Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?

I still think I'm clever

"There are lots of good reasons for cutting back on the energy we use and getting as much as we can from renewable resources, but I'm not sure that atmospheric CO2 is one of them. Having people shout at me isn't going to convince me that it is."

Neither will the presentation of scientific evidence.

I know this will piss of a lot of people, but I'm saying it anyway; IT is not science and understanding a computer does not make you a scientist. I've taught 14yr olds who can do better than this.

This is piss poor.

Millions of tons of melting ice can't be wrong.

Alleged quote from Mark Twain: "There are liars, there are damned liars, and then there are statisticians."

The fact that glaciers everywhere and the polar ice is melting is the only significant fact in the "debate" about global warming.

This reminds me of college philosophy arguing what is or is not real. Ultimately if you have to deal with it then it is real enough. In global warming if polar ice is melting then global warming is real enough.

Trillions of dollars?

Hate to come across as inflammatory, but I've seen from the above posts that there's a large number of people who appear to think that cost is a major reason for not doing anything about an imaginary threat..

From 2007

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/02/sec-070208-usia01.htm

"The White House is seeking $294.8 billion to fund global counterterrorism operations, including $99.6 billion for fiscal year 2007, $145.2 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009."

...

"Since 2001, Congress has appropriated more than $425 billion for anti-terrorism activities across the U.S. government. The fiscal year 2008 funding request is the largest made for anti-terrorism programs to date; if approved, it would increase overall funding allocated to fighting terrorism to more than $700 billion since the 2001 attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

Well there you go I suppose. Got to love picking data out of Google.

Oh and I saw this article in New Scientist today

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826543.100-censorship-exposed-at-us-environment-agency.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

Why is the EPA as a US government organisation being censored about global climate change issues, while NASA, another US government organisation, appears to be a hotbed of babyeating greedy agenda-driven pinkos?

I give up :)

why be a pure researcher

>Honestly, anyone who thinks researchers are in making this up

>for the money hasn't looked at scientist's wages recently.

>Research just doesn't pay. You don't go into research because

>you want to make money. You work in pure science to learn the

>truth.

>Academic/pure scientific research doesn't pay. If you want money, you

>go into industry. It's that simple. You double your salary over night.

No. You go into research and academia because you work ~6 months a year, maybe teaching some classes you developed the curricula for 20 years ago and have been sleep-walking through ever since.

All en route to tenure so you can do anything you want without getting fired. Such as re-engineer the world the way you think it ought to be, perhaps along lines shaped by the guilt you feel over having it so good without having earned it.

You don't go into industry because it's demanding and you may not be able to hack it; you have to produce results according to real-world standards, not just peer-review of people just like you. You can get fired and change comes rapidly. You don't have a ready supply of serf-labor (grad students) to do your work for you that you can then write up to impress your colleagues.

Re: Polar ice melting?

Stephen, can you remember that quote when it comes to Mars showing melting polar ice?

There's a dear.

Death and Taxes I say

if computer modelling/prediction was/is so accurate why haven't they developed a computer program to predict the lottery numbers ? some of you will say "they have !!!" and I'll say "are you rich yet ?"

surely with only 50 balls (ish) and having to only predict 7 of those balls in a known environment using the variables of friction, inertia, initial starting position, speed of rotation, weight, gravity, oh and a bit of chaos theory thrown in for good measure, has it worked ? did it get it right ? are the millionaires lining up outside the software company who wrote it to personally thank them for their riches ? it is after all a tiny problem in comparison to global warming prediction to solve AND with known variables

I don't think so .....

now scale that software problem up to global proportions add a few thousand, possibly a million other variables, throw in sun light, gravitational pull, volcanoes, ozone depletion, forest fires, car exhausts, factories, cows farting... the list is endless

then produce a nice pretty graph showing what will happen in the next 100 years......in the real world you would laughed out of the patent office saying you could accurately predict lottery numbers with a computer model.... so why aren't we laughing at global warming predictions ? should we question their validity ? or will it fade into obscurity as did the scientists of the 1970's, who's prediction of the impending ice age we were plunging into by the year 2010 turned out to be wrong ?

tell you one thing it's warm in here, somebody turn on the air conditioning .....

Re: Death and Taxes I say

Because most government agencies with a lot of computing power ARE NOT ALLOWED.

They must obey their remit. In the case of weather prediction, that is predicting the weather. Much more lucerative is to use the computing power to predict stock market fluctuations, but they aren't in this for the money, else they'd ignore the requirement to produce weather forecasts.

@Archimedes Tritium

"You don't go into industry because it's demanding and you may not be able to hack it; you have to produce results according to real-world standards, not just peer-review of people just like you."

Hmmm. Results that the COMPANY WANTS. Not the truth. That doesn't sell, especially if the truth is that your new drug has severe drawbacks.

When was the last time a CEO had to work hard? When was the last one sacked and couldn't find a new one? "The old boy" network is the corporate version of tenure.

@@Archimedes Tritium

"Hmmm. Results that the COMPANY WANTS. Not the truth. That doesn't sell, especially if the truth is that your new drug has severe drawbacks."

Research which is either incorrect of falsified is useless to a company since they wont make a profit from it and will probably make a loss. If you either falsify or make wildly incorrect assumptions in your research when you work for a company you will more than likely end up sacked or in court.

A welcome debate.

I thought this article was a good read.

I do believe there is a conflict of interests in the researching of climate change and it's a subject that does seem to have a very one sided bias.

I mean if you start a study looking into why the world is warming up, chances are you are going to get a great big fat grant to help you prove this further.

If you say we think the world's temperature is in line with historical analysis, how much money do you think that project will get?

One other question that has puzzled me for a while is why Bush did not sign up for Kyoto, maybe someone on the inside knew this might be a croc-o-xxxx...?

It's an interesting discussion...

@Mark

>Results that the COMPANY WANTS. Not the truth.

The company still needs the truth internally.

Even if every organisation is intent on passing off some toxic waste as a cure for the common cold, they still have to know what it is themselves.

Whether or not your communist, distopian and SHOUTY vision of commerce is accurate.

@JonB

> The company still needs the truth internally.

But they can remove all traces of that as long as it IS internal.

And how does that help in any case?

You seem very willing to allow companies to tell lies to people. And you seem to think that not allowing companies to lie to be communistic? How do you think the Free Market is supposed to work? Here's a clue:

AN INFORMED CONSUMER DECIDES

and how can they be informed if companies are allowed to lie to them? That's not information, that DIS-information. Wanting to keep consumers blind seems more against the free market (the basis of a working capitalist society) and therefore more the opposite of capitalist: communist.

Re: "A welcome debate."

Obvious bias:

You state that there are two scenarios when in reality there are three:

a) AGW needs investigating. Result grant money

b) There's no difference. No grant mpney

and forgot

c) There's no difference. Get fad wad from corporation.

Corporations have a much better spending potential than governments. After all, companies don't have a health service or defence force to run.

@Mark

>But they can remove all traces of that as long as it IS internal.

>And how does that help in any case?

The point is, that the scientist must still produce accurate work.

If you remember, you were responding to someone who suggested that academics don't go into industry (earning more) because they didn't like it, you responded saying that they don't have to produce accurate results in industry, because they're evil or something.

I know it's difficult for you. Does it make sense now?

I didn't comment on the moral choices of companies lying or not, they'll certainly put out the information they want to be out and hold back the stuff they don't. That's more the domain of marketing departments than scientists though.

Say WHAT?!

"When was the last time a CEO had to work hard?"

HUH?

You don't think CEOs work hard?

Really?

"Hmmm. Results that the COMPANY WANTS. Not the truth. That doesn't sell, especially if the truth is that your new drug has severe drawbacks."

Do you think corporations can just get away with "Results that the COMPANY WANTS. Not the truth"?

Do you think drug companies can just make up their results? Or that mining interests can issue any old assay they want?

Really?

(In case you didn't realize, it is the public sector that is not accountable.)

@JonB

Are you now saying that scientists DON'T just lie or exaggerate to get grants? Because that's what I heard you say before when it came to getting government grants...

Shiver me timbers

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/24/MN9B10AM8Q.DTL

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The worst spring cold snap in more than 30 years is threatening to wreak havoc on the wine industry as three recent days of frost have killed grapevine buds up and down the crucial North Coast vineyard region.

So far, grape growers estimate that as much as 10 percent of their crops could be lost, an unusual occurrence in an industry that hasn't seen a significant spring frost since the early 1970s.

Farmers usually turn on their frost-protection machines a couple of times a year when the thermometer dips below 40 degrees, but so far this year some said they have had to activate them as many as 30 times.

Before this year, frost had affected the vineyards of the North Coast to this extent only in 1971 and in the late 1940s, growers said

National Weather Service forecaster Diana Henderson said the region hasn't set any records for cold this year - that was set in 1990, at 14 degrees in Napa County. But Saturday, Sunday and Monday were unusually chilly, with the thermometer dipping below the freezing point of 32 degrees each day.

@Mark

"Because most government agencies with a lot of computing power ARE NOT ALLOWED. They must obey their remit. In the case of weather prediction, that is predicting the weather. Much more lucerative is to use the computing power to predict stock market fluctuations..."

The remit of government agencies is to provide "evidence" that the government likes to hear. The clue's in the name.

"Are you now saying that scientists DON'T just lie or exaggerate to get grants?"

When the dominant narrative wants to hear X, government agencies scurry off and produce strategy boutique PDFs or computer models that affirm the narrative.

All government agencies compete for finite tax bucks, so if they don't eat, they'll get eaten. Viz. - MI5 expanding into the "War on Terror"/"War on Drugs" or weather forecasters becoming "climate experts".

You're almost there, Mark. One more heave.

@Mark

Mark, you say (referring to grants from industry):

"Are you now saying that scientists DON'T just lie or exaggerate to get grants?"

The original post you were commenting on stated this:

"You don't go into industry because it's demanding and you may not be able to hack it; you have to produce results according to real-world standards, not just peer-review of people just like you."

If the scientist is getting grants from industry then they are obviously not employed by industry (ie. no monthly pay check).

@Mark

>Are you now saying that scientists DON'T just lie or exaggerate to get grants?

>Because that's what I heard you say before when it came to getting government grants...

Where did you hear that?

I didn't comment on government grants, merely that scientists working in companies still have to produce accurate results regardless of what the company then writes on packaging or in press releases.

You seem to be under the impression that if you work for Evil Corp., then you can get away with producing any old bollocks because the corp lies anyway, that's not true, Evil Corp will throw you to the laser beam headed sharks for getting the wrong answers, it's a tough working environment.

RE: Inconvienient Truth.

We also didn't have any humans.

Speaking as a human (you may or may not be one, so indifferent to the fate of humanity), this doesn't seem like a good idea.

@JonB

But remember that these corporate grants may be quashed easily: they are the property of the company and at least "commercial in confidence". Only a few people need to know the test was made and the scientists involved can be told "thank you. obviously we need to do more testing" and keep trying until they get an answer they can use.

Governments don't operate like that and the papers produced by research grants have to be sent for review (because your chances of tenure is almost entirely based on how many well-recieved papers you have made. Get one that PROVES AGW isn't man-caused, you'll get a Nobel prize, tenure and a big fat wodge from Big Oil).

Corporations don't give grants to ensure publishing.

And we have several unanswered requirements to prove any collusion on the part of scientists to maintain "Green Grants". For example:

BBC asked for any proof there was bias for climate change science. None arose apart from "a man I know said...".

There was a bag of money put up asking for anyone to prove global warming was not man-caused. Money pooled from a few Big Oil companies. You didn't get the money for *trying* to prove it wrong, only for actually proving it wrong. Show me any grant from a university or government institution that makes the money dependant on the outcome!

If the work is all because of Green being popular, how about when it was a detriment to your career to propose it? In the 90's, it definitely WASN'T cool and the US especially ousted people looking into it. Yet there were still lots of papers looking into it. How's that work in your world?

@Mark

Um... You're a bit bonkers really aren't you...

@Inconvenient Truth

Well of course it cooled down. Adding more Co2 to the atmosphere doesnt cause the temperature to keep getting hotter and hotter ad-infinitum, it causes it to get hotter until the increased radiation from the Earth (due to it's now hotter temperature) balances the incoming solar radiation. What Co2 does is to cause a given rate of radiation from the Earth to corellate to a higher surface temperature. It's the same as putting a blanket on the bed at night. If the current temperature of the earth is hotter than that equilibrium point then it will cool, as was the case with that molten ball of rock at the start of the Earths history. Even with all those greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere the equilibrium temperature was way below the current temperature, so the earth cooled until it reached that temperature. This is also complicated by the suns luminosity then, which as best we understand was quite a lot less than it is now (the current theory iirc has it that the sun increases in luminosity gradually (about 6% per billion years) until eventually the hydrogen is depleted and it becomes a red giant) This means that for a given greenhouse gas concentration the equilibrium temperature will be lower (blanket example, if the temperature in the room goes down, even though you have a blanket on, you will cool down, Adding a second blanket though will help)

I gather that the current best estimate for the Co2 sensitivity is about 3 degrees per doubling of Co2 concentration. So if the average temp now is 14C and we double the concentration of Co2 then the average temp will slowly rise until it gets to 17C (and then stop if we don't add any more Co2).

However if instead aliens come along and microwave the earth, raising its temp to 50C, incidentally doubling Co2 concentrations in the process then the Earth will COOL gradually until it reaches 17C. But it won't go back to 14C again unless the extra Co2 is removed (or something else counters its effect, like the sun reducing in luminosity a bit)

@JonB

Huh? Run out of reason?

@Anonymous Coward and "facts"

Well, it's a fact that it IS getting hotter than just the solar increase can account for. It is a fact that it is getting hotter faster than at any time in geological history. It is a fact that the little ice age was european. It is a fact that CO2 will trap IR and so blanket the earth like a, uh, blanket. It is a fact that we are pumping a lot of CO2 from a previously unavailable source and that the sinks available can only handle so much in the short term and the long term sinks don't react any where near the speed of the output we have.

It is a fact that we are alone in the universe (given that being not alone means we could meet other intelligent creatures within a reasonably short period of our lifetime). It is a fact that we will die. It is a fact that blue is a colour. It is a fact that doing twenty pushups is hard.

How many facts shall we have included in this debate?

@Mark

No, I've made the point I was making, you seem to have got me mixed up with someone else.

I was responding to your original claim that scientists in commercial outfits produce results that the company wants, not the truth. They do produce accurate work, and the company wants the truth - at least internally.

You then broke into some rambling diatribe about the way grants and prizes are awarded.

>Show me any grant from a university or government institution that

>makes the money dependant on the outcome!

The DARPA grand challenge.

@Eric

BRAVO!!!!!

erm

climate audit isn't a *science* blog, it's actually better known as a forum for climate change sceptics. As ever, take everything with a pinch (or larger) of salt.

@Eric Werme

"> It is a fact that CO2 will trap IR and so blanket the earth like a, uh, blanket.

It is also a fact that our current CO2 levels nearly completely block the range of wavelengths affected."

And when did I say anything about this?

Note: you say "nearly completely". As in "not completely". As in, if we add more, we get more nearly to "completely".

And as we add, the atmosphere warms a little, adding more water vapour (the relative humidity lowers for the same mass of water in air, so it will achieve equilibrium of water/vapour above the sea at a higher total mass of water). And, as many sceptics point out, water is far more dangerous a warming agent. So we are having a positive feedback.

Now if you start off on saying "well, there are negative feedbacks", please think these through first:

a) that is all mentioned in IPCC reports

b) have you actually got any proof that would satisfy a sceptic that you can measure the negative effects

c) why haven't you produced a paper showing this will negate any effect

@more Eric Werme

"> and that the sinks available can only handle so much in the short term

That's not clear, and it one reason why that CO2 blip is interesting.

> and the long term sinks don't react any where near the speed of the output we have.

Ditto.

Climatology is changing astoundingly quickly and some once-in-30 year (or once in 100 or even 200 year) paths to new knowledge are opening. Fact: You aren't keeping up with recent research."

So what are these sinks for long term CO2 storage? What is unclear about the short term sinks (mainly the ocean and plant matter: and we're clearing a lot of the plant mass, aren't we)?

You say "these are uncertain" but they are only uncertain because you're saying they are. Where's the proof?

Re:The DARPA grand challenge.

Fair enough on the rest, I may have gotten you mixed up with someone else, but as to:

"The DARPA grand challenge."

is that anything like the X Prize? I.e. not a research grant but a competition. And it's OK to set prizes for WINNING a competition. It's rather different to:

"Please research and publish peer-reviewed papers showing man has no overall effect on climate changes on the earth", which is asking for research.

Because, at least in the X prize contest, the winner didn't really win, there were lots of people trying (whereas the antiAGW paper got none) and the result wasn't for political reasons. Except possibly to show that the US can still Do It.

Debating with the ill equipped

Anonymous, I don't eat tofu. The fact that you have to make out I'm some eco hippie vegan (and therefore an anathema to any Right Thinking Red Blooded American) shows you have nothing to debate.

@Mark

>is that anything like the X Prize?

It's this :- http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/

It is different of course, but it fulfils your criteria.

>"Please research and publish peer-reviewed papers showing man has no overall

> effect on climate changes on the earth", which is asking for research.

No, it's still a competition. Unless the money is up front paying for the research. If it's awarded by outcome then it's a contest as is the Grand Challenge.

BTW I didn't use the X prize because it's private isn't it?

Otherwise I could use this as well:-

http://www.naturalnews.com/021596.html

"Virgin Group CEO offers $25 million prize to solve global warming challenge"

Red Blooded Americans

I just ought to say for those americans out there that don't piss me off, I actually quite like americans. The earlier comment wasn't about americans but the capability of people to accept "Right Thinking" "Red Blooded Americans" and themselves as being inextricably linked.

It isn't just limited to that group, CoS do the same thing, Police do it, Judges do it, feminists do it. All groups have *individuals* who are or can be salt of the earth. However, they do contain more than their share of people who assume just because of their association MUST be right.

And Shrub (and pals) is a typical example of that thinking.

Re:Are all GW sceptics American then.

No.

What answer were you expecting?