SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,” makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?
AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)
And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you’d see it’s 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.
SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)
(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of “The Day After Tomorrow.”
‘So deceit is fine as long as it brings “attention to the issue.”‘
I would hardly call it deceit. It is just a video supplement for his slide show.
Plus, you completely missed the point I was trying to make. My point was that all of the science behind climate change is not based on An Inconvenient Truth. Trying to disprove global warming by pointing out flaws in Al Gores movie just goes to show that you global warming deniers don’t really have a leg to stand on.
If you want to learn about climate change, don’t listen to Hollywood, or a politician. Try listening to what the scientists are saying. Read as much as you can on the subject and then make up your own mind.
I agree with Jason!
And here’s a few sites that do exactly what he says:
http://icecap.us/index.php
The above site prints and links to articles from scientists around the globe.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
These are just a few of many sites, where quite a few scientists of various fields come together to discuss the coming global cooling (which has already begun).
lynnh: If you accept that there are examples that are wrong because the judge said so, then you must accept that the science is sound. If that is the case, then great, lets make sure that the examples are out into context while at the same time saying that the science is solid.
If you don’t want to accept the judges ruling on the science, then that is also fine, lets open the “errors” to discussion as well. But you can’t have it both ways.
If you want to see what the scientific community says about the “errors” then Tim Lambert has a very good rundown.
In regards to people “proving” their case, I would say it is even more fundamental than that. I always like to come back to my three points:
1) We are responsible for all the current increase in CO2.
2) Increasing CO2 will cause an increase in downward longwave radiation.
3) More infrared radiation will mean more heat energy will be transfered to the ground.
Regards,
John
Posted by: otter at April 23, 2008 8:23 PM
I find it interesting that temperature data from the 1930’s is considered accurate, but modern data isn’t.
Then there is the 1998 threshold that someone addressed here recently.
And then your source says, “so in a sense I don’t condemn him as much as I do the so-called climatologists like [James] Hansen, who says things that are idiotic.”
Anyone who says something like that about NASA’s top climate expert is suspect in my view, so I looked into his credentials.
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology
First, I discovered he is retired. From that same source they point out there are a considerable number of economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, amateurs and industry-supported scientists plus 49 retirees who are included in the list of 400 experts opposing global warming concepts.
Then I found this;
http://www.library.wwu.edu/specialcollections/findingaids/easterbrookd.htm
Contained here, you will find a list of published works by Dr. Easterbrook. I didn’t see any on Climatology.
It would appear those would come after the year 2000, thus Hansen’s studies specific to climate change span a much longer period of time.
I expect few would argue Easterbrook’s background in his specific area, that of a teacher and scholar of geology, specializing in glacial geology, including effects of climatic influence. Thus his input could be seen as another stone on a large pile. As a teacher/Professor, is it fair to assume Easterbrook also relies heavily on data gathered by other sources rather than his own personal efforts?
Hugger
John Cross @8:35 am
I’ll suggest another ‘principle’ for you.
When politicians turn an environmental issue into a money-making fear-mongering industry using computer graphics to ‘increase awareness’ we have reason to be skeptical.
but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view.
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 12:56 AM
Something for you to think about lynnh. Firstly, I think most people would be much happier if these global warming/climate change people had never been heard from. Many if not most would prefer them to be proven wrong and just go away so we can go on as we were. But that’s not my main point.
If you are old enough, think back to when Trudeau and Joe Clark debated. Trudeau was very good at debate, had a tremendous memory and in fact made Clark look foolish. We know how that turned out. Fast forward 40 odd years, and it looks a little different now doesn’t it?
My point is, the publics perception of debate can be influenced by any number of factors, not solely the strength of arguments and positions offered. Their ability to comprehend via spoken word is very much a factor. Consider the rather lengthy technical explanations given here on this blog, and the ensuing arguments particularly by those who don’t understand the material.
Take this blogging world as further example. There is a lot of skulduggery afoot there. Blocking posts and links, withholding posts until numerous other blog entries have taken peoples’ attention away from that topic, routing controversial material that doesn’t support the desired message to persons for study and rebuttal, which is then posted on current threads.
Lot’s of things to consider about influencing peoples thinking.
Hugger
Perhaps they just were weak debaters but then again maybe they lost the debate because the facts do not support the AGW theory. It would take more debates to confirm that. I, for one, would welcome a sereies of debates.
As for the judge, the facts confirmed that AIT was inaccurate. The judges feelings were that AGW is real but without facts..just emotion. I do not put much stock in feelings, even a judges. They are too subjective.
John and Greg, you have yet to address one point. Why are none of the predictions being observed in nature? It should be the proponents proving their theory by observations in nature not skeptics disproving computer models. In classic scientific methods the onus is on the AGWers not the skeptics. To demand that skeptics prove a negative is a perversion of science.
More public debate needed!!!
More infrared radiation will mean more heat energy will be transfered to the ground.
Really? Have you measured this heat the ground has supposedly “received back” from the atmosphere?
Yes ol hoss they have. Please see Figure 4 of this.
As the caption describes the top pannel shows the atmospheric longwave irradiance during nighttime and as you can see the value is significant – on the order of 190 W/m2.
It should be the proponents proving their theory by observations in nature not skeptics disproving computer models.
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 10:14 AM
Ah! Thank you for bringing us all the way back to where I started.
Repeating part of one of my first posts, I say for me it is not so much the Science as it is what I can see, feel and touch. This, it so happens supports the position of the majority of Scientist. I posted that over the last decade, my observations support Climate change. In fact, its more two decades, but I was trying to be conservative.
In the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s I remember consistent winters. Some worse, some not as bad. That began to change in the 80’s, more so in the 90’s and the soft winters of the new millennium have added much weight. Even this past winter was not comparable. I don’t even jump at every major occurrence such as Katrina to support my views. An East Coaster is used to storms.
I do put stock in the continued erosion of coastline though. In my lifetime I have seen entire building lots consumed, sea walls built to hold back the erosion not being sufficient as was the case this winter. Some properties close to me lost half a city building lot and the huge cement blocks placed as a sea wall, washed out to the low tide mark.
If the Sea wasn’t rising, how could it keep coming further up the landscape and eroding more and more land?
Here is a link and an excerpt from an article I posted earlier;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/chanton.html
* Geological data suggests that global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr over the last 3000 years.
* However, tide gauge data indicate that the global rate of sea level rise during the 20th century was 1 to 2 mm/yr.
Along relatively flat coastlines, such as those of the Atlantic, or coastlines bordering fertile, highly populated river deltas, a 1 mm rise in sea level causes a shoreline retreat of about 1.5 meters. We are already seeing evidence of shoreline retreat in the U.S.:
* Along the Atlantic Coast of the USA, erosion is narrowing beaches and washing out vacation houses. As sea level rises and coastal communities continue to grow and pump water from aquifers, salt water intrusion into groundwater will become a greater problem.
I have a link from Natural Resources Canada for a greater number of coastal areas on request.
That being said, we awoke to more April like weather this morning as opposed to the record high temperatures of recent days. With a brisk wind, rolling Seas and some driving rain. As I peered out onto Me Ocean, I saw a curious thing. There, before my eyes was a gigantic propeller boat flying a banner bearing the word “Gore”, riding shotgun was a little man with white hair, horns and a tail. He was crying loudly, “No more photo ops Al, to the Bus to the Bus I say!”
Mr. Suzuki I presume…
Hugger
Those poor Alarmists – they just don’t realize what they are doing; give Idiots enough rope and they will end up hanging themselves.
But I was talking about objective data like satellites recording surface temperature, troposphere temperatures and and oceans temperatures. Even the IPCC admits that there has not been temperature increases in the last decade, despite the rising of human CO2. I have not seen any predictions proved accurate. The AGWers have not proved anything either by direct observation or by exclusion of all other possible factors.
The earth, oceans and lakes have always changed and always will. My community sits in an ancient lake that once stretched for hundreds of miles, before that it was covered in glaciers, now it is parkland, in the future it will be something else. Change is natural and humans adapt. Money towards adaptation is money well spent, the Kyoto scheme is not.
I posted links April 22 on the first blog entry on The Sound of Settled Science from Hansen. If you look for Posted by: Greg at April 23, 2008 2:33 PM, you will find them. Reading this indicates his conclusions are based on averaged temperatures from earth based censoring devices. Thus, if you accept this then there is proof of temperature increases.
In my post above there is information on how much sea level has increased in the 20th compared to previous centuries. I think this is significant indication of what I see personally. Plus the Natural Resources Canada link I mentioned shows some extraordinary changes in some areas.
http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/potentialimpacts/coastalsensitivitysealevelrise/1
Ex. Northeast Graham Island, British Columbia. This is one of two regions of high sensitivity in British Columbia – the score is 24.8. The sandy bluffs in this photo are retreating up to 12 metres annually, supplying sediment to prograding beaches elsewhere in the region.
Can you provide some links that indicate what has brought you to your conclusions regarding Kyoto?
Hugger
Here is a few
1.http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71
2.http://www.reason.com/news/show/125323.html
3.http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
4.http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/ny_climate_conference_journey.html
5.http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_epicycles_of_global_warmin.html
6.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
7.http://tinyurl.com/327e2j
8.http://tinyurl.com/6s72xl
9.http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/
10.http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002878.html
11.http://tinyurl.com/5uftp8
Gee, that should keep me busy. Which are your favorites??
Hugger
That is the short list.
I think that you will find that skeptics generally rely on many sources. In fact, as an environmentalist, I initially leaned towards belief in AGW. But as the the proponents descended into attack and exaggeration, I became more skeptical. The more I researched, the less credible the AGW science seems. At this point all I see is politicians as business masquerading as environmentalists for a quick buck.
It is distracting the public away from real environmental protection. As the scam is revealed, this will erode future credibility of not only environmentalism but science in general. That is its biggest crime.
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 4:39 PM
I have had a look at the first two links, and I don’t think you understood my original request.
The National post link seems to deal with a series of articles which outlines persons who disagree with various aspects of global warming/climate change science, and lists their credentials. Not much more. The 2nd link goes into arguing specifics of science.
What I was asking is what is it about the Kyoto agreement itself that you dislike? For example, what is your understanding of how Carbon trading is supposed to work?
Hugger
Carbon taxes are in the Kyoto protocol -> the Kyoto protocol is based on AGW -> I do not believe in AGW -> Therefore regarding carbon taxes :”Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton”
As the caption describes the top pannel shows the atmospheric longwave irradiance during nighttime and as you can see the value is significant – on the order of 190 W/m2.
That doesn’t show any added heat to the ground. It only shows the atmosphere radiates heat.
The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton”
Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 6:32 PM
Does he work for the government?
Hugger
>>Posted by: ural at April 24, 2008 12:07 AM
>>I wasn’t trying to “debunk” anything. Just attempting to point out the direction where reality lives.
Huh? Then why did you direct me to a post with no obvious link to reality?
>>Some of us actually like reality a bit more than Hollywood’s “based on reality” shows.
I take it then that you refuse to accept documentaries that use actors to portray historical characters?
>>BTW: I like watching ninjas jumping 30 feet into air to fight … it’s entertainment, not science.
I assume this is an attempt to portray documentaries that use actors or CG to depict historically accurate (as far as possible) events as being as inaccurate as ninja movies. Nice try, but there is significant difference in using CG to depict actual events and a movie where actors defy known physics.
>>Posted by: lynnh at April 24, 2008 12:56 AM
>>They have debated and the AGW were the clear losers, even with a crowd who at the beginning were AGW believers.
>>Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007
>>Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov
>>Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
>>Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.
I have a question – when did science become a popularity contest decided at public debates?
I always thought science was done through research, hypothesis testing and peer review.
All a debate shows is that some are better showmen than others. Most audiences are hardly in a position to understand the science, especially in a debate where every argument is a 30 second sound bite.
>>Posted by: Jason at April 24, 2008 5:45 AM
>>If you want to learn about climate change, don’t listen to Hollywood, or a politician. Try listening to what the scientists are saying. Read as much as you can on the subject and then make up your own mind.
Now there is a comment that needs to be repeated frequently. At least until it sinks in.
>>Posted by: otter at April 24, 2008 6:22 AM
>>These are just a few of many sites, where quite a few scientists of various fields come together to discuss the coming global cooling (which has already begun).
April, there have been scientists convinced of the impending onset of global cooling – some expecting it tomorrow, others in a couple of thousand years – since the understanding of the cyclical nature of glaciation events and the realization that Milankovitch cycles, plate tectonics, and large injections of aerosols into the atmosphere can initiate climate change. However they have always been a minority, somewhere around 10%.
There have been scientists contemplating the effects of CO2 and changes in glaciation since the late 1800s (Tyndall). Even then they understood that increases in GHGs would cause temperature increases.(Arrhenius) In fact they came to realize that without GHGs and other atmospheric solar energy modifiers, the Earth would be far colder. (Fourier)
The temperature would be similar to that of the moon, ~-150C on the side away from the sun and ~100C on the sunny side.
As long as there has been an atmosphere, and more recently, a biosphere, there has been a ‘greenhouse effect’ regulating temperatures.
>>Posted by: bluetech at April 24, 2008 9:14 AM
>>When politicians turn an environmental issue into a money-making fear-mongering industry using computer graphics to ‘increase awareness’ we have reason to be skeptical.
Yes, yes you do, you have reason to be skeptical of the politicians and their motives. This skepticism should lead you to examine the work of the scientists directly, without relying on second hand information from doubters who have their own agenda.
Be a skeptic, not a blind doubter.
>>lynnh at April 24, 2008 10:14 AM
How about before you entertain a debate that will generally be information poor, you read the IPCC Group I Technical summary, followed by the underlying technical papers and maybe some from the NOAA. That will at least give you a working basis for understanding and evaluating the arguments.
Do you have a full list of predictions, or just the cherry picked ones listed in your previous post?
How many predictions have been made? How many have panned out, how many not? Have you bothered to investigate the predictions, or have you just stuck to reading Anti-AGW sites that only mention those that they believe have not been validated?
ol hoss: so is your argument now that if we shine 190 W/m2 on an object it will not receive heat?
John
Debate has always been part of scientific discovery. It is a necessary part of the process. It is a safeguard that protects against junk science.
Make a theory, test it, make it falsifiable, ensure results can be reproduce, make the data available to others and then defend it against critics. A process that shuts down discussion by declaring “the science is settled”, “All skeptics are Big Oil Deniers” and “throw skeptical politicians in jail” is not part of the normal process. If the proponents are not willing to openly debate skeptics then it indicates that even they their science it too weak to stand up to serious scrutiny.
But again, it is up to the AGWers to prove their theory through actual, observable data in nature not up to the skeptics to disprove human generated computer models about future events. The burden of proof is on the propenents. So the better question is – What AGW/IPCC predictions have been proven and then confirmed by 3rd party scientist?
To say that there has been no increase in temperature during the last 10 years is, in my opinion, purposeful and misleading cherry picking. One decade ago, the average global temperature was at its highest recorded level. It was so high it could be, except for the high confidence the records give us, considered anomalous. Starting a trend line from an anomalous data point will force an extremely biased outcome. This appears to be intentional on the part of anti-AGW people. If you pick either the preceding year, or the following year, or any other year closer to the curve than 1998, the result is a totally different picture. Picking the last year in the series also affects the apparent trend line. If that point diverges from the curve significantly, it too will bias the curve until later data points give a more accurate trend.
The following is a collection of temperature anomalies (from the normal) for the years 1990 to 2007. Each number is the variance, in Celsius, from the average of an arbitrary range of years, called the normal. The normal simply creates a base line. The purpose isn’t to give absolute temperature values but change.
.2542, .2118, .0612, .1053, .1710, .2755, .1371, .3509, .5456*, .2959, .2699, .4084, .4642, .4734, .4473, .4817, .4216, .4021
You can see that from 1990 to 2007 the trend line is increasing. The trend line can only be claimed to be decreasing if you dishonesty choose for a trend line endpoint a point that would in many data analysis, be considered an outlier – like 1998.
Both a curve built from five year averages, and a best fit polynomial curve for the entire range, show the trend continuing to rise.
There are several predictions that can be made. One prediction is that the stratospheric temperatures will decrease, the tropospheric temperatures will increase and the surface temperature will increase if the case is GHG. If it is solar forcing (from whatever ultimate cause), the pattern would be different in that the stratospheric temperature would also be increasing.
What is found the the pattern suggested by GHGs.
There you go, this is one prediction that has been validated by observations of hard data.
The other objections you have mentioned to AGW warming are similar, they are only a problem if you cherry pick your data.
Many other factors, including solar forcing, have been considered and rejected. Whoever told you they are being ignored is simply wrong.
>>lynnh at April 24, 2008 4:39 PM
I took a look at two randomly chosen links from your post. What I found was the reliance on polls and newspaper articles to determine the support level for AGW among climatologists.
If you want to get an accurate picture of the support level for a science, any science, the only way is to look at the papers published and the number of citations made to those papers.
Here is the latest survey:
2004 – Oreskes: Of 928 abstracts found 75% support for AGW, and 25% that were about methods or paleoclimatology. None disagreed.
Although I suspect there were dissenting papers missed in this survey, the result epitomizes the Anti-AGW method – don’t publish papers, don’t do any research, cherry pick data that can be popularized and run to the media.
Just to back up Gary Bohn, Hansen’s Bulldog over at Open Mind has done a lot of the statistical work looking at the temperature trends. I can confirm from a discussion I recently that if you look at certain datasets with certain start points you can see flat or even negative trends, the problem is that these tend to have R2 coefficients of around 0.02! Try presenting that as a significant result.
John
No you have not proved the point. The “normal” temperature baseline you choose is itself not reflective of the wide variance of earth temperatures throughout the ages. In fact todays temperatures fall well within the maximum and minimum temperature values that have occurred during even humankind’s brief existence.
Back to the present. The IPCC central claim is that human CO2 has become the main driver of “climate change”. Yet,the temperature has decreased in real terms for the last decade, even as human CO2 was rapidly increasing. The goes directly against the IPCC’s “human CO2 controls the climate” theory. In addition the troposphere temperature in the tropics is decreasing, the oceans temperatures are decreasing and surface temps measured by satellites are decreasing. The IPCC models and theories have failed miserably in the last 10 years.
The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.
graph at link
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002868.html
Gary Bohn you wrote
What ruse?
Gore screws up in the movie often enough for complaints to be made, but this one little segment is accurate.
How much will all that Styrofoam melting cause the oceans to rise???
Sorry for the late reply, had to pay my utilities bill, so I was drinking heavily for two days.
Nice graph. Unfortunately it uses information from 2008 so the graph is skewed downward at the end. Remember what I said about endpoints? This is an example of why it shouldn’t be done. And yes, even AGW proponents do this to make their case, which it does not.
Go through the data from HadCRUT3, or GISS/NASA and repeatedly pick a 3 year window (the length of time the author of the Blog you linked to is complaining about) anywhere before 1998. You will find many instances of similar decreases in temperature. However those decreases did not portend the demise of warming in any way as can be seen by later temperatures.
3 years is far too fine a resolution to take any conclusion from, up or down. Let’s see what the last 3 years look like in a decade, shall we, before drawing any conclusions.
If we have several decades of temperatures that indicate an increasing trend, then it will take a lot more than 3 years to show a reversal of that trend, without other corroborating evidence.
An interesting comment from the author of that blogged piece leads me to believe he has a poor understanding of AGW in general.
No scientist claims that the Earth is not naturally variable, nor do they deny that natural variability should be considered when we look for the cause. Nor do climatologists expect or require an effect outside that shown by natural causes to be present. The conclusion that the current trend is anthropogenic is made after the consideration of natural causes and the comparison of the many more than two hypothesis to the observed data. The evidence from the observed data suggests, quite strongly, that the cause is anthropogenic in nature.
Even if the warming trend matched exactly a trend from the past where we know anthropogenic causes are impossible, that does not by default determine the cause now. Each historical variation in the climate has to be examined independently from every other variation for cause, simply because there are many potential causes. Each variation could have a different cause, although the dynamics of Earth’s system and the observed regularity suggest otherwise. Simply assuming the current cause is the same as the last cause is hardly scientific, nor does it inform us of anything important. What does inform us of the cause is the examination of the data underlying the cause. The past is helpful in many ways when it comes to climate, it gives us an indication of what changes to expect, the impact of feedback loops, even the chaotic nature of weather, but the past does not determine the cause of the present. And yes, we do and have considered the affect past causes have on current trends, it would be foolish to ignore them.
The observed effect is not the same thing as the cause.
To give an example, here is a small, overly simplistic, analogy. The point I am trying to make is that each event has to be evaluated independently and on its own evidence.
You live in a house beside a field when a specific tree gets broken at the same point on the trunk every year. You have witnessed two causes, the wind, and a large bird, both breaking the tree at the same point, which you conclude is weak.
Then comes along a company who buys the land and starts storing large equipment there. You notice that the movement of equipment has an effect on all the other trees on the land.
One morning you wake up to find the little tree broken at the same point as observed in the past.
Now you can either assume that the wind or the bird broke the tree, because that is the historical reality, or you can assume a new potential cause for the break, that being the movement of equipment.
What do you do, ignore it or go over to the tree to see if there are any clues that might indicate the cause.
Anti-AGW people want to do the former, the AGW crowd wants to and has done the latter. The clues we have found give strong support for anthropogenic causes with other natural causes such as Milankovitch cycles, Solar radiation cycles and Earth bound catastrophic events considered and through the evidence, rejected as major influences.
Remember, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause major changes all by itself, it is simply a trigger for other events that do impact the environment dramatically.
That is true, but how many times do you have to debate the same things before you can draw valid conclusions from the data?
Very well put.
What in this process has been ignored by climatologists? Of course the critics also have to bring their own science to the table. Science doesn’t need to defend itself from your neighbour’s pizza boy or the drunk next door just because they have doubts and are vocal about it.
The observed effect is not the same thing as the cause.
It’s the Pine Beetles fault now…..
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/417566
Posted by: Alistair Macfarlane
Using analogies, they are blaming the devastating ruin caused by the pine beetle on global warming.
Really…
My reply to the same allegation in the Globe and Mail
During the early 1990’s while conducting heli-assist seismic explorations on the eastern slopes of the Rockies in northeastern B.C. we were aware of the mountain pine beetle presence, signified by small amounts of saw dust near the base of the affected trees (the tell tale blue fungus not noticeable at the time), in small isolated areas. These locations were mapped and submitted to both B.C. Forests and the FMA of the region for observation and analysis. Nothing was done by either faction other than a wait and see tactic, no small controlled burns or other measures, nothing. The reason?? The timber was deemed too valuable to burn and too remote to be harvested economically.
Greed my dear friends, lack of foresight, and fire suppression are the causes of this fiasco, we could have nipped this in the bud a long time ago. Simple….
The point I am trying to convey?
AGW is not the cause of most of the perceived catastrophes of the world. Too much fossil fuels being used, go nuclear, forget solar and wind power. Price of corn and beer going through the roof,water usage out of control, forests disappearing, axe the ethanol boondoggle. Water and wind lapping at your door, move, you shouldn’t live on a flood plain or a sand dune near the ocean. An ice shelf cracking in the Antarctic,think sub surface volcano and tectonic plate shift. AIT on the movie channel, turn off TV and go drink yourself silly.
What prediction type are you interested in, predictions based on the physics and observations, predictions from the models, predictions from the politicians, or predictions from journalists?
There’s your problem. Science doesn’t predict. Gypsies predict. Science records observable, repeatable phenomena and attempts to explain them. It does not look into the future to foretell of previously unseen phenomena.
And since our current climate falls within the range of historical fluctuation, the default case is that man does not cause climate change. The “skeptics” do not have to prove anything. It is the proponents of AGW that have to prove and defend their case using known science.
Pd: But the skeptics do have a responsibility to review what is presented and then agree with it or disagree because… To do neither but move on to another point is not science.
Also, the responses must be rational. In my latest discussion with ol hoss, he is claiming that if you shine 190 watts/m2 on an object, it won’t impart any heat. Do you think that is a rational response?
John
ol hoss: so is your argument now that if we shine 190 W/m2 on an object it will not receive heat?
No. My argument is that heat can’t of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.
That’s not just my argument, that’s a law.
Such a thing as you describe only exists in mathmatical equations. This bi-directional exchange of heat has never been measured in the real world.
And it’s rather silly to think that an object knows when to stop taking in heat so there remains a net positive from warmer to cooler.
Figures lie and liars figure.
ol hoss: I know exactly what your argument is and I have know it since you first raised it. The point that you cling to is a phrase that seem to recall hearing i.e. that heat can’t of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.
That is actually an incomplete statement and a better way of putting it would be that there can be no net heat that of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.
Above I showed that there are sensors that measure longwave radiation and these sensors can detect the infrared radiation that shines from the atmosphere to us. If you point the same sensors down they will measure the longwave radiation that shines up.
Everything above absolute zero emits longwave radiation. As long an object does not receive more energy from a cooler object than it emits then no laws are broken.
John
…there can be no net heat that of itself move from a cooler object to a warmer object.
That makes no sense at all. In any event, you’re arbitrarily adding to the second law.
Above I showed that there are sensors that measure longwave radiation and these sensors can detect the infrared radiation that shines from the atmosphere to us.
That doesn’t mean the ground absorbs it. And there are no measurements to prove it does.
ol hoss: yes, I am not surprised that you think it makes no sense.
“That doesn’t mean the ground absorbs it. And there are no measurements to prove it does.”
I see – so the ground is a perfect reflector? There are only 2 choices – it either gets reflected or absorbed. Which is it (and if you say reflected I am going to ask why the ground doesn’t look like a mirror)?
There are only 2 choices – it either gets reflected or absorbed.
3rd choice is simply not absorbed. Show me real world measurements that it is.
ol hoss; well you are correct that there is a third choice – it can be transmitted, but I didn’t think you wanted to argue that the ground was transparent.
So you have three choices and only three choices. It can be absorbed, it can be transmitted in which case you must show why the ground is transparent or it can be reflected in which case you must show why you think the ground is like a mirror.
So a very simple question, which is it?
John
There’s a way to settle it, provide measurements of heat absorbed by the ground from the atmosphere.
ol hoss: there is an even easier way: does it absorb, reflect or transmit? Just answer the simple question.
Or that silly movie WATERWORLD wherwe KEVIN COSNER swims around looking like a complete dork and calling himself MARINER he must have felt stupid