Harper makes us proud once again

[Zephyr]

Hydrogen, you have already twisted past events regarding the 'Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize' thread, in my opinion, but I think for anyone wishing to judge for themselves it is easy to do. The thread is brief, and it is here.

I also suggest that your implication that I alone was being too sensitive might now be amended to include yourself. I submit as evidence, those over-italicized, over-amped responses in Post # 57. This is not the first time you have gone ballistic on this topic - whether I was involved or not - I doubt it will be your last.

Concerning Lindzen, I suppose that maybe you would consider him biased on the basis of the opinions Gavin Schmidt. …

I am sorry Hydrogen, your supposition is not on target in this case. While I use Gavin Schmidt to give you some idea of the science-related issues, in part because he is easily accessible via the Internet, my opinions about Lindzen are drawn from several places over time. They include not only his work in science, but also his extracurricular work in private industry, his associations with Bush during a critical environmental policy initiative, and his testimony before both American and British legislative bodies.

Despite the fact that I am not finished examining Richard Lindzen after all this time, I am beginning to form enough of an opinion to characterise him as a "man with an agenda".

When it comes down to the personalities you place before us - I respect Gavin Schmidt and I know you don't; you respect Richard Lindzen and I do not yet have enough information other than to say he is quite political, and has conflicts of interest between his science and his consulting.

I suppose that maybe you would consider him biased … You clearly have taken some umbrage to the use of the word. call me biased if you wish. I have taken a position.

Its time you finally admitted what probably many others and i have long suspected, that you have taken a firm position against the global warming thesis. I have taken a position as well, and admitted to it back on the Al Gore thread, going so far as to add a new avatar to further indicate my allegiance. But somehow I feel our two stances while outwardly mirror opposites, mask one difference. Based on what you state and based on what I state, I feel I am still more open about my position. I will listen to other points of view, and I am willing, in principle, to vacate my current position if I came into possession of enough competent research to make me question it. So far that has not happened, and I don't expect it to in the near term. But I am open to this scenario nonetheless. I don’t see that bend on your end. I believe there is legitimate science that supports your views, just not enough of it to suit me. You, on the other hand, seem unwilling to accept any science as legitimate on the global warming side, and it shows in your efforts to label its proponents at every turn 'biased'.

As far as I am concerned, 'biased' is not a respectful word to use if you view your opponent as legitimate. So I’ll let you in on a little secret – I am mocking its usage by you, but not adopting it. It is a word that you use far too excessively, and marks quite plainly your lack of respect for global warming research and the global warming proponents in particular.

Lindzen insists on collectively calling his opposition 'alarmists', and he pounds away with that word over-and-over again. And that is part of the package with him, like it or not. And I don’t like it. I guess one man's 'biased' is shared in another man's 'alarmist.'

If you want me to try to be objective, then my answer would be that there is no conclusive proof that human emissions have caused the slight shift in temperature this century; there is no conclusive proof that the temperatures of today are unusual from other warm periods throughout the holocene; and there is no proof that temperatures will continue to rise in the extreme manner predicted by the IPCC. I'll let the IPCC document speak for itself: …

I take it this is your form of mockery for 'objective,' because few would take any of these statements to be an example of the concept. You have, however, cleverly managed to cast your phrasing into a pseudo-scientific version of objective statements. Only a fool would fall for any of this.

You assume incorrectly. I edited my post to add Scarfetta and West and inadevertently removed Solanaki and Usokin. …

I see. These nuances are sometimes lost when all you have are the residue of the change.

As to your over-sensitivity about my noting your revision: I didn’t have a problem with your revision, I had a problem with your substitution – that is the gist of the response.

How can we cover all three? Try this:

1. S&U - problems with the research
2. S&W - problems with the research
3. S&U / S&W - same problems but all part of the pile

Scientists have lined up against to question methods? Imagine that! Just like scientists have lined up to question the conclusions that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing catastrophic climate change. Isn't an essential part of science skepticism? That would mean that there still is a debate on what has caused less than one degree of measured warming since the start of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there are many other papers on the importance of the sun-climate connection - being that the sun is the primary driver of climate.

That old sensitivity is metaphorically lunging into this thread again.

What I think you don’t get, is that not all opponents of global warming theory are being criticised because of their methods. Unfortunately you have cited a few that have, so pointing this out is not particularly revelatory to anyone informed on this topic, but curiously you have over-reacted and assumed it is an attack on any and all of those who have questioned global warming.

It would not be incorrect to point out that global warming as a science is well represented across all aspects of the problem, even though we have a tendency to focus only on the areas of temperature studies. Perhaps you have done your part by mentioning that, but I won't patronise some of the research you selected, because I think it is seriously flawed.

If you hadn’t cited anyone, however, I wouldn’t have known what you were basing any of your science on. And for that I thank you.

Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember? Read some of his archived responses on RealClimate. Schmidt definitely has a bias in his beliefs, and it is often reflected in his approach to how he responds. I suppose if someone agrees with him, he would not appear to be biased. So be it. RealClimate is a blog site, with strong emphasis that contends that climate change is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. That is the favoured position on that site, and, as such, all other positions, points of view and research countering that view are, of course, criticized in order to defend that position.

“Whipping boy? You raised his name, remember?” I couldn't resist pulling this out again. Almost leaps off the screen in its shrillness,

I am beginning to think I remember far more than you, even though you were there. While it is true I introduced Schmidt, it doesn’t follow that I made him into a Whipping boy by introducing him – you, Hydrogen, are the perpetrator of that charade. And you continue to try to do that here, almost as if the details don’t matter; as if Schmidt has been disgraced; as if you had somehow scored a victory, when in reality you had made an understandable but undeniable gaffe. And what is more apparent, you don’t want to acknowledge that gaffe at any level. And that disappoints me even more.

In both the Gore and now this Harper thread, eventually the discussion reduces to global warming if the latter is any part of the topic. You protest the politics, but anyone reading your comments cannot help but notice how much a role politics plays in your discussion. I see no reason anymore to exclude the politics, even if it poisons the well.

I have to also mention that the rest of this quote also shows how quickly you drag out the ‘biased’ card - again. Maybe you'll get more creative in the labels to come.

Repeating the didactic point that RealClimate is an unofficial blog is very disingenuous, it's a one-note theme that could easily be transferred over in the other direction. That part about the changes to temperature charts not being significant in changing any of the global warming trends was not just stated on this blog, but also officially on the NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website, but that brings other scientists into the picture. I am sure that in short order you would be in attack mode, complaining about their 'biased' positions too.

Just to give you a sampling of what I see on your side of the fence to compare to what you are complaining about in an unoffcial blog:

• Sami Solanki has his own blog and as I recall he constantly discusses his opinion on his work, and he also uses it to address what he calls misquotes and mis-representions by newspapers and online sites.
  
  
• And as for Richard Lindzen, you could start several threads on his activities. He is said to have had the ear of President Bush when he executed his environmental policy. He wrote an OpinionJournal piece for the Wall Street Journal attacking Al Gore. He has freely granted interviews with popular non-scientific magazines, of which Time and Newsweek immediately come to mind. And there are issues about his criticisms of global warming 'alarmist' for using that issue to generate revenue streams, while simultaneously giving notable polluters cover for their deeds, exacting his ransom through exorbitant consulting fees.

I guess RealClimate looks rather tame and ordinary when compared to all this. But I suspect you will have an alternative explanation.

So, back to your demands for a response about the graphs - 1880 to 2005.

From 1880 to 1980 the primary source of collecting temperature data was from surface measurement sites. Before 1880, there is no data with which to attempt the construction of a useful temperature history based on thermometric readings.

Over this time period the number of these measurement sites has varied considerably. Starting with just over 200 sites in the 1860's to over 14,000 in 1965. This number has declined to about 5,000 by the last year of the twentieth century.

These measurement sites are situated in a non-random fashion, with more than ninety percent being located on land - despite the fact that that seventy percent of the of the earth's surface is ocean. The preponderance of these sites are - and have been - located in the northern hemisphere. Arctic and Antarctic surface sites were only established in the 1930's, and the distribution of these sites was rather thinly dispersed, to say the least.

Over time, many of these land measurement sites have been situated in places where their local surroundings were altered by such things as the appearance of buildings, pavement, suburbs, and the removal of trees. Since the end of the Second World War, there have been equipment changes. Stations were moved, and the time of day when data were collected also changed.

Many poor countries have sparse weather station coverage, with records that do not go back anywhere near to 1880. In many poor nations, there have often been few resources to ensure quality in record keeping. Even in Canada, a truly national distribution of such stations was only established in the late 1940's - with the density being nowhere near that of the United States. In short, the coverage of such stations has not ever been distributed equally.

The methods of then constructing the average temperature from every site, and combining these averaged measurements into a global average, and then assembling an historical average, has been the subject of scientific criticism dating back to the 1950's. A number of statistical adjustments, the introduction of proxy data, and the addition of satellite data available only since 1980, have been introduced, with no real way of knowing if these adjustments are adequate in actually depicting an accurate record of national temperature history, or more importantly, global records of average surface temperatures.

So what is the average global temperature record since 1880? How complete is the data? How accurate are the statistical methods for obtaining both the land-sea and national averages? How significant could the statistical errors be? A tenth of a degree? Half a degree?

This is your way of addressing the graphs, frame them around your argument, then throw them out? What figures have you actually discussed in them, specifically? Where did they go wrong in any of the compilations? What can you find there that goes counter to what they claim?

You have essentially mailed in your response, in my opinion, and don't worry, I won’t ever 'demand' or ask you again. By repeating what you have already said in other places, without a sliver of anything coming from the numbers proper, I guess you are saying to me, and everyone else that you just don’t think this is legitimate enough for you to examine.

 

[Zephyr]

Blasts from the Past - Part 1

Lindzen in Newsweek

RealClimate

17 April 2007

As part of a much larger discussion on Learning to live with Global Warming in Newsweek recently, the editors gave some space for Richard Lindzen to give his standard 'it's no big deal' opinion. While we disagree, we have no beef with serious discussions of the costs and benefits of various courses of action and on the need for adaption to the climate change that is already locked in.

However, Lindzen's piece is not a serious discussion.

Instead, it is a series of strawman arguments, red-herrings and out and out errors.

Lindzen claims that because we don't know what the ideal temperature of the planet should be, we shouldn't be concerned about global warming. But concern about human-driven climate change is not because this is the most perfect of possible worlds - it is because, whatever it's imperfections, it is the world that society is imperfectly adapted to. Lindzen is well aware that predictions of weather are different from climate predictions (the statistics of weather), yet cheerfully uses popular conflation of the two issues to confuse his readers.

Lindzen claims that the known amount of 'forcing' on the system proves that CO2 will only have a small effect, yet makes plain in the subsequent paragraph that the total forcing (and hence what the planet should be reacting to) is quite uncertain (particularly before the satellite era). If the total forcing is uncertain, how can he say that he knows that the sensitivity is small? This issue has been dealt with much more seriously than Lindzen alludes to (as he well knows) and it's clear that this calculation is simply too uncertain to constrain sensitivity on it's own.

Among the more egregious of Lindzen's assertions is this one:

Ten years ago climate modelers also couldn't account for the warming that occurred from about 1050 to 1300. They tried to expunge the medieval warm period from the observational record—an effort that is now generally discredited.

It's remarkable that Lindzen is able to pack so many errors into two short sentences. First of all, doubts about the global scale of warmth associated with the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" date back well over a decade and certainly precede any known attempts to use climate models to simulate Medieval temperatures [e.g. Hughes and Diaz (1994), Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when?; there are even earlier conference proceedings that were published coming to similar conclusions]. To the best of our knowledge, the first published attempt to use a climate model and estimated forcing histories to simulate the climate of the past millennium was described less than 7 years ago in this Science article by Tom Crowley, not 10 years ago– (a 43% error ). Crowley's original study and the other similar studies published since, established that the model simulations are in fact in close agreement with the reconstructions, all of which indicate that at the scale of the Northern Hemisphere, peak Medieval warmth was perhaps comparable to early/mid 20th century warmth, but that it fell well short of the warmth of the most recent decades. Not only has the most recent IPCC report confirmed this assessment, it has in fact extended it further back, concluding that the large-scale warmth of recent decades is likely anomalous in at least the past 1300 years. So we're puzzled as to precisely what Lindzen would like to have us believe was "expunged" or "discredited", and by whom?

Finally, we find it curious that Lindzen chose to include this very lawyerly disclaimer at the end of the piece:

[Lindzen's] research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Richard, one thinks thou dost protest too much! A casual reader would be led to infer that Lindzen has received no industry money for his services. But that would be wrong. He has in fact received a pretty penny from industry. But this isn't for research. Rather it is for his faithful advocacy of a fossil fuel industry-friendly point of view. So Lindzen's claim is true, on a technicality. But while the reader is led to believe that there is no conflict of interest at work behind Lindzen's writings, just the opposite is the case.

It should hardly be surprising to learn that Lindzen was just chosen to share the title of "false counselor" in the list of leading "environmental sinners" compiled in the May issue of Vanity Fair on the newstands now (article "Dante's Inferno: Green Edition"; unfortunately, this sits behind the subscription wall, so you'll have to purchase the magazine for further details). Incidentally, several other frequent appearers on RC such as Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Sally Baliunas, James Inhofe, and Michael Crichton share in the award festivities. For a time, Lindzen set himself apart from this latter sort of contrarian; his scientific challenges were often thoughtful and his hypotheses interesting, if one-sided - he never met a negative feedback he didn't like. Sadly, it has become clear that those days are gone.

SOURCE

 

[Zephyr]

Blasts from the Past - Part 2

We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved. The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad.

Rex Tillerson
CEO EXXON MOBIL

[Exxon Mobil is] the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US. They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense.

Richard Lindzen
PROFESSOR MIT and Skeptic of Global Warming

Science climate conflict warms up

By Lesley Curwen
One Planet, BBC World Service

Last Updated: 26 April 2007

But other scientific opinion backs the argument that much of the warming happens because of natural cycles, not greenhouse gases.

...

And Exxon Mobil has been accused of backing groups that support the minority opinion, against what is seen as the main consensus. It confirms it backs the Heartland Institute, for example, which describes global warming science as a "fraud."

In 2005 Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, Rex Tillerson defended funding such groups.

"We're going to continue to support groups that we think have good scientists involved," he said.

"The fact that they take a contrary view I don't view to be bad."

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

"They have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense," he adds.

Professor Lindzen wants the debate on global warming kept alive. He also describes the Royal Society letter as a "disgrace," adding "they don't know what they're talking about."
...

© BBC World Service

SOURCE​

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, you have already twisted past events regarding the 'Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize' thread

You seem overly-concerned with the Al Gore comments. I have not mentioned Al Gore in the past few posts, have I?

I am sorry Hydrogen, your supposition is not on target in this case. While I use Gavin Schmidt to give you some idea of the science-related issues, in part because he is easily accessible via the Internet, my opinions about Lindzen are drawn from several places over time. They include not only his work in science, but also his extracurricular work in private industry, his associations with Bush during a critical environmental policy initiative, and his testimony before both American and British legislative bodies.

Yes, Lindzen is active within the politics of climate change - because the entire subject beyond the science (and including the science) has been politicized! Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen and Al Gore - are all involved in the politics of global warming. So are many other people. So you disagree with what you perceive to be Lindzen's politics, and you post here to show me over and over again that you disagree with his politics. Is it illegal to hold a political point of view other than yours, Zephyr? It is Lindzen's scientific work - his research - that is of importance with respect to science, not what political party he belongs to. He has a considerable list of publications on the science of climate. Is that all to be neglected?

Do you find the page you cited from RealClimate to be science? It's a blog commentary. In fact, it's a comment on a comment. Interestingly, this blog comment appears to be a sly side defence of Michael Mann, who also is associated with RealClimate, the man who tried to make both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age vanish in the IPCC report of 2001 (both events were in earlier IPCC publications). As an editor of a chapter of the IPCC, Mann published his own graph that illustrated as much, and which has been since been discredited. By their very nature, the publishing of scientific papers constrains the authors. Blog sites, however, allow authors to be unconstrained. These are sites for discussion, points of view, opinion and the taking of hard positions.

As for Exxon, it does not supply research money to environmental groups that have criticized it or the oil business in general. It is not required to fund such groups. Corporations can fund whatever legal research they wish to fund.

Its time you finally admitted what probably many others and i have long suspected, that you have taken a firm position against the global warming thesis.

I'm a little surprised that it took you this long to figure that out. I like to think it is an informed position that is, in part, based on experience with related issues to this topic.

As far as I am concerned, 'biased' is not a respectful word to use if you view your opponent as legitimate.

So a point of view can never biased? Or is this case that you simply don't like the word? I never said Gavin Schmidt was illegitimate as a scientist; I said he shows a bias on RealClimate - which is a blog site. You're the one impugning Richard Lindzen by appearing to suggest that since he received money from an oil company his work as a scientist must automatically be suspect. Otherwise it's not to clear as to why you raised that connection.

This is your way of addressing the graphs, frame them around your argument, then throw them out? What figures have you actually discussed in them, specifically? Where did they go wrong in any of the compilations? What can you find there that goes counter to what they claim?

You demanded a comment, and you don't like the comment that you receive. But to turn this around what have you discussed in them? You merely posted these graphs and expected them to speak for themselves. To many climatologists, such historic reconstructions of surface temperature records alone are of little value when attempting to determine a global temperature history. Such stations are useful in collecting a local record.

 

[Hydrogen]

As this thread continues to spiraling into something other than the what the title suggests, I don't really see a need to continue with it. Mea culpa for my part in it. Dueling scientists, oil companies, competitive data, blog sites - it seems to have no clear point to it. Cherry-picked articles hardly represents the considerable scientific dialogue that is out there. We are not going to prove or settle anything here. Zephyr, you suggested that it might come to bore some people, well it has come to bore me. I've worked in this field professionally, and I've since moved on - quite happily. I have seen both sides, and I have settled on my reasonably informed opinion.

If you, or anyone else, wants to hold a view that AGW is a fact, go ahead. I don't think anything that I say will change anyone's mind here. In fact, I've noted that arguing with people on an issues like this usually reinforces positions. If that's the way things are, then that's the way things are. People have to open their own eyes to things - regardless of the topic. Then again, if individuals choose to make what they think are positive changes in their lives on the basis of their beliefs or concerns that AGW is a fact, then who am I to stop them?

Needless to say, the debate about AGW will go on. There will be sides taken, there will be conflict, and hopefully there will also be good science free of manipulation or politics. And that should be the salient point; the debate is not over. Some people just might hold a belief that it is over.

The fact of the matter is that there is no General Theory of Climate. There is plenty of good information about many contributing factors of climate, and a wide range of high resolution proxy measurements to show that climate change has taken place naturally throughout the history of the planet. But as of yet, there is no accurate way to predict clear details of what the global climate will be like in one-hundred or one-thousand years. The study of climate consists of many fields related to the subject, including meteorology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, geology, oceanography, quarternary science, paleooceanography, mathematics, solar physics and others. There are no singular experts in all these fields. So there is plenty of knowledge about many different parts of the global climate puzzle, but no single operational theory upon which to generalize predictions. As a result, there are no models are systems that can forecast what the global climate will be like in the future.

Since the mid 1990's the IPCC has played a key role in bringing attention to human emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that by any measure is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It is a molecule that is essential to life, yet it has been characterized as a pollutant. The primary reason for this is due to evidence for a slight increase in global (globally averaged) temperatures over the last 100 years. Carbon dioxide has fluctuated over time. There have been periods where the C02 content of the atmosphere has been far higher than today (about 7,000 ppm), yet the planet was not destroyed. If anything, life was doing quite well. The geological record of carbon dioxide has shown that, as a constituent of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide has fallen considerably over the last thirty or so million years to the comparatively low levels observed today (from roughly 3,000 ppm to 280 ppm in 1900). Over the Ice Age period (which we are still in), atmospheric carbon dioxide has also fluctuated, dropping as low as 180 ppm, and rising as temperatures warmed. In other words, rises in carbon dioxide follow, or lag behind, increases in temperature by hundreds of years. These are not controversial issues. The controversy and concern has to do with the rise from 280 ppm to 380 ppm of carbon dioxide over the last 100 years. While some of that increase may have been due to natural causes, much of this rise in carbon dioxide is a result of human activity.

That being said, the recorded rise in C02 derived from ice core measures is not without controversy. Some researchers have suggested that post-deposit diffusion and mixing within a compacting ice mass lowers the actual value by anywhere from 30 to 50 percent. This could mean that the atmospheric C02 levels over thousands of years and up into the nineteenth century were higher than the estimated 180 to 280 ppm (C02 estimates are smoothed measures, as it takes anywhere from five to sixty years to deal air into ice bubbles.). Evidence from fossil plant stomata research suggests that carbon dioxide levels were variable on a decadal to centennial scale. Also, chemical measures of atmospheric carbon dioxide going back to the mid 19th century support decadal fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. When looking at the past 100 years, the greatest increase in carbon dioxide during the last century starts about 1940. Do we know enough about the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide? As I noted in an earlier post, the warming effect of carbon dioxide is logarithmic. Every additional unit is far less efficient at absorbing infra-red wavelengths. It is not a closed case that carbon dioxide is the central culprit in the slight increase in temperature seen over the last century.

In a larger framework, the rise in temperature we think we see today could be that of a rise in temperature following the Little Ice Age. Preceding this cooler climate period were warm periods that were equal to - if not greater than - the temperature we find ourselves experiencing today (more recent warm periods are sometimes referred to as Medieval, Roman, Minoan). Previous to that, the Holocene Climate Optimum was also warmer and wetter than today. In fact, compared to the start of that event some 9,000 to 10,000 years ago, the world has cooled.

Among many known climate cycles there is a recognized (roughly) 1,500 year climate cycle called the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (for which Dansgaard, Oeschger and Lorius won the Tyler Prize- the "Nobel Prize" for Environmental Studies), that matches recognized warming and cooling cycles over thousands of years. There is a strong view among the scientists carrying out research with respect to this cycle that the force that drives this cycle is probably solar in origin. In other words, the cycle is recognized, but research is required to understand how this sun-atmosphere-ocean cycle connects. This research continues on, as does other investigations into understanding the dynamic influence the sun has on this world - ranging from the impact in shifts in solar irradiance, alterations to the solar magnetic fields, and the relationship between cosmic rays, solar magnetism and changes in low-altitude cloud cover (with research underway at many institutions, including CERN). All of these areas are, and continue to be, actively being investigated. My little post hardly does them any justice, but that research is ongoing.

The IPCC contains very little with respect to solar science, and has noted year after year that there is a low level of understanding with respect to the impact of the sun compared to the laboratory data concerning C02 and other greenhouse gases. In other words, they say that not much is known about solar effects, so it can't have an effect. This is an odd attitude to say the least. Report after report, the IPCC also notes a low understanding with respect to water vapour forcing, land use effects, linear contrails, and cloud cover effects - just to name a few. The knowledge of climate is very incomplete.

I could say more, but why bother. The point is that the debate is not over. Some people may want the debate to be over, or use such a stance as a political platform, but such an approach is dangerous. For one, it can blind us. More importantly, such a stance can also shut down the eyes of research by labeling those who question such a point of view as skeptics or deniers. Yet skepticism is essential to science, and always will be. Science is driven by questions, not casual consensual agreements. Skepticism is also essential to critical thinking.

To conclude this increasingly long conclusion, there is a perfectly good reasons to slowly shift away from our dependence on hydrocarbons: supply and cost. I've pointed it out on this board that oil and natural gas are going to become increasingly expensive as existing sources dwindle. New sources will probably be more difficult to access, and as a result, become increasingly costly. The geopolitical aspects of oil have already grossly warped national affairs, and expensive oil will hardly be of any benefit to the crucial needs of developing nations in the near future.

While I may edit this post in the next few days, I won't be posting anymore on this thread. I won't comment on any further posts made here.

 

[Zephyr]

Blasts from the Past - Part 3 (Negative vs Positive Water Vapour Feedback)

So let’s summarize. There have been a very small number of articles written that argue for a negative water vapor feedback. Virtually all have been written by Dick Lindzen. None have stood the test of time. ...

Thus, the evidence in favor of a positive water vapor feedback is strong, with multiple peer-reviewed analyses reaching this conclusion. The evidence that the feedback is negative is weak. only Dick Lindzen argues it, and his arguments have been roundly rejected by the scientific community. ...

The upshot: we can conclude that the scientific community agrees that the water vapor feedback is positive. Arguments to the contrary are distortions of the science.

Andrew Dessler
Associate Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Texas A&M University
2006​

Scientific American Magazine - November, 2001

Dissent in the Maelstrom
Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen keeps right on arguing that human-induced global warming isn't a problem
By Daniel Grossman

….

Past climate isn't the only point of divergence. Lindzen also says there is little cause for concern in the future. The key to his optimism is a parameter called "climate sensitivity." This variable represents the increase in global temperature expected if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles over preindustrial levels--a level the earth is already one third of the way toward reaching. Whereas the IPCC and the NAS calculate climate sensitivity to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C, Lindzen insists that it is in the neighborhood of 0.4 degree.

The IPCC and the NAS derived the higher range after incorporating positive feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmer temperatures will most likely shrink the earth's snow and ice cover, making the planet less reflective and thus hastening warming, and will also probably increase evaporation of water. Water vapor, in fact, is the main absorber of heat in the atmosphere.

But such positive feedbacks "have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations," Lindzen told the U.S. Senate commerce committee this past May. The scientist says negative, not positive, feedback rules the day. One hypothesis he has postulated is that increased warming actually dries out certain parts of the upper atmosphere. Decreased water vapor would in turn temper warming. Goddard's Hansen says that by raising this possibility Lindzen "has done a lot of good for the climate discussion." He hastens to add, however, "I'm very confident his basic criticism--that climate models overestimate climate sensitivity--is wrong."

In March, Lindzen published what he calls "potentially the most important" paper he's written about negative feedback from water vapor. In it, he concludes that warming would decrease tropical cloud cover. Cloud cover is a complicated subject. Depending on factors that change by the minute, clouds can cool (by reflecting sunlight back into space) or warm (by trapping heat from the earth). Lindzen states that a reduction in tropical cloudiness would produce a marked cooling effect overall and thus serve as a stabilizing negative feedback....

But three research teams say Lindzen's paper is flawed. ...

© Scientific American

SOURCE​

 

[ganjavih]

After the oodles of long-winded posts, charts and graphs in this thread, I felt a "bottom line" needed to be posted: There is a consensus in the mainstream scientific community that human activity has contributed to climate change. That is all.

 

[Zephyr]

After the oodles of long-winded posts, charts and graphs in this thread, I felt a "bottom line" needed to be posted: There is a consensus in the mainstream scientific community that human activity has contributed to climate change. That is all.

I wish.

 

[Zephyr]

Nature’s review of Lockwood and Fröhlich’s solar study - a non-sceptic alternative

Lockwood and Froehlich’s study … [found] that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.

… The inaptly so-named ‘climate sceptics’ who are keen to let mankind off the global warming hook, will not easily abandon this battle-tried warhorse. A natural sun-climate link, albeit invisible and unverifiable, is just the most persuasive among the set of quasi-plausible arguments with which upright eco-optimists attempt to dismiss as a (left-wing? anti-liberal?) conspiracy theory mankind’s responsibility for global warming. …

To further confuse things and the public, solar changes do seem to have had an impact on past climates. Moreover, it is at least not impossible that cosmic ray intensity does influences clouds and climate. There’s nothing wrong with investigating these things –

... But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation.

Quirin Schiermeier
German Correspondent for Nature

Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a; Published online 4 July 2007

No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

Quirin Schiermeier

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007). Some researchers had suggested that the latter might influence global warming through an involvement in cloud formation.

“This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming,†says Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Claims that the Sun, rather than raised levels of greenhouse gases, has been responsible for recent warming have persisted in a small number of scientists and in parts of the media. Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Chilton, UK, says he was “galvanized†to carry out the comprehensive study by misleading media reports. He cites ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, a television programme shown in March by Britain’s Channel 4, as a prime example.

Together with Claus Fröhlich of the World Radiation Center in Davos, Switzerland, Lockwood brought together solar data for the past 100 years. The two researchers averaged out the 11-year solar cycles and lookedfor correlation between solar variation and global mean temperatures. Solar activity peaked between 1985 and 1987. Since then, trends in solar irradiance, sunspot number and cosmic-ray intensity have all been in the opposite direction to that required to explain global warming.

In 1997, Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish NationalSpace Center in Copenhagen, suggested that cosmic rays facilitate cloud formation by seeding the atmosphere with trails of ions that can help water droplets form (H. Svensmark and E. J. Friis-Christensen J. Atmos. Solar-Terrest. Phys. 59, 1225–1232; 1997). He proposed that, as a result of this, changes in the Sun’s magnetic field that influence the flux of cosmic rays could affect Earth’s climate.This led to claims that cosmic rays are the main influence on modern climate change.

Even in the face of the new analysis, Svensmark insists that solar theories should not be dismissed. “If you look at temperatures in the troposphere, there is a remarkable correlation with solar activity,†he says. Lockwood insists that none of the tropospheric data show the trend that the solar theory would need.

Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has championed a Sun–climate link, argues that there may be a lag in Earth’s reaction tothe Sun because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.

But other climate researchers find the idea of a ‘hidden’ time lag unconvincing. “With each year, and with each new set of data that comes in, a time lag becomes ever more unlikely,â€says Urs Neu,deputy head of ProClim-, the climate and global change forum of the Swiss Academy of Sciences in Bern.

On other timescales, however, Sun–climate links may remain worthy of study. “Climate change is a cocktail of many effects,†says Jasper Kirkby, a physicist at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva in Switzerland, who is leading an experiment aimed at simulating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds. “past climate changes have clearly been associated with solar activity. Even if this is not the case now, it is still important to understand how solar variability affects climate.â€

Ken Carslaw, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Leeds, UK points out that solar effects might still be possible. They might have acted to cool the climate in recent decades, but been overwhelmed. If so, the climate could be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than is generally thought, and future temperature increases might be greater than expected if a countervailing solar-effect comes to an end.

© 2007 Nature Publishing Group

Subscription Version Above – Click here to buy copy or obtain information to request use.​

.​

 

[299 bloor call control.]

I think we should get this thread back on topic and relegate this discussion to a Climate Change thread of some sort. Here's some articles to help us move it back to a Harper-bashing-fest

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Harper's having trouble playing in his own end
The reactor shutdown and the Schreiber affair have forced the Prime Minister into making a few ill-considered decisions
BRIAN LAGHI
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 18, 2007 at 5:20 AM EST
OTTAWA — Can Stephen Harper play defence?

While most political experts acknowledge the Prime Minister is pretty good when exploiting an opponent's weakness, the past six weeks have seen Mr. Harper face a series of unanticipated events that have tested his ability to cover up for his team's mistakes. Unused to playing in his own end, some think the Prime Minister has been more than a little jittery as the fall parliamentary session comes to a close.

"There are things happening they haven't planned for and haven't anticipated and it's thrown them off their game," said Heather MacIvor, a political scientist at the University of Windsor. "Harper runs into trouble when Harper runs out of script."

After an early autumn in which his government regularly and successfully divided the opposition - particularly Stéphane Dion's Liberals - Mr. Harper's Conservatives have found themselves dealing with a series of negative events. They include the government's handling of the Karlheinz Schreiber controversy that surrounds Brian Mulroney and, most recently, the shutdown of the nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ont., and Mr. Harper's criticisms of the bureaucrat who backed the move.

The government is also facing difficulties sparked by its performance at the climate change conference in Bali and the revelation that a key adviser of Mr. Harper has signed on to lobby the government on behalf of Taser International. The taser is the controversial weapon used on Robert Dziekanski before the Polish immigrant died in an incident at the Vancouver airport.

Internally, some staffers believe the Prime Minister erred when he moved so quickly to call for a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Unless the Conservatives can find a way to avoid an inquiry, the probe assures that the Mulroney issue will dog the government well into 2008 and perhaps beyond. Mr. Harper will become the hostage of events and of testimony that will threaten to tarnish his party's brand.

"I think that was the first time that he's really made a serious slip," one senior official told The Globe and Mail. "Everybody who looked at that said 'No, no, no, no.' I wouldn't have gone there. It was uncharacteristic."

Mr. Harper, said the official, is a man who needs to have "downtime" when making his decisions and shouldn't take on too many of them on his own.

"He needs to occasionally turn up the flame on the balloon so he can go up a little higher and have a look and he hasn't had time to do that right now."

That means allowing staffers to offer more strategic advice.

Also in the foreseeable future, the government will face the challenge of dealing with climate change and the sentiment that it hitched its wagon to the United States during recent meetings in Bali.

Greg Lyle, a pollster with Innovative Research Group, said climate change is a more dangerous issue for the government than the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

"I think they came up pretty bruised in terms of whether they're really serious about moving forward on climate change," Mr. Lyle said. "My takeaway of the coverage was that he was still arm in arm with George Bush, who is on his way out - sort of the last of the reactionaries."

Other future challenges also abound. For example, the Prime Minister will be obliged to call a series of by-elections soon for seats being vacated by Liberals.

Peter Donolo, a partner with the Strategic Counsel, said Mr. Harper should have taken some time before calling the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry because it will be overwhelmingly difficult to short-circuit it now.

"He tap-danced completely and I think it showed," Mr. Donolo said. "If he had kept his cool a little bit, particularly that one key weekend in November, he may have avoided a lot of trouble."

The result, he said, is a Prime Minister whose ardour for an election now seems diminished, and an opposition that is not quite so cowed.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Ottawa ignored nuclear hiring advice
Former AECL chief was passed over for Alliance fundraiser
DANIEL LEBLANC AND ALAN FREEMAN
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 18, 2007 at 2:16 AM EST
OTTAWA — The Conservative government rejected the findings of independent headhunters last year on the hiring of a new chair for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., picking instead a partisan fundraiser who abruptly left last week during the isotope crisis.

Jean-Pierre Soublière, who was the acting chair of AECL in late 2005, said in an interview Monday he was certain he was twice selected by the independent panel to become the permanent chairman of the board.

The first selection process was launched under the Liberal government of Paul Martin, but the nomination did not proceed because of the 2006 election. The incoming Harper government did not like the results of that process and launched a second one, which also recommended Mr. Soublière, an Ottawa consultant who was linked to the Liberal Party of Canada.

But the Tories refused to appoint Mr. Soublière. Instead, they nominated Michael Burns, a former executive vice-president at B.C. Gas and onetime fundraiser for the Canadian Alliance, a precursor to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Burns left his position late Friday, and Health Minister Tony Clement said in a television interview Monday the departure was related to the shutdown of an AECL reactor that created a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes.

“I think it's fair to say it confirmed our impression that there has to be new management, there has to be better management, at AECL,” Mr. Clement said.

Mr. Burns did not return telephone calls Monday.

In an interview, Mr. Soublière said it is his understanding he was selected to be the AECL chair, but that he did not get the offer. He confirmed he was involved with the Liberal Party and the onetime leadership race of his friend John Manley, while adding he also donated in the past to the Conservatives.

“The government had the right to do what it did, and it did it. ... I don't take it personally,” he said.

Mr. Soublière refused to comment on last month's shutdown of the AECL reactor in Chalk River, Ont., prompted by a decision from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that feared the lack of backup power on a crucial pump.

Last week, the Harper government blamed the crisis on Linda Keen, the career civil servant who heads the CNSC, alleging she was a Liberal appointee who was putting lives in danger by not permitting the restart of the reactor.

A nuclear industry insider said Monday the government was faced with a difficult dilemma when the prolonged shutdown led to a shortage of medical isotopes, but at no time did he sense Ms. Keen took a partisan approach.

“Ms. Keen was doing only strictly what she had to do under the law,” the insider said. “She applied the law to the letter. She should not be flexible in that job. I was surprised that they attacked her personally.”

The government responded to the crisis last week by adopting emergency legislation that forced AECL to start up its reactor.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Mr. Clement said valuable lessons were learned during the crisis.

“One of the first things that we did in conjunction with Gary Lunn, the Natural Resources Minister, was to make it clear to both the regulator and the AECL that if there was ever in the future an unscheduled event which was longer than the usual shutdown, we would have to be notified well in advance,” Mr. Clement said.

But the Liberals attacked Ottawa's handling of the matter, saying the Harper government was aware for months of the need for repairs at Chalk River.

Liberal MP Omar Alghabra said the government earmarked $71-million in October for upgrades at Chalk River, while Mr. Lunn has said he learned of the shutdown only earlier this month.

“For him to say he first became aware of problems at the facility on Dec. 3 is ridiculous,” Mr. Alghabra said in an statement Monday.

Efforts to reach AECL board members Monday were unsuccessful: Quebec City lawyer Marcel Aubut and Calgary governance consultant Stella Thompson did not return calls; an assistant said outgoing Concordia University president Claude Lajeunesse could not be reached; Brookfield Asset Management chair Robert Harding was out of the country until the New Year, according to an assistant, and University of New Brunswick professor Barbara Trenholm, who is on leave, did not respond to an e-mail.

With files from Gloria Galloway and Campbell Clark

 

[Zephyr]

As we look back at the topic thread I am not sure this is totally back on topic, except that it brings Harper back into the picture.

This all started from the very first reaction to the thread starter, and unfolded more-or-less relentlessly in the direction of the global-warming issue as the only topic of discussion from that point. That speaks to how powerful this topic can become when paired with almost anything else. If you were to look at several other forums - internationally and across several areas such as science, government, architecture, whatever - once the global warming issues creep in, you instantly will have a donnybrook.

Perhaps the best strategy, if the subject is really only Harper, is to stay away from the global warming subject entirely. (Being an Environmentalist makes it difficult for me not to react whenever this subject has come up, and I will continue to do so.)