Germany and AGW

[rushmc 23]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scientists-urge-Merkel-to-change-global-warming-view--52513912.html

Quote

Scientists urge Merkel to change global warming view
By: Kevin Mooney
Commentary Staff Writer
08/05/09 8:03 AM EDT
In an open letter addressed to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, more than 60 scientists take issue with the concept of man-made global warming and request that an “impartial panel” be convened as a counterbalance to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists also question the credibility of the U.N. in the letter and urge Merkel to reconsider her position. “A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions,” they wrote.
“Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003,” they said.
The IPPC models have for a decade predicted that the earth would continue to warm even as the opposite has actually occurred, according to the letter. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that shows human activity has little, if any, impact on climate, the scientists told Merkel.
They conclude by suggesting that additional research and open debate are needed.
“Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.”

the letter they sent :

Quote

Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)

#


Dr. Holger Thuß

EIKE President

European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by


Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel

2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland

3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf

4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services

5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck

6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist

7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party

8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist

9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.

10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics

11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist

12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert

13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR

14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist

15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist

16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUISSE

17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural biologist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay

18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologist

19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist

20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch

21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist

22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry

23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist

24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holler

25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemiker

26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist

27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig

28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH

29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster

30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist

31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist

32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist

33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loew

34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland

35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin

36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist

37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta

38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-

Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster

39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert

40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist

41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter

42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for

Standards and Norms i.R.

43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg

44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH

45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist

46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist

47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor

48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer Geologist

49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist

50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator

51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist

52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor

53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist

54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy

Leipzig

55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS

56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist

57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist

58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist

59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences

60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist

61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist

+ 6 others

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

[quade 4]

I like how it lists 61 of the "scientists" and then says "+6 others".

That's awesome. Is it because they don't know who they are or is it because those six names are embarrassing to the deniers?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I like how it lists 61 of the "scientists" and then says "+6 others".

That's awesome. Is it because they don't know who they are or is it because those six names are embarrassing to the deniers?

There it is for everyone to see. Quade bebunked it all already

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

[StreetScooby 5]

I've actually done a fair amount of reading on the IPCC AGW report. They are not accounting for water vapor in their reported predictions. Cloud formation is still an unknown, and very important part, of this equation. Likewise, out govt's taxing our economies to death for what will be little to no impact is simply insane. China and India combined account for 1 out of every 2 people in the world who live on $2/day or less. Their socieites' green house gas emissions will dwarf any offset we can produce. While I do no advocate pollution of our planet, Waxman's cap-n-trade bill is insane. What is our government going to do with the money? Pick winners and losers?

Time to go with nuclear power, and the sooner, the better.

We are all engines of karma

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I've actually done a fair amount of reading on the IPCC AGW report. They are not accounting for water vapor in their reported predictions. Cloud formation is still an unknown, and very important part, of this equation. Likewise, out govt's taxing our economies to death for what will be little to no impact is simply insane. China and India combined account for 1 out of every 2 people in the world who live on $2/day or less. Their socieites' green house gas emissions will dwarf any offset we can produce. While I do no advocate pollution of our planet, Waxman's cap-n-trade bill is insane. What is our government going to do with the money? Pick winners and losers?

Time to go with nuclear power, and the sooner, the better.

The letter sent says what you are saying here too.

And many have said since the report came out and many on the team where ignored and threated regarding thier conclusions.

But only the deniers have silence oposition. We all know that and now the quade debunked the letter we will have to move on.

Keep feeding the info please as well as your conclusions.

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

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I like how it lists 61 of the "scientists" and then says "+6 others".
That's awesome. Is it because they don't know who they are or is it because those six names are embarrassing to the deniers?

There it is for everyone to see. Quade bebunked it all already

Nope, just pointing out the weirdness factor.

I'm sure you'd do the same.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I like how it lists 61 of the "scientists" and then says "+6 others".
That's awesome. Is it because they don't know who they are or is it because those six names are embarrassing to the deniers?

There it is for everyone to see. Quade bebunked it all already

Nope, just pointing out the weirdness factor.

I'm sure you'd do the same.

And that is weird ? Why?

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

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I like how it lists 61 of the "scientists" and then says "+6 others".
That's awesome. Is it because they don't know who they are or is it because those six names are embarrassing to the deniers?

There it is for everyone to see. Quade bebunked it all already

Nope, just pointing out the weirdness factor.

I'm sure you'd do the same.

And that is weird ? Why?

You don't think it's weird that they list in detail 61 names and then say "+6 others"?

Uh . . . yeah, that's weird. Either they know who the people are or they don't. But to say that about 10% of this "prestigious" list of scientists is simple "other" . . . that's weird.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It's why nighttime temperatures are more stable in humid environments.

Methane is another important greenhouse gas. And one that we actually have the technology to do something about. We could get bang for our buck with methame remediation, but that doesn't seem as important for some reason. Perhaps because there is less evil to paint against rice farmers and Bessie the Cow instead of the evil petrochemical industry.

Add to that that methane levels seem to be dropping.


Big point - the models did not predict this 10 year stalling of warming. They simply did not. Without something like a volcano or strong el nino/la nina to attribute there has been no explanation.

This leads to some possibilities. The data is bad. The interpretations of data are bad. The physucs are off. Or there are variables that are unknown or thus far underestimated.

Some say it's a normal fluctuation. I say, "why?" Explain it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>And one that we actually have the technology to do something about. We
>could get bang for our buck with methame remediation, but that doesn't
>seem as important for some reason.

Because:

1) Methane levels have stabilized; it means that remediation efforts are working.

2) The half life of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter than the half life of CO2, so it's less of a problem overall.

>Big point - the models did not predict this 10 year stalling of warming.

They didn't predict the 15 year stall that happened in 1945 either. The conclusion "therefore, it won't keep getting warmer" would have been incorrect then as well.

>Some say it's a normal fluctuation. I say, "why?" Explain it.

We will never explain all the fluctuations in the climate. We can only give a likely estimate on long term trends.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Time to go with nuclear power, and the sooner, the better.

Maybe this article will explain why going nuclear is not an option.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>And one that we actually have the technology to do something about. We
>could get bang for our buck with methame remediation, but that doesn't
>seem as important for some reason.

Because:

1) Methane levels have stabilized; it means that remediation efforts are working.

2) The half life of methane in the atmosphere is much shorter than the half life of CO2, so it's less of a problem overall.

>Big point - the models did not predict this 10 year stalling of warming.

They didn't predict the 15 year stall that happened in 1945 either. The conclusion "therefore, it won't keep getting warmer" would have been incorrect then as well.

>Some say it's a normal fluctuation. I say, "why?" Explain it.

We will never explain all the fluctuations in the climate. We can only give a likely estimate on long term trends.

Serious question

What large scale methane remediation efforts have been put into place?

"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]

Well I think you are reaching. The signers are all Prof (it looks like) the 6 could be support staff, interns, associates ect.

But, for you AWG worshipers, going after the names list is easier than refuting their findings. This fact may not be "weird", be it sure is and eye opener

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

[feuergnom 29]

Quote

Time to go with solar & windpower, and the sooner, the better.

fixed it

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Big point - the models did not predict this 10 year stalling of warming.

They didn't predict the 15 year stall that happened in 1945 either. The conclusion "therefore, it won't keep getting warmer" would have been incorrect then as well.

Bill. I understand your point. But is that what science is about? "Well, we don't know what's going on and it exceeds our scientific knowledge. We're still right."

Wrong answer. If nothing explains what is going on for ten years then there is a lack of knowledge. Something is being missed. And I always thought that errors or oversights have a tendency to daisy chain.

I believe that to suggest that we don't know what is causing it but it doesn't matter is a cop out. Show me the data to support that conclusion.


[Reply]We will never explain all the fluctuations in the climate. We can only give a likely estimate on long term trends.

[billvon 3,120]

>Bill. I understand your point. But is that what science is about? "Well, we don't
>know what's going on and it exceeds our scientific knowledge. We're still right."

No one is claiming that.

Again, take smoking. No one knows what day you will die if you don't smoke. No one knows what day you die if you do smoke. No one can examine you and say "if you smoke 2 packs a day, you will get a tumor right there."

However, if you want to live a long time, smoking is still a very bad idea.

Likewise, no one can say what the average temperature will be next year. Odds are that it will be warmer, but no one can say "it will be .02C warmer." No one can determine that 12,000 Indians (+/- .0002%) will be displaced in 8 years due to sea level rise.

But if you don't want the temperature to keep rising, putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible is a bad idea.

>Of course we cannot explain all the fluctuations. We should be trying to.

Right. But no matter how much work we do, we will never explain them all. It could be colder next week in New York because there was a forest fire in Kentucky today, started by a careless boy scout. That, of course, does not equate to "you can't predict weather in New York!"

>I believe that to suggest that we don't know what is causing it but it
>doesn't matter is a cop out. Show me the data to support that conclusion.

Who said it doesn't matter?

[billvon 3,120]

>What large scale methane remediation efforts have been put into place?

Here are four efforts from here in the US:

==============
AgSTAR - a program to use anaerobic digesters to reduce (actually reuse) methane emissions from livestock waste (cow shit in other words.) Eliminated about a million tons CO2e in 2008 alone, and generated 300 megawatt-hours of electricity.

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program - reduces methane emissions from coal mining. Reduced methane emissions by 200 million tons of CO2e so far.

Gas STAR - program to reduce wasted methane (released/flared) in the petroleum industry. In 2007, this led to a reduction of 40 million tons of CO2e.

Landfill Methane Reduction Program - captures and uses methane from landfills for power and heating. 23 million tons CO2e eliminated in 2008. We have one of these here in San Diego; it's basically a lot of plastic/sand barriers and PVC pipes that lead to a filter and a generator.
============

As a result of these and similar programs, our emissions of methane today are 11% _lower_ than our emissions were in 1990.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Bill. I understand your point. But is that what science is about? "Well, we don't
>know what's going on and it exceeds our scientific knowledge. We're still right."

No one is claiming that.

Sure there are. The term "denier" is used as a pejoratuve to those who say, "you haven't proven it."


[Reply]Again, take smoking. No one knows what day you will die if you don't smoke. No one knows what day you die if you do smoke. No one can examine you and say "if you smoke 2 packs a day, you will get a tumor right there."

[billvon 3,120]

>The term "denier" is used as a pejoratuve to those who say, "you haven't
>proven it."

Just as some people use the word "alarmist" as a pejorative to describe people who say "we understand the science."

> Of course, we also have anecdote to suggest that, yes, smoking causes
> higher risk of cancer. And we'd expect that the more smokers we have
> the more cancer deaths we'd get. Climate is a bit more complicated . . .

Wait a minute. You're saying that climate is more complicated than the human body? We have around 3 billion base pairs of DNA. We can only figure out what about 25,000 of the genes that those base pairs represent even _do_, and we don't really understand how they do it. Some people think the remainder is non-coding junk DNA; others think that we just don't understand the rest yet. We have identified dozens of oncogenes, and only dimly understand what mutates or proliferates them.

And yet when someone says "if you want to live a long time, smoking is still a very bad idea" you readily agree, and that the details (like the fact that some people smoke 2 packs a day and live to be 80) aren't important.

>We can't determine those numbers until we know. We can't. So, in other
>words, projected damage is speculation.

Just as "smoking causes cancer" is speculation.

>If I were to ask you to estimate the length of the desk in your office you
>could estimate it because you've seen it. If I were to asj you to estimate
>the length of my conference room table you could not. It would be a guess.

Right. But if you asked me to estimate the power of your cellphone's charger, I could make a very good guess based on minimal information - because I understand the physics of charging cellphone batteries. Not because I have ever seen your charger, but because to do a given job, given Ohm's Law, the state of the art in battery charging and the physical constraints that Maxwell's Equations pose, there are not an infinite set of solutions.

>Sure. I see that. Kinda like if I wanted to avoid communicable
>diseases going in public would be a bad idea. But what are the
>costs/benefits?

An excellent question! You might decide, during an epidemic, to take no precautions whatsoever; you may decide that the cost of those precautions (like, say, washing your hands occasionally) outweigh the small risk that you may die from the epidemic. Or you may decide to wash your hands once a day, or several times a day, or to get a vaccination, or stay home when you are sick, or to see a doctor if you get sick. Those might all be good tradeoffs - depending on the virulence of the epidemic and your aversion to handwashing, doctors or staying home.

However, claiming "we don't fully understand the extent of the epidemic or all the details of its vectors, and therefore I will do absolutely nothing" is not a very wise approach. Likewise, saying "well, the last epidemic wasn't so bad, so this one can be ignored"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>What large scale methane remediation efforts have been put into place?

Here are four efforts from here in the US:

==============
AgSTAR - a program to use anaerobic digesters to reduce (actually reuse) methane emissions from livestock waste (cow shit in other words.) Eliminated about a million tons CO2e in 2008 alone, and generated 300 megawatt-hours of electricity.

Coalbed Methane Outreach Program - reduces methane emissions from coal mining. Reduced methane emissions by 200 million tons of CO2e so far.

Gas STAR - program to reduce wasted methane (released/flared) in the petroleum industry. In 2007, this led to a reduction of 40 million tons of CO2e.

Landfill Methane Reduction Program - captures and uses methane from landfills for power and heating. 23 million tons CO2e eliminated in 2008. We have one of these here in San Diego; it's basically a lot of plastic/sand barriers and PVC pipes that lead to a filter and a generator.
============

As a result of these and similar programs, our emissions of methane today are 11% _lower_ than our emissions were in 1990.

Thanks Bill
I will look into some of these.

I does seem to me however, I wonder how the 11% can be a trustworthy number (not aimed at you). Second, if the numbers you give are correct, to reach 11% we must not be putting much in the atmosphere to begin with.
But as I said, I will look into it
Thanks again

marc

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

[crwtom 0]

Quote

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Scientists-urge-Merkel-to-change-global-warming-view--52513912.html

Quote

Scientists urge Merkel to change global warming view

This is hardly an impressive list - 61 is well within the crack-pot ratio of
in the German PhD population (and actually only 46 of those hold a PhD).
Except for those 17 with Prof's and couple more no indication that any of
the PhD's are actually still in science. At best 20% of those on the list are
actually in fields relating to climate science. Many engineers and physicists
who probably know about the subject as much as any Discovery Channel
viewer or Nature reader.

Moreover at least a third of the signers are part of the EIKE thing.
Articles on the EIKE web page include:

- warning of an impending climate-cooling catastrophe
- call T Boone Pickens is "as stupid as it gets" for investing in wind energy.
- articles about how perfectly safe and harmless coal and nuclear
industries operate
- a disparaging and panic inducing article for just about every effort of
finding renewable energies (solar, earth, wind, etc).

If the chancellor spends 5 minutes on reading this it'll be a waste of
her and the German people's time.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>The term "denier" is used as a pejoratuve to those who say, "you haven't
>proven it."

Just as some people use the word "alarmist" as a pejorative to describe people who say "we understand the science."

No. "Alarmist" is someone who says death and destruction is sure to happen on a scale unseen. Or, someone who attributed every heat wave to CO2.

[Reply]> Of course, we also have anecdote to suggest that, yes, smoking causes
> higher risk of cancer. And we'd expect that the more smokers we have
> the more cancer deaths we'd get. Climate is a bit more complicated . . .

Wait a minute. You're saying that climate is more complicated than the human body?

[billvon 3,120]

>No. I'm saying that the mechanism of mutation is fairly well understood.

?? It's not! And mutation alone does not cause cancer; our cells are mutating all the time. Over/underexpression of oncogenes causes cancer.

The reason we think that smoking is one of the leading causes of lung cancer and heart disease is not that we know that .007 micrograms of tar per square centimeter of lung tissue causes expression of the Kras oncogene. It's because we know that:

1) Cigarette smoking deposits a lot of potentially mutagenic materials in your lungs (and your blood)

2) Those potential mutagens can cause cancer through a wide variety of (as yet not 100% understood) mechanisms, and

3) People who smoke a lot tend to get lung cancer more often than people who do not - even though some people can smoke their entire lives and never get lung cancer.

Likewise, we don't understand the climate 100%. But we do know that:

1) We are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations

2) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will increase retention of longwave radiation

3) Increasing longwave radiation retention will result in a warmer planet and

4) As CO2 has increased, temperatures have increased - even though they don't increase every single year.

>Dioxin appears to be as harmful to people as chocolate.

I take it you've never heard of Viktor Yushchenko.

>But I admit I'm human. I am susceptible to shutting out the alarmists. "That
>kid has cried wolf 10 times. Fuck him. You know, by now I hope there IS a
>damned wolf. It's probably better than worrying about it."

Right. But if his father tells you "you know, the dogs have gone after wolves ten times in the past year, and eight times they got one of my sheep, so I put up a fence" then it might be worth listening to him. You might even want to put up a fence of your own, even if he was wrong twice.

>What was the last predicted global disaster that was as bad as was
>predicted? Ebola? HIV?

HIV was considerably worse than predicted. 2 million people dead last year from AIDS. Might be worth telling your kid about condoms, even if he thinks you're being alarmist.

>Or are the crises we face the result of political willpower directed at a
>perceived threat?

That's exactly what it is. Sometimes they overdo it, sometimes they underdo it. (Katrina being a good example of the latter.) I can see the wisdom in erring on the side of caution.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Likewise, we don't understand the climate 100%. But we do know that:

1) We are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations

2) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will increase retention of longwave radiation

3) Increasing longwave radiation retention will result in a warmer planet and

4) As CO2 has increased, temperatures have increased - even though they don't increase every single year.

(S * (1-a))/4 = eoTi^4. (I think - this from memory)

The left side is the heat coming in (solar heat times albedo divided by 4. The right side is the heat going out (bulk emissivity times oTl4 - the amount being absorbed.)

heat in = heat out when climate is balanced.

The right side of the equation (CO2) increases the oTi4. The science suggests that, yes, CO2 and water vapor and methane increase the right side. What constitutes the absorption?

There is plenty to think about. Most have to be broken down separately and this model is hugely simplified.

But back to the pont of things, the climate models are actually climate predictions. "If we are correct, this is what we will see."

The current decade (not day, week, month or year) did not show it. It showed something different DESPITE the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The scientific term, I believe, is that the hypothesis is falsified.

Perhaps it requires some significant tweaking but it hasn't worked.
1) We are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (yes.)

2) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will increase retention of longwave radiation (Yes. Under the hypothesis it should)

3) Increasing longwave radiation retention will result in a warmer planet (why not "is resulting?") and

4) As CO2 has increased, temperatures have increased - even though they don't increase every single year. (Bingo. The models - none of them - show a decade long lag. Furthermore, CO2 increasing will result in increasing long-wave retentiaon and re-radiation which will result in increasing temperatures. Which we are seeing now? No. Not for ten years.

The models did not show this. No hypothesis out there right now has explained it, other than, "The increases in CO2, long-wave radiation retention and re-radiation is a fact of physics, but you've gotta expect it to take some years off."

In fact, this is contrary to the physics. increased CO2 = increased long-wave absorption = increased warming. That's the scientific fact.

But the last stage hasn't occurred. So something else is going on that we don't know about - something strong enough to neutralized the increases in temperature that science tells us we are supposed to have.

Thus - hypothesis falsified. Or some bad physics. Or bad data. We should have increased .2 C this decade. We haven't.

Quote

>Dioxin appears to be as harmful to people as chocolate.

I take it you've never heard of Viktor Yushchenko.

I have. He got some bad acne. The most toxic synthesized substance on earth - even a massive dose of it - didn't kill him. Made him ugly, though.

Quote

But if his father tells you "you know, the dogs have gone after wolves ten times in the past year, and eight times they got one of my sheep, so I put up a fence" then it might be worth listening to him. You might even want to put up a fence of your own, even if he was wrong twice.

True. In fact, I may want to go into the fencing business and invest in the passing of a law that would require property owner to fence in their property - and paid for by a tax increase. Then I could also get the bid because the law requires that a business just like mine receive preference.

Quote

HIV was considerably worse than predicted. 2 million people dead last year from AIDS. Might be worth telling your kid about condoms, even if he thinks you're being alarmist.

It was considerably worse and considerably better - not quite the expected scourge of everybody that was expected. It IS a disease that discriminates because it's one of those that with the exception of the rare transfusion infection or pediatric case, choices affect whether you'll get it.

Quote

>Or are the crises we face the result of political willpower directed at a
>perceived threat?

That's exactly what it is. Sometimes they overdo it, sometimes they underdo it. (Katrina being a good example of the latter.) I can see the wisdom in erring on the side of caution.

Of course. There is wisdom in that. But there is also wisdom in biding one's time. My car is gonna break down sometime. I can see the wisdom in getting a new one now. On the other hand, whether I can weather the cost of another car payment is a factor that must also be considered.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ion01 2]

You deny global warming? How dare you!

"I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."
-Ellen Goodman