Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

[John Sayers]

Ok Dean - here's Monckton's answer to your question in his reply to John McCain I posted previously in this thread.

You have said: "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great." Sir, the implication of your quoted remark is that the "serious and credible scientists" who are warning us that "time is short and the dangers are great" outnumber the equally "serious and credible scientists" who are not warning us of anything of the kind. The reverse is the case. A recent survey (Schulte, 2008) of 539 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since January 2004 and selected at random using the search term "global climate change" reveals that not a single paper provides any evidence whatsoever that "time is short" or that "the dangers are great". The notion of imminent, catastrophic climate change is a fiction that is almost wholly absent in the scientific literature. Indeed, the only papers that predict catastrophe are written by a tiny clique of closely-connected, extravagantly-funded, politically-biased scientists with unhealthily close political and financial connections to certain alarmist politicians in the party that you nominally oppose. Suppose, ad argumentum, that the UN's exaggerated climate-sensitivity estimates, proven in the peer-reviewed literature and in the unfolding temperature record to be fantasies wholly unrelated either to scientific theory or to observed reality, are true. Even then, the disasters imagined by the UN's climate panel and by certain politicians are unlikely to occur. Since the UN's estimates are indeed exaggerations, and are known to be so, the only potentially-"credible" basis for the alarmism reflected in your speech falls away. In the scientific literature, there is no "consensus" whatsoever to the effect that anthropogenic "global warming" will be "catastrophic". It is vital that you should understand the extent to which the UN's case for panic action is founded not upon theoretical proofs in climatological physics, nor upon real-world experimentation (for nearly all of the parameters necessary to the evaluation of climate sensitivity are not directly measurable, and their values can only be guessed) but upon computer models - in short, upon expensive guesswork. However, using computer models to predict the climate, even if the input data were known rather than guessed, cannot ever be effective or accurate: for the climate, in the formal, mathematical sense, is chaotic. The late Edward Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded the branch of mathematics known as chaos theory, proved that long-run climate prediction is impossible unless we can know the initial state of the millions of variables that define the climate object, and know that state to a degree of precision that is and will always be in practice unattainable. Why is such very great precision necessary? Because it is the common characteristic of any chaotic object, such as the climate, that the slightest perturbation, however minuscule, in the initial value of even one of that object's variables can induce substantial and unpredictable "phase transitions" - sudden changes of state - in the future evolution of the object. Unless the initial state of the object is known to an unattainably high degree of precision, neither the timing of the onset, nor the duration, nor the magnitude of these phase transitions can be predicted at all. Accordingly, the predictions go off track very suddenly and dramatically, but ineluctably. The UN [iPCC, 2001], accepts that the climate is "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object", and, consequently, that "long-term prediction of climate states is impossible". Yet it then attempts the impossible by making predictions of climate sensitivity that are already being proven exaggerated by the failure of temperatures to rise as the computer models had predicted (or, recently, at all). All of the climate models relied upon by the UN predict that the distinguishing characteristic or "fingerprint" of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing as opposed to any other forcings is that in the tropical mid-troposphere, about 6 miles up, temperature over the decades should rise at two or even three times the rate of increase observed at the tropical surface. However, this predicted "hot-spot" over the tropics is not observed in any of the tropospheric temperature datasets since reliable measurements were first taken by balloon-borne radiosondes 50 years ago. Douglass & Knox (2006) and Douglass et al. (2008) have established that the absence of the "hot spot" predicted by the UN's models is real, and is not (as was suggested by Thorne et al., 2007) a measurement error or artifact within the estimated uncertainty interval of the observed record. Lindzen (2008) estimates that in the absence of the "hot-spot" the UN's estimate of climate sensitivity must be divided by at least three. Thus, making this adjustment alone, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would raise global temperature not by 6

[Dean Roddey]

I don't see any sort of proof in there of anything other than he disagrees with some other people's opinions. There's nothing in there that I see that wouldn't be equally disagreed with on the other side by people just competent. Have you bothered to look around to see if anyone else of equal compentence has responded to his statements?

[Jon Doe]

No, feedback cycles have happened, numerous times in the past. The ice ages being particular spectacular examples of them. The question is not whether they happen, but whether we could contribute to one happening. And you don't answer my point that the very complexity of the system should argue for us being careful about our concerns about how effects on it, not be less worried.

This is all fascinating stuff as long as it's kept in perspective. Too many alarmists with personal agendas.

How does that song go? Everyone is saying, "It's the end of the world as we know it." (But I feel fine.)

Anyway, you guys carry on. I have to go find dinner.

[MichaelSaulnier]

I bet Global Warming is why the aliens didn't show up earlier this month.

Why would they bother if we've messed up this great planet so badly.

If I was them... I'd move on to a more enlightened planet.

M

[John Sayers]

Dean - Roy Spencer has just released more research. Here is his conclusion:

The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive (produce too much global warming). If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the news media now refuses to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely. We need to consider the very real possibility that atmospheric carbon dioxide - which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little - might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#more-3721

[Dean Roddey]

He shouldn't be worrying about the press. If his purpose is make scientific claims, then he should only be worrying about convincing his fellow scientists. If he does so, then he doesn't have to worry about the press. If he truely has conclusive evidence that he is right, he will convince enough unaligned scientists with the stature to insure that the word gets out and turn the tide in the scientific community, and the public perception will flow from that. If he doesn't, then his trying to fight a war in the press is a waste of time. Why should reporters give his articles more priority than the larger consensus? It's not their job to prove he's right.

[John Sayers]

Dean - you are missing the point - If Roy Spencer was some lowly research scientist in some small university I would agree with you - but Dr Spencer has the following Wiki entry:

Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA

[the stranger]

...the much more widely held view...

In John's defense, the "much more widely held view" is usually wrong when it's all said and done.

[the stranger]

...the aliens didn't show up earlier this month...

Yeah, I'm still pissed about it, too.

[Dean Roddey]

Dean - you are missing the point - If Roy Spencer was some lowly research scientist in some small university I would agree with you - but Dr Spencer has the following Wiki entry:

I don't think I am. He's a scientist, but he's trying to do public policy work in the press. If he's right, he needs to convince other scientists of this. If he does, then the press and the public policy will follow. Getting it reported on doesn't make it true. But getting a consensus that it is true will get it reported on.

[Dean Roddey]

In John's defense, the "much more widely held view" is usually wrong when it's all said and done.

Well, it's easy to say that, but it's a lot harder to back it up. It would require that the bulk of scientists be incompent the bulk of the time. Generally, in a widely studied area these days, the consensus is probably fairly accurate, and will have been backed up a good bit of work in order to have become a consensus.

Public opinion is often incorrect. But we aren't talking about public opinion here, but scientific consensus.

[the stranger]

The scientific consensus these days is driven by politics as much as it is science. Everybody has an agenda.

 

Science has had many a consensus throughout history, only to be proven wrong when new information and new research brings more facts to the table.

[the stranger]

I'm with Ken, I don't believe or disbelieve any particular theories regarding global warming. I read articles dealing with the subject all the time and every article brings new information and new ideas into the subject.

 

The truth is this particular science is in it's infancy.

[Dean Roddey]

Science has had many a consensus throughout history, only to be proven wrong when new information and new research brings more facts to the table.

But the point is 'more facts'. If he has more facts and can prove them and prove that they discredit the existing consensus, then he should present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there. Your cynical view of scientists is very unfair. If that was the case we'd never make the kind of progress we have. Science only works because anyone can take on the big dogs if they have sufficient proof.

It is true that this particular science is not far enough along to offer definitive answers. But, as I said above, that should lead one to being more careful about what we do to the planet, not less.

[MichaelSaulnier]

The scientific consensus these days is driven by politics as much as it is science. Everybody has an agenda. Science has had many a consensus throughout history, only to be proven wrong when new information and new research brings more facts to the table.

Dr Spencer has a few thoughts on this subject in his testimony before Nancy Pelosi's congressional committee.

Qzf6z-oHP8U

It's interesting that he points out the political motivation of a higher level gov't official and that conclusion would therefore be supported by science.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong... but he does seem to have very credible credentials.

M

[John Sayers]

But the point is 'more facts'. If he has more facts and can prove them and prove that they discredit the existing consensus, then he should present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there. .

As he said - he intends to publish his NEW research with NEW evidence. He makes the point that his new evidence is important as it will affect the new EPA regulations dealing with CO2 and his new research shows that CO2 doesn't have the influence on climate we have previously imagined it to have.

His frustration is that MSM will not print his new research, despite his impressive credentials so he has turned to Bloggs to get it out to other scientists and the public in general. It can take months - years to get a paper accepted and published in science journals.

[UstadKhanAli]

I'm with Ken, I don't believe or disbelieve any particular theories regarding global warming. I read articles dealing with the subject all the time and every article brings new information and new ideas into the subject.

I feel like I don't personally know enough about whether global warming is man-made or not to say, "Yes, I know the answer to this!" It's a complex series of issues, and although I read a fair amount, I don't feel like I can reach a conclusion.

I'm well aware of the fact that most scientists feel that global warming is partially man-made. And in general, the warming does seem to be occurring. And so my take on this is what I wrote before: may as well try and pollute less, consume less, use alternative energies more, stimulate the economy more through alternative energies, use clean fuel sources whenever possible, and try and make the planet a little better for everyone, including our children.

[MichaelSaulnier]

But the point is 'more facts'. If he has more facts and can prove them and prove that they discredit the existing consensus, then he should present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there. Your cynical view of scientists is very unfair. If that was the case we'd never make the kind of progress we have. Science only works because anyone can take on the big dogs if they have sufficient proof. It is true that this particular science is not far enough along to offer definitive answers. But, as I said above, that should lead one to being more careful about what we do to the planet, not less.

BTW, in the youtube vid above Dr Spencer DOES indicate that he shared his findings at a recent seminar, and did not have "serious objections" from the other scientists who attended.

I don't know who attended this, or what the demographic of the attendees was... but he seems to propose his findings as you put it, "present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there."

Penn and Teller had a great episode on their Showtime series Bull{censored}! about the huge profits being generated by the anti-global warming community... as soon as there's money to be made, my own BS radar goes off big time.

Throughout history consensus based "scientific thought" has often been found to be wrong in later times...

Remember when the best medical science included "bleeding" a patient to help them improve.

How about at the time of the invention of the railroad the "proven" belief that above a certain speed, (I think 30 mph), all the air would be sucked out of the rail cars, and everyone inside would die.

What about smoking? There was a time when the medical community's consensus was that it was not only OK to smoke, doctors actually were spokespeople for tobacco products.

In their own time, the scientists WERE the leading thinkers of the day, and they DID believe their own ideas.

Maybe global warming will turn out to be the same.

M

[MichaelSaulnier]

I feel like I don't personally know enough about whether global warming is man-made or not to say, "Yes, I know the answer to this!" It's a complex series of issues, and although I read a fair amount, I don't feel like I can reach a conclusion. I'm well aware of the fact that most scientists feel that global warming is partially man-made. And in general, the warming does seem to be occurring. And so my take on this is what I wrote before: may as well try and pollute less, consume less, use alternative energies more, stimulate the economy more through alternative energies, use clean fuel sources whenever possible, and try and make the planet a little better for everyone, including our children.

Or we could just party like it's 1999!

M

[StratGuy22]

Yeah! Al Gore did it! He stopped teh Global Warming!!!!!

[MichaelSaulnier]

OK...

So after a little research, I see where this is heading...

Check out this proposed legislation

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/CLIM08_001_xml.pdf

This is all about the creation and regulation of a "carbon market", and therefore the ability to tax and spend based on said regulation.

I think it would be a cool job to be a liscened "carbon broker"...

I wonder if this is the "job of the future"!

M

[Dean Roddey]

Remember when the best medical science included "bleeding" a patient to help them improve. How about at the time of the invention of the railroad the "proven" belief that above a certain speed, (I think 30 mph), all the air would be sucked out of the rail cars, and everyone inside would die.

These are meaningless examples. They are all prior to modern, peer reviewed science as we know it. Those types of things wouldn't last 10 minutes today. You might as well argue that CPUs can't work, since the overwhelming majority of phsysics believe that electroncs disappear from over here and appear over there, and don't travel the distance in between, despite the fact taht they've never seen an electron in person. You can't just selectively decide that science is incompetent about the things you happen to disagree with, while you are making use of a hugely complex system that science created, because it isn't obviously is not incompetent.

[MichaelSaulnier]

Dean.

Watch the youtube vid I posted.

New scientific findings disputing the link betwee CO2 and global warming have been identified.

Shared with peers.

Contrary to "general opinion".

Contrary to Democratic party "policy".

It's here. It's upsetting the belief system. It's not going away.

M

[MichaelSaulnier]

This all reminds me of what "deep throat" said to Bob Woodward as he was investigating Watergate...

"Follow the money".

I wonder where the "money" in the global warming panic goes?

M

[Dean Roddey]

Watch the youtube vid I posted. New scientific findings disputing the link betwee CO2 and global warming have been identified. Shared with peers. Contrary to "general opinion". Contrary to Democratic party "policy".

Again, it doesn't matter if someone posted something. That doesn't mean anything. Show me where it's being accepted by the broad consensus of climate scientists. I could post a video saying whatever I want. It doesn't mean much though unless it's accepted by those peers, not just seen by them. If it's upsetting the belief system, reference those comments by the other scientists whose beliefs it's changed.