Funny what flipping a calendar page means to us. This last week of the year we assess our failures and successes, recall people we’ve lost. The newspapers break out their “best of 2009” lists and, next week, the “what to look for in 2010” lists pop up. A lot of this reflection is playful, but there’s an underlying seriousness that rolls out, forward looking, with New Year’s resolutions: this coming year we’ll get our act together.
But, sentimentality aside, do we really give a shit? I mean, if we’re truly going to reflect on the past, and make commitments for a better future, let’s not avoid the elephant in the room: climate change.
The calendar page we’re flipping, December 2009, is a heavy one, weighed down with the failure of supposed world “leaders” to reach any meaningful agreement at the Copenhagen conference on climate change.
“The reality of the situation here is that global leaders have abdicated their responsibility,” Andrew Weaver told me last week, in the wake of the “disaster” at Copenhagen.
Weaver knows what he’s talking about: He’s Canada’s top climatologist and co-author of the IPCC reports on climate change.
The science of climate change is unambiguous—humanity is either going to very quickly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, or we’ll reach a tipping point of two degrees global warming in a few decades, beyond which no human action can avoid increasingly cataclysmic climate change. And reducing GHG emissions is an urgent matter—because CO2 and other gases stay in the atmosphere for centuries, and because it will take enormous efforts to change our industrial infrastructure, we can’t change on a dime. Every hour of inaction makes the situation much more dire.
Weaver, like many other climatologists, came out of Copenhagen with an attitude bordering on defeatist—“frankly, you can kiss two degrees good-bye,” he said. “We are self-centred, and we care about the individual over the collective, in terms of the environment in which we live. We’re a selfish species, and this was clearly demonstrated in Copenhagen.”
“Weaver’s right, we’re a selfish species,” one of my scientist friends told me the other day in an online exchange. “There’s nothing we can do; we’re not smart enough to address climate change.” I could almost hear him stroking his chin in deep contemplation at the fate of humanity.
James Hansen, the world’s most well-known climatologist, has shown that, in order to avoid irreversible climate change, we’ll have to get the atmospheric concentration of CO2 down to 350 parts per million within a few decades. We’re now at 387 ppm, increasing at two ppm per year.
But that plan “has no chance in hell. None. Zero,” says one respected climatologist in Scientific American. Why? Because it’s just impractical to expect humans can rise to the occasion. More chin-stroking.
Hansen looks at the prevailing political order and also sees disaster in the making. “Hillary Clinton recently signed an agreement with Canada for a pipeline to carry tar sands oil to the United States,” he writes in a recent essay. “Australia is massively expanding coal export facilities. Coal-fired power plants are being built worldwide. Unless the public gets involved, young people especially, CO2 of 450 ppm or higher may become unavoidable.”
I don’t know why getting involved should be limited to young people, but the defeatist, wizened fatalism of the older generation is really pissing me off. All appearances are that older people in fact don’t give a shit, and aren’t willing to get off their reflective asses to actually do something to address the situation.
“Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap on the face, to make them face the truth?” continues Hansen. “It will take a lot of us—probably in the streets. Or are we going to let them continue to kid themselves and us, and cheat our children and grandchildren?”
This week, as we flip our calendars, reflect on our past and make commitments to future action, maybe we can decide what kind of people we really are. Is all that reflection just a game? Or do we really give a shit?
This article appears in Dec 31, 2009 – Jan 6, 2010.
About Climate Change?
No.
No, I don’t give a shit.
Well, that is not entirely true.
I care that The Coast has joined with the MSM in trumpeting this latest false alarm of impending disaster.
I care about the individuals who will lose even more freedom in the name of Saving the World and Egalitarianism/Socialism.
I care that no matter how much evidence showing that AGW is a fraud is brought to light, there are people that will believe in and champion for disaster.
Screw New Years, every time I read a call for mass guilt and subservience such as this one, I vow to redouble my efforts to be the right kind of person.
An independant, critically thinking, freedom loving Capitalist.
Here are a couple of pieces for perspective…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/29/clim…
Great article, Tim.
However, I don’t think it’s time to embrace the defeatism that’s creeping out of some. The only way to win this battle is to be certain that we can win – and that means continually pushing back against the scientific illiterates, such as Chris Gaudet and his links to some sideshow blog that he believes refutes a century+ of professional climate research.
I certainly give a shit: about a liveable climate for future generations, for the species that we are eradicating and I give a shit about the corporations that will turn the planet in to a cinder as long as there’s profit in the process.
2010: time to step up and be counted.
Two degrees of warming is inconsequential. The last interglacial was 3 to 5 degrees warmer than the Holocene and the planet did just fine. The Holocene Optimum was several degrees warmer than today. Get a life.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/las…“
I really don’t see the controversy. If there is no global warming and we clean up anyway, we will simply have a healthier planet and a healthier population as well. If, however, there is global warming and we don’t do anything, we will cease to exist. Considering the consequences, I vote we go for a cleaner planet. Besides, I haven’t seen any peered review science to refute global warming. That silly petition that purported to be signed by over a 1,000 scientists has been shown to be a hoax.
My comments are not so much regarding the article as much as they are about the editorial cartoons: Whoever gets paid to draw them has got to stop comparing Stephen Harper to Hitler. Yes, it’s tasteless, but more importantly, it’s just plain unoriginal. Can’t you come up with something else?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/01/sent-lo…
Steve McIntyre will be interviewed by Ms Domet on CBC Radio sometime this month.
Should be interesting, look what he wrote about leading climate scientist Phil Jones from UEA : “The Climategate Letters show that Jones’ H-Index was important to him: Jones wanted to be an AGU Fellow and looked to Michael Mann to organize the nomination. In one letter, Jones and Mann had an unsavory discussion in which Mann said that he would report a false higher value of Jones’ H-Index in connection with Jones’ nomination as AGU Fellow. (Because Jones is a common surname, Jones advised Mann that an online algorithm for the H-index yielded an higher H-Index that was too high because it included articles by an unrelated biologist Phil Jones. Mann advised Jones that he would use the inflated value in the nomination form anyway.)” and then he summarises his take on ‘confidentiality’ which Jones often used to deny McIntyre access to data used in papers written by Jones et al; “He passed confidential data to his close associates, Michael Mann and Scott Rutherford. He passed confidential data on to a relative stranger in circumstances where he expected to increase his personal H-Index. “
And one reader comments “Steve has done an extraordinary job of “auditing” this fraudulant activity. It seems that Steve is doing the job that should be done by the universities, granting agencies,government agencies providing and using data, IPCC, and so forth on an ongoing basis. It will be of great interest to observe the extent to which the “independent investigations” at East Anglia CRU and Penn. State are as thorough. The huge question that follows, of course, is how these data have been used in unquestioning fashion to produce their “independent” investigations of global warming?”
and another writes “
Anyone looking for an enlightening read should spend some time going through his blog.
Looks like he will be getting a lot of media attention in 2010.
How small minded and simple people can be. Yes climate change is an issue. Humans have increased the situation over the last 300 years with the industrial revolution. But to come to the conclusion all humanity is doomed, please pinch yourself and wake up to reality! There have been many times the Earth was warmer and colder in the past. Species came and went. Man however is not doomed through such nonsense in any matter of way we will survive and maybe a bit differently but we will be here.
To say all the pollution is from factories and cars is also nonsense. Pollution is from all sources and if you also look about 50% from agricultural related practices. So lets see you going to try and put us back in the stone age, tell people in developing countries not to eat all about the planet warming. Hey there are some big issues here and consequences to all and no action. Look at Bush in USA ” ya we switch from food production to ethanol and forget that we feed a lot of people increasing the cost of said main food staples to produce a little ethanol” Where was the thinking we were improving anything. Scientists have an amazing thing called statistics. Well guess what anyone with have a clue can make statistics mean anything. DO i think we can do a few things yes but radically change like the tree huggers want, no thanks! Wait until it all starts to hit people in the pocket book and see the backlash! Besides I own a nice high piece of ground on the south shore, be worth a lot more with beach frontage and warm weather. Don’t be simple minded we are here to stay and +2c is not going to kill us off! Lets try to protect and help but a complete revolution is no where needed; that is unless you derive your income from environmental sciences or selling the people of simple minds on these things.
One of the most egregious lies of the climate activists is the claim that climate “tipping points” are settled science. You can search the IPCC SAR 4 report and this concept is barely mentioned. This is “Day after Tomorrow science”…And vapid lefty reporters like Bousquet just eat this junk up. Following up on blethens point, the last interglacial was in fact a time of maximum global productivity, and climate stability.
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
See Also:
Earth & Climate
* Climate
* Air Quality
* Global Warming
* Atmosphere
* Forest
* Geochemistry
Reference
* Atmospheric chemistry
* Ocean acidification
* Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
* Carbon cycle
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Journal Reference:
1. Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613
Science News
Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon
ScienceDaily (Nov. 25, 2008) — A detailed analysis of black carbon — the residue of burned organic matter — in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
Reference
* Carbon cycle
* Humus
* Biodegradation
* Fossil fuel
A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper’s lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.
As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.
Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.
By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon’s long shelf life into account.
The findings are significant because soils are by far the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.
“We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted,” said Lehmann. “But this particular aspect, black carbon’s stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions.”
The study quantified the amount of black carbon in 452 Australian soils across two savannas. Black carbon content varied widely, between zero and more than 80 percent, in soils across Australia.
“It’s a mistake to look at soil as one blob of carbon,” said Lehmann. “Rather, it has different chemical components with different characteristics. In this way, soil will interact differently to warming based on what’s in it.”
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
Cornell University (2008, November 25). Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 31, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/11/081119120155.htm
Al Gore Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming
Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb…
Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/weat…
THOSE OLD, FAMILIAR TUNES
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s
The Times, February 24, 1895
“Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”
Fears of a “second glacial period” brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia’s climate.
New York Times, October 7, 1912
“Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age”
Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
“The possibility of another Ice Age already having started … is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak.”
Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
“Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada.”
Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
“The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.”
New York Times, September 18, 1924
“MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age”
GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s
New York Times, March 27, 1933
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…. weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.
New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the “trump card” as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.
U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
“[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing.”
GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s
Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
“Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
“Warning: Earth’s Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect”
Reported that “glaciers have begun to advance”; “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter”; and “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool”.
Science News, March 1, 1975
“The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the ‘very extraordinary period of warmth’ that preceded it.”
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
“The Cooling World”
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.”
International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
“But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime.”
New York Times, May 21, 1975
“Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable”
GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?
Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
“About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades.”
Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
“[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.”
New York Times, December 27, 2005
“Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming”
The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
“Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a ‘broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,’ and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive.”
?????: 2020s?
RIA Novisty(Russian News & Information Agency), February 8, 2007
“Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060,” he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.”
Quoting Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory. Full article at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992…
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 95, 115-121 (2007)
“Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years”
Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. The School of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, P. R. China
Full article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12…
Tim, I think your colleague hit the nail on the head, we are a selfish species and we are not capable of addressing this issue (whether there is an issue or not). The changes that scientists are telling us are required will quite simply compromise the luxurious standard of living that many of us have grown accustomed to, and I think you’ll be hard pressed to get large numbers of people to accept a drop in lifestyle. This is the same reason that we are seeing an unwillingness by politicians to act from a regulatory standpoint, as most politicians are not willing to take the political risks that come along with things like carbon taxes (remember the fate of Stephane Dion??). The politicians don’t want to be the ones to force a lifestyle change, because they won’t have a job come election time.
As a selfish species, it is only when our own well-being is directly affected that we will change our behaviours. Remember the push for transit and green energy when oil was $140/barrel? People’s wallets were being directly affected, and that is why we had the ground swelll in the green energy and sustainable transportation movement. But once oil dropped back down below $100 a lot of the investement money and support by citizens for green energy fell off. Point being, you can tell people over and over again that we will see disastrous outcomes from changing weather patterns, but for most people, this won’t motivate any action or change until they have been directly affected in a negative way by a change in the climate. Until then, it is just fantasy to most people.
I just don’t think we’re hard-wired to handle a problem like this. It doesn’t paint a nice picture of our species, but that is generally the way it is. We likes our worldwide travel, nice cars, and electronics. Things like carbon offsets and carbon sequestration are just mechanisms that we have designed so that we can have our cake and eat it too. But things like carbon offsets and supposed carbon neutrality that is based on offsets are just bullshit that don’t accomplish anything. They represent what most of the population is willing to do in the effort to combat climate change, which is not much if it will mean they have to give something up.
Anyway, that is my rant. I work in the environmental field so I am not unfamiliar with this and other environmental issues, but I guess I don’t have much faith in the human race! Perhaps I will be proven wrong and 2010 will be a big year of change, as you have alluded to in your article.
Thanks for the article.
Hal, please don’t spam the comment section, and please take your selfish attempts to make statements elsewhere (preferably nowhere). Are you trying to make a point? Why don’t you present a logical considered argument, instead of a series of mismatched and questionable opinions?
Well we all know the answer to that: because you don’t have a considered argument.
I will limit myself to rebutting only your last post: “Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.”
Well, you make it look like this statement comes from a reputable-sounding organization, but in fact it is quite meaningless. The carbon cycle on Earth is large; tons and tons of carbon dioxide are absorbed (by the oceans and terrestrial ecosphere) every day, and an equivalent tons and tons of CO2 are emitted by animals and decay (oxidization). The idea that we can identify “CO2 emitted by human activity” and track it in order to determine what portion of it remains in the atmosphere, and what portion is absorbed, is laughable. Not only that, but it is irrelevant. What matters is that the excess CO2 we are producing is upsetting the balance in the system.
You go on to attribute statements to a supposed scientist (and yes, I realize that you have quoted them verbatim from a “science site” that you neglected to provide the URL for) saying things like “the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased … during the past 150 years”.
Well, that is quite simply wrong. “The airborne fraction of CO2” has historically been 270 ppm, and now it’s almost 390ppm. That’s an increase.
But, you say, the “airborne fraction” they are referring to is intended to be the “anthropogenic CO2 fraction”.
I simply don’t believe it. CO2 is CO2; the molecules don’t come with serial numbers. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere HAS increased since the industrial revolution. It has increased in close correlation with human’s exploitation of fossil fuels. Maybe 100% of our CO2 emissions have been absorbed, and instead it is “natural” CO2 which is remaining in the atmosphere. So what? It has the same impact on the climate. Like money, it is fungible. (look it up).
I’m sorry that these truths are difficult for you to accept, given that they spell the end of our freedom to pillage the Earth’s natural resources with out any thought to the consequences. Unfortunately: “life isn’t fair”. Get used to it.
Hmmm, I’ve just remembered that using radio-carbon dating techniques, the carbon in CO2 might JUST have serial numbers after all. However I stand by my assertion that it is irrelevant. Extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem, as all CO2 acts a greenhouse gas, whether it is ancient (fossil-fuel derived) carbon, or part of the current carbon cycle.
For D. Morrison
Link for you : http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/…
Journal Reference:
1. Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613
MLA
Cornell University (2008, November 25). Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December
D. Morrison stated: “I will limit myself to rebutting only your last post”
D. Morrison’s rebuttal: “I simply don’t believe it.”
Hal: What you believe is not of any importance. Is this the new Global Warming Religion, where one must hold only to certain “beliefs” and one is not permitted to have any contact with any differing scientific views?
D. Morrison stated: “Hal, please don’t spam the comment section”
Wikipedia: “Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately”
Hal: My comments were not “unsolicited” nor were they bulk messages. Have a look at the bottom of this page. It states : “Post your comment”. Well I posted my comment. Instead of one huge comment I split my comment into four parts. I did not post spam. My comments were on topic. As with many Religious cults, a differing viewpoint is never permitted.
D.Morrison stated “please take your selfish attempts to make statements elsewhere (preferably nowhere)”
Hal: I see. It is “only” Ok to post a comment if you agree with it on this free public access forum. But free speech does not fit well into your agenda of fear mongering. I posted about two research papers which at minimum indicates that there is “no” scientific consensus about CO2 and Global Warming. I even commented about Al Gore, in a Newsweek article, and his new comments about CO2. I also posted historical quotes where past fear mongers claimed Global Cooling or Global Warming.
You have dismissed me and told me to go elsewhere. Your rebuttal amounted to “I simply don’t believe it”.
Yes, it is inconvenient to read a different scientific conclusion. This is not a religious cult where an alternate view must never be aired. Tim offered on side of the coin. My comments offered another side of the same coin. You don’t have to believe anything. I also posted more than enough info for you to find the references and http://www.sciencedaily.com.
D. Morrison : “instead it is “natural” CO2 which is remaining in the atmosphere. So what? It has the same impact on the climate. “
Hal: So what indeed. The impact of CO2 on “the climate” is still in the realm of a religious truth. Scientifically, the impact of CO2 on “the climate” is debatable. Just because your mind is made up already, does not make it anything more than your personal opinion.
D. Morrison stated “it is fungible. (look it up)”
Hal: Did that comment make you feel better about yourself?
D. Morrison : “I’m sorry that these truths are difficult for you to accept”
Hal: What truths? Religious belief systems are often based on unproven so called “truths”. Have you been indoctrinated into the new Global Warming Religion and strictly follow the unproven “truths” ?
D. Morrison: “Unfortunately: “life isn’t fair”. Get used to it.”
Hal: Is the new scientific method to bury one’s head in the sand and close one’s eye and ears to any and all differing scientific views?
As we speak Iguanas are going into comas and falling off the trees in Flordia because it’s so cold there. People are dying of exposure in Nashville. Regina has a windchill of -59C. England is having it’s worst winter in 30 years. It was funny to see the reporters standing outside the huckster convention in Copenfraud, freezing to death after Gorge & Co. scarfed down the last of the smoked salmon, headed to the airport in 1200 limos and hopped on their private jets, go home and wait for the sucker money to roll in. What a fucking farce.
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability
ScienceDaily — A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.
This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.
“The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”
Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change “forecasts” from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.
“Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere,” said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center. “The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.
“When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.”
The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.
The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.
After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.
“The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts,” said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. “Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution.”
Story Source:
Adapted from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
Wiley-Blackwell (2007, December 12). New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Related Stories
Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change (Apr. 6, 2008) — The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate. A new study by meteorologists shows that current climate models are quite accurate … > read more
Impact Of Global Warming On Weather Patterns Underestimated (Sep. 22, 2005) — The impact of global warming on European weather patterns has been underestimated, according to a new report published in Nature this week. The Northern Hemisphere Circulation study found that … > read more
Chicken or Egg Question Looms Over Climate Debate (Dec. 18, 2009) — Which came first, the warmer temperatures or the clearer skies? Answers to that and similar “chicken or egg” type questions could have a significant impact on our understanding of both the climate … > read more
Modern Physics Is Critical To Global Warming Research (Mar. 14, 2008) — Science has come a long way with predicting climate. Increasingly sophisticated models and instruments can zero in on a specific storm formation or make detailed weather forecasts — all useful to … > read more
Some Particles Cool Climate, Others Add To Global Warming (July 9, 2009) — Particles cool down the climate, but to which extent? This has remained an unanswered question for scientists. A new study brings the scientific community a step closer to solving the … > read more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/…
William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.
According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art…
The next big scam: carbon dioxide
Attempts to create markets for tradeable CO2 are shaping up to be the next Oil-for-Food-sized fraud
By Patricia Adams
Deloitte Forensic calls it “the white collar crime of the future.” Kroll, a business risk subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan, the global professional services firm, calls it “a fraudster’s dream come true.”
These two global financial services firms are referring to carbon trading markets, a business that is estimated to explode from $132-billion in 2009, mostly in the European Union, to $3-trillion by 2020 as jurisdictions around the world join in carbon trading, part of the “cap and trade” system that governments are embracing.
Under cap and trade, companies need permits for the right to emit CO2 as part of their operations. The permits, in effect, guarantee that excess carbon emissions will be “offset” by third parties that will, for example, sequester carbon by growing trees. These permits, which are being traded on carbon exchanges, akin to stock exchanges, have caught the attention of law enforcement officers, who have seen an upsurge in fraud.
Says Chris Perryman of Europol’s Criminal Finances and Technology section in The Hague, in referring to the $7.4-billion in fraud that have occurred in the last 18 months in the EU’s carbon market: “It is clear that [carbon trading] fraudsters are fully aware of the potential that trading in intangible commodities has to further their ends. Such goods or services can be traded without the need to be physically moved or transported, which represents an obvious opportunity to frustrate Law Enforcement efforts to track and trace transactions.” So much fraud has been occurring that, Europol estimates, up to 90% of all carbon market volume in some EU nations was related to fraudulent activities.
Permits for CO2, a tasteless, colourless and odourless gas, epitomize an “intangible commodity.” The underlying commodity for these permits, CO2, until recently had few producers, few customers and few commercial uses. With the rise of fears over global warming, governments decided to turn this niche gas into what could soon be the world’s most traded commodity — by comparison, oil, currently the most traded commodity, logs an estimated $2-trillion in annual trade.
But unlike oil and other commonly traded commodities, CO2 is a commodity with no inherent value. Most transactions involving carbon permits involve parties that have no interest in the CO2 — the value lies in the permit. If no CO2 is actually offset, neither buyer nor seller would suffer a loss. The only incentive anyone has in dealing with this intangible commodity is in avoiding fines or suffering bad PR.
What kind of fraud do private auditors and law enforcement alike believe inevitable? Take the example of an Indonesian forest operator who provides a permit to a German manufacturer, to offset the German company’s excess CO2 emissions. The German company receives a certificate as proof that it has offset its emissions. It will be content, as will the Indonesian company that planted the trees. The German firm won’t know if the Indonesian has sold permits for the same forest to companies in Canada and the UK and it won’t care — the German firm, like the others, will think they have helped the planet by planting a forest and they will have obtained what their businesses need — a permit to continue operating. There are no identifiable victims. The only loser — if there is any — is the planet, and it won’t be blowing the whistle on this crime.
Because buyers and sellers will rarely have an incentive to police their carbon transactions, “tight, frequent, ongoing monitoring will be fundamental to the integrity of any cap-and-trade system,” states ClimeCo, a carbon consulting firm. Yet the likelihood of that occurring is next to nil because the regulators will be official bodies like the UN — think Oil-For Food Program, says Kroll. Moreover, governments themselves will balk at the cost that would be entailed in meaningful regulation. Because CO2 is ubiquitous in society, affecting most industrial processes, an army of inspectors and auditors would be needed to properly check the countless transactions that would occur to ensure that no company’s carbon footprint was understated, that every windmill contracted for in faraway lands was indeed built, that every meter measuring the flow of gas piped underground was recording CO2 and not air and that every seedling committed to be planted was planted.
Apart from phony projects — Kroll likens them to “the Soviet Union’s Potemkin villages built to show off a phony communal paradise to naïve foreigner visitors” — Kroll, in a report published last year in its Tendencias journal, tells us to expect companies to create entitlements for themselves by “pumping up the baseline,” say by pretending they have historically been emitting more greenhouse gases than in fact occurred, thus creating a government entitlement that they can then turn into cash.
Deloitte, in a report released last November, echoes such concerns, taking particular aim at problems likely to emerge under Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, in which the country’s largest greenhouse gas emitters will be required to offset their carbon footprint. Says Deloitte: “even a cursory look at the global carbon market in its current form reveals some carbon credit fraud ‘red flags’ that simply cannot be ignored.”
Deloitte also warns companies to be on the lookout for the entry of organized crime into the Australian scheme, which is slated to take effect this year. “For example, a money launderer could use illegally obtained funds to purchase wind turbines for an offset project, especially those projects occurring in developing nations,” Deloitte explains. “The launderer would then seek reimbursement for the wind turbines from a company seeking to purchase carbon offsets.” In doing so, the launderer is able to use illegally obtained funds for legal purposes — concealing the wealth obtained from illegal activities.
In the final analysis, carbon markets are political constructs controlled by politically empowered regulators who will be gatekeepers to a multi-trillion dollar market. The regulators themselves would become too numerous to regulate. This then becomes the tried and true recipe for good old fashioned and widespread corruption.
Financial Post
PatriciaAdams@nextcity.com
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f…
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
This farce isn’t quite as good as the one that created Christianity…but it is close.
This whole carbon tax “grab” is akin IMO to the Emperor’s buying new cloth,and making clothing so special, that to anyone unworthy the clothes will be invisible ! Seeing as Carbon dioxide makes up a small portion of the atmosphere (less than 1% people) Remember that anytime you see comments about how it has risen 5 or 10 percent…they are speaking about the rise of say 5% being of that part of the atmosphere which Carbon Dioxide takes up which is less that 1 % of the whole 😉
Good scam eh ?
Last I checked we were still living on a planet with an atmosphere of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen & that Magic 1% which is everything else…& just so you know ,there’s more water vapor in that 1% than there is Carbon dioxide ! (& water vapor also helps with global warming )…OH NO !!! GASP we need to get the water out of the atmosphere !!!!!!!! quick everyone buy a dehumidifier & put it outside & turn it on !
That makes about as much sense as the so called Carbon Taxes.
Wake up sheeple, they’re fleecing you again !
Tim;
I agree with you mate…but I’ve lost my stamina to argue against the deniers anymore….they’re just too organized and determined, although for the life of me I don’t understand their objection to getting off finite oil and onto alternative energy.
Or is more that they just don’t want to be “told” by “science” to do it? They didn’t like it back in school, and they don’t like it now!
It was bad enough before the internet, all we had to deal with where people like “more” who clearly do not understand the “balance” of gasses in our atmosphere with dumb posts like the one below…But now we have to deal with the latest internet Olympics: “url hurling” where people like “hal” inundate the web with cut and paste nonsense from the likes of the Daily Mail (snicker) and that idiot tenured denier from MIT, James Linshisname, that also says smoking cigearettes is not harmful…
*sigh*
I just can’t be arsed anymore.
I don’t have any kids, so I suppose I don’t have a dog in this race anyway, lol.
The deniers seem so damned sure of themselves now, based on what? Nothing, lol
But it’s too hard to debate them now “the emails the emails the emails!” and now “The glaciers the glaciers the glaciers!”
Good grief. Fuck it, says I. Let them have their way. Keep burning up the oil, ignore the future, go for it!
…I am reminded of the classic last line in carpenter’s “The Thing”:
“Well, why don’t we just sit back, wait and see what happens…?”
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
Feb 15 2010
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/1…
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
* Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes
By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12…
World may not be warming, say scientists
In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. …
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.
Some are next to air- conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator.
Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heat-generating buildings.
Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.
“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.
Feb 14 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi…
why are the people who support mans direct impact on climate change not giving references to support their position.all i hear is them yapping but giving no references.am i just to believe what you say.because its not going to happen.you remind me of preachers.idiots
Let’s move from a prevention model to a remediation and response model. There is no way to stop climate change – it’s happening, whatever we do. Let’s spend the money on ameliorating the effects instead.
It is now Dec 20 2010. Britain is covered in record amounts of snow. Air travel in England is at a standstill. The Global Warming / Climate Change propaganda machine gets it’s experts to proclaims that the snow fall is due to Global Warming. If it’s a hot summer then they scare people and say it is due to Global Warming. If it’s a freezing winter with record amounts of snow, hey they will say that too is due to Global Warming.
For a moment lets put down our Koolaid and reflect back on what a Global Warming senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia had stated back in the year 2000:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.
Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. “As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it’s few and far between,” he said.
Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.
Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change – into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.
Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.
“We don’t really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like,” he said.
David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.
The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in “London Snow” of it, “stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying”.
Not any more, it seems.
Original posted at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/s…
The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers
Posted 12/22/2010 07:07 PM ET
Freezing weather: Just another example of global warming?
Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?
The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn’t funny. Sadly, they’ve been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn’t be reversed.
This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution’s reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It’s anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.
A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we’re experiencing now, weren’t even listed as a possibility.
Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.
Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, “falsifiable.” That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it’s false. That’s what scientific experimentation and observation do. That’s the essence of the scientific method.
Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It’s global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region’s strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, “In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile.”
Got that? No matter what the weather, it’s all due to warming. This isn’t science; it’s a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.
Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they’re so wrong? Maybe it’s because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them “mitigate” the adverse impacts of warming.
This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London’s Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, “He seems to get it right about 85% of the time.”
How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a “mini ice age” similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D.
We don’t know if Corbyn’s right or not. But given his record, he deserves as much attention as the warm-mongers whose goal is not to arrive at the truth but to reorganize society in a radical way.
Original Posted on:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A…
Let’s get Al Rodee to have a love-in on the Commons and make global warming go away with our positive vibes. The Dalai Lama will join via webcam!