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

 
Lomborg addresses some of the Goracle’s more outlandish claims
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 12, 2007

Interestingly, he does it with the IPCC report. For instance:
While Gore was creating alarm with his belief that a 20-foot-high wall of water would inundate low-lying cities, the IPCC showed us we should realistically prepare for a rise of one foot or so by the end of the century. Beyond the dramatic difference, it is also worth putting that one foot in perspective. Over the last 150 years, sea levels rose about one foot - yet, did we notice?
Not that I know of. More, this time about the Gulf Stream:
Most tellingly, while Gore was raising fears about the Gulf Stream halting and a new Ice Age starting, the scientists discounted the prospect entirely.

The Gulf Stream takes warm water from around Mexico and pushes it toward Europe. Around 8,000 years ago, a melting lake in the region of the present-day Canadian Great Lakes broke through and a massive torrent of cold, fresh water flooded into the North Atlantic, significantly slowing the Gulf Stream for around 400 years. Gore worries that Greenland's ice shelves could melt and do the same thing again.

Ice in Greenland is obviously melting. But over the next century, it'll spill 1,000 times less water into the ocean than occurred 8,000 years ago. It will have a negligible effect on the Gulf Stream.
But what if the unlikely happened and the Gulf Stream was shut down?
But what sort of nightmare would ensue if Gore were right? Siberia-like conditions in Europe? Actually, no. Europe would need to plunge by almost 13C to get that cold. Halting the Gulf Stream wouldn't achieve anything near that.

Gore and others have bought into a popular myth: that the Gulf Stream is the reason that western European winters are so much warmer than those of eastern North America. It is true the Gulf Stream provides a few degrees of extra heat to Europe, but it actually warms the west side of the North Atlantic almost as much. It's not the reason Europe is warmer than the US in winter; warm winds are.
In fact, says the IPCC:
"Catastrophic scenarios about the beginning of an ice age… are mere speculations, and no climate model has produced such an outcome. In fact, the processes leading to an ice age are sufficiently well understood and completely different from those discussed here, that we can confidently exclude this scenario."
Question: Will Al Gore now modify "An Inconvenient Truth" to reflect these findings? Or, as he has previously stated, should those voices which contradict his findings be ignored?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Over the last 150 years, sea levels rose about one foot - yet, did we notice?

No.. However, a hundred and fifty years is about twice the average lifetime of an individual person. I’m fairly certain that a sea rise of one foot over the time period has brought about some interesting and significant changes for both the ill and the good over that time period.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
I’m fairly certain that a sea rise of one foot over the time period has brought about some interesting and significant changes for both the ill and the good over that time period.
Like what? If you’re fairly certain of this, it should be easy to find. How are things measurably different along the coasts in the last 150 years?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
This is why I like Lomborg so much. He’s a sane sensible man in a world full of "Chicken Little" - "the sky is falling" scaremongers.
 
Written By: Teresa
URL: http://technicalities.mu.nu
Steverino,

Why am I fairly certain? Because it makes sense on its face. A rise of a foot over a century is highly likely going to have some effect. As for an actual example, Venice is currently dealing with a significant problem effects its future - namely the increased risk of flooding. Now the Italian government is building a seawall to do deal with the issue and will likely take care of it*, but I would suspect that at least some of the original problem is due to a raised sea level.

*The engineering behind it is pretty neat.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
No.. However, a hundred and fifty years is about twice the average lifetime of an individual person. I’m fairly certain that a sea rise of one foot over the time period has brought about some interesting and significant changes for both the ill and the good over that time period.
A whole lot of things changed in that time period for good and ill, some we did, some we didn’t do.

Let me think of one, ah...we internationally outlawed the use of triangular bayonets.

How about another...women no longer have their lower ribs removed to achieve the wasp waist in fashion 150 years ago....

Hey, here’s another, we developed electric power and a grid to run it over...

Ya know Mr Samos, I’ll bet, on the average, not many people noticed the rise in the 1 foot rise in sea level, over the course of twice their lifetimes....

And Venice has been sinking in addition to the sea rising...funny thing about how that works when you build in a swamp. Now, as an engineering example, they could have used Nostradamus to read into the future and they would have learned about the Brooklyn bridge. Where, rather than build the bridge towers in the mud they understood it would sink...and used caissons to remove the mud till they got down to the bedrock so they wouldn’t have to worry about it.

So, in your example, someone makes a good decision (several hundred years ago) about the area they want to build in, and over the course of several hundred years it works out badly. D@mn it! Gaia obviously went back on her contract not to change anything! It’s criminal, I’m tellin ya!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why am I fairly certain? Because it makes sense on its face. A rise of a foot over a century is highly likely going to have some effect
Whether it makes sense is immaterial to the existence of evidence to support your statement. This isn’t gedanken physics, this is recent history. There should exist some record of the changes you are "fairly certain" occurred.

Just because something "makes sense" doesn’t mean it actually happened. I could walk up to a craps table and claim that the last roll was 7, because that’s the most likely roll. But if the last roll was really a 4, all my arguments over what makes sense are meaningless.

If it’s as obvious as you think, then there should be mountains of available evidence. If there is no evidence, then maybe there were no significant changes. All I ask is that you back up your claim of what you are so certain of.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
I’m going to put a finer point on my last post:

Since 1850, we have recorded just about everything that has happened. We know every President, Vice President, Senator, Representative, and cabinet member that has served. We know exactly what was debated in every session of Congress. We know the results of the most obscure votes. We know the scores and participants of virtually every professional baseball, football, basketball and hockey game played. We know down to the hundredth of a second the running time of the last-place finisher in the 100 meter race in the 1968 Olympics. We know the temperatures of every US city. We know what television shows were aired since 1950. We know the names of every book published in the US and every patent taken out. We know all these things because they were written down, and the record still exists.

And yet, we apparently don’t know what significant changes took place along our coasts because of a 1 foot rise in sea level over that time. It’s my contention that we don’t know this because no significant changes took place.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
looker,

What’s your point exactly? Is there something in my statement that you wish to controvert?

And Venice has been sinking in addition to the sea rising...funny thing about how that works when you build in a swamp.

In reference to this statement let me quote myself:

...but I would suspect that at least some of the original problem is due to a raised sea level.

Steverino,

There should exist some record of the changes you are "fairly certain" occurred.

I gave you an example which you did not controvert.

I don’t think that it is at all controversial to state that a rise of a foot in sea level globally (which I take to be an average - some places more and some places less) has brought very likely brought about some good and ill effects. If you can tell me why it is controversial for me to state such please do.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Steverino,

And yet, we apparently don’t know what significant changes took place along our coasts because of a 1 foot rise in sea level over that time.

I gave you an example which you did not controvert. So, when are you going to tell me that I am wrong about Venice’s problem being in part a result of an increase of mean sea level height?
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Will Al Gore now modify "An Inconvenient Truth" to reflect these findings?
You don’t just modify the Bible.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I gave you an example which you did not controvert. So, when are you going to tell me that I am wrong about Venice’s problem being in part a result of an increase of mean sea level height?
You gave no evidence that Venice’s problem is at all due to an increase in mean sea level. All you said was:
but I would suspect that at least some of the original problem is due to a raised sea level.
That’s nothing but your own suspicion.

I feel no obligation to controvert a hunch.

Show me something in the written historical record which indicates there have been significant (your word, not mine) changes along the coasts in the past 150 years. You have pointed to one city that is doing something about what might happen in the future. But you have yet to show any changes that have occurred in the past 150 years.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
I don’t think that it is at all controversial to state that a rise of a foot in sea level globally (which I take to be an average - some places more and some places less) has brought very likely brought about some good and ill effects.
Well, the last time I went to the beach, the ocean’s rise forced me to move my stuff. Some of it even got wet.

If that isn’t proof of GW and its potential effects, I don’t know what is.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://

I don’t think that it is at all controversial to state that a rise of a foot in sea level globally (which I take to be an average - some places more and some places less) has brought very likely brought about some good and ill effects. If you can tell me why it is controversial for me to state such please do.
It’s not controversial to say that it might happen. But when you have recent history that contradicts you, it’s foolish to assert that it did happen. Do you understand the point I’m making here?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
What’s your point exactly? Is there something in my statement that you wish to controvert?
I don’t know - what was the point of saying something like
I’m fairly certain that a sea rise of one foot over the time period has brought about some interesting and significant changes for both the ill and the good over that time period.
When it’s basically the same as all the other things I said, which, up until the Venice bit, were really useful observations like
"The sun rises in the east", except they were areas representative of life altering changes brought about over the last 150 years.
I gave you an example which you did not controvert.
I don’t think that it is at all controversial to state that a rise of a foot in sea level globally (which I take to be an average - some places more and some places less) has brought very likely brought about some good and ill effects. If you can tell me why it is controversial for me to state such please do.
The difference is, you’re alluding to the sea level change as something significant, which tied to the Goracle’s movie is to be significantly blamed on man, and made a broad brush statement which sounded like something wise, but wasn’t.

What you’re playing to is the weak minded who will nod their heads to your statement as if it had meaning in the current context and take it as further evidence of damage caused by Global Warming(TM) and by logical extension AGW(TM). In general few here dispute it is warming, or has been warming, the dispute is over our contribution as humans doing what we do, to the process.

And, you’re still playing with Venice, which is sinking regardless of any change in sea level. So, the problem isn’t the rise in sea level.
Another foot, over the course of 150 years, is the least of Venice’s foundational problems.
For all intents it merely makes the city appear to be sinking faster, but they have a fundamental problem to deal with that isn’t going to go away, even if sea level descends a foot tomorrow.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Steverino,

You gave no evidence that Venice’s problem is at all due to an increase in mean sea level.

It is well known that is part of the issue. If you don’t believe me, so be it.

Show me something in the written historical record which indicates there have been significant (your word, not mine) changes along the coasts in the past 150 years.

To quote:

A rise of a few mm per year by the sea, although not threatening spectacular inundation of the sort described earlier, is still extremely important. Direct land loss of low lying areas can rapidly (decadal to centennial periods) damage or destroy coastal ecosystems. A good illustration of this occurs in the Chesapeake Bay. The average rate of relative sea level rise (RSLR) in this area has been approximately 3.5 mm per year during the twentieth century. This is about twice the global value of sea level rise. Regional subsidence, discussed below, is responsible for the increment over the global value. Downs et al. [1994] describe the widespread loss of the Bay’s wetlands due to this increase of sea level. As just one example of the rapid and inexorable change that can occur, one third of the area of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge area near Cambridge, Maryland was lost by inundation between 1938 and 1979.

looker,

My comments have nothing to do with Al Gore’s movie. I haven’t seen the movie. I probably won’t. So my comment isn’t "tied" his movie in any way.

What you’re playing...

I’m not playing anything. I’m not on your couch and you aren’t my shrink.

 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
looker,

BTW, before you attribute ideas, etc. to me again ask me my opinion. You will find the conversation goes far more smoothly.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
looker,

Check out this article on a lecture give on Venice’s problem; note the language regarding sea level rise.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
looker,

BTW, just for the sake of telling you my opinion on the subject, AGW is real, its effects will probably be significant in some areas, and humans will be able to largely remedy those effects. By 2100 I suspect that more humans will be better off than has ever been the case and that less regions of the world will have to deal with endemic poverty, starvation, significant loss of life from diseases like malaria, etc.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
It is well known that is part of the issue. If you don’t believe me, so be it.
Calling BS here. You’ve given absolutely nothing to support this, beyond your own hunch. I asked you for evidence, and you engaged in hand-waving.

As far as the link you provided, it shows that some uninhabited lands have disappeared. It doesn’t show significant changes to mankind as a result. If that’s all you have, then your assertion remains unproven.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
There’s just something hinky about discussing sea rise, especially GLOBAL sea rise, when using the "m" word. That’s right - MILLIMETER.

If you had bothered to go to the next page in the source you quoted, you would have found this interesting:
Unfortunately, there are complicating factors beyond the issue of PGR, and published results reflect a lack of consensus as to how to deal with them as well. In addition to whether or not PGR was explicitly modeled, differences between analyses include data record length, tide gauge station selection criteria, and analysis method. The inability of investigators to arrive at a consensus concerning the rate of global sea level rise, or even how to approach the problem, has led some authors to conclude that global sea level rise cannot be measured at all. Barnett [1984] states that ``it is not possible to uniquely determine either a global rate of change of sea level or even the average rate of change associated with the existing inadequate data set.’’ Emery and Aubrey [1991] state that (p. 176) ``At present, we cannot discover a statistically reliable rate for eustatic rise of sea level alone’’ Pirazzoli [1993] is the most pessimistic, declaring that ``the determination of a single sea-level curve of global applicability is an illusory task.’’
In addition to this, the earth’s crust is continually shifting. Trying to extrapolate GLOBAL SEA RISE!!!!1!! from what you think may be a ONE MILLIMETER annual increase is a fool’s game.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Jeff,

Yes, they are mm over short spans of time. Like anything else, small changes lead to larger changes if the short changes stay consistent long enough.

I did go to the next page. Some authors argue that one cannot accurately differentiate the two. Others argue that one can. That’s science.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
BTW, before you attribute ideas, etc. to me again ask me my opinion. You will find the conversation goes far more smoothly.
AGW is real, its effects will probably be significant in some areas, and humans will be able to largely remedy those effects.
Then I guessed right about at least one of your opinions.
Lucky guess I suppose. As you might guess, I am absolutely no sale on AGW.

As to no link to Gore’s movie - other than the point of the post, and commenting on the post - none it seems, you’ve reached the AGW conclusion without any help from Al. It’s hard for me to say bravo over that since it’s a pretty fundamental point of disagreement and likely to lead to government decisions you might like to see made that I probably won’t be in favor of.
That’s science.
Unfortunately I view the AGW hysteria as science in the same way I view the idea that Malaria is caused by ’bad air’ wafting up from the swamp.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
FWIW, Carl Wunsch, an MIT oceanographer who is a (possibly the) leading expert on ocean circulation says:
The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both....The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon — within tens of millions of years —has a probability of little more than zero.
See http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/naturegulfstreamltr.pdf.

Interesting that Al Gore seems to be unaware of his work.

 
Written By: stuartl
URL: http://
looker,

It’s hard for me to say bravo over that since it’s a pretty fundamental point of disagreement and likely to lead to government decisions you might like to see made that I probably won’t be in favor of.

Actually, I think it is better to admit that AGW is occuring so as to head off such governmental interference.

Are you in general disagreement with Christ & Spencer’s climate data then?



 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Actually, I think it is better to admit that AGW is occuring so as to head off such governmental interference.
Ah, a voluntary change to the economies and life styles of the industrialized west based on a theoretical whim, yes, I can see that happening now...
Are you in general disagreement with Christ & Spencer’s climate data then?
In order to disagree with it, I’d have to be aware of it.
You’re going to have to provide me for the link(s) to that before I could give you any type of answer as to whether or not I agree in general or in detail.

Roy Spencer?

And yes, in any event, I have to say I haven’t seen a global climate model yet that I buy, or a modeling routine that I’m convinced reflects reality. GIGO.

But, you give me the link(s), and I’ll look the data over (and that should probably shut me up for the rest of the day eh?).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Actually, I think it is better to admit that AGW is occuring so as to head off such governmental interference
If you say that, do you honestly think that will head off govt. inteference!???!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Some authors argue that one cannot accurately differentiate the two. Others argue that one can. That’s science.
No, that’s debate.

This is science.

And here lies the heart of the problem:
The debate has been fueled by the fundamental disagreement between observations and measurements (data) and computer models (mathematical constructs). Mathematical models are approximations derived from assumptions. Even the most sophisticated mathematical model is primitive when compared to the natural systems they purport to replicate.
What Barnett et al. are saying is that the variables of Post Glacial Rebound and tectonic plate movement, as they relate to sea level, a fluid body that is in a constant state of rising and falling, are too complex to accurately describe, let alone model. These models, admittedly inadequate, are then used to extrapolate future sea levels.

Exactly like the AGW scaremongers.

How’d that 2006 hurricane season work out? Fizzle. "Oh, but it was the El Nino! The El Nino!"

If they’re such crackerjack doomcasters, why couldn’t they have predicted THAT?

How’d that 2007 hurricane season work out? Non-event.

It is the height of arrogance to pronounce that you can predict the performance of a system you cannot even adequately describe. That’s not science, that’s bullsh!t.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
If you say that, do you honestly think that will head off govt. inteference!???!
Roughly, even as we speak.
VALENCIA, Spain — The U.N.’s top climate official challenged world policymakers Monday to map out a path to curb climate change, charging that to ignore the urgency of global warming would be "nothing less than criminally irresponsible...
.
.
.
The IPCC already has established that the climate has begun to change because of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans, said de Boer, director of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Everyone will feel its effects, but global warming will hit the poorest countries hardest and will "threaten the very survival" of some people, he said.

"Failing to recognize the urgency of this message and act on it would be nothing less that criminally irresponsible" and a direct attack on the world’s poorest people, De Boer said.
.
.
.
"It will not cost the earth to save the Earth," as little as 0.1 percent of the gross global product for 30 years, said Janos Pasztor, of the U.N. Environmental Program, a parent body of the IPCC.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310759,00.html

How I look forward with fond hope as the world hands over .1% of it’s product for 30 years to the UN so it can be...uh...spent wisely to save us.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Are you in general disagreement with Christ & Spencer’s climate data then?
And did you mean, perhaps, Christy and Spencer?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
this report?
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How I look forward with fond hope as the world hands over .1% of it’s product for 30 years to the UN so it can be...uh...spent wisely to save us.
AHEM... don’t you mean as the United States, font of all that is evil and carbon-ish, hands it over?
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
looker,

Yes, those are the ones.

shark,

Because being an uber-skeptic in the face of the current evidence is I think the surest way to cede the field to those who would argue for said government actions.

Jeff,

I don’t believe I made a comment about hurricanes. I never thought there was much weight to claims about increased hurricane activity being due to climate change. Though apparently hurricane frequency does wax and wane over some roughly measureable frequency.

It is the height of arrogance to pronounce that you can predict the performance of a system you cannot even adequately describe.

Actually, you may wish to note that I’ve been discussing rather exclusively past performance re: sea level rise.


 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
After looking at it, must be another Christy and Spencer you’re talking about.
Since one of them felt it necessary to create, and detail during his talk (from the report) a website called FightGlobalWarmingHysteria.com.

From the PDF -

For example -
(snip)
Now I know that there are some plans to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. From everything I have seen, and probably John too, economically what is important to people is feeding their families, especially in the one-third of the world that is still trying to do that. I don’t see any way that we are going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, let alone stabilize them in the next thirty years. Energy provides such tremendous benefits that it will be almost impossible to withhold it from humanity. We probably won’t even level out for decades to come until we get new technology. Carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. I would put money on that; of course, I may not be able to collect until after I die.
As for climate responses, John estimates one inch per decade sea level rise and surface temperature increases of 2-5o F by the end of the century. But I don’t think we know what we are going to be producing in terms of CO2 thirty years down the road. There will be little change in extreme weather events. And I wouldn’t be surprised if ten or twenty years from now we start cooling dramatically and everyone throws up their hands and can’t explain what is going on.
There will be surprises, like I just said, including discoveries of energy sources or carbon sequestration technologies. It is obvious that if you want to reduce CO2, you are not going to do it by conservation and I don’t think you are going to do it by legislative fiat, because humanity will revolt. This is already happening; India and China are rapidly growing their economies. I have already alluded to the fact that predicting climate as well as technology is very difficult. It is hard to say what is going to be going on climate-wise or technology-wise thirty years from now.

Now Figure 28 is mine; John hasn’t seen this. He is my boss and he is probably going to take me to the woodshed after I show this. I don’t know about you, but I was pretty annoyed when I first saw the new public service ad which has a man standing in front of an oncoming freight train behind him and saying, “Serious global warming thirty years away? I don’t care. It doesn’t affect me.” He walks away and leaves a little girl

George C. Marshall Institute 24
Satellite Temperature Data

about to be hit by the freight train. Then they ask you to go to the website, FightGlobal-Warming.com.

Figure 28
As soon as I saw that, I was angry because of the exaggeration of the whole thing. Global warming is like a freight train that is going to hit you all of a sudden? Global warming is the kind of thing that, even if it does happen, is going to be so slow that you are not going to notice it. So as soon as I saw that on a Friday night, I said, “Somebody needs to do a website called “FightGlobalWarmingHysteria.com.” Well, there went most of my weekend. Figure 28 shows one of the articles I have at that website. As you see, I have changed parts of the TIME magazine cover. I present it as a special report on bad journalism: “Climate Alarmism Has Reached A Tipping Point.” I thought tipping points were theoretical things that might happen in the future, but TIME says they are already here; they are all around us. Another headline is “How Bad Policy Will Affect You.”

Christy: You are right. I hadn’t seen that.

Spencer: My new website is news to John. Does this mean I get a cut in pay next year? Figure 29 is the home page for the website. I actually copied the look and feel of their website, FightGlobalWarming.com. Up in the corner they have ‘Environmental Defense’, because it is their website, so I put up ‘Humanity’s Defense’ rather than ‘Environmental Defense’. It turns out that that domain name is available so if somebody wanted to have an organization called Humanity’s Defense, HumanitysDefense.com is available. I have a number of websites, and I can tell you that these days it is hard to find any domain names that haven’t already been used.

George C. Marshall Institute 25
Satellite Temperature Data

Figure 29
So I have a little write-up about that ad. A number of people have signed up to what I have on the website and offered suggestions for changes, including climate scien-tists, economists and evangelicals. That is another story and I would be glad to talk to you about it off-line. Figure 29 shows the link to my page about that TIME magazine article. So I just wanted to put a pitch in for this, because I felt strongly about it at the time.
or -
Spencer: Give me a policy and the numbers just don’t tell you anything can be done. To follow up on that, personally my opinion is we need to stop focusing on whether global warming is occurring or not and start debating the issue of what quantitatively can we do about it, if it is warming. We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can at-tribute to mankind. Jim Hansen had his smoking gun and said that he could prove that it’s all man-made. All he did was come up with one possible scenario, physical explana-tion. There are probably a thousand of them to explain the temperature changes in the last hundred years. He claims we have proof of the radiative forcing. That radiative im-balance that is often talked about due to the extra CO2 has never been measured. It is calculated based on theory, because the instruments that we have in orbit (I used to work for NASA and I still have an instrument up there) are not accurate enough to measure the small imbalance in the radiation budget of the earth that is supposedly due to the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.
Everybody assumes that the earth naturally is in radiative balance, and yet we don’t even know that from an observational point of view. It could be that the earth is con-stantly out of radiative balance. We know it certainly is locally, because that is what drives the weather. Weather is a complex, fluid system that is forced by heat inequalities around the earth; that is what drives it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were substantial imbal-ances in the earth’s radiative budget and yet everybody starts out assuming that it is in balance. My personal opinion is that the modelers who believe this are mostly physicists rather than atmospheric scientists and they not as familiar with the climate system com-plexities that we atmospheric types tend to focus on. All of these assumptions about the Earth being in radiative balance are made by modelers, but I don’t think anybody had demonstrated them. They are just assumptions.

George C. Marshall Institute 28
Satellite Temperature Data

Christy: I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface meas-urements that we have, but it is not the greenhouse relation. Are we going to return the Central Valley to a desert? Are we going to tell all the people in Africa they cannot burn wood anymore? Well, we could if we gave them coal-fired electricity, I suppose, which would be better for the environment because their forests are being destroyed. The habi-tat for the wild animals is going away because these people are chopping down the forests to survive.
Spencer: Very few people in our field have actually been out there making meas
Are you sure this is the report you want to base your decision about AGW on?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Go to the link looker provided and read the whole thing. Christy and Spencer discuss the methodology of collecting temperature data and the problems with modeling.

I don’t know why in the hell you brought their names up, because their data and conclusions do not support your position at all. They support mine. And looker’s.
I don’t believe I made a comment about hurricanes. I never thought there was much weight to claims about increased hurricane activity being due to climate change. Though apparently hurricane frequency does wax and wane over some roughly measureable frequency.
Part and parcel of the whole AGW goatf*ck. Read the Christy and Spencer report.
Actually, you may wish to note that I’ve been discussing rather exclusively past performance re: sea level rise.


Sigh... no you haven’t.
A rise of a foot over a century is highly likely going to have some effect. As for an actual example, Venice is currently dealing with a significant problem effects its future - namely the increased risk of flooding.
I repeat - read the report.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Jeff -
AHEM... don’t you mean as the United States, font of all that is evil and carbon-ish, hands it over?
but of course, deep pockets doctrine and determination of the most guilty will be necessary so we can factor in, like the US tax system, who should actually pay for the programs.

I would think it only practical if, for example, we had the US paying, say, 70% of the .1% of the world global output so we can exclude places like, um, Tuvalu
or Burundi where the economic impact of their actual contribution would probably be likely to cause sever economic harm and hardship. Particularly Tuvalu where literally the place could disappear if the US doesn’t stop it’s CO2 producing excesses.

In a nutshell my plan is to tax the rich, of course, and the United States is rich and we really don’t deserve what we have in terms of economic might. It was all acquired at the point of a gun so, we’re not really entitled to it.

(Where’s Joe, he’s far better at this kind of stuff than I am....)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
[INDIGO MONTOYA]

You keep saying Christy and Spencer. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[/INDIGO MONTOYA]
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Jeff, you read faster than me....CO2 mongering capitalist. You probably took one of those read 10 times faster and increase your comprehension courses.

Very nice. And where did you get the money for that eh?
By exploiting the workers.
By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our world society.

(...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped)


(Unlike Joe, I have to steal my material)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker,

Can you point to any language in that report which somehow contradicts anything I’ve written here? Because the quoted language doesn’t, does it?

Jeff,

Both talk about in the link that warming is occuring and they state that human activity is part of the trend in their opinion (that is that CO2 introduction is part of that trend). Read page 4.

Well, writing about hurricanes when I have made no mention of them is fairly fruitless, particularly since I don’t actually think that climate change is leading to any significant increase in hurricane activity.

 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
looker,

I’ll state what is quite obviously my position: AGW is happening, it hasn’t been that terrible as a general rule as far we can currently tell and the future isn’t paticularly dim, and we should take a largely market driven approach to such.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Christy and Spencer, appear to my reading, to indicate they CAN document forced warming by man - the example being the San Joaquin valley.
They also indicate they don’t believe you can determine how much man forced warming is occurring or if it is in fact contributing.

So, that means, they have not embraced AGW.


Now, they did say they could foresee a 1 inch rise in sea-level per decade
As for climate responses, John estimates one inch per decade sea level rise and surface temperature increases of 2-5o F by the end of the century.
If that’s the point you’re indicating is in agreement with what you have written, then yes, there it is.

as to this -
Both talk about in the link that warming is occurring and they state that human activity is part of the trend in their opinion (that is that CO2 introduction is part of that trend).
This one line? Are you referring to this one line?
I think Roy and I, in swimming downstream but slowly, would say yes, part of that is due to human effects
.

As Shakespeare might have said
"read on McDuff" (to page 19/20)
Question: You mentioned that you felt that some of the warming was CO2-related. Can you explain why you are dismissing the prospect of other feedbacks neutralizing CO2-induced warming?
George C. Marshall Institute 19
Satellite Temperature Data
Christy: No, I see a warming of the globe, first of all. There is an upward trend. Sec-ond, physics tells us that if you do put a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, it will do something. It does change the radiative balance. Now your question is, is there some-thing else that might counteract such a thing? That is in the area of speculation; maybe Roy will take over now.
Roy Spencer: I see your point. It is sort of a statement of a faith. Unlike John, I believe that some portion of the warming is due to the extra CO2, but that is a statement of faith. Because we know it is a greenhouse gas, it causes a warming tendency, but can you prove that the current warming is due to CO2? I don’t think that you can.
Don’t stop reading when you get to parts you like, read till the end.
I was sure to start with I’d have to just disagree with them, but as it stands I actually agree, I’m on the same page they are.

But they don’t make the point you’re thinking they do if you’re saying they are in favor of AGW. If you wanted to call it ALW (where L stood for Local) that would be different. They recognize our constructs, cities and farms, affect local heat absorption and radiation, that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

It was already agreed, it is currently getting warmer, globally.
This study does not back AGW, it backs GW.

GW, you deal with and learn to live with your new climate.
AGW, you take actions that will have NO VISIBLE EFFECT on the climate.
GW you spend money to deal with change.
AGW, you shovel money into a bottomless hole.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So I guess the empirical data that shows that Mars and now Neptune are warming (when accounting for distance from the Sun) at the same rate as Earth are caused by AGW?

It’s the SUN stupid.
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
looker,

So, that means, they have not embraced AGW.

Then why does Roy make his ’statement of faith’ point?

Your basic problem with me seems to be that I accept AGW, no matter what else I state on markets, the future, etc. I’ve already stated why I find the need to accept that AGW is going on is of some importance.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Your basic problem with me seems to be that I accept AGW, no matter what else I state on markets, the future, etc. I’ve already stated why I find the need to accept that AGW is going on is of some importance.
And he seems to have told you why he rejects markets or anything else as a "solution" for AGW:
GW, you deal with and learn to live with your new climate.
AGW, you take actions that will have NO VISIBLE EFFECT on the climate.
GW you spend money to deal with change.
AGW, you shovel money into a bottomless hole.
Seems he, like many of us, aren’t prepared to accept the shoveling of money into a bottomless pit in the hope that perhaps, if we happen to be lucky and the earth cooperates by starting a cooling trend, we might, eventually, some day, when our great-grandchildren roam the earth, see a quarter of a percent drop in temperature.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ2,

It’s the SUN stupid.

I never discounted that the sun is perhaps part of the issue. Indeed, for the longest time when I was more skeptical of AGW using the sun to explain the observed warming was a favorite example of why AGW claims should be treated skeptically.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
McQ,

Seems he, like many of us, aren’t prepared to accept the shoveling of money into a bottomless pit...

My prediction is that being too skeptical of AGW will in the long run aid those who want to push for something aggressive than the Kyoto Protocol.

 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
I’m skeptical of any sole-source answer Syloson, especially in a global system as complex as the one we’re talking about. And that means I remain skeptical of the CO2 "answer" presently being bandied about as the way to solve "the problem".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Then why does Roy make his ’statement of faith’ point?
If you read the paper you would have seen where he explains that.
Roy Spencer: I see your point. It is sort of a statement of a faith. Unlike John, I be-lieve that some portion of the warming is due to the extra CO2, but that is a statement of faith. Because we know it is a greenhouse gas, it causes a warming tendency, but can you prove that the current warming is due to CO2? I don’t think that you can.
Or how about this:
Spencer: I think there is so much that is open to question that much of what is said on one side or the other is basically a statement of faith.
Or this:
I understand Jim Hansen’s position and why he believes as he does. I can agree that the scenario that is in his mind is possi-ble. I think it is very unlikely, but that also is a statement of faith on my part.
"Statement of faith" does not equal "settled scientific fact." And he is clearly stating that he is not in the AGW camp.

If you’d like further explanation of the difference between faith and science, email Jon Henke and prepare to have the t!ts bored off you.
My prediction is that being too skeptical of AGW will in the long run aid those who want to push for something aggressive than the Kyoto Protocol.
No, it will encourage them to exert even more control over our lives and pocketbooks.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Listen people, I’ve seen Waterworld and it wasn’t pretty. If you want to drink your own urine to survive you go right ahead and continue ignoring Al Gore.
 
Written By: abw
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
Faith or Science? No.
Faith IN Science.

What they say is logically CO2 MUST have an impact of some sort on the atmosphere and therefore on climate. I agree. It must. That’s science.

The faith part here is they trust in Science to be what it is, that sometimes, even if you can’t quantify an action, you know it still must
be true.
Tree, forest, no one to hear the sound when it falls. Faith in Science.

Hence his own explanation, which I am using to show they/he does not believe in AGW and you are using to show they/he does.
but that is a statement of faith. Because we know it is a greenhouse gas, it causes a warming tendency., but can you prove that the current warming is due to CO2? I don’t think that you can.
But an effect of ’some sort’ does not constitute an effect causing the problem.
If I go down and pee in the ocean, the people in Venice and Tuvalu don’t need to worry a whole lot about the subsequent rise in sea level I just caused, even if I’ve had 4 Guinness’s beforehand.
Definition:
1. caused by humans: relating to or resulting from the influence that humans have on the natural world

2. relating to origin of humankind: relating to the origin and development of human beings


AGW assumes we, man, anthropogenic, are the cause.

I don’t have a problem with you believing in AGW, that’s your business.
So long as we two have a counterbalancing control over what’s done about it there’s not a problem for me.

I just don’t understand how you can use Christy & Spenser as your basis for thinking it’s caused by man.
I’m not trying to persuade you against your view, I’m suggesting you find another study or series of studies if you want to continue to defend it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
This is John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
looker,

"Statement of faith" does not equal "settled scientific fact."

I didn’t claim that it did.

No, it will encourage them to exert even more control over our lives and pocketbooks.

Only if they win the day on the matter.

AGW assumes we, man, anthropogenic, are the cause.

Actually, that is at best one version of what AGW is about, and is probably not the majority scientific view on the matter (if a majority can really hold any weight on such matters).

I just don’t understand how you can use Christy & Spenser as your basis for thinking it’s caused by man.

It seems to me that even as skeptical as they are they are more than willing to admit the possibility of AGW even if they feel it isn’t something one can, well, measure.

 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Neo,

Well, I agree with these two statements from the piece:

There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.

 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Well, three I guess.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Kinda combined two of us in the response - no harm done, we’re essentially arguing the same thing with you.
It seems to me that even as skeptical as they are they are more than willing to admit the possibility of AGW even if they feel it isn’t something one can, well, measure.
I disagree that that’s what their report concluded.
If you want to stop at simple Global Warming fine.

I have no idea if AGW is the majority view for the GW alarmists.

I do know they are the ones willing to try all kinds of cockamamie schemes to solve a problem they can’t even prove can be solved since they aren’t even sure how it’s happening.

And I do know they fully intend to exact money from us to try.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Actually, I mis-spoke, if money were the only thing they were after it might be endurable, a waste, but endurable.

Money is not all they want.
They want to dictate lifestyles as well.
They will construct a global socialism that takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots on the premise it will stop the atmosphere from getting 1 degree warmer, and the sea from getting 1 foot deeper.

I’d rather see them spending on a mechanism for stopping the next dinosaur killing "Hot Fudge Sunday" or space rock from hitting the earth.
That at least, might do some good in the future.
But that wouldn’t necessarily supply the reason for the desired social engineering experiment on a global scale.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker,

Well, we’re just going to have leave it at that and agree to disagree then.
 
Written By: Syloson of Samos
URL: http://ingenuus.blogspot.com/
Ah well, peace until next we disagree!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
BTW, before you attribute ideas, etc. to me again ask me my opinion.
I’ll be the judge of what gets attributed to meagain!!!!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
And Venice has been sinking in addition to the sea rising...funny thing about how that works when you build in a swamp.
"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them! It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up!"


I know it’s a little late here, but darn it all if Billy and Bruce didn’t put me in this mood last week, and with all this talk of Venice sinking into the ocean...well, you get the drift.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://

 
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