fiddy tree




[Edited on July 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

7/19/2008 11:57:04 AM

^^ Al Gore--the hypocrite--but that should have been obvious.

7/20/2008 2:38:50 AM

okay yes, he did douche it up like it's his job in that energy speech. Countering douchebaggery with even more douchebaggery probably will not end well.

7/21/2008 9:57:59 AM

Death to the so-called consensus--and the sooner the better.

No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008

Quote :

"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector. FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the 'urban heat island' effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved. If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now? The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise. The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

7/24/2008 9:15:51 AM

Quote :

"Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever."

This is bullshit. Everyone gives whatever analysis they like on the matter.

See what Al Gore says on that very thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUO8bdrXghs

So, the exact same thing, the profile of temperature by altitude is used as evidence that AGW is true.

9 minutes into it about.

Stratosphere: heated more if due to sun cycles. Heated less if due to AGW.
Lower atmosphere: heated less if due to sun cycles. Heated more if due to AGW.

Regardless of how much of a douchebag Gore is...
That. makes. sense.

Al Gore says that the data shows that the stratosphere is cooler. I do not know about this, I did not take the data, and have not spent huge amounts of time trying to understand what data there is, how it was taken, and so on and so fourth. As such, the final conclusion of that claim may or may not be false.

But do you see the different between this and David Evans's argument? That article doesn't want us to understand. Just to doubt. There is no question that he is omitting critical points. I would seriously like to know what actually happened with this episode with the radiosonde thermometers, I really genuinely want to know. But this article doesn't tell it.

1. believe people who's claims make sense and appear verifiable
2. don't believe claims which don't make sense
3. profit?

7/24/2008 10:43:21 AM

Quote :

"I do not know about this, I did not take the data, and have not spent huge amounts of time trying to understand what data there is, how it was taken, and so on and so forth."

you and Al Gore have something in common

7/24/2008 10:47:33 AM

The only time I believe anything Al Gore says is when it's something I already thought anyway.

7/24/2008 10:51:02 AM

I just pray to God this madness stops before our government exacts any insane taxes like they have over in the UK, taxing the cars based on their CO2 emissions, sweet Lord.

7/24/2008 11:08:21 AM

I take it they're taxed based on pollution -rather than- vehicle type or value?

That's a great idea. We already sort of do it in the form of a gas guzzler tax.

I say cities, states, and the federal gov't should stop taxing based on arbitrary things, and base the whole shebang on gas consumption.

7/24/2008 11:18:13 AM

Well, we're already doing these retarded arbitrary tax credits for people who buy hybrids that take two times the energy inputs to make but use a little less gas

Al Gore goes overboard though. He thinks we can just stop taxing everything else and tax stuff by how much Carbon it emits. The problems with this are monstrous, but for one, Carbon emissions isn't the only 'bad' thing you can do, you won't get enough tax revenue after demand destruction sets in, etc...

Taxing based on gas consumption is one rational approach, and of course, would have a lot of details to be worked out. But our problem is more that we don't currently use any rational approach.

7/24/2008 11:24:05 AM

Quote :

"retarded arbitrary tax credits for people who buy hybrids that take two times the energy inputs to make but use a little less gas"

not lately..tax credits for buying hybrids stopped in like 2005

7/24/2008 11:26:09 AM

Quote :

"that take two times the energy inputs to make"

But Toyota absorbs that cost-- not consumers.

...well, assuming we can make headway on power plants, too

7/24/2008 11:30:32 AM

Well, right now we're not making any hybrids that plug in anyway. What we're talking about with the Prius is that greater manufacturing and energy inputs in that process are substituted for gas consumption in regular driving.

It still absolutely reduces our dependence on oil and works to fix most problems we're concerned with. The environment credentials are solid, I'm just nit picking, like when people try to say that nuclear power plant construction emits carbon (yeah, 1/100 of what it reduces...).

All the auto companies need to get aggressive with the plug in hybrids though. Heck, I want to buy one. If you can charge up and get 10 miles not starting up the gas part, then you can do a lot of commutes completely gas free...

7/24/2008 2:13:59 PM

Quote :

"I take it they're taxed based on pollution -rather than- vehicle type or value? That's a great idea. We already sort of do it in the form of a gas guzzler tax. I say cities, states, and the federal gov't should stop taxing based on arbitrary things, and base the whole shebang on gas consumption."

Yes, in the UK vehicles are taxed on CO2 kg/km emitted (I believe). Thats just one of various taxes levied against automobile owners over there.

I disagree with your thoughts on taxing. As there's no concrete evidence that CO2 emissions are harmful to the environment, the only thing vehicles should be taxed on is their impact on the roadway infastructure, i.e. tax them based on weight.

[Edited on July 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : k]

7/24/2008 2:45:50 PM

How is taxing gasoline any different than taxing CO2 emissions other than the objective?

7/24/2008 9:38:54 PM

Or just taxing based on all around pollution emitted by vehicles and not just CO2. Tax the car companies for creating inefficient vehicles and/or consumers who think they are too good to be environmentally responsible.

7/25/2008 12:29:28 AM

Yes, yes. But let's not get bogged down in yet another goddamned tax debate or the like. This quite credible expert, Dr. David Evans, has disputed the so-called consensus--is this the consensus buster (if a consensus ever existed)?

Quote :

"But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts: 1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again. When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot. Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything. 2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming. 3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the 'urban heat island' effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling. 4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance. The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming. So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Please address points 1-4 and the related information. Thank you.

[Edited on July 25, 2008 at 1:22 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2008 1:22:10 AM

Then I must withdraw from this line of discussion because I have moved beyond quibbling over whether or not everyone agrees but more to the point of environmental responsibility for not just our contributions to climate change but also our entire role in trashing natural habitat for monetary gain, expedience or just sheer complacency.

7/25/2008 2:58:43 AM

^ Well, hell's bells--I'm for "environmental responsibility"! Who isn't? I don't, however, support any sort of environmental fascism in which those that have reasonable questions are compared to Holocaust deniers.

7/25/2008 3:04:00 AM

fuck you for trying to tell me what I can and can't drive (I'm not referring to the post directly above me).

7/25/2008 4:23:23 AM

Quote :

"Please address points 1-4 and the related information. Thank you."

1. The lower atmosphere is warming at a faster rate, the smoking gun for AGW. Search google for the "greenhouse signature", what you get is limitless anti-AGW sites. Search google scholar, and tell me if you can find a single paper saying what Evans claimed. I had no luck.

2. What is "significant"? 1 or 2C is almost certain, and almost all models give 2-4.5C. Does Evans refute this at all? NO! he doesn't.

3. I can cherry pick data too



Really, "the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year" is not even an argument. You would have to be unnaturally stupid to believe this refutes AGW when you have access to record of the big picture.

4. How does the fact that temperature can affect CO2 concentration prove that CO2 concentration can not affect temperature?

7/25/2008 2:02:21 PM

^ Baloney. And there's this:

Report: N.C. Can’t Impact Climate Change
Study attributes warming, rising sea levels to natural causes

Quote :

"RALEIGH — As state and federal lawmakers continue to debate climate-change regulatory legislation, a report from the nonpartisan Science & Public Policy Institute says that emissions reductions by North Carolina would do nothing to reduce regional or global climate change. The report, one of 15 published by the institute examining state-level climate change data, also uses long-term trends to counter the argument that North Carolina is experiencing abnormal warming, reduced rainfall, a disproportionate number of hurricanes, and rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities. 'Temperatures during the past decade are by no means unusual when properly set against the long-term temperature history of the state,' wrote Robert Ferguson, author of the report, which was released May 31, and president of the institute. Since 1895, when reliable records were first available, the climate of North Carolina has fluctuated from warmer temperatures in the first half of the 20th century to cooler periods in the 1960s. In the last several decades, temperatures have returned to the warmer levels common during the first part of the last century. The report found a similar oscillation in sea levels. Proponents of climate-change regulations argue that rising temperatures endanger North Carolina's coast and associated tourism industry. But Ferguson wrote that any increase is negligible and nonthreatening. '[The] reasonably expected rate of sea level rise in the coming decades is not much different to [sic] the rate of sea level rise that North Carolina's coastlines have been experiencing for more than a century — and have successfully adapted to,' he said. The frequency and intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic basin has increased since 1995, Ferguson said, but the trend comes after four decades of relatively peaceful conditions and is a return to patterns common during the early 20th century. In addition to examining long-term trends in temperature increases, sea levels, and weather patterns, the report says that climate-mitigation efforts in North Carolina would have no impact on effectively curbing carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale. Carbon dioxide emissions in North Carolina accounted for 0.57 percent of worldwide emissions in 2003, and the proportion will grow smaller in the 21st century as the demand for energy in developing nations grows, the report says. 'This means that even a complete cessation of all CO2 emissions in North Carolina would be undetectable globally, and would be entirely subsumed by rising global emissions in less than two month's time,' Ferguson wrote. 'Even if the entire United States were to close down its economy completely and revert to the Stone Age, without even the ability to light fires, the growth in emissions from China and India would replace our entire emissions in little more than a decade,' he said. The N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change, created in 2005, has faced many of the issues discussed in the institute's report. The commission is taxed with recommending whether the state implement climate-change regulations. In testimony before the commission April 22, Rob Jackson, director of the Center on Global Change at Duke University, encouraged members to recommend state-level regulations. 'Stabilizing the CO2 emissions makes a huge difference in what happens in the future,' he said. 'I understand the constraints you must deal with, but things are hurtling along, and the faster you deal with this, the better.' But David Tuerck, an economist with Suffolk University and director of the Beacon Hill Institute, testified the same day that climate-change regulations would have serious economic consequences for the state. 'This is a matter of what kind of economics you want to believe, and I urge you to see this as a process in which we're going to introduce distortions into the economic system,' he said. 'As we impose very real costs, we're going to bring about very real contractions in economic activity in order to pursue a vague, ill-defined, and badly understood goal.' The institute's report includes the names of 610 North Carolina scientists, out of 31,072 scientists in the entire United States, who have signed a petition stating that there is no evidence that manmade emissions cause catastrophic warming that imperils the Earth's climate."

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=4883

7/26/2008 4:57:44 AM

Quote :

"It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”"

probably half of the people posting in this thread would have been qualified to sign that petition.

7/26/2008 9:09:28 AM

only qualification really needed is that you're not a nutjob moonbat.

7/26/2008 11:39:30 AM

oh goodie, another petition. Lets hope they didn't just slab names on there like the last time.

Quote :

"Earlier today we broke the story about dozens of scientists outraged at the use of their good names in an article by Heartland Institute's "Senior Fellow" Dennis Avery (pictured above) posted on their website entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares. The article is written by Dennis Avery, a "Senior Fellow" at the Heartland Institute. The article which was first published by another think tank called the Hudson Institute, where Avery is also listed as a "Senior Fellow," has bounced around the internet as proof that there is great doubts about the realities of human-caused global warming. The letters are pouring in from angry scientists, with over 45 scientists now demanding that there names be stricken from the list, some are going much further and threatening legal action. Here's some more quotes: I am very shocked to see my name in the list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares". Because none of my research publications has ever indicated that the global warming is not as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, I view that the inclusion of my name in such list without my permission or consensus has damaged my professional reputation as an atmospheric scientist." Dr. Ming Cai, Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Florida State University. Just because you document natural climate variability doesn't mean anthropogenic global warming is not a threat. In fact I would venture that most on that list believe a natural cycle and anthropogenic change combined represent a greater threat." Peter F. Almasi, PhD Candidate in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Columbia University Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?" Dr. James P. Berry, Senior Scientist, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science." Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research." Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo "

http://www.desmogblog.com/outrage-in-the-climate-science-community-continues-over-the-500-scientist-list

7/26/2008 3:27:33 PM

^ You mean like the IPCC did?

Quote :

"More extreme stories predicting disasters at worst or unprecedented change at best are due to growing desperation as awareness builds among the public that humans are not causing warming or climate change. However, they are also the legacy of the mandate and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We heard about the 2,500 members being a consensus of scientists, but this is anything but the truth. A majority, 1,900, only look at the impacts of global warming or climate change. Most are bureaucrats not scientists. Worse, they start from a false assumption because they accept the results of the Science Report that changes are due to human activity and then speculate on the impacts."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4072

7/26/2008 4:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"

7/26/2008 7:02:13 PM

you mean, like Al Gore, James Hansen, and the hockey-stick originators?

7/27/2008 11:51:21 PM

Honestly, it's about time that James Hansen finds another job. The man's ego is way too big, and he's way too opinionated for his position.

Quote :

"Nasa is out of line on global warming By Christopher Booker Considering that the measures recommended by the world's politicians to combat global warming will cost tens of trillions of dollars and involve very drastic changes to our way of life, it might be thought wise to check the reliability of the evidence on which they base their belief that our planet is actually getting hotter. There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation, through scientific blogs, which raises large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures. First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years. Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings. Right out on their own, however, are the quite different figures produced by GISS which, strangely for a body sponsored by Nasa, rely not on satellites but also on surface readings. Hansen's latest graph shows temperatures rising since 1880, at accelerating speed in the past 10 years. The other three all show a flattening out after 2001 and a marked downward plunge of 0.6 degrees Celsius in 2007/8, equivalent to almost all the net warming recorded in the 20th century. (For comparisons see "Is the Earth getting warmer, or colder?" by Steven Goddard on The Register website.) Even more searching questions have been raised over Hansen's figures by two expert blogs. One is Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the computer analyst who earlier exposed the notorious "hockeystick" graph that was shamelessly exploited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. (This used a flawed computer model to suppress evidence that the world was hotter in the Middle Ages than today.) The other site is Watts Up With That, run by the meteorologist Anthony Watts. It was McIntyre who last year forced Hansen to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as Hansen had claimed, but in the 1930s. He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards. Although Hansen claimed that this only resulted from more careful calculations, McIntyre pointed out how odd it was that the adjustments all seemed to confirm his thesis. Watts meanwhile has also been conducting an exhaustive photographic survey of US surface weather stations, showing how temperature readings on more than half have been skewed upwards by siting thermometers where their readings are magnified by artificial heat-sources, such as asphalt car parks or air-conditioning systems. All this has raised such doubts over the methodology behind the GISS data that informed observers are calling for it to be independently assessed. Hansen himself is notoriously impatient of any criticism of his methods: earlier this month he appealed to Congress that the leaders of those who question global warming should be put on trial. It is still too early to suggest that the recent drop in temperatures shown by everyone but him is proof that global warming has stopped. But the fact is that not one of those vaunted computer models predicted what has happened to temperatures in recent years. Yet it is on those models (and Hansen's alarmist figures) that our politicians are basing all their proposals for irrevocably changing our lives."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/27/do2708.xml

7/28/2008 2:25:26 AM

Quote :

"Why can't people spend their time trying to identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change rather than trying to obscure them?"

mrfog

Well, for one thing, I took a graduate-level course concerning this issue that I wasn't required to take. What have you done to "identify and evaluate the facts concerning climate change"--other than jump on the alarmists' Internet bandwagon?

Preemptive PS (to haters): I don't give a flying fuck what you think about the course at issue--whatever its academic value the course is one more than you've taken.

7/28/2008 3:15:38 AM

Sure thing, then explain the "greenhouse signature" Evans mentioned.

Because, you know, you're apparently not bandwagon and evaluated evidence for yourself before throwing it around as evidence.

7/28/2008 6:45:26 AM

^ Um. . .you mean the greenhouse signature that's missing? Have you found it?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf

[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 7:29 AM. Reason : .]

7/28/2008 7:10:44 AM

okay, so why should we expect CO2-based warming to cause most warming in the tropics at about 10 km up in the atmosphere?

The following graphs are what you're alluding to.

The expectation:


The measurements:


Does anyone else see a problem with this? i.e. there is less net warming in the second one than the first one. By all means, the 'expected' graph I imagine is a faithfully constructed image of the 'signature' we would see for added CO2, but is it a faithfully constructed image for warming we would see with conditions of increased methane and aerosols as well, and at the 2006/7 concentration of carbon dioxide? And aside from the general order of magnitude of the warming and the sporadic fluctuation of the real world data, do these not look like... they match?

[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 8:41 AM. Reason : ]

7/28/2008 8:39:19 AM

^ Um. . .no.

7/28/2008 9:27:50 AM

Quote :

"^ Baloney."

Quote :

"^ Um. . .no."

*sigh*

7/28/2008 12:39:58 PM

what, did you think after 53 pages, hooksaw would ever have anything to say to a direct challenge that doesn't involve cut and pasting random links that are either out of context, ambiguous or from sources of dubious credibility?

7/28/2008 2:59:23 PM

Quote :

"Really, "the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year" is not even an argument. You would have to be unnaturally stupid to believe this refutes AGW when you have access to record of the big picture."

How in the HELL do you figure that? When we are told that the reason we are .6C higher in average temperature is because of CO2 concentrations, and then all of that is WIPED OUT in one freaking year, doesn't that speak volumes for those who claim that what we are experiencing right now is a result of natural climate variations? Moreover, it's not just that "the temperature dropped in the past year." It's that the rise in temperatures plateaued seven freaking years ago, something you conveniently left out when you referenced the temperature drop. A plateau, and then a drop... That would, again, imply natural climate variations, especially in light of the fact that CO2 concentrations have NOT gone down.

We're told that the 90s were so freaking hot because of AGW due to CO2, but then it's all wiped out... IN A YEAR. And this comes after a plateau in temperatures. Hardly seems like a smoking gun for AGW. If CO2 emissions were really the sole culprit in the warming, then we should not have seen a curb in the temperature rise that has lasted for seven years, especially if we are to believe that we are/have approached a "point of no return..."


Secondly, you say that those two graphs look remarkably similar. I'd beg to differ. The look similar only in the fact that they have the same scales and colors. That's about where the similarities end. If you even understand that notion of the "greenhouse signature," then you'd know that the "signature" is a warm spot in the "middle" of the atmosphere, for lack of a better word. In the first picture, there is a clear warm spot, marked by the massive red oval. Obviously, this is idealized. In the second picture, we see a gradual decrease in temperatures from surface to space, with no "warm spot" anywhere in between. That is 100% different than the first picture.

7/29/2008 6:39:41 PM

in the first sentence or two, i learned that you apparently can't comprehend how a single point of variance is related to a trend.

therefore i really don't see why anyone should bother to read the rest of your rant.

7/29/2008 6:43:34 PM

well, you need to keep reading in order to understand that this is NOT a "single point of variance." Moreover, even if it were one single point of variance, it's a HELL of a single point, wiping out ALL of the supposed warming due to CO2 emissions. That, my friend, is damning. If the forcing models of CO2 are to believed, then we should not see such a dramatic drop in temperatures without a corresponding dramatic drop in CO2 levels, or a similarly dramatic event in that year. There has been no Mount St. Helens or Pinatubo, or anything even remotely close to them.

And, we are told by the alarmists that .6C might not sound like a lot, but it really is a lot. How can we believe it "really is a lot" if it can be wiped it out in one year.

7/29/2008 7:07:05 PM

Quote :

"Moreover, even if it were one single point of variance, it's a HELL of a single point, wiping out ALL of the supposed warming due to CO2 emissions. "

go on, keep proving your complete lack of understanding about statistical trends.

7/29/2008 8:10:06 PM

Quote :

"How in the HELL do you figure that? When we are told that the reason we are .6C higher in average temperature is because of CO2 concentrations, and then all of that is WIPED OUT in one freaking year, doesn't that speak volumes for those who claim that what we are experiencing right now is a result of natural climate variations?"

You're entirely right about this part, and after listening to the crap Al Gore says, I understand you're not arguing with an invisible opponent either. But anyone who says that .6C in one year is/was enough to prove AGW is also off their rocker. It's a two way street, and temperatures vary so much that it's easy to make premature conclusions about detection of AGW.

Quote :

"Secondly, you say that those two graphs look remarkably similar. I'd beg to differ. The look similar only in the fact that they have the same scales and colors. That's about where the similarities end."

The bottom half warmed more (considerably) than the top. What we're dealing with is whether one is confident with it being the bottom half, or the upper part of the bottom half.

See where this came from (somewhat large pdf):
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf

They give similar graphs for possible human and natural factors, ie solar forcing and volcanic activity. I'll give away this spoiler: solar forcing warms pretty uniformly.

You should not be, and probably are not, surprised by this fact. If the sun turns up the heat, the Earth gets warmer, and while it is thinkable that some areas may be affected more than others due to complex factors internal to the Earth, the overwhelming effect should logically be that the whole damned thing warms up.

The measured data is not a perfect fit for CO2 warming, but it's a horrendous fit for thinkable natural factors. What does that warming in the lower atmosphere come from? I can't say with 100% certainty that it's us. But I can say with 100% certainty that it will be.

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2008 8:28:52 PM

is it not possible that the "warm" lower area is natural greenhouse effect? I'll admit to not knowing what it should "normally look like," but, as I recall, higher areas in our atmosphere are generally cooler than lower areas. That would seem to correlate quite nicely with the actual measured results, no?

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : misread]

7/29/2008 9:47:35 PM

Quote :

"is it not possible that the "warm" lower area is natural greenhouse effect?"

I'm not clear whether you knew this or not, but the graph is of change in temperature. So I think it indicates some difference of say 1995 to 2008, but I find the papers are vague on what the 'start' point was.

It's actually showing the upper atmosphere cooling (as the border between blue-gray and bright yellow indicates the no change line), which is what has happened. The upper atmosphere has dropped in temperature in recent history.

The greenhouse effect is natural and obviously vital for life on Earth. I mean, I guess it could change by natural means...

7/29/2008 10:06:31 PM

that's what I get for not reading shit

after some reading, I have stumbled upon an answer to your question about whether the actual measurements are obscured by other factors, and in this article, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf, it states that the projected model for including all expected forcing factors looks roughly similar to the model for CO2 forcing alone. Look at pages 4 and 5.

7/29/2008 10:09:36 PM

well, it didn't even say until digging a link into it. It's a very useful result, regardless of which side you're on (not that picking sides is very scientific), and it gets into a lot of issues that I think will be central to come. If people want to start geo-engineering to correct, you don't want to 'miss the basket' so to say - heat up the parts that already heated up and cool down the parts that already cooled down.

My biggest drawbacks are

1. That 'change' thing. How did they measure a change in temperature of an arbitrary altitude-latitude point of the atmosphere? It reflects one of the paradoxes of the research on the subject; you can improve knowledge today to no end, but there are somethings you can never establish without information from the past, which you basically can't improve data for (judging by the distortions we often see, it can only get worse).

2. The net magnitude is confusing. They ran a simulation for the 'expectation', but shouldn't this be set to have the same average as the real data? It obviously doesn't. Maybe the constant used was the rise in the surface temperature, which would imply that the surface is increasing in temperature drastically beyond what the atmosphere is. That's a big "huh?" The huh could be answered by the land-use factor (which is included with methane, aerosols, and other ways we change the climate), like the urban heat-island. This is speculative though.

Ideally, if we fairly understood the entire system AGW would not be near as big of a problem... because we would have options. In a way, one can expect that the Earth will be the first planet for humans to terraform. In a way we're already doing this...

Evolution applies to organisms. It does not apply to the Earth as a whole. Bacteria, a comet, or run-away greenhouse effect killing everything would be not advantageous, but there is no physical observation warding it off other than the Anthropic arguments (whereas, your penis failing without good reason is unlikely). In other words, the Earth itself is not particularly "optimized" despite the fact that birds are about as efficient fliers that the general design can possibly be, dolphins swim faster than even engineering can explain, and bees build structures with angles within 0.5 degrees of the optimal angle to maximize material use. And furthermore, the Anthropic principle says that the Earth up until now is blessed with certain characteristics due to the fact we're here to observe it, but it says nothing about the future survivability. If anything, cosmic reasoning indicates that we will kill ourselves because we don't see any other intelligent life.

So, in other words, we had this nice cradle to protect us up until the point of spontaneous generation of humans due to the fact that we could have equally suitably appeared in any part of the universe. But now, God says "shit gize, y'all on your own." If there's an anvil having above your head, there's no way to justifiably say but it just couldn't fall on us.

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2008 10:43:21 PM

I think the best part in all of this is the reaction of "scientists"alarmists to the absence of the signature. We have decades of temperature data for various altitudes, and the "scientists"alarmists have been saying for years that there would be this increased warming trend in certain places. So, when the data is compiled, it doesn't fit the models and predictions, what is the response of the "scientists"alarmists? IGNORE THE OBSERVATIONS.

What? Ignore the fucking observations? Isn't that, like, the OPPOSITE of science? No, instead, what the "scientists"alarmists want to do, is take other numbers, and run them through another model to figure out what the "actual" temperatures were. And why? Because, well, we can't trust the thousands upon thousands of temperature readings we've taken. BUT, we can trust these other, non-temperature readings? Riiiiiiiiiight...

Quote :

"1. That 'change' thing. How did they measure a change in temperature of an arbitrary altitude-latitude point of the atmosphere? It reflects one of the paradoxes of the research on the subject; you can improve knowledge today to no end, but there are somethings you can never establish without information from the past, which you basically can't improve data for (judging by the distortions we often see, it can only get worse). 2. The net magnitude is confusing. They ran a simulation for the 'expectation', but shouldn't this be set to have the same average as the real data? It obviously doesn't. Maybe the constant used was the rise in the surface temperature, which would imply that the surface is increasing in temperature drastically beyond what the atmosphere is. That's a big "huh?""

1) The change is based on decades of observations, dating back, at least, to the late 50s with one set, and to the late 70s. I'm guessing they calculate it from a decadal perspective and compare that to what the century's warming should be.
2) As for the expectation, the link I gave kind of discusses how they arrive at their "expected values". It's way over my head, but I think I have the gist of it, being that they expect certain areas to be warmed or cooled based on certain forcings, and these expectations are not made respective of the actual observed data (that would be bad science). That's the hypothesis: here is what we expect. Now, look at the observed data and see what actually occurred.

7/29/2008 10:45:14 PM

now, for #1 there ^

I take this to mean they used weather balloons in the 50s and 70s, right? I don't think there's any other way to measure this other than balloons.

for #2, my idea as to why it's warm in the middle is that the gas concentrations differ by atmospheric region. A simple attenuation would lead one to believe that added CO2 warming would start at the surface and decrease going up.

7/30/2008 9:44:18 AM

i'm not sure what the entirety of the measurements were, but some of them probably were weather balloons. I believe that some of the measurements from 1968 up to 79 were satellite, and most of the measurements after that are satellite. why?

7/30/2008 9:50:55 PM

because you can't measure temperature with respect to altitude by satellite.

7/30/2008 10:04:40 PM

well, it'd be great if you explained that to those satellites that are doing it as we speak

7/30/2008 10:05:46 PM