"Climate Science - it is not a religion" by Climate Science / LJWorld.com

Blogs home Climate Science

Climate Science - it is not a religion

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and winner of Nobel Peace Prize recently reported: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures , widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level' I have done research on climate change,for over 30 years. I am repeatedly asked 'do you believe in climate change'? This is like asking 'do you believe the roads in Lawrence are in bad shape?' You can believe what you like, but the number of potholes does not change. Most people will not argue about the definition of a pothole, although clearly for the engineers who fix roads, there must be some rules about when a road needs patching as compared to complete repaving. Most people would also agree with an engineers report about the road conditions, although they might disagree about the timeline or expense required to repair them. Then why are we asked if we 'believe' a report on climate change? A report prepared by 1,000's of scientists worldwide and endorsed by the most esteemed science organizations in the country? A report compiled by the same group that won the Nobel Peace Prize. I am frustrated that when people learn what I do, they often ask 'do you believe in climate change?' Climate change is not a religion. It is a science. There are a lot of things we know about climate change, and there is a lot we still do not know. But, just because we have not solved everything does not mean the rest of it should be ignored. Would you refuse to 'believe in' a treatment for cancer because it only cures 80% of the patients, and the doctor couldn't explain every tiny detail? I want people to start asking me real questions, what do we know about climate, where are scientists still unsure? What do you know? Do you know how long it takes for your car exhaust to 'mix' and appear in average atmosphere over the rest of the world? (days to months). After water sinks from the surface of the ocean to the bottom, how long before it rises to the surface again? (decades to centuries). The earth is warming because more heat enters from the sun, than is radiated out to space. Where is this extra heat going? (Of the extra heat coming into the earth since 1961, 80% of it has been absorbed by the oceans.) What is the impact of volcanic eruptions on our climate? (following a cooling for the first few years, large eruptions usually increase the global temperature). What has been the major cause of sea level rise in the past decades (oceans warming and expanding and small glaciers melting). How will this change in the future? (The small glaciers are almost gone, Greenland may melt faster, and the ocean will probably keep warming and expanding). None of these are really hard to understand, yet how many did you know? The science of climate is relatively new. Few schools include climate science in their curriculum, virtually no teachers have formal training in the subject. The issue was hardly visible in the recent election. Yet, climate change, sea level rise, increased hurricanes and storms may be the most important issues facing future generations. We will probably get through the financial crisis, and we may even be able to improve our health care system, but the solution to climate change seems much farther off. We need to get past simplistic beliefs and try to understand the science before we can make good choices. Everyone needs to participate in the discussion from politicians, lawyers and energy companies to farmers, teachers and even Joe the Plumber. You could claim that this discussion is merely academic, what can we do anyway? Yet decisions on public money are being made now that will impact our ability to understand (and cope with) climate change. For example, NASA recently made a decision to delay launch of a satellite called ICESAT II. This is a replacement for ICESAT I (duh) which will soon die. The satellite has a laser which periodically measures the surface elevation of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. It is accurate to within a few centimeters (an inch). By subtracting measurements collected one year from those collected the next year, we can calculate the change in the surface elevation of the ice. Since its launch in 2003, scientists have used these results to monitor the surface elevation of these huge ice sheets to understand if they are melting or growing, and how fast they are changing. The choice NASA made to delay sending a replacement into space means there will be nearly a decade where we do not have this information. Can we afford a gap in these measurements? Do we need to know how much of the rising sea level is because the ice sheets are melting? What are the pros and cons of the decision that NASA made to delay the launch? Well, they did save money, and there is another satellite which can help sort of. The GRACE satellite orbits the earth and measures the gravity field. Again, we subtract two measurements taken in different years and this gives us the change in total mass of the ice sheets. Not quite the same as a change in elevation, but some indication of melting or growing. GRACE is even younger than ICESAT I and the results are not as precise as the answer we get from the lasers on ICESAT I. Do you think NASA made the right decision? How well do we need to monitor ice sheets and their impact on sea level rise? Do you care if we can predict what sea level will look like in you children or grandchildren's lifetime? This is not just an intellectual exercise for scientists, there are other decisions related to climate change that increasingly face private industry. When we hear that the Arctic sea ice has reached a new minimum, it opens up tremendous possibilities. If you are shipping goods (or oil) from Asia to the US, when will you be able to ship them through the Northwest Passage, saving both fuel and time? Some experts predict this could happen in the next 20 years. If you are fishing off the coast of Alaska, what new fishing grounds might open up? If you plan to purchase a ship which has a life of 30 years or so, you want all the information, even if it is not perfect. To make these decisions, does not required a 'belief'one way or the other, it requires knowing the facts. Climate science rarely provides absolute answers and there are lots of shades of grey. But it is heaps better than ignorance. ( I think we know far more about Climate systems than we do about economic systems, yet clearly decisions must be made on both issues.) Climate change will touch everyone for generations to come. The best decisions, whether to launch satellites, or buy an ice strengthened fishing boat require all the information, even if it is not perfect. It is time to stop the simple 'belief' argument and start learning the facts. In the meantime, if you know someone who could fix the potholes on my street let me know..:

By Vicky Lytle

November 8, 2008

Climate Science

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 November 2008
at 5:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

So, is climate change caused by man, or by the sun? If sea ice is melting, wouldn't the oceans actually recede?
9 November 2008
at 8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

The science clearly points to man as the cause of the recent warming we have seen, changes in the sun can not expain it.Sea ice forms by the ocean freezing. Because it is already floating on the sea surface, when it melts sea level does not change.When land ice melts, sea level rises as the melt water eventually makes it into the ocean. This ice includes small glaciers around the world and the large ice sheets of Antarctica or Greenland.
9 November 2008
at 10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

autie (Anonymous) says…

Nice piece..good to see something written about this subject with such a clear pragmatic view. But careful, vicky, you will confuse the naysayers with facts supported by empircal evidence. All that ice reflects solar energy back out into space, less ice, more net gain..duh.. I read something about the accumulation of green house gases in the upper atmosphere, as I recall, said it actually blocks more sunlight but as the chemicals rearrange on a molecular level, it will let in much more?? anybody know about this?
9 November 2008
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

If you put an ice cube in a glass of water, the water rises. When this same ice melts, the water level recedes. Why wouldn't this same principle apply to the sea ice melting in the oceans?In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.By 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. How can your theory be attributed to man?Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.Marine productivity cycles match well with the sun's 75-90-year “Gleissberg Cycle,” the 200-500-year “Suess Cycle” and the 1,100-1,500-year “Bond Cycle.” The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.Finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called “proxies”) is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.Even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. An amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change. continued…………..
9 November 2008
at 10:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

The output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright.From the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.All this climate change caused by man seems more religion and politics than by facts. How could it be argued otherwise?
9 November 2008
at 10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

I need to give credit where credit is due:http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1
9 November 2008
at 10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

Big Prune said: If you put an ice cube in a glass of water, the water rises. When this same ice melts, the water level recedes. Only the first half of your statement is true. If you put ice into a glass of water the level rises is correct. As it melts the water level will remain the same. TRY IT The key here is to make sure the ice is floating (not stacked up on the bottom of the glass).The rest of your statements are full of half truths also. Some of the facts are correct, but your conclusions are not. Considerable scientific advances have been made since 2003 when some of those statements were made. Who are you going to believe - the Nobel Committee and the most respected science organizations in the world, or random selected facts?Climate has changed in the past, but the conditions we see now (temperature AND present CO2 levels at the same time) are unprecedented.

9 November 2008
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…

it will do what it will do regardless of what we believe (or want), such an excellent point that many people have a hard time getting around.big prune can try to understand a cube of ice in a glass of water, but there is so much ice that is on land, greenland, antarctica, etc.
9 November 2008
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Nobel promotes a political agenda (Al Gore) just as the United Nations. Read the link I presented for the opposing views. I recall the 1970's when the headlines were about the impending “Ice Age.” It makes me skeptical, and rightfully so, so I need facts not theories and not theories considered facts.
9 November 2008
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Hello, Vicky, Glad to see a new voice in the CJA blogs!Looks like Paul Decelles has another colleague in the scientific arena, too. That's good for people like me who rush about life with a half cup of coffee, oblivious to the cosmos most of the time.I know there is not a simple, single answer to this question, but how do I answer folks who are convinced that global warming is really just a cyclical weather pattern or worse, just a product of Al Gore and his liberal politics? I suppose some people know what they know and don't care about what they can't accept or grasp. Still, I know what I don't know, and that's a lot. So call me both ignorant and wearing the frown of thought.May I fill up my coffee cup now?
9 November 2008
at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

4paz (Anonymous) says…

Big Prune, If some inventor came up with a method to provide clean green energy for electricity and vehicles, would you oppose that? We know that the pollution is detrimental already, whether or not, you believe it leads to global warming. What argument can anyone have to changing the way we live to make the earth cleaner of toxins? After all, it's not the earth we are trying to save, it's humankind.Living in Kansas, it's difficult to determine climate change, since every year of my 56 years here in Kansas has been different. Yes, there are trends, such as, spring seems to come about a month earlier than before. But there is no denying that the global climate is changing.
9 November 2008
at 11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

feeble (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune (Anonymous) says:If you put an ice cube in a glass of water, the water rises. When this same ice melts, the water level recedes. Why wouldn't this same principle apply to the sea ice melting in the oceans?=======================Ever hear of Archimedes? 200 BC called and wants its scientific breakthrough back. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the one of the most basic principles of hydrostatics invalidates every single comment you have posted in response to this article. Climate change is real, it is now. We know that as the earth cycles through glacial and interglacial periods, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuates between 180 - 300pm. This information is based on ice core data going back over 670,000 years. We are now at 384 ppm CO2. Our atmosphere has not looked like this in nearly 20 million years. Factoring in your laughable stock market predictions, I can only concluded you are completely uneducated, little more than a mouthpiece for the rabid, no-nothing conservative fringe.Please take you junk science elsewhere. I'm sure there is an Obama article just waiting for your vitriol.
9 November 2008
at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

“Big Prune, If some inventor came up with a method to provide clean green energy for electricity and vehicles, would you oppose that?”Probably depends on whether they call themselves a Republican or a Democrat, and then whether it requires any personal sacrifice or change. When it does, its time to promote environmental science funded at least in part by the big oil companies.
9 November 2008
at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

feeble (Anonymous) says…

XD40 (Anonymous) says:Douglass DH, Pearson BD, Singer SF. 2004. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L13208, Doi:10.1029/2004/GL020103.Link to article here: http://www.sepp.org/=================… Science & Environmental Policy Project “research” is demonstratively poor. I'll see your copy and paste with another. * The satellite record shows that warming is occurring. As of mid-2007, the rise is between 0.14 and 0.184 degree Celsius per decade, depending on which satellite record is used. (See Satellite temperature measurements.) * Computer climate models have predicted 20th century temperature trends accurately. [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm] * The weather pattern in a particular year (e.g. “in July the Antarctic experienced the coldest weather on record”) do not imply anything about longer-term climate. * Scientific evidence indicates that recent global warming is caused by human activity. Patrick Michaels, a well-known “skeptic”, has said that it is “proven humans are warming the atmosphere” [http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20031015-085235-5134r.htm]. * The ban on CFCs did not cause any substantial economic harm, and has been effective. Increases in surface UV are inferred (see ozone depletion). * Primary scientific data was collected in Punta Arenas, Chile, using a Brewer spectro-photometer, and “These results indicate that during the time when ozone depletion in the Antarctica takes place, an increase in UV-B radiation reaching the Earth surface affected the American continent at latitudes about parallel 50Â° S.”[http://ozono.dcsc.utfsm.cl/publica1.html]
9 November 2008
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Defender (Anonymous) says…

I am amazed how selective fact pickers think they know everything, because the only want to believe what they want to believe. Amazing. XD40 and BigPrune are presented with the evidence, and yet rely on outdated data and bad science.

9 November 2008
at 2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

XD40 (Anonymous) says:”Pro-global warming scientists force the data to meet their forecasts:http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Pub:”As told to you by professors of marketing and business economics?
9 November 2008
at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Oh, here's one for one of the other ones. http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/02/…
9 November 2008
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

4paz (Anonymous) says…

Could you define “non-partisan” scientists, please? That is a very odd statement.
9 November 2008
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Here, we go, the know-it-alls are coming out of the woodwork. They have already made up their minds that humans can't possibly be altering the planet's overall climate systems, and they're going to drag out every dissenting link or opinion to try to support their foregone conclusions. Really, though, I think this issue can be boiled down to the typical muck produced by partisan politics. No surprise that the naysayers on this thread are generally some of the most conservative posters on these forums.The fact is that in the past 150 years or so, humans have burned tons and tons of fossil fuels, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere probably than all human activity that has occurred before the Industrial Age. It is complete common sense to assume that there will be some sort of consequences of doing so.During the last 'Ice Age,' or glacial maximum of around 19,000 years ago, the climate of North America—at least that not along the glacial boundary—was cooler overall, but the seasonal fluctuations were less extreme. This means that winters were not as cold, but the summers were likewise not as warm. The last 'Ice Age' came to an end because of warming. There are many theories out there as to why, exactly, this happened. When the glaciers melted, the sea level rose globally about 300 feet. For a compelling case study of this event, just look at Cosquer cave in France (http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeos…). Regardless, the net result was a warmer climate overall, yet seasonal fluctuations became much greater. Hell, coeval jaguars and caribou have been found at a paleontological site in Kentucky that dates to this time. Just try to imagine what sort of climate would support that wacky assemblage of animals.
9 November 2008
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

The fact is that we know that burning fossil fuels in profusion as we have been doing results in a negative net effect on the environment, not to mention the damage that is caused by extracting it. Just go to Crawford and Cherokee counties in SE Kansas, and you'll see exactly what sort of disregard humans have had for the landscape in our quest for fossil fuels.Anthropogenic atmospheric pollution is not a new phenomenon, either. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…) Its presence has been noted in the Arctic since about 1870. The fact is that science is pointing to anthropogenic climate change. Sure, we probably don't unequivocally know the proportion of natural and anthropogenic fluctuations or synergistics, but to simply say 'nay,' is nothing but shooting ourselves in the foot. We are politicizing an issue that does not need to be politicized, since it will affect every human in every corner of the globe. If we develop cleaner energy technologies, then it is a win-win situation. What do we have to lose? We will eventually need such technologies anyway.That's my rant. I can't make up people's minds for them, but I encourage a critical analysis of the motivations behind naysaying when it comes to this subject. My guess is that the greatest motivation is 'those damn liberals and their falling sky.' Grow up, people. This isn't a political issue; it is a human issue.
9 November 2008
at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

David, I hope you enjoyed your coffee this morning. If you are following this conversation, you are probably confused about who to listen to in the climate debate. It might help to review the way research proceeds. Tens of thousands of scientists and engineers do research on their little bit of the climate problem. When these researchers find something new, they present it to their peers, and after being reviewed for scientific merit it gets published. Tens of thousands of these papers are published every year, in 100's of journals worldwide, and you have seen a small number of them referenced in this blog. As jonas has pointed out, you have also seen individual opinions quoted, including from marketing and finance professionals. So how are we supposed to wade through all the evidence? What should we base our decisions on, who should you trust? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 exactly for this reason. Its mandate is to: provide decision makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. Their last report, published in March, 2007 stated that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.' Translated this means there is an 8 out of 10 chance that climate change is caused by humankind. http://www.ipcc.ch/Thousands of scientists participated in the process, it took a several years. All scientists in the world do not agree with every word of the 3000+ page report. But, on the whole, they reached consensus. It is the most comprehensive and consensual report that exists. v e r y l i k e l y caused by humankind. So what do we do with this very likely conclusion? Do we ignore it until we have 100% certainty? Or, do we look at the odds and make decisions that make sense? Reducing our use of fossil fuel increases our national security, reduces pollution, and can even save money. Conserving our wetlands, and other natural habitats protects ecosystem diversity and improves our quality of life. Recycling makes our landfill last longer. A national goal to be energy self-sufficient in the next decade will spur innovation and help inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers. And it is very likely it will also slow climate change. What have we got to loose? These are better odds than anyone gave when they passed the economic bail-out in Congress.
9 November 2008
at 5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

XD40: I recently watched an episode of some fictional crime show on television. In this particular episode, they were prosecuting a doctor for incorrectly treating hiv/aids. Why was this guy not administering conventional treatments? Well, because we have a vaccine against almost every virus for which we need one. More money has probably been spent trying to find a cure for hiv/aids than any other virus. So, the doctor in this episode was blatantly arguing that hiv/aids either does not exists or is symptomatically due to the medications used to 'treat' it and not the virus itself. And guess what, his patients were dying from failing immune systems due to hiv/aids. It is common sense to say that hiv/aids will probably kill you if you contract it. But this doctor was saying that hiv/aids is a merely a hoax perpetrated by medical industrial complex to make money, perpetuating the hoax by saying that pharmaceutical toxicity is the result of the virus and not the medications. But this doctor saw through this 'corruption.'Granted, this is a fictional scenario, but I think it has many parallels to the climate debate. With regard to the climate debate, we do not have enough evidence to unequivocally distinguish anthropogenic climate change vs. natural climate change. But this doesn't mean we can rule out either one. I follow the axiom 'better safe than sorry.'But climate change is just a hoax invented by Al Gore, scientists, and dem damn liberals as a conspiracy to make a buck, right? They couldn't *possibly* being thinking about the fate of civilization.
9 November 2008
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Hang in there Vicky.Simple facts for those possibly misled by XD40 and BigPrune's illogic and/or misinformation:CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas; more of it in the air causes the temperature to go up. (It's on a log scale, but that is more than we need for now.)CO2 has gone up by about a third since mankind started using fossil fuels.It is getting warmer, and it is getting warmer faster as the years go by.Yes, of course there are other factors affecting our climate, but there are _no_ other factors which can explain the degree of change or the timing of the changes.Links for the curious:”How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?”http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87Wondering which temperature graph to believe? Here is a collection of several:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_yearsBut you don't need temperature graphs to figure out there is a warming trend. Look at the changes in the timings of animal migrations; look at the huge trend in glaciers melting; look at the arctic ice cap.In the last couple of decades, the year over year reduction in ice volume has totaled, very roughly, 2 million square kilometers by 1 to 2 meters. (Let's say 1 meter.) The amount of heat energy to convert ice to water at the same temperature (latent heat) is about 80 calories per gram. (Saline water makes thing more complicated, but I'm only making a rough estimate anyway.) One gram is 1 cubic centimeter of water; 1 cubic meter is 10,000 cubic centimeters. Do the math; it is a _lot_ of energy that has been added to the system. (Extremely roughly, 1.6 times 10 to the 18th calories. That would be like all 300 million of us in the US going to the arctic and melting 670,000 pans of ice each.) The bonus is that we have yet to see the full temperature increase from this added energy because there is still ice to keep the temperature down. Like a glass of ice water, it won't really start to get warmer until the ice is gone.Links on Arctic ice:http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.pnghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081027200309.htmhttp://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/

9 November 2008
at 5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune says:I recall the 1970's when the headlines were about the impending “Ice Age.”Oh come on, that is one tired, old horse. The thing in the 70s was a handful of scientists whose paper got splashed around the media. Our current understanding of the climate is based on thousands of scientists working over decades. There is no comparison.
9 November 2008
at 5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

XD40,Please see my previous response athttp://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/nov/06/sebelius_says_coal_plants_not_her_agenda/#c735991There are two next to each other.Your site references have not proven to be very reliable.
9 November 2008
at 5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…

Vicky- I find it interesting that you refer to it as climate change (instead of the old version global warming), because its not too hard to prove climate change. Thats right. Wow…there's empirical evidence that the climate changes? How about that. The climate has been changing on Earth since the beginning.–––––––––––––––––––—”The science clearly points to man as the cause of the recent warming we have seen” If it was so clear, then this wouldn't be such a hot debate among scientists.––––––––––––––––––––––– “Amazing. XD40 and BigPrune are presented with the evidence” What evidence are you speaking of? I read the blog. It's full of statements like, “Most scientists believe…” and there's a lot of comparisons of climate change to potholes and the treatment of cancer (really????). The simple truth is there is no evidence of anything except that the climate changes, as it has since the beginning of time. I am ready to believe if we had REAL evidence. Heck, I'm willing to be on board any legislation that lowers our emissions right now. But these fear tactics are not the way to convince. The only real group the blog cites is the IPCC which isn't exactly an impartial body. Yes, they won a Nobel Prize…but so did Al Gore and I could give you millions of reasons why he's not exactly impartial either.
9 November 2008
at 6:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

XD40 (Anonymous) says: “The IPCC is a corrupt, partisan, ideologically driven creation of the corrupt, partisan, ideologically driven UN. 'Very likely caused by humankind' is code for the anti-Western hysteria that grips much of the so-called intelligensia and all third world crooks (think of Hugo Chavez). And so-called scientists with polictical agendas like the ones on display here are their lapdogs.”Or, alternatively, you've just foisted a ridiculous conspiracy theory that you only believe because you get too much of your news from obviously biased newssources. To say that the final synopsis and analysis on this issue is still in the future is certainly correct, but virtually everything you led off with is full of holes, from questionable experts, etc., and the above paragraph just makes you look insane.
9 November 2008
at 6:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

cg22165: I give up! And, I say your argument makes no sense. You have to admit that carbon is both natural and organic, correct? yes. Well, maybe not on the organic part; it is an element like most others in this universe; it is naturally occurring, but it does not have to be in an organic compound. So, more is better, right? no. It is a question of balance. For many millions of years life has gotten used to an environment resulting from a balance of carbon within a certain range. In the last 150 years, mankind has pushed the carbon levels outside of that range. What is your point?The biosphere is plastic, but changes that are too large or occur too rapidly can cause, and have in the past caused, a lot of damage. Extreme example of “a lot of damage”, the P/T extinction.
9 November 2008
at 6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Don't take me wrong; I do not believe we are heading toward a P/T level event. I'm just saying bad things can and do happen and it doesn't help to ignore the possibility.
9 November 2008
at 6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again… the opinions regarding climate change related more to political affiliations than they do hard facts. Hey, look, so and so says they're skeptical… and guess what? They're also conservative!! Woohoo, that's who I'm going to believe!! Damn liberals! We'll get 'em one way or another.You can be skeptical all you want. Let's say you have that insidious gene for cervical/breast cancer. Are you going to ignore it simply because you don't have a 100% chance of developing cancer? Oh, but I'm just a lapdog. Hey, wait a second, kettle, we're both black. I could consider the naysayers the lapdogs of fossil fuel companies and other big business-related agendas, but I'm wrong in the first place, so I guess I can't say that. Bow wow.I'm done here, but I'll just say that it irks me to no end when people question climate change. We have released a huge cloud of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the last 150-200 years. It just boggles my mind to think that there are people out there who believe that this change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere will have no consequences. But again, it isn't about the issue; it is only about saying 'Climate change is a liberal issue, and I'm not one of dem damn liberals like Al Gore.' Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrgh!
9 November 2008
at 6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Yeti,”If it was so clear, then this wouldn't be such a hot debate among scientists.”It isn't a hot debate. Count the names of scientists who publish articles arguing that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening. I think you'll have a list of a dozen or so. I know I keep seeing the same names over and over again. Count the list of names who accept that it is real; it is in the thousands.Why do people listen to the dozen? Good question.

9 November 2008
at 6:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

cg22165,The coming “Ice Age” was presented on the first Earth Day in 1970. In 1990 the world would be colder by 4 degrees and 11 degrees by 2000 as stated by UC Davis's Ken Watt. Science Digest, International Wildlife, the Christian Science Monitor declared it to be true. The national media of course followed suit -Newsweek said there were ominous signs of this “Ice Age.” In about 5 years, these scare tactics were replaced with Global Warming - of course it is man made, and why should anyone doubt science, they never get anything wrong, right? From the IPCC:Climate may be partly predictable. We believe human-induced climate change is predictable. But we can't predict human behavior. Therefore we rely on “scenarios.”Science, by definition, is not subjective, except when it comes to climate change.
9 November 2008
at 6:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

manbearpig (Anonymous) says…

Vicky,Here's a serious question for you. Being an expert in the climate change field, I'm sure you have heard of Bjorn Lomborg, and hopefully even read some of his works. What do you think of his argument that while man is responsible for climate change, the most efficient (and therefore effective) response is not to reduce CO2 emissions, but instead to focus on ways to cope with the negatives of a warming planet while taking full advantage of the benefits of a warming planet? I'd be happy to clarify his premises if you are not familiar with his work.Thanks
9 November 2008
at 6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…

“Count the names of scientists who publish articles arguing that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening. I think you'll have a list of a dozen or so. I know I keep seeing the same names over and over again. Count the list of names who accept that it is real; it is in the thousands.” Documentation? Where are these mythical polls (Since I am assuming you have not read all the thousands of articles)?
9 November 2008
at 7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

It's all about re$earch dollar$ and TV rating$.I don't believe either side of the argument.My own observation is that man's activities certainly can affect the climate, but to point to man as “THE” cause is just stupid; there are so many variables — both within and beyond our control — that no one piece defines the whole puzzle. But … you can't scare people into giving you grant money or watching your movie if you address it in a sane and honest way, so we get all the hype. Should we quit dumping so much poison into the air and water? Sure. Should we get carried away to the point that it cripples our economy? No. Does anything we do in rural Kansas matter much if China keeps opening a new “dirty” coal plant every 10 days? Dunno, but I sorta doubt it.Global warming? Let's hope it's true in Kansas for the next 4 or 5 months. Beyond that, let's be level-headed, try to make things better in reasonable ways, and remember to love each other while we discuss it.
9 November 2008
at 7:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

autie (Anonymous) says…

Big Prune and WD40..Annie says it is getting hot..and Annie knows all…get over it. Well, I don't know but it seemed like a good idea at the time.Redwoodcoast..you are right about SEK…I'm still here and man has screwed it all up..not exactly fossil fuels.. a lot but just as much minerals..look at Galena Ks….the whole town is going to cave into a sink hole..
9 November 2008
at 7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Vicky,Thank you for your thoughful reply to my question. Of course, XD40 gave a heartfelt retort, which was something about the IPCC being “a corrupt, partisan, ideologically driven creation of the corrupt, partisan, ideologically driven UN,” or something like that. Gosh, that's scary stuff, eh? Anyway, that sort of crazy talk is usually wasted on me as I was probably refilling my coffee cup, which is completely full and steaming now, thank you very much.Again, well said and I will check out the IPCC link. Appreciate it.
9 November 2008
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

manbearpig: “the most efficient (and therefore effective) response is not to reduce CO2 emissions, but instead to focus on ways to cope with the negatives of a warming planet while taking full advantage of the benefits of a warming planet?”What happens to the life that can't adapt to this change? Do you always equate efficient and effective? They aren't the same thing at all.
9 November 2008
at 11:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

feeble (Anonymous) says…

manbearpig: “the most efficient (and therefore effective) response is not to reduce CO2 emissions, but instead to focus on ways to cope with the negatives of a warming planet while taking full advantage of the benefits of a warming planet?”===================Like increased evaporation in arid and semi-arid environs, or increased rainfall and soil run off in coastal regions?Didn't Yahweh charge his children to be good shepherds of this earth?

10 November 2008
at 2:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

expat (Anonymous) says…

I find it too bad that discussions of climate change so quickly turn acrimonious, and I have never really understood why this happens. My research involves past climate data, reconstructions of past environmental conditions, and inter-disciplinary collaborations with climate modelers. So, whether it is of interest or not, I thought I would share my perspective, which is based on the data I work with and is really quite simple. There is no doubt that the climate is warming, and the length of this trend from the beginning of the Holocene is a bit unusual when one looks at the ice and marine core data for the past 300-400 kyrs, but in any case conditions in the Holocene got quite temperate quite quickly without any human influence. Even though this trend has been protracted it is not as warm as Marine Isotope Stage 9, and MIS 7 (and MIS 5 to some degree) is an interglacial that is comparatively only slightly less pronounced. So, in general we are witnessing a natural warming trend, but this trend has, no doubt, been augmented by recent industrial influences. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to blame recent climatic conditions solely on human activity, but at the same time it is important to attempt to limit our footprint on the present climate cycle.
10 November 2008
at 5:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

PostGrad (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune said”If you put an ice cube in a glass of water, the water rises. When this same ice melts, the water level recedes. Why wouldn't this same principle apply to the sea ice melting in the oceans?”PostGrad says:Doesn't this comment just invalidate any other comment by this poster?If someone can't get a simple analogy (with sea ice) correct, they are hardly qualified to make comments about university educated scientists or more complex subjects.The very first post BigPrune made is fundamentally flawed, presumably because it is their own idea about the science of ice and water. How long have they thought this?One also has this vision of a 'higher being' dropping huge ice bergs and ice sheets into the seas to raise sea levels and now they are melting, the oceans will magically recede.
10 November 2008
at 7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

expat, I think that the answer to your question regarding the acrimony of these climate discussions is because nothing is clearly defined.My background is in physics and physics-based engineering. The goal in my research was always to converge toward solutions that had R-squared values over .95. We identify, control, and measure variables until the process is described. We then build and operate equipment that relies on the science. In this “climate science” and other modern, “fuzzy sciences”, the definitions are fluid. Regressions, correlations, and statements about the science are based upon ill-defined variables. Global warming becomes anthropogenic global warming becomes climate change….. It feels like a bait and switch sales tactic.Furthermore, when the science is challenged, people like James Hansen and Al Gore, and IPCC defend themselves by labeling the questioners as deniers. They say that the science is done. Science is never done, folks. There are precious few facts in this world. Most of our science is an educated guess at best. But not in the world of “fuzzy science” like climate change.Of course the climate is changing. It always has. What is the mechanism? Don't know. Wanna test? Immediately stop emission of CO2. Look for climate change. Then start it again and repeat. Hold all other variables constant. Can't do this? Then stop insisting that your science is undeniable.Ms. Lytle references cancer cures at a level of 80%. These treatments are the result of massive studies involving controls, and tests that are carefully monitored. People die doing these studies because they are in control parts of the studies. People die because the treatments are often not successful. It has been going on for decades and gradually the treatments become better. No grand statements about miracle cures have ever come to pass. Cancer research is slow, methodical and gradually effective, under careful control by the researchers. You can't do this with climate research. So you can't do science. Yet you claim it as science.Climatology is lousy science. Science has become sloppier and sloppier as time goes on. The introduction of computers with excel sheets has given all kinds of jack-leg scientists the ability to pontificate. It is lousy science and causes people to argue. The argument is political. The argument is about human feelings. The argument is about power and money. It isn't about science, because IPCC doesn't do science.
10 November 2008
at 7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

PostGrad (Anonymous) says…

ralphralph said:”It's all about re$earch dollar$ and TV rating$”PostGrad says:So you think the climate wouldn't change if less money was spent on research and it wasn't on TV so much?The fact that you might be keen to hide it away somewhere doesn't change what is happening. What would be the result of spending less money?The common person on the street would blame it on god or come up with some unverified theory resulting in inappropriate actions and maybe even start witch hunts for the people responsible.ralphralph said:”I don't believe either side of the argument.My own observation is that man's activities certainly can affect the climate, but to point to man as “THE” cause is just stupid; there are so many variables - both within and beyond our control - that no one piece defines the whole puzzle.”PostGrad says:There are big holes in every aspect of science. That doesn't invalidate it, what it does do is prove that we are human and not a god. The computer you are using works despite the fact that we don't fully understand the science that makes it work.eg. the science is good enough to be sure that it will work, but the science does not need to be fully understood.ralphralph said:”But : you can't scare people into giving you grant money or watching your movie if you address it in a sane and honest way, so we get all the hype.”PostGrad says:Scientists don't really scare people, they just do their job. It's hardly appropriate to say things aren't very bad when your research has come up with results that clearly show things could be bad. That would be just as irresponsible as saying things will be bad when you know they won't be.Toning down the results just to scare fewer people, is hardly scientific.ralphralph said:”Should we quit dumping so much poison into the air and water? Sure. Should we get carried away to the point that it cripples our economy? No. “PostGrad says:What about other nations economies?After all we all have a stake in this. What right do you have to protect your economy, when the very action of supporting that economy has devastating impacts on another economy?If your economy can change and over time be low carbon, enabling others to do the same, then surely that is beneficial in the long term to all.ralphralph said:”Does anything we do in rural Kansas matter much if China keeps opening a new “dirty” coal plant every 10 days? Dunno, but I sorta doubt it.”PostGrad says:How many Chinese manufactured products does someone in rural Kansas buy?A third of Chinese industry is actually foreign owned, eg. American and European companies manufacturing in China, taking advantage of those dirty power stations and then shipping the products back to the US or EU.
10 November 2008
at 8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

Manbearpig Thanks for the question, it is really important when we talk about solutions to look at the most effective ones.You asked if the most efficient (and therefore effective) response is not to reduce CO2 emissions, but instead to focus on ways to cope with the negatives of a warming planet while taking full advantage of the benefits of a warming planet?I wish the solution was this simple. There is no question that some climate change will happen, and there are winners and losers. The author of this idea, I think is from Scandanavia. If you are growing crops in Northern Sweden you will probably be a 'winner'. But the native people in the Arctic have said: 'we are fighting for our right to be cold'. Their very lifestyle is threatened. They will probably lose. If you live on a Pacific atoll which will soon be below sea level you will also lose. The fact is, that our society and our infrastructure has been built based on a steady climate, and a steady sea level, there will be large damages. The Stern report was produced by leading economists in the UK and is probably the most extensive cost-benefit analysis on climate change. It concluded that money spent now on reduction of emissions was well worth it. And, that the longer we wait the more expensive it will be to adapt or make any future changes.So, no I do not completely agree with this statement, I think there is a lot that can be done N O W without crippling our economy. Climate change will happen, there is no turning back. But, we still have the option to limit the damages and maybe stay away from tipping points. And we need to find ways to help the inevitable losers.
10 November 2008
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Vicky, I have a busy weekend and come online to check the ho hum blogs and what do I find? You go!!!! Great first post. Appreciate the intelligent comments; ignore the others. You will quickly get to know the personalities of the people who comment. You have a wide variety already on here. :) Great work.
10 November 2008
at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

Anonymous userBigPrune (Anonymous) says:cg22165,The coming “Ice Age” was presented on the first Earth Day in 1970. In 1990 the world would be colder by 4 degrees and 11 degrees by 2000 as stated by UC Davis's Ken Watt. Science Digest, International Wildlife, the Christian Science Monitor declared it to be true. Science Digest, International Wildlife, and the Christian Science Monitor are secondary sources, media outlets as I mentioned. Primary sources include publications that contain the original research article. Other than the Kenneth Watt, et al, article, how many primary sources do you have that suggested the earth was going into an ice age?TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says:”Count the names of scientists who publish articles arguing that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening. I think you'll have a list of a dozen or so. I know I keep seeing the same names over and over again. Count the list of names who accept that it is real; it is in the thousands.”Documentation? Where are these mythical polls (Since I am assuming you have not read all the thousands of articles)?Well, my poll isn't scientific, but the names Dennis Bray, Hans von Storch, and Christopher Monckton occur in most of the skeptic articles I've read. In contrast, look up the researchers that help form the conclusions in the 2007 IPCC assesment. Their names are a small subset of the people doing real climate research. I haven't counted them myself, but the list is long.Here is a starting point; focus on the links to references if you like.http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
10 November 2008
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

devebrun,Here is an article that may, or may not, be of interest to youSimple Question, Simple Answer: Nothttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/And, you are partially right, the IPCC 2007 assessment is not strictly a work of science; it is a summary of work done by a multitude of others.Short answer, there are many things not understood as yet, but an awful lot of smart people are telling us we've got a problem. I'm still looking for good counter-evidence; nothing I've looked at so far seems to hold up under scrutiny.You seem to claim that climate science can't be tested empirically and therefore isn't worth doing. I disagree; it is like a massive n-body problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_p…) across physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, etc. It is very difficult to predict the future state with accuracy, but it doesn't make sense to ignore the best estimates that we currently have.

10 November 2008
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BABBOY (Anonymous) says…

Why should anyone listen to Big Prune on global warming when he is so flipping stupid that he does not understand basic physics related to the concept of mass or that frozen mass is the same amount of mass as non-frozen mass or for that matter gas if you contained the gas. I mean if he did not get basic science, that then how the is going to understand global warming?
10 November 2008
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Barack_OShewmon (Anonymous) says…

BigPrune (Anonymous) says: So, is climate change caused by man, or by the sun? If sea ice is melting, wouldn't the oceans actually recede?I am ashamed at you BP, I mean really, come on, Lets start by filling a glass with water and put a cube of ice in it, then mark a line on the glass then see what happens after the ice melts. Actually that would be considered a science experiment so just revert to the bible for your answer. This message was approved by Barack OShewmon.
10 November 2008
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

Devonbrun, I am hurt that you don't think climate science is a real science. Climate scientists test their results and run experiments. They develop computer programs (we call them models). These huge programs include the physics of the atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces, and much more. Then, starting some time ago (say 1900), scientist let them 'predict the future'. The result is a 'prediction' of the climate from 1900 up to the present. This is compared to what we know happened. Only after these programs satisfactorily reproduce the past climate we have seen, are they used to predict future climate. We do experiments to see what happens when we add (or reduce) greenhouse gases in the model. These model results are the result of massive studies involving controls, and changes to the programs that are carefully monitored. Scientists can spend a lifetime finding successful solutions to such things as ocean circulation. It has been going on for decades and gradually the models become better. No grand statements about being perfect have ever come to pass. Climate research is slow, methodical with gradual improvements, under careful control by the researchers. Devonbrun, how is this last paragraph any different than what you said about cancer research: These treatments are the result of massive studies involving controls, and tests that are carefully monitored. People die doing these studies because they are in control parts of the studies. People die because the treatments are often not successful. It has been going on for decades and gradually the treatments become better. No grand statements about miracle cures have ever come to pass. Cancer research is slow, methodical and gradually improves, under careful control by the researchers.Maybe the difference is we don't know exactly how many people die from climate change?
10 November 2008
at 7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

takeastand (Anonymous) says…

VickyWhat about the petition that 31,000 scientists across the U.S. including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties that signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.What are we to do about that?Sorry if you already answered that questionThanks
10 November 2008
at 8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

takeastand: I was curious, so I did some looking into the list. The link below is a wiki link, of course, but the sources are all real, and there are some some interesting criticisms of the list's apparent methodology, back when it was just 19000 names. Assuming that it's the same list. Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline. The petition sponsors state the following numbers of individuals from each discipline: 1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,697; 2. Computer and mathematical sciences: 903; 3. Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,691; 4. Chemistry: 4,796; 5. Biology and agriculture: 2,924; 6. Medicine: 3,069; 7. Engineering and general science: 9,992.[2] Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological communityetc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#cite_note-19
10 November 2008
at 11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dklamet (Dave Klamet) says…

Even though I like to think of myself as a rational and educated person, it is hard for me to identify needles of truth amid the haystacks of emotion and rhetoric on both sides of this issue.devobrun's pompous assertion that climatology is not a science would eliminate any area from scientific research where it is impossible to run controlled experiments. However, since we can't experiment with a “control” earth without humans, it does seem to reduce the accuracy of predictions. Having said that, even if the likelihood that man is contributing to changes in the climate were only 20%, or 10%, or even less—at what point to we say the changes are negligible and we need do nothing?I have some scepticism, but I'd still rather be safe than sorry. Though it may be a cliche, I'd rather not leave a mess, or a disaster, for my grandchildren to deal with.
11 November 2008
at 6:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

PostGrad (Anonymous) says…

takeastand said:”What about the petition that 31,000 scientists across the U.S. including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties”PostGrad says:I advise anyone interested in the authenticity of this 'list' to randomly pick out say a dozen of the names and do some basic internet searches on them.This is exactly what i did. It isn't to difficult to work out that the credibility of the list is greatly undermined by their enthusiasm to obtain quantity rather than quality!eg. many of the names on the list are in fields that have no relevance to the subject.Out of the few i found, many were retired 'scientists' and a bit out of the loop when it comes to research. One in particular had a single research document to his name which was for the coal industry. Another had a degree in an arts subject and currently works as a principle of a college. Another worked as a General Practitioner in a small doctors surgery (i'm a Brit so i don't know what the American equivalent of a family doctor is).So basically i concluded the list was a farce, especially when the people responsible for starting it make claims about the relevance of the participants knowledge.The other point is that a petition does not reflect a persons possible changing opinions.
11 November 2008
at 8:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

Jonas and Postgrad thanks for doing the research to answer that question for takeastand.Clearly, the research (and climate change) is moving quickly. Many scientists I know have changed their mind in the past 5-10 years based on scientific results. I always thought of my collegues as conservative, it is really hard to sway them, odd to think people call us liberal.Das_Ubermine asked about my comments on increased strength of hurricane.DU said: Warnings of increasing severity of such events (and precipitation patterns) has always seemed dubious to me with the exceedingly large numbers of variables that go in these events. For instance, while warmer ocean waters can lead to stronger and more frequent hurricanes, but an increasing desertification in western Africa could lead to more dust which would decrease the strength and frequency of the hurricanes. Given such uncertainty, wouldn't warnings of such complicated events seem a bit premature given the current predictive powers of climate models?Vicky says- Yep, you have the physics correct, and increased tropical cyclone activity is 'likely' (not highly likely). It also depends on where you live. African dust doesn't really make a difference for Australia and New Zealand cyclones, or even typoons hitting Japan. The warmer water is expected to cause larger storms. The Saharan Air Layer you talk about is both dusty and dry, it can extend westward towards Central America and the Gulf of Mexico. As you said, it reduces the strength of hurricanes, mostly because it is very dry air. The dust may also help. ( I am not really familiar with recent research, but a few years ago the role of dust was still debated.)You are also correct that the large climate models are not the ideal way to study individual hurricanes. But not all results are based on these gigantic global models. Smaller, more detailed regional models are often used to study climate in more details. They use the large models as a guide. This is a case where 'a perfect storm' may be brewing. The follow trifecta may be a disaster.1.Rising sea level2.Massive migration of people towards the coast 3.Increased numbers, and bigger storms BTW does everyone know we call them Hurricanes in the North Atlantic, while those in the Northwest Pacific are called typhoons? It is the same physics.

11 November 2008
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

vickylytle (Vicky Lytle) says…

Check out the headlines on CNN: The new president of the Maldives wants to relocate — his entire country. Mohamed “Anni” Nasheed, who was sworn in Tuesday, inherits an island nation with several problems, foremost among them the possibility his homeland will sink under water if the current pace of climate change keeps raising sea levels.I need to plan that scuba diving trip before it is too late:..
11 November 2008
at 9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

takeastand (Anonymous) says…

Ok but…In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons.”Al Gore is telling us there is a 'consensus' and 'settled science'. It doesn't seem there is.
11 November 2008
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Back to the national review, eh?
11 November 2008
at 1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Welcome Vicky…and you did a great job of explaining what's going on here. One problem that some folks seem to have is with the notion of scientific consensus. In every day speech we often use consensus to mean sort of an informal agreement after hashing out an idea. But in science there is rather a sort of natural selection going on. Those ideas and hypothesis that are more or less on the right track survive empircal testing and those that don't, fade away except perhaps is intellectual curiosities.Climate science is certainly not religion (religion by its nature is not empirical) and the consensus that we are affecting the climate-“global warming” has survived the empirical selection process leaving those who don't accept the role of humans in climate change as curiously anachronistic picking away at the margins at details we don't understand. But this consensus is not really the sort of group think that some of the posters often claim.Kudos on a great post and it's great that there is someone else for the Ljworld anti science crowd to pick on.By the way I have a friend who just returned from the tundra, and increased melting of the perma frost is causing a disturbing release of methane so it is possible we are seeing the start of a run away feed back situation where at least for a time global warming will feed on itself to bring about still more global warming.
16 November 2008
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16…