The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Climate Change Denial and The Misrepresentation of Climate Science on 12/08/2010 01:31:36 MST Print View

"Climate Change Denial and The Misrepresentation of Climate Science Speaker: Dr Andrew Glikson 12.30 pm 14 December 2010. Hedley Bull Lecture Theatre 1"

Actually that sounds like a precis of these past 82 pages.

Ask him to come down to Melbourne!

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks wet in oz too on 12/08/2010 01:55:55 MST Print View

"If "the stark change in rain and weather patterns in south-west WA" is climate change then so is the lack of warming for 15 years.
Capiche?"

Problem is that the drying trend has been going on since the 1960s, so by the CSIRO's measure it is climate, not weather.

And the drop in rainfall is directly linked to CO2 levels. To quote:

"CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai says, 'The southern annular mode or the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) is an index of air pressure difference at sea level between mid latitude (40 °S) and high latitude (65 °S). In our greenhouse warming experiments, we found that if there is increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the AAO rises and there is a corresponding decline in rainfall in south-west Western Australia (WA).'

'What we have also found is that this drying trend can indeed be gradually reversed if CO2 stabilisation is achieved,' says Dr Cai.

'While this is desirable, it has to be remembered that our models predict that it will take a period of some five hundred years to recover' he stated."

No probs, if we manage to reverse man-made CO2 levels in the atmosphere everything should be right in about 500 years. Of course, if we don't fix it then things just get worse. I suspect things are going to get worse.


I was curious about "capiche", because I know it's supposedly Italian but no Italians I know use it. Wikipedia says:

"From Italian capisce, third person present tense form of capire “to understand”, from Latin capere “to grasp, seize”. Related to capture.

"capisce" is a dialectal form of italian "capisci" second person present tense.

Often used in a threatening manner, suggesting the Italian Mafia."

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 04:32:05 MST Print View

Tom Says:
"I feel a deep sadness for my own species which comes from the realization that if ever a species had it made, it was us. And we've blown it."

[Donald Sutherland voice]
Don't hit me with the negative waves.
[/Donald Sutherland voice]

Don't despair Tom, Nature is on our side. Cancun has had record low temperatures for the last three days.

Despite alarmist rants from people like Dr Andrew Glikson
(Extreme weather events around the globe: manifestations of runaway climate change)

It's just weather. These climate liars want you to feel despairing. You are more easily manipulated that way.

Glikson holds up the Russian heatwave this year as an example of "runaway climate change" in action. Lets do a quick reality check by looking at a Russian Historical document: The Novgorod Chronicle:

"1298: There was a wholesale death of animals. In the same year there was a drought, and the woods and peat bogs burnt.

1364: Halfway through summer there was a complete smoke haze, the heat was dreadful, the forests, bogs and earth were burning, rivers dried up. The same thing happened the following year . . .

1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the firest had begun already in 1839). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning."

2010 Dr Andrew Glikson: The sky is falling! The Sky is Falling!

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Looks wet in oz too on 12/08/2010 04:49:50 MST Print View

Arapiles says:
Problem is that the drying trend has been going on since the 1960s.
"CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai says, 'The southern annular mode or the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) is an index of air pressure difference at sea level between mid latitude (40 °S) and high latitude (65 °S). In our greenhouse warming experiments, we found that if there is increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the AAO rises and there is a corresponding decline in rainfall in south-west Western Australia (WA).'


The computer climate models built by the climate catastrophists predict that extra co2 will cause an increase in water vapour. Indeed, they programmed that in as a parameter, because water vapour is twenty times stronger than co2 as a greenhouse gas, and without a positive feedback, the world ain't gonna warm by co2 alone.

However, the radiosonde data from weather balloons since 1948 shows a drop in specific humidity at higher levels in the atmosphere, exactly where it would have to be increasing for the models to be correct. This is why the predicted 'hotspot' over the tropics hasn't been observed.

Some of the newer satellite data seems to show an increase in water vapour, and there is a bit of a data controversy going on.

What I discovered, is that the level of water vapour in the upper atmosphere does not have anything to do with carbon dioxide levels at all, but dances to the beat of a different drum; The solar activity level, which has been gently falling since the '60s until crashing recently.

humidity-ssn

Now CSIRO say they have been conducting 'experiments', but they haven't. They've been playing with their computer models and finding what they think are correlations between the Antarctic Oscillation and co2 levels.

Time will tell.

Edited by tallbloke on 12/08/2010 04:59:57 MST.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 07:53:17 MST Print View

"I mean all you leftwingers"

"Which raises a question I've asked repeatedly: why do you think climate change is a left-wing issue?"

I think it raises an even more important question, what does climate change have to do with hockey?

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 12:43:42 MST Print View

"Soccer moms being just an example of how people make a collective problem an individual one and put unjustified blame on the powerless to do something that only those in power can do. This just creates class warfare and partisanship and does nothing to address the cause."

This illustrates two things to me. The first, as I mentioned before, is that human nature, as it has been for most all of humanity, is to only really care about the immediate clan, which now-a-days is the immediate family. Thinking globally is still not an easy thing for most of us to do in any way to do except in a theoretical way. Acting globally is certainly outside of our hard-wiring and takes a huge amount of higher mental awareness and compassion. Once this awareness and willingness to at lesat "think" globally is triggered, then other things can fall into place, like car-pooling so, for instance, soccer moms takes turns shuttling the kids to soccer, or a group of families invest in ONE SUV for this purpose, or communities invest in a light rail system designed around getting people to work, play or whatever even in snow storms (just look to places like Scandinavia where they bike to work even in winter, and have comprehensive rail systems in place). These are not insurmountable problems, these are not even tough problems once families and communities decide they are worth investing in. The hard part is making the decision to invest in them in the first place. This is where the whole mantra of "Think Globally, Act Locally" comes into play. It is a small step, but it is in the right direction, and it is 'right' even if you take global warming considerations out of the equation IMHO.

Dave T
(DaveT) - F
simple. on 12/08/2010 15:11:43 MST Print View

"I think it raises an even more important question, what does climate change have to do with hockey?"


I would think that even a simple-minded warmist-alarmist simpleton like you would be able to ascertain that a left-winger, even one of smaller stature, would start to sink (and thus lose one's wrist-shot) once the ice (it's frozen water, warmist/simpleton!) begins to melt due to the global conspiracy/natural warming trend/sunspot cycle/new world order manifesto publication/etc.

It's suprising I even waste my precious time on you all. I could be publishing my ground-breaking, revolutionary research instead. If the powers that be would stop supressing it and making every effort to destroy the truth that is out there if you would only open your eyes.

(Returns to child's wading pool, cling film, smudgepot, and plastic brontosaur figurine, après crumpet break.)

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Hockey on 12/08/2010 15:36:45 MST Print View

It's even simpler. Just take up field hockey. If you can find enough dry ground after all the rises in sea level to play on, you don't have to worry about finding enough ice to play ice hockey on, but can still use a hockey stick!

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: simple. on 12/08/2010 15:38:54 MST Print View

"I would think that even a simple-minded warmist-alarmist simpleton like you would be able to ascertain that a left-winger, even one of smaller stature, would start to sink (and thus lose one's wrist-shot) once the ice (it's frozen water, warmist/simpleton!) begins to melt due to the global conspiracy/natural warming trend/sunspot cycle/new world order manifesto publication/etc."

[slaps hand to forehead and does me best Homer impersonation]Doh! Of course! It has everything to do with hockey! Thanks Dave T! [swoons in admiration, but only slightly because, you know, don't want to get in to the whole Gay thing just yet, saving that for forum page 91)

;-)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 17:35:10 MST Print View

"Don't despair Tom, Nature is on our side. Cancun has had record low temperatures for the last three days."

Three whole days! Consecutive? I just knew them commie pinko Warmista were up to no good. Thanks Rog, I feel much better now. Except for a nagging worry about those alarmist phytoplankton and deforestation articles. You don't suppose those guys are in cahoots with the Warmista, now, do you?

Edited by ouzel on 12/08/2010 18:37:40 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 18:15:52 MST Print View

Tom;
The plural of Warmist is warmista, it's a collective noun.
Capishe? :-)

I was discussing phytoplankton with a marine biologist Julian Flood just this evening. Basically, he was saying there is a lot of uncertainty, not only about the cause of the reduction in phytoplankton (He suspects oil films) but about the effect of reduced phytoplankton on the D13(heavy)/D12(light) carbon isotope ratios, which are use to gauge the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric co2 levels via fossil fuel burning. here's what he had to say after quoting the abstract below:

"Volcanic ash fuels anomalous plankton bloom in subarctic northeast Pacific
Hamme, Roberta C.; Webley, Peter W.; Crawford, William R.; Whitney, Frank A.; DeGrandpre, Michael D.; Emerson, Steven R.; Eriksen, Charles C.; Giesbrecht, Karina E.; Gower, Jim F. R.; Kavanaugh, Maria T.; Peña, M. Angelica; Sabine, Christopher L.; Batten, Sonia D.; Coogan, Laurence A.; Grundle, Damian S.; Lockwood, Deirdre
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 37, Issue 19, CiteID L19604

quote
Using multiple lines of evidence, we demonstrate that volcanic ash deposition in August 2008 initiated one of the largest phytoplankton blooms observed in the subarctic North Pacific. Unusually widespread transport from a volcanic eruption in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska deposited ash over much of the subarctic NE Pacific, followed by large increases in satellite chlorophyll. Surface ocean pCO2, pH, and fluorescence reveal that the bloom started a few days after ashfall. Ship-based measurements showed increased dominance by diatoms. This evidence points toward fertilization of this normally iron-limited region by ash, a relatively new mechanism proposed for iron supply to the ocean. The observations do not support other possible mechanisms. Extrapolation of the pCO2 data to the area of the bloom suggests a modest ∼0.01 Pg carbon export from this event, implying that even large-scale iron fertilization at an optimum time of year is not very efficient at sequestering atmospheric CO2.
unquote

I would add ‘in a region not deficient or limited in dissolved silica’ to that last line. AFAIK the usual limit on diatoms is dissolved silica for their shells, and given enough silica, diatoms will out-compete calcareous phytos. It would be instructive to see if the silica-feeding leg of my case above stands up to reality.

One thing is resolved: diatoms pump down unexpectedly small amounts of CO2. If they actually are replacing calcareous phytos because of our silica export from the land, then the export of 12C to the deep ocean will be reduced (assuming that calcareous phytos do not exhibit the same unexpectedly small pull-down) and a light carbon isotope signal will be left in the atmosphere — and, of course, the amount of atmospheric CO2 in total will rise. Light signal, more CO2, must be anthropogenic. Or not.

Agriculture causes run-off, dust deposition, which, presumably leads to silica increase. Diatoms win in a competition with calcareous phytos as long as there is enough silica. The paper certainly shows that diatoms don’t cause much of a CO2 pull-down. Have we increased the diatom population as well as knocking back the other phytos by stratification nutrient depletion? I don’t know. It’s a nice economical explanation, light isotope signal and CO2 increase in one tidy package.

We got better (better in the sense that we made a bigger impact) at agriculture before the good men of Ironbridge began to make the iron wheels hum, so one would expect something to show somewhere in the climate record. This paper hints at where to look.

Handwave, handwave, I know. Does a calcareous phyto bloom pull down light carbon? Until we find that out it’s just handwave."

As for deforestation, well there's only so much I can do. ;-)

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 18:36:54 MST Print View

"The plural of Warmist is warmista, it's a collective noun.
Capishe? :-)"

Ahhh. Thank you, Rog. In my ignorance, I thought you had made the word up.

As for the rest of your post, there was precious little to alleviate my concern about diminished production of atmospheric O2 as a result of phytoplankton die off, likely due to human activities, as even Mr. Flood suspects. I would hate to depend on the vagaries of volcanic eruptions that stimulate occasional blooms of phytoplankton to maintain our supply of atmospheric O2. Or have I missed something?

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 18:40:42 MST Print View

The Novgorod Chronicle exerpts are great!

Nice timing I'm watching Sergei Prokofiev's fanciful musical tale Peter and the Wolf on PBS. If you've never seen it, then add to your list. There are answers to this thread is in that piece. You'll see.

From the Chronicle...
1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you

Listen to that guy's tunes and get more answers to Carbon Flamation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiwF_z8Wu_I&feature=related

Maybe the real problem is that The Ground Is Rising!

Go watch that fat cat crawl out of the ice!

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/08/2010 18:43:04 MST Print View

Those that don't get 'Capishe?' obviously have never lived in NYC

Get outta heah

Arapiles .
(Arapiles) - M

Locale: Melbourne
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/09/2010 05:07:47 MST Print View

"Those that don't get 'Capishe?' obviously have never lived in NYC
Get outta heah"

What can I say? I've spent all my time in Carlton and the Veneto.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: So how far will you go? on 12/09/2010 11:50:38 MST Print View

"The plural of Warmist is warmista, it's a collective noun.
Capishe? :-)"

Ahhh. Thank you, Rog. In my ignorance, I thought you had made the word up.


I did. That's why I'm touchy about its correct usage. ;-)

I would hate to depend on the vagaries of volcanic eruptions that stimulate occasional blooms of phytoplankton to maintain our supply of atmospheric O2. Or have I missed something?

The rapidity of the bloom after the volcanic explosion shows a couple of things.
1) There is a healthy population ready for action.
2) That population is limited by iron shortage, and volcanic activity is a primary source.

We've been going through a relatively quiet time for volcanic activity over the last century. There tend to be more of them going pop when solar activity is low. The sun has gone into funk as it does every ~180 years or so. Solar activity levels are likely to be very low for at least the next 20 years. Expect some volcanic activity increase. Katla will make a mess of northern hemisphere flight plans when it blows sometime in the next 15 years, and will no doubt be good news for plankton.

Regarding atmospheric levels of oxygen.

At the Puy de Dome measuring station (~1400m)

the rate of CO2 increase shifted up from 1.08 ppm (parts per million) for the years 2001-2002 to 2.41 ppm/y for 2003-2006; while the increase in D(O2/N2) and APO (measures of oxygen concentration, see Box 1) shifted downwards to greater extents from –2.4 ppm/y and -1.5 ppm/y to -9.5 ppm/y and -6.9 ppm/y respectively.

Oxygen is ~21% of the atmosphere, whereas co2 is only 0.039%. So there is ~500 times more oxygen in the atmosphere than there is co2. This means that while co2 has gone up ~0.5% in 2006, oxygen fell only ~0.005%

Oxygen would need to drop 1000 times more than that for it to be a problem.

The earth switched over to an oxygen rich atmosphere around 2.5 billion years ago, and has been through a lot more problematic climate changes than 1.5F in 110 years without suffocating life in the past. Try not to worry too much.

Cheers.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/09/2010 17:28:32 MST Print View

"Try not to worry too much."

In the event, I am not concerned about asphyxiating in my sleep, Rog. It is more of a long term issue, and there does seem to be some concern among some marine biologists about Ph becoming a more serious limiting factor if present trends continue. I will confess at this point that I am not quite as dismissive as you of the general literature, as well as the opinions of one friend who is scientifically very knowledgable and well connected to some pretty competent oceanographers at the University of Washington. They have a number of concerns regarding climate change/health of the oceans, and Ph is one of them.


"1) There is a healthy population ready for action.
2) That population is limited by iron shortage, and volcanic activity is a primary source."

In one location, or are you making a general statement here?

"This means that while co2 has gone up ~0.5% in 2006, oxygen fell only ~0.005%"

Over a period of what, 5 years? That is not a very long time, is it? What happens if Ph continues to drop as CO2 continues to increase and at some point falls below the level at which phytoplankton can survive? At that point, O2 production could well fall off at much more rapid rate than .005%/5 years as a result of a massive phytoplankton die off.

"Oxygen would need to drop 1000 times more than that for it to be a problem."

Are you saying it would take a 5% drop in O2 before life on earth began to experience problems? If so, on what do you base this particular number? I'm genuinely curious. Is 16% a survivable percentage of O2 in earth's atmosphere for all aerocic life? 15%? 14%? Where is the limit? Is there even a single limit above which all aerobic organisms live and below which they perish? Or do some organisms begin dieing off at, say, 19% and so on?

Edited by ouzel on 12/09/2010 17:43:24 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: So how far will you go? on 12/10/2010 05:50:46 MST Print View

Tom,
Changes of PH in the ocean are so small they can't be directly measured. Ask your oceanographer friends. Again, the people working on this stuff are relying on computer models, which means any prediction of the future is worthless, because of the uncertainty involved.

Oxygen levels have tiny fluctuations, but the Earth has 2.5 billion years worth of evolutionary development which deals with changes in climate and atmospheric makeup. 500 million years ago the atmospheric level of co2 was ~8000ppm. That is twenty times higher than today. Was life suffocated? No. In fact there was a massive increase in lifeforms known as the Permian explosion.

As I said, volcanic activity has been generally low for 100 years. Volcanic ash doesn't just dump iron into oceans. They also emit enormous quantities of sulphur dioxide, which rains out into the oceans as sulphuric acid. There are other natural processes like calcifying deposition, huge in scale, which make the ocean more alkaline. In the midst of these huge natural cycles, human emissions (and don't forget we are 'natural' too) are just another part of the ongoing evolution of our planet.

Anthropogenic 'ocean acidification' is just another scare being foisted onto us to draw attention away from the failing Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis which Nature is currently mocking. New evidence is showing that corals adapt remarkably quickly to changing ocean ph. I'll dig out the references if I find time.

2006 was an exceptional year for the oxygen level drop, and extrapolating a trend from 2002 through 2006 to the future and attributing it to humans is just daft. Statistics can be used to bamboozle the public, but climatologically speaking, since it's generally recognized that 30 years is the minimum before trends are considered meaningful (should be 60 really - the length of the major oceanic cycles), we should look at the longer term dataset as it develops. It's barely 20 years old.

One factor which should be considered is that oxygen is more soluble in cooler water, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation turned negative in 2005. According to the ARGO network of 3000 diving Buoys worldwide, the global ocean heat content has been slowly dropping since 2003.

If you are sufficiently interested, read this page, and then the comments from Ken Griffith near the bottom, which go unanswered...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

This might give you a hint regarding the variable quality of "the general literature".

Edited by tallbloke on 12/10/2010 05:57:48 MST.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Saying it like it is on 12/10/2010 06:08:26 MST Print View

Judith Curry is one of the world's top climate scientists, and her testimony to the house caused a stir. Now the house sub-committee has come up with some very searching questions for those who testified.

1. It is clear from your public statements that you generally agree with the mainstream view of global warming and cannot easily be characterized as a climate change “denier” or “skeptic.” Nonetheless, you have been quite critical of the process under which climate sciene is conducted, saying that “it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thward the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports.”

a. Why are so many scientists “pointing their guns” at skeptics when sharing data and embrcing debate seems to be an obvious way for scientists to increase the credibility of their arguments and influence public debate?

b. Given the potentially enormous influence of climate science on economic and environmental policy – which ultimately boils down to jobs, shouldn’t it be held to a higher standard in the public debate? For example, should Congress consider blocking funding for researchers that do not make their data and materials available for public scrutiny?

c. Should such research be excluded from use in policy debates and scientific assessments such as those by the National Academies or IPCC?

2. You state in your testimony that the conflict regarding the theory of anthropogenic climate change is over the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown about natural climate variability. For a long time, the scientific community did not consider uncertainty a bad thing. In fact, the word “certainty” was something that was almost never used (you are not certain the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but you are reasonably sure that it is very likely to occur.)

a. At what point did uncertainty become a bad thing in the climate community?

b. How did this shift within the scientific community occur? How does it shift back?

c. Are there any efforts within the scientific community to self-correct this paradigm shift? If there is not, what does this mean for the decision-makers needing objective and unbiased scientific information to inform their policies?

3. Do you believe the current IPCC processes are working? If so, why? If not, what specific actions can be taken to repair them, and in the meantime, why should the product of a process that isn’t working be relied upon as the basis for policy actions that would impose enormous costs on the United States economy?


Here is her reply:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/09/testimony-followup-part-ii/

It's too long to quote here, but everyone should read it in full. My favorite quote is:

“A top priority for research funding should be exploring the significance and characteristics of uncertainty across the range of climate science, not only the climate models themselves, but also solar forcing, surface temperature datasets, natural internal modes of climate variability, etc. “

At last!

Edited by tallbloke on 12/10/2010 06:13:30 MST.

George Matthews
(gmatthews) - MLife
Re: Saying it like it is on 12/10/2010 16:49:13 MST Print View

Thanks for the link. Great information!