I’ve noticed this pattern, too:
The scientists who interest me in this field are those who can draw on the experience of a lot of people who have come before them. And uniformly in these areas I find scepticism. People who write mathematical models of complex systems for a living tend to find the climate models very unconvincing. Geologists find the arguments very unconvincing. Engineers find the arguments unconvincing. And astrophysicists find the arguments unconvincing.
But among government-funded alarmists we find, unsurprisingly, unanimous alarm. After all, their research funding would dry up without the steady drumbeat of doom
It’s kinda late in life for David Suzuki to get a real job I suppose. And he is good at scaring the shit out of second graders and leaving them with nightmares.
Speaking as someone with advanced degree(s) including astrophysics and computer sytems (including modelling)…yeah, that about sums it up.
But don’t take my word for it. Just ask them to make specific predictions for the next 5, 10, 20 years, post them on your bulletin board and then check back in every so often.
You don’t need their predictions for the next five or ten years. They have been making predictions since the first IPCC report in 1990 — and they’re all over the place.
Overstated warming of the troposphere, overstated global surface temperature, overstated human contribution to warming etc, etc.
The climate debate is essentially a debate between the computer modelers and the empiricists. The empirical evidence does not exist.
It must be freezing over in more places than the Arctic. This morning the CBC radio news brought a story fom Iqualit that the ice pack had grown tremendously this winter and was near “normal levels”
Chip,
Good point. Just look at the trend lines for the IPCC reports and the incredibly shrinking sea level rise.
I think this is going to be a hard one for the alarmists to ignore: http://tinyurl.com/239mgn
The majority of people are casual observers of the issue, not un-like politics. They see it on the news presented as afait accompli and think it must be.
I took a couple of people to lunch a few weeks ago and we got talking about “global warming”. These guys are good people, competent at what they do, but as said above disinterested observers. They were taken a back when I suggested that the whole thing was a hoax to get a grant and/or for the UN to attempt to create a reason for global governance. They didn’t want to feel they’ve been had I guess, but I’m sure they are thinking about it now after some follow up emails – one saying that the UN was retracting their forcast for temperature rise by half because the models didn’t match reality. Go figure.
These are the people the Suzuki’s are after and the media are complicit in spreading the enviro propaganda. They don’t have time or don’t want to spend the time checking this stuff out and are relying and a trusted source for their info. There are a lot of people who are going to dump the current media as a reliable source of information and the media themselves will be to blame when the general public equate the MSM below the Enquirer as reliable. There will be a day of reckoning for the Suzuki’s, CBC’s, CTV’s, and newspapers for drinking the same Koolaid and trying to pull a fast one.
I too have two degrees in science, a Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering, and a Masters in Computing Science. I too develop computer simulations of scientific models for a living (which, interestingly to the context, perhaps, happen to include thermodynamics). And I too am very very skeptical of any results produced by so-called climate modeling software, and am very very skeptical of the engineering feasibility of any proposal that has not been properly vetted by competent engineers (who will obviously call the economists, because cost-benefit and return-on-investment are important aspects of any engineering optimization problem).
As I see it, and Mr. Atkinson agrees in his closing paragraph, the trick is not to panic. Even if the forecasts that the temperature might go up by a few degrees over the next century are correct, we still need do nothing for another ten or twenty years — other than to study the problem very carefully to be sure that before we blow a wad on the problem, it actually is a problem. The earth has been a few degrees warmer before. There were no global catastrophes.
On the other hand, it is not to the advantage of those who are trying to milk the current controversy for personal fraudulent advantage to not panic, indeed, it is imperative to their advancement that they induce panic.
It in that sense that I don’t think the current discussions about the variability of the planet’s thermodynamic environment are about science at all, moreover, I think there is a danger that the fraud artists may significantly damage the reputation of science in general. And that would be far more damaging to the future of humanity than a few degrees rise in temperature.
Finally, I love Mr. Atkinson’s title. Remember that folks, the next time someone accuses someone of being from “Big Oil”, be sure ask them whether or not they’re from Big Climate.
Good article: As a geologist whose income has come – in no small part – from an understanding of atmospheric evolution, climate and paleoclimate as these factors relate to development of surface and near-surface mineral deposits, I find little convincing evidence that the minor climate swings of the last several thousand years are either remarkable, or caused by man.
CO2 cannot, for very good physical reasons, add significantly to warming even if its concentration were to double in the near term. Historically – geological history, that is – the original atmosphere was perhaps 20%+ CO2. There is no evidence that Earth’s temperature rose remarkably because of having >200,000ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere.
The geological record shows periods of glaciation separated by about 200,000,000 years. This may suggest that once each orbit of the Solar System through the Milky Way Galaxy (226 million years per orbit) it encounters some condition that reduces solar energy arriving on Earth to the extent that glaciation can take place. Although it may be more complicated, one can imagine the Solar System passing through a cloud of dust, 93 million miles of which is enough to do the job.
Probably the best weather prediction is done by Piers Corbyn – Google search suggested – he has over 85% ‘success’ forecasting storms in the UK and northern Europe – his predictions are for windows of 3 to 5 days and are made a year or more in advance. Dr. Corbyn is an astrophysicist by training. Visit his site and read his opinion of CO2 as a ‘climate change driver’.
The evidence at hand leads me to believe that climate on Earth is controlled by influences that are in the most part external to the Earth, and some that are external to the Solar System.
As to the ‘scientists’ who are on the AGW bandwagon one is tempted to remark that there are two kinds of scientists: Those whose job it is to seek truth through the honest and careful measurement of Reality and ‘Official Scientists’ whose job it is to support the policy on which their continued employment depends.
Dr Solomon & Dr Ally were members of IPCC & testified under oath
Dr Susan Solomon testified before Congress Feb 8, 2007. She said the majority of the IPCC Scientists only had their degrees for 10 Years. She refused to answer a Senators question…but was not held in contempt. (See bio: Clinton/Gore & France Connection).
Dr Richard Ally testified before Congress Feb 8, 2007 and stated that the IPCC had reached NO scientific opinion regarding the Ice/Snow pack. He used the Pancake analogy that batter poured in the middle will spread evenly until it reaches a boundary. I understood him to say they lacked sufficient metrics of the supporting contours. This is in Stark contrast to MSM Global Warming Coverage..Someone (maybe Solomom) needs to explain this under oath.
One of the three Americans, (13 total in IPCC) that supported a man-made cause of GW, wrote her first paper in 2002.
Climate Scientific seems to be an exotic degree custom fitted to Global Warming & the ambitions of Soros.
Oh, this is ironic…
I make my living as an engineering prof in complex systems, modeling, fabricating and measuring same. I’ve also got degrees in both math and physics. To say I find the arguments unconvincing is a tad understated.
Whence the irony?
I also do some work on solar tech.
Vit
“…moreover, I think there is a danger that the fraud artists may significantly damage the reputation of science in general. ”
Just one more Western institution in their nihilistic path.
Just so, JET. The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10. Thus, the portion of the green-house gas effect caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths. The portion of human-produced CO2 vapor that comes from Canada is about 2% or 0.02. Thus, the portion of green-house gas effects caused by Canadian-produced CO2 is about 0.00006% or 0.0000006 or 0.6 millionths.
So, even if (contrary to the evidence that suggests that changes in CO2 concentrations are caused by significant temperature changes) we assume that changes in CO2 concentrations cause significant temperature changes, and even if we ignore the Beer-Lambert law on absorption saturation, and even if we assume (contrary to the evidence that suggests a slightly warmer planet would be a good thing) that an increase of a few degrees in temperature will cause terrible things, then even if Canadians stop producing any atmospheric CO2 at all, stopped all heating, stopped all transportation, stopped all manufacturing, then the reduction in terrible things will be less than 1 millionth; 999,999 millionths of it will still happen.
Now ask yourself again, how much are we willing to pay for nothing?
I’m either going to sound silly or will simply be stating the obvious but when I read this,
Yet, with the notable exception of the extinction of the dinosaurs, it seems life has happily trundled along through it all.
The first thing I thought was; yes dinosaurs all died but then again they did not have our technological advances.
Dinosaurs were dumb.
They did not have nuclear plants to produce energy or fertilizers to grow crops or even antibiotics and they certainly did not have evolved brains capable of coming up with new creative solutions for new problems.
Had we been around when something – whatever it was – killed the dinosaurs we would have survived.
Climate change would have to be extremely drastic for humans to not be able to find some way to cope with it.
Finding a way to cope with leftists is a bigger problem than the end of the world they claim is coming on us!
To be fair, Friend, trilobites went extinct before dinosaurs (and life went on), and humans did not have nuclear plants or antibiotics a century ago. What’s unique about humans, and in particular modern humans, is the combination of the following.
1) We’re individual warm-blooded vertebrate scavenging omnivores.
2) We’re binocular & bipedal and have arms with hands with opposed thumbs.
3) We have a massive forebrain, neurologically speaking.
4) We figured out speech, writing, music, dance, and art.
5) We figured out fire, machines, and electricity.
6) We figured out reason, logic, mathematics, and science.
7) We figured out responsibility, trust, and fraud.
8) We figured out the rule of law, property, separation of church & state, and democracy.
9) We figured out the concepts of fundamental individual freedoms and of human rights.
When evaluating the putative products of any salesman, judge them by that list. Most will score ok on (1) through (4), and thus be of the human species per se. Things start to go bad with the shysters around (5) and (6). When you see the latter violating (7) and (8), to the degree that they are advocating against (9), that’s when you know you have a modern-day snake-oil salesman.
Vit, please send that to David Asper.
Vitruvius: From the perspective of a farmer with not a whole lot of formal education, but about 65 years of reading various stuff, (I learned to read at a very young age) our (yours and mine)take on this climate change thing is pretty damn close. Thanks for expressing it as well as you do.
IMO, it was ALWAYS all about the peons paying Unca Mo and the ‘other’ elitist socialists for hot air through a manufactured thingie called Carbon credits.
Nothing more, nothing less – the fact that some peons really believe that people can control nature is just stoopid – even the Oracle at Delphi didn’t pretend to be able to do that!
What the hell would geologists know about past climate? What could climate possibly have to do with any of the evidence exhibited in nearly three plus billion years of sedimentation? Rocks don’t talk! Rocks don’t give press releases. 😉
Yesterday my blood actually ran cold for a moment. I heard a talking head on a premier TV news show with a large audience casually refer to carbon dioxide as the “MAIN” greenhouse gas.
The fix is in.
Vit – ya, what you said! There is no doubt that when it comes to “snake-oil salesmen” like Gore and Suzuki, the success of their shtick is directly proportional to the fear content in their message.
Vit
“…moreover, I think there is a danger that the fraud artists may significantly damage the reputation of science in general. ”
is that still possible:-)))))))
Aside from the obvious fact that pack ice declining for several years and gaining back for one is still a trend to lose pack ice, and the other obvious fact that big chunks of land ice are melting for the first time since the glaciers, and the less obvious fact that the Gulf Stream losing heat due to Greenland melting will make the North Atlantic much colder as the rest of the world warms up, I object to Vitruvius’ numbers and attempt at logic.
“The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01. Thus, the portion of green-house gasses that is human produced CO2 is about 0.03% or 0.0003. The heat trapping effectiveness of CO2 compared to the average of green-house gasses is about 10% or 0.10.”
What do you meen by “green-house gasses”? Do you mean the whole atmosphere? Or are you comparing against N2 and CH4? And what relevance does the “average of green-house gasses” have? They don’t exist in the same proportion and don’t have the same duration – CH4 is very intensive but also quick to break down. So your “conclusion” that “the portion of the green-house gas effect caused by human CO2 is about 0.003% or 0.00003 or 30 millionths” is indefensible drivel as written. It certainly would be odd if all the scientists in the world had not pointed out this number, if it was real. But it isn’t real, is it? It’s just nonsense made up to protect a Tar Sands job? Or just nonsense, period? Funny how so many chemical, acid rain, ozone, deforestation problems likewise had the same history of being “debunked” by people abusing numbers in this way.
From here your logic gets clear enough to criticize. “The portion of human-produced CO2 vapor that comes from Canada is about 2% or 0.02.” That’s right. But the portion of developed-country emissions is significantly greater, and those are the ones that matter. They must be reduced FIRST before the countries THAT DID NOT DO THE DAMAGE can be asked to reduce. If seven people living in one apartment building trash it and render it in need of repairs, and five of them agree to pay up for that past damage and two hold out and say no, EVERYONE INCLUDING THE ONES WHO JUST MOVED IN HAS TO PAY THE SAME WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR WHO DID THE DAMAGE 1990-2005, which is the position of the Harper and Bush administrations, you’d say the two deadbeats were still deadbeats and not to be trusted under any deal going forward. And that is exactly what developing countries now say.
You offer no links to “evidence that suggests that changes in CO2 concentrations are caused by significant temperature changes” nor do you explain the relevance of “the Beer-Lambert law on absorption saturation” nor any “evidence that suggests a slightly warmer planet would be a good thing” and omit evidence that even slight increase in warmth means more insect infestations similar to the pine beetle in BC (parasites and bacteria are the first to exploit any warming to expand their range). You make no mention of the local effects on seacoasts or regions dependent on warm ocean currents like the Gulf Stream that will get markedly colder. Then you imply that heating, transportation, manufacturing require CO2 which is only true due to the failure to shift off fossil fuels in the 1970s when it should have started.
Even if I were to accept your logic, numbers and assumptions, which would make me quite literally insane, I would still consider it worthwhile to stop destroying landscapes, rivers, habitats and stop wasting scarce water and useful natural gas on such socialist-style dirty megaprojects as the Tar Sands. Which exist only because of subsidies.
The Kyoto targets can easily be met by shifting off coal for electricity, installing the simplest conservation technologies (smart thermostats, LED and CFS lighting, water heater insulation, etc.). The benefits of meeting them include an overall more efficient economy wasting less on fuel and able to export it for cash, finding radically more efficient industrial methods that keep industry competitive and can be exported to countries that don’t have the fuel to waste, and reductions in material throughput and thus more conservation of woodlands, grasslands and other habitat destroyed for the sake of energy/fuel at present.
There’s no legitimate argument against them other than the global cooperation on other issues that might emerge from actually equalizing greenhouse gas liabilities via carbon markets and a common method of auditing offsets (which is badly needed).
The lack of legitimate arguments however will not stop a Harperite. Nor the former tobacco industry employees who now “work” as “denialists”.
Excellent site, the ‘cryosphere’ from the university of Illinois showing Arctic ice coverage. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/
They conclude that ‘the bears are safe’, thanks to the dramatic increase in ice this winter. Gore, Suzuki and other global warming fear mongers, are being exposed for what they really are.
One question for them, why have they not been to ‘ground zero’ this winter too experience first hand the rare phenomena of ‘Arctic ice melting’ on a minus 50 deg C day.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/
Vitruvius: I respect your opinion and I can follow your argument about snake-oil salesmen.
However I disagree with some of the statements that you have made.
The portion of atmospheric CO2 vapor that is produced by humans is about 3% or 0.03. That number is arrived at by estimating all the CO2 fluxes and then looking at the CO2 from only anthropogenic sources. A more accurate way to look at it is to look at the total accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. In that case the number is closer to 30%.
The portion of green-house gasses that is CO2 is about 1% or 0.01.
I can’t even hazzard a guess at where this number comes from. The two main greenhouse gases are CO2 and water vapour. Near the surface water vapour is the dominant one due its concentration and to the pressure broadening of the absorption lines. However as you go further up in the atmosphere both of these become less important so the role of CO2 becomes more.
Very roughly speaking I would have put it at about 1/3 CO2 and 2/3 water vapour.
Regards,
John
Why is it that that those who were in such fear of ‘the sky is falling!’, are now not cheering for the very cold winter we are experiencing and the positive effects from it (the pine beetles, the bears are not drowning etc).?
Why is it they only report on negative news and rarely if ever positive news?
It seems to me that a genuine climate scientist or concerned environmentalist, would be cheering today and be reporting on the near record growth of the Arctic ice that is continuing to grow, due to the continuing normal or below normal winter temperatures north of 60′.
Craig: EVERYONE INCLUDING THE ONES WHO JUST MOVED IN HAS TO PAY THE SAME WITH NO CONSIDERATION FOR WHO DID THE DAMAGE —
I think the analogy is not quite correct here. It is not about “cleaning up” previous damage, but about not creating additional “damage” given the “seriousness” of the problem. But it is all a non-issue anyway. At this point I think we have a new worry: global cooling due to the decreased energy output from the sun: :http://tinyurl.com/239mgn
LindaL – do not expect Craig Hubley, or anyone else who writes drivel like ‘The lack of legitimate arguments however will not stop a Harperite. Nor the former tobacco industry employees who now “work” as “denialists”‘ to look at scientific evidence.
Craig is obviously in the pocket of Big Climate, bought and paid for. He has sold his soul to the company store – Big Climate rules!
This is also interesting: Artic Temperatures Not Especially Warm:
” Grudd, of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, compared both tree ring width and maximum density, to construct the most accurate data yet seen for the region. He found a sharp warming trend since the year 1900. However, over the entire period, several such warming events were seen with temperatures in at least four periods (AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750) all equally warm or warmer than at present.
Most surprising of all, he noted, when taken as a whole temperatures in the Arctic have actually declined 0.3 degrees over the past 1,000 years. As Grudd himself says, temperatures at present are “not especially warm.”
The full temperature record also reveals why the last 100 years has appeared unusual — the year 1900 was actually the coldest of the entire period.
According to Grudd, the Torneträsk data aligns well with ice core isotope records from Greenland, demonstrating these climate changes were widespread throughout the Arctic region.”
http://www.dailytech.com/Reseacher+Arctic+Temperatures+Not+Especially+Warm/article10713.htm
It certainly would be odd if all the scientists in the world had not pointed out this number, if it was real.
It isn’t well known, but “all the scientists in the world” get together every Friday night for beer and pizza and to vote on the latest consensus. I of course, knew that. I just wasn’t aware that the world’s “top scientists” had opened it up to “all the scientists in the world”.
Then our resident Big Climate troll (he who likes to “discuss the science” – as long as it doesn’t include mathematical proofs) comes along to inform us:
I can’t even hazzard a guess at where this number comes from. The two main greenhouse gases are CO2 and water vapour………….Very roughly speaking I would have put it at about 1/3 CO2 and 2/3 water vapour.
John, please inform us empirically (roughly speaking, of course) as to how you have come up with your numbers. For argument’s sake, we’ll ignore the other gases, use 400ppm for CO2 composition by volume and a nominal 2% (ie 20,000ppm)for water vapour.(from variable range of 0.1 to 2.8%) Are you suggesting that CO2 makes up a 1/3 proportion of all greenhouse gases?
For my own amusement, I would like to take two portions of Craig Hubley’s silly post and combine them to make a new sentence.
“The Kyoto targets can easily be met by shifting off coal for electricity….which would make me quite literally insane.”
Yes, that works.
John Cross says…..
“Very roughly speaking I would have put it at about 1/3 CO2 and 2/3 water vapour.”
Now that’s funny! Explains a lot too.
What, Craig, is this damage of which you speak?
Pd: Mea culpa – thanks for pointing it out. I had indeed misread Vitruvius’ comment and thought he was referring to the total effectiveness of CO2. I happily withdraw that point with apologies to Vitruvius’.
Regards,
John
No apologies necessary, John, you in no way slandered me. I’ll tell ya’ what John, there’s nobody here who does a better job than you of getting me to double-check my arguments. Not to damn with faint praise or anything like that, but compared to, say, Craig, I think (and you and I have discussed this here before) you are a valuable voice of consideration in this debate.
To be clear, folks, I don’t think I know everything on this topic, even though I can make arguments. My broader point is that I don’t think anybody else knows exactly what’s going on either, and that’s why I don’t think we should throw giga-tonnes of cash and mega-regulations at non-understood problems.
By the way, John, I’m still reserving a bottle of Port with your name on it for our discussion of extensions to my tinyurl.com/ozn46 toward the top hundred documents list, next time we’re co-located.
AL GORE THE WORLDS BIGGIST FRUAD AND HYPOTCRIT
On this one I dispute you Vitruvius. John Cross adds nothing to understanding anything … same tune different singer.
Can’t explain it, but I have more faith in someone that is a true scientist (in every sense of the word).
How can every scientist that agrees with a political agenda be right, and every scientist that believes in science be wrong? Maybe we need a jury to sort out science.
Vitruvius: No, you were clear in your point and the misunderstanding was mine so the apology is valid. I will note that my comment about the 3% stands – but if we agreed on everything the conversation over the port would get boring. I am continuously thinking of the the next 50.
Regards,
John
PS Thanks for the lyrics to the Christmas carols on your website. The family and I went caroling on Christmas eve and we used your lyrics!
I do agree, John, that your accumulation argument is interesting. My derivation earlier above does not take that into account. Nevertheless, on balance, we know that volcanoes and vegetation decay produce as much CO2 each as humans do, so if the accumulation argument is valid, then it is the case that those other sources accumulate too. Coupled with the absorption saturation effect, and the various other factors involved, I still don’t see how the human-effect contribution is a driving phenomenon. Still, that accumulation issue is something I’ll be watching out for in the future, in case evidence builds (in my opinion, of course) in it’s favour. Meanwhile, I still think CO2 is an effect, not a cause.