Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Bill Thompson]

In Bob Woodward's book he quotes Obama saying in their interview that another 9-11 style attack on the USA does not bother him. Our president says that the USA could absorb another such attack. He says that a nuclear attack from terrorists is what troubles him.

Well, humanity can stand some global warming. Another ice age, or worse yet, a snowball earth, is what we should really be concerned with.

One gets alot of press, the other does not. That does not mean one is more deadly just because everyone talks about it.

I make his post now because it just so happens that there is a link today on space.com's website to a story about snowball earth.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/snowball-earth-ice-age-winters-101104.html

http://i.space.com/images/snowball-earth-ice-age-winters-1-101104-01.jpg

These days the climate news is all about global warming, but global freezing was the biggest climate worry in Earth's distant past.
Long periods of severe cold – like Ice Ages on steroids – brought glaciers down to the equator and froze much if not all of the oceans.
Scientists still debate what triggered these so-called Snowball Earths, but equally uncertain is how the Earth unfroze itself. One research group is studying the hyper-greenhouse warming that would be needed to end a million-year-long winter.

Better yet, the current greenhouse is PREVENTING another ice age.

So, what have we all learned? I will tell you. We have learned that I am correct. Thank you for your kind admiration.

 

[Trakar]

...Better yet, the current greenhouse is PREVENTING another ice age...

Actually, this is incorrect. We are currently still in an "ice age" as there are still areas of the planet that have year round ice/snow cover. The current anthropogenic forcings are in the process of bringing this current ice age which began some 2 million years ago, to an end. Absent the forcings, the best estimates are that the climate would have remained relatively mild and moderate for several tens of thousands of years and then gradually increasing glaciations for a few thousand years, but this is so far into the future (several times the length of recorded human civilization)that urging a course of action which risks critically damaging or destroying in the near term the existent biomes of the planet and our civilization which depends upon the continued existence and productivity of these systems, to protect us from some undefined far future threat you feel may ba as bad or worse, is inefficient, ineffective and generally foolish at its basis. If you wish to discuss and promote your impending glaciation that AGW is saving us from beliefs, you are welcome to do so, but this thread is probably the inappropriate place for that discussion.

 

[a_unique_person]

The sad story of "Amazongate".

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101103/full/468007a.html

No matter that it is all a press beatup, namely the Murdoch press, it will be forever known now as another 'fact' that is wrong with the IPCC.

 

[JonathanQuick]

When you can talk intelligently about climate as occurs on Real Climate then let us know.
It's an article by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
Now do you have something cogent about climate news?

Professor Hal Lewis has "something cogent about climate news."

Read it here. He calls this the biggest scientific scam of his lifetime, due to the "literally trillions of dollars" driving it.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

 

[Trakar]

Professor Hal Lewis has "something cogent about climate news."

Read it here. He calls this the biggest scientific scam of his lifetime, due to the "literally trillions of dollars" driving it.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Exactly what is this aged and once venerable gentleman's expertise level in climate science, and why should his dottering tantrums be afforded any especial consideration? By his own admissions he hasn't bothered to study or seriously investigate climate science or its findings and doesn't even know or converse with any climate scientists. Sounds more like the confused rantings that has on occassion captured various members of the scientific community as they get old or otherwise seduced by woo. Dyson, himself fell intothis category in his later years.

At his age and considering the state of his carreer over the last few decades, I don't really blame him, if there are denialist groups offering him money and recognition in exchange for a few lies and rants, I just going to be happy that he found a way to survive these tough economic times.

 

[macdoc]

and there are lots of cranks about that think ID is correct as well and even a few flat earthers about....doesn't make your aging physicist any less wrong.

You do understand he has no background in climate science, no published papers in same and emeritus is nice speak for put out to pasture....

He's just another mouth piece for the denier industry.....
"Global Warming Policy Foundation"

and wrong...

Got any climate science to contribute???...thought not. Only political spam.

•••••

Meanwhile good article in ReaLClimate expanding the feedback aspect of climate change...

More on feedbacks

Filed under:

• Climate Science

— rasmus @ 2 November 2010
Guest post by Chris Colose (e-mail: colose-at-wisc.edu)
This post is a more technical version of Part 1, meant to quantify and expand upon some of the feedback concepts laid out previously. Additionally, the role of the water vapor feedback in planetary climate is discussed.

By convention, climate scientists define a feedback parameter, λ, to encompass the effects of the various feedback processes discussed in Part 1. In that post, it was noted that the ‘reference’ sensitivity parameter (λ0) was about 0.3 °C/(Wm-2). If we perturb the climate, this is the equilibrium temperature response (per unit forcing) that would be experienced after neglecting all feedbacks and only allow the planet to come back into radiative equilibrium. Creating this reference system (or baseline) is critical to discussing climate sensitivity, since positive and negative feedbacks are defined relative to how they modify this so-called Planck response

continues


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/more-on-feedbacks/

 

[bit_pattern]

Exactly what is this aged and once venerable gentleman's expertise level in climate science, and why should his dottering tantrums be afforded any especial consideration? By his own admissions he hasn't bothered to study or seriously investigate climate science or its findings and doesn't even know or converse with any climate scientists. Sounds more like the confused rantings that has on occassion captured various members of the scientific community as they get old or otherwise seduced by woo. Dyson, himself fell intothis category in his later years.

At his age and considering the state of his carreer over the last few decades, I don't really blame him, if there are denialist groups offering him money and recognition in exchange for a few lies and rants, I just going to be happy that he found a way to survive these tough economic times.

Frederick Seitz springs to mind, too...

 

[Furcifer]

Professor Hal Lewis has "something cogent about climate news."

Read it here. He calls this the biggest scientific scam of his lifetime, due to the "literally trillions of dollars" driving it.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

I suspect he will be attacked ad hom for his actions.

He's certainly been around long enough to know how to follow the money trail. Nobody wants to admit how profitable it is to pump out the pseudoscience and keep the politicians employed swapping carbon credits that will have no other effect but to line their own pockets.

 

[bit_pattern]

I suspect he will be attacked ad hom for his actions.

He's certainly been around long enough to know how to follow the money trail. Nobody wants to admit how profitable it is to pump out the pseudoscience and keep the politicians employed swapping carbon credits that will have no other effect but to line their own pockets.

The worlds most profitable companies are fossil fuel companies, who have a long history of funding think tanks connected to REAL pseudoscience, but of course the money trail leads back to climate researcher. Such impeccable logic

 

[bit_pattern]

I suspect he will be attacked ad hom for his actions.

He's certainly been around long enough to know how to follow the money trail. Nobody wants to admit how profitable it is to pump out the pseudoscience and keep the politicians employed swapping carbon credits that will have no other effect but to line their own pockets.

APS responds: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

And Eli Rabbet's take:

Well of course it's different, Lewis, should know, having plunged the money hose into his mouth, ears, nose and places where no one wants to go, especially when he was chair at Santa Barbara. Lewis is another patricide claiming mercy as an orphan. Indeed, this sort of accusation is very prominent from the senior denialists, mostly because that is what they have done and they expect that everyone on the other side is doing just what they did. Afterall, they did it and they are the smartest nuts on the tree.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/church-rips-hal-lewis-thesis-down.html

 

[Furcifer]

The worlds most profitable companies are fossil fuel companies, who have a long history of funding think tanks connected to REAL pseudoscience, but of course the money trail leads back to climate researcher. Such impeccable logic

I don't understand your point. Are you seriously suggesting the only money trail leads to "anti-AGW" think tanks? I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain the money goes both ways. I think it's foolish, nay naive, to think AGW studies are altruistic. Each side of this issue has it's vested interests.

 

[Furcifer]

APS responds: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

It seems like an odd response? They claim he says "that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false"

He doesn't seem to say that at all. I got the general impression his claim was that they were trying to aligned themselves in order to take advantage of the monies.

Semantics?

They only address the scientific observations on carbon dioxide, which I highly doubt was what Hal Lewis was meaning by the "pseudoscientific" nature of global warming. If it is he's certainly lost his noodle.

 

[macdoc]

The statement on climate change by the APS bears repeating and the 2010 addendum worth reading....

National Policy

07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

and the expanded 2010 version

Climate Change Commentary

(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)
There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

This enhancement derived from this...

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

• Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
• Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
• The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.” Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm


The subtext - "good riddance Dr. Lewis"....I concur...

 

[Mikemcc]

I suspect he will be attacked ad hom for his actions.

He's certainly been around long enough to know how to follow the money trail. Nobody wants to admit how profitable it is to pump out the pseudoscience and keep the politicians employed swapping carbon credits that will have no other effect but to line their own pockets.

Following the money trail seems to be quite difficult with respect to the GWPF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/09/global-warming-policy-foundation-job-advert

 

[Trakar]

I don't understand your point. Are you seriously suggesting the only money trail leads to "anti-AGW" think tanks? I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain the money goes both ways. I think it's foolish, nay naive, to think AGW studies are altruistic. Each side of this issue has it's vested interests.

If by "sides" you exclude the research and scientific investigation teams and experts and are only referring to the various commercial and public advocacy groups, then yes there is a money aspect to both sides. On the pro advocacy side there is money to be made by private companies building and installing alternative energy and transportation systems. On the con side of the argument the advocates are funded to attack the science, slow and attempt to discredit any research which builds support for the science or enhances the public perception of climate change issues while delaying any political action.
When it gets down to the individual level of public discussion such as these boards, I can't really speak to the motivations of others, but my personal drive is merely to learn what I can, share what I've learned, and try to create a better world for future generations. Politics doesn't play a significant role in perspective, primarily because I don't recognize any substantive difference between the two major political parties in this country, and consider them both to be bought and paid for by corporate interests (often the same corporate interests).

 

[Trakar]

Following the money trail seems to be quite difficult with respect to the GWPF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/09/global-warming-policy-foundation-job-advert

Is this primarily a transparency issue, or are there substantive reasons to believe that there may be vested interest monies making their way into the coffers?

 

[Mikemcc]

Is this primarily a transparency issue, or are there substantive reasons to believe that there may be vested interest monies making their way into the coffers?

Given that they've definitively stated they aren't taking money from energy companies I believe that it's more an issue that they are calling for full transparancy but, hypocritically, are not willing to observe the same rules.

I am at a loss how we in the UK allow politically motivated think-tanks (of all descriptions) to become charities, and hence claim tax breaks for themselves and their benefactors. It seems to be a recipe for deception.

 

[Furcifer]

If by "sides" you exclude the research and scientific investigation teams and experts and are only referring to the various commercial and public advocacy groups, then yes there is a money aspect to both sides. On the pro advocacy side there is money to be made by private companies building and installing alternative energy and transportation systems. On the con side of the argument the advocates are funded to attack the science, slow and attempt to discredit any research which builds support for the science or enhances the public perception of climate change issues while delaying any political action.
When it gets down to the individual level of public discussion such as these boards, I can't really speak to the motivations of others, but my personal drive is merely to learn what I can, share what I've learned, and try to create a better world for future generations. Politics doesn't play a significant role in perspective, primarily because I don't recognize any substantive difference between the two major political parties in this country, and consider them both to be bought and paid for by corporate interests (often the same corporate interests).

"Sides" may be a misnomer as it usually refers to two distinct parties. I think there are several "sides" each with it's own vested interest in how things proceed.

Lewis may have come off a little strong, but the APS seems rather naive in its response. There's a lot of money going into renewable energy sources and technology that physicists certainly benefit from.

I'm more curious what exactly he's referring to as a pseudoscience.

 

[CapelDodger]

I suspect he will be attacked ad hom for his actions.

"Old Guy Gets Grumpy, Cancels Subscription". He hasn't a clue what he's talking about, and in that he speaks for many.

He's certainly been around long enough to know how to follow the money trail. Nobody wants to admit how profitable it is to pump out the pseudoscience and keep the politicians employed swapping carbon credits that will have no other effect but to line their own pockets.

I'm surprised the US Republicans haven't caught onto that. Why are they sabotaging a money-stream they're well-placed to take advantage of? Pockets are never so well-lined that they can't do with a bit more, after all.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't understand your point. Are you seriously suggesting the only money trail leads to "anti-AGW" think tanks? I'm sorry but I'm fairly certain the money goes both ways. I think it's foolish, nay naive, to think AGW studies are altruistic. Each side of this issue has it's vested interests.

Science is not a "side", and climate change is not so long-established that any interests are vested in it.

You may recall that closing the ozone-hole was going to cost "trillions of dollars", an oddly similar hyperbole to Hal Lewis's. CFC's were (mostly) discontinued, society soldiered on, and the hyperbolists involved proceeded unabashed to their next subect. Which, as it happens, was AGW.