Letter: It’s time to pay stupidity tax

I read with much interest the article in Sunday’s Business Section on Rex Tillerson’s speech to the Washington Ideas Forum last week. Tillerson is the chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil Corp. After approximately 15 years of denial and misinformation about climate change and global warming, Tillerson is now admitting that humans are causing global temperatures to rise because of excessive burning of fossil fuels.

Tillerson says that we will just have to adapt to the rising temperatures. Of course that is easy for him to do since he makes millions of dollars a year as CEO. The rest of us will have to pay thousands of dollars a year in increased electricity bills, increased water bills and increased food bills caused by climate change. People living near the coast will have to move inland because of rising water, as the polar ice melts.

To make things even worse, ExxonMobil spent millions of dollars on phony science to confuse the public about climate change since the 1990s, helping to cause us to take no action to slow down the global warming. An ounce of prevention in the 1990s would be worth a pound of cure in the 2010s.

As global temperatures rise and your costs increase, I suggest you just consider it a stupidity tax placed on us predominantly by Republicans and ExxonMobil Corp.

Raleigh Jenkins

retired chemist

Greenwell Springs

Comments

1) Comment by krl777 - 10/07/2012

@InPVille: My comments about the CRU have all along been concerned only with the claim that the purloined emails show evidence of scientific fraud. I brought up the CRU to illustrate how discussion of GW is polluted by fraudulent charges of fraud made by anti-GW ideologues, one instance being the "1970's cooling consensus" brought up by Art Vandelay, and the other being the CRU emails, about which, true enough, you had not made claims or charges, but then I was not responding to you in bringing them up, so that is beside the point. In bringing them up, I was not establishing fraud as an appropriate measure of "whether or not all is well with AGW theory and practice." On the contrary, my expressed attitude toward (A)GW theory throughout this thread has been that its results are potentially quite vexed and should be regarded with caution, even as they command our attention.

2) Comment by InPVille - 10/07/2012

@krl777: "Thanks to InPVille for doing his or her homework to uncover the fact that responsible opinion varies over a range in which investigators find various degrees of fault in the professional behavior of CRU scientists, but no evidence of fraud." A determination of fraud is the measure you have sought to establish whether or not all is well with AGW theory and practice. This is something I have never claimed nor charged although it was suggested in this conversation by rgeraldwallace. Still damage has been done. Some of the individuals involved in the two Climategate releases have been Chapter Heads for one or more IPCC ARs. You have to ask yourself ' Are scientists who have demonstrated a history of "failing to uphold fairly basic norms of science" the caliber of individual you want holding such positions in the future? '

3) Comment by krl777 - 09/07/2012

Thanks to InPVille for doing his or her homework to uncover the fact that responsible opinion varies over a range in which investigators find various degrees of fault in the professional behavior of CRU scientists, but no evidence of fraud. My point from the beginning. But for anti-GW ideologues, CRU "fraud" is still one of the mainstays of their case, along with false comparison to a nonexistent scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970s. It is vital that principled skepticism regarding GW theory, to which I am sympathetic, distance itself from the mud thrown out by anti-GW ideologues.

4) Comment by DMJ - 09/07/2012

To be fair, it's not only Republicans. Energy state Democrats like Joe Manchin and our own Mary Landrieu are also in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. What's tragic and ironic is that the cap and trade policy, which fell short of 60 votes in the Senate in 2010, was originally the Republican alternative to a direct carbon tax, which Democrats favored.

5) Comment by InPVille - 09/07/2012

Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit. (The Oxburgh Report) Conclusions: . . . "2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists." It is eerie how much the above conclusion is reminiscent of comments that came out of the 2006 Surface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2,000 Years published by the National Research Council of the National Academies. The benefit of working more closely with professional statisticians, the need for more openness and the interaction with a wider scientific group were also recommended. -[**]-Four years later and apparently there had been no movement to implement the recommendations. Has there been any movement to implement the recommendations to this day?

6) Comment by InPVille - 09/07/2012

@krl777: Roger Pielke, Jr. "I am a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder." -[**]- on issues surrounding CRU Climate Gate Controversy -[**]- http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/road-ahead.html -[**]- Dr. Pielke "the thoughtful perspectives of Fred Pearce and Roger Harrabin, brings a much needed sense of proportion to the issue. Here is an excerpt from the FT editorial today:" -[**]- FT quote "The e-mails revealed intellectual arrogance and reluctance to engage critics: climate change sceptics were denied access to CRU data. Some e-mails seemed to imply professional deceit. The controversy rattled climate science. The CRU is small, but important. Some of its members have taken leading roles at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. -[Parag]- A report into the affair, published this week, criticised the CRU employees. They failed to display the “proper degree of openness” required of scientists and were “unhelpful and defensive” in response to reasonable requests for information. -[Parag]- But the report found no evidence that the CRU employees’ biases polluted their output. Accusations that they cherry-picked statistical results have been knocked down. Furthermore, persistent sceptics would have been able to access most of the data by other means. But the episode has proved damaging for climate science. -[Parag]- There is dispute among climatologists about projections. Economists and scientists disagree honestly about mitigation strategies. But researchers in the field often see themselves as campaigners, and so try to stamp out dissent. This leads them to breach the rules of scientific discourse." -[**]- Dr. Pielke again "The East Anglia emails do not show that climate scientists are criminals or frauds, but they do show the implicated scientists failing to uphold fairly basic norms of science."

7) Comment by InPVille - 09/07/2012

@krl777; With regard to the email involving Dr. Jagtap, I do not at all agree with your assessment. Given the billions of dollars expended by governments for climate research, if there is a pressing need to develop such scenarios, then the research should have already been done or the funding obtained to do the research and then come back with realistic scenarios to policy makers. Trying to create a consistent storyline seems to me far more likely to lead to an impression of more certainty than warranted. Had I found, when called upon to review case evidence to determine the proper application of policy, that the people sending me the information upon which I was supposed to base my decision(something that was part of a position I once held) that I had been provided information that did not 100% accurately describe the available evidence for the case but rather something that had been adjusted to create a consistent story-line, I'd have had to do far more of more own investigating in the matter since my agency sources could not be considered to have demonstrated the required degree of objective representation of the facts of the case.

8) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

I see that there is one thread left hanging. I wrote that "GW theory does not predict CO2 forcing of temperature increases in declaciation." [end quote] In response, InPVille cites one recent article that did just this. Well and good. But one article does not define GW theory. GW theorists do not agree on everything. They agree that the planet is currently experiencing atmospheric warming. And they agree, I think, that persistent high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will produce greater warming. Whether or not one thinks they are right on either point, that defines at least a minimal ground for what constitutes GW theory. Many would insist that a causal link between current CO2 and the current warming trend is also part of GW theory. Maybe so. Beyond that, you can probably find somebody somewhere who claims just about anything. They are not a univocal "team" - they are a diverse collection of scientists with diverse views. Casting doubt on some ancillary point maintained by some GW theorists does not, in itself, challenge the minimal consensus (such as it is) of GW theory. That said, we should keep a scrupulous scorecard of the status of each major claim in climate science. But we should be wary of premature, hyper-partisan classification of each result as a "win" or a "loss" for GW theory. Like many complex scientific theories, GW theory may have some important lessons for us even if most of it is wrong, and it may have flaws even if most of it is right.

9) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

Is InPVille presuming to tell me what my worst nightmare is? I hope the discussion has not degenerated to that level. Anyway, on FOIA too, InPVille continues to miss the point. CRU scientists are rightly chided for not respecting the FOIA process. But the charge against them was not that they didn't respect the process. The charge against them was they they avoided fulfilling FOIA requests in order to hide their data or cover up their work in a way which would impugn the integrity of their results. The Russell Commission, and the two other inquiries into CRU behavior, found no such thing.

10) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

I agree that it's silly to imagine that governments could set judicious goals for CO2 levels, or succeed in attaining them if they did. But that's beside the point. The CRU scientists knew that their results could be used by policymakers, and Schimel was saying, quite sensibly, that those policy issues were not germaine to CRU research. In fact, the gist of Schimel's email was to assert scientific humility -- don't assume that every in-house model is realistic, and don't worry about how policymakers will take those models into advisement in making policy.

11) Comment by InPVille - 08/07/2012

Depending on a politician to determine what is a realistic CO2 trajectory or scenario is like depending on a plummer to determine the necessity for brain surgery. How much faith would you put into the government deciding these matters if your worst nightmare come true and Republicans win control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

12) Comment by InPVille - 08/07/2012

FOIA requirements come as a contractual obligation attendant to the acceptance of government funding for scientific grants. Every reputable scientific publication has requirements for author(s) post publication archiving of supporting documentation. It says a great deal about the integrity of someone who fails to abide by his/her contractual obligations. It says more about the integrity of the process when funding sources and scientific publications do not require adherence to archiving requirements. It is an indictment of the scientific process as practiced today when after all of the bad publicity surrounding authors of scientific papers refusing to fulfill their legal and contractual FOIA obligations that the practice continues to exist and no one and no entity has stepped in to correct the situation.

13) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

So InPVille has kindly provided a demonstration of exactly the sort of behavior by anti-GW ideologues which I described before. Find something that looks superficially like an instance of fraud by climate scientists, present it out of context with no analysis, and respond, when challenged, with ad hominem attacks and homilies about the scientific method.

14) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

InPVille's first sample CRU email concerned dodging FOIA requests. The Russell Commission investigated this in detail. Rather than accusing me of not reading primary materials, InPVille should explain where the Russell Commission's judgment was wrong in concluding that CRU behavior on this point showed no lack of scientific integrity. InPVille's second sample comes from a 1999 exchange on organization-internal practices. Dr. Shrikant Jagtap wrote: [begin quote] "I'm enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to use different data will be hard to explain". [end quote] Dave Schimel responded (and I quote the part that InPVille conveniently left out): "I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team. If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide an upper bound). 'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences." [end quote] The bit about CO2 trajectories being a "political decision" seems to be the simple observation that future CO2 levels will depend on how much CO2 governments decide to allow to be dumped into the atmosphere in the future. The part InPVille chose to leave out expresses due caution about the validity of climate modeling. The rest seems to be an appropriate group-internal discussion of sensitivity analyses and the realism of some scenarios which they are analyzing. This sort of discussion, centered around the running of some more realistic runs and some less realistic runs in order to tune up the analytical apparatus, is common in empirical science. If you monitored the internal communications of any research group working with complex data in any science, you would come up with similar exchanges.

15) Comment by InPVille - 08/07/2012

@krl777: Steven McIntyre, one of the individuals seeking the data, is not a journalist. He is a specialist in mathematics and statistics. Having taken an interest in the claims of AGW proponents he has on more than one occasion found errors which scientists have had no recourse but to admit were valid and made changes to their findings. It really doesn't matter whether the individual seeking the information is hostile to your point of view or not. FOIA requests are supposed to be honored because the work of scientists is funded by the tax payers and the requirements for it are written into the laws passed authorizing the funding of research. It isn't really very difficult to post information where any interested party can find it on the internet. People do it all of the time. It can be delegated to assistants if the primary scientist is otherwise occupied. It doesn't engender trust in a scientist's confidence in his findings if he/she is not open to publishing the data and statistical scripts behind his data. Also scientist in the CRU are not the only scientists who have steadfastly refused to archive the background data behind their peer reviewed science. Peer review doesn't mean only those who agree with your theories are to be provided access to what supports your findings. Excusing such behavior doesn't help either. You have for all intents and purposed admitted overtly and tacitly the validity of claims that politics is involved in climate science. Thank you for that.

16) Comment by krl777 - 08/07/2012

From the report of the Muir Russell independent commission: [begin quote] "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis." [end quote] The FOIA requests came from hostile journalists, and had nothing to do with sharing data with other scientists. The CRU scientists are not to be praised for treating them the same way Bush-era EPA officials treated FOIA requests, but the fact that they did does not impugn their scientific integrity. The commission itself took them to task for not responding more openly to requests, but more for the sake of the image of the university. Again, three separate inquiries exonerated the CRU of any kind of fraud.

17) Comment by InPVille - 08/07/2012

@krl777: One of the absolute requirements for the determination of scientific truth is the ability of other scientists to replicate results reported in scientific studies. If results cannot be duplicated as in reports of achieving "cold fusion" it isn't really science. This can only happen if the data behind studies is available to other researchers. This is particularly true of climate science where the literature is based on data sets and statistical scripts run through computers. When climate scientists refuse to permit other researchers access to their papers so the results can be confirmed or refuted and other scientists do not insist that the science remain open it is ABSOLUTELY an indication of something wrong going on. That you would simply blow off the matter does not speak well of your own commitment to scientific truth. Yes I know what the second email was about and it was identified as 0926947295.txt in Climategate 1 emails. Have you actually read any of the Climategate emails yourself or were you just polly parroting what you read someone else claim was contained in the emails. -[**]- @krl777: "Once again, and for the last time, GW theory does not predict CO2 forcing of temperature increases in declaciation." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html - - Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation - - Jeremy D. Shakun, etal - - Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) "These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age."

18) Comment by JohnStOnge - 08/07/2012

Just as an FYI for everybody: The most recent (2007) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "Physical Science Basis" report (see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html) itself says that unequivocal attribution of climate change to any particular cause would require controlled experiments that are not possible to conduct. if you want to see the statement click on chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, then on 9.1.2, What are Climate Change Detection and Attribution. Then read paragraph 4. The authors just mention that in passing, but there it is. And we should all expect to find something like that somewhere if there is any intellectual honesty at all because inferring cause and effect with statistical data requires controlled experimentation. The most egregious misinformation campaign has been on the part that the cause and effect hypotheses associated with "global warming" pronouncements are established with the highest level of certainty. Another false impression is that we can confidently predict, based on observational data and unvalidated models, that if we do X with respect to controls on "greenhouse gasses" then Y will happen with respect to global mean temperature and other climate aspects.

19) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

Climate scientists, like EPA bureaucrats, stiff-arm FIA requests. Not laudable, but not proof of anything perfidious, either. As for the second email, what is it even talking about? Does InPVille know? Once again, and for the last time, GW theory does not predict CO2 forcing of temperature increases in declaciation.

20) Comment by InPVille - 07/07/2012

@krl777: The "incriminating" emails were posted online for all to view, and those of us who bothered to read them, and who had any scientific background, could easily discern that they provided no significant evidence of any serious misdeeds by any CRU scientists, . . ." - - - Here are but two examples. email addresses modified for privacy. otherwise directly quoted. The first is about avoiding freedom of information laws in contravention of scientific open inquiry principles. The second goes to the political nature of the f IPCC "From: Phil Jones <[e-mail]> To: [e-mail] Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005 Cc: "raymond s. bradley"<[e-mail], "Malcolm Hughes" <[e-mail]. Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated. The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! Cheers Phil PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature date. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" -[**]- "From: Dave Schimel <[e-mail]> To: Shrikant Jagtap <[e-mail]> Subject: RE: CO2 Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT) Cc: franci <[e-mail]>, Benjamin Felzer <[e-mail]>, Mike Hulme <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Mike MacCracken <[e-mail]> I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines. You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios provided by the synthesis team. If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley a political decision"

21) Comment by InPVille - 07/07/2012

@krl777: "InPVille points out that, in deglaciation, warming precedes CO2 increases. That is to be expected, and is fully compatible with GW theory." - - - Actually it makes the case that temperature controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere more than it confirms the opposite case. Attend! The cooler the world's oceans are, the more CO2 they are able to hold. As the temperature of the planet begins to drop as an ice age begins, oceans are able to take on more atmospheric CO2. If CO2 is the controlling temperature factor, why then doesn't temperature continue to decline with more and more CO2 being transferred to the oceans until the planet is transformed into a giant frozen sphere? The oceans are capable of holding far more gas than the atmosphere can hold. When temperatures rise at the end of an ice age because of factors unrelated to CO2, the oceans warm up and release into the atmosphere CO2 they can no longer contain. There is a small increase in temperature caused by this CO2. But the climate does not spiral out of control with ever increasing amount of CO2 being released from the oceans into the atmosphere as the GHG effect of CO2 increases temperature. Evidence of this kind of instability has never been discovered even when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the pressure of that atmosphere was greater than now. When a theory posits that if the theory is correct than "X" should occur and "X" does not occur but rather "Y" occurs, it is time to consider the validity of the theory. Speculation that an increase in CO2 will lead to dire consequences. . . Can you show me one source which demonstrates that there were dire consequences when atmospheric levels were higher in the past? All I've ever seen is speculation intended to scare the gullible; no actual evidence. . . no tropics hot spot, models over estimating temperature increases as CO2 levels rise, can't find the heat that the theory says is supposed to be contained on the planet because of CO2 and not released back into space, scientists fudging the provenance of their sources, failing to follow and enforce archiving requirements post study publication, to permit other researchers to check and confirm the validity of studies, and etc. . . . it sounds like it is time to consider other aspects of climate. It would be far from the first time that consensus group think lead science to an erroneous conclusion.

22) Comment by GoldenSage - 07/07/2012

Anybody that believes in 'manmade' Global Warming should pay the tax. And anybody that believes the Progressives and Liberals guiding this theme and other idiotic beliefs should pay a double-tax. Next thing you know they will want U.S. to believe Obama is trying to be bipartisan; Congress is to blame for things and not Obama (no one say anything about Congress when Bush was in office; Obama doesn't blame Congress for things before his administrative; hmmmm, guess he thinks we are stupid, and I guess, some of us are - progressives and liberals). Probably believes Obama captured Bin Laden by himself... oh, guess he did, while telling all the world about the Navy Seals and other top secret info. If you believe in man-made Global Warming, just ask Obama to spread his arms and make it go away. Obama is such a good man...lol.

23) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

Clearly, Art Vandelay is paying attention to the media, not to the science. The media reaction to the (soon refuted) global cooling hypothesis in the 1970's was, indeed, breathless, and for the obvious reason -- the prospect of looming catastrophe sells magazines and attracts viewers, at least until it is old news. But the scientific status of that global cooling hypothesis was vastly different from that of the much more enduring global warming theory. Global warming has been the consensus of atmospheric scientists for decades, and was the majority view among scientists even then in the 1970s. In contrast, the global cooling hypothesis, as I said before, was put forth by a small minority of scientists and had little scientific support even at its height. The hypothesis was false; science worked, and refuted it. The fact that anti-GW ideologues keep comparing it to global warming theory is itself a bit of fraud, akin the fraud which anti-GW ideologues committed by hyping the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia a few years back. The "incriminating" emails were posted online for all to view, and those of us who bothered to read them, and who had any scientific background, could easily discern that they provided no significant evidence of any serious misdeeds by any CRU scientists, let alone evidence of scientific fraud. (Three different Boards of Inquiry have subsequently cleared the CRU of any wrongdoing.) But anti-GW ideologues perpetrated a fraud of their own by quoting certain passages out of context to suggest that they meant something incriminating that they clearly didn't mean in context. I would actually count myself as a GW skeptic because I acknowledge the fallibility of the IPCC and I think the problems which atmospheric science is addressing are extremely messy and difficult ones, with many variables to control for. But the vital public discourse about this issue is continually polluted by the instances of anti-GW fraud described above, most prominently the fraudulent claim that there was a scientific consensus for global cooling in the 1970's matching the ongoing consensus about global warming, and the fraudulent claims that the hacked CRU emails show evidence of scientific fraud. It seems to be the nature of anti-GW ideologues to project their fraud onto their opponents.

24) Comment by Art Vandelay - 07/07/2012

It was not just "a few people" perpetrating the "global cooling" fraud in the 70's as suggested by krl777. If you were to believe the mainstream media at the time, you would be under the impression that "the majority of (credible) scientists" believed in that political hoax. Heck, it was reported in perpetuity all over the news, it was on the cover of Newsweek magazine for Pete's sake. Yes, after years the truth finally prevailed and it was on to the next "crisis". The arm-flailing and misinformation about "man-made global warming" today is strikingly similar to what the majority of people fell for back then. There are just too many contradicting scientific reports to warrant such hysteria...just like back in the 70's.

25) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

InPVille points out that, in deglaciation, warming precedes CO2 increases. That is to be expected, and is fully compatible with GW theory. The glacial cycle of the past 800,000 years is not (as far as we know) driven by greenhouse gas concentrations. CO2 increases only gradually during deglaciation, as ice melts and the growth and decay of plant matter picks up. Again, the glacial cycle of the past million years does not refute, or impinge on, global warming theory. GW theory pertains to the impact of long-term high concentrations of GW gasses at levels which haven't been existed for many millions of years. Until now.

26) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

To take up Art Vandelay's latest remark, there was no scientific consensus of "global cooling" in the 1970's. A few people proposed that the Earth might be cooling, scientists investigated, and within a few years concluded that it wasn't. Even at the height of the "global cooling" hypothesis, 1970-72, the majority of articles in climate science found evidence of global warming, not cooling. See the review in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008, by Peterson, McConnelley and Fleck. The "global cooling hoax" is in fact a bit of fraud perpetrated by anti-GW ideologues in an attempt to discredit the current GW consensus (such as is it) among atmospheric scientists.

27) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

For one example of how climate modeling has been proceeding jerkily, meeting and then overcoming sticking points, see http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121433727/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0.

28) Comment by krl777 - 07/07/2012

Skeptics have been nipping at the heels of climate scientists throughout the past two decades, always touting one point or another where observations don't bear out the theory, and then moving on to another point when the observations are found to have been flawed, and better data bears out the theory. That's arguably how it should be, but it's unwise to draw any conclusions from any one particular time slice or stage of the process, as InPVille invites us to do. At one time, satellite data seemed to indicate that the troposphere is cooling globally, not warming at all, but then scientists realized that they weren't accounting for the decay of satellite orbits. Fixing that yielded data that show the troposphere warming globally, but not as much as predicted by theory at points in the tropics. Skeptics are now jumping on this, claiming that it calls the modeling process into question. Atmospheric scientists themselves are still working on this, and given the difficulties of accurate modeling in something as messy as atmospheric science, I think it is every bit as unwise to jump to conclusions at each sticking point in matching theory to data as it would to jump to conclusions at each success of the enterprise in overcoming these sticking points. [***] Anyway, global warming theory operates on two different scales. One is concerned with modeling the current state of the atmosphere to catch global warming "in action" as it were. This is the empirically messy part, and it runs into all the vagaries mentioned by InPVille, because we have to decide what the atmosphere would be doing based on our current point in the glacial cycle, and then try to determine whether it is in fact doing something different due to present concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Very difficult. At another level, the theory is concerned with whether greenhouse gasses are accumulating long-term, and what effects this will have. There are still questions about the long-term persistence of greenhouse gasses, but that part of the modeling is simpler -- if they accumulate to 500 ppm and stay at that level, the consequences look to be dire, and to break us out of the glacial cycle of the past 800,000 years. Although InPVille is right to note that even the normal cycle would pose tremendous challenges to humanity (if we live that long) -- imagine the northern third of the US covered by a mile thick sheet of ice -- the disruption of that cycle by human activity, if that happens, would be a game changer, over and above that.

29) Comment by Chucky - 07/07/2012

It is the Chine's and there weather war craft doing this.

30) Comment by Art Vandelay - 07/07/2012

Just look at how many dolts, including the main stream media, that fell for the global COOLING hoax in the 70's..."oh, the sky is falling and we need government interference and regulation to save us from ourselves." Sounds awfully familiar to what is being perpetrated today. Follow the money.

31) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

In past days it has been reported that the recent Derecho is evidence of global warming. "The word "derecho" was coined by Dr. Gustavus Hinrichs, a physics professor at the University of Iowa, in a paper published in the American Meteorological Journal in 1888. A defining excerpt from the paper can be seen in this figure showing a derecho crossing Iowa on July 31, 1877." -[**]- SEE http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/derechofacts.htm#climatology AND http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/climatologypage.htm

32) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

@Old Man Kensey: "I simply don't understand the conspiracy theory that global warming was invented to scam money. That is almost to ridiculous to contemplate." - - - This is only the fringe of those skeptical of the AGW MeMe. There is no serious disagreement that CO2 is a GHG and that if it increases it will cause some warming. What the skepticism is about are the predictions of imminent catastrophe. Instances where the IPCC has been caught padding their evidence of Himalayan glacial demise and threats to South American rain forest with demonstrably bogus claims from grey activist sources when they claim all their sources are peer reviewed don't help either. Using studies based on data sets shown shortly after publication to have been contaminated by such things as agricultural run off and statistical methods known by statistical science to be inappropriate for the task at hand don't add to the credibility of climate science either.

33) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

@krl777: "But we can't ignore the fact that CO2 levels have increased in the past few decades in a dramatic way which is historically unprecedented for millions of years in the past. They have gone from 315 ppm in 1960 to 384 ppm today, and are on a trajectory to reach dinosaur-era levels in just another 100 years. Unless there is a plausible mechanism (or human process) for carbon capture, there is a good chance we have arrested the recent (past 800,000 year) glacial cycle, and altered the climate much more fundamentally. The failure of climate models to predict short-term temperature variation with cloud cover does not impinge on the more fundamental question of how persistent carbon is in the atmosphere, and what effects it will have. All we know for sure is that the high levels we are approaching now have not been seen at any time during the planet's glacial cycle of the past few milllion years." -[**]- While CO2 levels have increased over the ppmv during the last couple of glaciations and CO2 is a GHG, the CO2 GHG effect is logarithmic. The biggest CO2 effect on temperature happens well within the first 100 ppmv. Claims that increasing CO2 levels will lead to dramatic temperature increases is based on claims of a positive feedback effect on water vapor which is the prominent GHG in and near surface levels. The CO2 GHG climate theory predicts that if the theory is correct there should be a hot spot in the air 10 kilometers above the tropics(where radiation density is greatest). This has never been detected by any of the instruments used for this purpose. Also the theory predicts that there should be more heat in the climate system "the heat budget" than can be found to exist. These and the fact that at the end of ice ages temperature rises first and then there is only a slight temperature increase when CO2 levels increase create doubt of the primacy of CO2 as the primary cause of variations in climate and that the climate system is as well understood as is claimed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34298/ Nonglacial rapid climate events: Past and future by J. Overpeck & R. Webb, Proceedings of U.S. National Academy of Sciences - - - discusses the variability of the current interglacial period and the following graphic from it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=34298_pq0204327003.jpg shows "Geochemically based SST data from a 5,800-year-old coral head from the Great Barrier Reef (see Fig. ​Fig.22 and Table ​Table1,1, site C), indicating that maximum SSTs were 1.5°C warmer than those of today." This is long before human caused CO2 increases could have had any influence. There are studies of other parts of the planet which indicate temperatures as warm or slightly warmer than the present since the last ice age ended. For example: From - - - Geophysical Research Letters http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL01846.shtml S. Huang, H.N. Pollack, etal "The early to mid‐Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present‐day temperatures, the culmination of the warming that followed the end of the last glaciation. Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, . . ." -[**]- There is very little funding available for the study of aspects of the climate system other than CO2 and really there is no way to determine whether the correlation between recent CO2 increases and temperature increases is not just a correlation and actual causation or the actual causation is some natural force which is not being fully studied in the current group think environment.

34) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

@Old Man Kensey: - - - Joe Romm? ? ? ? Sort of like quoting Al Gore isn't it?

35) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 06/07/2012

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/06/511724/top-us- science-official-climate-change-is-underwayits-having- consequences-in-real-time/

36) Comment by krl777 - 06/07/2012

Volcanoes emit lots of ash and sulphur dioxide, which block the sun and cool things down temporarily, until the ash settles back to ground and the sulphur dioxide converts to sulphuric acid. Volcanoes apparently don't emit much CO2 (estimates are that about 1% of total gasses emitted in volcanic eruptions are CO2). So a few scattered volcanoes do little to change atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

37) Comment by Springer98 - 06/07/2012

No mention of the destruction of vast areas of rain forest. Seems to me that I learned in elementary school that trees use carbon dioxide & produce oxygen. If the destruction of the rain forests were curtailed & folks would plant a few trees, it might make a difference. Does anyone consider how much CO2 was spewed into the atmosphere from the volcano in Iceland ? (the one that closed airports all across Europe)

38) Comment by 8point6 - 06/07/2012

My hyper-drive is malfunctioning. I can't reach light speed. Should I change my oil?

39) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 06/07/2012

I truly believe that the people who think we can't solve global warming and become a stronger nation while doing it have no faith in the American spirit.

40) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 06/07/2012

I simply don't understand the conspiracy theory that global warming was invented to scam money. That is almost to ridiculous to contemplate. I do however, remember the 80's and the ozone layer deteriorating. Fixing that problem was going to destroy the economy. Jobs would be lost. We would NEVER be able to replace freon. No more cars. The lib-rawls are trying to destroy Merica... 30 years later- the ozone is no longer a problem. The economy never sputtered and cars are still on the road.

41) Comment by krl777 - 06/07/2012

The soot in 19th century London and Mexico City was mostly particulate. That means it is heavy enough to fall out of the air quickly, and while it is in the air, it blocks sunlight, making things cooler. Pure CO2 mixes with other gasses in the atmosphere, and we don't really know how long it stays. But while it stays, it creates a greenhouse effect, trapping the sun's heat, warming the atmosphere and oceans.

42) Comment by shad-o - 06/07/2012

Louisiana is pretty Pro-Creationism and Anti-Education so your words will sadly fall on largely deaf and ignorant ears. Praying this away will not work. Ignorance is bliss and all that I guess...

43) Comment by Being_Stupid - 06/07/2012

Does anybody remember London during the 1880s to 1900s? The black smoke and smog was way worse than anything we have nowadays. People back then were more worried about Jack the Ripper than Global Warming. How about Mexico City during the mid-80s? I remember Environmental Experts saying that the Mexico City would be uninhabitable by the year 1997. Well it is 2012 and people still live in Mexico City. I guess the experts were wrong. All these people that hate Big Oil, need to quit driving automobiles. And the automobiles that run on electricity emit twice the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as gasoline vehicles. The coal burning it takes to generate 30% efficiency electricity for electric cars produces twice as much carbon as just running a car on gasoline or diesel.

44) Comment by warreni - 06/07/2012

Deny reality for as long as you can--it's the Louisiana way!

45) Comment by krl777 - 06/07/2012

InPVille points out that all bets are off if the planet enters its next glacial phase, and cites an article which shows that temperatures lagged behind increases in CO2 during past deglaciations. Fair enough. But we can't ignore the fact that CO2 levels have increased in the past few decades in a dramatic way which is historically unprecedented for millions of years in the past. They have gone from 315 ppm in 1960 to 384 ppm today, and are on a trajectory to reach dinosaur-era levels in just another 100 years. Unless there is a plausible mechanism (or human process) for carbon capture, there is a good chance we have arrested the recent (past 800,000 year) glacial cycle, and altered the climate much more fundamentally. The failure of climate models to predict short-term temperature variation with cloud cover does not impinge on the more fundamental question of how persistent carbon is in the atmosphere, and what effects it will have. All we know for sure is that the high levels we are approaching now have not been seen at any time during the planet's glacial cycle of the past few milllion years.

46) Comment by nimby? - 06/07/2012

problem , too many people . solution ?

47) Comment by Lannonmac - 06/07/2012

Scientific study after scientific study indicates the same thing; global temperatures are on the rise because of increasing atmospheric C02 levels. Likewise study after study reaches the same conclusion, that C02 levels are increasing because human are burning fossil fuels. While the data is complex, the CO2 cycle is fairly simple. C02 is sequestered in fossil fuels, but is released into the atmosphere when the fossil fuel is burned, thereby increasing the level of C02 in the atmosphere. Because C02 is a greenhouse gas the more C02 in the atmosphere, the more of the sun’s energy trapped in the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to rise. There NO DOUBT that global temperature is on the rise and there is a very large consensus among climate scientists that the increasing level of C02 is the reason why. There is no “natural” explanation for the huge increases of atmospheric C02, but there is ample evidence that the increase of C02 is directly attributable to humanity’s burning of fossil fuels. Common sense (as well as scientific investigation) should dictate that there is a cause and effect relationship between human activity (burning fossil fuels) and increasing global temperatures, unfortunately common sense and scientific understanding seems to be in short supply among many Americans. I understand it is far more comfortable to pretend that burning fossil fuel is not the root cause of global warming, or even to pretend that temperatures are not rising, but doing so is simply delusional. I also understand that transforming our energy industry from fossil fuels dependency to cleaner sources of energy is not easy and will not be rapid, but that does not mean that it cannot or should not be done. We have a choice, we can begin to clean up our energy industry, begin taking care of our planet and start preserving our way of life for our children, or we can leave our descendants a global catastrophe.

48) Comment by tradewinns - 06/07/2012

while i disagree with those who believe in global warming being a human cause/effect, i do agree with the stupidity tax. the only thing wrong with the ST (stupidity tax for those of you probably going to pay it) it would take so much money out of the system (and into government coffers) it would mean an immediate depression, or worse!

49) Comment by [e-mail] - 06/07/2012

Global Warming: A term invented to scam money.

50) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

@chem: "They fight (usually successfully) regulations that keep the planet safe from their pollution, . . ." -[**]- A few facts which refute this fact free statement - - - http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/132173.htm "For example, the United States reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from covered sources by 52 percent from 1990 levels, and reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by 55 percent from their 1990 levels. Canada has made similar progress in reducing emissions of these substances and is meeting its agreed caps under the Agreement. These reductions demonstrate remarkable progress in less than two decades from identifying a serious cross-border problem to taking meaningful action to address it." -[-*] http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/ "emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999." -[**]- Particulate Matter http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html "1990 to 2010 : 38% in National Average" -[**]- Ozone http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html "1980 to 2010 : 28% decrease in National Average" -[**]- I could go on.

51) Comment by Being_Stupid - 06/07/2012

I blame CATs for global warming. All these empty buses driving all over Baton Rouge, spewing black carbon oil smog diesel all over the city !!!

52) Comment by chem - 06/07/2012

They are responsible for quite a few of the ills. The large financial institutions put us in the recession we currently find outselves. Large businesses have conspired to keep unemployment high for political reasnons. They fight (usually successfully) regulations that keep the planet safe from their pollution, and now with that absurd supreme court decision, these companies now have rights as a person. They can now buy anything thing they want with the hundreds of billions of dollars they have to spend, including elections. Yea. They are responsible for many of the ills in this world.

53) Comment by Being_Stupid - 06/07/2012

Blame Al Gore for Global Warming.

54) Comment by Being_Stupid - 06/07/2012

I Love Big Oil.

55) Comment by Being_Stupid - 06/07/2012

I assume Mr. Jenkins rides a bike or walks everywhere and refuses to drive or ride in a vehicle that uses gasoline or oil.

56) Comment by jdk944 - 06/07/2012

Yes, Mr. Jenkins, it's all the fault of them "evil" oil companies. They are responsible for just about every "ill" in our country. Really??

57) Comment by lovemykids - 06/07/2012

It's a hot topic!

58) Comment by InPVille - 06/07/2012

Scientific evidence does show that CO2 levels have gone down over the last several million years. During recent glacial periods the CO2 level went down to about 190 parts per million. Plant life begins to die at about 160 parts per million. If CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to decrease, plant and animal life as we know it will cease to exist on this planet. - - - Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, etal Science March, 1999 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract states CO2 levels rose hundreds of years after past glaciations. Temperatures rose after CO2 levels increased by only a small amount. Pointing to the conclusion that CO2 levels, though a factor, are not the primary forcing. -[**]- Climate models have shown no improvement in their ability to duplicate cloud behavior in the past 20 years and are based on different aspects of the climate which are incompletely understood. The level in the atmosphere where clouds form determine whether clouds lead to warming or cooling. Models are programmed with the idea that net feedback is positive and yet models always overestimated the increase in temperature which would leave the question as to whether the net feedback is actually positive. The model which comes closest to accurately following the climate doesn't lead to an alarming temperature increase. And yet, models are preferred over empirical evidence??? Many confused people believe a climate model is an actual scientific experiment.

59) Comment by krl777 - 06/07/2012

The glacial cycles of the past million years, or even the past several million years, may be irrelevant if the results of the UCLA study led by Aradhna Tripati are right. (See ScienceDaily, October 2009.) This study showed that carbon dioxide levels today are approaching levels that have not been seen since 15 or 20 million years ago, and if the trend continues for another century or two, levels which have not been seen since 50 or 60 million years ago, roughly the time of the dinosaurs. Critically, the Earth in those times was a very different place, 10 or 20 degrees hotter, with no glacial cycle of the modern sort, but continuous heat with high sea levels and no arctic ice. This by itself doesn't tell us which is cause and which is effect -- CO2 levels and heat -- but climate models clearly point to CO2 as a driver of higher temperatures. That suggests that we take no comfort in our current position in the glacial cycles of the past million years: we may be taking the planet to a place where that cycle is no longer operative.

60) Comment by InPVille - 05/07/2012

Judging by the past several interglacial periods we are near the apex of the current such period. Enjoy the warming while you may. The expenses, death, and destruction that will be visited upon mankind during the next ice age will cause future generations to look on the current times with fond longing. Besides during the current era, the Holocene the temperatures have been warmer than today more than once and the temperature reached higher levels during the last interglacial. Interglacial periods are much shorter than ice ages.