Global warming - what to think ???

[BeltwayBandit]

Open Letter from Chris Landsea, one of the foremost hurricane researchers in the world, on why he did not participate in the most recent AR4 review.

 

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

 

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

[BeltwayBandit]

Here is another source. It is a 10 part series, profiles of 'global warming deniers' if you will. The link is to the first article and the other articles are linked within. Judge for yourself if their arguments are valid.

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0

[Guest Larry-T]

Howard,

 

You always take the neo-con position as exemplified by the AEI to try to cast doubt on the global warming findings. Your accusation of "weasel words" is simply a case of trying to throw a cloud over what should be a scientific argument.

 

There are hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals which support the findings that global warming is here, it is more intense than any time in history, and that human activity has contributed to its severity. There are NO articles in such journals that dispute those facts. All of the articles the doubters cite are from non-scientific sources that have no credibility in scientific discourse.

 

This administration has a simple strategy - when "inconvenient" facts don't support the administration agenda, deny, obfuscate, and doubt, and always attack the messenger, which is whaty you are doing.

 

I'll trust my career peers in NOAA and the EPA over the political appointees paid to toe the administration line.

 

 

 

Open Letter from Chris Landsea, one of the foremost hurricane researchers in the world, on why he did not participate in the most recent AR4 review.

 

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

 

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

 

The letter you cite is an interesting expression of opinon, not a reviewed scientific finding. It also narrowly addresses the impact of global warming on one particular weather event in the short term. He doesn't express any disagreement with the primary danger - swift increases in seal level (and also a decrease in both salinity and pH) if the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets collapse.

[BeltwayBandit]

Larry,

 

I'm not Howard. And its nice to see your knee jerk response.

 

"Your accusation of "weasel words" is simply a case of trying to throw a cloud over what should be a scientific argument."

 

Actually, I was removing the cloud that you attempted to throw over it by using such words. If you want to have an honest debate cut out the name calling and stick to the science..

 

The last time I checked name calling was not a scientifically valid method of defending your position. Because, that is all your reply was.

 

I also found it quite telling that you completely avoided the issue Landsea raised about the IPCC being motivated by preconceived agendas and scientifically unsound. That was the larger issue he was raising. He isn't the first one to make those charges either.

 

"Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: "throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."

[BeltwayBandit]

Another interesting article about the politicization of climate science.

 

http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_vie...?article_id=961

[cabrerad]

Open Letter from Chris Landsea, one of the foremost hurricane researchers in the world, on why he did not participate in the most recent AR4 review.

 

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

 

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

 

Regarding Chris Landsea, this does seem to me to be an unfortunate situation resulting from the commentary made by one scientist associated with the IPCC and the fact that these comments were attributed to the entire body. Clearly, Dr. Trenberth overstepped the current state of the science in suggesting that the 2004 hurricane season may be a harbringer of future activity". It seems that the IPCC may need to reign in the statements made by those scientists who take part in non IPCC events (so that their statements are not taken as an official IPCC position). Nevertheless, I don't think the comments made by one person negate the body of the work of the IPCC.

Also, Landsea (from what I have been able to find) has a record of questioning publications indicating increased hurricane intensity since 1950 (including a critique of a paper by Emanuel et al., Nature Aug 4, 2005). The fact that he was asked to serve in the IPCC contradicts the notion of some that it loads itself with sycophants. See a summary of this below.

 

link

 

So, IMO, while Trenberth's statements overstepped the science (and were ill conceived given his IPCCC membership), he also did not pull them out of thin air, he just did not accurately represent the current "state of the art". It is really unfortunate that due to this incident and the aftermath, Dr. Landsea chose to withdraw from the current IPCC as his contribution to the field seems great.

 

The WMO and IPCC statements made about hurricanes reflect the uncertainty in the science connecting global warming to hurricanes, so the concern that Trenberth's influence would result in a innacurate document are not borne out.

 

WMO statement (note the multiple citations of Landsea's papers)

 

WMO stement 2006

Edited February 11, 2007 by cabrerad

[rsarvis]

 

rsarvis,

 

. . .

 

By the way, I can attest that the degree of much of the science practiced within government agencies is very high and gets published in very well respected journals (having worked with scientists in various agencies).

 

 

Just for the record, I wasn't saying that the science done by scientists within govt isn't as good as science done by scientists outside government. I was saying that I doubt "government officials" as such have much meaningful to add. A government scientist I would classify as a scientist, not a government official.

[lanman]

Larger than ever in 2006...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:160658m...E_large_350.jpg

 

Cool - so we tied a record in 2006 for the size of the ozone hole set in 2000. I didn't realize it fluctuated that much. Have the restrictions placed on CFC's had a chance to have any effect yet? I don't remember how long it was anticipated to take before reducing CFC emissions would affect the ozone layer.

 

bob

[Guest Larry-T]

I also found it quite telling that you completely avoided the issue Landsea raised about the IPCC being motivated by preconceived agendas and scientifically unsound. That was the larger issue he was raising. He isn't the first one to make those charges either.

 

"Dr. Lindzen's description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: "throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."

 

I apologize for getting the name wrong. I took it from the signature at the bottom of the message.

 

 

According to a number of scientists who I have heard interviewed, the IPCC report was actually "toned down" to make it something all parties could agree to. Most of the scientists would have wanted to see a stronger report concerning the dangers ahead.

 

My "knee jerk reaction" is a response to people using ideological-based formulas created by the oil industry to interfere with scientific findings. Look at the recent congressional testimony from real scientists on how their finding on global warming, among other issues, have been censored by the political hacks and industry lackeys who run this administration.

 

After all the research and the tremendoius amount of published material in peer reviewed journals, I'm ready to put the global warming deniers in the same category as those attending the recent meeting in Iran.

 

The global warming "debate" has become just like the evolution/creationism arguments. Once side argues from science and the other from ideological doctrine. Whose who deny man's role in global warming and the need to take action are simply operating from ideology and doctrine and only use the pretense of science to advance their goals.

[madmax7774]

Being a cynic, I don't believe the scientists. They need more funding for research, so they overstate the cause and effect, essentially crying wolf. Of course, I don't believe the politicians either, as they are too severely influenced by big business. So who does that leave to tell me the truth? Who do we turn to for a fair and balanced answer?

Fact: Humans are basically selfish and destructive to this planet.

Fact: Anything we can do to better the way we treat the earth is good.

 

If people really want to do something for our environment, pressure the politicians to make some form of alternative energy an national initiative, and lets stop using fossil fuels.

[Guest Larry-T]

Being a cynic, I don't believe the scientists. They need more funding for research, so they overstate the cause and effect, essentially crying wolf. Of course, I don't believe the politicians either, as they are too severely influenced by big business. So who does that leave to tell me the truth? Who do we turn to for a fair and balanced answer?

Fact: Humans are basically selfish and destructive to this planet.

Fact: Anything we can do to better the way we treat the earth is good.

 

If people really want to do something for our environment, pressure the politicians to make some form of alternative energy an national initiative, and lets stop using fossil fuels.

 

Max, You have the right idea in that the time has come to stop fighting about whether or not the scientific consensus is correct and move to do things that can only help, no matter which side of the issue you agree with.

 

I've been involved in environmentalism since the early 1960's and the biggest problem I have with many of the "movement" people is their irrational rejection of any form of nuclear power. With proper safeguards, nuclear energy provides a reliable source of large-scale power. Few people realize how much radioactive material (in extremely hazardous forms) that coal fired plants put into the air.

 

I've been switching my house lighting from incandescent to compact flourescent for a while. I'm also looking at LED lights as another potential saving.

[BeltwayBandit]

Look at the recent congressional testimony from real scientists on how their finding on global warming, among other issues, have been censored by the political hacks and industry lackeys who run this administration.

 

Actually, it was from the UCS which is an advocacy organization, I trust them about as much as I would a press release from Exxon about Global Warming.

 

After all the research and the tremendoius amount of published material in peer reviewed journals, I'm ready to put the global warming deniers in the same category as those attending the recent meeting in Iran.

 

The global warming "debate" has become just like the evolution/creationism arguments. Once side argues from science and the other from ideological doctrine. Whose who deny man's role in global warming and the need to take action are simply operating from ideology and doctrine and only use the pretense of science to advance their goals.

 

I would have to agree with you on this one. You are right that one side argues from science. I'll remind you that ad hominem isn't a scientific argument. Yet one side consistently uses such tactics, like calling opoonents holocaust deniers, and other less than desirable names. You are right name calling isn't science, I have posted several criticisms and weaknesses of the science, valid scientific debate. To which you have responded with name calling. It is apparent that you are in fact "operating from ideology and docrtrine and only using the pretense of science to advance your goals" since you won't actually discuss the science. It is a shame that a valid and important scientific debate has been co-opted like that.

 

All that being said, I actually agree with John. The debate over global warming IMO should be left for science to discuss. We have an engineering problem before us. All of our energy sources are currently nonrenewable and will eventually run out. There is a huge economic advantage to the first one to find the next viable (preferably renewable) energy source. You don't have to scare and lie to people to get them to take decicive action. Tell them the truth, give them the resources and let them run with it.

[Gatortailale]

All of our energy sources are currently nonrenewable and will eventually run out.

 

What about Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric? Are you telling me the sky is falling? Guess you mean all of the Major sources of energy will eventually run out.

 

Back to the debate.

[BeltwayBandit]

What about Solar, Wind and Hydroelectric? Are you telling me the sky is falling? Guess you mean all of the Major sources of energy will eventually run out.

 

Back to the debate.

 

Fair enough, yes all of our primary sources of energy are non renewable.

[Guest Larry-T]

Actually, it was from the UCS which is an advocacy organization, I trust them about as much as I would a press release from Exxon about Global Warming.

 

The main difference being that the SCIENTISTS with the Union of Concerned Scientists actually submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals for publication, while the paid lackeys of Exxon Mobile (mainly located at the AEI) simply pay to have their bilge printed in uncritical commercial journals.

 

It's sort of like that bogus story (still promoted by Fox Noise) about Barack Obama attending a "Madras" in Indonesia. Who printed the story and where did it come from? It was printed by Insight Magazine from an "anonymous source." Who owns Insight? The Washington Times. Who owns the Washington Times? The Unification Church of Sun Young Moon.

[BeltwayBandit]

Can we actually discuss the science now? I think we have firmly established that their are advocates on both sides of the debate who will distort the science to support their own particular agenda. Lets try to stick to the science, and keep the politics out of it. Shall we.

[Guest Larry-T]

Fair enough, yes all of our primary sources of energy are non renewable.

 

In some nations, the primary sources are nuclear or even geothermal. Even some non-renwable or otherwise limited sources are far less damaging (and will last longer) than fossil fuels. Right now we subsidize industries that use fossil fuels and pollute our environment and our bodies. We need to stop subsidizing oil and coal and tax those industries enough to cover the total societal cost of their activities. We then need to invest those funds in cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy, inclusing solar, hydrogen, geothermal, tidal, biomass, and even fusion power as long-term solutions to our energy needs.

 

We need to increase the milage standards or our cars and tax (heavily) people who buy large, wasteful vehicles (like Lexus/BMW SUVs) for non-farm or commercial uses.

 

Short story: I have a neighbor who drives a large BMW SUV. I asked him why he felt he needed such a monster. He told me that he would prefer a smaller car, but his accountant showed him that if he leased (in his accounting business name) an SUV that cost over $60,000 the tax breaks would provide him more than if he purchased or leased a standard passenger car. This rule was originally put into place for people like doctors in rural areas who needed a multi-purpose vehicle to serve their patients. Application of this to urban area accountants is a sham.

 

 

 

Can we actually discuss the science now? I think we have firmly established that their are advocates on both sides of the debate who will distort the science to support their own particular agenda. Lets try to stick to the science, and keep the politics out of it. Shall we.

 

OK, let's stick to science. Only cite articles written in peer-reviewed scientific journals and ignore anything written in the popular press, talked about in newspapers, radio, or television, or "published" on the Internet. It we stick to professional scientific journals, the argument will be objective, unemotional, and short.

[madmax7774]

You know, that all this talk of global warming is a mute point anyway. It is clearly documented in the Mayan calendar that the earth is going to be destroyed by a gigantic asteroid on December 21st, 2012. The impact of which will cause another ice age....

[BeltwayBandit]

 

OK, let's stick to science. Only cite articles written in peer-reviewed scientific journals and ignore anything written in the popular press, talked about in newspapers, radio, or television, or "published" on the Internet. It we stick to professional scientific journals, the argument will be objective, unemotional, and short.

 

Great. I eagerly await your response to the articles I have posted earlier in this thread.

 

One bit of clarification, are comments on the peer review process allowed? Specifically, data archiving and reproduceability requirements?

[cabrerad]

Here is another source. It is a 10 part series, profiles of 'global warming deniers' if you will. The link is to the first article and the other articles are linked within. Judge for yourself if their arguments are valid.

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...0bed2f6&k=0

 

 

There is a lot of commentary on this thread now. I'll only address the above article in this particular reply and comment on other things in subsequent responses.

 

My read on the first few of the 10 points made in the article:

 

1. The first "denier" is statistician Edward Wegman who convened a three person panel at the behest of the US Energy and Commerce Committee chair Joe Barton. Wegman analyzed the statistics used by Mann et. al (the group that first came up with the "hockey stick" graph of increasing temperature). To really get at what he and his panel concluded I had to look at some outside sources as well as the article cited. The article is a very mixed combination of paraphrasing with actual quotes which makes it difficult to tell what Wegman actually said and what is the interpretation of the author.

With that said, what I can glean is that Wegman's panel concluded that Mann et al made an error in the analysis of the data resulting in the graph (and therefore the interpretation that the 1990's and 19998 were the hottest years of the past millennium). Not mentioned by the article is the fact that another group (the National Research Council) also reviewed Mann's work. This group, led by Gerald North said the data could not support the claim that a single year or decade showed increased warming, but did support another claim that the past few decades were the warmest in the past millennium (the Wegman panel did not address this point). The hockey stick has been since superceded by other more robust models so that fact that the statistics were flawed does in itself discount all research providing supporting evidence for global warming.

 

The extended claims made in the article that suggests most climate science is questionable because the authors don't include members of the American Statistical Association are a bit silly. Almost all fields of experimental science include statistics in the analysis of the data. Training in statistics is included in ones education leading up to and including graduate study. There are many biologists in the fields I have been involved with who are extremely well versed in statistics as a necessity of the fields in which they did their research (fisheries, oceanography and ecology for example). You don't need to have a card carrying statistician on your team to publish a paper. With that said, it is also not a bad idea to pay very close attention to your statistics and consider suggestions made about the statistical analyses, especially in those fields where they may be more complicated.

There are also many other fields where the statistics used are sometimes not the most correct ones or errors are made in their use (I have seen very basic violations of parametric analysis in certain studies). This is not something unique to climate science. In addition, there is often debate about certain statistical methods even among statisticians with each technique having its strengths and weaknesses. What I have noticed is that in those fields that need more complex statistics, you are going to find researchers well versed in statistics by necessity.

In my opinion it is a good thing this analysis happened, and it should be used to improve the science practiced.

 

 

II. I

Edited February 13, 2007 by cabrerad

[Gatortailale]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

 

Experts question theory on global warming

 

Anil Anand

 

New Delhi, February 11, 2007

 

Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?

 

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

 

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

 

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

 

It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.

 

However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it

[BeltwayBandit]

Here is an excerpt from an abstract for a presentation at the EGU 2007 General Assembly. Of note, remember CO2 forcing is supposed to be on the order of 2.5 Wm-2.

 

"Substantial uncertainty still exists regarding the distribution of radiative energy within

the global climate system, and its representation in General Circulation Models. Compared

to a comprehensive set of surface observations, the majority of the GCMs participating

in the latest IPCC forth assessment report (AR4) overestimate the surface insolation,

by 6 Wm-2 on average, while the bias is smaller at the TOA. This is in line with

an analysis of 20 earlier GCMs participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison

Project AMIP II and suggests that the GCM atmospheres are still overly transparent

for solar radiation."

 

"A difficult component to model in the longwave radiation budget is the downward longwave

flux at the surface. Accordingly, large discrepancies exist in the global means of

this component in the GCMs, both under all sky and clear sky conditions. A comparison

with available observations from GEBA and BSRN suggests that the IPCC AR4

GCMs tend to underestimate the longwave downward flux.."

 

Abstract

 

What I find interesting, if the models are not accrately reflecting the incoming radiation from the sun that energy (utlitmately in the form of a temperature) gets attributed to something else. The problem arises because the initial conditions of the model are input with measured data covering a period of years. The model is then "tuned' by ajusting the parameterized features (usually clouds, CO2 and other forcing components) so that the model output then follows the observed data for another period of time. Unfortunately, for climate models the time intervals required for tuning the model and validating the model exceed the available data. Therefore, we are left with models that have been tuned, but not necessarily validated. (This abstract is an example of the validation process). However, it also illustrates that the model has been tuned to follow the temperature, based on an unrealistic solar input (based on the comparison between observation and the GCM modeling of the solar input). Therefore, it is likely that in order for the model to be tuned to match the temperatures during the calibration period the parameterization techniques have misattributed the feedback of the system relative to the incoming solar flux.

[Guest Larry-T]

Great. I eagerly await your response to the articles I have posted earlier in this thread.

 

One bit of clarification, are comments on the peer review process allowed? Specifically, data archiving and reproduceability requirements?

 

The articles you posted earlier were not from peer reviewed journals. Attacking the peer review process (which has to take into account a large number of factors and is not identical for all aspects of science) is, in my opinion, another case of attempting to shoot the messenger. This process has served science well for many decades and, in the long term, has supported valid approaches and theories while helping shoot down those which could not withstand its gaze. The name "Veliskovscki" (SP) comes to mind.

 

So if you have an article to cite, please give the journal entry so that it can be verified with a real scientific source, not a pop press blurb, interview, or labeled opinion piece.

[BeltwayBandit]

The articles you posted earlier were not from peer reviewed journals. Attacking the peer review process (which has to take into account a large number of factors and is not identical for all aspects of science) is, in my opinion, another case of attempting to shoot the messenger. This process has served science well for many decades and, in the long term, has supported valid approaches and theories while helping shoot down those which could not withstand its gaze. The name "Veliskovscki" (SP) comes to mind.

Oh, I thought we were going to discuss the Science. The issue of peer reivew and the current state of affairs does raise important issues namely that of reproduceablity and verification of results:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

(Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the results to be established. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.)

 

I can name numerous examples in the climate research fields, where this standard is not even close to being upheld.

 

So if you have an article to cite, please give the journal entry so that it can be verified with a real scientific source, not a pop press blurb, interview, or labeled opinion piece.

 

You missed this one: http://www.wamas.org/forums/index.php?s=&a...st&p=104054

 

And my post immedieatly preceeding yours. Care to discuss those issues?

Edited February 13, 2007 by BeltwayBandit

[cabrerad]

Here is an excerpt from an abstract for a presentation at the EGU 2007 General Assembly. Of note, remember CO2 forcing is supposed to be on the order of 2.5 Wm-2.

 

"Substantial uncertainty still exists regarding the distribution of radiative energy within

the global climate system, and its representation in General Circulation Models. Compared

to a comprehensive set of surface observations, the majority of the GCMs participating

in the latest IPCC forth assessment report (AR4) overestimate the surface insolation,

by 6 Wm-2 on average, while the bias is smaller at the TOA. This is in line with

an analysis of 20 earlier GCMs participating in the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison

Project AMIP II and suggests that the GCM atmospheres are still overly transparent

for solar radiation."

 

"A comparison with available observations from GEBA and BSRN suggests that the IPCC AR4

GCMs tend to underestimate the longwave downward flux."

 

Abstract

 

What I find interesting, if the models are not accrately reflecting the incoming radiation from the sun that energy (utlitmately in the form of a temperature) gets attributed to something else. The problem arises because the initial conditions of the model are input with measured data covering a period of years. The model is then "tuned' by ajusting the parameterized features (usually clouds, CO2 and other forcing components) so that the model output then follows the observed data for another period of time. Unfortunately, for climate models the time intervals required for tuning the model and validating the model exceed the available data. Therefore, we are left with models that have been tuned, but not necessarily validated. (This abstract is an example of the validation process). However, it also illustrates that the model has been tuned to follow the temperature, based on an underestimated solar input. Therefore, it is likely that in order for the model to be tuned to match the temperatures during the calibration period the parameterization techniques have overestimated the feedback of the system relative to the incoming solar flux.

 

A quick note for this discussion. This is not a comment about the research described above, but a commentary on abstracts. Abstracts are interesting in that they provide insight into the most new and breaking research. They should not, however, be given the same weight as journal articles as they are "works in progress" and are almost never subject to peer review. The research of many abstracts never ends up getting published.