Recent Comments

Prev  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  Next

Comments 130701 to 130750:

130701. Steve L at 15:01 PM on 9 April 2008
        La Nina watch: March update
        I hope the cold can hang on a couple more months. Our salmon are going to sea during this time and warm temperatures are bad for those little guys. Being an optimist, I'm going to say this recent return to warmth is an anomalous blip and April will be back to 0.5. Too bad my prediction is worthless. I hope someone has a reason to expect good news.
130702. Quietman at 12:31 PM on 9 April 2008
        It's the sun
        John I apologise for my outburst in your blog. I came to this blog in the hope of learning through intelligent discussion as I am about fed up with arogant alarmists that shout you down in the news blogs like CBS or ABC. I also read the papers and articles at Climate Debate Daily which has alarmist articles on the left and skeptical articles on the right. I see outright lies in both columns. But I also see a lot of excellent articles with links to papers. With the exception of one or two individuals, your responders to this blog seem to be both intelligent and educated and to them as well as you I apologise.
        Response: Your comment is appreciated. I always make it a point to address the science and avoid making personal comments about a person I disagree with. Ad hominem attacks are a form of mental laziness. It's always easier to attack a person than the argument they're making. It's also an indication that the arguer is more interested in winning the debate than finding the truth. I encourage both sides to exercise restraint and stick to the science - it makes for more constructive dialogue and you never know, both sides might learn something. :-)
130703. pfoukal at 11:54 AM on 9 April 2008
        Neptune is warming
        The reported connection between brightenings of Neptune and of the Sun is suspect even from cursory inspection of the vastly different ordinate scales in the Hammel and Lockwood figure you show. The fractional size of the Neptune brightening ( ~ 0.15 mags, or 15%) is roughly ONE THOUSAND times greater than the Sun's brightening ( by ~ 0.02%).I pointed out this huge disparity to Heidi when she first sent me a draft, and it is mentioned as a problem in her paper.This disparity by almost three orders of magnitude overshadows whatever correlation may exist between irradiance or global temperature. Second, I have to comment on your quote from Sami Solanki that our TSI time series, used by Heidi, is erroneous. His basis is that our model overlooks the scale change in spot area measurements after the RGO program closed. The plot you present comparing our model to the one provided to you from MPI begins to show divergence not around 1976 (when RGO spot areas stopped), but only around 1985. Also, the MPI model plotted by Solanki and Fligge ( GRL, 25,341,1998)shows a similar rise of irradiance into the 1990's as our model, even though it uses the "corrected" spot areas preferred by MPI. For both these reasons it is hard to believe that this claimed spot area scale change (which is not widely accepted anyway) is the main reason our model shows solar brightening that disagrees with radiometry. Frankly, it is unclear at this point which to believe - the model or the radiometry. We are, after all, dealing with changes in TSI of a few hundredths of one percent over multi-decadal time scales. This is at the edge of what even optimists believe about the stability of the radiometry.Both radiometry and models have been subject to so much tweaking since 1978 that, as a 35 -yr veteran of this field, I have both a healthy regard and skepticism for both approaches. The lack of recent TSI increase seen in the radiometry happens to be more acceptable at present, but the error bars are still large enough to raise questions. The main argument against TSI driving of recent global warming still comes not from the direction of TSI change, but by its insufficient MAGNITUDE to drive the recently accelerated global temperature increase ( e.g. Foukal et al., Nature, 443, 161, 2006). Peter Foukal
130704. Quietman at 11:32 AM on 9 April 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        leebert "The solar inertial motion hypothesis" of Dr. Mackey is based on work by the late Rhodes Fairbridge. He published in 2007 around the same time that the weather forcasters were calling for a warm 2007-2008 winter due to AGW. His paper predicts a definate cooling to counter AGW in ssc24 and then colder in ssc25.
130705. Victor at 10:29 AM on 9 April 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        Mars should have, theoretically, a higher sensibility to solar activity as the earth because that planet is red. Since most solar irridiance is in de UV-part of the spectrum which it's not reflected by the Martian surface. The colour 'red' means that it longer wavelengths reflects and short wavelengths absorps.
130706. Quietman at 02:39 AM on 9 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        Steve L Sorry but I could not even guess at that. I am a retired engineer with an interest in paleontology and paleoclimatology but I am not a scientist.
130707. ScaredAmoeba at 01:57 AM on 9 April 2008
        There is no consensus
        The updated version of this OISM 'review' was published in that well known organ of climate research - The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007). Little wonder that it survived peer review. Apparently the previous 1998 version was later published in Climate Research - A Journal that has had serious problems with its criticised peer-review process, notably under the editorship of Chris de Freitas, under whom numerous editors resigned in protest. I don't know when the 1998 version was published, or whether the Editor was de Freitas. But there seem to have been some pretty suspect papers published in CR.
130708. ScaredAmoeba at 01:02 AM on 9 April 2008
        There is no consensus
        Re 23 Wondering Aloud 'Not all that glisters is gold' And The Oregon Petition of Science and Medicine 'Petition Project' Review, now updated with a change in authors was neither peer-reviewed (despite explicit claims)), nor science - it was deceptive pseudo-science, deliberately formatted to appear as if it were a NAS publication (and therefore peer-reviewed). For an excellent insight into the Oregon Petition Document, see: http://tinyurl.com/nt38z This is from a Professor who frankly admits that he was nearly fooled by it. Enough people were fooled that the National Academy was inundated with calls asking if it was their new position and had to issue a news release. Quote ''The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion cause by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.'' End quote http://tinyurl.com/38nqdj Note: Seitz, Baliunas & Soon are all associated with the ExxonMobil funded George C Marshall Institute! Seitz was a solid-state Physicist. Baliunas & Soon are Astrophysicists. Arthur Robinson and his son Zachary are Chemists. Note that none of the authors of this purportedly climatological paper are climatologists!
130709. ScaredAmoeba at 18:51 PM on 8 April 2008
        CO2 lags temperature
        

        Quietman, Another thought: Those graphs in my previous post show a rapid upward acceleration of CO2 in recent decades, one that matches the accelerated warming. If what you suggest were true: namely that Earth is [your hypothesis] 'returning' to 'normal', then one would expect an ever decreasing asymptotic approach. Instead, what is seen in the second graph is a rapid departure upwards from the upper bound historic values - the exact reverse of what is expected. Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png Oops! your theory is shot full of holes!

130710. ScaredAmoeba at 18:38 PM on 8 April 2008
        CO2 lags temperature
        

        Quietman 'How do we know that the planet isn't returning to Earth Normal or Earth Mean temperature?' Are you seriously proposing a new theory - that the Earth has a memory? Do you have a mechanism? Or a 'setting' to which this 'memory' is adjusted? Is there any peer-reviewed literature as a source? CO2 clearly cannot be meaningless, it has long been known to be infra-red active and remains resident in the atmosphere for a long time, from memory ~33% remains after one hundred years and 20% after a thousand years, but there is a long tail meaning that some will remain for tens of thousands of years, causing significant warming. Inevitably, this alone will affect the net heat balance of the Earth. Of course CO2 is NOT the only GHG and as temperature increases, so does the water vapour, which acts as a positive feedback amplification. But while water vapour is a stronger GHG than CO2, it does not remain in the atmosphere for long. The source of the excess CO2 is explained by the shifting isotopic ratio of the atmospheric carbon. From this it is known to originate from non-biological sources - i.e. fossil carbon: coal, oil & gas. Regarding CO2, the Mauna Loa CO2 readings overlap ice core data during the period 1959-1978. The CO2 readings obtained match perfectly during the overlap. AFAIK, the oldest ice cores are ~ 1000 ky old. Here's one with the source data and references - so that YOU can check its authenticity! Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev_png and Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png Sorry, but I couldn't locate a version in the p/r literature. I've seen them before, it's just that I couldn't find any. We are clearly performing a global experiment and no-one can be absolutely certain as to the precise outcome, but if it does all go dreadfully wrong, the trouble is that we are INSIDE the test-tube! It would therefore be a really good idea to heed the scientists and stop trying to light the Bunsen burner! Let's cut-back on the use of fossil-fuels, through improved technology, energy conservation & efficiency and renewable energy generation. The economic argument that carbon taxes will damage the US economy is bogus. “As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong” http://www.cis.yale.edu/opa/newsr/08-03-19-02.all.html We owe it to the next generation and generations to come to hand over the Earth in the same condition as it was when we received it. Sadly, this will not be the case.

        Response:

        Note - globalwarmingart.com usually cites his sources if you want to track down the original studies where he get the data from.

130711. Steve L at 15:21 PM on 8 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        Hi John, thanks for responding to my question in comment #2. But that error bar, I suspect, is calculated from the variance in the estimate. An estimate that is systemically biased can have high precision (tight error bars) and low accuracy. I don't know enough about how the ice melt is measured or calculated to evaluate whether or not the estimate could be missing something. Quietman (comment #4) -- there are also inputs from comets that presumably aren't constant but these should be pretty small, right? How about if the atmosphere carries a lot of water vapour and then dumps it when it gets a bit chillier. How much water could that be? Sorry to pursue questions I've already guessed are silly, but as part of getting into the mystery one has to eliminate the pool boy and the gardener before focusing just on the obvious maid and butler.
130712. Quietman at 14:00 PM on 8 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        Steve L The system is not closed. Atmospheric gases are constantly lost to space, the rate depends on the speed of the solar wind which is not a constant (another sore point for me).
130713. Quietman at 13:55 PM on 8 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        Satellite measurements of sea level should not be affected if they use the equatorial sat. tracking stations to maintain cal. as they are located on coral atolls and islands and not subject to glacial rebound. The best data I found was from "Equatorial Atmospheric and Ionospheric Modeling at Kwajalein Missile Range" by Stephen M. Hunt, Sigrid Close, Anthea J. Coster, Eric Stevens, Linda M. Schuett, and Anthony Vardaro (PDF).
        Response: Added a link to the PDF for you.
130714. Steve L at 12:58 PM on 8 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        I wonder if people really know what's going on in the ocean depths. I mean, there was a recent paper (LeQuere et al) stating that the deep ocean was saturated and releasing CO2, but that didn't really make sense (to me) either. They say there's increased winds and turnover in the Southern Ocean so that suggests (?) that there are meaningful interactions with the depths on short time scales. But okay, let's accept that the answer isn't in the deep -- here are two silly questions: 1) You say that a much greater contribution from melting ice has not been observed, but what level of confidence is there in the ice melt estimates? 2) What quantities of water are involved in changes to water vapour or additions from space or something (how closed is this system)?
        Response: To answer question 1, the graphs displayed above show the error bars for the various components of sea level rise. The discrepancy is well outside the error bars.
130715. Quietman at 09:59 AM on 8 April 2008
        Determining the long term solar trend
        Yes, I noticed that only the links that you post work, the ones from comments only work with cut and paste. There are some other sites like that also, I don't know why it is except possibly the O/S running on the server. Whiles links made in unix will always work with MS software, I find that MS created links often do not work on unix servers. That was why we used unix for our websites (before I retired I was involved in building a support network by editing and converting technical manuals). But thats why I include title and date, and author when available. BTW I have some cantidates for your weekly contest that I enjoyed reading: http://www.time.com/time/magazine... The Clean Energy Scam TIME/CNN http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs... New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov August 20, 2007 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm... U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" Report Released on December 20, 2007 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority) http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/volcano... Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier January 21, 2008 http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828 Mar. 20, 2008 By Roy W. Spencer The Sloppy Science of Global Warming Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month. http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Phoenix_UrbanHeat.htm This document provides an examination of the urban heat effect in Phoenix Arizona.
        Response: My links are hyperlinks only because I'm using HTML - feel free to use HTML in your comments. In fact, please do so the long URLs don't wreak havoc with my web design. Eg - <a href="http://www.website.com/">Title of Link</a>
        
        But please keep the links on topic.
130716. Quietman at 09:49 AM on 8 April 2008
        The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
        I notice that there is no mention of continental rebound as glacial weight continues to be removed. This has an effect on sea level measurement as it changes the reference points (increased altitude under the receded glaciers, reduced altitude nearer the equator. Also displacement from growing seamounts and ridges from vulcanism. Are these factored in or just considered miniscule?
        Response: I'm not sure if that would effect satellite measurements of sea level - it would have more effect on tidal gauge readings. Willis 2008 does mention a slight trend of sea level rise due to glacial isostatic adjustment changing the volume and shape of the ocean basins but has little mention of glacial rebound (just a reference to a glacial rebound signal in the Grace data). There's probably a mention of how it's factored into the data at sealevel.colorado.edu - you're very welcome to investigate and report back to us :-)
130717. stevecarsonr at 16:02 PM on 5 April 2008
        Models are unreliable
        I'll also raise the question whether anyone really believes this extract (from above) which appears to be a basic premise for the page: "This betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable and climate which is weather averaged out over time. While you can't predict with certainty whether a coin will land heads or tails, you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. Or expressing that in weather terms, you can't predict the exact route a storm will take but the average temperature and precipitation will result the same for the region over a period of time." It's a false analogy. Random *independent" events provide statistical certainty over a period of time. The climate does not fit this description. Can anyone provide some evidence -peer reviewed citations - that long range climate forecasting is more accurate than weather forecasting? I know the IPCC claimed it in their report but they didn't backup the claim.
        Response: That's the problem with using analogies - the comparison always breaks down at some point when you compare it directly. The main point is the contrast between short term, random unpredictability and long term, statistical summations. While weather is chaotic and non-linear, long term climate trends are discernable and predictable. As is seen in these peer reviewed studies analysing the success of climate forecasts.
130718. stevecarsonr at 15:54 PM on 5 April 2008
        Models are unreliable
        I thought this comment was interesting and relevant. It is taken from the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. Dyson called himself a "heretic" on global warming. "Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.," Dyson said in an April 10, 2007 interview. Dyson is also a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.
130719. Wondering Aloud at 08:01 AM on 5 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Well googling your suggestion which is not the way I would normally look things up... I find your number right away. I have an old Oklahoma Farm Bureau article here that has 1971 for peak. The OFB is supposedly world wide use. I wonder why they did that. I wonder if it's right? A number of other things in the article checked out. 1959 Still doesn't fit very well with eagle populations reaching their bottom in 1949 though? On the first page of the links that came up in the search is an Jounal of American Physicians and Surgeons article that is less complimentary of the ban than I am. This is classic internet, I get easier access to information and less certainty of it's accuracy. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 9 Number 3 Fall 2004
130720. Philippe Chantreau at 05:10 AM on 5 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Actually, I really don't have that much time. It took me less than 10 minutes on Google to find the studies I linked, including the blurb pointing to the Miller study (the best one, it's got the pathophysiology). EPA places DDT peak use in the US in 1959 with 80 million pounds. 1971 saw the application of 13 million pounds. See this press release: http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm Took me less than minute to find this one by googling "DDT peak use." "I suspect that if you do dig into it you will find the answer is a resounding no." But you don't know, really. Until you do, you should abstain from claiming it as if it was a fact. And look up that Wikipedia article, it is quite informative and does not point to anything resounding, yes or no. Good ol' reality is never as spectacular as we'd like and keeps on not declaring any camp a true winner.
130721. Wondering Aloud at 02:25 AM on 5 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Except, environmental alarmism becomes public policy and law. Which makes your entire point that we can afford to ignore it and only pay attention to the science sadly wrong and deadly dangerous. If the "Ames " study was in the literature prior to 1980 that means I read it and everything associated with it at the time. Apparently neither I nor anyone at the University or EPA was convinced. Since I don't keep files of research from things I did 30 years ago I can't pull out every article I read. I think one thing you do well is find reference materials. That is helpful but you must have a lot more time than I have. USDA and EPA reports place the peak usage year for DDT as 1971 and as the ban was in 1972... My point that it was out of patent and therefore not very profitable is certainly still correct. If its use was declining that would further support my point that the chemical companies would not fight to keep it, so that would have been a piece of evidence that would tend to refute rather than support your comment on corporate culpability. Naming a few of the chemicals that replaced DDT in use is not a straw man. The simple question is were they less environmentally harmful? I didn't answer the question. More importantly neither did the environmental movement or the regulating agencies. I suspect that if you do dig into it you will find the answer is a resounding no. Actually much as I complain Phillippe, I suspect I actually would agree with you most of the time, as I do in this case. I just am more cynical about the danger of panic and the way politics is clouding the issues.
130722. Quietman at 18:25 PM on 4 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Philippe Thanks for the explanation and the links.
130723. Philippe Chantreau at 17:45 PM on 4 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        "Stopping acid rain to a large extent did not require an end to internal combustion engine transportation, or the de-industrialization of the world; which were the proposed solutions of the panic spreaders at the time." OK. So, I take it we agree that panic spreaders are to be disregarded and that acid rain has to be stopped. Which was really my point. I don't know about panic spreaders, I don't listen to that kind of stuff. I know about the effects of acid rain and I know that, as you said, there is no reason to tolerate it, since not doing so does not involve de-industrialization and so forth.
130724. Philippe Chantreau at 16:47 PM on 4 April 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        You answer your own question when you say that there is no correlation. As I said, as Mars was cooling down, the Earth was warming, then Earth was warming as Mars remained cool, then Mars was warming again as Earth's warming appeared to slow down, although that slowing is most likely statistical noise.
130725. Philippe Chantreau at 16:37 PM on 4 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Quietman: "I do not agree with his paper. I was trying to point out that in theory tou could prove almost anything with the right math." That's exactly the point. Gerlich paper does not prove anything. His maths are dead wrong. Look it up at Rabett's. Just like Goodridge, and D'Aleo, and Copeland's maths are wrong, as analyzed in these posts: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-1/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation-points/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/#more-663 However, for the non maths savvy, it could very well look credible if you don't dig deeper, especially because they're not intrinsically wrong, but wrong in their application. That's exactly what denialism is about. It does not foster debate, scientific integrity or diversity of opinion. It's just skillful BS. WA: You commented about India building less than par chemical plants, as if it was a good thing, and I asked why that would be a good thing. Your comment, not mine, suggested that it was a good thing. To make it clear: it's not. Large amounts of DDT tend to quickly yield very resistant organisms. See for example this paper, which is one of many: http://www.anobase.org/embo_meeting/2005/abstracts/Coetzee.pdf There is no such thing as a silver bullet. The wikipedia articles may not be at the level of environmental chemistry grad school but nonetheless seem more informative than what you've said so far, which was so black and white as to have no bearing to the historical reality of the product's use in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#cite_note-Thurow-83. Plenty of references there. Throwing around molecules or brand names is impressive but does not replace scientific studies. References? "The ban did make effective control of insect spread disease much more difficult and expensive." Please substantiate. Links, studies, references? Your claim on the patent and timing of DDT use is wrong. It was first patented in 1943 and the peak use occured in 1959 (80 million tons, per EPA records), mostly on cotton crops, before the patent expiration. I'm a little surprised that, as someone who spent countless grad school hours working on that issue you don't seem to have a ready answer to, at least, the Ames 1966 paper. How about the DDT reliant WHO program that ended up with initial gains reversed when resistance kicked in? Could the switch to Malathion and Bendiocarb be due to the lost effectiveness of DDT rather than a ban that does not even exist in the countries where the problem is? I'll cite wikipedia for a change: "Today there is debate among professionals working on malaria control concerning the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement is relatively narrow: Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether." That's almost always where reality lies. Remember that I told you I did not think banning it was a good decision? However, I don't think that using millions of tons of it, on cotton crops or elsewhere, was good either. As for drilling in the G of M, your logic still does not hold. The vast majority of it is international waters, in which the US has no jurisdiction. China would drill there as it would anywhere else, regardless of what the US is doing. If CNOOC goes on drilling off the Nigerian coast, is that the because the US is not there (which it is)? Obviously not. You keep on suggesting causality that does not exist on this. And we don't force industries in places where they can do anything they want. Industries do their part, which is completely removed from certain considerations, but is nevertheless a matter of CHOICES made by human beings. They try to make as much money as they can, by all means they can come up with, so long as the cost-benefit balance is favorable. In that sense, one can say that capitalism is a profoundly amoral ideology. It does not even matter whether or not something is legal. If it's not, but doing it is overall financially advantageous now, corporations will do it anyway, regardless of the location (it happens in the US and developped countries too). That's how laws are broken and fines are paid because paying the fine is compensated by the profits generated from ignoring the law. There are things that money can't buy. Some crucial aspects of your quality of life are among them. Corporations do not worry about the big picture, or even the long term (see the housing bubble fiasco). Minding about the long term or the big picture belongs to us, the people, and our representatives. It is perfectly possible for an oil refinery (or a pipe factory, ot any other business) in the US to make profits and respect all environmental laws. It will make more profit, however, by operating somewhere without environmental laws. Or somewhere without labor laws. Or somewhere child labor is not frowned upon. Or whatever. By doing so, it will transfer costs to the local populations, with degraded living conditions and a variety of health problems. That is not a way to foster human progress. Capitalism is overall benefical only when properly guided by regulations. Since it does not contain any moral bounds, they must be imposed upon it. Those who deny that ALWAYS have self serving motives, or they're just parrots regurgitating well drilled conditioning. The competitive advantage you mention is not given, it is crafted by corporations influencing international trade laws. The only reason why there are places where environmental and other concerns are ignored is that there are places where people are desperate. Exploiting their desperation to scrap additional pennies when other options exist is despicable, even if made legal by GATT/WTO. It is also a very short term and eventually losing proposition. It can be done only because these people are desperate. The moment they're no longer desperate, they'll start speaking up and fighting for the decent living conditions they deserve. It's already starting in China. And then, there goes your additional margin. If we are talking past each other, it's because you keep on bringing up strawmen built from the most outrageous claims of environmental advocacy groups. I do not defend outrageous claims, whatever the side. I am favorable to widespread use of nuclear energy, at least for the medium term, especially in China and India. I am not opposed to drilling in the G of M. I am unfazed by alarmist claims, regardless of where they come from (remember Baliunas and the CFCs?). Focusing on environmental alarmism is as stupid as focusing on economic alarmism put forth to resist change or regulation.
130726. Quietman at 14:32 PM on 4 April 2008
        Determining the long term solar trend
        John I assume that you are aware of the news for the past couple of days. There is something about changing the shape of the magnetic field that rings a bell but I can not remember what it is. Discovery - Source Of Slow Solar Wind 2 April 2008 - 1:54am Magnetic Substorms In Space 3 April 2008
        Response: I wasn't aware, thanks for the heads up. The links don't seem to work but googling your headlines brought up the info easy enough. Thanks, interesting stuff!
130727. Quietman at 14:17 PM on 4 April 2008
        Climate change on Mars
        Philippe You are right of course in that there is no correlation between Mas's climate and Earth's. That is not what I was trying to point out. The Earth has oceans, cloud cover and thicker atmosphere just to name a few. What I am attempting to point out is that the suns effect on one planet should be reflected by a similar effect on another. If there is no effect then we can rule out TSI. This has nothing to do with skepticism, it was only meant to be an observation. Since you appear to know more about Mars, maybe you could explain why this observation is false?
130728. Quietman at 13:57 PM on 4 April 2008
        Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
        John Nice post but the title should be AGW versus the sun. Kidding aside I found it interesting. I started coming to this site from RealClimate because I wan't to learn more about the AGW hypothesis without getting into a shouting match. In the short time I have been reading your blogs I have picked up quite a few points. Thanks and keep it up. Open minds are somewhat refreshing.
130729. Quietman at 13:47 PM on 4 April 2008
        It's the sun
        That is one of my issues with AGW. The environmental fanatics has seized upon one and only one factor involved, CO2. Granted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas it is not logical that it is either the only contributer or even the primary factor in global warming. AGW is a fact that needs to be accepted but we can not be blind to the other influences or we skew the results and may take actions in the wrong direction. The most powerful force controlling the climate is the earth and it's weather. The ocean currents, the jet stream, the vulcanism that drives the weather, the clouds and their specific composition, the magma flow of the earths engine and moreso the sun and it's internal tides and resulting changes in force and solar wind. By leaving out even small factors in models we skew the data. We should not be making corrections for urban heat islands but discarding bad information. Do you realize that there is not even a theory for how El Nino is driven? Only a hypothesis and that is very recent, but the phenomenon is well documented and studied. AGW needs to be addressed but properly, fully aware of it's cause and effect. Otherwise we just make it worse.
        Response: The most powerful force controlling climate is radiative forcing. Whatever causes the planet to be in energy imbalance - to accumulate or lose heat - is what drives long term global warming or cooling. The factors such as ocean currents and El Nino are responsible for internal variations but have very little impact on long term energy imbalance.
        
        So what causes changes to the planet's energy imbalance? Not just CO2 - there are many forcings that drive climate (eg - aerosols, solar variations, cloud albedo). However, the reason for the focus on CO2 is because CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.
130730. Quietman at 06:56 AM on 4 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Philippe Chantreau I am sorry that you misunderstood my reference to Gerlich. I do not agree with his paper. I was trying to point out that in theory tou could prove almost anything with the right math. I was looking for a comment explaining WHY he was wrong, not THAT he was wrong. That is why I only mentioned it once. When I agree with a paper, such as Mackey's, I tend to mention it more often to see if anyone can rebuff it.
130731. Quietman at 06:31 AM on 4 April 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        frankbi Your sarcasm simply makes you sound like one of those fanatical short sighted environmentalists from california. Instead why don't you come up with a real solution or at least a way to determine the actual cause of AGW instead of knocking anyone who is actually trying to determine the truth.
130732. Wondering Aloud at 02:23 AM on 4 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        The other stuff will take me some time. The US is not the only place with good environmental regulations, I am sure some places do a better job. Some clarifications: Stopping acid rain to a large extent did not require an end to internal combustion engine transportation, or the de-industrialization of the world; which were the proposed solutions of the panic spreaders at the time. On the Golf of Mexico. The US refuses to develope it therefore China does... The Chinese company will not have to meet the stringent environmental requirements of a US company and will not be forced to clean up any mess they make, which a US company would be. Therfore we get reduced benefit coupled with increased risk of harm to the environment. This is the general pattern in a lot of industries, if we force the industries into places where environmental concerns are ignored the net effect to the environmment is much worse. A factory in the US has strict emission requirements, a factory in Shaghai probably doesn't. So what happens is we give a competitive advantage to the country that does the worst job on the environment. Rather than regulation we have created a system that indirectly prohibits the building of cleaner facilities in the US in favor of dirtier ones abroad. Not fixing the pollution problem but only shifting it out of our control. The net effect is a dirtier planet for everyone. You will notice I did not say there is anything wrong with US standards being high. But if they cause the facilities to be built elsewhere it defeats much of the purpose. I don't se an easy or even a good answer to this problem. On the harm of the ban, the ban of DDT did not stop or even reduce pesticide use. In fact it greatly increased the size and profit margins throughout the market. Which replacement for DDT could anyone argue in favor of? Which replacement was not much worse? Paration? Malthion? tetra-arsino-lead? The ban did make effective control of insect spread disease much more difficult and expensive. I think we are talking past each other a little here, I am much more focused on relative harm, the idea of any perfect solution is unrealistic to me and I think panic mongering tends to enable really bad policy decisions. I don't understand your one comment It seems you are saying that India building more dangerous and polluting chemical plants is good? Did you misread my point there? It isn't a good thing it is an unintended consequence of a bad policy decision.
130733. Quietman at 16:49 PM on 3 April 2008
        Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
        Harold Pierce Jr Interesting link but why do they think that water vapor is not to be included in man made gases? The INTENTIONAL output from cars and LDTs is Water Vapor and CO2 instead on HC, CO and NOx. We have been converting these gases since the early 1970's by installing emission controls that reduce fuel economy in favor of "cleaner air".
130734. frankbi at 15:09 PM on 3 April 2008
        Comparing IPCC projections to observations
        Oh great, it's Al Gore again. Just imagine, someone sees a post on a paper by Rahmstorf et al., and he starts thinking about how to bash Al Gore. Cleraly a case of Gore Derangement Syndrome.
130735. Harold Pierce Jr at 12:14 PM on 3 April 2008
        Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
        Hello John! GO: http://www.John-Daly.com. scroll down, click on "Station Temperature Data" and find the charts for Death Valley and Alice Springs. These temperature-time plots show no evidence for any global warming at these sites as well as most of the rural (i.e., remote) sites. Note the Alice Springs plot which starts about 1880. Go read "What the Station Say..." to learn about the late John Daly's criteria for selecting these particular stations. He is not cherry picking these stations. Note the distibution of these remote stations. Most temperature data in the GISTEMP data base from or near urban areas has been adjusted for bias due to UHI effects. Rural station data is used to determine the adjustment algorithims. You can find a discussion about the slicing, dicing and homogenization (SDH)of these temperature data records over at Steve Mc's blog. GO: http://www.climateaudit.org. John Daly's solution to the SDH of data from urban areas or any comprised site is not use it. I used the GISTEMP data to extend the annual mean temperature-time plot for Death Valley to 2007. The extention continues the flat line trend of the plot. Here is a link to "Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers. GO: www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Monte Hieb is a mine safety engineer and works for the WV Dept of Mines. There is no conclusive evidence that the current warm years (i.e., 1975-2005) are the result of any CO2-induced "global warming".
130736. Philippe Chantreau at 03:45 AM on 3 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Well then, you must have plenty to say about these links, especially the Ames 1966 and the Van Veltzen et al 1972 studies. I'm especially curious to hear about the Miller et al 2001 study, which I found quite interesting and has the advantage of underlying the enzymatic processes by which shell thinning occurs. Also, it would be nice to provide links or references to scientic work substantiating this assertion: "It just happens that issue really bugs me because the ban did so much more harm both to humans and to the environment than DDT ever could." It's vague and very wide, you need to give more (scientific) info on that. It's not because acid rain was not a catastrophy that it should not have been stopped. What exactly are the reasons to tolerate swaths of forest and land bleached by acid rain? That nobody got killed on the spot? The convenience for the industry causing it? I dont' think so. "The DDT ban was one of the motivating pieces in the rapid development and growth of the chemical industry in India. Did they build facilities that would have passed environmental muster in the US?" No, but why exactly is that a good thing? I agree on the nuclear idea and the "biofuel Garbage" notion, except that not all biofuels are garbage. Some could be promising, depending on the source, but the corn lobby has hijacked the all thing and corn is just about the worst source for biofuel. Your reasoning about the Golf of Mexico makes no sense. You are saying that because we don't do something bad, others are doing it. They would do it anyway, the US not drilling it is not the cause of their drilling. And then you say that because they do it, we should do it too. And my Shanghai story does not bring that point up at all, I don't see how you make that jump. Plus, you keep attributing to me views that are not mine. In my opinion, the G of M is a place where drilling might not necessarily be that harmful, provided it is properly monitored and everyone is accountable for their actions. Then you go on to say that the US has improved air quality, which is entirely true (albeit unrelated) and that was actually the point of my Shanghai story. The US has improved air quality because of the Clean Air Act. If you don't want to live in a place like Shanghai, you need regulations like the CAA. In fact, equally strict or stricter regulations should be in effect worldwide. I'd add that it's not because the rest of the world has weak standards (which, by the way, is not the case everywhere, China and India are obviously problematic and as such, bad examples) that we should have weak ones too. Do you stop living a principled life if you notice that your neighbor is a rake?
130737. Wondering Aloud at 23:55 PM on 2 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Yes Phillippe, I actually did check with some Biology people some including one well known one hung on to the idea a lot longer but basically surrendered on it after a few more trials. It just happens that issue really bugs me because the ban did so much more harm both to humans and to the environment than DDT ever could. At the time I searched every professional publication on the subject and kept finding out the skeptics had the data right. So, assuming I was totally wrong I actually began tracking Rachel Carsons references, looking the people up calling or writting to them... lets not go there. I don't doubt the reality of acid rain, I do doubt that it was a catastrophy and I am mighty disgusted with the wide scale condemnation of US power generation and manufacturing at the time for Canada having a problem that was at least 99% self inflicted. Thanks anyway for being understanding, as I said we are all vulnerable where our prejudices are concerned and I've built a dandy on that issue. Your Shanghai story brings up a further point though, consequences of foolish environmental decisions. We in the US refuse to drill in much in fact most of the available areas because of supposed environmental concerns. This doesn't stop the rest of the world from doing so with much looser contrals than we have. A classic case in point is the current plans of China to drill in the golf of Mexico. We feel it's "too ecologically sensitive" so instead the Chinese will drill there with Cuban basing and look how much they care for the environment. The DDT ban was one of the motivating pieces in the rapid development and growth of the chemical industry in India. Did they build facilities that would have passed environmental muster in the US? The US has had improving air quality for more than a generation now, but still the first thing I would suggest is replace all coal burning electric power plants with nuclear. If any interest group that was pushing the AGW agenda would adopt that idea I would not only support it, I'd be a lot more ready to believe they believed in AGW. As it is I don't think they do. Instead we get bio fuels garbage that at best only rasies food prices and likely makes things worse.
130738. Philippe Chantreau at 10:33 AM on 2 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        When I said BTN, I meant GMB (they need more variety in scrren names really).
130739. Philippe Chantreau at 03:31 AM on 2 April 2008
        There is no consensus
        "The perhaps painful truth is CO2 has not been a major cause of climate change in the past" That may be because there has not been a release of CO2 on the scale we experienced these last 150 years during the 600k years of very stable climate the planet has been through. If you try to go farther in time, there is too much uncertainty to do informative comparisons. There is nothing to prove that a massive injection of CO2 in an otherwise stable climate can not have serious consequences. And, by the way, spare me the exaggerations that have nothing to do with what the research actually shows and suggest is possible. I do not pay more attention to exaggerated claims from advocay groups, whether they're from one side of the spectrum or the other. And I also maintain that, if you are a true skeptic with physics background, you should be screaming bloody murder to the flat-earthers like Gerlich. If not, then you're applying a double standard far worse than anything you claim is practiced in the scientific peer-reviewed litterature.
130740. Philippe Chantreau at 03:15 AM on 2 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        You don't have to apologize for your tone. There is nothing wrong with being opinionated, so long as you can still communicate, and your tone is a model of courtesy compared to freaks like BTN. To get back to the topic of skepticism, one question. When you discovered that the DDT was a joke in the chemistry department of your University, did you check in the biology department? About acid rain and China, I was serious. An airline pilot friend of mine was recently in Shanghai, where He was lodged in a tall hotel with exterior elevators. On a "good" weather day (i.e. no clouds, rain, fog to obstruct visibility) he lost sight of the ground completely at the 16th floor. That's essentially man made weather. They have to shoot instrument approaches there all the time, even in weather that would be VFR anywhere else in the world. So I repeat my question, would you like to live in a place like that? If not, how do you avoid the place where you live to become like that?
130741. Philippe Chantreau at 10:52 AM on 1 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Doesn't exist? At all? http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-08/998063731.En.r.html http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8901(196606)3%3C87%3ADRITEO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8901(197512)12%3A3%3C781%3ADEITAK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/172/3986/955 http://www.springerlink.com/content/d213435j6t82v118/ This one might be the most interesting found in that brief search: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-541X(197207)36%3A3%3C733%3ALMODBC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 Birds might do fine even on high doses, so long as they don't have to mobilize the stored substance. If they do, then the concentration in sensitive tissues (which fat is not, being a storage deposit) skyrockets and soon kills them. It's not only about chemistry, it's also about physiology and environemental dynamics. As for everything happening in Nature, complexity comes in to play. It's easy to show a population of healthy birds fed large amounts of a toxic. All you have to do is make sure they have plenty to eat. The toxic stays in storage tissues. What happens in the real world is another story. This is just a few minutes of surfing. Note that I did not say that it should have been banned either. As for lead paint, sorry but this is what kids do. They put stuff in their mouths. Small chips will be swallowed. Inevitably. Other countries banned the nonsensical lead paint for toys and other children accessories as early as the first half of th 20th century. Interior paints soon followed. http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Lead-Industry-Public-Health.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5594/732
130742. Wondering Aloud at 07:34 AM on 1 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        On asbestos... amphibole or crysotile? Most asbestos actually used in buildings was made much more dangerous by the process of removing it. We wound up with a panic that caused far more problems with the fix than was present unfixed. Sorry for my immoderate tone there phillippe it isn't your fault. But when ones youthful idealism is squashed he tends to remember it. Especially when the entire chemistry department in a major university system considers the issue an open joke.
130743. leebert at 07:14 AM on 1 April 2008
        Has solar cycle 24 begun?
        Quietman: The current rate of the sun's conveyors has slowed to a crawl which predicts sunspot activity 20 years from now: http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html "...For more than a century ... the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity... [ 2022 could be ] off the bottom of the charts." The shift to SC 24 might be slower than normal because the sun's internal conveyor mechanism appears to be running at 3/4 speed. Another thing to consider is the strong positive correlation of decreased solar luminance & far colder continental temperatures (hence this harsh past winter). Hansen authored a paper in 2001(?) predicting slowed continent-warming westerlies during periods of lower solar luminance / sun spot activity. When solar heating drops by 1 degree C over the oceans, continental winters become markedly more severe. I remember it took some coaxing a couple of years back to convince IPCC modelers to revise their predictions to account for our current solar minimum. We'll know by 2015 what SC 25 has in store for us. /leebert
130744. leebert at 06:41 AM on 1 April 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Hi John, It's generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone. What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4's of the way to doubling and we haven't experienced a 2.5° - 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback loops are as intense as modeled or perhaps there are counterveiling phenomena. Likewise skeptics cite the differential between temperature anomalies in the Northern vs. Southern hemispheres and the closer correlation with aerosols. Since August 2007 V. Ramanathan has authored papers citing mid-to-upper tropospheric soot as having: - 50% role in heating over the Indian ocean, half of what's ascribed to CO2 - 40% role in atmospheric heating globally Ramanathan is quite blunt in stating that this was contrary to the conventional wisdom that soot's heating effect was counterbalanced by other aerosols as well as its own shading effects. Wouldn't that impact the role of CO2 in general climate models? Others have likewise has found soot-fall to be particularly pernicious on the ground, with soot causing up to 90% of the Arctic melt-off, industrial soot having an 8x more powerful warming effect on snow and ice than that from wood fuels. Significantly, Hansen cites 25% of centennial global warming being due to the general Arctic melt-off. None of these statements seek to exculpate CO2, but it draws into question the margin of warming that CO2 is in fact responsible for. Surely Ramanathan's and Hansen's findings are reputable and yet they seem to me to weaken the brief for dangerous CO2-driven global warming. Best regards, /leebert
130745. leebert at 06:19 AM on 1 April 2008
        Empirical evidence for positive feedback
        Hi John, It's generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone. What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4's of the way to doubling and we haven't experienced a 2.5° - 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback loops are as intense as modeled or perhaps there are counterveiling phenomena. Likewise skeptics cite the differential between temperature anomalies in the Northern vs. Southern hemispheres and the closer correlation with aerosols. Since August 2007 V. Ramanathan has authored papers citing mid-to-upper tropospheric soot as having: - 50% role in heating over the Indian ocean, half of what's ascribed to CO2 - 40% role in atmospheric heating globally Ramanathan is quite blunt in stating that this was contrary to the conventional wisdom that soot's heating effect was counterbalanced by other aerosols as well as its own shading effects. Wouldn't that impact the role of CO2 in general climate models? Others have likewise has found soot-fall to be particularly pernicious on the ground, with soot causing up to 90% of the Arctic melt-off, industrial soot having an 8x more powerful warming effect on snow and ice than that from wood fuels. Significantly, Hansen cites 25% of centennial global warming being due to the general Arctic melt-off. None of these statements seek to exculpate CO2, but it draws into question the margin of warming that CO2 is in fact responsible for. Surely Ramanathan's and Hansen's findings are reputable and yet they seem to me to weaken the brief for dangerous CO2-driven global warming. Best regards, /leebert
130746. leebert at 05:53 AM on 1 April 2008
        Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
        Hi John, What trend line do we get if we remove the "noise" that originates from varying solar irradiance? Can't the solar wattage differentials can be factored out to show the actual GHG forcings, both with and without feedbacks? I think that'd be far more informative than trying to glean out the solar noise from the general climate noise. Any difference would represent GHG forcings, not solar. Best regards, /lee
        Response: You don't ask much, do you?! As the long term solar trend has been one of slight cooling over the last 30 years, if you took out solar influence, if anything the global warming trend would be slightly higher.
130747. leebert at 05:45 AM on 1 April 2008
        Determining the long term solar trend
        What about solar cycle #25? The current rate of the sun's conveyors has slowed to a crawl which predicts sunspot activity 20 years from now: http://www.physorg.com/news66581392.html "...For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity... [ 2022 could be ] "...off the bottom of the charts."
130748. Wondering Aloud at 04:07 AM on 1 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Version? Go ahead and find research that shows that DDT harmed Raptor birds. I can save you time it doesn't exist. Audobon and hawk mountain bird counts clearly showed increased populations at the height of DDT use. Something I experienced first hand. The bird egg thing had already been disproven 30 years ago. Tests with real birds at even wildlly elevated levels ranged from inconclusive to downright favorable. Long term persistence in the environment was exaggerated. In fact the test they were using to detect it at the time required that it break down readily in the environment. I went to a professional conference 25 years ago where this precise issue was used as an example of bad scientific ethics. Not to be argued? You are aware of the huge residue levels of DDT found in elephants? Yes Siberian elephants found in permafrost and the resulting discovery that the supposed marker for DDT building up in living tissue was in fact not a marker for DDT at all. Then you hit me with that old saw about the manufacturers wanting to sell too much when in fact since it was long out of patent and they made the patented replacements they were quiet supporters of the ban. It was used foolishly and broadly and had an effect of messing up local food chains from misuse; but you'll have a tough time finding a replacement that wasn't worse on every particular. Or perhaps a quote from Ruckelshaus at the time of the ban "We admit there is no scientific evidence to support the ban of DDT never the less we are banning it." Sorry, I tried very hard my first year in grad school environmental chemistry to try to prove the DDT issue wasn't a politically motivated fraud, I failed completely. It is the only project in hundreds of grad hours I never managed to complete, and the professors involved admitted at the end that they couldn't do it either. It is probably why I switched to surface chemistry and later into physics. The one "Real" and "not to be argued" thing in the DDT issue is the bodies of the innocent children who have died as a result of the ban. On acid rain, being "real" doesn't make it a crisis, which I suspect you well know. As in Canada blaming emissions from Sudbury on Gary Indiana. The perpose of that scare was to reduce fossil fuel use. When it faded in the mid to late 1980s it was replaced by another scare. As I recall the lead paint thing was basically "they'd have to actually eat the paint for it to be a problem." Which is exactly the issue. Which part of NASA is such a good source? or NOAA for that matter as there are public figures on both extremes in both agencies. Several of AGW's best known skeptics are NASA scientists or retired NASA scientists.
130749. Philippe Chantreau at 03:17 AM on 1 April 2008
        Global cooling: the new kid on the block
        Your take on DDT comes from propaganda. The manufacturers of DDT ruined themselves. They pushed public health managers for insane amounts of the product to be used so that they would sell more of it. As a result, insane amounts of the stuff accumulated in the environment and affected numerous species. This last point is not to be argued, it has been well documented in multiple studies. N.G is not telling lies about this. You'd die too, if exposed to the appropriate dose of the chemical. This would never have happened if the greedy idiots doing a business of selling DDT had not tried to make more money out of it than what the real need called for. When the backlash happened, they tried to get back to reason by showing that, at the proper doses, the product was safe. It's too bad they could not bring themselves to sell only what was necessary for proper dosage in the first place. Before regurgitating propaganda, why don't you look at how much DDT was used per square meter of beach for instance, vs. what was necessary to achieve the desired result. DDT did kill birds because it ended up in the doses needed to kill birds' eggs, instead of the much lower doses needed to kill mosquito eggs and larvae. Of course, once something is legislated, it's hard to track back. The DDT backlash was not created by environmentalists but by businessmen. Since we're talking about lies, why don't we examine the lies of the lead industry about the neurological effects of lead containing paints on children. Or we could also examine the lies of the tobacco industry. There are plenty of lies to go around, really. Acid rain is real, I've seen the effects of it. Take a trip to China, yuo'll see plenty for yourself. While you're there, reflect on how you would like to live in such a place. The new ice age is media created bunk. Asbestos does cause lung disease, I have not met a pulmonologist who'd deny that. It's easy to see where your list comes from. For each and any of those items, how closely have you looked at the "alternate" side of the story that you were presented? "Being a skeptic is usually what science is all about." This claim is often heard, along with the suggestion that all the climate scientists doing research full time are not exercising the proper amount of skepticism. What's funny is that most of the time, that half veiled accusation comes from people who are not scientists and would be hard pressed to distinguish between what warrants great skepticism and what's more likely to be truly interesting. Quietman's recent interest in the miserable Gerlich "paper" is a case in point. I'm not going to cut skeptics any slack if they are not aware of the all story and rely on sources that are worthless. GRL is a good source. Energy and Environment is not. Heartland is a miserable source. NOAA and NASA are good ones. There are objective criteria for this. If you decide to ignore them, your skepticism is nothing more than well dressed bias. Skepticism cuts both ways. How much skepticism did you direct toward the version of the DDT story that you were told?
130750. Wondering Aloud at 02:07 AM on 1 April 2008
        There is no consensus
        paledriver, Read from the 3rd paragraph on of my post 16. That was my point. I do indeed think it is clear that the public is being duped. I think it is deliberate and I think the AGW alarmists are the ones doing it. The "many fake signatures" is both clearly incorrect and irrelevent. By your own references over 90% were verified. Phillippe I don't agree with your way of stating the consensus though It isn't far enough off to argue. On your double standard point though, Phillippe, that is exactly the contention I have been making from the other side of the issue for a long time so it is kind of funny. The correct hypothesis has to defeat all the others. It has to pass the experimental test and make predictions that other hypothesis don't. Being experimentally supported is the beginning of this; that isn't enough to prove it, but at this point we haven't even got that. Being only not much worse than the other explanations is not enough. Holding the accepted theory to the highest standard is what a scientist is supposed to do. It only takes one thing to prove it wrong. The perhaps painful truth is CO2 has not been a major cause of climate change in the past, despite levels many times the current level. In order to believe it is about to cause huge consequences today when it never did in the past you need some pretty convincing proof or some new physical reality. John I am pretty impressed with how current you keep your articles references.

Prev  2607  2608  2609  2610  2611  2612  2613  2614  2615  2616  2617  2618  2619  2620  2621  2622  Next