NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, variations in solar output cannot account for the planetary temperature hockey stick. (Neat-o picture included)
Known variations in the sun's total energy output cannot explain recent global warming, say researchers who have reviewed the existing evidence. The judgment, which appears in the September 14 Nature, casts doubt on the claims of some global warming skeptics who have argued that long-term changes in solar output, or luminosity, might be driving the current climate pattern.

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000_homenews.gif
Image: GÖRAN SCHARMER, Institute for
Solar Physics of the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences

The evidence for human-induced global warming is neatly captured in a plot of the planet's reconstructed temperature over the last 1,000 years. The temperature takes a dramatic upswing starting 100 years ago, creating the so-called hockey stick graph. A reasonable question is whether natural changes such as solar activity could have caused or contributed to the upturned blade of that stick, perhaps because the sun's luminosity varies widely over centuries or more. "The question is, were there times in the past when it was equally warm, and the answer is no," says Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He and three colleagues compared the average of a number of temperature reconstructions based on tree rings, ice cores and other data with models of Northern Hemisphere temperature that include different levels of solar variation, from little to a speculatively high amount. In all cases, "what you get out looks very much like the observations" from real samples, he says. "The warming [of the past 100 years] is greater than any in the last 1,000 years."

The consistency meshes with solar physicists' latest understanding of how the sun works, the group notes. The sun's luminosity swings up and down by less than 0.1 percent in accord with an 11-year cycle of sunspots and faculae, bright areas of heightened output [see image above]. This cycle accounts for most of the sun's variability. Recent simulations reinforce the idea that convection inside the sun rapidly smoothes out internal hot spots before their concentrated heat can escape like an upwelling of magma, the researchers note. This inertia allows surface changes to have a discernible effect and explains why no additional sources of variation have been identified so far, they say.
Skeptics might hope to take refuge in some lingering uncertainties. Variability in solar ultraviolet or magnetized plasma output are poorly understood and could affect the climate in ways that luminosity doesn't. Some researchers have also claimed to see signs of longer-term or hyperactive solar luminosity in the last 10,000 years, although "if they are playing some role, these possible longer-term solar effects are small compared to the unprecedented human-induced changes," says geologist Feng Sheng Hu of the University of Illinois, who has reported evidence for one type of longer cycle. --JR Minkel

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000

While I am skeptical of Global Warming, I am SKEPTICAL, not insistent it's not real.

On the other hand, as a skeptic, I have learned that Scientific American is more then a little bit biased, and not as scientific as they would like you to believe. I've not read the article yet, but you MUST consider the source.

While I am skeptical of Global Warming, I am SKEPTICAL, not insistent it's not real.

On the other hand, as a skeptic, I have learned that Scientific American is more then a little bit biased, and not as scientific as they would like you to believe. I've not read the article yet, but you MUST consider the source.

Scientific American is the absolutely premier source for science news for the layman in the U.S., maybe the world. Their reputation is impeccable and I cannot think of a better source.

Scientific American is the absolutely premier source for science news for the layman in the U.S., maybe the world. Their reputation is impeccable and I cannot think of a better source.

I'm not sure what to say. Their reports are ALWAYS politically motivated, unlike, for example, Discover, or Discovery (sure, both do occasionally dabble in politics, but it's not a constant). And while their science is never *wrong* they choose to ignore crutial facts or ideas in writing their articles.

I don't mean to say they are useless, they're not. I read their magazine and listen to their podcasts, but they aren't to be relied on without exercising your own critical thinking capacity.

Apparently, variations in solar output cannot account for the planetary temperature hockey stick. (Neat-o picture included)


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000

Except the "hockey stick" had been debunked for a while now.

I'm not sure what to say. Their reports are ALWAYS politically motivated, unlike, for example, Discover, or Discovery (sure, both do occasionally dabble in politics, but it's not a constant). And while their science is never *wrong* they choose to ignore crutial facts or ideas in writing their articles.

I don't mean to say they are useless, they're not. I read their magazine and listen to their podcasts, but they aren't to be relied on without exercising your own critical thinking capacity.

Ah, but Scientific American was only reporting on an article published in the September 14th issue of Nature. You might want to read the OP.

Ah, but Scientific American was only reporting on an article published in the September 14th issue of Nature. You might want to read the OP.

My point, however, was that I don't completely trust content from SciAm, and I also stated that I hadn't finished the article yet. Besides, the fact that they were reporting on a report just makes it more suspect - the orriginal report may or may not contain bias, but to report on a report... unless you want to make your report REALLY dull, you have to paraphrase, and add your own content, and rework the orriginal idea, so there is almost a guaranteed bias.

Well, I guess that's good for solar power...time to replace those coal power plants once and for all.

Well, I guess that's good for solar power...time to replace those coal power plants once and for all.

Not unless the article contains a sure-fire way to make tons of money from solar power. The future of power generation in the near future, say the next century at least, is coal. We ought to be looking at ways to make burning coal as clean as possible. They do exist (ssshhh, don't tell Asoch ;) , but the September issue of Scientific American is devoted to energy's future beyond carbon).

I'm not sure what to say. Their reports are ALWAYS politically motivated, unlike, for example, Discover, or Discovery (sure, both do occasionally dabble in politics, but it's not a constant). And while their science is never *wrong* they choose to ignore crutial facts or ideas in writing their articles.

I don't mean to say they are useless, they're not. I read their magazine and listen to their podcasts, but they aren't to be relied on without exercising your own critical thinking capacity.

That is complete and total bullshit. You have no familiarity with the magazine at all. First, the vast majority of their articles are not written by journalist, but by actual researchers doing the science. Second, the vast majority of their articles aren't titaled things like "Global warmin this" or "Glaciers melting that..." They are usually titled "the search for the elusive Higgs Bosom" or "Anti particle generation at black hole event horizons." How can those articles be political unless they say something like, "Republicans are less able to detect minute fluctuations in the micrwave cosmic background radiation than Democrats?"

Please actually do a little research before you make up criticism straight off the top of your head. Not only am I sure you've never read the magazine, I'm also absolutely positive you never read a criticism of this magazine that echoes your sentiment. You just read the article and off the top of your head said, "I'll question the source." The problem is you know nothing about the source.

The rest of you saps can fry, were getting 60 degree temperatures this weekened, in Southern Arizona, on top of two months of rain.
I guess it just cant get any hotter here ;)

Except the "hockey stick" had been debunked for a while now.

No it has not. It's an inarguable fact.

Not unless the article contains a sure-fire way to make tons of money from solar power. The future of power generation in the near future, say the next century at least, is coal. We ought to be looking at ways to make burning coal as clean as possible. They do exist (ssshhh, don't tell Asoch ;) , but the September issue of Scientific American is devoted to energy's future beyond carbon).

Excellent issue.

Not unless the article contains a sure-fire way to make tons of money from solar power. The future of power generation in the near future, say the next century at least, is coal. We ought to be looking at ways to make burning coal as clean as possible. They do exist (ssshhh, don't tell Asoch ;) , but the September issue of Scientific American is devoted to energy's future beyond carbon).

I've got that issue...damn interesting stuff. And, of course, once cellulosic ethanol becomes viable (2010ish), we'll be able to replace a lot of our oil consumption with it. And, of course, using E85 leads to an 22-35% drop in CO2 emissions compared to gasoline; you could concievably cut CO2 emissions from vehicles in the US by 9.6 million tons per year without any change in the fuel economy of the fleet (barring the losses from ethanol).

And, about 10 years from now, we'll have solar power that is competitive from coal. You've got three major things that are pushing prices down over that period: no polysilicon shortage after 2008, cost of conventional and thin-film PV is falling, and other technologies are going to push it to about 10 cents/kwh; that's still more expensive than coal, but comparable to natural gas.

However, clean coal is the way to go, at least in the intermediate term. And, with the biodiesel from algae that is being developed, the CO2 from these plants can be partially absorbed and turned in to biodiesel, cutting CO2 emissions from diesel engines.

No it has not. It's an inarguable fact.

GCC had an article on that a few weeks ago; I'll have to see if I can find it. Apparently, the hockey stick is right on.

No it has not. It's an inarguable fact.

Sorry I couldn't be bothered to catch up. What's an inarguable fact?(I must know in the light of a row about the nature of truth I have been having)

Globe's getting hotter. Weee!!!!! :)

Republicans are less able to detect minute fluctuations in the micrwave cosmic background radiation than Democrats

OMG, this explains everything! :eek:

I've got that issue...damn interesting stuff. And, of course, once cellulosic ethanol becomes viable (2010ish), we'll be able to replace a lot of our oil consumption with it. And, of course, using E85 leads to an 22-35% drop in CO2 emissions compared to gasoline; you could concievably cut CO2 emissions from vehicles in the US by 9.6 million tons per year without any change in the fuel economy of the fleet (barring the losses from ethanol).

And, about 10 years from now, we'll have solar power that is competitive from coal. You've got three major things that are pushing prices down over that period: no polysilicon shortage after 2008, cost of conventional and thin-film PV is falling, and other technologies are going to push it to about 10 cents/kwh; that's still more expensive than coal, but comparable to natural gas.

However, clean coal is the way to go, at least in the intermediate term. And, with the biodiesel from algae that is being developed, the CO2 from these plants can be partially absorbed and turned in to biodiesel, cutting CO2 emissions from diesel engines.

I agree, there are great many very interesting and implementable ideas in the issue (though I do have to say I dread each September's special issue, because I do love the mix of articles the other months of the year). The current Consumer Reports, however, contains the results of their tests on flexible-fuel vehicles and ethanol fuel, and the numbers suck. Fuel efficiency went down on ethanol, and since the FFVs are mostly SUVs, they weren't very efficient to begin with. Not to mention there's a decided lack of availability of the fuel around the country. Still, hey, we have to encourage improvements, right?

Globe's getting hotter. Weee!!!!! :)

Hmm ... as someone who prefers to wear as little as she can get away with, perhaps this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sorry I couldn't be bothered to catch up. What's an inarguable fact?(I must know in the light of a row about the nature of truth I have been having)
This.
http://equake.geol.vt.edu/acourses/3114/00Climate/hockeystick_orig.gif

The rest of you saps can fry, were getting 60 degree temperatures this weekened, in Southern Arizona, on top of two months of rain.
I guess it just cant get any hotter here ;)

To the people who will inevitably use this to "debunk" global warming, this is expected. The weather will get completely fucked up, some places will get colder, but the global average temperature will rise.

No it has not. It's an inarguable fact.

It's hardly inarguable. Mann never released his methodology he used so that his work could be duplicated. His data sources are horribly suspect.

The hockey stick graph is one of the most inaccurate, overblown, over-hyped argument that global warming alarmists have.

My point, however, was that I don't completely trust content from SciAm, and I also stated that I hadn't finished the article yet. Besides, the fact that they were reporting on a report just makes it more suspect - the orriginal report may or may not contain bias, but to report on a report... unless you want to make your report REALLY dull, you have to paraphrase, and add your own content, and rework the orriginal idea, so there is almost a guaranteed bias.

Now that you mention, I kinda have to agree. I was just reading this piece here and you can see the obvious anti-Republican bias in the highlighted parts:

On November 11, 1572, Danish astronomer and nobleman Tycho Brahe saw a new star in the constellation Cassiopeia, blazing as bright as Jupiter. In many ways, it was the birth of modern astronomy--a shining disproof of the belief that the heavens were fixed and unchanging. Such "new stars" have not ceased to surprise. Some 400 years later astronomers realized that they briefly outshine billions of ordinary stars and must therefore be spectacular explosions. In 1934 Fritz Zwicky of the California Institute of Technology coined the name "supernovae" for them. Quite apart from being among the most dramatic events known to science, supernovae play a special role in the universe and in the work of astronomers: seeding space with heavy elements, regulating galaxy formation and evolution, even serving as markers of cosmic expansion.

Zwicky and his colleague Walter Baade speculated that the explosive energy comes from gravity. Their idea was that a normal star implodes until its core reaches the density of an atomic nucleus. Like a crystal vase falling onto a concrete floor, the collapsing material releases enough gravitational potential energy to blow the rest of the star apart. An alternative emerged in 1960, when Fred Hoyle of the University of Cambridge and Willy Fowler of Caltech conceived of the explosions as giant nuclear bombs. When a sunlike star exhausts its hydrogen fuel and then its helium, it turns to its carbon and oxygen. Not only can the fusion of these elements release a titanic pulse of energy, it produces radioactive nickel 56, whose gradual decay would account for the months-long afterglow of the initial explosion.Yo can clearly tell the magazine's bias. This is a thinly veiled attempt to protray they Republican Party as people who favored the density hypothesis for supernova generation of the fuel exhaustion hypothesis just because Fred Hoyle sounds like a Jew.

In the following blurb Scientific American's blatantly pro illegal immigrant bias shows:

The prehistoric farmers of southern Mexico must have longed for a miracle. A tropical climate made their fertile valleys nearly ideal for planting, despite elevations approaching 2,000 meters, and heavy rains ensured bountiful crops during the six-month monsoon season. Under such favorable conditions, this region became the cradle of New World agriculture and the birthplace of corn. Yet these early agriculturalists faced one crucial limitation: during half the year, the weather was too dry for farming. With a year-round water supply, their hand-tilled fields might yield two or even three harvests annually. But how could the farmers get more water?

Their solution was not a miracle but a marvel of human ingenuity: largescale engineering projects designed to store and transport water. From modest origins that left few traces, construction gradually progressed to a monumental scale. The Purrón Dam, for example, which was built in the Tehuacán Valley starting around 750 B.C., measured 400 meters long, 100 meters wide and nearly 25 meters high. Workers transported by hand, a few kilograms at a time, some 2.64 million cubic meters of earth. This dam probably remained the largest water retention structure in the Americas until the 18th century. Nearby, ancient engineers built thousands of kilometers of canals and aqueducts that predated the arrival of Europeans in Mexico by two millennia. They diverted water from springs and streams, conveying it across drainage divides, around canyons and down steep slopes. Other resourceful inventions collected rainwater from buildings and plazas. The people of southern Mexico exploited virtually every source of water in their environment.Clearly they like Mexicans too much.

This.
http://equake.geol.vt.edu/acourses/3114/00Climate/hockeystick_orig.gif

What's particularly interesting is that the graph was falling throughout the industrial revolution until the early 1900's...and guess what invention became widespread during that same period? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "tar".

Obviously, to solve global warming we have to solve the transportation problem. It's not factories, it's vehicles that are putting out the CO2 that is so dramatically affecting our climate; cars need to be made cleaner, more efficient, and they need to stop running on oil. Since something like 70% of oil consumption goes to vehicles, we're going to save a lot of CO2 if we eliminate the need for fossil fuels in our transportation infrastructure.

It's hardly inarguable. Mann never released his methodology he used so that his work could be duplicated. His data sources are horribly suspect.

The hockey stick graph is one of the most inaccurate, overblown, over-hyped argument that global warming alarmists have.

He didn't release his methodology? Funny, I thought the article I posted was about other researchers who used his methodology.

I'm not going to debate whether or not the sky is blue with you. The fact tha temperatures are warmer in the last hundred years than in the last thousand is an accepted fact in the climatological community - even among the very few skeptics of anthropogenic warming that remain.

This sounds like a strawman argument to me. Frankly if solar variation can't explain the current warming trend, it can't explain ice ages. We know Ice Ages happened, and it wasn't due to "global un-warming," so something had to cause it.

I am not a "global warming skeptic" by any means. However, I am not convinced by a number of the more radical global warming arguments. We do live in a global economy that is heavily dependent on the status quo, and whether or not this is completely made by man or by nature is not an issue to me. Even minor changes can annoying consequences.

Of course anyone who knows global warming knows the global warming jokes. For example, the melting of the artic ice cap has the potential to shut down the thermal conveyor belt in the Atlantic, which would result in much colder climates for the UK and Europe. Ironic isn't it. Blaming snowy winters on global warming.

I'm not going to debate whether or not the sky is blue with you. The fact tha temperatures are warmer in the last hundred years than in the last thousand is an accepted fact in the climatological community - even among the very few skeptics of anthropogenic warming that remain.

Yeah I agree, I can't understand this anti global warming lot. Why so vehment about it? I have asked them before, but *sigh* not a one of them has answered me.

I typed "global warming hockey stick" into google. The first four results were along the lines of "The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science" and "...the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick..."

Granted, this is not research. I did not even read the articles beyond the little blurb that google caches. But, in my experience, google tends to come up with the right answers.

Speaking of which, Michael Crichton gave a very interesting speech at CalTech in 2003. www.s8int.com/crichton.html

This sounds like a strawman argument to me. Frankly if solar variation can't explain the current warming trend, it can't explain ice ages. We know Ice Ages happened, and it wasn't due to "global un-warming," so something had to cause it.

I am not a "global warming skeptic" by any means. However, I am not convinced by a number of the more radical global warming arguments. We do live in a global economy that is heavily dependent on the status quo, and whether or not this is completely made by man or by nature is not an issue to me. Even minor changes can annoying consequences.

Of course anyone who knows global warming knows the global warming jokes. For example, the melting of the artic ice cap has the potential to shut down the thermal conveyor belt in the Atlantic, which would result in much colder climates for the UK and Europe. Ironic isn't it. Blaming snowy winters on global warming.



That is sort of the point though isn't, Global warming may lead to an Iceage.

That is sort of the point though isn't, Global warming may lead to an Iceage.

Great, it'll be like the whole world is going through menopause. Hot flashes, chills, hot flashes ... sheesh. I will miss the pictures of palm trees in Ireland, though. *makes a note to divest all that beach-front property in Florida*

I typed "global warming hockey stick" into google. The first four results were along the lines of "The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science" and "...the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick..."

Granted, this is not research. I did not even read the articles beyond the little blurb that google caches. But, in my experience, google tends to come up with the right answers.

Speaking of which, Michael Crichton gave a very interesting speech at CalTech in 2003. www.s8int.com/crichton.html

All that that means is that the research has been attacked by global warming skeptics, the vast majority of whome aren't even scientists, much less climatologists. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts his graph because it has been reproduced time and time again, not only with his published methodology, but with other methods and with models.

Speaking of which, Michael Crichton gave a very interesting speech at CalTech in 2003. www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Know why Crichton writes science fiction? Because he knows fuck-all about science fact.

This sounds like a strawman argument to me. Frankly if solar variation can't explain the current warming trend, it can't explain ice ages. We know Ice Ages happened, and it wasn't due to "global un-warming," so something had to cause it.

I am not a "global warming skeptic" by any means. However, I am not convinced by a number of the more radical global warming arguments. We do live in a global economy that is heavily dependent on the status quo, and whether or not this is completely made by man or by nature is not an issue to me. Even minor changes can annoying consequences.

Of course anyone who knows global warming knows the global warming jokes. For example, the melting of the artic ice cap has the potential to shut down the thermal conveyor belt in the Atlantic, which would result in much colder climates for the UK and Europe. Ironic isn't it. Blaming snowy winters on global warming.
Ice ages have never been blamed on variations in solar output. There are different reasons hypothesized for ice ages including the halting of the Atlantic conveyor belt, massive volcanic eruptions or celestial impacts that throw dust into the atmosphere and reduce incoming solar radiation, decreased levels of CO2...

Great, it'll be like the whole world is going through menopause. Hot flashes, chills, hot flashes ... sheesh. I will miss the pictures of palm trees in Ireland, though. *makes a note to divest all that beach-front property in Florida*

Heheh yeah I know what you mean. Don't get me wrong I'm firmly in the global warming is real camp, but I guess being as we don't really know everything about our wether system, and how it works(although we are getting better) I don't know what to do for the best when the shit hits the fan. So far I have it narrowed down to; live on a moutain, or live in space?

Desicions desicions....

Heheh yeah I know what you mean. Don't get me wrong I'm firmly in the global warming is real camp, but I guess being as we don't really know everything about our wether system, and how it works(although we are getting better) I don't know what to do for the best when the shit hits the fan. So far I have it narrowed down to; live on a moutain, or live in space?

Desicions desicions....

I know. Maybe living under the mountain? But I'd hate not being able to see the sky or have sunshine on my face. Space might be fun, though until we build a station that looks like something more than a couple of big dumpsters stuck together ...

Know why Crichton writes science fiction? Because he knows fuck-all about science fact.


Quoting wikipedia

He was educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. He graduated Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969 and did post-doctoral fellowship study at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California, in 1969–1970. In 1988, he was Visiting Writer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

A man afforded that kind of education usually knows more than "fuck-all about science fact."

Also, he originally wrote books so that he could pay for his Medical School tuition. Pretty impressive in my opinion. (Although Congo really sucked) So don't make ad hominem arguments until you know who you are attacking.

Also, he gave his speech at CalTech. They don't let just any bozo walk in and give a lecture. So, at the very least, his lecture brings up interesting points.

I typed "global warming hockey stick" into google. The first four results were along the lines of "The Hockey Stick: A New Low in Climate Science" and "...the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick..."

Granted, this is not research. I did not even read the articles beyond the little blurb that google caches. But, in my experience, google tends to come up with the right answers.

Speaking of which, Michael Crichton gave a very interesting speech at CalTech in 2003. www.s8int.com/crichton.html

Fascinating article. It's amazing how he can give a whole speech attempting to debunk global warming science without ever talking about the science or data itself. The whole article is a tirade against science in which he mentions SETI, second hand smoke health concerns, nuclear winter studies - he never actuially gets to the nuts and bolts of climate science. Amazing how people have so little logical understanding that they don't see that this whole speech never actually debunks anthropogenic warming because it doesn't actually attack the science behind it.

Global warming is probably being caused by human CO2 emmisions.

No it's not because aliens from space never talked to the guys from SETI in the 60s.

Infra red radiation is absorbed by carbon which, in turn heats up.

No it doesn't because a lot of second hand smoke research is really politically generated bullshit.

Quoting wikipedia



A man afforded that kind of education usually knows more than "fuck-all about science fact."

Also, he originally wrote books so that he could pay for his Medical School tuition. Pretty impressive in my opinion. (Although Congo really sucked) So don't make ad hominem arguments until you know who you are attacking.

Also, he gave his speech at CalTech. They don't let just any bozo walk in and give a lecture. So, at the very least, his lecture brings up interesting points.

In other words he has no evident education in climate studies. If you want to know more about nuclear fusion, ask a wildlife biologist. If you want to know more about organic compounds ask a theorhetical mathmatician. If you want to know more about neural development from stem cells, ask a meteorologist. ;)

In other words he has no evident education in climate studies. If you want to know more about nuclear fusion, ask a wildlife biologist. If you want to know more about organic compounds ask a theorhetical mathmatician. If you want to know more about neural development from stem cells, ask a meteorologist. ;)

Hahaha yeah and if you want to know all about lying ask a politician!

Nooo wait thats quite true! Damn one day I'll get that hang of sarcasm!

All that that means is that the research has been attacked by global warming skeptics, the vast majority of whome aren't even scientists, much less climatologists. The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts his graph because it has been reproduced time and time again, not only with his published methodology, but with other methods and with models.

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be a product of poor mathematics, says Richard Muller, physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents".

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn't. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the "hockey-stick", the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago - just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

Frenzy

Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. I have previously made a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey-stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalisation in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalisation procedure tends to emphasise any data that do have the hockey-stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey-stick shape!

Bombshell

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey-stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artefact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalised to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalised over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey-stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that.

Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalisation procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey-stick shape.

(Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the "principal component" will have a hockey-stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see (see below).

If you look, you'll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasise the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand.

Program untested

Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey-stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true - but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed - and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick's only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place?

Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey-stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions.

Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey-stick seriously - that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small - then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey-stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey.

If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey-stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phoney hockey-stick is more dangerous than a broken one - if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

*High-fives Bogmihia*

*High fives back, then dives for cover to avoid the incoming attacks* :)

I guess it's just the parts that you decide to highlight that matter.

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be a product of poor mathematics, says Richard Muller, physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents".

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn't. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the "hockey-stick", the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago - just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

Frenzy

Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. I have previously made a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey-stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalisation in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalisation procedure tends to emphasise any data that do have the hockey-stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey-stick shape!

Bombshell

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey-stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artefact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalised to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalised over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey-stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that.

Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalisation procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey-stick shape.

(Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the "principal component" will have a hockey-stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see (see below).

If you look, you'll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasise the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand.

Program untested

Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey-stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true - but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed - and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick's only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place?

Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey-stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions.

Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey-stick seriously - that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small - then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey-stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey.

If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey-stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phoney hockey-stick is more dangerous than a broken one - if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

In any case, Mann's isn't the only past temperature graph that is shaped like a hockey stick.

MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).


This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in "Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called 'Hockey Stick'").

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004). http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

In fact, he didn't even coin the term.

The term "Hockey Stick" was coined by the former head of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern common to numerous proxy and model-based estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium. This pattern includes a long-term cooling trend from the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" (broadly speaking, the 10th-mid 14th centuries) through the "Little Ice Age" (broadly speaking, the mid 15th-19th centuries), followed by a rapid warming during the 20th century that culminates in anomalous late 20th century warmth (Figure 1). Numerous myths regarding the "hockey stick" can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites and other non-scientific venues. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

I just thought of something. Should we ban paintball guns? They use CO2 cartridges. Every time someone fires a paintball, pure CO2 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Some paintball guns can fire at very high rates and empty an entire bottle in a few seconds.

Paintball guns are rising in popularity. Maybe, like snowboarding, it will become an Olympic Sport! Then we will have countless teams worldwide competing and practicing. It will start a new craze, like pogs or Pokemon cards. Every schoolchild will have one. Numerous eyes will be shot out. Think of the eyes! Won't somebody please think of the eyse?!

CO2 production will sky-rocket due to the sudden rise in demand. There will invariably be leaks and possibly industrial accidents. I'm sure on more than one occasion several million cubic meters of CO2 will be ejected directly into the atmosphere. But it won't be a total loss. The plant will just make more CO2.

Because of the lowered cost of CO2, it will be used in everything! Suddenly cars will run on pure CO2. We won't have to worry about oil. We can leave the Middle East in peace. No more blood for oil!

But, unbeknownst to us, a sinster menace will rise. The CO2 we unleashed on the planet will mix with the CFCs in the upper atmosphere and all the nuclear waste ever created (because that shit never goes away). These three terrors of humanity will join forces to create the ultimate evil: a radioactive, ozone depleting, greenhouse gas. (Gasp!) It will strip us of our precious ozone, replace it with heat trapping gas, and then ... umm ... give us an extra arm or something. (I forget why people are afraid of nuclear waste)

We slowly cook to death; more slowly because of our extra body mass due to the extra arm. We curse ourselves, "Why? Why didn't we ban paintball guns?! Curse our short sightedness! Curse our pride! Curse our superfluous third arm!" Then we explode for no apparent reason.

We, the Oppresed People of KillHurt, will be the first to say, "No" to paintball guns. And freedom liberties, civil rights, etc.

Earth:gundge: Us

(I feel better now. Ranting and sarcasm rock!)

I just thought of something. Should we ban paintball guns? They use CO2 cartridges. Every time someone fires a paintball, pure CO2 is being ejected into the atmosphere. Some paintball guns can fire at very high rates and empty an entire bottle in a few seconds.

Paintball guns are rising in popularity. Maybe, like snowboarding, it will become an Olympic Sport! Then we will have countless teams worldwide competing and practicing. It will start a new craze, like pogs or Pokemon cards. Every schoolchild will have one. Numerous eyes will be shot out. Think of the eyes! Won't somebody please think of the eyse?!

CO2 production will sky-rocket due to the sudden rise in demand. There will invariably be leaks and possibly industrial accidents. I'm sure on more than one occasion several million cubic meters of CO2 will be ejected directly into the atmosphere. But it won't be a total loss. The plant will just make more CO2.

Because of the lowered cost of CO2, it will be used in everything! Suddenly cars will run on pure CO2. We won't have to worry about oil. We can leave the Middle East in peace. No more blood for oil!

But, unbeknownst to us, a sinster menace will rise. The CO2 we unleashed on the planet will mix with the CFCs in the upper atmosphere and all the nuclear waste ever created (because that shit never goes away). These three terrors of humanity will join forces to create the ultimate evil: a radioactive, ozone depleting, greenhouse gas. (Gasp!) It will strip us of our precious ozone, replace it with heat trapping gas, and then ... umm ... give us an extra arm or something. (I forget why people are afraid of nuclear waste)

We slowly cook to death; more slowly because of our extra body mass due to the extra arm. We curse ourselves, "Why? Why didn't we ban paintball guns?! Curse our short sightedness! Curse our pride! Curse our superfluous third arm!" Then we explode for no apparent reason.

We, the Oppresed People of KillHurt, will be the first to say, "No" to paintball guns. And freedom liberties, civil rights, etc.

Earth:gundge: Us

(I feel better now. Ranting and sarcasm rock!)

CO2 is almost unheard of in professional play and is rapidly going the way of the dodo.

Just about all professionals paintballers and the majority of recballers use compressed air. *nod*

In any case, Mann's isn't the only past temperature graph that is shaped like a hockey stick.

It doesn't matter, if they use the same mathematical methodology to obtain their results. Now, I openly admit I don't know what mathematical model was used by the other researchers. Do you?

In fact, he didn't even coin the term.

Okay. *shrugs*

In any case, Mann's isn't the only past temperature graph that is shaped like a hockey stick.

It doesn't matter, if they use the same mathematical methodology to obtain their results. Now, I openly admit I don't know what mathematical model was used by the other researchers. Do you?The point is that dozens of different models and methodologies duplicate the results. If you had actually read what I posted you would have seen that.

In fact, he didn't even coin the term.

Okay. *shrugs*
And the point there is that, because people have attacked Mann's model skeptics have basically implied that his study is the model upon which all else relies. This is not the case. His was just one model so to say that because some researchers (debunked below) claim to have debunked his model does nothing to the overall debate. The hockey stick graph is not a result of one study, one methodology, one mathmatical model. It is a shape to a temperature graph that has resulted from a myriad of studies with different models and different methodologies.

Here's a response to the criticism, for good measure.

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction can also be traced to spurious allegations made by two individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick (McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). The false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific (social science) journal "Energy and Environment" and later, in a separate "Communications Arising" comment that was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor [as a side note, we find it peculiar that the authors have argued elsewhere that their submission was rejected due to 'lack of space'. Nature makes their policy on such submissions quite clear: "The Brief Communications editor will decide how to proceed on the basis of whether the central conclusion of the earlier paper is brought into question; of the length of time since the original publication; and of whether a comment or exchange of views is likely to seem of interest to nonspecialist readers. Because Nature receives so many comments, those that do not meet these criteria are referred to the specialist literature." Since Nature chose to send the comment out for review in the first place, the "time since the original publication" was clearly not deemed a problematic factor. One is logically left to conclude that the grounds for rejection were the deficiencies in the authors' arguments explicitly noted by the reviewers]. The rejected criticism has nonetheless been posted on the internet by the authors, and promoted in certain other non-peer-reviewed venues (see this nice discussion by science journalist David Appell of a scurrilous parroting of their claims by Richard Muller in an on-line opinion piece).

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been further discredited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in a paper to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004) [and by yet another paper by an independent set of authors that is currently "under review" and thus cannot yet be cited--more on this soon!]. Rutherford et al (2004) demonstrate nearly identical results to those of MBH98, using the same proxy dataset as Mann et al (1998) but addressing the issues of infilled/missing data raised by Mcintyre and McKitrick, and using an alternative climate field reconstruction (CFR) methodology that does not represent any proxy data networks by PCA at all.

And Mann's actual response where he shows using the very statistical model the author's claim debunks his study does not.

Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is a traditional tool for representing a large spatiotemporal dataset in terms of a smaller number of leading patterns of variation in the data. The choice of how the data are 'centered' in PCA (i.e., what time interval is used to define the 'zero' baseline for the data series) in general simply changes the relative ordering of the leading patterns of variance (or linear combinations thereof), the means of the associated Principal Components (PC) time series, and the number of statistically significant patterns in the data. The centering convention does not influence important properties of PCA such as the orthornormality of the Empirical Orthogonal Functions (EOFS) or the completeness of the eigenvector basis set. The MBH98 reconstruction is indeed almost completely insensitive to whether the centering convention of MBH98 (data centered over 1902-1980 calibration interval) or MM (data centered over the 1400-1971 interval) is used. Claims by MM to the contrary are based on their failure to apply standard 'selection rules' used to determine how many Principal Component (PC) series should be retained in the analysis. Application of the standard selection rule (Preisendorfer’s "Rule N’") used by MBH98, selects 2 PC series using the MBH98 centering convention, but a larger number (5 PC series) using the MM centering convention. Curiously undisclosed by MM in their criticism is the fact that precisely the same ‘hockey stick’ pattern that appears using the MBH98 convention (as PC series #1) also appears using the MM convention, albeit slightly lower down in rank (PC series #4) (Figure 1). If MM had applied standard selection procedures, they would have retained the first 5 PC series, which includes the important 'hockey stick' pattern. The claim by MM that this pattern arises as an artifact of the centering convention used by MBH98 is clearly false.

http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_m2a00a61d.png

FIGURE 1. Comparison of PC #1 of the North American ITRDB tree-ring data from MBH98 (red) and PC #4 resulting from a PCA of the same dataset using the MM centering convention (blue–for visual comparison the blue curve has been adjusted to have the mean and amplitude of the red curve, as only the relative pattern of variation in the predictors matters in the MBH98 methodology).





As discussed above, MM incorrectly truncated the PC basis set at only 2 PC series based on a failure to apply standard selection rules to determine the number of PC series that should be retained in the analysis. Five, rather than two PC series, are indicated by application of standard selection rules if using the MM, rather than MBH98, centering convention to represent the North American ITRDB data. If these five series are retained as predictors, essentially the same temperature reconstruction as MBH98 is recovered (Figure 2). To address the other spurious criticisms of MM, a 1902-1971 calibration interval was employed in this analysis to avoid any infilled missing proxy data between 1972 and 1980, and the ‘St Anne River ‘ series challenged by MM (due to 4 infilled missing values from AD 1400-1403) was eliminated. The standard measure of reconstructive skill, the ‘reduction of error’ metric ('RE') used by MBH98, was used to evaluate the fidelity of the resulting reconstruction using 19th century instrumental data that are independent of the calibration (RE<0 exhibits no skill, while RE= -1 is the average value for a random estimate). This evaluation indicates a clearly skillful though modestly lower verification resolved variance than in MBH98 (RE=0.22 vs. RE=0.51).

http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_m7e711aa.png

FIGURE 2. Reconstruction using MM centering convention and retaining first 5 PCs of North American ITRDB data (red: only AD 1400-1600 interval during which MM claim to produce a significantly different reconstruction from MBH98 is shown) , along w/ MBH98 reconstruction (blue).


We further show that the entire issue raised by MM regarding the centering convention used in PCA is spurious by demonstrating that similar results are produced whether or not proxy networks are represented using PCA at all (Figure 3). We performed the reconstruction employing all 95 proxy indicators available in the MBH98 proxy network back to AD 1400 individually (rather than using any PC series to represent these indicators). We begin the reconstruction at the date AD 1404, avoiding the infilled missing values from AD 1400-1403 in the 'St. Anne' Northern Treeline tree ring series. As above, a 1902-1971 calibration period was used to avoid address the issue of missing values in some proxy series between 1972 and 1980. Each proxy record was standardized to have unit variance and zero mean over a 1902-1971 calibration period, and equal weight was applied to all proxy records in the analysis. We performed an additional analysis back to AD 1400 eliminating the 'St. Anne' Series entirely (Figure 3). Both analyses yield a reconstructed Northern Hemisphere mean temperature history quite similar to that of MBH98, and demonstrate skill against independent 19th century instrumental (2) data (RE=0.39, 0.33, respectively – only moderately lower than the MBH98 result RE=0.51). The central 'hockey stick' result of MBH98 is thus quite clearly seen to be robust to the specious criticisms raised by MM with regard to the centering convention used in the PCA of proxy data networks or the infilling of missing values in certain proxy series.

http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_7955bc86.png

FIGURE 3. Comparison of MBH98 reconstruction from AD 1400-1980 with alternative reconstructions from AD 1400-1971 based on the direct use of the individual 95 proxy series available back to AD 1404 (yellow), and the 94 proxy series (all 95 series except the ‘St Anne' series discussed above) available back to AD 1400 (green). Shown for comparison is the instrumental NH annual mean record 1856-1980 (red). The MBH98 reconstruction was based on a ’stepwise’ approach employing increasingly more proxy data over time, while the other two reconstructions, for simplicity, are performed with the same (’frozen’) proxy network over the entire interval.




Given that each of the criticisms of MBH98 raised by MM are demonstrably false, one might well be led to wonder how MM, using the MBH98 method and their putative 'corrected' version of the MBH98 proxy dataset, were able to obtain a reconstruction so at odds with the MBH98 reconstruction and virtually all existing reconstructions (in particular, in its apparent indication of anomalous 15th century warmth). Rather than 'correcting' the MBH98 proxy data set, we demonstrate that the reconstruction of MM resulted, instead, from their selective censoring of key indicators from the MBH98 proxy dataset. Indeed, we are able to reproduce the MM reconstruction of anomalous 15th century warmth when the entire ITRDB North American data set (and the 'Queen Anne' series) are censored from the proxy network (Figure 4). These data (in fact, 70% of all of the proxy data used by MBH98 prior to AD 1600) were unjustifiably censored from the MBH98 dataset by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in their original analysis (see Jones and Mann, 2004, and Rutherford et al, 2004 for a discussion). MM in their more recent rejected submission to Nature, instead filtered out the 'hockey stick' pattern of low-frequency variability in the North American ITRDB data through the incorrect PCA truncation described above, which censors this pattern by retaining too few Principal Components series in the data. As discussed above, the MBH98 reconstruction and the variants of the reconstruction (i.e., Figures 2 and 3) that address the various spurious criticisms raised by MM, each pass statistical verification. In stark contrast, our reproduction of the MM reconstruction demonstrates that their reconstruction dramatically fails statistical verification (see Figure 5) with an RE score ( -0.76) that is statistically indistinguishable from the results expected for a purely random estimate (as a reminder, RE<0 exhibits no skill, and RE= -1 is the average value expected for a purely random estimate). In short, the supposed ‘correction’ of MBH98 by MM is seen to represent little more than a statistically meaningless, botched application of the MBH98 procedure that relies upon censoring key indicators from the MHB98 proxy data set.

http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_32969d82.png

FIGURE 4. Comparison of MBH98 reconstruction (blue) from AD 1400-1980 (thick black curve is 40 year smoothed version) with a reconstruction over AD 1400-1600 (yellow) based on the ‘censored’ network described in the text, arising from the censoring of the entire North American ITRDB data set and the ‘St. Anne’ Northern Treeline series from the predictor network prior to AD 1600. As MM censored the MBH98 dataset primarily prior to AD 1600, a suitable approximation to the ’stepwise’ MM reconstruction is provided by a splice of the yellow curve from AD 1400-1600 with the actual MBH98 reconstruction (blue) from AD 1600-1971. The resulting series is shown smoothed on a 40 year timescale (thick orange).

http://www.realclimate.org/FalseClaimsMcIntyreMcKitrick_html_m3db92977.png

FIGURE 5. Comparison as in Figure 4, but showing the continuation of our reproduction of the MM reconstruction (based on their ‘censored’ version of the MBH98 network discussed in the text) through the end of the calibration interval (green curve). The full instrumental Northern Hemisphere temperature record (1856-2003) is shown for comparison. The failure of the MM reconstruction to verify against independent instrumental temperature is evident from the extreme discrepancy in variance between the green and red series during the 1854-1901 verification interval.

Well, I guess that's good for solar power...time to replace those coal power plants once and for all.

Solar isn't reliable enough to make a national energy backbone. It can be use in more limited ways, and some countries make good use of solar power (few appartment buildings in Israel are lacking in solar heated hot water tanks, for example) but it is not reliable enough to supply everybody all of their power all of the time. Coal, Gas, Hydro, and Nuclear are, for now, the only means that are reliable and available.

Not unless the article contains a sure-fire way to make tons of money from solar power. The future of power generation in the near future, say the next century at least, is coal. We ought to be looking at ways to make burning coal as clean as possible. They do exist (ssshhh, don't tell Asoch ;) , but the September issue of Scientific American is devoted to energy's future beyond carbon).

I read that issue, and they say a lot of very smart things, but they didn't deal with Nuclear Power honestly. The fact is that if the US work with Nuclear powerthe way France does - recycling the nuclear waste back into reacftors over and over - the waste issue would not be nearly as big a problem as it is now.
Meanwhile the safety of a Nuclear power plant is unquestionable. The Three Mile Island melt-down proved that. The only people who were harmed by that reactor melt down were the coal miners who went back to work, digging coal for the old generator. They died from the toxic gasses all coal miners are exposed to: Radon. Irony.

That is complete and total bullshit. You have no familiarity with the magazine at all. First, the vast majority of their articles are not written by journalist, but by actual researchers doing the science. Second, the vast majority of their articles aren't titaled things like "Global warmin this" or "Glaciers melting that..." They are usually titled "the search for the elusive Higgs Bosom" or "Anti particle generation at black hole event horizons." How can those articles be political unless they say something like, "Republicans are less able to detect minute fluctuations in the micrwave cosmic background radiation than Democrats?"

Please actually do a little research before you make up criticism straight off the top of your head. Not only am I sure you've never read the magazine, I'm also absolutely positive you never read a criticism of this magazine that echoes your sentiment. You just read the article and off the top of your head said, "I'll question the source." The problem is you know nothing about the source.

I read SciAm every month, and I follow their podcast and website. The editors there are VERY political, and VERY left. They choose what goes in, and who gets to write what from the regular staff. They are free to do so, as they are the editors. It's their job. It's right for them to do that.

Politics is very present in Science, the way some people write about it. Everything from the timing of anouncements to the direction one is researching in. Reporting on Scientific issues moreso. Despite popular delusion, researchers disagree all the time, and sometimes that has to do wuth where they get their money from, and other times it has to do with information being scarce. Big topics like global warming and power are in fact power politics, and meanwhile we really don't know ANYTHING about global warming. Greenpeace says one thing, and then researchers for the government say the opposite, and then HONEST RESEARCHERS say "I don't know," but magazines can't print "I don't know."

I read SciAm every month, and I follow their podcast and website. The editors there are VERY political, and VERY left. They choose what goes in, and who gets to write what from the regular staff. They are free to do so, as they are the editors. It's their job. It's right for them to do that.

Politics is very present in Science, the way some people write about it. Everything from the timing of anouncements to the direction one is researching in. Reporting on Scientific issues moreso. Despite popular delusion, researchers disagree all the time, and sometimes that has to do wuth where they get their money from, and other times it has to do with information being scarce. Big topics like global warming and power are in fact power politics, and meanwhile we really don't know ANYTHING about global warming. Greenpeace says one thing, and then researchers for the government say the opposite, and then HONEST RESEARCHERS say "I don't know," but magazines can't print "I don't know."
Again, bullshit. Their editors tend to very Libertarian - usually more associated with Republicans and conservatives. You call them left because they belive in anthropogenic warming, not because they are champions of affirmative action or illegal immigration. They believe in anthropogenic warming because they are scientists, not because they are hippies. I don't believe for a second that you read Scientific American every month. I believe you just read my post and decided to familiarize yourself with it so you could come back and show how liberal they were but searched in vain for something to prove it. Instead you came back with, "but they select the stories." In anycase, why would you pay to read an online version of a magazine that you are suspect of?

You can say whatever you want. Scientific American is the oldest, most respected general interest science magazine in the U.S. and maybe the world. They have been reporting on scince and publishing peer reviewed articles for more than 150 years and, in fact, are a publication of note in the scientific community - in other words, if yo get a study published in Scientific American you are considered "published" in the scientific community. If you can get a study published in Scientific American it would get you a PHD at MIT.

Solar isn't reliable enough to make a national energy backbone. It can be use in more limited ways, and some countries make good use of solar power (few appartment buildings in Israel are lacking in solar heated hot water tanks, for example) but it is not reliable enough to supply everybody all of their power all of the time. Coal, Gas, Hydro, and Nuclear are, for now, the only means that are reliable and available.

It depends. Solar power can be very useful on an individual scale; if you put solar in for water heating and electricity on each house, you reduce the overall load on the grid and reduce the need for large power plants. Also, household natural gas consumption is reduced by about 50%; that translates in to a drop of over 10% in total natural gas demand or about half of the amount used in natural gas power plants. However, solar isn't really well designed for huge, centralized power plants because the land area and cost to keep them running increases rapidly as the amount of power capacity rises.

Whenever there's a gap in the power supply, distributed-generation software can divert surpluses from other sites, and peaking plants that run on natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric or coal can cover in the short term. Nuclear will also be vital as a major source of energy, and should definitely replace coal. It's particularly useful in the Southwest, but can work anywhere that gets at least some sunlight. Thankfully, however, most of the places that don't get a lot of sun do get a lot of wind, and they also get a lot of waves if they're by the coast.

i continue to make fun of the official theory. shut up you hippies.

I've got that issue...damn interesting stuff. And, of course, once cellulosic ethanol becomes viable (2010ish), we'll be able to replace a lot of our oil consumption with it. And, of course, using E85 leads to an 22-35% drop in CO2 emissions compared to gasoline; you could concievably cut CO2 emissions from vehicles in the US by 9.6 million tons per year without any change in the fuel economy of the fleet (barring the losses from ethanol).

And, about 10 years from now, we'll have solar power that is competitive from coal. You've got three major things that are pushing prices down over that period: no polysilicon shortage after 2008, cost of conventional and thin-film PV is falling, and other technologies are going to push it to about 10 cents/kwh; that's still more expensive than coal, but comparable to natural gas.

However, clean coal is the way to go, at least in the intermediate term. And, with the biodiesel from algae that is being developed, the CO2 from these plants can be partially absorbed and turned in to biodiesel, cutting CO2 emissions from diesel engines.

The question is not whether we can develop the necessary technologies, but whether we can overcome our path dependence, cultural biases and all of the vested interests and actually implement them in a timely fashion.

Why would anyone other than people with financial interests in the energy business be skeptical about global warming?

The question is not whether we can develop the necessary technologies, but whether we can overcome our path dependence, cultural biases and all of the vested interests and actually implement them in a timely fashion.

Why would anyone other than people with financial interests in the energy business be skeptical about global warming?

Exactly.

The question is not whether we can develop the necessary technologies, but whether we can overcome our path dependence, cultural biases and all of the vested interests and actually implement them in a timely fashion.

Profit speaks very loudly. Oil companies are facing rising costs for production and slowing profit margins on fossil fuels...eventually, it's going to be too expensive to produce oil and they're going to need to find something else to sell. And, of course, biofuels and renewable energy fit that bill very well especially when you consider that the profit margins in these sectors is a lot higher and comes with the added benefit of appearing "green".

Of course, the real environmental benefits of a green economy are nothing to scoff at but oil companies' concern is long term profitability, not saving the planet...however, in this case the two go hand in hand. Once oil loses its economic advantages over alternatives, demand is going to sink like a stone. We only use it because it's economical, not because of some inherent need; anything that oil does can be replaced with alternatives, and once those alternatives become cheaper than oil it will be discarded like any other outdated technology.

By 2010, oil demand will start to level off. By 2020, oil demand will be in permanent decline and by 2040 we will not need it for our economic growth whatsoever. Its days are rapidly approaching an end.

Profit speaks very loudly. Oil companies are facing rising costs for production and slowing profit margins on fossil fuels...eventually, it's going to be too expensive to produce oil and they're going to need to find something else to sell. And, of course, biofuels and renewable energy fit that bill very well especially when you consider that the profit margins in these sectors is a lot higher and comes with the added benefit of appearing "green".

Of course, the real environmental benefits of a green economy are nothing to scoff at but oil companies' concern is long term profitability, not saving the planet...however, in this case the two go hand in hand. Once oil loses its economic advantages over alternatives, demand is going to sink like a stone. We only use it because it's economical, not because of some inherent need; anything that oil does can be replaced with alternatives, and once those alternatives become cheaper than oil it will be discarded like any other outdated technology.

Profit is a powerful motivator ... but the energy companies can still maximize their profit by holding back alternative technologies in the short term, deriving an extorniate price for the declining oil supply, before finally being the "saviour" and ushering in the new technologies later on to great profit once again. Whether this will occur in a timely fashion remains to be seen.


By 2010, oil demand will start to level off. By 2020, oil demand will be in permanent decline and by 2040 we will not need it for our economic growth whatsoever. Its days are rapidly approaching an end.

In North American maybe. But what of China?

Why would anyone other than people with financial interests in the energy business be skeptical about global warming?

Emotional investment in a political ideology or way of life.

By 2010, oil demand will start to level off. By 2020, oil demand will be in permanent decline and by 2040 we will not need it for our economic growth whatsoever. Its days are rapidly approaching an end.

Not according to the Department of Energy, the Energy Informtion Administration, the International Energy Aency, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, every energy company, OPEC, every other energy information agency of any other country I have ever heard of, even CERA, Goldman Sachs, T. Boone Pickens, Mathew Simmons, Warren Buffet, every bank, can you tell me who says that? Whoever they are they are roundly disagreed with by every single agency or person I have ever heard of in my entire life.

Not according to the Department of Energy, the Energy Informtion Administration, the International Energy Aency, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, every energy company, OPEC, every other energy information agency of any other country I have ever heard of, even CERA, Goldman Sachs, T. Boone Pickens, Mathew Simmons, Warren Buffet, every bank, can you tell me who says that? Whoever they are they are roundly disagreed with by every single agency or person I have ever heard of in my entire life.

I'm talking specifically about US oil demand, not world oil demand. Since it's very likely that any new technology is going to be implemented in the US or another developed nation first, I think we're going to see our demand for oil slow down and decline first and I think it will happen in the next 16-20 years.

It's a guess, albeit one with some backing, especially when you consider how much slower US oil demand has been growing since the rise in oil prices began.

It's a guess.

I'll take that bet anyday. If oil demand is level in 2010 it's either because of Peak Oil, meaning we simply can't poduce enough to consume more, or because of massive recesssion because enery prices are sky high. We will not have a healthy, functioning economy in 2010 or beyond and keep oil use flat.

Profit is a powerful motivator ... but the energy companies can still maximize their profit by holding back alternative technologies in the short term, deriving an extorniate price for the declining oil supply, before finally being the "saviour" and ushering in the new technologies later on to great profit once again. Whether this will occur in a timely fashion remains to be seen.

No, because demand is flexible. They would cause gigantic damage to the economy that would result in plunging oil demand and a collapse in profits. Also, the cost of production is rising, so it's going to cost more and more for each barrel and that will eat in to any profits they would be able to extract in such an environment.

In North American maybe. But what of China?

That's all I'm talking about.

I'll take that bet anyday. If oil demand is level in 2010 it's either because of Peak Oil, meaning we simply can't poduce enough to consume more, or because of massive recesssion because enery prices are sky high. We will not have a healthy, functioning economy in 2010 or beyond and keep oil use flat.

I edited it by the way; I'm only talking US oil demand.

We did have a functioning economy in the US with flat oil demand from 1979-1997; there was a rough recession in the first part, but oil demand did not recover to its 1979 levels until 1997. It rose during the period, but the rise was very slight especially when you consider how far prices fell from their 1979 levels in both nominal and real terms.

There's a lot of waste that could be trimmed without affecting economic growth even with only current technological improvements.

No, because demand is flexible. They would cause gigantic damage to the economy that would result in plunging oil demand and a collapse in profits. Also, the cost of production is rising, so it's going to cost more and more for each barrel and that will eat in to any profits they would be able to extract in such an environment. [QUOTE]

But demand for energy is not very price elastic. A large increase in prices affects demand very little. Also, I think you are assuming that energy is a perfectly competitive industry, when in fact it is more monsopsonistic. There are also many externalities that distort people's choices about which energy sources to us. Finally, if managed carefully (i.e. a slow, gradual introduction of new technologies), the energy companies will be able to avoid the scenario described above, while still charging excessive prices for their product.

[QUOTE]
That's all I'm talking about.

Sorry, just about North America? Energy is a global commodity. What technology is going to be adopted so rapidly that it will curb our dedmand for oil as radically as you suggest in the next four years?

I edited it by the way; I'm only talking US oil demand.

We did have a functioning economy in the US with flat oil demand from 1979-1997; there was a rough recession in the first part, but oil demand did not recover to its 1979 levels until 1997. It rose during the period, but the rise was very slight especially when you consider how far prices fell from their 1979 levels in both nominal and real terms.

There's a lot of waste that could be trimmed without affecting economic growth even with only current technological improvements.

It wasn't flat. It took a dive from recession because of the Iranian revolution and their subsequent refusal to sell oil. Oi production actually decreased and we had massive stagflation, gas station rationing and severe recession. We recovered when our oil consumption started rising again and it did not take until 1997 to reach the levels we were consuming at in 1979, it took until about 1985.

http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/images/consumption-production-small.gif

But demand for energy is not very price elastic. A large increase in prices affects demand very little. Also, I think you are assuming that energy is a perfectly competitive industry, when in fact it is more monsopsonistic. There are also many externalities that distort people's choices about which energy sources to us. Finally, if managed carefully (i.e. a slow, gradual introduction of new technologies), the energy companies will be able to avoid the scenario described above, while still charging excessive prices for their product.

Demand in energy is elastic. It takes several years for the effects of higher prices to sink in but it does change; the 1979 energy crisis caused demand to plunge over the next 4 years and it didn't recover until nearly 18 years later despite falling real oil prices.

If oil hits high enough levels, demand will fall. We've already seen this with $70 crude; it's not slowing demand, but it is slowing demand growth even with high rates of GDP growth in the US and worldwide. In fact 2005 had flat demand with 3.5% economic growth, and natural gas demand has been flat since 2000 despite a rebound in growth.

Sorry, just about North America? Energy is a global commodity. What technology is going to be adopted so rapidly that it will curb our dedmand for oil as radically as you suggest in the next four years?

North America is 25% of the world's energy consumption; any progress here is going to have a huge effect on world energy markets. Also, any change in the demand picture here is going to affect world oil demand, especially if these technologies are viable at any price.

However, I don't predict a decline in oil demand by 2010, I predict demand growth will gradually level off over the period and start to decline as we approach 2020. A combination of improved fuel economy, biofuels, and conservation and expansion of public transportation will dampen demand over this period. Personally, I feel demand will (barring recession) average 1-1.5% to 2010, then gradually decline to about 0.5% by 2015 and gradually trail to negative by 2020.

Demand in energy is elastic. It takes several years for the effects of higher prices to sink in but it does change; the 1979 energy crisis caused demand to plunge over the next 4 yearsbecause of massive recession. and it didn't recover until nearly 18 years later despite falling real oil prices.Where do you get this stuff? It's just patently untrue. It took less than six years for us to get back to using as much as we were in 1979.

If oil hits high enough levels, demand will fall.Because we will have an energy crisis and our economy will go into recession. We've already seen this with $70 crude; it's not slowing demand, but it is slowing demand growth even with high rates of GDP growth in the US and worldwide. In fact 2005 had flat demand with 3.5% economic growth, and natural gas demand has been flat since 2000 despite a rebound in growth.natural gas is in clear decline in North America. Where are you getting this information? Please site a source. The only reason we are using less natural gass in NA is because we are producing less so we have to.



Personally, I feel demand will (barring recession) average 1-1.5% to 2010, then gradually decline to about 0.5% by 2015 and gradually trail to negative by 2020.
A guess. I'll bet you're wrong and so will every single analyst I have ever read. I mean every single solitary one and, as I think you are aware, since I sit all day and read about energy that's saying something. I mean you are the only person I have ever seen claim what you are claiming now about future oil demand.

Demand in energy is elastic. It takes several years for the effects of higher prices to sink in but it does change; the 1979 energy crisis caused demand to plunge over the next 4 years and it didn't recover until nearly 18 years later despite falling real oil prices. [QUOTE]

Compared to most products, demand for oil is relatively inelastic. As you said, it takes several years for the effects of higher oil prices to sink in, and in that time the energy companies can make extortionate profits, and then be the saviours when they introduce new technologies at the end of it all.

[QUOTE]
North America is 25% of the world's energy consumption; any progress here is going to have a huge effect on world energy markets. Also, any change in the demand picture here is going to affect world oil demand, especially if these technologies are viable at any price.

But China and India represent a rapidly growing share of the world energy market. Even if North American demand growth slows it will still be growing (as your figures indicate), and worldwide growth overall will be high. And supply will be declining. And as I said, the introduction of alternative technologies can easily be manipulated in such a monopsonistic marketplace.

To the people who will inevitably use this to "debunk" global warming, this is expected. The weather will get completely fucked up, some places will get colder, but the global average temperature will rise.

I wasnt trying to debunk anything, I was mocking the billions of people whose countries are going to turn into desert wastelands, while my desert wasteland turns into paradise.
Silly.

I wasnt trying to debunk anything, I was mocking the billions of people whose countries are going to turn into desert wastelands, while my desert wasteland turns into paradise.
Silly.

Did I say you did? No, I didn't.

Did I say you did? No, I didn't.

I know you are but what am I. :mad:

If Mann's hockey stick was the first hockey stick, then it would appear really fishy that all studies since have produced a similar shape given that Mann's math was so awful.

But what really happened is that the hockey stick predates Mann, and Mann just happened to have really crappy data so he fudged his numbers (in a really obvious way) in order to produce a hockey stick. Using Mann's methodology, any random dataset would produce a hockey stick.

But what that really tells us is that Mann is an idiot. It tells us nothing about global warming.

As it happens, I am a global warming sceptic. But as a sceptic, I don't have a bunch of theories as to what's causing the warming (and no scpetic should - those "sceptics" Scientific American debunked were very poorly labelled). But nor have I seen compelling evidence on the anthropogenic side.

I still want a model I can play with. I want the people with the models to admit that their inability to model cloud cover and precipitation is a huge failing.

It wasn't flat. It took a dive from recession because of the Iranian revolution and their subsequent refusal to sell oil. Oi production actually decreased and we had massive stagflation, gas station rationing and severe recession. We recovered when our oil consumption started rising again and it did not take until 1997 to reach the levels we were consuming at in 1979, it took until about 1985.


I thik V was actually thinking about fuel efficiency, which improved for about four years, then took about 13 years to decline to the previous crappy levels.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is more common and has a greater impact on temps than CO2. In fact it seems to account for about 9/10ths of the greenhouse effect. We must act now to combat this menace and reduce the atmospheric levels of DHMO!:p

I thik V was actually thinking about fuel efficiency, which improved for about four years, then took about 13 years to decline to the previous crappy levels.

Actually, that's about right. Transportation accounts for 70% of our oil demand, so any improvement in that sector is going to cut our overall demand considerably.

If we double the fuel economy of the US fleet, our oil demand falls by about 30%; that's equal to a decline of 1.7% per year for 16 years...that's how fast oil demand is growing currently, and I have no doubt that fuel economy will grow by at least that much over the next decade.

Like I said in another thread: you have to consider the dust-to-dust costs of vehicles. A vehicle may have great mpg while up and running, but if production and proper disposal create more waste than a normal car it might not be worth it. The first Pious'--I mean Prius' actually created more pollution than most modern counterparts (including the modern Hummers) because they created so much waste during construction and disposal. They've figured out how to make the stuff that goes into a hybrid cheaper and cleaner now so the newest Prius model is much cleaner than the first and cleaner than most of its all gas competitors.

You have to figure in the total cost of something; just because it runs like a dream in the center stage doesn't mean it was clean during construction or will be in death.

Did I say you did? No, I didn't.

Well, arent we Mr. Grumpy.

Well, arent we Mr. Grumpy.

I'm not grumpy. I'm just pointing out that what you said cannot be inferred from my post in any logical way.

wasn't there an ice age at one time so why not a heat age.;)

wasn't there an ice age at one time so why not a heat age.;)

Because I want to live.

If we double the fuel economy of the US fleet, our oil demand falls by about 30%; that's equal to a decline of 1.7% per year for 16 years...that's how fast oil demand is growing currently, and I have no doubt that fuel economy will grow by at least that much over the next decade.

I'm not so optimistic. Fuel efficiency has generally declined since it's peak in the late 80's/early 90's. Most of the improvements in fuel efficiency have merely been used to build larger vehicles.

There have actually been several ice ages and several warm periods. During the ice ages miles deep glaciers chave gone as low as or even past the midwest. During the warm periods the north pole was open water and just about everything in the US looked something like Florida. These all happened long before any human industrial development. The causes of those climate changes are the same as what's going on right now. Volcanoes errupted, asteroids impacted, some other stuff, and the atmosphere generally went crazy.

wasn't there an ice age at one time so why not a heat age.;)

From the Jurassic through to pretty much the Pleistocene. the world was fairly toasty, especially the farther back you go. No, I don't know why. Maybe dino-methane? You think cows give off a lot of that greenhouse gas, imagine herds of brontosauri and that ilk.

From the Jurassic through to pretty much the Pleistocene. the world was fairly toasty, especially the farther back you go. No, I don't know why. Maybe dino-methane? You think cows give off a lot of that greenhouse gas, imagine herds of brontosauri and that ilk.

This thread is starting to sound like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499241) thread.

This thread is starting to sound like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499241) thread.

I was trying to inject a little levity into the discussion with the dino-methane comment, though it still true that planetary temperature highs did coincide with the Age of the Dinosaurs.

I'm not so optimistic. Fuel efficiency has generally declined since it's peak in the late 80's/early 90's. Most of the improvements in fuel efficiency have merely been used to build larger vehicles.

Well, a lot of that is due to the loophole in the CAFE standards for light trucks; unfortunately, as SUVs and trucks gained market share they also reduced the overall fuel economy of our fleet so any gains in cars were offset by the negative impact from the low fuel economy of light trucks.

Of course, now that the market has shifted again the fleet economy will begin to rise, but it will take several years to really change anything when it comes to efficiency. Thankfully, the overall fuel economy of cars is starting to rise again so it's possible that there will be significant improvements in the next few years. Currently, hybrid vehicles can deliver fuel economy boosts up to 30-40%, so as they become a bigger part of the market they will have a huge effect on fuel economy. Currently, 2% of vehicle sales are hybrids; if costs continue to fall, this percentage will rise regardless of fuel costs and once it becomes cost competitive with regular vehicles they will take over.

However, this is assuming oil prices remain fairly high. If they collapse like they did in the 1990's, rest assured that fuel economy will remain stagnant for another long period of time.

Again, bullshit. Their editors tend to very Libertarian - usually more associated with Republicans and conservatives. You call them left because they belive in anthropogenic warming, not because they are champions of affirmative action or illegal immigration. They believe in anthropogenic warming because they are scientists, not because they are hippies. I don't believe for a second that you read Scientific American every month. I believe you just read my post and decided to familiarize yourself with it so you could come back and show how liberal they were but searched in vain for something to prove it. Instead you came back with, "but they select the stories." In anycase, why would you pay to read an online version of a magazine that you are suspect of?

You can say whatever you want. Scientific American is the oldest, most respected general interest science magazine in the U.S. and maybe the world. They have been reporting on scince and publishing peer reviewed articles for more than 150 years and, in fact, are a publication of note in the scientific community - in other words, if yo get a study published in Scientific American you are considered "published" in the scientific community. If you can get a study published in Scientific American it would get you a PHD at MIT.


Wow, you really are full of yourself. It amazes me how people just assume that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. I won't restate myself again, as I don't really need to. I've been fairly calm and rational, and you;re a hothead, and that pretty much makes my case for me.

I never attacked SciAm with vigor, I only pointed out that CRITICAL THINKING is requiered when reading anything, and that includes politically motivated magazines, like SciAm, especially.

Just because people are well educated and intelligent does not mean they write without bias. In fact, I have found the more formal education people have, the more bias one can find in their writing.

Clearly you have something of a hard-on for SciAm, so after this, I am going to stop responding to you, as you can't be rational. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to open your mind and read things objectively. I'm a little bit disgusted that you, a clearly well read individual, have chosen a theory and dismiss any dessent - even a casual one, like my saying I remain undecided and openly skeptical - as uneducated and misguided (althoug you phrase that so much more rudely). You remind me of an bioethics professor I had who had his views on ethics and relegated all dissenting oppinions to religion, and therefor invalidated them. It's a horrible way to debate a subject as it is dishonest, and leaves no room for anyone to learn anything.

I was trying to inject a little levity into the discussion with the dino-methane comment, though it still true that planetary temperature highs did coincide with the Age of the Dinosaurs.

So was I ... I thought it was a pretty funny thread!

Well, a lot of that is due to the loophole in the CAFE standards for light trucks; unfortunately, as SUVs and trucks gained market share they also reduced the overall fuel economy of our fleet so any gains in cars were offset by the negative impact from the low fuel economy of light trucks.

Not to mention mini-vans.


Of course, now that the market has shifted again the fleet economy will begin to rise, but it will take several years to really change anything when it comes to efficiency. Thankfully, the overall fuel economy of cars is starting to rise again so it's possible that there will be significant improvements in the next few years. Currently, hybrid vehicles can deliver fuel economy boosts up to 30-40%, so as they become a bigger part of the market they will have a huge effect on fuel economy. Currently, 2% of vehicle sales are hybrids; if costs continue to fall, this percentage will rise regardless of fuel costs and once it becomes cost competitive with regular vehicles they will take over.

But in order to achieve the kind of reduction in demand you were talking about (30%), everyone would have to adopt hybrids. And that was just enough to offset the projected demand growth from North America alone over the next 15 years. It would not even begin to address the demand growth from China. All at a time of declining supply ... I forsee some rough patches ahead.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is more common and has a greater impact on temps than CO2. In fact it seems to account for about 9/10ths of the greenhouse effect. We must act now to combat this menace and reduce the atmospheric levels of DHMO!:p

Finally someone stated the fact that makes me skepticle about CO2 emssions being the main cause of global warming.

There have actually been several ice ages and several warm periods. During the ice ages miles deep glaciers chave gone as low as or even past the midwest. During the warm periods the north pole was open water and just about everything in the US looked something like Florida. These all happened long before any human industrial development. The causes of those climate changes are the same as what's going on right now. Volcanoes errupted, asteroids impacted, some other stuff, and the atmosphere generally went crazy.
Yep, it's hardly safe to go out anymore what will the volcanoes erupting and asteroids impacting. They must be the REAL cause of global warming.

Dihydrogen Monoxide is more common and has a greater impact on temps than CO2. In fact it seems to account for about 9/10ths of the greenhouse effect.

Yep. That water sure is some dangerous.

Finally someone stated the fact that makes me skepticle about CO2 emssions being the main cause of global warming.

If we were adding massive amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere I'd be worried about that, too. The problem is not that there's CO2 in the atmosphere, it's that we're adding to the amount and creating addtional warming.

Wow, you really are full of yourself. It amazes me how people just assume that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. I won't restate myself again, as I don't really need to. I've been fairly calm and rational, and you;re a hothead, and that pretty much makes my case for me.

I never attacked SciAm with vigor, I only pointed out that CRITICAL THINKING is requiered when reading anything, and that includes politically motivated magazines, like SciAm, especially.

Just because people are well educated and intelligent does not mean they write without bias. In fact, I have found the more formal education people have, the more bias one can find in their writing.

Clearly you have something of a hard-on for SciAm, so after this, I am going to stop responding to you, as you can't be rational. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to open your mind and read things objectively. I'm a little bit disgusted that you, a clearly well read individual, have chosen a theory and dismiss any dessent - even a casual one, like my saying I remain undecided and openly skeptical - as uneducated and misguided (althoug you phrase that so much more rudely). You remind me of an bioethics professor I had who had his views on ethics and relegated all dissenting oppinions to religion, and therefor invalidated them. It's a horrible way to debate a subject as it is dishonest, and leaves no room for anyone to learn anything.

You picked the wrong forum to hang out at. You think I'm over the top? I'm mild compared to many of the people who debate here. People come here, for the most part, to debate important, highly controversial subjects.

For the most part, people here are well read, reasonable articulate and usually very passionate about there beliefs. People here are also very polarized. That's the nature of this place.

Another thing abot this place is that people tend to call you on your bullshit, like I did to you, so if you don't like being called on your bullshit don't bullshit and if you stake a position that requires backing it up, like saying that SciAm is biased, be prepared to back it up with more than, "I read it and it is."

Beyond that, you may want to have a good look around here and see if you have the temperment to handle the kind of mudslinging, name calling and just generally angry debate that goes on here. If your skin is thick enough and you have passion you may enjoy it. If not, I suggest going to a calmer, less political forum.

Finally someone stated the fact that makes me skepticle about CO2 emssions being the main cause of global warming.

Yep. Any day now all of the thousands of scientists that have said that global warming does exist are going to admit it was all a big hoax to prove how gullible we are. Wow, did they have us going!

If we were adding massive amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere I'd be worried about that, too. The problem is not that there's CO2 in the atmosphere, it's that we're adding to the amount and creating addtional warming.
But until someone can show me a global climate model which works with different inputs and includes accurate cloud cover projections, I'm unwilling to jump to sensationalised conclusions.

But until someone can show me a global climate model which works with different inputs and includes accurate cloud cover projections, I'm unwilling to jump to sensationalised conclusions.

And scientists are know for their sensationalized conclusions.

But until someone can show me a global climate model which works with different inputs and includes accurate cloud cover projections, I'm unwilling to jump to sensationalised conclusions.
Or accept a conclusion that all of the evidence points toward apparently. I hope you are able to justify your position (and your inaction) to your grandchildren. "Sorry kids, in spite of all of the evidence, grandpa just wasn't ready to believe ... he wanted a better model."

Yep. Any day now all of the thousands of scientists that have said that global warming does exist are going to admit it was all a big hoax to prove how gullible we are. Wow, did they have us going!

I did not say that I don't believe in global warming, all I said was that I was skeptical that CO2 is the main contributer to it in the way that the media makes it out to be. Other components in the atmosphere are much more effective greenhouse gases, especially water vapour. Due to the decreasing size of the polar ice and couple of other observations in the news I do believe there is global warming, the only thing I have trouble with is the over emphasis placed on CO2 (a minor greenhouse gas) to the exclusion of all else.

A quote from Richard Lindzen:
The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.

The link where the quote came from.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Richard Lindzen is a skeptic so his arguments will have a bias towards that side. However he is still a respected meteorologist who has a good understanding of the physics involved.

Scientific American is the absolutely premier source for science news for the layman in the U.S., maybe the world. Their reputation is impeccable and I cannot think of a better source.

I can (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/)

I personally feel that this is Mother Natures way of cleaning things up and Showing her Might.

I say no matter what we as humans do...Mother Nature will continue to show her Might. As far as History has shown to us...there has been stone ages, ice ages, heat wave ages and nothing we as humans is strong enough to challenge and avail versus Mother Nature.

Look at our Hurricanes, people actually think that they can one day stop a verocoius Hurricane by dropping a mass of something into it to dry it up.

As for the environmentalists, Read your history. Dooms Day is inevitable and if you want you may blame Humans for it if you want but to me that is the same as blaming the dinosaurs for the ice age (only if they were intelligent to create an SUV we'd be living amongst the dinosaurs) :D

And scientists are know for their sensationalized conclusions.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/self_healer/aabf18.jpg

I did not say that I don't believe in global warming, all I said was that I was skeptical that CO2 is the main contributer to it in the way that the media makes it out to be. Other components in the atmosphere are much more effective greenhouse gases, especially water vapour. Due to the decreasing size of the polar ice and couple of other observations in the news I do believe there is global warming, the only thing I have trouble with is the over emphasis placed on CO2 (a minor greenhouse gas) to the exclusion of all else.

A quote from Richard Lindzen:


The link where the quote came from.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Richard Lindzen is a skeptic so his arguments will have a bias towards that side. However he is still a respected meteorologist who has a good understanding of the physics involved.

So what is causing this alleged increase in water vapour?

Or accept a conclusion that all of the evidence points toward apparently. I hope you are able to justify your position (and your inaction) to your grandchildren. "Sorry kids, in spite of all of the evidence, grandpa just wasn't ready to believe ... he wanted a better model."
I'll draw a conclusion when I have conclusive evidence. I'm not going to crawl through thousands of academic papers to be convinced. If the global warming alarmist want to convince me, they need to provide me with conclusive evidence. Until then, I'm going to standing up and telling people that we don't know anythng useful, yet.

I also find the global warming alarmists' adherence to emission-based solutions quite telling. They seem to be ignoring any large-scale industrial solutions, which suggests to me their goal may well be more anti-industry than anti-warming.

So what is causing this alleged increase in water vapour?
It's exactly this sort of reasoning to which I object.

Just because science doesn't have the exact answer you want doesn't mean there isn't one, or that the issue in question doesn't matter.

This is the same argument the Intelligent Design folks use. And it's crap. Science is very good at telling us what we don't know.

Is there more water vapour? We can measure that. Great, now where is it coming from? We can't just ignore the evidence because we can't explain it.

Ahh, meteorology, the science of not being able to predict whether it will be rainy or sunny this afternoon.

Mr Richard Lindzen was treating us to a fact found in every 5th grade Science book: that clouds absorb heat from the sun. Now, being a meteorologist, how all this extra water vapor suddenly appeared in the sky lately, he wouldn't fucking know.

Ahh, meteorology, the science of not being able to predict whether it will be rainy or sunny this afternoon.

Mr Richard Lindzen was treating us to a fact found in every 5th grade Science book: that clouds absorb heat from the sun. Now, being a meteorologist, how all this extra water vapor suddenly appeared in the sky lately, he wouldn't fucking know.
Wait a second. Clouds do absorb heat from the sun, but if they weren't there the sunlight would travel all the way to the surface, where it would be even more likely o be absorbed. Clouds have a much higher albedo than most of the earth's surface.

I can (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/)

Man, I hope you're kidding. Those people couldn't use a divining rod to find their assholes.

Doubt everything: Be skeptical of scary health news. In science, credibility is earned, not self-evident. You think, therefore you doubt.

The Yoke's on them: The burden of proof is always on the party trying to prove a point. "Better safe than sorry" can be an excuse to push junk science.

Speculation isn't science: Watch out for junk scientists who try to pass off speculation as reasons to hit the panic button. Giveaway terms include "may", "might', "could", "if", "possibly", "perhaps", "potentially", and the like. When uttered by someone with a clear vested interest in promoting a health scare, these words can indicate junk science.

Anecdotes aren't data : Anecdotal data are essentially a single or a few observations. Anecdotes are designed to appeal to your emotions and fears. It's a ruse to get you to put your brain in neutral and overlook the facts.

Remember that we can't predict the future with absolute certainty. The more time between now and your prediction the more likely it is to be wrong. We can only project the present into the future and run scenarios. This doesn't tell us what will happen, this tells us what could happen.

Correlation is not causation. Just because two things move together doesn't mean that one controls the other.

Yet you would have us ignore all of the evidence that global warming is real and is cause by CO2, based on so-called skepticism.
Why would it be caused by a trace gas when there are gases more potent and in higher concentrations?

What's needed is more study. If we act now without sufficient understanding we could end up doing more bad than good.

They seem to be ignoring any large-scale industrial solutions

such as?

Is there more water vapour?

Good question. Where is the proof.

We can't just ignore the evidence because we can't explain it.

No, but you would have us ignore all the evidence that global warming does exists and that it is caused by CO2.

One of the things to remember in all this global warming stuff, is who's doing the funding for the research.


If big oil funding a scientist who says "global warming is a myth" everyone rightly jumps on him, however if the green movement funding a scientist who says "We're all doomed unless give up cars and electrickery" is widely believed.

Anyways one of the biggest ironies of the green movement came when the green party became part of the government of Belgium and ordered the shutdown of Belgium's 6 nuclear power stations...... which ment either building power stations that generated CO2 ........ or importing electricity from France where it would be generated by....... nuclear power.

One of the things to remember in all this global warming stuff, is who's doing the funding for the research.

If big oil funding a scientist who says "global warming is a myth" everyone rightly jumps on him, however if the green movement funding a scientist who says "We're all doomed unless give up cars and electrickery" is widely believed.

two problems:

1) 'the green movement' doesn't generally fund research. they may hire spokes-scientists or scientists may be involved in environmentalism, but the research in the journals really does back them up.

2) all the scientists that are toeing the oil company line seem to be chronically incapable of doing actual research to back up their position. it isn't the funding itself which is the problem, it's the lack of a scientific basis for what they are saying. the fact that what they are saying is exactly what their patrons want to hear is just a nice little side benefit for showing how bankrupt they are (well, scientifically and ethically bankrupt anyway - they seem to be rolling in actual cash).

such as?
Instead of reducing emissions, what if we could forcibly remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Would that be acceptable?

Or, perhaps we could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Would that be acceptable?

Yet you would have us ignore all of the evidence that global warming is real and is cause by CO2, based on so-called skepticism.
Refusal to draw conclusions based on inconclusive evidence is the very definition of scepticism.
No, but you would have us ignore all the evidence that global warming does exists and that it is caused by CO2.
Evidence that the world is getting warmer did finally arrive about 3 years ago. This alarmism has been going on somewhat longer than that, but in about 2003 I finally saw evidence I deem conclusive.

But not that it's being caused by CO2. Every climate model I have seen fails to model cloud cover, and cloud cover is a major factor in the Earth's temperature. And even if it is the CO2 (which seems likely), those models make catastrophic projections while ignoring cloud cover. For all I know, the system will self-regulate by creating clouds. But I don't know that, and I won't until someone builds a better model.

And if someone already has, I invite them to let me play with it. We might be able to induce cloud cover by simulating vulcanism (there's another large-scale industrial solution for you), thus solving the problem.

This single-minded focus on reducing emissions is too single-minded to be trustworthy. Environmentalists have traditionally been more anti-industry than pro-environment; I see no evidence this has changed.

Instead of reducing emissions, what if we could forcibly remove CO2 from the atmosphere? Would that be acceptable?

Or, perhaps we could reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Would that be acceptable?

if you don't reduce emissions, then you are going to have to devote an increasing level of resources to scrubbing them, in addition to dealing with all the other problems (environmental, economic, and social) associated with the things pumping out all the greenhouse gases. essentially, it's at least twice as costly to just scrub as it is to cut everything.

and what exactly do you intend to do to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth?

of course, there is an entire ipcc report full of proposals and the various costs, benefits, and predicted contributions to stablization. it's worth taking a look at sometime (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm).

Apparently, variations in solar output cannot account for the planetary temperature hockey stick. (Neat-o picture included)


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4CF1-4202-1508-820283414B7F0000

Is the Earth warming? Yes. Is it human induced? Probably (to an extent). Is it a threat? No. Hate to break it to you, the Earth is not in danger of "Global Warming," unless we all plan on living 15-20 thousand years more...
...that being said, should we do something about it? Sure. Why not--but we shouldn't be in a hurry and do something irrational. Like Kyoto.

if you don't reduce emissions, then you are going to have to devote an increasing level of resources to scrubbing them, in addition to dealing with all the other problems (environmental, economic, and social) associated with the things pumping out all the greenhouse gases. essentially, it's at least twice as costly to just scrub as it is to cut everything.
Have you seen any studies done on this? I haven't, so I don't know how much it might cost.

And as for "environmental, economic, and social" concerns. What social concerns? And aren't economic concerns exactly what we're trying to avoid? And as for environmental converns, isn't the warming the environmental concern whewn it comes to greenhouse gasses? Or are you claiming that CO2 is somehow killing us directly?
and what exactly do you intend to do to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth?
Reflect it. Increased cloud clover would do the trick. So would a solar shield at L1.
of course, there is an entire ipcc report full of proposals and the various costs, benefits, and predicted contributions to stablization. it's worth taking a look at sometime (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm).
The IPCC is not a scientific organisation. They just compile all the scientific data without filtering anythng on the basis of how pants it is. That's why they loved Mann's 1998 paper so much - it had all the conclusions they wanted, even though the math was shit.

Still, I'm happy to read data, as long as it's actual data, and not political rhetoric aimed at people who've already made up their minds.

Have you seen any studies done on this?

yes. some of the older ones are cited in the ipcc report i linked to. i suppose i could go track down newer ones for you too. they aren't really hard to find.

What social concerns?

mainly social and environmental justice stuff, but also just the general slew of issues that are bound up with the way we've allowed our civilization to be arranged. everything from sprawl to the decay of social institutions.

And aren't economic concerns exactly what we're trying to avoid?

no, what we have are people who have been disproportionately benefitting by pushing their costs onto everybody else demanding that we not make them pay for their damage.

only morons ignore harm and inefficiency because fixing them would require a moderate amount of work in the short term.

And as for environmental converns, isn't the warming the environmental concern whewn it comes to greenhouse gasses? Or are you claiming that CO2 is somehow killing us directly?

last i checked, none of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions just sat there pumping out pure co2

Reflect it. Increased cloud clover would do the trick. So would a solar shield at L1.

and what could possibly go wrong with that, right?

The IPCC is not a scientific organisation. They just compile all the scientific data without filtering anythng on the basis of how pants it is. That's why they loved Mann's 1998 paper so much - it had all the conclusions they wanted, even though the math was shit.

Still, I'm happy to read data, as long as it's actual data, and not political rhetoric aimed at people who've already made up their minds.

the ipcc is in fact a scientific organization. it is made up of scientists, uses scientific data, subjects its reports to extensive peer review, and has had it's conclusions specifically endorsed by pretty much every major scientific organization in the world.

For example, here's some new data showing global oceanic cooling:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

Do the models predict that? If they don't, the models are wrong. Maybe not substantively wrong, but someone needs to investigate that. Contrary evidence matters.

For example, here's some new data showing global oceanic cooling:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

Do the models predict that? If they don't, the models are wrong. Maybe not substantively wrong, but someone needs to investigate that. Contrary evidence matters.

A period of global oceanic cooling would not be surprising. There's a lot of zero degree water entering the oceans.

Is the Earth warming? Yes. Is it human induced? Probably (to an extent). Is it a threat? No. Hate to break it to you, the Earth is not in danger of "Global Warming," unless we all plan on living 15-20 thousand years more...
...that being said, should we do something about it? Sure. Why not--but we shouldn't be in a hurry and do something irrational. Like Kyoto.

Can you cite credible scientific sources to back any of this up?

Doubt everything: Be skeptical of scary health news. In science, credibility is earned, not self-evident. You think, therefore you doubt.


Being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical is pointless.


Speculation isn't science: Watch out for junk scientists who try to pass off speculation as reasons to hit the panic button. Giveaway terms include "may", "might', "could", "if", "possibly", "perhaps", "potentially", and the like. When uttered by someone with a clear vested interest in promoting a health scare, these words can indicate junk science.


The only junk science here is that of the so-called "skeptics". Find me a published, peer-reviewed article that shows that global warming is not happening or that it is not caused by humans.


Anecdotes aren't data : Anecdotal data are essentially a single or a few observations. Anecdotes are designed to appeal to your emotions and fears. It's a ruse to get you to put your brain in neutral and overlook the facts.


This is not based on anecdotes. There is plenty of science to back this up.


Remember that we can't predict the future with absolute certainty. The more time between now and your prediction the more likely it is to be wrong. We can only project the present into the future and run scenarios. This doesn't tell us what will happen, this tells us what could happen.


And yet to ignore the best data we have is folly.


Correlation is not causation. Just because two things move together doesn't mean that one controls the other.


And yet, the conclusions are based on more than strong correlation.


Why would it be caused by a trace gas when there are gases more potent and in higher concentrations?

Because none of the other gases are changing in concentration as rapidly. Because the gas with the highest concentration is not necessarily the one with the greatest effect.


What's needed is more study. If we act now without sufficient understanding we could end up doing more bad than good.

There has been ample study. If we don't act now, we may well be too late.

For example, here's some new data showing global oceanic cooling:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

Do the models predict that? If they don't, the models are wrong. Maybe not substantively wrong, but someone needs to investigate that. Contrary evidence matters.

*ahem*

"Average sea level goes up partly due to warming and thermal expansion of the oceans and partly due to runoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets," Willis said. "The recent cooling episode suggests sea level should have actually decreased in the past two years. Despite this, sea level has continued to rise. This may mean that sea level rise has recently shifted from being mostly caused by warming to being dominated by melting. This idea is consistent with recent estimates of ice-mass loss in Antarctica and accelerating ice-mass loss on Greenland,"

are you even trying?

EC, there have been articles published in GRL, a peer-reviewed journal, and others, that point out the mistakes and exagerations made by alarmists. When brought up in discussion they are either ignored or the writers targeted for personal attacks.

The gas with the highest concentration, H2O (water), is in this case the most potent.

One more thing to keep in mind is that the big warming numbers comes not from measurements but computer models. The models that were in use 10-20 years ago turned out to be off by a lot. Something around 300%. We haven't improved that much.

Also, look at the alarmists finances. If they've invested a lot of money in wind farms, they've got a lot to gain by getting rid of the competition.

And wind farms! Let me tell you a thing or two about wind farms. Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!
More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!

The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.

The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")

EC, there have been articles published in GRL, a peer-reviewed journal, and others, that point out the mistakes and exagerations made by alarmists. When brought up in discussion they are either ignored or the writers targeted for personal attacks.

I am talking about scientific data, not claims made by alarmists. But I'd be interested to read the article if you have a link.


The gas with the highest concentration, H2O (water), is in this case the most potent.


And I have asked repeatedly for evidence of increased water vapour in the atmosphere, and no-one has provided me with any.


One more thing to keep in mind is that the big warming numbers comes not from measurements but computer models. The models that were in use 10-20 years ago turned out to be off by a lot. Something around 300%. We haven't improved that much.


But they have improved.


Also, look at the alarmists finances. If they've invested a lot of money in wind farms, they've got a lot to gain by getting rid of the competition.


And look at the skeptics finances. If you have alot of money tied up in oil infrastructure, you've got alot to gain by getting rid of the competition. And who has more money?


And wind farms! Let me tell you a thing or two about wind farms. Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!
More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works!

The consequences of this are dramatic. A good, modern wind turbine only really generates electricity between wind forces 4 and 7/8. Less wind, and the mill will hardly generate any power at all (because of the power curve). Go above it, and the power will get so big, the wind turbine will have to shut down, to prevent damage.

The bottom line is this. On average, a wind mill only generates something like 16 percent of the power it should produce! So when you see a wind mill that has a tag "One megaWatt" on it, it only does so under ideal circumstances. On average, it only produces 160 thousand Watt. (Source: Dutch research, in: J.J. Halkema, "Windmolens, feiten en fictie")

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should get all of our energy from wind. Because of some of the very problems you have discussed, I think the maximum I have ever heard proposed is 30%, which would still go a long way to reducing greenhouse gas emmissions. Still, I would question your figure as to how large of a windmill farm would be required. I have seen windmill farms that power hundreds of thousands of households, and they are not that big. And more importantly, the land on which the windmills are placed can be used for other purposes, such as farming. The actual space used by the windmills themselves is minimal.

The property you discuss does not make wind energy inefficient. It just makes its output highly variable. Which is one of the reasons it can only be used for a limited amount of power production. And it means that actual output, not potential output, is the appropriate measurement.

The gas with the highest concentration, H2O (water), is in this case the most potent.

of course, we know what controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. do you?

One more thing to keep in mind is that the big warming numbers comes not from measurements but computer models. The models that were in use 10-20 years ago turned out to be off by a lot. Something around 300%. We haven't improved that much.

some computers in use 20 years ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Macplus.jpg/250px-Macplus.jpg
it came with an entire megabyte of ram, and was expandable to four whole megabytes! oh, the power!

and check this shit out,
http://etudiant.univ-mlv.fr/~dnguye07/projet_multi_3/image/ibmpcat.jpg

it clocked in with a mind blowing 16 MHz. don't blink, you might miss it.

Also, look at the alarmists finances. If they've invested a lot of money in wind farms, they've got a lot to gain by getting rid of the competition.

ok, how about you do that for us? tell us why exactly we should disbelieve every major scientific body on the face of the planet

I am talking about scientific data, not claims made by alarmists. But I'd be interested to read the article if you have a link.There isn't one. At least not a study that shows it. A review of the over 9000 articles wrtten on the subject in peer reviewed scientific magazines showed that less than 1% disputed that global warming was largely a man made phenenomenon. In the regular press, where all the pundits and columnists - meaning they are not scientists - are, the number that doubt global warming is about 56%.



And I have asked repeatedly for evidence of increased water vapour in the atmosphere, and no-one has provided me with any.He won't have that, either. What global warming skeptics like to throw around is that water vapor is a bigger cause of global warming thab CO2. It's true. It actually is. What they fail to understand is that the problem is not that we have a greenhouse effect, in fact we would not be ablive if we did not. The problem is that we are making it stronger. I know you know all this, but I just can't deal with skeptics who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Educated skeptics are one thing, but I don't want to give an elementary school lesson on meteorology to this guy so you can do it.

I just can't deal with skeptics who obviously have no idea what they are talking about

i think they're pretty much the only ones left. its sort of like creationism at this point.

of course, we know what controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. do you?



some computers in use 20 years ago:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Macplus.jpg/250px-Macplus.jpg
it came with an entire megabyte of ram, and was expandable to four whole megabytes! oh, the power!

and check this shit out,
http://etudiant.univ-mlv.fr/~dnguye07/projet_multi_3/image/ibmpcat.jpg

it clocked in with a mind blowing 16 MHz. don't blink, you might miss it.



ok, how about you do that for us? tell us why exactly we should disbelieve every major scientific body on the face of the planet

1. You think a Macintosh was top of the line computer available to researchers at the time?

2. Even if they were the only thing out there, the accuracy of a "computer model" has more to do with the algorithms/equations used than with the computing "power" available.

I just can't deal with skeptics who obviously have no idea what they are talking abouti think they're pretty much the only ones left. its sort of like creationism at this point.
I guess that's worse than making up strawman arguments like you do, or is it?

I'm convinced now.

1. You think a Macintosh was top of the line computer available to researchers at the time?

2. Even if they were the only thing out there, the accuracy of a "computer model" has more to do with the algorithms/equations used than with the computing "power" available.

of course not (though science largely gets by on stuff that isn't anywhere near top of the line anyway). but even the most powerful computer available at the time was less computer than a decent consumer model now.

and model complexity is limited by processing power - you just couldn't run a model anywhere near as good as current models on old computing technology. even if you could get exclusive access to the best available (which your average climatologist circa 1986 couldn't), it'd take years to process even greatly simplified versions of current models on them. shit, just today i was running a thing to analyze a fairly simple amount of genetics data on a newish computer. i had to let it sit for a couple hours for just one run.

and, of course, dosuun's idea that climatological modeling hasn't noticeably improved over the past 20 years is so laughably absurd that under normal circumstances one wouldn't even dignify it with notice. but the political debate about climatology certainly doesn't make for normal circumstances.

Except the "hockey stick" had been debunked for a while now.

That's why they relaxed the stick curve violation rules for the 2006-07 season.

That's why they relaxed the stick curve violation rules for the 2006-07 season.
Lol!

1. You think a Macintosh was top of the line computer available to researchers at the time?

2. Even if they were the only thing out there, the accuracy of a "computer model" has more to do with the algorithms/equations used than with the computing "power" available.

Agreed. The old adage "garbage in, garbage out" applies. If the data hasn't improved, then no matter how powerful the computer, it won't produce more accurate results. That being said, the data has improved. For example, one of the early criticisms of the theory was that it did not take into account the urban heat island effect. That has now been adjusted for, and the data still shows things are getting hotter.


I guess that's worse than making up strawman arguments like you do, or is it?

I find most of the straw man arguments are usually made by the so-called skeptics. They tend to either find their opponent's weakest argument, and refute it, then act like they have refuted the entire theory. Or they misconstrue their opponents arguments, then refute them, then act like they have refuted the whole theory. Or better yet they take an argument, don't even really address it, and pretend like they have refuted it.

As an example, the best criticism one columnist could come up with of "Inconvenient Truth" was that the whole polar bears drowning argument was bunk. To prove this, they talked to a scientist in Nunavut, who said that the polar bear population was healthy. Granted, this scientist acknowleded that was due to greater restrictions on hunting that had been imposed in the last few years. The column actually failed to refute that the bears had drowned (which it can't, because that is a fact) and provided no alternative explanation for polar bears drowning. But because one scientist said the bear population overall was doing OK, that meant that the bears drowning thing was bunk, and therefore global warming is a myth. Nice logic.

Being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical is pointless.


Sorry ... I should rephrase this. There is a healthy level of skepticism, and an unhealthy level of skepticism. Being skeptical of claims in a way that helps you refute unfounded theories, or point out flaws in ways of thinking that makes those ways of thinking better is good. Being skeptical in a way that makes you ignore overwhelming evidence and cling to the contrary position is unhealthy ... that is the kind of thing that conspiracy theorists engage in.

The Yoke's on them: The burden of proof is always on the party trying to prove a point.

Agreed. And once the burden of proof is met (be it balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, or any standard in between) the point is made, and the burden shifts to the other side to disprove.

The burden of proof has been met. The burden has shifted to you to disprove.

Agreed. And once the burden of proof is met (be it balance of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, or any standard in between) the point is made, and the burden shifts to the other side to disprove.

The burden of proof has been met. The burden has shifted to you to disprove.

Not to mention that the gravity of the situation as pointed out in this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500671
makes it pretty clear that the skeptics BETTER be right because if they are not...

It's kinda like yoru driving your car towards a cliff. Do you want to get out and look and see if it's actually a cliff or do you want to prove it by driving off?

It's kinda like yoru driving your car towards a cliff. Do you want to get out and look and see if it's actually a cliff or do you want to prove it by driving off?

Oh, we'll probably try the latter and just hope the airbags work.

Sorry ... I should rephrase this. There is a healthy level of skepticism, and an unhealthy level of skepticism. Being skeptical of claims in a way that helps you refute unfounded theories, or point out flaws in ways of thinking that makes those ways of thinking better is good. Being skeptical in a way that makes you ignore overwhelming evidence and cling to the contrary position is unhealthy ... that is the kind of thing that conspiracy theorists engage in.
But the evidence isn't overwhelming, and it's constantly undercut by a general unwillingness to address contrary opinions.

The evidence is, in may cases, anecdotal (which makes sense, since anecdotes sell better than data tables), and the large datasets are used in what can only be described as rough computer models which admittedly fail to model major aspects of he climate (like clouds). Furthermore, the movement has a clear and repeated tendency to ignore contrary evidence (like stratospheric warming) for years.

Plus, the movement widely derides mitigation plans which don't address traditional areas of environmental concern (like emissions).

There are all sorts of reasons to distrust the global warming movement.

If the data hasn't improved, then no matter how powerful the computer, it won't produce more accurate results. That being said, the data has improved. For example, one of the early criticisms of the theory was that it did not take into account the urban heat island effect. That has now been adjusted for, and the data still shows things are getting hotter.

but it's not like the data in the 80s and 90s was bad either. we have more of it now, obviously, and this allows for finer results with tighter error bars, etc. but that's just to be exected.

nor is it like we didn't know about other things that might be important but weren't built into the models. back then we just didn't have technology capable of running models of anything like the appropriate level of complexity (hell, right now the big thing is in distributed modelling, cause using a single top-end computer would still take too long). so they left things out of necessity and blew up the estimate of error.

But the evidence isn't overwhelming

yes, it fucking is.

the burden of proof is on you guys now. so get cracking and publish some damn research in a real science journal, and start providing references to some when you want to claim anything. cause right now you guys got nothing.

the evidence train left more than a decade ago, and you've been riding around in the short bus ever since.

But the evidence isn't overwhelming, and it's constantly undercut by a general unwillingness to address contrary opinions.

There is a general willingness to not address contrary opinions that aren't backed up by solid science, yes.


The evidence is, in may cases, anecdotal (which makes sense, since anecdotes sell better than data tables), and the large datasets are used in what can only be described as rough computer models which admittedly fail to model major aspects of he climate (like clouds). Furthermore, the movement has a clear and repeated tendency to ignore contrary evidence (like stratospheric warming) for years.

The evidence that is picked up by the mainstream media is mainly anecdotal, yes. That which is published in scientific journals is not. To describe the computer models as "rough" is a joke. And I am sick and tired of hearing this "cloud cover" argument, with no sources to back it up. The cloud cover thing merely makes it difficult to determine the extent to which the climate is going to warm ... i.e. increased cloud cover may slightly mitigate the warming effect. It does not make it difficult to determine whether the planet will get warmer.


Plus, the movement widely derides mitigation plans which don't address traditional areas of environmental concern (like emissions).

No ... it is the Conservatives that keep saying we have to deal with "real" environmental issues like clean air and clean water. because apparently Global Warming is not "real".


There are all sorts of reasons to distrust the global warming movement.

But there is no solid scientific reason to distrust the science.

the evidence train left more than a decade ago, and you've been riding around in the short bus ever since.
A decade ago? That just shows you're not paying attention.

Every global warming climate model predicted large-scale stratospheric cooling as a major part of its projections. As the earth warmed, the stratosphere would cool.

But, a decade ago, we had detailed space-based measurements that said the stratosphere was warming, not cooling. Did this slow the movement as people tried to reconclile the theoretical models with contrary data?

No. The contrary data was ignored. For 7 years. Finally, in 2003, new measurements demonstrated that the earlier measurments had been wrong, and that the stratosphere was in fact cooling. Just as the models predicted. And global warming alarmists jumped up and down and pointed to this new data that confrimed what they'd said all along.

But if it was so important, why was it so thoroughly ignored when it said something entirely different?

But if it was so important, why was it so thoroughly ignored when it said something entirely different?

Your criticism assails what people do with the data, but fails to undermine the soundness of the theory itself. In fact, it only reaffirms it.

I'm not really sure about global warming but my only question is that how is it that scientists can look 300 years into future weather, but they can't predict next years weather to any degree of accuracy. They predicted 12 hurricanes on the U.S. this year. There were 1 or 2. That is 500-1100% error.

I'm not really sure about global warming but my only question is that how is it that scientists can look 300 years into future weather, but they can't predict next years weather to any degree of accuracy. They predicted 12 hurricanes on the U.S. this year. There were 1 or 2. That is 500-1100% error.

Because it is generally easier to predict overall trends than it is to predict specific events. For example, it is easier for pollsters to predict who is going to win the most seats in Congress in the next election than it is for them to tell you who is going to win individual races.

a nice couple of pages about climate change
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278

Are there still people arguing about this? It's truly depressing how effective the global campaign has been to spread doubt into the mind of the public.

Are there still people arguing about this? It's truly depressing how effective the global campaign has been to spread doubt into the mind of the public.

Indeed ... as the song goes ... when they control the information ... they can bend it all they want ...

But, a decade ago, we had detailed space-based measurements that said the stratosphere was warming, not cooling

no we didn't. we had stratospheric cooling impacting our assesment of troposheperic warming and data that was uncorrected for satellite drift and advances in technology.

The contrary data was ignored. For 7 years.

no it wasn't. a number of proposed explanations were proposed and tested.

Your criticism assails what people do with the data, but fails to undermine the soundness of the theory itself. In fact, it only reaffirms it.
The theory is based on data (unless you're denying that, in which case the theory is entirely baseless). What the movement does with the data is all that matters.
no we didn't. we had stratospheric cooling impacting our assesment of troposheperic warming and data that was uncorrected for satellite drift and advances in technology.

no it wasn't. a number of proposed explanations were proposed and tested.
Yes, I recognise the earlier data was misleading, but we didn't know that. There were all manner of explanations as to how it might be wrong, and all of them were consistent with the observed data, but the fact remains the contrary data did nothing at all to stop the momentum of the theory, when in fact the theory should have stopped dead until the contrary data was refuted.

Otherwise you're adjusting data to fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the data. The data must be paramount.

but the fact remains the contrary data did nothing at all to stop the momentum of the theory, when in fact the theory should have stopped dead until the contrary data was refuted.

as kuhn showed, that isn't how science operates

Otherwise you're adjusting data to fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the data. The data must be paramount.

except, of course, one bit of anomalous data is something to be explained away when you have so much other data that strongly supports a current theory. which is exactly what was done at the time.

as kuhn showed, that isn't how science operates
Let's all look at scientific method, shall we?
1. Observe some phenomenon in the universe
2. Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon
3. Test the validity of the hypothesis (e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data)
4. Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon
The theory always changes to fit the data.

except, of course, one bit of anomalous data is something to be explained away when you have so much other data that strongly supports a current theory. which is exactly what was done at the time.
I repeat, the theory always changes to fit the data. Or at least it always should. That's method. To not do so would be a breach of method.

The theory is based on data (unless you're denying that, in which case the theory is entirely baseless). What the movement does with the data is all that matters.

Of course the theory is based on data. And all of the data supports the theory. And you have yet to come up with data that would support an alternate theory. And what "movement" are you talking about? What matter is what the scientists did with the data. And Free Soviets already explained that.


Yes, I recognise the earlier data was misleading, but we didn't know that. There were all manner of explanations as to how it might be wrong, and all of them were consistent with the observed data, but the fact remains the contrary data did nothing at all to stop the momentum of the theory, when in fact the theory should have stopped dead until the contrary data was refuted.

What you are suggesting is that because some (incorrect) data, didn't fit with one aspect of the theory, the theory should somehow have ground to a halt. As Free Soviets explained, proposed explanations were developed and tested, consistent with the scientific method.

You guys are really grasping at straws here ...

I repeat, the theory always changes to fit the data. Or at least it always should. That's method. To not do so would be a breach of method.
And as Free Soviet explained ... it did ... alternatives were tested. Until the data proved to be incorrect. There was no breach of method.

Absolutely it wasa breach of method, because so much of the alarmism rests on theoretical models. Those models make predictions (as all scientific theories should), and the data showed those predictions to be FALSE.

That's how theories work. You formulate the theory, use it to make some predictions, and then empirically test those predictions to verify the validity of the theory. That's what happened. The theories failed.

It didn't even make the news.

Absolutely it wasa breach of method, because so much of the alarmism rests on theoretical models. Those models make predictions (as all scientific theories should), and the data showed those predictions to be FALSE.

I don't know if the "alarmism" rest on models. I would say it doesn't. It usually rests on misunderstanding of the models. However, the scientific consensus does rest on the models ... and the real world data which proves them.


That's how theories work. You formulate the theory, use it to make some predictions, and then empirically test those predictions to verify the validity of the theory. That's what happened. The theories failed.

The theory made predictions. Some of the data did not fit one of the predictions. There were a few possibilities: 1) the theory was incorrect, 2) the prediction based on the theory was incorrect, 3) the data was incorrect. Scientists tested all 3 possibilities. It turns out the data was incorrect. The theory prevailed.


It didn't even make the news.

Blame the media, not the science.

Again, you are grasping at straws. You have no present day evidence which refutes the theory. You have only past data which later proved to be incorrect, and you claim that this was a breach of method. There was no breach.

I repeat, the theory always changes to fit the data. Or at least it always should. That's method. To not do so would be a breach of method.

nope, that's not how science actually operates. when you have a theory that is backed up by tons of evidence and is widely accepted within the scientific community, then a bit of data that doesn't fit is presumed to be wrong somehow.

take the theory of evolution. if we found some evidence of fossils completely out of order, like a human in the jurassic, the immediate presumption would not be that we need to change the theory, but rather that either there was a fuck up somewhere or some deception and it wasn't really that old. and after ruling out that, the next explanatory step would probably be time travel. that bit of evidence just wouldn't be enough to even minutely push evolutionary theory anywhere. nor should it be.

I found that, this summer, when temperatures around here hit 112 degrees Fahrenheit, it seemed incredibly difficult to deny global warming. Though I've always believed it anyway, even if I didn't I couldn't possibly have denied it; my sculpture melted. :(

The theory made predictions. Some of the data did not fit one of the predictions. There were a few possibilities: 1) the theory was incorrect, 2) the prediction based on the theory was incorrect, 3) the data was incorrect. Scientists tested all 3 possibilities. It turns out the data was incorrect. The theory prevailed.
But during that period, the theory continued to drive policy, even though it was in a state of considerable uncertainty. It continued to gain public acceptance, even though there was new and exciting data which cast doubt on it.

The people who are pushing this stuff don't care about the science. If they did, they'd only push when the science was good. They'd sell people on the science, not the human interest angle. They'd use reason to persuade people, because that's what science does.
You have no present day evidence which refutes the theory. You have only past data which later proved to be incorrect, and you claim that this was a breach of method. There was no breach.
The thing about theories is that I don't need data to refute them. I only require the absence of conclusive data supporting them. That leaves us in a state of uncertainty, and thus we don't take drastic action prematurely.

The breaches of method (and there have been others) cast considerable doubt on the movement. This is why I keep wanting to check the movement's actual data. But the movement doesn't market itself with data, so it's clearly not that interested in convincing me of anything. As long as I remain unconvinced, I'll keep trying to keep others unconvinced.

But during that period, the theory continued to drive policy, even though it was in a state of considerable uncertainty. It continued to gain public acceptance, even though there was new and exciting data which cast doubt on it.

I would hardly say that some data that disagreed with one aspect of the theory put the whole theory in a state of "considerable uncertainty". FS points out why science doesn't work that way.


The people who are pushing this stuff don't care about the science. If they did, they'd only push when the science was good. They'd sell people on the science, not the human interest angle. They'd use reason to persuade people, because that's what science does.

Sure they care about the science ... they also care about the human interest angle, because that's what causes people to act on the science. If there were a scientific theory that said "the world is going to get warmer but it will have absolutely no effect on you" then people wouldn't care, and rightly so. If it does not affect our day to day lives, it does not have much interest for us. But this theory does, and that is why the human interest angle is compelling.


The thing about theories is that I don't need data to refute them. I only require the absence of conclusive data supporting them. That leaves us in a state of uncertainty, and thus we don't take drastic action prematurely.


It's not that you don't need data to refute it ... it's that you don't have any. There is no uncertainty ... the data is overwhelming. The scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. There would be nothing premature about taking action.


The breaches of method (and there have been others) cast considerable doubt on the movement. This is why I keep wanting to check the movement's actual data. But the movement doesn't market itself with data, so it's clearly not that interested in convincing me of anything. As long as I remain unconvinced, I'll keep trying to keep others unconvinced.

There was no breach of method. Your refusal to accept a sound scientific theory that enjoys overwhelming consensus and is supported by strong data merely casts doubts on your motives. What movement are you a part of? What is your agenda?

I would hardly say that some data that disagreed with one aspect of the theory put the whole theory in a state of "considerable uncertainty". FS points out why science doesn't work that way.
Remember Gravtiy Probe B? Gravity Probe B was launched to look for evidence of Gravitational Drag. Gravtitational Drag is predicted by General Relativity, so by looking for it we're testing the theory.

Gravity Probe B did, in fact, find Gravtitational Drag. We tested the theory, and it passed. As such, the theory persists.

Had the theory failed (if we found contrary evidence) that means the theory is wrong. There's no middle ground - either the theory is possibly true or it isn't. Contrary data means it isn't. Any contrary data.

The contrary stratospheric temperature data should have been a major blow to the anthropogenic global warming theories. But those pushing the theories didn't react act all. They just hoped no one noticed and kept trying to change policy in accordance with a theory they had reason to believe was false. That's horribly dishonest.
Sure they care about the science ... they also care about the human interest angle, because that's what causes people to act on the science. If there were a scientific theory that said "the world is going to get warmer but it will have absolutely no effect on you" then people wouldn't care, and rightly so. If it does not affect our day to day lives, it does not have much interest for us. But this theory does, and that is why the human interest angle is compelling.
And that explains the dishonest marketing based on the melting in the western arctic, while completely ignoring the thickening ice of the eastern arctic. They could well both be caused by warming; why is only one ever used in advocacy?
It's not that you don't need data to refute it ... it's that you don't have any. There is no uncertainty ... the data is overwhelming. The scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. There would be nothing premature about taking action.
And I'm willing to consider that. All possible mitigating actions should be investigated. Actions which carry no uncertainty as to their effectiveness should be at the top of the list.

And if the data are overwhelming, why aren't they used to sway doubters? Why this constant appeal to expertise?
There was no breach of method. Your refusal to accept a sound scientific theory that enjoys overwhelming consensus and is supported by strong data merely casts doubts on your motives. What movement are you a part of? What is your agenda?
I prefer my opinions be true.

If this data is so overwhelming, why don't we see it being used to sway us? Anecodotal evidence should never convince anyone of anything. A bad hurricane season tells me nothing without an indepth scientific explanation of the relevance behind it. Calving icebergs tell me nothing.

I want global measurements. I want apples to apples comparisons. I want theoretical transparency. The projections still don't model cloud cover, and given the high albedo of clouds, that could be a major factor. But we're forging ahead regardless, knowing that there's a giant hole in the data.