Hume misrepresented study on the link between solar activity and global warming
SUMMARY: Fox News' Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming" as evidence to support his claim that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9 New Scientist article on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." The New Scientist reported that Tung says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming."
During the August 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming" as evidence to support his claim that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9, 2007, New Scientist article (subscription required) on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." According to the article, Tung, who is a University of Washington professor of applied mathematics and an adjunct professor in Atmospheric Science, says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming." An August 20 post by Marc Morano, minority staff member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which appeared on Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) "EPW Press Blog," includes a summary of the University of Washington study, as well as a Belgian study that Hume also mentioned.
In summarizing the report, which analyzed satellite data on solar radiation and surface temperatures between 1959 and 2004 and found that global average temperatures fluctuated by almost 0.2 °C between high and low points in the 11-year solar cycle, The New Scientist reported: "The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming, Tung says. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models." The article added:
Tung says his findings provide important real-world evidence that climate model predictions of global warming are correct. For instance, they show that the temperature changes are two to three times as strong in polar regions. On the face of it this is surprising, because the variation in solar radiation is greatest in the tropics. But Tung says "it reinforces the idea of melting ice as an amplification mechanism in the climate-change models."
[...]
In an as yet unpublished paper posted on Tung's website, he and Camp say this shows that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause a warming of between 2.3 and 4.1 °C within about a year. They say this makes the lower estimates of some models of climate change "unlikely".
This immediate warming, Tung stresses, is almost certain to be an underestimate of the overall effect of greenhouse gases, because extra warming is delayed due to the deep ocean heating up only slowly. "But our findings give a lower bound to the atmosphere's climate sensitivity that we have not had before."
Climate modeller Peter Cox from the University of Exeter, UK, says Tung has shown, without recourse to climate models, that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause at least 2 °C of warming, "which is considered by many to be the threshold of dangerous climate change."
Media Matters for America has documented other media figures mischaracterizing studies or articles to make claims about the role played by the sun on global warming, including nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and columnist John McCaslin.
From the August 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: And now the most interesting two minutes in television, the latest from the "Political Grapevine."
Many media outlets, such as the recent Newsweek magazine cover story, portray man-made global warming as a certified fact and those who deny it as conspirators. But skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown.
A new study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz contends that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the U.N.'s recent climate study claims. Schwartz's work will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
The study is just one of several peer-reviewed scientific studies challenging global-warming alarmism. The Belgian Weather Institute concludes that carbon dioxide does not have a decisive role in global warming, and a study by two Chinese scientists say CO2's role in warming is vastly exaggerated.
Plus, new research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming.
During the August 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume cited "new research by University of Washington mathematicians [that] shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming" as evidence to support his claim that "[global warming] skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown." But an August 9, 2007, New Scientist [link to environment.newscientist.com] title="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19526164.800 blocked::[link to environment.newscientist.com] color="#0052a3">article (subscription required) on the mathematicians' research warned that "[c]limate-change skeptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun's variability can explain global warming -- but [the [link to www.amath.washington.edu] title="http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf">report's co-author] mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true." According to the article, Tung, who is a University of Washington professor of applied mathematics and an adjunct professor in Atmospheric Science, says his finding, in the New Scientist's words, "adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming." An August 20 [link to epw.senate.gov] title="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8">post by Marc Morano, minority staff member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which appeared on Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) "EPW Press Blog," includes a summary of the University of Washington study, as well as a Belgian study that Hume also mentioned.
This is another perfect example of why FOX is biased, they have been the leaders also in the "Global Warming Myth" crap.
One study says this, another study says that........just more evidence that the jury is still out for human generated global warming.
Regardless, we should all act responsibly and environmentally conscious in our daily lives, whenever and whereever we can. There should be no debate on that.
What "studies" say that man-made global warming is not real and is not a real threat?
Different studies say different things, but there's not one peer-reviewed study that says that man-made global warming is not happening.
Can you possibly post without misrepresentation, I said the jury is still out - I didn't say it was not happening.
One example, and you can google it for yourself if you're interested, is by Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. He led a study in 2004 which studied the sun's activity since the last Ice Age. You can disagree or disagree, but it goes to the point I was making about the indecisive research.
Tommy, misrepresenting and taking things out of context is all that person does.
I understand what you are saying, however with the scientific evidence we have I think any logical person and the media need to report the truth on this and not claim its a fringe group?
You said
"One study says this, another study says that."
I didn't misrepresent anything.
What study says that man-made global warming isn't happening? You said that the jury was still out. What studies are that that makes the jury have questions? What I've seen is that out of all the recent peer-reviewed studies done, there are not that contradict man-made global warming.
You said that some studies said one thing, and that other studies said something else. All I asked you to do is provide evidence of any of those counter studies that you claimed exist. You didn't do that in your first post, and you didn't in your second. That's because those studies don't exist, isn't it?
The study you mention is not evidence of any questioning of man-made global warming.
Again, to be fair, I don't believe any of the posts in this thread have yet argued in favor of man-made global warming as a myth.
Break, I have to disagree. I think nomo's post asked a valid question for Tommy to clariy his comments that the "jury was still out on manmade global warming". That comment implies that there is some question remaining if imanmade global warming is a fact or not. Nomo simply asked him for proof that the "jury" was out.
Correction: Tommy's quote called it "human generated" and I wrote "manmade." I know they mean the same thing but I didn't want anyone to say I was misquoting
I think nomo's post asked a valid question for Tommy to clariy his comments that the "jury was still out on manmade global warming". That comment implies that there is some question remaining if imanmade global warming is a fact or not.
I don't know that the comment necessarily implies what you say it does. I think the inference is most certainly a plausible one, but to say that the statement 'implies' it is something else entirely. To say that something is implied is to make a statement with regard to the original intent of the statement. I don't know whether or not Tommy was making the implication you, and so many think he was making. He may very well have been, but absent that knowledge, Nomo's question is not necessarily rellevant. Nomo was not asking for clarification. Nomo had come to a determination that no clarification was necessary. Nomo wanted Tommy to back up with proof an argument Tommy had not yet clearly spelled out. An argument, in fact, that Tommy may not have been making in the first place.
i think most of us saw tommy's post as saying that there is some question of whether it is human causes that are producing global warming. to add to how we came to that perception, there was also him saying that different studies say different things. nomo did not attack tommy and asked a valid question: what studies? the attacks were made on nomo by tommy and his little band of sycophants.
i think most of us saw tommy's post as saying that there is some question of whether it is human causes that are producing global warming.
I never misunderstood the general interpretation of the quote. I put forth the idea that the general interpretation could--and as it turned out was--a misunderstanding.
to add to how we came to that perception, there was also him saying that different studies say different things.
Different studies do say different things. I don't think this statement leads anyone to the rational inference that Tommy was necessarily arguing in favor of the nonexistance of HGGW.
nomo did not attack tommy and asked a valid question: what studies? the attacks were made on nomo by tommy and his little band of sycophants.
Does anything I've said so far out me as a Tommy sycophant? Have I attacked Nomo in any way? You may not be talking about me, I know there is a bit of history with some of these anons, so that point may not have been directed at me at all.
As for whether or not Nomo attacked Tommy, while I would agree that attack would be a harsh term to use, she did do more than ask a 'valid question.' She presented a false face to Tommy's argument. Her interpretation may very well have been informed by a history of dealings with Tommy, but it wasn't informed by the argument Tommy seemed to be making. Still, she accepted one possible interpretation of Tommy's comments, didn't ask for a clarification, but instead went directly for proof. My gripe was that it was an unfair way to proceed. I think I've been proven correct. Some may disagree.
You are correct, Sue is the master at these types of games and lies and her teammate mefirst loves to engage in smears also. Thanks for taking her to task, the more of us who stop the lies and smears , the better off this board is for true content and discussion.
It's not true, and you know it.
Tommy said that the jury was still out, and they jury's not still out. He said that some studies say one thing, and some studies say another, and that's not true either, because there's not a single study that says that manmade global warming isn't happening.
I challenged his statement, just like 7 other people did.
Then Tommy misstated what a study about the sun and global warming had to say, and me and about 5 other people disputed that too.
Slothrop and Crimson2 and Jawill and Jimmy Craghorn and Dan Grady and Pete592 and What happened to Gannon and Greek Furnace and MHK and Draftedin68 and NativeOfSF all echoed what I said. All of them had similar arguments to what I had and pointed out the paucity of Tommy's arguments. Here are some of their comments in regard to his initial statement.
"If the jury is still out, they must be the dumbest 12 people on earth."
"The solanki study does not mean what you think it does. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
"The jury is not still out."
"Its the jury with Pauly Shore as the foreman. The only reason they're still out is because of his zany antics."
"Face it pal, the only jury that’s out is on your conscience!"
"Yet another canard, "the jury is still out."
"I don't think the jury is still out, but I think there are people that would like us to believe this."
"If I had a hammer...And, I was sure it would help, I'd beat myself in the forehead to stop the pain from listening to toadies like Hume."
Breaker,
What is meant by "the jury is still out" then?
I think we all understand the meaning of the jury is still out. My statement is that we're uncertain the nature or fundamental subject of the deliberations. We're given a general topic, but not a focus as to what specifically the jury's deliberating.
Breaker,
Then what does "the jury is still out mean"?
It goes directly to the sun's warming and it's responsibility, if you don't want to find it, just don't opine on it's worthiness if you are too lazy to look it up.
I did look it up. It does not opine on man-made global warming, like I said. It's too bad that you didn't provide a link to it, like I will below, so that anyone willing to look at it could see that it didn't support what you said.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-03-03.asp
His study says that there has been minor warming here because of differences in the Sun's activity, but it does not call into question man-made global warming. In fact, he said "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
All you did was insult me because you made a foolish, unsubstantiated comment right at first. Your comment that some studies say one thing and some say another on this topic is wrong.
The solanki study does not mean what you think it does. There has been not increase in total solar irradiance since about 1950. Thus, solar cannot be responsible for the increased warming since the 1970's. If you don't believe me, then ask the Max Planck Institute, where Sami Solanki works:
"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
Link
But it is warming the earth, perhaps not dramatic levels, but it is contributing to global warming....and that was my point - the jury is still out.
I don't follow your comment.
To be clear, the sun is not responsible for any of the increase in global temperature since the late 1970's. Solar increases did play a minor role in the first part of the century.
Perhaps you didn't read your link specifically mentioning the last 50 years of the previous century, and the last 20-30 years.
I said it's affect is not severly dramatic, but it has had an affect nonetheless.
And for the last time, I said the jury is not 100% settled, or is still out. If you disagree, fine.
You're still wrong. The jury is not out. Solanski said, and I quote "This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
Tommy, the argument you are making would get a failing grade from a middle-school science class.
Your "example" shows that the current warming trend is not a result of solar activity, but you are saying that since the sun warms the earth in general, then the jury is still out. That is asinine! Of course the sun warms the earth. Back to the middle school class, that is why we have life on earth! It does nothing to explain the current warming trend, as shown by your own "example".
Going back to your first post, a more honest statement would have been, "One industry-funded, non-peer reviewed opinion article says this, 10,000 peer-reviewed studies say that."
If the jury is still out, they must be the dumbest 12 people on earth. God help me if I am wrongly accused of a crime and have to face those idiots!
Its the jury with Pauly Shore as the foreman. The only reason they're still out is because of his zany antics.
The jury is not still out. Repeating something false does not make it true through iteration. The study clearly does not raise any doubts concerning the source of the current climate change. To argue that it does, it to be misleading. The jury is not still out and this article does nothing to change the basic facts concerning global warming.
Tommy, what do you mean then...what exactly is the jury still out on? Does human generated global warming exist or not?
What I meant was there are plenty of factors out of our control which contribute to global warming.....and that the cycles of planetary warming and cooling have generated many different studies over decades.
Do I believe the alarmists? No. Do I believe those that say it is a hoax? No. As I said, the jury is still out.
Tommy, I still am confused at your position on human generated global warming. Could you answer the question directly. Do you think it exists or not? Or are you saying you don't know if it exists?
Yes, I believe it exists, how can it not? But to what extent it is having and how dire the situation we are in is still in question, for me.
I don't what you are looking for me to say, actually.
Thank you, that was the clarification I was asking for. So you didn't mean the jury was out on the existence of human generated global warming--instead you meant the jury was out on the effects of human generated global warming and the jury was still out on what could or should be done about it. I hope I am restating your position correctly. I think your position is one many reasonable people have...you can't argue with the science of its existence but the effects and what could and should be done about it is still open for critical debate. I agree...I wish we could actually hear that debate in the public arena rather then the pointless one about its existence.
What "studies" say that man-made global warming is not real and is not a real threat?
To be fair, I don't think this was an argument presented by the previous post.
The previous poster said that the jury was still out.
The jury is not still out. The jury has come down with their decision that man-made global warming is real and a threat.
The previous poster said that the jury was still out.
My point being that he didn't offer a clarification as to what the jury was deciding. Your assumption was that he was saying the jury is out with regard to whether or not man-made global warming exists. My statement is that, in the interest of fairness and honesty, one should understand someones argument before they characterize it as necessarily false.
The jury is not still out. The jury has come down with their decision that man-made global warming is real and a threat.
My bad. Forgot to delete the last portion of previous post. Sorry.
I think you are really bending over backwards here. When someone says the "jury is out" the phrase has a meaning and is used to indicate there isn't a difinitive answer yet. Tommy did not say the jury was still out on anything other then human generated global warming. Taken in the context of the thread it is pretty clear. If tommy didn't mean to say that then all he had to do was clarify what it is he did mean the jury was out on.
I don't know that I'd consider it bending over backwards. While I'm no stranger to the meaning of the idiom 'the jury's still out', and while I accept everyone's ability to make basic interpretations to the phrase when combined with the subject at hand, I'm making a simple clarification that it was never stated what the jury was attempting to decide with regard to 'human generated global warming.' Many people assume that the OP was referring to the very existance of HGGW. I'm not denying that as a logical assumption. I'm only pointing out that there are other logical assumptions to be read from the statement (e.g. that the jury was out with regard to the level, significance, danger, or feasible counteractivities with regard to HGGW), and that it's not entirely fair to impose an argument onto somebody when they're not necessarily making it. I don't think that's bending over backwards at all. I just think it's basic civility.
Seems to me basic cicility would have dictated a civil reply to nomo's post which basically asked for clarification. Nomo did not misrepresent or take Tommy's comments out of context. Nomo read his comments as most would since as you have acknowledged there is a universal understanding of the phrase "the jury is out". I think it was up to Tommy to provide that clarification in a civil manner if his comments were misunderstood. Afterall, civil discussion is what we want in the end isn't it?
Seems to me basic cicility would have dictated a civil reply to nomo's post which basically asked for clarification.
On the contrary, Nomo used his interpretation of Tommy's assertion to dictate a question which did not necessarily relate to Tommy's original assertion. He wasn't asking for a clarification. He was asking for proof to support an argument that had not yet been clearly made. There's a pretty fundamental difference between asking for clarification of a point and asking for someone to prove a point. That's the point I've been making from the start.
Nomo read his comments as most would since as you have acknowledged there is a universal understanding of the phrase "the jury is out".
I don't know how you take my admission of an understood meaning in the expression 'the jury is out' to mean that there's only one plausible interpretation to the statement Tommy made.
I think it was up to Tommy to provide that clarification in a civil manner if his comments were misunderstood.
I think this an absolutely fair point. One that, again, strikes to the heart of my original point. That we shouldn't judge an argument until the nature of that argument is clear to us.
Afterall, civil discussion is what we want in the end isn't it?
Oh if it were only so.
Breaker,
Are you saying Tommy shouldn't have responded in a civil manner to nomo?
I don't understand how you would get that from anything I've said. My whole entry into this conversation was based on the idea that we should allow people to make the argument they're making, and not impose an argument onto them that they have not yet made.
Tommy made a statement. The statement could only be interpretted so many ways, but there was certainly more than one interpretation. We could certainly have a discussion with regard to his motives in making the statement. I think it's clear they were provocative in nature, so I definitely understand from a rational standpoint why there was this rush to judgement as to the specific meaning of the statement, but I don't mistake that rationalization for a justification.
I thought it was important to note that he may not have been making the argument Nomo was asking him to prove.
Breaker,
Thanks for your reasonable posts. Perhaps my initial post was unclear and I have since clarified it in responses to Lostlogic and MHK.
However, Sue/NBush's knee jerk reaction was to intentionally mischaracterize my position....she was not looking for clarification, but rather provocation.....as she always does.
Your thoughtful posts are appreciated.
Still delusional I see, Tommy.
My point was to point out that you were wrong. You claimed that the jury was still out, because some studies say this, and some studies say that. That's wrong, because the jury is not out. The study you cited did not say what you repeatedly claimed it said. You have been told this by numerous posters. The study author himself says that the sun has had no effect on the current global warming we're seeing.
My point all along was nomo's response was a resaonable response to Tommy's post. Is it possible her read of his post was inaccurate--of course. But it was a reasonable interpretation of his comment and nomo asked a resonable question based on that interpretation. A simple clarification on Tommy's part would have corrected nomo's apparent misunderstanding of what Tommy meant. I often am misunderstood (I am clarity challenged apparently )-: ) and when someone poses a response to something I said that doesn't accuratley reflect my intended meaning I will clarify it so that we are not going off on a tnagent that neither of us meant. I felt you were chastising nomo without cause that it was a valid question and one I was interested in hearing a response to but instead we went on and on trying to figure out waht Tommy really meant--seems a waste of time. So having got that clarification from Tommy on my own I think I will opt out of further discussion about it. (-:
Here's the thing--and I absolutely agree that this isn't something we need to go much deeper into--Nomo's question was based on a reasonable interpretation, but that doesn't make the question a reasoned one. It was an argument that so many like to characterize as a 'straw man.'
Nomo knows Tommy to be a contrarian and a provocateur, so she allowed that judgement to blind herself from other obvious interpretations of what he said. Personally, I'm not convinced she didn't do exactly what Tommy wanted someone to do. I don't necessarily think many people come here for honest and civil discussion, so I don't have any trouble assuming some motives for Tommy's statement that don't include enriching the discourse. And I don't think either side in global warming debate want an honest and thorough discussion.
Breaker,
I gotta take issue with part of your statement. I don't deny coming on here with my point of view automatically makes me a contrarian, that's obvious. And I will even admit being a provocateur from time to time, it livens up the boards and maybe, just maybe, we can all learn something from each other with different viewpoints......the reason I come here is to get another side to many of my opinions, that's a good thing.
However, your accusation that I am motivated to lower the discourse and to not discuss issues honestly or forthrightly, while not wanting to enrich the discourse is absolutely false. Sure, I can be insulting and say things I may regret in the heat of dialogue, but hey, that's the norm on issues of such emotion. We are not robots. I am my worst critic when it comes to myself, I take full responsibility for my words and my opinions.
Thanks for your thoughts.
With respect, it wasn't my intention to make a direct accusation with regard to your motives. I can see how it could be interpretted that way though. Instead of saying that I don't have a problem assuming that your motives were less than noble, I should have said I don't have a problem imagining things that way. I honestly don't have a problem in that respect imagining ulterior motives to just about everybody in here. I don't blame you, nor do I mean to set you apart from the rest of the posters (myself included).
The nature of a anonymous system of posting is such that people use their anonymity as shield that allows them to show less respect for one another than they may have otherwise shown. People have a much easier time being rude and dismissive when they don't have to stand behind anything they say. Add to that the general atmosphere of MMFA forums (that generally revolve around the adversarial relationship between sycophants vs contrarians) and any hope for a heightened discourse are usually shattered rather early.
The jury is rigged.
I know what you mean. As a respected News Commentator has repeatedly said:
"Facts have a Liberal Bias"
But there are most certainly peer reviewed articles that clearly demonstrate human caused components of climate change are not significant in comparison with natural components of climate change.
It is the alarmist left that continually glosses over this fact by distorting the recent climatic variations as 'extreme'. A 0.6 degree C shift in climate over a century is not extreme, especially when it is 100% certain humans did not cause all of it, when the natural climatic variablility over the last 500,000 years is more than 10 times that number. A simple examination of the available ice core reconstructions clearly demonstrates these facts. Chose one, any one. Try this one. If you read the entire article, you find out the natural variations over this interval have a range at least 16 degrees C and possibly 20.
The above mentioned article says this too: "Past episodes of temperatures above the present-day values by up to 5°C are recorded at both locations during the penultimate interglacial period" This means it got a full 5 degrees C warmer at the locations of these ice cores during the last interglacial period than it is now and that was entirely due to non-human causes. inescapable conclusion--> Human activity to date has not caused climate variations that are significant or outside the range of 'normal' as defined by this planet's recent geologic history.
You are completely misrepresenting climate history. Nobody is claiming that it has never been warmer in history than now. The problem now is that the immense amount of greenhouse gases spewed continuously into the atmosphere by us has altered the natural cycle and is creating a warming trend that is more rapid and possibly will become much warmer than other peaks. That has nothing to do with the current temperature as compared with historical peaks.
No study has concluded that our imput has or will not have any effect.
It is not possible when mankind can only generate 3 percent of greenhouse gasses.
Until climate science can study and predict and verify it is relatively worthless.
How can I possibly misrepresent climate history when I have just posted a graph, lifted directly from a ice core data collected by reputable scientists plotting mean global temperature over the last several hundred thousand years? That graph IS the recent climate history. It's bare naked for everyone to see. It says what it says.
I am much more inclined to believe that the alarmists are misrepresenting the future climate of this planet since all of their predictions are based on computer models that share these properties: (1) No two of them agree. (2) None of these models is able to correctly regress all the known climate data sets without, at the least, some "special assumptions" for one of the intervals. and (3) No one can tell us which, if any, of these models is correct.
The natural history I presented is based on proxy measurements. The alarmist predictions of near term climatic catastrophe are based on computer simulations, theories and rank speculation. And you have the nerve to tell me I am misrepresenting climate history?
I don't know that your conclusion is inescapable. I do believe there's a lot of alarmism, but I'm far from convinced at least some of it isn't warranted. I feel like the scientific community is, and always has been a place, of generational dogma. I find it hard to accept at face value anyone who suggests the lack of debate as proof that they're right. Especially when that same group goes to concerted efforts to quash debate.
That being said, I'm skeptical of the other extreme as well. I understand the desire to confront an alarmist position with the opposite extreme, but I think it's a foolish way to make a point. I think establishing an honest and civil discourse on this and other issues should be among our goals. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be the goal of most people taking part in the discourse.
If you pay close attention to the people who are being labeled "deniers", especialy people like Richard Lindzen, you will realize they are telling the absolute truth are are most probably correct about the near term future. This is why they literally destroyed Gavin Schmidt and Richard Sommerville in that debate in NYC.
The "deniers" say this: Man, because he resides on earth, is necessarily in included within the 'system' being modeled is therefore part of the system and will inescapably have some effect on its behavior. The demonstarted human effect has thus far been small, unmeasureable without the aid of modern scientific instruments, and of similar magnitude to the concurrent natural phenomena. Recent climate history has shown that these human induced variations are small, and entirely within the scope of historic natural variations.
This is anathema to those who want to pervert climatic variation into an excuse of socialist inetrvention and the further expansion of big government.
First, Hume misrepresents the study he is talking about. It doesn't concludes what he asserts it does.
Second, there is no study that concludes that the recent warming is due to solar irradiance.
First, Hume misrepresents the study he is talking about. It doesn't concludes what he asserts it does.
Technically, from the transcript give, Hume doesn't claim anything about the studies findings other than it finds correlation between solar radiation and periods of warming. I haven't read the study, but that seems to be an accurate claim. That being said, one could argue that he's being contextually misleading by placing the study up against findings that purportedly refute warming's relationship with man or CO2 levels.
Second, there is no study that concludes that the recent warming is due to solar irradiance.
Are you certain about that? I only ask because I think it's probably not true. I don't know that it's not true, but given the fact that studies are almost always funded by agenda driven lenders, I wouldn't be surprised by the existance of a study that concluded just that. If not already published, then soon to be. Of course, the existance of a study--no matter what its findings--should not be viewed outside of the greater context of the origin of its funding. For example, one should not be surprised that the Chinese would fund a study suggesting CO2 levels have no relation to rising temperatures.
You are factually incorrect about the absence of any study that attributes recent warming, i.e. since the little ice age, to increased solar activity.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95GL03093.shtml
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
I can produce several more if I wanted to take the time. Do your own research.
How can you possibly have an informed opinion when you are so ill informed on this subject?
Recent warming, ie since the little ice age?
What are you trying to pull?
The issue of man-made global warming is the effect since the industrial revolution in the 19th century, and mostly in the great boom in the last 50 years, man, not since the little ice age!
This is horse crap, something you prove yourself full of on a regular basis.
This composite of several reconstructions says that its been getting warmer since about 1700. It also says that it is only slightly, about 0.2-0.4 degrees, warmer today than it was around 1000 AD during the last thermal maxima.
And here is another one of those peer reviewed papers you and your ignorant kind continually deny exist. This one says the 50% of all warming observed since 1900 is due to solar activity. That puts man's maximum contribution to the equation at no more than 0.4 degrees C. This is not measurable without modern technology.
Talk about ignorant. You must have gone to the Brit Hume school of posting.
1. The first study you reference states that "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55 °C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970. © American Geophysical Union 1995" By the 12 year old article's own admission two thirds of the recent warming trend would NOT be from solar radiation.
2. Your second study states "Recent results have indicated strong correlations between the total cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux, indicating that this could be the missing link between solar activity variations and climate changes. If this relationship can be confirmed and understood, a major obstacle in our understanding of natural climate variations may be removed and our chances of a credible estimate of the effects of manmade greenhouse gases could be significantly improved." This study once again does not dispute man made global warming. They are seeking to determine greater accuracy.
3. The graph you have shown also does not dispute global warming. Additionally, there has been some skepticism of the Medieval Warming Period that can be cited here. [link to en.wikipedia.org] The final abstract you reference does not say "50% of all warming observed since 1900 is due to solar activity." It says The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900 (Scafetta and West, 2006)." Your quote gives greater certainty that the authors of the study. Furthermore, if this research is similar to the first study most of the increase would be during the first half of the centure (before the major man made releases of greenhouse gases).
No one is saying the planet hasn't been getting warmer since the little ice age. Scientists have also not said that solar output is a factor in world temperatures. What they have said is that solar radiation and other naturally occurring phenomena can not account for the totality of the recent temperature changes. If anything the studies you have cited also seem to show that solar radiation can not (by itself) account for the changes in the last 30 to 50 years.
I don't think you are ignorant of this research. Maybe you are just 50% less smart than everyone else who read it.
To be fair, the post you're responding to is a refutation of the statement that 'there is no study that concludes that the recent warming is due to solar irradiance.' All one has to do to prove that statement wrong is to cite evidence of studies that attribute ANY recent warming to solar irradiance. It seems the cited studies do just that. Right?
The wikipedia? This is your only source? Don't make me laugh.
He-Boy, maybe you'd like to take a little side step into the twilight zone. Come and debate over on Newsbusters. They have a forum there anybody can use. Let me see you make your point in the Newsbuster's forum.
Warning: There a lot of those evil Deniers over there. Some of them have Phd's in the hard sciences. Try to guess which ones.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
One study says this, another study says that........just more evidence that the jury is still out for human generated global warming. // TOMMY
Face it pal, the only jury that’s out is on your conscience!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady"the jury is still out for human generated global warming"
Is this a criminal or civil jury?
(I think you know where I'm going with this)
It seems the jury is pretty much in, and the verdict on global warming is pretty much "Guilty", but you have a good point about the environment: we should be careful regardless of the certainty of GW.
Yet another canard, "the jury is still out." Actually, the article is quite clear that the jury is not still out. You have clearly misrepresented the nature of the study and what it showed. You have done that either through ignorance or something else. Either way, it is dishonest to suggest that the jury is still out concerning global warming. That is simply not true. The jury is not still out. Only those who would pretend there is some debate concerning the reality of global warming would suggest that. Either that or pure ignorance.
I think we should all realize that something is going on in our world today when it relates to global warming. Hume can spin this anyway he wants. When we have 70 MPH winds yesterday in Chicago, flooding in Ohio and category 5 hurricanes and 58 degree weather in NY , its abnormal. Something is wrong, I wish the FOXIes would stop denying it.
I think Brit Hume should arrange to have that Krauthammer guy on his show. They can debate and challenge one another for 30 seconds until they both grudgingly agree that the facts on climate change are exactly what their sponsors and the GOP have told them they are.
Why the GOP refuses to budge on this issue is beyond my scope of thinking, we are all human and our world is in danger. I guess old men like Cheney feel they will not be around in 15 years anyway so who cares as long as they can make money today?
I think the GOP has budged quite a bit of this issue. We can certainly debate as to whether they've moved far enough--and the comments of certain GOP lawmakers definitely illustrate an argument against the notion they've moved far enough--but to suggest they haven't moved at all is, I think, pretty inaccurate.
Please don't read this response as being argumentative.
Could you please cite some examples of how the GOP has moved at all on this issue?
I think the very fact that many Republicans have begun to recognize global warming as a phenomenon is evidence that the party has moved on the issue. One could easily argue that this is a false argument seeing as scientific evidence forced the move, but the fact that they're at least accepting the existance of such a thing as global 'climate change' that characterized primarily by the rising of air and water temperatures is a significant movement (regardless of whether or not they were dragged kicking and screaming).
Yes, could you provide an example where national republicans have moved on this issue?
Bush
Gingrich
Pat Robertson
I do like it when people do my research for me.
I was curious, and iIt looked like a fun little project, LOL.
John McCain has made it a campaign issue, or has at least listed it as one on his website.
Sam Brownback has proposed legislation that deals with global warming.
Rudy Giuliani has publicly stated that he believes global warming exists and we should be taking steps to combat it.
That's right. Money.
Tommy says 'The jury is still out...' Until the Republicans find some way to make money - a lot of money - off of reducing greenhouse emissions, etc... they will never budge. It always boils down to money with the Republicans. The jury will always be out.
That's right: Control.
I could say it all boils down to more intrusive government control on people's lives and telling people how to live, and higher taxes, but I won't.
Aren't these talking points fun to bat around?
Talking points? Get over yourself. Tell me my 'talking point' is false. It ain't. The baseline for you is to whine about 'control'. I don't get it.
It boils down to money. You think that's a 'liberal lie'. Good for you.
Hey Greek that isn't fair! Tommy did say the jury was out, but he didn't say anything about it being due to greedy Republicans.
T -----> part of the jury is always going to be out. They have a vested interest in keep the status quo. How much of the jury being "in" will it take to convince you that we need to start getting serious?
MHK,
I also said in my post that everyone on this planet should do whatever they can to leave this planet in better shape than when we arrived. We are stewards of our environment, not owners of it.....we have a responsibility.
The politics of it from both sides do not interest me, if they have their agendas, so be it. This should not even be a political issue, but it is. We need to be sensible, fair and reasonable when it comes to the environment. It needn't be trashed for corporate interests, or put in a bubble to satisfy extremists either.
We should all be working together, not against each other.
And now let's all have a group hug and sing Kumbaya!
T your not really answering my question... I think you need a hug. You just reframed the same argument, but added your environmental stewardship caveat at the beginning and your Kumbaya reference (which was pretty condescending I might add, but I still like you anyway)
If I'm reading your argument correctly, I think your stating that the main people in the debate on global warming are political Corporate and Environmental extremists. I disagree, I think that there are numerous respected scientists, public policy makers, business people and concerned citizens that agree that global warming is an issue and that we cannot continue taking a wait and see attitude.
I don't think the jury is still out, but I think there are people that would like us to believe this. I think that we have certain interests in our society working against socially and environmentally responsible change because they've got too much to lose if we change the status quo. Historically speaking we've always had groups of people against change for the same reasons, just like we do today. If you want an examples look at workers rights or the early enviornmental movements. I would also point out that many of these people try to frame this issue as "all or noting" as if our only 2 choices are to continue with our way of life or live in grass huts eating twigs.
MMMMmmmmmMMMMm, Twigs.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that everyone agrees that global warming is a threat. Then what? You think we can turn things around?
I think getting serious about our mode of transportation would be a good start.
We cannot continue putting convenience and profit before everything else.
This article makes clear how difficult it will be to have any substantive effect on human contributions toward global warming.
An Excerpt: The global-warming debate's great unmentionable is this: We lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb growth of emissions.
Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that emissions of carbon dioxide (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/newsweeks_global_warming_crusa.html
That's a lame argument Bruce... Since we can't.... well, we may as well not even try, right? Come on. In my mind, a little is better than nothing. Maybe a little... or even a lot... makes no difference? If we don't know...Why take the risk? Why? Because the entrenched energy moguls will lose money in the cross-over. And, that's bad (for them).
Ultimately, will it even matter for the likes of me or you? No. So...Who gives a sh*t?
In taking on the challenge of solving any problem no matter how big or small, clearly the goal is to only go down roads that will actually solve the problem. You must know this.
With that said, it doesn't make sense (to me) to turn our way of life upside down with the goal of solving global warming when the "solutions" will not solve the problem.
Well... that's a mighty slipper slope, okay? On both sides... The problem I see/hear from the so-called 'right'... is that any change or notion of change in regard to limiting fossil fuel emissions is met with the idea (as Tommy said above) of our lives being turned upside down, governmental control, etc, etc, etc... In the end, nothing gets done because there's all this complaining about 'control'. Well, damn... the perpetual use of all these extreme examples of how our 'freedoms' will be ruined by exercising a bit of restraint is (in my mind) crazy... and selfish.
Very much like the gun control issue, frankly.
...and, I'll also use Tommy's line of reasoning... The jury is still out as to whether any tactics of these tactics will be useless. We don't know. Therefore, we should try.
...typing fast. sorry.
"With that said, it doesn't make sense (to me) to turn our way of life upside down with the goal of solving global warming when the "solutions" will not solve the problem."--bruce
I think it is best to take an incremental approach to solving this problem. There clearly is not the political will to solve everything about it and I understand that. Why not start with setting a goal of eliminating the ICE? It would seem to be a common goal shared by the left - for environmental reasons and the right - for strategic oil dependency reasons. I honestly think the candidate that figures that out can win the next election. This should not be about left-right division. We need to come together and set realistic goals first. Once those goals are achieved, we need to re-assess the situation and look for natural alliances that can improve the situation more.
Bruce, that's defeatist talk. If you're resigned to surrender, retreat and defeat, That's ok with me. But are you thinking about the morale of our environmental scientists, or how you're emboldening the SUV manufacturers?
In the words of Rush and his acolytes who post here, IT'S NEVER TOO LATE FOR VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;0)
Very nice. On second thought, wanna buy some carbon credits?
Well Beach I'm buying a new Ford Explorer. Does that make me a bad person :-/
But I'll gladly buy up some of them ole carbon credits if I only knew where to purchase them....anyone got Al Gore's phone #?
I don't think you're a bad person Jeter. Heck, every housewife and accountant in Orange County drives a huge-payload off-road vehicle, and they're mostly nice people.
I'm just wondering why you don't wait for the '08 Ford Compensator to come out. I just saw some early prototypes.
It actually has a huge helmet-shaped hood, and a rear bumper shaped like "onions". It comes in European Peach, Latin Brown, and Urban Chocolate colors.Some customizers are already offering to pinstripe them with veins.
My sis is a staunch Republican who's mantra boils down to..."Choices". She chooses to drive a big gas guzzler. That's her biz. But, to belittle other's efforts or the notion that we need to (somehow) tidy up the environmental waste and excess is... well, lame.
Greek,
Are you suggesting only Republicans buy SUV's??
I know Democrats that choose to drive those big gas guzzlers too. You'll find one in every other driveway in my neighborhood. Including those houses that had 'Elect Deval Patrick Governor' signs in their yards last year...he's a Liberal/Democrat.
I honestly have no clue on how to go about purchasing carbon credits. I figured Al could clue me in.[well ok that was a tad snarky]
No, of course not. I live in LA - the place is full of so-called liberals who are the worst in regards to waste, etc... But, I hear a lot of weird sort of rationalization about how this or that tactic won't work, it's useless... and yes, belittling those who have an honest desire to see some change for the better, etc... That's all.
My honest opinion - it prob won't make a difference... I'm more concerned with reducing our dependency on oil... use of better more efficient technology, maintaining our resources and environment (including air quality)... for today.
If you are truly interested in carbon offsets (or credits), check this out:
http://www.nativeenergy.com/
Wind and methane, baby, the wave of the future!
I'm producing methane right now.
Greek, I actually get government subsidies as an incentive to produce less methane. They don't know I'm exporting surplus to methane poor nations. I'm actually competing with Mexico.
You never said anything about a new Ford Explorer when I said you were my 2nd favorite. Don't make me put you behind LeatherHelmut.
Are you doing some back road driving thru suburbia? Enjoy paying at the pump, I'm sure Exxon/Mobile will send you an X-mas card this year.
Actually I live in the burbs, & work close by. I really wanted a truck [but the wife said an SUV would be better].
We use our Honda Accord for longer trips.
Does that meet with Liberal approval? ;-)
Beneath Leather huh? Well I can only be who I am :-)
I wanted a truck too but I ended up being too cheap to rationalize the gas expense. I guess I don't get much credit for it since it really wasn't care for the environment that made my decision it was my cheapness. (-:
No credit whatsoever Lost Logic! ;-)
I used to own a Chevy Blazer, got rid of it & bought a Toyota Corolla. But occasionally I need a vehicle to haul stuff & owning a truck or SUV seems practical for that reason.
Lot more transportation choices than there used to be. Some highly efficient. One I've used for a long time is a motorcycle. The Ducati 748 I've had for a few years and 22,000 miles returns 40 mpg. It has enough excitement for any sane person, and will keep most insane people entertained as well. One of the trustworthy front ends in motorcycling. Currently waiting for some bearings for the rear hub (Waa!). Scooters are cool too. There's a desiel/w a turbocharger bike out that give 110 mpg. Trikes can be nearly as efficient. Not for everyone perhaps,I do park it when its near freezing, but as I say there are options and more of them coming. I'd like to get my bicycle moving again, its even cheaper and very good for me and dosen't require any new technologies.
Ok Ok... You get some credit for the Honda and your restraint on the Nomobush/Sueeld thing. Your still number 2!
How about this car on of these instead?
http://www.hybridcars.com/suvs-minivans.html
I find these arguments funny. We all want the same things right? Clean air, water, nature to enjoy, easy way to get to and from home.
Personally I think we're a lazy culture due to our size and resources... Japan has some great ideas.
Bruce, I think its a valid question. It is really complicated and all the different variables makes viable solutions difficult. I have to admit I found Gore's movie overwhelming. I came away from it concerned but also wondering can we really chnage this course.
Bruce; yes we can. Not the least of possible things to help was an item in LtCol Bateman's column this week of solar cells in the 42-50% efficiency range.
Well, I don't know if it has anything to do with global warming, but here in Tennessee, we've had almost two weeks of record breaking temperatures. I don't remember temperatures this high for more than a day or two at a time in my life. It's been over 100 every day...high of 109 predicted today. For people in Texas, that's no big deal....but it's highly unusual here.
Continuing off-topic...
Hey Nerzog my wife has family down in Tennessee...Brentwood to be exact. We were down your way last year for a visit. I love Tennessee, if I ever moved south, that's where I'd settle :-)
It's frigging hot up north [Massachusettes] today too. Tomorrow is supposed to be a scorcher.
What I know about Global warming you could fit on the head of a pin ;-)
Brentwood is beautiful...definitely one of the choice locations in Middle Tennessee. Great shopping nearby, too.
And New York City was in the national news for record cold weather in that same interval.
None of these events is relevant. When discussing the recent "normal" climate of the earth, a body approximately 4.5 BILLION years old, the time frame of interest is the last 65 million years .... Those who claim it is now warmer than at any time in the "recent" history of the Earth are very careful to confine the discussion to the last 2,000 because it is nopw about as warm to within 0.2 degree or so as it was around 1100 years ago at the height of the last warm spell. This is disingenuous at best.
No Sheet, Sherlock.
There is no doubt that the Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly.
The Earth will go on as it has for millions of years. But for most of that time, there were not billions of people who would be drastically and adversely affected by global warming. Now there are billions of people who will be. We don't have fluid borders anymore, so they can't just move away from the coastlines.
The difference between man-made global warming that we can have some affect upon and global warming or cooling that we can't have any affect upon is simply that. We can affect man-made global warming.
It matters not that the world has warmed and cooled numerous times. The issue is that we are causing the current rise, that its effects are going to be much worse on humans than other other change has ever been, and we can do something about that change, and the sooner we work on effecting that change, the better.
You call the recently measure effects of human beings on this planet drastic?
Do you also call the depredations of a few dozen mosquitoes on the backside of an elephant a pestilence?
Humans cause something that science can at best estimate as on the order of a 0.35 degree C increase in near suface global air temeratures and you want to equate this with a calamity. Try a 5,000 foot thick glacier sitting on top of Chicago, as was the case in the not-so-distant past. THAT is drastic.
Nothing is wrong. There have always been ALL of these events. There have been category 5 hurricanes. It has been 50 degrees in NYC in August in the past. There have been 100 mph winds in Chicago. There have been floods in Ohio. There was once even a mile-thick sheet of ice sitting on these places.
Just because an event is unusual in your lifetime is not proof that anything is wrong.
Your logic is non-sequitur.
As we clean up here after yesterday's storms, and read today's Tribune (The waves of storms pushed Chicago's official monthly rainfall to 9.17" making it the second wettest August 1-23 period in 137 years of records), my forecast is for a 90% chance that Hume will find it increasingly difficult to peddle his stale "skeptics" routine.
"A new study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz contends that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the U.N.'s recent climate study claims. Schwartz's work will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research."
Hume also messes the mark on this story. Climate scientist James Annan has found a fatal flaw in Schwartz's paper:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html#commentsSorry about that. Here is James Annan's discussion of the flaw in Schwartz's paper.
Brit Hume says.
Plus, new research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of global warming.
But the co-author himself says.
But Tung says "it reinforces the idea of melting ice as an amplification mechanism in the climate-change models."
So where did Hume get his information? He surely did not read the original article himself. Apparently his sources are unnamed.
---ML
I'm not sure about that. But the information about Schwartz's paper was posted earlier this week on the National Review's Planet Gore.
More Hume nonsense:
Don't you find it weird that Hume would ignore our own American Meteorological Society (not to mention NASA, the NAS, NOAA, etc., etc.) and cite the Belgian Weather Institute?
How important is the Belgian Weather Institute? Well, as of 1:38PM CDT, this MMFA article was Google's sixth hit for "Belgian Weather Institute." All 28 results had to do with the "Institute"'s "study."
So, they're creating phony institutes now. I wonder if they are affiliated with the Paris Business Review?
The Belgian Weather Institute tends to waffle on a lot of issues.
Probably syruptitiously saving their biscuits in the face of a misinformation media blintz that is mostly full of a latke crepe.
If it a pun-off, it must be Friday.
Don't you be buttering us up now.
Oh Belgium man! Just put yer waffles under too much ice cream. all the stiffness just leaches out of them. It can add that special something to your next food fight. Not recomended for use with hat waffles.
Ever eat a jellyfish?
Its hard to keep it on your fork.
The employees made the bosses make pancakes for them one Saturday morning when the place needed to be cleaned up after a bad windstorm. If they had to clean up, the bosses were going to have to cook for them was the joke.
The bosses were all middle-aged men who had no idea how to cook. Someone made a joke about a boss whose last name was Foote making pancakes and how they might not smell so good, and someone else commented on how they'd taste even worse with "toe jam" on them.
He got called "ToeJam" until he retired.
If I had a hammer...And, I was sure it would help, I'd beat myself in the forehead to stop the pain from listening to toadies like Hume.One of the most remarkable things about the entire global warming discussion is how seldom it includes even a brief mention of the unbelievable global business opportunities (hear that, corporate America?) that will present themselves to address this issue.I wonder - d'ya think that if Neil Cavuto, Roger Ailes and Brit put their heads together, they'd realize that.....Nah, never mind - that would require a long-term plan and as far as FOX NEWS and most of the rest of corporate America is concerned, "plan" is a four-letter word.
- One study says this, another study says that........just more evidence that the jury is still out for human generated global warming. - tommy
I agree and here's a little food for thought:
- "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." - American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate 2006
- "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." - Journal of Glaciology - 2005
- the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s. - Danish Meteorological Institute - 2006
The jury is a long ways from a verdict.
Wesley,
You actually prove the jury is not out with your post.
Your first quote about the glaciers in the Himalayas is not actually from the report you cite.
Also, all of the publications you do cite and the phenomena in them are attributed to Global Warming.
Nice try though, you actually prove that Global Warming exists with your examples.
That's probably the opposite of what you were trying to do.
Maybe you need to read the actual articles rather than right wing blogs that distort the truth.
Care to explain how GW causes Greenland to get colder and the ice sheet to grow?
Wesley,
It's in the articles that you cited. Global warming effects weather in different areas very differently.
Warmer summers and cooler winters are one. Warmer summers create more precipitation so when the cooler winter comes more ice is formed.
The temperature in any one part of the globe could be much colder, even if the average is getting warmer.
See, this is where your lack of understanding of the issue clouds your judgement.
No soap.
Two decades of colder weather in Greenland and growing glaciers and ice sheets is not weather...it's climate.
But you have touched on one of the great unknowns concerning GW...clouds and rain...and its effect on climate change...of which the IPCC and the scientific field admits knowing very little.
The jury is still out...except for the flat earthers.
Wesley,
Wrong again. Unfortunately you know nothing about weather or climate. You only know what you read on right wing blogs.
Keep trying!
It's hard to believe that people who don't know the difference between weather and climate try to educate us about climate, isn't it?
If the world warms up much more, then all of Western Europe will get colder, because the Gulf Stream circulation will stop. Those warmer ocean waters along the western shores of Europe help them have milder winters now. Without that warm current, they're going to have much colder winters.
It's all part of global warming (climate) messing with the weather in individual locations.
I'm sorry, Wesley, but Skeptical is right. You clearly are not understanding the actual science that's out there on this issue. You are merely repeating things from right-wing blogs who are lying to you (or don't understand themselves). Scientists are discovering all kinds of interesting (But by and large, harmful) examples of local phenomenon related to the changing climate, but the overall trend is holding true and has yet to be honestly or scientifically refuted.
Nope...I'm not a believer in manmade climate change as a catastrophe...not because of any "rightwing blogs".
Following is an example of why I'm skeptical about the so called settled science:
- The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times. Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957. However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated - Dr.Ball on the IPCC.
Are you a believer in man-made climate change at all?
Talk about cherry picking. This one little snipet hardly portrays the scientific consensus.
Why should I believe you, Wesley, rather than the best scientist i the world? Why have there been *no* peer reviewed papers refuting global warming?
It is a bit like going to the best doctors in the world, and being told that you have a 99% chance of some disease which can be cured if you act imediately, and then going to your neighbor who pulls some garbage out of a book to tell you that you just need to eat turnips, that the best doctors are just alarmist.
Not because of right-wing blogs, Wesley? Really? I guess you just saw all the journal articles by Dr. Ball supporting his accusations and that fueled your skepticism. Oh, wait a minute... He never offered any evidence whatsoever of his claim, let alone a peer-reviewed study. In fact, he's only published 4 journal articles in his whole career, which he has repeatedly lied about (He claimed to have been a professor for decades longer than he actually was one).
No, the only place you would have even seen Tim Ball's unsupported allegations was a right-wing blog because they have been the only ones to even touch this guy with a ten-foot pole.
- He never offered any evidence whatsoever of his claim -
Of course he did...read the article in the Canadian Free Press. He publishes the actual recordings vs. the ones used by the IPCC...clear evidence of his claim.
Sorry,
I meant warmer winters and cooler summers!
Similar to NASA...who can't even perform the basic science of recording temperatures accurately...thanks for the laugh.
Wesley,
I don't get your point!
Wesley is a denialist. He denies the planet is warming. He brings in fabricated quotes he got fourth-hand. And he thinks he's winning the argument.
Nope...just not an alarmist about manmade GW...and not willing to be led over the cliff with the thundering herd of sheep.
Wesley,
Please provide just one scientific study that says man-made global warming does not exist.
Just one!
But, here's the catch, opinions and unsubstantiated statements like the ones you have provided don't count.
Wrong assumption again...I have not discounted manmade warming...but I don't believe in the catastrophic claims.
Wesley,
But all of your arguments are against the claim of man-made global warming.
I don't think you even know what you are arguing.
The catastrophic claim...after all...what is the perfect global temperature?
The stop arguing that it exists. You have never provided an argument against the catastrophic effects only that it exists at all!
The catastrophic claim...after all...what is the perfect global temperature?
- - wesley / Friday August 24, 2007 04:22:14 PM EST
Answer: 42Wes,
Great points. Your debunking the alarmists with facts just doesn't go over well here. And your restraint in dealing with the religious fervor that many have on this topic is commendable.
Stubborn studies and facts, damn them.
Tommy,
He hasn't provided a single study or fact.
This is where you show your true colors.
What it shows about Tommy is how up is down and right is wrong when you debate with him.
It's people like Tommy who don't like to be proven wrong. Last week, he was totally off base on his allegations about a topic, and he got told that countless times by numerous posters, and he could not accept it.
It's Tommy who has an issue with that. No one has debunked anything we've said, and there's no one here who is a fanatic or extremist about man-made global warming and its affects. Tommy says "stubborn studies and facts", and it's true, those stubborn studies and facts that prove that he doesn't have a leg to stand on must be troubling to him. The facts and the studies are all on our side. The jury is not out.
He hasn't presented any facts at all, Tommy/Wesley.
Tommy,
Wesley presented a quote from the Journal of Climate that is a fabrication. I posted about this. Perhaps you missed it. If you think there is not a concerted effort to muddy the waters vis-a-vis climate change, you are not paying attention.
It seems that you are trying to cite examples to show that there is no global warming at all, not just arguing about the level of human influence on the warming trend. Good luck trying to get anybody in any field of science to agree with you there. I could fill dozens of pages with just references to journal articles showing the effects of a warming planet on virtually every ecosystem on earth.
That evidence is so rock-solid that even the industry-funded think tanks have backed off of trying to dispute that. They are going with the "the globe is warming, but it is natural/solar/insignificant and even if we're talking out of our butts, there is nothing we can do about it/we can't turn back/it would destroy the economy."
By the way, the Himilayan glaciers are seen as a local phenomenon that does nothing to argue against the global average trend of shrinking glaciers and could be similar to some Swedish glaciers that grew for a few years despite rising average temps, but have since started shrinking since 1999. As far as the Greenland Ice Sheet, newer studies using data through 2005 (your referenced study used data up to 2002) show that there has been a recent increase in ice melt in Greenland and there is now a net loss of ice, similar to Antarctica's net loss.
The supposed quote from the Journal of Climate was fabricated by someone from the Heartland Institute:
"Taylor writes:The September 2006 issue of the Journal of Climate does contain a paper about Himalayan Glaciers, but Taylor's quote is a fabrication. What the paper actually says is:
So the glaciers feeding just one of the seven major rivers that flow from the Himalayas are expanding, but the rest are shrinking and global warming is to blame."
Source
If you want to know about glaciers, I suggest looking at the World Glacier Monitoring Service. You'll find glacier mass balance in a steep decline.
- In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false." -
Hey Wesley,
Did he provide some basis for his claim?
Change the subject much?
You can have Jaworowski, I'll take the Royal Society, the NAS, AMS, NOAA, EPA, AGU and the rest.
Wesley,
Do you also know that he is the Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection?
He has no background in this field except as a mountaineer!
Thanks, Media Matters. I posted this onto NRDC's new blog site, Switchboard, with a call out for your services.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/pgutis/media_matters.html
As I wrote, Hume has been (once again) royally busted thanks to you.
Cheers,
Phil
The main point of the article is:
UW scientists said the GW deniers will sieze upon the study to say the Sun, not human activity, is the cause of Global Warming, when in fact the opposite is true.
The right-wingers went right out and erroniously siezed upon the report's findings anyway.
Right wingers are utterly predictable.
- The Achilles' heel of the computer models (which form the cornerstone of CO2 fearmongering), is their failure to deal with water. As vapor, it's a more important greenhouse gas than CO2 by a factor of twenty, yet models have proven incapable of dealing with it...
The first global warming modelers simply threw up their hands at the complexity of the water problem and essentially left out the atmospheric water cycle. Over time a few features of the cycle were patched into the models, all based on unproven guesses at the effect of increased ocean evaporation on clouds, the effect of clouds on reflecting the sun's energy and the effect of cloud warming on rainfall and snow. - Alexander Cockburn
Moose farts anyone?
Alexnader Cockburn the Journalist?
You cite a journalist with no background in science as your proof.
Again, what are you arguing? Either you believe in GW or not. If you believe, then why all the false notions?
Yep...refute his assertion on clouds and water vapor as used by the IPCC or other GW alarmists...then you will have raised a valid point.
Provide the basis for his assertions and I will.
That's what I thought...you can't...or won't...because it's plainly stated above.
No it isn't clearly stated. You have cited someone with absolutely no scientific background making a statement about scientific research.
If he has no background then what is he basing his statement on?
I would think that a scientist that is in this field and performing research would take into account all of these things which this journalist cites.
So, again I ask you. Where does this Journalist get the basis for his statements and how does he know the effect these things have?
The IPCC reports...it's all there...show where they have accounted for clouds and water vapor...no more excuses now...it's really not that hard.
Sorry Wes,
That's a straw man. They don't provide the raw data in the report!
au contraire...but you have to work at it...get to digging.
After all...a simple journalist could find it.
No Wesley,
I have read the entire report, not just the summary and it's not in there.
If you believe it is, then provide the link!
No such luck for you skep...you've just proven that you haven't read the entire report...but when you do...you'll find the info and you'll really enjoy the scholastic exercise.
You are lying right through your teeth. You made a claim, now back it up.
Sorry Again Wes,
I have and it ain't.
No luck for you!
Stop making stuff up, it's getting tiresome!
You're getting warmer...don't give up yet.
Wes,
I really don't get that statement!
Now you are playing the part of the troll, Tommy/Wesley. You can't provide any proof, so instead you choose to post nonsense.
Just admit you have absolutely no proof of what you say.
Okay, Tommy/Wesley, go back under your bridge.
The data...that Bush is an alien..and I'm a troll... it's there... IPCC report... you can't deny it...
Also Wesley,
If as you have previously stated, you don't deny GW just the catastrophic effects, why do you keep providing posts that are denying GW?
After raising a quite a number of points and having then summarily dismissed by the actual facts, Wesley says "well what about this one".
..and this one
..and this one
Each time with the same results and we are not supposed to notice? When will skeptics realize it will take a LOT more than the occasional glitch in the mountain of data. Instead we are offered mis-quotes and fabrication. Some by million dollar pundits like Brit Hume, the subject of this thread.
--ML
Sorry, Wesley, but this argument of your's is the worst yet because it only shows how little you know about the subject. The water vapor "gotcha" is the last turd always thrown out by people who know nothing about climate science. Please just read up on the real science behind the make-up of the climate, but also chew on this: Do you honestly think that all those climate scientists didn't know about or forgot about water vapor?
Of course water vapor is the majority. Everyone knows that. It doesn't prove that an increase in any or all of the others would not cause temp increase. If I have cancer, the majority of my cells are still non-cancerous. Does that mean I can ignore the cancer?
- Do you honestly think that all those climate scientists didn't know about or forgot about water vapor? -
Nope...I don't think they forgot about it. I think that they have found it too hard to quantify and have ignored it.
Conversely, I have never advocated that we not study the effects of CO2...we can study them all and honestly put them in perspective according to what we know and what we don't know.
Concentrating the research on the greenhouse effect of CO2...while ignoring the major greenhouse gas - water vapor - is the real turd floating in the bowl.
Concentrating the research on the greenhouse effect of CO2...while ignoring the major greenhouse gas - water vapor - is the real turd floating in the bowl- Wesley
Only to people who don't know what they're talking about and have been duped by indusrty-funded propogandists.
Or the grant farming industry of agenda driven scientists...receiving billions of dollars to promote GW...after all...it's hard to get grants if you buck the consensus.
Skeptical,
Would you say the same about Al Gore?
AA,
If Al Gore were trying to refute the work of scientists or making a claim about scientific research without citing another scientist, then yes I would.
Sorry, but I will take the work of a scientist over the words of a journalist or politician any day.
- The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). - Prof.Carter - environmental scientist at James Cook Univ.
Please Wesley,
Before you go on to more unsubtantiated statements, answer my question.
If you don't deny GW only it's effects, why all of the posts denying GW?
Simple...because I'm agreeing with the statement from Tommy that the "jury is still out" on GW.
It's perfectly alright with me that you believe GW is a crisis and one created by mankind...after all...there were many who wouldn't dare believe that the earth was round...but followed consensus...the original eyes closed deniers.
That's not the question.
Answer my question, not your question!
It's still very simple...I'm agreeing with Tommy that the jury is still out on GW...and pointing out the inconsistencies...consensus is not science.
Since you believe GW is a looming crisis...why don't you tell me...what is the perfect global temperature?
42
Finally Wesley,
Just about everything you stated has been refuted. How do you keep up your facade?
No intelligent person can continue arguing a case when all of his "proof" has been debunked.
And, I still don't get the point of your posts.
You said that you don't dent manmade global warming, yet everything post is to deny manmade global warming.
You just can't accept the fact the you have no clue about climate change, everything you cite is from a right wing blog and there is absolutly no scientific basis to deny global warming, yet you continue to try.
Although I am amazed at your lack of comprehension and inability to understand facts as well as your complete disdain for sticking to a point, I appreciate your tenacious clinging to a factless and utterly nonsensical position.
I must have missed it...what did you say was the perfect global temperature?
Sorry Wesley,
I don't get your point! I asked you a question that you refuse to answer.
You ask me a question that's impossible to answer.
What's your point?
If it's impossible to answer...then your tenets hold little water...
Since you think that GW is a pending disaster...what is that goal you're striving for?
I don't dismiss GW...but I don't follow the masses blindly...I'm not that vain.
GW might even prove beneficial to global mankind...
Wesley,
What are my tenets? I have never expressed an opinion about how"catastrophic" the effects will be.
You are the one denying the existenc with your posts. I am just supporting the existence with mine.
Now you change your stance when you can't substantiate your previous one.
I don't know what the "perfect" temperature is. I do know that Global warming wil have an effect. I know that some species will suffer and some may in fact benefit.
The coakroach for one will surely benefit. They have survived hundreds of millions of years. People will surely suffer.
That is not deniable, because certain parts of the planet will become un-inhabitable (Is that a word?).
So, I'm still not sure what you are saying or why. You claim that you don't dent GW yet you argue against it.
Then you claim that GW won't be bad even though there is absolutely no basis for that statement.
I think that you have no actual position, you just like to come and argue because when push comes to shove your arguments are empty.
Now that's more like it...
Of course the global temperature is changing...it always has. I'm not picking any argument about that fact.
My original statement said that I'm not convinced of the dire predictions of the GW consensus...and I stick by that.
I'm not willing to be spoon fed by the $2 billion grant farming industry that is reliant on people following like Mary's little lamb.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that you're wrong about global warming...I'm just citing some of the reasons why I'm skeptical of the crisis...and there are plenty of them.
62.4 degrees F. Now stop asking that stupid question!
Ok...I'll settle for your answer on a good global temperature.
There is not a good global temperature as far as the Earth itself is concerned. The Earth will go on, as it has for millennia, regardless of the temperature.
There is a massive problem for many in the human race and many other species too if the temp rises faster than it has in the past, and rises more than what the natural cycles would do. There are many more people living by the coasts who don't have fluid borders they can cross. We have much more infrastructure around the world that's going to be adversely affected by the rising sea level that will result from only a small increase in the global temperature.
If this rise in temp was something that was just part of the natural cycle and there was no way to combat it, that would be one thing. We can do something to help rein in that increase, since it's manmade, and so we should, because it's going to hurt so many people.
If you can't see the difference, it's because you don't want to, not because there is no difference.
The ideal averageglobal temperature? Right where it is now.
Wesley - Re. Professor Carter
Carter's background is in marine geology and has little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. The think tank that publicizes his assertions (given he has nothing published in peer reviewed journals on the topic) is funded by oil companies.
You may find a scientific refutation of the very claims you cite from Carter here.
Why am I not surprised to find this when I researched Carter's qualifications to comment on this topic?
Please don't post on science. You obviously do not understand it.GCM's do use water vapor, as it is a feedback to CO2 warming. The estimates for doubling of CO2 include the feedback of water vapor.
- In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity.
Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components,
it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable. - IPCC
Damn but this is getting fetid. And almost of a fallacious sophist as agent provocateur! So the jury’s out on “Global Warming”? Perhaps that algorithm beckons NOAA, the National Weather Service, et al. and their [combined] supercomputers to do the same thing? But the weather’s more fickle than that. Regardless of all the quantifiable data, qualitative information may, can and does skew. So what’s better, a Type I error or a Type II error?
Crack-open a PDR and see how many medicines’ operative mechanism ain’t known as to how it works. But it works! It does the job. Of course that’s “all things being equal” but that’s part of any a scientific method or process…until otherwise happens. And all must be observable & measurable. Probabilities may become debatable yet as predictors, so far it’s they best we got, within current scientific confines. So any demonstrations of schoolyard ear pluggings, with the appropriate “La-la-la-la-la’s” just don’t cut it. All these “Spitting into the wind” pissant, ego contests don’t do squat…except for the Tommys, Wesleys, bushies & others, amongst that ilk out there. There is, again, a plethora of this continual, disingenuous obfuscation perpetrated by these crocodile-tearingly contrite buffoons who cannot listen, refuse to answer and continue wheedling their fiddlings, whilst America…and the earth is destroyed?
OK sweetheart...I'll bite.
What is the perfect global temperature/climate...and how do we, as mere residents of this planet...ensure that it is obtained?
Wesley,
Are you saying that Global Warming will have no effect on the planet?
Having trouble keeping up?
Yes,
I'm having trouble keeping up with your contortions!
You are a troll, Tommy/Wesley. You have been made to look like a fool, but rather than admit you are wrong, you keep posting nonsense, hoping other posters will think you are actually arguing.
We are not fooled.
You haven't provided any proof at all for your argument.
Here are a couple of tidbits for you from the IPCC.
If GW is substantial...it will take over 2000 years to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass.
The jury has not even left the courtroom yet.
Wesley,
You still don't make any sense.
Your argument has changed numerous times.
I'm not even sure what you are saying anymore, especially since you have lied so many times.
What's the point of all of this.
You haven't proven a single one of your points, you've changed what you are saying and now yuou say it was all to prove that you don't follow the sheep.
That's exactly what you are doing.
Please try thinking for yourself. Look at the evidence and come to a conclusion, one that you can reasonbly defend.
Try a post without using one single point from a right wing blog. Just try it once, you might exactly learn something about yourself.
Are Tommy and Wesley ever here at the same time? It sure seems curious to me that Tommy seemed to disappear about the same time that Wesley appeared. Is this always the case?
"[B]ite"? It that what you wrote, wesley? Then, you can just...
Bite my klank, schmuck.
As a fifth column anarchist—you, Wesley, personify the definition of “The dilettante-as-ass.” Instead of any collegial discourse for the good of all, regarding this impending peril to humanity, you lubberly meander about with a querulously haughty air. With unremarkable waftings, you posit…nothing, characterizing the archaic punk. And your naysaying effluvia, harkens back to “The Emperor’s New Clothes” which portends your credo: “Ergo Myopia!”
Earlier today, Solon said this best:
“In other words the analysis is a matter of I don’t care what the FACTS are, I have an ideology and I am sticking to it. Good job.”
—Saturday August 25, 2007 12:29:37 AM EST— [link to mediamatters.org]
Oh my...such verbose prose...I'm certainly not worthy.
Understanding your passion...I thought you could clear up for me the over-arching question...what is the perfect global temperature that we should strive for...and how do we mortals ensure that it happens?
If your passion and understanding of the subject falls short of an answer...it's ok...we all have our limitations.
Again demonstrating that egregious flippancy of yours? The covertly churlish manner by which you operate, demanding others to step into your pre-ordained maladapted ploys, using subterfuge, simply disparages others’ words. You, Wesley, seem to delight in vilifying others and their facts. You are transparent. “[W]hat is the perfect global temperature that we should strive for…”? Such insincerity, crudely masked as naiveté, evinces your preposterous nature. Your petulant dictates incessantly drone ad nauseum. Nero comes to mind. For those coyly maladapted questions, you already know cannot be answered, indicate you are a douche bag. And before you can ever proceed cogently, you need to be properly bitch-slapped.
And I think he just was.
Game, set, & match to Nativeofsf!
I'm old enough to remember ALL the doomsday predictions during the 60's and 70's about how (1) the "population bomb" was going to lead to famine and mass starvation (2) the earth was going to soon run out of non-renewable resources (3) pollution from industrial countries was going to poison everyone.
REPONSE TO Tung and colleague Charles Camp
... yes and no. Yes, the temperature of the Earth is intimately linked to solar activity (duh!) but no, the consequences are nothing like Freddy the AGW Hysteric spins this piece. The major problem these days stems from excessive trust -- specialists of many fields apply their work to "global warming" trusting that current and historical global mean temperatures and trends are as advertised and that climate models and their output are as useful as the modelling fraternity claims. They do so without guile or malice but out of simple ignorance. Few are aware there is no agreed standard of what we are trying to measure, or how. Most don't know that models deliver a spread of ~5 K for the calculated Earth mean temperature, making the detection of changes an order of magnitude smaller over a century nothing but wishful thinking. Few know that enhanced greenhouse forcing from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide requires a massive (and yet-to-be-observed) water vapor amplification which simply refuses to manifest itself in the real world. Probably none of them realize they are attempting to found science on the unsupportable claims of a small coterie pretending to know the current temperature of the planet, along with its past and future trends.
Yeah! I remember when we were told that it was unsafe to play with mercury, too. And as it turns out, well, OK, so that was correct.
It's a damn good thing that these smarty-pants scientists are making them there scientific things for the masses because there are so many people like you who haven't even begun to read enough to argue sensibly. You could qualify as Tommy's father for that posting.
Science has allowed us to avoid many catastrophes. Fake science give us Fox-like commercials funded by ExxonMobil that tells us CO2 is our best friend in any quantity. When people like you were crying that we couldn't possibly pollute entire cities beyond recognition, we had, thankfully, the Greens and the real scientists who helped make those nasty emissions rules and laws that, face it, saved our collective butts. Take a trip to Taiwan or China and tell me that we can't change the face of the planet.
So, we know we can destroy the habitat of entire cities, so you'll argue that we can't do that for the entire planet.
We can change the climate, and we do change the climate. We did use CFCs, and we did listen (eventually) to them smart guys (damn educated, reading Librils) and we managed to alleviate potentially catastrophic changes we made to the stratospheric ozone.
It has been proven that man can make changes to that thin layer of protection we need to survive. Did you miss the news? Did you skip that lecture? Are you still not listening?
Even though the world's population has gone from 3-1/2 billion to 6-1/2 billion since 1970, we have no food, population or energy concerns to worry our pretty minds about. Thanks for reminding us of that.
But Dave, we're not all dead, so the scientists (or "alarmists") were obviously wrong.
I've even got leftovers in my fridge, and have not died of poisoning by pollution.Everything's A-OK!
There are numerous instances in history where a village, a kingdom or empire has destroyed their own environment. They either moved or invaded another area to take their resources.
We have been given an opportunity via numerous warnings from scientists to alter our behavior...reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels and develop alternative energy. If we do not change, we'll reap the consequences...and there is no other planet to move to or invade.