Feb. 27, 2008 | The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends.
The science isn't settled -- it's unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.
The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.
But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word "consensus" to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear "consensus of opinion," which can -- and often is -- dismissed out of hand. I've met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who simply can't believe that "as old as the planet is" that "puny, gnawing little humans" could possibly change the climate in "70 years."
Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it, and it's going to get much, much worse unless we act soon. Consensus of opinion is irrelevant to science because reality is often counterintuitive -- just try studying quantum mechanics.
Continue reading:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/
Dear reviewer,
I am viewing my submission in Firefox and the layout is all messed up. I can't tellwhat's gone wrong. My guess is that there's a css bug in this page that shows up in FF3.
Stumble It!
Ed Deak.
I am in somewhat agreement but must remark that this attempted zealous closure is indicative of a weak scientific basis and a strong political agenda.
If the scienctific evidence was unassailable such attempted closure would be unnecessary, the evidence would stand on it's own.....a predictably the very qualification of what constitutes science, or a scientist, and the peer-revue process has been compromized.
I am in somewhat agreement...
My god! Have the poles shifted already? Is it 2012 already?
sasquatch,
What brought on this refreshing change of pace?
BTW - Science is never unassailable. That is one of the points of the article and one of the central tenets of science. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, etc all assailed and won.
So, just like in court, there is evidence for and against the cause. Today, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of climate change. Let us act accordingly and avoid the risks.
I think they are already triggered and we are now in 'let's see what hand Mother Nature deals us' mode.
I think they are already triggered and we are now in 'let's see what hand Mother Nature deals us' mode.
True, it can't be stopped immediately, but it can be slowed and even reversed in the longterm.
I am in somewhat agreement...
My god! Have the poles shifted already? Is it 2012 already?
sasquatch,
What brought on this refreshing change of pace?
BTW - Science is never unassailable. That is one of the points of the article and one of the central tenets of science. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, etc all assailed and won.
So, just like in court, there is evidence for and against the cause. Today, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of climate change. Let us act accordingly and avoid the risks.
What I am in agreement is the fact that science is never unassailable.
Science is sadly missing from the CO2 AGW agenda. What is represented as science is junk science, deliberate fabrications(like computer models) and outright lies.
If there is any science bring it forth----$50,000,000,000 and counting has failed to produce anything more than the HAHA "hockeystick and james Hansens bad math and...."adjustments".
It can be, but every single time I hear somebody like Sasquatch or Rearguard on a tear I have to think that it won't be.
Who cut down the last tree on Easter Island? We don't know, but it's likely that there were people saying that they couldn't keep cutting down trees, people who agreed but stayed silent, and people with a vested interest in moving giant heads around the island who were supported by people willing to point out that moving giant heads around the island was a good thing because it got them the political support of men with axes.
Science is sadly missing from the CO2 AGW agenda. What is represented as science is junk science, deliberate fabrications(like computer models) and outright lies.
If there is any science bring it forth----$50,000,000,000 and counting has failed to produce anything more than the HAHA "hockeystick and james Hansens bad math and...."adjustments".
Nobody ever said that science was unassailable. In fact, science is very built on being assailable. Those doing the assailing have to make a valid case based on evidence though. The denial industry has instead introduced doubt based on oil money and misdirection.
I first started paying attention to science and politics because of the anti-evolutionists. When I look at at the anti-global warming people, I see the same tactics, the same misrepresentations, the same attempts to narrowly frame the issue, the same denial of scientific evidence.
When I look at at the anti-global warming people, I see the same tactics, the same misrepresentations, the same attempts to narrowly frame the issue, the same denial of scientific evidence.
You alarmist, warming hysteria, guys make it kind of tough to get a good denial going though. It's hard to deny scientific evidence that doesn't exist. You could at least produce it, so we could deny it.
Watch, I'll prove it doesn't exist to anybody who'd like to listen with an open mind. If you have the scientific evidence produce it. Do so without using the word "model", because that's not science.
* crickets *
If what you're calling science is computer models however, then I admit it, I'm in full fledged denial mode.
If you're talking about actual science that takes place in the real world. All that favors the skeptic argument. That's not denial. That's statement of fact.
Oh? How much Arctic ice did we lose last year? What's happening in Greenland? Did it rain in Antarctica last year? Have we seen major ice sheets collapse? Are northern peoples reporting really weird ice and snow conditions? Are they seeing animals they've never seen before? Are farmers reporting a seasonal shift? Is the tree line moving north? Is the permafrost melting? Are sea levels rising?
That's all science. It's not a computer model, but computer models are also science...and if you don't like the science of computer models I'd invite you to log onto the internet using a quill and pot of ink.
So when was the last time that a climate change denier went and took their own measurements? When did Soon and Baliunas travel to the arctic? When did McIntyre or McKitrick go have a look at the permafrost? Oh, sorry, they didn't.
You know what they did? They punched the data of others into a computer. The thing is that, according to those who have reviewed their work and those they got the data from, they have been less than honest about which data they punched in and the claims they have made about what that data said.
[quote="N Fiddledog":3694lmfc]If you're talking about actual science that takes place in the real world. All that favors the skeptic argument. That's not denial. That's statement of fact.
As much as we've gained back in this record freeze the arctic has experienced this winter. Check it out.
Satellite comparisons by date for Arctic icepack
Well currently Greenland like the rest of the region is experiencing record cold and freezing.
Excerpt: Minus 30 degrees Celsius. That's how cold it's been in large parts of western Greenland where the population has been bundling up in hats and scarves. At the same time, Denmark's Meteorological Institute states that the ice between Canada and southwest Greenland right now has reached its greatest extent in 15 years. 'Satellite pictures show that the ice expansion has extended farther south this year. In fact, it's a bit past the Nuuk area. We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south. On the eastern coast it hasn't been colder than normal, but there has been a good amount of snow.'
There's a long collection of studies ending in 2006 showing...
2007 was a warm year in the arctic though. Is that it? Is that the evidence you have for a human caused global warming catastrophe? If so the north is now experiencing cooling. What does that mean?
You did know the Antarctic is considered to be a desert, didn't you?
As far as rain goes I don't know. Maybe in the heat of antarctic summer, on the Northwest tip, on the coast where there's been some warming. The larger part of the Antarctic has been cooling at record rates. But no, it doesn't rain in the interior of Antarctica.
Interesting you should bring up the subject of humidity in the Antarctic though.
For example, the models suggest that global warming means more snowfall near Earth’s poles. That extra snowfall could slow sea level rise, as more water stays in the ice sheets.
David Bromwich: The ocean is going up at about 2 to 3 millimeters a years, so changes even in the snowfall over Antarctica can have a significant effect on the change in sea level.
That was David Bromwich at Ohio State University. He’s studied the history of snowfall over Antarctica over the past 50 years and found his results don’t match the predictions of most climate warming models.
David Bromwich: There were increases in some decades in some places, and decreases in the same places. There was lots of variability, but essentially no significant trend going on in snowfall variation.
And again that result is unexpected because computer models show snowfall increasing as climate warms.
David Bromwich: The question is, how are the models doing predicting changes in specific regions? For Antarctica, there are some aspects that the models are not doing as well as we would like them to do.
Yes, for millions of years. I imagine the big one recently you're referring to is the Larsen B in 2002
Actual study of Glasser and Scambos
There is anecdotal evidence for and against such stuff. I call them CBC, and non-CBC sources.
Perhaps, but what else is new? I do know this. CO2 is fertilizer, and I've heard estimates as high as 5 times the agricultural output for the CO2 rich years.
On seasonal shifts though, I wouldn't count on getting the crop in early this year. It is c-c-c-c-cold. During the 90s though was a good time to be a farmer. Yes Climate change occurs, and has since time began. No, short term shifts do not prove or even offer any kind of scientific support for the idea a human caused catastrophe of warming is coming. Natural climate variability explains this as well as anything else.
Basically it goes like this...
That link goes into reviewing a recent study that shows the many varied reasons for decadal variability in sea level rises. Not that it matters, but I should mention there are scientists who think the IPCC over-estimated sea level rises. I believe it's mentioned in the above study. There are others.
No. Those are all questions. You received your answers. And I would ask any impartial reader. Which one of us offered actual explanation based on current science.
Speaking of questions, that has to be the dumbest one so far, but patient guy that I am, I'll answer it. Ever heard of Global Warming skeptic, and hurricane expert William M. Gray?
http://www.westword.com/2006-06-29/news ... eptic/full
Curiously enough when Bill Gray was flying through hurricanes to get the science, computer modeling global warming alarmists James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann weren't with him, but what does that prove? Nothing. Scientists gather the data, and scientists interpret it. There's not supposed to be a bias between who gathers and who interprets. One guy isn't better than the other. Somebody gathered the Vostock ice core data, then Barnola et al. (1991), and Petit et al. (1999) came along and discovered CO2 lags temperature. In other words CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. Temperature increases cause CO2.
That's called winter, Fiddledog. Do you know the difference between old ice and new ice?
As would be expected in a la nina year.
By the way, quoting Senator Inhofe's blog doesn't exactly lend credibility with anybody who knows who the man is. He's not only bought and paid for by the oil companies, but he's a young earth creationist. He has to reject any scientific theory that has any relation to an earth that's more then 6000 years old.
There was at least one large collapse in the arctic as well, and there have been smaller collapses.
I forgot to count...how many times do Glasser and Scambos refer to atmospheric warming and melt water in their study. How many papers supporting global warming (including an earlier one by themselves) do they quote as sources? They say the the stresses that weakened the shelf were caused by increased glacial flow, attributed to global warming.
In other words, their paper is close look at the mechanics of the crash but does not refute global warming. In fact, it supports global warming. Don't take my word for it though, this is what Scambos himself said,
Scambos pointed to studies that have measured warming of deep Southern Ocean currents, which increasingly brush against the Antarctic coastline. "This led to some thinning of the shelf, making it easier to break apart," he noted. "The unusually warm summer of 2002, part of a multi-decade trend of warming clearly tied to climate change, was the final straw," Scambos said.
Scambos added, "Knowing how these complex, large events work together helps us understand the potential for the collapse of another major ice shelf, such as the Larsen C."
http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/20080207_Scambos.html
Should we believe the politically-driven denial industry, or the scientists who did the actual work?
There have been scientific studies, including the Arctic Assessment Report. It's got nothing to do with the CBC.
Except that scientific studies have shown an increase in the stalks, which we don't eat. We already have trouble disposing of the stalks in some areas and end up burning them, returning most of the stored CO2 to the atmosphere.
I'm not going to give you lessons on agriculture, but you could obviously use some. The 90's was a bad time to be a farmer, first of all. The crops weren't great and the prices sucked. The seasonal shift...and don't make the mistake of thinking this year's weather is the same as climate, only a fool would do that...brings the rains at the wrong time and in the wrong amounts. it makes things less predictable, and therefore makes it difficult to know which crops to grow.
I would the ask impartial reader why you misrepresented the purpose and the findings of Glasser and Scambos. They clearly say that climate change is happening and the increasing melt water combined with accelerated glacial low to cause the Larsen B collapse. Those things are directly related to warming. Scambos himself says so. How can you take that study and claim that it means something else?
Not only that, but the denialists have shown a pattern of misrepresenting other scientific studies and claiming that those studies prove the opposite of what the scientists who perform the studies say. It's a bizarre grasping at straws, and inherently dishonest, but it's not a surprising tactic. The creationists have been doing it for years and the shills for the tobacco lobby used it before moving into the lucrative business of global warming denialism.
those lags confirmed the existence of positive feedback loops. Was it you or Rear Guard who was claiming that negative feedback loops were more important and should be more heavily weighted? Are you contradicting yourself, or contradicting him?