Comments on: EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

[Rockyfromcali]

8 degrees?

Ummm..

"All the world's meteorological and climatic centres agree that global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.6ºC over the past 100 years."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[nazdackster]

Thank you for demonstrating how feeble the alarmist position is. Polar ice cap disappears by 2025? Hilarious. Where did you get that one, bugs bunny? (sorry bugs).

The 90% figure you quote is amazingly flawed. I want you to explain this progression to me:

A CONSENSUS OF ONE:
The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The "Summary for Policy Makers" was approved in December, and the full report, including chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
* "While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."
* "Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
* "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
* "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. "'

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science" of the whole IPCC report--and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Now, more than a decade of cooling later, how does this criminally flawed conclusion become "unequivocal", when virtually all evidence refutes CO2 as a cause and supports natural variation?

I'll wait right here... Thanks.

[comfortmd1]

the stupid thing about the memo author is that his "scientific evidence" is based on the lowest levels of the atmosphere, when the entire atmospheric envelope is concerned, temperatures have risen 8(?) degrees. the report was quashed because it wasn't based on reality. and yes. he is a shill for the coal industry

[Rockyfromcali]

8 degrees?

Ummm..

"All the world's meteorological and climatic centres agree that global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.6ºC over the past 100 years."

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[nazdackster]

A shill for the coal industry? Prove it. Or should I have Mr. Carlin's lawyers contact you directly?

[nazdackster]

Thanks Rocky. Alarmists have to develop entirely new and unfamiliar temperature scales to support their position, as you have just witnessed. Even the figure you quote is in dispute.

In the case if GISTemp, it is looking more and more like the surface data is so corrupted that even the recent warming trend may be entirely the result of "corrections" Hansen has applied to the data set. Time of observation, siting, removal of UHI adjustments, and now the HUGE impact of station dropout have all conspired to render the data set useless. Would you trust this data? I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/an-australian-look-at-ushcn-20th-century-trend-is-largely-if-not-entirely-an-artefact-arising-from-the-%e2%80%9ccorrections%e2%80%9d/

[nazdackster]

Another new report supporting Svensmark's Cosmic Ray modulation theory. The theory is that low solar cycles (like the one we are in which is the lowest since the early 1800's) produce low solar wind, which then deflects fewer galactic cosmic rays. More cosmic rays leads to higher cloud seeding and higher albedo, producing cooler temperatures. The reverse is also true, when the sun is active (it was abnormally active during the entire last warming period), more solar wind reduces GCR's, leading to lower cloud seeding, lower albedo, and higher temperatures as we have witnessed. The effect amplifies the normal TSI variation, which by itself is quite small and cannot account for the temperature swings alone. Add the GCR amplifying effect, and guess what, solar and temperatures snap into place. The mechanism is described here and is just one more dagger in the heart of the AGW alarmists:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/message-in-the-cloud-for-warmists-the-end-is-near/

[ubrew12]

What happens to your theory when the solar cycle returns to normal?

[nazdackster]

ubrew12, if it wasn't obvious from my post, the natural cycles will simply continue as usual. My point was, that with this GCR / solar magnetic field / solar wind / earth temperature amplifying relationship, the idea that solar variation is not enough to explain earth's temperature cycles is now put to rest. Solar behavior is still so poorly understood that virtually all models attempting prediction of future solar activity fail. The particular minimum we are in now is an excellent example, and explains falling temperatures, and cold weather records falling by the dozens lately. NASA has been trying to predict when the uptick in solar activity will happen and so far has done nothing but regularly extend their guess. We are still in a deep minimum, and really, it's anyone's guess when activity will start to ramp up. There is a potential for this cycle to be much like the Maunder or Dalton minimums, as it is already the longest in 180 years. If this happens, solar cycles will tend to be weak for several 11 and 22 year cycles after that, which is why you often year about cooling until 2030 to 2040. My own model prediction based on ocean cycles and "regular" solar cycles is cooling until 2038, then back to a warming phase.

The other interesting fact is that solar activity during the alleged period of rapid CO2 and temperature growth was also abnormally high for several cycles. But if you measure just TSI, there is not enough difference to explain the higher temps. Now with the GCR link to cloud effects and albedo, less GCR's during that period led to fewer clouds and a darker / more absorptive planet, which does explain the temperature increase (which is exceedingly small anyway). Read up dude, the truth is out there for everyone to see.

[Rockyfromcali]

You just made my point. There is still some who have doubts...ergo, debate should continue.

I earlier referenced the motto "Nullius in Verba", which is the motto of the UK Royal Society...an organization which takes the position that AGW is "settled science" and that the debate is settled. Taking such a position is a complete and utter contradiction of that organization...and in fact led them to attempt to change the motto when the contradiction became altogether obvious.

Claiming the science is "settled" and that debate is concluded makes as much sense as claiming that there are no absolute truths.

[Rockyfromcali]

ubrew...you really need to read some works that are critical to the AGW movement...because there are reams of information that explain that

"They get paid the same whether the science supports AGW or works against it"

Is a fallacy.

Two suggestions would be
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

and

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246543967&sr=1-1

Both books document and explain that money and it's role in this debate, are factors that warrant consideration. Unstoppable is more science, and Red Hot, while sometimes a bit too partisan, is very well sourced and readable.

[Rockyfromcali]

England has fortresses that were once on the seas edge that are now more than a mile inland...maybe those who have built on shorelines should have actually done their homework a little better.

One of the greatest outbreaks of malaria took place in Siberia...temperature is not the issue in most diseases that we now term "tropical".

You ask if it is a good thing because enormous amounts of money are being committed, taking those dollars out of the pockets of citizens of numerous naitons, and thus changing the math of each of their economies.

People, like polar bears, will be able to tell that water levels are rising slowly (it will not be tidal waves...those have other causes) and will likely move away from the waters edge....if they don't...well that is sort of natural selection at work.

[cydygitt1]

Why do CONServitards fail to conserve even one thing, and always attack any type of renewable energy by supporting BIG OIL?

[cydygitt1]

I'm surprised too for crissakes, since carlin is just an ECONOMIST -- hardly anything even remotely close to a climatologist, and the rightwad stink tank that promotes this propaganda is just an Exxon/Mobil and American Petroleum Inst. subsidiary!

[joule18]

And Yassar Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. You're point?

[ribbie149]

I'll tell you what, when the polar ice cap disappears by the summer of 2025 and sea levels start to rise so your fat-cat REPUBLICAN'T beach houses are flooded, then come to me with quotes from an ECONOMIST which are counter to 90% of the views held by the scientific community and tell me how much better it made you feel. If there is even a CHANCE (90% is pretty good one) that man is exacerbating a warming trend which will have disastrous effects for our children and grandchildren, shouldn't we DO something about it? We have to end our dependence on oil and coal soon ANYWAY. Isn't this a good time and an even better excuse to start doing so NOW. What we will probably do is let the Grand Oil Party water down the energy and climate bills in the name of economics so that we will bequeath a world to our heirs that they will curse us for.

[cydygitt1]

Why do CONServitards fail to conserve even one thing, and always attack any type of renewable energy by supporting BIG OIL?

[nazdackster]

Thank you for demonstrating how feeble the alarmist position is. Polar ice cap disappears by 2025? Hilarious. Where did you get that one, bugs bunny? (sorry bugs).

The 90% figure you quote is amazingly flawed. I want you to explain this progression to me:

A CONSENSUS OF ONE:
The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The "Summary for Policy Makers" was approved in December, and the full report, including chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
* "While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."
* "Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
* "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
* "When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. "'

Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science" of the whole IPCC report--and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Now, more than a decade of cooling later, how does this criminally flawed conclusion become "unequivocal", when virtually all evidence refutes CO2 as a cause and supports natural variation?

I'll wait right here... Thanks.

[Rockyfromcali]

I don't know if you could get rid of the polar ice caps by 2025 if you gave the population of Poland blowtorches and dropped them at Kaffeklubben.

[ubrew12]

You guys should hold an NCPA convention here, and toast Exxon for me while you're at it.

[Rockyfromcali]

...and the kneejerk reaction follows...if you can't make your argument with facts...just bring up Exxon, and everything will be okay.

It really is the security blanket of the AGW movement.

Would it be okay to bring up 20 million from the Mitchell Endownment? How about GE...BP...Duke Energy? How about Exelon?

Have you researched at all who is providing the funding for those who continue to attempt to build a case for AGW?

[ubrew12]

Its not clear that a warmer climate will be bad, to a climate scientist. To an epidemiologist, if it means more tropical diseases showing up in temperate America, it would be bad. To a water planner, if it means permanent desertification of the Western U.S., it would be bad. To a beach dweller, if it means their home is going underwater, it would be bad. And if it means more extreme weather, that might means something to a municipality in the MidWest, or to an insurance company. To a fisheries expert, if it means more southerly diseases reducing the salmon population, it would be bad.

A climatologist studies the climate. If the climate gets warmer, why would the climatologist care? Your survey finds a HUGE amount of unanimity among climate scientists about the question that they, and they alone, should be asked: is AGW real? A resounding YES.

Why ask them if thats a 'bad' thing? I'm sure their opinion on that is no more educated than yours or mine. If you live in Bangladesh, its probably a bad thing to go underwater.

[joule18]

Better yet, why didn't our government fund the bill to develop fusion energy that was passed during Carter's administration? We could have been off foreign oil by now. Wind, solar, etc. will help, but until we have something more substantial, conservation will save more than anthing. However, the carbon tax will add substantially to everyone's monthly costs when those taxes are added to your gas and electricity bills. Do people who earn under $250K a year? YOU BETCHA.

[joule18]

Funny, they think Al Gore has all kinds of credibility. Is he a scientist?

[joule18]

Global Warming is being shoved down our throats because people who pass the legislation like Pelosi and Waxman, in particular, have made personal investments in companies that are likely be benefit big time from the carbon credit scheme or that have technology that will be utilized by the very energy policies that they vote on.

No politician should have a vote on legislation that benefits themselves. I'm tired of them playing us all for fools.

[ubrew12]

Out of a job? You really don't know how research funding works, do you? (Hint: they get paid to do science. They get paid the same whether the science supports AGW or works against it.)

[ubrew12]

Don't think that all the feedbacks to AGW are negative. Reuters:'The amount of carbon locked away in frozen soils in the far Northern Hemisphere is double previous estimates and rapid melting could accelerate global warming, a study released on Wednesday says. "Massive amounts of carbon stored in frozen soils at high latitudes are increasingly vulnerable to exposure to the atmosphere," said Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project at Australia's state-funded Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. "The research shows that the amount of carbon stored in soils surrounding the North Pole has been hugely underestimated." Global warming has already triggered rapid melting of the permafrost in some areas, releasing the powerful greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. As the world gets warmer, more of these gases are predicted to be released and could trigger a tipping point in which huge amounts of the gases flood the atmosphere, rapidly driving up temperatures, scientists say. '

[lierlierpantsonfire]

From 1990 until now, the U.S government has spent 25 Billion dollars on global warming research. Much more than the oil companies have spent trying to refrute the existence of global warming. Did it ever occur to you that many liberals and college university researchers would be out of a job if they did not get the global waarming research ($) dollars from the government? Think Truth, Not Politics!

[lierlierpantsonfire]

From 1990 until now, the U.S government has spent 25 Billion dollars on global warming research. Much more than the oil companies have spent trying to refrute the existence of global warming. Did it ever occur to you that many liberals and college university researchers would be out of a job if they did not get the global waarming research ($) dollars from the government? Think Truth, Not Politics!

[lierlierpantsonfire]

From 1990 until now, the U.S government has spent 25 Billion dollars on global warming research. Much more than the oil companies have spent trying to refrute the existence of global warming. Did it ever occur to you that many liberals and college university researchers would be out of a job if they did not get the global waarming research ($) dollars from the government? Think Truth, Not Politics!