It's Time for Some Due Diligence on Global Warming Claims

Dennis Moran | Aug 21, 2009

Share/Save  
Actually, it is long overdue. A staggering amount of money and man-hours already have been expended across the globe and we are getting ready to kick the level of spending up a notch. A rapidly growing group of scientists is challenging the claims on which this movement is based, yet they are being ignored by most of the media, environmental activists, and people who stand to profit from the "carbon economy." GW proponents need to answer the questions that have been raised over the validity of their claims if they want support those who will be paying the bills for their proposed programs. Their current approach - personal attacks on anyone who challenges GW orthodoxy and manufacturing a crisis to build support for their movement -- are unacceptable.

There is widespread belief that the recent warming is due mainly to global warming gases produced by mankind -- i.e., the anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I have been searching for years for good science to support this theory. I can't find any. In fact, most of the scientific work that has passed independent, objective review contradicts this theory. What I have found falls into 3 main categories:

  • Good, but inconclusive work - Objective analyses that presents interesting and possibly useful findings, but acknowledge that there is a high degree of uncertainty in the input data and assumptions. These analyses normally end with the conclusion that more work is needed to resolve the uncertainty.

  • Junk science - Analyses built on unsubstantiated assumptions and/or questionable data that employ models that have not been validated. These typically conclude that climate catastrophe is likely and we need to do more analyses and/or take steps immediately to avoid disaster. This work typically comes from scientists who are working in areas they do not understand or who have abandoned the basic principles of scientific investigation.
  • Apocalyptic predictions based on questionable research, selective interpretation of good work (e.g., only presenting the high end or a range) or blatant distortion. These typically come from the media, politicians and environmental activists rather than serious scientists.
  • I challenge those who disagree with my assessment to identify any good work that presents a compelling case supporting AGW acceleration. I am looking for examples from the first category -- i.e., good work -- that actually contradicts the "inconvenient facts" listed below. By "good" work I mean analyses that use validated models and reasonable assumptions that have a sound basis. I ask anyone who has seen work that meets these criteria to share it with readers.

    This is plea for sanity. We cannot afford to waste more resources on a hypothetical problem when they are so desperately needed to address real, overwhelming problems such as the global financial crisis, energy supply problems, health care, hunger, etc.

    The following section summarizes some of the main "inconvenient facts" that are being ignored or suppressed by those inciting carbon hysteria. This list of fact is followed by an expanded explanation of why this movement is a serious threat, my thoughts on why this is happening, and some recommendations on what you should do about it.

    Some "Inconvenient Facts"

    Carbon hysteria proponents keep claiming "the science is settled and the debate is over." This is the centerpiece of an aggressive campaign to crush discussion and intimidate those who challenge their claims. These proponents need to take this approach because their case is so weak. A few of the major inconvenient facts that they are trying to suppress are:

    -The last warming wave ended over 10 years ago in 1998. Temperatures have been lower than the 1998 peak ever since and the trend has been downward in the last several years. The claim that global warming is accelerating is a blatant lie. Even some of the prominent AGW advocates have publicly admitted that we have entered a cooling period that probably will continue for another 10 to 20 years (this is based on the well established sunspot cycle and correlations between sunspots and climate changes).

    -The claim that the consensus of scientists agrees with AGW theory has become one of the "big lies" of our time. A few examples of the multitude of scientists who disagree are:

    • Over 31,000 American scientist who signed the Petition Project (you must have a degree in hard sciences or engineering with relevant experience to be eligible to sign the petition)

  • Over 700 prominent international scientists who have publicly disagreed (Senate EPW blog; note that this list includes several IPCC panel members)
  • Over 35,000 Canadian Scientists (68% of group surveyed in 2008)
  • The NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report issued in May 2009 cites thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that present contradictory results
  • Supportive statements issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and IPCC (Summary for Policy Members) were prepared by the governing board members only. Society members and IPCC panels were not given an opportunity to vote on or approve the statements, so the boards cannot claim they represent the opinions of members on this issue.
  • -ALL of the apocalyptic forecasts are based solely on projections from computer models that have been proven wrong, that is assuming the authors ever attempted to validate them (i.e., plug in historical data and confirm model projections match actual climate trends). It is impossible to accurately predict future climate given the current state of climate knowledge and limitations of available computers and climate models. In addition, many of the key input assumptions in these analyses do not have valid justification and hence are questionable at best. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

    • The 4th technical report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified 12 phenomena that affect global temperatures and rated our understanding of 8 of these as "very poor." How can the governing panel (all political appointees) claim they are over 90% certain that AGW is a major threat when they admit that two-thirds of the analyses inputs are very questionable?

    -Global warming is not a crisis. In fact, some warming is desirable given the outlook for energy and food supplies.

    • Warming impact studies generally ignore benefits such as expansion of agricultural land and reduced need for heating fuels. In addition, they typically use unrealistic escalation and discount rates to downplay the real costs of the measures that are proposed.

  • Climate changes are cyclic. Apocalyptic claims all come from extrapolating recent changes indefinitely into the future. These changes include real problems such as local droughts and postulated changes that do not exist such as increasing hurricanes or spreading diseases.
  • The time frame for claimed apocalyptic sea level and temperature changes is hundreds of years. There would be plenty of time to adapt to the theoretical sea level and climate changes if these were real problems.
  • I suspect most readers have not heard many of these facts. That is because the media are ignoring them and hysteria proponents generally refuse to debate them. The refusal to debate is understandable given that the hysteria proponents have lost every time they go against someone who understands the real science. All the proponents need to do to win a debate and quiet the skeptics is present convincing scientific support for their case. However, the proponents can't present any convincing science because they don't have any. Hence, their normal responses to the skeptic's challenges are personal attacks/mocking, the "consensus of scientists" lie, and attempts to kill funding for the skeptic's work. By using these tactics AGW hysteria supporters in effect are admitting they can't defend their claims.

    Why is the Carbon-Control Movement a Problem?

    Many people I know admit that they don't believe AGW claims, but they support the movement because they think it will help increase energy efficiency. Increasing energy efficiency is essential for our future well being. However, trying to achieve this worthy goal through the back door of carbon caps/taxes is dangerous. Major problems with this approach include:

    • Carbon capture and sequestration and carbon caps/taxes/trading are the dominant focus of this movement. These efforts are a total waste of resources that actually will make our energy supply problems even worse. Improving energy efficiency is a secondary issue in the proposals and debates.

  • The obsession with postulated global warming catastrophes distracts attention from real, serious, imminent problems such as coming energy shortages, rebuilding our financial system, population control, etc.)
  • A serious backlash is likely once the general public and political leaders learn they have been misled. The widespread corruption of the scientific process that this movement has fostered will result in a loss of trust in scientists that will haunt us for years to come.
  • The carbon industry is huge already. The Waxman-Markey bill currently being considered by the US Congress and the multitude of international efforts in progress would provide additional resources for the carbon industry and their government supporters, creating an even larger long-term drain on the global economy. All entrenched industries or bureaucracies try to grow and resist shrinking, even after their purpose for existence is gone. Why has Carbon Hysteria Become so Widespread?

    I think there are two main drivers behind this movement. The first originates from the widespread recognition that we do face many serious environmental problems (e.g., hazardous pollutants in water and air; rainforest destruction, ocean overfishing; aquifer depletion, desertification, etc.). Many people feel guilty over contributing to these problems and want to do something to help the environment. This desire has made them receptive to the claims of carbon hysteria proponents. The zealots have done a good job of convincing these people that AGW is a crisis and that we can "solve" it.

    The dominant drivers, however, are money and power. Staggering sums of money are involved and much of it will be collected and distributed based on subjective decisions and political negotiations. The leaders of the carbon-control movement are working hard to get as big a piece of the pie as they can. Obvious vested interests include:

    • Academia - funding for the research they need to publish papers ("publish or perish")

  • Legislators & government agencies - power from controlling carbon taxes and allocating funds; funding for their agencies
  • Consultants - defining carbon footprints, developing sustainability plans, managing trading, etc.
  • Lobbyists - carbon taxes vs. cap-and-trade; funding for federal & private research programs, etc.
  • Industry - "green" products and services to sell, improving image by being green.
  • Environmental associations - funding to support programs and issues to attract members.
  • Carbon offset sales & tracking - a new industry with a long list of beneficiaries
  • The worst offender, however, is the mainstream media. A few members of this group are trying to convey the above information, but most are ignoring one of the biggest scandals/frauds of the last several decades. In fact in many cases, they are actively suppressing scientific work and opinions that contradict the hysteria. I am totally baffled as to why this industry has abandoned its standards of objectivity and sense of obligation to find the truth. I don't believe the conspiracy theories so the only explanation I can come up with is misguided environmental passion. Intimidation by zealots with scientific credentials is a contributing factor, but it in no way excuses the media's behavior on this issue.

    The frenzy of activity surrounding the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill is a perfect example of why this movement is so strong. Lobbying on how to allocate or sell CO2 allowances is intense - one source estimated that there are over 4 lobbyists per legislator working on this issue. At one time the draft had 85% being given to utilities and other generators for free.

    What Can We Do?

    My first recommendation is to check out the serious science to convince yourself that global warming due to CO2 generated by mankind is a non-problem. I have plenty of backup to substantiate all of the above statements plus a lot of additional information I could share. However, I don't want anyone to simply take my word for it. You need to see for yourself how thoroughly the facts contradict the claims. Some good starting points for the search are listed at the end of this article.

    Once you are convinced, start challenging the claims being made by carbon hysteria promoters. Call them when they repeat one of the big lies like "no serious disagreement." Demand that they disclose the work on which their claims are based and make it available for independent review. There are two simple points to check: have the models the analysts used been validated and do they have a good basis for their assumptions. If the analysts cannot provide convincing answers to these two questions, their results are no better than pure speculation.

    Another important task is working to defeat any carbon legislation and any international treaties to replace the Kyoto agreements. Kyoto was a farce -- most signatories never came close to meeting their commitments. However, it did provide political cover for sustaining the hysteria and the justification governments needed to waste more resources on this issue. We don't need another treaty like Kyoto that will be ignored by all the signatories except when it comes to spending money.

    Remember, the only losers in this game are consumers and taxpayers. Every dollar that goes to the above groups comes out of our pockets. Don't get suckered into this scam. If you have been supporting it, open your eyes and join the rapidly growing ranks of scientists and other who recognize the absurdity of the carbon hysteria that has overcome so many.

    Update on Energy - a Real and Important Threat

    In 2005 and 2006 I prepared assessments of the energy outlook which were published here in Energy Pulse (and still are online). The trends I discussed are playing out pretty much as presented with one exception - natural gas supply in the US. The rapid growth of gas from shale in the last few years actually led to an increase in production in 2008. However, production is expected to decline this year due to the sharp drop in drilling. Gas from shale provides a temporary reprieve from the steady decline in gas supply, but it is too soon to tell how long the upward blip in the curve will last.

    The other significant update is that the crude oil production plateau that seemed to be forming in early 2005 definitely has been confirmed. The huge increase in drilling over the last several years was unable to expand production. The combination of the sharp drop in drilling since prices collapsed last year, increasing depletion rates, and shortages of capital to fund exploration makes it highly unlikely that global oil production ever will exceed the plateau levels of the last few years. The start of the unavoidable long-term production decline may in fact arrive sooner than anticipated thanks to the reduction in exploration.

    Our entire transportation system (except for electrified trains) is totally dependent on oil and our economy is totally dependent on transportation. None of the alternative transportation fuels (natural gas, biofuels, electricity) could have a significant effect for several years due to infrastructure constraints and the time required to build fleets. Oil truly will be the lifeblood of our society for years to come. The impacts of shortages and the resulting price spikes can be devastating if we are not prepared for them.

    Across the globe there is close correlation between oil use and economic activity. Oil supply constraints will affect all economies, but they are being ignored in the debates over how to resurrect our economy. If global oil production is flat or declining, the only way any country can expand its economy is to divert oil away from other consumers. Given our current financial situation, why would anyone think the US will be able to win the bidding wars that are sure to come?

    A few other important points to keep in mind when considering this situation are:

    • Oil prices will spike to as soon as we start to see real economic recovery. Gasoline at $4/gal will seem like a bargain within a few years.

  • Small oil shortages will produce big panics. Remember what happened when Katrina and Rita disrupted supplies for a few weeks. Think about what could happen if shortages continue for a few months or longer. US citizens are not accustomed to shortages and many people will react badly. If those shortages come as a surprise, the response is likely to be worse.
  • Our economy is highly complex and interconnected. Shortage or price-induced problems in one area can quickly ripple into big problems in many other areas.
  • Some commentators tell us we don't have to worry about oil shortages because we will never run out of oil and the market always solves supply problems. This is a triumph of wishful thinking over realistic analysis of the facts.
  • -The claim that we will never run out is correct, but irrelevant. Production will continue indefinitely, but the problem is that we will not be able to produce oil fast enough to sustain the global economy, much less enable it to grow. Once the production decline starts, problems will multiply quickly.

    -There is nothing in the development pipeline that could lead to a replacement for anything close to our current consumption of oil. Don't delude yourself into thinking that something is coming.

  • Conservation is the only option that can have a big effect on oil demand and can be implemented quickly. This means car-pools, mass transit, telecommuting, bicycles and walking for individuals and shifting freight from trucks and airplanes to trains and water wherever possible. You should start preparing for the ones that fit your situation.
  • Oil shortages and high prices are an imminent huge threat that will force a total restructuring of our economy and lifestyle. Unlike global warming, this is a real, staggering problem that should have you very worried.

    The opinions presented here are the views of the author and do not reflect the viewpoints or positions of any of his clients or employers.

    Sources for Further Information

    NIPCC report: Climate Change Reconsidered - www.nipccreport.org/

    The Petition Project - www.petitionproject.org/

    Comments by over 700 leading scientists challenging carbon hysteria: Senate Environmental & Public Works Minority Blog, - (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7/

    Science and Environmental Policy Project - www.sepp.org

    Global Warming Facts - www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

    List of peer-reviewed articles skeptical of man-caused global warming - http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

    The Carbon- Sense Coalition - http://www.carbon-sense.com/

    The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource, Stop the Hysteria - http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

    Related Topics

    Comments

    Regardless of whether the AGW problem is true or not, I agree with the author that oil price spikes will be a far bigger problem to deal with economically.

    When gasoline at $4/gallon becomes a bargain within a few years time, the economic upheavals will make AGW problems seem miniscule. Whole industries will be threatened and many consumer goods will skyrocket in cost to either produce or import.

    Cheap vacations abroad will disappear as many airline business models completely fail when oil exceeds $200/barrel. The overnight courier businesses will shrink into oblivion when it costs more than a hundred dollars to ship a small parcel overnight.

    The just-in-time delivery business practices in all industries will implode because it will become far less expensive to stock inventories as they did in past than to rely on fast cheap reliable transportation of goods. Say goodbye to the massive fleets of trucks on our highways.

    Some consumers will flock back to city living from the suburbs as it will become too expensive to commute to work. This has already been seen happening in America during the current economic recession.

    Many consumer goods imported from the far-east will no longer be "low cost" Toys to electronics to clothing will simply disappear from WalMart's shelves as consumers will no longer be willing to buy them.

    Widespread conservation and efficiency upgrade measures, and shifting some oil uses over to electric read other energy sources are our only hope to mitigate the untold many other looming economic problems.

    Dennis, Brace yourself for the ad hominem and avoidance of science by the usual suspects. And thank you for having the courage to write it. I have too long felt that far too many good scientists avoided the controversy and dumped all of society - us - into this AGW hysteria, as a result of ignoring it and hoping that it would either go away by itself or others would provide the counter-arguments.

    Over a century ago the Catholic Pope was regarded as being infallible. However, today politicians and other goverment officials regard themselves as being infallible if they have been advised be a large number of academics and consultants, both of whom are on the public payroll. Hence the carbon theory of global warming persists . . . even though the average earth temperature has cooled somewhat over the past decade.

    Academics who disagree with the carbon theory of global warming risk being ostracised within their universities or risk having their sources of funding reduced. If the accept funding from private sources, they are accused of being in the pockets of big business. Academics have to be politically correct if they are not to run afoul of their peers in today's academia . . . very few would so much as to publically disagree with their peers or with government officials. State control of academia effectrively restricts debate and silences critics who woudl otherwise speak out against the fraud of the carbon theory of global warming.

    Surely you are not suggesting that large portions of the renewable energy industry, and politicians in particular, are feeding off the hapless taxpayer?

    ... I'm shocked, simply shocked!

    Michael,

    Don't forget politicians typically listen to us hapless taxpayers if enough of us are screaming at them.

    Public fear of environmental catastrophe has been growing steadily, boosting the volume level so politicians are listening more, and not just in America, it's worldwide. So yes indeed parts of the renewable energy industry and some politicians are "feeding" off of us.

    It's not much different really than what happens with other industries who grow their businesses as a result of public pressure on governments to intervene. It's what typically happens when the public also perceives they have no other way to effect change, particularly when any change from the status quo is an attack on large vested interests in existing large corporations as is the case in energy.

    Need other examples? The US and Canadian government bailouts of GM and Chrysler this year are a result of public pressure to preserve the huge numbers of jobs in the economy that depend on them. One can argue that the literally hundreds of companies kept afloat with the bailouts were in effect "feeding" off us hapless taxpayers. It's a similar story with the large financial institutions bailed out last year by the US government. Many other banks and companies in the banking system were effectively feeding off taxpayers being kept alive.

    If you're shocked at these things, watch what can and will happen if the US federal debt gets out of control as it is threatening to do. Foreign lenders will eventually stop loaning Washington money as they recognize it may never be paid back, and then see what happens to us hapless taxpayers in North America.

    Well, I might as well wade in here. I don't disagree with the author as much as some might think, but I do note a few areas of concern:

    The author makes many statements, but puts out no references to back them up. You mention how the proponents simply need to present the evidence, but you have not done so yourself. And I found no starting points for search at the end of the article, as you have stated.

    I agree that oil depletion is a more pressing and immediate problem than global warming. But I'm not sure that directly relates to this issue. Why not write an article about oil depletion instead? It seems reasonable that our efforts to address oil depletion might also consider global warming as well. Oil depletion will be so challenging to address, the added effort to handle global warming may actually be rather reasonable.

    At the end of the day, global warming and carbon emissions are really about coal. Oil and gas will largely take care of themselves due to depletion (a simplification, but not a horrible one).

    I don't see phasing out coal-fired electricity plants in favor of nuclear power over 50 years or so as being enormously disruptive to the consumers. Even the late Michael Crichton (a GW critic) agreed with this sort of approach. Dealing with it as a problem, but not a crisis. I can concur with that.

    Your point on the vested interests is well-taken. But there are obviously vested interests in keeping the status quo as well, namely King Coal. I think they have perhaps spent a dollar or two in trying to influence this debate as well. The hapless consumer/voter is left wondering who to believe.

    As for proof, the issue that I point to is historic CO2 levels. These are recognized to be higher than they've ever been in the last 600,000 years. [I tend to get into p*ssing matches with some at this site who won't don't agree with this point.] I don't know what is considered an adequate reference, but hopefully CDIAC is adequate? Part of the problem with the debate is that both sides tend to reject references of the other. The GW believers think the references by the 'deniers' are too fringe, whereas the 'deniers' think the scientific community as a whole has been co-opted on this topic.

    I don't want to indicate that raised CO2 levels alone constitutes proof of global warming. But I do think it constitutes concern. As such, I feel both sides (pro and anti GW) are burdened with proving what is (or what is not) going on.

    I personally don't think that GW alone is the total problem with climate change, it's the disruption of normal historically predictable seasonal climatic patterns that are causing much more grief. With the exception maybe of the 1930's droughts and heat waves in North America, we could always depend on predictable seasons on average. Farmers base their living on it everywhere.

    For example this year the northeastern part of the US and eastern Canada did not receive any summer heat waves until just last week, all because the jet stream stayed south of the Great Lakes most of the summer instead of shifting north of them as it normally would, thus sucking Arctic air masses much farther south than usual on this side of the continent. Whenever hot air masses do arrive, they tend to bring extreme temperatures that set records as what happened in recent weeks in British Columbia all the way up to Alaska.

    There are many other examples of extremes happening regularly every season now which were rarely seen 40 years ago and back. The question is what is really going on. My theory is that increased CO2 levels must contribute something to disrupting climate patterns, but CO2 alone is not the only factor, others are a myriad of air-borne pollutants, world deforestation, etc.

    Apparent changes in average temperatures over long time frames whether it be warming or cooling is just one measure of changing climate behavior, and not conclusive simply because it is an average measure over many points in time and over many inputs to an extremely complex system.

    An example of how other airborne elements can change world climate, there are documented records showing substantial climate changes in the years following major volcanic eruptions. The most famous is the huge one of Krakatoa in Indonesia in 1883. During the following year Britain reported spectacular sunsets from the ash ejected into the upper atmosphere as it circled the globe, and the much colder weather in a summer that passed them by.

    In my humble opinion, less consistent jet stream patterns are creating much more extreme weather systems because they are not following historical seasonal behaviors. There almost seems to be less mixing and moderation of air masses, and the results are many more weather extremes that last much longer during a given season in any given region. For the last 20 years in eastern Canada, we rarely see decent spring or autumn seasons anymore, they have progressively shrunk in duration.

    I therefore tend to agree with Jim that raised CO2 levels constitutes a concern, but it is not our only source of problems.

    I've bought the global-warming/climate-warming story, but I haven't bought it hook, line and sinker. Actually I dont give a ____ about it, but if somebody were to ask me I would say that it deserves consideration. Bob Amorosi's approach probably makes a lot of sense: something different and maybe bad is or seems to be happening.

    One thing though is certain. As a logical, oprn-minded, tolerant, friendly and unpredudiced individual I intend to stay far away from Waxman-Markey nuttery and Presiden Obama's Environmental Department - which for some reason he calls his Energy Department

    For some reason the links at the end of the article were deleted. They are listed below.

    I did not include much discussion of the backup for the points I made in the article as I want to encourage people to look beyond media sensationalism and check out the information that has been published. If you ignore the articles and studies based on analyses that use un-validated computer models, the rest of the work overwhelming contradicts the claims supporting carbon hysteria.

    One of the truisms of life is that change is normal. This is particularly true when it comes to climate. Again, the main point of my article is: the claim that global warming (which appears to have stopped) is being driven primarily by man-made CO2 is based almost exclusively on junk science. Wasting more resources on gestures that will have no effect on climate is a luxury we cannot afford when there are so many other urgent needs for those resources.

    Sources for Further Information:

    NIPCC report: Climate Change Reconsidered - www.nipccreport.org/

    The Petition Project - www.petitionproject.org/

    Comments by over 700 leading scientists challenging carbon hysteria: Senate Environmental & Public Works Minority Blog, - (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7/

    Science and Environmental Policy Project – www.sepp.org

    Global Warming Facts - www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

    List of peer-reviewed articles skeptical of man-caused global warming - http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

    The Carbon- Sense Coalition - http://www.carbon-sense.com/

    The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource, Stop the Hysteria - http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

    If change is normal, then a world that "changes" in that now we need to regulate CO2 emissions, would be normal as well. That 'truism' is meaningless.

    You also said:

    "I did not include much discussion of the backup for the points I made in the article as I want to encourage people to look beyond media sensationalism and check out the information that has been published."

    This just doesn't make any sense. The point of references is so that the reader doesn't have to re-find all this information. By not including references, you are in fact doing just the opposite!

    I was not impressed with the links you just provided. They are typical of AGW denier references, with heavy emphasis on Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and the Oregon petition. All stuff that's been seen before. In fact, I feel a bit bait-and-switched with an article that promises (new?) references, but then delivers the same stuff I've seen again and again.

    As far as I could determine, none of these references has disputed the observation that CO2 levels have risen to levels unprecedented in the last 600,000 years. I believe that this is sufficiently high to register a 'concern' such that both sides are burdened as to figure out what's going on.

    JimB: What makes you think that pro-AGW information is any better or more reliable? As for your assertion that CO2 levels have risen to levels "unprecedented in the last 600,000 years", we have already argued this point. Frankly, I think it is nonsense. We have no idea what CO2 levels were on decadal time scales prior to 1960.

    Well, that's the problem with this debate, isn't it James? The pro-AGW info is co-opted by the scientists eager for their grants, or so the anti-AGW people think; and the anti-AGW lacks the scientific validity (or at least the accreditation) to be taken seriously, or so the pro-AGW folks think.

    a) "A rapidly growing group of scientists is challenging the claims" -- please provide a credible reference for CREDIBLE scientists, numerical statistics as implied.

    b) "Their current approach - personal attacks on anyone who challenges GW orthodoxy" -- It's actually the other way around. Go on eg. Physorg.com and argue for GW and you're immeditely personally smeared, no science included, by a determined group of repeat offenders.

    c) " I have been searching for years for good science to support this theory. I can't find any." -- it is obvious to everyone from your following three points that your search has NOT included peer-reviewed scientific publications, which it should in fact restrict itself to.

    Why bother? I'm not going to read any further. This is just a lot of nonsense.

    Len, that list has already been provided to you ad nauseum. As for smearing, who first declared that the debate was "over"? Who first used derision to describe the other side? As for you "not going to read any further", you never have read anything that you disagree with. Nothing new there.

    James,

    The pro-AGW information is produced by Phds and published in refereed journals. The following information about CO2 levels was put out by AAAS. They publish Science magazine.

    On the other hand, the CO2 level 'deniers' are people like E. G. Beck, a retired high school teacher, and Zbigniew Jaworowski. Both of these people has been thoroughly critiqued by the scientific community at large. (They both claim about the same thing, and make the same mistakes.) That's why I think the pro-AGW information is better. The anti-AGW folks can't really do anything else other than claim a massive scientific conspiracy, encompassing multiple disciplines, all for the purpose of, well, I'm not exactly sure.

    Yes, James, we have debated this point. You've presented scant credible evidence to support your point, and deny the evidence in favor of this position by the scientific community. I appreciate that you think it might be nonsense. Well, I think a massive, interdisciplinary scientific conspiracy concerning AGW is nonsense as well.

    And I'm sorry Mr. Moran, but I don't thinking citing old references from Idso, Singer and the Oregon petition constitutes "due diligence". Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

    [QUOTE]Research published by climate scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) has been named one of the most highly-cited in its field in the last two years. -- The article, 'Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system', appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in February 2008 and was this month named a 'New Hot Paper' by Thomson Reuters.

    "The article captures the zeitgeist of a growing group of climate scientists who perceive that human activities are already pushing Earth's climate past regional tipping points," said lead author Prof Tim Lenton of UEA's School of Environmental Sciences.[/QUOTE]

    http://www.physorg.com/news170328791.html

    My point, James, was that "that" list didn't include many, if any, climate scientists, whereas this sort of article is common.

    Argue with these people, then.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    JimB, your assessment that I have provided "scant evidence" is ridiculous. Further, your point to Moran that Idso and Singer citations are "old references" is similarly ridiculous. The report he referenced was issued in May 2009. This indicates a reflexive response on your part that suggests you barely read the article.

    James, you are wasting your breath. Len REFUSES to read anything that stands in the way of his prejudicial belief system, I've been going at this for more than two years with him and he and JimB both have their blinders on completely. Len first says there aren't any scientists, then when you show them they ARE, he claims they aren't climate, then when you show them they ARE, he disparages where they got their degrees (such as HARVARD) then he disparages them because they are old. Meantime, I am waiting to find how what grade school (if any) Len himself graduated from, since he can look down from such lofty heights on poor schmoes from Harvard, Yale and MIT.

    The NIPCC is run by the Heartland Institute, a group that worked hard to dismiss the dangers of cigarette smoking in years past. I don't find a report issued by a think tank (conservative or otherwise) the same as a paper published in a refereed journal. If the Singer/Idso report is so wonderful, then why wasn't it (or even a summary of it) submitted to a journal? Why did it have to be self-published?

    You left out key parts of Joanne Simpson's quote. She also said: "What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical."

    The complete quote is here.

    The Ivar Giaever quote is similarly muddled. He does claim to be a skeptic, but also admits he is not an expert. He got his Nobel Prize for Electron Tunneling and Superconductivity.

    Beware of quote bearing ellipses!

    JimB, here is why we KNOW the climate models aren't right. We can plug in KNOWN information from the past into them and they don't even come CLOSE to predicting the KNOWN climate THEN. Now if they can't be predictive in the PAST when ALL the (supposed) inputs are KNOWN, why in blazes would we trust them to predict the FUTURE when the inputs are NOT known? This is science 101, unfortunately climate "scientists" of the new school don't actually have to study hard science, they are in the pseudo-class of political science. Even the link Len gave above is just a bunch of "scientists" rehashing previously written reports (which they readily admit) and doing what? Writing a summary with scarier sounding political overtones? This is Science? I'm a LOT more impressed with Ivar, who has done something that REALLY is science that REALLY achieves something and most importantly his results CAN BE VERIFIED!!!!

    JimB: And who is the IPCC run by? Bureaucrats whose careers depend on the continued flow of money to "combat" global warming. Why does the Heartland Institute's views on tobacco matter to the debate on global warming? Tsk. Tsk. Ad hominem attacks....

    As for Joanne Simpson's views, I quite disagree with her that we should spend trillions of dollars without fully understanding why. I disagree that the "precautionary principle" applies. We differ on that point.

    Why was the NIPCC report not published in a refereed journal? Apparently, you haven't looked at it. Why should I treat your question seriously? Firing without aiming, again?

    The Ivar Giaever quote is entirely appropriate since he is not speaking to the specific scientific issues global warming. He is more than qualified to express an opinion about the intentions and motivations of those who do.

    JeffP: I know that Len does not listen. I am merely pointing this out for the benefit of the rest of the readers.

    JimB: Your jibe at the Heartland Institute is not only irrelevant it is a falsehood. They never "dismissed" that smoking was dangerous, just that it wasn't any of the government's business.

    Jimb: Typical of this lot. A waste of time.

    I don't want to have this same debate over and over again. Unlike Jeff and James (and maybe even Len) I could be convinced otherwise should new information arise. I have not seen anything that would convince me that CO2 levels aren't elevated at this point. (And I find it hilarious how both Beck and Jaworowski insist that CO2 levels bounced all over the place until, magically, in 1959, they became rock steady. Of course, that just happens to be the year that accurate instrumentation was put in place in Mauna Loa.)

    Anyway, high CO2 levels means one should be concerned. Skepticism is warranted, even healthy. But that doesn't include the summary dismissal of valid data right in front of our eyes.

    James, I'm not sure where you got that (original) Joanne Simpson quote from, but think about the character of the person that edited her statement. He or she clearly distorted what Dr. Simpson was saying. Are there so few scientists speaking unfavorably about GW that they feel the need to warp Dr. Simpson's words? It is simply dishonest when ellipses used to remove relevant words.

    Well, it looks like James' source of the Simpson distortion is none other than U.S. Senate Minority Report on global warming. Wonderful. You can find it here. The distorted quote appears on page 3, and the link to the real quote is on page 12.

    The people responsible for this seem to be either Marc Morano of the Senate EPW Committee and/or Matthew Dempsey, a staffer for Sen. Inhofe (page 1).

    JimB: It is obvious that you have little interest in exploring the other side of the argument. Why do you pretend otherwise?

    As far as the "summary dismissal of valid data", isn't that exactly what you are doing when you blithely dismiss earlier measurements of CO2? Sure, there are problems with Jaworski and Beck, as there always is with reanalysis, but to utterly dismiss them is hypocritical. And, they never made the claim that you assert about becoming "magically... rock steady". That is a distortion. Finally, once again, you have UTTERLY NO DATA that CO2 levels are at some 600,000 year high. NONE WHATSOEVER. The most you can maybe say that the levels are now above the long run average.

    Nobody removed any relevant words from Simpson's quote. She is a skeptic. That was the only point of the quote. You are quite correct on the source. The document clearly references the fact in several places that there is a wide variety of opinion wrt agw. Apparently, you did not read that part, and your point about distortion is itself a distortion. Nevertheless, it looks like you have finally deigned to explore the opposition a little, if only to dig up ammo. Congratulations.

    Len: Nobody has any expectation or hope that you will engage in any real discussion.

    Sigh... Here's Beck's graph.

    Both Beck and Jaworowski don't seem to understand that the earlier chemical measurements of CO2 were extremely inaccurate. If they weren't, then some variation in the CO2 levels (other than the steady upward rise) would be apparent from the Mauna Loa site. The Mauna Loa IR instrument is sensitive and accurate enough to measure seasonal variation, as shown by the stairstep rise.

    The CO2 data in the ice cores tracks the ice age record from fossil depositions, etc. It's definitely a valid signal. One could critique how it tracks with the Mauna Loa levels, but even a high distortion downward (the ice cores are artificially low) would still indicate we are a unprecedented CO2 levels today. Higher than its been in 5-6 ice ages.

    JimB: Why do you continue to overlook the fact that the ice core data CANNOT tell us anything other than the rough average over the period it purports to measure? Those periods are decadal, century, millenial or even longer depending on how far back you look. This is inherent in the measurement method. Your comment about "unprecedented CO2 levels today" is NOT supported by that evidence. I am amazed that you continue to repeat this nonsense.

    As to Beck and Jaworski, I differ. The measurements may well be inaccurate, but the vast majority of thousands of measurements is consistently multiples higher than the ice core data. Also, the raw Mauna Loa measurements are similarly volatile. Are you not aware that each element of the Mauna Loa series is itself average and is taken deliberately so as to minimize variability???

    Let's tie oil depletion to CO2 production.
    If you believe oil production will decrease through 2100, then you also have to admit that CO2 from the consumption of oil products must also decline.
    Right? It only takes high school math logic to figure that out.
    One can make a similar argument for natural gas and coal consumption. Both will peak in this century.
    So.
    None of the published IPCC CO2 projections are valid. Because?
    Because the IPCC deliberately ignored the effect of fossil fuel depletion. Since then, two NASA scientists have tried to bring this up. But no one wants to listen. Least of all the "scientific" publications. See "The Evil Twins" on my blog www.tce.name for the details.
    It is clear to me that these "global warming is caused by CO2 theories" would not stand up under cross examination in a court of law.
    On the other hand, it is impossible to research climate trends without noticing our planet has been in a period of global warming since the "Little Ice Age". It is also clear that CO2 levels have increased rapidly since we humans began consuming copious quantities of fossil fuels. But that does not necessarily mean one causes the other. Our planet has had multiple cycles of cooling and warming, and multiple cycles of CO2 production. They have NOT always been in sync.
    So. Where does that leave us? I would prefer we knew more about the chemistry of sunlight, other air born chemicals, and water vapor on CO2. I wish our "scientists" had a better understanding of how CO2 is dissolved and released from bodies of water, and the process of water acidification because that could be a devestating problem.
    I wish the IPCC would release its data and the formulas it used to calculate the effect of CO2 on global warming.
    Yes. We humans need to do a better job of environmental stewardship. But I am not convinced we can make good decisions based on the evidence thus far presented.

    James, you can't hide more than a 50-100 year peak in the ice core record without it showing up. There's no mechanism for CO2 levels to rise so high and then fall again so quickly.

    If the chemical measurements were inaccurate and wrong, it doesn't matter if there were thousands of them. Isn't this what the anti-AGW people always say, science isn't about majority opinions?

    I don't understand your point about Mauna Loa. The IR technique is the first one that was sensitive enough to detect seasonal variation in CO2 levels. The chemical methods never came close to that.

    I skimmed the article, because it looks like typical denier boilerplate. But then I read the comments, and noticed some patterns.

    First, there are no women in the list. How about men under 50 years old? Blacks, Hispancis or Asians? You guys sound like a bunch of old ladies who don't get out much.

    Is this representative of the electric power industry? Does that explain why a supposedly non-partisan industry publication would disseminate this stuff?

    You guys can't retire soon enough.

    Susan: I am quite sure that the comment that I would like to post would be deleted. Nevertheless, why would you post such an idiotic diatribe? Who do you think you are? There are no postings from minorities and women because ... they haven't posted anything. Other than Harry Valentine, whom you ignored in your ignorance and prejudice. Why is any poster's race and gender even slightly relevant to this discussion?

    JimB: And you know all of the mechanisms that might drive CO2? Don't be ridiculous. As to your 50-100 year peak, those terms lengthen rapidly as the time scale gets larger. 500,000 years ago, the time scale is going to be tens of thousands of years.

    You avoided my point about the measurements. Why is that? As for Mauna Loa, you really need to go back and look at how they come up with those measurements. They are AVERAGES. By taking enough measurements and smoothing the curve as is done with Mauna Loa, I suspect that even the chemical methods would exhibit seasonality.

    I am not retired yet Susan, but soon to take early retirement! I agree with you that the Bloggers here do not get out of the "box".

    To the Good People: If the Good people at http://www.swapsol.com/ have their way CO2 waste and H2S waste AND the Economy woes ARE history!

    SWAPSOL has the solutions!

    Ronald,

    We will run out of atmosphere before we run out of coal. There's lots of coal left, and it produces more CO2 per BTU produced than either oil or NG.

    Susan,

    EnergyPulse doesn't edit or review anything as far as I know. So basically anything can get printed as an article, and does.

    James,

    The CO2 levels track several iterations of ice ages, so if the time scale got larger, the older ice age readings would blur. They don't.

    I didn't ignore your point. I didn't understand it. That individual measurements at Mauna Loa are volatile (I think you mean contains random error, but whatever...)? So what? The point is that Keeling developed a measurement regimen that actually works, and the older methods as applied clearly did not. Something that everyone seems to understand but Beck and Jaworowski (and apparently you).

    A method that measures 470 ppm one year and 350 ppm 3 years later will scarcely be able to exhibit seasonality.

    I think a strange thing about the denier mentality (probably the believer mentality as well) is that they have to deny EVERYTHING. There's plenty of problems with the AGW theory. Modeling (tip 'o the hat to Jeff). Economics of remediation. Viability of alternatives. But past CO2 levels? (JUST the levels; let's leave out the alleged temperature association for the time being.) Hmm.... Not so much. But it HAS to be denied. Why? Because admitting that ANY part of the AGW issue has merit would show WEAKNESS, and WINNING (as opposed to finding the truth) is paramount.

    JimB: It's pretty clear you have never done any meaningful statistical modeling. Let me put this as simply as possible. If you had the same frequency (number per year) of observations that were used in the historical reanalysis for Mauna Loa, you would a similar amount amount of variance. The only reason that the Mauna Loa series looks so smooth is that the series has been ... smoothed through an averaging algorithm.

    Further, there are orders of magnitude larger numbers of observations in the Mauna Loa data series, so seasonality can be estimated. The reanalysis can't show seasonality because there are insufficient observations (n) per year to quantify that. Nevertheless, that "problem" does NOT refute the conclusions about long term (multi-year) differences in level.

    As to your point about Keeling having constructed a better measurement system, why would I deny that? Of course we are doing a much better job of that, mainly because we are taking many more measurements using better math, better methods, controls and equipment. Nevertheless, that does NOT invalidate the measurements taken earlier, nor does it invalidate the reanalysis. We just have to recognize the limitations of that reanalysis.

    As for "denying", I am not denying anything about he CO2 data. I am merely respecting its limits. I am also pointing out that the conclusions you have drawn are not warranted by the data, especially wrt Vostok. I, too, am interested in why CO2 levels are rising, but, unlike you, I am prepared to consider the alternate hypothesis that they are natural, not unusual and benign if not beneficial. Why is it that you must belittle and discredit work done by scientists who do not agree with your preconceptions?

    Unlike you, I have taken the time to understand the underlying processes that drive the measurements for both Vostok and Mauna Loa. If you actually understood the nature of the Vostok ice core data, you never would have made the comment, "if the time scale got larger, the older ice age readings would blur. They don't." It is quite hilarious!

    The history of the “greens” is a pertinent consideration in the sophistry, bullying and fraud that accompanies this latest incarnation of political manipulation. It is not reality but entirely about command and control facilitated by the politics of fear. First it was global cooling, then came "Silent Spring" and the pesticide apocalypse, then global warming and finally the ultimate slight of rhetoric -"climate change" when the evidence manifested itself.

    What is most ridiculous is the notion that we take these reds seriously to begin with.

    One more thing: The polar drillings have demonstrated that CO2 follows warming and does not precede it. This is a smoking gun as far as many others and I are concerned. And it has led more than a few to advance that CO2 is an element of a natural thermostat. After all is not CO2 in solid form dry ice - a refrigerant? If true, the sequestering of the element may in fact be harmful and have unintended consequences.

    Finally, it’s the sunspots stupid. What audacious folly to think that man can control the weather when he cannot even control a draught or a rainstorm.

    Cornelius: How can we take you seriously when you put Silent Spring (1962) ahead of global cooling (1970s)?

    On, how the dog ate my climate data – and why many of us ask, to paraphrase Gerry McGuire: Show me the money Gerry – just show me the @#$%^& money!

    The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub Freedom of Information requests to see the data.

    The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

    Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data. Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
    And you wonder why there are sceptics?

    James,

    I agree with you! I will agree (to some extent) that chemical analysis with many more samples may have produced better results. (There is some indication that the sampling process itself was flawed before Keeling as well). Lots of samples (with random error) can produce good answers. But the error goes down as the square of the samples taken. I'm sure there were practical problems to good results with the chemical analysis.

    But at the end of the day, that doesn't mean the chemical samples before 1957 were any good. Variation of 100 ppm over a few years is not encouraging. Beck and Jaworowski basically took these samples at face value. Lots of other people did the same thing about 50 years ago and decided the measurements were highly problematic. One of them was Keeling, which led to the Mauna Loa instrumentation.

    You say we have to accept the limitations of such reanalysis. Agreed. I'd say anything that shows variation of 100 ppm in 2-3 years is EXTREMELY limited.

    From Ernest Siddall.
    With a woe-betider like Dennis Moran, who needs climate change? One kilogram of uranium - I dare not use the "n-" word - yields 50,000 kiloWatt-hours of grid electricity in our present-type reactors. In fast breeder reactors, that will take a few decades to build up, it is about 3,000,000 kiloWatt-hours. So we will have to rough it with electric cars, buses and trucks. And you put out all those thousands of words about oil and gas "plateauing" and depletion without risking a single neutron. . Conservation ? Schmonservation !

    All I want to add is this little anecdote: The local radio newsbroadcast focused on a big hoo-doo regarding a local winery that had installed SV panels on his building's roof (paid for by our taxes of course). The installation cost $100,000, while the owner of the winery trumpeted a reduction in his electric bill of "up to" $100 per month, It quickly became apparent to anyone listening that it would take roughly 100+ years for this "investment" to pay off.

    I doubt the solar panels will last that long, but that's beside the point. What this little anecdote illistrates is the utter insanity of this global warming religiousity. The news blurb quoted the guy as saying his new installation "would help battle climate change". I guess first off that no one pointed out that up here in the Pacific Northwest we get 80% of our electricity from hydropower. Secondly, there is no quantifiable evidence that such activities will have any discernable effect on climate cycles one way or the other. But such is the primary characteristic of willfully blind faith.

    I am somewhat hopeful that in the next few election cycles normal people will take back our federal government from the current crop of nationalized socialist nutjobs, and at that time these do-gooders who are ripping off the taxpayers will be presented a bill for their wasteful extravagence. But frankly I think we're past the point of no return regarding this slippery slope of metasticized ecofascism, and returning to prosperous normalcy may be wishful thinking.

    Dave Smith
    Moscow, ID

    hahahaha--what a bunch of "Morans"

    There's plenty of material supporting the AGW thesis at realclimate.org for those of you still with an open mind and an ability to read and understand a modicum of science.

    As for me, I'm unsubscribing to this useless weekly immediately.

    "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

    Killing watts

    Gentlemen,

    The Earth is a beautiful planet and all of us we like it to remain so.

    In our world many are speaking about Global warming and many scare about it but only few are in clear what it does mean “Killing Watts”. The meaning is related to production of alternative electricity independently from what kind of source it is coming: hydro, coal, nuclear, wind, solar or geo-thermal energy driven power plant.

    The effect of induction heating the Earth crust is closely related to alternative electricity from its production by electrical generators via its distribution across the grid to its consumption by users.

    The effect of induction heating is well described even in Wikipedia and this effect might lead to collecting of heat inside the Earth crust comparable to quantity of ever-produced electricity.
    Please consider links below:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Structure_of_the_magnetosphere_mod.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-crust-cutaway-english.svg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_generator
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_Induction_Law
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating

    David Smith: "hopeful that in the next few election cycles normal people will take back our federal government ... ecoFACISTS" ??

    Wow.

    I think it may be time for rational people to "drop out" of the global warming "debate", just sit back and see what eventually happens. No-one is learning anything fom this anymore, its just rigid political rhetoric.

    Len: On the contrary, it is YOU who have always adhered to "rigid political rhetoric" and never have considered that there may be another case to be made. You are critiquing YOURSELF.

    The same applies to Jerry. I have read realclimate.org carefully several times. I do not find it convincing. They ignore huge mounds of contrary evidence.

    JimB: "I'd say anything that shows variation of 100 ppm in 2-3 years is EXTREMELY limited." Are you being deliberately obtuse? The Mauna Loa data, taken as single data elements is not any different. It's just that they have more data and have smoothed it.

    James: Regarding obtuseness, I'd say the same thing about you. The CO2 measurements swing all over the place up until 1957, when they stabilize due to better techniques. As I think we both agree, the Mauna Loa measurements are better because they can make more of them. If the chemical values are similarly noisy (I'm sure they are noisier), then Beck is wrong in citing their error of 1-3%. This is clearly not the case. Beck is wrong, and wrong in a very critical way.

    Let me put these as yes/no questions:

    1. Do you actually believe that the CO2 values were as high as 470 ppm in the 1940's?

    2. Do you believe the atmospheric CO2 magically stabilized (slow upward trend) after 1957?

    3. Do you believe Beck's contention that the chemical measurements were accurate to 1-3%?

    You never did answer one of my questions: is the mix of opinion in this publication and this comment thread representative of the power industry? If it is, you desperately need new blood.

    As long as the power generation industry refuses to acknowledge science they don't want to hear, we will continue to depend on foreign oil and gas, and hideously destructive coal. Changing our electric power sources means creating jobs and improving national security. What would motivate you to stand in the way of a huge surge in importance for your own industry?

    Let the kids take over. They'll move us forward.

    A very informative article that I found most interesting. But a primary question still lingers - If the hypothesis of global warming is such junk science why is the much of the world embracing the task of carbon reduction? Do they not think for themselves?

    “Leaders from the Group of 8 leading industrialized nations — United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — agreed in L’Aquila last July that developed nations should aim to reduce emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 – a formula that essentially requires the developing world to make a 20 percent cut.”

    “Chinese lawmakers are considering practical and effective measures to combat climate change. The draft resolution on climate change, submitted to the 10th session of the Standing Committee of the 11th National People's Congress (NPC), puts forward five guidelines to practical action to better deal with climate change.”

    I would like to understand how it is possible that the entire world is being duped. If it is all being driven by the self interests of a few, then we have more serious problems ahead.

    Demand of natural resources are increasing day by day.! This fact is probably no surprise in a world with a population that is increasing fast and by standards of living that are steadily rising across the globe.

    Renewable Energy and environmental Education are essential for the survival of the Preset human race.

    “The World is finally becoming globally aware that exponential resource usage in combination with finite reserves is a recipe that ensure our great grand children won’t be born”

    Economic development and technological progress can be compatible with reasonable protection of the environment. New Renewable Energy and Environmental management, techniques are in use around the world, helping enterprises to meet their objective of profit, growth and survival, while protecting the environment.

    The dimensions of Renewal Energy are increasing each year as governments become aware of the political priority of reasonable ENERGY SECURITY and its links t to economic development and technological progress.

    Kisholoy Gupta,
    Editor & publisher,
    http://greenhotelnews.info
    http://greenotelindia.in

    Susan,

    I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to know what mix of people this might be. Although it can be frustrating how conservative and seemingly rigid some of these people are, they nonetheless represent the core experience of ACTUALLY providing power to millions of people domestically and billions of people worldwide.

    While I admit being perplexed about the intransigence of some of these people about some aspects of AGW, I will also admit being similarly concerned about how alternative energy people simply have no grip of the task of displacing coal. Even a simple run of the numbers indicates that the only possible way this could be achieved is through greater use of nuclear power.

    Since nuclear power is rarely mentioned by the alt. energy crowd these days, I will stand with the "conservatives" in expressing concerns that everything will be fine if we simply built more wind turbines and more solar panels. That simply is not the case.

    Jim and Susan,

    I agree the task of replacing coal over time could be met by greater use of nuclear, but North America is not presently pursuing a great expansion of nuclear with the same fervor and economic support as they are for all the other renewable sources. Indeed it will be a challenge for nuclear to just maintain their current levels of generation as existing plants reach end of life or are threatened by shutdowns.

    This begs the question are all our politicians and regulators that ignorant or are they all being duped simultaneously ? I doubt it very much. I suggest they are all depending on another solution - reducing total energy consumption and more importantly consumption growth. The question is how are they going to do this without imposing draconian economic measures.

    The pathway of total reduced consumption (TRC) goals is being pursued perhaps most aggressively here in Ontario where our government is attempting to foster a public culture of energy conservation. Through its provincial power authority agency that administers all new generation contracts, it has also mandated fostering enormous TRC targets by 2020. If met they will avoid building gigawatts of new generation, and even allow them to retire our existing coal generation without replacing all of it at once.

    It is being implemented by throwing public money into wide-ranging consumer and commercial rebates for purchasing energy efficient products and upgrading building efficiencies. Homeowners and businesses can receive large grants to upgrade buildings or industrial processes. Companies receive rate incentives to enroll in active demand response programs through our local utility companies.

    Other measures include setting new commercial standards in energy efficiencies for lighting to residential appliances to heating and air conditioning, and others. They are being set to have increasing efficiency levels over time, and any products that don't eventually meet them over time by defined deadlines will be banned from sale here. Incandescent light bulbs have been the first on their hit lists, and now widescreen televisions are being sucked into it too.

    The latter is also placing huge new demands on manufacturing industries to develop new more efficient products. Recognizing this Ontario is also pumping substantially more public money into university and commercial research and development efforts to help them.

    The plan is working in Ontario but they have a long way to go yet to meet their TRC targets, and from what I have seen over the past year on this website forum, these ideas are also starting to catch on in the US, Australia, and in Europe.

    JimB: I don't know how to get through to you.... Would you please actually READ my posts! Btw, I think you may have a point about Beck's error bars.

    Susan: "Let the kids take over. They'll move us forward." Been there, done that. We followed that advice once and got Enron for our troubles. Both Fastow and Skilling were well under age fifty when they took over and were still under fifty when they imploded the company and the industry. Fyi, CO2 Cap & Trade was Skilling's idea.

    There are several problems with your perspective on the power sector. First of all, the science is not at all conclusive about agw. It is YOU who is ignoring contrary evidence, not the "deniers". I understand the agw case completely. I just don't buy it. You see, we have the maturity to understand that caution is sometimes necessary before spending trillions of dollars. We also understand the enormous cost of what you so blithely advocate.

    What national security interests are at stake with respect to POWER? Where did this snippet of nonsense originate? We import practically no fuels that fire generators, less than 1%, other than uranium. Is THAT your national security concern? What little power we do import is from Canada. Do you know something that we do not about Canadian reliability that you would like to share?

    Bob: Apparently, you are unaware that the high water mark for per capita energy use in the US was 1978. Since then per capita use has flatlined despite substantial increases in gdp, the use of air conditioning, and the proliferation of electronics. Despite what you read in the media, we have been successfully tackling efficiency for three decades.

    It is all about the exponential growth of population only made possible by fossil fuels. A world without fossil fuel use couldn’t keep 1 billion alive. Now world population is approaching 7 billion. And it grows.
    It strikes me as a curious form of insanity that nearly everyone seems to believe we can continue to have something like the present civilization without major energy from fossil fuels. People rejoice when a proposed coal burner is cancelled, a hollow victory as while they were getting one cancelled the Chinese built and started many. These plants are financed on the premise they will run for 50-60 years. The money in these plants will never be available for wind turbines, etc.

    Of course the Indians and Chinese make great statements about reducing CO2 emissions - while they open new coal mines and buy coal companies in other countries. The Chinese also said they plan to increase coal production by 30% in the next 6 years. Can all the combined reductions to come out of Kyoto II offset just this? India can’t even keep the lights on or keep their factories running: something wind turbines or solar can’t fix, and nuclear plants have become far too expensive for poor countries.

    Kisholoy, Thanks for recognizing the population dilemma.

    Susan, Do those young bloods of yours have any ideas about reducing population? It has to happen.

    James,

    I sympathize with you. I realize the US has made great gains in efficiency levels per capita since 30 or so years ago, but it is widely believed there are much more gains possible yet.

    Being an engineer I know what it is like firsthand to have design goals be imposed on developing new products. And sometimes those goals can be wishful thinking if the state-of-the-art today is not good enough to meet those goals.

    Too, it is often much easier for non-technical people like politicians etc. to set technical goals that are sometimes unattainable. To reach them successfully often depends intimately on something else given sparse attention for it's worth in industry - innovation and good creative design engineering to meet stringent new goals.

    Practical good ideas for new design does not grow on trees, but many average people out there in society don't realize it. They have been spoiled by decades of tremendous progress in technology where many think all that is necessary is to mandate stringent goals and then throw money at it to make it happen.

    James,
    I do read your posts, and I do endeavor to understand them. And I'm not an idiot (I promise), but I don't understand what you were getting at. This is a difficult medium and sometimes what is clear to the writer is not clear to the reader. (BTW, It bothers me when non-informative replies such as "That's Hilarious" or "Are you being deliberately obtuse?" are written instead of simply stating what the problem or error might be. Similarly, sarcasm is a poor choice for this medium as well, for obvious reasons.)

    I tried asking 3 simple yes/no questions, but they were not answered.

    But if we can agree that Beck may have misunderstood the error bounds of the old CO2 levels, that's probably good enough for me. That's basically the main critique of his work and Jaworowski's. Beck used these unreliable values (the graph, again) to justify a long term trendline of CO2 levels that doesn't vary too much. This really isn't justified, and anyone examining the data collection methodologies of the older means, and using some plain common sense, can see this is a highly problematic conclusion.

    Also, in a resource-constrained world, if per-capita use doesn't go down faster than population is rising, then we still have a problem. Since 1978, overall electrical energy use in the US has nearly doubled. Perhaps there were some gains in other areas (vehicle mpg?) but overall energy usage has clearly risen.


    Beck used these unreliable values to justify a trendline to show relatively stable CO2 values. That's just not very good science,

    To answer your questions,

    1> You have given me no reason to doubt the 1940s numbers. They seem high, but... These observations followed an extraordinary warm period which may well have released huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere from the oceans. The subsequent cold period may have absorbed it. We simply do not know enough about the natural variation of CO2 on decadal scales, never mind century or millenial. So, I am not yet prepared to reject it. I am certainly NOT going to concede that the true level was anywhere near the bottom of the range of the reanalysis without a LOT more detailed information that thoroughly discredits the measurements themselves. I read your links and am not convinced.

    2> Already answered. The so-called "stabilization" is nothing more than a statistical artifact of the methodology. The Mauna Loa data is smoothed. Do you not understand what that means? The implications?

    3> I think he did his math and stats correctly. However, I already stated that I was skeptical of the 1-3% degree of accuracy. Nevertheless, for you to have a point, he would have to be MUCH more inaccurate than that, at least several times 10% with heavy bias.

    I am not being sarcastic. I really wondered whether you were being deliberately obtuse. You continue to make absurd claims about the ice core data that it cannot support. You do not "get" why the reanalysis data and the Mauna Loa data are both similar and how they differ.

    Let me try ONE more time. If you were to "unsmooth" the Mauna Loa series and extract a random sample of the same frequency (observations per year), you would see a similarly chaotic series, albeit at a lower level. They differ because the Mauna Loa data are measured using better equipment and with orders of magnitude greater frequency and discipline. The fact that the Mauna Loa series is superior does not invalidate the reanalysis at all.

    James,

    I think we are communicating a bit better here. I am unsure if you agree that Mauna Loa represents the actual CO2 values, or whether you think the CO2 values actually gyrate alot, and the sampling is smoothing them out. I believe the former. I don't think atmospheric CO2 levels (as a whole) vary too quickly, though there can be huge local variation and short-term temporal variation. That's my take concerning #2.

    Depending on your opinion of the previous paragraph relates to point #1. If you actually believe the values gyrate wildy (CO2 concentration actually moves alot; not due to sampling problems) then why has this never been seen since 1957? Not even a tiny bit. I think your bias in pre-supposing that the Mauna Loa sampling is covering up CO2 level gyrations (if that's what you are thinking) is much less likely than the value being relatively stable, and the pre-1957 measurements being off. You already have agreed that the technique was less accurate, and they made many fewer measurements.

    Given that Beck has allowed for 100 ppm variation in just 2-3 years, and I think this is highly unlikely, then I think he has misstated his accuracy by a large amount. Probably 50% or more. This is why I think these measurements have little value.

    JimB: OBVIOUSLY, the actual measurements gyrate. Otherwise, why would they bother to smooth them out? My point is that we simply don't know what the overall variation is over long periods. We do know that individual observations vary a great deal. Our understanding of the geo-physical processes is more limited than you seem to think. Fifty years? That's not necessarily a lot of data.

    You are probably right that the pre-1957 levels are high. But TWICE as high as the true value, with that true value nearly outside the range? No. You have NOT established any likelihood of an error that large. And, just because there is a large measurement error does NOT mean that they "have little value". Besides, I have more confidence in the reanalysis than I do in ice core derived data. Again, we just do not know what the background variability really is. At times, processes are stable for long periods, at other times, they have slow secular changes. And at other times, they experience "regime change" type sudden changes.

    Let me give you some analogies, which are of course of limited value. If you lived in Hawaii with no knowledge of other places, you could never consider the possibility of a blizzard or tornadoes.You would never consider that temps could range by fifty degrees F over the course of one day. If you lived in Brazil, you would never consider the possibility of sub-zero cold. Here in Minnesota, we could not conceive of a year without dramatic seasons or a winter without snow.

    If someone had told me twelve years ago that an F4 tornado could strip a hundred square miles bare in March with a 56 degree high and an eleven degree hi/lo range, I would have laughed. Yet, it happened in 1998. Believe me, we have studied tornadoes for well over a century here were still shocked. Can a blizzard hit when the high for the day was 60 degrees? Happened and killed 49 people in 1940. How often do "one hundred year" floods happen? Ask someone from Fargo or Grand Forks. Maybe where you live, nature is benign and predictable. Here, we recognize that nature does whatever it likes and doesn't pay any attention to what we think is "possible". Is it possible that CO2 levels were twice as high in the 1940s as they were ten years later? Yeah, sure... it's possible.

    I thought the subject is about CO2, but it is hard to determine. The comments seem to dodge the very idea of due diligence as expressed in the in the title. (Oddly, the phrase “due diligence” has bothered me for decades so when I recently could ask someone who’s job actually required “exercising due diligence” I asked. I found the answer too fuzzy for an engineer to understand – but I am still trying.)

    How can population be ignored? It’s crazy. We have billions of people with little or no electricity service who have no lighting and cook their food by burning gathered sticks. Solutions, anyone?

    We have far more destitute people today than we had a thousand years ago. Progress?

    "Is it possible that CO2 levels were twice as high in the 1940s as they were ten years later? Yeah, sure... it's possible. " -- Agreed, there is some statistical possibility. Vanishingly small, but apparently sufficient to keep this boring debate going.

    James,

    50 years is long enough. Looking at Beck's graph You can see the value bouncing all over the place from 1800 to 1950. And then they suddenly stop? When the measurements improve? You have blinders on if you think that the earlier data should be well-regarded.

    And there is no mechanism to spew 100 ppm into the air, and them suck it back out again, in the space of 2-3 years. All our industrial activity raises it just a 1-2 ppm per year. The oceans have huge stores, but they only interact at the surface, so their ability to affect huge changes are also limited. Even large eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo created not a blip in CO2 levels. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the earlier measurement techniques were highly problematic. When Keeling reviewed the 100s of papers on this topic, written over the past century, he found 3 that he thought were valid.

    Note also that even if the 1940s measurements were somewhat accurate, they weren't taken in Hawaii (in fact, the measurements cited by Beck were taken from all different parts of the world. The 1940s readings were taken by Misra in Poona, India) so it is not reasonable to simply attach them to the Mauna Loa readings and assume it represents the same view of world CO2 levels. It is well-known that locality can vary CO2 levels by 100 ppm or more. Yet another mistake by Beck.

    I'm sorry, but it simply is not possible, in any practical sense of the word, for levels to have been that high in the 1940's.

    I find it interesting how the GW critics get all up in arms about the heat island effect when it comes to measuring surface temps (a somewhat valid criticism, by the way) yet when Beck does basically the same thing with CO2 measurement, it's honky-dory and "proof" that CO2 levels gyrate all over the place, despite no known mechanism for doing so.

    Checked Google maps. Pune, India experiences prevailing winds from the west, and about 100 miles west of Pune is BOMBAY! Hmm, maybe that had some effect on CO2 readings......

    JimB: Regarding Pune, I think there is a joke there somewhere, but ... don't give up your day job. Perhaps it's just that you lack the intellectual depth to understand analogies.

    As for fifty years being enough history, you would be right IF AND ONLY IF CO2 levels were static. We know they are not. As for heat island and CO2 measurement, your point is well taken. However, a large proportion of the observations were not done in urban areas.

    One more time. Beck's data is not smoothed, unlike Mauna Loa. One more time, the "sudden" change to consistency is nothing more than a statistical artifact. Why am I repeating myself? I ask in all sincerity, are you being deliberately obtuse?

    Your point about the 1940s raises another. If different locations "vary CO2 levels by 100 ppm or more", and "even if the 1940s measurements were somewhat accurate", both are your words, how is it possible that the average measurement for the 1940s was more than 150 points higher than the late 1950s? Is Mauna Loa somehow bereft of CO2?

    JimB, you broke the formatting by not closing the href properly on your link from 8.26.09. I've done the same so know it intimately. Not sure how to fix though, might experiment in a dead discussion forum, but probably won't.

    This CO2 discussion has devolved like a lot of things into people talking past each other and missing the salient points. The Mona Loa site was specifically chosen because A) it had substantial elevation and B) it was supposed to be free of "CO2 island" effects. What they were looking for was a world AVERAGE CO2 level and they figured that was as good a place as any to get it. Some people here believe that CO2 automagically homogenizes in the atmosphere to perfect average levels. I can tell you it does NOT and remedial science knowledge is more than enough to understand this point. Therefore Jim saying we have the highest CO2 levels in 600K years needs the clarification (which he's never given) that A) he's talking AVERAGE CO2 and B) the methodology used to determine levels for the last 600K years are valid. Just like Mona Loa the thought is that antarctic ice is pristine and therefore holds perfectly average levels that managed to find their way there, literally by osmosis.

    Using spectrometry measures may or may not be more accurate than chemical measurements, all depends on the initial spectrometer control batch. In the good old days, before the "young bloods" Susan is so fond of came on the scene ANY scientist worth his pasty white salt (yes they were often men, yes they were often white, get over it) would have been able to contrive the measurement experiments and carry them out. Unfortunately today, we have a massive crop of newly minted PhD's who don't have the first idea HOW to do an experiment, nor how to carry it out. They use expensive instruments, which they don't know the underlying principals of, and implicitly trust whatever results they produce. We have an entire society of such folk. Recently in my state literally thousands of drunk driving convictions were overturned because the breathalyzers had NEVER been properly setup. They'll give you an answer "accurate" to the nth degree, but unfortunately without understanding HOW they operate and WHY they give the results they do, well those results turned out to be meaningless.

    Looking at Figure 4. you can see that the variations on the individual measurements are typical only about 0.2 ppm. Nothing like the variation seen pre-1957. So Beck's data has more problems with it than just being smoothed.

    Yes Mauna Loa was picked to sample CO2 because points west of it (the Pacific Ocean) are free of urban centers so the samples will better reflect true atmospheric values. Most of the early measurements were taken on land in urban centers like London or Paris or Berlin.

    Basically agree to what Jeff said, including me breaking the format. Mea culpa.

    Yes, I was referring to average levels, and yes, there is an issue to how appropriately to knit ice core levels with the Mauna Loa data. This was done, I believe, with the Law Dome data, which had ice cores as late as the 1950s.

    JimB: No, you are misrepresenting your own link. They describe in mind numbing detail how they systematically reject outliers and smooth the data. The variations across one hour after smoothing are about 0.2ppm.

    There is also an error in the ESRL posting. Concentrations are higher in the northern hemisphere than in the southern only in part because of combustion. They are also higher because of differences in land mass versus ocean. Oceans are enormous CO2 sinks relative to land masses.

    You all have a great blog going and lots of good data and points. But you all are missing real solutions to our Enviromental problems. More importantly you are missing History in the making. Read about it at Swapsol.com

    James: Point taken. But I still don't see how the Misra (470 ppm) result can be due to sampling differences. You seem to regard the Mauna Loa data as accurate. You want to believe the Misra sample as well (presumably to magically fit the location and altitude of Mauna Loa, as Beck imagines).

    If you look at figure 5 of the ESRL link, you can see how altitude greatly reduces variation as well. I doubt Misra took his readings at any height compared to Mauna Loa. Since Mauna Loa is smoothed to 0.2 ppm in a 60 minute time frame, how can it be hiding a 100 ppm spike? Are you saying the world average CO2 levels can spike up 100 ppm and then drop again within an hour? And Misra just caught it at a bad time? I can't believe you actually believe THAT, but that's what you seem to be saying: "One more time, the 'sudden' change to consistency is nothing more than a statistical artifact."

    Yet you cling to the belief that the 470 ppm reading is analogous and comparable to the Mauna Loa readings. It is not. You use this belief to forward the unbelievable notion that average CO2 values have gyrated wildly before 1957, but no time afterward. This despite clear evidence that Beck did not understand the accuracy of older readings, and made no attempt to normalize readings taken from different altitudes and different parts of the world.

    Now you pick at nits (my explanation of the smoothing, ESRL's explanation of CO2 concentrations) which are irrelevant to the core issue.

    You persist in following the unlikeliest of possibilities while ignoring the likely and reasonable.

    I think you have cut yourself shaving with Occam's razor.

    Jim, you make some good points and thank you for the "tip 'o the hat". The second point in my post is potentially very salient to this discussion while we are picking nits as you say. Here's the quote from your link above: Unfortunately, the absorption that we measure in the cell does not depend on the CO2 mole fraction, but on the total amount of CO2 in the cell. Therefore, we either have to extremely accurately control the temperature and pressure in the cell, as well as the flow rate, or we can control them less accurately while using frequent calibrations of the instrument with reference gas mixtures of CO2-in-dry-air spanning the expected range of the measurements (emphasis added).

    The question any good Columbo should ask is what exactly constitutes the makeup of those reference gas mixtures that themselves are constantly used to keep the "averages" properly "average". As you may have noted in my post earlier, the "reference" material used to calibrate the breathalyzers was ITSELF found to be contaminated, which is why all the DUI's had to be thrown out. In fact the results were worthless. I'm not saying there weren't drunk drivers who could have blown over .08%, but rather that the breathalyzers themselves hadn't been properly calibrated, so we don't know for sure WHAT those drivers REALLY blew. It would be a tremendous shame, as Ed Reid has already noted if we spend trillions of dollars to attempt to fix a problem that mere millions of dollars PROPERLY PLACED could have confirmed or denied.

    The other potential "contamination" problem is this group-think mindset that discards any values that don't fit into the "norm". Therefore we have scientists who self-edit their results, or fudge their data so it fits into the established parameters. Of course once they've started doing that, they are no longer scientists in my book, hence my concern for the profession in general and my disdain for the climate scientist crowd in particular, having been caught red-handed doing precisely what I'm describing here.

    Again, if you want the TRUTH, don't read the heavily censored "Realclimate.org" website, but instead check out ClimateAudit and Watts sites. If reading said sites starts to get your mind working and your blood flowing a bit, and leads you to suspect that the only thing keeping some of these "scientists" in line is the embarrassment these sites are causing them, you really have to wonder what is wrong with our system. Case in point is the article on Climate Audit wherein an intrepid reader questions some graphs on NASA's websites about ocean rising, which is immediately and surreptitiously changed with NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER by NASA. Now if that reader hadn't caught and questioned the error and notified Climate Audit, who would be the wiser? HOW MANY media reports, "peer reviewed" papers and other claptrap would be based on the INVALID DATA and how far would it propagate throughout the system???

    I am 100% in favor of SCIENCE, REAL SCIENCE and as soon as I see same from the climate science crowd I will jump right on board the bus. But this sloppiness HAS to end, and end soon.

    JimB: Do I think that the world levels spike by 100 points in an hour? Of course not. Why would you even bother asking such a ridiculous question? My point all along has been that individual measurements do move that much for a wide variety of reasons. They moved for Misra, and they also move at Mauna Loa. That is why they smooth the series. As for Misra, my whole point is that he would have had to catch fantastically bad luck. One, two, ten measurements? Sure. But not EVERY measurement.

    Where have I ever made the point that Misra's readings were "analagous and comparable" to Mauna Loa. Of course they are not. My whole point is that they are not! It is yourself who is asserting that point with your repeated nonsense about "sudden" stability. I have never argued that Mauna Loa is flawed. I am arguing however, that Misra's readings are VALID, that BOTH are correct. At least, you have never given any reason how Misra could be so far off the mark.

    Jeff: Your point about sloppy science is dead on. I believe that history will judge the handling of this issue as a scandal comparable to the way that Galileo was treated.

    We are fortunate to have satellite-based measurement tools available which have the ability to see both the forest and the trees; ie, both the urban heat islands and the rest of the globe. The growing divergence between the ground-based temperature record (GISS and HADCRUT) and the satellite-based record (RSS and UAH) demonstrates that the urban heat islands on the globe are continuing to warm, or continuing to remain warmer, than the rest of the globe. That should be neither surprising nor frightening.

    What should be frightening is that our political class is attempting to commit us to a multi-trillion dollar "war on CO2" based on temperatures measured by measuring stations likely to be in error by more than 2C, on average, which show an increase of 0.08C in the average temperature of the globe's urban heat islands, used as input to multiple climate models which are incomplete, cannot agree with each other and cannot reliably reproduce past climate.

    With apologies to the late Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen (R, IL): "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."

    Misra took his readings 100 miles downwind of one of the largest urban centers on the planet. Then Beck tied these readings to Mauna Loa, to give the impression that 470 ppm somehow represented average CO2 readings in the 1940s. And to indicate that this was evidence that average CO2 values have gyrated wildly. It is no such thing. It is, however, a good example of the sloppy science that you and Jeff and Ed (and I) bemoan.

    Better instrumentation to better measure temperature levels can only be a good thing. I agree 1000% with Ed that the first dollars spent on global warming should be more instrumentation.

    Jim,

    More and better instruments properly located, installed and maintained, read timely, with DATA reported and analyzed. We've had quite enough of "The Great Oz" behind the curtain with his echo chamber and his sound effects.

    It is long since time to deal with bad data, missing data, inaccessible data,"fill in the blanks" treatment of uncollected data, "black box" tools for "massaging data" to produce "un-data", "hold you wet finger tip in the breeze" sensitivity factors, etc.

    Once we have the data, it might even be possible for the "consensed" scientists to come to a consensus regarding what, if anything, must be done. Today, there is no common position regarding percent of GHG reduction required to stabilize climate (assuming that were possible or desirable) or the time period over which the reductions would have to be achieved. The discussion today is unfocused largely because much of what we "know" is not "known" at all, but merely hypothesized. (350 ppm, 475 ppm, 1.5C, 2C, 20%, 50%, 83%, 100%, "4 months to save the globe", etc.)

    "We've got to do something, now, even if it's wrong" just won't cut it!

    Ed, I should point out that advancing papers like Beck's (and that guy who got confused about the energy flows in the atmosphere - they even put his paper in EnergyPulse) is ridiculous and does not advance the position of the anti-AGW crowd. Instead, it indicates to me that they have nothing substantivie to dismiss AGW claims. And it is sloppier science than anything ever done by the IPCC.

    Physicians, heal thyselves...

    JimB: Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact that Mumbai had a population 2-3 million at the time Misra took his measurements. Given the distance of 100 miles and the extreme population density of Mumbai wedged onto the end of a peninsula, Pune would seldom be directly downwind. Mumbai is northwest of Pune while prevailing winds in western India are from the west to southwest, not from the northwest. Pune is closer to the Arabian Sea than to Mumbai. Given prevailing winds and proximity, it is the Arabian Sea that would dominate the CO2 concentrations in Pune. Finally, there is the low level of energy use in India, particularly as long ago as the 1940s ... Frankly, your point is laughably lame.

    Are the Mauna Loa measurements better? Yes. However that is not the point. The only relevant question is, are the Misra measurements worthless? The answer is no, they are not worthless. Why do you refuse to remove your blinders to information that contradicts your views? Why do you regurgitate "facts" without first checking them out yourself? Five minutes googling should have raised serious questions about the so-called Mumbai taint.

    James, it's hard to follow this debate, because you keep bouncing around with your premises. (Or maybe it's just because I'm ignorant and laughbly lame...)

    If the Mauna Loa measurements are sound, and the Pune measurements are sound as well (that is also reflect ave. CO2 values), then CO2 levels descended 150 ppm in about 15 years. And then exhibited no such variation since 1957. That's what you seem to be saying.

    But then you also said earlier, that no such unusual behavior has occurred, and the Pune reading is just a 'statistical artifact', whatever you mean by that.

    Jim Beyer,

    From my perspective, no data is assumed to be correct or incorrect. It is all subject to validation.

    I am not part of any "anti-AGW crowd". I am an AGW skeptic; and, I am damned proud of my skepticism.

    I do not question that the globe warmed between ~1650 and 1998, though not consistently. I suspect most of us are rather glad it did. I also do not question that the warming has stopped or reversed since 1998. I do not question that atmospheric carbon concentrations have increased since ~1750. I do question that the increase in atmospheric carbon concentrations CAUSED the increase in temperature, especially since the temperature increase appears to have preceded the increase in atmospheric carbon concentration, as has apparently been the case historically as well.

    I question the accuracy of the global average temperature record because I know that most of the temperature measurement stations used to create the record are subject to errors one to two orders of magnitude larger than the global temperature anomaly they claim to document. Using measurements with errors in the first place to the left of the decimal point to "document" trends in the second place to the right of the decimal point is absurd. Using incomplete and unproven computer models to project those trends in the secondl place to the right of the decimal point one hundred years into the future borders on insanity.

    I question the accuracy of the climate model predictions because I know that they are inconsistent among themselves; and, that they do not attempt to model all of the significant climatological factors, such as clouds, because those factors are not sufficiently well understood to be modelled accurately.

    I question the "consensus" regarding AGW because there is no "consensus" regarding the reduction in annual carbon emissions necessary to avoid the impending climate catastrophe predicted by the "Cassandras" of AGW. As I wrote above: "The discussion today is unfocused largely because much of what we "know" is not "known" at all, but merely hypothesized. (350 ppm, 475 ppm, 1.5C, 2C, 20%, 50%, 83%, 100%, "4 months to save the globe", etc.).

    I believe, though I cannot prove, that the "consensed" scientists have concluded that all anthropogenic carbon emissions must cease if AGW is to be halted, but that they are unwilling to espouse that position because it would expose them to ridicule. There is much hand wringing over the fact that the general public has not "bought into" their story. I believe that, in large part, that is the result of the fact that there is no one consistent "story". Rather, the AGW believers are all over the map regarding what must be done and by when it must be accomplished.

    I believe that the current political approach to dealing with AGW is profoundly unserious, since there appears to be a willingness to allow the developing countries, particularly China and India, to continue to grow their annual carbon emissions rapidly while the developing countries attempt to reduce their emissions. I am esopecially critical of the current US efforts to "save the globe", because I know that saving the globe is beyond the capability of the US, no matter how Draconian the steps we take to do so.

    Either increasing global annual carbon emissions are a serious issue or they are not. If they are a serious issue, then the increases must be stopped. The increases are occurring predominantly in the developing countries, particularly China and India. Therefore, if the increases are to be stopped, they must be stopped by China and India. If we are hurtling toward a global catastrophe, having China "suggest" that its carbon emissions would peak sometime between 2030 and 2050 will not cut it. At China's current rate of carbon emissions growth, by 2030 its carbon emissions would have tripled; and, by 2050, have increased five fold, making them essentially equivalent to total global annual emissions from all sources today.

    If AGW is an impending climate catastrophe and China's emissions peak in 2050, we are doomed.

    Ed

    << ... maybe it's just because I'm ignorant and laughbly lame. >>

    Well, yes. You accept the agw perspective uncritically. You reject the "deniers" without due consideration. You are, ignorant of their argument.

    Could CO2 levels have fallen by 150ppm in fifteen years? hmmm... We simply do not know enough about the natural variability to answer that question. It does give me pause. We do know that world temps cooled considerably in that interval and that the oceans would have absorbed a lot of CO2. 150ppm? While I am hesitant to accept it, that hypothesis cannot be rejected.

    More to the point, if you are going to reject the 1940s data, then you are going to have to come up with something a LOT better than proximity to Mumbai. WHY do all of the Pune observations seem to be 150 points higher than Mauna Loa? You might try asking whether they are 150 points higher today. Has anyone replicated Misra's work?

    The only "statistical artifact" that I have noted is that Mauna Loa data is smoothed. Your link actually shows how it was smoothed. That is why your nonsense about "sudden stability" is ... nonsense.

    Good article which discusses the 1943 peak in detail Here

    In particular the author looks for evidence of the peak in stomata data, and sponges and finds none. The author also points out that although there are unlikely mechanisms that could add that amount of CO2 to the atmosphere (including burning 1/3 of the world's vegetation) there is simply no mechanism to draw it all back out again in the space of a few years.

    It's an interesting article. Nevertheless, I do not find it compelling. All he established was that Beck's data likely has an upward bias, but failed to show how much of a bias. If you look carefully at Misra's windspeed chart, the average CO2 levels while the wind is blowing hardest during the summer CO2 lows is still 400ppm, one hundred pts above where it "should" have been. It would be reasonable to say that Misra's data indicates that CO2 levels in the 1940s were about what they are today.

    At least he didn't try to attribute it to proximity to Mumbai.

    Jeff Presley: "Therefore we have scientists who self-edit their results, or fudge their data so it fits into the established parameters. Of course once they've started doing that, they are no longer scientists in my book, hence my concern for the profession in general and my disdain for the climate scientist crowd in particular" -- Perhaps you might provide any evidence of that charge? Your claim that CO2 levels bounced around by +-100 ppmv prior to Mauna Loas station measurements is totally outlandish, and youldn't be accepted as evidence by a grade-school student.

    James, so we've dropped from 470 ppm to 400 ppm. I'm sure I could find another article to take it down another 80. But really, what's the point? As Ed Reid said, data should be subject to validation. I agree. But the problem with people who are biased is that any data that fits their mindset requires no validation at all, and that data which opposes the mindset can never have enough validation to satisfy the said mindset.

    You insist that this peak existed due to one researcher's measurements in one location. Despite the fact that stomata and coral readings indicate no such thing happened. If such a peak did occur, then where did the CO2 come from, and where did it go?

    Len: To be fair, I don't think Jeff really believes Beck's findings, at least to the extent that James does. If you read his last note, he subtly steered toward more problematic AGW findings, namely modeling and global temperature averages.

    Ed,

    A healthy skepticism about most things, including AGW, is a good thing. I have no problem that some of the AGW findings should be met with skepticism, especially since the economic costs of some of these proposed changes are quite extreme.

    I simply wanted to make the point that CO2 levels have risen markedly since the industrial revolution. The data, from direct measurement, from ice cores, from supporting measurements such as stomata fossils and coral growths all support this.

    James disputes this viewpoint and seems to want to believe E. G. Beck's viewpoint that CO2 levels have gyrated +/- 100 ppm several times in the last century, and then have settled down to a steady rise of 1 or 2 ppm per year since 1957, coincidently when accurate instrumentation for CO2 measurements were set up. I've read Beck's paper and critiques of it by climate scientists. I do believe the critiques, but mostly, I believe my own common sense. What Beck proposes simply does not make sense in the face of collateral evidence.

    The fact that something so simple and technically supported such as CO2 levels in the last century needs to be fought tooth and nail is a testament of what this discussion has become. Not a search for the truth, but a war to win at all costs. As we know, the first casualty of war IS the truth.

    If one can accept rising CO2 levels (as both you and Jeff seem to do) then all I ask is that this is an indication that BOTH sides are encumbered to verify what's going on. The pro-AGW side because of the economic costs of disrupting the status quo, and the anti-AGW side because the rising CO2 levels are ALSO a disruption of the status quo.

    Jim,

    Increasing the population of the globe from 1 billion to 6.5 billion is also a disruption of the status quo, as is increasing the raising of meat animals to feed them.

    I am not a climate scientist. I've never played one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, it is my assessment, based merely on historical information and logic, that returning the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm (no less to 270 ppm) would require virtual elimination of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs, as well as major population reductions.

    While that would make fascinating political theater, I expect that the tickets would be very expensive. :-)

    Ed

    Len, I've posted dozens of examples, just because you act like a three year old playing hide and seek hiding by closing your OWN eyes, doesn't mean you aren't immediately found. So let me reiterate, when I post EVIDENCE as I have DOZENS OF TIMES, and you DON'T click on it, is it like a tree in a forest falling where no one can hear? Not precisely, because there are hundreds following this blog who DO follow the links and see you for the foolish person you have become, closing your eyes, plugging your ears and screaming "nya nya nya". Here is yet another recent example of scientists refusing to release data, because they know darn good and well that McIntyre is going to find problems with it (he always does), and they get embarrassed (they always do) when they get caught red-handed falsifying data, using bogus statistical methods to "smooth" it and other such "sloppiness".

    There are literally associated with just the shenanigans at CRU on Climate Audit. So here we have NUMEROUS examples of PUBLICLY PAID "climate scientists" willfully ignoring freedom of information requests, DESTROYING DATA, and otherwise playing games so they can't be caught cheating. This is SCIENCE???? Substitute the word POLITICIAN for SCIENTIST and everything makes sense, politicians engage in such behavior all the time. I used to believe "scientists" were above all that. Used to.

    The link that didn't make it above is... Literally thousands of hits ... ...

    << the problem with people who are biased is that any data that fits their mindset requires no validation at all >>

    Which is my criticism of you. Look how long it took you to even give this issue a cursory look-see. I am still trying to figure out how to get you to take a serious look at the other side, without much luck. You just aren't interested.

    Just look at your citation of proximity to Mumbai. You never even pulled up a map or looked for local prevailing winds before throwing it into the debate. Even a smidgeon of critical thinking would have prevented you from repeating that foolish assertion. I gave you a pass the first time you cited it, not the second time.

    << You insist that this peak existed >>

    ... No. I never asserted that. I said that your rejection of Beck was less than flimsy. It still is. I never said that Beck was right, although I am coming around to his view that CO2 levels were higher in the recent past than is commonly believed. After reading Misra's paper, it is clear to me that the summertime readings are a decent proxy for background CO2.

    << Despite the fact that stomata and coral readings indicate no such thing happened. >>

    As I read the stomata and coral evidence, it is far from conclusive.

    << If such a peak did occur, then where did the CO2 come from, and where did it go? >>

    If I may hazard a guess, it came from the ocean when it warmed in the 1930s, and went back there while cooling. You seem to believe that we know a great deal about natural processes. The fact is that we do not.

    << I have no problem that some of the AGW findings should be met with skepticism >>

    Please do not post such nonsense while I am drinking my coffee. It's hard on keyboards.

    JeffP: I quite agree that responding to Len is pointless. I have cited numerous luminaries many times and he ignores them, and then comes back with "nobody with any stature agrees". His challenge of your point about the scientific shenanigans is a great case in point.

    Jim Beyer: "Not a search for the truth, but a war to win at all costs. As we know, the first casualty of war IS the truth." - To that i would add Daniel Dafoe's iteration of 40 points to a good life as he listed in his book Dickory Cronke - item 27 "When you find a friend in an error, undecieve him with secrecy and civility, and let him see his oversight first by hints and glances; and if you cannot convince him, leave him with respect, and lay the fault upon your own management".

    I'd still go for a beer with any of the regular commenters here.

    James for your edification and the other honest agents reading this thread, it is all about following the money. As I've stated many times before but as this tome proves, this has been a one-sided argument as far as FUNDING is concerned.

    Following the money also shows why Cap and Trade is the only "supported" method. Likewise from my link above, from his 52 linked footnotes

    Following the money also shows why Cap and Trade is the only "supported" method. Likewise from my link above, from his 52 linked footnotes this one talking about a $10 Trillion dollar per year carbon trading market

    Looking more, I was probably wrong about the Mumbai connection, though sampling near an urban area is probably not a good way to get good ave. CO2 values.

    This a comment by peterd from the Jennifer Mahoney blog cited here

    peterd writes (and cites):

    Compare Beck’s approach with that by Bray (1959), an author Beck cites, but apparently did not read. (J.R. Bray, An Analysis of the Possible Recent Change in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration, Tellus, XI (1959), 220-230.) Bray went through much of the pre-1950s literature, right back to the 1850s, and this is what he had to write, under Chemical Analysis, and of the Pettenkofer method.

    “Early estimates show a decrease from the 1750’s to 1850’s which is generally recognized as due to improving chemical technique. Blochman (in Letts & Blake, 1900) notes that the figures of de Saussure steadily decreased as his work progressed. Callendar (1940) considers the first accurate values may have been obtained by Thorpe (1867). [I have not seen the Thorpe paper, but according to Armstrong (PRS, 1880), which I have seen, Thorpe reported values over the Irish Sea and Atlantic Ocean, and these showed no diurnal variation.] Criticisms of various 19th century workers and techniques have been made by Spring & Roland (1885), Van Nuys & Adams (1887), Letts & Blake (1900), Caldwell (in Letts & Blake), and Brown & Escombe (1905a). The most often noted criticism was that CO2 is absorbed during transfer to weighing or titrating (including possible contamination from the breath), Caldwell performed five series of tests comparing the Pettenkofer method with known values of CO2 and with the Letts and Blake modification of the Pettenkofer, which was itself of a high accuracy when compared with known CO2 volumes. His summaries show actual CO2 concentration to vary from 0.66 to 0.89 of the amount measured by the Pettenkofer method.”

    In other words, the Pettenkofer values- and, by implication, many of those reported by Beck as supporting his >400 ppm values in the 1930s-1940s- may have been over-estimated by 50%!

    Bray’s Table 3 is a summary of data measured between 1868 and 1956 (ie.., just at the point where Keeling Sr comes on the scene). The MAJORITY of these values indicate CO2 around 310 ppm. The high (>400 ppm) values emphasized by Beck belong to a rather small minority of workers. It is as if, out of 100 people doing the same measurement (though maybe by different methods), 99 of them agreed quite well, but the 100th, who nevertheless produced a data set vastly greater than the other 99, was given preferred status, simply because he produced more numbers. Does this sound reasonable? Does this sound scientific? Yet this is precisely what Beck has done, in according preferred status to the high values. Nowhere doe he offer any explanation as to why these high values should be believed.

    Bray also writes: “It is very interesting to note that with the exception of the very high Duerst, Kreutz and Misra values, all of the daytime CO2 studies since 1935
    (including Buch, Haldane, Pozzi-Escot, Spector and Dodge (1947), Huber and Fonselius et al) have grouped within the 315-325 interval and that no trend is present during the period.”

    Have a look at Bray’s article and Table 3 yourself. If you can’t access the journal, give me an email address and I’ll scan and send it to you. I invite you to read Bray’s paper (which took no sides on the dispute as to whether CO2 was increasing) and see whether you still believe Beck.

    (I am trying to find Bray's article on-line. I haven't yet. -Jim)

    ??? Did you actually READ Marohasy? ***LOL*** She is a prominent enough skeptic to be trashed by Sourcewatch.

    From her blog "WE have all heard about the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Along with most people, I have accepted that this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. After-all, this is the accepted view, even for most so-called climate change skeptics. But there is evidence indicating that most of the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be from natural sources."

    Oh.... and there is no posting from 'peterd' on Marohasy's site. I am ... amused ... that you would cite a nonexistent anonymous poster on a blog as authoritative. This just shows the lengths you will go to support your pre-determined point of view.

    Normally, I disdain ad hominem attacks, but your repeated citation of Ferdinand Engelbeen's blog is noteworthy. Are you aware that he leads an organization called Chlorophyles? They are (maybe were, now) a labor group in the chlorine industry who think that fear of chlorine is overblown.

    peterd's posts are there, Sept. 26, 2008 6:02 pm.

    What I posted does not pertain to her blog. It was a response to her comments.

    You cite Jennifer Marohasy's blog (irrelevant).
    You say the peterd post is non-existent (untrue; you can just do a 'find' on a web page, BTW)
    Your comment about the Chlorophyles is also irrelevant.

    But apparently making comments about that stuff is easier than talking about a published 1958 paper (before the AGW issue became prominent) discussing the data that Beck used critically.

    JimB, I don't think the point is to get down into the weeds regarding specific measurements, but to take a higher level view and watch for a pattern of data manipulation and excision from the record of data that conflicts with the AGW world view. Here's an excellent synopsis of that from someone quite accustomed to a higher-level viewpoint.

    I know you're a reasonable person, with better than average intelligence. Please read the above link start to finish and then tell me, with reasonable assurance that you're still in complete agreement with the AGW theory.

    James, Jeff, et al,

    I don't believe proving AGW beyond a doubt really matters. The fact that our world's climate is changing is cause for concern, and so is the fact human activity has released far more emissions into the atmosphere in modern times than would have occurred naturally without human activity. It is therefore irresponsible to claim that the sum total contributions of these emissions have had ZERO effect on world climate patterns, the real question is how much effect have they had.

    The anti-AGW arguments are rooted in avoiding the government-forced development of disruptive new technologies in energy use. However there are compelling economic reasons for governments pursuing them. The US federal government is COUNTING ON whole new industries to emerge from the Obama stimulus program targeting renewable energy sources. I agree it's a huge gamble with taxpayers’ money, but pray it had better work because the new industries they are counting on are far more strategic to the future of America than you can imagine. Here's why....

    The following editorial is a trade magazine article just published in my industry, located in Tam Hunt's backyard in California. It is very sobering, so I suggest you take a good stiff drink after reading it. If nothing else it may make you realize just how important the Obama stimulus program and the reshaping of world energy use is to the future of America. The future industries America desperately needs are not going to appear out of thin air.

    Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? By Adrian Slywotzky Electronic Components Magazine (Ecnmag.com) – August 31, 2009

    Here is the link to the article http://www.ecnmag.com/blog-innovation-needed-083109.aspx

    Here again is the link to the article "Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?"

    http://www.ecnmag.com/blog-innovation-needed-083109.aspx

    Bob, and from your same source I got this interesting article
    To tie the two together, we have a dearth of quality scientists and quality research, all while $10's of billions are squandered on AGW mystications. But who wants to work in a LAB doing real work, when you can get the same salary AND lots more press by being a "climate scientist"? After all, you work in a lab long enough you'll be expected to actually PRODUCE something, but if you're a "climate scientist" you can "research" other people's papers and write "summaries" and call press conferences and otherwise shirk your duties (or maybe those ARE your duties?). And if your "predictions" are wildly off the mark? So what, you'll be dead and buried 50 years before the poor demoralized and bankrupt societies you left in your wake get to burn you in effigy for the thousandth time.

    Jeff,

    I agree completely $10's of billions would have been FAR better spent on labs than all on climate scientists.

    Anyways, don't tell anyone around Los Angeles that AGW is a hoax and climate scientists aren't worth the money poured into them. The raging wildfires around LA today are producing "fire tornados", they are in the news on the internet as I write this. I don't believe these have ever happened before in California, correct me if I'm wrong, but if correct then climate patterns are surely changing. We don't need to spend billions trying to prove beyond a doubt what is causing them to change.

    Bob, "Fire tornadoes" are as common as fire itself. Had you observed the raging inferno that was Yellowstone Park (as I did) you would have seen them firsthand. Imagine those LA fires times 1000 and you'll have the idea. Fire makes its own wind, this is well known and breathless prognostications by budding wannabe starlets posing as "newscasters" in LA won't change that fact.

    I have friends who have lived in LA for over 50 years. They told me many yrs ago that LA has four seasons, Fire, flood, wind and earthquake. Fire always comes first, LA is in a basin and is a desert. Without modern technology it would support about 200K people tops. If the people weren't there, the fires would still prevail, perhaps less of them started by human hands of course.

    As to "climate change" (notice they've dropped "global warming" from the vernacular already?) that is and always HAS been a part of planet earth, with or without humans. Blaming this fire on AGW is specious at best, but of course blaming it on an individual nutcake like Oyler is not only possible but probable.

    Jeff,

    I did read the link, and I have a lot of respect for both Dick Rutan and Harrison Schmitt. Though I'm not sure being a great aircraft designer necessarily qualifies one to evaluate climate data.

    To tell you the truth, I felt kind of barraged by all his slides. Interesting stuff, perhaps damning even, but what's really going on? Hard to form a solid opinion with glimpses like this. What I mean by that is that this stuff all needs solid follow through. When I try to follow things down that is critical of AGW (like Beck and some other papers that have been brought up here) I find really poor science at the end of it. Some of the stuff Rutan says is worthy of follow through. If he's right, he needs a much more annotated version of his presentation to examine.

    When I got to slide #61 (swear to God this is the truth) then I thought "Hmm, now he's slipping up..." and the next comment slide says "This is the most important slide of the talk." He speaks of the water as GHG issue (I'm comfortable as to what's going on there -- it is a multiplier but not a forcer of heating) and the how much CO2 is really from industrial sources issue, also something I've looked into a bit. I'm not trying to say that I'm infallible and Rutan is, but I don't think this is the strongest point to press upon.

    Some of the more outlandish claims of AGW (like Florida flooding) were beaten down. I guess that's OK. Kind of a waste of time.

    I've spoken with too many University researchers who accept AGW to think it's all a simple conspiracy for power and control. (Now maybe these people are believing the climate experts who are themselves co-opted in some way, that is theoretically possible.)

    At the end of the day, the climate will either "behave" or it won't. AGW or no, if the North Pole Ice Cap completely melts in the Summer, people will freak. On the other hand, if the earth cools a lot, then this "crisis" may lose its legs.

    My position is that both sides are encumbered to figure out what's going on. AGW critics may think this is unfair and even impossible (How does one prove a negative?) but unstructured attacks on AGW solely to raise doubt (and which are often not self-consistent) in the long run, does not serve anyone's cause. In the end, we are all on the same team (I hope). If it really is real, then you want to know about it. And if it really is not real, then I want to know about it. (What we can or can't do about it is another matter....)

    As Len said, at the end of the day, I'd have a beer with anyone at this site. We've probably all challenged each other in different ways, and that's no doubt a good thing. I'm starting to believe that most of the talking past each other that one sees might be simply that this is a poor media of exchange. Nuances are not understood.

    Jeff,

    My position is believing in "climate change". Whether it is warming or cooling doesn't matter, the fact is climate patterns are being altered world wide with extremes in weather happening constantly breaking records. If it continues to get worse, we are certainly not in for any picnic no matter where we live.

    I now little about the fire tornados, or about LA's four seasons, so I believe what you are telling us. Isn't it just a bit strange today though how much more severe and widespread the recurring heat waves and wilderness fires are becoming in the western US and British Columbia. And of course the disappearing mountain glaciers and polar ice cap in summer months. It's just as strange to have record cold summers and record snowfalls occurring frequently on this side of North America.

    If the average temperatures collected around the globe are saying an overall cooling is taking place, so what, climate change is an onerous problem that we are not going to wish away by saying a prayer or by doing nothing. If there is any significant chance that man-made emissions into the atmosphere are even partially responsible for the changes going on, then it certainly means to me that curbing them cannot do the climate any harm.

    It all comes down to fixing our economy while curbing emissions. As they said to some of our politicians running for office in Canada’s federal election last year – it’s the economy that needs help, stupid ! Our incumbent prime minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party running for re-election was vehemently denying we were heading into a deep recession right up until last January if you can believe it.

    JimB, did you read my link from 8.31 about following the money? That is the key. Gore says he wants a world government (let me guess where he thinks he belongs in that pantheon), and sees AGW as a way to accomplish that. Like Rutan I'm a bit of a Libertarian, worried about too strong a government. I also worry tremendously about politicians who really believe that they can print all the money they want with no repercussions. I also worry about presidents for life. I DON'T worry about climate change however. My dad was a geologist, he gave me a strong perspective on change and epoch scale events so little hiccups here and there aren't really significant in the big scheme of things. Who's to know the kinds of firestorms the area now called Los Angeles was having before recorded history (ie before the white men arrived)? As Rutan pointed out, averaging the world's temperatures while leaving out Siberia is going to give you a skewed result.

    Your concern about the water vapor slide tells us you've swallowed hook line and sinker the THEORY (NEVER PROVEN) that CO2 FORCES water vapor as a multiplier. This is simply untrue, at least based on FACTS AND EXPERIMENT, there is NO EMPIRICAL evidence whatsoever to support that claim, I don't care how many times it gets repeated. The title of this article is "It's Time for Some Due Diligence on Global Warming Claims" and I've worked hard to stick to that premise.

    Due diligence means you check both the numbers and the data backing them up. You also dig into the motives. We've demonstrated falsified data, refusal to release data, jaundiced motives and more. Your response is that we need a consistent substitute theory? Why? Are WE the ones telling the world all hell is going to break loose unless something is done? We're not claiming the sky is falling.

    As to what Bob is saying, why not? As an engineer I welcome the challenge of curbing emissions while delivering a valuable product (which a priori helps fix the economy). Dismantling our energy infrastructure and crippling our future productivity to MAYBE do something about a POSSIBLE unproven problem doesn't turn me on however.

    Jeff, I knew that something was wrong in LA when I lived there. What I've got to do now is to find out the address of the guy who fired me from my job at Hughes, so that I can give him half of the money that I was going to give the sweetheart who didn't answer my application for graduate studies at the University of Chicago. Of course it's only 500 Swedish crowns altogether, or about 70 dollars, but if I gave them more it would only go to dope and skin magazines. Besides, I don't have any more.

    Maybe I could also get the name of the Dean who expelled me from Illinois Tech. .

    Jeff,

    I'm no fan of cap-and-trade. If we have to tax carbon, then we should just tax it. A carbon tax (there, I said it). For a lot of reasons, I think a cap-and-trade is problematic. It can work OK with some pollutants, but only if the market is local. Yes, there are monied interests in the climate change debate. On both sides.

    I'm a bit of a Libertarian myself. I don't want to see Al Gore running the world, anymore than I like to see all of our sitting Presidents (literally) holding hands with the Saudi King.

    I don't think the CO2/H2O issue is all that controversial. Water can fall out of the air quickly and does. And it can be evaporated into it quickly, and does. It's pretty hard to get CO2 out of the atmosphere. One has a half-life of 30 days, the other 90 years. But let's stick with larger themes for a moment.

    You say that numbers and figures should be checked out. I agree! But as you can see through this thread that I've had to post dozens of entries just to validate the rather (in my opinion) safe claim of CO2 levels, not for the past 600K years, but just for the past 100! If we are on a search for the truth, then we should save our powder for the more valid concerns, not recent CO2 levels.
    This 'deny everything' attitude makes me feel the anti-AGW crowd is not interested in what's really going on, only in derailing AGW. Which leads to the next issue.

    You raise a point that's been raised to me before; why should deniers have a consistent counter-theory? Well, for one, it would make your case sounder; If you argue A to counter a CO2 level claim, then argue ~A to boost a sun illumination claim, it's a pretty specious way to go about things. On a more practical front, if you feel that the AGW crowd is gaining traction, then it may take a consistent counter theory to de-rail it. (Sort of like a film-noire when someone accuses you of murder, and you have 3 days to find the "real" killer. Not fair, but that's the way it goes.)

    I want to also agree with your comment about climate and geological change. Stuff changes! I agree with that too! If nothing else, it might be the height of human arrogance to feel that we can do anything about climate change. But as Don H. is quick to remind us, any climate change issue is magnified by our current population density, at least compared with the technologies we currently employ. Climate change, whether man-made or otherwise, poses a greater risk to us than any meteorite ever will. Meteors come every 60 million years or so. Climate has killed off a number of prominent civilizations in the past few thousand years ("Collapse" by Jared Diamond).

    The problem with the "stuff changes" attitude is that its considerably more problematic way of looking at things in 2009 with a population of 6.5 Billion than it was even in 1900 with a population of 1.5 Billion.

    JimB, you make several salient points. As to the film noire viewpoint that only exists in movies and books. If I am on trial for murder, I'm damn well not interested in doing the government's job and using my limited resources versus their unlimited resources to find the real culprit. That is why our legal system only requires "reasonable doubt". That is also why folks like Rutan are BEGGING to be sued. What they get to bring up in court to defend themselves will be more than enough to meet the reasonable doubt requirement. That is also no doubt why Al Gore refuses to debate ANYONE, he KNOWS he'll lose. Far better to pretend the "debate is already over", the debate that never happened that is

    I couldn't disagree more about your "meteorite" theory. In fact massive extinctions that wiped out over 90% of ALL species on the planet have been proven to have been caused by 'meteorites'. The earth has clearly wobbled on its axis and flip-flopped poles, but even that is far more likely to have come from a near-miss asteroid's gravitational pull than some esoteric magma process. Flipping poles will obviously cause extinction events, and is why we find mastodons in the arctic with full bellies of fresh grass, as they were freeze dried by a cosmic shift. Clearly there wouldn't be oil now in the arctic, if it hadn't been equatorial in some previous epoch. Makes you re-think Rutan's premise, that we'd be far better off spending our money on something that we CAN make a difference about, versus weather, which your hubris statement I completely agree with, humans are simply too small a contributor to the global sources of CO2 to have the kind of requisite leverage even IF the CO2 theories are correct, which hasn't been empirically demonstrated.

    The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is likewise irrelevant even if true, because the causality between CO2 forcing water vapor has never been proven, it is merely a theory. Again, since we don't get to debate the subject with the so-called experts, who hide behind their peer review processes and other political games, we don't get to verify this very critical point. Therefore the so-called 'deniers' are stuck nibbling at the edges, finding flaws with an incredibly well-funded and politically protected class, which refuses to follow the standard precepts of scientific inquiry that has existed for over half a millennium. If this WERE a court of law, they would be thrown out immediately, as every lawyer knows, once caught in one lie, ALL testimony of said witness is suspect and can be discarded.

    The politicians are simply drooling at the prospect of the money they get to control, the favors they will get to bestow (with quid pro quo's hidden from view), and their financial buddies who expect to reap the richest rewards are likewise salivating at their new found bonanza. Energy permeates every element of modern society, and carbon permeates energy. Connecting the dots is trivial, this is a new kind of tax that EVERYONE will pay, every day. America consumes 25% of the world's energy, an oft-quoted statistic, what isn't mentioned in the same breath is that America ALSO produces 25% of the world's goods and services with same. I wouldn't mind if we got responsible spending out of it, but my life experience tells me otherwise.

    Jeff,

    AGW is not a legal issue. It is, if nothing else, an ethical dilemma. How does one act (or not act) in light of incomplete information? To me, phasing out coal-fired plants in favor of Integral Fast Reactors, is basically a no-brainer and would not unduly tax our economies. Coal interests might suffer, but nuclear interests would benefit. (I might be imagining things, but I sense that behind the most strident AGW-deniers tends to be a coal interest. I don't know if that's actually true, but it sure seems that way.)

    Then, even if AGW turns out to be false, our only cost would be that we've revamped a promising energy generation technology that we let languish for 30 years.

    If I were an AGW-denier, I wouldn't be pursuing the stupid stuff (Beck). With respect to the AGW controversy itself, I'd pick my battle much more carefully. I'd find one problem and dig away at it. Not the shotgun approach I see so much. I'd fight much harder for the nuclear option, and explain how nuclear is the only way to replace coal. Basically, I'd fight for nuclear to get a piece of the carbon-free pie.

    Rutan raises lots of points, some of them interesting. Just guessing, I'd say about a third were lame, a third not-so-lame, and a third interesting. These need to be tracked down and sorted for credibility. [An interesting example might be the Siberian weather stations. But some preliminary tracking down indicates it was more like 153 Siberian stations shut down, not "thousands". Rutan implies that all or most of the 10,000 stations shut down were in Siberia. This is not the case. This shows sloppy research on Rutan's part. Does that also mean that ALL of his testimony is suspect and can be discarded??? ;) (ironic wink here for the literally inclined....) ]

    This gets back to my months earlier complaint that debating an AGW-denier is like playing whack-a-mole. Some poorly researched contention is made, and a huge effort is needed to beat it down (Beck). Some months later, it just pops up again....

    I'd take AGW critiques more seriously if they did more self-editing on their part. Another problem with the "simply raise reasonable doubt" approach. By raising "half fast" arguments, you diminish your overall credibility.

    Just some thoughts....

    JimB, first of all I'm pro nuclear. My dad even worked for the AEC and had the highest security clearance a civilian could have. He also worked with Teller, when I was a kid Teller came to our house for dinner. I have no coal bias but I DO have a pro SCIENCE bias, and AGW has left science in the lurch. Your whack a mole argument lacks substance itself. This is NOT an ethical dilemma, in fact they solve those all the time in courts of law so your argument falls apart on its face. Considering the economic upheaval this "dilemma" needs its day in court, and soon.

    Not sure where you're getting your Siberia numbers, here's one link, and another GISS is on that page itself. I DO see a downward trend in stations, from over 15,000 to 5K, according to my link. Just how much did YOU look into this before you cast aspersions on Mr. Rutan? Took me exactly one search and one click to refute you. tsk tsk. BTW, I strongly recommend you ALSO follow the two links on the link I give you to further your education. Also you should ask yourself why the number of reporting stations is going down by a factor of 3 while the amount of FUNDING is going up by a factor of 100?

    Finally you seem to forget that people like Rutan, me, Ed, James and all the rest HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH OUR TIME than constantly dig into AGW problems. THEY are the ones spending $30Billion of OUR money, THEY are the ones who should be doing a legitimate job of it. WE are footing the bill and WE are watching it increase a thousand fold, while THEY refuse to divulge source data, claim they've "lost" data and have been caught RED HANDED faking the data!!!! This is RIDICULOUS and you are in dreamland if you believe they are on the RIGHT SIDE. As Einstein said when the Nazis brought together 100 scientists to denounce him, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough". However in THIS argument, being wrong hasn't even slowed down the AGW crowd, getting caught lying just causes them to work harder to NOT GET CAUGHT, but the lying continues.

    The Beck discussion is interesting, but the skeptic in me continues to worry about what is going on
    here. Recall my breathalyzer discussion and now realize that ALL the samples are calibrated against ESRL's canisters world wide. The CO2 now has an amazing correlation to the reference canisters but I have very LOW confidence in their ability to self-police. In fact their whole methodology smacks of circular logic (see: Logic circular). They calibrate their spectrometers by using calibration canisters, they calibrate the canisters by using their spectrometers.

    Let's rehash shall we? We KNOW they've been lying, we KNOW they've been refusing to release source data, we KNOW they've been destroying "evidence", we KNOW they've got a hidden agenda, we KNOW they've been caught using questionable scientific methods and we KNOW they've resorted to religious intolerance including the word "deniers" straight out of the middle ages to ad hominem attack those questioning their methods and results. WHO ELSE DOES THIS??? Are the string theory guys getting up in arms, did the CMOS scientists start holy wars against the NMOS group? Isn't SCIENCE supposed to be the pursuit of truth?
    Garbage in, Garbage out.

    Corrected links (too bad the edit window is so small and my eyes are so bad)

    Not sure where you're getting your Siberia numbers, here's one link, and another GISS is on that page itself. I DO see a downward trend in stations, from over 15,000 to 5K, according to my link. Just how much did YOU look into this before you cast aspersions on Mr. Rutan? Took me exactly one search and one click to refute you. tsk tsk. BTW, I strongly recommend you ALSO follow the two links on the link I give you to further your education. Also you should ask yourself why the number of reporting stations is going down by a factor of 3 while the amount of FUNDING is going up by a factor of 100?

    Finally you seem to forget that people like Rutan, me, Ed, James and all the rest HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH OUR TIME than constantly dig into AGW problems. THEY are the ones spending $30Billion of OUR money, THEY are the ones who should be doing a legitimate job of it. WE are footing the bill and WE are watching it increase a thousand fold, while THEY refuse to divulge source data, claim they've "lost" data and have been caught RED HANDED faking the data!!!! This is RIDICULOUS and you are in dreamland if you believe they are on the RIGHT SIDE. As Einstein said when the Nazis brought together 100 scientists to denounce him, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough". However in THIS argument, being wrong hasn't even slowed down the AGW crowd, getting caught lying just causes them to work harder to NOT GET CAUGHT, but the lying continues.

    The Beck discussion is interesting, but the skeptic in me continues to worry about what is going on here. Recall my breathalyzer discussion and now realize that ALL the samples are calibrated against ESRL's canisters world wide. The CO2 now has an amazing correlation to the reference canisters but I have very LOW confidence in their ability to self-police. In fact their whole methodology smacks of circular logic (see: Logic circular). They calibrate their spectrometers by using calibration canisters, they calibrate the canisters by using their spectrometers.

    Jeff: "The politicians are simply drooling at the prospect of the money they get to control, the favors they will get to bestow (with quid pro quo's hidden from view), and their financial buddies who expect to reap the richest rewards are likewise salivating at their new found bonanza." -- This theme appears to underlie almost all AGW denial, at the base. It's a basic mistrust in government, most strident in the USA. Why that may be is immaterial, but it's unfortunate that a scientific issue which IS of real concern worldwide has to get bound up in that sort of politics.

    I would ask Jeff and others. If in fact, that single issue could be gotten past or remediated, would your opinion regarding AGW than become more agnostic?

    Jeff,

    Check the Jan. 7, 12:13 pm comment from your own link.

    As for your comment on ESRL's measurement regimen, they are finding LOWER values than Misra did, which is the main critique by Beck.

    Len,

    I don't think it's (only) about gov't interference. It's about interference in general. AGW is considered an affront to basic liberty in general. I can sympathize with that. Why shouldn't someone be able to burn as much coal as they darn well please? Well, because we have so darn many people on the planet, that's why. CO2 levels is probably the first pollutant (OK, I don't think it's a pollutant, per se; it's an emittent of an undesirable level) that we can't just brush under the rug. We can't dump it somewhere we won't see it, and we can't dilute in the ocean so we won't notice it. It's an unpleasant reminder that we are living in a limited world and that galls many sensibilities. (Including mine, btw.)

    For any doubters out there claiming that GHG's may not be capable of causing significant rises in earth temperatures, I suggest simply studying as much as is known about the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.

    "marked by the most rapid and significant climatic disturbance of the Cenozoic Era. A sudden global warming event ... is associated with changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation, the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera, and a major turnover in mammalian life on land which is coincident with the emergence of many of today's major mammalian orders." -- Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia

    "The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) has been attributed to a sudden release of carbon dioxide and/or methane. .... The initiation of the PETM is marked by an abrupt decrease in the 13C proportion of marine and terrestrial sedimentary carbon (1, 6), which is consistent with the rapid addition of >1500 gigatons of 13C-depleted carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide and/or methane, into the hydrosphere and atmosphere (7)." Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Opening of the Northeast Atlantic - Science Magazine

    Len: Why should we look at your links and quotes when you refuse to look at anyone else's?

    Len:

    As I pointed out to you back in may Gore lied about CO2 increasing before temperature. A temperature spike always comes first. These so-called scientists you are quoting are lying like Gore did. Ask yourself, what would cause an increase of methane or CO2 without a solar spike. A large volanis eruption only has a two or three year effect on temperature.

    Dennis: Very good article, I completely agree with you.

    No Bob, you're all wet. It was SUV driving brontosauruses! ALL global warming is man-made, don't you know anything? I don't care if man wasn't even a zygote then, it is all Man's fault and don't you forget it! :_-)

    There are no Brontosauruses. It's an outdated term. Al Gore just snapped his fingers, and the scientists made it go away....

    JimB, your PROOF is an anonymous poster? Now what, I have to go back to the FTP site, and reexamine his logic and find his mistake? And/or have to break the code of how files were archived in the FTP site to begin with? How about going to the OTHER link that lets you see a movie and watch thousands of dots disappearing in Siberia? Of course that one now requires you to register so they can put you on a list of potential pogrom victims down the road, for the heresy of looking into the facts.

    Here's a picture from government data sources:


    Averaging the world's weather is a lot like getting an average of the phone book. In fact it is SO problematic as to be almost worthless. Here's an excellent report on that topic.. Of course, not only are we averaging the numbers in the phone book, we're also leaving out thousands of pages of data, and picking specific neighborhoods. Down the rabbit hole we go, curiouser and curiouser...

    and voila, I fixed the formatting problem you created earlier, view the source on my link above to find the secret how. :)

    James: 'cause I'm right.

    Jeff: You should have warned us that the source of your graphic above is a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

    "Ross McKitrick is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph and Senior Fellow at The Fraser Institute."

    "In terms of present hot topics in public policy, the (Fraser) Institute opposes government regulatory action as a possible solution to global warming. They argue that regulations have "the potential to impose high costs on Canadian citizens and drastically increase the regulatory state, while providing little or no environmental benefit" -- Founded with funding from a large forest products producer to oppose the labour-oriented NDP provincial government in BC. Present funding sources not disclosed, claims "charitable".

    "Critics of the Institute and other similar agenda-driven think tanks have claimed the Fraser Institute's reports, studies and surveys are usually not subject to standard academic peer review or the scholarly method. Institute supporters claims their research is peer-reviewed both by internal and external experts.[5] The Institute's Environmental Indicators (6th Ed) has an academic article devoted to its flaws: McKenzie and Rees (2007), "An analysis of a brownlash report", Ecological Economics 61(2-3), pp505-515."

    "In 1999, the Fraser Institute was attacked by health professionals and scientists[citation needed] for sponsoring two conferences on the tobacco industry entitled "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." Critics charged the Institute was associating itself with the tobacco industry's many attempts to discredit authentic scientific work."

    Sounds like ad hominem to me Len, you can't do any better than that?

    Len Gould has a last name Gould, which is a known name carried by Nazi's in WWII, therefore Len GOULD is a Nazi! Sounds pretty stupid when you use the substitution method in your syllogisms doesn't it? McKitrick and McIntyre were the co-authors of the PEER REVIEWED PAPERS that TOTALLY DEMOLISHED THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH! I'M SHOUTING IN CAPITALS BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU MIGHT NOT PAY ATTENTION! This was BEFORE he was invited to join the Fraser institute. However in YOUR world view no dissent is allowed, in the good old days I guess you could burn heretics at the stake eh?

    It wouldn't matter if he came from Harvard, you've NEVER accepted ANYONE'S statements that disagreed with your religion. Go back and re-read the page, and note that all the data came from government sources. Maybe your argument is with the governments? Meantime instead of doing an ad hominem attack and avoiding the point, why not address it for a change and explain how we can have a valid average when numerous data points have been taken away from the population. Even the gov't sources admit they have less data and that they've "skewed" the numbers from the reporting stations to "make up for it". This is SCIENCE?

    Jeff,

    The picture/chart is not from gov't sources. McKitrick says himself he made the graph, and he averaged the temps himself. The chart (and you) imply these are actual gov't ave. temps, but they are not. He made no attempt to normalize the data due to missing stations.

    And they didn't demolish the Hockey Stick graph. They corrected it. It now looks more like a scythe. Still going up....

    The data BEHIND the chart is from gov't sources. He didn't "normalize" the data the way the government has to make a point, the point being that the gov't is SIMPLY GUESSING. They likewise have a drop-off and theirs is not so severe, the only difference. However you're dancing around the point, said point being WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS MISSING DATA?

    They could further demolish the hockey stick, but Mann et al REFUSE TO RELEASE THEIR SOURCE DATA!!!! Mann has at times claimed it was too difficult to reconstruct, that it was lost, that is has been deleted, that it would violate confidentiality to release it and on and on. Bottom line, they aren't able to further demolish because being LEGITIMATE researchers, they want to work from facts, facts they aren't able to get because they are being STONEWALLED at every step, stonewalled because they are INTELLIGENT and showing that the IPCC has feet of clay and a head full of... sand?

    Now if the numbers were LEGITIMATE, wouldn't Mann et al be happy to relinquish them? The fact that they are withholding evidence is proof that they have something to hide, and since the only thing they have to hide is the truth, it doesn't bode well for their side, your side.

    If this WERE a court of law, they would be held in contempt for refusing to release the data, and once the data gets to see the REAL light of day, we could ALL look at it and draw our own conclusions. But this is like the old Soviet Union, who censored books and told you what they said, never allowing you to read them yourselves. Len would have all dissenters join Solzhenitsyn in the gulags, but I think you're a bit more reasonable, beers or no. ;)

    Then why didn't McKitrick show the real data? If he was a legitimate researcher?

    I mean, I guess he is, as far as that goes, but McKitrick and Beck exhibit just as much sloppiness as you claim the scientists do.

    I'm not dancing around the point; I'm saying I haven't seen the real data.

    I don't know how to express this any more adamantly, but this "just raise plausible deniability" approach is poison to your cause. I'm not saying you need to develop a complete counter-explanation, but your counter claims should be framed clearly with solid data. Instead McKitrick's faux graph (with no adjustment due to station loss at all) is passed around and even taken up by Rutan. These shoddy findings end up poisoning members of your own side. I don't know what they do about the missing data. Did McKitrick trying plotting temperatures using just the retained stations? What happens then? Oh, we don't know, because he didn't bother making a graph of that.....

    In the end, there is no excuse for the data not being released, but it is easy to see why the traditional researchers may feel it will just be abused and manipulated to some odd end that they would have to end up wasting time explaining. I can't walk into a Medical school and get a cadaver to play with either. That's obvously because the medical profession is conspiring against us....

    Jim,
    Are you purposely being obtuse again? The data is available both from the sources themselves (listed ON the website) AND the spreadsheet McKitrick gives you here . If you know how to operate Excel sheets, you'll realize there are tabs on the bottom, go to the furthest right tab for all the data he was able to get. Unlike YOUR side, he has divulged 100%, his method, his data and his results. YOUR side only provides "their" results, with NO explanation of how they were contrived, other than to say they are "proprietary". This includes the models, the analyses, the statistics, the source data, the list goes on and on of what they WON'T divulge.

    If medical schools started telling me that drinking water caused death, I'd damn well go after their cadavers to find out what the hell they were talking about, or following sound medical advice I'd look for a second opinion. From my links previously you'll see that CRU claimed EXACTLY your argument to deny McKitrick and others access to their data, then when REAL PhD Climate Researchers asked for the SAME data, they came up with other lame excuses not to release the data, including claiming it was part of (non-existent) confidentiality agreements between governments. LAME LAME LAME. The researchers aren't afraid of explaining how they came to their conclusions, I know DOZENS of researcher who would be THRILLED to have an audience want to know how they came to their conclusions. Nope, these researchers are TERRIFIED of being caught with their pants down, because they know their data and methods can't stand the light of day. Period.

    Jeff, reasonable researchers and statisticians have to deal with missing data points every day. There are many legitimate ways of dealing with them. McKitrick made no effort to handle the missing stations at all, so his graph is MEANINGLESS. It could have been meaningful if he had done some more work, but he did not. He may have divulged his method, but if his method is wrong, then he hasn't accomplished anything or than to raise doubt in the minds of those who want doubt to be raised at all costs, including, apparently, scientific integrity.

    CRU shouldn't make such arguments, but you certainly give them plenty of reason to make them. I'm still stinking from going through the mess that Beck made of old CO2 measurements.

    Why the blankety blank should McKitrick "handle" missing stations at all? You've got your blinders so firmly on your noggin that you've gone completely BLIND! Ed Reid and others have notified you for YEARS that the satellite data wasn't corresponding with the terrestrial data. The satellite data actually said it was cooling, while the terrestrial said it was warming. NOW we see that there are THOUSANDS of missing data points, and why is that? An arbitrary rule at climate central that the only "valid" measurement sites are those that go back 20 years. WHY? That "rule" GUARANTEES a diminishing population (n) of data points since new data points aren't POSSIBLE.

    The fact is, with modern technology this is a TRIVIAL problem. For the BILLIONS they are spending, they could spend literally PENNIES to solve this! There is NO REASON NEW SITES CAN'T GO UP! The 20 yr rule is BS! I give up, this is what you wanted, for intelligent people to throw up their arms and say this is not worth the headache, therefore you "win".

    So you can keep your falsified data, your falsified methods, your falsified rules and regulations, falsified results, your hiding of sources and data, all in the name of your holy priesthood of AGW. You win, didn't need science at all, just obstinacy. Congratulations!

    JimB: How can anyone take you seriously when you defend Mann's hockey stick??? It has been THOROUGHLY and UTTERLY discredited.

    James,

    You seem to read what you want to see. I said (quote)

    "And they didn't demolish the Hockey Stick graph. They corrected it. It now looks more like a scythe. Still going up...."

    The new graph can be found here.

    How they got "here" shown here

    Best quote from the article: And y'know, it's probably correct that it doesn't "matter" whether the truncated Tiljander (and probably a number of other series) are used upside-down or not. The fact that such errors don't "matter" surely says something not only about the quality of workmanship but of the methodology itself.

    yup, with YOUR team, errors don't count, whereas as far as the "deniers" are concerned, well better be accurate to the thousandth place past the decimal point. LOL

    And JimB, your Wiki link had this nice discussion in its bibliography at the bottom. Note the letter AND the comments. As several commenters stated, the role and responsibilities of scientists in this debacle has been sorely tested, and found lacking.

    I'll just post a few snippets here: Having tracked the various debates and discussions at Real Climate and Climate Audit and looked at the 4th Assessment Report I am nowhere near as optimistic as you appear to be that "normal science" will break out any time soon. As a researcher in a non-climate area I am stunned at (a) the lack of replication, (b) the tortured and frequently questionable use of certain statistical methods, (c) the overall underspecification of statistical models given the significance of the predictions being made and (d) the unwillingness of researchers to essentially treat anyone outside their immediate field with common courtesy. I hope you are right and I am wrong - but wishing does not make it so.
    ... and...

    While I agree that the hockey stick has decayed, I am somewhat stunned by Von Storch and Zorita's new found pollyanish view of paleoclimate science culture.

    As they well know, the hockey stick debate advanced in spite of intolerance and obstructionism by their peers. It advanced because of two investigators outside of the walls of climate science (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 & 2005) relentlessly investigated, and published pointed critiques that outraged the science's gatekeepers. And then it continued to advance because a few vetted "non-skeptic" climate researchers (starting with Von Storch and Zorita) were willing to risk the firestorm to challenge the methods behind the stick's orthodoxy.

    And finally it advanced because of unwelcome politics - a Congressional investigation and request that made scientists confront the issues.

    More disappointingly, the authors also seemed to have forgotten that the hockey stick was just the immediate symptom, that both they and M&M had raised more fundamental issues regarding paleo-climate science core culture - the lack of full disclosure, the acceptance of journal unenforced policy, the lack of informed and robust peer reviews, etc

    What then has really changed? Von Storch, et. al. have recently gotten fairer hearings, and they are back within the walls of acceptable opinion. None the less, the cultural practices that led to this crisis have NOT changed, and that Von Storch and Zorita found it necessary to studiously ignore mentioning the two researchers that are most responsible for the stick's decay suggest they know the walls remain, and the gatekeepers are vigilent.

    Every single thing I've said concerning the sloppy science and methodology stands, you've had zero rebuttal of substance, I've proven my points over and over and you still persist in your delusions. The strongest argument you can make in defense is that UNPAID VOLUNTEERS WORKING IN THEIR SPARE TIME (!!!) aren't meeting the vastly higher levels of quality you apparently demand of THEM versus the FULLY PAID, so-called professional climate scientists spending billions of our dollars and their PROVEN inferior quality "work".

    How many beers would I have to buy you and Len before we can kill off those obviously malfunctioning brain cells of yours? Haven't you ever heard of the survival of the fittest theory regarding slow weak brain cells? ;)

    JC: You gave some links to support your views, well here are some more and very good ones:

    co2science.org: the opposite, mirror site to ralclimate.org

    icecap.us: has commentaries and links to worthy news items and scientific articles, as well as an excellent staff. It has many excellent charts and graphs.

    adognamedkyoto.com: Nice blog site, well organized with comments and links to climate news items.

    DM: excellent article, covers the many points I continuously run into on on the web. Our governments have been taken over by the enviro-industrial complex. It happened during the Clinton administration and was largely facilitated by Al Gore and his buddies like Hansen. Now the Obomber socialists see this as the golden opportunity to facilitate control.

    All: What may perpetuate king coal is a breakthrough technology called 'carbon fuel cell' by a NZ researcher. It is able to extract 2x the energy over regular combustion methods. That solves the mercury and sulfur emissions. It make it easier to sequester the CO2 for those of you like Len who think carbon emissions are driving climate warming. I don't see that and there are several articles that show that CO2 has an upper forcing boundary of 350ppm. It's like a the log power formula for amp gain for those who are aware of stereo performance- ie- to double the volume you have to double the power gain.

    Personally I think that trying to integrate solar or wind to the grid is a waste of resources since there has yet to be a cost effective way of storing the generated power to compensate for non demand characteristics of wind and solar. I think they would be better suited as powering fuel generating plants for transportation. I have yet to see a battery that competes with fossil fueled vehicles. It's either too expensive or has a shortage of resources like lithium batteries.

    Perhaps people will have to settle for compressed air- fuel assisted vehicles and rent long range vehicles for long distance travel. Then I've seen maglev shuttle proposals for local city travel. It's not a train but a local taxi modal that seats 8 or more passengers. Seems sensible and more flexible than a mass maze of asphalt roads and driveways. People will have to think on a more modular housing approach for the mainstream. And there should be room for more parks with a change in law enforcement attitudes to stop coddling the criminals and deadbeats.

    But the final solution would still have to be advanced forms of nuclear with fuel and waste recycling and fuel breeding. That is unless a fusion breakthrough is archived. People need to get over the fear mongers of the nuclear demon, it's no more of a demon than oil and coal or other energy source. In fact, what I thought was a demon turned out to be an imp.

    I found that in any mandate schemes, because of the lobbying taint and that most politicians are very technically deficient, they are likely to bomb out down the line. Like they say, the best intentions are paved in gold as presented by ENRON and big corn growers with ethanol. Too often the government can make it profitable for investors and developers without making it cost effective for consumers or taxpayers. The government increasingly is claiming it there for constituent welfare at the expense of real individual alternatives.

    What ever choices are considered people have to consider the exorbitant costs of being very Utopian clean and green versus warm, well fed, clothed and satisfied. Some where in the middle there is a happy medium. The earth does not depend on Gaia and Gaia doesn't wear a rainbow suit. Gaia is not here for humans, it just exists at the graces of the Earth, Sun, and Universe. Humans have got to learn to deal with realities and not contrived euphemisms of sham.

    JimB: How can I take anyone seriously who cites wikipedia as authoritative on this???

    James,

    Here

    Also interesting here

    JimB: You accept RealClimate.org as authoritative? You are a STITCH!!!

    There's something funnier here James. Notice here we have Hansen quoting Hansen to confirm Hansen's opinion as an authoritative source! Recursive definitions anyone? Endless Loop see Loop Endless. Loop Endless see Endless Loop. LOL

    You gotta admire the heuvos of a "scientist" who quotes his OWN work to support his own conclusions! Of course Mann did the same thing on Realclimate.propaganda.org, quoting himself as an authoritative source to quell the debate. Sure wish they'd have let ME do that when I was in debate 30+ yrs ago, I'd have been national champ!

    James: Agreed, nothing on Wikipedia is ITSELF authoritative, however it often carries references to authoritative material which is valuable.

    Jeff: It may be an ad hominem to point out sources of funding and alegiances of particular references, but is also clearly relevant and factual, unlike yours.

    Len: Then JimB should have cited what and who he was referencing for both Wikipedia and RealClimate.org.

    As far as ad hominem attacks, we could very easily cite the 'nefarious' sources of funding for the green side of the debate. For example, were you aware that Enron and its executives donated far more to the NRDC than they ever did to politicians? They did so to advance their cap and trade agenda.

    James: You are picking at nits. Both the wiki and realclimate links have a wealth of supporting links of references of published works.

    You make the claim that the "hockey stick" is "utterly discredited" (no references there, either). For your benefit, I merely made the effort to point out that the graph had been corrected, and I'm barraged with nit picking about references, which could be clearly seen in the the links I provided to you for your convenience. Pardon the h*ll out of me.....

    Jeff: Though I'm no huge fan of Hansen (he seems to be a pompous *ss) [hmm, lots of asterisks today...] I dare say he will be cited much more than E. G. Beck (unless for the purposes of discrediting him further).

    Jim et al,

    Did you guys read yet the recent article published on this site Sept. 4th by Bob Ashworth called "CFC Ozone Destruction - Cause of Recent Global Warming!" Pretty convincing. If it's accurate the long debate on CO2 being behind AGW would become frivolous, and all the looming measures for imposing carbon cap&trade or carbon taxes would be rendered useless for addressing climate change.

    Of course there would still be good reasons to curb other nasty emissions from coal, and also wean us off oil dependency.

    JimB: The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited, and it has not been resurrected or even corrected. It is DEAD. I refused to hunt up citations because why should I do something you refuse to do? I was making a point which has been lost on you apparently. I am not going to go wading through citations when the only work you have done is post a link to a website with no explanation.

    As for Hansen, the only relevant point about him now is that he has admitted exaggerating his claims. Nuff said.

    James: "The hockey stick has been thoroughly discredited" -- absolutely untue. I've had this debate with other much more capable deniers on other blogs and won it hands down. Their agreed final position was acceptance of the statement "Well, after all corrections which you can impose on it, it still looks an awful lot like a certain implement used to bat a puck about on ice".

    "Such an approach produces a small reduction of amplitude over the pre-20th- century period (possibly related to calibration overfitting), but the temporal structure exhibits a clear single-bladed hockey stick shape in the 20th century (Figure 2)."

    "The shape of a single-bladed “hockey stick”-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework (general algorithm and proxy data). Questions of potential loss of downward amplitude in the MBH method remain, but the evidence developed here from the perspective of the proxy data themselves suggests such losses may be smaller than those shown in other recent work.

    Acknowledgements We are grateful to L. Mearns and the NCAR Weather and Climate Impact Assessment Science Initiative for support, and acknowledge D. Nychka and C. Tebaldi of NCAR for statistical and programming aid.We are also thankful for comments by four referees, which have greatly helped in improving the thoroughness and clarity of the text. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, USA."

    Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
    Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence Eugene R.Wahl · Caspar M. Ammann

    Len: You could never win a debate because you don't debate.

    JameC, read this to get the background on the MBH (Mann, Bradley Hughes) "study". Especially around pages 4 and 5, wherein we discover A) that Mann had NO IDEA where the data was when asked, B) that the IPCC NEVER validated ANY of the claims (even though they used the graph and ONLY this graph no less than 5 times in their reports).

    These climate "researchers" backing each other up when challenged is no different than the decades of physicians closing rank together to protect their malpractice brethren. Right now they are all swilling from the same trough, so naturally they want the slop to continue flowing into their piggy bellies and that ain't a gonna happen if they suddenly start telling the truth.

    I once watched two very experienced and knowledgeable laboratory technicians reading inclined water manometers to five decimal places during a test of a rotary meter. It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud at their antics and spoiling their fun. What was not funny was the relatively inexperienced engineer who was recording their readings to five decimal places. He was being paid to know better than that.

    I think of that event every time I see an update to the global surface temperature record and the global surface temperature anomaly. Taking data from sites known not to be in compliance with recommended location, installation and maintenance criteria and estimated to be subject to measurement errors of multiple degrees C and then (mis)using that data to report temperature anomalies to two decimal place "accuracy" would be every bit as funny as the earlier incident if the issue were as simple as the sample calibration of a rotary meter, rather than the reconstruction of the global energy economy.

    With regard to the treatment of missing data - missing data is missing. It might be missing because it was not collected, or because it was not collected timely, or because the instrument failed, or for a variety of other reasons. However, it is still missing and unavailable for inclusion in the analysis. Historical analysis or statistical analysis might be used to estimate what the data point(s) might have been had they been collected, but they cannot "create" data points that do not exist.

    I have difficulty accepting criticism of a data analyst who merely analyzes the data available and points out the existence of any missing data. I would, however, entertain criticism of those who attempt to "fill in the blanks" in the data record with synthesized numbers intended to represent what the real data points might have been had they been available. The typical approach to dealing with the real potential for missing data points is sensor redundancy. This is particularly the case when the value of the data, or the cost of the missing data, is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the redundant sensors. (While NASA "flies" redundant sensors, it apparently can't be bothered to use them on the ground.)

    There are two recent examples which I believe are instructive. In the first, several all time high temperatures were recorded for Honolulu, HI this summer before it was determined that the sensor with which they were "measured" had failed. Those records still stand, despite the fact that statistical analysis determined that the high temperatures had probably not actually occurred. In the second incident, record low temperatures (below freezing) were reported in Key West, FL this summer. Those records have been deleted, because it was "intuitively obvious to the casual observer" that the temperatures reported had not actually occurred and that the instrument had obviously failed. It is patently easier to admit an error and correct the error when it is very obvious that the error occurred and it is impossible to "paper over" the error and hope nobody notices. However, that does not excuse failing to admit an error when it has been detected.

    With regard to Michael Mann and Hadley CRU, the only thing worse than missing and inaccurate data is "access refused" data. Refusal to provide public access to data collected with public funding should be actionable; and, it should immediately result in termination of public funding.

    Ed, notice they kept the "high" temp and deleted the "low" one. That keeps the "global warming" pig in the oven a while longer eh? As usual, thank you for your polite and instructive restatements of the obvious. I have a tendency to abhor mendaciousness on the part of publicly paid servants of all kinds, but especially scientists who ought to know better. I have a harder time understanding Jim and Len's continual support of these miscreants while holding "deniers" to a considerably higher standard. And of course to defend their positions they quote an "authoritative" site like Realclimate.org, which was FOUNDED by Mann and his colleagues, and furthermore CENSORS all competent dissenting posts immediately. Of course incompetent ones are kept as straw man arguments so they can make the claim that all "deniers" are idiots. Pretty pathetic if you ask me and I couldn't agree more on the removal of funding ESPECIALLY considering our economic condition right now and the deficits this government is laboring under. sigh...

    Jeff:

    Show me a strong, solid, competent paper that dissents on global warming. (Not a post, a paper). I'd love to see it. I'm not even asking you, I'm begging you. From a respectable journal. (I'll even allow Energy & The Environment, though I shouldn't.) For reference, the Beck paper, and the paper the Bob Ashworth brought up some time ago do NOT fit that criteria in my book.

    Edward,

    CO2 levels rising from 320 ppm to 385 ppm in 50 years is not a reading to 5 decimal places. If you think the antics of Mann and Hansen are funny, then you should read Beck sometime. He will positively have you in stitches.

    JimB: You have a lot of nerve asking for "papers", not "posts". I mean, you cite anonymous posters on blogs as authoritative. LOL. Fyi, Beck was peer reviewed, your claim otherwise notwithstanding.

    Ed: Your point on decimal points is well taken. What these 'warmers' do not understand is that the measurement error exceeds the change in global temperatures. Most of the methods they use, eg Mann, do not even know what their measurement error is. How can they possibly come to a conclusion???

    James: If this is what you consider a debate, then count me out, definitely. I reference a legitimately published peer-reviewed scientific paper which addresses EVER issue you guys have raised in re. "hockey stick" nd proves you're all either wrong or making much noise ove miniscule issues, yet get NO RESPONSES either addressing or refuting.

    Done! I'll simply not address this any further, now or in future! Next time anyone raises the "hockey stick" for debate, i'll simply call them out without further refutation. And if you want to call that "not debating", fine. Tough.

    What really gets my goat is that this is not the first time for this specific issue with these specific people. Again I say, ENOUGH!!

    Jim Beyer,

    0.000385 - 0.000320 = 0.000065

    The difference is, in fact, in the fifth and sixth decimal places. :-)

    Ed

    Ed,

    We techies prefer to look at the relative difference, and in this case this is 6.5/385 = 1.68%. In scientific measurement terms, 1.68% can be usually be measured with reasonably high accuracy unless the system's absolute measurement errors are comparable in size.

    Ed,

    Touche. But they can measure CO2 accurate to 0.1 ppm or so, so not quite the same problem. But I think you know that, hence the wink.

    Jim, Let me re-word your "statement" for the elucidation of everyone else reading this.

    "I've already made up my mind and NOTHING you produce will change it, and to cement my prejudice, I'll establish my own Jim Crow rules concerning this to make sure that even if I were to lose on logical or factual bases, I'll win on procedural ones and therefore keep my prejudicial opinion and keep my mind closed".

    First you ask for a "strong, solid paper". Of course the definitions of strong and solid apparently are up to YOU, and needless to say no matter WHAT paper I produce, you can always fall back on lack of "strength and solidity" by your OWN imagination, so that is an impossible task. Then to make it even MORE impossible, you demand that it be in a peer reviewed publication, even though we've shown the peer review process is tainted, politicized and worse. Had you even READ the article I just posted you'd have seen how Nature for instance who committed the egregious sin of having Mann TEAM members on the peer review committee of Mann's paper, compounded their hypocrisy by first refusing to publish McIntyre's rebuttal, then lowering the word limit to 800, then 500 then discarding it out of hand as being "too complex" for that short of a document. So Nature is now the sort of peer-reviewed publication that meets your HIGH standards? What a joke!

    Fact is, like Len, you'll just disparage the source; no matter the source, disparage the education; even if they're from Harvard (as Len did); disparage the results without knowing or understanding them. Unlike Len, there is the slightest chance you'll actually READ the paper, Len on the other hand is completely hopeless, he obviously never clicks on a link and his reading skills are suspect at best. I would have hoped he'd have learned something approaching critical thought during his education, obviously that never happened. Furthermore his understanding of debate is flawed at best, he believes he can ignore every argument the other side makes, post his own flawed rebuttals and hide with his fingers in his ears with his eyes closed when anything comes up that disagrees with his world view. Mores the pity, because a person like that is unsalvageable.

    Notwithstanding your obvious and pernicious bias towards facts I'll bite and give you TEN papers (9 peer reviewed) to ignore and then claim there is "no proof" for the other side. Now Len, I know darn good and well you are incapable of reading ANY of the papers and your fingers will fly to Google to look for someone ELSE'S rebuttal to Dr. Jennifer's post, and since it has been up there a year there are plenty. But I and others will not be impressed by your pretense of scholarship, if you were in my class you'd get a well-deserved F because you've never done your own homework.

    I reiterate the title of this thread, "It's Time for Some Due Diligence on Global Warming Claims". The fact is, it is long PAST time for due diligence on global warming claims and this discussion has done a pretty good job of airing those concerns. CO2 was hypothesized as a culprit, and found guilty without a trial, meantime the prosecutor's office ignored multiple other potential culprits. This would be sad of and by itself but the palliative measures are themselves beneath contempt by ANY consideration, not the least of which is a lack of effect at a tremendous economic cost to society as a whole (albeit substantially increasing the wealth of already wealthy individuals and corporations). This is your side and you're welcome to it.

    Bob,

    Actually, it's 65/320, or 20.3%. Easily measurable, I agree. :-)

    This "techie" was more focused on tweaking Jim just a bit. :-)

    Ed

    The corollary to the 10 Best Papers, the 10 Worst Climate Research Papers. Yup, you got a great team there me buckos. LOL

    Jim,

    Temperature can also be easily measured to 0.1C. Oral and rectal thermometers typically measure temperature accurately to 0.1F, assuming they are properly inserted into the proper cavity. ;-)

    My principal issue with the surface temperature record is that NCDC established a set of criteria for measuring stations intended to assure that the measured values were affected as little as possible by direct insolation, heat storage, local heat sources, etc. NCDC then created a set of criteria for estimating the error potential which would result from various deviations from the recommended measuring station design, location and installation criteria. The application of neither set of criteria represents either brain science or rocket surgery.

    However, the measuring station surveys conducted by a group of volunteers and reported through the Surface Stations Project, currently covering ~80% of the US measuring stations, have an estimated average measurement error potential exceeding 2C. Most of this error potential is the result of locating measuring stations on the roofs of buildings, on or adjacent to concrete pads, gravel beds, roads, parking lots, too close to buildings, air conditioners and heat pumps, gas grills, incinerators, airport runways, etc. or on the grounds of sewage treatment plants.

    Much of the deviation between the surface temperature record and the satellite temperature record is the result of these error sources, generally describable as the Urban Heat Island effect. Largely, the surface temperature record confirms that the areas around heat sources are warmer than areas away from such sources, all other things equal. Frankly, I don't find that surprising at all.

    See www.surfacestations.org for a more extensive discussion.

    Ed

    Jeff,

    Thanks for the light reading. Frankly, I don't know when or if I will get through them. But at least I bookmarked them.

    I just picked one at random, the one by Misckolczi. This turned out to be the paper that purports that only 1.84 cm of CO2 (or thereabouts) can create warming; any more doesn't do very much. It challenges the conventional notions of the greenhouse effect. [I'm paraphrasing, but I think the gist is accurate.] Well, if nothing else, it is interesting to see where that rumor came from.

    I could cite critiques of it. I could mention that's it's only been cited by one other publication. I could mention that most people don't understand what he is trying to say, other than questioning well-founded notions [Kirchoff's Law, the VERY novel application of the virial theorem] that have been accepted and in place long before the global warming controversy. He seems to be tearing up lots of train track here. That makes me a little suspicious. [That's not necessarily damning; Claude Shannon tore up a lot of train track too; but his paper on Information Theory was readily embraced. Not so much with Misckolczi.]

    But I'm not sure what I can say to you that would be meaningful, other than my own opinion. At this point, it's not failing the OBVIOUS smell tests, like Beck's did, but I would be lying if I said I was someone who could readily assess this one easily and fully. It would takes weeks and months to do so.

    My best bet would be to see his assessments of warming on Venus and Mars, which he does mention. But he also clearly distinguishes between clear and cloudy atmospheric warming, so the thick clouds that keep Venus so warm may have little interest to his theory as he presents it.

    Realistically, the best recourse is to examine the critiques and approvals of others. And that really leaves us back in the same boat, doesn't it? I could mention that his paper is itself poorly cited, but you have your global-warming-conspiracy-by-scientists to fall back on.

    It is a quandary.....

    Jim, please re-read the article, starting on page 5. Instead of QUESTIONING Kirchhoff's Law he shows how his system is needed to UPHOLD IT! I'm not surprised that more people don't understand this paper, "more" people (especially most so-called climate "scientists") are not intelligent enough to follow it. I've been thinking you were intelligent and you missed a key salient point. Perhaps this link will simplify things enough for you? In fact if you truly wish to become educated, start here at the beginning as Dr. Stockwell puts the subject in less mathematical terms.

    The popular explanation of the greenhouse effect as the result of the LW
    atmospheric absorption of the surface radiation and the surface heating by the
    atmospheric downward radiation is incorrect, since the involved flux terms
    ( AA and ED ) are always equal. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect may
    better be explained as the ability of a gravitationally bounded atmosphere to
    convert F0+P0 to OLR in such a way that the equilibrium source function
    profile will assure the radiative balance (F0+P0=OLR), the validity of the
    Kirchhoff law ( ED=SUA), and the hydrostatic equilibrium (SU= 2EU).
    Although an atmosphere may accommodate the thermal structure needed for the
    radiative equilibrium, it is not required for the greenhouse effect. Formally, in
    the presence of a solid or liquid surface, the radiation pressure of the thermalized
    photons is the real cause of the greenhouse effect, and its origin is related to
    the principle of the conservation of the momentum of the radiation field. (pg 9)

    My main problem with the simplistic greenhouse effect is the assumption of essentially infinitely energetic IR particles and an infinite atmosphere without gravitational effects. Might work in the never-never land of higher mathematics, but not here in the real "world". As I've argued previously with Len and others, without proper boundary conditions these models are less than useless. At least Misckolczi attempted to put some order to this and unlike the AGW crowd has been fully forthcoming with his data and methods.

    Due to an editing problem, the quote above didn't get attributed to its author, Misckolczi. I didn't quote from Stockwell who uses more approachable language. However this isn't that difficult Misckolczi clearly identifies his three components: Energy Conservation, Virial Theroem and the 3rd which is Kirchhoff's Law. Remember, as described, there is NO empirical evidence whatsoever of the greenhouse effect that is used as an underpinning of the AGW camp. Their models (following their greenhouse theory) continually FAIL to produce meaningful results, running either forward (to predict current climate) nor backward (when all inputs are known). Any THINKING person would understand this constitutes a flawed model and would revisit it. Instead the AGW camp closes ranks and starts screaming "denier" at the infidels who dare to question them. Tsk Tsk. Is this what SCIENCE has devolved to?

    If what M says is true, I'm not sure how the temps of Venus and Mars can be explained. Venus shouldn't be so hot. Also, his application of the Virial Theorem seems tenuous at best. Stockwell seems to think the M's paper boils down to the "there's so much water vapor in the atmosphere" argument. I'm not sure even the deniers can agree on what M is trying to say.

    I can try to get into a little more, but I will drop it when it starts failing the smell test. It's beginning to seem a little ripe at this point....

    The smell problem is definitely between your ears, and I don't mean at the front of your face. You show your true stripes when you continue to use the term "deniers" instead of the more palatable "skeptics". In point of fact, and this IS a fact, even by the AGW methods Venus is STILL too hot, considerably so. AGW needs to tewak the hell out of their models to even come close to earth's temp, they haven't even bothered for Venus. Not to mention that Mars went up by 1 deg C during the time when earth was supposedly at it hottest and supposedly caused by anthropogenic CO2. So do we blame those SUV Rovers on the planet for Mars getting hotter? Or do we use that thing between our ears and say it has more to do with that big yellow thing in the sky? This is all about brains Jim and mark my words, will be the undoing of a lot of science respect in the next decade. I for one can proudly say "I told you so" years before the fact, it will be interesting what you say then. "I started to kinda suspect something but my nose kept getting in the way"?

    Mr Ashworth's use of a revisionist and lying historical reference, in comment near end dated 9.24.09 starting From Piers Corbyn:

    Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction" -- You clearly and knowingly are using a reference who is flat lying about how the 2003 (war on/illegal invasion of) Iraq got started. For a long period prior, Mr. Blix had convinced the Security Council that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, the US Government did a brainwash media blitz on their own people, including the President lying (probably knowingly) in a state of the union address to congress, and topped it off with a publicly broadcast presentation by Colin Powell to the UN in which Mr. Powell explicitly lied to the council members (likely due to false information provided to him by the intelligence bodies not under his control). It ruined his reputation and his excellent chances of going further in public service, though it has been clearly documented that he and his staff were blocked in their many attempts at accessing backup data beforehand, no doubt because it didn't exist. The moves ruined worldwide trust in accuracy of US staff abroad permanently, and rightly so. Trying to twist that event to discedit the UN's IPCC is unconsionable lying. Your use of such material to promote your claims leaves me believing that if you spoke the time of day I would need to consult my watch first before believing it.

    Hoo boy - I see I missed a good party here...

    CO2 load still increasing, surface temps still increasing - and so is the head-in-the-sand denying, skepticism, etc.

    Find objective sites and read the data, you don't even need to read the interpretations of the data - try NOAA for starters. Populated by scientists, without an ax to grind...

    See you at the next party!

    RWV

    Data (not analysis)

    Temperature data:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html#means

    CO2 (and CH4) data from four widely scattered global observation sites:
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/insitu.html


    Analysis provides explanation and correlation, while intransigent ignorance denies what is laid out before you by IMPARTIAL science. Does gradual but undeniable change evade your ability to acknowledge or even perceive that change? Does it take a short term catastrophe to convince you? Are you equally IMPARTIAL in your skepticism???

    Do you also deny the results of cosmology, which in the same time period has radically redefined the structure composition and origins of the universe, or is there no self-interest in arguing against that particular new science?

    RWV

    With any luck, the entire AGW scamboree will be truncated in about 5 years. An emissions-free power source is under development and on the cusp of beginning practical experimentation, which will cost about 5% of current best options to install and operate.

    www.focusfusion.org

    Lots of new developments. Here's a quick photo tour of the experimental chamber's progress: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/gallery/image_med/37/
    It is within days of the first "shots".

    Mr. Hall,

    My graduate school work, in the mid-70's, was related to controlled (hot) fusion.
    There were a lot of large-scale projects around in the 70's and 80's, and earlier attempts going back as far as the 50's. I have not read about any credible breakthroughs in legitimate literature which would give us hope that that particular tiger has been tamed, or will be tamed, within 5 years.

    My own thinking is that one possible way to get to the controlled fusion solution is an as-yet-to-be discovered method of catalyzing fusion reactions, along the same lines as what catlysis does for chemical reactions - i.e. catalysis lowers the energy barrier that must be crossed in order for reactants to form the desired products. Electron and muon catalyzed reactions are hypothesized, but so far not very promising as being practical...

    Give it another 30-40 years tho - anything is possible!

    RWV

    from the article--------"Oil shortages and high prices are an imminent huge threat that will force a total restructuring of our economy and lifestyle. Unlike global warming, this is a real, staggering problem that should have you very worried."------

    Why? Anything that can be done with petroleum can be done with biofuels.

    We can run our vehicles on biofuels and natural gas. Even at current prices it costs about 1/2 to run our vehicles on natural gas what it does to run them on petroleum.

    And biofuels and natural gas cause far less pollution than petroleum.

    R. Vesel;
    Well, here we are 2½ yrs later. LPPhysics.com has, on a shoestring, come an order or two of magnitude closer to unity than any other (non-black, hence open and published) research outfit. On a shoestring and staffing level that wouldn't keep the coffee service for most of the bloated gov't scamborees going. Note, also, the current Dem science-lovin' cancellation of non-ITER funding of any sort.

    Despite that, this year looks good for pB11 fuel ignition and unity. Then the other shoes will drop.

    As for "catalysis", that's just a Rossi scam. He's past master of them. His output is mild steam, worthless for power generation.

    The above image link, btw, is obsolete. I think it was for this:
    http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5083/5289036118_fcddedd3a2_m.jpg

    A recent summary:
    http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&view=entry&year=2012&month=02&day=01&id=54:2011-achievements-and-goals-for-2012&Itemid=90

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1

    1