Cancun: The chihuahua that roared
If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared.
And what a surprise it was.
Before the summit, expectations were so low that simply keeping the UN show on the road was all many observers (and some players) thought possible.
In the late morning of the final day, I came across Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh explaining to a couple of delegates that "this process is dead".
Yet half a day later, Cancun produced almost global consensus on words that spell out a need to step up, urgently, action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The agreement here "affirms that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time".
It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times.
It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping them to spend it well on climate protection, acknowledging the rich world's historical responsibility for climate change.
It sets out parameters for reducing emissions from deforestation and for transferring clean technology from the west to the rest,
Achieving this needed a couple of fudges.
The US partly achieved its main priorities - giving the World Bank first go at running the big new fund, and having some degree of international monitoring on China's emissions - but the wording also allows China and other developing countries to escape with their sovereignity, as they see it, unaffected.
And Japan and Russia have been given a way to slide away from the Kyoto Protocol while maintaining the pledges they made around the Copenhagen summit.
Given the constraints of time, Copenhagen's legacy of mistrust and the domestic political concerns of countries from Japan to the US to India, this is much more than anyone had expected.
The back stories of how these deals are made are always long, involved and - at this timescale - untold.
But clearly the Mexican host government constructed a process that sought to include everyone, and that addressed the really knotty issues in small groups of interested parties, and kept at it until a way through was found.
Unlike Copenhagen, there was listening as well as talking.
So that's the roar.
However, if the agreement here acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, it doesn't provide a visible way to achieve them - merely "urging" rich countries to do more.
The Kyoto Protocol text itself is still full of square brackets and options - on many, many issues.
And some of the important, tough details have been kicked into the long grass - notably, the issue of "legal form" - whether the next climate agreement should seek to be legally-binding or not.
So in terms of the most vital question for any climate accord - how much will it contribute to restricting man-made climate change? - you would have to answer, not as far as to meet the needs that it identifies.
But in the view of many observers here, it's laid the foundations for the comprehensive agreement they want.
Eyes now turn to Durban in South Africa, where next year's summit will be held.
In a sense, that's the last chance to get further targets under the Kyoto Protocol agreed, because the current targets run to 2012 only.
Building the deal that's desired by small island states, African nations, other "vulnerable" developing countries, the EU and many environmental groups won't be easy - far from it. There are many political obstacles on that road.
But the dog is rescuscitated and up and running... we'll see how far it goes.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMX
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Dog is exactly the right term for the UN's ongoing shameful waste of taxpayer funds on the biggest scam in the history of the world.
Complain about this comment
You Cancon some of the people some of the time but you Can'tcon all the people all the time.
If the agreement here acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, but doesn't provide a visible way to achieve them - then what is the point of this Dog and Pony show?
Gravy train funding for Climate Change related jobs and more taxpayer funded conferences - that is really what this is all about - that is all this scam was ever about.
Complain about this comment
Exactly, Shadorne, we're all dog-tired of so much attempted global power-broking without anyone even mentioning the key scientific point: that without strong positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds there can't possibly be a global warming crisis from man-made CO2. And the scientific evidence is increasingly that clouds make the feedbacks negative, not positive. The earth just isn't that unstable. Four billion years that allowed the evolution of life tells the same story. CanCon indeed.
Complain about this comment
So the next summit is in South Africa then. Not much chance of it being in Milton Keynes or Hull huh? There can never be too much glamour for the UN, right?
Complain about this comment
Well, I didn't see that coming. This outcome provides something for everyone. For those that accept the science, the deal shows consensus amongst the governments of the world of the need to tackle the problem and provides something of a way forward. For those that 'deny' climate change, the outcome is not as strong as it could have been. For those that are sceptical of AGW but actually care about the environment, their is some positive stuff on protecting the rainforests. And for those who just like making sarcastic comments about anything involving governments and the environment, the next meeting is in Durban 'which is well hot cos they just want a holiday...'.
Complain about this comment
Post 4: Given the levels of violent crime in South Africa, I'd much rather go to Milton Keynes. Not sure Hull is quite geared up for hosting a global conference, unless you propose they should all meet in the leisure centre and stay in local people's spare rooms...
Complain about this comment
Stealth.
Congratulations & extensive thanks to all who helped (and eternal shame upon those who did not).
Bravissimi!
Complain about this comment
Fossil fuels have a life expectancy of about 50 more years after which there should be negligible man made green house gases released into the atmosphere. It is going to be very difficult to control their use by nations or to ration them while they are still available. A sensible approach would be to try to reduce the carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. We should be talking about how this could be done and implemented.
Complain about this comment
Unlike Copenhagen, there was listening as well as talking.
If only they would listen to wider views on this issue, they may actually learn something, but then again, it was never about science, was it?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
If the more than 95% of scientists are right,this is more than urgent.
If they are wrong,their recommendations will only do the environment good.
The evidence is overwhelming.
What possible mass hysteria would affect nearly all scientists to try and 'scam' the world?
What would their motivation be?
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true.
The only people who are trying to scam anyone are the nay-sayers,all of whom have a clear set of vested interests,and are only out to make mega bucks in the short term.
Complain about this comment
Richard, you must be over the moon. Because the NASA Goddard Space Center has convincing proof that doubling CO2 will only result in 1.64c warming, 0.3c LOWER over land.
You must be overjoyed... that's why you reported it and told the world about it.
Oh, and the NASA SORCE satellite has real world data to prove that recent warming was in fact as a result of the sun. I'm sure you'll be reporting that as well. Yeah?
Complain about this comment
@ Yorkurbantree
"This outcome provides something for everyone."
Yes indeed. Those living in fuel poverty in the UK can look forward to lots of other people joining their club.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re #8:
It would be even more sensible to use our massive supplies of low-grade coal to generate energy. That way, we'd produce loads of sulphate aerosols, which would have a cooling effect like they did from the '50s to the '70s, thus mitigating the effects of CO2. This would save us for the next few decades while new technologies are developed, and when we finally stop emitting CO2, atmospheric levels should drop rapidly, eliminating further need for the aerosols.
The upside to this is that energy costs would remain affordable, and may even fall, and we would not have to redistribute large amounts of wealth to developing countries - leaving more money available to develop alternative energy sources.
Also, if CAGW is proved to be false, we will then not have lost anything.
The downside is that: a) the air won't be quite as clean as it could be, but we survived such conditions for decades in the past, and people in developing countries (and China) still live under such conditions, and b) we'll have acid rain once more. However, once we stop producing the aerosols, the forests will quickly recover - as they did before.
Any takers?
Complain about this comment
@Hugh Morley #13
It doesn't take a doctorate in earth sciences to know when something is intrinsically wrong
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Hugh Morley says:"The sheer scale of scientific ignorance in this comments page is, as usual, appalling. Unless you are literate in Earth sciences, keep your opinion to yourself, because it's worthless."
Absolutely agree. Having a degree in Earth Science (Graduate Physics in Earth Sciences including Atmospheric Physics), I can confirm that catastrophic man-made global warming is entirely bogus. It is total nonsense lacking any credible concrete evidence. The scientific ignorance displayed by the UN IPCC, media, greens, politicians, many blogs and comments is indeed appalling.
Complain about this comment
The chihuahua that roared - love that title - Was it a roar heard around the world? Couldn't have been; I never heard it.
If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared.
Yes, Cancun has set up an almost global consensus on words (drawn up by developed countries in private sessions) that spell out a need to step up action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. So when do you think we can expect the United States to stop raising so many cattle and other meat products that eject all that methane into the atmosphere and polute clean waters?
It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times. Of course, the scientists have failed to meantion that this is not good enough, fast enough...If you want to know how I know this, just talk to Evo Morales and Pablo Solon, Bolivia.
It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping the poor to spend it well on climate protection; actually I trust the developing copuntries to spend it well more than I trust the developed countries to spend it well. Developed countries are too busy manufacturing for their military/industrial complexes.
It sets out parameters for reducing emissions from deforestation and for transferring clean technology from the west to the rest...Excuse me? Exactly what has the west got to offer "the rest"? Is it the rest who deforest the land? Is it the rest who turn beautiful gulfs into oil sludge (e.g.Nigeria in its endles battle with Shell)?
The US, the most guilty of proliferating the world with drones and white phosphorous and bombs that explode even long after they have been dropped, has partly achieved its main priorities - giving the World Bank first go at running the big new fund, and having some degree of international monitoring on China's emissions. What hypocracy!
And Japan and Russia have been given a way to slide away from the Kyoto Protocol while maintaining the pledges they made around the Copenhagen summit. So, am I right in thinking that we now have nothing binding, no legally-binding obligations?
The so-called agreement acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, but no way, certainly no legally binding way, to achieve them - merely "urging" rich countries to do more.
Eyes now turn to Durban in South Africa, where next year's summit will be held.
Oh how befitting the great T.S. Elliot:
The Hollow Men (1925) - a poem by T. S. Eliot.
Note particularly: "Hollow Men".
The final stanza is most applicable to the "action" of these "Hollow men":
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
With Copenhagen's whimper, followed by Cancun's chihuahua roar.
Complain about this comment
So, let me get this right. It's an agreement that all the rich countries need to cut emissions, but no countries agreed legal targets. And the news in this is.... what? What is the point of this costly climate change circus that goes on around the world? When will reality kick in and they realise that none of this apocalyptic nonsense is going to happen.
What we have here is a situation in which the UK ALONE now has legal targets to cut CO2 emissions - an own goal that will have drastic effects on our economy. DeFRA itself has admitted that the additional burden of this nonsense will be several billions of pound per year to the UK and burden each of us with yet higher fuel bills. Given that the met office's own figures show on average 28,000 premature deaths in the UK from the cold each winter, burdening people with yet higher winter energy bills is a sick and cruel joke. Don't even get me started on the news of the 'green climate fund' - no wonder third world countries like this deal - it's yet more money being transferred from you and me to other countries. Scrap all this now and use the money to pay for free university education for everyone in the UK several times over.
Meanwhile even if you believe in man made global warming this makes no difference - Chinese CO2 emissions have and will continue to rise and dwarf any reductions which might make. China INCREASES its emissions by the equivalent of total UK emissions every 18-24 months!
We are in a madhouse.
Complain about this comment
@Shadorne, #16
// Having a degree in Earth Science (Graduate Physics in Earth Sciences
// including Atmospheric Physics), I can confirm that catastrophic
// man-made global warming is entirely bogus.
Tell me, is your particular conclusion shared by the majority of scientists with the same or better qualifications than yourself? Do the majority of Earth Science/Atmospheric Physics grads agree with you that the idea of a significant man-made element to global warming is "entirely bogus"?
• If so... that's a conspiracy of silence/censorship among the scientific community of quite unbelievable proportions, and I'm sure you'd have no trouble gathering everyone together and getting published, given the sheer weight of qualified opinion.
• If not... then don't flatter yourself that you're "confirming" anything. You are simply stating what is just a personal and atypical (some might say "quirky") view.
Complain about this comment
Richard- you realize, that all those dedicated, sincere people you met at the conference; the ones desperately trying to save our necks - will not read your blog and comments, because of the extremely high density of denialoons in the comments. It's just too painful, and wastes too much time- which is, of course, their goal.
Yes, it's a big pain in the ass to clean them out. But well worth it. Over on the NYT, the Green Blogs folks just did successfully change their screening, and the result is fabulous- intelligent conversation. And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.
It matters. I hope you can make this forum useful. Your articles are excellent; but the comment space is a complete waste.
Complain about this comment
The chihuahau that roared? LOL
For those not au fait with the career of Peter Sellers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7L7WLFBYR4
Complain about this comment
It is so incredibly tiring to read these comments. I feel real temptation to summarise the AGW evidence again, but there is no point. It has been done thousands of times. Those in denial are not interested in reason.
If anyone wants to know the facts, they should go and read about them, but by no account believe any random comments. Wikipedia is a good place to start, and follow the references within.
Those who are not interested in reason should go and form a deniers' religion.
Complain about this comment
I am glad to hear there was an agreement, though I'm concerned that in the short term little will be done to implement the goals.
Shadorne, I find it hard to believe you have the qualifications you suggest, because your posts demonstrate utter illiteracy in atmospheric physics, and clearly you have not comprehended the papers showing AGW effects such as warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere, rising tropopause, increased downward longwave radiation, or reducing outgoing longwave radiation (all distinct fingerprint signatures of rising CO2 warming the atmosphere, not solar or other processes). This is atmospheric physics that has been understood for between 50 and 150 years, and is now directly observed, not just predicted by established theory or modelled. As for the rubbish about negative cloud feedbacks... quite how do you propose we have just had 2 million years of ice ages, if negative feedbacks dampen down climate sensitivity. It is simply not possible, as the climate forcing for teh ice ages (Milankovitch orbital variations) is much too small to drive ice ages without the CO2 positive feedback?
Of course it's all a grand conspiracy between thousands of professional climate scientists and every major professional academic body (Royal Society, NAS and their equivalents) worldwide. We've just had the hottest November globally on record by the way, despite a mature La Nina and record low solar activity, so quite how did that happen? Answers on a postcard please! Clue: the IMBY snow didn't cover the world...
Complain about this comment
So they've agreed to transfer some of my hard-earned money to third-world dictators. Sounds typical to me. Thieving and lying b******s.
Complain about this comment
#15 mangochutneyuk
"It doesn't take a doctorate in earth sciences to know when something is intrinsically wrong"
maybe, be it certainly cant be called a scientific point of view
Complain about this comment
Shadorne: As one literate in a hard science (physics), I agree with you.
Complain about this comment
Shadorne: I note that skywatcher1 doesn't realise that physics has move on in the last 50 to 150 years.
Complain about this comment
Climate Contrarians have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings do not and cannot effect Climate.. what they have instead is a political echo chamber turned up to 11...
Complain about this comment
Climate alarmists have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings affect [not effect] climate.. what they have instead is a political echo chamber turned up to 11...
Complain about this comment
@27 PAWB46
'I note that skywatcher1 doesn't realise that physics has move on in the last 50 to 150 years.'
Perhaps you should address the points raised in skywatcher1's extremely concise post, rather than implying you know better on the basis of exactly zero evidence?...
Do please expand on how physics has evolved to support the climate contrarian propaganda and naturally cite the authoritative papers published that support your claim.
Complain about this comment
11. At 1:46pm on 11 Dec 2010, Robert Leather wrote:
Richard, you must be over the moon. Because the NASA Goddard Space Center has convincing proof that doubling CO2 will only result in 1.64c warming, 0.3c LOWER over land.
The paper in question is interesting and a press release describing it is on the Nasa Goddard Space Centre web site URL:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html.The lead author Lahouari Bounoua says he hopes the paper will show how plant growth with increasing CO2 levels will create a negative feedback not previously taken into account in many climate models. He is quoted as saying the "This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming". So an important step in the quest to get increased accuracy in climate forecasts.
Complain about this comment
Papyrus says: "If anyone wants to know the facts, they should go and read about them, but by no account believe any random comments. Wikipedia is a good place to start, and follow the references within."
Wikipedia is most certainly not a good reference - the climate science section had been totally corrupted by William Connolley, who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly subverting Wikipedia with the unscientific propaganda of man-made catastrophic warming. I'd start with a basic textbook like An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation" by Liou. Richard Lindzen has some credible work.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas - nobody credible would deny it - but all evidence suggests that additions are having a negligible effect at current concentrations.
Complain about this comment
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas - nobody credible would deny it - but all evidence suggests that additions are having a negligible effect at current concentrations."
The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.
Complain about this comment
@29 PAWB46
'Climate alarmists have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings affect climate..'
On the contrary -
'Climate change: a summary of the science...
..The document was prepared by a working group chaired by Professor John Pethica, Vice President of the Royal Society and was approved by the Royal Society Council.'
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
..then we can progress to the thousands of reputable scientific studies that it is based on.
In contrast what have you got?..
Complain about this comment
To all these ‘literate’ people commenting on their personal degrees, well done chaps.
However, the word is sustainability is it not? CO2 and methane will be a factor in future climate change and global warming, just as you clever chap’s will be in producing more and more, growing more and more for an exponentially expanding population.
The problem is. The Earth will still be the same size!
According to you lot there is nothing to worry about and everything is tickerty boo!
From my perspective, something is going to give, and it is not superfluous opinions is it?
And as for this agreement to agree;
[It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times.]
Is just two steps back and one step forward.
Or, ten years back! As i seem to remember all this hot air in the first Kyoto accord write up!!
Cuger Brant would turn in his grave!
Complain about this comment
Nullius in verba.
Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS.
Complain about this comment
This was never about "climate". Its always been about money and power.
Complain about this comment
36. At 5:37pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:
Nullius in verba.
Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS.
---------------------------------------
With respect, doesn't everyone?
It is just how you like to percieve it?
Also, (with great respect) is not your little motto a bit of a paradox for you?
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri
Complain about this comment
@33 quake
The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.
Evidence suggests? If it only suggests then it is not evidence.
Complain about this comment
Lamna-nasus must surely be aware that the Royal Society for all its wonderful history is now sadly reduced. Under Martin Rees it moved away from excellence in science and into political advocacy.
It mindlessly supported the Muir Russell whitewash of Phil Jones and his CRU cronies and now has approximately the same credibility as do they.
Rees's successor I understand is trying to row back from this former extreme position but sadly the damage has already been done and it will take a long time for its reputation to recover.
Complain about this comment
Peter317 @14. Coal is more widespread and might be around for a good deal more than oil and gas. As you say acid rain would be a problem but technology is available to clean up exhausts from coal fired power stations which would cancel out any benefit from the sulphate aerosols!
Complain about this comment
Of course if I quote Wikipedia then #32 Shadorne tries to discredit it by attacking one of its editors, and if #34 Lamna_nasus quotes the Royal Society, then #40 bandythebane will try to discredit the Royal Society. Anyone who does not agree with the deniers must be wrong!
You could say that the AGW 'advocates' follow the same route. Sometimes they might. So the way to decide who is right would be to agree on a valid source, and then check what it says.
The IPCC was supposed to be such a source.
The Royal Society, the highest learned body in the UK could be such a source.
The majority of scientists who work on this could be such a source.
Obviously you don't accept these as they do not agree with you.
So what source would you suggest that is acceptable to the majority?
Complain about this comment
#36 PAWB46: "Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS."
Well, this is just GREAT: so peer review is just "BS", for The True Science is done by Lone Geniuses who are too great to be understood by the poor "folks" who review the papers... and PAWB46 is obviously one of those, too Great to submit his or her Great Ideas to the peer review "BS"!
Well, the guys behind homeopathy, cold fusion, human cloning, ID and many others, were all in that Genius Club... and were in the end all debunked as total nonsense by peer review.
On the other hand, stunningly, even Einstein with his VERY WEIRD ideas (for his time) did make it through peer review - strange, isn't it?
People afraid of peer review are simply conscious that their stuff is rubbish - and obviously, they brand peer review as the "BS" that forbids them from being recognized for what they THINK they are, namely the Lone Geniuses nobody else is able to understand.
Well, loonies sure are aplenty in this world.
Complain about this comment
The Royal Society is reliant for over 2/3 of its income on government grants. It therefore produces reports confirming what the government wants to hear.
Complain about this comment
A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 and it looks like the scientifically considered view that I hold has gained substantial support. We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave.
The main positive outcome that I see as coming from Cancun is the move towards amelioration of the effects of a variable climate. (Albeit still wasting billions/million/a few dollars on the false CO2 hypothesis.)
Complain about this comment
@42 papyrus
Anyone who does not agree with the deniers must be wrong!
If you are an AGW atheist, absolutely but then pro AGW crowd think that deniers are 3 bricks short of a load.
The IPCC was supposed to be such a source.
The UN is supposed to be a lot of things but I think it has been usurped and has become somewhat of a wart. Cut of the funding for the UN.
The Royal Society, the highest learned body in the UK could be such a source.
See @40 bandythebane
The majority of scientists who work on this could be such a source.
For the most part AGW advocacy is required to get funding grants.
Obviously you don't accept these as they do not agree with you.
There is nothing wrong with your comprehension.
So what source would you suggest that is acceptable to the majority?
It is not a case of acceptability but rather who do each of us find credible. The majority of us are more interested in the offal that passes for TV programming. Only a few are interested enough the read this blog.
Complain about this comment
Here's some of the tricks they used to fake data to produce the'hottest' year before the year ended but just in time for Cancun. But I guess the gang will argue that it is OK to use fraud fror their cause:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/compare-giss-to-rss/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-the-cold-is-localized-in-europe/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/
Complain about this comment
#43. 1european wrote:
"Well, this is just GREAT: so peer review is just "BS"..."
The value and quality of any peer review process depends ENTIRELY on the knowledge and objectivity of the 'peers' chosen to do it.
When those peers are not objective it produces whatever they want. Given that so many people trained in science are now advocates masquerading as scientists this is a major problem in some fields now, particularly anything to do with the environment and especially the lucrative gravy train available to AGW advocating 'scientists.'
This truth is self evident in the simple fact that the so-called peer review by the AGW herd missed so many blatant errors while people like our Canadian hero McIntyre found them.
Complain about this comment
#36. PAWB46 wrote:
"pal-reviewed papers"
Perfect term!
Yes, you review mine and I'll review yours, and then we'll all get funding for our pet projects and go to nice conferences.
Complain about this comment
"If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared."
Actually Copenhagen was a pack of green poodles barking fro scraps that finally ran off with their tails between their legs.
One could call Cancun "the chihuahua that roared" because the yapping of those tiny rat-like dogs does fit the result.
Complain about this comment
At 6:53pm, 1european wrote:
"On the other hand, stunningly, even Einstein with his VERY WEIRD ideas (for his time) did make it through peer review - strange, isn't it?"
No, what's strange is that you make arguments when you know so little of the history of science. None of Einstein's breakthrough papers in 1905 - on black body radiation (which laid the foundation of quantum mechanics), on Special Relativity and on brownian motion were peer reviewed. They were published by editors of journals who thought they might have worth. Likewise his paper in 1915 on General Relativity.
Peer review is a very recent phenomenon. Useful maybe - but in the internet age I doubt it. All the great scientists did without it before the 20th century. The key thing is the scientific method, particularly reproducibility - an area where many so-called findings of climate science seem strangely lacking.
For instance, did you notice that when Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was questioned by MPs in March he admitted that no peer reviewer had ever asked for his data, so that they could reproduce his results. Only when people like Steve McIntyre started asking Jones and Michael Mann (originator of the notorious hockey stick) for their data and program code did the holes appear in that part of the peer reviewed science, leading on to Climategate. The General Circulation Models on which predictions of doom are said to be based are even worse.
What's very strange is to be told that the 'time for debate is over' when such holes are there for any discerning person to see. I agree with Shadorne that Richard Lindzen is one of the few reliable guides through the minefield. Another honest climate scientist is Judith Curry. Neither of them would say the debate is over - far from it. Google their names and be prepared to learn.
The extent of propaganda saying we have no time left, we must act, should be a warning to all. Such arguments were used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire (which the Nazis may well have started themselves) - before declaring himself dictator of Germany, in effect suspending the old constitution and democracy. It was a national emergency - there was no time to debate. Such gross manipulation has been used by every tyrant in history. I for one refuse to be cowed.
Complain about this comment
Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.
It would make an excellent blog topic.
Complain about this comment
You Can Con all the people of this World which has been done since 1946 and the Deforestation,destroying the Arctic Ice,use of fossil fuel in destroying the Atmosphere and Global Environment with greehouse gases emitted and polluted the atmosphere by China,USA,EU,Japan,Russia,India,Canada,Australia etc and the Whole World since 1946 is the present Climate Change and Global Warming.The weakest and
Vulnerable poor population will be the victims of Climate Change and Global
Warming like rise of sea levels and flooding low lying areas in the World especially coastal areas of South Asia and the World.If sincere action action is taken against reducing GHG emissions considerably and Deforestation in Brazil,Indonesia,Saving Arctic Ice and Glaciers Worldwide and protecting Animals and Wild life etc we can still save our global environment which is our best defence to the Global Warming and Climate Change caused by Excessive Human Exploitation of petroleum and minerals,deforestation and animals since 1946.
Complain about this comment
Richard Drake @51 ‘The key thing is the scientific method, particularly reproducibility - an area where many so-called findings of climate science seem strangely lacking.’
My science knowledge is limited but even I know that to reproduce the conditions in the atmosphere on a lab scale with the infinite number of variables is impossible. As far as interpretation of data is concerned we know it is rare to get absolutely perfect relationships and for any set of data you will have variations and if the scientist can explain these then he has proved his hypothesis. The emphasis is on ‘interpretation’ of the data-one needs certain level of understanding to arrive at the correct conclusion. For me the fact that you have rise in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere which is an enclosed system is enough proof that heat will be retained in the atmosphere leading to global warming.
Complain about this comment
"We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave."
That's the same argument creationists use to explain why so many Biologists accept the theory of evolution.
"Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS"
And that's another argument creationists use.
Sorry but these are just general science-denial tricks. Meaningless silly excuses to ignore what the output of the world's leading scientific institutes are saying.
And then after dismissing national academies of science they will quote steve goddards blog.
Priceless.
Complain about this comment
@52 CanadianRockies
Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.
It would make an excellent blog topic.
Character assassination is no fair.
Complain about this comment
@53 nb
Global Warming and Climate Change caused by Excessive Human Exploitation of petroleum and minerals,deforestation and animals since 1946
Then stop consuming, put your money where your mouth is.
Complain about this comment
Re 51: "For instance, did you notice that when Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was questioned by MPs in March he admitted that no peer reviewer had ever asked for his data, so that they could reproduce his results."
That's not what peer review is for. Peer review is to validate the reasoning, not to double check the working. That's a job for other researchers in seperate studies.
And we now know noone actually needed Phil Jones data to reproduce the results. NASA and NOAA had already done it.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm on 11 Dec 2010:
"A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 and it looks like the scientifically considered view that I hold has gained substantial support. We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave."
As another physicist whose doctorate is not in Earth Science (which didn't exist in my day), I agree with you entirely. It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc, who aren't proper scientists, but pass themselves off as climate experts. They are just tree-ring counters and data clerks.
Complain about this comment
@58 quake
That's not what peer review is for. Peer review is to validate the reasoning, not to double check the working. That's a job for other researchers in separate studies.
Hockey stick!
And we now know noone actually needed Phil Jones data to reproduce the results. NASA and NOAA had already done it.
Circle the wagons!
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry wrote @ 17: “’If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared’. The chihuahua that roared - love that title - Was it a roar heard around the world? Couldn't have been; I never heard it.
’This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends: - not with a bang but a whimper’. [from The Hollow Men (1925) - a poem by T. S. Eliot] …. With Copenhagen's whimper, followed by Cancun's Chihuahua-roar.”
-----------------------------------------
Hi, BluesBerry,
Nice quote, but if the world ended at Copenhagen, would anybody hear the Chihuahua? ;)
The real allusion is to the The Mouse That Roared (1955) by Leonard Wibberley. Apposite also to your posting, in the Cold War satire on politics and the condition of the world (especially the hegemonic role of the USA), the tiny imaginary European country Grand Fenwick is bankrupted by the US. GF declares war on the US - expecting to lose & hoping to rebuild a better economy via a Marshall Plan. GF ‘invades’ NY and accidentally wins by appropriating the prototype Doomsday Machine. With world survival now in the hands of the world’s smallest nation, things change! But before the nations of the world find out that the Doomsday Bomb is a dud, the ‘Tiny Twenty’ group (Big Three parody) becomes an aggregate of new ruling nations led by GF, and produce a (short-lived) New World Order. [Peter Sellers starred in the film version, heralding his greater ‘doomsday’ role in Doctor Strangelove (Or How I Learned To Love The Bomb).]
However, Richard, the Chihuahua/Mouse allusion is poor for Cancun. The was no chance, there is no chance, and never could be any chance at all of The Maldives producing a New World Order of smaller nations to ameliorate atmospheric carbon, global temperature rise and the rise of sea-levels. The USA and China will do whatever they want, and will address their environmental ‘responsibility’ as a marginal activity and only inasmuch as it affords them economic opportunity and benefit.
Complain about this comment
"It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc"
vs
"We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds"
So we are expected to believe both that physicists researching climate "disagree" and also that we can't expect them to disagree.
Can anyone say contradiction?
Why do these contradictions arise from skeptics? It's because their position is based on contrarianism and isn't based on a rational framework by which they could detect such contradictions before they accidentally make them.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 59, & John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm, 11 Dec:
"A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 ..."
........................
Dear PAW & John,
As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.
Would you both be prepared to deploy your PhDs to good effect and show me where the *physics* of the argument(s) break down.
I will (bravely) attempt to counter your counter-arguments.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
@55 quake
Sorry but these are just general science-denial tricks.
As opposed to specific science-denial tricks. I am reminded of "Mikes nature trick".
Complain about this comment
So we enslave our kids with debt but somehow find ourselves able to fund this nonsense.
"In the short term, the Government’s own projection as to how much it will save is that the funding of university tuition will be cut by £2.9 billion by 2014. As it happens, £2.9 billion is the sum ring-fenced, by the same public spending review, to be given to developing countries to help them fight global warming with windmills and solar panels. It is also slightly less than the £3 billion by which our public debt is rising every week. These much-vaunted “cuts” are not all we are led to believe."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8196410/Student-fee-savings-will-fund-windmills-in-Africa.html
And who can doubt "that much of the money will go straight into the bank accounts of corrupt third world leaders".
For shame!
Complain about this comment
#56. Cariboo wrote:
"@52 CanadianRockies
Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.
It would make an excellent blog topic."
Character assassination is no fair.
-------
Why would that be "character assassination"? I think it would be an excellent opportunity for Richard to demonstrate his commitment to the cause he is promoting. It would also be useful specific information on a number of levels and provide the basis of a good discussion.
Complain about this comment
#55. quake
"And then after dismissing national academies of science they will quote steve goddards blog."
Quake, your blind and slavish reverence for authority figures would make you a perfect serf in the Middle Ages. You have the same mindset that desperately sought to dismiss the work of McIntyre et al because the AGW establishment told to you to, and you would probably have burned any books they told you to too. But people who still are capable of thinking for themselves know better than that.
So you want to dismiss this article that Goddard compiled because... why? All he did was simply compare the various temperature records and, what do you know, the one created by your hero Hansen is a striking anomaly that conveniently supports Hansen's statements that this would be the hottest year.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
So, since you pretend to be all about 'science,' and thus rational thought, how would you explain that? I for one would certainly love to hear your critique of his methods or the results, or any logical explanation of what he found. Please, peer review it.
Complain about this comment
#62. quake wrote:
"It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc"
vs
"We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds"
So we are expected to believe both that physicists researching climate "disagree" and also that we can't expect them to disagree.
Can anyone say contradiction?
--------
Can anyone say duh. They physicists rarely if at all depend on the promotion of the AGW crisis for their funding, while Jones et al do.
Not even a good try.
Complain about this comment
@66 CanadianRockies
#56. Cariboo wrote:
"@52 CanadianRockies
Why would that be "character assassination"? I think it would be an excellent opportunity for Richard to demonstrate his commitment to the cause he is promoting. It would also be useful specific information on a number of levels and provide the basis of a good discussion.
Well it would along the lines of expecting Bill Clinton to get on TV and fess up to dirty deeds done with Monica.
It would be a self inflicted injury, self assassination. Now if someone else spills the beans, that is another ballgame.
Complain about this comment
@62. quake wrote:
It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc.
Understanding thermal dynamics has a lot to do with it. Check it out understand it and you too will question AGW.
Complain about this comment
QUOTE: It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping them to spend it well on climate protection ... END QUOTE. So, how much is solvent China going to send to the bankrupt U.S. and U.K., and when will we get the money? Will wealthy Saudi Arabia also be paying us money?
Complain about this comment
Why do the citizens of so many countries continue to send their elected or self-appointed government officials to an annual 'Fine Dining Event' in an 'Exotic Location' where nothing is accomplished that improves the natural environment of Planet Earth NOW...Because they give us hope - they give us that fuzzy warm feeling - they promise us great things for 2020 and 2050 when none of them will be around to be held accountable - they see to it that our tax-dollars are spent so that next year's budget will provide for more of the same...
Enviroklaus
Complain about this comment
I will say this meekly...
I think it is fair to put forth this analogy:
When Man landed on the Moon there was and still
is a large group of individuals who deny flat out
that it really happened. With circles and arrows
they rail against it... I know a person who is
smart and designs small aircraft which he flies.
This person states that no way could the astronauts
in the 1960's go into space with such slim space suits.
I don't know what kind of outcome to expect...
I will put my money on the side that feels, through
their studies Man is placing a burden upon our
environment that needs some attention.
Complain about this comment
All you physicists on here Steve Goddard needs your help
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/
Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature. The monthly anomaly is the difference between that months average temperature and the long term average for THAT month.
Steve likes Feynman because he quoted him on his site, maybe one of you on here could send him a copy of Feynman Lectures on Physics, because he so wants to do equations but he doesn't really know how, here's what happen last time
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
"If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT." Steve Goddard
Oh dear, send your copies or write and tell poor Steve that atmospheric pressure is caused by the mass of air and the force of gravity which doesn't change with temperature, but maybe it does over at wuwt.
Bless him, he does try hard.
Complain about this comment
#74. andrew9999
That's very interesting. Now, how about your critique of this much more significant article:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
Complain about this comment
I do not wish to offend Richard Black, but the headline and the content of this post reads like wishful thinking at the best and propaganda to save the momentum behind the AGW band-wagon from fizzling.
This was another lame conference of a lame-duck cause, and anyone who's unbiased will see it, all the more when cheerleaders try to put a lipsitck on a pig that it was. Nothing committal, NOTHING, came out of it, yet Richard Black calls is a "roar". Pity wishful thinking.
The delegates confirmed that they still consider what Richard Lindzen aptly described in his WSJ article after Copenhagen: transfer money from poor people in the developed countries, to the Swiss accounts of rich people in poor countries.
The whole point of the watermelon (green on the inside, red to the core) environmentalists movement is to make the rich into poor. It was admitted many times, but there are naive, even if well meaning souls that dont see it.
Despite the unmasking of this shameful movement (ClimateGate, etc) and despite 15 years of no warming trend, despite inability of their pitiful models to replicate the past, let alone forecast the future, the battle is not won yet, unfortunately.
Finally, this is an issue which, as anyone reading these comments will agree is of political controversy. In such case, I wonder if the positio of Richard Black which he will no doubt agree is biased towards one side of the political controversy, is consistent with the BBC rules.
Complain about this comment
"The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations."
There is no evidence, but there are computer models that suggest this will happen some hundred years from now. Computer models similar to the one that can't predict a 100-year cold winter in Northern Europe just 2 months before it happens.
The computer modellers themselves admit that their models don't handle water vapour feedback well. FYI water vapour here refers to clouds. Those things that represent 90+ percent of all greenhouse gas effects.
Complain about this comment
@74, andrew9999 wrote:
“ All you physicists on here Steve Goddard needs your help
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/
Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature. The monthly anomaly is the difference between that months average temperature and the long term average for THAT month. “
'Poor Steve' was speaking of anomalies, this is how warm or cold is described in climate terms.
Complain about this comment
Re #74:
"Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature."
Only in your fevered imagination. Read his article again until you understand it.
Complain about this comment
Re #73:
Don't confuse strawman with spaceman
Complain about this comment
Tony, you fail miserably on the 'it's all models' fallacy (it's not, see Knutti and Hegerl 2008), and on the classic 'we can't forecast weather so therefore we can't forecast climate' fallacy (boundary conditions). As for your last paragraph, maybe you should learn about feedbacks versus forcings (hint - water vapour is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing at present).
"steven goddard" has registered an epic fail on every subject he has ever written about, from the atmosphere of Venus to Arctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice. He has so little clue about the mechanics of the climate system that even extreme AGW skeptics should be embarassed to quote him.
Complain about this comment
Is Carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? End of debate.
The problem with these summits is that we are not negotiating with the right party. The problem is mother nature doesn't negotiate it dictates.
There are to many variables for the scientific community to be accurate.
You can now add this Quote from Science Daily to the long list of variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.
Mother nature doesn't take bribes.
Complain about this comment
@82 Steven,
pls stop babbling about "mother nature" and throw around scientifically menaningless speculations. and stop "end-of-debating", this point is what brough me to question the whole AGW shambles. I was a happy and ingnorant bystander, until I saw the Prius-driving celeb Leo di-(Ford)-Capri introduce the ManBearPig himself to the adulating masses on the massive global satellite "save the world" or something "do". The Prius driver introduced his fellow umpteen-rooms mansion owner by "The debate is over", I will never forget that scene...That was when I reached for the PC and had a look at some other opinions, and it became clear to me, that this is just another ploy of the recently debunked social ideology called Communism - whoever controls CO2 emissions, controls the modern economy.
But to the point - apart from the dramatic but laughable Gaia/Mother Earth jibes, can you back the methane-release argument by facts or is it just another the-sky-will-fall-from-something skare stories? Thought so, there are no facts to support the methane theory, but it looks good. Just like the explanation that it is cold in recent years because of the Global Warming (choose ur LoL theory - either the Gulf Stream slowing, the Greenland ice melt diluting the North Sea or the particles from China coal stations blocking the sun, anything goes!)
Although the battle against neo-communists is not won yet, by any means, people are not stupid and ClimateGate opened the eyes of so many. In the end, freedom or human spririt will prevail, I just hope it will not take 70 years like in the case of the Soviet Union.
Complain about this comment
Geoffward
"As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2."
As you are not a physicist, I can understand your interest. If you had been educated under the tutillage of Richard Feynman, you would understand and wouldn't need to ask further. I suggest you go read his words of wisdom.
Complain about this comment
@Richard
Richard
It seems Judith Curry is questioning one of the few items agreed between AGWer's and sceptics. This could have a direct affect on Cancun:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/
CO2 doubling does not equal 1C
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Good Morning,
I do applaud the effort, the dialog and consensus that can be established in small groups, and the result.
Unfortunately, my country Canada brought very little to the table.
* * *
Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, was introduced by Bruce Hyer, a New Democrat who represents Thunder Bay-Superior North in the House of Commons
Bill C-311 was overwhelmingly supported by and passed in the elected House of Commons, thanks in part to the support of Canadians from across the country.
Bill C-311 makes the Canadian government accountable for putting in place the solutions to reduce global warming emissions to safe levels – in line with targets that leading scientists say are necessary to avoid the devastating consequences of uncontrolled climate change.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done what he promised never to do: allow the Senate to go against the will of the majority of our elected Members of Parliament and the Canadian public. On 2010 November 16, after a surprise vote and without any debate, unelected-and-appointed Conservative senators killed the Climate Change Accountability Act.
(confirmation available)
* * *
Some good news:
1. My company that I work for here in the south of France recently sold my division at a huge profit. Why? My company discovered a process to develop nuclear energy wih no radioactive waste. My company needed the cash from the sale to build a prototype nuclear plant. (confirmation requested)
2. A German company found a way to build an array of solar collectors in North Africa that will provide all the electrical needs of Europe. The problem was how to transmit the electricity from North Africa to Europe. The German company found the solution and started to build the array. (confirmation requested)
3. Israel has a target of no petrol pumps in the country by 2020.
* * *
Any country that falls down on a commitment to help the world with our collective responsibility to future generations to combat global warming will miss the market opportunities for these emerging technologies.
Cordialement,
Daragon
Montpellier, France
Complain about this comment
@peter317 robwansbeck
Peter and rob, if Steve Goddard understands anomalies why is he comparing Aprils with Novembers it makes no sense, a month can have lower average temperatures than one month but a higher anomaly, I'm sure you understand how.
Complain about this comment
Cancun is useful, whatever your environmental-religious persuasion. What the world needs right now is a joined up belief in something. Environmental change fulfills that belief-need and will hopefully, aid the balancing out of finances around the world. At present, the world needs product manufacture to drive the economies and there appears to be a terrific imbalance. Many of the products produced have been resource hungry, worthless trinkets, which people no longer want. How much better to invest in something more altruistic like 'saving the planet.'
I can see many green industries developing and thriving around the world bringing in their wake, new opportunities for employment. The key goal should be provision of meaningful employment for the world population. You don't have to look far to see what happens when a country has minimal infrastructure and minimal paid employment.
Ask yourself, if you were poor, what would you rather be doing to earn money to live and what work would give you the best feeling of doing something worthwhile? What accessible opportunities are there right now? Perhaps some of you here who live in ivory towers should investigate current employment opportunities alongside reading graphs.
Just a thoughts from granny. x
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard #63 wrote:
As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.
I'm not a physicist either, but I think an honest question deserves an honest answer. It's often good to go over old ground again as any of us might see something new. Here is a simple-minded answer:
I completely accept the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is very small. Large changes in that (still tiny) proportion over the centuries seem to have caused no discernible difference in the climate, which seems to vary constantly, and if anything seems linked more to solar activity than anything else.
So far, I have a good reason to think that more CO2 will inevitably cause some slight warming, but that that warming is probably imperceptible, with a less discernible effect than natural solar variation.
But so far I have omitted the great unknown -- the effects of water in the atmosphere. (Remember ours is the so-called "water planet".) Water in gaseous form -- i.e. water vapour -- is another greenhouse gas, causing more warming, but water in liquid form -- clouds -- reflects light and heat. The transition from one state to another is a further complication. So far no one seems to have made any serious attempt to find out what its overall effects are, and till they do no one knows.
I repeat: no one knows.
However, a large, influential, and highly moralistic academic (which I regard as synonymous with 'church') movement has been underway which seeks to persuade us that it does know, and that the prognosis is catastrophic. Yet a cursory glance at its methods reveals them to be farcical.
So I am a sceptic about global warming. I am also a sceptic about the supposedly baleful effects of global warming, were it actually happening. Civilizations seem to develop when the climate warms, and sink back into disease and backwardness when the climate cools.
Complain about this comment
'20. At 3:42pm on 11 Dec 2010, Greenpa wrote:
Yes, it's a big pain in the ass to clean them out. But well worth it. Over on the NYT, the Green Blogs folks just did successfully change their screening, and the result is fabulous- intelligent conversation. And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.
It matters. I hope you can make this forum useful. Your articles are excellent; but the comment space is a complete waste.'
Well worth repeating. An excellent summary of the situation that confronts those in the middle ground assessing arguments on their merits, or not.
Now a deal has been cut, I look forward to some in-depth, forensic analysis in the media of how the money is going to spent that holds those who are providing it and those who are getting it to real account a bit more on tangibles and deliverables.
It just seems for now a bit like an open line of credit has been extended with few real checks or balances, on the basis of sounding good over doing much... 'on words that spell out a need'... buying off bad international relations with guys one meets often at exotic locations in the cabana bar, but with dubious local impositions on those one has constituency assistants to gatekeep away.
But one is sure that we have well qualified, objective guides on hand to help explain this all to us as it unfolds. The vast sums. The epic science. The way these are being used to swing a climate supertanker round and can be shown to be doing so with Dunkirk spirit. If with a flotilla of very nicely-appointed yachts with extra accommodation built in to ensure celebrities can land their helos and not very investigative 'reporters' can easily retype the press releases to file.
If, presuming the sentiment quoted above is embraced wholeheartedly (and no reason to think it won't), perhaps in some places a tad skewed to those who shout loudest and believe they control the pitch more than other licence fee payers.
What I have witnessed thus far by way of agreement seems more a not disinterested cabal of hypocritical freeloaders planning a suitable venue for the next one to be thrashed out in conducive surroundings. How that helps my kids is escaping me. Unless they join the climate caravan on salary or subisidy.
It's a critical message, with a ton of very serious real science and engineering and social politics behind it. But the current crop of messengers seem only adept at ensuring they stay on message (or keeping others out of it), and still have shown little evidence of having any grasp of the latter three.
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46 #84
You may want to clarify your #84.
Feynman has produced a number of physics publications including his published lectures, which are used by many physics students. But he also taught physics directly to physics students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics
Are you merely putting yourself in the first category? Because if so people could misinterpret your post.
Complain about this comment
Progress is never fast enough but look on the bright side and see Cancun as positive move. Copenhagen was massively overhyped and drowned under ecotourists which crushed it. Cancun was more realistic in its aspirations ad its outcome should give us some hope.
Complain about this comment
@canadianrockies
In his other post you linked to SteveGoddard isn't comapring like with like.
The RSS satellite data is for the lower troposphere not the surface(giss and hadcrut), so they are related but not the same thing. This is what RSS measures.
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_browse.html
The base line average for all the different sets is different as well., giss 1951-1980, hadcrut 1961-1990, RSS 1979-2010.
It is just meaningless what he does.
Complain about this comment
#91 JandBasingstoke
i am a proud owner of a set of feynman's physics lectures but i can;t say i've read them cover to cover!
i find the way his name is conjured up like some appeal to the gods, irritating. he hated bad science and was critical of bad physics as well as other branches of science and i am pretty certain that the posters here could not second guess what his views on agw today would have been. he had a brilliant mind....most that quote him do not.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #94 wrote:
i am pretty certain that the posters here could not second guess what his views on agw today would have been.
Not that it matters much, as I agree there is too much hero-worship of Feynman, but he was very clear that he thought science used the hypothetico-deductive method -- the antithesis of the inductivism of AGW.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
Feynman was as contrary as Lindzen (both with MIT connections) and a close friend of Freeman Dyson.
I believe that Feynman would have been a full AGW sceptic, similar to Lindzen. And I'm saying that as a warmist.
Complain about this comment
"The paper in question is interesting and a press release describing it is on the Nasa Goddard Space Centre web site URL:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html.The lead author Lahouari Bounoua says he hopes the paper will show how plant growth with increasing CO2 levels will create a negative feedback not previously taken into account in many climate models. He is quoted as saying the "This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming". So an important step in the quest to get increased accuracy in climate forecasts."
So lets get this straight. many of us, in fact anyone with a brain, knows that increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth.
NASA, the people you believers rely on for the gospel, have suddenly done a study TWENTY YEARS after the start of the debate saying "erm, actually plants could mean we need to look at the output of our models". ON top of that they have also recently said "erm, maybe we need to relook at the effects of the sun".
And you people, you believers of the gospel of the church of climate change do not question the accuracy of the models as they exist.
Weird, really weird.
Complain about this comment
33. At 5:02pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:
The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.
Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that.
Complain about this comment
aaand you're back in the room.
As i predicted,cancouldawouldashoulda achieved nothing but more promises with no backing.
I'm curious- is anyone (pro-cAGW) still confident in the process? It must be extremely frustrating having your 'future' decided by a bunch of sel-interested politicians. I know, were i pro-cAGW that it would drive me mad.
There's a number of interesting topics to pick up on in this and the last two threads, but i have a new baby boy to look after (well... to fuss over bemusedly!) so i'll have to leave them for a week or so.
Lets hope the pictures clearer by then!
Complain about this comment
35. At 5:36pm on 11 Dec 2010, reflector2 wrote:
To all these ‘literate’ people commenting on their personal degrees, well done chaps.
However, the word is sustainability is it not? CO2 and methane will be a factor in future climate change and global warming, just as you clever chap’s will be in producing more and more, growing more and more for an exponentially expanding population.
The problem is. The Earth will still be the same size!
According to you lot there is nothing to worry about and everything is tickerty boo!
From my perspective, something is going to give, and it is not superfluous opinions is it?
No it is not about opinions. It is about population control, the elephant in the room.
CO2 driven climate change is much in dispute, the need to curb population growth is obvious to everyone.
I do not agree that AGW is proven, but I do agree that people need to take responsibility for population growth. Limiting that will solve ALL the problems.
Simple question to the AGW advocates and greenies. I have one child because I am actively making a sacrifice to save the planet from resource degeneration.
How many children do you all have?
Complain about this comment
#89 bowmanthebard
here's a simplistic reply.
yes, there are many uncertainties but the boundaries of those uncertainties are fairly well known.
cloud effects are not understood that well and this is no secret (http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-cloud-feedback-debate-heats-up-at-cancun.html)
so ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief, we are changing the atmospheric composition of co2 exponentially, there are powerful feedback effects (paleoclimatology shows this) which we don;t understand totally but warming feedbacks seems to be much more powerful (see DO events), climate sensitivity to co2 in the past has been significant, there has been a measured change in agst that can be modelled well but only by incorporating agw effects.
so, you're right, we don't know anything FOR CERTAIN (what do we know for certain?) but only a fool would trust that the few negative feedbacks (which of course we don;t understand either) will prevent a significant greenhouse effect. it is estimated that 10 W/m2 would be enough to instigate a truly catastrophic
greenhouse effect and although we're a long way from that it is feasible if we burn all fossil fuels (including coal and tar sands/shales).
your faith that we do not have an issue totally bemuses me.
Complain about this comment
@42. At 6:49pm on 11 Dec 2010, papyrus wrote:
in the light cablegate, do you believe everything the US government says?
I suspect the answer has to be "no" for any right thinking person.
So why do you take the words of the IPCC and other politically motivated organisations word as gospel?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
@Andrew9999 #87:
No, it's you who's being a bit short on comprehension.
He's not comparing anomalies for the months, but two sets of anomalies. The GISS set shows hardly any difference between the anomalies for the two months in question, whereas the RSS set shows a large difference.
Complain about this comment
Nice report.... sort of. When did the editors decide that BBC News reports should henceforth be written in the style of personal journal entry? Sigh.... and why can't we just have reports from the journalist WITHOUT the irritating and mindless comments appendage? I guess no-one is forcing us to read them but curiosity kills that cat. Why did Auntie gave Joe Q. Moron space on the page? Doesn't she know that the stupid burns?
Complain about this comment
rossglory #101 wrote:
ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief
On this occasion, I was not likening AGW to a religious belief but all of academia to the traditional church. That includes the physicists, the philosophers who teach the hypothetico-deductive method, and many others whose work I admire and whose opinions I agree with. Academia is like the traditional church for all sorts of reasons, not least because the same sorts of people are attracted to them. They have a very similar hierarchy, they play the same role in education, the same role as government "advisors", as "experts" who are consulted by the media, and worst of all as people who are considered "moral authorities" by the general public, who subsequently look up to them and take their word on important matters without question.
Like the traditional church, academia treats some issues as worth disagreeing about, but treats other issues as not the sort of thing people ought to disagree about. There is a spectrum of attitudes to this second sort of issue, from "irrelevant to current debate" to downright "immoral". These attitudes correspond to traditional church attitudes as they ranged from holy fools (mad but not bad) to heretics (definitely bad rather than mad). Please note that I'm not saying there is any significant silencing of unwanted opinion. Most academics are very careful not to do that. It's more that some issues are "out of bounds", no matter what your opinion on them might be.
Complain about this comment
@101. At 1:30pm on 12 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:
so ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Complain about this comment
GeoffWard #63 wrote:
"As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2."
Try theses arguments for size:
For there being any validity in man doing anything to CO2 and expecting a resulting change in 'climate' a number of things have to be true:
1. That it can be shown conclusively that changes in CO2 drive climate. For this to be asserted with any confidence it must be shown that the change in CO2 'preceded' the change in global temperature.
This in turn requires that there exists reasonably accurate global temperature data and global CO2 data.
This is the causality argument and CO2 fails this argument.
2. That CO2 is a substantial or important 'cause' of change. This is very important as if CO2 is not 'responsible' and shown beyond experimental/measurement error to be 'the' major cause then other causes will make fiddling with anthropogenic CO2 pointless.
I am particularly stuck by the importance of solar radiation (the solar flux) in maintaining the temperature of our planet. Our planet's main energy input is from the sun so small changes in the solar flux are important as are changes in obliquity (giving rise to the actual incidence of radiation from the sun on our planet during its orbit.
Now let me examine using the mathematical tools of asymptotic the sun and its radiation vs our temperature. You may have noticed it tends to be substantially warmer in the summer than in the winter by tens of degrees centigrade. The characteristic of summer is when the part of our planet experiencing summer is more exposed to solar radiation and winter vice versa. I do not think that my last sentence is contestable.
So we now have a 'proven' relationship with solar radiation and planetary temperature and a substantial temperature change of tens of degrees centigrade.
Studies also show that solar radiation changes over time as does the orbit of our planet and the inclination of our planets rotation.
Therefore we can test the probability of the CO2 hypothesis being the cause of the temperature change.
First, for the CO2 argument having any probable validity: the main cause of planetary temperature must have been excluded - it hasn't been.
Second, for the CO2 argument having any probable validity: CO2 must have been shown to rise or lower BEFORE planetary temperature - the opposite has been seen from the 'data'. A note on the 'data' - the historic data is basically rubbish for a number of well know reasons.
The relationship between solar radiation and weather is still a better medium term forecasting tool than those used by the met offices around the globe. (see WeatherAction etc.)
The main problem with the AGW mob is that they have so fiddled their own data that they have undermined every 'argument' that they have ever put forward.
If I have to be pinned down I would plump for changes in solar radiation causing changes in medium term weather and climate as the sun is by orders of magnitude more powerful as a source of heat than anything else. I am completely unconvinced by AGW by CO2 - that is without even bothering to look at the so called data it claims 'proves' its case. But when you do look at the data the quality and estimation error is huge. I was particularly unimpressed by AGW supporters attempts to disprove medieval cooling. What is the point? - first they must show that the major energy source, the sun, is not the cause and they haven't done so.
Complain about this comment
quake wrote @ 33: "The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations......."
jasonsceptic replied @ 95: "Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that."
.............
Seem to remember that the circum-polar stratospheric 'jet-streams' have the capacity to seriously move tropospheric carbon loads upwards and into the zone where 'greenhouse effects' become applicable. The atmospheric complex models only match observations/physical measurements when stratospheric circulations are incorporated.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
"A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 ..." ("PAWB46 59, & similarly from John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm, 11 Dec)
........................
Dear PAW & John,
As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.
Would you both be prepared to deploy your PhDs to good effect and show me where the *physics* of the argument(s) break down.
I will (bravely) attempt to counter your counter-arguments.
Geoff."
................
"As you are not a physicist, I can understand your interest. If you had been educated under the tutillage of Richard Feynman, you would understand and wouldn't need to ask further. I suggest you go read his words of wisdom." (PAWB46 84)
.........................
No, PAWB46, your reply is a cop-out.
Are you being truthful about your PhD claim or just being lazy, as you presently stand condemned by the inadequacy of your response?
Either put your personal reputation on the line by using real physics in your own justification argument, or I suggest you change your blog-name.
Complain about this comment
"As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2." (GeoffWard #63)
"Try theses arguments for size: ........" (John_from_Hendon 108)
...............
Thanks, John,
will absorb, think, think some more and come back to you tomorrow (Christmas 'do' imminent!)
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
rossglory #101 wrote:
we are changing the atmospheric composition of co2 exponentially,
At no time has it been rising "exponentially". It has been rising in a non-linear way, yes, in accordance with variables that are by no means fixed. The most important of these variables are rates of industrialization, population, and availability of fossil fuels. But there is no reason to think that any of those three will stay as they have been during the period of the sharpest rise in CO2 of recent times. The availability of cheap oil, for a start, is bound to change quite soon.
Furthermore, even if CO2 were rising geometrically, the more that gets added, the less of an effect each subsequent unit has.
there are powerful feedback effects (paleoclimatology shows this) which we don;t understand totally but warming feedbacks seems to be much more powerful (see DO events), climate sensitivity to co2 in the past has been significant, there has been a measured change in agst that can be modelled well but only by incorporating agw effects.
In my opinion all of that stuff is just pure pseudo-science. I honestly regard it as worse than useless, as it gets scientific methodology exactly backwards. Big words like 'paleoclimatology' don't cut any ice with me! I can see no difference between the climate now and the climate when I was a boy. My mother in her mid-eighties sees no difference between now and 70 years ago. The only people who think the climate is changing in an unusual way seem to be gullible young people who believe anything the latest academic movement says.
your faith that we do not have an issue
You seem to assume here that we need a reason to withhold belief in the existence of something. But it's the other way around: we need a reason to believe in the existence of something, and without such a reason, we shouldn't believe in its existence.
I feel I just have no reason at all to believe that there is an issue, so I don't believe there is one.
Complain about this comment
@andrew9999
@PAWB46
@rossglory
@bowmanthebard
@GeoffWard
I think the debate would have been very different if Feynman was still alive.
I think that much of the science would be unchanged, but that the public would have ended up being much more aware of the uncertainties and caveats. And that a much higher proportion of professional scientists, both climate scientists and non-climate scientists, would be AGW sceptics.
I think that an IPCC like today's would have been effectively boycotted by many of the scientists on the grounds that they agreed with Feynman on the importance of doubt, and the importance of communicating that doubt properly. And I think the IPCC is an accidental conspiracy to hide those uncertainties and caveats from the public.
It is not a deliberate conspiracy. But politicians live in a simplistic world of black and white. So rather than give someone the job of ensuring all the caveats and uncertainties are explained properly, they ask for the simplest possible explanation of what might happen. Keeping the IPCC literature simple naturally reduces the opportunity to communicate caveats and uncertainties properly. And then non-scientist politicians simplify it some more. They misunderstand, ignore or downplay the doubts even further.
Communicating that doubt effectively would have killed the IPCC. The IPCC is basically a buck passing mechanism in disguise, scientists accept responsibility for any unpopular policies associated with the work of the IPCC, regardless of whether the problems associated with those policies are a sensible response to their work. If scientists are not prepared to accept this responsibility then politicians can't act.
Without Feynman we've had some cheating.
The scientists make the doubt clear to the more scientifically literate public, and many of the scientists are not natural communicators so many genuinely believe this communication will reach all the public. Others think they can communicate the doubt to the public by other means. But scientists aren't allowed to communicate that doubt properly in the more simplistic IPCC literature. And they don't have sufficient resources to balance this lack of communication of doubt elsewhere, especially when they keep getting diverted to defending their science from AGW sceptics.
So the scientists get to pretend they're communicating the doubt properly to everyone and the politicians get to ignore inconvenient doubt.
Cheating.
And here sites like RealClimate and Skepticalscience and other scientific warmist sites have made a severe tactical error.
Sites like RealClimate get their priorities wrong. They concentrate on tackling unfair and nonsensical criticisms of mainstream science. This is understandable, some of the criticism has got personal, but they need a moratorium on tackling this material. Other people's nonsense and other people's unfairness towards them is only made worse by them attempting to fix it directly. Instead they need to tackle their own flaws first.
And the biggest flaw is the lack of communication of doubt, which is partly the scientists fault for not making it central to the IPCC's message. Not being central to the IPCC's message allowed politicians to downsize doubt. This downsizing of doubt hands victory on a platter to Big Carbon and Free Market right wing libertarian types. So warmists have to reclaim doubt. Only when the man in the street and the warmist activists are both fully au fait with all the doubts can warmist scientists begin to look at tackling nonsense or unfair criticism from their opponents.
It was not always this way, but warmists in the debate have become like the North Wind. We are trying to blow a coat off a man by making him colder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun
I think the sceptics are justified in banging on about Feynman and claiming him for their own.
Feynman would have found any attempts to look at the question on his own frustrated by the sheer workload. He'd have kicked up merry h*** about the way the scientists were communicating their ideas. Look at some of the criticisms Lovelock and Hansen have made of the IPCC, and multiply the fuss made by 100x.
I think Feynman would have been an AGW sceptic because it would have been beyond his resources to examine the issue properly, and Feynman always put doubt first. Even if he'd agreed with warmist scientists about AGW he'd have been on the AGW sceptic side for much of the debate, because the doubt has been downplayed and Feynman always put doubt first and always put Truth before politics.
Complain about this comment
@JaneBasingstoke #113
I think Feynman would have approved of your post..... and having recently taken a pop at you, I'd like to formally apologise for that.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
"The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations......." (quake 33)
.............
jasonsceptic replied @ 95: "Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that."
.............
"Seem to remember that the circum-polar stratospheric 'jet-streams' have the capacity to seriously move tropospheric carbon loads upwards and into the zone where 'greenhouse effects' become applicable. The atmospheric complex models only match observations/physical measurements when stratospheric circulations are incorporated." (me @ 109)
.............
A quick check shows that quake is about right:
Classical physical principles show that the climate sensitivity approximates to 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations – this, in the absence of processes that amplify or reduce climate change (eg. subsequent water vapour increase, snow & ice reduction, albedo modification – all these things alter the balance of solar energy absorption and outward emittance from the atmosphere). The present – calculated - climate forcing of 1.6 Watts per metre squared (the amount of energy that falls on 1 square metre in 1 second = ‘Flux’) would lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4oC.
However, the *actual change*, after accounting for the additional amplifying and reducing processes, will be greater than this. Increases in water vapour caused by atmospheric and surface warming will approximately double the climate sensitivity from 1oC to 2oC. Uncertainty around this figure comes from the actual geographic distribution of water vapour and cloud cover, and the nett global impact of the amplification and reduction balance of cloud cover. Complex climate models throw out a likely overall climate sensitivity in the range 2oC to 4.5oC
Complain about this comment
89. At 10:41am on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard. Thanks for enlightening us with the Physics. The great unknowns, solar variation and water vapour in the atmosphere. While I was reading this I was imagining a PhD Physicist with flu sitting in front of the fire and thinking, is he feeling hot because the fire is producing more heat than normal or is his clothing absorbing more heat than normal? Climate change research requires a multidisciplinary approach as there are biological, chemical, geological etc systems at play. I am sure Physics is important but reading contributions here from Physicists it seems they cannot even agree with each other let alone anyone else.
Complain about this comment
JaneBasingstoke wrote 112:
"It is not a deliberate conspiracy. But politicians live in a simplistic world of black and white...."
...............................
Jane, thanks for being the sheepdog to we errant sheep.
But I just couldn't let your politician comment go .... All the politicians I ever knew lived and thrived in the world of dirty grey. Black and white is the bit before the discussion-behind-closed-doors, the deals, the trade-offs, and the corruption.
Black and white is Bowman's Scientific Method - you know, the sort of (double-blind, control) science that we can't do with just one whole world in the test-tube.
Complain about this comment
@Richard,
First, I must take exception to the comment:
"If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared."
----------------------------------------------------------------
While I am sure this is mearly a jest on your part, I feel it is inappropriate - comparison of Denmark as the "Great Dane" and Mexico as the "Chihuahua".
In my view, this belittles the very proud and diverse nation of Mexico - almost a flagship to much of the world. Perhaps you should get out of Cancun sometime and see what Mexico really has to offer. Sure, by American standards or European, much of Mexico is poor, but Mexico is far from a third world country. Many people may not realize this, but the US and Mexico are forever tied. Most of the Mexicans I have known are as hard working - or harder than most from all the other countries I have visited. Mexicans want a better life for their children. And they will do what they have to - whatever it takes to get it. They are decent, honest, hard working people.
While Mexico is in the middle of its emergence - which is where it is, it certainly has a few issues to deal with - but deal with them they have or are. The most serious social issue is probably the cartels, controlling crime from the south - but in time, they too shall be defeated as Mexico emerges into its place in the world community.
Mexico is not 'quaint charm' - as so many see it in places like Cancun - but a very large, diverse nation of many peoples, cultures, landscapes, environments and heratige.
Chihuahua is a state in Mexico - in the north of Mexico, south of Big Bend in Texas. There is a diverse culture within this region - as within all the regions of Mexico. A culture and nations and peoples who were way ahead of us as we crawled out of the dark ages. It is a collage of both ancient cultures and european influence - blended very nicely. They are emerging from 'third worldness' and poverty and doing so quite well. As with any bushel, there are a few rotten apples - but we won't do comparisons between Europeans and Mexicans here - I would not want to offend anyone.
I have been to Mexico dozens of times in my life and stayed for months on a number of occations. When I was a young man, I naturally thought Mexcan women were beautiful and exotic and 'perfect'. I wanted the 'real thing' - the 'girl next door' that most Mexican girls/women are.
People see the prostitutes in the 'Mexican part' of the tourist towns and think they see 'real Mexico'. It was not long before I learned just how hard it was to court a 'girl next door' in Mexico. Not because they are hard to find, you find many of them working in your tourists hotes, they are the majority - they are smart and want not only the real thing, but the right thing. Very fine, upstanding people with high morals anyone with knowlege would say of the Mexican people. It is hard to come from afar and be truly accepted and trusted, I believe I have achieved that in my lifetime.
I suppose I have beat this one over the head - but I could go on as to what a success Mexico is becoming - the changes I have seen in my lifetime - the people I have known.
Needless to day, your comment was not appreciated...
Kindest Regards.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@GeoffWard
So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)for these huge positive feebacks? Come to that where's the heat?
Even in GISS's giddiest moments of manipulation, the figures don't add up and if you were to consider the other temp records they definitely don't add up. If now you'd seek to invoke natural variations(PDO, ENSO, NAO, etc etc) to explain this missing heat, then you're also forced to also acknowledge their positive impacts on temps, which then leaves the case for (C)AGW dead in the water. With special attention to the 'C' in that particular acronym.
Unless, you can find a lot of heat and find it very, very quickly, it's all over bar the shouting.
Plus, it's no good saying:
Things are melting - Ahem, they are supposed to......
It's getting warmer - Yes, that's supposed to happen too (plus hasn't been playing ball recently)
The temp changes need to be statistically significant, and even your own side (well the non-rabid ones) have to admit that they are not.
Can you say "Tropospheric Hotspot"? Once, the pronunciation has been mastered. Perhaps, you'd like to spend some time looking for it - Please, let us know how you get on with that? Here’s a hint, don’t start your search for it at ”skepticalscience.com”
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
@GeoffWard #115
Classical physical principles show that the climate sensitivity approximates to 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations
Judith Curry isn't so sure on that point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/cancun_the_chihuahua_that_roar.html#P104085178
Complex climate models throw out a likely overall climate sensitivity in the range 2oC to 4.5oC
Even the IPCC doesn't rate the climate models, Geoff:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/four_degrees_of_hurt.html#P103637718
/Mango
Complain about this comment
If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared
I once witnessed a Chihuahua kill a Great Dane - the Great Dane choked on it! LOL
Although, that's the way Cancun will go to ;)
/Mango
Complain about this comment
The Missing Hotspot:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/time_to_get_down_to_business_a.html#P104084157
/Mango
Complain about this comment
113#
Excellent comment!!!
To add to it, the warmist side started believing their own PR, and calling people deniars was only ever going to end up as counter productive..
Look at the damage, Gordon Brown did with his 'flat-earther' 'anti-science' comments and Ed Milliband#s 'climate sabatouers' denaiars comments.
Phd History, degree politics economics between them..
It was so counter productive, it got the likes of me commenting at the BBC... ;)
I even started my own blog (early days)
www.realclimategate.org
Complain about this comment
@Richard,
Now that we have that out of the way...
Surely, you cannot be declaring a 'victory here' - can you? I must hand it to you, you keep thumping that drum, in perfect rhythm, through hailstorm after hailstorm, One failure after another.
What do we have here, exactly? We have a 'commitment' from a bunch of delegates whom, it was reported, when asked, most, [enthusiastically] signed petitions both to cripple the US economy and to ban water. I mean get real. There was no climate change victory here.
There is perhaps - if it can pass a thousand hurdles, an attempt to create a new mechanism(s) for the transfer of wealth. Hopefully (but I do have serious doubts) - mechanisms which will have more of an impact on the poor and the environment.
This fund will be administered by the world bank. As the US desires - because in my opinion - the UN cannot be trusted to administer the funds. [moderators please note, I defame no one, this is just my opinion - no defamation toward any particular person, just mistrust of the institution].
The new Congress will not allow Obama to 'print anymore money'. For those of you who may not understand how it works in the US, all appropriations bills (i.e. funding, spending, etc) must originate in the House of Representatives - The president writes a budget and presents it to the house - and then they do what they want with it. The now Republican, House of Representatives.
The money - if it is approved and put in the budget - will have to come from somewhere. It will mean robbing other programs. I would expect that the majority will come from other International-Aid type programs. This is not just 'extra money' lying around on the white house lawn - it is fall here (actually bitterly cold winter - except by the calendar) and all the leaves have but fallen.
The US economy is a long way from being in 'good shape'. Fiscal conservatisism is coming back into vogue in a big way. People have been making hard choices for some time.
Just realize, that what you call a victory (and a 100B out of the minimum of 270B going in and no 'protocal' after Kyoto) is no victory - and it will come at a price. I sure hope these 'new mechanisms' will have a greater impact and be more robust against corruption than those which they replace.
BTW - did you get out of Cancun at all?
And how nice about Durban, I do hope you enjoy next year's holiday in South Africa. Do try and catch a safari (camera...like I do...) or get out on the ocean and witness the Great White Shark in its greatest home, while you still can. Surely, you can take a day off from the conferences to chronicle some of the other environmental and humanistic issues of the 'host country' for your junket.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#93. andrew9999 wrote:
Well Andrew in my #75 I asked you for your comments on this VERY significant story:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
Thanks for answering, but your answer raises some inconvenient problems for some of the AGW apologists here. You wrote that
"The RSS satellite data is for the lower troposphere not the surface(giss and hadcrut), so they are related but not the same thing."
Yet if you read many posts here you will find some people claiming that the satellite data 'confirms' some surface data sets, and in this case, for what it is worth, it does correlate with the other data EXCEPT for the GISS.
So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different? Because its manipulated junk, as usual from Hansen.
You also added this for those who did not already know it:
"The base line average for all the different sets is different as well., giss 1951-1980, hadcrut 1961-1990, RSS 1979-2010."
This does, of course, raise all sorts of inconvenient questions about the comparisons between these data sets. perhaps most notable is that the GISS base line just happens to conveniently cover a cooling period which conveniently exaggerates the subsequent warming period (which, by the way, is now over). So the GISS was set up to support Hansen's 'Global Warming' tale - just like when they turned off the air conditioners when Hansen presented his lies to Congress.
So, when you say "It is just meaningless what he does," that only applies to Hansen, in scientific terms at least. Unfortyunately it is not meaningless in general because some people actually still believ what he says and it shows what his employer NASA has become.
Now, here's more on Hansen's manufactured data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/hansen-feels-the-need-to-explain-why-giss-is-high-in-the-midst-of-frigid-air/
I can hardly wait for Hansen's explanation. Maybe he will need to consult with Jones for a good story about how a dog ate his data or something.
Complain about this comment
113. JaneBasingstoke wrote:
"I think the IPCC is an accidental conspiracy to hide those uncertainties and caveats from the public."
Accidental. Thanks for a good laugh Jane!
Complain about this comment
#105. melty wrote:
"When did the editors decide that BBC News reports should henceforth be written in the style of personal journal entry?"
This is not a "news report." As stated above it is Richard's "take" on this story, an opinion piece, and we all know what Richard is promoting.
So if you were looking for objective journalism you will not find it here. But it does provide a starting point for discussions.
Complain about this comment
@119blunderbunny
'So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)...'
That's unfortunate.. because that would mean none of the Contrarian models count either...
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
blunderbunny wrote 119: "@GeoffWard ...Can you say "Tropospheric Hotspot"? Once, the pronunciation has been mastered. perhaps you'd like to spend some time looking for it - Please, let us know how you get on."
..........
Serious response tomorrow, but for now...
My wife says I have no idea where the hotspot is. I'll keep searching and let you know when I find it!
Complain about this comment
@Jane,
Great comment on Feynman.
His 1974 warning on cargo cult science seems like a perfect fit for what goes on today...
"I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential..."
He continues
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results"
Does this ring any bells ?
He finishes with an intellectual knock-out punch:
"There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition."
In other words your theory must be able to predict something else.
Remember, of course that this "climate" stuff is not about science or the environment anyway. It's a grab for power and money.
The "climate scare" is just the pretext-du-jour for a power and money grab.
Complain about this comment
Re 125. CanadianRockies wrote:
"Yet if you read many posts here you will find some people claiming that the satellite data 'confirms' some surface data sets, and in this case, for what it is worth, it does correlate with the other data EXCEPT for the GISS."
It confirms the longterm warming trend. All of the metrics show about 0.16C/decade since 1979 (except UAH which shows about 0.14C IIRC).
Not that it can be expected that the surface and satellites should show the same exact same trend of warming, because they are measuring different things, but the fact that they are close means the surface warming is very likely not mostly UHI effect.
What you are looking at instead is a month to month comparison, here I wouldn't expect the surface and satellites to agree because temperature anomalies in the the lower atmosphere and at the surface are not precisely tied together month to month. Also on a monthly scale there is a higher degree of uncertainty. Even the satellite records don't agree with each other month to month and they are measuring the same thing!
"So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different? Because its manipulated junk, as usual from Hansen."
Not good enough. That's not a reason, it's just handwaving. The source code is out there as is the station data, so in order to conclude, rather than just assume, GISTEMP is wrong you need to identify an argument why.
"This does, of course, raise all sorts of inconvenient questions about the comparisons between these data sets. perhaps most notable is that the GISS base line just happens to conveniently cover a cooling period which conveniently exaggerates the subsequent warming period (which, by the way, is now over). So the GISS was set up to support Hansen's 'Global Warming' tale - just like when they turned off the air conditioners when Hansen presented his lies to Congress."
I know the answer to this one and it doesn't bode well that you've assumed the wrong thing and attached a conspiracy theory to it. This might be a lesson of caution not to jump to conclusions in future.
The reason GISTEMP uses 1951-1980 baseline is because that is what it started off using when it was first developed (the 90s and 00s hadn't happened yet). Subsequently that baseline hasn't been changed because it was thought that was best for consistency. Changing the baseline would cause all the old published figures, graphs and maps to not be directly comparable with new ones.
And the choice of baseline doesn't exaggerate any warming period. The baseline choice doesn't affect the trend.
"I can hardly wait for Hansen's explanation. Maybe he will need to consult with Jones for a good story about how a dog ate his data or something."
Instead of drinking the WUWT coolade how about actually checking scientific sources?
Here you presume that Hansen is going to give some explanation. In actual fact he's already given the explanation. Did you only read the title?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
Complain about this comment
"In other words your theory must be able to predict something else."
Such as decades of warming. Check.
Complain about this comment
@GeoffWard #117
That's a different type of grey.
For an example of what I mean by politicians seeing in black and white. There was a lot of discussion before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, people on both sides made sensible points. But the actual decision for the UK was made by a man who asked himself the simple question "Is Saddam evil or not".
Saddam was evil. Evil evil evil. Therefore the UK had to be part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. No apologies from Blair, it was the Right Thing to do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm
Complain about this comment
@Lamna_nasus #128
"'So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)...'
That's unfortunate.. because that would mean none of the Contrarian models count either..."
I guess I'll regret asking, but what models are those then?
@Geoffward
Ahh, okay - Now I understand, where the confusion is coming from.... we've been looking for the wrong kind of spot all along - If I were you, I'd forget about my post and get on with enjoying yourself ;-)
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
#132 Quake,
You are welcome to believe Hansen's "hottest year" story if you want, and all his and your other rationalizations too.
But you dodged my question which was "So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different?"
You said that "in order to conclude, rather than just assume, GISTEMP is wrong you need to identify an argument why."
My simple answer is that it is such an obvious anomaly that it should be discarded until Hansen et al, not me, explains it. Can you imagine another scientific question where such an anomaly would simply be accepted as valid? Such things beg, demand to be explained before they are accepted... in real science at least.
But just to be clear, it should not surprise anyone if there has been some warming since the 1880s because we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age since then. That is the simplest explanation for any warming and as anyone who has looked at any of the long term ice core data KNOWS that the current trends are well within the boundaries of natural variation - except, apparently, the natural variation 'deniers.'
Within that larger cycle, from about 1970 to about 2000 we were in a warming trend, and now it appears that we are in another cooling trend, a cycle which appears to best be explained by the factors discussed in this fascinating article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/
Prior to about 1970 there was another cooling period, which caused short term thinkers to predict an imminent ice age; during the subsequent warming period the same kind of thinking has supported the current (though already obsolete) global warming story. Schneider, more recently a zealous advocate for The Warming, was earlier predicting that ice age.
As for this being the "hottest year"... how about if we follow your mantra and wait until the year is actually over and, most importantly, see the PEER REVIEWED - NOT pal reviewed - paper which confirms that. So far it appears to be nothing more than the usual scary blather timed for stampeding lemmings for Cancun.
Complain about this comment
Quake... more on the Myth of the Hottest Year, from your favourite source:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmest-year-nonsense/
Complain about this comment
@135 blunderbunny
'I guess I'll regret asking, but what models are those then?
Lindzen..
'A recent paper by Lindzen and Choi in GRL (2009) (LC09) purported to demonstrate that climate had a strong negative feedback and that climate models are quite wrong in their relationships between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space...
With the hype surrounding the manuscript, one would think that the article provides a sound, rock solid basis for a reduced climate sensitivity. However, our examination of the study’s methods demonstrates that this is not the case. In an article in press (Trenberth et al. 2010 (sub. requ.), hereafter TFOW), we show that LC09 is gravely flawed and its results are wrong on multiple fronts.'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/
Svensmark...
'Peter Laut, is Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency. He has long been a critic of the hypothesis that solar activity dominates the global warming trend, and has been involved in a series of heated public debates in Denmark. Even though most of his arguments concern scientific issues, such as data handling, and arithmetic errors...'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/something-is-x-in-the-state-of-denmark/
Complain about this comment
@137 Canadian Rockies
..Bob who?.. reviewed where?.. with what qualifications?.. is this just some random Contrarian blogger making unsubstantiated claims, being given a guest spot on WUWT, simply because he has posted a Contrarian opinion which references genuine scientific studies?...
.. and 'Bob' appears to have popped up making unsubstantiated Contrarian claims before -
'The peer-reviewed full OHC data tells us we're still warming. Had you actually read my post or the JGR papers, then you'd know there is high variability in the upper ocean data. Congrats. You confirmed the peer-reviewed literature.
And the fact that you threw the name of peer-reviewed article into your headline doesn't turn your post into a peer-reviewed article. '
not to mention -
'I tried to replicate Bob Tisdale’s heat content graphs from the same data and can’t replicate the cooling that he found...
I think either he made a mistake in analysis, or else he simply made a mistake by using preliminary data.
Reinforces Romm’s comment about peer-reviewed analysis being better than bloggers.'
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/10/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/
Complain about this comment
@Lamna_nasus
Do you actually read the stuff you post?
Lindzen and Choi were testing the predictions made by the GCMs, they were not their own models....and the models were found wanting
As to Trenberth et al 2010, debunking anything, the idea's hilarious. Seriously Mate, you'll need to at least try a little bit better than that.
Then me move on to then next link, which again has nothing to do with sceptical climate models
I know that reading can sometimes be difficult, especially some of the big words, but seriously.... D minus - must try harder
You could at least read stuff or you could just knock it all on the head and take up shark spotting ;-)
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Plus, that's the same Dr. Trenberth that brought you the need for scientists to “massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded"
Complain about this comment
@Lamna_nasus
So where's this heat then? Perhaps, you're going to point me to GISS?
Care to explain that 0.74?
UAH and RSS were only 0.381 and 0.312, doesn't that seem just a little odd to you? Smelling something fishy yet?
That'll be the penguins. They fly North for the Winter, don't'cha know....... Well it's just as likely as 0.74 ;-)
Just Curious
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS