Personally, I’m NOT sure whether the carbon tax is the really the best way to go or not – I tend to think that the same science and industry that got us into this mess is the only thing likely to get us out again – but I guess it’s better than doing nothing.

I would hope that we all also know that others have also independently observed hockey sticks using entirely different data and methods, not tree rings.

Yep. There’s not just the single Mann’s hockey stick graph anymore, we’ve got a whole hockey team.

See :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_embedded

for a good source (sources plural really) & discussion of the “hockey Stick controversy” starting at the 2 minute 30 second mark.

If not temperatures, what else can be measured to determine it? [HIRGO.]

Diminishing amounts of sea ice? Retreating glaciers? Vanishing alpine ecologies and major ecological shifts? Increasing ocean acidity? Increasing storm frequency and intensity? Increased nyumbers and intensities for floods, heatwaves, sea level rises and increased human casualties and property damage?

You seem to be conflating computer models with evidence for AGW. The case is made for AGW without relying on computer simulations.

Indeed. Moreover, it seems that the computer simulations may be under-estimating the severity of the problem as the mention here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=1

shows regarding the steeper than predicted decline in Arctic sea ice.

Additionally as this shows :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=52

the computer models are actually pretty reasonable and impressive albeit arguably too conservative.

We all know that Mann’s analysis produce the Hockey Stick graph.

I would hope that we all also know that others have also independently observed hockey sticks using entirely different data and methods, not tree rings. That means that even if you were to actually demonstrate that the tree ring reconstructions are invalid, the hockey stick still stands.

Examining the controversy on my own actually helped me to better understand similar analyses of *omics data. What surprised me most is the unpredictable sensitivity of PC analysis is its sensitivity to outliers (removal of one series, the Graybill-Idso pines, demoted the hockey stick shape from PC1 to PC4).

Thats not a problem. Schmidt and Amman demonstrate that at least 5 or 6 PCs are needed to do the analysis properly.

Other questions naturally arose, my main one being is the global average temperature telling us anything whatsoever? Does it have any meaning? Is it the appropriate metric to measure the heat flux imbalance produced by increasing CO2 concentrations?

Since the greenhouse effect is ultimately a radiative energy balance problem, the heat buildup is the issue. If not temperatures, what else can be measured to determine it?

I have other reservations about the skill of the GCMs in predicting future climatic conditions, but I have gone too long.

You seem to be conflating computer models with evidence for AGW. The case is made for AGW without relying on computer simulations.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/10/gobal_warming_is_melting_the_i.php

From Greg laden’s blog which adds a bit of historical perspective to the HIRGO issue too if folks are interested. (Hope it doesn’t breech netiquette or anything like that.)

@22. Al deGore :

Thankfully Climate Gate exposed the fraud.

Bzzt. Wrong See :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Plus :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=33

which starts with a girl eating ahamster and gets better still!

But will you have the integrity to watch those with an open mind and check the facts yourself rather than close-mindedly spouting Fox news talking points? I hope so but am doubtful of it.

After the next Presidential election the damage done to the economy will be reversed.

Wasn’t that what they were saying just before the election of Obama in 2008 when Bush II was departing?

Wish it could happen so quickly. I don’t think any presidential baton change willreally fix things. Not fats and not easily anyhow. I fear it’s going to be a long hard slog to get out of this economic mess probably over decades at least.

@23. David B : Well said & seconded by me.

@77. Gunnar : No worries! Glad you liked it.

Once.

I certainly agree with most of what is said in that article. My question is, how is Benson’s conclusion different from Bryce’s? Both use the CERN neutrino results to make their points. The only difference is that Bryce applied that conclusion to Global Warming, while Benson did not bring up a contemporary example in which well intentioned outsiders are allowed to challenge the orthodoxy. Is any questioning of the catechism of AGW a mortal sin? As for Bryce, I perceive him as someone with an open mind, willing to listen to opposing views and change his mind upon reflection. As he has commented, “I am a liberal whose was mugged by the laws of thermodynamics.” Indeed, his first two books are a well researched, clearly argued treatise on the dangers of greed & crony capitalism practiced by the leaders of Enron, the Bushes, the oil industry, and the neocons. Have you assumed that the nature of his politics was right wing conservative because it was published in the WSJ rather than Mother Jones? In fact, he has written many more pieces for MJ than WSJ.

Bryce’s latest two books address issues of energy policy. He takes the “drill, baby, drill” folks to task for their talk of energy independence and their militarist solutions to energy supply. He also takes the environmental left to task for their belief that renewable energy in the form of solar, wind and biofuel are practical solutions to either the problem of AGW or sustainable energy. His assessment of renewable energy is not very different from that of David MacKay (Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air). Bryce’s and MacKay’s policy recommendations differ: Bryce recommends increased use of natural gas as a bridge to a low carbon/low fossil fuel future, whereas MacKay encourages greater use of renewable energy today (with the exception of biofuels). Interestingly, Bryce’s views on renewable energy are fairly close to those of James Hanson, who recently wrote, “But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” My objections to renewable energy reach back to my environmentalist roots: habitat preservation (see Stewart Brand’s The Whole Earth Discipline for a treatise that are similar to my views in many ways).

Although Bryce’s comparison of the CERN results and AGW have attracted much derision and scorn, there are several aspects that I think needs closer examination. As with everything, context matters. Both special and general relativity have been extensively tested in many scientific experiments, and the understanding of nature conferred by these insights have led to many practical uses. Moreover, SR & GR have been around for about a century. In contrast, climate science is relatively new and because of its scale is a very different field. Perhaps, a more precise comparison is between relativity and the absorption/radiative properties of CO2, H2O and other GHGs. A better analog of climate science is star/planetary system formation and evolution. Both use well tested physical parameters as inputs into their computer models, but the performance of each model is very sensitive to a whole slew of other factors and processes. The use of these dynamic models are necessary to lead us to better understanding these systems. The major difference is that energy policy is not set by the outcomes of the latest runs of the Nice model.

Climate models require careful observations of several atmospheric processes of varying scales of time and space to inform their sub-grid parameterizations. Measurement of past climate conditions and GHG concentrations are clearly important. In the late 1990s, reliable estimates of past CO2 concentrations from ice cores started to become available. The rather stable, low concentration of CO2 could not explain the Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age transition. In the first IPCC report, there was a consensus that the MWP and LIA were real phenomena. This was based not so much on a detailed statistical analysis of the several hundred paleoclimatic reconstructions using a variety of proxies but was more of a general impression. Moreover, the reconstruction results were messy, some suggesting a MWP and some not. In hindsight, the field was ripe for a meta-analysis, similar to those being performed in the drug and health industries. If Mann had not come along and performed this kind of analysis, I am sure someone else would have.

We all know that Mann’s analysis produce the Hockey Stick graph. It was rapidly embraced by many in the field and prominently showcased in IPCC3 and in the general media. Even though it challenged a shaky consensus, there was little scrutiny of its methodologies for reasons that are beyond me. When McIntyre & McKitrick examined the methodologies, they found that Mann had used a non-standard procedure in the principle component analysis that led to the production of the severe hockey stick shape. Both the NAS panel headed by Gerald North and the Wegman report reached the same conclusion: the shape was an artifact of a flawed methodology. North took great pains to point out that Mann’s conclusions might be correct, but acknowledged that the support of this came from the same paleoclimatic data set that previously had been taken as evidence supporting a MWP.

Examining the controversy on my own actually helped me to better understand similar analyses of *omics data. What surprised me most is the unpredictable sensitivity of PC analysis is its sensitivity to outliers (removal of one series, the Graybill-Idso pines, demoted the hockey stick shape from PC1 to PC4).

Other questions naturally arose, my main one being is the global average temperature telling us anything whatsoever? Does it have any meaning? Is it the appropriate metric to measure the heat flux imbalance produced by increasing CO2 concentrations?

I have other reservations about the skill of the GCMs in predicting future climatic conditions, but I have gone too long. I will end with a lament. To often when climate science is discussed on protagonist sites such as this one, those who question the orthodoxy are treated with derision and insults to the delight of the AGW protagonists (not to say that the antagonists behave any better). Unfortunately, such an approach will not win any converts among the infidels, but it does work to keep the heretics in line.

My greatest fear is that calling too many people ignorant and stupid concerning AGW will lead to increased distrust of scientists and a lowering of support for funding of basic science research. As one who has been funded by government grants, I am keenly aware that politicians of both stripes, and more importantly, the tax paying public are my patrons. Insult and denigrate your patrons too much, and they just might ask, “Why are we paying you?” Better to treat them with respect while persistently and patiently delivering your message.

Cheers

I kinda doubt it. For every honest inquiry, it seems there are half a dozen rants by people who are convinced that it’s all just a big evil commie conspiracy.
I applaud those who build those FAQs, all the same.

…………………………………….

Agreed, however the issue is MUCH bigger than just the science.

I tend to be a little rough with deniers, and yet, I can’t help but feel that they have good reason to fear economic hardship arising from efforts to mitigate climate change (ie. movement away from a carbon-based economy).

While I strongly think we have no choice but to change, I also think we must keep an eye on the process in order to be as supportive as possible of everyone who is hurt by the needed changes, particularly in light of (global) government actions to reduce or remove national social safety nets at a time when they are most needed.

Events in the Middle East are a good example of possible events to come. Keep in mind that the protests and social unrest in the Middle East began over issues of bread prices, over issue of food. Ultimately, the issue of food evolved into protests against wider social justice issues and ultimately, in the case of Libya, violent civil war. The ‘Occupy” movement in the US (begins October 15 in Canada) is following the same low-key muddy message beginning but is ALSO basically a peaceful, social justice protest against issues of inequality arising from financial and social hardship. At its heart, the (corrupt) Tea Party movement is much the same.

So, while I don’t agree with deniers about their arguments against AGW and I certainly do not agree with them about their ‘do nothing’ path going forward, I think we do share common ground with regard to socio-economic harm arising from AGW regardless of which path is followed.

I find that I am beginning to see that we are also sticking our heads in the sand if we let the AGW is/isn’t argument lead over the argument of change is coming regardless of cause and what are we going to do about it argument. I think we are worse because we should know better.

Cheers

Thanks so much for the link to that article! It should be required reading for everyone on both sides of the AGW debate.

@25. David C. :

..as a skeptic, I take both of the groups proposals with a huge grain of salt; all I am sure about is that climate has changed and will continue to change;

Yes, the climate has changed and will – naturally but as this youtube link explains :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=related

we can unravel what the natural factors are – and what role Humans can play in changing the climate.

As this clip :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

by Sir David Attenborough concisely and clearly demonstates the natural climate wouldn’t be doing what the current Human affected climate is doing.

.. when I was a kid in the 60′s and 70′s we were told that there was a global cold spell coming, but then the story changed in the 90′s to a global warming spell coming;

You haven’t done much research before you posted have you David C? As (#39.) Rover has pointed out and as this clip :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=42

entertainingly shows, that’s not really the case.

I am going to continue to be skeptical just as I am about the forecast for the weather; until I wake up, I can’t assume the forecasters were right; same goes for your theories Phil;

Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) isn’t Phil’s theory – it is a basic well-established climatological fact that was established by many scientists over a long period of time starting with Svante Arrhenius in the 1890′s.

What we do about that fact, *that* is up to us.

Ch4.The.Great.Global.Warming.Swindle video available via Torrents; would someone like to answer to me, why I should believe the AGW theory over the theories proposed by the Scientists in this documentary;

Yes, okay I’ll answer that for you David C. Please take a look at this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=53

and also at this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4957F2ACA87CF1B1

and if you’d rather have a text than video then there’s this :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-07-12/dont-be-swindled/97604

for you as well.

I’ll let those links speak for themselves and just add that T.G.G.W.S. has been utterly debunked and has zero credibility. Don’t believe me? Do your own quick checks on what it says – and then see what those who have actually dedicated their lives and careers to studying the climate think and say as well.

Good article here though :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-06/benson-science-is-the-only-game-in-town/3318062

on the ABC news site on science and the Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) issue. I second what is written there.

All that being said, my travels have shown me that we on this planet are by no means on the same page when it cones to using this data (knowledge) to prolong our existence on this planet. When one part strives to reduce-renew-recycle, but another part makes no effort whatsoever, all the data in the world might just as well be tossed out! Yet common sense tells those of us who “do” to keep at it because every tiny bit helps! When one part conserves water up the wazoo, only to see fountains in a major metropolitan area spewing water all over the sidewalk, one wonders why even bother! After all, science tells us how the water cycle works, right? Here in CA, we have rolling brown/black outs during intensely hot summers, no matter how much we try to control energy use; how, then, does NYC justify Times Square and the extreme energy use there 24-7 ?

We all have examples of butting our heads against skewed data, scientists, realists, and ostriches; Earth will go through cycles of change as always, and still we MUST simply do our part, just as a mustard seed can move a mountain! Ah, that is faith, which trumps all data! Stimulating conversation, eh?

Although not related to science, I had been a long-time member of a site which developed an extensive FAQ to avoid constantly answering newbie questions. Although it might help, many people simply don’t bother reading them, and/or might not be able to find them easily, and/or assume they have some sort of special circumstance/idea that seems to blind them to taking the time to read the FAQs anyway. I’ll also add that even when people do read them, comprehension might not take, or they simply post anyway hoping for more information despite the extensiveness of the information provided.

Basically, the only thing it will do is cut down work for the side answering questions (as you can point people to the FAQ), but it won’t really prevent people from continuing to post already-answered questions.

The thing is, even if a blogger has a valid question, the odds are that it’s already been asked, answered, argued, asked again, and eventually hashed out.

Well put. In the days of Usenet newsgroups, this problem was addressed by maintaining and regularly posting or distributing an FAQ on the relevant topic. For AGW, Realclimate.org has a pretty good resource/FAQ page, and there’s also a pretty comprehensive list of myths at SkepticalScience.com, although the latter is casting things in the negative, which may be a bit off-putting to some.

Your comment makes me wonder if more work on comprehensive FAQs on this, coupled with folks talking them up more on various blogs, might be helpful to the discussion.

Sure. But what is the alternative? Sitting around, doing nothing, watching the earth go down to hell? Even if we can’t change the change, we have to do as much as we can to minimize the outcome.

Btw: The US could have done a lot already. And it’s not that hard. For instance, why do the US citizens still need cars that use 15ltr/100km? A “European” engine as powerful as an “American” uses at most 8ltrs/100km in these days. And even less is easily possible. I can’t believe why this is so difficult!? It is quite simple to be far more efficient and not changing the tieniest bit in the way of life.

That this is not enough, is a different story. And to convince especially China and India that there ARE alternatives, is our bl**dy responsibility. And if the Western World (those who began the sh*t in the first place) doesn’t start to change and to take the responsibility, who will? Always pointing to the other one doesn’t help at all. Then we can just keep sitting around. But that’s probably what humans are best at.

It starts off,

Unusually, I’m in complete agreement with a recent headline on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page:

“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”

The article below is the same mix of innuendo and misrepresentation that its author normally writes, but the headline is correct. The WSJ seems to think that the headline is some terribly important pronouncement that in some way undercuts the scientific consensus on climate change but they are simply using an old rhetorical ‘trick’.

Gavin goes on to make some good analogies although I would quibble over a minor point or two (e.g. science in a certain area or field may never be settled but it is confirmed to such a high degree it is silly to reject it and for all intents and purposes you can call it settled). But, that is probably more semantics than an actual quibble, I’d guess.

realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

btw, just picked up that Gavin has the word ‘trick’ in quotes….that’s a reference back to the storm in an [empty] teacup over the use of the word ‘trick’ in one of the stolen emails. Amusing.

Similarly, I see many armchair pundits and bloggers bringing up questions about AGW science which they seem to think are original or insightful, but which have actually been covered a hundred times in the literature. When people who know the field hear this for about the thousandth time, they tend to lose patience and tell the “questioner” to go piss up a rope. Then said person whines they’re being silenced and that science is about questioning everything. It would be funny if it didn’t keep happening over and over and over and ****ing over again.

I would like to see this comment etched onto the computer monitor of every denier out there.

Great explanation of weather vs. climate.

#62, Joseph G

While I do agree overall with your sentiment, sometimes the people troubleshooting do overlook the basics. I’ve had it happen to myself, and I’ve seen other people do it. Sometimes you’re so close to the subject of what you’re doing, you miss the obvious.

Not saying that’s what climatologists have done, or that the deniers are anything less than annoying, but to point out that sometimes yes, even the non-geeks might see something worthwhile. That’s another great point – and nuance – about science. A good idea might come from anyone. But then, the idea needs to be turned into data; for which the deniers seem to lack or at least, not be interested in finding.

I think for me, that’s the most annoying part. It’s not that the zombie arguments keep returning, it’s that they’re never accompanied by good data.

“How dare you tell me that X is definitely true! Science is never settled, and conclusions should always be questioned!”

Well, yes. And also, no. Or rather, yes, but only if you (A) are acting in good faith and actually using your ears as well as your mouth, and (B) if you know which questions have been asked, and which have been answered. See, scientists typically fulfill both these criteria. One thing a lot of people don’t seem to understand is that scientists question each others’ results ALL THE TIME. That’s what science IS. And of course, they’re often competing for grant money, and to publish the most credible paper on a given subject – they’re not all sitting around sipping Port and patting each other on the back.
The thing is, even if a blogger has a valid question, the odds are that it’s already been asked, answered, argued, asked again, and eventually hashed out.

To draw an analogy from my own experience, it’s a bit like a team of IT experts trying to get a fried server to boot, having done all the basic troubleshooting already, and are now discussing master boot records and power supply voltages. Now imagine some random guy (who can barely use a Mac) walking up and saying “HEY GUYS, have you made sure it’s plugged in? Maybe you forgot to do that. I’m helping!”

You could hardly fault the IT geeks from turning and giving the newcomer a look that would set paper aflame. Now, is it a valid question? Sure. But it’s also a ridiculous waste of breath and time. The geeks in question are not going to be grateful to the newb for bringing up something they checked three hours ago.

Similarly, I see many armchair pundits and bloggers bringing up questions about AGW science which they seem to think are original or insightful, but which have actually been covered a hundred times in the literature. When people who know the field hear this for about the thousandth time, they tend to lose patience and tell the “questioner” to go piss up a rope. Then said person whines they’re being silenced and that science is about questioning everything. It would be funny if it didn’t keep happening over and over and over and ****ing over again.