Don't Worry About Global Warming, Say 16 Scientists in the WSJ 1367
An anonymous reader writes "According to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, there's 'no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy'. From the article: 'The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.'"
I am not worried about it (Score:5, Funny)
its rather nice having 62 degree days in the last weeks of January when it should be -3, let our children's children figure it out, they need to have something to do anyway as we keep doing it all for them as it is
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
To add my single data point.... I lived in my area my whole life.... the whole winter it was unseasonably warm except for maybe 7 or so days. We're talking late April/October temperatures. One of the days it was cold, it snowed on Halloween, and we never used to get snow before New Years/Christmas. Freakish.
It used to be a mild area with no significant weather of any type. And the last 5 years was so much the opposite. Previous two winters we got so much more snow dumped on us than usual (this year almost nothing), every week more and more of it. High winds at certain times of the year. Blistering summers where the grass is parched now.
I know I'm a single data point in a short amount of time, but compared to what it was like growing up, it feels like a real change has been taking place.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
There is a change taking over. I have been living for 16 years in Zurich and this was the warmest winter yet. The mountains have plenty of snow, but in the valley it is just nuts. We are supposed to get some cold in the next week, but this winter has been completely out of whack. The fact that you are getting plenty of snow is actually correct. Having lived in Canada for 18 years snow = warm temperatures = changing fronts where cold meets warm...
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe the seasons have decided they don't want to conform any more to the three monthly slots we've allocated for them.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
Of course that isn't what happened at all.
De Freitas was an editor, not the editor.
De Freitas arranged that Soon and Baliunas's paper was published without proper peer review. When people complained about the poor quality of the paper to the editors for Climate Research five of the editors (half the editorial board) resigned in protest of the actions of De Freitas.
So now the WSJ publishes simple lies in it's Op Ed pages. Interesting.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that the natural cyclical variations in weather are longer than the human lifespan, and thus for any given human, he will always be seeing weird weather. Once I looked up the annual rainfall for my region, and the years it was 'normal' were much fewer than the years that were 'strange.'
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
One possibility is that global temperatures have been cooler than the norm for the past several thousand years and whatever caused that global cooling trend has now corrected itself and Earth's temperatures are returning to more normalized levels that were experienced around 5-10 thousand years ago.
What we should be debating is not Climate Change but Climate Engineering: engineering Earth's climate to be most beneficial to humanity and other species as we and they exist today. We should focus on maintaining the climate to which we have become accustomed rather than being puppets of either natural or man-made climate variation.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Au contraire, mon ami.
When Europe came out of the Little Ice Age, temperatures warmed up even faster than what has been observed lately.
Look, when it comes to the whole "Global Warming" thing, I'm an agnostic. I have no dog in the fight; no ox of mine will be gored one way or the other. I am perfectly willing to be convinced either way, and I'm equally skeptical of both sides.
It is not lost on me, for example, that the big oil companies and other major industrial emitters tend to be on the side - by which I mean "fund" - the studies that argue strongest for the "it ain't happening" side. That's as you'd expect; that the short term profit motive and general bad behavior of these sorts of organizations would motivate them to attempt to refute and deny any soi-disant "inconvenient truths".
But on the other hand, the "it's happening and it's all human activity" side is RIFE with corruption, falsified studies, poor models, groupthink, and generally shitty behavior too. Some of this we can chalk up to normal primate "Gorillas in the Mist" social (bad) behavior - but certainly not ALL of it. Not even MOST of it.
If the case for man-made global warming was so compelling, there would be no need for all these shenanigans. The science should be able to stand on its own. And yet, it clearly does not.
There are aspects of the "reduce the carbon" movement that I can fully support. Fuel efficiency, for example (energy efficiency in general for that matter) is a great idea on its own merits. We really don't know what the fossil fuel supply reserves really are, and anything that conserves fuel is ultimately a good thing. The same thing with protecting forest areas and reforestation/greening in general (green roofs and the like) These measures all have compelling arguments for them without playing the global warming bugaboo.
But as it sits right now, all the arm-waving and Strongly Worded Claims aren't doing anything to address the problems that people like myself have with the underlying science. The case is not at all made.
DG
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
If the case for man-made global warming was so compelling, there would be no need for all these shenanigans. The science should be able to stand on its own. And yet, it clearly does not.
Science is never able to stand on its own when challenging broadly held opinions. It takes 20 to 30 years on average for cutting edge science (i.e. the stuff getting published in per reviewed journals) to filter down into textbooks used to educate children where the ideas will gradually, over the 12 ~15 year course of those childrens' educations, be absorbed and start to form a new boradly accepted social idea. That's 32~45 years before non-radical science gets accepted. If the anthropogenic climate change camp are even half right, we as a species can't afford to wait 45 years, maybe even longer because of such organised resistance.
But on the other hand, the "it's happening and it's all human activity" side is RIFE with corruption, falsified studies, poor models, groupthink, and generally shitty behavior too.
Some might call it fighting fire with fire ;)
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
*facepalm*
I am agnostic not because I am "ignorant", but because my analysis of the studies that I have read - many, many of them - arrives at the following conclusions:
1. Neither case is particularly compelling; and
2. Both cases are presented by people with vested interests and evidence of fraud, so neither side is particularly trustworthy.
Thank you, by the way, for providing an example that proves my point. You regurgitate the groupthink, and instead of relying on science to make your argument for you, instead immediately go to an attack on the man, rather than the facts. This is the sort of behavior that makes me profoundly distrustful of the proponents of "global warming" as a postulate.
DG
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate fluctuations over the course of a single decade, or a single person's lifetime does not allow for enough data to seriously consider the question of Global Warming/Global Cooling/Climate Change. We, as a species, have only been accurately recording global temperatures since around 1850. This record itself is not sufficient for providing a true picture of Earth's changing climate. For this we must resort to Paleoclimatology.
Anecdotal evidence in the form of "this winter has been really warm" is totally unhelpful. Where I live this year has been pretty warm... but last year was one of the coldest that I can remember since I've lived here. Both statements are true, but neither of them indicates either a global or regional trend.
Climate change is very real. The Earth's climate has changed dramatically over it's 5.5 billion (6,000?) year history. Change is inevitable whether it is caused by humans or other natural processes. What we as a species must decide is whether or not we want to affect that change in a way that benefits humanity or if we want to allow these processes, whether natural or man-created, to determine the fate of our species. I for one support the global engineering of climate to benefit humanity and preserve as many other species as we can in order to sustain nurture our species to create a better tomorrow.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Funny)
This morning it was very cold and I needed a jacket, but by the end of the day I had to take it off because it was so hot. It's getting real people. We are seeing massive swings in only a day's time. Our poor children will have to suffer because of our inaction and folly!
This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a biased op-ed from a right-wing newspaper. To quote Forbes:
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that says it all. What surprises me most is that the top denialist "scientists" dug up an old, easily disproven, barroom-grade argument ("No *atmospheric* warning in the last decade or two! IT'S A HOAX!") as their primary argument. It's like the response doesn't even matter, and they know it.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Funny)
Nope. What says it all is: "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us"
Lie. Lie, and um Lie.
I'd like to give the authors of that a sniff of pure CO2 to see how odorless it is.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely agree. That's the scummiest lie on there. Just because something is natural doesn't make it not a pollutant. "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle". The "high concentrations" bit is ridiculous. It's higher than standard atmospheric concentration, obviously, but they're completely icing over the fact that the carbon in the CO2 animals breathe out comes from a fairly closed cycle. We breathe it out because we got it from our food in the first place. Our vegetable food got it from the atmosphere. Our animal food got it from vegetable matter, or from other animals that got it from vegetable matter, etc. Some natural processes bring out more carbon from under the earth and the overall action of our biosphere is to sequester it under the earth again. Something that's already naturally present can be a pollutant if it's in the wrong concentration or in the wrong place. Too much oxygen would be a pollutant too (a very dangerous one since the world could catch fire). Ozone is a pollutant at ground level, but great for us in the stratosphere. The quote they give about CO2 applies equally well to excrement (well, minus the colorless and odorless part, and we don't normally exhale it, although those people who do are a great example of it being a pollutant when it's in the wrong place), but excrement is obviously a pollutant when there's too much of it in our water supply.
Someone should see how many of these "scientists" are willing to spend an hour in a chamber with 10% CO2. Then we can ask them if they still think it's not potentially a pollutant depending on concentration afterwards. We won't get much of an answer since they will have died painfully, of course.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
From the English Wikipedia:
"CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]"
[7] is http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm [inspect-ny.com]
[8] is http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/fire/co2/co2report.html [epa.gov]
So, if they say that 7-10% causes already unconsciousness in a few minutes (at the upper echelon of 10%), you can imagine what a bit more than that must do. It's just like anesthetics. Up to a certain ratio, you only feel numbness and mild euphoria; at some percentage you fall unconscious; a little bit more than that and you reach induced coma; a little bit more and you stop breathing or your heart stops beating (depends on the drug).
Just like with anything -- water, oxygen, sugar, etc. -- the dose and circumstances determine what is a poison and what not.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
There goes my mods for the discussion. Anyway: See http://www.uigi.com/MSDS_gaseous_CO2.html [uigi.com] (no explanation but a confirmation of the statement). See also http://www.sae.org/misc/aaf99/visteon.pdf [sae.org] for a report on what happens when a CO2-fueled cooling system leaks its contents into your car.
What I know is that when you inhale CO2 the acidity of your blood will increase. At a certain point your blood will be to acidic to sustain life. This is what happens when, for instance, you have a heart problem and your body starts to "compensate". I put that in quotes because the way it compensates keeps you alive for a bit longer but kills you in the long run and leads to a lot of damage to organs, especially the heart. But I digress.
The rising of the acidity in your blood (lower Ph) is also cited as an important cause for its lethality in a report from the Dutch ministry for public health and the environment, http://www.rivm.nl/milieuportaal/images/20091002_Evaluation_toxicity_CO2.pdf [www.rivm.nl], that writes:
"It is generally believed that CO2 toxicity is caused by displacing oxygen, leading to asphyxiation, similar to the mode of action as inert gases. This is only partly true. The inhalation of high concentrations of CO2 can lower the pH of the blood and thus trigger effects on the respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous systems (HSE, 2007)".
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Pure CO2 has a distinctive odor (sharp, almost metallic), it's caused by carbonic acid forming on mucous membranes.
Here it's described as 'acidic': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Physical_properties [wikipedia.org]
It's not really a problem for MSDS datasheets, because at these CO2 concentrations you're going to faint in a few seconds.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Methane breaks down in about 12 years due to ultraviolet light. We're also pumping far less of it into the atmosphere. Excess water falls as rain.
Plenty of scientists have looked at and are looking at the sun. There is no compelling evidence that it's causing global warming. (If you find some, please cite it instead of slurring scientists lazy).
Computer models are one of many tools used by scientists. They have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are not, by any means, the primary reason why climate scientists believe current global warming is human-induced.
Sometimes, some scientists are wrong. One of the authors of the WSJ article, for example, claimed that asbestos was completely safe.
Freeman Dyson is a quantum physicist.
Any other arguments you'd like me to refute in two sentences or less?
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Not according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air [wikipedia.org]
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the bullshit the authors are pushing, I think it is likely they have had more than a sniff.
Claude Allegre is the first scientist cited. This is from his Wikipedia entry
Claude Allègre
In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[6] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of regurgitating conventional wisdom
Conventional wisdom? Are you insane?
I worked for many years on the WA Department of Mines [wa.gov.au] Contam monitoring [google.com] program which has been collecting airborn particulate data, including asbestos for several decades. In addition, I've consulted to many companies on asbestos identifiaction and management for the past 25 years.
Australia has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world, and we've experienced three phases of asbestos related disease, from the mining of asbestos, asbestos use in industry and most recently from DIY home renovators who demolished their own asbestos structures.
The Australian Mesothelioma Registry tracks incidenses of mesothelioma and publishes an annual report: http://www.mesothelioma-australia.com/home-page.aspx [mesothelio...tralia.com]
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Funny)
But they're all taking money from the ultra-wealthy Sierra Club and PETA members, while scientists associated with the hard-working middle-class, main street job creators at Exxon and Shell are ignored just because their PhDs are in political science and mechanical engineering instead of pseudo-sciences like Physics, Math, Geology and Climate Science.
It's just not fair, I tell you. The left-wing bias of the so-called "hard" sciences is the reason I home-school my children The only textbook publisher we need is King James. If King James was good enough when Joseph and Mary home-schooled Jesus, it's good enough for me and my kids.
I swear, those liberal elites are living in a different world than those of us who are reality-based.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not easy for them to do so. I think it starts off in the brain as "Some liberals said this, so it must be wrong". The brain then has to wash all of this actual data and supported information until anything that rejects the "some liberals said this, so it must be wrong" thesis. At that point, with a considerable absence of most of the original data and the presence of a fair sized can of bullshit, you can assuredly feel that this global warming stuff is all crap.
The folks that go through this process have absolutely no idea how our global climate works, and neither do the people supplying them with their own set of facts. In fact, I'd go so far out on a limb as to say that 95% of them just dont care one way or the other, but them there librals need someone to tell them off.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just "some liberals said this, so it must be wrong" - the current right-wing political ideology of so-called limited government in the US makes it impossible for them to actually do anything about global warming, so admitting that it exists would mean admitting their ideology was flawed.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the rebuttal letter, it was printed in Science magazine. It wasn't a "comparable" letter, it probably was scientifically accurate, but it only stated claims, no actual arguments. The letter in the WSJ actually gave arguments. All the letter in Science did was rely on the weight of the names behind it. What they should have done was stated some facts and then drawn conclusions. I am a little confused as to why the letter was such a poor rebuttal (I believe in climate change, personally). Maybe next time they could show a little science. At least the original letter gave the reasons *why* they thought climate change was overblown, the rebuttal letter should have done the same, told *why* they believed in climate change. Instead, they basically just said "there's 255 of us and you better believe us or bad things will happen!"
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in climate change, personally
Please, do not BELIEVE in anything. Question, prove, discover, argue!
Believing is being controlled. It has been like that forever. Be it religion, the government or whatever.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, I believe in climate change. Did you actually read what I wrote? I'm sure their arguments are invalid; the point is, the rebuttal letter did not actually rebut any of the arguments, it just ignored them. No wonder the WSJ didn't bother printing it; I wonder why Science did. We would all have been better served by a letter that actually deigned to debate the issues, one that proved the point. Right?
Quick to Assume Invalidation (Score:5, Informative)
In reality, the arguments actually are all valid on their face. Everything there is factual, except the laissez-faire attitude. The problem comes from the writer(s) choosing to strip the context of each point.
I'm literally going to read it now (I chose not to when it popped up on a science blog recently), just to see how quick it is to correct (being written after the fact, it was about an hour):
It starts with Ivar Giaever, who, despite expert work in Quantum Physics and a solid background on Biophysics and coming from the country bordering the one where the discovery of global warming happend...a century ago, has chosen to ignore recorded, glacial, oceanic and tree records to declare, not that global warming is fictional, but his distrust of anthropogenic climate, due to the apparent popularity among physical, atmospheric, oceanic and glacial climatological scientists. Skepticism based on popularity is not uncommon, and you could likely pull up a couple more nominated Nobel Prize winners. His attack on the APS seems to ignore the difference between theoretical physics and real world macroscale examination. I believe it was Planck who said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution.
The now over-used 10 year decrease/steady state analysis ignores the natural wave of environmental change. If you look at the larger source, search for "Global Temperature Anomaly 1880-2010," you would find that there is always a downward period, but taking the total effect of cycles, it average has always increased. Claiming the effect is related to changes in evaporation truly ignores that heating that much ocean to increase the level of evaporation is and incredible amount of energy...we use steam power for electricity...imagine how much electricity it would take to move the increased precipitation as just water from one side of a continent to the other.
To hit on "ClimateGate" is quite humorous within itsown context. As those who know what the supposed terrifying things said were, it's great to poke fun at those attacking it. First, it's a group of people who were amazed that faulty meta-research was actually included in the IPCC assessment; then, the, "mathematical trick," that they used was not only a justifiable, "We know the energy is there since no satellites have shown it disappearing," logic, but that mathematical trick CAME FROM THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE FAULTY META-RESEARCH. It's one of those moments that only look bad out of context, and that's how denialists want the public to see it.
Also, recently explicitly justified: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029 [nasa.gov]
The IPCC's own projections were, in part, based on the larger than average spike during the 80's, possibly assuming the aforementioned wave-effect might have become reduced. Calling the first set of projections embarrassing is, to say the least, childish, and suggesting it was alarmest ignores how frightening the 80's spike was then perceived. To dismiss extreme weather's effect as a mitigator ignores the point of the previous paragraph.
While I've already covered carbon dioxide as a definition of pollution, the unique mention of a benefit to plants have ignored recent studies that plant have been decreasing their stomataphors in count and opening period in areas of higher COv2 concentrations, thus indicating and upper-bound limit to COv2's usefulness to plants.
Next, skimming past the unidentified fields of study, unidentified quantity, unconfirmable scientists, we have Dr. de Freitas, who is another well recognised name to those aware of the field. He's had some interesting logic. One: Human beings didn't use significant amounts of fossil
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
I think they would tell you this:
Every year since 1997 has been warmer than 1997. Every single one. Every one. So you're absolutely 100% wrong.
If you look at the second graph on this page [skepticalscience.com] you'll see how you've been lied to. It's getting warmer, the people who are trying to trick you are simply cherry-picking picking two arbitrary points on a noisy line and claimin those two points are the trend. In some cases you're being deliberately deceived, in other cases, the people telling you this junk are just completely ignorant. Oh and if you really believe in climate change denial, Not-actually-a Lord Muncton (one of the most prominent anti-global warming spokespeople), also has a pill that simultaneously cures AIDS and cancer [climatecrocks.com]. Seriously. That's the kind of people who claim that anthropogenic global warming isn't real and that you can't trust scientists.
Muncton also advocated that every man, woman and child in the United States should be tested monthly for AIDS and anyone detected with signs of an infection should be "permanently removed from the population". He a right-wing conservative crackpot.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
They are the press (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Check again, they rounded up a few know nothings about climate change with titles. I stopped reading about halfway through the list because I couldn't be bothered to finish reading the poorly laid out "signatories" section. The most relevent title I saw was "former head of climate change for meteorology". For the most part it appears to be the usual bundle of physicists and other people with little to no expertise in the field.
The Wall Street Journal is likely under the same orders that other Rupert Murdoch owned papers are under: Under no circumstances can they say anything positive about global warming. Much of the so-called controversy is generated directly from Rupert Murdoch's publications. I'd attack the arguments but they're just the usual gish-gallop of idiocy meant to reassure conservatives that climate change doesn't exist.
I skimmed the article and it looks like most of the stuff in there can be corrected from this article [skepticalscience.com].
Climate change is here, it's happening, there's 14 separate lines of evidence that all indicate the world is warming, and 13 other lines of evidence that indicates the current global warming is casued by humans. It's time to end the idiocy.
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Informative)
Thought-terminating cliché (Score:5, Insightful)
No amount of hand waving changes the fact that they push a political agenda.
Yeah... all truths are socially constructed, there is no difference between education and indoctrination, and no such thing as erudite disinterested investigation.
I happen to be one of those scientists -- and this nonsense about the NAS being political is just a typical ploy a partisan political position that is devoid of content.
This is from Lifton's famous book on thought reform in communist China:
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.
You have suggested that every organisation is as objective as any other. (It is your opening statement.) This supposedly profound statement makes a mockery of a basic and nuanced continuum between ideologically polarised organisations (e.g.: a political advocacy group) and a loose nit association of professional scientists, using facts to compete for mind-share with their peers.
I'm guessing you are politically right, and opposed to totalitarian socialism. Way to go with the thought-terminating cliché!!!
Re:This isn't news... (Score:5, Insightful)
All they did was sign an editorial. It does even say how much they were paid or if they were paid.
In any event, more importantly what these guys haven't provided is any kind of cogent explanation that if its not carbon dioxide that is heating the planet, then why on earth is virtually every single glacier on the planet that has been accurately measured for some time showing dramatic retreat. If the temperature were not getting warmer it would stand to reason that on average half the world's glaciers would be growing rather than melting and not only melting doing so at ever accelerating rates?
The fact these 16 guys are silent on this point and have no evidence, whatsoever to explain this, only shows that this isn't little more than the deniers forming their final "Alamo defense". Keep in mind its not as if the Wall Street Journal is a peer reviewed publication.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the NOAA, [noaa.gov] 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 (the first year we kept records) have been since 2000. And they've all been in the top 13.
But it's the personal anecdotal evidence that people really respond to. And this is the year where Winter skipped the east coast. The past few years have been off, but it's crazy now. Everyone seems to see the weather doing something bonkers.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Interesting)
... this is the year where Winter skipped the east coast. The past few years have been off, but it's crazy now. Everyone seems to see the weather doing something bonkers.
Yeah, but here in New England, we're hearing even more comments from the natives, to the effect that they think global warming sounds like a fine thing. ;-)
And on a very tiny scale, we have at least one good bit of "anecdotal" evidence of the growing problem, in our yard. We have a lot of herbs planted (some invading the neighbors' yards). One our our real successes was a infestation of a rather nice variety of thyme. But last spring, it was almost all dead. Last winter was one of the mildest on record, though colder than this winter has been. The only clump of thyme that survived was growing on a small ledge with a northern exposure, next to a sidewalk that didn't get much sun. Its root system was frozen solid for the entire winter, which is just what it likes. Everywhere else, conditions were milder, with repeated thaws every few weeks. The thyme couldn't take those conditions, and nearly died out. It's likely that this spring, that one remaining clump will also be dead.
Of course, our side-yard thyme crop isn't what you'd call a serious problem to the world. Our Greek and Italian oregano are still strong and healthy, and we can probably get a more heat-tolerant thyme variety. (We still bring the pot of rosemary in, because it isn't frost tolerant, and we have had several mild frosts.)
OTOH, an important commercial crop in New England is its apples, which require a good frost to develop their fruit. If an apple tree dies, you can't just plant a few sprigs of another variety and have a crop next year. Migrating apple groves will be a much slower process. The farmers in both the old and new apple-growing areas will have go through the long process of learning to make a new crop profitable.
Also, humans have imposed national borders in the paths of most crops' migration paths. This will further slow down the adaptation to the new climate regime.
But around here, we're looking forward to the plant nurseries supplying palm trees, to replace all the old cold-climate trees that are on the way out.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
> What was it like ... Before 1300?
Good bit warmer than now. We can tell because in Greenland receding glaciers are exposing Viking settlements, where beech tree stumps can be found in permafrost.
> ... Before 800?
Good bit warmer than it was just before 1300. We can tell because receding glaciers in the Alps are exposing Roman trading routes through passes that were considered permanently glaciated until the last few years; and unknown in the records extant at the time of moderate climate in Greenland, evidenced above.
> ... Before 300?
It is generally suspected that the Minoan Warm Period was warmer than both the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period because of descriptions of crops grown, but there's no "go look for yourself" smoking guns like the above.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Funny)
> ... Before 0?
Good bit colder than it is now. In the sea of Galilee there are sunken cruiseliner with iceberg-sized holes in their hulls.
> ... Before 300 B.C.?
LOTS colder than it is now. The story about the nose of the sphinx being used for target practice are well known, but the story about its earmuffs being used for mortar target calibration are not nearly so well known.
> ... Before 1800 B.C. ?
Wooly Mammoths would huddle for warmth with carnivorous dinosaurs in crowded caves. Titanic ice sculptures of ancient swans dotted the landscape, carved by the frost titans before they left the quickly warming earth for Jotunheim.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
Good bit warmer than now. We can tell because in Greenland receding glaciers are exposing Viking settlements, where beech tree stumps can be found in permafrost.
Can you provide a reference for "receding glaciers ... exposing Viking settlements"? All the historical documentation of Vikings referred only two Greenland settlements -- the Eastern ad Western settlements. You can look at Googlemaps images of the sites for the Western and Eastern Settlements:
Eastern settlement area [google.com], and Eastern settlement map [wikipedia.org]
Western settlement area [google.com], and Western settlement map [wikipedia.org].
Just for reference, here is a zoom of the area of the Brattahlid and Gardar farms (two of the largest/richest farms) [google.com], and a zoom of the Sandnes farm area [google.com] from the Western settlement.
Want more? How about on the ground photos of the ruins?
Gardar ruins [rudyfoto.com]
Bratthlid ruins [greenland-guide.gl]
Hvalsey church [rudyfoto.com]
They are a long way from receding glaciers, and quite green in summer. So again, at least some reference for these newly discovered Viking settlements that were underneath glaciers would be appreciated, because otherwise I'll just have to assume you are making shit up.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, glaciers are never just stable. They're always growing and shrinking locally, due to differences in local climate. So it's not proof that the Earth as a whole was warmer in some past period, just because something from that past period has been found as a glacier recedes now.
Proof of the Earth as a whole gaining or losing temperature comes from looking at what the world's glaciers, as a whole, not individually, are doing. Right now they're rapidly melting, pretty much everywhere they exist. This is not entirely from greenhouse heating. Black soot from fires (largely ours) also lands on glaciers and cause them to absorb more heat from the sun. But it's happening, nearly everywhere, rapidly.
Now, the thing about the Greenland glaciers is they can take ice cores and fairly accurately date the ice. And the current glaciers are far older than the Vikings. It's not plausible that Greenland had no ice just a few centuries back and then suddenly the glaciers formed, because those glaciers are known to be many thousands of years old.
And, like glaciers just about everywhere, they're melting now with surprising rapidity.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind the global warming predictions are things like "1 degree Celsius in 20 years", not "January 2013 will be 50 degrees hotter than normal!!!!!"
Oh, come on now. Those predictions are for changes in the average temperature. And I think you probably know that already.
For a long time now the predictions have been that we will likely see a 4-5 degree Celsius increase in the average global temperature by the end of this century, and along the way we will experience an increasing number of extreme and/or unusual weather conditions and patterns.
These changing patterns could be an increased number of hurricanes due to warmer ocean surface temperatures, unexpected tornadoes during the Winter months, unusually warm Winter months, and so on. And single one of these, or even a couple, could easily be explained as a one-time fluke. But when every season and every year brings some new bizarre weather change, it's time to do something about it.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Informative)
Certainly, as news has become more global we have learned about more extreme weather events, but when you look at the actual statistics, there has not been any increase. There just hasn't. In fact, hurricane and typhoon activity have been at a 40-year low.
Re:wow - what a huge sample size of 130 (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you really want to reduce C02, just stop cutting down trees in south america and asia. Stop buying solid wood furniture and tables.
Actually, that's one of the common examples that doesn't really work very well. Wood that's turned into furniture is carbon that isn't returned to the atmosphere; it's kept out of circulation for the long term. Granted, there are scraps to dispose of, but woodworkers (and furniture factories) try hard to minimize the scrap, because good wood is expensive (and getting more so).
We do live in a house with a fireplace, but right now it's blocked by a sofa and a coffee table, so we're not burning much wood in it. ;-)
What we really should do is persuade people to buy good quality furniture that won't be discarded after a decade or two. World-wide, people need a lot of furniture, and all of it that's made of wood represents CO2 that's taken out of the atmosphere for as long as the furniture lasts.
(OTOH, studies have shown that a good portion of the atmosphere's CO2 - and about 1/3 of the methane - comes from termites. So try to keep the little critters out of your local wooden artifacts, OK? ;-)
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
I can hardly believe you folks are still seriously using Farhenheit.
I mean, the power of social norm and all, but really, Farhenheit? What's next, miles? Stones?
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Fahrenheit makes excellent sense for what most people use air temperature to refer to: human comfort.
Don't even try to rationalise it. You use Fahrenheit for the same reason I use Celsius, because that's what we've always done.
The Celcius equivs are harder to remember: 37.777...., -17.77..., -12.22...
That's because they're not the equivalents that a Celsius using person would use. 0 is freezing, 10 is cool, 20 is nice, 30 is hot, 40 is unbearable, 100 is the boiling point of water. Not so hard if you open your mind a little bit...
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Stockholm, where 30C is fucking hot, you insensitive clod!
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you, Mr. Murdoch. We can always count on you for honest journalism. (/sarcasm)
Fun science experiment you can do at home (Score:5, Informative)
1. Fill an ordinary pot with ice water.
2. Set the pot on a hot stove eye to boil.
3. Monitor the temperature of the pot's contents as the ice melts.
Amazingly, the temperature of the water will not begin to rise until the ice has melted. All the heat applied to the pot goes into melting the ice, not heating the water.
This is called a "phase change [zonalandeducation.com]" (a reference to the phases of matter), and is a possible explanation for the Earth's not having burst into flames despite humans' venting unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I suspect once the ice caps melt, the real fireworks will begin.
Re:Fun science experiment you can do at home (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fun science experiment you can do at home (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fun science experiment you can do at home (Score:5, Insightful)
If the ice caps over LAND melt, it is a disaster. Over water the result is 0.
Re:I am not worried about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically: weather != climate
Even if global warming was an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
No action will be taken anyway.
Re:Even if global warming was an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I would choose as the thesis (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Actually that's two sentences. The first is the one I would choose as the thesis, and the second one to back it up. I don't know if there is much evidence they are wrong on that point.
Re:This is what I would choose as the thesis (Score:5, Insightful)
...aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
The key word here is "economically".
Of course it makes no economical sense to do that.
That's because we're not trying to solve an economical problem.
You could also add that there's no economical reason to have children and you would certainly be right while totally missing the point.
Re:This is what I would choose as the thesis (Score:5, Insightful)
You've completely failed to grasp the scale of the actions proposed. The large sums of money sloshing around in the middle mediate one form of harm (climate) against another (e.g. setback of the fight against world poverty). Decreasing world economic growth rate to mitigate environmental changes due to the carbon economy will have severe impacts on many populations, most likely the least fortunate.
At this scale, all problems are economic problems.
Re:This is what I would choose as the thesis (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is something that can be argued about, too. It sort of depends on what you include in your definition of economics. Is it about how much money the large corporations make? Is it about the gross domestic product? GDP per capita? Adjusted for inflation? Does it go beyond money - do we include things like having food on your plate? Perhaps average quality of life? Do we try to factor in externalities, e.g. effects on other countries or other generations?
I think there is no question that both taking measures or not taking measures to reduce COâ emissions will have _some_ effect under any reasonable definition of economics. But people like to pit the economy against the environment, and I think that is doing the world a disservice. They interact, and it's not one or the other. It's entirely possible that they would go hand in hand. Numerous green tech companies are likely to agree with me. Some people save money on their cars now that they don't have to put in as much gasoline.
In other instances, you may have to choose between more money and something else. I think that is an entirely economical issue. Even if you choose something else, that's entirely within the realm of economics. You're optimizing for something, and that something doesn't have to be money.
So, I would argue that we _are_ trying to solve an economical problem. We are concerned about the environment and what effects our activities may have on our future quality of life. We are trying to factor that into the big economic equation, and trying to figure out if we will get the best results with laissez-faire or with some sort of regulation. I think that we will find that (1) it is impossible to figure out exactly where the optimum is, but also (2) it won't be completely laissez-faire and it won't be completely puppet strings, either, and (3) there will be some terrible ideas, some brilliant ideas, and a lot of incremental improvements.
Don't worry about taking care of yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
say 16 Doctors*,
"you're just going to die anyways."
*not necessarily medical doctors"
And next we'll hear... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that water is not a pollutant. It's a colorless and odorless liquid, consumed and expelled in high volumes by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's lifecycle.
And therefore we should disable all flood and tsunami advanced warning systems.
Re:And next we'll hear... (Score:5, Funny)
The fact that water is not a pollutant.
Beware of dihydrogen monoxyde though.
Oxygen is also colorless and odorless. (Score:5, Insightful)
You will die without it. You will also suffer greatly if you have too much of it. Urine is natural. Do you want to swim in it? Poop is natural. Do you want to live in it?
Lots of things are natural, the concentrations are what matter. I don't need to read the flaming article if the summary is going to quote such moronic and specious reasoning.
It's like the wags who try to get people worked up with some flippant story about Dihydrogen Monoxide being a toxin, only to reveal it's water. Well, la-de-dah, but I happen to live somewhere we spent quite a few millions to stop flooding, so you know what? I'm going to regulate the stuff and be happy with interrupting that part of the natural process.
the 16 scientists are not climatologists (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about how much a can of fuel weighs. Think how many of those you put into your car in a year. Think how many cars are out there. How many trucks delivering food. All that weight, all that fuel goes into the air and converts oxygen into CO2 as it goes. That is a lot of mass of CO2 that is being added to the air that was not 100 years.
We know stuff we dump in the environment comes back to us. Lead, Ozone, Mercury, these are chemicals we have dumped into the air in the past and found they were affecting us. So we know our outputs can affect the global condition.
Re:the 16 scientists are not climatologists (Score:5, Insightful)
> These people in theory, are breathing harding, hence making more CO2... only one solution...
You are correct. The cows we factory farm have a measurable impact on methane emissions. Methane is much worse than CO2.
Population crash due to self pollution and death or exhaustion of resources is an often observed trait. If we don't take control, it will just happen.
Termite mounds can die from self heating if they are not properly ventilated. To much population is bad.
Re:And this is why alarmists come off as flakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me, if you burn a gallon of gasoline in an engine, where do you think the products of the reaction go?
You have liquid hydrocarbons and oxygen and you react them in a chamber. Then you empty that chamber and fill it with new reactants. Do that repeatedly until you have no gasoline left. Where are the products of this reaction?
Where does all the mass go? I mean, I assume your car doesn't have a waste tank you have to empty every time you fill your car with fuel.
Re:the 16 scientists are not climatologists (Score:5, Insightful)
> Think about nature. Think about how many active volcanoes there are on the planet.
> Now try and convince me that we humans are somehow MORE of a factor than nature when it comes to CO2 emissions
-- volcanoes emit 200 million tons a year.
- the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes.
Care to reverse you position ?
Look at the facts. Human CO2 is more than 100x that of volcanic CO2.
Humans are a very significant impact on the atmospheric composition.
No kids, live in Maine (Score:5, Funny)
That's how I removed myself from this jackassery.
Personally, I think that the preponderance of the scientific evidence suggests that we ought to be worried about climate change. However, there are people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about this, and they seem to be centralized in the very states that are going to have it worst if they're wrong. Frankly, I hope they're right and that their already-sun-belt homes don't wind up in the middle of a new desert, and that their kids don't end up with some kind of mutant skin cancer.
But if they do? I don't care. Maine could use an extra degree or two, and it'll be funny to watch all the Red States run around begging the federal government for disaster relief like they do when a river floods or there's a hurricane in the gulf. "Oh, noes! Hotness! Who could have guessed! Please help us, evil socialist elitists. Our kids can't play outside and we're all so THIRSTY!!!! Waaaaaah!"
I'm smiling just thinking about it.
Re:No kids, live in Maine (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory cartoon (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory cartoon [usatoday.net]
Re:Obligatory cartoon (Score:5, Interesting)
What if it's a hoax and we incur societal costs we can't afford?
California is levying carbon taxes on business and as you might expect, businesses are leaving California. That means more unemployment in a state that already leads the country unemployment figures.
There are very real costs to carbon reduction.
Re:Obligatory cartoon (Score:5, Insightful)
A hoax? From the scientific community? Maybe you could lay off the magic mushrooms for a bit.
I'm a scientist. We live or die by how well our theories explain the natural world. You seem to be suggesting that there's a cabal of scientists who are for various reasons trumpeting "the hoax" for precisely what? Our reward system would make any of us fabulously rich if only we could conclusively prove man-made warming is wrong. It hasn't happened.
And that's the rub. Can anyone conclusively prove that we aren't forcing the world to warm? But that only leads to the real point. If we do not know, why should we conduct an experiment for which there's no turning back?
This somewhat reminds me, and here I'm betraying my own bias, of the controversy over smoking. Does it cause lung cancer or not? It took years and many "scientists" on the take form the tobacco industry to swear it didn't before it was finally resolved. And it wasn't resolved within the scientific community (they were adamant that it did), it was resolved when the public finally decided whom to believe.
So we have the current debate? It will not be resolved by scientists, per se. Most have already decided. It will be resolved by the public and what they can see with their own eyes. But then if we have turned the world into one with a runaway greenhouse effect, does it matter? Do you feel lucky? Should we wager the planet on, "Gee, I don't think it could happen" when most scientists are telling you it could?
is there a more scientific version of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reads, unfortunately, like a WSJ op-ed, with lots of polemic, and relatively little science. Have the 16 scientists in question written up a more sober whitepaper that I could read? I'd actually be interested in reading their analysis, if there were a version with more data and less rhetoric about "those promoting alarm", drumbeats, and CO2 being colorless.
And Forbes shot back (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
Quote --
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”
--
2 Of The 16 Are Former Exxon Execs (Score:5, Insightful)
Edward David
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_E._David_Jr [wikipedia.org].
Roger Cohen
http://www.durangobill.com/RogerCohen.html [durangobill.com]
Claude Allègre (Score:5, Informative)
I see Allègre in the list of scientists. He is a very competent *geologist*. He has no clue in climatology. That did not stop him from writing a book about the topic in which he *falsified* data to fit his own personal views that are not supported by science. Here is one of several examples http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/ . No need to say that the people who published the original data are horrified by his fraud. So in the end the WSJ publishes crap. Nothing unusual.
This sounds awfully familiar (Score:5, Interesting)
No global warming in the past decade? WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the hottest ten years on record, in the past 130 years, in order: 2005, 2010, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2001
Notice a pattern? How about the fact that they are all in the past decade.
I notice also that of the 16 scientists, only 2-3 have titles that directly related to the study of climate and atmospheric sciences. The rest are the usual mismash of experts in other subjects who (as "smart" people are won't to do) apparently claim equal expertise in global warming, who are simply doing the classic trick of "donning a labcoat" to look authoritative.
Just remember.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same guy who owns the WSJ owns Fox News.
Let's put this in terms Slashdotters can grok (Score:5, Funny)
"16 Marketing Managers,HR Directors, and First-Level Help Desk Technicians have decided that routinely testing backups is a waste of effort and not needed at all".
Scientists on both sides of this debate... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why they signed it? They aren't subject matter experts.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for 450,000 years. There's been a steep rise since the 1950s, from 315ppm to 370ppm (parts per million). And, in case the WSJ has forgotten, we can't breathe CO2. Too little and too much oxygen will kill us. Too much CO2 would eventually lead to too little oxygen, among other things.
Oh well, maybe we'll start burning fossil fuels to create enough energy to split off oxygen from water and sell it in supermarkets, resulting in even less oxygen available. Oh, and we need oxygen to burn fossil fuels, so eventually we all lose...
WRONG - "exhaled at high concentrations" (Score:5, Informative)
"exhaled at high concentrations by each of us" is wrong.
The air that enters a person's lungs is 78% nitrogen 21% oxygen, 1% argon and less than 1% CO2.
The air that leaves a person's lungs during exhalation contains 14% oxygen and 4.4% carbon dioxide.
since when is 4% high concentration ?
The article is trying to hard.
Score another for Judith Curry (Score:5, Informative)
the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections
Ah, yes. Dr. Curry uses an inappropriate statistical model (simple linear regression) to the team's data set, which ends with two unusually cold months. The result is to nearly eliminate the warming trend in the result (end points have unusual weight in a simple linear regression.) Drop those two months and you get about the same warming trend as the models predicted, or add the following two months (which were unusually warm) and again you match the models.
Impressive work, and the WSJ makes the most of it.
Make sure you read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a number of key points that have been left out of the public debate.
That's right, climate scientists are generally not keen to study economic effects, which means they are not any more qualified than anyone else to propose economic solutions. Most economists believe eliminating carbon emissions today would be disastrous, well beyond the scale of that climate scientists have predicted.
Even though we've learned a lot about the climate in the last 30 years, we still know next to nothing about it. We shouldn't be accepting the results essentially heuristic computer models as rock solid predictions for the future, and we should still be working to understand the climate better first and foremost.
I would like to add that improving the water infrastructure in most of the world would go a long way toward mitigating the effects of global warming, and that it's something that is badly needed today in any case. So if they wan't to put money into that, that would probably be ok too.
So who signed it? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, let's look at the sixteen climate scientists who signed this, shall we?
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris: Sounds reasonable, though it looks like the proper name for the "University of Paris" is the "Paris VI University", or "Pierre and Marie Curie University". Unfortunately, it looks like the man is kind of a crank [wikipedia.org], and he hasn't been the director of that Institute since 1986, which makes it weird that it's the one thing they list about him.
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting: That's pretty reasonable, but forecasting and climate science aren't exactly the same thing; forecasting is the study of what's going to happen tomorrow or next week in any topic, while climate science is trying to figure out what will happen in the next year or the the next ten years with the weather. Also, Armstrong's professional background [wikipedia.org] seems to be primarily in advertising, not forecasting, and he hasn't actually published any papers on climatology that I can see.
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University: I'm not exactly sure what he's doing on this list, since presumably it's a list of climate scientists? I mean, just because he's a researcher in one field doesn't automatically qualify him in others; it's like taking your car to ten mechanics and ignoring what they say, then asking your doctor about it and following his advice.
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society: This dude seems to be a writer [nytimes.com] for the NY Times, and I can't seem to find anyone by that name on the list of Fellows of the American Physical Society [aps.org]. Maybe he received his fellowship before 1990? In any case, it doesn't signify much in terms of his ability to evaluate any kind of science; those fellowships are kinda prestigious, but they're handed out for all sorts of things.
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences: What can I say? He's an electrical engineer [wikipedia.org]. Would you trust him to diagnose a heart condition? An expert in one subject is not automatically an expert in all subjects.
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton: What can I say? Damnit Jim, he's a physicist, not a climatologist! Sure, they're related - but would you trust this guy if he was talking on the way that chemists all over the world are trying to fool us about the mind control properties of fluorine? (as a side note, he's also [wikipedia.org] a Fellow of the American Physical Society - why didn't they mention that?)
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.: This dude is kinda hard to Google because he shares a name with a fairly famous guitar company and a well-respected journalist (who died in 2003); however, it looks like he's done some pretty awesome work [cam.ac.uk] on semi-conductors. Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with climate research.
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: Well, for one thing, he hasn't been the head of the ABM since 1998 (this seems to be a theme, you know?); for another, he's trained as a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. Just because they both deal with the weather doesn't necessarily mean that his word carries extra weight, but I do have to admit that he's one of the better signatories of this list.
Ric
Re:Notice this wasn't published in a science journ (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?
Some already use the global warming effect (Score:5, Informative)
False flag.
"The lack of warming for more than a decade" is contradicted by e.g.
"An increasing amount of seaborne traffic is moving along a new Siberian coastal route, cutting journey time and boosting trade prospects"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/05/arctic-shipping-trade-routes [guardian.co.uk]
The sea north of Siberia is opening up, for the benefit of transport! So, some in the industry are already using the global warming. Russia is planning expanding some of these harbors for summer traffic.
So, even if those WSJ jerks are wrong, there are some beneficial outcomes. Not all parts in the world suffer from droughts or desertification.
Still, the poor people in Nevada, California, Spain, Italy and elsewhere will suffer from an even drier climate.
The winners are the already affluent people in high latitudes, with an already booming industry.
Re:Some already use the global warming effect (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re:That's unusual? (Score:5, Informative)
Global temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were actually lower than they are today. The warming you are describing was a local phenomenon experienced in the Northern Atlantic region.
Re:That's unusual? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenland was not named sarcastically, it was named so people would want to go there.
Re:Money in Global Warming research (Score:5, Informative)
The best sources I can come up with (things like this [wsj.com] and this [transworldnews.com]) suggest that hundreds of millions are spent on one side, and billions on the other.
The big difference here is that those billions are mostly spent on scientific research, while the oil company money is mostly being spent on PR and lobbying.
Re:Oh no, not again. (Score:5, Interesting)
> Then, WHY is there global warming?
Short scale: We're climbing out of the Little Ice Age, just a hair above the three-century trendline right now, but not unprecedentedly so; early 1700s had quicker warming than the last half-century.
Long scale: We're approaching the end of an interglacial period, and that's when it's warmest.
> Regardless of the cause, that change must be stopped,
No, we should do our damnedest to speed it up, and hope to God the alarmists are right in everything they say. The wildest forecasts I've heard are that a billion, maybe a billion and a quarter, will be killed off by AGW. Beats the hell out of the six and a half billion or so that would be killed off by the next Ice Age, which we're a bit overdue for already; and if they are right than we can get the average temperature up 6, hey that's just about the amount than an Ice Age lowers it. How convenient!
Re:More hot things? (Score:5, Informative)
Their argument? Look at temperatures! Even if the temperature is warmer: that doesn't prove/disprove anything. The argument is causation.
"Look at the temperatures" isn't the actual scientific argument. The actual argument is causal and has to do with the atomic spectroscopy and radiative transfer physics of the greenhouse effect, along with the associated laboratory and observational studies that support that physics.
I'm not even going to pretend to say that I've thought out the science behind this, but I never hear anyone address: maybe things are warmer because there's more hot stuff?
World energy consumption is about 15 x 10^12 watts. Spread over the surface of the Earth (5 x 10^14 square meters), this is about 0.03 watts per square meter. Energy balance arguments show that you need roughly 4 watts per square meter to raise the temperature of the planet by 1 degree Celsius. (Divide this by about 3 or so if you include climate feedback effects that may amplify warming.) Let's say that "more hot stuff" raises the temperature of the planet by about 0.01 degrees Celsius. That's about two orders of magnitude smaller than the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Re:Global warming has been offset recently (Score:5, Informative)
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/two_incontrovertible_things_an.php [scienceblogs.com]