions on the reliance of global climate models for accurate prediction on multi-decadal time scales. Surprises or experience that evolve outside the bounds of model output would likely raise questions even among some of those who have so far accepted the IPCC reports as a balanced presentation of climate science.

Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Arch,

The increase in CO2 has been dramatic, and associated with the rise of the industrial era. The data is very clear and corresponds directly to industrialization. Your point is almost impossible to believe because temperature increases took place after CO2 increases began, which is in line with the models that CO2 causes warming. So your point one looks very weak. How do you support it.

Point 2: all of the CO2 together provides an atmosphere that keeps in heat. If you increase it even a little it can throw off the balance. But I suspect that, over time industrialization has done more than the estimate you cite. But I’ll look at the data if you can provide it.

3. As the temperature trend cited above shows, temperature increases have been real over the past half century. It took awhile for the CO2 levels to reach a critical mass, perhaps, to help start the process. Your point 4 seems off to me because there are multicausal balancing mechanisms. There is no reason you should get an immediate change, especially if it’s not a major increase (it would take awhile to build up). But again, if you offer support for that point, I’ll consider the data.

I just know a lot of "real" scientists who are absolutely convinced by the data, some of them very alarmed, and from both political parties. I doubt they are bad scientists or part of some conspiracy. Even they will admit they might be wrong, and in fact hope they are wrong. But the danger, they claim, is such that we can’t ignore the possibility. Ironically, when I discuss this with them they call me ’the libertarian’ because I oppose many of the regulations they want. Here, because I don’t take the "denier" stance I’m attacked by people. I figure being in middle is a good thing.

I am constantly amazed at how so many people are willing to cherry pick evidence and while it would be reasonable to say "look at this, there is a good chance things are far more complex than we realize and we should be cautious," so many of you (not necessarily you Arch) go instead to the opposite extreme of using it to belittle and attack those scientists who out of sincere study of the data and concern believe that we are facing what is likely a real crisis. That makes it appear that for many here the politics trumps science — and thus scientists who disagree are ridiculed. That’s what disturbs me about this kind of debate, it’s not about reason, it’s about bias for far too many people on both sides.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Neo, you’re being pretty quick to try to write off Al Gore and his efforts.

My argument against the "believers" does take into account the uncertainty you stress, uncertainty both in the science, and in the cause and effect impact of policy making on markets and even pollution. A classic example (and one that was predicted long ago) is how food prices have shot up due to biofuel use in the US. Ironically, this could in some ways drive up energy use — there are so many factors at play. Therefore, we need to be very slow in thinking through options, and we need to keep watching the data. Their response to me: we don’t have time, we can’t afford the risk that the theories might be right, and they paint a devastating picture.

My argument against the deniers is that too often they cherry pick small tidbits of evidence and way over-interpret as being far more damaging to the global warming argument than it is. The blog post here and a number of reactions are cases in point. Nothing in the story even remotely threatens the existing models or consensus, especially since in a multi-causal world you have to look at macrotrends that can sometimes go the other way for a decade. Also, there is the question of the sudden meltage of so much ice, what impact does that have exactly and why? Deniers seem to completely ignore the possibility that might be the ones wrong, dismiss almost irrationally the myriad of scientists who disagree with the deniers, and pay no heed, it seems, to the dangerous consequences we face if the consensus is accurate.

To the believers: be reasonable, recognize there are doubts, and that public policy can be dangerous if you move to sudden increased regulation and interference with the markets.

To the deniers: be reasonable, recognize that most evidence seems against your position at this time, and that if nothing is done and the believers are right, the results could be devastating.

If each side accepts the limits to their sides’ approach and looks at all arguments, we’d have a much better debate.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Neo, you’re being pretty quick to try to write off Al Gore and his efforts.
When the man who tells me that I’m killing the planet and must reduce the amount I consume then goes and consumes in a month more than I do in a year, he’s pretty much already writen off.

But thanks for playing.

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
1. The models are way off (that’s a .PDF file).

2. An analysis of proxy data shows that current temperature trends are nothing unusual and well within historical fluxuations.

3. Oceans are not meeting Warmist expectations.

But the debate, you know, is over.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Neo, you’re being pretty quick to try to write off Al Gore and his efforts.
Did I do that ? Every sociological event needs a huckster, Al is doing that job just fine.

If Al took on his detractors face to face, I could see some merit, but he isn’t.

Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Dr Erb,

Here are a number of articles that show what the problem with data and the hockey stick. There are remarkably easy to read.

I personally have no interest in Al Gore and his efforts because he hasn’t produced anything worth reading. He, like Neo says, is merely a huckster pushing crap science. I understand that he is a secular saint and that it will be hard to here our heresy against the anointed one but he isn’t part of my religion.

Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
First, we began collecting temperature records in 1820, at the beginning of the industrial revolution and the end of the little ice age 1450-1820. Increases in temperature were not caused by CO2, or the periods such as the 1940-1970 would have seen sustained increases rather than a decrease of 0.3° C. Dr. Mann denies that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period occurred.

Second, if CO2 "provides an atmosphere that keeps in heat", how do you explain the variances in daily temperatures between San Diego CA and Gila Bend AZ? Atmospheric CO2 levels are the same as are their latitudes (same solar radiation). Gila Bend is warmer in the daytime and cooler at night because its atmosphere contains little water vapor - the real green house gas.

Third, if CO2 caused warming in 1820 when it was at 288 ppb, why did it not cause warming in 1950 when it was at 340 ppb? From 1940 to 1970, we had a world war, massive industrialization, drove huge cars with big V8s, ran coal fired power plants and had no emission controls at all. So why did the temperature drop? Answer: CO2 is not the a forcing function in global climate change.

Fourth, it is amusing to see Professor Erb use a variant of Blaise Pascal’s Divine Wager, "But the danger, they claim, is such that we can’t ignore the possibility." You did not accept this logic with regard to Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs.

"Real Scientists" strongly disagree with the IPCC. Download the PDF here: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate


Written By: Arch
URL: http://
"I’ve done so in the past,..."
Link it, then, you lying piece of sh!t.


Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Link it, then, you lying piece of sh!t.
Now, now, Billy - You know he is way more than merely a lying piece of sh!t. A pile would be more like it.


Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I hate to say it, but Billy, you’re wasting your time.

I’m still waiting on those 5 links he owes us to prove he’s taken a stance in-line with conservatism.

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Link it, then, you lying piece of sh!t.
You’re not worth the time. Your refusal to form a cogent argument and the way you hide behind insults is proof enough. One sticks to the facts and logic if it is on ones’ side, one only resorts to insults and bravado if one wants to hide the fact they aren’t. Sadly, I think you’re hiding it from yourself.
First, we began collecting temperature records in 1820, at the beginning of the industrial revolution and the end of the little ice age 1450-1820. Increases in temperature were not caused by CO2, or the periods such as the 1940-1970 would have seen sustained increases rather than a decrease of 0.3° C. Dr. Mann denies that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period occurred.
In a multicausal system you will almost never see consistent correlations between cause and effect. Other factors will always intervene, meaning you have to look at long term trends. That’s why "this summer is really hot" or "this winter is really cold" fail to prove anything (same with looking at one storm like Katrina). While this also clearly means that scientists might be overstating the impact humans are making, the data clearly doesn’t disprove that hypothesis.

Second, if CO2 "provides an atmosphere that keeps in heat", how do you explain the variances in daily temperatures between San Diego CA and Gila Bend AZ? Atmospheric CO2 levels are the same as are their latitudes (same solar radiation). Gila Bend is warmer in the daytime and cooler at night because its atmosphere contains little water vapor - the real green house gas.
Again, multicausality. Water vapor and a variety of other gases and elements can keep in heat. It’s not about which does it the most, it’s about the impact of human produced CO2.

Third, if CO2 caused warming in 1820 when it was at 288 ppb, why did it not cause warming in 1950 when it was at 340 ppb? From 1940 to 1970, we had a world war, massive industrialization, drove huge cars with big V8s, ran coal fired power plants and had no emission controls at all. So why did the temperature drop? Answer: CO2 is not the a forcing function in global climate change.
Again, multicausality. There aren’t direct, immediate results, you have to look at trends. There also may be thresholds, and a lot happening we don’t know about. The scientists who are concerned about this (and, of course, there are scientists who share you view, as you note) are in fact looking at far more difficult issues than those, these guys aren’t dunces. They understand how to study and analyze and take these things into account. Yet a large majority of them believe human pollution is likely a partial cause of global warming. That’s all I’m saying here. This kind of data at best can say "there is room for doubt," and to that I’d agree. They don’t disprove anything.
Fourth, it is amusing to see Professor Erb use a variant of Blaise Pascal’s Divine Wager, "But the danger, they claim, is such that we can’t ignore the possibility." You did not accept this logic with regard to Saddam Hussein and his WMD programs.
There one had more data (there was little reason to consider Saddam a threat — and now we know the intelligence communities weren’t as convinced as it appeared at the time), but at some level my response was the same: take the threat seriously, but don’t do anything rash. Remember, I’m not supporting the kind of government regulations many of the "believers" support, even if I find the scientists who warn of global warming more persausive.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
You’re not worth the time.
Are you sure you two aren’t related? You sound so much alike...

Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Boris:
you have to look at trends.
The Australian geologist Bob Carter, he looks at trends, Boris.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris:
One sticks to the facts and logic if it is on ones’ side, one only resorts to insults and bravado if one wants to hide the fact they aren’t.
"Climate alarmism reached a new low Sunday as ABC’s "World News" featured a hit piece on Dr. S. Fred Singer, the esteemed Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

In a segment disgracefully entitled "Welcome to ’The Denial Machine,’" anchor Dan Harris disparaged Singer at every turn."

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris:
there was little reason to consider Saddam a threat — and now we know the intelligence communities weren’t as convinced as it appeared at the time
The lead editorial from today’s WSJ:
===
The Administration has always maintained that Iraq is just one front in the war on terror; and the report offers "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.

Around the same time, the IIS began to manufacture better improvised explosive devices "designed to be used in civilian areas," and the regime bureaucratized suicide operations, with local Baath Party leaders competing to provide recruits for Saddam as part of a "Martyrdom Project."

All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one — which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn’t the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.
===



Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Professor Erb:

Your argument rests on "a multicausal system" which is completely unsupported by the facts. Perhaps I need to simplify my points.

1. If it’s a multicausal system, why single out CO2? What are the other causes?

2. Cause precedes effect. If temperature increases and later CO2 levels go up, CO2 cannot be a cause of the temperature increase.

3. As for Blaise Pascal’s Divine Wager, I’m with you. Let’s find out what is causing climate change before we attempt to fix it.

4. Al Gore is a dunce.

My gut feel is that climate change is natural and beyond our ability to control.

Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Your argument rests on "a multicausal system" which is completely unsupported by the facts. Perhaps I need to simplify my points.
Actually, it is supported by the facts. Apparently you think all these scientists who are making these arguments know less than you about chemistry, meterology, climate science and the like. I doubt that very much. I suspect you choose a position out of political preference and have sought out points of view that support you and learned that argument. Have you truly gone through the arguments by those who believe global warming a problem, have you seen their responses to arguments like yours (which are the easy ones to respond to, actually)?
1. If it’s a multicausal system, why single out CO2? What are the other causes?
Here’s an example. Let’s say your football team is having a great year. Then suddenly you start losing. In the tapes you see that the left tackle is moving more slowly, missing blocks, and that this has allowed the defense to disrupt the running game and put more pressure on the passer. You investigate and find out that he has injured his knee and was trying to compensate because he didn’t want to be benched. Football is multi-causal, it depends on every position, every passing route, offense and defense. But if one factor goes out of whack, it can change everything.
2. Cause precedes effect. If temperature increases and later CO2 levels go up, CO2 cannot be a cause of the temperature increase.
No, you are completely wrong here. Another analogy. Let’s say that your football team gets a new running back who improves the running game and increases offensive points per game. Then you get a new quarterback with a great arm, and points per game increases even more. Someone can’t go back and say "the quarterback didn’t make a difference because offensive output was improving even before the quarterback came on to the scene." That’s multi-causality! And no climatologist would deny multicausality, climate is almost the most mutli-causal thing out there to study, that’s why short term weather forecasts are often wrong.

Also, I’m not sure what time frame you’re alluding to in that sentence anyway.

3. As for Blaise Pascal’s Divine Wager, I’m with you. Let’s find out what is causing climate change before we attempt to fix it.
We’ll never find out the cause with certainty. So what we do is ultimately a political question, which hopefully will be guided by good science, and I agree we shouldn’t rush into anything rash (again, politically I’m not calling for massive regulation).
4. Al Gore is a dunce.
I have no idea what his intelligence is, but he’s done very well for himself in life, so good for him.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott:

Don’t presume anything about my motives or my background. Please do not use football analogies. You are in Maine, not Oklahoma, Texas or Alabama. I was a plebe at the Naval Academy when our quarterback was Roger Staubach.

You have not answered the questions.

What are the other factors? Why not include them as well?

No effect has ever preceded its cause. That would violate the principle of causation.

As for the injection of politics, the IPCC has cast out scientific evidence in favor of political position. If you would go to the link I provided above, download the pdf and read what Professor Fred Singer (a legitimate climatologist) has to say about the IPCC you might understand that the rush to condemn CO2 is premature at best and most likely completely wrong.

If Gore is so brilliant, why will he not debate his position on climate change?

Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Arch, you don’t seem to understand. I’m not going to go through and give you all the things that affect climate. If you want to educate yourself on that, go ahead. But you yourself even noted water vapor as one factor. CO2 is one of many chemicals and gases in the atmosphere that affect outcomes. It probably would take pages to make a definitive list. I think you know that.

And, of course, nothing is violating the principle of causality (though modern physics does call into question causality, but that’s a very different subject). Nothing. Your argument about causation is meaningless because no one has claimed that the effect has preceded the cause. Do you understand what the term multicausal means?

As far as your link, I know and respect the fact that some scientists doubt global warming is in part caused by human produced CO2. You apparently are unable to accept and respect the fact that a lot of scientists do believe humans are partially the cause. You seem to think that throwing out real simplistic arguments that don’t even seem to comprehend multicausality is enough to somehow dismiss all the scientific work out there. Unless you are able to accept that there are legitimate and well evidenced positions on both sides, and that most scientists who study this believes humans are at least part of the cause (they freely admit they’re not sure how much — due to multicausality) then you’re simply refusing to accept that you might be wrong. In that case, you’re just clinging to a political position and cherry picking science that supports you and ignoring that which doesn’t. That’s meaningless.

Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
That’s quite a song and dance, Boris.

Do you have a clue how much it reveals about how little you grasp about the AGW debate?

You haven’t come that far from the "Venus loses no heat" thing, Boris.

Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Keep in mind that the article above quotes a vague reference, and that it was written less than two weeks ago. This means the scientific community has not yet had time to peer review it, and since it’s only reference (the radio show) cannot be verified the entire basis of the article is useless and needs no further review...

But, just cause I’m bored...

Please see the following article from a GEOLOGY website. This is a little more scientific than the above mentioned article and it uses the same data from AQUA to support the climate change theory:

http://geology.com/nasa/satellite-data-confirms-climate-change.shtml


Written By: scott
URL: http://
multicausality
= n., the art of throwing everything against the wall and see what sticks. Highly effective for future elitist cherry-picking (see "Saddam had no WMDs" and "He was contained by UN sanctions"). Favored technique of resident intellectual class.

Written By: rob
URL: http://
The claims by Marohasy about global temperature leveling off or dropping are unfounded. A simple email to her source, Roy Spencer at NASA, can clear it up. Which is what I did. Roy says that Marohasy is confused. He states that the data is not from the much vaunted Aqua satellite project as Marohasy claimed, and is not global average but a much smaller sample of 20 degrees either side of the equator.

Paper published by Roy Spencer can be found here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Now for some clearly needed Ad hominem. Marohasy, the scientist who has misrepresented the information in the interview, appears to have published only a dozen scientific papers or so in areas such as biological control. Her expertise is clearly not climate. She has had a long association with banking, industry and anti-conservation environmental groups that advocate actions like whale hunting. Not the person I would be quoting on climate change.

Check out Marohasy’s web site:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php

Written By: Simon
URL: http://neoporcupine.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools: Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment: