Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits APS over Stand on Global Warming

[Jaskalas]

Small dips in temp about 500 years ago. Small rise in temp about 1000 years ago. Temps today are roughly equivalent to what we had during the age of the Vikings.

We're not there yet. You see, in their time Greenland was actually green. They lived there once. Maybe some day we'll be warm enough to see it again.

 

[monovillage]

More telling to me, especially on the political side is the latest survey by the New York Times.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/16345...vey-finds-americans-doubt-obama-back-policies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/...lobal-warming-and-the-environment/#more-47489

The same story from The Nation and Watts Up so as to give each faction a place to go and another to sneer at, but both say about the same things about GW.

"Here’s question 88:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.

And here’s the results:

12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view."

 

[Whiskey16]

Dude post links or shut up.

🙄

In this thread you have posted invalidated positions, notably a belief that the science involving climatology only has a century old temperature record for study and support. When corrected, you ignored your error and again reposted the same falsehood. Yet you have the nerve to scream for citations when it is yourself who has already failed a debate? :thumbsdown:

randomrogue, I see what waste your line of argument is, I will paraphrase the report I linked upon Manufactured Doubt: "They again and again fling shit upon the wall in the hopse that it will stick."

You have shit. I have multi-disciplined peered reviewed papers -- into the thousands supporting the modern anomolies upon the rate in climate changes.

With a newborn, I have other immediate priorities than to do homework for you. But i will return with further definitive conclusions that show just how wrong you ignorantly choose to believe.

 

[sarsipias1234]

More telling to me, especially on the political side is the latest survey by the New York Times.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/16345...vey-finds-americans-doubt-obama-back-policies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/...lobal-warming-and-the-environment/#more-47489

The same story from The Nation and Watts Up so as to give each faction a place to go and another to sneer at, but both say about the same things about GW.

"Here’s question 88:

88. Which statement comes closest to your view about global warming? 1. Global warming is caused mostly by human activity such as burning fossil fuels or 2. Global warming is caused mostly by natural patterns in the earth’s environment. or 3. Global warming does not exist.

And here’s the results:

12 percent don’t think global warming exists. 42 percent say it’s man-made and 33 percent say it’s natural. 7 percent say it is a mixture of both, and 6 percent are in the “I dunno” or didn’t answer category. With only 42 percent saying it is human caused, that puts it in the minority view."

But that leaves us with 82 percent that are sure that global warming is both man-made and natural or a mixture of both.

So 82% believe global warming is real. That says a lot right in that so many people agree.

 

[Whiskey16]

We're not there yet. You see, in their time Greenland was actually green.

The truth is that the isolated coves that were settled remain green in the summers -- as they did upon that past and extremely limited Nordic colonisation. The east coast of Greenland has quite a different climate than the colder west coast that is renowned for the transition of the ice cap into the ocean.

 

[monovillage]

Whiskey16, you do know that Jeff Masters is a weatherman and not a climatologist don't you ? How about this post by an actual climatologist that has had peer reviewed papers published.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/

 

[monovillage]

But that leaves us with 82 percent that are sure that global warming is both man-made and natural or a mixture of both.

So 82% believe global warming is real. That says a lot right in that so many people agree.

Yes, I'm part of the 82% that believes that the climate is mostly a mixture of natural with some impact from people. What i don't believe in is the Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change/Global Warming that so many on this forum push.

 

[randomrogue]

No, no, it's totally cool for Whisky to post a blog from wunderground. We're taking his opinion very seriously. Very.

http://www.wunderground.com/about/jmasters.asp

You see, at least I look at data. I don't just post a blog from a hurricane hunter who likes Loreena McKennitt and consider myself a genius.

 

[Whiskey16]

Whiskey16, you do know that Jeff Masters is a weatherman and not a climatologist don't you ?

Certainly, and none of that invalidates this man's blog citing the history of marketing and lobbying in the USA to propogate misinformation campaigns from the tobacco industry, asbestos, industrial chemicals, through to the science of climatology.

In this thread, I already mocked those who could not distinguish between the fields of meteorology and climatology when they complained about innacurate weather forecasts and thereby condemning papers concerning climate change as failures.

The OP and into old ads for tobacco made my contribution upon the industry of Manufactured Doubt quite relevant. That it was cited from a doctorate in meteorology does not invalidate the content.

That was the direction this discussion went and is a seperate tangent than citing peer reviewed papers from the fields of climatology, glaciology, ocean sciences, geography, geology, etc. All such fields that entail far more diverse sets of data and timelines than randomrogues' falsehood (and ironic total lack of submitting "data" himself... :thumbsdown🙂 that the study of historic, contemporay, and prediction of climate trends are incorrect due to only having a century of temperature sets to go by.

The sounding of arguments that are made are what are of importance in such anonymous forums such as these.

My credentials? A geotech, with a Masters in Earth Sciences. No doubt, some expected few ideologues will now use that bit of info to apply disrupting ad hominem attacks and avoid my argumentative content in attempts to discredit whatever I will post in the future upon this forum. The strength and validity of a presentation be damned when one may "fling shit with the hopes it will stick."

 

[monovillage]

A synonym of doubt is uncertainty, something that too many climate alarmists have downplayed. The whole subject of Climate Science needs more doubt/uncertainty. Here's a couple of good links.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/p...s-of-transient-climate-sensitivity/#more-4885

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/10/uncertainty-monster-paper-in-press/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...apor-feedback-still-uncertain-by-marcel-crok/

 

[Whiskey16]

Before I head back to bed after burping a sleepless 3 week old, I feel the urge to embarrass randomrogue a bit further... :whiste:

I don't just post a blog from a hurricane hunter...

The man he attempted to disparage ain't some camcorder jockey hurricane hunter...:

...later that year [1986] [Jeff Masters] moved to Miami to join the Hurricane Hunters as a flight meteorologist for NOAA's Aircraft Operations Center.
..
After nearly getting killed flying into Hurricane Hugo, Jeff left the Hurricane Hunters in 1990 to pursue a Ph.D. degree in air pollution meteorology from the University of Michigan. His 1997 Ph.D. dissertation was titled "Vertical Transport of Carbon Monoxide by Wintertime Mid-latitude Cyclones." The University of Michigan College of Engineering awarded him their 2006 Merit Award as the Alumnus of the year from their Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences Department, and Jeff remains active with the Department

Yet I won't apologise for quoting this man who went outside of his atmospheric sciences discipline by plotting out the history of anti-science misinformation campaigns by leading marketing firms and lobbyists. His article was concise and to the point for where this thread was heading.

Sorry randomrogue, your repeated argumentative failures will unlikely get you noticed for a job by the leading masters of for unscientific misinformation. If you wish a make a career upon climate change? Well despite what contrary misinformation is repeated into ad nauseum, in the USA it is fairly apparent that your contrarian path offers plenty more chance of financial reward than those who are researching and publishing within the world of academia:

According to Center for Public Integrity, there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000
Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000
Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

...I'd like to add, that those posting links without a fundamental ability to quote specific content of what they are referring to are sad examples of argumentative laziness.

 

[Hacp]

It's far more than that, especially for those not familiar with it.

And what do you know about energy balances and fluid mechanics?

 

[Hacp]

Been on this planet long? Last time I checked, the practice of medicine is a scientific pursuit. If not, a lot of would be MD's are wasting a lot of time studying biology, chemistry, physiology, pharmacology, radiology and more. 🙄

One of the most important things one learns in medical school, and every other field of scientific study, is an understanding of scientific principles and methods that apply to all of those fields. That, alone, is enough to give one informed about any field of real science a head start towards understanding any other scientific field.

Then I guess all the engineers working for oil companies are super scientists. I don't see them having a problem with man made global warming.

 

[boomerang]

All this arguing over whether Global Warming or Global Cooling or Climate Change or whatever it's being referred to at this point in time is pointless.

Arguing over it's existence or non-existence accomplishes nothing. Assume it's real and answer these questions.

What can be done to remedy the situation?

How much will it cost?

What changes can we expect?

How long will it take?

What is the likelihood of success?

Will the planet survive with no intervention?

Data please, no conjectures.

 

[shira]

All this arguing over whether Global Warming or Global Cooling or Climate Change or whatever it's being referred to at this point in time is pointless.

Arguing over it's existence or non-existence accomplishes nothing. Assume it's real and answer these questions.

What can be done to remedy the situation?

How much will it cost?

What changes can we expect?

How long will it take?

What is the likelihood of success?

Will the planet survive with no intervention?

Data please, no conjectures.

You neglected to include a vital question in your list:

How much will it cost to do NOTHING?

This is a typical omission, as the climate-change-denial crowd likes to pretend that doing nothing will not result in a huge cost. Here is one report that estimates the future costs of "business as usual:"

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf

For 2050, the estimated annual increase in costs (2006 dollars) were:

Hurricane damage: $43 billion
Energy Sector Costs: $47 billion
Real Estate Losses: $80 billion
Water costs: $336 billion

That's half a trillion dollars in increased costs per year for 2050.

By 2100, the estimated increase in cost will be 1.9 trillion dollars.

This is just one organization's estimates (and it's an environmental organization), but other estimates I've seen are actually higher. For example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10405-top-economist-counts-future-cost-of-climate-change.html

One of the world's top economists today warned of a global recession that could cut between 5% and 20% from the world's wealth later this century - unless the world invests now in the technologies needed to create a global low-carbon economy.

The cost of investment would be trivial by comparison with the possible damage, says Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank and an adviser to the British chancellor Gordon Brown, who commissioned the 600-page report.

Stern calls for a global investment of about 1% per year of global GDP over the next 50 years. He says that should stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at the equivalent of 500-550 parts per million of carbon dioxide, 25% above current levels. This is a level he regards as "high but acceptable".

"Economically speaking, mitigation - taking strong action to reduce emissions - is a very good deal," he says. "A 1% increase in prices is very marginal. We can continue to grow. But if we don't [invest], the kind of changes that would happen will derail growth."

 

[sandorski]

And what do you know about energy balances and fluid mechanics?

What does it matter?

 

[randomrogue]

Hurricane damage costs are definitely man made. They're man made since people live in areas that Hurricanes strike. Same with Tornadoes. If you build your house in Tornado alley you might get hit. And costs keep increasing. There's no doubt.

"recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has been caused largely by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions."

Someone more familiar with Hurricanes though might be able to pull up a graph on how they are changing with time. I'm fairly certain they're getting worse these last 30 years but I don't know if it's cyclical or not. I wouldn't draw a conclusion though off of 30 years of data. You would really need to look at the number of them, the size of them, and the energy they release over a period of time longer than a couple decades.

 

[MovingTarget]

A lot of "deniers" are physicists....I wonder why?

A lot of "deniers" frequently buy beer in 30-can value packs. I wonder why...

😛

Besides, I'd trust a Climatologist over a Physicist on this issue. It falls squarely into their field. The overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists is that global warming exists, and that it is being exacerbated by man's activities.

 

[randomrogue]

Just so we're clear. As I understand it a Climatologist is a job title and not an area of study.

You can be a Geographer and be a Climatologist. You can also be a very well educated Physicist and Geologist.

So don't be afraid to look up a source. Don't discount a physicist though. As an example I googled "leading climatologist global warming" and found a news article "Britain's top climatologist backs global warming claims". What is his background? He has a PhD in Physics.

Also, if you go to NASA's website and look at the job requirements for a Climatologist they're looking for people with backgrounds in Physics, Meteorology, Math, and Computer modelling.

 

[sandorski]

Just so we're clear. As I understand it a Climatologist is a job title and not an area of study.

You can be a Geographer and be a Climatologist. You can also be a very well educated Physicist and Geologist.

So don't be afraid to look up a source. Don't discount a physicist though. As an example I googled "leading climatologist global warming" and found a news article "Britain's top climatologist backs global warming claims". What is his background? He has a PhD in Physics.

Also, if you go to NASA's website and look at the job requirements for a Climatologist they're looking for people with backgrounds in Physics, Meteorology, Math, and Computer modelling.

Incorrect. Climatologist is a title, yes, but a title for the field of study called Climatology. See how that works?

 

[randomrogue]

I used the geographer example to counter a response like this since there are Climatologists that are Geographers.

 

[BladeVenom]

For those preaching global warming:
Do you still drive a car?
Are you still on the grid?

Actions speak louder than words. The high priest of global warming, Al Gore, continues to use far more electricity and natural gas than the average person. He continues to fly around the country first class, and be driven around in fuel inefficient limousines. His heated pool tells you all you need to know about global warming.

 

[sandorski]

For those preaching global warming:
Do you still drive a car?
Are you still on the grid?

Actions speak louder than words. The high priest of global warming, Al Gore, continues to use far more electricity and natural gas than the average person. He continues to fly around the country first class, and be driven around in fuel inefficient limousines. His heated pool tells you all you need to know about global warming.

Fail

 

[IGBT]

A lot of "deniers" frequently buy beer in 30-can value packs. I wonder why...

😛

Besides, I'd trust a Climatologist over a Physicist on this issue. It falls squarely into their field. The overwhelming consensus amongst climatologists is that global warming exists, and that it is being exacerbated by man's activities.

so you deny you have a alarmist mental disorder??

 

[Harvey]

so you deny you have a alarmist mental disorder??

If you don't get the concept of global climate change, or you don't understand the consequenses, and you think leaving your head in the sand or up your ass is the right way to go, YOU are the one with the mental disorder. 🙄