Clear signals showing anthropogenic global warming consequences?
Jonathan Kirwan
we know *can* impact global warming. (By 'warming', I gather it can either be
stored in molecules [as in the heat of vaporization of water] without increasing
measured temperature in some system or that it may also in part shift the Earth
to a higher equilibrium point resulting in increased black body radiation from
an increased temperature ... or some combination.) I don't think there is any
doubt that human inputs have impacted the CO2 concentration levels, for example,
or CFC levels (which was, if I recall, used in the early 1960's to actually
track air flows across oceans because it was a unique chemical tracer.)
There are also various climate feedback systems that operate on these human
caused forcings (and non-human ones, too, I suppose.) What I'm specifically
curious about is finding out what are the better documented areas demonstrating
not just a human forcing function, but that these forcings present a clear
global warming outcome -- whether stored as chemical energy or in impacts on
temperature or in some other mechanism.
In other words, if I argue with someone and say, "Well, humans dump (X) amount
of CO2 and there is no doubt that this is a greenhouse gas and there is no doubt
that humans have impacted the atmospheric concentrations of CO2," and my
respondent replies, "Yes, I accept that. But I deny that there is any analysis
making a persuasive case that this admitted rise in CO2 results in an important
global warming consequence worth worrying about." What are the clearer
anthropogenic consequences I can use in reply? (Saying that the CO2 level is
more, just repeats what's already been admitted. What needs to be shown is that
the rising CO2 level has consequences and that these consequences are the result
of those human forcings and not some other confounding forcing also going on.)
Doesn't have to be about CO2, as I was just offering that as one possible
thought. But the question is an open one. What's the better evidence to
educate myself about when talking to others who are curious *and* skeptical on
this point?
What is there that "teases out" the consequences of human caused forcings from
those resulting from other forcings? For example, is there good analysis to
show that the impact on the two polar ice regions are clearly in part the result
of these admitted human forcings? Or is the "signal" beneath the noise and
known error and suggested error being investigated? Similarly, same question
for any other notable global warming consequences that may have good analysis
behind them.
What's the best there is on this?
Thanks much in advance,
Jon
w...@bas.ac.uk
>What is there that "teases out" the consequences of human caused forcings from
>those resulting from other forcings?
You want the detection and attribution stuff from the IPCC report:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/442.htm
is the summary bit. But there is a whole chapter of it:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm
There is a wiki page on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Jonathan Kirwan
>You want the detection and attribution stuff from the IPCC report:
>
>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/442.htm
>
>is the summary bit. But there is a whole chapter of it:
>
>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm
>
>There is a wiki page on it:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Thanks. I've finally had the time to read through a number of sections as well
as several pages of wikipedia. It will take some time to digest a bit and then
more to go back and re-read the material for new insights.
...
One much more basic question does come to mind, though. From reading wikipedia
about various names who loudly speak out against the IPCC TAR conclusions, it
sure seems that many of them are associated with the same basic funding source
-- Sun Myung Moon. Sallie Baliunas (George C Marshall Institute), Fred Singer
(SEPP and George C Marshall Institute), and Willie Soon (yup, George C Marshall
Institute) all seem to have him as a common source of funds and/or having some
members from Moon's organizations on their boards and/or using office facilities
supplied by Moon. Richard Lindzen of MIT seems to be a detractor not tethered
to Moon in some way.
This, even for those who don't like conspiracy theories, looks like conspiracy.
What's going on here?
Jon
Steve Schulin
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
Slander, from you, as best I can tell.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
Michael Tobis
(we've taken to calling them "denialists", since "skepticism" doesn't
really describe their approach).
Of course, a possible motivation for a skewed view of the facts is
that one's funding is dependent on obtaining a particular conclusion.
Such a conspiracy theory cuts both ways, unfortunately. Many
denialists argue that the consensus view is corrupt. They assert that
the more typical scientific funding structures are biased toward those
who exaggerate the risk of global change.
It's best to just pay attention to all the evidence and try to hold to
a balanced view of it.
I agree with William that IPCC is still the best place to get the
whole big picture, and that the Wikipedia articles (largely penned by
William) summarize it fairly.
The denialists do tend to base their rants on the work of an
identifiable group of about a dozen published scientists, and these
consistently obtain results that call the consensus into question from
the denialist side.
It's easy to conclude that either this small group of scientists or
the much larger consensus group is acting from a strong prejudice. The
real problem is deciding which group is biased.
While I am convinced that it is the denialist group, it's not easy for
someone outside the field to see this. (Indeed, that's the point of
junk science - not to get results but to confuse the conversation.) I
don't think it's sufficient to point to funding sources to determine
which group is the junk science group, because one can frame this
argument either way.
Fortunately, resolving this is easier than it once was. I think the
clearest way to address this is to look at the situation around 1990,
and see what the consensus group were predicting then for the state of
climate around 2005. (We can treat the denialist position as pretty
much the null hypothesis.)
Enough time has passed to begin to test the predictions against the
outcome.
> One much more basic question does come to mind, though. From reading wikipedia
> about various names who loudly speak out against the IPCC TAR conclusions, it
> sure seems that many of them are associated with the same basic funding source
> -- Sun Myung Moon. Sallie Baliunas (George C Marshall Institute), Fred Singer
> (SEPP and George C Marshall Institute), and Willie Soon (yup, George C Marshall
> Institute) all seem to have him as a common source of funds and/or having some
> members from Moon's organizations on their boards and/or using office facilities
> supplied by Moon. Richard Lindzen of MIT seems to be a detractor not tethered
> to Moon in some way.
mt
Jonathan Kirwan
Excellent points and good, clear advice. There is no other way to judge, than
to judge directly from understanding theory and result. It's improper to just
categorize those speaking, regardless of what may appear to be a clear funding
bias because, as you say, that can be a two-edged sword.
It's just going to be a lot of work, you know, to get there. And although I
*may* (or may not) be up to it given the time (lots of time), there are very,
very few out there on the outside looking in who will be able to do so for
themselves.
Argument from authority is improper, for those doing the science. But for those
who cannot take the effort, they are only left with this because at some point
one must decide who to trust as providing a valid summary that isn't so
simplified that it becomes distorting and comes from a sufficiently
comprehensive view to be useful.
Like it or not, most of the public isn't sufficiently interested or competent or
otherwise cannot afford the time, as scientists do, to know the detailed facts,
theories, and methods of collection and correction for known error sufficiently
to think well about them. And certainly, on first blush, I *do* find the
diversity of the interests of those funding the work as a valid question, if one
is otherwise forced (through ignorance of the details) to place some tentative
trust in what is being said.
Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.
Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
>I agree with William that IPCC is still the best place to get the
>whole big picture, and that the Wikipedia articles (largely penned by
>William) summarize it fairly.
Hmm. I didn't know he wrote those.
William? What happened to the entry on the George C Marshall Institute??
Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>Slander, from you, as best I can tell.
What exactly do you mean by this? Is it slander to wonder if these associations
with Sun Myung Moon are true? Or is it slander that I may tend to imagine that
such associations, given they are correct, could call anything they say into
serious question even before reading the details?
Jon
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
It's slander to make note of the funding sources of many of
the denialists? Sorry, Steve, but as usual, you're riding on a dead
horse, slapping its flanks again and again, wondering why it isn't
going anywhere. He could have easily said that many are in the employ
of Western Fuels as well.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>On 11 Oct 2004 07:18:41 -0700, m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>>I agree with William that IPCC is still the best place to get the
>>whole big picture, and that the Wikipedia articles (largely penned by
>>William) summarize it fairly.
>Hmm. I didn't know he wrote those.
I contributed quite a bit. If you want to find out what, go to (say)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
and click on "history" (actually if you do that particular one you get
a rather unedifying history of an edit war over how sulphate should be
spelt...). If you wanted, you can then click on my name to get my user
page.
BTW, this is a chance to say, that I'm not posting wiki links as
independent corroboration of what I/IPCC say, since (as MT says) I've
written quite a bit of them from IPCC and other sources. But they are
(hopefully) sometimes a bit more reader friendly than the IPCC. OTOH
they have to accomodate the skeptic POV to some extend.
>William? What happened to the entry on the George C Marshall Institute??
Did wiki ever have one? Some wiki pages get deleted but GCMI would be
unlikely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPP has a redlink
to it, but that only means someone once thought they might oneday create it.
Jonathan Kirwan
><snip>
>>> William? What happened to the entry on the George C Marshall Institute??
>
>Did wiki ever have one? Some wiki pages get deleted but GCMI would be
>unlikely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPP has a redlink
>to it, but that only means someone once thought they might oneday create it.
Yes, it had one at one time. Less than a year ago when I last looked at it. It
was there. Well, at least my poor memory informs me that it _definitely_ was
there at one time. Wiki is how I learned any of the few details I recall, my
memory says to me.
Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
><snip>
>BTW, this is a chance to say, that I'm not posting wiki links as
>independent corroboration of what I/IPCC say, since (as MT says) I've
>written quite a bit of them from IPCC and other sources. But they are
>(hopefully) sometimes a bit more reader friendly than the IPCC. OTOH
>they have to accomodate the skeptic POV to some extend.
><snip>
It's been my belief that the processes of science work to achieve a relatively
objective process that works well -- requiring the use of objective language
sufficient for rigorous deductions to specific circumstances, insisting that
such language both explain past results well and (more importantly) also make
accurate and repeatable predictions, requiring quantitative prediction for
discernment, and finally allowing the required time and patience for the
resulting critical opinion of others skilled in the field to arrive at a
consensus.
It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans have from the
scientific community. Yes? The TAR has only come out exactly as I've described
above, I imagine, with adequate time for studies and criticisms allowed for, and
that this has been weighed and balanced. The process has finally, after many
years of course corrections and dramatic improvements on nearly every possible
front and after much debate, give and take and so on, has arrived at a
conclusion based on a comprehensive review of all the evidence and theory.
Isn't it true that the "skeptic POV," regarding detection and quantitative
assignment to human impacts, can now only retreat to some vacant corner where
the light of science doesn't yet shine? What more can one ask for than for the
better, more informed folks to collect from around the world and debate the
issues and then arrive at a collective and comprehensive conclusion, as the TAR
has done? Does one need an inscription on some stone tablet?
Seems to me that the scientific community did properly remain circumspect when
sufficient result and theory was missing. But that they have now arrived at the
point where the overwhelming weight of a comprehensive view of all the evidence
falsifies any remaining adherence to the belief that there is no human "signal,"
and they have concluded this fact and faced the implications, forthrightly.
It's having the courage to face what comprehension requires, as neutrality and
agnosticism in the face of overwhelming evidence is as bad as simple-minded
credulity and faith, I think.
It seems to me the conclusion has already been taken and, unless the entire
process of science (so very successful hitherto) is fatally flawed and deeply
so, this question has been answered.
Jon
Steve Schulin
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:08:24 -0400, Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Slander, from you, as best I can tell.
>
> What exactly do you mean by this? ...
The bandying about of the word "conspiracy" was what prompted my nswer
to your question.
> ... Is it slander to wonder if these
> associations
> with Sun Myung Moon are true? ...
Nope.
> ... Or is it slander that I may tend to imagine
> that
> such associations, given they are correct, could call anything they say into
> serious question even before reading the details?
Nope.
>
> Jon
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>The bandying about of the word "conspiracy" was what prompted my nswer
>to your question.
It was a word designed to go straight to the heart. Being clear by sharpening
the tip of my question is not slander.
Jon
w...@bas.ac.uk
>It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans have from the
>scientific community. Yes?
Mostly agreed, with the caveats that its not the final word, its an
evolving process... there will be an AR4 in 2007; it slowly becomes
out of date (in particular there is stuff on attribution since then,
and new satellite T records); and even the IPCC have to make compromises
with the skeptics in the wording to some extent (more in the summaries
than in the bodies of the reports). I've never been part of the process,
so don't know any details of that.
>Isn't it true that the "skeptic POV," regarding detection and quantitative
>assignment to human impacts, can now only retreat to some vacant corner where
>the light of science doesn't yet shine?
Probably... though there is no unified skeptic POV, more like nit-picking
and emphasis on doubt. In some ways, the "consensus" community remians
largely silent, because they have the IPCC reports to speak for them. The
skeptics are comparatively noisy.
James Annan
> Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>
>>It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans have from the
>>scientific community. Yes?
>
>
> Mostly agreed, with the caveats that its not the final word, its an
> evolving process... there will be an AR4 in 2007; it slowly becomes
> out of date
Just to expand on that, the work for AR4 is virtually complete, there is
some sort of deadline in May of next year by which time papers need to
be submitted in order to be part of the process (at least that seems to
be the idea - there may in practice be some exceptions). In other words,
it is a carefully considered consensus, but therefore inevitably
somewhat out of date before it is even finished...
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <q8hmm09spma4i944t...@4ax.com>,
>Back in the 1600s, there was a Protector of England named Richard. He
>was the son of Oliver Cromwell, who led the overthrow of British
>Monarchy. Richard wasn't really up to the task. The notion that your
>post was close to having a sharp tip reminds me of a phrase that came
>from that period: "queer as Dick's hatband".
>
Steve, your trolling is getting tiresome. Time to grow up,
little man. The fact is, when you're paid to spread mis-information
people are eventually going to notice. Deal with it.
Jonathan Kirwan
>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>>It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans have from the
>>scientific community. Yes?
>
>Mostly agreed, with the caveats that its not the final word, its an
>evolving process... there will be an AR4 in 2007; it slowly becomes
>out of date (in particular there is stuff on attribution since then,
>and new satellite T records); and even the IPCC have to make compromises
>with the skeptics in the wording to some extent (more in the summaries
>than in the bodies of the reports). I've never been part of the process,
>so don't know any details of that.
I understand that the process continues, that new influences may be discovered
and incorporated, and I can certainly see that knowledge about the uncertainties
will fluctuate as they also get better understood in the fullness of time. But,
that doesn't change the fact that the basic question appears strongly answered
and that the science has progressed far enough beyond that point where this
answer is highly unlikely to be reversed. We should progress the discussion
beyond the question of measurable anthropogenic impact and take it as given,
unless something truly new and startling arrives. Yes?
Some of TAR 12.6 "Concluding Remarks":
1) 20th century climate was unusual.
2) The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural
internal climate variability.
3) The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to
be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing
of the climate system.
4) The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the
vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing.
5) Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century
temperature change.
6) The effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is detected, despite
uncertainties in sulphate aerosol forcing and response.
7) It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for
an anthropogenic signal.
8) The detection methods used should not be sensitive to errors in the
amplitude of the global mean forcing or response.
>>Isn't it true that the "skeptic POV," regarding detection and quantitative
>>assignment to human impacts, can now only retreat to some vacant corner where
>>the light of science doesn't yet shine?
>
>Probably... though there is no unified skeptic POV, more like nit-picking
>and emphasis on doubt. In some ways, the "consensus" community remians
>largely silent, because they have the IPCC reports to speak for them. The
>skeptics are comparatively noisy.
Ah.
Jon
Michael Tobis
some more thoughts on the subject.
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote in message news:<5j3mm014p8lcutp44...@4ax.com>...
> It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans have from the
> scientific community. Yes?
That's exactly the idea, yes.
People who don't like the IPCC'S result must do one of the following:
1) explain why the process doesn't really represent the scientific
community or 2) explain why the scientific community is coming to
wrong conclusions about the evidence or 3) ignore the process and its
conclusions, instead cherry-picking contrary evidence and displaying
it with a flourish.
Usually they resort to the last, but they can't ignore IPCC
altogether, so they try both of the other tacks.
In doing #1 they refer to the "so-called consensus", while in doing #2
they refer to financially induced biases in the process.
Usually people making these claims show little understanding of the
actual nature of the climate science community, its strengths and its
weaknesses. The problem is that while its obvious to us in the
community that what they are saying is totally inconsistent with
reality, it's not obvious to the world.
One unfortunate, non-obvious side-effect of these grotesque lies is
that they tend to squelch legitimate criticism. Given how much damage
is being done with bogus critiques of the community, one is loathe to
publicize the very real (though less flagrant) flaws that do exist.
There's always the risk that anything one says in this politicized
environment can be turned around as a toxic sound-bite.
Even famous climate scientist Doe *admits* that "..." . Gee thanks,
guys.
Fortunately, the scientific assessment reports are intended to be
accessible to a broad audience, though not a completely general one
nor especially an entertaining one. If you have some college science
and enough diligence you can get a pretty good picture of the state of
the science and the reasoning and evidence behind it.
The denialists do not have a coherent theory to compare this against.
Mostly they snipe at one or another point as if it were the whole
picture and say "see, it's false" without offering any indication of
what might be true or under what circumstances global change is worth
worrying about. It would be much more interesting intellectually and
much less challenging morally if they were to say, look, here's a
theory of the system and/or here's a model of the system which shows
that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have no significant effect. They
simply don't though.
Those of them capable of a semblance of coherent argument simply say
that the exiting theories and models are "wrong", and that therefore
no policy is necessary. The basis for that argument is unfair and
manipulative (models of complex systems are more or less useful for
specific purposes rather than "right" or "wrong"). That's not the
worst of it though.
Much more importantly, the conclusion does not follow.
If we know practically nothing about the system that doesn't give us
carte blanche to perturb it harder and harder and harder ("see, it
hasn't broken yet?") does it? This is the core weakness of the
denialist "position" (if one can generously call it that).
If the last two generations of climate science is completely
worthless, it is still time for policy action, based simply on the
known, incontrovertible facts that 1) climate is sensitive to
greenhouse gases, 2) human activity is causing the greenhouse gas
concentration to increase at a rate without known precedent, and 3)
this human contribution continues to accelerate.
mt
James Annan
> I understand that the process continues, that new influences may be discovered
> and incorporated, and I can certainly see that knowledge about the uncertainties
> will fluctuate as they also get better understood in the fullness of time. But,
> that doesn't change the fact that the basic question appears strongly answered
> and that the science has progressed far enough beyond that point where this
> answer is highly unlikely to be reversed. We should progress the discussion
> beyond the question of measurable anthropogenic impact and take it as given,
> unless something truly new and startling arrives. Yes?
Yes, certainly.
Jonathan Kirwan
> Steve, your trolling is getting tiresome. Time to grow up,
>little man. The fact is, when you're paid to spread mis-information
>people are eventually going to notice. Deal with it.
Odd thing is that I had no preconceived notions about Steve before this and took
his worry seriously enough to ask what he really meant (I just couldn't see it,
but figured it must be 'something'.) I hadn't had a chance to read through past
threads, in fact, so I really had no thoughts about Steve one way or another.
Now, I do.
Jon
Steve Schulin
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
You'll feel right at home around here amongst the other
conspiracy-bandying folks, apparently including Mr. Ball.
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>You'll feel right at home around here amongst the other
>conspiracy-bandying folks, apparently including Mr. Ball.
Speak for yourself, Steve. I'll speak for myself.
Jon
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'd be tickled to get funded for pursuing my heretofore amateur
interest in climate science. If any "fossil fuel" or other interests
out there would like to do so, please email about your interest or, if
you like what you see enough, just make checks payable to Steve
Schulin, and send them to nuclear.com, PO Box 5807, Rockville MD 20855
USA.
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
LOL. If by that you mean, you'd be happy to get paid to lie,
I'm sure that you would. It wouldn't require you to do anything
different than you aleady are. Of course, you'll have to ramp up the
rhetoric on your website, but that shouldn't be too hard for you.
> If any "fossil fuel" or other interests
>out there would like to do so, please email about your interest or, if
>you like what you see enough, just make checks payable to Steve
>Schulin, and send them to nuclear.com, PO Box 5807, Rockville MD 20855
>USA.
ROTFL. Why not send some of your recent posts to Western
Fuels? They've shown a propensity to hire non-scientists to misinform
the public. Hell, Daly made a career out of it.
hanson
news:2t1ttjF...@uni-berlin.de...
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
> > Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
> >>It's my take so far that the IPCC *is* the final word we humans
> >>have from the scientific community. Yes?
> >
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
> > Mostly agreed, with the caveats that its not the final word, its an
> > evolving process... there will be an AR4 in 2007; it slowly becomes
> > out of date
>
> Just to expand on that, the work for AR4 is virtually complete, there is
> some sort of deadline in May of next year by which time papers need to
> be submitted in order to be part of the process (at least that seems to
> be the idea - there may in practice be some exceptions). In other words,
> it is a carefully considered consensus, but therefore inevitably
> somewhat out of date before it is even finished...
>
If, if, if, if...ahahaha......Annan, you have not seen any further then
the toes of the jolly green giant for counting on green-backs, green
DOLLARS that is, which you hope will be there for you. Your entire
appearance, everything you post, is preceded by your aura of your
BELIEF that you hope to cash in on green graft, in one form or another,
from the looming carbon tax. What you post as enviro science has the
green moldy smell of deja vue, as in Lysenkoism, the cart before the
horse, ass-backwards, etc....all enviro phantasm of yours that do
effectively destroy the honest & decent work of bonafide eco/enviro
researchers. Go pedal your bicycle and stop peddling your green turds
.....or even more green shit will stick on you......and stop singing
---------- it's green, green, green
---------- on the far side of the hill
---------- and when we have the carbon tax
---------- life will be greener still......
It ain't gonna happen!........only little green idiots believe that it will.
ahahahaha.......ahahahanson
James Annan
> I'd be tickled to get funded for pursuing my heretofore amateur
> interest in climate science. If any "fossil fuel" or other interests
> out there would like to do so, please email about your interest or, if
> you like what you see enough, just make checks payable to Steve
> Schulin, and send them to nuclear.com, PO Box 5807, Rockville MD 20855
> USA.
You cannot think to bribe or twist,
thank God, the usenet propagandist.
For seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.
I don't think there is any reason to suppose that the climate
denialists are paid to propound their views (obviously some of the
professional ones are, but I'm talking about the sort of trolls
posting here in their spare time). IME, many people have a quite
astonishing ability to see only what they want to see and ignore,
overlook or conveniently forget anything that contradicts their
prejudices. I think it is a failing that everyone is prone to, to some
extent. Those who claim a rational and scientific basis for their
attitudes should at least make some attempt to overcome it though.
James
Steve Schulin
still_th...@hotmail.com (James Annan) wrote:
IPCC WG1 embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick, highlighting it in their
Fig. 1 of the Summary for Policymakers released during the 2000 US
presidential campaign season, some 9 months before the TAR was
published. I appreciate your urging of all to overcome prejudices. It
could have been better applied to good effect in the TAR Summary for
Policymakers.
It's sort of cute what you've done with Humbert Wolfe's poem. As
published in 1930, he referred to "the British journalist". Judging from
the alarmist bent of climate-related news coverage in recent
days-months-years, it would be a shame to tear it loose from original
context. And given the iconic status of the hockey stick in recent
years, it's especially a shame to use it in support of the "climate
consensus-ists".
hanson
perfectly why the bottom line, the upshot, ...the Carbon Tax,
is a green con, a scam, a sham & a shame....NOTHING else!
It's a money game to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
You of course can never admit to that because your ilk does
feed off the scarps and the graft from it, and hence promote it.
......or worse, are you just one of those little green idiots who
are the unpaid enablers & facilitators for the corrupt machinations
of the sharp green turds who harvest $$$$$ from permit charges,
user fees, enviro surtaxes and carbon taxes? Confess, Come Clean.
ahahaha......ahahahanson
"Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote in message
news:bcaf804.04101...@posting.google.com...
hanson
> You cannot think to bribe or twist,
> thank God, the usenet propagandist.
> For seeing what the man will do
> unbribed, there's no occasion to.
>
Your plagiarized poetry is even worse the your enviro prose.
You are much better at fixing bicyles.
> IME, many people have a quite astonishing ability to see
> only what they want to see and ignore, overlook or
> conveniently forget anything that contradicts their prejudices.
ahahahaha......AHAHAHA......
If that is a confession you are making, Annan, then I am impressed.
If so, then you pumping up bicycle tires seems to have a moral
cleansing effect upon you. It even may wipe some green shit off you.
ahahaha.....ahahanson
Psalm 110
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Walter_Williams_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Confronting_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Chrispeels.html
Psalm 110
> I'd be tickled to get funded for pursuing my heretofore amateur
> interest in climate science. If any "fossil fuel" or other interests
> out there would like to do so, please email about your interest or, if
> you like what you see enough, just make checks payable to Steve
> Schulin, and send them to nuclear.com, PO Box 5807, Rockville MD 20855
> USA.
>
> Very truly,
>
> Steve Schulin
The applicants list is very very long. First you have to have some
credibility and prestige -- which you have neither.
Getting a prize like Fred Seitz, former president of the National
Academy of Science was a prize. Getting Bruce N. Ames, inventer of the
"Ames Test" was a prize, getting SHILL-IN is a booby prize. Apply to
"Charles G. Koch Summer Fellows Program", same street address as Fred
Singer's SEPPtic Tank, for $1,500 plus free board in Washington DC as
an intern at any of several dozen front organizations and work your
way up.
hanson
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >What passes
> >for coherent for you is gibberish to anyone who's sane
>
[Kirwan]
> I've already deep-six'd hanson. I almost never do that but
> in this rare case it took no time at all to decide. Now, I don't
> even have to wade through them unless someone responds.
> Jon
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA......ahahahaha.... good! the classical reaction
of any and all little green idiots who can't even stand nor
tolerate any dissenting view. Now, go & keep on singing
-------- it's green, green, green
-------- on the far side of the hill
-------- life will be greener still.
........ahahaha........fucked yourself again, you dreamy
eyed little green idiot, not realizing that it was fools like
you who make the poor get poorer and the rich get richer
with your phony carbon tax. You are so fucking pathetic
that you don't even wanna hear what misery you do bestow
onto vast segments of humanity. Look below you miserable
green idiot whom you are running with: ....they all insist that
they are green,.....ahahaha.......like, OIL COMPANIES,
BANKERS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,....terrific green
company you are with you stupid and/or phony bastard. YES,
you and that another green aberrant, mudBall, on whose
shoulders you were just crying your green crockodile tears.....
Look into your mirror while you read this here:
news:sYUad.1315$6k2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[hanson]
......ahahaha......HAHAHAHA.......ahahahaha.........this is a great
thread.......Slowly, the pot with the green soup begins to boil over
and talks about how many DOLLARS = $$$$$$ this environmental
con and crock will cost. The public has begun to recognized that
= The green movement was always & only a sick machination=
= & a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green shits, be they politicians, consultants, activists or=
= regulators. Environmentalism is just a despicable evil green=
= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming value, nor any intent =
= to save anything. This 40 year old scam is now threatened =
= which is why all those leeching green turds are whining ==
http://www.nuclear.com/environment/climate_policy/default.html
in section "climate" one reads under an enormous amount of out
and out green shit, designed to promote fears to make the carbon
tax a reality, so that the sharpies amongst green turds can collect
their new **green admin-fees** and other graft..... Quotes say:
== OIL COMPANIES like BP, Shell and RWE in Germany, have been
among the most active in the trading of **permits*..... AHAHAHAHA
== CO2 credit trading draws bankers' interest as fundamental
driver of coal, gas, metals markets........ahahahaha......AHAHAHA...
== As carbon emissions trading increases, the financial services
industry is preparing itself for a potentially lucrative market.....
== carbon emissions value at $15 a tonne, the surplus would be
worth just under $500 million to the Government.
== At Chicago Climate Exchange prices jumped to over US$11 per
tonne ($40/tC) following the Russian announcement
== The price of CO2 in Europe rose 20% to nearly euros 10 (£7) per
tonne on the back of the news from Moscow last night,
== Estimates the financial value of the European carbon market will
be worth 10 BILLION euros (£6.9bn) a year by 2007.
Where is the "environment here?.....It only shows that the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer in this global Kydioto Carbon
TAX trading scam. And you the poor, you the little green idiots,
YOU PAY for all this....$$$$ that go into the pocket of these rich oil-
and banking bastards, fat bureaucrats and corrupt politicians...
YOU MADE YOURSELF POORER, you well meaning little green idiots!
...ahahaha..AHAHAHA........
== Ottawa estimates cost for the carbon tax to vary from $17 to
$45 billion....money that could be spent on health care or our
urban infrastructure. The CA Taxpayers Federation says increased
prices and taxes from Kyoto will cost each family $2,700. ...
The Fraser Institute study pegs the annual cost of Kyoto at $4,700
per Canadian, the same as per-capita health-care spending. ==
So, you little green idiots, you when you get sick you won't be able
to afford a doctor......because YOU MORONS YOU GAVE YOUR $$$
to some rich bastard who bamboozled you with the word "ENVIRO"
ahahahaha.........ahahahaha........
Don't you see that all this has nothing to do with any "environment"
except the environment in YOUR WALLET that is being clean out...
It is about Dollars!.....GREEN MONEY... that is what this is all about!
.......Fucked be the environment...."environment" is only the gimmick
these green cocksuckers use to fuck all you well meaning little green
idiots, you their unpaid enablers & facilitators. Serves you right! Fools!
You won't even listen when every now and then, and far in between,
you hear a decent environmentalist speak up and say like
== British professor David Bellamy is a botanist famous for saving
endangered species. But now he's a famous victim of endangered
speech -- speech stifled by "elite" journalists when it challenges their
green religion. ... Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare
version -- is a myth", Bellamy declares. It is "largely a natural
phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably
isn't causing us any harm". Putting more carbon dioxide in the air just
means giving plants more of the "most important airborne fertiliser in
the world". Yet we "may be about to divert ** billions, nay trillions of
pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that doesn't exist."
One can easily recognize the promoters of this Carbon trading scam,
this extortion scheme, to fuck the average Joe, even in these NG's.
It's the posters that loudly advocate it... they are the stupid but well
meaning little green idiots... & then there are the sharpies, the green
turds...the sleigh ones who push it via green scare- & doom arguments
using that as their tool, but really with their sole intent to become the
beneficiaries and/or recipients of graft in form $$ contracts, admin fees
or speaker fees, or so-called grants......ahahahaha...... all machinations,
and tactics that originated in the green bible which taught them, that
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [political] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer
Hey, you little green idiots! How long are you going to fuck yourself?
ahahaha.......ahahahanson
hanson
"Psalm 110" <Gods...@sbcglobal.net> describes the
---- CHARACTER OF ENVRIONMENTALISTS ----
as:
> Vested interests do not want change. They are willing to kill, even
> large-scale mass murder using weather chaos to obtain their goals.
> You need to understand "SOCIOPATHY", also known as "Antisocial
> personality disorder". People beat, molest and kill their kids -- don't
> assume that sociopaths care about the future -- they also kill themselves
> frequently when caught rather than give their captors the satisfaction
> of trial and "justice". Read the lives of mass murderers and serial
> killers.
>
[hanson]
Brilliant and honest remarks, dude.
I shall repost your green gem from time to time. Good work!
[hanson]
Now listen up all you little green idiots:
.......Slowly, the pot with the green soup begins to boil over and
talks about how many DOLLARS = $$$$$$ this environmental
con and crock of the Kydioto CARBON TAX will cost us, as the
public has begun to recognized that....
Joshua Halpern
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-2D6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>
>>IPCC WG1 embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick, highlighting it in their
>>Fig. 1 of the Summary for Policymakers released during the 2000 US
>>presidential campaign season, some 9 months before the TAR was
>>published. I appreciate your urging of all to overcome prejudices. It
>>could have been better applied to good effect in the TAR Summary for
>>Policymakers.
>
>
> hockey stick shape has been meaningfully challenged.
>
Given that pretty much all of the other proxy records available agreed
(and still do).....
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-21.htm
josh halpern
www.anus.com/metal
> >What is there that "teases out" the consequences of human caused forcings from
> >those resulting from other forcings?
>
> There is a wiki page on it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
Great page.
This argument comes up routinely because people can't accept that
natural global warming and man-made global warming can coincide,
producing even more of a disaster than either alone would have.
The upside to global warming is potential destruction of most of the
human race, leaving those with the foresight to plan for survival.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/penaintr.htm
http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/
hanson
"David Ball" <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4srqm09alq1hg0f9r...@4ax.com...
> I see you've got that cold back again. Probably got it from
> hiding under that bridge with the other trolls. Stop wasting
> everyone's valuable time with your idiotic posts. Either post
> something coherent - that's coherent for the rest of us.
> What passes for coherent for you is gibberish to anyone
>
[hanson]
AHAHAHAHA.......ahahaha.........Hey, mudBall, "valuable"... you
say?...ahahahaha..... you are clearly a little green idiot since
you do not know what you are talking about. You have either no
comprehension of "value" or you are on the "take" angling for
graft from permit charges, user fees or the carbon admin tax.
Just look below and check with whom you are running....
....they all insist that they are green,........ahahaha.......like....
OIL COMPANIES, BANKERS and FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,....
green idiot. Look into your mirror while you read this here:
news:sYUad.1315$6k2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[hanson]
......ahahaha......HAHAHAHA.......ahahahaha.........this is a great
thread.......Slowly, the pot with the green soup begins to boil over
and talks about how many DOLLARS = $$$$$$ this environmental
con and crock will cost. The public has begun to recognized that
Psalm 110
The intern network of minimum wage flunkies at several dozen think
tank propaganda mills is assigned to post in internet forums as part
of their paid work asignments. There was a "Republican Leadership"
website maintained by Bivings Group
http://www.bivings.com/clients_and_projects/clients_and_projects.html
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/
on Bivings server, which offered hats, jackets, beach chairs, junk, in
exchange for "leadership" points acquired including posting a
specified number of messages on internet forums. The links to this
activity seem to be erased now, but these front operations come and go
frequently.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bivings_Group
"Republican activists" created their own personalized messages,
misspellings and all, to correspond to "talking points". Some
"republican" interests were really disguised commercial interests of
Bivings clients like Monsanto, Philip Morris Tobacco, Lorillard
Tobacco, American Petroleum Institute, American Plastics Council,
Chlorine Chemistry Council, Crop Life International, BP Amoco...
http://www.bivings.com/clients_and_projects/clients_and_projects.html
This is just one of many...
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-2D6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > IPCC WG1 embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick, highlighting it in their
> > Fig. 1 of the Summary for Policymakers released during the 2000 US
> > presidential campaign season, some 9 months before the TAR was
> > published. I appreciate your urging of all to overcome prejudices. It
> > could have been better applied to good effect in the TAR Summary for
> > Policymakers.
>
> Why? In what way did they display any prejudice? It's not as if the
> hockey stick shape has been meaningfully challenged.
>
> James
The shape of the hockey stick has been meaningfully challenged. Here are
three examples that have been previously discussed here in
sci.environment:
* In the body of the TAR, it was noted that if our best understanding of
glacier retreat evidence is on track, the warming trend started earlier
than depicted by the hockey stick. This was a meaningful challenge to
the shape of 19th century part of the curve. Here's the frank statement
in the body of the TAR: "...the timing of the onset of glacier retreat
implies that a significant global warming is likely to have started not
later than the mid-19th century. This conflicts with the Jones et al.
(2001) global land instrumental temperature data (Figure 2.1), and the
combined hemispheric and global land and marine data (Figure 2.7), where
clear warming is not seen until the beginning of the 20th century. This
conclusion also conflicts with some (but not all) of the
palaeo-temperature reconstructions in Figure 2.21, Section 2.3 , where
clear warming, e.g., in the Mann et al. (1999) Northern Hemisphere
series, starts at about the same time as in the Jones et al. (2001)
data. These discrepancies are currently unexplained."
* In his 2004 E&E paper, Loehle showed that the multiproxy method
inherently tends to produce flatter shape due to smearing. Each proxy
record has dating error. By combining the proxies, the multiproxy
approach inherently tends to smear variability out of the record [Ref:
Loehle. Using Historical Climate Data to Evaluate Climate Trends: Issues
of Statistical Inference. Energy & Environment, 15(1):1-10, 2004]. This
was a meaningful challenge to the flat shape of the curve.
* In their Science paper released this month, von Storch et al. showed
that the multiproxy study error ranges do not include a significant
uncertainty. This was a meaningful challenge to the gray area of the
curve. [Ref: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1096109v1 --
von Storch et al. Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data.
ScienceExpress, October 1, 2004]
Steve Schulin
still_th...@hotmail.com (James Annan) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-513...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > In article <c96ea403.04101...@posting.google.com>,
> > still_th...@hotmail.com (James Annan) wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<steve.schulin-2D6...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > >
> > > > IPCC WG1 embraced the Mann et al. hockey stick, highlighting it in
> > > > their
> > > > Fig. 1 of the Summary for Policymakers released during the 2000 US
> > > > presidential campaign season, some 9 months before the TAR was
> > > > published. I appreciate your urging of all to overcome prejudices. It
> > > > could have been better applied to good effect in the TAR Summary for
> > > > Policymakers.
> > >
> > > Why? In what way did they display any prejudice? It's not as if the
> > > hockey stick shape has been meaningfully challenged.
> > >
> > > James
> >
> > The shape of the hockey stick has been meaningfully challenged. Here are
> > three examples that have been previously discussed here in
> > sci.environment:
>
> Oh, come off it. Sure there are details in the record that will
> continue to be debated and refined indefinitely, but none of what you
> present goes very far to undermining the basic conclusion - that the
> world is rapidly warming on an unprecedented scale (at least in the
> time frame of that reconstruction).
>
> But thanks for illustrating my point so clearly. What you are doing is
> advocacy, not science. You aren't interested in the truth, you are
> just trying to denigrate the work that has been done, and amplify any
> doubts about it.
>
> James
The claim about "unprecedented" warming is an important one. Your
previous claim that the hockey stick shape has not been seriously
challenged was demonstrably false -- and the examples I provided dealt
with each of the 3 main parts of the graph. I would like to highlight
that amongst your snip was the WG1 TAR discussion I quoted regarding
when the global-scale warming began. For you to now talk about
unprecedented scale of warming without addressing that point prompts me
to wonder what time period you're focusing on. I have often noted with
appreciation that Jones and Moberg have published maps of the CRU
surface temperature data for 1979-2001 period which shows the percentage
and location of grid boxes which have exhibited statistically significnt
trend. 19% of the grid boxes showed such in the annual data. Fewer
showed such in the various seasons. I'd be pleased to learn the basis of
your apparent conclusion that never before (at least in the time frame
of that reconstruction, as you specified) has 19% of the globe exhibited
statistically significant temperature trend. It's true enough that I'm a
skeptical guy, but it's because I am indeed interested in the truth.
James Annan
> The claim about "unprecedented" warming is an important one. Your
> previous claim that the hockey stick shape has not been seriously
> challenged was demonstrably false
That's just word play. No-one would claim that the line is not subject
to revision, but it would take something rather more substantial than
your references to refute the basic conclusion.
> It's true enough that I'm a
> skeptical guy, but it's because I am indeed interested in the truth.
Yeah right. I suppose you might convince the ignorant and gullible, and
they are the ones you are after...
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
hanson
news:656c65e7.04101...@posting.google.com...
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote in message news:<4163...@news.nwl.ac.uk>...
> > >What is there that "teases out" the consequences of human
> >
[??]
> > There is a wiki page on it:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
>
> Great page.
> This argument comes up routinely because people can't accept that
> natural global warming and man-made global warming can coincide,
> producing even more of a disaster than either alone would have.
> The upside to global warming is potential destruction of most of the
> human race, leaving those with the foresight to plan for survival.
> http://www.kolumbus.fi/jik/sarastus/penaintr.htm
> http://www.panix.com/~clays/Una/
>
You make mighty "either/or" green dream declarations here.
But you, www.anus.com/metal" <srpr...@gmail.com>
must have certainly noticed that many if not most
environmentalists are indeed assholes and druggies.......
Still, I say: Let'em sing!....all of'em...it's a beautiful choir!
AHAHAHAHAHA....ahahaha........ahahahanson
Steve Schulin
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
>
> > The claim about "unprecedented" warming is an important one. Your
> > previous claim that the hockey stick shape has not been seriously
> > challenged was demonstrably false
>
> That's just word play. No-one would claim that the line is not subject
> to revision, but it would take something rather more substantial than
> your references to refute the basic conclusion.
>
> > It's true enough that I'm a
> > skeptical guy, but it's because I am indeed interested in the truth.
>
> Yeah right. I suppose you might convince the ignorant and gullible, and
> they are the ones you are after...
>
> James
My personal economic interests are served by every new nuclear plant
order. Calls for drastic cuts in CO2 emissions or adding large cost to
coal- and gas-fired electric plants would tend to be heavily in my favor
in that regard. A lot of folks in my industry seem content not to
question the alarmist claims they hear about CO2. I've long been
interested in environmental science and politics. When President Bush
took office in 2001, a couple of his cabinet members were quite vocal in
support of Kyoto Protocol. I wanted to learn more about the scientific
basis for their alarm, and one of the places I turned to was
sci.environment. One thing I've learned is that there's a lot of
exaggeration and whatnot spread by folks with solid scientific
credentials. I don't think it's such a good idea for my government to
use these exaggerated claims as a basis for the type of wrenching change
explicitly called for by Al Gore in his "Earth in the Balance" book. So
when I see what looks like a misleading claim, I'm not shy about asking
questions or presenting information that seems relevant. In this little
subthread, I invite folks to compare your focus on me with my focus on
the science (until this post, anyway). It's true enough that this thread
isn't in a vacuum, and I understand your focus surely has roots in prior
postings. I hope you'll realize that those prior postings also had roots.
David Ball
Why? Does it help us understand cause and effect in some new
way?
>Your
>previous claim that the hockey stick shape has not been seriously
>challenged was demonstrably false -- and the examples I provided dealt
>with each of the 3 main parts of the graph.
Sorry, he should have said, it has not been seriously
challenged by:
a. anyone using real data
b. anyone who properly analyzes said data (i.e. you have to
analyze the data properly).
c. anyone backing up said analysis with sound science (i.e.
there must be a sound physical reason for doing the analysis the way
it is done).
You'll notice that nowhere in the process does it say anything
about leaping to unwarranted conclusions about the results of single
modeling studies.
> I would like to highlight
>that amongst your snip was the WG1 TAR discussion I quoted regarding
>when the global-scale warming began. For you to now talk about
>unprecedented scale of warming without addressing that point prompts me
>to wonder what time period you're focusing on. I have often noted with
>appreciation that Jones and Moberg have published maps of the CRU
>surface temperature data for 1979-2001 period which shows the percentage
>and location of grid boxes which have exhibited statistically significnt
>trend. 19% of the grid boxes showed such in the annual data.
LOL. Steve, we know that the GW signal is just now appearing
from the noise. I guess you missed that part. I guess you also missed
the part where numerous people have patiently pointed this out to you
before. If you're going to take part in a discussion forum it pays to
pay attention.
>Fewer
>showed such in the various seasons. I'd be pleased to learn the basis of
>your apparent conclusion that never before (at least in the time frame
>of that reconstruction, as you specified) has 19% of the globe exhibited
>statistically significant temperature trend. It's true enough that I'm a
>skeptical guy, but it's because I am indeed interested in the truth.
>
That isn't his conlusion and you know it. This is simply more
trolling on your part.