Saturday, April 12, 2014
As the Evidence Changes, So Must We
Judith Curry is a climatologist at Georgia Tech. Robert Austin is a physicist at Princeton. Freeman Dyson is a former physicist at Princeton (and one of the most active minds of the 20th Century). David Evans is a former climate modeler (with a PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford) for the Australian government and a former member of Greenpeace. Paul Driessen is an energy and environmental expert (with degrees in geology, ecology, and law) and a former member of the Sierra Club. Bruno Wiskel is a geologist at the University of Alberta. Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Reid Bryson is a meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin. Ian Clark is a paleoclimatologist at the University of Ottawa. Jan Veizer is an environmental geochemist at the University of Ottawa. Klaus Eckart Puls is one of the leading researchers, physicists, and meteorologists in Germany. What do these folks have in common? They were all strident believers in man-made global warming and now, because they've fully examined the evidence (the fact that the predictions from the models were ridiculously off, the fact that the feedbacks now seem to be negative, the fact that the ARGO buoys are currently showing zero ocean warming, the fact that tropical storms have not not increasing, etc.) THEY ARE NOT. It's good to see that there are still a few honest scientists left.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
That leaves the rest of them as being faith-based, not scientists.
A certain form of theology or superstition, isn't it?
Are you saying that the majority of climate scientists have sold out to polotical correctness?
I'm guessing those who accept climate change (global warming) will say the dissenting scientists have sold out because of pressure from special interests and or money.
I do like RN's typos, and while the context is clear, I'll address
'political correctness' as involving sports protocol while palying polo! Climate change: the
data window seems clear enough to me as a scientist; the predictability leaves room for
a range of opinion, and as long as that range is based on scientific data, rather than politics or economics, I'm open
on it.
BB, what's the data that seems clear enough to you? If you look at the Satellite data there wasn't even any warming from 1978 to 1997 (when there was supposedly a humongous increase) - this despite the fact that we were emitting voluminous (by our standards, in the larger scheme of things it was a pittance) quantities of CO2 AND we had radically reduced our aerosol emissions.......The same thing with 1945 to 1977. During that period we actually had a temperature DECREASE (4 to 5 tenths of a degree Celsius) - again, despite the fact that we were bellowing out CO2.......Add to that the fact that we've had virtually ZERO reduction in Global sea ice over the past 30 years (per the University of Illinois' Arctic Science Research Center - the Antarctic ice sheet, which represents close to 90% of all the land ice, is actually growing), ZERO increase in tropical storms and tornadoes over the past 20 years (per Ryan Maue of Florida State University) and I really see nothing left for morons like wd to hang their hats on other than that bogus consensus (a bunch of government backed lackies who rubber-stamp each other's "studies" via a thoroughly corrupted peer review process) argument.
I don't even think that it's a majority anymore, Les. The American Meteorological Association, for example, now has a majority of its members saying that the modest warming (6-8 tenths of a degree Celsius over the past 135 years) is predominantly due to natural forcings (the PDO, the AMDO, solar and sunspot cycles, planetary perturbations, volcanic activity, etc.). And a lot more scientists would speak out but they're afraid of losing their positions and/or getting smeared by despicable web sites such as DeSmog. And, besides, consensus isn't how science has ever worked anyway (breaks from the consensus are far more the norm).
Ah, the irony..what's next converting all the evolutionary biologists to Young Earth Creationists? It is the nature of science to accept all ideas even from the Heartland Institute.
The concept of man-made global warming makes intelligent design seem rigorous by comparison. It is (as Richard Lindzen says) trivially true and numerically insignificant.......And I'll bet that a lot of those articles come from the posse of Michael Mann, that Briffa fellow, etc. (the hockey stick bozos).
Do you agree that our species can have an environmental impact, such as wiping out the species of passenger pigeons by the millions in a matter of a few years, or
harvesting bison down to a few specimens, every once in awhile
setting the Cuyahoga River on fire or rendering Chernobyl & Fukushima uninhabitable? The coal fired electricity in an average home requires 7.2 metric tons per year, while an acre of forest will sequester 1.2 m-tons. Through in the following-those of us 40 years old or more in 1998 are among the first people in history to have lived through a doubling of world population; people who are 75 years old have seen the human population triple. These are quadratic upward trends which seem to match the CO2/temp charts. I would posit that stabilization would be reached at some point, but not in our lifetime.
Most of my typos are the result of me using my smart phone while watching TV BB Idaho, but I appreciate that you like them!
I agree 100% that man can often have a negative impact on the environment but I don't think that that always can be blamed on progress. I mean, just take a look at the countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic from an aerial view. The former has almost been completely deforested and the air quality is horrible because they rely almost exclusively on wood, charcoal, and biomass while the Dominican Republic uses inexpensive and cleaner burning fossil fuels.
And the relationship between population and CO2 is an interesting one. Yes, we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere but it is just as likely in my mind that the increased CO2 is causing the warming and indirectly the population growth....A couple of other interesting points. a) Ice core data is notorious for undererestimating CO2 levels. If you look at some of the other proxies for it the earlier readings are significantly higher and so the growth has possibly been exaggerated. b) If you look at CO2 levels around the globe you will see that the highest readings are NOT in the highly populated areas but in the places where natural CO occurs. c) The IPCC cherry-picked the earlier CO2 readings using that Hawaiian system, taking the lowest readings of 260-270 and using those as the baseline and discarding some years when the readings were actually very close to 400.
IMO, deforestation is a significant problem; forests are
a factor in CO2 sequestration and
it may be that deforestation affects weather patterns, at least regionally. But,IMO, flora
can recover in a generation or two, while fossil fuels require
many eons at sub-surface pressure
to renew. Culturally, it is very
difficult, however, to get people to stop cutting their forests, their livelihood depending upon them. The Mauna Loa recently show an upward trend; as for earlier ice taps and estimates, you may be right in questioning their accuracy as part of the long term model. I haven't studied that in depth enough to have a firm opinion.
Climate science is getting as convoluted as the EPA: too many
lawyers driving
the topic.
Too many lawyers and too many politicians.
Will. Too many lawyers and politicians. The solution to few problems and the cause of many.
dmarks, if you look at the signatories of the various IPCC reports, you'll notice that a lot of them aren't scientists at all but bureaucrats, reviewers, etc. and that even a lot of the scientists' names that they did use have disavowed the findings.
Post a Comment