My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

This is shaping up to be an interesting conference -

...an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City.

Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982.
Skepticism on climate change - The Boston Globe

[Michaelangelica]

This is a worring article.
From my reading of it seems we have bugger-all idea about CO2, how much there is , wher it goes, how it is stored etc.
Maybe I need to read it again
What do you get from a reading of it?

The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

. . .
Vegetation absorbs CO2 the fastest, but it’s also one of the least well understood
. . .
The result is that a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide - the physical system has too many variable and components to claim that CO2 has an single atmospheric lifetime. Or, to borrow an analogy from the paper:
. . .
a simple “half-life” model doesn’t work for carbon dioxide
. . .
the IPCC also shares some of the blame for the confusion about CO2 lifetime.
. . .
a certain percentage of the emitted CO2 will persist effectively forever.
. . .
The third thing to realize is that it may not be possible to return to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations without developing cost-effective absorption technology or radically altering land use to absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible.
. . .
An article in the NYTimes talks about some of the new systems being implemented that will improve global monitoring of CO2.
. . .
Better data, more geographic coverage, continuous measurements, independent calibration. All are good things for scientists studying CO2.

Scholars and Rogues The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

[Eclipse Now]

Surely if we stop emitting as much Co2 and start massively increasing biochar production from agriwaste and forestry waste the charcoal has to come from something. Tim Flannery thinks we can scale up biochar to 6 gigatons a year. What do you think? That's a significant amount of Co2 => charcoal each year.

[Flying Binghi]

Due Diligence

The march 8, 2009 International Conference on climate change is shaping up to be a fairly important event. I wonder if Due Diligence in climate science gets covered ?


Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog, has some strong views on the mater -

(extract) ...IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been "peer reviewed"�? by a journal. However, as a form of due diligence, journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like Nature or Science, is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations.
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66

Probably shake the AGW belief of a few more people...

[Eclipse Now]

Oh right, and how does he verify this? You're just going to take his word for it? No, sorry, hasn't shaken my understanding of the situation at all.

Human nature and pride over professional reputations can occasionally get in the way of the scientific enterprise, yes. That is, there are some genuine questions about how human nature interacts with the peer review process, but it tends to be in fields that are SO vast (like medicine) that the tiny little "specialist" fields almost anything can be published.

However, climate science is a global study and enterprise being evaluated by so many different institutions that if there were genuine questions about the basics, it really WOULD make it into the peer reviewed literature.

As to the silly accusations above about the peer review process, just look at the measures required just to publish articles in Science and Nature magazines. I'm sure they've published stuff on global warming!

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work if editors feel the work is not a breakthrough in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings — if correct — would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journal's online Electronic Supporting Information archive.

See FB, have you really dealt with 2 basic concepts yet?
1. how do we know what Co2, or even methane for that matter, does with various spectra of energy?
2. How do we know what percentage of these gases in the atmosphere will do exactly what?

What's it all based on? If, as Al Gore appeared to present this, we believe all this stuff based on the history of ice ages and Co2, then global warming is categorically wrong and the sceptics win. (Because as the sceptics always point out, the temperature changes BEFORE the Co2 changes.) But the climatologists also know this basic fact, and yet are not swayed. So what's going on here FB? Can you do your 1's and 2's without making a mess?

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

This is shaping up to be an interesting conference -

...an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City.

Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982.
Skepticism on climate change - The Boston Globe

This must be a typo - according to proponents of AGW all non-crackpot scientists believe in Al-Gore-Global-Warming 100%. These sound like "real" scientists, so this is probably a fake press release put out by the oil companies.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

This must be a typo - according to proponents of AGW all non-crackpot scientists believe in Al-Gore-Global-Warming 100%. These sound like "real" scientists, so this is probably a fake press release put out by the oil companies.

Well, at least now we know the source of your bias. You're an anti-Al Gore, anti-liberal ideologue who thinks this whole issue is just a political one, and thus you judge whether science is "real" or not by how well it aligns with your party line. I wouldn't be surprised if you are being influenced by the climate geniuses of conservative talk radio.

I guess there's no convincing you even if the evidence were blatent and conclusive that AGW is occurring. It is very difficult for people to be objective when they are driven by ideology.

[Eclipse Now]

Engineerdude, that's just funny!

Did you even look at some of their wiki's?

Check out Richard Lindzen for example... yeah, he's a real scientist all right.
Bought and owned exclusively by "big oil" and "King coal". Scientific opinion for sale, no unreasonable request for fudged evidence denied.

Criticism of Lindzen

Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[22]

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s and had not received any money from these since. [23]

According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [22]

Roy Spencer is interesting as well.

Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

Sounds like so many Creationists I know, denying evolution and global warming as both some kind of anti-bible conspiracy. No amount of science will convince someone like that! (I know plenty of Christian theistic evolutionists that see Genesis as Jewish creative narrative, and that's Christian leaders in apologetic roles not just your average joe-bloggs churchgoer).

Also, Spencer is not a climatologist but he does like to spit out his venom against climatologists.

Oh, lastly, Spencer's opinion is also for sale.

Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute[17], both of which receive funding from ExxonMobil.

Stephen McIntyre
* Not a climatologist.
Stephen seems to be the most respectable of the 4, and at least does not appear (at this stage in my knowledge) to appear to be funded by Exxon and friends.

He helped correct a tiny error in USA temperature variations. However, this seems to have gone to his head and he thinks it's affected more than it actually has... the correction has no impact whatsoever on the global warming trends we observe. His blog has received webbie awards for at least seeking scientific knowledge about global warming, but I can't see any substantial debunking of global warming physics or anything significantly troubling to AGW in his work.


Coleman is a retired weather man out to make a buck and get a bit of attention.

Views on global warming

In fall of 2007 Coleman described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." [3] His postings assessing the science behind global warming can be read at www.kusi.com

. In 2008 he gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization." [4]

Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.

Yeah, great peer reviewed papers there Coleman, give Engineerdude some soundbytes to quote why don't you but above all, stay away from the empirical methodology and discipline of a scientific paper! Has he published anything that even got through the Science and Nature peer reviewed process, let alone anything in climate journals? Ha!

So, in summary, you're "real" scientists are:
* not climatologists
* not writing in real climate journals or peer reviewed articles (except maybe McIntyre but he contributes in a technical instrument capacity)
* 2 are funded by Exxon and friends
* 1 is a total has-been, trying to relive the glory days of his television career.

This is a sad and motley lot to put against the repeatable, testable, verifiable physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation.

[Flying Binghi]

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done .....snake oil salesman.

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

[Eclipse Now]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done .....snake oil salesman.

There are 4 reasons to get off the fossil fuels ASAP.

1. Economic security
Peak oil and gas will most probably occur within the next 10 years, and fuel prices will skyrocket as rationing is forced upon us. See the Australian Federal Senate inquiry final report here, especially Chapter 3 on "peak oil concerns".
Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee:Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels
Catalyst covered the basics quite well here — good online viewing summarising some of the 3 basic issues with oil discovery trends over the last 40 years.
Catalyst: Real Oil Crisis - ABC TV Science
ABC science unit's movie "Crude" is free online here.
Crude - the incredible journey of oil - Broadband edition - ABC Science
Chevron basically admit peak oil and ask for help here.
File not Found


2. We are changing the climate
They know what Co2 does by measuring the way it refracts various spectra of energy in a lab, and this is repeatable, demonstrable, testable, falsifiable science — and it is confirmed all the time. They also know how much extra Co2 is storing how much extra energy in the atmosphere. (Google "Radiative Forcing Equation" for more).

The role of Co2 is real, even if other large climate forcings also still play a role (like the incredibly powerful El Nino / La Nina cycle). Climate sceptics tend to ignore the fact that climate change is about the basic physics, and try and ignore these basic facts under a could of obfuscation.

3. National security
Sudden exposure to oil shocks could cause international tension. Shortages could cause profound flow on effects affecting all industries, especially mining and agriculture.

4. Health concerns
Fossil fuels are incredibly dirty and cause all manner of lung disease and cancer. Lung cancer rates in the beautiful Hunter valley wine district are 3 times higher than in Sydney, because of the coal powered stations up there!

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

That's because it's irrelevant to this thread, they already DID respond to this silliness pages and pages ago, you're sidetracking from the fact that you don't want to answer questions about the basic physics and Radiative Forcing Equation above, and are basically an internet troll diverting us into la la land while not engaging the actual material being presented here.

Other than that, have a nice day.