Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Oops.
Posted by: mcq on Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Sometimes headlines say it best. From Drudge:
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
Heh...

Even if you can't see the humor in it, you can at least appreciate the irony.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
They’ve got you beat. The issue has a backup name called "Climate Change" now. That way we can dismiss anomalies like me freezing my ass off for the past 3-4 weeks.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Just remember, jpm, climate change is bad. Unless you’re talking about using nuclear power to prevent climate change, then a changing climate might not be such a bad idea.

I tell you, it is the height of narcissism to think that the climate achieved its optimal state at the moment you were born, and that any change thereafter is bad. (In this case, "you" would refer to any Anthropogenic Global Warming adherents.)
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
They’ve upgraded us DC-ites from "Light Ice Drizzle" to "Heavy Ice Pellets." Yikes.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
jpm100, lots of us have been calling it climate change from the beginning. Global warming was a nice name that the media latched onto but it only referred to the changes in global average temperatures. Of course now it is so far gone its impossible to pull it back and people still use the argument that ’it was freezing yesterday - so much for global arming’. Its a problem with not disassociating the local effects of increasing average temperatures from the increase themselves. It is also a problem with not being clear on what is weather and what is climate.
Not that I am accusing McQ of mixing it up here.

McQ, yes, it was funny.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Just remember, jpm, climate change is bad. Unless you’re talking about using nuclear power to prevent climate change, then a changing climate might not be such a bad idea.
Personally, I am all in favour of nuclear energy, I live less than 10 miles away from a nuclear reactor. The technology has been improving over the years with more efficient reactors and also more efficient fuel which results in less waste. I think that some thought has to go into how countries manage waste (though I would think that - I also live not too far away from Sellafield and the reprocessing site). One problem with re-introducing nuclear into the UK to the scale that it could take over from coal stations, etc, is the green party. It is close to what you intimated; there is a reluctance to move to nuclear because of the damage that (has been demonstrated) can be done when accidents happen. The reduction in nuclear energy in the UK was a major victory for the greens and it remains to be seen whether they can admit to past failings (if you believe in climate change) and back down.
I tell you, it is the height of narcissism to think that the climate achieved its optimal state at the moment you were born, and that any change thereafter is bad. (In this case, "you" would refer to any Anthropogenic Global Warming adherents.)
Well I think there is an anthropogenic effect and so clearly "you" refers to me. The thing is that I don’t believe that the climate was at its optimal state at the moment we were born. This is a strawman argument to project an easily dismissible arrogance on to those of us who think that trouble is brewing. Climate is not a static equilibrium, it changes constantly on a variety of timescales (mostly very long - that’s why its climate and not weather). Change is not necessarily bad, I’m no conservative in that sense, but some change is bad it all depends on what that change is. If we are all going to have gentle, warmer summers milder winters that would be lovely. If millions die and the global economy is shattered then change is bad. If it is something else... well we shall see. I would tell you that the projections are that bad things will happen, but you don’t believe the projections and so I am wasting my fingers.

Personally I think that it is the height of narcissism to think that one can attribute a single line of thinking to a huge number of people based upon ones’s own jaundiced views. See I can play too.

Bugger, one of these days I will write a short comment here...
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
jpm100, lots of us have been calling it climate change from the beginning.
Kav, "Global Warming" (TM) is what the media, the politicians (esp. leftists), AND the scientific community have decided to call it—by consensus.

Calling it climate change makes you perilously close to being a "global warming denier".

Even though most of the people who are "deniers" don’t dispute that the world is warmer on average now than it was in 1900.

What is under dispute is if human activities have much of anything to do with it.

No one* has produced a climate model yet which accurately predicts the present on the basis of the past, so it is quite premature to say your case is made. It is premature to say your case is well supported.

*If you know of a model which, for example, weights the recorded temperatures by sum of their accorded reliability and which then replicates the present to within a few degrees of the present, please let the world know.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
people still use the argument that ’it was freezing yesterday - so much for global arming’.
I seem to recall that every time the temperature is above average, we have a lot of rain, we have a drought, we have a hurricane, etc.,etc.,etc it is always a "sign proving Antropogenic Global Warming (TM) is real". But when it is cold and snowy, or when the temperature is "normal" (i.e., the average number over the 100 years that temperatures have been accurately measured) it is just a temporary short term anomoly that doesn’t prove anything. I wonder why that is?

Actually Global Warming Inc. has covered its butt on either end with the whole "global warming will lead to the next ice age" theory. Brilliant! That way no matter what the weather does in the short term or long term it is still evidence of AGM(TM). It is the most fool proof prediction ever because every base is covered. If the earth warms, its because of AGM(TM), if the earth cools, its because of AGM(TM).

Global Warming Inc. really has no idea what the results of AGM(TM) will be, but that’s beside the point. For its creators and adherents AGM(TM) has become like our ever changing Constitution: The meaning is entirely in the eyes of the beholder and it’s meaning can be changed to fit whatever short term needs are required. Now that "everybody" believes it, the details don’t really matter any more.

Brilliant!
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
DS, I could easily have said that the argument ’its boiling outside today, that proves global warming!’ is just as stupid and ill informed. I recommend that you weigh the source of the argument - there as many ill-informed people who believe in climate change as who do not. Please do not conflate climate with weather and if someone does, challenge them not with ’Global warming is a massive leftist conspiracy and you are a fool for buying into it’, rather point out to them that it is important to differentiate between weather and climate.

Part of the problem is that many people want simplicity. Increased average global temperatures = hot weather. Well that just isn’t true because the earth-sea-atmosphere system is non-linear. For example, one hypothesis that has been mooted is that increasing temperatures, which would result in the melting of the polar sea ice and Greenland ice sheets could lead to a disruption in the gulf stream (and knock onto the jet stream). This would result in masive changes in the weather patterns over northern Europe. For example the UK would experience weather much closer to that of current day Scandinavia. At the same time the monsoon seasons in equatorial countries could be disrupted leading to harder, hotter summers. Note that none of this is dependent on what you call AGM(TM)
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Personally I think that it is the height of narcissism to think that one can attribute a single line of thinking to a huge number of people based upon ones’s own jaundiced views. See I can play too.
It’s called a joke, Kav; grow a sense of humor. If I’d wanted to make a serious argument against anthropogenic global warming, I would have. The easiest one would be to demand you explain why the earth has warmed and cooled for millennia, even when there were a whole lot less (or even no) people on it, but this warming cycle is caused by man. There are others, but I’m still recovering from the brain shock I got reading the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Bugger, one of these days I will write a short comment here...
We can only hope.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I mean, you’d think with all the hot air from that region...

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Kav, "Global Warming" (TM) is what the media, the politicians (esp. leftists), AND the scientific community have decided to call it—by consensus.
I have never liked the term global warming - as accurate as it may be it leads to confusion and debate premised upon false arguments that just goes round and round and round...


So I, and many of my scientist colleagues call it climate change. I also think you will find that it is the IPCC not IPGW so your consenus argument is a bit rocky.
Calling it climate change makes you perilously close to being a "global warming denier".
I cannot even begin to understand what you mean by this. It makes no sense.

What is under dispute is if human activities have much of anything to do with it
Agreed. I have had discussion here and elsewhere over this many times. It was a very hard battle to get over the point that it is happening and even now there are people out there who call it a hoax. Though I have never been sure who is perpetrating said hoax and what the aim is.
I have said before that the preponderence of evidnece suggests to me that human activities have a significant effect on climate change. In fact I think the largest problem is one of timing - if, for example, these levels of CO2, etc, were pumped out into the atmosphere at other times (e.g. during the Maunder minimim/Little Ice Age) there would not be a problem. Sadly we seem to have picked the time that the overall solar activity has increased such that we are adding to an already increasing effect. Much more needs to be looked at in terms of the solar input and potential amplifying effects (see Dale’s recent post). I hope that solar activity might swing back so that we get some time to sort out our own effects soon, but that is just wishing.
No one* has produced a climate model yet which accurately predicts the present on the basis of the past, so it is quite premature to say your case is made. It is premature to say your case is well supported.
This is a difficult one, simply because when I have answered it for others in the past I have had to premise the discussion with a talk on error estimates and confidence intrevals (hah, and what do I know, I am an observationalist!). For example I have presented people with plots and they take one look at the confidence interval or error bars and tell me it is clear that they do not work because look at the errors - what do people mean when they say ’accurate’?

But in the spirit of open debate I offer two (or maybe one and a half) suggestions for models doing well at ’nowcasting’.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a nice test case where a number of models were able to predict the global cooling effect of (I think) 0.5 degrees Celcius and various internal feedback mechanisms were verified. I think the lead paper was by Hansen et al., in 1996.
Changes in sea ice have been captured very well as well. I think this paper is an indictaion of that but I don’t have time to re-read it at the moment so I just offer the link so you can check for yourself.

The argument that the models fail to predict now based on the past is pretty much an old argument that holds up less and less as time goes by.



 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
It’s called a joke, Kav; grow a sense of humor.
Apologies, but it did not look like a joke. I’ve come across too many comments like that which were intentional. Maybe next time add a smiley :-)

And here is your short comment...
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
people still use the argument that ’it was freezing yesterday - so much for global warming’
Yeah, because it really angers the many people who yell about global warming during an unseasonably hot day
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yeah, because it really angers the many people who yell about global warming during an unseasonably hot day
shark, see above where I say:
I could easily have said that the argument ’its boiling outside today, that proves global warming!’ is just as stupid and ill informed.
You know, I promised myself ages ago not to get drawn into discussion on climate change on line - they just disrupt the working day as I get too interested. Sadly, it seems that I cannot help myself...

>Must. Not. Press. Refresh...<
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
I have never liked the term global warming - as accurate as it may be it leads to confusion and debate premised upon false arguments that just goes round and round and round...
If it is accurate, then how does it lead to confusion? "Global Warming" It doesn’t even have any words with more than two syllables. The false arguments start with the notion there is an assumption that man is substantially causing global warming, and that we should take steps to stop it—and that this notion is backed by sound science.
So I, and many of my scientist colleagues call it climate change. I also think you will find that it is the IPCC not IPGW so your consenus argument is a bit rocky.
When the IPCC report addresses global warming, its supporters talk exclusively about "anthropogenic warming" and they insist we have to stop talking and start making treaties and laws to stop it—my argument holds up quite well.
I cannot even begin to understand what you mean by this. It makes no sense.
I mean no disrespect, but really, you are politically tone deaf. To dissent from the key tenets of Global Warming (TM) makes you a denier in the eyes of Al Gore and his followers, who are the scientists making up (in more ways than one), his consensus. You do not sound like you are toeing the line sufficiently to be sure you won’t be dinged as a "denier".
Agreed. I have had discussion here and elsewhere over this many times. It was a very hard battle to get over the point that it is happening and even now there are people out there who call it a hoax.
Oh it is a hoax for some of them, and it is a mania for others. At first, warming had to be proved (and now that it’s proved, no one wants to talk about the fact it has stopped and in the Antarctic either never happened as much or has reversed). It is contrary to the AGW concept, hence it is not acceptable for discussion.
Though I have never been sure who is perpetrating said hoax and what the aim is.
Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

For some, it is self loathing, they want our species to be extinct. Doing what would be neccessary to prevent human activity from changing the climate would go a long way towards reaching that goal. For others, they are leftist of the worst stripe, they hate the West and want to see it humbled, again actually doing something like Kyoto—but an effective treaty—would do much towards that goal. Others are just so convinced it makes sense they actually believe it, even though it cannot be proved*.

And I think a large part of Al Gore’s motivation is that it’s how he keeps that delicious, on camera, relevant feeling.

*The largely anthropogenic part, not the warming part.
I have said before that the preponderence of evidnece suggests to me that human activities have a significant effect on climate change.
I suggest you have no tools by which to test that hypothesis which are tools which are good enough.
In fact I think the largest problem is one of timing - if, for example, these levels of CO2, etc, were pumped out into the atmosphere at other times (e.g. during the Maunder minimim/Little Ice Age) there would not be a problem.
That doesn’t follow. You would have to show that the carbon would be sequestered from the atmosphere before the Maunder Minimum was over in time to prevent a higher temp influence later—and the models we have don’t account for how the temp rises don’t follow the carbon rises in any particular pattern, so how could you tell either way?
Sadly we seem to have picked the time that the overall solar activity has increased such that we are adding to an already increasing effect.
Sadly for AGW proponents, it looks like the solar activity may account for a great deal of the warming, meaning we can’t affect it anyway.
Much more needs to be looked at in terms of the solar input and potential amplifying effects (see Dale’s recent post).
And until that is done at least, hypotheses of AGW justify no laws.
I hope that solar activity might swing back so that we get some time to sort out our own effects soon, but that is just wishing.
Some you will see in your lifetime, the rest you will not. There should be a good enough geologic record to tease out the correlation, I would think. But it would tend to disprove AGW, so the Dems/leftists will try to defund it, and if the energy companies/conservatives fund it it will be dismissed politically as propaganda. And the libertarians couldn’t scrape together the grad students’ beer budget.
This is a difficult one, simply because when I have answered it for others in the past I have had to premise the discussion with a talk on error estimates and confidence intrevals (hah, and what do I know, I am an observationalist!).
If there is validity to the confidence intervals bounding the influence of the disparate forces, and if forces and mechanisms being summed are the relevant ones, then the trend line of the past should be reconstructible from the data used to develop the magnitude and interaction of the forces.

If this cannot be done, then the models cannot be used to justify coercive policy.
For example I have presented people with plots and they take one look at the confidence interval or error bars and tell me it is clear that they do not work because look at the errors - what do people mean when they say ’accurate’?
Like I said, the trend lines of past climate temps may be reproduced from the data fed into the models. If it were never off by more than 1 or two degrees, that would be accuracy in my eyes.
But in the spirit of open debate I offer two (or maybe one and a half) suggestions for models doing well at nowcasting’.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo provided a nice test case where a number of models were able to predict the global cooling effect of (I think) 0.5 degrees Celcius and various internal feedback mechanisms were verified. I think the lead paper was by Hansen et al., in 1996.
And did increased nucleation of clouds result in changed rainfall patterns which increased desertification of the sub-Sahara, leading to North African temperatures increased above what simple shading would imply? I don’t know. They don’t either. The discrete pulse made for initally easily measured effects. The confidence in measuring those effects decreases with time. Also, if the fall-off in cooling influence from Pinatubo simply tracks the sifting of particles from the air to the ground reducing shading, then it makes a poor model for the effects of CO2, which has chemical interactions with every living thing, and directly influences plant growth which affects how solar heating occurs—baking dirt and heating dry air or transpiring water from leaves. And that’s one of maybe 100 things CO2 alone does to alter local temps. And the climate is in part the sum of local temps.

The unitary climate models are not complex enough to predict events of long duration, they may handle some discrete pulse input okay.
Changes in sea ice have been captured very well as well.
It seems to be increasing in Antarctica.
I think this paper is an indictaion of that but I don’t have time to re-read it at the moment so I just offer the link so you can check for yourself.
I can make a step change in the output driving very complicated systems and observe an effect. This doesn’t mean I can expect the identical response in the future.
The argument that the models fail to predict now based on the past is pretty much an old argument that holds up less and less as time goes by.
And the estimates of the magnitude of the effects of AGW get smaller as you say the models get better.

I suspect the accuracy will reach the point of minimum practical uncertainty at about the same time the estimated effects of AGW become negligible.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Ah, what a fun way to start the day.
If it is accurate, then how does it lead to confusion? "Global Warming" It doesn’t even have any words with more than two syllables.
I hinted at why in my previous comments. Some folk take the phrase ’global warming’ and interpret that to mean a linear relationship. It goes from the simple argument ’its hot/cold outside today so that proves/disproves global warming’ to ’records maintained at station X show a consistent cooling over the past 100 years, therefore global warming is bogus’. Simple really.
When the IPCC report addresses global warming, its supporters talk exclusively about "anthropogenic warming" and they insist we have to stop talking and start making treaties and laws to stop it—my argument holds up quite well.
I, and a number of other colleagues support the work of the IPCC and do not exclusively talk about "anthropogenic warming" so this statement is false. I can give you the benefit of the doubt and offer that you meant ’some’ or even ’most’. Also the argument I was talking about was not related to the AGW (to borrow the acronym from someone else), You said:

Kav, "Global Warming" (TM) is what the media, the politicians (esp. leftists), AND the scientific community have decided to call it—by consensus.
This said nothing about AGW, you said we had decided to call it "Global Warming" by consensus (with a snarky (TM) no less), I pointed out that the IPCC is not the IPGW which it would be if your statement held up to scrutiny and wasn’t just an attempt at a mocking dismissal.
I mean no disrespect, but really, you are politically tone deaf. To dissent from the key tenets of Global Warming (TM) makes you a denier in the eyes of Al Gore and his followers, who are the scientists making up (in more ways than one), his consensus. You do not sound like you are toeing the line sufficiently to be sure you won’t be dinged as a "denier".
I suspect that this paragraph speaks more to your own perceptions than the experiences I have in my life when talking to colleagues and climatologists about climate change - not all of whom think that the solar influence is as large as others. Now I grant that there is hysteria out there, fanned by a media with a nice story hook, but you specifically mentioned the scientists. As for Al Gore, well I have never spoken to him about the subject so I cannot say whether he would consider me a denier or not, I don’t have your insight. I offer all due respect but humbly suggest that you are overly tied to a narrative in which the illogical liberals do whatever it takes to achieve their aim... whatever that may be in this case. Quite frankly I think that you have a biased view of the situation coloured by your own political persuasuions rather than any real appreciation for the science involved. I surmise this based not just on this comment but on the many others you have made on this site.
Oh it is a hoax for some of them, and it is a mania for others. At first, warming had to be proved (and now that it’s proved, no one wants to talk about the fact it has stopped and in the Antarctic either never happened as much or has reversed). It is contrary to the AGW concept, hence it is not acceptable for discussion.
Again, with all due respect, you sound like those conspiracy-worshippers who think that the American government blew up the twin towers. It’s a hoax, it has stopped and is now reversing but the scietists won’t talk about it. Do you know how hard it is to get scientists to agree on a single line of data? Now you expect me to believe that there is a massive worldwide (its not just USA) conspiracy in which we are partaking? And one I may add, where I got left off the mailing list (or did I?). I’m sorry but with comments like this you are making yourself less and less relevent to the debate.

I don’t mind people arguing that solar forcing can account for 100% of the changes. I don’t mind people arguing over the interpretation of data. I don’t mind if folk say its not happening, you are all wrong and here is why. But if we are going to descend into the realms of fantasy by calling it a hoax perpetrated by some select few (or many) then i am not interested in what you have to say.
Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
So that’s where the secret, sealed orders come from....
For some, it is self loathing, they want our species to be extinct. Doing what would be neccessary to prevent human activity from changing the climate would go a long way towards reaching that goal. For others, they are leftist of the worst stripe, they hate the West and want to see it humbled, again actually doing something like Kyoto—but an effective treaty—would do much towards that goal. Others are just so convinced it makes sense they actually believe it, even though it cannot be proved*.

And I think a large part of Al Gore’s motivation is that it’s how he keeps that delicious, on camera, relevant feeling.
Oh. My. God.

I clearly am politically tone deaf, or at least naive. I never realised that otherwise serious people could actually believe this.
I suggest you have no tools by which to test that hypothesis which are tools which are good enough.
Based upon your words to this point I suggest that if I was to get them out and wave them under your nose whilst dancing naked at the south pole you would not believe me.
In fact I think the largest problem is one of timing - if, for example, these levels of CO2, etc, were pumped out into the atmosphere at other times (e.g. during the Maunder minimim/Little Ice Age) there would not be a problem.
That doesn’t follow. You would have to show that the carbon would be sequestered from the atmosphere before the Maunder Minimum was over in time to prevent a higher temp influence later—and the models we have don’t account for how the temp rises don’t follow the carbon rises in any particular pattern, so how could you tell either way?
Yes and yes. It does follow, if we had this during a period such as the Maunder minimum then we would have no immediate problem. If the sun then once again became more active the problem would surface. You are correct that unless sequestered the CO2 would then lead to a problem.
Sadly for AGW proponents, it looks like the solar activity may account for a great deal of the warming, meaning we can’t affect it anyway.
It is mildly interesting to me that you are very prepared to believe the findings of one group of scientists whose work is disputed over the work of other scientists whose work is disputed. An interesting example of your politically inspired bias shining through or something else?
And until that is done at least, hypotheses of AGW justify no laws.
And on this we may well reach agreement.
Some you will see in your lifetime, the rest you will not. There should be a good enough geologic record to tease out the correlation, I would think. But it would tend to disprove AGW, so the Dems/leftists will try to defund it, and if the energy companies/conservatives fund it it will be dismissed politically as propaganda. And the libertarians couldn’t scrape together the grad students’ beer budget.
Thank goodness for you. I can retire, you personally have it all figured out. Oh, but then we come back to the conspiracy theory. Here is something I will give you: I want for you to be right and me to be wrong. I really, really want that because if that is the case we may live in a world where massive worldwide frauds are played on the public for a variety of crazy reasons but at least we would not be potentially facing disaster.

This discussion has passed the point of being useful and decline to continue for the reasons stated here
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.blogspot.com
Apologies I messed up the end of the last comment:

This discussion has passed the point of being useful and I decline to continue for the ">reasons stated here.

I would recommend that anyone interested in learning about the current state of the model or in following more of teh debate they should 1) read the relevent literature (sadly much of it requires subscriptiosn to journals) rather than the press releases and 2) look at realclimate, though I suspect that this is viewed by many die-hard sceptics as nothing more than a liberal tool.

It is sad that this issue has become a politically partisan one. I don’t know who is to blame for that.
 
Written By: Kav
URL: http://livingrealworld.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:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider