Obama administration breaks with the years of 'climate change denial'

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> "science by petition" is a stupid idea.

AGREED

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,116]

Some updates:

First is solar output. The sun usually has an 11-year sunspot cycle during which its output varies by around .1%. (Highest during times of sunspots.) This time, though, the cycle didn't "restart" - and the sun is unusually quiet at the time when it's normally most active.

=========================================
Quiet Sun baffling astronomers

By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News

The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.

"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.

. . .

In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".

This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.

According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.
======================

Second is the Arctic sea ice, which is starting out the summer very thin:

======================

Arctic is seeing thinner sea ice, experts warn

A new NASA report released Monday shows this winter's ice cover to be the fifth smallest, and thinnest, on record. NBC's Anne Thompson reports.


updated 1:51 p.m. PT, Mon., April 6, 2009

WASHINGTON - As spring begins, more than 90 percent of the sea ice in the Arctic is only 1 or 2 years old, making it thinner and more vulnerable than at anytime in the past three decades, researchers with NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado reported Monday.

"We're not set up well for summertime," ice data center scientist Walt Meier said at a news briefing. "We're in a very precarious situation."

Young sea ice in the Arctic often melts in the spring and summer. If it survives for two years, then it becomes the type of thick sea ice that is key. But the past two years were warm, and there's more young, thin ice at the top of the world.

In normal winters, thick sea ice — often about 10 feet thick or more — extends from the northern boundaries of Greenland and Canada almost to Russia. This year, the thick ice cap barely penetrates the bull's-eye of the Arctic Circle.

The amount of thick sea ice hit a record wintertime low of just 378,000 square miles this year, down 43 percent from last year, Meier said. The amount of older sea ice that was lost is larger than the state of Texas.

"Heading into the 2009 summer melt season, the potential continues for extensive ice retreat due to the trend toward younger, thinner ice that has accelerated in recent years," said University of Colorado professor James Maslanik. "A key question will be whether this second year ice is thick enough to survive summer melt."
====================

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

> "science by petition" is a stupid idea.

AGREED

so why are both sides of the argument relying on it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

I made a prediction related to this about a year ago.

Quote

NY Times Corrects 'Global Warming' Claim

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:24 PM

By: Marc Morano

The New York Times has issued a “climate correction” for an “error” for an April 24, 2009, high profile front page global warming article that was touted by former Vice President Al Gore during his Congressional testimony as evidence that industry was clouding the science of climate change.


But just little more than a week after publishing the front page article, The New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin have now admitted the article “erred” on a key point. Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” Revkin's article came under immediate fire from scientists and others who called into question the central claims and the accuracy of the story.


In a May 2, 2009 post titled “A Climate Correction,” Revkin and the New York Times wrote: “The article cited a 'backgrounder' that laid out the coalition's public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee's conclusion. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (warming) that will result.'"


The New York Times also posted an Editors' Note on May 2 with the same correction.


In addition, the original Times article now has a May 2 Editors' Note “describing an error in the news story.”


Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter was the first to dismiss the NYT's Revkin article as “strange, silly even.”


Carter wrote to Climate Depot on April 23, 2009:


Revkin's latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted”, I'll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990. My guess is that Revkin -- like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities -- is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December.


UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was even more outraged and accused the New York Times and Revkin of “deliberate misrepresentation” in climate article and of writing a “mendacious article.”


Monckton wrote the following to New York Times Public Editor and Readers' Representative Clark Hoyt on April 28, 2009:


“The New York Times guidelines for staff writers on 'Journalistic Ethics' begin by stating the principles that all journalists should respect: impartiality and neutrality; integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Andrew Revkin's front-page article on Friday, 24 April, 2009, falsely alleging that a coalition of energy corporations had for many years acted like tobacco corporations, misrepresenting advice from its own scientists about the supposed threat of "global warming", offends grievously against all of these principles.”

Time is running out. They have to complete their changes soon, cause is seems that the data is starting to leave them.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[warpedskydiver 0]

The Global warming scam has now surpassed the 8 trillion dollar mark world wide and is still growing.

Add that to the current administrations spending craze and we start to see a picture that might suggest we will need to take resources from somewhere to fill the void left by our debts.

I think that Africa as well as South America is going to start looking pretty good to a government that might want to invade or control these areas.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Please explain the conclusion of "paranoid."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3545292;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

as the scientists have proved global warming beyond a doubt and it is going to affect all of our childrens futures very badly - i wonder why this isn't a topic we can discuss sensibly around the bonfire?

presumably (for the mods info - this is theoretical only) i could start a science discussion at the bonfire along the lines of 'does anyone know how gravity works?'

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

as the scientists have proved global warming beyond a doubt and it is going to affect all of our childrens futures very badly - i wonder why this isn't a topic we can discuss sensibly around the bonfire?

presumably (for the mods info - this is theoretical only) i could start a science discussion at the bonfire along the lines of 'does anyone know how gravity works?'

I am not sure you do.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

as the scientists have proved global warming beyond a doubt and it is going to affect all of our childrens futures very badly - i wonder why this isn't a topic we can discuss sensibly around the bonfire?

presumably (for the mods info - this is theoretical only) i could start a science discussion at the bonfire along the lines of 'does anyone know how gravity works?'

I am not sure you do.

i'm sure i don't - that would be why i would ask the question. but nobody would say 'it's a political scam'

same with global warming

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,116]

>that would be why i would ask the question. but nobody would say
>'it's a political scam'

>same with global warming

Few people make money via denying the existence of gravity. People make trillions selling fossil fuels, and would make less money if they had to take more care with their combustion products.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>that would be why i would ask the question. but nobody would say
>'it's a political scam'

>same with global warming

Few people make money via denying the existence of gravity. People make trillions selling fossil fuels, and would make less money if they had to take more care with their combustion products.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Want to look at money being made and the potential to do so? Look at Al Gore and GE.

As I have said before sir, follow the money.

As you state, it is being made in the places you post about but, those and who you support only want to change who makes the money and how on this hype. Soon to be proven IMO

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>As I have said before sir, follow the money.

Right. Because in the denier's fantasy world, poor, starving Exxon executives root through their threadbare pockets for change so they afford a Happy Meal, while atmospheric science grad students smoke cigars and drink brandy, fat on their massive million dollar bonuses from Al Gore's minions! It's unfair I tell ya, unfair.

>it is being made in the places you post about but, those and who you
>support only want to change who makes the money and how on this hype.

Who do I support in your imagination? (This should be good)

> Soon to be proven IMO

You say that about once a year.

[lawrocket 3]

Plenty have made billions developing countermeasures to gravity or other ways to defeat it's limitations, like the aerospace industry.

There is a new strain of flu out there. Thousands of Americans would be dead right now if expectations were met.
Science showed a potential disaster. Politics took over. Scools closed. Industry and commerce were slowed. The people worried. And funding was provided.

It didn't pan out that way. It seems to be no worse than regular flu. The overwhelming evidence suggests it is not the killer it was thought to be. The science was there. The initial data we had showed conclusively that this was a nasty strain. This could be modeled and projected.

The science behind the possibility of millions dead worldwide? Solid as a rock.

We got our answer in a week on this. With other matters? Well, we'll have to wait. Is it the ultimate answer? No. We have to wait to see what this bug does in the Southern Hemisphere this winter and what it does in the Northern Hemisphere come winter will tell the tale.

With global climate change? We have to wait. The question is not whether the climate will change in the coming centuries or millenia. One need not be a statistician or scientist to know this. One need only know history or have a basic grasp of concepts like "land bridge in Bering Strait" or "Yosemite was formed by glaciers" to understand that earth climate is not static.

Very few deny that climate will change. Will it keep warming, as it has for the last several thousand years? We have to wait. The science suggests that it will.

But we must wait. Will the universe continue to expand infinitely? Or will it eventually cease expanding and contract? The majority opinion is that expansion will continue and the universe will die a very cold death.

We must wait on these things. Initial thoughts and fears are well founded. In hindsight, though, they may be shown to be as off as with H1N1.

let us take a measured response.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Plenty have made billions developing countermeasures to gravity or other ways to defeat it's limitations, like the aerospace industry.

There is a new strain of flu out there. Thousands of Americans would be dead right now if expectations were met.
Science showed a potential disaster. Politics took over. Scools closed. Industry and commerce were slowed. The people worried. And funding was provided.

It didn't pan out that way. It seems to be no worse than regular flu. The overwhelming evidence suggests it is not the killer it was thought to be. The science was there. The initial data we had showed conclusively that this was a nasty strain. This could be modeled and projected.

The science behind the possibility of millions dead worldwide? Solid as a rock.

You are correct, but it destroys your argument. The POSSIBILITY was solid as a rock. No scientist claimed it was a certainty.

The RISK of doing too little was greater than the RISK of doing too much, where risk is proportional to both the expected losses which may be caused by an event and to the probability of this event. Greater loss and greater event likelihood result in a greater overall risk. In this case the expected losses in a killer pandemic are extremely high so the risk is high even if the probability is low..

Same can be said of climate change.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>As I have said before sir, follow the money.

Right. Because in the denier's fantasy world, poor, starving Exxon executives root through their threadbare pockets for change so they afford a Happy Meal, while atmospheric science grad students smoke cigars and drink brandy, fat on their massive million dollar bonuses from Al Gore's minions! It's unfair I tell ya, unfair.

>it is being made in the places you post about but, those and who you
>support only want to change who makes the money and how on this hype.

Who do I support in your imagination? (This should be good)

> Soon to be proven IMO

You say that about once a year.

Yep

and all is fantisy from rabit hole

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Plenty have made billions developing countermeasures to gravity or other ways to defeat it's limitations, like the aerospace industry.

There is a new strain of flu out there. Thousands of Americans would be dead right now if expectations were met.
Science showed a potential disaster. Politics took over. Scools closed. Industry and commerce were slowed. The people worried. And funding was provided.

It didn't pan out that way. It seems to be no worse than regular flu. The overwhelming evidence suggests it is not the killer it was thought to be. The science was there. The initial data we had showed conclusively that this was a nasty strain. This could be modeled and projected.

The science behind the possibility of millions dead worldwide? Solid as a rock.

You are correct, but it destroys your argument. The POSSIBILITY was solid as a rock. No scientist claimed it was a certainty.

The RISK of doing too little was greater than the RISK of doing too much, where risk is proportional to both the expected losses which may be caused by an event and to the probability of this event. Greater loss and greater event likelihood result in a greater overall risk. In this case the expected losses in a killer pandemic are extremely high so the risk is high even if the probability is low..

Same can be said of climate change.

and you have holed up with the same rabit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

So, then, you agree that this is political?

Can we afford to take that chance?

Hey, if you are right and we are responsible for global warming, then cool.

If you are partially right and we see global warming and we are not responsible, then we've done a lot for nothing.

If you are wrong and global warming didn't happen then we have done a whole lot for nothing.

If you are way wrong and the earth starts cooling and we helped it along then we have done a whole lot for a whole lot less.

Which choice? It's political.

That's the whole point that the "deniers" make. Political decisions are being made for which there is disagreement.

After all, we could not afford the risk that Iraq had WMD's. All the deniers out there just wanted us to wait until we got attacked.

Isn't the world glad that the US did what it did? And the American public, too? Talk about a zenith of responsible government. We just couldn't take that chance. To not support it was simply unpatriotic. Case closed. End of discussion. Period.

"But..."
"Shut up!"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

>Now that is good science.

That statement was not science; it is a statement _about_ science.

Statement on science:

People who smoke have an X% greater chance of developing lung cancer than someone who does not under conditions X, Y, and Z.

Statement about that bit of science:

Smoking greatly increases the chances of lung cancer, and people who want to remain healthy and cancer-free should avoid smoking.

presumably a generation back it would have been impossible to discuss tobacco and cancer around the bonfire as the tobacco industry shills would have immediately claimed a 'political' bent rather than a science and health one.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[billvon 3,116]

>Plenty have made billions developing countermeasures to gravity or other
>ways to defeat it's limitations, like the aerospace industry.

Yep. Does it therefore follow that gravity probably doesn't exist, and its existence is just a fiction created by the aerospace industry to line their pockets?

Or is there underlying science that really doesn't change whether or not Boeing exists?

>The science behind the possibility of millions dead worldwide? Solid as a rock.

Please post a link to the science suggesting that millions would die from this flu.

>With global climate change? We have to wait. The question is not whether
>the climate will change in the coming centuries or millenia.

Correct. The question is - which will it be? Will we see very significant climate change in 30,000 years (which happens regularly) or in 100 years (which is very unusual climactically, and is generally associated with mass extinctions?) If the current trend continues, it will be in 100 years.

>But we must wait.

We are not 100% sure that smoking causes cancer, although we are 99% sure that it is a strong predictor for lung cancer and heart disease. Would you advice a friend of yours who is a heavy smoker to continue smoking, since you cannot be certain he will get cancer?

[Butters 0]

Quote

We are not 100% sure that smoking causes cancer, although we are 99% sure that it is a strong predictor for lung cancer and heart disease. Would you advice a friend of yours who is a heavy smoker to continue smoking, since you cannot be certain he will get cancer?

Are we 99% sure that global warming exists and that humans are the cause?

Edit: Would you force your friend to stop smoking?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[DanG 1]

Quote

Are we 99% sure that global warming exists and that humans are the cause?

Actually, yes.

The "debate" has been settled scientifically and rather conclusively. The only reason the "debate" continues is politics and money.

Please don't respond by asking for a link.

- Dan G

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Are we 99% sure that global warming exists and that humans are the cause?

Actually, yes.

The "debate" has been settled scientifically and rather conclusively. The only reason the "debate" continues is politics and money.

Please don't respond by asking for a link.

I'm not going to ask for a link, I'm just going to laugh ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,116]

>Are we 99% sure that global warming exists and that humans are the
>cause?

We are 99.99% sure that our emissions of CO2 have increased worldwide concentrations of CO2.

We are 100% sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which, when added to the atmosphere, increases retained heat. You can prove that for yourself in a lab with a broad spectrum light source, a spectrometer and a chamber of gas.

We are 100% sure that the climate has been warming since we've been increasing CO2 concentrations. You can prove that for yourself by looking at worldwide climactic records.

The remaining uncertainties concern positive/negative feedback mechanisms. Will cloud formation increase during the day as the climate warms, thereby reflecting more sunlight and decreasing the rate of warming? Will methane released from melting clathrates increase the rate of warming? Will this current solar cycle, which is much weaker than previous solar cycles, persist and therefore offset some of the warming?

In other words, we know it's going to get warmer because of our emissions; we're trying to figure out how _much_ warmer.

>Edit: Would you force your friend to stop smoking?

I would force him to stop smoking in places it would harm me. Outside of that I'd strongly suggest he stop.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Would you force your friend to stop smoking?

I would force him to stop smoking in places it would harm me. Outside of that I'd strongly suggest he stop.

Can you prove that global warming will harm you if it exists?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,116]

>Can you prove that global warming will harm you if it exists?

?? No. Other than paying more for water and food, it will likely not harm me directly.