New Anti-global warming debate?

[pixelsmith]

jkoci why would anyone want to keep CO2 levels at 350 ppm?

what do you think is an optimum level of CO2 and why?

 

[Schuyler]

Historically CO2 has been a lot higher--even during ice ages.



The thing is, when CO2 is high, plants grow bigger. The Earth is more lush with vegetation. You can grow more food. If upu've got 10 billion people in the world, that might be a good thing to think about. But furthyer, IPCC has been around for awhile now. They have made predictions based on their models, but darned if the old Earth is NOT following IPCC's directions. They made fancy graphs that showed the best and worse case projections, and the Earth just didn't cooperate:



Now the essence of science is its ability to predict. Look at the projections. Look how the real temperature is not following the predictions. Would that not suggest to you that the predictions are wrong? Doesn't this show quite conclusively that the models are wrong? What happened to you skeptical spectacles?

One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO<SUB>2</SUB> in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.

Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?

from Junkscience.com

 

[pixelsmith]

Schuyler your darn attachments are not loading.

 

[jkoci]

jkoci why would anyone want to keep CO2 levels at 350 ppm?

what do you think is an optimum level of CO2 and why?

I don't know. You tell me what the optimum should be. Like we have any way of really achieving any goal. For the next few decades I can not see us really putting much of a dent in our use of fossil fuels so our CO2 emissions will continue to rise especially after our financial crisis eases. There is not enough political or economic will to do much about it. They offer too much of a bang for the buck to give up. If there are real climatic consequences to their use we will find out probably within the next century one way or another. If there are we will have to live with them for better or worse. If they turn out to be worse then we not prepared to deal with that scenario.

If you didn't get the impression that I'm on the fence more than ever with this issue then let me be clear. I am open to credible information from both sides to try to get an idea of what if anything is happening to our climate. I am not on the side of climate alarmists nor am I dogmatically anti-AGW. I feel what could be happening lies somewhere between the two viewpoints. We probably are contributing to the warming to some degree but it is difficult to accurately determine how much. At this time the puzzle is too complex for us to put it together in a way so we understand all the parts of our climate system and how they interact with each other.

Most climate scientists seem to be giving their best interpretation of their data. The problem is that politicians and business leaders are relying on these interpretations to make economic decisions. Whether they should or not I can not say but it seems that there is no way to tell how accurate the interpretations will be. The scientific interpretations could be right, they could be wrong, or both. They need to be flexible enough to evolve as information changes or new data emerges.

We are conducting an experiment with our climate system. What the results will be no one can tell for sure. It is possible that there really is no consequence for our actions. However the alarmists be right could be right too. Both are potential outcomes within a range of possibilities.

Another question is how much climate change (natural, human induced, or a combination of both) can our cushy civilization take before our society suffers. In the past there have been dramatic natural changes in climate that may have occurred rapidly. Just take the Little Ice Age for example. What would happen to our world economies if another occurred? Energy costs alone may be enough to cause extreme financial pain.

 

[pixelsmith]

I would like to see CO2 levels in the 700 ppm range. If you are sitting in a small room or office cubicle you are probably in the 3000-4000 ppm range. If you are in a submarine it could be double that. Commercial greenhouses pump their levels up to around 1200 ppm. CO2 is our friend. Yes it does warm the earth ever so slightly but there is a diminishing return, thus lack of warming after the first 20 ppm in the atmosphere. Doubling the CO2 does NOT double the heat.

Are you insinuating those of us who are anti AGW are "dogmatically anti-AGW"? I WAS fully in the AGW camp until I got my head out of my ass and payed attention to actual observed science as opposed to supporting doctored simulations, corrupt peer reviewing and mainstream propaganda.

 

[Schuyler]

I was "on the side of science," too, until I started looking at the data. Then I discovered everyone was using the same data and that the data had been manipulated. Then I discovered the data itself wasn't really that good and that a whole lot of it had been made up. What really shocked me, though, was the attitude of the scientists themselves. They are so quick to claim any anti-AGW is a result of Big Oil Money when it turns out these guys got millions of dollars in grants and funded their entire careers on AGW. That is simply hypocritical. THEN, it turns out, they tried to freeze out any criticism of their work by refusing to share their programs and their data.

That's not scientific; it isn't the scientific method. It's wrong.

On top of all this we find out the Earth is not minding. It's not following what the computer models said would happen. The IPCC said it would get warmer. Instead it has gotten a bit cooler over the last decade. They said it wouldn't snow as much. Instead, it snowed more. Then they said that's a result of more water vapor in the air from global warming. Well, then, why didn't it rain instead of snow? This is the COLDEST winter in the Northern Hemisphere in years. We're talking temperature here, not water vapor. Now we'll be told, condescendingly, that 'weather is not climate.' Have you noticed that when the weather does something warm, it's climate change, but when the weather does something cold, it's not climate?

It even gets worse. Turns out a lot of the so-called effects of Global Warming aren't at all. Glaciers have been receding since 1800. We have records. If Global Warming caused glaciers to recede since 1900, what caused them to recede at EXACTLY the same rate from 1800-1900? If Global Warming is causing the sea level to rise since 1900, what caused the sea level to rise at EXACTLY the same rate from 1800-1900? Oh, and about those Himalayan glaciers disappearing? Actually, they are not. And about the rain forest disappearinmg? Actually, it isn't. In fact, it's growing. And about African crop yields being cut by 50%. Actually, that's not happening. And about the relationship to CO2 and warm periods? Turns out CO2 builds up 800 years AFTER a warming period. Gore got it backwards. In time after time and place after place the AGW predictions have been wrong.

Now add Cap & Trade politics into this. It just so happens that the 'solution' to global warming falls right in very neatly with a leftist greenie political agenda.

The sum of the evidence is just overwhelming. It's not just one thing. It's not just an isolated incident. It crops up everywhere. It crops up in the computer code, the attitude of the scientists, the data, the historical record, the predictions, the observations, and even in the placement of thermometers. Did you know that the number of thermometers has plummeted in recent years and that the ones no longer reporting are in the colder areas?

So when you look at the sum total of these issues, some of which are technical, some of which are political, some of which are blatant manipulations, I say we have scientific fraud on our hands. I don't think the scientists involved originally started out to commit fraud. What I think happened is that they went down a path and got so far down it that they couldn't back out of it. Their positions became entrenched AND they didn't realize how flimsy the data was. Do you seriously think that you can determine the climate of the past by 'scientifically' analyzing tree rings from one tree? Is the 'science' that robust? Well, then, that nail they found recently is one that waas used to crucify Jesus. It's obvious.

What if you had invested a career and built a reputation on something and it turned out to be completely wrong? It would be tough not to defend yourself--especially if you tended to be an academic elitist anyway.

Most of the arguing back and forth here is by people who have NEVER looked at the data. It's ideologically driven. And that's a big mistake.

 

[jkoci]

Are you insinuating those of us who are anti AGW are "dogmatically anti-AGW"?

Not at all. However keeping an open mind on the issue would be helpful. People on the extreme of both sides seem to be convinced they are right. It could be they aren't.

 

[jkoci]

They are so quick to claim any anti-AGW is a result of Big Oil Money when it turns out these guys got millions of dollars in grants and funded their entire careers on AGW.

Do you have anyone in mind? Where did they get their grant money from?

 

[jkoci]

Most of the arguing back and forth here is by people who have NEVER looked at the data. It's ideologically driven. And that's a big mistake.

Excellent point. That is why I have become skeptical of the extreme on both sides.

 

[pixelsmith]

be sure to check out the NASA data too. they are in on the scam as well.

 

[jkoci]

Instead it has gotten a bit cooler over the last decade.

Until we have a better understanding of situations like these it will be hard to tell how much humans may be involved.

The following is taken from the link below.

Is the AMO a natural phenomenon, or is it related to global warming?
Instruments have observed AMO cycles only for the last 150 years, not long enough to conclusively answer this question. However, studies of paleoclimate proxies, such as tree rings and ice cores, have shown that oscillations similar to those observed instrumentally have been occurring for at least the last millennium. This is clearly longer than modern man has been affecting climate, so the AMO is probably a natural climate oscillation. In the 20th century, the climate swings of the AMO have alternately camouflaged and exaggerated the effects of global warming, and made attribution of global warming more difficult to ascertain.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/amo_faq.php

and a strong El Niño.

Behind The Weather: Strongest El Nino In A Decade : NPR

and the Atlantic Oscillation.

North Atlantic Oscillation blamed for cold spell - baltimoresun.com

and the PDO.

Vancouver 2010 to Be Warmest Winter Olympics Yet

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - Northwest Fisheries Science Center

 

[Schuyler]

Do you have anyone in mind? Where did they get their grant money from?

Michael Mann is one, who frequently has stated that 'deniars' are in the pocket of Big Oil. He has rec'd in excess of $15 million over the years. I believe the grants are largely via the NSF. Another Is Pachauri, the one famous for suggesting a critic of the Himalayan glacier controversy was indulging in voodoo science. His 'Institute, TERI: The Energy and Resources Institute, has received millions in pounds and Euros to study various aspects opf climate change. The Institute is said to be worth 40 million pounds at present. (One of his grants was to study the Himalayan glacier non retreat. More info is here: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-pounds-for-rajendra.html This guy should be investigate for making profits off this stuff. His institute opened a 9 hole golf course on pubic land in a city that has water problems. That's kind of like Al Gore riding around in a private jet and telling us it's immoral to drive an SUV.

If you want to 'follow the money' you will see that the warmist tank has billions. Here's a good article from ABC australia: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm

 

[Schuyler]

OUCH! Look at this:

Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry

It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.

Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.

This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.

STOCKHOLM INITIATIVE
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
Kungsgatan 82
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden

Docs referred to are here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/swedes-call-out-jones-on-data-availability/

 

[Jonah]

Ouch..look at this.

Phil Jones Exonerated by House of Commons

Conclusions

22.
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)

23.
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. (Paragraph 137)

24.
A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 13 )

House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

 

[pixelsmith]

Ouch..look at this.

Phil Jones Exonerated by House of Commons

Conclusions

22.
The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. (Paragraph 136)

23.
In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid. (Paragraph 137)

24.
A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable. (Paragraph 13 )

House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

This will not affect things much. Most of the world realizes that AGW via CO2 was a big scam. Hopefully now we can address real environmental issues.

 

[LF-Reality]

ok my thoughts on global warming and the melting ice caps are
-Ice is suppose to melt right
-Carbon Tax ? wonder if they'll tax oxygen next
-The earth heating up? its been pretty fucking cold lately unless i'm blind and can't feel


On a more serious note* I think the reason we have ice caps is because we are at the very end of a ice age , equals why they are melting . Short and sweet .

 

[jkoci]

This will not affect things much.

More damage control.

An Open Letter from Scientists in the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Errors Contained in the Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC - Home

 

[UBERDOINK]

only true believers that have turned Global Warming into their new Faith still believe in it... but hey, that's just like the Evolutionists.

"Fact's be damned! Don't touch our religion!"

 

[pixelsmith]

Greenpeace is now Greenwar.

On Green"peace".org: Physical threats for climate realists?

Climate Rescue Weblog: Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 2)
Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."

The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.