GISSTemp updated. The March anomaly was 0.84C. My mother-in-law just walked in the door, More later!
GISSTemp: 0.84C 2nd highest…
164 thoughts on “GISSTemp: 0.84C 2nd highest…”
Comments are closed.
GISSTemp updated. The March anomaly was 0.84C. My mother-in-law just walked in the door, More later!
Comments are closed.
“My mother-in-law just walked in the door.”
A universally understood issue. More pressing than 0.84C.
A man, long out of work and feeling rather down about his life, was sitting in the afternoon at a small road-side bar in Sao Paulo, Brazil when a funeral procession began to pass on the street. There was a limo, with casket inside, followed by a man holding a leash… connected to the collar of a huge pit-bull. Behind the pit-bull was a long line of people, probably more than 100, walking single file at the slow pace of the procession.
His interest peaked, the man in the bar wondered if the deceased might be someone well known, so he left the bar and hurried to catch up with the limo. Upon arriving, he called out “Was this someone famous?” The man behind the limo said “No, this was my mother-in-law.” Almost automatically, he replied “How sad… how did she die?”
Said the man behind the limo: “This pit-bull killed her.”
Taken aback for a moment, he said nothing, but after thinking a bit, he asked “Could I borrow this pit-bull for a day?”
The man behind the limo said, “For certain you can, but please go to the end of the line.”
My mother-in-law is a sweetie! That said, my 92 yo father-in-law has gone out of town to visit his 94 yo sister, and we are sort of “babysitting” Rosemary. BTW: The reason for no posting on the weekend or early Monday was that My nephew was visiting, and I spent the weekend at my sisters, where we all had a family time– including Popsie-Wopsie!
Sometimes, family takes precedence to discussing 0.84C at great length! 🙂
Of course family takes precedence. I was only joking about mother-in-laws.
You are lucky Lucia! My MIL was just here.. ahem. I really like my step mom in law though.:)
And sometimes you just have to do the right thing. 🙂
SteveF–
Well… seeing my nephew Hank is a delight. Dinner was scallops with greens, duck with cherry sauce. Oh, did I mention Hank is a graduate of the culinary institute of america? He wanted to raise money for leukemia. I’ll explain more details later when Hank sends the photos of the food. (I would have announced on the blog in advance — to raise more money– but this was the first fund raising dinner, and the dinner was at my sisters house, which seats a limited number of people. So, she wanted it to be friends of the family. It went so well, Hank may do it every year, in which case, the venue may change and we may publicize more widely. But… yum… I mean, seriously, yum! )
Very nearly a tie for warmest March, looks like.
GISS is probably capturing a lot of the Arctic blocking associated with the negative AO. HadCRUT never gets that enormous ocean (literally) of red hot anomalies, since they don’t seem as confident in the spatial coherency of anomalies allowing them to extrapolate like that.
AndrewFL– March 2002 was 0.85C; so for now, this is the 2nd warmest March logged in the record. Jan 2007 was 0.87C. Records being what they are, this is not a record, but it was toasty!
April may very well break a record. The warmest April is 0.67C. Unless the temperature drops, we’re going to see that one busted.
Duck with cherry sauce… hummm. Sounds interesting. I am more familiar (notice how the latin root for ‘family’ keeps popping up?) with wine reduction sauces on roasted duck, but roasted duck almost any way can’t be that bad! When I was very young (first marriage) I used to make roasted duck with a citrus/raisin sauce that was to die for.
AndrewFL:
I thought the AO index has come back into a more moderate range.
SteveF–
I’ve never tried to cook duck. I never like duck my mom made (greasy!) and never ordered duck in a restaurant. Then… I had Hank’s duck….
I suspect going to the CIA to study cooking actually makes a difference? 🙂
The migration of El Nino warmth northward (and southward) will mean likely higher than normal temperatures over the next 6 months. GISS captures (interpolates/estimates/arm waves) temperature deviations where there are no stations… so they will almost always report higher than Hadley.
The interesting question is what happens as El Nino dies off and La Nina takes over.
there isn’t really any meaning to drawing a difference between 0.84 and 0.85 in this sort of thing. some more stations come in, and things can change by 0.01
Lucia,
Did you never try Peking duck? Not greasy at all, and great in combination with green onions and ‘duck’ sauce. The first time I had this was at a Chinese restaurant in Philly (nobody spoke English!). I was entertaining a bunch of Chinese engineers. It was great food.
Re: carrot eater (Apr 12 18:58),
Sure. But when noting actual records, we go by the record. Right now, one month says 0.84C, the other says 0.85C. The recorded value of 0.85C is higher than the recorded value of 0.84C. I wouldn’t be surprised if next month these swap positions (or not.)
I guess that insisting on such precise rankings is a bit silly to me. If this month said 0.86 C, I suppose that’d be a record in some sense, but I’d just call it essentially tied for the record.
In any case, I don’t watch the monthly numbers come in with the attention you guys seem to give it.
Carrot–
I just post them. Yes, if the month said 0.86C, that would be record. That’s the way records work– just like the Olympics. Whatever the recorded values are, a new high or low in the record breaks the record.
Missed the record by .01? Where are all those souls who say that .1 bias from UHI doesn’t matter?
carrot eater (Comment#40563)-I don’t monitor it very closely but I allow for some laaaaaaaaaaaag. Also, even moderately negative AO is, I think, generally associated with the warm Arctic, cool mid-latitudes we saw in the rest of the winter/cold season (if you can call Siberia “midlatitudes”).
Based on the NCEP reanalysis it looks to me like the Siberian cold spot dissipated substantially in March, but the SE US remains “El Nino” cold.
I wanted to see how the March temps have varied so I downloaded the entire series of UAH MSU global monthly lower troposphere temperatures since December 1978.
I was surprised to see it included the USA48 temps which are very interesting when you see everyone arguing over differences of tenths of a degree.
AndrewFL: The GISS map for the month is up now, and it looks similar to your description of the reanalysis. Also, Antarctica showing warmth that month.
Speaking of the difference (so far as it goes; I think it’s been overemphasized) between GISS and CRU: does GISS with only the 250 km smooth correspond better to CRU? Just a thought.
Meanwhile, spring comes late to Hamburg.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100412-26495.html
carrot eater (Comment#40603)-Haven’t a clue.
And looking at the GISS map now, looks very similar to NCEP, so that gives me some confidence that NCEP is a good way to get an idea what these maps are going to look like before they are officially released.
So, for Lucia, her mother-in-law is more important than GISSTemp.
Well, for me, Lucia’s mother-in-law is more important than GISSTemp, too.
I think the importance of Lucia’s mother-in-law is series independent. We should consider the coincidence of GISSTemp and mother-in-law to be a completely stochastic factor 😛
Was it a random walk that brought her through the door and does the lag to the GISSTemp post signify correlation after all? 🙂
FWIW, ccc-gistemp got +0.83 K; it’s one of those rare months in which our global mean differs from GISTEMP by 0.01K.
Slightly more interestingly, perhaps, this means that we have just seen the warmest 12-month period in the GISTEMP record (0.015K warmer than 2005 or 2006/7, 0.05K warmer than any time in 1997/8). If 2010 remains exceptionally warm then we will soon be leaving statistical-tie territory.
“If 2010 remains exceptionally warm then we will soon be leaving statistical-tie territory.”
Sorry Nick but I can’t help but smile at this – are you joining in the fun over Lucia’s mum in law?! 🙂
WRT, GISS 1200km smoothing. There is an interesting 2006 paper that readdresses this issue looking at the correlation by region and by season for a daily record. 1200km is a stretch, even the orginal hansen work didnt really support a 1200km figure.
mosher: at 1200 km, the weighing factor is at a minimum, and I think H&L justifies that. now, when all you have at a grid point is stations 1100 or 1200 km away, those end up being the only stations so the low weighting doesn’t matter, so then you take those grid points with a bit more salt.
but this is something that can be checked fairly easily.
Nick
That by itself is sort of a record. I compared 12 month lagging averages for RSS when they became available. I didn’t for GISTemp last night because… well… you know I had to feed my mother in law!
Each month we can look at all sorts of metrics to see if they are record:
Highest month ever. Highest March ever. Highest 12 month lagging. Highest beginning of the year etc.
Because temperatures are warming and this is an El Nino, during the course of the year, we are going to break records, and probably more than the idiosyncratic ones we hunt down for the purpose of blogging and not just “this month edged out last month”.
Unless the surface cools, April 2010 is probably going to beat all previous aprils by quite a bit. I may end up the hottest month in the record– or not. GISS has definitely been showing quite a bit of protracted warmth.
Re: lucia (Apr 13 14:59),
How true.
http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2010/04/nasa-creates-its-own-climate-change-by.html
The ‘Older’ link for recent comments doesn’t work any more.
DG (Comment#40634) April 13th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Another site that copies denialdepot.
More and more GISS and the other processed temperature products look less and less significant of anything anyone should care about, unless the goal is to watch money get wasted.
.
Well, it looks like the party is over at UAH. This year’s trace has dipped below the 20 year record one a while back and is now edging towards 2005 and 2007, so a record for April becomes a bit less probable.
.
The denialists can sigh a breath of relief, just as Arctic sea ice melt is picking up. Fortunately there’s always some nit to fill the misinformation gap.
It reminds one a bit of the Person from Porlock, the probably very nice caller who walked in when Coleridge was in the middle of writing down the poem that had been in his mind when he woke from sleep.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea……
and so on for another page or two to:
….That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
And just at that moment, in walked the Person from Porlock, and we lost the rest. Well, I guess some may say, so much the better. Philistines!
Re: Neven (Apr 13 23:40),
Nick was discussing the annual average. That lags the monthly peak. The 12 month average will continue to rise until the new values are cooler than values from 12 months ago. The 12 month averages of everthing are going to rise for at least 3 more months; computed trends will also rise for a while.
Yes, I was referring to the “if 2010 remains exceptionally warm…” by pointing to the UAH daily temperature graph going down lately, meaning 2010 might not remain exceptionally warm.
.
12 month average doesn’t count in denialastan, right? Except when it is pointing to global cooling, of course. Which it won’t for a while to come, as there is no such thing.
What do you call the place that is between Denialastan and Alarmistan? Looks like the place to be.
Neven–
I’m not sure who you place in denialastan, but the 12 month average of GISTemp still falls below the multi-model mean trend projection based on the a1B, using 1980-1999 as a baseline. (The mug uses 1900-1999 as the baseline as indicated on its legend.)
One of the things I’ve been watching is to see if and when the trend “pierces” the mean. It’s not that meaningful of an event; because of the use of anomalies trends are more sensitive. I still check; I suspect it will happen in about 3 months– it could happen next month. After that, the question is how long it will stay there. It all depends on what happen with El Nino, but right now, I suspect GISSTemp will exceed the AR4 multi-model mean based on A1B for at least 6 months.
Neven,
Your comment is similar to a Dutch tulip investor wondering why the price is collapsing even though the flowers are still blooming.
The only denial is coming from those who still deny that a climate crisis is unlikely.
I am sure that the Arctic failing to cooperate with predictions of doom is a grave disappointment, but true believer syndrome will see you past all those pesky realities.
“The only denial is coming from those who still deny that a climate crisis is unlikely.”
.
Global Warming is just one part of the crisis. In fact, it’s the topping on the cake, accelerating other parts of the crisis, such as top soil erosion, salinisation of aquifers, social unrest, etc.
If you want to discuss an extraordinary popular delusion, try the neoclassical concept of infinite economic growth. That’s the straw stirring the crisis cocktail.
.
BTW, I am Dutch, but not a tulip investor. Although it’s quite a big industry in the Netherlands, I find it a complete waste of wealth and CO2.
Warm=Life
( I am using Steve Mosher’s definition of science!)
Neven
Tulip mania is actually a metaphor for market collapses. It refers back to a historic incident. People who are unfamiliar with the incident often think others mentioning it must be making the story up!
Hunter–
If you are suggesting the tulip mania crash is a metaphor for evidence for AGW, you are grossly exaggerating the evidence of the collapse in evidence for AGW.
lucia (Comment#40660) April 14th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Have you seen SteveMac’s latest post? Any exaggerating going on is spelled out quite well there!
liza–
It’s possible for people and groups who disagree to all be guilty of exaggerating. The revelation that some climate scientists do hide uncertainties and exaggerate the strength of evidence for AGW does not mean we suddenly have no evidence. The ‘tulip mania’ metaphor is inapt.
.
Yes, I know. I myself was referring to MacKay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds which I’ve read a long time ago.
.
I also agree with you that the tulip mania crash isn’t a metaphor for evidence for AGW. It’s a metaphor for the ecological and economic crash we are heading for at full speed, caused by the Crowd’s unfaltering faith in the neoclassical Delusion of infinite economic growth.
.
Even the alarmists are guilty of this Madness. They think every global problem has a solution of its own, but haven’t reached the stage yet where they realize all problems have the same root: the hoax of infinite economic growth that has had a major influence on our economical, cultural and social structures. One of the few alarmist bloggers who ‘gets’ it is Michael Tobis.
“does not mean we suddenly have no evidence”
It means we never had any to begin with. 😉
Andrew
OT
Here are the results of the IPCC AR4 audit by Donna Laframboise:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card.html
Facts and Figures IPCC 2007 AR4:
1. 18,531 references, 44 chapters, almost 3,000 pages.
2. 44 auditors checked its references
3. 21 chapters (48%) get an “F†(less than 60% peer-reviewed)
4. In total 5,587 references were not peer-reviewed (30%).
lucia (Comment#40663) April 14th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Never said anything about the tulip mania metaphor did I?
House of Cards is what I think of when I read SteveMac’s post.
“The revelation that some climate scientists do hide uncertainties and exaggerate the strength of evidence for AGW does not mean we suddenly have no evidence. ”
Sure, and it could also mean the “evidence” for AGW is lacking, really bad or not good enough.
However, seems to me, anyone having a reasonable opinion like that is looked down upon. Funny that. (OR is that attitude toward skeptical thought itself more evidence of another thing really really wrong with the whole thing? Discernment! Can’t help it.)
liza said:
“…Sure, and it could also mean the “evidence†for AGW is lacking, really bad or not good enough.
However, seems to me, anyone having a reasonable opinion like that is looked down upon. …”
Yes, liza, I believe that most people who have studied the evidence and understand the theory and data testing the theory, do look down on people who jump to a conclusion like you did, without really understanding what they are talking about. If you don’t know better, then its better to keep quiet and learn, instead of falling for rumors, hearsay, and propaganda (cherry picking, intentional misleading statements, and distortions).
The upcoming Heartland shindig is a gathering of the Who’s Who among people who have either intentionally distorted the data, or unfortunately in some cases, people who were incompetent in collecting or analyzing the data or theory.
Neven (Comment#40664),
“the hoax of infinite economic growth”
“One of the few alarmist bloggers who ‘gets’ it is Michael Tobis.”
You and Michael both seem to have been reading too much Club of Rome propaganda. Nobody I have ever talked with imagines the possibility of infinite economic growth, so I have no idea why you would suggest that most everyone believes this is possible. I certainly don’t.
“…propaganda…
The upcoming Heartland shindig is a gathering of the Who’s Who among people who have either intentionally distorted the data, or unfortunately in some cases, people who were incompetent in collecting or analyzing the data or theory.”
Paul K2,
Thanks for the example. 😉
Andrew
Paul K2,
“If you don’t know better, then its better to keep quiet and learn,”
.
Ah yes, the classic “I am right and you are stupid” line of argument. Arrogant, offensive, and non-productive. If your intent is to simply offend, then you’re on a roll, keep it up.
Lucia,
You commented (Comment#40660):
“Hunter–
If you are suggesting the tulip mania crash is a metaphor for evidence for AGW, you are grossly exaggerating the evidence of the collapse in evidence for AGW.”
What I am suggesting is that the value placed on AGW claims, and the credibility granted to the AGW movement in its predictions of ‘cliamte crisis’ is similar to the popular madness that led to tulipomania. It is not that the evidence (blooms) of AGW is collapsing, it is that belief in the idea that CO2 is going to cause (and according to top government scientists is already occurring) a great global apocalypse.
That idea is so over valued as to make tulip bulbs priced at the equivalent of a year’s wages seem cheap.
The difference is subtle but significant.
There is no doubt that AGW promoters have lied about their evidence and used false methods to promote their ideas of cliamte apocalypse. Yet the buy in on AGW credibility is so high, that otherwise intelligent people would rather rationalize away the problem than deal ith it.
Look at how PaulK2 dismisses the Heartland conference- either cynical liars or congenitally stupid- for example.
SteveF
.
“Nobody I have ever talked with imagines the possibility of infinite economic growth, so I have no idea why you would suggest that most everyone believes this is possible. I certainly don’t.”
.
This only proves that you haven’t talked to any of the leading economists of the past 5-6 decades. 😉
The basis of the neoclassical economic concept is that growth is infinite. All neoclassical economic theory is based on this premise. The fact that your neighbour doesn’t think the same, is not an argument against this fact.
.
So what, if not the belief that economic growth knows no bounds, causes crises such as the peaking of resources, top soil loss, overfishing, financial bubbles, declining health, ocean acidification, global warming. Or do you believe all of them non-existent, just like the subprime fiasco (which was caused by the government) and the US national deficit and mass credit card debt?
.
When does the point come at which business-as-usual is untenable? Will a real crisis ever come about, or will it always be a hoax?
Via PaulK2…There’s more evidence toward the “really really wrong” (it all sorts of ways I can see!) side of AGW mania. Maybe PaulK doesn’t know that I am Mrs.StateLicensed Environmental Sr. Scientist. My husband can sign important papers and stamp official things with his own seal of approval too. 😉
With that in mind, and with my real experience in such things as well (I also handled data and made pretty graphs at an automotive testing lab in a former life): in the real world outside of government agency perhaps or university- working scientists and or engineers managing and massaging data like that -would get in mega trouble; even sued- licenses taken away…
Neven,
Again, what is the alternative to what you claim is believed about economics?
I find it interesting that you would mix the sub-prime crisis with AGW. You rightly point out that lax government enforcement contributed to the disaster. What also contributed were a bunch of highly educated economists and financial professionals who told each other they *knew* how things worked and could predict things very well. These people moved freely between government and industry and academia. Frankly the similarities between the financial catastrophe and AGW are striking: both are based on similar dynamics.
liza,
If AGW promoters were not massively suported by the governments and protected from actual consequences for their beaviors, the bubble of confidence AGW is experiencing would not exist.
If Hansen was actually accountable for the crazy accusations and predictions he makes, he would have stopped long ago.
Imagine Mann and gang defending their bogus junk in front of actual auditors. Think of how UEA is whitewashed vs. how real investigators would treat them.
If the money web of conflicted AGW believers promoters and profiteers was laid out for scrutiny and subject to the same civil action as investment advisors, this would have been shut down already.
hunter (Comment#40686) April 14th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Yeah, it’ would at least be looked at reasonably and logically more then emotionally! I mean you could feel sorry for a private sector professional for screwing up- even if it wasn’t intentional; but you’d still expect that person to lose some credit in their field , lose their position, or pay for it some how. Lot’s of people do things wrong or hurtful all the time and don’t mean to; but they still have to face the music.
liza, At one time I worked for a major oil company, eventually ending up in an manager position where I had a team of 25 engineers, plus 30 technicians and construction reps, and sat on the management team during the startup of an offshore/onshore oil and gas project costing over $3B. Oh, and did I mention that the project was offshore/onshore California? I suspect your husband can tell you about the environmental regs in California, although I strongly doubt that he knows as much about the environmental and risk assessments, engineering reviews, inspections by reps for Santa Barbara county, state of California agencies, California Coastal Commission, EPA, the federal Minerals Management Service as I do.
To be fair, I have had experience with wacko-nuts on both sides of energy projects and issues. I had a job building a seven-mile road up a mountain along the Hoback river in Wyoming, then knocking and dynamiting the top off a mountain ridge to build an exploratory drill pad in a National Forest. Some environmental activists kept engaging in monkeywrench activities, such as spiking our tires, sugaring our gas tanks, and ripping up our survey stakes. My surveyor caught one and ended the fight by holding a hatchet to his throat. The monkeywrench guy got 60 days in jail for damaging our property…
On the other hand, on a different project, I was privileged to come into my engineering office one day, and found armed Federal marshals with search warrants seizing our engineering files. We were a small office with only eight engineers and four technicians at that time, and as one of the ranking engineering supervisors, I took this experience personally. It turned out some of our operations personnel had doctored some NPDES tests by diluting our effluent before dumping it into the sea. One of our operators objected to this illegal activity, and our brilliant operations management team fired his a _ _. We ended up having the president of our company personally plead guilty to willfully polluting the ocean in Federal Superior Court in order to escape jail time. We ended up paying the largest criminal penalty ever enacted in the United States up to that time, to keep the company management out of jail. But just a few years, later the Brand XX oil company set an all-time new record for criminal fines when they dumped millions of barrels of crude oil into the Prince William Sound. No one can compete with Brand XX when it comes to criminal actions in damaging the environment.
So I doubt you have experience regarding large criminal environmental fines or in dealing with hatchet fights with eco-terrorists (as my boss called the guy we caught in a press story). I personally find it important to look at the evidence and data, and take corrective actions to fix problems based on the data. Once our engineering team began to get good test data (that hadn’t been doctored), we were able to design a system and treat the effluent to meet discharge specs very economically. It wasn’t worth the loss of reputation to cheat on our emissions tests.
I have been independently (on my own dime) working on a green energy solution for over the last three years, and I am very excited about it. The implementation and further development of the technology I am working on depends on placing some value on energy sources that don’t emit major quantities of CO2.
I find it distressing that this effort is being impeded by sabotaging actions, lies, and distortions from the opponents of action on green energy solutions, that are significantly worse than I used to see from the fringe elements trying to block energy projects. There is a mania out there, and it seems rooted in some kind of perverse political ideology. I want to work on the solutions, and build the projects we will need in the future. I know how to do it, I have experience doing it, so why are so many ignoranti trying to stop and destroy what I am doing? I find their actions unsupportable.
PaulK, how about stopping the assumptions all together?
My husband was also an EPA regulator; out of school; for a few years. Senior Scientist there too. Hated it. Hated the waste of money and didn’t like the over the top stuff they did to keep the EPA funded “for next year” and to regulate all kinds of businesses and industry. Politics permeated every aspect of it when he was just trying to be a good scientist and he hated that too!
I believe he conducted a meeting himself with the whole City of Santa Barbara/officials more then once about some things they needed to clean up on the coast. You are right though,there are wackjobs on both sides, however my point was that it is not un-reasonble to think scientists manipulating and exaggerating data to say one thing; needed to do it because the data didn’t really hold up.
Neven (Comment#40674),
You seem quite in a panic. I urge you to calm down a bit; so much stress is not good for your health and may interfere with rational analysis.
.
Each of the items:
“crises such as the peaking of resources, top soil loss, overfishing, financial bubbles, declining health, ocean acidification, global warming”
that you wish lump together as symptomatic of some overall problem is mostly separated from the others. Some are real and immediate problems (like overfishing), some are just nonsense (like declining health; worldwide human health is improving, save for a few countries with high rates of AIDS), and the remainder are more-or-less complex issues that each require a fair amount of thought and analysis to evaluate properly.
.
Since this is a blog about climate, I will comment on that. There is no doubt that adding GHG’s to the atmosphere will (must!) increase average surface temperatures. How much the temperature will increase is not well defined… you need only look at the projected temperature increases from a range of different climate models to see this is the case. Progress is being made in defining temperature sensitivity to GHG forcing, but key information, like the net effect of aerosols and the net accumulation of heat in the ocean, remain poorly constrained. The likely consequences for warming from GHG emissions, even if that warming were known exactly, are also poorly defined.
.
In light of all this uncertainty, a lot of people (me included) honestly do not see global warming as an immediate crisis. Might reductions in GHG emissions, at substantal cost, be justified? Yes, but I personally would need to see more solid data to be convinced that major and immediate (crisis-type) investment is needed to reduce GHG emissions. There are, of course, lots of good reasons to conserve fossil fuel resources; the potential negative effects of CO2 emissions is only one of these. But the cost of that conservation needs to be considered as well.
.
For most of my (relatively long) life, people have been in an uproar over one pending crisis or another; and you know what, the crisis never comes to pass. People are healthier, live longer, are more productive, and in general, live safer, happier lives today than during any earlier time. Sure, there problems to be addressed, but it is just not realistic to think of each of these problems as a huge crisis. And certainly all problems are not due to everybody imagining that economic activity can reach unlimited levels. Nobody believes that.
liza… “…however my point was that it is not un-reasonble to think scientists manipulating and exaggerating data to say one thing; needed to do it because the data didn’t really hold up.”
I have gone over and over the data; the success of my business depends on it. I think it is un-reasonable to think that scientists manipulated and exaggerated data, without concrete evidence that this happened. I can’t find any real evidence that supports your allegations.
On the other hand, I have been reading the stuff on SPPI, particularly Monckton’s analyses, and found the stuff riddled with distortions that appear to be deliberate, errors and mistakes in every key argument, and outright lies about what the data show.
These lies and distortions have consequences… my ability and the ability of others in my industry to raise capital depends on factual and clear understanding of the risks of AGW and costs of solutions. I recently saw a very attractive company in the green energy business sold to a European company, likely for much less than what the company would be worth if the United States has some kind of program to control or penalize carbon emissions. The investors in that company lost the opportunity to realze hundreds of millions of dollars of value, probably over a billion dollars, because of the delays in implementing carbon emission controls. If President Bush hadn’t reneged on his promise to implement controls, those investors wouldn’t have suffered the loss on the sale of their asset, and its likely that this company would still be majority American owned and controlled (although it had a significant Australian ownership as well).
The amount of money we are talking about is huge. For example, eventually a large portion, likely exceeding 50% of the US electric power supply will come from renewables. A five year delay in ramping the green energy businesses, costs the emerging business sector over $1.5 trillion in lost revenues.
The lies and distortions printed at sites like SPPI and CEI and Heartland, that in turn influence public opinion in some key states, are having a significant financial impact on the new industry sector. To ignore that this is the case, is quite naive.
Paul K2 (Comment#40697) April 14th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Get to reading on Climate Audit.org then!
hunter
“Again, what is the alternative to what you claim is believed about economics?”
.
Something that is based on the biophysical properties of the planet, and not some delusional assumption as ‘growth is infinite, the market will provide’. There are several economists busy arguing for a different economic system. Some of it is called ecological economics (Herman Daly), biophyical economics (Charles Hall) or steady state economics.
.
Anyone interested can read more (and sign the petition) at the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. Nothing grows forever. It’s unnatural.
“Nothing grows forever. It’s unnatural.”
But the planet changing is.
“I have gone over and over the data; the success of my business depends on it.”
Don’t start a business based on worthless data, I always say. 😉
Andrew
liza, I find the stuff on Climate Audit so esoteric and detail oriented to be almost useless. And Climate Audit isn’t where the problem exists; the organizations like CEI, SPPI, and Heartland, aided and abetted by news organizations (Fox etc.) that mis-report the data analysis and findings, are where the real problem lies. They publicize and advertise their propaganda, and provide cover for politicians who are trying to paper over the emerging problem.
If there is one blog out there that reaches some significant audience, it is WUWT. And that blog has a horrendous track record of pushing nonsense. I have read WUWT posts on everything ranging from Monckton’s analysis, false comparisons of UAH and GISS temperature data sets, CO2 snow in the Antarctic, and a kangaroo freezing in snow during the Australian summer. All of them had key and critical mistakes (the kangaroo turned out to be a wallaby in the mountains during the Australian winter, and was a vintage photo from years ago… Watts got the year, location season,,and animal wrong!) Anthony Watts heavily censors most dissenting arguments showing errors in the information that his site flogs. For years, Watts has made unfounded allegations of intentional manipulation of data, leading to his recently published paper by D’ Aleo and Watts. This paper has been shown to be riddled with errors, poor assumptions, and mistakes. Furthermore it was clear Watts didn’t understand how temperature anomalies are used, not actual absolute temperature readings.
If you really want to read a good summary of the science, then I suggest you read the recent EPA Endangerment Finding. Terrific debunking of the most common lies and distortions that I am finding everywhere. I have never read a document from an environmental regulatory agency that is better written, and gets right to the point. Congratulations to your husband’s organization; they got this one right!
Here are some links to some of the best excerpts from the EPA Finding:
Ice Core CO2 measurements
water vapor GHG impact
More links in next comment.
More links to key excerpts from the EPA Endangerment Finding:
Solar Activity
Global Average Temperature
Global Warming Flood Losses
Yeesh, the scientists working on the Endangerment Findings comment response have had a busy few months… I count 700 single spaced pages of responses to various comments.
PaulK2,
Your finding Cliamte Audit too detail oriented and esoteric does not make it less important.
And your brushoff of WUWT is easy if you ignore the corections he provides when proven wrong and the many things he points out that are correct.
Recently the head of NOAA aserted we are already experiencing a climate catastrophe.
Do you agree? Can you kindly point out where this catastrophe is taking place?
Providing links from the EPa written by AGW true believers who think a temperature rise of ~0.6o in a century is significant or unusual is a pretty great example of a true believer relying on authority to sustain belief. and your inability to address the documented problems of AGW data quality, predictions and process are more a result of a true believer rejecting uncomfortable information for the sake of their faith.
By the way, the data was deliberately manipulated.
Neven,
I did not realize I as dealing with a Malthusian. Sorry to have wasted my time.
Andrew said:”Don’t start a business based on worthless data, I always say.”
If there is an organized group effort to damage your business by publicizing lies and distortions, then you track the scoundrels down, and expose them.
Paul2K,
Your link to how global warming is even now increasing flood losses was not working.
I found this one:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/06/as-of-gdp-flood-losses-have-been-declining-since-1929-despite-co2-increases.html
Is this what you were referring to?
Were you trying to expose the fact that AGW promoters use made up and false numbers to sell climate fear, or were you hoping to sell a bit of fear yourself?
“If there is an organized group effort to damage your business by publicizing lies and distortions, then you track the scoundrels down, and expose them.”
Paul K2,
Indeed… let’s shut down the EPA right away. They do too much damage to business, generally speaking.
Andrew
Paul2K,
I am enjoying reading your posts.
So it is the fault of the US for not imposing some insane carbon fee that prevented you from making a bigger commission, and it is all Bush’s fault.
Even though the carbon trading schemes fail where they are tried, have made literally zero difference in carbon emissions or the climate, and the market for carbon emissions is in a deep bear market, it is the fault not of Chin or India but the US and Bush.
It is certainly not the fault of the clowns at Enron who tried to build a scam market to be profiteers in. It is most certainly, in your world, the fault of those who proposed the stupid idea in the first place and depend on shaking down tax payers to support your lifestyle. And it cannot be that AGW is just another pile of apocalyptic clap trap that will join the rest of the failed apocalyptic junk beliefs in the dustbin of history. No, it is Bush’s fault.
So what we really have is a whiney salesman posing as an intellectual banker who is so sad his fat pay day got trimmed a bit.
Where can we send flowers and chocolate to console you?
Hunter, you said that the EPA Endangerment Finding was written by true believers…
What is a “true believer” ? How do you know which EPA employees wrote the Finding, and how do you know that they are “true believers” ?
This is the kind of shoddy assumptions and thinking that is getting some people way off base on this issue. You are making the assumption that everyone who sees a threat in AGW, and wants to take action to build a green energy industry not only to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, but also for national security and economic reasons, are some kind of religious “true believers”.
My analysis, and I have spent thousands of hours reviewing the information, leads me to conclude that there is a need for a green energy industry. I can help build one. Why shouldn’t I? What makes your opinion count more than all the reasoned and tested scientific evidence that I slogged through? What gives these organizations the right to spread easily proven propaganda, lies, and distortions about the science?
Paul2K,
I would say that anyone who is claiming that flood losses are doing anything due to CO2 is a true believer in AGW.
I would say that repeating those claims as if there was actually evidence to support them is a true believer.
A person who would rather discredit the critiques of AGW rather than deal with the problems pointed out is a true believer.
A person who thinks we are in the midst of an irreversible climate catastrophe is a true believer.
Paul2k,
I have to ask:
Based on your name, were you one of those guys who were so sincerely selling Y2K cures and survival kits? Is AGW where all Y2K promoters went off to?
As to your desire to build a green industry- hey, go for it.
But do not kid yourself that anyone would give you a friggin’ dime if your ‘green’ industry was doing anything other than shaking down tax payers for subsidies. Are you also one of those people who think we can run an economy on windmills?
What gives con artists the right to my wallet just because they claim the science is behind them?
Paul K2
Are those questions rhetorical?
I think there are very few people who would try to prevent you from building a green energy business or contributing to a green energy industry. Some would prefer not to be forced to subsidize the business or industry you favor with taxes or fees levied on businesses they favor.
Is this supposed to be rhetorical? In the US, the answer is the first amendment.
If the information you consider to be ” easily proven propaganda, lies, and distortions about the science” really was “easily proven propaganda, lies, and distortions about the science”, and all propaganda, lies and distortion was only on the side you likely consider “the other side”, it probably wouldn’t present much of a problem for you. It’s usually pretty easy for people who are seen as trustworthy to rebut easily proven propaganda, lies and distortions.
hunter,
I’d like to add that a True Believer actually believes in AGW rather than only pretending to believe in it simply because it’s Pop Culture.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Good point. That is why there is sort of an AGW ecology of promoters, profiteers and true believers. I am certain that in the great tulipomania delusion there were people who promoted tulips, who profited (or attempted to profit) from tulips, and those poor yutzes who simply lost a bunch of money believing that tulips were really so valuable.
Andrew_KY (Comment#40720),
There are true believers of many stripes, including religious true believers. Glass houses and all that you know..
Re: true believers
SteveF,
Indeed, but the difference is that im not trying to forcibly impose my beliefs upon others through the power of the federal government and hiding it in euphemisms like Science.
My Lord doesn’t try to trick people into following Him. He says to follow Him you must deny yourself and pick up your cross every day. There’s no fantastic totalitarian social vision there.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
“hiding it in euphemisms like Science”
I’m not sure what to make of this. Do you think science is a euphemism for something else? Really, I have no Idea what you mean.
SteveF,
Just because someone uses scientific sounding language, and calls the conclusions they espouse ‘Science’, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
For instance, I could speculate that my hot pepper seeds haven’t sprouted out of the ground yet because I haven’t watered them enough. Sounds plausible, doesn’t it? But is that conclusion scientific? or is it just a guess?
Andrew
Wikepedia: A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver.
eg. ‘passed away’ instead of died
‘unpleasant fellow’ instead of miserable SOB
‘partially decomposed’ instead of mostly eaten by maggots
I still do not understand what you mean. Do you mean that ‘science’ is used in place of a different (offensive) word? If so, please give an example.
SteveF,
Try ‘Science’ in place of ‘speculation’ or ‘guess’. Which sounds the best?
Andrew
SteveF,
How about ‘reconstruction’ in place of ‘contrived representation’?
Andrew
Which is more descriptive and/or less offensive in this case:
Climate Science or Climate Speculation? or Climate Guessing? 😉
Andrew
hunter: “I did not realize I as dealing with a Malthusian. Sorry to have wasted my time.”
.
That’s okay, you’re wasting your time big time anyway when it comes to AGW. Hopefully you’re young enough to realize this in a decade or two from now.
.
“Paul2k,
I have to ask:
Based on your name, were you one of those guys who were so sincerely selling Y2K cures and survival kits?”
.
His name is Paul K2, not 2K. See? Some more time wasted, unless chasing paranoid fantasies is considered a useful pastime.
.
Lucia:”I think there are very few people who would try to prevent you from building a green energy business or contributing to a green energy industry. Some would prefer not to be forced to subsidize the business or industry you favor with taxes or fees levied on businesses they favor.”
.
Really? Most of them don’t mind being ‘forced’ giving the fossil industry huge subsidies in the form of tax cuts, free permits for drilling and mountain top removal, and not having to pay for their mess. That’s because the fossil fuel industry in the short term keeps that GDP growing, growing, growing. Growth is good. Long term decisions for the public good hurt growth. Not good. Need to fight wars, need to push pharmaceuticals, need to nitrogenize that top soil, need to genetically alter crops and livestock, need to make millions of advertisements every day, need to increase that credit card interest rate, buy, buy, BUY thy happiness and do not ever think of the consequences! There are no consequences as long as GDP keeps growing. Growth is good. Always. May I introduce you to my child? He’s 29 feet long.
.
Lucia: “Who is most of them? Why are you so vague?” 😉
keep hoping because its looks like UAH temps are now starting to go down LOL yes once again….too bad
Stephan, if you would read you would see that I mentioned this as the first on this thread.
.
How much does the UAH trace for 2010 have to go down for the Global Cooling Myth to be resurrected?
Here’s an example of the kind of mindless drivel WUWT posts every day. I take this from the current post by Steven Goddard.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/lockwood-demonstrates-link-between-low-sun-and-low-temps/
Lockwood has a new paper that says the Maunder Minimum and cold temperatures in England are linked. Goddard says that “he prominently claimed just the opposite” based on a BBC report called “No Sun link to climate change”. Of course, what he claimed was that recent warming was not caused by the Sun, not that the Sun has no effect on climate.
Read it for yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
The subhead of the article is “A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun’s output cannot be causing modern-day climate change”
Does anyone here think that Goddard’s account is a truthful represention of the facts?
Goddard is a mess, and the fact that he got his position back at WUWT is telling.
Besides, Stephan, I’m arduously hoping that people like you and Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard are right. Do you see my predicament?
Re cce’s comments on Steve Goddard and the latest Lockwood paper, in the same thread SG has accused NASA’s David Hathaway of contradicting himself in statements on the Solar ‘conveyor belt’. Not a good comprehension day for SG…
Neven–
Cooling? It probably has to fall below an anomaly of 0C. I think Joe Bastardi is still predicting cooling. I don’t know if he merely means a return to 70s temps or lower. (If he’s at Heartland, I’ll ask.)
Andrew_KY (Comment#40732) April 14th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
A few years ago I had a very long email exchange with the PR manager for NASA’s global warming information pages. I was inspired to use to the “contact us” at those pages from reading and participating in a thread posted on ClimateAudit about Real Climate; because the NASA pages gave RC’s link to the public there as a source for the science and for reading “further information” on global warming.
After about the second email; he took time and wrote me back from his home email address because he didn’t like to be so un-personal with someone with the concerns I had and wanted to speak freely.
Long story short; he agreed with me on the fact that the those NASA pages were sort of unbalanced info after my arguments; and told me he was going to see if he could add the NAS report/Wegman report link to those info pages or at least add some of the uncertainty stuff about the hockey stick graph etc…
Never happened. ( He wouldn’t believe me when I said RC edits and censors people’s comments like they do either) Anyway those NASA pages aren’t there anymore and he’s moved on to another PR gig in the climate change world online (I googled his name)…but the interesting thing is and my point is that in his personal emails with me; he confessed that he was a born again Christian and he home schooled his kids.
Now some people might think that would interfere with his work at NASA (and if it were the other way around-he managed a skeptical site I bet for sure they would!) but I didn’t get that impression at all. He believed the scientific evidence for AGW was pretty good (but this was before Climategate and all sorts of other developments and he wasn’t a scientist) And he seemed to feel if the science wasn’t sound that fact would eventually work itself out some how-he was just going with the flow. he invited me and my family to tour NASA if ever we were in the DC area too.lol
Just thought I’d share. I still have the emails and I wouldn’t ever give out his name or anything either. Have a good day! 🙂
Neven,
Pointing out the delusional fallacies of Malthusian junk pretending to be profound economics is never really a waste of time.
And add to that your larger apocalyptic vision of everything from agriculture to weather and simply reading your stuff makes being here worthwhile. You still have not offered anything as an alternative to economics that is not gibberish, but it is fun to read.
The fantasy of free drilling permits is an interesting one. Oil companies spend billions in acquiring and developing drilling rights. But for someone whose idea of progress is to destroy the world economy to save the people, nothing is really surprising. It is amazing that the AGW social movement can shut down the thinking skills of its believers so effectively.
The myth is not about cooling or warming. Neither has happened to dangerous levels, nor is warming or cooling to dangerous levels likely. The myth is about an impending apocalypse.
But GISS has got its numbers wrong again!!
This time in Finland. See CA.
PaulM– Whoops!
That’s going to knock down the March 2010 temp when the update for April 2010! Lucky for me my mother-in-law was visiting for dinner and I didn’t over analyze after incorporating the March 2010 data. 🙂
March 2010 will still be warm though. Here’s a back of the envelope estimate of the effect Finland represents a small area– lets guess 1% of the surface of the earth. The error is about +10C . So, it will affect the average by approximately 10C* 1% = 0.1C. So, after correction, March 2010 will be 0.84-0.1C = 0.74C. Still warm, but not the record breaker. It also would mean there wasn’t a huge jump from Feb to March, which seems more reasonable. (Though the jump to 0.84 wasn’t as outrageous as the historic ‘October in November’ blunder a while back.)
Wow – A data entry error in one country can affect the GMST by 0.1! I wonder how many of thoses are hidden in the unauditable records.
… wait wait… you mean there was no record in UAH after all?
Liza, A few years ago I had a few emails with one of the JPL guys who ran a major program… he was very religeous too… he was very impressed with proxy evidence that showed the 7 years of good harvest n 7 years of bad harvest… personally I do not worship
Raven, yeah, I wonder what would happen if they started dropping some stations? Nah, probably nothing, looks robust to me.
from Jean S post at CA
“So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8 °C!”
in NASA we distrust
if GISS gets it this wrong in a modern country with a competent national weather service using actual thermometers, why would anyone have confidence in all the temperatures that are “estimated or extrapolated†for areas like the artic?
Others are finding McIntyre’s work not so esoteric and detail oriented as to be without merit:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html
LOL! this news amuses me in so many ways. Good thing CA looked at the map and saw the burning inferno!
MikeC, I knew a guy from JPL like that too-from church as I matter of fact. I was born in Pasadena ; lived north of there; but live far south from there now. I think its not an unusual thing for scientists. I think the blogs and the media would like people to think so though! Humans are like a tripod…body/mind/spirit. if all are balanced in a healthy manner -you won’t tip over. 😉
Its most likely an issue with GHCN station reporting rather than NASA’s GISSTEMP per se; e.g. NCDC and HadCRUT (as well as all of our reconstructions) would show the same error until the records get corrected.
Re: windansea (Apr 15 10:27),
Oh my… I forgot. Finland is small, but if that’s used to extrapolate, and the extrapolation cover more area, then correction might be more than 0.1C.
GISS will correct this. This sort of thing doesn’t make me worry about persistent errors, but it is an issue with monthly values.
This sort of thing doesn’t make me worry about persistent errors…Of course not! 😉 But it does worry many.
MikeC…wait! I hope him being impressed with proxy records for harvesting is a good thing! LOL I have no clue and… then my whole comment would go to the poop pile! LOL
Here we go:
“2010-04-15: The data shown between 4/13 and 4/15 were based on data downloaded on 4/12 and included some station reports from Finland in which the minus sign may have been dropped. NOAA updated GHCN on 4/13 by removing those data and we updated our displays today. The March 2010 global mean temperature was affected by about 2/100 of a degree Celsius, well below the margin of error (about 15/100 of a degree for monthly global means).”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
So 0.02 C change.
Looks like they are reporting 0.83 now, dunno if it rounds up or down but it doesn’t matter much either way.
Lucia,
Finland area is about 0.063% of the surface of the earth.Climate Audit shows also most extreme false anomaly in Finland.So March 2010 average will be about 0.836C or so.
Zeke–
So, evidenlty either less than 1% of the surface area was affected, of the error is less than 10C!
Fouse–
Thanks. Yes it ooks like it made a 0.015C change.
Liza, I didn’t pay much attention… I’m not confident in proxys… but for him it was a proxy record of Biblical Proportion.
It would be interesting to track down where the minus signs were dropped; in the original CLIMAT reports, in the first-pass QCed GSN data, in the final GHCN data, or in the post-adjustment GISSTemp data?
[edit] NASA’s update seems to push the buck over to NCDC. Looks like NCDC posted the messed up data on 4/12 and fixed it on 4/13, but NASA pulled to 4/12 data to do their original March calcs.
Note:
liza,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I suspect that being openly Christian these days is going to set a person in automatic-opposition to The Gubbermint. 😉
“he was just going with the flow”
Too much of that and the current is going may sweep him away…
Have a peaceful afternoon! 🙂
Andrew
Hunter,
It’s an odd situation WRT McIntyre. On more than one occassion
we’ve asked climate scientists to just admit the fact that they had certain things WRONG. even with the stipulation that the difference or the mistake is MINOR or inconsequential. Yet, they persist in avoiding simple straight forward admissions. I will give you a few examples:
1. Mann 98 ( as noted in your link)
2. Mann’s mislocation of a precipitation proxy ( a mistake
that he REPEATED after being informed, and corrected
with no attribution. ( not a small mistake )
3. Tiljander inversion.
The point is not, in the minds of people like me, that AGW will be overturned because of these mistakes. The point is having a clear scientific record. This failure to just simply and honestly correct the mistakes, given proper attribution, and carry on is BAD FOR people who believe in AGW. It causes a lack of trust.
If mann and you and others can’t bring themselves to say ” This paper is WRONG, lets fix it” when the error doesnt even MATTER, then why should people believe you. Lucia made a mistake here a while back. She openly corrected it. Ask people here if that increased their trust or decreased it. Or take the attitude people have toward hide the decline. It’s pretty clear from the record that Briffa chose to present a graphic that was misleading. He had a choice: show the graphic without the divergence and explain it in the text.( which he did) or show the graphic WITH the divergence and explain THAT in the text. He chose the former. When we look at the record of communications around these types of decisions, its clear why. marketing. That misdeed doesnt change the science. It changes our perception of scientists as disinterested people. That’s bad.
steven mosher,
Thanks. I would submit that the only thing worth worrying about with climate science is if we are even now (as some claim) or will soon (as others have been claiming) experience a climate catastrophe on a global scale caused by CO2.
If we are, then the only question is what combinations of mitigation, adaptation and climate management do we undertake to minimize it.
If we are not, then please shut up already.
The list of clues that we are not facing a climate catastrophe is quite lengthy.
steven mosher,
re-reading my post to you, please excuse me if it read as if I was telling you to shut up already. That was not how it was meant at all.
hunter. I didnt take it that way. plus even if u did tell me to shut up I wouldnt take offense. kinda hard to offend me.
*****************
Paul K2 (Comment#40697) April 14th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
The amount of money we are talking about is huge. For example, eventually a large portion, likely exceeding 50% of the US electric power supply will come from renewables. A five year delay in ramping the green energy businesses, costs the emerging business sector over $1.5 trillion in lost revenues.
The lies and distortions printed at sites like SPPI and CEI and Heartland, that in turn influence public opinion in some key states, are having a significant financial impact on the new industry sector. To ignore that this is the case, is quite naive.
********************
This “new industry sector” cannot exist without the government legislating demand for it. That is, there isn’t a true demand for its services. You can’t really say anything was lost because the demand never existed and therefore money was never made. This “industry” produces nothing of value.
If we are to ever have such an business (not industry) in the US, it must be based on sound science, not the sloppy work we have seen so far. And certainly not based on the non-science based fear mongering. Some of these so-called climate scientists have no ethics. Maybe we need religion after all?
Jim,
The disgusting thing to me is that Paul K2 may not know the difference between his feeding at the trough and actually making money by doing productive work.
Every month that wasteful tax payer paid policies are delayed is a month more of tax payers hang on to their money.
AGW policy demands are in basically every case net job killers, net wastes of energy and over stated in terms of their benefit to society.
hunter (Comment#40912) April 18th, 2010 at 6:46 am
So how are you going to cope with rising oil prices and peak oil? Blame the gubbmint?
AGW policy demands are in basically every case net job killers, net wastes of energy and over stated in terms of their benefit to society.
.
why do we pay expensive scientists for analysis and stuff, when hunter simply has the right gut instinct and knows everything better?
.
giving tax money to oil companies is much better, than investing in clean energy. just believe hunter!
And you are so smart that it never occurred to you that this whole scam of scaring the lowly citizens ( oh no! the winter’s end month of March average temperature anomaly is 33.512 degrees F instead of like 32.036 F degrees for the whole world ten years ago!) was created as a perfect propaganda generator for the game of politics, power and wealth? LOL!
“why do we pay expensive scientists for analysis and stuff”
sod,
This is a good question. If all scientists can do is produce dubious squiggly lines, why the hell are we paying them anything?
Andrew
liza and andrew, i can t cure you from those wild conspiracy fantasies.
.
it is your choice to believe in them. so just stick to what ever liza’s husband says and get happy.
.
sod,
Why do you bother to pretend to think, when you rely on nice well paid scientists with expensive studies to think for you?
And, as has been pointed out to you and other true believers ad nauseum, it is your side that claims there is a vast conspiracy of wicked denialists paid by big oil to keep the great truth of CO2’s dangers from the innocent people.
bugs,
Adjusted for inflation, oil is not really very expensive at all.
Peak oil, like each and every other Malthusian claim, is a junk idea.
liza,
I can honestly say to you that that never occurred to me.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
hunter,
From the above chart, adjusted for inflation oil price does seem to be higher than normal, with normal seeming to be just over $20 a barrel. There also appears to be a recent rising trend, starting in the late 1990s.
I should add that I am not particularly Malthusian in outlook. I have a strong belief that human ingenuity, a renewable resource, will overcome potential barriers of this kind. Unfortunately, often we solve problems by creating new ones, simply because we are unable to see all consequences. And then we solve the new problems. But suffering is often the short-term result.
David Gould (Comment#40950) April 18th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
You don’t see conspiracy in the Climategate emails? (Then you haven’t read them.)
You don’t see Al Gore; other career politicians and industry big wigs positioning themselves to make or get mega dollars from climate change and its legislation and all that? (Even Dr.Mann got funded by stimulus money) You don’t see that if you try and question these people you get censored or thrown out of the room? You don’t see an agenda that includes hate and prejudice for certain groups of people (like that’s never happened before in history) ? Then you are blind.
To hear or read “why should I show you my data if all you are going to do is find something wrong with it?” is perfectly fine when it is said by a top scientist; paid for by taxpayers; who is making all kinds of scientific claims that dictate how we should all change the way we live?
Unbelievable!
liza,
I have this tendency (one which is very annoying to some of my friends) of failing to spot conspiracies that many people claim are obvious.
Sure there are people looking to make vast sums of cash. I have no problem with capitalism, despite being on the left. As I have said previously, once people can make as much money out of solar and wind as they can out of coal and gas, I will be ecstatic.
As to censorship or being thrown out of the room, no, I do not see that. I have not seen you being censored, for example. Or lucia. Or Anthony Watt. Lucia may have been thrown out of a room once, but I think that was at a knitting conference. She dropped a stitch, I am told.
As to the particular comment that you reference being ‘perfectly fine’, I have never said that. What I have said is that it is perfectly *understandable* without having to posit any kind of conspiracy.
Hi David,
I can see why! 🙂
the definition of conspiracy is: to act in harmony toward a common end (CRU emails clearly show this)
Just because you haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Google Al Gore +not allowing questions. Or read on any number of internet sites and blogs how Real Climate censors people when they try to comment. I believe there are archives all over the internet about this.
Capitalism -I have no problem with it either; but Cap and Trade is just about the most effective tool for controlling most any economic activity you can think of. (besides becoming a total communist nation.)
liza,
If that is the definition of ‘conspiracy’ that you are using, I have participated in many conspiracies. Me and my partner giving to charity is a conspiracy, for example. It is not a very useful definition.
liza,
A conspiracy (the legal definition) is defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
If you are talking about what I would call a ‘conspiracy theory’, then you are talking about explaining historical or current events through the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals. (taken from the wikipedia entry).
Using either of these usages, me and my partner giving to charity is not a conspiracy and I have never participated in one – my motives and actions cannot explain any historical or current event of any significance.
David Goud (Comment#41018) April 19th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Sure David. You are so clever. Here’s a question. If you already know what the end result or conclusion is why even work and do the whole research bit together at all? Why spend all that energy censoring, labeling and blackballing people and hiding data and code? Why spend billions more if “the science is settled” and all that? Hmmmm?
I will be waiting for your answer.
BTW Seriously are you people for real? I noticed you didn’t object to what I said about Cap and Trade. Like my father always says; pay attention to what people don’t say too. Sheesh.
Creepier and creepier Andrew_Ky and hunter! Isn’t it?
liza,
When did I say that I already knew what the end result or conclusion was? I think that you are confusing me with somebody else.
As to why spend billions on research, some areas of ‘the science’ are settled. For example, it is known that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere – I am assuming that you accept that. But other areas os ‘the science’ are not settled. We do not know – for example – if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 4.5. So there is plenty more to be researched.
I actually did write a paragraph on cap and trade and on what you call censorship. But then I deleted it, as I found the conspiracy idea more interesting (long posts cause loss of focus). As you did not really respond to the conspiracy discussion other than to say that I am clever – thanks for noticing – I assume that you now agree that there is no conspiracy. 🙂
Do you agree that if a person or a corporation does damage to property that does not belong to them then they should pay to either fix it if possible or limit future damage? If so, you should support cap and trade.
BTW
Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an ‘F’
A group of 40 auditors from across the globe have released a shocking report card that flunks the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.
“”We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal.”
Based on the grading system used in American schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report received an F for citing peer-reviewed sources less than 60 percent of the time. Four chapters received a D, and six received a C.
The report also got eight A’s and five B’s from the auditors, who included Bob Ashworth, a member of the American Geophysical Union, and Dr. Darko Butina, a director of Chemomine Consultancy Ltd.
According to Lafromboise, much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “gray literature,” she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.’s claims about the study’s sources.
In June 2008, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, said: “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions, given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/
liza,
I have conversed with David before and he is usually a pleasant (though misguided) fellow.
He has been deceived into thinking that Science is a tool to promote political conclusions.
But I’m going to share a little secret with everyone… science points toward God. I know this idea makes people uncomfortable, but it’s true. And it’s why people like David purposefully misconstrue it.
Andrew
” I assume that you now agree that there is no conspiracy. ”
Um no see above. Seems to me the only thing for certain in regards to climate science and AGW is the end result of “all the research” is the same.
Andrew, I know what you mean.
And I don’t think David is a bad person; but holy cow all the “evidence” points to exactly OPPOSITE of what he (and a heck of a lot of people) think. Then they go on to another topic and think they understand the data-the vast geological record, how the atmosphere works and God knows what else. *face palm slap* hee hee. 🙂
“We do not know – for example – if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 4.5. So there is plenty more to be researched.”
In other words, a money pit of welfare scientists ?
How about the fact that the earth has been warming anyway since the last ice age; the data (tree rings/surface stations…you name it) and the models are so bad that the 1.5 degree “average global temperature rise” is highly questionable and so small that the margin for error could be greater and C02 is not a pollutant at all.
Andrew_KY,
Science pointing towards God has nothing to do with my thought processes regarding science. I used to be a Christian. My views on science were the same then as they are now.
liza,
Regarding science not knowing things and therefore money being spent to find those things out, why do you have a problem with that?
As to the evidence, the thing is we disagree on that point. I think the evidence points all one way; you think that the evidence points all the other way. Rather an interesting phenomenon, don’t you think? 🙂
In fact, that two intelligent people can come to opposite conclusions when presented with the same information is, for me, fascinating. It is one of the reasons why I enjoy discussion/debate (argument?) with those who disagree with me on various issues – religion, politics, philosophy, science et cetera.
(although I now avoid discussing 9/11 with those who disagree with me on this particular issue …)
Andrew
“science points toward God”
Really? That’s an astonishing conclusion.
Andrew,
“science points toward Godâ€
Which god?
David Gould (Comment#41036) April 19th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
I like debating too. There is a difference between us. The science is all good and sound to you regarding AGW. The difference between us is the definition of “good” and “sound” I guess. I think I would call myself agnostic as far as AGW goes. You don’t believe the Earth has warmed since the last ice age David?
Human beings have been burning carbon in order to survive for a very long time. Now; AGW theory comes along and actually assigns guilt and sin unto humans in this situation because “they have damaged the Earth (or you could say: ruined Eden). This doctrine of AGW is “settled” and shouted as truth yet it divides people; fines them, condemns certain behaviors; even promotes hate of certain industry and its workers; people’s ways of living are questioned; and even some top scientists and politicians proclaim there is “a war” on them .
Perhaps just perhaps people who don’t practice a religion are filling some sort of hole in their psyche with AGW Theory. Maybe just maybe they feel less insignificant if they embrace the whole thing as truth.
Al Gore maintains that exploring diverse teachings about religion and the environment has been key to finding his own spiritual balance.
”The search for truths about this ungodly (environmental) crisis and the search for truths about myself have been the same search all along,” he writes in the book “Earth in Balance”. (Ungodly huh?)
In Earth in the Balance, Gore wrote of his faith, which he said was ”rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of the relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things.”
While he agrees with liberals that evolution should be taught in public schools, he made conservatives happy when he said localities should be free to teach creationism as well.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2247.htm
Wow Andrew_KY …and they spend a heck of a lot of time pecking at you whenever you share your thoughts! As if they are so unusual! 😉
Nathan and Chad,
You guys lead a really sheltered life, don’t you?
Which God? The Maker of The Universe. The one and only God.
As far as it being an astonishing conclusion… maybe to you guys. But not to a whole lot of people throughout history. I suggest you might investigate the matter. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY
I was sent to Catholic high schools and exposed to all this. Please, no proselytizing.
Lucia,
Yes ma’am. 😉
Andrew
“Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.”
-from PROGRESS IN RELIGION
A Talk By Freeman Dyson
I like that reasonable opinion!
(And I like his reasonable opinions of AGW, the science and the politics involved too.)
Ok had to share..this is what the “science” has come to:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/18/tech/main4191556.shtml
Today’s Quakes Deadlier Than In Past
Study: Seismic Activity 5 Times More Energetic Than 20 Years Ago Because Of Global Warming
“The most serious environmental danger we face on Earth may not be climate change, but rapidly and systematically increasing seismic, tectonic and volcanic activity,” said Dr. Chalko.
“Increase in the annual energy of earthquakes is the strongest symptom yet of planetary overheating.
“Unless the problem of global warming (the problem of persistent thermal imbalance of Earth) is addressed urgently and comprehensively – the rapid increase in global seismic, volcanic and tectonic activity is certain. Consequences of inaction can only be catastrophic. There is no time for half-measures.”
I’d like to know who peer reviewed this stuff! This is the biggest lie we’ve ever seen the MSM report. Holy cow.
liza,
Of course I believe that the earth has warmed since the last ice age. After all, if it hadn’t, we would still be in an ice age.
As to AGW belief replacing religion, I tend to think that speculation re motives is rarely useful. The best assumption – in my opinion – is to accept that your opponent has come to the conclusions that they have because from their perspective those conclusions are the ones that best fit the facts. From that basis, you can ask them what they believe and why they believe it – and take their word for the reasons. 🙂