A report published by Science magazine on February 8 has gotten tremendously little coverage from the mainstream media. Given its findings -- that glacial melt in Greenland dramatically slowed in 2006 -- this certainly isn’t surprising.
So far, the most comprehensive report on this subject was done by YubaNet.com on Tuesday (emphasis mine throughout):
Two of Greenland's largest glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005. And then, less than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
It should now make sense why this report got so little attention. The article continued:
The variability over such a short time, reported online Feb. 9 on Science magazine's Science Express, underlines the problem in assuming that glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory, according to lead author Ian Howat, a post-doctoral researcher with the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. The paper comes a year after a study in the journal Science revealed that discharge from Greenland's glaciers had doubled between 2000 and 2005, leading some scientists to speculate such changes were on a steady, upward climb.
"While the rates of shrinking of these two glaciers have stabilized, we don't know whether they will remain stable, grow or continue to collapse in the near future," Howat says. That's because the glaciers' shape changed greatly, becoming stretched and thinned.
Here’s likely the key finding the media want to keep from Americans:
"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he says. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown."
In sum, they really don’t know what is going to happen in the future based upon the activity of these glaciers during such a short period of time. Obviously, this is not the case the global warming alarmists are making, especially folks like Al Gore who claims that major population areas around the world are about to be flooded by rising ocean levels due to glacial melt. The article continued:
Getting accurate computer models of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers is important because 99 percent of the Earth's glacial ice is found in those two places. Glacial ice is second only to the oceans as the largest reservoir of water on the planet.
Previous findings published a year ago showed that Greenland's glaciers had doubled their discharge between 2000 and 2005, but these results were based on "snapshots" of discharge taken five years apart, Howat says.
"Did an equal amount of discharge occur every year? Did it happen all in one year? Is there a steady upward trajectory? We didn't know," he says."
They don’t know? But we’re constantly being told by the media that there is a consensus of scientists that do know. Why the contradiction?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
yup - all mans fault!we agree
February 13, 2007 - 16:00 ET by florida_chadyup - all mans fault!
we agree to disagree on this. I don't find your examples to be reality based or scientific in any way.
I believe florida_chad
February 13, 2007 - 16:16 ET by SportPoliticsAs a blubbering buffooned liberal, I believe we need to err on the side of caution florida_chad.
Which means of course we all need to run around screaming like chickens with our heads cut off, while holding our breath to cut down on poisonous global warming pollutive co2 emissions, before the final unstoppable Mount Doom melting ice floe engulfs us, extinghuishing life on this soon to be burning up planet.
Worse case scenario means the hot magma core surfaces all over the earth after the exponentially cascading rise in heat entrapment, burning everyone alive in armageddonic hellfire, as the oceans turn to steam rising to the atmosphere and further aggravate the capture of heat. The religious right zealouts think they will float upward to Heaven escaping the unforgiven's fate, so they are doing all in their power to bring it on.
Green house gases are 70% wat
February 13, 2007 - 16:14 ET by RackieGreen house gases are 70% water vapor, 20% clouds, 6% CO2. The AGW supporters claim that humans contribute 6.5% of the total CO2. So 6.5% of 6% is hardly enough to throw off a global system. BTW, the remainer of GH gases are made up of AquaVelva, second hand smoke and cow farts. And, nobody knows for sure what is the current temp of the planet. But to be on the safe side, stay inside.
The fact that the MSM, Al Gor
February 13, 2007 - 15:17 ET by EdhenryThe fact that the MSM, Al Gore, the UN stooges hide these reports is good news. Over time, by ignoring other points of view and politicizing almost every issue, the MSM will continue to lose credilibilty. Similar to Hillary and her Iraq vote.
Keep turning the lights on the cock-a-roaches. They are becoming more shrill in their delivery, to make up for their lack of credibility.
A lie travels around the world before the truth gets out of bed, however, only the truth endures.
Josh said this was settled. N
February 13, 2007 - 15:20 ET by florida_chadJosh said this was settled. Now what?
always problems with over-relying on recent data
February 13, 2007 - 15:28 ET by dejourThere are always people on both sides of the debate that rush to extrapolate based on recent trends. There are plenty of factors that cause natural variations - and if you extrapolate based on these recent trends you can get some nutty predictions.
Nevertheless, I believe that man is tilting the long-term trend towards global warming as a result of CO2 emissions. The science is simple. Plenty of records show the steady increase of CO2 over the industrial age. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which will increase atmospheric temperatures, all other factors held constant.
Think of the stock market. Long term trends indicate that the S&P500 will rise around 8% per year. Logic dictates that long-term growth will be positive as businesses strive to maximize earnings. Managers that can't do that will be replaced - or at least they'll decide to give their money to people who can grow earnings. Now every day the stock market goes up or down - but it would be nutty to base predictions on short-term fluctuations (eg. the stock market lost 1% today, therefore it wil be at 0 in 100 days)
Actually the stock market also provides a good example of why climate can be predicted better than weather. One can make a prediction with reasonable certainty that the S&P500 will be higher in 20 years. I'm guessing that you'd expect around 300% growth over that time, and the chances that the index would be down over a 20 year period would be less than 1%. Conversely the chances of the index going up or down on any particular day is around 50% - it's difficult to predict what the market will do any one day, but the long-term trend is clear. Same thing with the weather - too much noise to make predictions about next week, but it's easier to make a prediction of the long-term trend.
Boy, are you full of shit
February 13, 2007 - 15:31 ET by RackieBoy, are you full of shit
And with a long term predicti
February 13, 2007 - 15:34 ET by florida_chadAnd with a long term prediction no one will remeber if you are wrong. Please explain the global cooling fears of the 70's with the industrial age going on? The were not relying on recent trends then. They used the same long term data that today is being used to predict GW. At least you say it is a prediction and not settled science.
Also, who is putting more CO2 in the environement, man or nature?
Thanks
global cooling
February 13, 2007 - 15:46 ET by dejourWell one difference is that global cooling was accepted by a much smaller percentage of the scientific community in the 1970s than global warming is today. Someone posted a Time article on another thread stating that growing numbers of scientists believed in global cooling - but it still read like it was a minority.
The second difference is that the global cooling theories seemed to be based more on trends, and then a bit of brainstorming to think of explanations. Global warming predictions have been around and pretty accepted since the mid 80s. Since then temperatures have trended upwards - very consistent with the theories. Not conclusive - but the theoretical underpinnings have held.
Obviously most of the CO2 comes from nature. But man's increased CO2 production is throwing the system off-kilter. Think of a half-full sink without a plug. Over time you figure out what rate to run the faucet so that the draining water is exactly replaced by the water you're running and the water level is constant. Assume that that rate is nature. Now increase the faucet flow by 10% to represent man. The sink water level rises and eventually overflows. So sure nature is responsible for more CO2 but it's man's CO2 which causes the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This reasoning is fallacious.
February 13, 2007 - 16:55 ET by NL207This reasoning is fallacious. The fallacy is in your analogy. You assume that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a variable in any of the mechanisms that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Science, REAL science, and not that junk peddled by Al Gore, has demostrated clearly that this is not the case. The rate of carbon removal from the atmosphere is highly dependent on its concentration therein.
In the case iof the sink and the water, the flow through the drain is relatively constant with th level of water in the sink, because the water column is not that tall. [column height = pressure, outflow = area of drain orifice x pressure].
The Global Warming predictions have been around since a little before 1988, when Dr. James Hansen testified before the Congress on the subject. They are NOT widely accepted in a scientific sense because they DO NOT YET CONFORM TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. They are a theory only. They have never advanced beyond the hypothesis stage because of a lack experimental confirmation. They are not conclusive. Moreover, there are now strong indications in the form of contradictory data that suggest they will never survive phase three of the scientifc method in their current form.
Now, let me give you something to ponder: Prior to industrialization, 300 years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was thought to be at a natural equilibrium of approximately 275 parts per million. This means that natural forces on the earth were generating CO2 at a rate which was approximately equal to the rate natural forces were removing it from the atmosphere. The global warming alarmists variously claim that 70 or even 80% of the CO2 generated today comes from human activity. Yet the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has only gradually risen to approximately 380 ppm. Why is this do you suppose?
Gee, no answer forthcoming
February 13, 2007 - 20:54 ET by Uncle JohnGee, no answer forthcoming from Soup "Dejour"? He's probably looking it up in his actuarial tables.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
CO2
February 13, 2007 - 16:58 ET by acadia1755F-Chad think a bit more please.
150 years ago the atmosphere was
made up of 99.96%
nitrogen, oxygen and argon and today it is still 99.96% nitrogen, oxygen and
argon. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small that an increase
from 280ppmv to 380 ppmv (parts per million by volume) does not affect the
concentration of the major components.
Argon points out a very interesting fact.
There is over 25 times more argon in the atmosphere than CO2 but CO2 emissions
are millions of times more than argon emissions.
This is because argon is an inert gas that forms from the radioactive decay of
potassium40. It has been doing this for the entire 4.5 billion year history of
the Earth but it is an inert gas with no where to go so it has just collected
in the atmosphere.
CO2 on the other hand is always being added and removed from the atmosphere
through the "carbon" cycle and has come to an equilibrium
concentration that is
very small. Human contribution to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is
minute compared with the natural sources and the scientific evidence points to
warming being a cause of increase in CO2 concentration not the result of it.
(Close inspection of the geological records shows that warming always leads
increase in CO2 concentration.)
Two processes remove CO2 from the atmosphere. THe first is photosynthesis which
uses the energy of the sun to undo the "burning process" (oxydation)
that
created CO2 from oxygen and carbon. The carbon is added to the plant and the
oxygen is returned to the atmosphere.
The second process takes CO2 dissolved in the oceans and combines it with
calcium to form calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that forms sea shells and other forms
of limestone deposits.
have a nice day.:-)
Acadia - interesting. Thanks
February 13, 2007 - 17:22 ET by florida_chadAcadia - interesting. Thanks
Not only interesting
February 13, 2007 - 21:12 ET by SportPoliticsNot only interesting, but a(NL and acia) dynamic duo **s k***ing, with no soup of the day bs response from babbler lib.
The debate is over.
Cousin. If my memory is corre
February 13, 2007 - 21:28 ET by danboCousin. If my memory is correct. Argon is used in deep divers dry suits. Those diving with trimix find the helium does little to insulate them from the cold water. They use a small bottle of argon to insluate them.
Another greenhouse gas. With all these greenhouse gases. We should all be dead.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
So, dejour - cute screen name, BTW, do you have ideas often?
February 13, 2007 - 15:36 ET by acaiguanaSo, dejour - cute screen name, BTW, do you have ideas often?
Because if you do I'd suggest that you try a simple test. Ask yourself, "Is this silly?"
Save you a lot of grief.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Dejour
February 13, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Noel SheppardDejour,
Have you ever heard the statistical precept that correlation does not prove causality?
For instance, if I can show a correlation between how many geese are in a pond in the middle of Central Park on Super Bowl Sunday, and which conference normally wins, does that mean the geese are responsible?
In fact, using your stock market premise, I'm sure you are aware of a high correlation coefficient between the NFC winning the Super Bowl and the S&P 500 going up the following year? Yet, I'm sure you don't see any causality.
With this in mind, there has been much opining about a correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures. Yet, many scientists question the causality as they have shown periods of rising CO2 when temperatures declined. The mini-ice age that occurred in the middle of the last century as CO2 levels increased is a fine example.
If increases in CO2 cause rising temperatures, shouldn't that have been the case in the 1950s through the 1970s?
Therefore, a long-term positive correlation between CO2 and temperature might mean absolutely nothing. ns
Noel, it was kinda of a cute idea though.
February 13, 2007 - 15:52 ET by acaiguanaNoel, it was kinda of a cute idea though.
This is a good sign when we get a Global Warming enthusiast who actually tries to deal with original thought. It's an education problem. We are fighting the consequence of Public Educations. I am not sure it is a battle that can be won.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
yes I'm aware of that
February 13, 2007 - 16:00 ET by dejourAs an actuary, I took many stats courses in university, so I'm aware that correlation does not equal causality.
I don't think that I'm guilty of that here. I'm not saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because we have this correlated trend data. I'm saying that from what science knows about the behaviour of heat and CO2 molecules, CO2 will trap heat in the atmosphere.
I've admitted that CO2 is only one of many factors that influence climate, so my explanation for the 1950-1970s is that other factors overwhelmed the CO2 during that period. If CO2 had not risen, the temperature decrease during that period would have been even greater.
Dejour
February 13, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Noel SheppardDejour,
Well, but there are scientists who are refuting the connection. Furthermore, you are indeed claiming causality, are you not? And, therefore, if rising CO2 leads to higher temperatures, isn't this claim refuted if there are historical periods when temperatures have declined as CO2 levels rose?
Moreover, if there is indeed a factor or factors that can overcome CO2's influence on temperature -- i.e., declining temperatures during rising periods of CO2 -- doesn't it suggest that such a factor or factors might be more responsible for temperature?
As an actuary, certainly you must see the logic in that. ns
causality
February 13, 2007 - 16:36 ET by dejourI am claiming causality - but I am claiming in on the basis of the greenhouse model, not on the basis of recent observed data.
And, therefore, if rising CO2 leads to higher temperatures, isn't this claim refuted if there are historical periods when temperatures have declined as CO2 levels rose?
It is not refuted. Think back to the S&P500 example. Suppose I say that "As time passes the S&P500 index will tend to rise". Now we can all find periods of a year in the historical data where it did not rise. I don't think this invalidates the general idea that the S&P500 index will tend to rise over time. What happens during those brief periods is that short-term effects temporarily overwhelm the relationship between time and a rising S&P500. I believe the same thing happens with CO2 and temperature.
Moreover, if there is indeed a factor or factors that can overcome CO2's influence on temperature -- i.e., declining temperatures during rising periods of CO2 -- doesn't it suggest that such a factor or factors might be more responsible for temperature?
Well, over short-time horizons there will be bigger impacts than increasing CO2. (eg. volcanic eruptions) But these short-term items are by definition not long-lasting and are less of a concern. There are probably also some long-term events that could have a bigger impact (eg. shifts in Earth's orbit, large meteorites, significant fluctuation in sun's radiation). But we don't have any eveidence that any of these things will happen. Therefore in models of future our best guess of future temperatures will be largely determined by things such as greenhouse gases.
Dejour
February 13, 2007 - 16:41 ET by Noel SheppardDejour,
The flaw in your reasoning here is that with your market observation, you're not implying a causality other than time. So, your analogy is quite flawed unless you apply a reason why the market will normally go up over time. If you leave it as is, the contention is that time is responsible for the market's increase. As time never stops, how would one disprove this assertion?
By contrast, if you claim a causality between rising CO2 and temperature, any period when this is not the case acts to refute the assertion and open the door for another cause. See what I mean? ns
In reality, ice core samples
February 13, 2007 - 16:55 ET by bassndudeIn reality, ice core samples show a correlation between temp and co2 increases. However, study bares out that rising co2 levels in the past came after the temp increases. More likely the sun and the earths orbit are what alters the atmospheric conditions and the temps world wide.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
It's the middle of February
February 13, 2007 - 17:10 ET by JDWIt's the middle of February and I have 5" of snow outside of my house, MO. The past few days have prompted everyone to turn up the furnace, record cold even in Hawaii!
I am forced to endure all of this ewacko GW BS from everyone including you and it becomes a trite nauseating. Branson has even offered $25 million to the egghead who can prove your 'theory'.
Who is recognizing the damn cold? How much citrus has been destroyed? It was 45 in Hawaii, Chicago wind chills would freeze anything on your body, and NY is building snowmen with bulldolzers.
We are getting hot about lack of coverage.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
I will add another correlatio
February 13, 2007 - 21:34 ET by danboI will add another correlation. By belt size line and global warming. There is a coorelation between my beltsize and global warming.
Guess my waist has caused global warming.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo,I'm convinced.That is t
February 13, 2007 - 22:15 ET by Blondedanbo,
I'm convinced.
That is the most cogent explanation of Global Warming (oops, Climate Change) I've read to date.
Dude...go on a diet, please.
My AC bill is a bit high for February.
Thanks, danbo!
You're welcome Blondie. As t
February 13, 2007 - 22:33 ET by danboYou're welcome Blondie. As times of warming are usually good for people. And times of cold cause lots of problems. I do it for the betterment of man and womankind.
Actually I can't lie. I stole the analogy from a statistician who's also a sceptic. Though the correlation between the number of democrats in a community and the number of bars, is mine. Proof positive that democrats drive people to drink.
BTW This hear has been fairly cool. Only had my AC on a couple of days so far this year.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Proof positive that democrats
February 14, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Chicago RepublicanProof positive that democrats drive people to drink.
AMEN
That premise would have been
February 14, 2007 - 16:29 ET by JoeBobThat premise would have been laughable until I saw Boston Legal last night, in which Denny Crane was defended against shipping medical waste in the form of human fat out of the country for use as an alternative fuel. His compatriot (forget his name, the windbag who sits on the bacony with him at the show's end) and he agree to add a few pounds to do their part to save the planet. Amusing thought, but the courtroom closing diatribe was nauseating.
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
The science is simple. Ple
February 13, 2007 - 15:45 ET by Jack BauerThe science is simple. Plenty of records show the steady increase of
CO2 over the industrial age. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which
will increase atmospheric temperatures, all other factors held constant.
No you are simple. And ignorant
You start with the well known fallacy: pro hoc, propter hoc.
I won't even get into the true scientific method of refutation and falsification.
simple
February 13, 2007 - 15:49 ET by dejourI suppose I am simple. Explain what you mean "pro hoc, propter hoc"
Let me help you out djour.
February 13, 2007 - 15:58 ET by acaiguanaLet me help you out djour.
All tables have four legs.
All dogs have four legs.
All dogs are tables.
"Event C happened immediately prior to event E.
Therefore, C caused E."
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
stil don't get it
February 13, 2007 - 16:06 ET by dejourI see the fallacy in acaiguana response. I still don't see how it applies to what I said. Either you're assuming something I didn't write, or I'm assuming something I didn't write.
As dogs and tables have nothing in common but legs dejour.
February 13, 2007 - 16:27 ET by acaiguanaAs dogs and tables have nothing in common but legs dejour, so your stock market analogy has nothing in common but trends. Neither can be compared to the other.
How's this? Children tend to grow taller as they age. The stock market tends to go higher as it ages? Ah, the idea of you being an actuary is a little scary.
I call your attention to the fluorocarbon scare of a few decades back. I saw a poster come on this site and make the statement to the effect that if fluorocarbons hadn't been around, the slight anamoly of the decrease in the 'earths' temperatures during the 1970's would not have happened.
This put the poor guy in the position of defending a man made event that in fact was combatting Global Warming that was banned (the event) due to fears of some silly hole in the Ozone Layer.
That's the problem here with Global Warming. None of the models being promoted take into consideration the real non-predictable chaos that man brings to the picture. They all assume away man's behaviorial change while arguing for a specific behavioral change that will impact personal liberty, free markets, economic base and the size of government.
That's the problem, my man.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
I was trying to isolate that
February 13, 2007 - 17:39 ET by dejourI was trying to isolate that one piece - trends. Specifically the long-term trend and a short-term stochastic process that creates noise. Both the stock market and climate have that, so I think they are comparable. A lot of people have trouble differentiating between the weather (short-term noise) and climate (long-term trend). Fewer seem to have that issue when talking stocks, so I thought I'd show the similarity.
I think you think that I think that because the stock market goes up then tempertaures go up. Of course that is not the case. All I was trying to say is that there is a long-term trend in climate and that there is a lot of short-term noise which makes extrapolation difficult. Similarly stock markets have a trend and short-term noise.
Your last point makes a little more sense. Could humans impact the weather in the future in unpredictable ways? I suppose they could. I'd prefer not to gamble on it though. At the very least, I'd like to have a reasonable plan for inducing man-made cooling before allowing warming to proceed too far.
long term climate change has
February 13, 2007 - 17:44 ET by florida_chadlong term climate change has happened before. GW is a non proven theory.
You'd rather not gamble on humans but you'll gamble on governmen
February 13, 2007 - 18:02 ET by acaiguanaYou'd rather not gamble on humans but you'll gamble on government.
Because that is who is going to come up with your 'reasonable plan'. Not the market place. Riddle me this.
If government is so successful in their 'plans' to fix problems created by 'humans' why do we have such a mess in the inner cities with gangs and prisons filled to overcapacity and murder rates that exceed any sane expectation of a rational civilization?
I'll give you my answer. Government doesn't do very well at solving problems because government is not accountable to success and failure checks and balances that exist in the market place. Government in fact has a terrible track record of 'fixing' social problems.
So, I have zero confidence in a 'reasonable' plan ever being developed by the government (any government) to 'fix' any man made Global Warming stuff.
The next problem is the concept of centralized planning. We have innumerable examples of centralized planning interfering in the market place by governments thorughout recent history (say the past 125 years). Not too good a record there, huh?
There is no way to impose a 'reasonable' plan to address Global Warming without massive government control over major underpinnings of our economy and the world economy. And the Democrats accuse Bush of being a fascist? This Global Warming and the 'solutions' looming on the horizon will create one of the most fascist government intrusions on our lives that the history of mankind has ever seen.
Now, you have seen fit to lable one poster as paranoid and me as fear mongering. But I backed up my concerns with links to two group events, one by the UN and another a NOG web site trying to push for a Carbon Tax.
You have done nothing to back up your assertions except create out of whole cloth a comparative analogy that doesn't work. The stock market is not the climate and no amount of comparison can make your analogy work.
My tag line says it all. Hillary Clinton wants to 'take' the profits of Big Oil and put them into 'innovative' solutions to alternative fuel sources.
The market is the innovative solution to all the issues that might be associated with Global Warming, and I've yet to see a clear delineation of all the destruction and death that is going to occur during any future Global Warming.
These predictions and extrapolations are insulting. They are set forth as 'decided' science when of course, that is simply not true. They are painted in such as way as to threaten the livelihoods of dissenters and now, a major columnist of the Washington Post/Boston Globe, etc is calling me the equlivant of a Holocaust Denier?
When I see someone like you come here and make the statements you have made and then try (I think rather unsuccessfully) to defend them; what I see is a great number of Americans who are victims of this outright and dishonest propaganda campaign by the Global Warmers, the eco-freaks, and their lackeys, the Mainstream Media.
So, yeah, I'm not impressed with either your logic or your argument. You may be an actuary; but I question whether it is in the private sector. Are you one of the government actuaries who start with a conclusion and look for data to prove it?
Or if you are honest, you would understand that the resistance and push back on Global Warming alarmists have just as reasoned a basis in both science and history and economics as anything Al Gore has ever done.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
i said i was going
February 13, 2007 - 18:30 ET by dejourI said I was going, and I will but I have to reply to this.
1. I never called anyone paranoid or fearmongering - or even said anything remotely close. Don't make things up - it undermines your credibility.
2. I tend to agree with Jane Jacobs in "Systems of Survival". For a collective action problem, let the government make a general regulation and let the market decide how best to adapt. This is what people are trying to do with carbon-credits. The systems proposed so far could certainly be improved, but the key is to give individuals and companies market-incentives to reduce CO2 usage.
3. It seems that you are one the launching ad-hominem attacks on me and my ability as an actuary (private life insurance company, btw). If that is how you like to win arguments, so be it, but most people can see through these disingenuous and insulting tactics.
4. You may be misunderstanding my analogies as attempted proof. I'm simply showing how models have long-term trends and short-run variations. If you look at the source article, it seems to suggest that global warming is not happening because glacier discharge decreased in 2006. My point is that there are all sorts of reasons for increases and decreases in the short-term. I stated that the science is simple. CO2 is increasing. This CO2 increase in the last century is because of industry. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, the greenhouse effect will increase, and industrial CO2 emissions are largely responsible. Most comments have not attacked this argument. A few attacked the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not determined by data showing correlation of CO2 in the atmosphere and warming. I refer you to the wikipedia article on "greenhouse effect". It states that laboratory spectroscopic measurements are used to determine different gases reaction to infrared heat.
Wikipedia - now there's a c
February 13, 2007 - 20:57 ET by Uncle JohnWikipedia - now there's a credible and unbiased source. ROFLMAO.
"It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Drudge had an article on earl
February 13, 2007 - 21:20 ET by Eric TurnerDrudge had an article on earlier today talking about a university or college up in New England (I believe) that put out policy that students could not use Wikipedia as a source on papers any longer.
That's just simply lazy research. A college student should know better than use that as a source.
I am in a Graduate course a
February 13, 2007 - 22:29 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI am in a Graduate course and can assure you all that they have told us that if we quote Wikipeida, we will be given a failing grade.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
LBZ I was in grad school many
February 13, 2007 - 22:40 ET by danboLBZ I was in grad school many, many years ago. I seriously questioned how some of my classmates got out of high school. Much less how they got into grad school. Has it gotten any better?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo,Apparently not...Back i
February 13, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Blondedanbo,
Apparently not...
Back in the day (how's that for an ancient ref?)
We had to negotiate the stacks in the library.
Okay....we won't let the cyber-students know what that really is all about...what say you, danbo?
Are you in the islands yet? :)
Well there were different way
February 13, 2007 - 23:10 ET by danboWell there were different ways to negotiate the stacks in the library. Some more fun then others. :) People would giggle when they said they had to go to the back stacks. And grad students could get their own cubicles. Those were fun days.
I will say. If your mind wasn't in the gutter? A university library, late at night, is a wonderful place to study. Or do research. Or just to wander through journals.
We fly out friday morning early. Next week I can give you a report of the death or lack there of of the reefs and seas.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo,I knew you'd get the &q
February 13, 2007 - 23:15 ET by Blondedanbo,
I knew you'd get the "stacks" reference.
Perfect for whatever one chooses it to mean...LOL.
Have a wonderful trip....and I'm hoping you'll find the reef to be perfect in all aspects....the best thing in the world to see. Lucky you. Enjoy!
I'm out...have a great trip.
I think this is the first tim
February 13, 2007 - 23:43 ET by danboI think this is the first time I've heard about or talked about the stacks since the 60's or 70's. Many people got their education in the library. In more ways than one.
You may appreciate. We had a "required" intro to how to use the library course for freshmen. A dinky one hour course. I went to get set up for graduation. When we all realized I never took it. My response. If I haven't figured out how to use the library yet...
So there I was. A graduating senior with all these freshmen in beanies. I wanted to talk about the various disciplinary abstracts. They wanted to talk about the guide to periodic literature. (Is there anything important in there?) I wanted to talk about the chart room, the microfilm files or the rare books room. They wanted to talk about the dewy decimal system. Twas a different universe.
Take care.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
But back in my day. Universit
February 13, 2007 - 23:16 ET by danboBut back in my day. University libraries had to be pretty big. All those clay tablets took up space.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Ah, you are right dejour, I was wrong.
February 13, 2007 - 21:50 ET by acaiguanaAh, you are right dejour, I was wrong.
Number 1 on your post. Sorry, got confused, happens to me once in a while. I confused your arguments with another argument. So, my fault.
The actuary comments were made because regardless of the number of times you have had your logical fallacy pointed out, you seem to be unable to understand why it doesn't work. But, again, I do know actuarial specialists who work from conclusion to reason, rather than the other way around.
It was just a question. Not an attack.
If you want to discuss models, we can do that. I actually did discuss models to some degree in my posts. But, these models are terribly flawed that are being used to measure climate change as well as predictive behaviors. That is something no one on the GW side wants to admit.
Your argument about CO2 has been pretty much dealt with in other posts, but suffice it to say that I believe the CO2 increase is statistically insignificant and that the models that try to use CO2 as a basis for their variant prime are barking up trees that would be better climbed in other ways.
Again, you seem to think that an untested solution similar to carbon-credits will stimulate private enterprise to reduce carbon production. I contend that the government creation of a 'carbon' credit program will lead to taxation. We differ, but I would 'gamble' on the government and taxation rather than on carbon credits. I think the preponderance of evidence is on my side here.
If you declare yourself to be an actuary, then think more realistically when you post 'models' or examples of how you see the global warming mess. Your point about noise is well taken, but your way to get to that point and the amount of discussion it took for you to explain that point was pretty sad.
Hence my original comment to you about ideas?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
aca -- his whole CO2 "
February 13, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Jack Baueraca -- his whole CO2 "argument" is hugely fallacious. Simple as that. And we all know that, except him.
dejour,From your own post...t
February 13, 2007 - 22:40 ET by Blondedejour,
From your own post...this is the key to all disagreement with your position here:
For a collective action problem, let the government make a general regulation and let the market decide how best to adapt.
Why should it be incumbent upon the government to "make a general regulation"?
That is the entire fallacy in all of your arguments. It is not the "right" of the government to be the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong in economic terms. It's a function of the market.
It is the function of the government to provide for that which is not available via commonality (i.e. national defense, national infrastructure, air traffic systems, etc).
Sorry, your basic argument is flawed.
I know as an actuary you believe numbers are all. But...your assumptions are flawed. Ergo sum...so are your answers. I work with numbers all the time...but occasionally reality creeps in....and the numbers kinda crumble in the face of reality. Ooops!
Take it frome someone who works with really, really big numbers...in the really, really grown up world.....bad assumptions land you in the dung heap.
Real world trumps models.
And the science of weather prediction (don't even go there with hurricanes) is in its infancy. So these idiot warmers...with their predictive "models", are about as predictive as a four year old with a twelve pack of play dough.
Don't pull statistics on a numerate readership.
It won't fly.
Once again, this winter has
February 13, 2007 - 19:00 ET by JDWOnce again, this winter has been cold as hell.
Since he lacks facts, he is forced to continue to make statements. algore made a movie.
The weather guy cannot predict accurately more than a day or two yet these guys are talking centuries?
I have been following physists who attribute changes to solar. The evidence is very interesting.
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Dejour. If your computer mode
February 13, 2007 - 21:51 ET by danboDejour. If your computer model tells you a stock is a strong buy at say $30. Yet the stock then drops to say 29. And after 8 years said stock does not rise above 29.50 and settles to $27. No dividens only brokerage fees. Would you consider you're still in a bull market for that stock?
Would you question your computer model?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
post hoc ergo procter hoc
February 13, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Jack BauerFirst off I dispute the very basis of your "facts" about CO2.
However it seems to me that you have made a classic example of the fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
(On reflection it's the post hoc, ergo procter hoc fallacy, and not the pro hoc, procter hoc fallacy)
Which means: "therefore, because of this"
You state...
A. Plenty of records show the steady increase of CO2 over the industrial age -- (ergo mankind has caused this.)
B. CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which will increase atmospheric temperatures.
A occured, then B occured
Therefore A caused B; or mankind increased the temperature of the planet.
As I said, classic. It's just a basic error in logic, and esentially unscientific.
CO2 is known to be a greenh
February 13, 2007 - 16:03 ET by Dave in TexasCO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas which will increase atmospheric temperatures, all other factors held constant.
Numbers please. For every 1 percent increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, starting with current day levels, how much will atmospheric temperatures increase?
Also, I am going to assume that "all other factors" will not remain constant. Please list every factor that influences atmospheric temperatures, as well a description of how each factor will influence those temperatures over, say, the next 500 years.
expertise
February 13, 2007 - 16:21 ET by dejourThis goes beyond my expertise, but these are my thoughts.
I'm not sure that CO2 and temperature have a linear relationship. But it appears that temperature has increased 0.6 degrees C (1.1F) since the late 19th century. CO2 increased by 90 ppm (32%) over that time. Therefore with a 1% increase in CO2, one would estimate an increase of 0.034 F. Having said that, I believe a linear model is too simplistic here.
Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Your second question seems unreasonable to me. Noone knows all other factors, but for the most part the other factors are not expected to have a certain trend. Natural variations will occur introducing a certain randomness to global climate. This is not an excuse for inaction. Think of a budget. You spend $500 more per week than you earn at your job. You also play poker and long-run you break even on poker. But some weeks you make an extra $1000, and some weeks you lose $1000. My advice to this person is to stop spending more money than they make at their job. Sure the poker introduces some randomness, but the long-run trend is that you spend more mone than you make at your job. Eventually you'll be broke. If you have good luck at the poker table you might delay going broke for a few years. But it is not necessary to know exactly how you'll do at the poker table to be able to offer the simple advice.
But it appears that tempera
February 13, 2007 - 16:27 ET by JDWBut it appears that temperature has increased 0.6 degrees C (1.1F) since the late 19th century.
What is the optimum temperature for the world?
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
it's been said before
February 13, 2007 - 16:57 ET by dejourThere is no real optimum temperature. The problem is that rapid change can overwhelm the ability of animal and plant species to adapt as well as humans.
Going up by 5 Celsius would probably be fine if given enough time to adapt.
Trees can live 100s of years, and can't just walk hundreds of miles north if the climate changes. Maybe animals can physically, but if their food sources can't and perish as a result, these animals will perish as well.
Economically, much of man's infrastructure is based assuming that temperature and sea levels will remain reasonably constant. If ski resorts are based where there is no snow, if farms are overtaken by desert, if beach resorts are unbearably hot, if cities are underwater, then people will adapt. But there will be significant economic costs. In my opinion, these costs are likely to be worse than the economic costs of cutting back on CO2 production.
Question there dejour
February 13, 2007 - 17:20 ET by SportPoliticsQuestion there dejour, since the signing of the Kyoto treaty by 141 nations, have world global co2 emission totals gone down or up ?
waiting....
ps - before you answer note - the gloabal warming fanatic believers panel in front of Waxman and the dems the past few weeks testified that China is OPENING a newly completed coal burning powerplant every THREE DAYS.
There is no real optimum te
February 13, 2007 - 17:57 ET by JDWThere is no real optimum temperature. The problem is that rapid change
can overwhelm the ability of animal and plant species to adapt as well
as humans.
Why is 0.6C up or down over a century noteworthy?
Going up by 5 Celsius would probably be fine if given enough time to adapt.
It would take some 800 years to increase or decrease by 5C, how does that sound?
JDW
Kerry: "You know, education, if you make the most of it ... you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
Dejour
February 13, 2007 - 16:32 ET by Noel SheppardDejour,
As an actuary, have you considered how much of the 0.6 degree change in temperature over the past 100 years might be due to improvements in measurements and their frequency?
For instance, I seem to remember reading at NOAA that there are currently 1500 weather stations in America. How many existed 50 and 100 years ago?
Furthermore, were they using decimal points to measure temperatures 50 and 100 years ago? How often did each station get temperature information back then? Once a day? Twice a day? Now, most of these stations are giving reports by satellite 24/7. Is it safe to assume that we have signficantly more accurate high and low data for any 24-hour period today than we did in 1957 and 1907?
How much of the 0.6 degree variance can be attributed to such improvements? ns
Let me whet your appetite a tad further. A recent NOAA report discussed significant changes in such methodologies that began in 1985 if I recall. There are a host of changes going into effect this year. In this report, NOAA officials mentioned that using the new methodologies, 2006 would not be the warmest year on record in America. It would actually be cooler than 1998.
With that in mind, as we changed methodologies in 1985 -- somewhat commensurate with this recent warming "trend" I might add -- how much might such improvements in methodology be impacting the statistics? Furthermore, how does one correlate data identified with differing methodologies and differing technologies over a 100 year period? ns
How about all those measureme
February 13, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Iron LadyHow about all those measurements over the ocean- something we could not get 100 years ago. In fact, the data today is coming from satellite measurements. We didn't have them 50 years ago either.
As someone from the West, I relate to the questions about historical data in yet another way. We are a fairly hot area of the country, and I suspect that very few actual measurements were taken back then, as many of the towns didn't exist. Large parts of the country had no measurements actually taken.
So what data is used to represent these portions of the earth? How were they determined? What is the error margin for these methods? How do these error ranges effect the error calculations for the numerical analysis techniques which are used in climate models?
basically they fudge all the crap together and guess
February 13, 2007 - 17:38 ET by SportPoliticsbasically they fudge all the crap together and guess
The usa climate change science website admits as much.
The truth is they cannot keep the measurements accurate. Even the satellites stats degrade with time, and they make guesses and adjust the data.
It's all one big sick joke. Welcome to liberals running things with an amazing amount of censorship and lying. I'm sure Virgin records branson 3 billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ promise and the USA's 15 billion or 50 billion dollars promised over a few decades will continue to yield the sky is falling answers with plenty of inconsistencies and lack of accuracy so that the quest for the truth can continue on the settled consensus science.
Dig deep down in that wallet or purse, the world is about to be destroyed and were all about to suffer an elemental extinction event. Isn't your life and life of all humans worth more than that car payment, that vacation you have planned, or that tax rebate you've managed to enjoy once a year from the overtaxing ? What good is it if we're all dead. Hillary wants that profit, and Al Gore will save us all, if the bronzen rock star doesn't.
Sir Richard has never been ac
February 14, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Hunter12Sir Richard has never been accused of being stupid.
"Like last week's initiative, the Virgin chairman is motivated as much by business self-interest as concern for the planet. For the pressure on the airline industry to do less damage to the environment can only increase. Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, made the case again last night for a new levy on flights on the grounds that Britain's entire carbon allowance would be used up by aviation if air travel continued to grow at current rates. Ken Livingstone suggested it should be pounds 15 a ticket. Ultimately, airline passengers will be condemned as carbon criminals and priced out of the sky unless the industry responds with a blend of better technology and improved operating practices. Alternatively, Sir Richard could simply tell people to fly less. That would be radical."
Please notice that he flies around the world in his private jumbo jet to promote his pledge and Al Gore's movie and even on the morning show where he proposed that the common man take the train, he noted that he and his would still continue to fly.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
You may be raising some valid
February 13, 2007 - 17:14 ET by dejourYou may be raising some valid points. I have to hope that as methodologies change, some care is taken to ensure that measurements are on an apples-to-apples basis.
But having said that, if a scientist stepped up and said that the cited temperature increases are wrong because of methodology changes and here's why, I suspect they would be heard. Revised estimates of changes in temperature would likely be issued.
The same source I quoted earlier suggestes that 0.5 C of the 0.6 C occured since 1960, so that period may be more reliable. Of course 45 years is a less significant time period too.
But of course, as I have said previously the major evidence for me is the well-established greenhouse model and the increased CO2 concentrations. That to me suggests the long-term trend. Any temperature data from the 20th century is likely to be filled with noise.
The climatologist at the Un
February 13, 2007 - 17:54 ET by lnthompThe climatologist at the University of Oregon (his name has temporarily slipped my mind) has been pointing out lately that the CO2 levels appear to go up following rather than preceding rises in temperature, which would mean that the "well-established" greenhouse model you refer to has reversed cause and effect, and therefore CO2 levels are not a predictor of future rises in temperature.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Hillsboro, Oregon
I have enough money to last me the rest of my life. Unless I buy something.
So no one knows all other fac
February 13, 2007 - 16:33 ET by florida_chadSo no one knows all other factors, but for the most part other factors (that no one knows) are not expected to have a certain trend (is that b/c it doesn't fit the GW theory?).
LMAO - have a good day.
florida_chad
February 13, 2007 - 16:48 ET by dejourOK - so noone knows how those other factors will go.
Let's take a look at the budget example. Tell me what advice you'd give this person:
Current Assets: $50,000
Makes $1000 per week. Spends $1500 per week. Play poker at a break-even rate.
Lots of other factors may happen:
- might win lottery
- might be sued
- might get inheritance
- might win a lawsuit
- might get gift
- might be able to buy cheaper oranges
- gas prices might go down
- and 1000s of others, some of which can't even be identified
Some of these changes will improve this guy's financial situation. Other changes will worsen it. What will happen - No one Knows. My advice is to cut back on his expenses, because the largest impact is that he spends more than he earns with his weekly paycheque. In my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that all those other factors will amount no trend one way or the other.
Are you saying that it is ok to spend much more than you make, because you just might win a $1 million jackpot? "No one knows" you tell yourself. I suppose that this attitude is ok for your own personal finances. When the welfare of others is affected, I must objec