Climategate
As I.A. Richards said, in Science and Poetry [1926]:
We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner.
Hence I trust no report from either side quoting “good scientists” and this is a case in point:
The southern hemisphere has been cooling over the last 10 years, just about as much as the north has been warming. There is no proof within observational data of warming outside of natural variation.
That’s rubbish. In Russia, it is quite observable, as it is in the Arctic and Canada. In fact, it is conceded in the statement:
The soot may well explain the Arctic melting, as it has recently for Asian glaciers.
So, in other words, there is change. This says:
A straightforward calculation reveals that when the CO2 in the atmosphere reaches twice the pre-industrial level, the enhanced greenhouse effect alone (i.e., neglecting any response by the earth to the enhanced greenhouse effect) will warm the earth by 1.2 to 1.3˚C. There is no significant controversy among scientists about this part of global warming. The earth will in fact respond to the increased temperature. This is called “feedback.” There is controversy about the magnitude of the feedback.
Oh yes, they say but not man-made. That is not what they said in the previous quote. You see, it’s not so much the arguments one way or the other I’m annoyed about – rather, it’s the shoddy manner, slipping blanket judgements into the discussion which have no place being there. And anecdotal evidence IS evidence.
Climategate
Whether it’s warming or cooling, whether CO2 precedes warming or follows it, whether the phenomenon in one place on the planet is the same or different to other places, we will know in the fullness of time, when it is either too late or it doesn’t matter.
What is far more worrying is Climategate. From the Strong/Gore deception which is meant to usher in draconian legislation to turn people into localized serfs to the whole circus of the summits which should be addressing the issue but not in the way they want it done, with all the legislative baggage dropped on the common man.
That’s the real issue – how something debatable has been turned into gospel and justifies what this thing is really about – social re-engineering. It’s also about greed and jumping on bandwagons.
An entire new, state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded industry is being rolled out: in the US in a crypto Socialist political-industrial complex called the Apollo Alliance. One arm branches off into Europe, called the Lisbon Council.
The vast extent of the deceipt is mindboggling! At the Copenhagen Summit, a group of African nations led by Ethiopia, shall be demanding $67 billion per year from Western developed nations as reparations for the “devastating effects of climate change on the African continent.”
One last little point – the American people elected Gore in 2000. They were able to seal the deal in 2008.
Filed under: Life issues & people, Politics & economics
“A straightforward calculation reveals..” is a clever piece of advocacy. The point isn’t that the calculation is straightforward (though it may be; if anyone would be kind enough to point me to it, I’ll check it and report back) but that it must necessarily include simplifying assumptions. I’d like to see what these are – they probably fall into the catogory “if nothing else changes”, even though that is obviously one of the practical points that is at issue. (And, while we are at it, it is impossible for nothing else to change – you can’t double the ppm of CO2 without lowering the ppm of one or more other things. A sensible way to do it would be to up the CO2, leave the H2O vapour alone, and reduce the ppm of N2, O2, Ar etc pro rata to their atmospheric abundance. Is that what’s done? Dunno – in my reading I happen not to have come across this straightforward calculation. Any help on its source, anyone?)
“the American people elected Gore in 2000.” No, only if you are a fascist. If you are a Constitutionalist, they didn’t.
“There is controversy about the magnitude of the feedback.” Rather more important, there is controversy about its sign. Mark this chap down as a shyster, Hob.
For a little more insight into ‘the way things are done’ look at this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Dearieme, I don’t think there is a simple straightforward calculation regarding CO2. I have a nagging feeling that way back in the dark ages when I went to university someone said that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was self limiting but in enclosed spaces it was not. Anyway if they have ‘massaged’ the CO2 results as they have the temperature ones then I think we need a truck load of salt to take with them.
Right gents – so what is your conclusion from all that:
1. Dearieme?
2. Ivan?
I’ll stick to my sphere – psychological analysis and shall defer to you both on yours – chemistry and the geological sciences. It still doesn’t alter the fact that Russia has got progressively warmer over the past thirteen years, especially in winter.
The reason I know that is that I noted the temperature extremes each year, the first day of snow, the last and so on – I love snow. Each year until about 2003, there were at least three or four, diminishing each year, less than minus 30 temperatures and about half were in the minus twenties, with about three or four up around zero.
By 2005, there was one minus 30 or lower and about fifteen minus 20 or lower. By 2008, my last year, there were mainly teens, quite a few single figures, about five less than minus 25 and no minus 30s.
The snow cover in the city also altered and became much thinner. Now, as the same time, the vehicles on the road exponentially increased as credit became freely available. Now, I believe, the cars on the road are back to two-thirds of that due to the recession. I’ll have to ask my friends what’s happening, temperature wise.
I’m enough of a sceptic to suspect that there is no uncontentious, single, straightforward calculation – I mean, it’s pretty safe to assume that any globalwarmmonger’s assertion is likely to be a lie, isn’t it? Hide the Decline! Fudge the Factor!
Anyway, where are your music recommendations?
Temperature: I suspect we – meaning at least bits of the Northern Hemisphere – are in a mild spell. Given how dreich the Little Ice Age was, that’s an excellent thing. The evidence that it is anything to do with CO2 is feeble. The reasoning behind the proposition that it’s about to runaway to make us all Roast in Hell is feeble. It’s hard to tell with any precision what temperatures were in the past, but the evidence that we’re now warmer than in the Medieval Warm Period is really poor – if it were good, why did Jones et al find it necessary to Hide the Decline? Why the Fudge Factor? And if the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now, why blame the present mild spell on CO2? It could be caused by whatever unknown effects caused the MWP. Ditto the Roman Warm period. As for the Bronze Age Warm Period, our ancestors were growing grain on the tops of the moors in the South West, where we don’t even grow trees at present. Hah!
Re the Mathematical Modelling of climate: I laugh and jeer at it. I had over 40 years of modelling chemical and physical interactions, and even with the advantage of data from controlled experiments, it ain’t easy. With only a short run of shambolic temperature observations, polluted by God-knows-what adjustments, modelling to an accuracy of 0.1C is a risible claim. Fat bloody chance!
And, since not everybody may feel like being frank about this, I should just comment that the intellectual standard of some of these bozoes is pretty low. I read Steve McIntyre’s destruction of Mann’s work with amazement – Mann knows less about bloody statistics than I do, and I last wrote something original on the issue in the 70s! McIntyre, though, has a real claim to being a better scientist than many of them, just on the evidence of the quality of his analyses.
James,
I never said it wasn’t getting warmer – that is the natural cycle. Just that all the fanatics are trying to return us to the stone age by using fudged data. Al Gore is set to make billions out of us because of his interest in the company that makes the smart meters the gov is insisting should be fitted.
The Kobenhavn jolly is just a means to generate taxes and keep the third world under control.