Expert: We must act fast on warming

Expert: We must act fast on warming

There are 28335 comments on the Kansas.com story from Sep 24, 2008, titled Expert: We must act fast on warming. In it, Kansas.com reports that:

Droughts, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels and mass extinctions will all be a reality unless the U.S. and the world cut back on carbon emissions dramatically, said James Hansen, director of ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Kansas.com.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#25986 Sep 22, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
My argument about climate change mitigation and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism comes down to a lack of any experiment for those theories.
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republi...
He says:
"I’ve often stated that climate science is a “murky” science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science"

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25987 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
...dramatic press releases...
LOL.

This is the man who presented Anthony Watts latest "game changing" paper to Congress.

Watts of course shut down his blog for a few days to build up suspense for said paper.

When it did come out, his co-authors immediately backed away from it because of the errors it contained.

Somebody on the Congress committee (not a Republican, obviously) asked Christy why he was presenting a non-peer reviewed paper.

Christy has given up on real science and does nothing except appeal to the press through Watts blog.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#25988 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republi...
He says:
"I’ve often stated that climate science is a “murky” science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science"
On another occasion, he said:
”Yes, it’s called the scientific method, but much of what passes for climate science today is, arguments from authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by a preselected group.”
And:
“...since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.”

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25989 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
“...since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.”
July saw 3,135 new daily high temperature records in the U.S.— over 100 per day. That overwhelmed new cold records by a factor of nearly 17 to 1, as this chart from Capital Climate shows.

For the year to date, new heat records are beating cold records by a remarkable 12 to 1, which trumps the pace of the last decade by more than a factor of 5!

I like the statistical aggregation across the country, since it gets us beyond the oft-repeated point that you can’t pin any one local record temperature on global warming. A 2009 analysis shows that the average ratio for the 2000s was 2.04-to-1, a sharp increase from previous decades. Lead author Dr. Gerald Meehl explained,“If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/05/6...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#25990 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
“...since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.”
Not world records:

Well, a really good way to look at global warming is to look at what it has done to warm temperature records. And if you didn't have a warming Earth, then you would have the same number of new cold records as you would warm records in any given year on average. Well, what we've been seeing for quite some time now is more and more hot records relative to cold records. And the last two years have really been screaming in terms of how many more hot records we've had than cold records.

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#25991 Sep 22, 2012
FuGyou wrote:
Not world records:
Correct, he wasn't talking about world records at that time.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#25992 Sep 22, 2012
FuGyou wrote:
July saw 3,135 new daily high temperature records in the U.S.— over 100 per day.
"The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s."

US state record highs and lows compared:
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploa...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#25993 Sep 22, 2012
FuGyou wrote:
Watts of course shut down his blog for a few days to build up suspense for said paper.
You have evidence to support that claim, of course?
Can you prove he didn't close it due to pressure of the work he was involved in at the time?
PHD

Houston, TX

#25994 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>#1You have evidence to support that claim, of course?#2Can you prove I didn't close it due to pressure of the infection I recieved in at the time?
#1 yes by your daily post of useless babble.#2 Yes your were warned to use protection and refused. WOW love that cut and paste thing you foster with each answer you post. You’re a great teacher of useless babble tainted with hate covered with spam cut and paste.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25995 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
Dr. Christy lost a lot of credibility with his support of Roy Spencer's defective analyses of the MSU data. And his invitation to piss on the science was a Republican political initiative clearly indicated by the URL. " republicans.energycommerce.house.gov "

His 'points' seem more a disparagement of the science than a true reading of the state of the research, and are political opinions, not science.

But let us debate anyway.

1. Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without
human causation.

True but misleading. There will always be 'extremes' in any statistical distribution. But that is not the issue. THe issue is the frequency and severity of events compared to 'the normal'. The CHANGE in extreme event frequenqy and magnitude is what is noted.

"These recent U.S.“extremes” were exceeded in previous decades."

Again, misleading and misreading of the science. If the event was a 'once in a millenia' event, it will occur on average about once in 1000 years. But if you find that the distribution has shifted so that this level of extreme event happens once a century, this indicates a change in the location of the 'mean' and this means the whole distribution plot has shifted on the x axis. An indication of a change in the climate.

So his statements are true but misleading. The way of a 'good liar'.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25996 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
"2. The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations,
suggesting models over-react to CO2. "

Sort of true. THe fact is that warming of the *atmosphere* has lagged the forecasting, and this led to discoveries that the heat storage in the ocean penetrates farther than previously expected. This increases the LAG in the warming (more thermal mass) but by no means invalidates the 'climate sensitivity' figures from scientific studies.

"Policy based on observations will likely be far more effective than if based on speculative models, no matter what the future climate does. "

True but irredemably stupid. The point here is to set policy based on consequences of current action (or inaction) and you cannot set policy based on 'fait accompli'.

"Regarding Arctic sea ice loss, the average model response to CO2 engenders little
confidence because the models’ output fails when applied to Antarctic sea ice conditions."

True, but not a point. It is the fact that arctic ice has FAR exceedded the response we cautiously expected that is the 'warning flag' telling us that we have UNDERESTIMATED the impact of AGW on the polar regions. The models will now be 'refined' to take this into account but science is the process of LEARNING MORE and that will always continue.

On a POLICY front, the fact that models do not tell us EVERYTHING about the consequences of AGW just tells us that policy should be based on the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, at least avoiding the extremes that occur in the 'just adapt to it' camp.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25997 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature
datasets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases,
but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface
datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.

The 'heat bubble' around human habitation does not affect AGW data sets since they are weighted by AREA. And studies have shown that even without correcting for the UHI, there is only a small change in the warming results. This is totally undefensible crap based on 'studies' by the denkialist blogs that are easily rebutted by the serious scientists.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25998 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
"4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists rarely represent the
range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. "

But does reflect about 98% of the scientists that UNDERSTAND the climate. i.e. the Climate Researchers.

"Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed investigators, who study
low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability."

O.k. Natural variability should be an active area of research, but how do you separate out the 'natural variability' when you are pushing the climate around by AGW at the SAME TIME. Science will find it very difficult to separate out the 'natural' from the 'anthropogenic' when the anthropogenic may TRIGGER 'natural changes' that are 'unnatural',i.e would not have occured without the anthropogenic contribution. More research is needed but you CANNOT separate out the 'natural' from AGW.

"Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens."

A statement to which you can only agree, but based on TWO 'faulty or unproven assumptions'.

A: That shifting away from fossil fuels will 'increase costs'. Fact is that fossil fuel prices are increasing rapidly as we scramble for the 'remaining secondary grade resources' and that at the same time, alternative 'green' energy has REDUCED in cost every year.

B: That the 'full range of scientific views' currently includes a denial of AGW. ALL the major science academies have published statements that confirm that AGW is solid science. The 'scientists' with alternate 'opinions' don't have the science to back them.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#25999 Sep 22, 2012
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
You will be interested in yesterday's Congressional testimony by Dr. John Christy:
"5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals."

Bogus 'demagoguery'. The actual 'food' for plants are minerals from the soil, glucose from cloroplasts and oxygen from the atmopshere. During the night, plants cannot produce 'food' even though the CO2 levels are just as high as during the day, so obviously CO2 is not 'food'. The photosynthetic reaction in the chloroplasts convertes inert CO2 to glucose and oxygen.

"More CO2 generally means more food for all."

Lie. More CO2 will generally produce more woody cellulose matter. THis makes BIGGER plants but the FOOD value actually drops because the closing of stomata to restrict the entry of too much CO2 also reduces transport of water from the roots and therefore limits minerals which are key to producing vitamins, proteins, etc.

"Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty."

Cheap energy is certainly critical to improving standards of living but by no means has the 'fossil fuel age' lifted the global population out of poverty. Nor are fossil fuels the cheapest energy today. Indeed, as supply diminishes and the cost of extraction increases, they are becoming an EXPENSIVE fuel compared to nuclear and green energy. If you want 'cheap energy' we should be exploring setting up Solar Power Satellites, which would produce clean and abundant energy to every nation with no 'externalized cost'. THe externalized cost of fossil fuels are just now being realized and added to their 'internal costs' it indicates that it is high time we moved on.

"So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry."

Bogus propaganda. THere is NO science here. Just a 'ideology of carbon'. We already know his POLITICAL opinions are tied to fossil fuel companies.

"Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source."

Bogus propaganda. Demagoguery like 'modern' could be more accurately applied to alternative energies such as wind and geothermal. Clean energy without the 'soot and smog' of the past. Deforestation has NO connection to energy. It goes on in high energy use countries and countries that have low energy use. As to indoor pollution, green clean energy would reduce the pollution both indoors AND out. Not sure where he makes this connection anyway. Etc. Etc. pure bullshit, demagoguery and fossil fuel company propaganda. NO science here.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#26000 Sep 22, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
My argument about climate change mitigation and man made catastrophic global warming alarmism comes down to a lack of any experiment for those theories.
Most people know that science has moved on from the age of the 'alchemists', i.e. the last idiots to think that 'experiment' was the whole of science. Well, I will concede that you may be a 'throwback' to alchemy, but basically, I suspect you are just ignorant of science methodology. If anything can be said to be at the core of science, it would be mathematics.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#26001 Sep 22, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Dr. Christy
Say whatever you like about him, he's not restricted to posting on Topix forum like you, is he, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
Ö¿Ö

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#26002 Sep 22, 2012
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
oxygen from the atmopshere[sic].
One of these days you'll manage to type atmosphere correctly.
So far, you've managed "atsmophere, atsomphere" and now "atmopshere."
There's something distinctly dyslexic about your typing, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, and you expect me to believe that forty was spelt with a U when you went to school in 60s Ontario.

Priceless.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#26003 Sep 22, 2012
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>"The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s."
US state record highs and lows compared:
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploa...
A lot of records were broken at stations with records going back more than a century too.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#26004 Sep 22, 2012
It's unanimous:

Senate votes to shield U.S. airlines from EU's carbon scheme

By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON | Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:27pm EDT
(Reuters)- The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.
The European Commission has been enforcing its law since January to make all airlines take part in its Emissions Trading Scheme to combat global warming, prompting threats of a trade fight.

The Senate approved the bill shortly after midnight, as it scrambled to complete business to recess ahead of the November 6 congressional and presidential elections....
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#26005 Sep 22, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
It's unanimous:
(Reuters)- The Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights,
Ooo wonderful. Next they will 'outlaw' pollution.

All this does is bar US airlines from EU airspace. First step in a trade war. Just what the US needs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New Messaging App Creates Timeline of Your Life... 2 hr convergx 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr SoE 7,465
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr said 20,899
PowerPoint 2010 4 hr TomHowe 1
workable VPN that could unblock GFW China (Jan '13) 8 hr geek170 6
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr Chimney1 178,697
How to recover deleted text messages and photos... (Oct '14) 13 hr Adnnikw 18
More from around the web