To anyone arguing that Climate Change is actually a good thing - in general, it isn't, and this is an example. Especially in the US, our entire infrastructure, agriculture and manufacturing is built and created under the assumption that things will stay the same. Pipelines in Alaska were built under the assumption that permafrost was, well, permanent. Nuclear reactors were built under the assumption that the temperature changes of rivers are known and won't change. Levies are built with certain assumptions about local rainfall. Agriculture is built on certain assumptions about the local weather.
Yes, we can adapt to it, but it's an expensive proposition. All the stuff about cities flooding, people dying and malaria becoming the new bane of the US is extreme cases being blown up to make good news stories. It's the accumulation of small things like this that'll hurt.
I didn't know that only republicans were anti-evolution. Thanks for clearing that up. At least, none of the republican front runners are delusional enough to not accept evolution.
They were excellent, and they were masterful. In the way that Machiavelli's treatise was excellent, and in the way that Cardinal Richelieu was masterful. Comparing him to a particularly accurate monkey is to underestimate him.... there's a viciousness and cunning in him that I don't think exists in monkeys. I'm dead serious.
Personally, I'd argue that having served as an elected official is pretty much a black mark on someone's resume - especially if they ran for multiple terms. I believe Socrates and Adams when they say that good people just have no interest in politics.
I don't care if you know how to operate the political machine. All that means is that you know who to call to get money for your campaigns. Which is why Hillary and Rudy are both out for me.
Wow - this is pretty much the first critical analysis of Global Climate Change that is coherent and thoughtful. I still think there are a number of issues that are being completely glossed over, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Particularly, the analysis concerning proxies was very well done. There's a real concern there regarding splicing together different data sets, truncating data and otherwise hiding how analysis was done. This means that there is some concern about how the past looked like, and where we currently are with respect to that. Furthermore, it casts doubt on how the proxies are compared to temperature - if a certain section just happens to correlate nicely, but not others, it's a potential sign of parameter massages.
However, their analysis of solar forcing is very bad. The graphs they claim correlate barely do, their analysis of the low solar forcing models amounts to "Can't be!", and their analysis of solar impact on temperature completely lacks any numbers. It boils down to "sun more active => temperature increases are caused by it". I also find that their use of specific data sets is disingenuous - "hey, we haven't explained this rise here, so everything's bad".
Finally, the economic impact analysis is atrocious. He pretty much just picks everything that could go right, and disregards any potential negative impact. No wonder "do nothing" comes out best.
I'll dig some more through the proxy stuff though. There's some interesting stuff in there.
You do realize that the Ozone hole still exists, right? That it has stopped growing because the recommendations of the involved climate scientists (remove freons from aerosols) have been implemented? It always cracks me up when people bring up the Ozone hole in these discussions... if anything, it supports the notion that Climate Change is happening. As for Global Cooling.... Newsweek != Scientific Consensus (yes, horrible expression). There were some who were looking into why temperatures kept dropping, but there wasn't nearly the same amount of data available that we have now. Furthermore, the reasons behind it are fairly well understood, even if not very extensively researched. A few large volcanoes and a lot of soot in the air contributed to at least part of it.
I wasn't aware that Economists redefined the common use of "rational" to include emotional components. My bad.
Snarky comments aside, it is true that private property eliminates the tragedy of the commons. However, it is also not a panacea, as it now depends on the individual owner whether the resources are used in a rational fashion. We're assuming that owners have always long-term benefits in mind, when they often do not. Where do you think the story of the Goose with the Golden Eggs comes from? Or, for a more modern example, the $5 crack whore?
Stupidity is unfortunately a fact of life, and Economic models (include capitalism) rarely account for it.
eh - I'll own up to barfing the html for one link.
I also decided to scrap a rather lengthy discussion of your various links. I can't take someone seriously who substitutes his sources to mine, then claims that my sources don't support my position. Not to mention who thinks that a page from 1997 (complete with broken source links) and anything from co2science.com provides useful discussion material. Wake me up when you have some material that is current, relevant and peer-reviewed to discuss.
Which is why climatologists talk about events in 2050 at the earliest. Generally, their extrapolations go to 2100.
BTW, if you want to get a kick - calculate how much energy it would take to warm the surface temperature of the earth by 0.3 degrees celsius. Then calculate how much energy the US puts out during that time period.
You're right. People shouldn't be basing their decisions on just this report. Ever heard of ice cores, for example? The IPCC has reams of data reaching back hundreds of thousands of years. That's basically the entirety of human history, and a significant chunk of land-based life on earth.
Yes, because land-surface stations are the only source of data. We don't have ocean buoys, satellites, or proxies. Or maybe you want me to throw out the story about butter, sun sports and the fallacy of correlating two data sets during arbitrary time periods?
If you want to be convincing, please quote someone other than McKitrick. He's abused data more than anybody he complains about.
Actually, it doesn't bias overnight lows. It accurately records the heat-island effect of developed areas. What this means is that the average temperature recorded by this sensor is higher than the average temperature recorded by a sensor out in the woods - which is correct. And this is why you see climatologist talk about temperature changes, not absolute temperatures. A 10% year-over-year increase recorded on asphalt is the same as a 10% increase recorded in the woods.
This is why the location of the temperature sensors really doesn't matter so much for the purpose of tracking climate change: a hot location getting hotter is as important as a cool location getting less cool.
A complete dream. You're assuming that people are rational creatures. Economic researchers have finally discovered that they aren't, and that most economic decisions are based on irrational factors (happy, sad, vengeful, I like him, I don't like her, etc.). Why do you think all booth babes are hot? Not only that, but people place a very strong emphasis on the now rather than the later. To many people, a dollar now is worth a LOT more than 2 dollars later....
Trees might not have private property on Easter Island, but it is sheer utopia to say that private property would have saved easter island.
Absolutely. I'd love to see more open availability of the data used in papers and the algorithms used to generate the graphs. I don't care about a pretty picture - I want to know whether they cut corners somewhere, and how they did it. If I can't follow their method, I can't trust their results.
The only thing that makes me a bit less skeptical is that the results from closed data have been (mostly) reproduced by lots of other people with lots of other methods (even if they are closed as well). Since I don't subscribe to the theory that all Climatologists want to screw over Bush, SUV drivers and secure their next grant with more Global Warming info, I can accept the data presented. However, I'm also happy if someone manages to correct data sets, especially if the data was initially incorrect.
Do you realize what the impact is? No. No one does. Not even 'climatologists'.
Don't assume that just because YOU don't know or understand something, no one does. Read the IPCC reports. The impacts are well known, and its effects are already starting to materialize. Some examples of predicted effects: - Migration north of insect-born diseases like Malaria - Shifts in plant blooming patterns - Shifts in plant growth and viability (check out how gardeners have to change the assessment of what kind of region they're in for plant growing purposes) - Slow-down of North-Pacific current - Reduction in ice-coverage in arctic and antarctic.
I hated Orson Card's (what's with including his middle name, anyway?) Ender series, because Ender was a completely unrealistic pompous ass, written by someone who has no idea what true genius is like. I'm not one, but I've been around enough certified geniuses to know that Ender is anything but. The only thing I got from the books is that the author thought that he was the shit, and that his stories were deep, insightful comments on society.
It seems that this latest story just confirms my latest belief. BTW, what's with people quoting authors of Sci-Fi books as authorities on fields in which they have demonstrated no competency? Competency, btw, is completely different from "writing a fiction book about the topic".
Are we talking Fahrenheit or Celsius? Considering that most Climate data is in Celsius, I'm guessing the latter... do you also realize what kind of impact an increase of the average global temperature 1-2 degrees Celsius has? Climatologists tend to get worried when global temperatures climb by less than a degree, so a change of 1-2 degrees is significant.
A) That's not what we're talking about. Come back when you can stay on topic. B) You failed to provide a source. You're off-topic and didn't provide a source. C) Because 2 years worth of data after a spike constitutes an indication for global cooling. You're not only off-topic, without a source, but also failed statistics and trend analysis.
Have you looked at the updated data set? Tell me what trends you see. Oh, it's still going up? Trends are still there? 1934 is the warmest year on record by only a fraction? We're still in the longest warming trend in recorded history? I take it that's all just conspiracy to you.
A data set is a collection of anecdotal evidence collected with the same rules. Just pointing out that simply "it's an anecdote" is not very useful when all the anecdotes can be combined into a data set. Me telling you that there hasn't been a white Christmas in ages - not useful. If 90 out of 100 people tell you the same thing about a static location - something's up.
Have you checked the actual data? It's at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt, btw. Have you looked at the trends in that data? 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record - by a fraction. BFD. Anyone who looks to single points of data to talk about trends is an idiot - this goes in both directions. You need to look at the TRENDS to analyze TRENDS. And the trends are still there - it's just their absolute values that are little lower than initially thought. In other words, things aren't as bad as we thought they were, but they're still getting worse.
... Sad that it took this long to occur. Here are some more interesting tidbits from the updated data set. 1934 was 1.35 degrees warmer than the norm. 1998 was 1.23 degrees warmer. 2006 was 1.13 degrees warmer. In fact, the last ten years show an unbroken string of being warmer than expected. The 5-year mean over the last 24 years was warmer than expected.
The only thing that the new graph lacks is a headline-grabbing "warmest year EVAR!!!". The trends are still there. The data still doesn't contradict what other data sets show. I'm glad someone spent the time to go over the data with a fine-toothed comb, and found an issue. I'm not surprised though that the new data still fits current climate predictions.
The 35-hour week statement probably comes from the fact that while the French work 35 hours, their productivity is higher (GDP divided by total number of hours worked by all workers over the course of a year). There are some issues with that number though - particularly, how much under the table work is done and how much that pays.
I noticed you said "controversial and/or of judicial importance." What's wrong with taking up cases that are of judicial importance? Or are you arguing that the majority of the cases are controversial? If they are controversial, they seem to hold up fairly well.
Slashdot Mirror
To anyone arguing that Climate Change is actually a good thing - in general, it isn't, and this is an example. Especially in the US, our entire infrastructure, agriculture and manufacturing is built and created under the assumption that things will stay the same. Pipelines in Alaska were built under the assumption that permafrost was, well, permanent. Nuclear reactors were built under the assumption that the temperature changes of rivers are known and won't change. Levies are built with certain assumptions about local rainfall. Agriculture is built on certain assumptions about the local weather.
Yes, we can adapt to it, but it's an expensive proposition. All the stuff about cities flooding, people dying and malaria becoming the new bane of the US is extreme cases being blown up to make good news stories. It's the accumulation of small things like this that'll hurt.
I didn't know that only republicans were anti-evolution. Thanks for clearing that up. At least, none of the republican front runners are delusional enough to not accept evolution.
Which is why you don't use Wikipedia to research anything about living people. There's just too much at stake.
They were excellent, and they were masterful. In the way that Machiavelli's treatise was excellent, and in the way that Cardinal Richelieu was masterful. Comparing him to a particularly accurate monkey is to underestimate him.... there's a viciousness and cunning in him that I don't think exists in monkeys. I'm dead serious.
Personally, I'd argue that having served as an elected official is pretty much a black mark on someone's resume - especially if they ran for multiple terms. I believe Socrates and Adams when they say that good people just have no interest in politics.
I don't care if you know how to operate the political machine. All that means is that you know who to call to get money for your campaigns. Which is why Hillary and Rudy are both out for me.
Wow - this is pretty much the first critical analysis of Global Climate Change that is coherent and thoughtful. I still think there are a number of issues that are being completely glossed over, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Particularly, the analysis concerning proxies was very well done. There's a real concern there regarding splicing together different data sets, truncating data and otherwise hiding how analysis was done. This means that there is some concern about how the past looked like, and where we currently are with respect to that. Furthermore, it casts doubt on how the proxies are compared to temperature - if a certain section just happens to correlate nicely, but not others, it's a potential sign of parameter massages.
However, their analysis of solar forcing is very bad. The graphs they claim correlate barely do, their analysis of the low solar forcing models amounts to "Can't be!", and their analysis of solar impact on temperature completely lacks any numbers. It boils down to "sun more active => temperature increases are caused by it". I also find that their use of specific data sets is disingenuous - "hey, we haven't explained this rise here, so everything's bad".
Finally, the economic impact analysis is atrocious. He pretty much just picks everything that could go right, and disregards any potential negative impact. No wonder "do nothing" comes out best.
I'll dig some more through the proxy stuff though. There's some interesting stuff in there.
You do realize that the Ozone hole still exists, right? That it has stopped growing because the recommendations of the involved climate scientists (remove freons from aerosols) have been implemented? It always cracks me up when people bring up the Ozone hole in these discussions... if anything, it supports the notion that Climate Change is happening. As for Global Cooling.... Newsweek != Scientific Consensus (yes, horrible expression). There were some who were looking into why temperatures kept dropping, but there wasn't nearly the same amount of data available that we have now. Furthermore, the reasons behind it are fairly well understood, even if not very extensively researched. A few large volcanoes and a lot of soot in the air contributed to at least part of it.
I wasn't aware that Economists redefined the common use of "rational" to include emotional components. My bad.
Snarky comments aside, it is true that private property eliminates the tragedy of the commons. However, it is also not a panacea, as it now depends on the individual owner whether the resources are used in a rational fashion. We're assuming that owners have always long-term benefits in mind, when they often do not. Where do you think the story of the Goose with the Golden Eggs comes from? Or, for a more modern example, the $5 crack whore?
Stupidity is unfortunately a fact of life, and Economic models (include capitalism) rarely account for it.
I also decided to scrap a rather lengthy discussion of your various links. I can't take someone seriously who substitutes his sources to mine, then claims that my sources don't support my position. Not to mention who thinks that a page from 1997 (complete with broken source links) and anything from co2science.com provides useful discussion material. Wake me up when you have some material that is current, relevant and peer-reviewed to discuss.
Which is why climatologists talk about events in 2050 at the earliest. Generally, their extrapolations go to 2100.
BTW, if you want to get a kick - calculate how much energy it would take to warm the surface temperature of the earth by 0.3 degrees celsius. Then calculate how much energy the US puts out during that time period.
You're right. People shouldn't be basing their decisions on just this report. Ever heard of ice cores, for example? The IPCC has reams of data reaching back hundreds of thousands of years. That's basically the entirety of human history, and a significant chunk of land-based life on earth.
If you want to be convincing, please quote someone other than McKitrick. He's abused data more than anybody he complains about.
Actually, it doesn't bias overnight lows. It accurately records the heat-island effect of developed areas. What this means is that the average temperature recorded by this sensor is higher than the average temperature recorded by a sensor out in the woods - which is correct. And this is why you see climatologist talk about temperature changes, not absolute temperatures. A 10% year-over-year increase recorded on asphalt is the same as a 10% increase recorded in the woods.
This is why the location of the temperature sensors really doesn't matter so much for the purpose of tracking climate change: a hot location getting hotter is as important as a cool location getting less cool.
A complete dream. You're assuming that people are rational creatures. Economic researchers have finally discovered that they aren't, and that most economic decisions are based on irrational factors (happy, sad, vengeful, I like him, I don't like her, etc.). Why do you think all booth babes are hot? Not only that, but people place a very strong emphasis on the now rather than the later. To many people, a dollar now is worth a LOT more than 2 dollars later....
Trees might not have private property on Easter Island, but it is sheer utopia to say that private property would have saved easter island.
Absolutely. I'd love to see more open availability of the data used in papers and the algorithms used to generate the graphs. I don't care about a pretty picture - I want to know whether they cut corners somewhere, and how they did it. If I can't follow their method, I can't trust their results.
The only thing that makes me a bit less skeptical is that the results from closed data have been (mostly) reproduced by lots of other people with lots of other methods (even if they are closed as well). Since I don't subscribe to the theory that all Climatologists want to screw over Bush, SUV drivers and secure their next grant with more Global Warming info, I can accept the data presented. However, I'm also happy if someone manages to correct data sets, especially if the data was initially incorrect.
Don't assume that just because YOU don't know or understand something, no one does. Read the IPCC reports. The impacts are well known, and its effects are already starting to materialize. Some examples of predicted effects:
- Migration north of insect-born diseases like Malaria
- Shifts in plant blooming patterns
- Shifts in plant growth and viability (check out how gardeners have to change the assessment of what kind of region they're in for plant growing purposes)
- Slow-down of North-Pacific current
- Reduction in ice-coverage in arctic and antarctic.
I hated Orson Card's (what's with including his middle name, anyway?) Ender series, because Ender was a completely unrealistic pompous ass, written by someone who has no idea what true genius is like. I'm not one, but I've been around enough certified geniuses to know that Ender is anything but. The only thing I got from the books is that the author thought that he was the shit, and that his stories were deep, insightful comments on society.
It seems that this latest story just confirms my latest belief. BTW, what's with people quoting authors of Sci-Fi books as authorities on fields in which they have demonstrated no competency? Competency, btw, is completely different from "writing a fiction book about the topic".
Are we talking Fahrenheit or Celsius? Considering that most Climate data is in Celsius, I'm guessing the latter... do you also realize what kind of impact an increase of the average global temperature 1-2 degrees Celsius has? Climatologists tend to get worried when global temperatures climb by less than a degree, so a change of 1-2 degrees is significant.
A) That's not what we're talking about. Come back when you can stay on topic.
B) You failed to provide a source. You're off-topic and didn't provide a source.
C) Because 2 years worth of data after a spike constitutes an indication for global cooling. You're not only off-topic, without a source, but also failed statistics and trend analysis.
Troll.
Have you looked at the updated data set? Tell me what trends you see. Oh, it's still going up? Trends are still there? 1934 is the warmest year on record by only a fraction? We're still in the longest warming trend in recorded history? I take it that's all just conspiracy to you.
A data set is a collection of anecdotal evidence collected with the same rules. Just pointing out that simply "it's an anecdote" is not very useful when all the anecdotes can be combined into a data set. Me telling you that there hasn't been a white Christmas in ages - not useful. If 90 out of 100 people tell you the same thing about a static location - something's up.
Have you checked the actual data? It's at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt , btw. Have you looked at the trends in that data? 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record - by a fraction. BFD. Anyone who looks to single points of data to talk about trends is an idiot - this goes in both directions. You need to look at the TRENDS to analyze TRENDS. And the trends are still there - it's just their absolute values that are little lower than initially thought. In other words, things aren't as bad as we thought they were, but they're still getting worse.
... Sad that it took this long to occur. Here are some more interesting tidbits from the updated data set. 1934 was 1.35 degrees warmer than the norm. 1998 was 1.23 degrees warmer. 2006 was 1.13 degrees warmer. In fact, the last ten years show an unbroken string of being warmer than expected. The 5-year mean over the last 24 years was warmer than expected.
The only thing that the new graph lacks is a headline-grabbing "warmest year EVAR!!!". The trends are still there. The data still doesn't contradict what other data sets show. I'm glad someone spent the time to go over the data with a fine-toothed comb, and found an issue. I'm not surprised though that the new data still fits current climate predictions.
The 35-hour week statement probably comes from the fact that while the French work 35 hours, their productivity is higher (GDP divided by total number of hours worked by all workers over the course of a year). There are some issues with that number though - particularly, how much under the table work is done and how much that pays.
I noticed you said "controversial and/or of judicial importance." What's wrong with taking up cases that are of judicial importance? Or are you arguing that the majority of the cases are controversial? If they are controversial, they seem to hold up fairly well.