There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[eppie]

however, only if your conclusions support our political agenda will your research ever get published.

Now these are just plain lies.

[kandrathe]

Now these are just plain lies.

I don't think I've seen a clearer case of academic prejudice. The truth is right there. Look.

P.S.

Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion

The above article discusses some other factors which certain leading scientists have engaged, such as a lack of transparency and willingness to release your research to be peer reviewed by critics. Also, choosing only to share their information with other like minded scientists (the true believers) who also would conspire to protect the status quo.

Then, in response to Freedom of Information requests (under the British legal system) the scientists seemed to conspire to evade. Which, also beyond unethical, might be a crime and punishable by a fine.

P.S.S.

Another take on the issue; http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/th...ence_emails.php

<blockquote>"The emails seem to describe a model which frequently breaks, and being constantly "tweaked" with manual interventions of dubious quality in order to make them fit the historical data. These stories suggest that the model, and the past manual interventions, are so poorly documented that CRU cannot now replicate its own past findings.

That is a big problem. The IPCC report, which is the most widely relied upon in policy circles, uses this model to estimate the costs of global warming. If those costs are unreliable, then any cost-benefit analysis is totally worthless."</blockquote>

It seems the very heart of the IPCC conclusions relied on this flawed hockey stick model, which was derived by faulty means and never allowed to be critically reviewed.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Now these are just plain lies.

Sorry, but you are wrong. String theory, which is not politically driven, suffered from the same problems for years. Anyone criticizing it or postulating opposing theories could not get published, or even funded. In quantum mechanics, those looking for alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation found themselves in the same boat. Those two examples, from the field of physics, are something I know from personal contact with people on the short end of that stick. From reading the letters in Nature, in Science, and in other referred journals, I suspect the same thing is true in many other fields of study. One documentary I saw recently claimed that some archaeological findings from Africa were ignored for a long time because the finder was not part of the European science clique. Another, on the interpretation of Mayan writings, told of how some important work was ignored for a long time because it was done by a Russian.

History is filled with examples of the scientific establishment protecting itself by shutting challengers out. Eventually, it has always worked out, though it sometimes takes a few generations. So, in this particular case, it is not possible to dismiss the charges without examination. One must keep in mind the fact that the behavior of the workers in a field and the validity of their work are not necessarily linked. It may well be that the main stream theory of global warming is indeed correct and yet the proponents of that theory have behaved badly in suppressing valid inquiry into its opposition.

--Pete

[Jester]

You do have to admit that the evidence of around 42 leading climate scientists colluding to prevent research from being even considered for peer review is pretty damning. And then, their argument was, "Show me the peer reviewed research." Well, hey, there wasn't much because you barred it from getting into any publications. Then, when one journal's editor let slip through something not in step, they colluded to black mail, and punish that publication unless they changed their review board.

We all know that this is what happens, but now the evidence of how rampant the practice has become is right in our faces. You can research whatever you like, however, only if your conclusions support our political agenda will your research ever get published.

Some of the scientists whose e-mails have been stolen weren't exactly acting with proper scientific neutrality. I can't say I blame them for being irritable about the topic, given the tone of their critics on the other side, who hardly display a "saintly scientific" impartiality. However, you are certainly correct to an extent - there are some troubling issues in those e-mails. I am particularly interested in the deletion of e-mails. *If* it turns out there is a breach of ethics there (and that is an *if*, a few decontextualized quotes does not prove the case) then that is more than just scientists being petty and irascible.

The issues about scientists defending their turf is a tougher one. On the one hand, keeping contrary viewpoints out of journals when they are legitimate, well-conducted studies, is not kosher. But there are climate skeptics who have extensive publication records - the Pielkes, Lindzen*, and so on. Plus, there are definitely journals that have gone down the road suggested by Mike Mann - "taken over" by Skeptics, like Energy and Environment, that publishes denialist papers regularly.

So, the question is: were the studies mentioned in the e-mail relevant, valid studies that were kept out for political reasons? Or were they just lousy, biased papers that got slipped into journals by individual editors for their political, rather than scientific, content? If it's the first, that's a serious problem. If it's the second, I think the reaction is appropriate and understandable - boycotts of offending journals are not out of line. My understanding from the discussion at Realclimate is that the papers referenced by the e-mails are pretty awful, leading to mass resignations from editors. But more context would no doubt make things clearer.

What is not in those e-mails, no matter how hard you squint, is fraud in the data or its analysis. (Fraud, as distinct from error.) The vast majority of data from these groups is published, and what remains private (mostly for contracts with the data providers) is apparently not different in any relevant way. The headline quote about the "trick" is just a misunderstanding thanks to lack of context.

So, step one for the climate skeptic is still "come up with a good argument that accounts for the data better than AGW," and not "unmask the evil conspiracy." If the case is strong, the research community will come around eventually, even if it's tough at first. But if the case is weak, it's probably best that it doesn't gain acceptance. Right now, it still looks like the case is very weak.

-Jester

*one thing that is sure to reinforce the "bunker" mentality in AGW proponents is when their critics publish their work in that venerable scientific institution, the Wall Street Journal. It's easy to fall into the idea that you're defending "real" science from corporate propaganda when your opponents are making obviously political arguments.

[Jester]

It seems the very heart of the IPCC conclusions relied on this flawed hockey stick model, which was derived by faulty means and never allowed to be critically reviewed.

1) The IPCC conclusions definitely do not rest only on the Mann et al. tree ring reconstructions. Not even close. If you don't trust them, pull them out, and only examine all the other evidence, from ice cores, from isotopes, whatever. The picture doesn't look much different.

2) While Mike Mann was far from cooperative, it still seems strange that you would refer to a paper that has been picked apart and reassembled about four times now as "never allowed to be critically reviewed". It's lifespan has been almost nothing *but* critical review, thanks to McIntyre and McKitrick.

-Jester

Afterthought: What credentials could Megan McArdle possibly claim on issues of climate?

[kandrathe]

Some of the scientists whose e-mails have been stolen weren't exactly acting with proper scientific neutrality. I can't say I blame them for being irritable about the topic, given the tone of their critics on the other side, who hardly display a "saintly scientific" impartiality.

I agree that there is an organized well funded partisan opposition, however, again, the truth will prevail. So why hide the methods and data? It seems more like an ego issue where winning the battle against those perceived (or real) enemies seeking the information via legal channels (FOIA) became more important than the important issues of ethics, impartiality, and scientific method.

Unless, the research really is bogus. I think now, UEA CRU's work will be sifted with a fine toothed comb. Again, the truth will prevail. It's also an opportunity for the scientific community to review how they police the impartiality of their peer reviewed journals editorial review process.

P.S. Megan is a just a lowly journalist... But, she read the e-mails and some of the ongoing analysis of what they imply... Such as, "Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog."

Meaning what? The data was manipulated by hand to fit the desired result, the software has changed, and now they cannot remember how to reproduce their results?

Here is a better link discussing the fraud of the "trick" in the hockey stick model. And, it goes into details of examining the code comments, and corroborating against the e-mails describing "hiding the decline" past 1960. I feel it needs some unbiased review to set it straight.

And for those of you who understand programming, here is a pretty detailed article published by the American Thinker.

[Jester]

I agree that there is an organized well funded partisan opposition, however, again, the truth will prevail.

Here's hoping.

So why hide the methods and data? It seems more like an ego issue where winning the battle against those perceived (or real) enemies seeking the information via legal channels (FOIA) became more important than the more important issues of ethics, impartiality, and scientific method.

There isn't a good reason to hide methods and data. (Although the demand that absolutely *everything* be made available is certainly beyond the normal requirements of journal publication.) Mike Mann especially has received a series of well-deserved critiques from McIntyre especially which show neither his work nor his personality in a particularly favourable light. I'm beginning to think that the field of paleoclimate needs to have some coffee dates with the folks from statistics. It's their job, after all. Occasionally, I think the same is true of economics.

Unless, the research really is bogus. I think now, UEA CRU's work will be sifted with a fine toothed comb. Again, the truth will prevail. It's also an opportunity for the scientific community to review how they police the impartiality of their peer reviewed journals editorial review process.

Sadly, tribalism prevails. Maybe there should be a multidisciplinary component to the peer review for papers which rely on complex statistical methods.

P.S. Megan is a just a lowly journalist... But, she read the e-mails and some of the ongoing analysis of what they imply... Such as, "Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog."

Meaning what? The data was manipulated by hand to fit the desired result, the software has changed, and now they cannot remember how to reproduce their results?

Maybe. Or maybe not. Without knowing what the problems are, just showing that things are not replicable because of various hacks made does not imply deliberate fraud, or even incorrect results. It does mean sloppy methods. I think a generation of climate scientists collaborating with computer scientists and statisticians would do us all a world of good - maybe literally.

Here is a better link discussing the fraud of the "trick" in the hockey stick model.

The only part of it that link that seems "better" is where they quote the e-mail from the author of the series under discussion. He says, right there in between the graphs, that after 1960, there is a non-temperature signal imposed on the data. That is to say, what previously was a good proxy for temperature, no longer is, because of some change in factors. Without any expertise whatsoever in tree-ring data, I have no idea whether that argument is correct. But as I said several posts ago, substituting the known temperature record for the proxy, at exactly the point the original authors said that the proxy breaks down, does not seem so unreasonable to me, so long as you document it.

The "decline" being "hidden" is thus a decline in the *proxy*, which decouples from temperature around 1960 according to its authors. We already know the temperature, since we have the instrumental record, far better than a mere proxy. Perhaps this casts doubt on the use of this particular proxy, but it doesn't cast doubt on the warmth of the current century. That would require an entirely other set of criticisms of entirely different studies.

If I'm reading that second graph correctly, they appear to be claiming that the climate was a full 10 degrees Celsius warmer in the year 1200. I have no idea where they got that data from, but it's complete bollocks.

The kvetching of the programmer is interesting - and what point that represents relative to the finished papers. But, as with many of the e-mails themselves, I'm not sure how smart or fair it is to read something nobody ever intended to be read at face value. It may represent temporary frustration more than reasoned analysis.

In short and in summary, I find the accusations of arrogance and "tribalism" to be compelling, the accusations of obfuscation to be mixed, the accusations of deliberate fraud unfounded, and the notion that this is the "last nail in the coffin" to be ridiculous.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The kvetching of the programmer is interesting - and what point that represents relative to the finished papers. But, as with many of the e-mails themselves, I'm not sure how smart or fair it is to read something nobody ever intended to be read at face value. It may represent temporary frustration more than reasoned analysis.

This section from the American Thinker article was most troubling to me;<blockquote>In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.</blockquote>It is clear that the array valadj(fudge factor) skews the data.

Here is a link to a more complete analysis of that particular section.

So, is there a scientific reason for this "very artificial correction for decline"? This is not mere proxy substitution. I'm actually beginning to believe the theory that this was not a hack, but an intentional leak from inside UEA CRU.

[Jester]

So, is there a scientific reason for this "very artificial correction for decline"? This is not mere proxy substitution.

Right now, we're reading someone's comments on code, popped out of context, with no reference to the papers involved, as interpreted by someone leaning so far to the right he probably can't ride a bicycle, laced with ad hominems, for a right-wing political commentary site. At least the second link seems slightly better.

The question is the final product. What paper is this for? (Presumably one by Biffra in 1998...) Did output from code make it to publication? Did it alter the results? Is this from an interim stage, or the final product? What is meant by "fudge factor?" (I've heard it used for all sorts of things in econometrics - usually legit-so-long-as-you-say-what-you're-doing, almost always to account for something you know to be true, but can't model precisely yet. Certainly it is not used as a taunt to put in your code because you're an "SOB".) There are many reasons why you might need to correct your data "artificially" (by manipulating it directly). Whether this use is correct or not, I have no idea - but I don't see how you get one by looking exclusively at the code. It looks like it might be a problem, but is it? Context, context, context.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Right now, we're reading someone's comments on code, popped out of context, with no reference to the papers involved, as interpreted by someone leaning so far to the right he probably can't ride a bicycle, laced with ad hominems, for a right-wing political commentary site. At least the second link seems slightly better.

The question is the final product. What paper is this for? (Presumably one by Biffra in 1998...) Did output from code make it to publication? Did it alter the results? Is this from an interim stage, or the final product? What is meant by "fudge factor?" (I've heard it used for all sorts of things in econometrics - usually legit-so-long-as-you-say-what-you're-doing, almost always to account for something you know to be true, but can't model precisely yet.) There are many reasons why you might need to correct your data "artificially" (by manipulating it directly). Whether this use is correct or not, I have no idea - but I don't see how you get one by looking exclusively at the code. It looks like it might be a problem, but is it? Context, context, context.

-Jester

Well, from what I understand, this is trying to plot temperature from measuring tree ring data from various areas. However, it seems the science is weak, and weaker than anyone thought. Rainfall, and many other factors are also big influences in tree ring growth. The real smoking gun may be the use of this data as a source in the first place. Anyway, if I were in that clique of 42, I wouldn't be sleeping very well at night.

http://www.radicalgreenwatch.com/hq/?p=79 <-- Biffra undressed October 17th, 2009. Well before this brouhaha.

[Jester]

Well, from what I understand, this is trying to plot temperature from measuring tree ring data from various areas. However, it seems the science is weak, and weaker than anyone thought. Rainfall, and many other factors are also big influences in tree ring growth.

Using tree rings seems like a reasonable line of inquiry to me. What's weak about it? Even the sharpest criticisms from McIntyre have been about exactly *how* to use the tree rings (and how not to), not whether they can be used at all.

Regardless, toss the whole set of tree ring data entirely. Go to ice cores. Go to isotopes. Or, since it's the modern period where dendroclimatology seems to break down, just read the thermometers of the world. Wiping out the tree data entirely is far from sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis.

-Jester

Re: Yamal, Biffra, and McIntyre.

Biffra's extensive reply was linked from the article, but the links to the UEA appear to have broken. I can only imagine traffic went up rather sharply lately.

[kandrathe]

Using tree rings seems like a reasonable line of inquiry to me. What's weak about it? Even the sharpest criticisms from McIntyre have been about exactly *how* to use the tree rings (and how not to), not whether they can be used at all.

From Craig Loehle,<blockquote>“There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not capture long-term climate changes (100+ years) because tree size, root/shoot ratio, genetic adaptation to climate, and forest density can all shift in response to prolonged climate changes, among other reasons.” Furthermore, Loehle notes “Most seriously, typical reconstructions assume that tree ring width responds linearly to temperature, but trees can respond in an inverse parabolic manner to temperature, with ring width rising with temperature to some optimal level, and then decreasing with further temperature increases.” Other problems include tree responses to precipitation changes, variations in atmospheric pollution levels, diseases, pest outbreaks, and the obvious problem of enrichment that comes along with ever higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trees are not simple thermometers!</blockquote> More here on why divergence is a huge issue with tree rings. Or, an article by Loehle "A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies" where he describes issues with tree ring proxies. Notice the absence of a hockey stick.

Regardless, toss the whole set of tree ring data entirely. Go to ice cores. Go to isotopes. Or, since it's the modern period where dendroclimatology seems to break down, just read the thermometers of the world. Wiping out the tree data entirely is far from sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis.

Ice cores can give us real measures of CO2 levels trapped in ice. And, other measures can give us glimpses of earth's climate history, however, I've only seen one model that has been accurate in predicting the past 15 years of climate, and it was based on oceanography and CO2 was not a factor. This paper by William M. Gray, a meteorologist, presented at 21st NOAA Climate Workshop, Huntsville, AL (1996). But, er, Blasphemy!!! That said, I'm open to the idea of AGW, but the science needs to be compelling. So far, it seems to be more smoke, mirrors, and wishful thinking (and perhaps some creative programming). I've said this before... Burning fossil fuels and pumping pollutants, and even CO2 cannot be a good thing for our ecology, so if and when we can move to a clean abundant source of energy, then we should do it. This is common sense, not science. I expect science to catch up to the common sense someday and prove me correct.

[eppie]

Hi,
Sorry, but you are wrong. String theory, which is not politically driven, suffered from the same problems for years. Anyone criticizing it or postulating opposing theories could not get published, or even funded. In quantum mechanics, those looking for alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation found themselves in the same boat. Those two examples, from the field of physics, are something I know from personal contact with people on the short end of that stick. From reading the letters in Nature, in Science, and in other referred journals, I suspect the same thing is true in many other fields of study. One documentary I saw recently claimed that some archaeological findings from Africa were ignored for a long time because the finder was not part of the European science clique. Another, on the interpretation of Mayan writings, told of how some important work was ignored for a long time because it was done by a Russian.

History is filled with examples of the scientific establishment protecting itself by shutting challengers out. Eventually, it has always worked out, though it sometimes takes a few generations. So, in this particular case, it is not possible to dismiss the charges without examination. One must keep in mind the fact that the behavior of the workers in a field and the validity of their work are not necessarily linked. It may well be that the main stream theory of global warming is indeed correct and yet the proponents of that theory have behaved badly in suppressing valid inquiry into its opposition.

--Pete

Pete, first, read the line I quoted from Kandrathe....you see that what you write in your first sentence (not politically driven) doesn't apply to what I stated. I stand by by point that it is a lie that 'political unpopular ideas' will NEVER be published.

For climate science (which is an incredibly broad field) this for sure is not true, maybe the contrary is closer to the truth. Global warming is something that has been discussed for many years already.....and especially 20 years ago big oil companies had a big influence on what research was done, and what research was funded by governments for example. Only the last years there is funding for climate research, which isn't always the linear search for how much CO2 gives which temperature increase. Often they are bits and pieces of other research from marine biologists, chemists, physicists etc. etc., most of them not even mentioning global warming in the title in refereed:)journals.

Your examples have very little to do with this...the only thing it does is giving examples of groundbreaking research that took some time to win the hearts of the scientific community. And, be honest, in something like string theory it is not strange it takes some time to convince everybody, something so abstract and theoretic.

Still I agree that there have been many cases in which people try to keep something out of the journals, but in climate science that is not the case. There just is not a whole lot of proof that the global warming theory is wrong, period. Of course you have to take number for sea level rising and temperature rising with a grain of salt.....that is not very exact science, but the whole theory stands as a house, and is probably the second most attacked scientific theory (set) that is still standing like a house (after evolution).

[eppie]

It seems the very heart of the IPCC conclusions relied on this flawed hockey stick model, which was derived by faulty means and never allowed to be critically reviewed.

Like any good theory it is not just a conclusion based on some measurements, it is something that can be explained perfectly using basic science.


I would like to hear from a climate skeptic once how the volumes of CO2 emmited by humans would not lead to global warming.
Especially because everybody knows (also skeptics) that the climate on the globe has been changing many times caused by similar changes in atmospheric composition.

[eppie]

Well, from what I understand, this is trying to plot temperature from measuring tree ring data from various areas. However, it seems the science is weak, and weaker than anyone thought.

That indeed seems a weird thing to do. I am no expert in tree rings, but it doesn't sound very scientific to me.

[Jester]

From Craig Loehle,<blockquote>“There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not capture long-term climate changes (100+ years) because tree size, root/shoot ratio, genetic adaptation to climate, and forest density can all shift in response to prolonged climate changes, among other reasons.” Furthermore, Loehle notes “Most seriously, typical reconstructions assume that tree ring width responds linearly to temperature, but trees can respond in an inverse parabolic manner to temperature, with ring width rising with temperature to some optimal level, and then decreasing with further temperature increases.” Other problems include tree responses to precipitation changes, variations in atmospheric pollution levels, diseases, pest outbreaks, and the obvious problem of enrichment that comes along with ever higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Trees are not simple thermometers!</blockquote> More here on why divergence is a huge issue with tree rings. Or, an article by Loehle "A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies" where he describes issues with tree ring proxies. Notice the absence of a hockey stick.

Okay. Realclimate has analysis of that one too. (And, unsurprisingly, Lubos Motl has criticisms of the criticisms.) Probably also worth looking into Ammann and Wahl, who claim to have more or less replicated Mann's big picture, although not quite as starkly like sports equipment.

But, even if we take that meta-reconstruction as gospel, tossing out every other reconstruction showing lower variance in the past, we're still looking at an enormous rise in modern temperatures from any point in already almost matching the top of the putative MWP - the difference is not significant. That leaves denialists with the "it's been this way before" argument and AGW proponents with the "well, yeah, but why is it this way *now*" rebuttal. If CO2 is a primary driver (and I've not seen anything convincing that suggests otherwise, though I'm hardly a climatologist), then it's interesting, but far from conclusive, what happened a thousand years ago - the thing to test is the sensitivity of the climate to what we're doing today. Thankfully, AGW gives a very strong prediction - we expect global temperatures to continue rising within the bounds of the trends-plus-noise. Any other result is inconsistent with the model.

And, other measures can give us glimpses of earth's climate history, however, I've only seen one model that has been accurate in predicting the past 15 years of climate, and it was based on oceanography and CO2 was not a factor. This paper by William M. Gray, a meteorologist, presented at 21st NOAA Climate Workshop, Huntsville, AL (1996). But, er, Blasphemy!!!

Blasphemy is not a problem, but being wrong is. That paper was written in 1996. Two years later is the single warmest year on the instrumental temperature record, and current temperatures are still warmer than 1996, not cooler as predicted by that paper.

That said, I'm open to the idea of AGW, but the science needs to be compelling.

What you say of AGW, I'll say of your openness: I'll believe it when it looks compelling.

So far, it seems to be more smoke, mirrors, and wishful thinking (and perhaps some creative programming). I've said this before... Burning fossil fuels and pumping pollutants, and even CO2 cannot be a good thing for our ecology, so if and when we can move to a clean abundant source of energy, then we should do it. This is common sense, not science. I expect science to catch up to the common sense someday and prove me correct.

Common sense dictates that pumping historically unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere without limit is going to cause long-run warming - look at Venus for the absurdly extreme example. The questions are about rates and non-linearity and all sorts of stuff, but the basic prediction is as common sense as it gets. Whether common sense is of any help here is another question.

However, if you're in agreement with reducing CO2 pollution to any meaningful extent, then surely it must trouble you that not only are levels increasing, but rates? We're putting *more* into the atmosphere than ever before, and unless we follow the advice of someone like Al-Gore-Who-You-Dislike-So-Much, that's not going to change until we've burned the last gram of fossil fuel. How does that square with your "common sense"?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

However, if you're in agreement with reducing CO2 pollution to any meaningful extent, then surely it must trouble you that not only are levels increasing, but rates? We're putting *more* into the atmosphere than ever before, and unless we follow the advice of someone like Al-Gore-Who-You-Dislike-So-Much, that's not going to change until we've burned the last gram of fossil fuel. How does that square with your "common sense"?

I've been a proponent for eliminating coal fired plants when Al Gore was still figuring out if he wanted to be a minister, journalist, or lawyer. I'm not against him for the cause, rather his reactionary conclusions and the dire need to strip peoples freedom and property in order to "Save the Planet". And, by freedom I mean outlawing light bulbs, TV sets, and determining your proper carbon footprint. And, by property, I mean that process where the government separates a person from the fruits of their labors. But, here is the biggest rub; No one listened to me, or others in 1975 onward until the Green wacko's suddenly grew alarmed. I've made the same arguments since the Arpanet days. We've already burnt the baby, so yes, not burning another one would be good, however, what do you plan to do about the gigatons of CO2 already released? The long term trend as we are coming out of an ice age is that the Earth is warming, and AGW may have an influence on that trend, but the science is still unclear. I know some scientists are claiming it is clear, but the critics do need to be able to review the raw data and methods to debunk or corroborate their findings. That is the process of science. My theory is that unlike Venus, the Earth has oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems filled with plants and organisms that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. I believe the reason that the actual climate is cooler than predicted by the AGW models is that the Earth has complex negative feedback systems that science has yet to fully understand. Also, I doubt that this buffer has infinite capacity for CO2 absorption, and I have no idea how close to "overwhelmed" this buffer system may be either. Finally, the earth might be cooler than expected right now because there is currently very little sun spot activity.

[kandrathe]

That indeed seems a weird thing to do. I am no expert in tree rings, but it doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Careful... lest you get the label of "Denier" by doubting the veracity of Dendrochronology. I believe you can determine which were good years for trees, but there are many factors other than temperature which would influence that. Tree rings can give insight into the micro climate around that tree, and in aggregate you can capture data going back hundreds, or in some places thousands of years. It is made stronger when it is accurately linked to ice core data, lake sediments, and some other naturally occurring processes. It's weakness however is that there are only a few places where tree ring data extends beyond a few hundred years, and most places where no data exists at all.

[Jester]

I've been a proponent for eliminating coal fired plants when Al Gore was still figuring out if he wanted to be a minister, journalist, or lawyer. I'm not against him for the cause, rather his reactionary conclusions and the dire need to strip peoples freedom and property in order to "Save the Planet". And, by freedom I mean outlawing light bulbs, TV sets, and determining your proper carbon footprint.

Arrgh sound bytes. Nobody has ever proposed outlawing lightbulbs, in the sense that you'd have to live in the dark. Regulating the *type* of lightbulbs for energy efficiency is a rather different activity. I don't even know what you're talking about with TV sets.

As for determining your "proper" carbon footprint, and refusing to "strip peoples freedom and property", what on earth do you say to the electricity producer who tells you he likes his coal power, because it's cheap and plentiful? To the Hummer owner who tells you he really enjoys his 100 yard drive to the mailbox? To the tarsands oil producer who burns off their sour gas without a care in the world? If you don't *somehow* restrict their activities, their freedom, their property, they'll do what they do naturally - what they're doing right now - and continue polluting.

I'm all for stopping pollution in the least invasive, most libertarian way possible. But there's no free lunch. You can't get people do do what you want without either a carrot, or a stick, and the carrots aren't free either.

And, by property, I mean that process where the government separates a person from the fruits of their labors. But, here is the biggest rub; No one listened to me, or others in 1975 onward until the Green wacko's suddenly grew alarmed.

In fairness, if your profile is correct, you were 14. And the "green wackos" have been against coal power since the British Industrial Revolution.

We've already burnt the baby, so yes, not burning another one would be good, however, what do you plan to do about the gigatons of CO2 already released?

If we pollute absolutely zero CO2 from this point onwards? We do nothing. We sit back and let the atmospheric CO2 levels drop back down to their natural levels. This isn't a catastrophe at current levels.

But we're not going to pollute absolutely zero from here on out. We're not even slowing down the rate of *increase* in CO2 emissions - what hope do we have of outright stopping? At what level are we going to stabilize? 350? 450? 600? 1000? Is there a limit, except the oil in the ground and the forests on the earth? At that point, our options suck - risky, unpredictable geoengineering, ludicrously expensive carbon scrubbing, or just accepting whatever the consequences are.

The long term trend as we are coming out of an ice age is that the Earth is warming, and AGW may have an influence on that trend, but the science is still unclear.

We don't know what caused the "little ice age". The Maunder Minimum seems like a good guess, but the decline seems to precede it, which makes the causality suspect. We don't know if we'd still be experiencing it, were it not for AGW, or what the "normal" temperature would be. Maybe it would be about this warm, maybe not (I would say probably not - our sensitivity estimates would have to be way off.) It's probably a safe bet that the earth wasn't going to continue on a cooling trend forever, but beyond that, it's just a guess, except for what can be modelled (which is a sophisticated guess.)

I know some scientists are claiming it is clear, but the critics do need to be able to review the raw data and methods to debunk or corroborate their findings. That is the process of science.

It is, so long as you include the "or corroborate" part - which seems to be the part that gets left out, which AGW scientists find infuriating. Even the best work that has come out of the skeptical community has had a strong flavour of "gotcha" about it. While purely critical analysis has an important place, much of what is published by denialists, even the stuff that seems to hold water like the McIntyre pieces, seems to confirm the angry accusations of the AGWers when they were circling the wagons: that their critics are not interested in contributing to climate science, but merely with tearing down a theory they find politically inconvenient. Now, a wrong theory *should* be torn down, and in that, I'm in at least philosophical agreement with the critics. I think the AGW scientists failed to appreciate what McIntyre was doing (to say the least), but I don't think they were wrong to suspect that most of their critics loudly demanding data and filing FOI claims were doing so in bad faith.

My theory is that unlike Venus, the Earth has oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems filled with plants and organisms that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. I believe the reason that the actual climate is cooler than predicted by the AGW models is that the Earth has complex negative feedback systems that science has yet to fully understand. Also, I doubt that this buffer has infinite capacity for CO2 absorption, and I have no idea how close to "overwhelmed" this buffer system may be either.

First, the earth is not cooler than the AGW models predicted it to be. The current temperature and warming trend are both well within the bounds of the predictions.

The process of plants returning CO2 to the ground is not that poorly understood. Given that the total forestation of the world is declining dramatically (both adding CO2 to the atmosphere and stopping re-absorption) I wouldn't put all your chips on that particular bet, unless you think vigorous grass growth is going to stop climate change. The planet would restore a CO2 balance eventually with no human intervention, but unless you have Dyson's Diamond Trees, that process takes millennia to produce results. That time frame falls under Keynes' "in the long run, we're all dead." Even if we let it work without interference, a thousand years of climate change is pretty much the definition of an unacceptable solution.

If there are other negative feedbacks, it would be fascinating to know them. Climate modellers would certainly be interested to hear major areas where their models are lacking. But until we actually have more than a vague hunch about the planet's adaptability, I'd rather not risk our future on it. I'd be thrilled if the planet can take the beating and in some sense, no doubt it can. But I'd rather it not flood the coastlines of the world before settling down.

Finally, the earth might be cooler than expected right now because there is currently very little sun spot activity.

This seems plausible to me. I recall last time this thread came up, there was some discussion of the solar cycle, and the reasonableness of measuring everything from 1998 (which, to me, is cherry picking the peak to show a non-robust "decline"). The argument in favour was that the solar cycle is 11 years (presumably, 1998 to 2009 would return us to the same point in the cycle.) But this cycle is very late - we're still essentially at a solar minimum, whereas 1998 was a maximum - which means that measurements taken from 1998 are as deceptive as possible, from the perspective of the solar cycle.

However, I don't think the link between sunspot activity and warming is well enough established to lean very heavily on that explanation for the current "lull" in warming (not static, but nearer the lower end of predicted warming for the moment.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In fairness, if your profile is correct, you were 14. And the "green wackos" have been against coal power since the British Industrial Revolution.

I'm in the rapture of pumpkin pie and vanilla ice cream right now, but I'll add more to this post later.

Yes, the profile is correct. I became enamored with some of Petr Beckman's work around that time, A History of Pi, Eco-hysterics & the Technophobes, and then in 1977 I bought Sam McCracken's The War Against the Atom. I began my fist college courses at age 15.