Re JR’s depressingly misguided attempt at scientist-shaming:
Scientists normally tend to be very cautious and for good reason. Exaggeration is a major offense in science, right up there with faking data. When prominent scientists like James Hansen get themselves handcuffed to the Whitehouse fence, we should be scared. It matters what we do during the next five years. The whole enchilada is at risk: proper housing, cafes, indoor plumbing, schools, hospitals, art galleries, the internet, a decent way of life that doesn’t involve cowering in caves. Failure is a very real possibility. If we succeed it will be by cooperating on a vast scale, and exhibiting altruism not just towards friends and family but towards funny-looking people we don’t like, and towards future generations and non-humans. Individual survivalism absolutely won’t work. Collapsniks like Dmitry Orlov and Guy McPherson are dead wrong. Their business model is persuading people to prepare for a zombie movie. Buy some land far north (and their books of course), learn to farm and sew, stock up on canned food and ammunition, etc. They want collapse to happen, because they think they can survive it and be the noble savages that purify the human race. It’s total rubbish, because loss of civil society favors organized criminals, not intellectuals. If humanity loses control globally, Orlov and McPherson will be toast, along with anyone else with a shred of decency. For a model of that future, look at failed states: Sudan, Gaza, Iraq, Cambodia, Afghanistan, even the former Soviet Union. When it’s every man for himself, the sociopaths win. They’ll roll onto McPherson’s farm, rape the women, kill everyone, take whatever they want, and burn the place to the ground. It should sound familiar because it’s what passed for foreign policy for most of human history.
The remaining fossil fuels need to be left in the ground forever. Drastic changes to our entire way of life are urgently required. Only governments are sufficiently powerful to act quickly and decisively enough, and they won’t change easily. Nothing short of heroic achievement will do the trick, something like the Marshall Plan. Occupy is just the beginning: we need to do better, much better. Humans may be an intelligent species. We’ll soon find out. If we are, we’ll abandon fossil fuels and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
To #Not my regular handle too much background says” #92
It’s not credible to say you have no free speech simply because you are in private industry. I’m in private industry and I have been speaking freely. As Dr. Mann said, if you see something, say something. I don’t understand what your concern is. Even so, I’ll add some more background to my biography to ensure you are satisfied as to pH experience. I do feel that it is ridiculous to ask a hydrogeologist if he or she is familiar with using pH meters in the field. There is no such thing as hydrologic water quality analysis without pH in the mix. You might as well ask a dentist if he’s ever held a tooth in his hand.
To 96 “wheelsoc” and to 97 “marco”
The likely reason the moderator has allowed my claims of fabrication of pH data and the like is because (I hope) that person has perused my blog posts and found sufficient confirmation to at least allow a hearing. I invite you both to do the same. I know my assertions seem extraordinary and unpleasant, but the proof is there for all now to see, from the mouths of the very people who produced the pH time series data that I have been concerned about.
I only wish to raise awareness of this concern, in my own way. It seemed to me that this blog post topic “When you see something, say something” might be a good and critical venue to explore my concern. And my thanks to the Moderator for this chance and for continuing to post my comments so far.
I think credibility is at stake for all of those who assert certain consequences from CO2 emissions, even though my concern argued here is not about climate change but about ocean acidification. Scientists have many serious disagreements about all sorts of topics. But when influential scientists start omitting data and replacing that data with hindcast models, I hope that would trigger demands for transparency and accountability from all, both skeptic and nominal supporter alike.
Sounds like you are well engaged in the topic now. I will try to keep checking this string, but I may miss some posts which were directed to me.
If you notice a delay and are expecting a reply, you know how to reach me.
One issue I haven’t raised sufficiently is that regardless of any reason the feel2899.pdf authors had shared with me in the email string I featured, they never revealed to anyone anywhere (so far as I know, and until that point in time) that 80 years of historical pH measurements were replaced by them with a model hindcast. Wouldn’t all agree that they should have started out from the very beginning with a clear explanation of what they were up to?
Moreover, how could I not be concerned, when after a month of ignoring my request for data validation, they finally responded by questioning the career wisdom of my impertinence for asking for that data. Then they indicated that they wished to never hear from me again. Then they sent me on a set of wild goose chases, pointing me to numerous websites, none of which had the datasets I sought. Only after I had exhausted all of their directions, when there was nowhere else do go, did they acknowledge what they had done.
It’s not your job to rationalize or justify their actions, but of course you are free to try. Perhaps you might want to contact them yourselves and hear from them what they think this is all about. But if they were in the medical field and had done something like this (and been outed), they would surely be fired and perhaps put up on charges. If I had done something like this, a similar fate I believe would hold. But they did it, and so far, it’s just more press releases and interviews about ocean acidification. Oh, and a $2 million X Prize council seating.
simon abingdonsays
#84 Ray Ladbury
“If the oceans are warming at all, or if the net ice melting is positive, we are not in equilibrium.”
Ray, the earth is continually spit-roasted by the sun as it pursues its elliptical course round the sun. It is never in equilibrium, nor will it ever be.
J.Rsays
Apparently none of you ‘experts’ get it. You think your role is limited to polite discourse, while we’re talking about near-term
collapse and human extinction, caused by our near-total failure to address the human contribution to climate change.
You hide behind your credentials and “roles” as if this cloak will protect you. What will you do then when the climate goes absolutely
ape and then policy makers and the public decry your reticence? Continue to claim that you were “just doing your job”? Do you really
and truly believe you have done all that you can, especially considering the extreme threat this now poses to humanity?
I “dare” call you out on this point because there are in fact a great many of us in the public that do not think you have done enough.
Many of you are actually cowards as Ladbury demonstrated. His high and mighty position is apparently “unassailable” to the unwashed
public whom is “unworthy” to question him. Bullshit. My child is qualified to question him – and clearly should. His life is at stake
here.
What do you think the public is going to do to all of you scientists if you don’t get off the pot and force this issue to the
forefront with our policy makers? Got a good place to hide?
And why do ANY of you actually think you need to convince the public of anything? The public does not set policy. The public
doesn’t do a damned thing except complain and ask for more crumbs. It isn’t the public that is going to change the outcome now. This
is not your target audience and never has been.
Ladbury, you’re an arrogant d**k and you need to be b* slapped into sensibility. You understood nothing in my post. I will simply
ignore you from here on out because you are simply not bright enough to pick up on the specific points I brought forward. I have no
use for fools.
For ten years I have been publishing the documents and the research and the news regarding climate collapse and environmental
collapse. I’ve done everything I can to inform the public – but I realize that this is in error as I’ve mentioned above. It is
pointless to expect the public to “lead” – they’ve got no idea where they’re going. You’re not handing them anything when you issue a
scientific report or assessment on the current state of affairs. It’s meaningless to them because they do not and never have had the
tools to do anything about it.
But science? Science should be taking the lead. A planetary emergency exists and I keep reading about how “you can’t” do this or “you
can’t” do that. Unbelievable. What a pathetic excuse this is. You scientist ALONE have the credentials and the respect of your peers
and institutions regarding your own finding. It’s nearly pointless for the non-credentialed to “raise the alarm”. You don’t even
recognize your own roles or responsibilities after you’ve made your discoveries and investigations. Unbelievable.
Why don’t you band together and demand a global forum? It’s time to put your job and your careers on the line. You apparently lack the
imagination – or the courage – to do what needs to be done. Passing the “buck” to the public to “demand change” is absurd beyond
belief. It’s up to YOU scientists to do this – you’re the ones that the policy-makers must listen to because you are the experts – not
us.
I think none of you really understand what is going on here. We’re talking about the future of the biosphere and the habitability of
the planet, but you’re still arguing amongst yourselves, or like Ladbury, getting his panties in a bunch because someone dared point
out the obvious.
If this is the best you can do – then the rest of us are well and truly screwed, because it means NOBODY has the courage to step up to
the plate. Science and the public HAVE tried – I am quite aware of this. But it has utterly failed and you all know it. Therefore, you
must raise your game considerably higher, because the stakes are far to high to continue to fail. You NEED to band together – and
FORCE the attention of Congress and this Administrator and EVERY government of the world by SOME means.
If what you’ve done hasn’t worked – why keep doing it?
Don’t fall for the illusion that you need another assessment or another report or another study to present to your stake-holders,
you’ve done that already, in spades (and I did NOT advocate you stop science research at all). We need YOU to lay it on the line now
in a unified stance against the ongoing denial, disinformation and lack of action.
Or not. You can continue to do what you’ve done and watch what we’ve already seen – denial, obfuscation, disbelief, disinterest and
the ongoing disintegration of the planet. You apparently believe we’ve plenty of time left. You apparently believe that you’ve done
your best. You apparently believe that it’s not serious enough to start breaking all the “rules” you think control you.
It no longer matters what “laws” need to be broken or whether or not “scientist should be advocating policy”. Those of you still stuck
in this mold are fools and cowards. You’re not bright enough to realize that when survival is at stake, the “rules” are useless and
were only useful when we could expect them to apply. We are FAST approaching the point when ALL the rules and laws will go out the
window. And if you really have no idea what policy should be established – FIND SOMEBODY THAT DOES and advoate THAT.
And if you think our policy makers are the best we “have” for setting policy – then you have NO IDEA how policy is actually created.
American politicians are complete idiots compared to most of you. They are beholden to corporate interests and the policies adopted by
this country are not going to do anything that threatens this relationship. It is quite obvious however that this must be changed, and
as soon as possible. Forget voting as I already pointed out – the public does not and never has controlled the direction of this
country. We are NOT going to “vote” ourselves into a habitable climate. If this is going to happen, it’s going to be rammed down our
throats because that is exactly what it is going to take to break the strangle-hold the corporate world holds over Congress.
You guys need to step outside the box, grow some big balls and get deadly serious about forcing Congress to demand fundamental changes
on how we’re ruining this planet, ASAP. You should have been bright enough to figure this out – a decade ago.
Dan H.says
Chris,
That is the intermediate term trend. There is no significant departure from the long-term (130-year) trend. Short-term variations are often of interest, and may lend insight into potential long-term changes.
Dwight Mac Kerronsays
On the other hand, my sympathies to you experts who have to deal with would-be climate Robespierres, one of whom has just spoken, implicitly demanding a Commissar of energy and a five-year plan to solve our alleged problems, …if only your balls were big enough. ;-)
Popeyesays
I’m REALLY sorry but a lot of people commenting on this blog need to take the blinkers off and escape from your confirmation bias.
Professor Pierre Darriulat is a WHOLE lot smarter than me or anybody else commenting on this blog!
Read all about him and what he has to say about AGW/climte change – it will CERTAINLY shock quite a few of you here I would bet.
Interested to hear any responses.
Cheers,
Mal Adaptedsays
Jim:
Look, if you have a problem with Spencer’s scientific views, then stick strictly to those points.
OK. I have a problem with this scientific view of Spencer’s:
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
Don’t you?
You were the one who brought him into this out of the blue in the first place, and not even in the open thread either.
It was Dwight Mac Kerron who brought up religion. In my request for clarification of his position, it appears I correctly matched it with Spencer’s.
There’s no need to bring his religious views into it, you just muddy the waters with that stuff.
When warmist scientists like Sir John Houghton use the Bible to support action to fight global warming (e.g. his book Global Warming: The Complete Briefing) that was OK with everyone. Same with Katherine Hayhoe and Thomas Ackerman.
Talk about muddying the waters! Those “warmist” scientists don’t deny the reality of AGW. Their religious beliefs inform their urgent personal concerns about AGW’s consequences and their commitment to environmental stewardship, not their scientific rigor. Meanwhile, Spencer lends both his scientific credentials and his religion to professional deniers like James Taylor. That makes Spencer a “Capitalist Tool”, and I feel he should be called out for it.
Waltersays
#169 “This is clearly an ad-hominem attack.” No it was not. Jim’s judgement is in error here.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil. http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, and author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor) http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer PhD put his own signature to the material. It’s a fact. It is a valid aspect to question his opinions and judgments and statements about the science of global warming and why it is he questions the validity of it. It’s rational and logical and ‘scientific’ to question all the arguments, all the positions, the framing, the reasoning and the ethical basis of those people who deny publicly the validity of the science to date, and especially those that are in fact scientists themselves and who then use this level of credibility to support their very own claims.
In normal discourse, pointing out logical flaws in another’s argument is fair game. The fallacy of an appeal to authority is a valid issue to bring into question, as it highlights another’s lack of basic reasoning ability. It is a question of basic credibility.
Using the appeal to the ultimate authority is anathema to the scientific method. It is valid, rational, logical and ethical to bring such a fallacy to the attention of those discussing the activities of climate science denial. Roy Spencer is a well known and publicly active skeptic, he advocates for all kinds of things outside his own scientific field of expertise, and every single one of his ‘arguments’ is fair game.
It is irrational and illogical to ban mention of this specific example of his thinking and lack of logic and reasoning behind his thoughts on climate science.
It is an abuse of power and a gross misjudgment to ban such comments being posted about this FACT.
Fear clouds one’s judgment. When it comes to climate science and the implications of it, there is no room for fear.
Waltersays
An old truism reads: “Knowledge is Power”.
On the subject of the Earth’s climate into the future then, who in a world of equals possesses the greatest power other than working climate scientists and scientists in general? I cannot think of any other group who does.
By way of an analogy Paul Klugman wrote: “Extreme inequality, it turns out, creates a class of people who are alarmingly detached (disconnected) from reality — and simultaneously gives these people great power.
The example many are buzzing about right now is the billionaire investor Tom Perkins, a founding member of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. In a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Perkins lamented public criticism of the “one percent” — and compared such criticism to Nazi attacks on the Jews, suggesting that we are on the road to another Kristallnacht.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/opinion/krugman-paranoia-of-the-plutocrats.html?rref=opinion
I can see a valid reflective comparison being drawn between the 1% of the corporate world and the less than 1% of the climate science world. Both rail against any public criticisms being made and regularly deny it as being appropriate or valid.
From ClimateState: “7th Generation is about Vision. It’s about leadership looking ahead, it’s about responsibility. Seven Generations reminds you have responsibility for the generations that are coming. Seven generations ahead or over 150 years from now. And that indeed you are in charge of Life as it is at the moment.
People in the United States have the Bill of Rights, they always talk about their Rights but not about their Responsibility. Elder Oren R Lyons suggests they need a Bill of Responsibility.” http://climatestate.com/2014/01/26/native-american-elder-speaks-of-the-responsibility-for-7-generations-ahead/
I ask who among equals could have a greater Responsibility or Leadership role to play on behalf of the generations that are coming than climate scientists and scientists in general today? I cannot think of any other group who does.
Michael Mann states in this RC thread at the very beginning:
“How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster? How would I explain to the future children of my 8-year-old daughter that their grandfather saw the threat, but didn’t speak up in time? Those are the stakes.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/
Intro to a Mann Interview by KCRW 21 Jan, 2014 says: “Almost 100% of climate scientists now say global warming is caused by human behavior and that action now is a moral imperative for future generations. But public perception is moving the other way, with fewer Americans worried, despite recent extreme weather conditions here and around the world.” http://climatestate.com/2014/01/23/michael-e-mann-if-you-see-something-say-something/
Mann says at 1:15mins in above video link: “…it is not only appropriate but I think it is crucial that we speak out on the implications of the science, and I am very careful to distinguish, sort of, playing a role and informing the policy discussion and informing the public discourse than trying to proscribe policy.”
“So I don’t think it is necessarily the role of scientists to proscribe what the policy solutions should be … to tackle the climate change problem.”
Mann then proceeds to complain about the disinformation campaign by special interests with deep pockets. Mann never once lays any collective responsibility for the poor communication of the science and its serious implications at the door of the IPCC process nor climate scientists collectively.
The confusion in the minds of the public about the seriousness of climate change and the absence of clear policy changes to avert dangerous climate change occurring is apparently only the fault of the anti-science activists. This is self-serving and denial of reality over time.
Neither the AGW deniers or the climate scientists exist within a vacuum in the public domain. Funding is only a part of the real story. Both sides actively take advantage of what they perceive as errors and openings in the others activism, weaknesses, and communications.
Even RC had a thread about this recently: A failure in communicating the impact of new findings — rasmus @ 6 December 2013
“I was disappointed by the recent (SPM) of the (IPCC) AR5. Not so much because of the science, but because the way it presented the science. The report was written by top scientists, so what went wrong?” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/
At the end of the radio interview Mann articulates in his own words what the “implications” are of the current climate science. Before he does this he also admits this major failure of the climate science community over the last 25 years @ 6:35 mins: “the compilations that are used to measure the temperature of the globe have almost certainly underestimated the warming over the past decade because they have been missing large parts of the Arctic where we are seeing the largest amount of warming.”
Back in 1990 it was already known or expected that increased warming would occur in the polar regions. So what did the climate scientist community apparently do about that in order to obtain accurate surface temperature readings? They waited until the 2013 paper by Cowtan and Way.
Still Mann and others are mystified by those people who may hold a high degree of a lack of faith in the credibility of the ever changing information presented by the climate science community the last 25 years.
This is a denial by climate scientists as to their own failings which is equivalent to the degree of denial which persists in the anti-AGW activists who also cherry pick only those things that suit their current beliefs and agenda.
More than this however, is the fact that Mann then totally contradicts his own statements made in the interview when he says @6:50 mins: “… so in fact there are a number of factors that have contributed to the short term slowing of the warming”.
That’s exactly what the deniers say, except they use the words Hiatus or Pause instead. Yes they twist that further, but if it was not for the scientists NOT capturing the data correctly in the first place plus NOT effectively communicated the difference between Surface Temperatures as being only one yardstick for measuring the warming versus the total global warming effects and systems involved this issue would never have been an issue.
The skeptics and deniers would never have had the opportunity to get confused themselves, nor to misrepresent the science in the first place. They do not operate in a vacuum here. It is the climate scientists themselves who more often than not actually provide the material to be misused and misunderstood.
Lastly, back to Mann’s key implications: “the globe will continue to warm at an ever accelerated rate if we continue to add these greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities.”
The only logical and rational conclusion for that is to: Stop adding GHGs to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities.
And that my friends is very much a Political Policy Proscription. Nothing less.
And yet Mann said in the beginning: “So I don’t think it is necessarily the role of scientists to proscribe what the policy solutions should be … to tackle the climate change problem.”
And then he and others wonder why it is the people get so easily confused?
The collective over-riding belief of climate scientists is that they are NOT responsible for the confusion about the science nor their own lack of credibility in some sections of the world community because of their own prior actions, multiple failings, basic errors, poor communications, and confusing and conflicting public statements.
There are two extreme sides to this public debate over climate change and both sides are holding an opposite end of the very same stick. In the middle of this bell curve is the rest of the world where the majority have had enough of this state of confusion generated by both sides of extremely emotional subject.
Until and unless the climate science community as a whole are able to present a coherent basis for the urgency of climate change along with a unified over-riding Policy Proscriptions for mitigating said climate change then they may as well do and say nothing.
Some will probably suggest that this is exactly what the IPCC was designed to do, and that it has achieved it’s goals of informing policy makers with valid scientific consensus. Nice theory.
The actual reality is that even websites like RC are pushing back against the IPCC consensus and at the very moment the latest IPCC AR5 report was published.
“The credibility of such surveys stands and falls with the selection of experts (see Gavin’s article A new survey of scientists). It is important to identify relevant experts using objective criteria. For us, formal criteria such as professorships were not relevant; our objective was to reach active sea-level researchers. To this end we used the scientific publication database Web of Science of Thomson Reuters and let it generate a list of the 500 researchers who had published the most papers for the search term “sea level” in the last five years in the peer-reviewed literature.”
What use the IPCC then? Clearly they are not expert enough according to RC climate scientists. Unless the topic shifts to Methane in the Siberian and Arctic ocean regions. Then any and all “experts” in that field are merely hyperbolic extremists and not following the scientific consensus. It is very difficult to catch our own contradictions and biased cherry-picking behaviors. We need others to point these out to us. Friend or foe, doesn’t matter, it is the details that truly matter. Being aware of them and not falling into a state of denial and cognitive dissonance is what it’s really all about.
This is called facing up to our own personal Bias in most rational situations. Climate Science is far from rational however as it is continually being skewed by emotional reactions and personal beliefs and values, along with multiple power plays. Not the actual science itself, but the politics of it. One does not need to be a scientists to recognize this for what it is. One need simply be aware and observe what people say and how they react over time. Every picture tells a story.
Clearly Mann and Schmidt have serious personal disagreements with the likes of James Hansen et al. They are trying to publicly shut down these scientists, no less than they would hope all the denier scientists would do the same. This is a Political game within the climate science community that few outside it would notice or understand. These two separate camps are as far apart in their “beliefs and values” as the USSR & the USA were in the 1960s.
Be careful you don’t suddenly and unexpectedly find yourself caught in the middle.
I have much more and varied evidence to support the views I have expressed above. Each to their own. No surprise then if this essay ends up in the Bore Hole. Most people cannot handle the whole truth about themselves nor their own personal responsibility for various unsavory outcomes, even scientists. It’s only human nature.
#239 Devil’s Advocate, 10 out of 10 for making the effort to think about the issues. The world is rife with myths and false comparisons. These have been fed to people in the West daily for decades.
This talk, using hard facts, should help people recognize better the many myths and false beliefs in play today. People need to make sure they are comparing apples with apples and equitably. Do not compare “nations” compare People, Wealth, Economies, and Populations instead.
China 1.3 billion = India 1.2 billion = OECD 1.25 Billion
It is the OECD population that is and has been over-using well over 50% of the entire worlds production of everything for a century plus and still are today. Not China. Not India. Not the Poor Unwashed.
Watch the video, do cross check the facts presented elsewhere with reliable sources, and continue to educate oneself with the true facts even more.
Then people would best think again about what those true facts mean. With a clearer head holding a few less mythical beliefs than before.
I call this “Talking Straight Talk to the Hoi Polloi”
“It is in part a situational analysis, covering the need to engage with conservative voters, the fragmentation of our efforts, and the growing gap between what is scientifically necessary and what is considered politically possible, resulting in a cognitive dissonance which is structurally embedded in the climate discourse.
“At first, I was reluctant to publish these notes because they are pretty blunt, but a number of people thought they were worth an airing, especially because the Abbott government is waging an all-out “shock and awe” war to destroy climate and environment public policy, for which much of our side appears ill-prepared.
by David Spratt
“Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions. We face nothing less than a global emergency, which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan.
“This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood… In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.”
— Ian Dunlop, formerly senior oil, gas and coal industry executive and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors
From “Global warming is a global emergency”, Crikey, 25 February 2009
That’s 2009
It’s now 2014. How well are we travelling folks?
Michael Mann et al are still out there in the public domain talking instead about how to convince ‘the people’ that the Science is in, it’s actually true, it’s correct, climate change is a serious global problem, the anti-science denier campaign is flawed and wrong, and yet it has been successful.
That and it’s all ‘their’ fault!
OK, let’s assume it is ‘their’ fault for a moment. So, now what Michael? The solution is what exactly?
Do not advocate rational legitimate practical or morally, ethically and scientifically sound Policy Solutions in the public domain … such a proscription sounds very much like a state of cognitive dissonance to me.
#222 Edward Greisch says: “GW is not a liberal political cause. GW is a science. Science needs to be de-linked from politics completely for action on GW to have any chance.”
Edward, this kind of rhetoric is dead wrong as it is disconnected from reality.
Climate Science is science. The study of climate and global warming, of climate change and of Energy use and applications is Science. True.
What to do to solve the global warming, to stop dangerous climate change, to monitor and curtail fossil fuel energy use is 100% Politics.
That Scientific research, knowledge, data and facts can and should inform Policy decisions and the Political debate about Climate Change responses in no way changes the reality that this issue is a Political one and NOT a Scientific one.
To think or believe otherwise is foolish mythical thinking, and self-defeating in the extreme as it is a denial of reality. Science cannot exist nor will it ever operate within a vacuum disconnected from Politics. That is impossible .
But Politics and Government can operate and has often operated in history absent any involvement of rational Science. At all times it has led to nothing but dire straights for all.
Please drop the internalized mythologies and mystical thinking that have been driving your rhetoric for such a very long time already. It can only help to so. For it consistently undermines every good rational idea and every piece of valid evidence you have presented in the public domain.
Walter
Waltersays
This topic was started by Prof. Michael Mann about his article to the NYT on Sunday. It was Filed under: Climate Science
It begins with:
“THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.”
Near the end Mann says:
“If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat. This is hardly a radical position.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html
Prof. Kevin Anderson of Tyndall Center in Dec 2013 says:
On being Political: “There are no such things as scientists who are not political. Scientists by their nature are being political, whether they engage or do not engage with the wider debates. And I would argue that the ones that are least political are those that engage in it.”
On Responsibility and Judgement: “scientists are producing their information, and it is being misused by an array of people publicly […] but it is incumbent upon (climate scientists) to ensure that their work is being used appropriately.” […] “we stay quiet about that, and that is not our job, by staying quiet we are being very political, what we are saying is that our science and these issues don’t really matter. That is not a reasonable scientific judgment. ”
On Scientific analysis Vs Political judgment: “… but that’s not a political judgment, that’s a judgment on the analysis. Because it has political repercussions does not make it a political judgment.” – “… the science analysis it might start to favour one set of polices over another set of policies for reasons that can be scientifically justified […] that’s not being political.”
On the Most Dangerous response: “those of us who are throwing ‘political mud’ at the scientists by saying you are no longer a scientist, you’re now engaged in politics, actually I think they are the most political and the most dangerous of the scientists that are engaged in these issues.”
monitoring on 6000 places and calling it ”GLOBAL” is misleading…
Nobody knows what was the temp on the other 99,99999% of the planet where nobody is monitoring, and temp variation is independent and changes every 15-20 minutes.
thermometer is good for monitoring room temp, but not one thermometer for thousands of square miles. 6000 thermometers is not sufficient to monitor even all Hilton Hotel’s rooms… http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Sam Tsays
So since carbon emmissions have become significant, starting in about 1940, you guys are saying that temperatures have only increased by 0.3 – 0.4 degrees? This is what all the hoopla is about? Is it really that crazy to suggest that this is just an unimpressive example of random, natural variation of a chaotic system?
Last week in Texas we went from a high of 30 degrees to a high of 79 degrees in the space of two days… Birds are still chirping, most of our population seemed to have survived, we didn’t have any tornados or superstorms… We shook off a change of 50 degrees in two days but we should all change our lifestyle and our economy for what is so far 0.3 degrees over 75 years?!
Dwight Mac Kerronsays
Let’s see, we are going to get more cyclones. Hmmm, maybe not, but they will be worse cyclones. Got it. We are going to have droughts, not new droughts, but more like the droughts we used to get. The weather will apparently tend toward being mostly bad, most of the time, whereas if we reduce our CO2 it will go back to being mostly good most of the time? Let’s have more bad predictions about the bad things that will happen with warming, because some of them will certainly come to pass. Right now, the storm that just moved up the East coast is now a superstorm out in the North Atlantic, probably causing some really bad things. Apparently, warming made it be too cold in the middle of the country, messed up the jet stream, so the storm was pushed out into the Atlantic sooner, had warmer air to feed on than if it had crossed 500 miles to the north so it becomes another cautionary tale, I’m sure. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Patrick Flegesays
If more readers were to commend, we would have thousands of comments. Highly undesirable for people with little time, who want to grasp the necessary information.
Apocalypse means “uncovering”, although in the modern sense, it has gained another meaning. The quality of the discussion (which I think you are partly responsible for) has greatly deteriorated with repeated “name-calling” (calling someone who does not agree with you a “denier” or “sock-puppet). It is also very annoying that most of you (and Walters) posts or extremly voluminous. If you are interested in a productive discussion, you should learn to change that. It gets tiresome reading posts that are that long, and trying to filter out useful information.
Reiner Kümmel, professor of thermodynamics and economics, researches emission reduction and energy systems. Brilliant man. Recommend his book!
CprWaynesays
Global warming, according to what nature is revealing, is real. However, the thermodynamic calculations on the effects of atmospheric CO2, which demonstrate its effects in the real world, do not support the warming role as a major contributor to global warming. Real world thermodynamic calculations concerning the effects of atmospheric CO2 can be found here: http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Storage.html#anchor_37
I would appreciate any comments that would let me know why these calculations should not be considered. They appear to be excellent real world examples showing that atmospheric CO2 is not a major player in global warming.
jbrsays
I got an idea drop all idea’s of fees and carbon taxes and see if it helps your idea? NO. Well I didn’t think you would that’s because “Climate Change” ie. “because its getting cold at times lately”, or “Global Warming” as it use to be called is really about one thing “anti-capitalism” its all its ever been about. Its not just about destroying businesses and the economy its about taxing rank and file citizens.
Dwight Mac Kerronsays
Now that I have been outed as a Nigerian prince, heavily into land acquisition for fracking, I have nowhere left to turn. Geez, I was sure that I would find a receptive audience here. ;-)
Actually, (and I hoped this would be obvious) I was just trying to share something about which way a substantial part of the culture is apparently heading.
As for the Rodale piece, I subscribed to Organic Gardening for a number of years in my thirties and forties and learned a lot about how to build up as much compost and mulch as possible, but then I also learned that pesticides and ff fertilizer gave all of that a BOOST. So much for purity.
As far as I can tell, you can certainly grow stuff w/o petro boosts, but you need more land to supply both the growing space and the gathering space for your mulch and compost supplies.
Nobody here wants to hear this, but you can grow more stuff in a longer growing season. Yes, droughts would hurt you and floods could wash it all away, as they have since the Sumerians.
Now apparently AGW is going to be a unique kind of weather phenomenon which is ALL BAD!!! Hmmmmmmm.
Tietjan Berelulsays
My point was not to defend or attack either side.
I am trying to decide what to make of the global warming theory, the fact that those who believe in it all agree (like evolution) is just not very convincing to me. I think we can at least agree that there is not much of a career path for an anthropologist who doesnt believe in evolution, or a climate scientist who doesnt believe in global warming. That is aside from the obvious strong groupthink on either side. None of the people I surround myself (mostly upper echolon military / law enforcement) with, believes in global warming, if I were to say that all this cold, snow and ice is caused by all the warming, Im sure Id get voted off the island pretty fast. I cant imagine it would be any different with groups of people who disagree with me.
Why would the Heartland Institute or the United Nations publish anything that is not in their best interest ? Both sides have just dug in. Money coming from big oil is not more/less corrupting than money coming from big government. Neither Morano nor Mann have to worry about how to pay the bills this month.
I am just wondering why, for example, both sides cant get in a plane, count polar bears, and then do the same thing again next year. Then we would have one less this to argue about. You could do this with ice, even count scientists and verify the consensus. I would say enough of this name calling from either side, start from where we agree, and work from there. Even if it means that someone on either side has to swallow his/her pride.
My other worry is that – assuming all global warming disaster predictions are true – I would have to give up my believes, morals, values just so I can support people who claim they can fix it.
ying yangsays
In context with “see something say something “. One of the primary things that would improve climate forecasting would be a better idea of what the ocean forcing would be for a coming year or period of years. I understand that cold water drops to the ocean floor in polar locations and wells up in others and may mix somewhat or even progress at different rates of flow, making it difficult to say the cycle takes x many years to complete. The closest answer I have received is ” a few hundred “. We do have in the climate record the little ice age and medieval warming. Both have specific dates and ocean temperature anomalies in a specific regional place. I would expect that a few hundred years later one might see those mirrored in the upwelling temperatures somewhere near the equator. The Equator is not as well temperature documented a location at that early time period but possibly in the reconstructions. In a location more readily traceable by NASA. It stands to reason that the quantified negative forcings of volcanic eruptions noted in the past 200 years may start popping up at intervals specifically offset from the original events. This would give climatologists a better idea of forecasting this forcing. If the present ocean temps are based on what happened 200+ years previous there is a good indication the Ocean will keep warming for the next 200 yrs based on what we have done to the land temperatures over that time. A woman’s grass hockey stick curve at the end may otherwise take people by surprise, after finally getting climate under control.Events like Pinatubo may have some second wave event that is otherwise unexplainable. Who knows when we finally have all the answers science may weep for there are no more worlds to conquer, like Alexander the great did. The only difference is they won”t be using some dead guys hanky to blow there nose.
richardsays
thanks. i’m just an guy who feels like a ball in a pinball machine looking for truth. The impression given is climate scientists claim they are 95% sure of the processes that drive climate and the science is settled yet they can’t predict anything or worse they seem to predict the opposite? They are so sure they tell us to stop eating meat ‘to save the planet’ and other such stuff which seems way outside the competence of a climate scientist to me. However each time i look into it i find the certainties people tell us they have are not certainties. I see meto giving wrong predictions while others give accurate ones and sure a 1 time correct 6 month prediction does not a summer make but then the prediction success bar to being a hero is very low isn’t it because those with the published methods don’t get it right hardly at all. If we need 10 years of data to see if something works then Meto 14 years of over warming shows it should be discontinued?
We still haven’t had the 50m sea rise refugees by 2010 or the end of polar ice by sept 2013 or that uk kids after 2000 won’t know what snow is? So you see for an average punter nothing is settled the claims are proven exaggerated or diametrically the opposite [ok anyone can have a bad day] and frankly nothing looks 95%. So i thought i’d come to a board claiming to be by climate experts and see what you guys say for the wide discrepancies between forecast and actual.
its like the 3mm sea level rise that people keep using. Its just an average isn’t it? its not global its local but that is not the impression people give. The tide gauges are not random and were originally located where sea level was rising so will always have a bias? Even there some of the tide gauges show a drop of -6mm so whats going on? Then how does 3mm per year turn into 15m? Frankly for an average punter you just get the feeling ‘experts’ are lying to you, they keep overclaiming and exaggerating and hiding things behinds averages and what not.
there seems more politics than science these days in climate debate? So if no one trusts experts these days whose fault is that? So i’m trying to discover what is real and what is not. at least for questioning things on this board i haven’t got as much abuse as on other climate expert boards.
richardsays
229
walter
now i know ippc is based on unvalidated models its not even worth talking about them. if a prediction is 30 years brought forward what does that say about the accuracy of the prediction? If you designed a car speedo and it said 30mph while really you were doing 70mph then is that success for the speedo that you got to your destination quicker? Or is it just a faulty speedo that cannot be relied upon to given any kind of accurate reading? If people relying upon reports from unvalidated models then people will always be making excuses for it and brushing things under the carpet?
233
oh yes i’m well out of date now on coding but i have used the drag on drop c++ ones but the code they write……..never mind the code anyone can write that the truth will be in the ‘charts’ or whatever the designers use now. Actually i think it would be an interesting challenge to find the missing equations but i would never claim i had a valid model if it wasn’t. I don’t understand why everyone is so defensive. Its no big deal to have unvalidated models. Unless you claim it is validated. but i can see this discussion becoming another iteration lol
richardsays
lol guys i don’t mind you throwing your empty crushed beer cans at me.
I did read the pdf and i did listen to the audio and while the caveats at the end were mumbled and rushed they are there. They say there are even more problems at the regional level. Similar points are at the end of the pdf. C’mon we cannot yet say there is a co2 deathstar from the predictions from these models that cannot replicate with any degree of significance past climate events.
What did you guys think of the questions at the end of the audio e.g that actually more time should be spent spent sorting out known problems in the models rather than adding layers of new stuff?
the thing is if the models could predict you’d be making a killing at the betting shop? more money for the beerosphere ! :) but they don’t.
By the way what timeframe do you guys say is ‘climate’ i seen a range of views up to 10,000 years and that anything under 10 isn’t climate? If u looking at yearly average world temp u going to need at least a 100 years to see any kind of squiggle and even longer to identify any kind of trend although if we still coming out the last ice age then it will be a rising trend. If its rising so what? what is the earths natural climate? what is the ‘right’ temperature? Is ice age the norm and this warm period a freak? I can’t find any views on what earth climate should be but i do read a lot of utopian ‘back to nature living’ and ‘not showering to save the planet’ type stuff.
jdey123says
The climate models are the clearest demonstration of the knowledge of climate scientists and they’ve obviously failed. The IPCC AR5 report acknowledged this, and the fact that Realclimate has stopped showing a comparison between climate models and observed temperatures, as was promised on an annual basis, is another clear admission of failure. Why would this new theory be any better than all of the other ‘settled science’ that’s gone before? The article admits it’s speculative and there could be plenty of other reasons for the pause.
So if we have to run new models taking into account weather that we formerly omitted, how can we retain any integrity whatsoever in the public eye?
Bradley McKinleysays
I have no doubt that this explains why the rate of warming of global air temperatures has slowed. What I don’t think the climate scientists here at RC realize is that the explanation doesn’t matter. If 12 or 15 years ago Gavin or Hansen or Mann or anybody of note had said “hey, we are going to see a slowdown in the rise of air temperatures because the oceans are going to start heating up” you would still look good in the eyes of the public. The problem is, nobody did say that–all anybody talked about was how the science was “settled”. Now the public is asking why they should believe you can predict the next 15 years (let alone the next 85) any better than you predicted the previous 15.
It’s a shame that you folks didn’t have the humility to admit that you really didn’t have all the answers back then. If you hadn’t been so arrogant with your predictions you might have been granted a little slack, but as it is now the public simply doesn’t trust you anymore.
jbsays
I shouldn’t be surprised anymore but I am: yet another exercise in overfitting.
A decade ago all we heard from the climate scientists was shrill alarm over the rapid rate of warming, and how their climate models proved such warming would continue unabated (nay, would accelerate). Those of us who pointed out that it might be in large part due to natural variability were poo-poo-ed as ignorant hicks, likened to Holocaust deniers, castigated as purveyors of death and committers of crimes against humanity (all such claims emanating from supposedly respected climate scientists).
Now, having categorically failed to predict the lack of warming over the recent decade, we have this:
“With the global-average surface air temperature (SAT) more-or-less steady since 2001, scientists have been seeking to explain the climate mechanics of the slowdown in warming seen in the observations during 2001-2013.”
Really? In 2001 you weren’t attempting to explain the even more anomalous warming of the 1990s as anything other than AGW, even though by your own admission “zooming into years or decades, modes of variability become the signal, not the noise”. What’s different now? Oh, I see: it *didn’t* warm. Well, of course that requires a special explanation: Anomalous decadal warming is signal. Anomalous decadal lack-of-warming is noise. Gotcha. (In case you don’t get the sarcasm, this is appalling science).
Fortunately, climate models are the gift that keeps on giving. Did your model categorically fail the predictive test? No problem, there are an infinite number of ways to tweak the model to fit the data. Having done that, and satisfied that you can once again predict what happened yesterday, you tell us:
“Unfortunately, however, the hiatus looks likely to be temporary, with projections suggesting that when the trade winds return to normal strength, warming is set to be rapid (see below).”
Allow me go out on a limb: when the trade winds return to normal strength I bet you warming is not rapid. You simply overfit the data again. None of your projections in 2001 showed this trade wind mechanism. Your model was weak. Yet now, because you can fit this one additional phenomenon, you expect us to believe that your predictive power is somehow restored? Sorry, that’s not the way it works. Your predictive power is likely no better than it was before. In 10 years time if the trade winds have returned to average, but the temperature is still flat, you’ll find another missing mechanism, and make the same unsubstantiated claims about future warming again.
Here’s a simple way to see how prone to overfitting this game is. Predict the next number: 1,3,5,7,.. Did you pick 9? Odd numbers? Seems like a reasonable explanation. Well wrong, the next number is 11. Ok you say, I have a fix for that: you see my number model is malleable, I can tweak it. It’s all odd numbers except for perfect squares (9 = 3 * 3). Ok, more data: 13,17, … whoops – where is 15? Aha you say, not perfect squares but all multiples of 3 larger than 3 are missing. So new theory: all odd numbers except multiples of 3 larger than 3. Ok, more data: 19, 23 (looking good), 25, 27… whoops again! 27 = 9*3 doesn’t fit the model. That’s ok you say, my climate (sorry, number) model can handle that. It’s all odd numbers except multiples of 3 larger than 3 except if it is a perfect cube (27 = 3^3). And so on.
What’s the point? The point is if your model is infinitely extendible and tweakable as climate models currently are, modifying the model to fit data does not improve the predictability of the model. At some point you *have* to start predicting the future correctly, not just fitting the past.
This should also highlight why the following is such a ridiculous statement:
“Of course, other factors could have also contributed to part of the recent slowdown in the globally averaged air temperature metric: increased aerosols, a solar minimum, and problems with missing data in the Arctic. Summing up all of the documented contributions to the hiatus, spanning ocean heat uptake, reduced radiation reaching Earth’s surface, and data gaps, climate scientists have probably accounted for the hiatus twice over. Of course each effect is not linearly additive, but even so, many experts are now asking why hasn’t the past decade been one of considerable cooling in global mean air-temperatures? ”
Translation: “Because there are so many different ways to overfit the data with climate models, why wasn’t it even colder?” Hopefully the answer is by now clear. Fitting the past proves nothing when your models categorically fail to predict the future.
John Bentonsays
This England paper is another in a series of unconvincing papers attempting to explain the hiatus. I doubt if any of these papers are going to be seminal pieces of work, but we will see in the fullness of time.
George Pottssays
How do we fix the data so that people don’t think that the earth isn’t warming.
It has been getting colder the last 20 years.
Douglas J Cottonsays
With the Global Precipitation Mission being launched today it is timely to note that precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”
Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.
But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
This means water vapour cools.
And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.
“A very consistent understanding is thus emerging of the coupled ocean and atmosphere dynamics that have caused the recent decadal-scale departure from the longer-term global warming trend.”
“Emerging”, does that mean you’re admitting you don’t know at this point? Could it imply you don’t know what why the warming trend happened either?
Mattsays
When trying to convince laypersons (like me) to modify their behaviors or support (worst case) military action to save us from the apocalypse, here’s what you’re up against:
– the Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago and CO2 was 10 times higher than today
– various folks pointing out record high temperatures for certain cities this year w/o mentioning record low temperatures for other cities this year
– admission by “deniers” that a “little bit” of warming has occurred, but noting this warming can be explained by natural variability
– a seeming increase in Arctic ice in 2013 when a decrease was predicted five years ago (presumably via models)
– human CO2 emissions are less than 1% of CO2 emissions (unsure about the time period here – day, month, year, years)
A lot of these points were made by a guy named Patrick Moore. Without lapsing into an attack on his credentials and who funds his work, can you guys point out why he’s wrong as well as what’s wrong with the other talking points? Links to papers and/or sites are fine. (Please don’t send me to Media Matters. Been there, found it lacking.)
In another post on this site, I read that the pause in warming has emboldened the “deniers”. This is a likely reason Moore and his benefactors took the opportunity to market their position and take a little wind out of the sails of climate scientists.
I’ve learned much from this site. I’m not a denier, but the points this guy Moore made seem, well, logical to those of us not steeped or versed in the world of climate science.
(I tried to post this at the end of Feb’s open thread, but for some reason it did not take. Hope it’s okay to post it in this thread.)
Great news, the climate hasn’t warmed for 17 years and six months!!!
stefanthedeniersays
Those ”40-000 stations are not evenly spread; where one thermometer represent million square kilometers – another, on that much space has doted 20 thermometers – and are treated with same value = makes them all not valid!
b] it is taken into account ONLY the hottest minute in the day AND IGNORED ALL the other 1439 minutes in 24h… makes it not valid.
when is taken, on few places only 2m above the ground, and ignored the rest of the atmosphere = makes it not valid.
atmosphere is NOT as a human body – when is one degree higher under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much. temp in the atmosphere is different and is changing all the time, on every 100m3: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
D Cottonsays
It is you running this blog and misleading the public into thinking there is valid physics which indicates carbon dioxide causes warming. I have a right to ask you to produce such physics to justify your action, before a court if it becomes necessary. I will be able to prove you wrong I assure you.
Here is why you don’t have to worry about rising seas and temperatures.
The Sixth Mass Extinction By The Numbers.
► 90% of Lion populations gone since 2003.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of all Vertebrate Species may disappear before 2040.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish populations gone since 1950.
► 50%of Fresh Water Fish populations gone since 1987,
► 28% of Land Animal populations gone since 1970.
► 30% of Marine Bird populations gone since 1995.
► 28% of All Marine Animal populations gone since 1970.
► 40% of Plankton populations gone since 1950.
► Species extinction is 1000 times faster than normal.
► Ocean acidification to double by 2050, triple by 2100.
► We shoot 90 elephants every single day, including Christmas.
► We shoot 2-3 rhinos every single day so that their ground up horns can be snorted in Asian nightclubs. This keratin is worth $20,000.00/lb. http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/7350/Call-of-Life–Facing-the-Mass-Extinction http://www.amazon.ca/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History-ebook/dp/B00EGJE4G2/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1395512951&sr=8-6&keywords=mass+extinction
Everyone magically thinks we’ll just switch to renewable energy along with cutting back and becoming more efficient so that voila, earth saved, story over, back to business. Sorry, but that’s just another feel good fantasy. Why?
MONEY = POWER = MONEY
1/100th watt = 1 dollar of global economic activity
500 megawatts = 1 average power plant
600 megawatts = China’s increased coal use every 10 days to 2024
500,000 megawatts = 500 new nuclear plants in China by 2050
25 billion megawatts = World power output in 2014
Each year, C02 per megawatt of power increases
Every 4½ days, 1,000,000 new carbon users are born. http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD2.pdf
Bigger Faster And Uncut
The largest mass extinction event was the Permian event of 250 million years ago where 95% of life disappeared thanks to the hydrogen sulfide gas emissions from over-acidified oceans. We are acidifying our oceans faster than that event.
The fastest mass extinction event occurred 65 million years ago when the asteroid wiped out Dino the dinosaurs along with Fred and the gang from Bedrock. It still took as long as 33,000 years later to finish them off, long after the initial impact damage. We are on track to wipe out 75% of species on earth within 300 years, and probably much sonner. This is 100 times faster than the dino thang.
On a final note, ecological cascading extinction collapse is irreversible and unstoppable once it has started. This will lead to an ecological planetary state shift devoid of basic ecological services we take for granted, like breathing and eating. No one knows when the ultimate final tipping point will be past, until after we pass it. Some say in 30-40 years. Climate change is only one of six reasons for the 6th mass extinction. Invasive species is probably number one, and we and our crops and animals are the most invasive thing there is.
Death Wish
► 5 million dead in the Congo since 1998 because for the conflict minerals our computers need.
► 2 million of them were children.
► 1 million killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
► 500,000 Iraqi children died of disease thanks to the 1990s embargo.
► Millions of innocent civilians killed by the U.S. since WWII.
► 3,000 citizens killed when steel reinforced concrete collapsed at free fall speed into its own small footprint. This is physically impossible without demolition.
The scientist in this interview says we only got 13 years at the rate we’re going until catastrophic change is baked in. He also says the lessening of albedo in the Arctic, due to loss of ice cover, is equivalent to 25% of the carbon humanity has released in the last 30 years. http://www.ecoshock.org/contact/?surveySuccess=1&qsid=1323830881#1323830881
The Antidote
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are still, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First make sure that he’s dead.” There’s a silence, then a loud bang. Back on the phone, the guy says, “Ok, now what?”
John Stonesays
So why are we not honest and say that, for the moment, we really don’t fully understand the causes of the hiatus?
richardsays
global temperature history?
ice cores you got but that’s probably not helpful in a co2 causes warming campaign because it gives you charts like this
which clearly show temps in a downtrend and at a cool extreme compared to previous periods with plenty of room to the upside
also any proxy data has to match up with written records of what people were doing and the weather they recorded from which one can infer the energy transmission mechanisms going on at the time.
i would be happy with any holocene temp chart as long as people stop decontextualising recent temps from it by using 30 year snapshots and trying to frighten people for no good reason through decontextualised ice age cycle data. I’m assuming no one is claiming the ice age cycles are over?
simon abingdonsays
The climate forever changes. Why are you so sure there’s a significant anthropogenic contribution?
BeezleyBubsays
When writing, the act of pouring your heart out onto the page hurts, but just like crying, it feels so good when you finally finish.
It’s the same when you hit your thumb with a hammer, it feels so good when you stop, but you’re embarrassed you didn’t stop a little sooner.
The wonders of the ancient world have always been based on a demonstration of the power of elites to force slaves to construct their larger-than-life monuments. The ancient pyramids of Egypt resulted in a lot of suffering and remained the tallest human made structure for 3,800 years.
Today’s monuments are only pyramid schemes in comparison, yet they are still more profound than anything in all of earth’s history. Like those ancient monuments, today’s mega-cities are beyond anything humankind, and indeed all life on earth, will ever witness. So, what does it all mean? Read on.
In Mexico City, 500 people are kidnapped and ransomed each and every month. There is only one gun store in Mexico City, and 7,000 gun stores just across the American border. Gee, thanks 40-year-old Drug War! In the Congo, over 2 million children have been raped, tortured, enslaved and murdered since 1998. The U.N. is suspected of helping to rig a major election there in 2006, and the E.U. has decided that a self-regulated voluntary non-use of conflict minerals is the answer in 2014. Thanks to the U.N.’s 1990s embargo of Iraq, 500,000 children there died preventable deaths because hospitals couldn’t get the needed foods and medicines. So what does this have to do with price of tea in China? Keep reading, believe me, it’ll be worth it.
I am no believer in life after death, but I suspect there is some kind of intelligent design to evolution simply because it’s just so plainly obvious. An Arctic hare’s fur doesn’t turn white in the winter and then back to brown in the summer for camouflage just because of random mutations over time. Does this mean I believe in some “higher power?” All life is a higher power to me and I don’t even pretend to understand it, but I normally believe what I see. That’s why magicians love me.
Our eyes are über complex responses to electromagnetic waves, our ears are a complex response to slight variations in air pressure. A chameleon changes it skin colour to match random background colours. I think evolution is an inadequate hypothesis for explaining these sophisticated and complex survival responses to our environment. But, then again, what do I know?
So, why are any two kids, raised by the same parents in the same way, able to be so different from one another? One may be a timid introvert, and the other a nasty bully. I believe it’s nature’s intelligent design to ensure the survival of one of them due to unforeseen environmental circumstance. This is why we are always so divided. This division is why we will fail.
Everyone knows that there are climate deniers on the political right. But, there are also extinction deniers on the left. Many progressives seem to magically think we will reduce energy and increase its efficiency, all while running our mega-cities on some vague combination of renewable energy. I don’t see how this will be possible, when in 40 years the largest migration in human history will be near completion, as future cities strive to hold 80% of earth’s human population. But, I don’t think all cities have 40 years.
A lot of urban people think that as long as you take transit and shop at a farmer’s market, that you are not hurting the environment all that much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cities are made of concrete, steel, glass and asphalt. All these things are the most carbon intensive products ever made. Everywhere you walk, all the sidewalks, streets, condos and telecom buildings are paid for with your taxes and monthly bills. Almost everything we see, hear, feel and touch comes from devices that are made in China. Well over 5 million people were killed in the Congo for the conflict minerals we need for our smart phones to work, just so we can text, post and write the blogs we love to read.
Renewable energy is a huge business run by mega corporations like General Electric, the same folks who brought us Fukushima. When G.E. was promoting nuclear power in the 1950s, they were telling us that it would be too cheap to meter, and that we would be driving around in nuclear powered cars. It’s the same hype being used by business interests in promoting green power. You’ve heard all about the sunny side of renewable energy, now let’s look at the dark side.
Wind Turbines
The manufacture of 5, one-megawatt, wind turbines produces 1 ton of radioactive residue and 75 tons of hazardous waste water used to extract and process the needed neodymium. Neodymium is a rare earth mineral. Rare earth minerals are not rare, but they are found in very low concentrations. Neodymium is extracted from crushed rocks using sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. Then it is processed using solvents, heating and vacuum techniques that require plenty of coal power. Vast unregulated tailings ponds of poisonous water have destroyed whole villages in China.
There are 16 other rare elements. All with the same story.
There is no known replacement for neodymium. During its mining, metals such as arsenic, barium, copper, aluminum, lead and beryllium are released into the air and water, and are toxic to human health. Neodymium is only one of many rare-earth metals that our smart phones and green energy systems need, and Canada is making efforts to mine them right now.
Solar Panels
Each solar panel requires 4 tons of coal to manufacture them because the required silicon has to be baked for some time at 3,000°F. The manufacture of solar panels lets off some of the deadliest greenhouse gases known to humankind. These include hexafluoroethane (12,000 times stronger than CtO2), nitrogen trifluoride (17,000 times stronger than C02), and sulfur hexafluoride (23,000 times stronger than C02). Solar manufacturing plants produce 500 tons of hazardous sludge each per year. This sludge is never included in the solar industry carbon footprint data. All shiny new electronic things are super-poisonous and deadly serious for all life on earth.
Bio-Fuels
Bio-fuels are ecologically unsustainable. The crop mono-cultures are biodiversity deserts that increase soil erosion and have a myriad of unexpected consequences. Stand in a corn field and you will see nothing lives there, not even bees. 95% of food comes from just 30 crops. Food supplies are at risk going forward. We can’t cut trees for cars when people starve. Our foods and animals already dominate the planet. We are earth’s most invasive predators raping all life’s diversity from her loins.
Rechargeable Batteries
The rechargeable batteries we use in everything from the Tesla Electric Car, and Prius Plug-In Car, down to our smart phones, all rely on one critical component―graphite. Graphite is one of the main causes of the terrible air pollution in China. It comes from airborne particles given off by mining operations and often washes down from the sky with the rain. Graphite particles foul the air and water; they also damage crops and human lung tissue.
This type of smog has gotten so bad that China has shut down several of their graphite mines, creating a shortage and higher prices. Right now, Algonquin natives in Kipawa, Quebec are fighting Toyota over a rare-earth open pit mine planned for that area. Toyota wants that mine pit to make the batteries for its Prius. There is no such thing as a “green” car.
MONEY = POWER = MONEY ETC.
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn’t really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption. Here is the future.
► 1/100th watt = $1 of global economic activity
► 500 megawatts = 1 average power plant
► 600 megawatts = China’s increased coal use every 10 days for the next 10 years
► 500,000 megawatts = 500 planned new nuclear plants for China by 2050
► 25 billion megawatts = World power output in 2014
► Each Day, C02 per megawatt of power increases
► Every 4½ days, 1,000,000 new carbon users are born.
► How many windmills, solar panels and batteries will give us just today’s 25 billion megawatts?
Even the official predictions intensify.
► Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (2009):
+4°C by 2060.
► United Nations Environment Programme (2010) up to:
+5°C by 2050.
These predictions do not include permafrost methane feedback because it is “too difficult” to model and is “too unpredictable.”
We are emitting carbon faster than even the very worse scenarios of a mere few years ago. Serious climate scientists are saying that we will hit catastrophic climate heating in 13 to 20 years. While that doesn’t mean disaster will strike the very next day after blowing through this threshold, it does mean very, very serious life-ending consequences will result. And, as bad as this news is, it is not the worst of it.
The Sixth Mass Extinction:
Were We Stand In 2014.
Here is why you don’t have to worry about rising seas and temperatures.
All you have to do is look at these numbers and project them forward.
► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of Fresh Water Fish gone since 1987.
► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
► 50% of All Vertebrate Species gone by 2040.
► Extinctions are 1000 times faster than normal.
► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050.
► Ocean acidification triples by 2100.
Bigger And Faster Than Ever
We kill 90 elephants every single day of the year. Elephants have devised a very specific warning call for their herds that means, “Humans are coming!” We kill 2-3 rhinos each and every day because the keratin in their horns is worth $20,000.00 per pound, after it is ground up into powder to be snorted up the noses of people in the nightclubs of Asia.
The LARGEST mass extinction event was the Permian event of 250 million years ago where 95% of all life on land and sea disappeared thanks to the hydrogen sulfide gas emissions from over-acidified oceans. It took 60,000 years to wipe out almost all life on earth. We are acidifying oceans faster than any time for 300 million years.
The FASTEST mass extinction event occurred 65 million years ago when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It still took as long as 33,000 years after the initial impact to finish them off. In geological time, this is considered instantaneous. We are on track to wipe out 75% of species on earth within 300 years, and probably much sooner. This is 100 times faster than the asteroid impact.
Here’s The Really, Really Bad Part
Ecological cascading extinction collapse is irreversible and unstoppable once it has started. This will lead to an ecological planetary state shift devoid of basic ecological services we take for granted, simple things like breathing and eating. No one knows when this ultimate final tipping point will be passed, until some time after we pass it. Reputable ecologists say likely in 30-40 years from now. Once again, it doesn’t mean the world will collapse the very next day, it may take decades or centuries, but by then, it will be too late to stop it, and too late to go back.
Monumental Flaws
I read something not too long ago that said steel reinforced concrete won’t last very much longer than a couple hundred years if it is not patched, water proofed and well maintained. If water gets in contact with the steel, it will rust and the surrounding concrete will crumble. The reason ancient Roman structures are still standing is because they didn’t use steel reinforcing bars in their concrete like we do. It caused me to imagine that long after our condos and bank towers have fallen down, that the pyramids and maybe even the Roman Coliseum will remain standing, outlasting maybe even ourselves. There are no magic bullets and no easy answers. But, not to worry! The mass media has a louder voice than me, and with endless repetition, it won’t be long until you forget what I’m telling you, because you want to forget, and that’s just human nature.
Human Nature + 9 Billion People = Mass Extinction
Planetary Parable
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are still, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First, we have to be sure he’s dead.”
First silence, then a loud bang. The
guy calling says, “Ok, now what?”
mememine69says
If you “believers” really knew what the scientific consensus was you wouldn’t be telling our kids to “believe” the scientists because the scientists have NEVER “believed” beyond; “could be” and 95% in 32 years that it will be a crisis.
YOU remaining “believers” “believe” more than science does. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon?
Walter Mannysays
Last week, I wrote: “seems as though ‘Frontiers’ thought there were ethical issues after all” and I gave the link.
I got a dismissive, “No, Walter” for my pains, so here is the statement in the retraction that led me to believe there might be ethical issues: “As a result of [our] investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects.” If the rights of subjects were not protected (in the opinion of the Journal) can someone please explain to me how that is not an ethical problem? I do understand there is a strong urge here to stand behind any and all who take on “deniers”, but if the study was not up to standards, what really is the point of defending it? Can’t it be redone properly instead?
Walter Mannysays
Mr. Pauli,
I note the irony of your responding [accidentally or otherwise] to a question about the ethics of a paper purporting to demonstrate conspiratorial ideation in the denier community, with a reference to a paper purporting to show, at least in part, that the denier community is itself a conspiracy. Interesting.
Re JR’s depressingly misguided attempt at scientist-shaming:
Scientists normally tend to be very cautious and for good reason. Exaggeration is a major offense in science, right up there with faking data. When prominent scientists like James Hansen get themselves handcuffed to the Whitehouse fence, we should be scared. It matters what we do during the next five years. The whole enchilada is at risk: proper housing, cafes, indoor plumbing, schools, hospitals, art galleries, the internet, a decent way of life that doesn’t involve cowering in caves. Failure is a very real possibility. If we succeed it will be by cooperating on a vast scale, and exhibiting altruism not just towards friends and family but towards funny-looking people we don’t like, and towards future generations and non-humans. Individual survivalism absolutely won’t work. Collapsniks like Dmitry Orlov and Guy McPherson are dead wrong. Their business model is persuading people to prepare for a zombie movie. Buy some land far north (and their books of course), learn to farm and sew, stock up on canned food and ammunition, etc. They want collapse to happen, because they think they can survive it and be the noble savages that purify the human race. It’s total rubbish, because loss of civil society favors organized criminals, not intellectuals. If humanity loses control globally, Orlov and McPherson will be toast, along with anyone else with a shred of decency. For a model of that future, look at failed states: Sudan, Gaza, Iraq, Cambodia, Afghanistan, even the former Soviet Union. When it’s every man for himself, the sociopaths win. They’ll roll onto McPherson’s farm, rape the women, kill everyone, take whatever they want, and burn the place to the ground. It should sound familiar because it’s what passed for foreign policy for most of human history.
The remaining fossil fuels need to be left in the ground forever. Drastic changes to our entire way of life are urgently required. Only governments are sufficiently powerful to act quickly and decisively enough, and they won’t change easily. Nothing short of heroic achievement will do the trick, something like the Marshall Plan. Occupy is just the beginning: we need to do better, much better. Humans may be an intelligent species. We’ll soon find out. If we are, we’ll abandon fossil fuels and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
To #Not my regular handle too much background says” #92
It’s not credible to say you have no free speech simply because you are in private industry. I’m in private industry and I have been speaking freely. As Dr. Mann said, if you see something, say something. I don’t understand what your concern is. Even so, I’ll add some more background to my biography to ensure you are satisfied as to pH experience. I do feel that it is ridiculous to ask a hydrogeologist if he or she is familiar with using pH meters in the field. There is no such thing as hydrologic water quality analysis without pH in the mix. You might as well ask a dentist if he’s ever held a tooth in his hand.
To 96 “wheelsoc” and to 97 “marco”
The likely reason the moderator has allowed my claims of fabrication of pH data and the like is because (I hope) that person has perused my blog posts and found sufficient confirmation to at least allow a hearing. I invite you both to do the same. I know my assertions seem extraordinary and unpleasant, but the proof is there for all now to see, from the mouths of the very people who produced the pH time series data that I have been concerned about.
I only wish to raise awareness of this concern, in my own way. It seemed to me that this blog post topic “When you see something, say something” might be a good and critical venue to explore my concern. And my thanks to the Moderator for this chance and for continuing to post my comments so far.
I think credibility is at stake for all of those who assert certain consequences from CO2 emissions, even though my concern argued here is not about climate change but about ocean acidification. Scientists have many serious disagreements about all sorts of topics. But when influential scientists start omitting data and replacing that data with hindcast models, I hope that would trigger demands for transparency and accountability from all, both skeptic and nominal supporter alike.
re 105
Sounds like you are well engaged in the topic now. I will try to keep checking this string, but I may miss some posts which were directed to me.
If you notice a delay and are expecting a reply, you know how to reach me.
One issue I haven’t raised sufficiently is that regardless of any reason the feel2899.pdf authors had shared with me in the email string I featured, they never revealed to anyone anywhere (so far as I know, and until that point in time) that 80 years of historical pH measurements were replaced by them with a model hindcast. Wouldn’t all agree that they should have started out from the very beginning with a clear explanation of what they were up to?
Moreover, how could I not be concerned, when after a month of ignoring my request for data validation, they finally responded by questioning the career wisdom of my impertinence for asking for that data. Then they indicated that they wished to never hear from me again. Then they sent me on a set of wild goose chases, pointing me to numerous websites, none of which had the datasets I sought. Only after I had exhausted all of their directions, when there was nowhere else do go, did they acknowledge what they had done.
It’s not your job to rationalize or justify their actions, but of course you are free to try. Perhaps you might want to contact them yourselves and hear from them what they think this is all about. But if they were in the medical field and had done something like this (and been outed), they would surely be fired and perhaps put up on charges. If I had done something like this, a similar fate I believe would hold. But they did it, and so far, it’s just more press releases and interviews about ocean acidification. Oh, and a $2 million X Prize council seating.
#84 Ray Ladbury
“If the oceans are warming at all, or if the net ice melting is positive, we are not in equilibrium.”
Ray, the earth is continually spit-roasted by the sun as it pursues its elliptical course round the sun. It is never in equilibrium, nor will it ever be.
Apparently none of you ‘experts’ get it. You think your role is limited to polite discourse, while we’re talking about near-term
collapse and human extinction, caused by our near-total failure to address the human contribution to climate change.
You hide behind your credentials and “roles” as if this cloak will protect you. What will you do then when the climate goes absolutely
ape and then policy makers and the public decry your reticence? Continue to claim that you were “just doing your job”? Do you really
and truly believe you have done all that you can, especially considering the extreme threat this now poses to humanity?
I “dare” call you out on this point because there are in fact a great many of us in the public that do not think you have done enough.
Many of you are actually cowards as Ladbury demonstrated. His high and mighty position is apparently “unassailable” to the unwashed
public whom is “unworthy” to question him. Bullshit. My child is qualified to question him – and clearly should. His life is at stake
here.
What do you think the public is going to do to all of you scientists if you don’t get off the pot and force this issue to the
forefront with our policy makers? Got a good place to hide?
And why do ANY of you actually think you need to convince the public of anything? The public does not set policy. The public
doesn’t do a damned thing except complain and ask for more crumbs. It isn’t the public that is going to change the outcome now. This
is not your target audience and never has been.
Ladbury, you’re an arrogant d**k and you need to be b* slapped into sensibility. You understood nothing in my post. I will simply
ignore you from here on out because you are simply not bright enough to pick up on the specific points I brought forward. I have no
use for fools.
For ten years I have been publishing the documents and the research and the news regarding climate collapse and environmental
collapse. I’ve done everything I can to inform the public – but I realize that this is in error as I’ve mentioned above. It is
pointless to expect the public to “lead” – they’ve got no idea where they’re going. You’re not handing them anything when you issue a
scientific report or assessment on the current state of affairs. It’s meaningless to them because they do not and never have had the
tools to do anything about it.
But science? Science should be taking the lead. A planetary emergency exists and I keep reading about how “you can’t” do this or “you
can’t” do that. Unbelievable. What a pathetic excuse this is. You scientist ALONE have the credentials and the respect of your peers
and institutions regarding your own finding. It’s nearly pointless for the non-credentialed to “raise the alarm”. You don’t even
recognize your own roles or responsibilities after you’ve made your discoveries and investigations. Unbelievable.
Why don’t you band together and demand a global forum? It’s time to put your job and your careers on the line. You apparently lack the
imagination – or the courage – to do what needs to be done. Passing the “buck” to the public to “demand change” is absurd beyond
belief. It’s up to YOU scientists to do this – you’re the ones that the policy-makers must listen to because you are the experts – not
us.
I think none of you really understand what is going on here. We’re talking about the future of the biosphere and the habitability of
the planet, but you’re still arguing amongst yourselves, or like Ladbury, getting his panties in a bunch because someone dared point
out the obvious.
If this is the best you can do – then the rest of us are well and truly screwed, because it means NOBODY has the courage to step up to
the plate. Science and the public HAVE tried – I am quite aware of this. But it has utterly failed and you all know it. Therefore, you
must raise your game considerably higher, because the stakes are far to high to continue to fail. You NEED to band together – and
FORCE the attention of Congress and this Administrator and EVERY government of the world by SOME means.
If what you’ve done hasn’t worked – why keep doing it?
Don’t fall for the illusion that you need another assessment or another report or another study to present to your stake-holders,
you’ve done that already, in spades (and I did NOT advocate you stop science research at all). We need YOU to lay it on the line now
in a unified stance against the ongoing denial, disinformation and lack of action.
Or not. You can continue to do what you’ve done and watch what we’ve already seen – denial, obfuscation, disbelief, disinterest and
the ongoing disintegration of the planet. You apparently believe we’ve plenty of time left. You apparently believe that you’ve done
your best. You apparently believe that it’s not serious enough to start breaking all the “rules” you think control you.
It no longer matters what “laws” need to be broken or whether or not “scientist should be advocating policy”. Those of you still stuck
in this mold are fools and cowards. You’re not bright enough to realize that when survival is at stake, the “rules” are useless and
were only useful when we could expect them to apply. We are FAST approaching the point when ALL the rules and laws will go out the
window. And if you really have no idea what policy should be established – FIND SOMEBODY THAT DOES and advoate THAT.
And if you think our policy makers are the best we “have” for setting policy – then you have NO IDEA how policy is actually created.
American politicians are complete idiots compared to most of you. They are beholden to corporate interests and the policies adopted by
this country are not going to do anything that threatens this relationship. It is quite obvious however that this must be changed, and
as soon as possible. Forget voting as I already pointed out – the public does not and never has controlled the direction of this
country. We are NOT going to “vote” ourselves into a habitable climate. If this is going to happen, it’s going to be rammed down our
throats because that is exactly what it is going to take to break the strangle-hold the corporate world holds over Congress.
You guys need to step outside the box, grow some big balls and get deadly serious about forcing Congress to demand fundamental changes
on how we’re ruining this planet, ASAP. You should have been bright enough to figure this out – a decade ago.
Chris,
That is the intermediate term trend. There is no significant departure from the long-term (130-year) trend. Short-term variations are often of interest, and may lend insight into potential long-term changes.
On the other hand, my sympathies to you experts who have to deal with would-be climate Robespierres, one of whom has just spoken, implicitly demanding a Commissar of energy and a five-year plan to solve our alleged problems, …if only your balls were big enough. ;-)
I’m REALLY sorry but a lot of people commenting on this blog need to take the blinkers off and escape from your confirmation bias.
Professor Pierre Darriulat is a WHOLE lot smarter than me or anybody else commenting on this blog!
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360
Read all about him and what he has to say about AGW/climte change – it will CERTAINLY shock quite a few of you here I would bet.
Interested to hear any responses.
Cheers,
Jim:
OK. I have a problem with this scientific view of Spencer’s:
Don’t you?
It was Dwight Mac Kerron who brought up religion. In my request for clarification of his position, it appears I correctly matched it with Spencer’s.
Jim, I saw something, I said something. I thought that’s what this thread was about. Your erstwhile co-blogger the Stoat recently reported out that “RS appears quite happy to re-nail his colours to the mast: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search“. At that link, Spencer says
Talk about muddying the waters! Those “warmist” scientists don’t deny the reality of AGW. Their religious beliefs inform their urgent personal concerns about AGW’s consequences and their commitment to environmental stewardship, not their scientific rigor. Meanwhile, Spencer lends both his scientific credentials and his religion to professional deniers like James Taylor. That makes Spencer a “Capitalist Tool”, and I feel he should be called out for it.
#169 “This is clearly an ad-hominem attack.” No it was not. Jim’s judgement is in error here.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil. http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, and author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor) http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Roy Spencer PhD put his own signature to the material. It’s a fact. It is a valid aspect to question his opinions and judgments and statements about the science of global warming and why it is he questions the validity of it. It’s rational and logical and ‘scientific’ to question all the arguments, all the positions, the framing, the reasoning and the ethical basis of those people who deny publicly the validity of the science to date, and especially those that are in fact scientists themselves and who then use this level of credibility to support their very own claims.
In normal discourse, pointing out logical flaws in another’s argument is fair game. The fallacy of an appeal to authority is a valid issue to bring into question, as it highlights another’s lack of basic reasoning ability. It is a question of basic credibility.
Using the appeal to the ultimate authority is anathema to the scientific method. It is valid, rational, logical and ethical to bring such a fallacy to the attention of those discussing the activities of climate science denial. Roy Spencer is a well known and publicly active skeptic, he advocates for all kinds of things outside his own scientific field of expertise, and every single one of his ‘arguments’ is fair game.
It is irrational and illogical to ban mention of this specific example of his thinking and lack of logic and reasoning behind his thoughts on climate science.
It is an abuse of power and a gross misjudgment to ban such comments being posted about this FACT.
Fear clouds one’s judgment. When it comes to climate science and the implications of it, there is no room for fear.
An old truism reads: “Knowledge is Power”.
On the subject of the Earth’s climate into the future then, who in a world of equals possesses the greatest power other than working climate scientists and scientists in general? I cannot think of any other group who does.
By way of an analogy Paul Klugman wrote: “Extreme inequality, it turns out, creates a class of people who are alarmingly detached (disconnected) from reality — and simultaneously gives these people great power.
The example many are buzzing about right now is the billionaire investor Tom Perkins, a founding member of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. In a letter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Perkins lamented public criticism of the “one percent” — and compared such criticism to Nazi attacks on the Jews, suggesting that we are on the road to another Kristallnacht.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/opinion/krugman-paranoia-of-the-plutocrats.html?rref=opinion
I can see a valid reflective comparison being drawn between the 1% of the corporate world and the less than 1% of the climate science world. Both rail against any public criticisms being made and regularly deny it as being appropriate or valid.
From ClimateState: “7th Generation is about Vision. It’s about leadership looking ahead, it’s about responsibility. Seven Generations reminds you have responsibility for the generations that are coming. Seven generations ahead or over 150 years from now. And that indeed you are in charge of Life as it is at the moment.
People in the United States have the Bill of Rights, they always talk about their Rights but not about their Responsibility. Elder Oren R Lyons suggests they need a Bill of Responsibility.”
http://climatestate.com/2014/01/26/native-american-elder-speaks-of-the-responsibility-for-7-generations-ahead/
I ask who among equals could have a greater Responsibility or Leadership role to play on behalf of the generations that are coming than climate scientists and scientists in general today? I cannot think of any other group who does.
Michael Mann states in this RC thread at the very beginning:
“How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster? How would I explain to the future children of my 8-year-old daughter that their grandfather saw the threat, but didn’t speak up in time? Those are the stakes.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/if-you-see-something-say-something/
Intro to a Mann Interview by KCRW 21 Jan, 2014 says: “Almost 100% of climate scientists now say global warming is caused by human behavior and that action now is a moral imperative for future generations. But public perception is moving the other way, with fewer Americans worried, despite recent extreme weather conditions here and around the world.”
http://climatestate.com/2014/01/23/michael-e-mann-if-you-see-something-say-something/
Mann says at 1:15mins in above video link: “…it is not only appropriate but I think it is crucial that we speak out on the implications of the science, and I am very careful to distinguish, sort of, playing a role and informing the policy discussion and informing the public discourse than trying to proscribe policy.”
“So I don’t think it is necessarily the role of scientists to proscribe what the policy solutions should be … to tackle the climate change problem.”
Mann then proceeds to complain about the disinformation campaign by special interests with deep pockets. Mann never once lays any collective responsibility for the poor communication of the science and its serious implications at the door of the IPCC process nor climate scientists collectively.
The confusion in the minds of the public about the seriousness of climate change and the absence of clear policy changes to avert dangerous climate change occurring is apparently only the fault of the anti-science activists. This is self-serving and denial of reality over time.
Neither the AGW deniers or the climate scientists exist within a vacuum in the public domain. Funding is only a part of the real story. Both sides actively take advantage of what they perceive as errors and openings in the others activism, weaknesses, and communications.
Even RC had a thread about this recently: A failure in communicating the impact of new findings — rasmus @ 6 December 2013
“I was disappointed by the recent (SPM) of the (IPCC) AR5. Not so much because of the science, but because the way it presented the science. The report was written by top scientists, so what went wrong?”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/
At the end of the radio interview Mann articulates in his own words what the “implications” are of the current climate science. Before he does this he also admits this major failure of the climate science community over the last 25 years @ 6:35 mins: “the compilations that are used to measure the temperature of the globe have almost certainly underestimated the warming over the past decade because they have been missing large parts of the Arctic where we are seeing the largest amount of warming.”
Back in 1990 it was already known or expected that increased warming would occur in the polar regions. So what did the climate scientist community apparently do about that in order to obtain accurate surface temperature readings? They waited until the 2013 paper by Cowtan and Way.
Still Mann and others are mystified by those people who may hold a high degree of a lack of faith in the credibility of the ever changing information presented by the climate science community the last 25 years.
This is a denial by climate scientists as to their own failings which is equivalent to the degree of denial which persists in the anti-AGW activists who also cherry pick only those things that suit their current beliefs and agenda.
More than this however, is the fact that Mann then totally contradicts his own statements made in the interview when he says @6:50 mins: “… so in fact there are a number of factors that have contributed to the short term slowing of the warming”.
That’s exactly what the deniers say, except they use the words Hiatus or Pause instead. Yes they twist that further, but if it was not for the scientists NOT capturing the data correctly in the first place plus NOT effectively communicated the difference between Surface Temperatures as being only one yardstick for measuring the warming versus the total global warming effects and systems involved this issue would never have been an issue.
The skeptics and deniers would never have had the opportunity to get confused themselves, nor to misrepresent the science in the first place. They do not operate in a vacuum here. It is the climate scientists themselves who more often than not actually provide the material to be misused and misunderstood.
Lastly, back to Mann’s key implications: “the globe will continue to warm at an ever accelerated rate if we continue to add these greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities.”
The only logical and rational conclusion for that is to: Stop adding GHGs to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and other activities.
And that my friends is very much a Political Policy Proscription. Nothing less.
And yet Mann said in the beginning: “So I don’t think it is necessarily the role of scientists to proscribe what the policy solutions should be … to tackle the climate change problem.”
And then he and others wonder why it is the people get so easily confused?
The collective over-riding belief of climate scientists is that they are NOT responsible for the confusion about the science nor their own lack of credibility in some sections of the world community because of their own prior actions, multiple failings, basic errors, poor communications, and confusing and conflicting public statements.
There are two extreme sides to this public debate over climate change and both sides are holding an opposite end of the very same stick. In the middle of this bell curve is the rest of the world where the majority have had enough of this state of confusion generated by both sides of extremely emotional subject.
Until and unless the climate science community as a whole are able to present a coherent basis for the urgency of climate change along with a unified over-riding Policy Proscriptions for mitigating said climate change then they may as well do and say nothing.
Some will probably suggest that this is exactly what the IPCC was designed to do, and that it has achieved it’s goals of informing policy makers with valid scientific consensus. Nice theory.
The actual reality is that even websites like RC are pushing back against the IPCC consensus and at the very moment the latest IPCC AR5 report was published.
For example:- Sea-level rise: What the experts expect — stefan @ 23 November 2013 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/sea-level-rise-what-the-experts-expect/
“The credibility of such surveys stands and falls with the selection of experts (see Gavin’s article A new survey of scientists). It is important to identify relevant experts using objective criteria. For us, formal criteria such as professorships were not relevant; our objective was to reach active sea-level researchers. To this end we used the scientific publication database Web of Science of Thomson Reuters and let it generate a list of the 500 researchers who had published the most papers for the search term “sea level” in the last five years in the peer-reviewed literature.”
What use the IPCC then? Clearly they are not expert enough according to RC climate scientists. Unless the topic shifts to Methane in the Siberian and Arctic ocean regions. Then any and all “experts” in that field are merely hyperbolic extremists and not following the scientific consensus. It is very difficult to catch our own contradictions and biased cherry-picking behaviors. We need others to point these out to us. Friend or foe, doesn’t matter, it is the details that truly matter. Being aware of them and not falling into a state of denial and cognitive dissonance is what it’s really all about.
This is called facing up to our own personal Bias in most rational situations. Climate Science is far from rational however as it is continually being skewed by emotional reactions and personal beliefs and values, along with multiple power plays. Not the actual science itself, but the politics of it. One does not need to be a scientists to recognize this for what it is. One need simply be aware and observe what people say and how they react over time. Every picture tells a story.
Clearly Mann and Schmidt have serious personal disagreements with the likes of James Hansen et al. They are trying to publicly shut down these scientists, no less than they would hope all the denier scientists would do the same. This is a Political game within the climate science community that few outside it would notice or understand. These two separate camps are as far apart in their “beliefs and values” as the USSR & the USA were in the 1960s.
Be careful you don’t suddenly and unexpectedly find yourself caught in the middle.
I have much more and varied evidence to support the views I have expressed above. Each to their own. No surprise then if this essay ends up in the Bore Hole. Most people cannot handle the whole truth about themselves nor their own personal responsibility for various unsavory outcomes, even scientists. It’s only human nature.
But do remember this: “Knowledge is Power”
Walter
get educated on climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCISn1KfKQ
233 Advocacy Scientists Stick Their Knowledge Noses Into Government Policy!
Scientists lobby Great Barrier Reef authority to halt Abbot Point coal port expansion Posted 1 hour 29 minutes ago
More than 200 scientists are urging the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to reject a major port expansion in north Queensland.
In December, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt gave the go-ahead to the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion at Bowen in north Queensland.
Millions of cubic metres of spoil must be dredged and dumped near the reef for the coal port to be constructed.
The Marine Park Authority will decide by the end of the week if it will issue a permit for the dredging.
The 233 scientists have signed a letter to authority chairman Russell Reichelt, urging him to reject the plan.
“The best available science makes it very clear that expansion of the port at Abbot Point will have detrimental effects on the Great Barrier Reef,” the letter said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/scientists-lobby-to-halt-expansion-of-queensland-port/5225068
#239 Devil’s Advocate, 10 out of 10 for making the effort to think about the issues. The world is rife with myths and false comparisons. These have been fed to people in the West daily for decades.
I recommend this 19 min talk http://climatestate.com/2013/12/23/200-years-of-global-change-1900-2100-climate-science-history-projections-of-ipcc-ar5-2013/
If short of time start at 7:20 mins which addresses Population.
This talk, using hard facts, should help people recognize better the many myths and false beliefs in play today. People need to make sure they are comparing apples with apples and equitably. Do not compare “nations” compare People, Wealth, Economies, and Populations instead.
China 1.3 billion = India 1.2 billion = OECD 1.25 Billion
It is the OECD population that is and has been over-using well over 50% of the entire worlds production of everything for a century plus and still are today. Not China. Not India. Not the Poor Unwashed.
Watch the video, do cross check the facts presented elsewhere with reliable sources, and continue to educate oneself with the true facts even more.
Then people would best think again about what those true facts mean. With a clearer head holding a few less mythical beliefs than before.
Walter
#237 DIOGENES from the link provided http://www.climatecodered.org/2014/01/as-tony-abbott-launches-all-out-war-on.html
I call this “Talking Straight Talk to the Hoi Polloi”
“It is in part a situational analysis, covering the need to engage with conservative voters, the fragmentation of our efforts, and the growing gap between what is scientifically necessary and what is considered politically possible, resulting in a cognitive dissonance which is structurally embedded in the climate discourse.
“At first, I was reluctant to publish these notes because they are pretty blunt, but a number of people thought they were worth an airing, especially because the Abbott government is waging an all-out “shock and awe” war to destroy climate and environment public policy, for which much of our side appears ill-prepared.
by David Spratt
“Honesty about this challenge is essential, otherwise we will never develop realistic solutions. We face nothing less than a global emergency, which must be addressed with a global emergency response, akin to national mobilisations pre-WWII or the Marshall Plan.
“This is not extremist nonsense, but a call echoed by an increasing numbers of world leaders as the science becomes better understood… In the face of catastrophic risk, emission reduction targets should be based on the latest, considered, science, not on a political view of the art-of-the-possible.”
— Ian Dunlop, formerly senior oil, gas and coal industry executive and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors
From “Global warming is a global emergency”, Crikey, 25 February 2009
That’s 2009
It’s now 2014. How well are we travelling folks?
Michael Mann et al are still out there in the public domain talking instead about how to convince ‘the people’ that the Science is in, it’s actually true, it’s correct, climate change is a serious global problem, the anti-science denier campaign is flawed and wrong, and yet it has been successful.
That and it’s all ‘their’ fault!
OK, let’s assume it is ‘their’ fault for a moment. So, now what Michael? The solution is what exactly?
Do not advocate rational legitimate practical or morally, ethically and scientifically sound Policy Solutions in the public domain … such a proscription sounds very much like a state of cognitive dissonance to me.
Have you ever felt uncomfortable when you discover that your beliefs don’t match up with reality? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
#222 Edward Greisch says: “GW is not a liberal political cause. GW is a science. Science needs to be de-linked from politics completely for action on GW to have any chance.”
Edward, this kind of rhetoric is dead wrong as it is disconnected from reality.
Climate Science is science. The study of climate and global warming, of climate change and of Energy use and applications is Science. True.
What to do to solve the global warming, to stop dangerous climate change, to monitor and curtail fossil fuel energy use is 100% Politics.
That Scientific research, knowledge, data and facts can and should inform Policy decisions and the Political debate about Climate Change responses in no way changes the reality that this issue is a Political one and NOT a Scientific one.
To think or believe otherwise is foolish mythical thinking, and self-defeating in the extreme as it is a denial of reality. Science cannot exist nor will it ever operate within a vacuum disconnected from Politics. That is impossible .
But Politics and Government can operate and has often operated in history absent any involvement of rational Science. At all times it has led to nothing but dire straights for all.
Please drop the internalized mythologies and mystical thinking that have been driving your rhetoric for such a very long time already. It can only help to so. For it consistently undermines every good rational idea and every piece of valid evidence you have presented in the public domain.
Walter
This topic was started by Prof. Michael Mann about his article to the NYT on Sunday. It was Filed under: Climate Science
It begins with:
“THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.”
Near the end Mann says:
“If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat. This is hardly a radical position.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html
Prof. Kevin Anderson of Tyndall Center in Dec 2013 says:
On being Political: “There are no such things as scientists who are not political. Scientists by their nature are being political, whether they engage or do not engage with the wider debates. And I would argue that the ones that are least political are those that engage in it.”
On Responsibility and Judgement: “scientists are producing their information, and it is being misused by an array of people publicly […] but it is incumbent upon (climate scientists) to ensure that their work is being used appropriately.” […] “we stay quiet about that, and that is not our job, by staying quiet we are being very political, what we are saying is that our science and these issues don’t really matter. That is not a reasonable scientific judgment. ”
On Scientific analysis Vs Political judgment: “… but that’s not a political judgment, that’s a judgment on the analysis. Because it has political repercussions does not make it a political judgment.” – “… the science analysis it might start to favour one set of polices over another set of policies for reasons that can be scientifically justified […] that’s not being political.”
On the Most Dangerous response: “those of us who are throwing ‘political mud’ at the scientists by saying you are no longer a scientist, you’re now engaged in politics, actually I think they are the most political and the most dangerous of the scientists that are engaged in these issues.”
See in full, in context, this 4 min video of Kevin Anderson on “scientists who get political” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjrAZhymE5Q
Also listen to Michael Mann: If You See Something, Say Something radio interview by KCRW 21 Jan, 2014 only 7 mins.
http://climatestate.com/2014/01/23/michael-e-mann-if-you-see-something-say-something/
It is an interesting ‘Climate Science’ topic.
monitoring on 6000 places and calling it ”GLOBAL” is misleading…
Nobody knows what was the temp on the other 99,99999% of the planet where nobody is monitoring, and temp variation is independent and changes every 15-20 minutes.
thermometer is good for monitoring room temp, but not one thermometer for thousands of square miles. 6000 thermometers is not sufficient to monitor even all Hilton Hotel’s rooms… http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
So since carbon emmissions have become significant, starting in about 1940, you guys are saying that temperatures have only increased by 0.3 – 0.4 degrees? This is what all the hoopla is about? Is it really that crazy to suggest that this is just an unimpressive example of random, natural variation of a chaotic system?
Last week in Texas we went from a high of 30 degrees to a high of 79 degrees in the space of two days… Birds are still chirping, most of our population seemed to have survived, we didn’t have any tornados or superstorms… We shook off a change of 50 degrees in two days but we should all change our lifestyle and our economy for what is so far 0.3 degrees over 75 years?!
Let’s see, we are going to get more cyclones. Hmmm, maybe not, but they will be worse cyclones. Got it. We are going to have droughts, not new droughts, but more like the droughts we used to get. The weather will apparently tend toward being mostly bad, most of the time, whereas if we reduce our CO2 it will go back to being mostly good most of the time? Let’s have more bad predictions about the bad things that will happen with warming, because some of them will certainly come to pass. Right now, the storm that just moved up the East coast is now a superstorm out in the North Atlantic, probably causing some really bad things. Apparently, warming made it be too cold in the middle of the country, messed up the jet stream, so the storm was pushed out into the Atlantic sooner, had warmer air to feed on than if it had crossed 500 miles to the north so it becomes another cautionary tale, I’m sure. Never let a crisis go to waste.
If more readers were to commend, we would have thousands of comments. Highly undesirable for people with little time, who want to grasp the necessary information.
Apocalypse means “uncovering”, although in the modern sense, it has gained another meaning. The quality of the discussion (which I think you are partly responsible for) has greatly deteriorated with repeated “name-calling” (calling someone who does not agree with you a “denier” or “sock-puppet). It is also very annoying that most of you (and Walters) posts or extremly voluminous. If you are interested in a productive discussion, you should learn to change that. It gets tiresome reading posts that are that long, and trying to filter out useful information.
Btw highly recommended: http://www.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~kuemmel/English/indexE.html
Reiner Kümmel, professor of thermodynamics and economics, researches emission reduction and energy systems. Brilliant man. Recommend his book!
Global warming, according to what nature is revealing, is real. However, the thermodynamic calculations on the effects of atmospheric CO2, which demonstrate its effects in the real world, do not support the warming role as a major contributor to global warming. Real world thermodynamic calculations concerning the effects of atmospheric CO2 can be found here: http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Storage.html#anchor_37
I would appreciate any comments that would let me know why these calculations should not be considered. They appear to be excellent real world examples showing that atmospheric CO2 is not a major player in global warming.
I got an idea drop all idea’s of fees and carbon taxes and see if it helps your idea? NO. Well I didn’t think you would that’s because “Climate Change” ie. “because its getting cold at times lately”, or “Global Warming” as it use to be called is really about one thing “anti-capitalism” its all its ever been about. Its not just about destroying businesses and the economy its about taxing rank and file citizens.
Now that I have been outed as a Nigerian prince, heavily into land acquisition for fracking, I have nowhere left to turn. Geez, I was sure that I would find a receptive audience here. ;-)
Actually, (and I hoped this would be obvious) I was just trying to share something about which way a substantial part of the culture is apparently heading.
As for the Rodale piece, I subscribed to Organic Gardening for a number of years in my thirties and forties and learned a lot about how to build up as much compost and mulch as possible, but then I also learned that pesticides and ff fertilizer gave all of that a BOOST. So much for purity.
As far as I can tell, you can certainly grow stuff w/o petro boosts, but you need more land to supply both the growing space and the gathering space for your mulch and compost supplies.
Nobody here wants to hear this, but you can grow more stuff in a longer growing season. Yes, droughts would hurt you and floods could wash it all away, as they have since the Sumerians.
Now apparently AGW is going to be a unique kind of weather phenomenon which is ALL BAD!!! Hmmmmmmm.
My point was not to defend or attack either side.
I am trying to decide what to make of the global warming theory, the fact that those who believe in it all agree (like evolution) is just not very convincing to me. I think we can at least agree that there is not much of a career path for an anthropologist who doesnt believe in evolution, or a climate scientist who doesnt believe in global warming. That is aside from the obvious strong groupthink on either side. None of the people I surround myself (mostly upper echolon military / law enforcement) with, believes in global warming, if I were to say that all this cold, snow and ice is caused by all the warming, Im sure Id get voted off the island pretty fast. I cant imagine it would be any different with groups of people who disagree with me.
Why would the Heartland Institute or the United Nations publish anything that is not in their best interest ? Both sides have just dug in. Money coming from big oil is not more/less corrupting than money coming from big government. Neither Morano nor Mann have to worry about how to pay the bills this month.
I am just wondering why, for example, both sides cant get in a plane, count polar bears, and then do the same thing again next year. Then we would have one less this to argue about. You could do this with ice, even count scientists and verify the consensus. I would say enough of this name calling from either side, start from where we agree, and work from there. Even if it means that someone on either side has to swallow his/her pride.
My other worry is that – assuming all global warming disaster predictions are true – I would have to give up my believes, morals, values just so I can support people who claim they can fix it.
In context with “see something say something “. One of the primary things that would improve climate forecasting would be a better idea of what the ocean forcing would be for a coming year or period of years. I understand that cold water drops to the ocean floor in polar locations and wells up in others and may mix somewhat or even progress at different rates of flow, making it difficult to say the cycle takes x many years to complete. The closest answer I have received is ” a few hundred “. We do have in the climate record the little ice age and medieval warming. Both have specific dates and ocean temperature anomalies in a specific regional place. I would expect that a few hundred years later one might see those mirrored in the upwelling temperatures somewhere near the equator. The Equator is not as well temperature documented a location at that early time period but possibly in the reconstructions. In a location more readily traceable by NASA. It stands to reason that the quantified negative forcings of volcanic eruptions noted in the past 200 years may start popping up at intervals specifically offset from the original events. This would give climatologists a better idea of forecasting this forcing. If the present ocean temps are based on what happened 200+ years previous there is a good indication the Ocean will keep warming for the next 200 yrs based on what we have done to the land temperatures over that time. A woman’s grass hockey stick curve at the end may otherwise take people by surprise, after finally getting climate under control.Events like Pinatubo may have some second wave event that is otherwise unexplainable. Who knows when we finally have all the answers science may weep for there are no more worlds to conquer, like Alexander the great did. The only difference is they won”t be using some dead guys hanky to blow there nose.
thanks. i’m just an guy who feels like a ball in a pinball machine looking for truth. The impression given is climate scientists claim they are 95% sure of the processes that drive climate and the science is settled yet they can’t predict anything or worse they seem to predict the opposite? They are so sure they tell us to stop eating meat ‘to save the planet’ and other such stuff which seems way outside the competence of a climate scientist to me. However each time i look into it i find the certainties people tell us they have are not certainties. I see meto giving wrong predictions while others give accurate ones and sure a 1 time correct 6 month prediction does not a summer make but then the prediction success bar to being a hero is very low isn’t it because those with the published methods don’t get it right hardly at all. If we need 10 years of data to see if something works then Meto 14 years of over warming shows it should be discontinued?
We still haven’t had the 50m sea rise refugees by 2010 or the end of polar ice by sept 2013 or that uk kids after 2000 won’t know what snow is? So you see for an average punter nothing is settled the claims are proven exaggerated or diametrically the opposite [ok anyone can have a bad day] and frankly nothing looks 95%. So i thought i’d come to a board claiming to be by climate experts and see what you guys say for the wide discrepancies between forecast and actual.
its like the 3mm sea level rise that people keep using. Its just an average isn’t it? its not global its local but that is not the impression people give. The tide gauges are not random and were originally located where sea level was rising so will always have a bias? Even there some of the tide gauges show a drop of -6mm so whats going on? Then how does 3mm per year turn into 15m? Frankly for an average punter you just get the feeling ‘experts’ are lying to you, they keep overclaiming and exaggerating and hiding things behinds averages and what not.
there seems more politics than science these days in climate debate? So if no one trusts experts these days whose fault is that? So i’m trying to discover what is real and what is not. at least for questioning things on this board i haven’t got as much abuse as on other climate expert boards.
229
walter
now i know ippc is based on unvalidated models its not even worth talking about them. if a prediction is 30 years brought forward what does that say about the accuracy of the prediction? If you designed a car speedo and it said 30mph while really you were doing 70mph then is that success for the speedo that you got to your destination quicker? Or is it just a faulty speedo that cannot be relied upon to given any kind of accurate reading? If people relying upon reports from unvalidated models then people will always be making excuses for it and brushing things under the carpet?
233
oh yes i’m well out of date now on coding but i have used the drag on drop c++ ones but the code they write……..never mind the code anyone can write that the truth will be in the ‘charts’ or whatever the designers use now. Actually i think it would be an interesting challenge to find the missing equations but i would never claim i had a valid model if it wasn’t. I don’t understand why everyone is so defensive. Its no big deal to have unvalidated models. Unless you claim it is validated. but i can see this discussion becoming another iteration lol
lol guys i don’t mind you throwing your empty crushed beer cans at me.
I did read the pdf and i did listen to the audio and while the caveats at the end were mumbled and rushed they are there. They say there are even more problems at the regional level. Similar points are at the end of the pdf. C’mon we cannot yet say there is a co2 deathstar from the predictions from these models that cannot replicate with any degree of significance past climate events.
What did you guys think of the questions at the end of the audio e.g that actually more time should be spent spent sorting out known problems in the models rather than adding layers of new stuff?
the thing is if the models could predict you’d be making a killing at the betting shop? more money for the beerosphere ! :) but they don’t.
By the way what timeframe do you guys say is ‘climate’ i seen a range of views up to 10,000 years and that anything under 10 isn’t climate? If u looking at yearly average world temp u going to need at least a 100 years to see any kind of squiggle and even longer to identify any kind of trend although if we still coming out the last ice age then it will be a rising trend. If its rising so what? what is the earths natural climate? what is the ‘right’ temperature? Is ice age the norm and this warm period a freak? I can’t find any views on what earth climate should be but i do read a lot of utopian ‘back to nature living’ and ‘not showering to save the planet’ type stuff.
The climate models are the clearest demonstration of the knowledge of climate scientists and they’ve obviously failed. The IPCC AR5 report acknowledged this, and the fact that Realclimate has stopped showing a comparison between climate models and observed temperatures, as was promised on an annual basis, is another clear admission of failure. Why would this new theory be any better than all of the other ‘settled science’ that’s gone before? The article admits it’s speculative and there could be plenty of other reasons for the pause.
Looking at the Enso events – http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml – doesn’t show that the last decade has been dramatically cooler than previous decades. James “Father of Global Warming” Hansen stated in his 1981 paper – http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html – that the CO2 signal would be stronger than the natural forcing agent noise by the end of the 20th century. So how can you say that a pause was understandable?
So if we have to run new models taking into account weather that we formerly omitted, how can we retain any integrity whatsoever in the public eye?
I have no doubt that this explains why the rate of warming of global air temperatures has slowed. What I don’t think the climate scientists here at RC realize is that the explanation doesn’t matter. If 12 or 15 years ago Gavin or Hansen or Mann or anybody of note had said “hey, we are going to see a slowdown in the rise of air temperatures because the oceans are going to start heating up” you would still look good in the eyes of the public. The problem is, nobody did say that–all anybody talked about was how the science was “settled”. Now the public is asking why they should believe you can predict the next 15 years (let alone the next 85) any better than you predicted the previous 15.
It’s a shame that you folks didn’t have the humility to admit that you really didn’t have all the answers back then. If you hadn’t been so arrogant with your predictions you might have been granted a little slack, but as it is now the public simply doesn’t trust you anymore.
I shouldn’t be surprised anymore but I am: yet another exercise in overfitting.
A decade ago all we heard from the climate scientists was shrill alarm over the rapid rate of warming, and how their climate models proved such warming would continue unabated (nay, would accelerate). Those of us who pointed out that it might be in large part due to natural variability were poo-poo-ed as ignorant hicks, likened to Holocaust deniers, castigated as purveyors of death and committers of crimes against humanity (all such claims emanating from supposedly respected climate scientists).
Now, having categorically failed to predict the lack of warming over the recent decade, we have this:
“With the global-average surface air temperature (SAT) more-or-less steady since 2001, scientists have been seeking to explain the climate mechanics of the slowdown in warming seen in the observations during 2001-2013.”
Really? In 2001 you weren’t attempting to explain the even more anomalous warming of the 1990s as anything other than AGW, even though by your own admission “zooming into years or decades, modes of variability become the signal, not the noise”. What’s different now? Oh, I see: it *didn’t* warm. Well, of course that requires a special explanation: Anomalous decadal warming is signal. Anomalous decadal lack-of-warming is noise. Gotcha. (In case you don’t get the sarcasm, this is appalling science).
Fortunately, climate models are the gift that keeps on giving. Did your model categorically fail the predictive test? No problem, there are an infinite number of ways to tweak the model to fit the data. Having done that, and satisfied that you can once again predict what happened yesterday, you tell us:
“Unfortunately, however, the hiatus looks likely to be temporary, with projections suggesting that when the trade winds return to normal strength, warming is set to be rapid (see below).”
Allow me go out on a limb: when the trade winds return to normal strength I bet you warming is not rapid. You simply overfit the data again. None of your projections in 2001 showed this trade wind mechanism. Your model was weak. Yet now, because you can fit this one additional phenomenon, you expect us to believe that your predictive power is somehow restored? Sorry, that’s not the way it works. Your predictive power is likely no better than it was before. In 10 years time if the trade winds have returned to average, but the temperature is still flat, you’ll find another missing mechanism, and make the same unsubstantiated claims about future warming again.
Here’s a simple way to see how prone to overfitting this game is. Predict the next number: 1,3,5,7,.. Did you pick 9? Odd numbers? Seems like a reasonable explanation. Well wrong, the next number is 11. Ok you say, I have a fix for that: you see my number model is malleable, I can tweak it. It’s all odd numbers except for perfect squares (9 = 3 * 3). Ok, more data: 13,17, … whoops – where is 15? Aha you say, not perfect squares but all multiples of 3 larger than 3 are missing. So new theory: all odd numbers except multiples of 3 larger than 3. Ok, more data: 19, 23 (looking good), 25, 27… whoops again! 27 = 9*3 doesn’t fit the model. That’s ok you say, my climate (sorry, number) model can handle that. It’s all odd numbers except multiples of 3 larger than 3 except if it is a perfect cube (27 = 3^3). And so on.
What’s the point? The point is if your model is infinitely extendible and tweakable as climate models currently are, modifying the model to fit data does not improve the predictability of the model. At some point you *have* to start predicting the future correctly, not just fitting the past.
This should also highlight why the following is such a ridiculous statement:
“Of course, other factors could have also contributed to part of the recent slowdown in the globally averaged air temperature metric: increased aerosols, a solar minimum, and problems with missing data in the Arctic. Summing up all of the documented contributions to the hiatus, spanning ocean heat uptake, reduced radiation reaching Earth’s surface, and data gaps, climate scientists have probably accounted for the hiatus twice over. Of course each effect is not linearly additive, but even so, many experts are now asking why hasn’t the past decade been one of considerable cooling in global mean air-temperatures? ”
Translation: “Because there are so many different ways to overfit the data with climate models, why wasn’t it even colder?” Hopefully the answer is by now clear. Fitting the past proves nothing when your models categorically fail to predict the future.
This England paper is another in a series of unconvincing papers attempting to explain the hiatus. I doubt if any of these papers are going to be seminal pieces of work, but we will see in the fullness of time.
How do we fix the data so that people don’t think that the earth isn’t warming.
It has been getting colder the last 20 years.
With the Global Precipitation Mission being launched today it is timely to note that precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”
Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.
But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
This means water vapour cools.
And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.
The greenhouse is smashed,
“A very consistent understanding is thus emerging of the coupled ocean and atmosphere dynamics that have caused the recent decadal-scale departure from the longer-term global warming trend.”
“Emerging”, does that mean you’re admitting you don’t know at this point? Could it imply you don’t know what why the warming trend happened either?
When trying to convince laypersons (like me) to modify their behaviors or support (worst case) military action to save us from the apocalypse, here’s what you’re up against:
– the Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago and CO2 was 10 times higher than today
– various folks pointing out record high temperatures for certain cities this year w/o mentioning record low temperatures for other cities this year
– admission by “deniers” that a “little bit” of warming has occurred, but noting this warming can be explained by natural variability
– a seeming increase in Arctic ice in 2013 when a decrease was predicted five years ago (presumably via models)
– human CO2 emissions are less than 1% of CO2 emissions (unsure about the time period here – day, month, year, years)
A lot of these points were made by a guy named Patrick Moore. Without lapsing into an attack on his credentials and who funds his work, can you guys point out why he’s wrong as well as what’s wrong with the other talking points? Links to papers and/or sites are fine. (Please don’t send me to Media Matters. Been there, found it lacking.)
In another post on this site, I read that the pause in warming has emboldened the “deniers”. This is a likely reason Moore and his benefactors took the opportunity to market their position and take a little wind out of the sails of climate scientists.
I’ve learned much from this site. I’m not a denier, but the points this guy Moore made seem, well, logical to those of us not steeped or versed in the world of climate science.
(I tried to post this at the end of Feb’s open thread, but for some reason it did not take. Hope it’s okay to post it in this thread.)
Great news, the climate hasn’t warmed for 17 years and six months!!!
Those ”40-000 stations are not evenly spread; where one thermometer represent million square kilometers – another, on that much space has doted 20 thermometers – and are treated with same value = makes them all not valid!
b] it is taken into account ONLY the hottest minute in the day AND IGNORED ALL the other 1439 minutes in 24h… makes it not valid.
when is taken, on few places only 2m above the ground, and ignored the rest of the atmosphere = makes it not valid.
atmosphere is NOT as a human body – when is one degree higher under the armpit = the whole body is warmer by that much. temp in the atmosphere is different and is changing all the time, on every 100m3: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
It is you running this blog and misleading the public into thinking there is valid physics which indicates carbon dioxide causes warming. I have a right to ask you to produce such physics to justify your action, before a court if it becomes necessary. I will be able to prove you wrong I assure you.
Things Are Way Worse Than You Can Even Imagine!
Even the official predictions intensify.
►Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (2009)……….. +4°C by 2060.
►United Nations Environment Programme (2010) up to……+5°C by 2050.
These predictions do not include important feedback data because they are “too difficult” to model.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/02/1253931/ipccs-planned-obsolescence-fifth-assessment-report-will-ignore-crucial-permafrost-carbon-feedback/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165174/-IPCC-5-Will-Ignore-CO2-Methane-from-Melting-Permafrost-a-Huge-Carbon-Source
Here is why you don’t have to worry about rising seas and temperatures.
The Sixth Mass Extinction By The Numbers.
► 90% of Lion populations gone since 2003.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of all Vertebrate Species may disappear before 2040.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish populations gone since 1950.
► 50%of Fresh Water Fish populations gone since 1987,
► 28% of Land Animal populations gone since 1970.
► 30% of Marine Bird populations gone since 1995.
► 28% of All Marine Animal populations gone since 1970.
► 40% of Plankton populations gone since 1950.
► Species extinction is 1000 times faster than normal.
► Ocean acidification to double by 2050, triple by 2100.
► We shoot 90 elephants every single day, including Christmas.
► We shoot 2-3 rhinos every single day so that their ground up horns can be snorted in Asian nightclubs. This keratin is worth $20,000.00/lb.
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/7350/Call-of-Life–Facing-the-Mass-Extinction
http://www.amazon.ca/Sixth-Extinction-Unnatural-History-ebook/dp/B00EGJE4G2/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1395512951&sr=8-6&keywords=mass+extinction
The climate danger threshold point is roughly 2036. 20 years from now, if we are lucky.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-danger-threshold_b_4994235.html
Scientists think a super El Niño is on the way, good news for California’s drought, bad news for the rest of us, except I may not be shovelling as much snow up here in Canada.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/03/20/subtle-signs-emerging-of-a-super-el-nino/
Everyone magically thinks we’ll just switch to renewable energy along with cutting back and becoming more efficient so that voila, earth saved, story over, back to business. Sorry, but that’s just another feel good fantasy. Why?
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn’t really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/
MONEY = POWER = MONEY
1/100th watt = 1 dollar of global economic activity
500 megawatts = 1 average power plant
600 megawatts = China’s increased coal use every 10 days to 2024
500,000 megawatts = 500 new nuclear plants in China by 2050
25 billion megawatts = World power output in 2014
Each year, C02 per megawatt of power increases
Every 4½ days, 1,000,000 new carbon users are born.
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD2.pdf
Green Energy Is Ecologically Unsustainable For 7 Billion People
► The manufacture of 5 one-megawatt wind turbines produces 1 ton of radioactive residue and 75 tons of hazardous waste water to process the needed neodynmium. Numerous rare earth and conflict minerals are required for batteries, computers etc.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies/2711/
► Each solar panel requires 4 tons of coal to produce because the silicon has to be baked to 3,000 degrees F. Their manufacture produces super strong greenhouse gases. Solar manufacturing plants produce 500 tons of hazardous sludge per year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUvPTJ6-RWo
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/08/22/rare-earths-and-other-chemicals-damaging-the-environmental-value-of-renewables/
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/11/solar-panel-makers-grapple-with-hazardous-waste-problem/?__lsa=664b-d35d
► Bio-fuels are ecologically unsustainable. The crop mono-cultures are bio-diversity deserts that increase soil erosion and have a myriad of unexpected consequences. Food supplies are already at risk going forward.
http://www.monbiot.com/2008/02/12/the-last-straw/
http://www.monbiot.com/2014/03/14/the-biogas-disaster/
Electric And Hybrid Car Batteries are Killing Asians
Graphite is mined in China and smog from the graphite mines is so bad, they’ve decided to close many of them down.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/03/14/how-tesla-motors-incs-electric-car-batteries-are-adding-to-chinas-pollution-woes/?__lsa=664b-d35d
http://dominion.mediacoop.ca/story/toyota-prius-not-so-green-after-all/20373
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed
Bigger Faster And Uncut
The largest mass extinction event was the Permian event of 250 million years ago where 95% of life disappeared thanks to the hydrogen sulfide gas emissions from over-acidified oceans. We are acidifying our oceans faster than that event.
The fastest mass extinction event occurred 65 million years ago when the asteroid wiped out Dino the dinosaurs along with Fred and the gang from Bedrock. It still took as long as 33,000 years later to finish them off, long after the initial impact damage. We are on track to wipe out 75% of species on earth within 300 years, and probably much sonner. This is 100 times faster than the dino thang.
On a final note, ecological cascading extinction collapse is irreversible and unstoppable once it has started. This will lead to an ecological planetary state shift devoid of basic ecological services we take for granted, like breathing and eating. No one knows when the ultimate final tipping point will be past, until after we pass it. Some say in 30-40 years. Climate change is only one of six reasons for the 6th mass extinction. Invasive species is probably number one, and we and our crops and animals are the most invasive thing there is.
Death Wish
► 5 million dead in the Congo since 1998 because for the conflict minerals our computers need.
► 2 million of them were children.
► 1 million killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
► 500,000 Iraqi children died of disease thanks to the 1990s embargo.
► Millions of innocent civilians killed by the U.S. since WWII.
► 3,000 citizens killed when steel reinforced concrete collapsed at free fall speed into its own small footprint. This is physically impossible without demolition.
The scientist in this interview says we only got 13 years at the rate we’re going until catastrophic change is baked in. He also says the lessening of albedo in the Arctic, due to loss of ice cover, is equivalent to 25% of the carbon humanity has released in the last 30 years.
http://www.ecoshock.org/contact/?surveySuccess=1&qsid=1323830881#1323830881
The Antidote
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are still, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First make sure that he’s dead.” There’s a silence, then a loud bang. Back on the phone, the guy says, “Ok, now what?”
So why are we not honest and say that, for the moment, we really don’t fully understand the causes of the hiatus?
global temperature history?
ice cores you got but that’s probably not helpful in a co2 causes warming campaign because it gives you charts like this
http://snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
and this
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
which clearly show temps in a downtrend and at a cool extreme compared to previous periods with plenty of room to the upside
also any proxy data has to match up with written records of what people were doing and the weather they recorded from which one can infer the energy transmission mechanisms going on at the time.
i would be happy with any holocene temp chart as long as people stop decontextualising recent temps from it by using 30 year snapshots and trying to frighten people for no good reason through decontextualised ice age cycle data. I’m assuming no one is claiming the ice age cycles are over?
The climate forever changes. Why are you so sure there’s a significant anthropogenic contribution?
When writing, the act of pouring your heart out onto the page hurts, but just like crying, it feels so good when you finally finish.
It’s the same when you hit your thumb with a hammer, it feels so good when you stop, but you’re embarrassed you didn’t stop a little sooner.
The wonders of the ancient world have always been based on a demonstration of the power of elites to force slaves to construct their larger-than-life monuments. The ancient pyramids of Egypt resulted in a lot of suffering and remained the tallest human made structure for 3,800 years.
Today’s monuments are only pyramid schemes in comparison, yet they are still more profound than anything in all of earth’s history. Like those ancient monuments, today’s mega-cities are beyond anything humankind, and indeed all life on earth, will ever witness. So, what does it all mean? Read on.
In Mexico City, 500 people are kidnapped and ransomed each and every month. There is only one gun store in Mexico City, and 7,000 gun stores just across the American border. Gee, thanks 40-year-old Drug War! In the Congo, over 2 million children have been raped, tortured, enslaved and murdered since 1998. The U.N. is suspected of helping to rig a major election there in 2006, and the E.U. has decided that a self-regulated voluntary non-use of conflict minerals is the answer in 2014. Thanks to the U.N.’s 1990s embargo of Iraq, 500,000 children there died preventable deaths because hospitals couldn’t get the needed foods and medicines. So what does this have to do with price of tea in China? Keep reading, believe me, it’ll be worth it.
I am no believer in life after death, but I suspect there is some kind of intelligent design to evolution simply because it’s just so plainly obvious. An Arctic hare’s fur doesn’t turn white in the winter and then back to brown in the summer for camouflage just because of random mutations over time. Does this mean I believe in some “higher power?” All life is a higher power to me and I don’t even pretend to understand it, but I normally believe what I see. That’s why magicians love me.
Our eyes are über complex responses to electromagnetic waves, our ears are a complex response to slight variations in air pressure. A chameleon changes it skin colour to match random background colours. I think evolution is an inadequate hypothesis for explaining these sophisticated and complex survival responses to our environment. But, then again, what do I know?
So, why are any two kids, raised by the same parents in the same way, able to be so different from one another? One may be a timid introvert, and the other a nasty bully. I believe it’s nature’s intelligent design to ensure the survival of one of them due to unforeseen environmental circumstance. This is why we are always so divided. This division is why we will fail.
Everyone knows that there are climate deniers on the political right. But, there are also extinction deniers on the left. Many progressives seem to magically think we will reduce energy and increase its efficiency, all while running our mega-cities on some vague combination of renewable energy. I don’t see how this will be possible, when in 40 years the largest migration in human history will be near completion, as future cities strive to hold 80% of earth’s human population. But, I don’t think all cities have 40 years.
A lot of urban people think that as long as you take transit and shop at a farmer’s market, that you are not hurting the environment all that much. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cities are made of concrete, steel, glass and asphalt. All these things are the most carbon intensive products ever made. Everywhere you walk, all the sidewalks, streets, condos and telecom buildings are paid for with your taxes and monthly bills. Almost everything we see, hear, feel and touch comes from devices that are made in China. Well over 5 million people were killed in the Congo for the conflict minerals we need for our smart phones to work, just so we can text, post and write the blogs we love to read.
Renewable energy is a huge business run by mega corporations like General Electric, the same folks who brought us Fukushima. When G.E. was promoting nuclear power in the 1950s, they were telling us that it would be too cheap to meter, and that we would be driving around in nuclear powered cars. It’s the same hype being used by business interests in promoting green power. You’ve heard all about the sunny side of renewable energy, now let’s look at the dark side.
Wind Turbines
The manufacture of 5, one-megawatt, wind turbines produces 1 ton of radioactive residue and 75 tons of hazardous waste water used to extract and process the needed neodymium. Neodymium is a rare earth mineral. Rare earth minerals are not rare, but they are found in very low concentrations. Neodymium is extracted from crushed rocks using sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. Then it is processed using solvents, heating and vacuum techniques that require plenty of coal power. Vast unregulated tailings ponds of poisonous water have destroyed whole villages in China.
There are 16 other rare elements. All with the same story.
There is no known replacement for neodymium. During its mining, metals such as arsenic, barium, copper, aluminum, lead and beryllium are released into the air and water, and are toxic to human health. Neodymium is only one of many rare-earth metals that our smart phones and green energy systems need, and Canada is making efforts to mine them right now.
Solar Panels
Each solar panel requires 4 tons of coal to manufacture them because the required silicon has to be baked for some time at 3,000°F. The manufacture of solar panels lets off some of the deadliest greenhouse gases known to humankind. These include hexafluoroethane (12,000 times stronger than CtO2), nitrogen trifluoride (17,000 times stronger than C02), and sulfur hexafluoride (23,000 times stronger than C02). Solar manufacturing plants produce 500 tons of hazardous sludge each per year. This sludge is never included in the solar industry carbon footprint data. All shiny new electronic things are super-poisonous and deadly serious for all life on earth.
Bio-Fuels
Bio-fuels are ecologically unsustainable. The crop mono-cultures are biodiversity deserts that increase soil erosion and have a myriad of unexpected consequences. Stand in a corn field and you will see nothing lives there, not even bees. 95% of food comes from just 30 crops. Food supplies are at risk going forward. We can’t cut trees for cars when people starve. Our foods and animals already dominate the planet. We are earth’s most invasive predators raping all life’s diversity from her loins.
Rechargeable Batteries
The rechargeable batteries we use in everything from the Tesla Electric Car, and Prius Plug-In Car, down to our smart phones, all rely on one critical component―graphite. Graphite is one of the main causes of the terrible air pollution in China. It comes from airborne particles given off by mining operations and often washes down from the sky with the rain. Graphite particles foul the air and water; they also damage crops and human lung tissue.
This type of smog has gotten so bad that China has shut down several of their graphite mines, creating a shortage and higher prices. Right now, Algonquin natives in Kipawa, Quebec are fighting Toyota over a rare-earth open pit mine planned for that area. Toyota wants that mine pit to make the batteries for its Prius. There is no such thing as a “green” car.
MONEY = POWER = MONEY ETC.
Energy conservation or efficiency doesn’t really save energy, but instead spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption. Here is the future.
► 1/100th watt = $1 of global economic activity
► 500 megawatts = 1 average power plant
► 600 megawatts = China’s increased coal use every 10 days for the next 10 years
► 500,000 megawatts = 500 planned new nuclear plants for China by 2050
► 25 billion megawatts = World power output in 2014
► Each Day, C02 per megawatt of power increases
► Every 4½ days, 1,000,000 new carbon users are born.
► How many windmills, solar panels and batteries will give us just today’s 25 billion megawatts?
Even the official predictions intensify.
► Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research (2009):
+4°C by 2060.
► United Nations Environment Programme (2010) up to:
+5°C by 2050.
These predictions do not include permafrost methane feedback because it is “too difficult” to model and is “too unpredictable.”
We are emitting carbon faster than even the very worse scenarios of a mere few years ago. Serious climate scientists are saying that we will hit catastrophic climate heating in 13 to 20 years. While that doesn’t mean disaster will strike the very next day after blowing through this threshold, it does mean very, very serious life-ending consequences will result. And, as bad as this news is, it is not the worst of it.
The Sixth Mass Extinction:
Were We Stand In 2014.
Here is why you don’t have to worry about rising seas and temperatures.
All you have to do is look at these numbers and project them forward.
► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.
► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.
► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.
► 50% of Fresh Water Fish gone since 1987.
► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.
► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.
► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.
► 50% of All Vertebrate Species gone by 2040.
► Extinctions are 1000 times faster than normal.
► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050.
► Ocean acidification triples by 2100.
Bigger And Faster Than Ever
We kill 90 elephants every single day of the year. Elephants have devised a very specific warning call for their herds that means, “Humans are coming!” We kill 2-3 rhinos each and every day because the keratin in their horns is worth $20,000.00 per pound, after it is ground up into powder to be snorted up the noses of people in the nightclubs of Asia.
The LARGEST mass extinction event was the Permian event of 250 million years ago where 95% of all life on land and sea disappeared thanks to the hydrogen sulfide gas emissions from over-acidified oceans. It took 60,000 years to wipe out almost all life on earth. We are acidifying oceans faster than any time for 300 million years.
The FASTEST mass extinction event occurred 65 million years ago when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It still took as long as 33,000 years after the initial impact to finish them off. In geological time, this is considered instantaneous. We are on track to wipe out 75% of species on earth within 300 years, and probably much sooner. This is 100 times faster than the asteroid impact.
Here’s The Really, Really Bad Part
Ecological cascading extinction collapse is irreversible and unstoppable once it has started. This will lead to an ecological planetary state shift devoid of basic ecological services we take for granted, simple things like breathing and eating. No one knows when this ultimate final tipping point will be passed, until some time after we pass it. Reputable ecologists say likely in 30-40 years from now. Once again, it doesn’t mean the world will collapse the very next day, it may take decades or centuries, but by then, it will be too late to stop it, and too late to go back.
Monumental Flaws
I read something not too long ago that said steel reinforced concrete won’t last very much longer than a couple hundred years if it is not patched, water proofed and well maintained. If water gets in contact with the steel, it will rust and the surrounding concrete will crumble. The reason ancient Roman structures are still standing is because they didn’t use steel reinforcing bars in their concrete like we do. It caused me to imagine that long after our condos and bank towers have fallen down, that the pyramids and maybe even the Roman Coliseum will remain standing, outlasting maybe even ourselves. There are no magic bullets and no easy answers. But, not to worry! The mass media has a louder voice than me, and with endless repetition, it won’t be long until you forget what I’m telling you, because you want to forget, and that’s just human nature.
Human Nature + 9 Billion People = Mass Extinction
Planetary Parable
Two hunters are out in the woods when one of them collapses. He’s not breathing and his eyes are still, so his friend calls 911. “My friend is dead! What should I do?” The operator replies, “Calm down, sir. I can help. First, we have to be sure he’s dead.”
First silence, then a loud bang. The
guy calling says, “Ok, now what?”
If you “believers” really knew what the scientific consensus was you wouldn’t be telling our kids to “believe” the scientists because the scientists have NEVER “believed” beyond; “could be” and 95% in 32 years that it will be a crisis.
YOU remaining “believers” “believe” more than science does. Now who’s the fear mongering neocon?
Last week, I wrote: “seems as though ‘Frontiers’ thought there were ethical issues after all” and I gave the link.
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
I got a dismissive, “No, Walter” for my pains, so here is the statement in the retraction that led me to believe there might be ethical issues: “As a result of [our] investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects.” If the rights of subjects were not protected (in the opinion of the Journal) can someone please explain to me how that is not an ethical problem? I do understand there is a strong urge here to stand behind any and all who take on “deniers”, but if the study was not up to standards, what really is the point of defending it? Can’t it be redone properly instead?
Mr. Pauli,
I note the irony of your responding [accidentally or otherwise] to a question about the ethics of a paper purporting to demonstrate conspiratorial ideation in the denier community, with a reference to a paper purporting to show, at least in part, that the denier community is itself a conspiracy. Interesting.