You're saying the rise if food prices has nothing to do with Russia stopping wheat exports last year because of the incredible heat wave they had, or the reduction of the wheat crop in Canada because of heavy summer rains, and in China because of drought, or in Pakistan where massive flooding reduced the agricultural output, or Australia where both drought and flooding have reduced yields over the past couple of years?
All of those kinds of weather events are expected to become more severe on a warming planet.
Please go read the full context of the Holdren (and his co-authors) statements in that regard. He was not pushing forced infertility by poisoning public water. It was more like a list of possibilities from a brainstorming session without judgments being made of the suitability of the ideas. Please find one actual quote from John Holdren that supports what you accuse him of supporting.
At the minimum, they were slapped on the wrist for the "hide the decline" graphs being used in misleading fashion. But even so, the reports were very lenient.
Go back and look at the investigative reports again. They said nothing about the "hide the decline" graphs. They said that the CRU could have been a little more responsive to FOI requests but that was the worst thing they found.
Funny thing, the only ones who've found Michael Mann guilty of scientific fraud are climate change deniers who are not really qualified to make a judgment of that. No investigation by his peers has found any issues with Mann's research.
And I'd challenge you to provide links to any of the 'peer reviewed scientific papers' SPECIFICALLY supporting Gore's eschatological "global warming" FUD - that global warming is imminent, real, and human-caused, dated before Gore's Earth in the Balance (1992) or even before his presidential campaign in 2000.
James Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988 pretty much implied this. While not peer reviewed in itself it was based on his and his colleagues peer reviewed work. There are plenty of references to peer reviewed papers on Hansen's Wikipedia page.
In what alternative reality is Phil Jones THE HEAD OF THE IPCC? He was the head of the CRU at East Anglia University but that's a far cry from the IPCC. Why should I believe anything else you say if you can't get such an obvious thing right?
you will have to admit a gun is a pretty bad hammer, and a terrible screwdriver...
A word to the wise, take care to pay attention where the gun is aiming if you use it as a hammer. I believe there was a Darwin Awards winner who tried to use a loaded shotgun to break out a car window by hitting it with the butt of the gun.
Well, this graph (from NASA/GISS) starts in 1880. The CRU graph starts in 1850, both well after the height of the LIA in the 1600's or even the Dalton Minimum around 1800. The cited graph shows half of the temperature rise and the steepest rise has occurred since the late 1970's, less than 40 years out of 130 years.
I have read the climategate emails that got all of the attention. I find nothing in them incriminating. If you want to talk about specific ones give me an example.
I just scanned through the MBH code (you can see it here in the multiproxy.f file. From the parent directory you can see all the the work for the 1998 hockey stick graph). I didn't find anything controversial. The comments in the climategate emails had nothing to do with MBH.
Maybe we are missing a major factor in solar dynamics but you'd think with all of the study over the past half century we'd at least have a hint that something big is missing. That can only be true if they are wrong in a big way about some other part of climate science. Of course you believe that to be CO2 but all I ever hear is "It can't be CO2!" and no good science to explain why it should react so differently in the atmosphere as it does in the lab.
Perhaps the solar system bobbing up and down through the galactic plane does affect temperatures but that only happens twice per galactic year (225-250 million years) so it's not likely to change things much on century or millennial time scales.
Last I heard it looks like then end of the current interglacial is estimated to be (if we don't prevent it) in 20,000 years or so from an examination of Milankovitch Cycles. Of course MC's themselves are not the whole story regarding the ice age cycles. There are feedbacks that reinforce the warming initiated by them, most notable probably being CO2 and water vapor.
Looking at this graph I don't see anything that makes me think the current interglacial is the longest or hottest (maybe) or that the end of it is imminent.
... what the Earth and Sun are doing is quite fascinating.
On that we can agree:)
I tend to think that climate scientists are reporting their findings honestly. I think that there is an enormous amount of knowledge yet to be learned about climate but it appears to me that we've got most of the big stuff figured out more or less and are filling in details for the most part. I could be wrong but I don't think so. GCM's are not built on correlations but on models of the underlying physics (the causality) with some parametrization where the underlying physics are not well understood.
As we agree, we will find out. I just hope I live long enough to say I told you so (that's rather juvenile of me considering I'm 60 years old, isn't it).
I could care less what Al Gore does. I've never seen the movie (except for a couple of clips), I've never read any of his books. As I said, he doesn't matter to the real issues.
The global average temperature has increased since 1998. Every year from 2001 on was warmer than any year in the 1990's except 1998. Two years since 1998 virtually tied 1998 for warmest year (2005 & 2010). That means there has been an increase in average temperature. The total energy in the Earth system was greater in the 2000's than in the 1990's. Single years don't matter that much in the big picture.
Who said anything about shutting down industries (other than maybe the fossil fuel industry)? Why can't we do thing differently, innovate and become more efficient?
China is spending 3 times as much as the US on developing clean and renewable energy technologies right now. They are going to be the technology leaders of the future if we don't get off our butts.
As of November 2010 China owns $1,164.1 billion in US public debt. The total debt owned by foreigners is $4413.8 billion out of over $13,000 billion in total debt. So most of the debt is owned domestically.
So if one were to take the first IPCC report. Take the 95% certain error bands. Notice that we're FAR outside those error bands.
Could you be a little more specific about the particular place in the IPCC AR1 report that is outside of the 95% certain error bands? There's a lot of report to wade through otherwise. How well did the input scenarios used to make the prediction actually match what actually happened.
I don't think 12 years is long enough to make a judgment about the accuracy of their projections anyway.
Something obviously happened in Abbottabad. There's video and and independent verification. The US lost a chopper. Say it to the face of the guys who were there on May 2nd.
You ought to learn to read better. Phil Jones exact statement was:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
What in that makes you think Phil Jones admitted we've been cooling for the last 13 years. Don't put words in his mouth.
Humans would be much better off ignoring climate change and doing something about the shit thats already happening.
Oh, climate change is already happening. You're just not perceptive enough to see it or understand how it may affect you and your progeny in the future.
Meanwhile the IPCC is in yet another fresh scandal where it is learned that they allowed a Greanpeace (sic) activist to be the lead author on a section of their report on alternative energy and repackage his own earlier work with zero peer review or oversight.
So what? That report was part of the Working Group 3 report, what we can do in response to global warming. There were other parts of the WG3 report that had input from energy industry groups that wasn't peer reviewed either. It has nothing to do with the Working Group 1 report that was about the science of global warming.
For me, the biggest tell is that there is a 400 year gap between a rise in temperatures and a rise in CO2. Temp goes up and CO2 begins to rise afterward. If CO2 was the cause, it would lead temperature.
Oh, so you're saying the current rise in CO2 is due to temperature rises coming out of the Maunder Minimum? If that's the case then why doesn't that relationship show up at other times? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't been much above 300 ppmv in over 800,000 years. Right now it's about 390 ppmv. Where is the unusual temperature change that caused such an unusual rise in CO2?
The answer of course is that CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing. When it is a feedback it lags increasing temperatures, when it is a forcing it leads temperature.
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
ROTFLMAO! That's got to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen on the subject. 2010 matched 1998 for global temperatures. Maybe you were trying to be funny.
Slashdot Mirror
You're saying the rise if food prices has nothing to do with Russia stopping wheat exports last year because of the incredible heat wave they had, or the reduction of the wheat crop in Canada because of heavy summer rains, and in China because of drought, or in Pakistan where massive flooding reduced the agricultural output, or Australia where both drought and flooding have reduced yields over the past couple of years?
All of those kinds of weather events are expected to become more severe on a warming planet.
Please go read the full context of the Holdren (and his co-authors) statements in that regard. He was not pushing forced infertility by poisoning public water. It was more like a list of possibilities from a brainstorming session without judgments being made of the suitability of the ideas. Please find one actual quote from John Holdren that supports what you accuse him of supporting.
Oh brother, that's a new tack. What about Hawaii's admission to the Union is questionable in your view?
At the minimum, they were slapped on the wrist for the "hide the decline" graphs being used in misleading fashion. But even so, the reports were very lenient.
Go back and look at the investigative reports again. They said nothing about the "hide the decline" graphs. They said that the CRU could have been a little more responsive to FOI requests but that was the worst thing they found.
I suggest you take a look at Spencer Weart's online page The Discovery of Global Warming. It covers the history of climate research.
Funny thing, the only ones who've found Michael Mann guilty of scientific fraud are climate change deniers who are not really qualified to make a judgment of that. No investigation by his peers has found any issues with Mann's research.
And I'd challenge you to provide links to any of the 'peer reviewed scientific papers' SPECIFICALLY supporting Gore's eschatological "global warming" FUD - that global warming is imminent, real, and human-caused, dated before Gore's Earth in the Balance (1992) or even before his presidential campaign in 2000.
James Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988 pretty much implied this. While not peer reviewed in itself it was based on his and his colleagues peer reviewed work. There are plenty of references to peer reviewed papers on Hansen's Wikipedia page.
On volcanoes, it would take a supervolcano to emit as much CO2 as humans do in a year. In a typical year volcanoes emit 65-319 million tonnes of CO2 while humans currently emit around 29 billion tonnes.
One more thing, the heat generated by human activities is minuscule compared to the heat captured by greenhouse gases, it amounts to a rounding error.
In what alternative reality is Phil Jones THE HEAD OF THE IPCC? He was the head of the CRU at East Anglia University but that's a far cry from the IPCC. Why should I believe anything else you say if you can't get such an obvious thing right?
AC's comment is insightful.
Maybe you have cause and effect backwards. Maybe guns are more tightly regulated where the most gun deaths occur.
you will have to admit a gun is a pretty bad hammer, and a terrible screwdriver...
A word to the wise, take care to pay attention where the gun is aiming if you use it as a hammer. I believe there was a Darwin Awards winner who tried to use a loaded shotgun to break out a car window by hitting it with the butt of the gun.
Well, this graph (from NASA/GISS) starts in 1880. The CRU graph starts in 1850, both well after the height of the LIA in the 1600's or even the Dalton Minimum around 1800. The cited graph shows half of the temperature rise and the steepest rise has occurred since the late 1970's, less than 40 years out of 130 years.
I have read the climategate emails that got all of the attention. I find nothing in them incriminating. If you want to talk about specific ones give me an example.
I just scanned through the MBH code (you can see it here in the multiproxy.f file. From the parent directory you can see all the the work for the 1998 hockey stick graph). I didn't find anything controversial. The comments in the climategate emails had nothing to do with MBH.
Maybe we are missing a major factor in solar dynamics but you'd think with all of the study over the past half century we'd at least have a hint that something big is missing. That can only be true if they are wrong in a big way about some other part of climate science. Of course you believe that to be CO2 but all I ever hear is "It can't be CO2!" and no good science to explain why it should react so differently in the atmosphere as it does in the lab.
Perhaps the solar system bobbing up and down through the galactic plane does affect temperatures but that only happens twice per galactic year (225-250 million years) so it's not likely to change things much on century or millennial time scales.
Last I heard it looks like then end of the current interglacial is estimated to be (if we don't prevent it) in 20,000 years or so from an examination of Milankovitch Cycles. Of course MC's themselves are not the whole story regarding the ice age cycles. There are feedbacks that reinforce the warming initiated by them, most notable probably being CO2 and water vapor.
Looking at this graph I don't see anything that makes me think the current interglacial is the longest or hottest (maybe) or that the end of it is imminent.
... what the Earth and Sun are doing is quite fascinating.
On that we can agree :)
I tend to think that climate scientists are reporting their findings honestly. I think that there is an enormous amount of knowledge yet to be learned about climate but it appears to me that we've got most of the big stuff figured out more or less and are filling in details for the most part. I could be wrong but I don't think so. GCM's are not built on correlations but on models of the underlying physics (the causality) with some parametrization where the underlying physics are not well understood.
As we agree, we will find out. I just hope I live long enough to say I told you so (that's rather juvenile of me considering I'm 60 years old, isn't it).
I could care less what Al Gore does. I've never seen the movie (except for a couple of clips), I've never read any of his books. As I said, he doesn't matter to the real issues.
The global average temperature has increased since 1998. Every year from 2001 on was warmer than any year in the 1990's except 1998. Two years since 1998 virtually tied 1998 for warmest year (2005 & 2010). That means there has been an increase in average temperature. The total energy in the Earth system was greater in the 2000's than in the 1990's. Single years don't matter that much in the big picture.
Who said anything about shutting down industries (other than maybe the fossil fuel industry)? Why can't we do thing differently, innovate and become more efficient?
China is spending 3 times as much as the US on developing clean and renewable energy technologies right now. They are going to be the technology leaders of the future if we don't get off our butts.
As of November 2010 China owns $1,164.1 billion in US public debt. The total debt owned by foreigners is $4413.8 billion out of over $13,000 billion in total debt. So most of the debt is owned domestically.
If you want to come to Oregon I'd be happy to.
So if one were to take the first IPCC report. Take the 95% certain error bands. Notice that we're FAR outside those error bands.
Could you be a little more specific about the particular place in the IPCC AR1 report that is outside of the 95% certain error bands? There's a lot of report to wade through otherwise. How well did the input scenarios used to make the prediction actually match what actually happened.
I don't think 12 years is long enough to make a judgment about the accuracy of their projections anyway.
Whatever.
Something obviously happened in Abbottabad. There's video and and independent verification. The US lost a chopper. Say it to the face of the guys who were there on May 2nd.
You ought to learn to read better. Phil Jones exact statement was:
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
What in that makes you think Phil Jones admitted we've been cooling for the last 13 years. Don't put words in his mouth.
Humans would be much better off ignoring climate change and doing something about the shit thats already happening.
Oh, climate change is already happening. You're just not perceptive enough to see it or understand how it may affect you and your progeny in the future.
"... I was a history student"
No doubt European history. Or did you find history of the MWP in Chinese history and/or Indian history too?
Funny, I'm not seeing any desperate attempt to erase the MWP on this graph of 10 different temperature reconstructions including at least 2 each from Mann, Jones and Briffa.
Meanwhile the IPCC is in yet another fresh scandal where it is learned that they allowed a Greanpeace (sic) activist to be the lead author on a section of their report on alternative energy and repackage his own earlier work with zero peer review or oversight.
So what? That report was part of the Working Group 3 report, what we can do in response to global warming. There were other parts of the WG3 report that had input from energy industry groups that wasn't peer reviewed either. It has nothing to do with the Working Group 1 report that was about the science of global warming.
Too lazy to switch shift keys while typing it?
For me, the biggest tell is that there is a 400 year gap between a rise in temperatures and a rise in CO2. Temp goes up and CO2 begins to rise afterward. If CO2 was the cause, it would lead temperature.
Oh, so you're saying the current rise in CO2 is due to temperature rises coming out of the Maunder Minimum? If that's the case then why doesn't that relationship show up at other times? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't been much above 300 ppmv in over 800,000 years. Right now it's about 390 ppmv. Where is the unusual temperature change that caused such an unusual rise in CO2?
The answer of course is that CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing. When it is a feedback it lags increasing temperatures, when it is a forcing it leads temperature.
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
ROTFLMAO! That's got to be one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen on the subject. 2010 matched 1998 for global temperatures. Maybe you were trying to be funny.