http://xkcd.com/552/

10/14/2009 3:44:16 PM

Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs
OCTOBER 14, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- The head of the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday countered Obama administration claims that a landmark climate bill would be a boost to the economy. President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats championing the bill have said mandating greenhouse-gas caps, renewable energy and efficiency standards would be a boon to an ailing economy, creating new low-carbon industries. Millions of so-called green jobs would be created under the cap-and-trade legislation being considered in the Senate, Democrats say. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned a Senate energy panel that there would be 'significant shifts' from emissions-intense sectors such as oil and refining firms to low-carbon businesses such as wind and solar power. 'The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly,' Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 'The fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people does not mean there aren't substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms and affected industries,' he said."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125555070414585571.html

As if there were ever any question that this would be the case.

10/15/2009 6:35:34 AM

Statisticians: "Global Cooling" a Myth

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/tech/main5423035.shtml

10/26/2009 9:48:51 PM

oh, you mean that data collected from NOAA weather stations around the country...the ones that have been shown to be improperly set up 85% of the time?

Or the satellites, which I'm sorry, do show no increased warmth and instead a temp decline the last few years.

10/26/2009 11:32:08 PM

Quote :

"The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880."

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 12:32 AM. Reason : Read the article]

10/27/2009 12:29:50 AM

This is about the easiest myth to check since all the data-sets are easy to download and a minute with R or Excel will show that what the sign of the trend is.

10/27/2009 1:41:13 AM

^^^^ It's amazing that they can publish a story like that and not even include a graph of temperatures. It doesn't take a fucking statistician to pick out a trend like "rising" or "falling". It just takes eyes.

Just look at the graph and draw your own conclusions. Temperatures are higher than they were for most of last century, but they don't seem to be rising the way they did in the 80's and 90's.

Maybe all that pollution coming out of China is a good thing. A sizeable volcanic eruption would be nice right about now, to cool things off a bit.




[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 1:59 AM. Reason : 2]

10/27/2009 1:56:27 AM

Great advice, guys. Looking at the graphs and drawing your own conclusions is exactly what started this myth in the first place.

10/27/2009 2:52:57 AM

It looks like someone already posted this, but I'll add on...

TKE-Teg GLOBAL COOLING IS A MYTH, EVEN WHEN USING SATALLEITE DATA!!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ THIS, AND UNDERSTAND THIS!!!!

Quote :

"The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

10/27/2009 7:31:49 AM

basically its like this - with a field as complex as climate science, it is impossible that there could be such compelling research as to merit the almost guaranteed excommunication of any academic that produces research that contradicts global warming dogma. the extreme prejudice shown towards skeptics completely delegitimizes the pro-global warming studies. it becomes impossible to trust that their findings were arrived at without coercion or personal agenda.

10/27/2009 8:29:14 AM

^^^no way man, that data's been improperly set up

Quote :

"This article, however, (which is not a true independent assessment if the study was completed by NOAA scientists) is not based on the much more robust metric assessment of global warming as diagnosed by upper ocean heat content. Nor does it consider the warm bias issues with respect to surface land temperatures that we have raised in our peer reviewed papers"

~R.A. Pielke, Sr.

Quote :

"This is about the easiest myth to check since all the data-sets are easy to download and a minute with R or Excel will show that what the sign of the trend is."

Unfortunately, that's not the case with some data. The IPCC relies heavily on the Hadley Institute in the UK for temperature data. Say you want to look at their data sets from before 1980 to compare....oh wait what this, they destroyed the data b/c they didn't have room to store it? Gee, what a shame.

Another instance would be the ground stations in the US. Sometimes monthly readings are missed for various reasons. In cases like that do they leave it blank? Nope, they take the temp data from another "nearby" station and use that info for the missing data. This isn't even taking into consideration that most of those stations are inaccurate due to their placement in the environment (near pavement, AC condensers, sidewalks, buildings, etc.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM. Reason : They are, however, good at showing that the urban heat effect is real.]

10/27/2009 8:31:00 AM

Quote :

"This isn't even taking into consideration that most of those stations are inaccurate due to their placement in the environment (near pavement, AC condensers, sidewalks, buildings, etc."

As a professional in this field I would highly advise you to modify this statement. While there are a handful of poorly placed stations or stations that have been compromised due to encroachment (see whomever-is-was's pretty picture show from a few years ago in a related thread) simply saying most stations are inaccurate is just flat out wrong.

10/27/2009 9:29:52 AM

If I tell you that many of your data points are going to tend to over-report warming, then you can either throw out all such data points or your end result is going to over-report warming. That they are not throwing out clearly compromised data points would mean their final result is compromised.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/27/2009 9:36:28 AM

^^Well what about the recent (within last 6 months or so) report stating that 85% of the stations aren't properly set up. I'm not just pulling expressions out of my butt

here's a pie chart from the report:



I feel I should mention that only 82% of the stations within the US have been examined so I apologize for my 85% number.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 10:05 AM. Reason : http://www.surfacestations.org/]

10/27/2009 10:00:50 AM

hahha TKE is a nut

10/27/2009 10:02:16 AM

TKE hahaha i wouldn't have respected you if you caved to new evidence.

Keep holding the line against elitist environMENTALism, my friend.

10/27/2009 10:03:40 AM

^^^ugh, that chart represents the 78% inspected. But on the website itself it says thus far they have looked at 82% (at the present date).

^of course man!

10/27/2009 10:07:12 AM

Ah, yes, that's the site. I encourage you to head down to Centennial Campus and tell this groundbreaking news to the NWS office there. I am sure Tom and Carl will be ever so glad to know that their cover in this massive global warming conspiracy has been blown!

I love this part at the bottom of the page. "surfacestations.org, Anthony Watts, and various contributors" Not to get all hooksaw on you but I'd like to know who all these "various contributors" are. Smells like some Richard Berman mess.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 10:22:25 AM

The only problem is that a few people have done analysis of micro-sites effects on temperature trends and it has been found that "good" and "bad" sites classified by surface-station seem to give the same trend. Which isn't terribly surprising when you think about exactly what a surface station is doing.

10/27/2009 10:24:19 AM

^^they're mostly volunteers who donate their time to inspect the stations. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all named somewhere on the site.

10/27/2009 10:42:06 AM

^Have you read this?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Scientists are not oblivious to the error potential in surface readings.

10/27/2009 1:26:06 PM

Btw, you continue to ignore that this statement has been proven wrong:

Quote :

"Or the satellites, which I'm sorry, do show no increased warmth and instead a temp decline the last few years"

We don't even need to talk about surface temperatures. The satellite measurements, which you held as being accurate enough to support your argument, do not show what you claim they show after review by statisticians. Are you now going to claim that as a layman, you know better than them?

10/27/2009 2:04:22 PM

^ Have you read these?

Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

Study: West Antarctic Melt a Slow Affair

Quote :

"Over all, the loss of the West Antarctic ice from warming is appearing 'more likely a definite thing to worry about on a thousand-year time scale but not a hundred years,' Dr. Pollard said."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair/

Study Halves Prediction of Rising Seas

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/science/earth/15antarctica.html

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

Quote :

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

--Al Gore, another global warming alarmist

http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/

10/27/2009 2:11:56 PM

Ah, great. The troll and his rolly eyes decided to get in on the action. Yep, I am aware of instances where climate science is shown to be wrong and corrects itself, and that there are extremists who push bad science. Thanks for the implication that I'm an idiot again, and that AGW is a myth.

10/27/2009 2:35:41 PM

^ NP

10/27/2009 2:39:40 PM

carzak, maybe you should ask yourself this:

Quote :

"Scientists erect hypotheses to test based upon the fundamental science assumption of parsimony, or simplicity, sometimes grandly referred to as Occam’s Razor. That is to say, in seeking to explain matters of observation or experiment, a primary underlying principle is that the simplest explanation be sought; extraneous or complicating factors of interpretation, such as “extraterrestrials did it”, are only invoked when substantive evidence exists for such a complication. Concerning the climate change that we observe around us today – which, importantly, is occurring at similar rates and magnitudes to that known to have occurred throughout the historical and geological past - the simplest (and therefore null) hypothesis, is that "the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise". In regard to which, first, no such evidence has emerged. And, second, like any null hypothesis, that about modern climate change is there to be tested, as it has been. There are literally tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in major scientific journals that contain observations, data, experiments and theoretical reasoning that are consistent with the null hypothesis, which has therefore yet to be falsified (but, of course, one day might be). The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some “evidence otherwise”. To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level - causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) - no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation. That the correct null hypothesis is the simplest hypothesis is, of course, no reason why other more complex hypotheses cannot be erected for testing. For instance, should you wish to test (as the IPCC should) the idea that "human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming", then there are several ways that that can be done. The result, long ago, has been the falsification of the dangerous human-caused warming hypothesis. Failed tests include: that global cooling has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide of 5%; the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years; consideration of cause and effect timing of past carbon dioxide and temperature levels in ice core records; the absence of the model-predicted temperature hotspot high in the tropical troposphere; the low sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide forcing as judged against empirical tests; and the demonstrable failure of computer GCMs to predict future climate. These matters, and that the dangerous warming hypothesis fails numerous empirical tests, have been described in many places. Such writings, whether in refereed journals or not, are simply disparaged or ignored by those who wish to pursue the alarmist IPCC line. It bears repeating that the onus is on Minister Wong, or her advisory IPCC scientists, to provide any evidence that the null hypothesis regarding modern climate change is false. Because she cannot do so, the clever trick is used of inverting the null hypothesis to demand that climate rationalist scientists demonstrate that human-cased global warming is not occurring."

Quoted from an Australian site: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/alarmism-contra-science

And yes, I did speak out in an earlier post with that dumb satellite comment. I have read the full article, more than once.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 3:31 PM. Reason : you have to prove something before it can be disproven.]

10/27/2009 3:30:12 PM

I'm not really clear on this. Do you now acknowledge that the entire global cooling myth seems to be based on a flawed analysis of the data and is thus false?

Quote :

"carzak, maybe you should ask yourself this:"

Ask myself what? I don't see an obvious question being posed in the opinion piece you provided.

His opinion is that "the climate change observed today is natural unless and until evidence accrues otherwise". And that "...no such evidence has emerged."

He provides these as failed evidence:

Quote :

"Failed tests include: that global cooling has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide of 5%; "

Global cooling has just been refuted.

Quote :

"the lack of detailed correlation between the carbon dioxide and temperature records over the last 100 years; "

I guess he is implying that because the CO2 increase does not fit the temperature increase perfectly, that the correlation is weak. He seems to ignore how random variation and cyclical weather patterns affect this correlation, among other things.

Quote :

"consideration of cause and effect timing of past carbon dioxide and temperature levels in ice core records; the absence of the model-predicted temperature hotspot high in the tropical troposphere; the low sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide forcing as judged against empirical tests; and the demonstrable failure of computer GCMs to predict future climate."

The rest of this is about the inaccuracy of climate models, which to me speaks more about the need for better climate models than it weakens AGW theory. We do need the most accurate predictions in order to make the best decisions on what actions to take.

10/27/2009 4:37:35 PM

sorry I was not clear. That quoted article is referring to global warming.

there is no direct evidence that increased CO2 (mainly man-made) is resulting in global warming. as far as reasons for the warming of the 20th century saying it is AGW is one of the most complicated theories. it makes far more sense to propose that is is due to natural variation. that is a much simpler theory that has more evidence.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : k]

10/27/2009 4:56:41 PM

guys... seriously, you're not going to settle the debate by internet argument. and you're definitely not going to convince anyone.

the only way to solve this issue is by reminding the global warmists of the overt politicization of this field of science and the ensuing hostility towards any global warming skeptics. That fact alone delegitimizes the entire science.

10/27/2009 5:06:43 PM

Climate science has gone with the assumptions that it was natural, or caused by the sun or the urban heating effect, but has found that global warming cannot be explained by those alone, and that human activities show a strong correlation to warming. Anthropogenic global warming is currently the best theory.

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ^Shut up, we're having a discussion here. ]

10/27/2009 5:19:51 PM

^ Wrong.

Is climate sensitive to solar variability?
Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West
March 2008, Physics Today

Quote :

"We contend that the changes in Earth's average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the Sun's dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun's irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles. This argument for directly linking the Sun's dynamics to the response of Earth's climate is based on our research and augments the interpretation of the causes of global warming presented in the United Nations 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report."

Nicola Scafetta is a research associate in the Duke University physics department. Bruce West is chief scientist in the mathematical and information science directorate, US Army Research Office, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 5:24:04 PM

^ I don't think that says what you think it says.

10/27/2009 5:25:54 PM

^ Then explain it--or STFU. The language seems pretty clear to me.

10/27/2009 5:27:17 PM

^ you're probably too dumb to understand, especially if you don't already after 25 pages of this thread.

But they are saying that from their calculations, humans contribute NO LESS than 30% to the warming, but that's a conservative 30% of the red line was the best model they have.

And the supposed global cooling, as the author hints at, is still not certain, which a new recent AP study determined:

Quote :

"The AP went beyond this analysis by sending out temperature data to four statisticians, without informing them what the data represented, and asked them to identify any trends in the data. Apparently, none of them saw any sign of global cooling. All of them detected the upward trend that is apparent when periods longer than a decade are examined, while the ups-and-downs of the last decade appear similar to the statistical noise that occurs in other decades within the data set. One of the statisticians is even quoted as saying that seeing a downward trend in recent years involves "people coming at the data with preconceived notions." "

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/talk-of-global-cooling-based-on-bogus-statistics.ars

10/27/2009 5:48:24 PM

^^What, are you going to list bona fides for everyone you quote now? I think I will, too.

Quote :

"^ Wrong."

Hooksaw is a 40-something year-old former prison guard currently studying Liberal Arts at North Carolina State University, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

So this seems to be the gist of the findings:

Quote :

"If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used."

New science is great. However the general consensus (supported by that report) is that while solar forcing contributes to global warming to an uncertain degree, it does not account for all of it, as I said.



[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2009 5:52:50 PM

debating global warming is a lot like debating "nature vs. nurture"

10/27/2009 5:53:01 PM

^^^ Sweet Jesus, you're an idiot.

Quote :

"If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution to global warming is significantly overestimated. We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used. Furthermore, if the Sun does cool off, as some solar forecasts predict will happen over the next few decades, that cooling could stabilize Earth's climate and avoid the catastrophic consequences predicted in the IPCC report."

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

^^ What is your field or expertise of any sort, carquack?

[Edited on October 27, 2009 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2009 5:54:16 PM

I have a degree in Abstract Picnic Tables.

10/27/2009 6:19:27 PM

Quote :

"debating global warming is a lot like debating "nature vs. nurture""

Except that neither side of that debate gives the federal gov't power to have a say in everything you do, in the same of "saving the planet"

10/28/2009 10:34:58 AM

Quote :

"Global cooling has just been refuted."

Really? With a non-peer-reviewed random poll of FOUR statisticians? REALLY?

btw, the article also does NOT say the statisticians found evidence for an upward trend, either. funny how that works. Now, tell me this: they "found no downward trend," right? What do you think would happen if those data stations weren't so corrupted? Since we KNOW that many of these stations are trending upwards, might that indicate a true downward trend that is masked by faulty sensors? Or, how about the fact that arctic ice is practically back to at least 1990s levels. but no, there can't be a cooling trend, even if other evidence for it exists, because the corrupted numbers don't say so?

10/31/2009 10:42:14 AM

^ haha, did you even read the article?

Quote :

"Apparently, none of them saw any sign of global cooling. All of them detected the upward trend that is apparent when periods longer than a decade are examined"

10/31/2009 10:44:26 AM

The whole global cooling myth was based on the temperature trend starting from 1998, which was an anomolous hot year. It was a flawed, dishonest, cherry-picked analysis of the data. It doesn't even take a statistician to see that. We discussed this at length before; how you could start from a year before or after and get a completely different trend, which is exactly what they found in their analysis. But a blind analysis by some statisticians lends credibility to it.

10/31/2009 1:48:29 PM

you see the global warmists cherry picking their own events to make a point... like katrina and the ice caps...

i'm not playing tit for tat, just demonstrating why there is a legitimate reason to be a global warming skeptic. As you say, "flawed, dishonest, cherry picked analysis" doesn't inspire confidence.

10/31/2009 2:05:17 PM

^Your congitive dissonance must be intolerable. You are a religious, political, and now seemingly a global warming agnostic.

10/31/2009 2:16:45 PM

It's an interesting thing, really... I don't take dogmatic positions on ambiguous issues

10/31/2009 4:23:33 PM

The issue isn't ambiguous. Maybe your understanding of it is, but it is not.

10/31/2009 4:34:20 PM

Well that's your dogmatic position

10/31/2009 4:55:08 PM

oh, also, did you just learn the term "cognitive dissonance"? because ur doin it wrong. in fact, if anyone's got cognitive dissonance, its the partisans on both sides of the issue... Holding such passionate beliefs about something so intractable is a pretty common reaction as people try to mask their dissonant beliefs and desires.

10/31/2009 5:27:12 PM

Quote :

"All of them detected the upward trend that is apparent when periods longer than a decade are examined"

I'm not surprised that you didn't see what I was talking about, dumbass.

Quote :

"The whole global cooling myth was based on the temperature trend starting from 1998,"

False. Some people cherry pick 1998. Not all. You have a 7-year cooling trend since 2003. sorry, buddy. your fantasies are a delusion.

10/31/2009 5:42:05 PM

can't we just agree that climate science is still woefully unprepared to answer these questions and entirely too politicized at this point?

It's like if the UN, Al Gore, and the entire media industry decided to pick a unifying theory of everything... I wouldn't believe that shit either. I trust science, not politics.

[Edited on October 31, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : s]

10/31/2009 5:52:59 PM