Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 6)
[posted by Justin Levine]
Here is an example of a typical lie in the media in order to try and bolster the man-made global warming hysterics out there.
Notice the last sentence of the article –
“Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly ‘dug (his) heels in’ even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.”
The clear implication from this sentence is that Dr. Gray doesn’t believe that the world is “getting hotter” (and therefore, he is a kook who can be dismissed). But that sentence is an out and out lie. Gray has never disputed that the “world is getting hotter”. Instead, he merely disputes that man is causing the warming, and that the warming causes an increase in hurricanes. That is a very different assertion as Cain Burdeau of the AP surely knows.
It is unclear from the story if it is the AP’s Burdeau who is lying here, or Kerry Emanuel from MIT. But it is a lie nonetheless – and one that is purposely designed to bolster the argument of man-made global warming hysterics.
So let’s take a look at what Dr. Gray actually said about all of this from a 2005 interview:
Glassman: And from a seasonal, monthly point of view, you had been predicting a growing number of hurricanes. Now, my question is in the wake of Katrina and some of the statements that we’ve heard immediately afterwards by advocates of the global warming theory – is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?
Gray: I am very confident that it’s not. I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular. And we’ve had, at least the last 10 years, we’ve had a pick up in the Atlantic basin major storms. But in the earlier period, if we go back from 1970 through the middle ‘90s, that 25 year period – even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down.
Now, another feature of this is that the Atlantic operates differently. The other global storm basins, the Atlantic only has about 12 percent of the global storms. And in the other basins, the last 10 years – even though the Atlantic major storm activity has gone up greatly the last 10 years. In the other global basins, it’s slightly gone down. You know, both frequency and strength of storms have not changed in these other basins. If anything, they’ve slightly gone down. So if this was a global warming thing, you would think, “Well gee, all of the basins should be responding much the same.”
[Emphsis mine.] So in other words, Dr. Gray has said explicitly that it is “not a question” that the “world is getting hotter”. Once again, either the AP’s Cain Burdeau or MIT’s Kerry Emanuel are lying sacks of crap.
But let’s examine what else Dr. Gray (“the world’s most famous hurricane expert” and a “pioneer in the science of hurricane forecasting” had to say about the theory that global warming causes an increase in hurricanes:
Glassman: You’re familiar with what your colleagues believe. Do you think many hurricane experts would take a different point of view, and would say, “Oh, it’s global warming that’s causing hurricanes?”
Gray: No. All my colleagues that have been around a long time – I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the national hurricane center – we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming. And, the people that say that it is are usually those that know very little about hurricanes. I mean, there’s almost an equation you can write the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms.
Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.
[Once again, emphasis mine.] So in other words, Gray is actually saying that there is “consensus” among the experts that global warming does not increase the amount of hurricanes. Ah, “consensus” – that magical word that is so vital to the man-made global warming hysterics…And if you disagree with him? Well then, I guess you just “don’t believe in science”, right?
Couple this information with the fact that one of the lead authors of the IPCC report on climate change had to resign in protest because IPCC spokespeople were deliberately lying about global warming’s impact on hurricanes, and you have what amounts to a scientific/media scandal here.
Disgraceful. But feel free to keep telling yourself that there is “consensus” here, so we don’t really need to debate anything.
(Meanwhile, record low temperatures predicted.)
(Meanwhile, record low temperatures predicted.)
I blame George Bush.
Bill M (94ef88) — 4/7/2007 @ 6:50 pmDr. Gray is an expert on hurricanes, a specialty within meteorology. This gives him some authority to speak to questions about how heat in the atmosphere gets distributed, especially with regard to storm systems. Of course, there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of equally qualified scientists in his field who may differ with him, but he certainly is entitled to have us listen to his point of view on these matters.
That there is increasing heat in the atmosphere (global warming) seems to be something that he does not dispute. So whatever valuable contribution he may make would be to the specific question of how, aside from hurricanes, that extra heat gets distributed.
I dont really see what qualifies him to give expert testimony as to the causes of this global warming that he acknowledges. Nor do other meteorologists. Their expertise lies in the dynamics of weather systems, not in atmospheric chemistry, nor in paleoclimatology, nor in the larger scale science of theoretical, long-term climate modeling.
His comments about federal funding are on the same level of those of the global warming advocates arguing about who funds the GW deniers. If you wish to use and endorse his charges, then it seems to me that you should acknowledge and endorse the charges made on the other side. Probably even moreso on the other side. After all, the federal government, especially in this administration, does not have an interest in funding GW advocates. Energy companies certainly have an interest, an enduring and much stronger interest, in funding deniers.
johDon (04010c) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:06 pm“Meanwhile, record low temperatures predicted.”
Since arguments on this issue tend to get rather heated, with lots of talking past one another, may I make a request? When you make comments like this one, please make some indication if you are making some sort of a joke.
If you are not, well, then you might really owe us a bit of an explanation. Are you claiming that a theory of global warming (of several degress over decades) precludes a springtime cold snap over part of North America? Is your understanding of these issues that weak? Do you have any idea of what the global temperature this past winter has been?
Are you disputing Dr. Gray and trying to make the case that there is no global warming at all?
Or is this just a lame joke?
johDon (04010c) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:13 pmSo, all you’ve done is moot both arguments, #2.
Typical of the Global Warming Zealots, you zero in on the “qualification” issue — but always fail to note by which authority GWZs issue their dire warnings. When did Al Gore get a degree in Global Warming Meteorology and how many such degrees have been conferred in the past decade or so?
It is quite clear, if one reads with an unjaundiced eye, that Dr. Gray is addressing his salient points to hurricanes and the effect global warming has on the number and intensity. Again, he does not deny GW is or has occurred, only that there is no proof nor unbiased model that can show humans are the “cause” of Global Warming.
The truth of the matter is this: he’s right.
There is no concrete data that shows humans have or are causing GW. To suggest otherwise is science Fiction, not science.
Now, if you happen to have conclusive data that shows the contrary, and can show in a clear way that humans are causing global warming and to what extent, please feel free to present that data at your earliest convenience. For future reference, please include what you consider to be the proper “qualifications” since it is apparent that a longtime meteorologist specializing in hurricanes does not rise to that level (the “Dr.” means something — I’ll let you guess what).
It would be helpful, also, if your goal is to convert more to your religion, if you noted how you were able to overcome the inherent inaccuracies in measuring past temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Margin of error is important in science, as you hopefully know.
Arnold (6ea671) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:30 pmAll your attempts to deny global warming are just a denial of the overwhelming evidence of scientists in an effort to allow major companies to escape the consequences of the continued pollution of the planet. Look at photos of the Arctic taken 100 years ago and compare them with today. But of course if you put a gold coin over the pics then you cant see them now can you?
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:39 pmThere’s evidence of scientists?
Who knew?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:47 pmArnold,
Al Gore is not a climate scientist, nor does he claim to be. The argument is not between Al Gore and Dr. Gray. It is between Dr. Gray with a few dozen other scientists vs. thousands of other scientists.
And your comments about qualifications are quite odd. First off, you have not addressed the fact that Dr. Gray is a meterologist, not a climate scientist. Do you even understand the difference?
There are many factors that influence the global climate that do not influence the local or regional weather, and are thus not the subject that people like Dr. Gray studies. His qualification as a great hurricane predictor means he may well have mastered an understanding of how cold and warm air masses rise and fall and interact with eachother, how ocean currents and the Coriolis effect affect this dynamic, how wind patterns at the various levels of the atmosphere drive weather systems.
None of this speaks to the issue of the chemistry of various gasses in the atmosphere, variations in that chemistry over time, or other large scale drivers of climate over time frames of centuries.
He has offered NO ARGUMENT whatsoever against human-driven global warming – merely an assertion that he, and some other meteorologists dont accept the argument.
Meanwhile, the hundreds, or thousands of scientists who actually study climate in general, disagree with him. You cant point to Gray’s qualifications and credentials without acknowleding the qualifications and credentials of those who disagree with him. And then you could also note the number of those who line up on either side.
The way to overcome margins of error is to increase sample size. Just what do you think the margins are?
johDon (04010c) — 4/7/2007 @ 8:01 pmMay I suggest that you actually sit down and try to read the science, rather than the politics?
Look at photos of the Arctic taken 100 years ago and compare them with today.
From 1000 AD to 1300 AD, Greenland was warm enough to support Viking settlements. Then the weather turned too cold and these settlements were abandoned. Did Renaissance SUVs change the world’s temperature and freeze out the Vikings?
By the way, what is the correct global temperature?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 4/7/2007 @ 8:17 pmThese jerks are pushing this global warming thing like it was proven fact when all it is is a bunch of unscruplous persons wanting to control our lives its a fruad and a consperacy by evil greens and radicals like AL GORE
krazy kagu (656fec) — 4/7/2007 @ 8:52 pmDidn’t bother to click on the link did we? LOL
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/7/2007 @ 8:55 pmWho is denying global warming?
Of COURSE the world is warming it has been doing so for some 18k years that is what Interglacial cycles DO.
Now the truth is that Interglacial cyles last on average 20k years and we happen to be living in one of the Coldest Driest and most CO2 deprived points in time of the lastg 1/2 BILLION Years!
Yes I know CO2 levels are higher than anytime in the last 2 million years I also know that another name for that time period is
The Great Ice Age. click on my link and check Apr 7th I have a few things there on this
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:00 pmSince arguments on this issue tend to get rather heated, with lots of talking past one another, may I make a request? When you make comments like this one, please make some indication if you are making some sort of a joke.
Comment by johDon
That’s a funny comment because anytime the climate is such that someone might get a sunburn or someone somewhere is being negatively affected by wetness or dryness, the gore-bots manage to work the global warming hoax into the story.
J Curtis (d21251) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:19 pmThe current hysteria is a symptom of displacement, a psychological mechanism that allows one to ignore real threats like Islamic terrorism, in order to focus on imaginary phantasms like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Part of the left’s denial of reality, a symptom of a larger mass psychosis infecting much of the American electorate.
daveinboca (0c9ba3) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:21 pmMan’s pollution of the environment is a problem and must be confronted vigorously, however if the climate change zealots continue they way they are going and try to force drastic measures which will destroy major economies and cause increased hardship in the 3rd world countries, there will be a counter reaction that will have unintended consequences. Let us remember that while there were serious problems with the wide spread use of DDT, the over reaction to the book Silent Spring has resulted in millions of deaths from malaria in Africa and Asia because of its ban, except in a few select places. There are other examples. To this engineer here appears to be more evidence that global warming is from solar activity then there is from man’s activity. More than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists have signed a petition stating that is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. And to make matters worse, in regard to a fact based discussion of the potential problem of climate change, to differ from the global warming PCness causes reactions bordering on a complex similar to BDS.
amr (1f0f07) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:29 pmJustin,
You don’t have to speculate if the reporter garbled Kerry Emanuel’s stance on hurricanes and global warming.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:40 pmI Googled his name and got this in less than a minute.
amr,
“More than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists have signed a petition stating that is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Link, please.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/7/2007 @ 9:47 pmI just happen to have that here
17,000 Scientists Can’t be wrong? A Global Warming Consensus
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:36 amNo one, not even Kerry Emanuel, said that global warming is causing hurricanes or is responsible for the increase in the amount of hurricanes. That was the media hype. The media got it wrong on this issue. Kerry Emanuel reported that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for the increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Emanuel wrote a paper in Nature entitled “Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years”.
I am surprised that Dr. Gray did not at least clarify the debate surrounding global warming and hurricanes. Kudos to Dr. Gray for his former scientific work. However, since leaving his professorship, has he kept up on scientific research? It seems to me that he is saying a lot, with out any research to back up his claims. Dr. Gray’s rebuke of vetted science reminds me of when Einstein wanted ever so much to unify the forces of gravity and electromagnetism in a quest to explain the theory of unification. Prior to 1920, Einstein had accomplished unimaginable feats, for example, with the general theory of relativity. But, in the 1920s and 1930s, there were other discoveries that Einstein couldn’t keep up with. Neils Bohr and other scientists were discovering the consistency of atoms (nucleus, electrons) and quantum mechanics emerged as a theory to explain this newly discovered microscopic arena. In fact, Einstein’s laws could not be used to explain quantum mechanics. In 1933, Einstein worked alone to try to unite gravity and electromagnetism. However, Einstein was detached from the more current work that was being accomplished in physics and probably did not even know of the emergence of the strong and weak nuclear forces. Nor did Einstein consider quantum mechanics useful to aiding him in his quest to find the theory of unification.
Please read Emanuel’s work before making judgments about it or believing Dr. Gray’s rebuke of it.
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:46 amLet us remember the death toll is far greater than Millions, tens maybe hundreds of Millions and what EVERYONE KNOWS about DDT is probably wrong.
DDT causes thinning of eggshells: The birds in the study were subjected to conditions that result in thinner eggshells, low light levels and a reduction of calcium in their diet.
DDT cause tumors: Test animals fed DDT did develope tumors, what was left out of they hype was that the CONTROL group developed MORE tumors.
DDT is concentrated as one goes up the food chain: chemicals like DDT will be found in lesser concentrations is muscle, greater in fatty tissue and the largest levels in brain tissue. The samples for fish were taken in muscle tissue, for ducks in fatty tissue and for raptors in brain tissue.
DDT results in a decrease in bird populations: Population studies of areas during the period DDT was introduced to when it was banned showed a dramatic INCREASE in bird numbers.
Shall I go on?
Another example where the radical environmental movement did not exactly shine if one wants real science instead of junk science.
Anyone want to bet whether I can source link the above? 😉
As a result of the DDT ban the Environmental Movement takes First Place for being responsible for the greatest number of deaths in the 20th Century surpassing ALL Wars, Genocides and Tyrants.
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:47 amThere are more than a few problems with that 17,000 person petition.
Tim Lambert (9d9e99) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:47 amAh but Dan, can you provide a source that isn’t published by Lyndon Larouche?
Tim Lambert (9d9e99) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:50 amHurricane Fables
A recent paper, “Hurricanes and Global Warming,” written by six noted tropical cyclone experts and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, concluded that no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and hurricane activity, and that the scientific consensus was that changes in hurricane intensity would be small and with historical patterns.
If Gore had gone to the Web site of the National Hurricane Center, he’d have discovered that the peak for major hurricanes (Categories 3, 4, 5) came in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged nine per year. From 2001 to 2004, the average was three.
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:52 amNor are hurricanes intensifying in strength. According to the United Nations Environment Program of the World Meteorological Organization: “Reliable data . . . since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.
Friends of Science
Our Goal:
To encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol by engaging in a national public debate on the scientific merit of Kyoto and the Global Warming issue, and to educate the public through dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective technical information on this subject.
To read a new, significant bibliography of peer-reviewed climate science papers, check the BIBLIOGRAPHY portion of our SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES section.
If back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary” Dr. Tim Patterson – Professor of Geology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world” Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC”
IPCC the organization which CHANGED the Scientific report
“The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change
are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the
climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part
of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their
place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.”
Myself I have a hard time understanding how
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part
of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.
Means the same thing as
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.”
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:17 amTim, I read the link you gave about the problems with petition. Some 17000 scientists sign a petition saying that there is no evidence that man-made greenhouse gases will lead to negative consequences, and the defense is that the scientists were fooled by a tricky letter that was mailed to them.
But if 17000 scientists can be fooled just by a tricky letter, how many more can be fooled by a decades-long campaign, fueled by government money and favorable press? When they not only have tricky papers to read, but have a financial and emotional interest in believing the tricky papers?
So if that is your explanation for the petition, then you have effectively granted the primary point of those of us who think that the global-warming alarmism is going too far. We say that scientists are just people who can be mislead, who can fool themselves, and who can be dishonest for gain just like everyone else. So just because lots of scientists say it, that is no reason for us to believe it. Right?
Doc Rampage (ebfd7a) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:22 amDan Kauffman,
Your link to “Hurricane Fables” does not present any links or references nor does it help to clarify what models were used, what experiments were completed, and what assumptions were made to acquire such definitive results. Emanuel does respond to critical correspondence in nature. The NOAA does a brief summary of the debate surrounding the link of the intensity of hurricanes to anthropogenic global warming here (scroll down to 4. An Overview of Recent Observational Studies and Debate). Read it for yourself and you can decide.
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:29 amStill No Consensus On Global Warming Science
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: January 1, 2003
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
Several new studies show human-induced global warming is probably not occurring. Additionally, new studies of rainfall patterns, Mediterranean plant life, and African desert climate show recent increases in atmospheric CO2 benefit the planet’s vegetation and animal life.
Here are the bullets
Falling Temperatures in Store
Most Reliable Data Show No Warming Trend
Sea-Ice Season in Antarctic Growing Longer
Arctic Ice Thickness Shows No Change
Rising CO2, Shrinking Deserts
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:37 amAn excellent example of Scientific discourse? 😉
Extraordinary scenes at Russian conference
Cooler Heads Coalition
By Myron Ebell
July 21, 2004
The British scientific establishment reacted so badly to dissenting voices at a Moscow conference on climate change science that they disrupted the event. The two-day seminar, entitled ?Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,? had been organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences and was chaired by distinguished climatologist Yuri Izrael, a Vice-Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
On being informed that the program would include contributions from scientists who question the effects of global warming, such as Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University, and Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, the British delegation, led by Sir David King, objected to their inclusion. They first delayed the conference, then asked British foreign secretary Jack Straw to exert political pressure in an effort to get the program changed. When this failed, there were reports that the conference was disrupted on at least four occasions (one reporter asked why security guards did not intervene). In the end, Sir David, who is on record as judging global warming a worse threat than terrorism, walked out.
Peter Cox of the U.K.’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research attempted to justify the British actions by telling Science magazine (July 16), ?We knew that we would not get to the scientific issues if we went down every rabbit hole of skepticism.?
During the conference, Paul Reiter used a simple experiment to demonstrate the low relevance of climate to the spread of malaria. He said, ?When I asked whether any of the Russian Academicians at the symposium had had malaria, nearly all raised their hands. Several had contracted the disease in Siberia!?
The French newspaper Le Figaro in reporting the controversy (July 16) commented, ?The clash was more than a minor diplomatic incident because it revealed a form of intellectual bullying that is beginning to dominate the scientific community on the question of climate change
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:31 amPaul_ReiterPaul Reiter
Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years.
Reiter is sceptical about the IPCC’s views on global warming, as seen in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:
“A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious ‘science’ is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of ‘experts.’ I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a ‘consensus of the world’s top scientists’ on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.” [1]
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:36 amPhilip Stottemeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, says climate change is a complicated issue. He says it cannot be said that just one factor can lead to the greenhouse effect.
Paul Reiter of Paris’ Pasteur Institute also appears in the documentary is. He is an expert in malaria and described the U.N. report a “sham.” He says, it included the names of several scientists, including him, who disagreed with the report.
Reiter says his name was removed only after he threatened legal action against the panel.
Opposition To Global Warming
Severely Suppressed
** Prof. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said the list of scientists endorsing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a “sham,” because it included the names of panel scientists who disagreed with its exaggerated climate predictions. Reiter, an expert in malaria, told the London Daily Mail that he only got his name removed after he threatened a lawsuit. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” Prof. Reiter said. In a report in the Jan.-Feb. 2000 issue of {Emerging Infectious Diseases}, Reiter showed that the claim that the increase in malaria was due to climate change was absurd. Dr. Reiter contributed a Viewpoint to {21st Century Science}, Winter 2003.
Senior French physicist and pioneer of isotope studies Claude Allegre came out against global warming last September, after having been one of its most outspoken proponents for over 15 years.
* Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor is under threat of losing his job for arguing that most climate change is the result of natural variations, not human-produced carbon dioxide. Despite threats from the Governor and a pending bill in the legislatures to have him removed, sponsored by Democratic State Sen. Brad Avakian, Taylor has held firm.
Chris Landsea, one of the world’s foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. He wrote an open letter shortly before the issuance of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Dr Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of a part of the IPCC report had participated in a press conference claiming the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases. Wrote Landsea: “To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.
quod erat demonstrandum
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:42 amDarn my major link in that post is now by subscription HATE that, but thanks for making me dig
The chart I posted is from and identical to THIS ONE on the National Huricane Center Website.
The link to the article “Hurricanes and Global Warming,” written by six noted tropical cyclone experts and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, concluded that no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and hurricane activity, and that the scientific consensus was that changes in hurricane intensity would be small and with historical patterns
Can be found HERE
and you can also find there this nice little tidbit
February 2006
February 21: Consensus Statement on Hurricanes and Global Warming
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | Disasters
Under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission on Atmospheric Sciences, its Tropical Meteorology Research Program Panel has just issued a statement on hurricanes and global warming (here in PDF).
Read the rest don’t wait for the Movie!
Dan Kauffman (839d43) — 4/8/2007 @ 4:18 amCould one of the advocates of man made GW please tell us what the proper average global temperature should have been in 2006 and what it should be in 2007.
*sound of crickets chirping*
Common Denominator (5e0b5e) — 4/8/2007 @ 4:26 amDon’t count your crickets before the chirp just yet CD.
According to this site, the average global temperature is about 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
Psyberian (de47c4) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:31 amThe question was what it should be, Psyberian, not what it is.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:42 amPablo, obviously we’d be happy is the temperature stayed about the same.
Psyberian (de47c4) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:59 amThat is, “if the temperature stayed about the same.”
Psyberian (de47c4) — 4/8/2007 @ 6:00 amDan Kauffman,
Thank you for the link to the petition. I’d have to disagree with the interpretation of experts that includes life scientists as qualified to speak on global warming. Someone like Paul Reiter, the malaria expert, could expertly speak about whether global warming could make malaria more prevalent, but not to the underlying climate science. He is not trained in that field. Asking Reiter about AGW makes as much sense as asking a hurricane expert about malaria. Let’s stick with people like Lindzen and John Christy, whose jobs actually require understanding the issue.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/8/2007 @ 6:37 amSmoking doesn’t cause cancer,
but socialism does
I posted this a few minutes ago and it didn’t make it.
Robinson is coauthor with Sallie Baliunas of the paper cited earlier.
Baliunas who is seen here on a page promoting The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary made by a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party.
Here is an article by one of the scientists who was presented as a skeptic, Carl Wunsch: “I should never have trusted Channel 4”.
Funny.
AF (c319c8) — 4/8/2007 @ 6:51 amobviously we’d be happy i[f] the temperature stayed about the same.
Why? Is there something all that special about 15 degrees C that makes it an “optimum” temperature?
And let’s not forget that even if the so-called “global average temperature”, a concept that is virtually meaningless, is increasing this says absolutely nothing about the cause of the increase.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/8/2007 @ 7:24 amThe discussion has devolved into “my scientist/argument (penis) is better (bigger)than your scientist/argument (penis)”. I’m not sure that is particularly helpful. But what does become clearer from all of this is the fact that there IS NO CONCENSUS! (A very unfortunate word to be used in a scientific discussion as has been noted too many times.) Both sides argue credibly (particularly Dan Kauffman and Brad Fikes) but the only reasonable, intelligent, and really scientific conclusion from it all is that we really DO NOT know if anthropogenic contributions are significant or not. Everything said is predicated, to some degree or another, on human “motivation”. That is largely unknowable, and unscientific. The furor, intellectual arrogance, and politically generated hysteria that has manifest itself thus fails the ultimate test of credibility. That is why, and about which, I remain a skeptic. I really have an aversion to running off cliffs.
MikeD (c9009d) — 4/8/2007 @ 7:55 amAnd then there’s all that history of warming and cooling periods. Why would a the continuation of perfectly natural cycles be troublesome?
Psyberian, that’s an average temperature over a 40 year period. And also note from the text in your link:
What happened in the 15th Century? Did climate change wipe out enormous swaths of land and huge segments of the population? Did Al Gore’s great-great-great-great grandpa rush in to save the planet and avert the temperature driven catastrophe? Or did nature take care of itself?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/8/2007 @ 8:04 amWilliam Gray has more than a few demons.
From Discover magazine [09/09/2005]:
Last year [05/28/2006], the WaPo noted that Gray “has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to ‘organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'”
Hardened positions fossilize around deep suspicions about others’ motives. Given that no one will likely live long enough to be proven wrong anyway, it’s zero-sum.
steve (d87056) — 4/8/2007 @ 8:15 amI still have yet to see any of the AGW folks answer my questions about the models. They assume that a small increase in co2 will lead to sizable increase in water vapor in the atmosphere and create an exponential warming effect. This hasn’t been proven and in fact could be the opposite of what would happen. It’s just as likely that an increase in water vapor and co2 could lead to increased cloud cover and cause a sizable drop in temperature. So, how can you claim any sort of certainty using models based on assumptions?
Taltos (c99804) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:03 amTaltos:
That’s so 1970’s 🙂 (the New [and improved?] ice-age)
Lord Nazh (d282eb) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:08 amAccording to my scientific calculations the proper temperature of earth should be 0 degrees Centegrade and 32 degrees Fahranheit.
Also there should be 4 miles of ice sitting on Canada as far south as Minnesota.
I have examined the temperatures over the last 100,000 years.
Common Denominator (5e0b5e) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:38 amI live in NY, the ice age comes every january.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:40 amDan Kauffman,
Thanks for posting the links.
Firstly, the data presented in the graph at the NOAA uses a model, The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, that only documents intensity of hurricanes at landfall. That is sometimes significant to us (determining potential property damage in the short run); but with changing land mass, for example diminishing marshes off the coast of New Orleans, it is not as reliable to only look at the intensity of hurricanes at landfall to predict future hurricane activity. In other words, there are too many other factors that can vary the intensity of hurricanes felt by us in the past versus in the future. In science, it is generally more accurate to use simplified models that make some assumptions, but do not have a lot of variables. The one that Emanuel uses in his scientific research on hurricanes uses a power-dissipation index (PDI). Emanuel explains: “This means that the power-dissipation index (PDI) I used, which is accumulated over all storms and over their entire lives, contains about 100 times more data than an index related to wind speeds of hurricanes at landfall.”
To sum it up, to understand how anthropogenic GLOBAL warming might be impacted by hurricanes, it’s more scientific to consider all hurricane activity around the globe, not just those that reach land (although that is the paradigm by which we experience hurricanes). The other reason why it is most significant to judge all hurricanes is that there is no indication that the hurricanes that have reached us in the past will follow the same trends in the future.
Second, the other critiques of man-made GW that you’ve supplied are by individuals who are in policy organizations who have published publication entitled “Environment News”, for example, the Heartland Institute, whose mission “is to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”
I think that a better understanding of anthropogenic global warming can only come from thoughtful scientific experiments from individuals in the fields of chemistry, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, physics, atmospheric sciences, and oceanic sciences, among others. We need to understand the phenomenon of how we may be contributing to global warming so that we can put into place laws that prevent us from sucking the earth of all of our protection. We need people who simply care about preserving the earth to do research on what our impact on the earth is. It’s easy for some people to think about the dollar first and then find ways to add validity to their claim that we can continue ruining the environment and don’t need to examine our practices. We need to invest money into helping the earth, plain and simple. We only have one earth. The time is now.
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 10:58 amDa Bombz Diggity,
Do you agree that ice core samples indicate CO2 levels increase after temperatures begin to increase?
http://www.realclimate.org
Just wondering?
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/8/2007 @ 11:26 amBradley J. Fikes –
Re: # 15, I never suggested that “the reporter garbled Kerry Emanuel’s stance on hurricanes and global warming.” I suggested that he (or Emanuel)lied about Dr. Gray stance that the world is getting hotter – which one of them clearly has.
Justin Levine (15239d) — 4/8/2007 @ 11:40 amJustin,
If the reporter is lying, he misstated Kerry Emanuel’s position on global warming and hurricanes, no?
All I was saying is you could have easily found out what Emanuel said on the subject by visiting his home page.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/8/2007 @ 12:00 pmSo, you’d prefer the research to be done by people with an inherent bias?
That’s some real science, that is.
stoo (739708) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:00 pmJustin,
After further reading, I get your point. I would still question the reporter’s account, though. Gray’s criticism seems to be about whether hurricanes are increasing in power due to global warming, not whether GW has taken place.
The more I look at this controversy, the more superficial the story you quoted seems. I don’t know the reporter, but his language is pretty opaque about just what Gray and Emanuel disagree about.
Here is an excerpt from another story on the subject with more detail:
NEW ORLEANS — The National Hurricane Conference came to a heated conclusion Friday, as one of the nation’s best-known storm prognosticators accused five rival scientists of spreading hysteria about global warming – possibly for money.
“You’ve heard a lot of foolishness over the last couple years,” said William Gray, a Colorado State University scientist who traditionally gets the final word at the annual gathering of storm experts.As he has done repeatedly in recent years, he used that pulpit to express his fierce skepticism about the notion that human-caused climate change is making hurricanes fiercer.
This time, in a 25-minute speech that drew bursts of applause and laughter, Gray came up with a mocking nickname for his rivals.
“You know, China had its Gang of Four,” he said, referring to a quartet of Communist leaders who fell from power in the 1970s. “Well, we’ve got in the U.S. our Gang of Five.
“These are very prominent, talented meteorologists,” Gray said. “But they’ve jumped in and played this game. … I think they kind of want to see this because there’s opportunity. If you can show hurricanes are getting worse with time, there’s better opportunity to get grant money. . .”
Gray didn’t name the five. But he offered enough details – including where they work and when they’ve published their research – that he left no mystery about the targets of his criticism.
Gray also faulted the news media, saying the idea that people’s actions are worsening storms such as Hurricane Katrina “makes a hell of a good story.”
One of Gray’s apparent targets, Georgia Tech researcher Judith Curry, responded that she and her colleagues have published their findings in leading journals such as Science and Nature. In contrast, she wrote via e-mail, “I have not seen any refereed publications written by Bill Gray on this topic during the last few years.
“Research scientists conduct their exchange of ideas in the peer reviewed literature and at professional conferences, not through the media,” Curry wrote.
Another researcher, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “I am sorry to hear that Bill is still making below-the-belt comments.”
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:23 pmI blogged about this topic the other day and provided a link to this online presentation: Geologic Constraints on Global Climate Variability by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard.
It’s not the most polished looking Power Point presentation that you’ll ever look at, but it does have many salient points. I highlight what I thought were the major ones in my post, but the one that really caught my attention is the graphing of the temperature variations in relation to the concentrations of CO2. If you guessed that the changes in CO2 FOLLOW, not precede, the changes in temperature, you get the gold star. Not exactly what the global warming alarmists are telling us.
I like Patrick’s comments about those promoting this sham — “lying sacks of crap”. As an old mechanic that I worked with when I was a pup liked to say, “Ain’t that the truth!”
OkieBoy (380225) — 4/8/2007 @ 1:26 pmOdysseusInRTP,
That is a good question. Yes, the data does suggest that there is an 800 year lag in CO2 increase to increase in the temperature of the climate. However the reason for that lag is indicative that CO2 is not the only factor that can increase the temperature of the climate. It has been posited from the study of air bubbles in ice cores that are a snapshot of the atmospheric greenhouse gases during Termination III (240,000 years prior to the present time), that the initial increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere may have been influenced by CO2 outgassing prompted by deglaciation. As a result, the remaining 4200 years of atmospheric warming was most likely due to the trapping of heat by CO2.
As explained by scientists in Science magazine: “CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing, which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”
The link that you referred us to sums that up nicely.
What that tells us is that anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over these past decades will be felt by the earth increasingly over the next decades and centuries and will be irreversible for thousands of years. This has very harsh consequences for our earth and civilization. This is why this type of research is important and should be understood by lay people.
To respond to stoo,
Yes, we do need scientists who are adamant and passionate about the earth to do research into global warming. We do not need individuals who are free market fundamentalists trying to justify their greed for more and more material things to make baseless conclusions about global warming. Unfortunately, the scientists are not the policy and lawmakers, the free market fundamentalists are.
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 2:05 pmDBD,
Are you trying to tell me that the people on your side of the argument are currently working unfunded? Or that they would do so if their funding were to cease tomorrow?
I find that a tad difficult to believe.
stoo (739708) — 4/8/2007 @ 2:20 pmYes, we do need scientists who are adamant and passionate about the earth to do research into global warming. We do not need individuals who are free market fundamentalists trying to justify their greed for more and more material things to make baseless conclusions about global warming. Unfortunately, the scientists are not the policy and lawmakers, the free market fundamentalists are.
Do they have glazed doughnuts in crazyland ?
Taltos (c99804) — 4/8/2007 @ 2:49 pmThe other very interesting info in the Gerhard presentation is that this is all part of a continuing “cycle” of warming/cooling for the current continent-configuration, with high-temp points spaced about 1100-1500 years apart. We’ve been here before folks, without man-caused CO2. Since the warming peak is about 400 years away, none of us will see it, and since it’s a part of the Earth’s normal rhythms, we’re not gonna stop it.
Might get to tax & spend the hell out of it though. That makes the global warming scare a Democrat’s wet dream for sure.
OkieBoy (380225) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:15 pmPlease consider posting a link to this outstanding video! It completely destroys the Theory of Global Warming. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&hl=en It was a UK Channel 4 documentary recently.
Also I’d appreciate a link to the Internet Radio Network. http://www.netradionetwork.com
Steve
Steve (06ec7b) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:34 pmTaltos, lol. Seriously, if I eat a glazed donut a day, I’d gain 30 lbs per year. That’s not my cup of tea.
stoo,
We need balance. There’s always an incentive to doing global warming research when money is involved, however, that should not be the driving force for people doing research in this area. Nor should people already conclude that anthropogenic global warming does not exist without careful consideration of the research. Of course, a free market is great, but it should NOT be the only motivation behind global warming research. Sacrifice is necessary to continue our existence on earth for the long term. We need to give as much as we take in order to aide in our survival. Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is not just about winner takes all, it’s more about winner saves all. You know?
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 3:37 pmNo, DBD, I don’t know. I find the arrogance required to believe man could destroy the planet incomprehensible.
And what sacrifice is being made by the believers in man made global warming? We learned recently that the cheif advocate of your side uses more electricity — by oders of magnitude — than the average consumer in America. That’s OK, we’re told, because Mr. Gore spends 4 times the going rate for his electricity, buying “carbon offsets”, which allegedly fund research to find alternate sources of energy production, and to plant trees that will theoretically consume the exagerrated levels of carbon dioxide produced by his chosen lifestyle.
The inconvenient truth is that he’s paying a company he founded, so should your side prevail in this ludicrous debate, he will make a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice.
But this is America, a free country. So you go on believing in the absence of any credible evidence, if that’s what you want to do.
stoo (739708) — 4/8/2007 @ 4:15 pmDang. I got this wrong:
Given the Kyoto Accords, it shoud read:
I find the arrogance required to believe man America could destroy the planet incomprehensible.
There. Fixed it.
stoo (739708) — 4/8/2007 @ 4:19 pmCorrect me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t “survival of the fittest” coined by the social darwinist, Herbert Spencer?
No matter, have any of the devout man-made global warming believers considered the costs to the poorer parts of society if we followed through with severely restricting fossil fuels. What would developing nations do that do not have the capability to develop and use alternative fuels. Who is going to explain the deaths of millions do to a huge drop in the standard of living throughout the world.
Lastly, who is to say that the planet being a few degrees warmer won’t benefit humankind by increasing habitable environments?
NJRob (273e95) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:00 pmLastly, who is to say that the planet being a few degrees warmer won’t benefit humankind by increasing habitable environments?
It already has, the increase in co2 has had great benefits to crops and trees. Co2 = plant food afterall.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:09 pmThey never have, and never will. The cost to humanity from the banning of DDT is in the millions of lives lost to mosquito carried malaria — just to save some birds. And, my understanding is that whole scare has been discredited.
Way back in 1970 I was forced to read Rachael Carlson’s “Silent Spring” in freshman year of university, and it was taught as if it was holy writ. When we all look back in another 35 or so years, those still here of course but probably not me, this whole man-caused global warming scam will seem just as silly. If Kyoto is forced upon the world by the Al Gores and those like him, it’s going to be a very different looking world. The West will become a self-imposed pathetic backwater of a society with a populace deprived and taxed to economic stagnation ruled by an effete elite.
Just don’t bet all your hard-earned bucks backing the notion that China and India and the other parts of the undeveloped world, like Africa are going to give a pup about honoring Kyoto — cause they aren’t. What are we gonna do? Nuke ’em to stop them from using coal? We can’t even stop ol’ Al from using private jets — and supposedly he believes that the world is coming to an end over this. Any of you global warming gurus wanna buy a bridge? I’ll give ya terms . . .
OkieBoy (380225) — 4/8/2007 @ 5:16 pm“And, my understanding is that whole scare has been discredited.”
Your understanding is wrong.
Global warming “believers.”
AF (c319c8) — 4/8/2007 @ 7:28 pmWhen everything’s about faith, there’s no need for logic.
I respectfully submit that Tim Lambert is not the expert on DDT that he pretends to be …
Adriane (0df404) — 4/8/2007 @ 8:39 pmI respectfully submit that Tim Lambert is not the expert on DDT that he pretends to be …
He’s also real big on that lancet study that in order for it to be accurate the daily death rate in iraq would have to average around 550. 500+ people that the iraqi government isn’t aware of.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:09 pmNJRob,
“Survival of the fittest” was first coined by Herbert Spencer, but was later used by Darwin. Today, it is a popular phrase that does little to unmask many of the social institutions that still thrive using philosophies of the “Social Darwinists’s” of the past. But, that’s another subject.
Of course, many anthropogenic global warming believers understand the propensity of the free market to undermine the introduction of alternative energy sources into poorer nations. For instance, where do you think all of the coal mining and gasification technology used in the US during the 1900s went to? Ding, ding, ding…China! US Companies get a break because they can upgrade their equipment and make money off of the old equipment. So, for example, the air pollution thick atmosphere, which blotted out the sun, of Pittsburgh in the mid 1900s becomes the air pollution thick atmosphere of Linfen (the most polluted city in China). So, this goes back to what I was saying before, it takes money to deal with global warming.
The documentary introduced by Steve called “The Great Global Warming Swindle” doesn’t present the whole side of the global warming debate with the intent of confusing lay people. I’ve already addressed some of their arguments here, here and here. But the film posits that one of the reasons for the hype behind anthropogenic global warming is that researchers need funding. Well you tell me who is funding said researchers. I haven’t seen the mounds of funding that the film says is driving the debate. And trust me if it were there, I would take advantage of it. There is no incentive to curb anthropogenic global warming emissions because it can be costly. So, we need to invest in the future of the earth so that other countries can cope as well.
Ultimately, we do need to perserve the free-market. But, we don’t have to reject the alarms sounded off by scientists in order to do it. I do admit that some technologies are better left alone, like that of adaptive eye glasses, which would make the market for eye glasses in the US dwindle to nothing if it were known widely that this technology existed. There would be no need for opticians or optometrists, pearl vision, or any other eye glass vendor, as these eye glasses have lenses that utilize a fluid that can be constantly readjusted by the wearer to his/her specifications. Currently, these eye glasses are being distributed to poorer nations, and probably will never see the light of day in the US. They never should see the light of day unless maybe for those in low income communities in the US.
Da Bombz Diggity (e1bfb4) — 4/8/2007 @ 9:22 pmLambert’s global warming posts aren’t to be trusted either.
J F Beck (585878) — 4/8/2007 @ 10:18 pm“He’s also real big on that lancet study”
AF (c319c8) — 4/9/2007 @ 5:24 amAnd read this for a discussion of Spagat and ‘main street bias; and this.
And as far as J.F. Beck is concerned, read his comments on Lambert’s page, in the context of the discussion and make up your own mind about who’s not to be trusted
I hope everyone picked up on Da Bombz acknowledging that man’s actions today are not currently causing global warming, but that they will add to the warming in the future.
That admission atleast helps focus the discussion somewhat.
Now we can atleast move beyond the talk that man is currently causing global warming and focus on what effect our actions today will have in 800 or so years. A fair question I think.
I think its great that someone like DaBomb can look at the facts and admit the truth. If only more AGW proponets could be so honest.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 5:24 amFrom the perspective of a Professor of meteorolgy at MIT: Global Warming
Lord Nazh (d282eb) — 4/9/2007 @ 6:31 amLord Nazh,
Ah yes, I suspected you were talking about Lindzen. He’s a little too dismissive of the bad consequences of a warmer climate. For those of us in California, the consequences to our water supply will be severe.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/9/2007 @ 7:15 amDo you believe that AGW is more relevant to the lack of water than population explosion?
Do you even believe they are equally important?
Personally, I would even compare the two issues.
Last time I check California was mostly desert. No surpise they might lack water with such a large population.
Maybe I am just unsympathetic since my part of the country has actually cooled the last 100 years.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 7:28 amOdysseusInRTP,
It doesn’t have to be AGW, just the fact that the climate is warming — whether man-caused or not — that is creating the problems for California.
Our water largely comes from snow melt, which takes place over a period of months. Warmer temperatures means more precipitation will arrive as rain, not snow. Our reservoirs are not designed to take that much water that quickly. A lot will be lost. Also, the total amount of precipitation will be less.
So yes, warming in our neck of the woods will create water problems even without population growth.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 8:45 amAnd read this for a discussion of Spagat and ‘main street bias; and this.
You miss my point. For the lancet study to be correct, 500+ people a day had to have died during those 3 years, and no one noticed. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? When people who have a vested interest in making the US look bad for ideological reasons think your numbers are bogus there is something wrong.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/9/2007 @ 9:34 amBradley:
Leave the fact that ‘scientific models’ are the only proof that you would have a water shortage if the temperature rose, and leave off the fact that legislation has denied the ability to get more water (in the name of environmentals).
There’s big pond of water just beside California, it’s full of salt, but they do make these plants that can (proven, not modeled) take salt from water and make pure water.
California could easily solve a water problem (expensively I’d assume, but not hard to build) with some desalinization plants (plan for enough to overcome the potential loss of water due to the models used).
Lord Nazh (d282eb) — 4/9/2007 @ 10:02 amInteresting thread–two thoughts: (1) the “money” argument and credibility. Almost ALL science these days is supported by outside dollars either from foundations, corporations, or governments. The day of the independent scientist working in her lab are gone; my point, then, is that money argument cuts both ways. (2) “peer review” does NOT guarantee the accuracy of a theory–it means that two or three other folks in the field have looked at the articles and assured themselves the methodology and sources are OK. And increasingly with the rise of disparate fields of science, it is increasingly difficult to even have works peer reviewed.
Roger Arango (84ce00) — 4/9/2007 @ 10:03 amLord Nazh,
You are correct that California’s use of water has been restricted by environmental laws. A peripheral canal would be an elegant engineering solution to the messy transport system we have in the Delta. However it was shot down by environmentalists. I am sure there are other examples.
Desalination is certainly going to be part of California’s new water supply. I’ve seen a pilot desalination project in Carlsbad — very impressive. Seawater to drinking water in 20 minutes by reverse osmosis. However, desalination is still substantially more expensive (I think by 30 percent), than current supplies. RO desalination is extremely power hungry. The Carlsbad facility is located next to a power plant.
My point in bringing this up is that California will have to begin adjusting for a warmer climate, whether natural or man-made. That means billions in more infrastructure. Lindzen didn’t even mention such an obvious drawback, making his picture of the benefits of a warmer climate one-sided.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:05 am“just the fact that the climate is warming — whether man-caused or not — that is creating the problems for California”
I respectfully disagree. Warming is not creating the problem. IMO, what is creating the problem is too many people wanting to live in an arid desert climate.
I’d would speculate that removing half the people would have a bigger impact on water supply than the planet cooling by 1 degree.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:07 am“My point in bringing this up is that California will have to begin adjusting for a warmer climate, whether natural or man-made.”
But hasn’t California been adjusting for the last 80 years and hasn’t that adjusting been irrelevant to any warming taking place.
I just thing you have let warming distract you from the real problem.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:10 amOdysseusInRTP,
California’s previous adjustments were made for population only, in the mistaken belief that the climate would not change. A warmer climate upsets the basic conditions on which our water supply infrastructure was engineered. So even if the population were to remain stable, we’d have major problems.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:29 amBradley J. Fikes –
Re: # 47 & 49. You seem to have corrected your incorrect assertion from # 47 in # 49. I appreciate that. But I maintain that you are flat out wrong in your assertion that “The more I look at this controversy, the more superficial the story you quoted seems. I don’t know the reporter, but his language is pretty opaque about just what Gray and Emanuel disagree about.”
Read the sentence again –
“Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor who had feuded with Gray over global warming, said Gray has wrongly ‘dug (his) heels in’ even though there is ample evidence that the world is getting hotter.”
There is nothing “opaque” here. The sentence clearly implies that Gray does not believe “the world is getting hotter”. What is “opaque” about that?
Since we know that assertion is a falsehood (Gray DOES beleive the world has gotten hotter), then I fail to understand why you seem intent on insisting that this is “opaque” or “superficial”. To me, this is as straightforward as possible.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:46 amJustin,
Every other story I’ve seen states the disagreement between Gray and Emanuel is about hurricanes, not global warming itself. So the chracterization of them feuding “over global warming” is misleading.
Can you point to any other story that backs up your interpretation?
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 11:57 amBradley,
The interpretation (as you put it) is that the reporter or Emahuel is lying about what Gray believes. Other stories do not affect this interpretation at all. The facts stand with Justin on this one (as interpreted by me)
The reporter or Emanuel said that Gray doesn’t believe in the earth getting hotter (or they are ‘out-of-context’ quotes and then only the reporter is at fault).
The “california” water problem (ie. context):
You’re first post linked to an article that said that Global Warming Climate Change would be the problem for Cali’s water supply. Then you state that no matter why the climate changes, that Cali will have a water problem.
If you had simply stated that Cali will/does have a water problem, I’d have agreed to you; but your first post ties it directly to Global Warming Climate Change.
Lord Nazh (d282eb) — 4/9/2007 @ 12:36 pmLord Nazh
The reporter or Emanuel said that Gray doesn’t believe in the earth getting hotter (or they are ‘out-of-context’ quotes and then only the reporter is at fault).
I think the reporter misquoted Emanuel. I say that because other stories on their feud concern whether GW is going to make hurricanes more intense or frequent, not over whether GW is happening. The simplest explanation is that the reporter flubbed it (or an editor butchered the story). Now if anyone can find other reporters quoting Emanual making the same statement that Gray doubts the earth is warming, that would be a different matter. In that case, I’d say Emanuel was distorting the facts.
If you had simply stated that Cali will/does have a water problem, I’d have agreed to you; but your first post ties it directly to Global Warming Climate Change.
California has a water problem that will be made much worse by global warming climate change. Our water supply system was built on climatic assumptions that GW, whatever its cause, is upending.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 12:53 pmBradley,
It seems like you have really dug your heels in on blaming global warming for water shortages in the dry/arid/desert lands of California.
“A warmer climate upsets the basic conditions on which our water supply infrastructure was engineered.”
So does a colder one. Maybe even more so.
If the snow doesn’t melt you would still lack water in California. Perhaps your water supply has been improved due to global warming. Since you get more melted snow.
“in the mistaken belief that the climate would not change.”
Really, can you point out someone who thinks that climate doesn’t change. Thanks.
Do you disagree that reduction of population in a dry arid land such as California would have more of an impact on water supply than a 1 degree cooling or warming for that matter?
Perhaps you can explain why California has “always” had water problems. Even when cooling or warming has taken place.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 1:07 pmOdysseusInRTP,
Colder weather would not be nearly as harmful to California’s water supply. The crucial variable is how warm winter gets. If winter is warm enough, you get less snow, or it falls as rain. It melts in the spring and summer. If the average temperature falls a few degrees, all that will happen is that the water would come more slowly, as snow melt is delayed. But our reservoirs can easily handle that delay. It’s fast floods that tax them.
Really, can you point out someone who thinks that climate doesn’t change. Thanks.
The hydrologists who constructed California’s water system assumed a fairly constant climate, with period droughts. Their baseline is no longer accurate. Recalculations show that such variables as the supply of Colorado River water were overestimated.
Do you disagree that reduction of population in a dry arid land such as California would have more of an impact on water supply than a 1 degree cooling or warming for that matter?
Without a number for how much reduction you envision, the question is meaningless.
Perhaps you can explain why California has “always” had water problems. Even when cooling or warming has taken place.
As you know, Southern California has a desert climate. We depend on snow melt from distant mountains. That’s the problem with warming.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 1:19 pmBradley,
I give up. If you can’t see that sticking millions of people out in dry arid regions and expecting them to have plenty of water is dumb, then you can’t be helped.
If you want to continue to blame a lack of water in the dry arid region of California then have at it. There are alot of good arguments to be made about global warming, but this one is pathetic.
California has historically been short on water global warming is unrelated at this juncture.
OdysseusInRTP (4e956a) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:01 pmOdysseusInRTP,
California has historically been short on water global warming is unrelated at this juncture.
And your source for that statement about global warming being unrelated to future water needs is . . ?
I get my information from sources like this.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:19 pmHow about the fact that the water supply infrastructure is artificial and requires importation and it was designed to support a much lighter demand than it is being asked to support today and will be expected to support in the future.
You want to do something to ease the decades old SoCal water problem? Lobby against lawns.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:26 pmPablo,
I am well aware of California’s perpetual water problem. I used to cover this issue as a regular beat, and still know where to look for information.
The only point I was making is that global, or in this case regional, warming, will make the problem worse. California (and other Western states that depend on snow melt) will have a considerable expense to expand our water infrastructure above and beyond what we would have otherwise had to do.
OdysseusInRTP doesn’t seem to understand that distinction. His replies seem to suggest I’m blaming all of California’s water problems on global warming, which is certainly not the case. It is a problem for the new century. We in California will have to scrounge even harder to get water than without global warming.
For some reason, that seems to set some people off. They eagerly hear evidence that global warming will make the climate better, but don’t want to consider any facts to the contrary. That’s not skepticism, that’s bias.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:36 pmBradley –
Re: # 80. You seem to completely miss the issue here, but I’m going to try this one more time.
I said that the story that I linked to, the one written by Cain Burdeau by the AP, clearly states that Dr. Gray doesn’t believe that the earth is getting hotter. I don’t care what other stories say. I am refering to the story I linked to AND THAT STORY ONLY. Fair enough?
Even if other stories claim that Gray and Emanuel disagree about other issues, that is irrelevent since I am not talking about that.
If you want to assume that it was an innocent mistake on the part of the reporter (Burdeau), and that he merely misquoted Gray – fine. You are entitled to that speculation. But given the context of how the global warming debate has unfolded thus far, and the disingenuousness on the part of global warming hysterics, I choose to believe that it was a deliberate attempt to try and discredit Gray.
You can certainly disagree about the motivations of the misstatement (i.e., if it was a deliberate lie or not, and who was the source of the misstatement – the Burdeau or Emanuel), but you are not entitled to mischarectarize the point I am making: (1) The article that I link to clearly implies that Gray disputes the fact that the world is warming, and (2) Gray has clearly stated that he DOES believe the world is warming. That is a simple and undeniable fact.
It is perfectly fine to point out that other articles don’t repeat the misstatement. That is circumstantial evidence perhaps that the fault lies with the reporter (and not Emanuel). But that does not change the fact that the report contains an misstatement of fact – and one that unfairly puts Gray in a bad light.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:47 pmBradley –
Addendum to # 89. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes – even reporters. But the fact that you don’t seem to grasp my point AND the fact that you describe yourself as a “health care and science reporter” is a bit unnerving. Do you still not understand the problem with Cain Burdeau’s reporting in this instance? If not, then (with all due respect), you may need to thoroughly reevaluate how you write your own pieces. They may contain similar falsehoods that you might not even pick up on.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:52 pmJustin,
Well, why don’t you spell it out for me? We seem to be talking past each other.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:54 pmIt is perfectly fine to point out that other articles don’t repeat the misstatement. That is circumstantial evidence perhaps that the fault lies with the reporter (and not Emanuel). But that does not change the fact that the report contains an misstatement of fact – and one that unfairly puts Gray in a bad light.
I agree with all of what you said here.
You can certainly disagree about the motivations of the misstatement (i.e., if it was a deliberate lie or not, and who was the source of the misstatement – the Burdeau or Emanuel), but you are not entitled to mischarectarize the point I am making: (1) The article that I link to clearly implies that Gray disputes the fact that the world is warming, and (2) Gray has clearly stated that he DOES believe the world is warming. That is a simple and undeniable fact.
I’m not mischaracterizing what you said. I understand your point about Gray not denying global warming. Nor am I disputing it. But you also called the story a “typical media lie.” Unless you provide other instances of Gray being falsely described, your example seems like an exception to me.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 2:59 pmBradley –
Re: # 92. The reference to a “typical media lie” refers to the lies in the general global warming debate – not to Gray specifically. So your challenge to provide “other instances of Gray being falsely described” is a red herring. What some of the other “typical media lies” that I refer to?
1. The notion that there is “consensus” on the global warming debate. There is none – other than the fact that the globe has been in a general warming cycle for the past 3 decades. Even if consesnus by the IPCC scientists can be shown, it is a lie to say that the IPCC represents a consensus by the scientific community.
2. The notion that “man is responsible for global warming”. While this statement is technically true, it almost always is purposely made devoid of its critical context as to constitute a lie. The media hardly states to what extent that man has caused the warming in relation to natural causes – or the fact that there is no consensus as to what extent man’s contrubution realy is, or if it is harmful or not.
3. The fact that media always stresses the worst case scenarios of the future projections of global warming – without giving equal weight to less dire predictions (in terms of sea levels, amount of warming, etc.).
4. The specific lie that global warming causes an increase in hurricane activity. While this lie has been debunked in many media circles, it does not change the fact that one of the lead authors of the IPCC report has deliberately tried to perpetuate this lie.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. If you suggest that there hasn’t been disingenuousness on the part of global warming hysterics and the media, then I’m afraid we are destined to be talking past each other for some time to come.
But to bring it back to this particular post –
1). The article clearly wanted to leave the reader with the impression that Dr. Gray did not believe the globe was warming.
2). Gray does in fact believe the globe is warming. Therefore, it is a false statement that needs correcting.
3). I am entitled to believe that the false statement was delierately made to make Gray look bad specifically because he is a skeptic of global warming hysteria.
You can disagree with # 3, but if you chose to ignore # 1 & 2, then there is no point in debating any further. It would prove that our conceptions of reality differ too widely. I would only hope that this ‘reality’ of yours doesn’t lead to more media lies in your own reporting.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/9/2007 @ 4:45 pmJustin,
I accept points 1 and 2. I thought I had made that clear. Earlier, I misread your comments, and I apologize for doing that.
As for #3, I think it’s best to be cautious in leveling such accusations of being deliberately unfactual. We don’t know the reporter’s track record on this issue.
And with my own reporting, one of the reasons I hang out here is to read differing points of view and find out if I’m wrong. I hope you approve.
Bradley J. Fikes (54d7cc) — 4/9/2007 @ 5:02 pmDr. Gray is just a credible as Al Gore. Funny how Al Gore always seems to avoid anyone who wants to discuss this with him. He ALWAYS avoids any questions from the scientific community.
joe (41f97d) — 4/9/2007 @ 9:17 pm