What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Meanz Beanz]

Who's zooming who?

What a crock!

[Boston]

in today's news

(CNN) -- It was one of the most surreal images in American history: A river, so fouled with industrial waste that it caught fire and burned. In June 1969, Cleveland's Cuyahoga River become the poster child for the birth of the modern American environmental movement.

No matter that this was at least the tenth time the Cuyahoga had ignited. The times, they were a-changing, and a burning river confirmed what many already believed: The environment was changing, too.

Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring," published seven years earlier, had lit the spark. The mild-mannered government scientist documented how the pesticide DDT was jeopardizing countless bird species, from tiny hummingbirds to the national symbol, the bald eagle.

Smog from traffic and factories had become a national concern. And six months before the torching of the Cuyahoga, a massive oil spill soiled the shores of Santa Barbara, California. In the midst of the anti-Vietnam war movement, the women's movement, and more, a divided America also found room for an environmental movement.

"We have been acting out the classic cartoon image of a man sitting on the branch of a tree and sawing it off behind him," wrote Philip Shabecoff in his 1993 book, "A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement." Shabecoff described environmentalism as a "broad social movement" that was attempting to build a "desperately needed but difficult and obstacle-strewn road" out of humankind's increasingly polluted predicament.

hey Jimmy
it reads

no competent competing theory

which there isnt
each of these attempts to thrust work; thats been considered and rejected by the scientific community, forward in an effort confuse the readers is far more dishonest than what you accuse in a three word misquote of my own statements
and I think we can all see who has continued the personal attacks

the lack of civility is a clear indication that the failings of your position and its inability to tolerate debate has been found out and found wanting

I ask again
is it character assassination to research a scientists bio and let the readers in on it
is he a climate scientist or is he just stepping in with an opinion
who he gets his funding from
who he is affiliated with in his research
his standing among his peers
who he submits his work to for publication
what rebuttals may have been written
was his work accepted
and most importantly

how the science is conducted
ethics
ethics is the heart and soul of good science

science doesnt begin with a theory and then develop the data
thats what industry pseudoscientists do
science considers the data without preconceived ideas and develops a hypothesis
works with other scientists to consider this hypothesis and along with others develops additional data
eventually
over long periods of time a consensus is developed and a theory emerges
today
science works together to understand
wear as what appears to be happening here is clearly industry spin

I have no animosities Jim
just a penchant for the truth
both in substance and in form
so lets show a little good form shall we
and admit that 97% is a bloody miracle of a consensus on any theory
let alone one as complex as this

oh
almost forgot
its not authority
its agreement

cheers
B

[Jimbo1490]

Beanz,

Thanks for the link! it's a short article so every one should read it, though the 'believers' prob'ly won't. Here' an excerpt:

"Another of his [Hansen's] close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought."

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

More relevant stuff:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...de-for-US.html


Excerpted from the above:

"For 300 years science helped to turn Western civilisation into the richest and most comfortable the world has ever seen. Now it seems we have suddenly been plunged into a new age of superstition, where scientific evidence no longer counts for anything. The fact that America will soon be ruled by a man wholly under the spell of this post-scientific hysteria may leave us in wondering despair."


Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Hi, Jim! Very interesting article the one in the Telegraph. As we say in Spain, it says "verdades como puños" ("fists like truths", meaning 'big truths', or 'demolishing truths') That guy, Obama, is going to be a real danger to the world. How can he be so imprudent? My God! He remembers me our own president, Zapatero. He began saying and doing all kind of naïve things, resulting in serious harms for Spain. The cruel reality of life is bringing him now to more prudent positions (unluckily not as much as he should, but it's something at least). Let's hope Obama will go the same way. The sooner the better for all of us.

Now here you have another historic '97% consensus': The Earth is Flat!

Cheers.

[Jimbo1490]

More relevant stuff again:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=106674&src=

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf



Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Excerpted from the Monckton report, cited above:

"There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how
much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will
have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will
respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether
(if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we
should take any steps at all."

Naomi Oreskes



Jimbo

[Meanz Beanz]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Now here you have another historic '97% consensus': The Earth is Flat!

It damn well is too... I can see it right out my window, checked it with a laser level... she's as flat as a pancake!

[bntii]

I invite everyone to read the following.

The first is a opinion piece about science which relates to this issue.

The second is what the science actually reports.

I. The opinion piece

"Climate facts to warm to"

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite"

"If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint......."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...9-7583,00.html


II. What the science is actually stating

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
11.17.08

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...r_warming.html


"Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion."

If you want to consider yourself "better educated", strengthen your analysis with information from primary sources not blogs.

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

Did you watch the Christy lecture cited earlier? A corresponding negative feedback has also been found. This makes perfect sense, of course, because without such a feedback, the climate would have 'run away' in a feedback loop long ago. Also, the 'iris effect', is, as of last year, now fast moving toward a confirmed phenomenon, rather than a mere theory.

Jimbo

[Boston]

oh please not Christy again
Mr Waffles is what I think we named him

Conservatives who are reluctant to engage in the hard task of cleaning up the technology of energy production are fond of citing Christy's work, and do so as if his work alone disproves the huge mass of scientific research that supports the idea that global climate change is a result of human activity. When one conservative, for example, leaves a comment on Irregular Times about Christy's skepticism writes "Christy shows that there is dissent on global warming".

The truth is that no one ever claimed that there is no dissent on the issue of the human causes of global climate change. What is claimed by the vast majority of the scientific community is that the dissent that exists is not substantial or significant. Look long enough, and you'll find a scientist who will dissent from almost any major theory. That doesn't mean that the dissent is meaningful.

The mere existence of scientific dissent neither proves nor disproves nothing. It is the quality of dissent, and its ability to persuade the community of scientific peers, that matters. The clear fact is that John Christy's work has not been of the quality or the persuasiveness to make any significant impact on the scientific consensus that global climate change is happening, and that it is the result of human activity.

The truth is that even John Christy no longer believes the claims that he once made, and that desperate Republicans still bring out of the closet to defend their energy policies. As more evidence has accumulated, Christy has conceded that global climate change is happening. Christy has also conceded that global climate change is at least to some degree due to human activity, saying, "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century."

In 2003, the American Geophysical Union released a statement representing its agreement that industrial emissions have caused carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to rise at a sharper rate than any other time in the history of the Earth. The statement included the following sentence: "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century." John Christy signed the statement.

John Christy's position has evolved as the scientific community has gathered more evidence. First, he denied that global climate change is really taking place. Then, he had to admit that global climate change exists, and so denied that the observed global climate change was the result of human activity. Now, it seems, he has abandoned that position too. At present, Christy's position is merely that global climate change will not be catastrophic.

speaking of waffles Jim
why to I remember you adamantly refusing to believe in feed back loops in the climate cycle
now you are talking negative feed back loops like they were some kind of pariah to the global climate change theory
if you run out of syrup Ive got some in the fridge
and that way you can waffle all you want
;-)

love B

[Jimbo1490]

Relevant:

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Con...ticle12403.htm

Jimbo

[Boston]

Warning Readers Take Note

Ethics is the road upon which all good science lay
a lack of which can only lead to misunderstandings

in post # 1551 the following web site was offered for out consideration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...de-for-US.html
the author of the piece
Christopher Booker
is a journalist not a scientist who's sources have been tried and convicted of making false claims

Booker's articles in The Daily Telegraph on asbestos and also on global warming have been challenged by George Monbiot in an article in The Guardian newspaper [1].
Booker's scientific claims, which include the false assertion that white asbestos (chrysotile) is "chemically identical to talcum powder" [2] were also analysed in detail by Richard Wilson in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008). (The chemical formula for talc is H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2, while the formula for chrysotile, the primary ingredient of white asbestos, is Mg3(Si2O5)(OH)4).
Wilson highlighted Christopher Booker's repeated endorsement of the alleged scientific expertise of John Bridle, who has claimed to be "the world's foremost authority on asbestos science", but who in 2005 was convicted under the UK's Trade Descriptions Act [3] of making false claims about his qualifications, and who the BBC has accused of basing his reputation on "lies about his credentials, unaccredited tests, and self aggrandisement".[4].
Christopher Booker's scientific claims about asbestos have been criticized several times by the UK government's Health and Safety Executive. In 2002, the HSE's Director General, Timothy Walker, wrote that Booker's articles on asbestos had been "misinformed and do little to increase public understanding of a very important occupational health issue."[5].
In 2005, the Health and Safety Executive issued a rebuttal[6] after Christopher Booker wrote an article suggesting, incorrectly, that the HSE had agreed with him that white asbestos posed "no medical risk"[7].
In 2006, the HSE published a further rebuttal[8] after Christopher Booker had claimed, again incorrectly, that the Health and Safety Laboratory had concluded that the white asbestos contained within "artex" textured coatings posed "no health risk". [9].
In May 2008, the Health and Safety Executive accused Booker of writing an article that was "substantially misleading"[10]. In the article[11], published by the Sunday Telegraph earlier that month, Booker had claimed, falsely, that a paper produced in 2000 by two HSE statisticians, Hodgson and Darnton[12], had 'concluded that the risk of contracting mesothelioma from white asbestos cement was "insignificant", while that of lung cancer was "zero"'.

[Boston]

the official view of the American Physical Society
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...dIzxgI5agn6XxQ

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

[Meanz Beanz]

STOP YELLING IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN...