Off-Topic:  Icebergs Gone Wild

Jackie,

Thank you for including in your excerpt the money quote, at least so far as the anthropogenic global warming argument goes. I refer, of course, to this:

Dr Young said an iceberg the size of B17B had not been seen so far north since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia.

Anyone reading this who believes the exaggerations of Al Gore, et alii, really needs to read a specific book to understand what the actual state of scientific opinion is—The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner, Regnery Publishing, Inc.; February 2007;ISBN: 15969885011.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Mr. Potter - AlGore is always right.  You know this. He DID win the Nobel Peace prize…how could he be wrong??

“Dr Young said sightings of large icebergs could become more frequent if sea temperatures rise through global warming.”
See.  Everything is due to global warming. Everything!

It’s nice to know I don’t need to ‘splain the global warming hoax to you guys.

Boy those other related stories sound trrriffic too!

So no-one thinks that global warming has anything to do with massive junks of the ice shelf breaking off and heading north rather than staying, well…part of the ice shelf? If you are going to make arguments against global warming (of which there are many, especially the supposed man-made cause of it) at least try to make intelligent arguments.

Thanks, Keith (#1), alias Martial Artist, etc., for the recommendation of the politically incorrect book.  Very timely as a gift book option, with Christmas coming up and all.

I’m so glad that despite your move over to Roman Catholicism, you continue to grace this blog with your occasional comments, which are always articulate and well-informed.  The NRAFC is proud of you.

David Handy+

I thought there were “two icebergs each the size of Texas.”  And of course they were heated up by an earth core temperature of “millions and million degrees.”  This all happening while all the polar bear numbers are declining (in the face of an increasing polar bear populations!)

#6, I suspect those posting here have read and digested the intelligent arguments you speak of both pro and con (did you even notice comment #1?), and are indulging in a bit of light-heartedness in the face of relentless doomsaying on all sides.
For my own part, (and speaking of the draft of the Copenhagen agreement) the idea that joining with all nations at much cost in a massive and likely mis-directed effort to possibly slow down or reverse a much-touted yet all-too-ill-defined, possibly non-existent effect affecting the whole world smacks of hubris, among many other things. Not to mention that many progressives and human-rights advocates have pointed out that many of the “cures” proposed will cause most harm to the poorest in the world. of answers I have none, prayers, many.

This is kind of an interesting article from an earth science point of view.  However, one could ask how it is that the Australian Antarctic Division is abbreviated by A*D*D?  Maybe that’s a clue to the caliber of edit that it got.

Dr Young said an iceberg the size of B17B had not been seen so far north since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia.

What was heating up the planet when the clipper ships abounded?  Did they do away with them, too, for causing “global warming”?

[6] Mike L,

Perhaps you should read more carefully (I am assuming that English is your first language). If you reread my comment at [1], above, you will note that I explicitly cited in that comment (further emphasis in addition to italics now added):

anthropogenic global warming….

There is no serious argument that climate change does not occur, has not occurred in the past, and will not continue to occur in the future. The argument is whether, and to what degree, climate change is significantly caused by human activity, especially from total global industrial scale activities.

The plain and simple fact is that the scale of total global industrial activity in the 19th century was minuscule compared to today, yet there are (according to Dr. Young’s comment) records of similar Australian iceberg events in that time frame. Are you asserting that those earlier events were anticipatory? Stated another way, are you honestly asserting that the 19th century occurrences were caused by the impending increase in global industrial activity during the ensuing century?

Or, then again, perhaps my assumption of your linguistic acumen was overly optimistic.

Pax et bonum,
Keityh Töpfer

Remember, those clipper ships still had oars for when the wind was low… It was the carbon dioxide all those oarsmen breathed out, cause that particular warming…
Betcha…

Grannie g.

[7] New Reformation Advocate,

Thank you, Fr. Handy, for your most generous assessment of my humble contributions to discourse at this site. My wife is now attending RCIA with me, we both sing in the choir, and are looking forward to being received into the full communion of the Catholic Church, hopefully within a year. While every human organization has its problems (we are all, when all is said and done, sinners in need of our Lord’s redemption), we have both had our spirits lifted by the love of the Lord we see in so many of our fellow parishioners and in our clergy. I don’t know to what extent the latter is owing to the fact that the clergy are all Dominican, and I am sure it is not unique to members of that order, it has made the journey a reassuring one. And Dominicans lack nothing in the area of homiletics. Perhaps that is not only their particular charism, but may also be amplified by the eight years spent on their path to ordination.

Pax et bonum et Deus beatus vos,
Keith Töpfer

[12] Potter
perhaps before flying into your little tiz, you might have considered a more careful reading of the part “of which there are many, especially the supposed man-made cause of it” and thought about what that statement might actually hint at regarding my own feelings of anthropogenic effects. But that would have required a small amount of thought vs making snap assumptions (which most often, like in this case, makes one resemble an ass) about my native born language or ones optimism.

I agree with Mike L.  There are lots of juicy news stories that truly undermine Anthropogenic Global Warming.  This is not one of them.  But neither is it evidence for the A in AGW.

Here the original press release by the Australian Antartic division. http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=37230
Please note the iceberg is ten years old.
Here is the AFP report of the press conference http://www.france24.com/en/node/4944032
It is always helpful to read more than one account because they may reveal subtle differences.
AFP reports:

A monster iceberg has been spotted drifting towards Australia in what scientists Wednesday called a once-in-a-century event.

Australian glaciologist Neal Young pinpointed the slab, which is some 19 kilometres (12 miles) long, about 1,700 kilometres south of the country, using satellite imagery.

He said he was not aware of such a large iceberg being found in the area since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia.

“I don’t recall any mention of one for a long, long time,” Young, of the Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, told AFP.

“I’m guessing you would probably have to go back to the times of the clipper ships.”

This makes it perhaps clearer than the Telegraph report that the scientists are talking about an iceberg this size, this far north being a once in a century event. They were not saying that the clippers encountered lots of icebergs this size but that it would have been in the age of the clippers that the last one might have been sighted.
This is not an incident on its own where one can draw any conclusion regarding climate change.
Dr Young did say that if climate change is happening, we can expect more icebergs.

Mike L - I’m going to take a real wild guess here and do that terrible, terrible thing and assume the offense came from the part of your comment that stated:

at least try to make intelligent arguments

Keith actually hit the nail squarely on the head in discerning my reasoning in posting the article.  He honed right in on the money quote.

Obadiahslope said

It is always helpful to read more than one account because they may reveal subtle differences.

A second look at the “money quote” section will reveal the identical information, namely

He said he was not aware of such a large iceberg being found in the area since the days when 19th century clipper ships plied the trade route between Britain and Australia.

  Hence, Keith’s astute recognition of the low level of industrial activity during the 19th century.  Unless you are aware of 19th century clipper ships plying the trade routes between Britain and Australia in the recent past .......

Jackie,
I may be thick but I don’t think you have established your case that somehow this story provides evidence regarding global warming.
Dr Young says that he is not aware of such a large iceberg sighted so far North, and says that in his view you would have to go back to the era of the clipper ships to find such an occurance. As you point out his is in the daily telepgraph and AFP accounts.
However the AFP report adds the informations that the AAD scientists regard this as a once-in-a-century event.
One large iceberg a century does not provide evidence for or against global warming.

It was Global Warming that sank the Titanic!  Why no wonder those icebergs were so far south that Spring!

carl

#19 - Think about it.  The article provides credible evidence similar events occurred prior to the advent of industrialization which is cited as a reason for man-made global warming.

Although when you think about it .. the 1500 people who died when the Titanic sank were largely European and North American.  That would have caused a substantial reduction in the carbon footprint which would have meant a net gain for the environment.  Logically, we must conclude that additional equivalent Titanic death tolls would be good for the planet.  Perhaps we should look a global warming as an inherent planetary self-correcting mechanism to kill off the excess people that are correcting the problem.  Environmentalists should encourage global warming as a radical solution to the problem of too many people - especially too many people in the developed world.

Yeah, except so many environmentalists live in the coasts.  And their ideas to reduce the population to save the planet somehow never include ... well ... them.  Funny how things always turn out that way.

carl

umm…  self-correcting mechanism to kill off the excess people that are causing the problem.

My kingdom for an editor.

carl

<tongue in cheek> Those 19C clipper ships were transporting a lot of wool from Australia to the UK, which of course was produced from Australia’s huge sheep flock, which was much larger in those days. Sheep, as everyone knows, produce large amounts of methane relative to their body weight (as cows do) because of a bacterium specific to their gut and digestive processes. That methane was the cause of global warming in the 19C as much as CO2 is now in the late 20C/early 21C. We have simply replaced methane with CO2. Who knows what the next global warming gas will be and which animal will produce it? One thing is for sure, the earth has been warming ever since the last ice age. Thank God that we have an enormous iceberg floating up from the Antarctic to keep us a bit cooler than we otherwise would be. </tongue in cheek>

Yep, this article says there have been large icebergs before - about one a century. Some climate change scientists have been (rightly) criticised for determining a conclusion from too few data points. The same criticism applies here.

#25 - we obviously speak different languages.  May I suggest you take your own advice about too few data points?

[25] obadiahslope,

A couple of observations:

• First, although correlation does not establish causality, the absence of correlation does imply the absence of a causal relationship. As a consequence thereof, it takes fewer valid data points to refute a theory than it does to “establish” it.

• Second, I was not arguing that this occurrence is disproof of the existence of climate change. I was, rather, pre-emptively pointing out that this is not yet more affirmative “evidence” of anthropogenic global warming.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Jackie,
then perhaps your original post should have considered inclduing the term anthropogenic since nothing posted comes close to a refutation that global warming (ie the natural kind) is quite possibly happening vs it being caused by man. Or is it simply beyond the possibility that a similar cycle could have occured pre-industrialization?
See, what I find interesting is the anti-warming crowd simply poo-poos the whole idea of the possibility despite physical evidence of things like the polar ice cap retreating. If you want to stick to arguments about man’s role in the cause, fine and dandy. I’m not too sure about that being a real factor, yet. Maybe we are helping it along, maybe we arn’t. But being in the camp of one who thinks we just might want to live up to that whole idea of taking care of God’s gifts & creations, we might want to consider ways to stop dumping all this junk into the ecosystem. Of course, we know that just might cost some extra money, which is probably the real motivation behind the political conservative’s fight against the whole idea.

Keith/H. Potter (#14),

You’re welcome, brother.  I was quite sincere.  I’ve always enjoyed your posts, and I’m glad to hear that your wife has finally decided to join you in swimming the Tiber.

As for the Dominican order, they sure OUGHT to be good preachers, since that is their proud boast.  For after all, “O.P.” stands fpr Order of Preachers.  FWIW, I’ve always thought the Dominicans were an admirable order. and I’ve wondered why (and been bothered by the fact that) in the Anglican world we have Benedictines and Franciscans, but virtually no Dominicans.  Sadly, my guess is that there is something about the intellectual rigor and commitment to dogmatic orthodoxy so typical of the Dominicans that somehow seems to some Anglicans rather unAnglican (although it certainly doesn’t to me).  In any case, we Anglicans could sure use some good Dominicans.  After all, Thomas Aquinas was one.  So was Catherine of Sienna, etc.

Anyway, best wishes as you and your wife continue your journey to our common home in the New Jerusalem.

David Handy+

The Aussies know what to do about this. They’re going to fly out to the iceberg, carve out an ice bar and then throw a big party.

I am not aware of anyone, certainly not me, who has asserted that man should not be good stewards of the earth.  Man should be good stewards of everything given by God.  Time, talent, treasure, relationships, etc.  There is a difference, however, in good stewardship and being politically correct.  The debate is not over on the issue of global warming, despite what Obama and Gore have proclaimed, over and over, and hopefully the email exposure will open the door to honest debate, not this shove it down your throat garbage that has been going on.  Once again, the post was made to point out that simliar occurrences are known to have happened in the 19th century.  Do I think weather patterns are cyclical? You bet I do.  Do I claim to be a scientists specializing in weather patterns?  Nope, don’t even play one on tv.  As to your assertion as to how I should have posted the article, thanks for the opinion but I’m fine, thanks.

See, what I find interesting is the anti-warming crowd simply poo-poos the whole idea of the possibility despite physical evidence of things like the polar ice cap retreating.

I don’t doubt it for a second, myself.  It seems to be one of the most common things on Earth:

• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”

• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”

• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”

• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”

• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”

• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”

• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”

• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”

• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”

• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”

• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”

• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”

• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”

• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”

• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”

• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/

Jeffersonian, weren’t there some times in there when folks were also worried about the next Big Freeze. I seem to remember that in the 70s they were telling us a new ice age was coming. I will buy that the earth is warming - how this time is different from the period when England had vineyards escapes me. I am not persuaded, at all, that it is “manmade.”

oscewicee,
The operative word in your post is “folks”. There was a lot of what is now called “main stream media” reporting in the 1970’s about a supposed ice age. This included Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, and Time Magazine.
A survey of what the scientists were saying at the same time reveals a different picture.
As I have pointed to already, a new paper to be published in the Bulletin of the American Meterological Society establishes a different pattern

The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. This isn’t surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

tp://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
If you are convinced the earth is warming, a next step is to calmly examine whether there is evidence for mankind having an influence. A starting point might be to examine whether vineyards in England indicates that the planet was warmer as a whole, or whether other parts were colder (that is what was the average temperature through the period) ?
Here is an abstract for a paper that tackles the topic: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;326/5957/1256?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT;=&fulltext=Global+Signatures+and+Dynamical+Origins+of+the+Little+Ice+Age+and+Medieval+Climate+Anomaly&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

@26
Jacki, you have not established that this iceberg information has any bearing on climate change.
I am not arguing in favour of drawing any conclusions about climate change from this information. So establishing enough data points to support your case is a weakness in your argument, not mine. I admire many of your posts on SFIF but this one is unconvincing.

and @27. You are quite correct. It would take more data points to establish a theory. I am not proposing any theory of climate change using the iceberg information. Others may be!

Jeffersonian, weren’t there some times in there when folks were also worried about the next Big Freeze. I seem to remember that in the 70s they were telling us a new ice age was coming. I will buy that the earth is warming - how this time is different from the period when England had vineyards escapes me. I am not persuaded, at all, that it is “manmade.”

I’m not even sure it’s warming, honestly.  These researchers are very, very guarded about their data and, even moreso, their methods.  If you read the link below:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

you will see that, in Australia, the supposed rise in temperature at the stations they mention is entirely an artifact of the “adjustments” the researchers have made…no actual measured increase in temperature has been registered.  I’d like to see where else this sort of thing has been going on.

If you wish to access to Bureau of Meteorological data for Australia, go here (this one is for the North.) http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean&region=nt&season=0112
Note that raw data is available.
Much of the argument about the Darwin Station in the discussion referred to above is about a relocation in 1941. Its worth noting that this is when Darwin was bombed by the Japaneses. It might be better to deal with a station without that relocation issue.

They deal with that issue, O.  Read the link.  There are some serious shenanigans going on.

They deal with a problem with one station. Let’s assume the worst. Assume shenanigans. So go to the (raw) data for the rest of the country.
Ask the Australian National Farmer’s Federation. They are convinced that the climate is changing (for whatever reason). Hardly a bunch of radicals, but very close observers of their environment.
That Australia is heating up does not prove anthropogenic climate change of course.

Jeff: By the way, your theorists make a good deal of the fact that the next temperature station to Darwin is 500km away. If you look up the Bureau of Meteorology Stations for the North of Australia they are spaced some 500km apart. It is a big sparsely settled region, and these are historical records. http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=maxT&period=annual&state=aus
Its noticeable that the site you link to seems unaware that the raw data is publically available.

obadiah: Actually the article by Willis Eschenbach at Watts Up makes extensive use of the raw data. I didn’t see any complaints by him. His critique is that the raw data is NOT being used, but instead that “adjusted” data is substituted for the raw data, presumably as inputs for global climate modeling and reporting. His analysis of the Darwin Station data shows that the “adjustments” are uniformly in one direction and adjust with increasing increments the raw data and then, “voila” we “see” evidence of a warming trend.

The animated-gif visual summary of this torturing of the data may be seen here.

err no. The data is gathered by BOM, but Watts up do not mention them. So they have gathered it from a secondary source.
You can go to the raw data and argue from that. Which is the only point I am making - find the orginal data, and argue from that.

Is there any difference between the raw data for Darwin Station available from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and the raw data available from BOM?

Eschenbach’s argument is that the adjustments made to the raw data, as reported by GHCN (which has made both raw and adjusted data available), appear to have introduced the effect they are now purporting to have measured.

#42. Obadiah wrote,
“You can go to the raw data and argue from that. Which is the only point I am making - find the orginal data, and argue from that.”

Obadiah, please consider that this approach would often lead to error for measurements that are made over long periods of time.  The reason is that, over time, instrumentation changes leading to biases which must be “corrected”.  In the case of thermometry, sun shielding of thermometers improved some years ago.  It now gives a more accurate reading, but to keep all the results on the same basis, you MUST go back and correct the data prior to the change.  This changes the older data to cooler levels and the newer data appear (relative to the old data) warmer.

Radiosonde data taken only at night needs no correction for change in shielding.  It may need some calibration error corrections, but in basically “raw” form it shows the atmosphere has been heating up during the time the data have been collected.

Further proof of global warming is in front of our eyes.  Despite the great melt-off that is under way which should cool down the atmosphere, the warm-up continues.  The seas grow warmer and rise.

As a conservative I am ashamed of the stance taken by so many of my non-technical conservative bretheren that global warming is a hoax.  All the data taken together can only point to global warming which, over the last 100 years, has greatly exceeded what can be attributed to natural cycles of temperature change.  I am not an advocate of governmental soultions to the problem.  However, we should keep minds open to technical opportunities that help.

Also, ask yourself what the chances of anthropogenic global warming are, even if you aren’t convinced it’s happening.  Is there a 25% chance it is?  A 10% chance?  Even the ardent hoax / “it’s all natural” crowd can’t be 100% sure, for the same reason that those who think anthropogenic global warming is happening can’t.  Which then leads to the policy question posed by this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html

My conclusion: it is prudent to act.  We should not bankrupt ourselves trying to return to the stone age, but we should be prepared to invest significantly in cleaner, more sustainable living and energy.

@43
this is a question you might ask of watts up. They do not give references which might make it possible to check this out.
@44
yes you are right. My appeal to the skeptics is not simply to read the skeptical sites but seek an explanation for what the data is saying. And seeking out the best data should be part of that. It may be that the argument is best conducted for this audience from not using surface temperature records but using measures of Co2 at The National Oceanic & Atmospheric figures for their Mona Loa observatory (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)or satellite measures of the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature, 410, 355– 357, 2001.
Griggs, J.A., Harries, J. E., Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5543, 164 (2004); doi:10.1117/12.556803

They deal with a problem with one station. Let’s assume the worst. Assume shenanigans. So go to the (raw) data for the rest of the country.

That’s a good suggestion, though not one I have the time or inclination to follow up on.  I’d like to see if the creation of warming out of data “adjustment” is an isolated phenomenon or a trend.

Ask the Australian National Farmer’s Federation. They are convinced that the climate is changing (for whatever reason). Hardly a bunch of radicals, but very close observers of their environment.

I have no idea if they’re radicals or not, but I don’t put a lot of stock in doing science by survey.  I have yet to talk with a farmer who thought any given year’s weather was any good.

And WattsUp certainly did use the raw data, as it’s how they discovered the steeply-sloped “correction.”

#45.  David,  That is right on the mark.  We should avoid bankrupting the world and developing such fool-finagle systems as cap and trade.  We need to be developing serious technical solutions that are, where possible, win-win in that they save money while reducing factors that cause warming.

#46. Obadiah, that is a good point.  And, while I am not skeptical about global warming, I think it behooves all of us to be skeptical about the steps governments seek to follow in addressing these very real problems.  There a healthy dose of skepticism pays off.  Whatever governments cook up there will be many hands in the pot.

Jeff,
If you think the surface temperature material is compromised, perhaps you could/should follow up the other data sets I listed. You might need to ask why Watts up reports on only one Australian station, and why it indicates gaps in the record which does not show up in the BOM records. (and why they don’t reference their data so it can be checked).

I don’t know what you’re talking about, O, I see their data sets called out and linked in the post.  The raw data here do not seem to be compromised, but there seems to be something odd going on with the adjustments.

Why not ask the blog owners yourself?  They do have a comments section.

#35 - As stated already- this has been known to happen in the 19th century - as in - this is not new.

@50 I am not relying on Watts up, for my arguements, Jeff. As I said, if you regard the surface temperature information as suspect, there is are other data sets you need to engage with if you wish to mount a case against anthropogenic warming. I am not sure, that is your intention though. 
@51. I think we agree this is not new. Yet you imply that this iceberg has some relevence to the existence or otherwise of Global warming. I simply pointed out that we have too few data points to draw any conclusion.

Obadiah (52),
If the warming is human-made how would isolate the ‘human contribution?

Wasn’t the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warmer than what they’re predicting for 2200?

Now, I have no troubles with a warm earth being people driven from the expulsion onwards, but most of the science folks would be hard pressed to blame the 6 degree (French Revolutionary Measurement Scales) shift on human sources.

If you ask this sceptic, the smart thing to do is use science to deal with the problems of warmer global temperatures, for two reasons: 1) It is a quicker fix than mediation, 2) mediation of human factors may not be enough, and we’ll still need to adapt to the changes.

We may never be able to isolate the human contribution. Its not like we can do a double blind test. The best we can do is to weigh up the evidence for a human contribution, which is why i urge people to look at the data.
I have not tried to debate the best response - adaption or mediation here. I would only say that both adaption or mediation will involve solving problems for countries outside the richer parts of the world where the effcts of climate change may be the strongest. Ensuring that the rich world helps the poor is the hardest part of both the secenarios you propose. at this point it is worth noticing that many of those in the poorer countries affected are our bothers and sisters in Christ.

During the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum some 55 million years ago it is unlikely that Jacki would have started an “Icebergs gone wild” thread. There was no Ice fields at the poles to from them. It is believed the temperature was some 6 degrees celsius warmer.
No one is saying human activity is responsible for all climate change, especially 55 million years ago!

I take it then that you agree we need to work toward limiting the ills and be willing to help those in need. 

Had we (you and I) been around during the older Peron, that would have been our calling - to help those harmed by 10 feet higher sea levels, while enjoying the balmier climate!

No one can trust the data any more (cooked data, cooked by crooked scientists has spoiled the whole pot, ‘raw data’ mightn’t be raw after all, heh?). 

But we can trust the simple fact that when people suffer, we are called upon to try and help.  Relocation, dikes, desalination, crops more attuned to the new climatic realities, these things we can actually work on….

There’s data available from sources untouched by those groups of scientists accused of manipulating it. Prudent risk management requires seeking the best information despite everything.
I agree limiting the ills and helping those in need is exactly what we should be doing. A three metre rise in the see level (your prediction) will displace millions - and maybe hundreds of millions of people.  Every nation will have a immigration problem much larger than today.

No prediction, apparent (pre)historical reality cira 5,000 to 4,100 BC.  People were around then - even the evolutionists admit that, and the sea levels were apparently those 10 feet higher.  No one is blaming people for that one either, (yet).  But if some folks (like perhaps a certain obadiahslope) had een around, they might have lain the blame on the use of artificial lighting, or too many cook-fires….

Should we return to those balmy days of old, we’ll need to help those impacted in a negative way.  It wouldn’t matter the ‘why’, it would only matter the ‘how do we help’, right?

I’m interested in your theory of ‘untouched data’.  How does it work?

Bo, you say

No prediction, apparent (pre)historical reality cira 5,000 to 4,100 BC.  People were around then - even the evolutionists admit that, and the sea levels were apparently those 10 feet higher.

Maybe you could provide a source for that. Here’s one group that disagree with you.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
Data by definition is “touched” in that it has been recorded. But the weather records for many places are available. In many cases this data is simply “raw”, unadjusted by any scientists. You might for example have a neighbour that has recorded the weather for many years and be able to determine what has happened in your district.

.... and in quoting that info, Bo, i guess you must belive some data is uncontaminated!

Baker, Robert G V., Robert J. Haworth, and Peter G. Flood. “An Oscillating Holocene Sea-level? Revisiting Rottnest Island, Western Australia and the Fairbridge Eustatic Hypothesis.” Journal of Coastal Research, Fall 2004.

Your source speaks of great changes in the last 140,000 years, and has a chart that doesn’t indicate the Late Peron.  Perhaps a 900 year start-to-finish period wouldn’t be visible on a 140,000 year graph?  The detailed view only goes back to 1000 years before the Birth of Christ or there-about (leaving it, oh, what 3,000 years short of the period in question?)

If you like the ‘for the masses’ stuff wiki has a bit on the older Peron.

The recent summers here aren’t as hot as they have once been, and the winters aren’t as cold.  But then we’ve only been recording for about 100 years.  Maybe some places in Europe, Asia, or Africa there are recorded temps for the last 500 years or so.  Beyond that, I think you’ll be forced to use ‘calculated temps’ - not raw ones.

err no. The data is gathered by BOM, but Watts up do not mention them. So they have gathered it from a secondary source.
You can go to the raw data and argue from that. Which is the only point I am making - find the orginal data, and argue from that.

WattsUp linked to the data set they used at the Goddard Institute, O.  I’ll repost it so you can stop flogging this canard:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=darwin

The raw data are most certainly there and yes, there are missing months, just as they say (unless the 999.9 figures are accurate).  It seems you’re avoiding the central issue here in that there has been no observed warming at Darwin (the reasons for choosing that station were explained in the WattsUp post), though the alarmists claim there has been.  The “warming” is entirely an artifact of data “adjustment.”

At the core, the data gathering and analysis methodology are critical in this.  To my knowledge, all the “peer reviewed” literature on AGW has ignored both entirely while coming to metaphysical certainty on the conclusions.  That’s not science, it’s politics.

Jerry Pournelle has some good insights that need to be read:

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view600.html#climate

I’ve worked in the pharmaceutical field enough to know the depth to which it is required to create so much as one dose of Claritin, and it’s orders of magnitude more rigorous than this slapdash field of “climate change.”  As Pournelle notes, before we stampede off on a multi-trillion-dollar folly that will literally give the Central State dominion over every exhalation we make, we had better make damn sure we know what we’re talking about.  The shenanigans at the CRU and the failure of NASA to release their data in response to a FOIA request do not lead me to trust the people in this field of study one iota.

A small chapter in the annals of this new faith:

http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875

Jeff, its one station. During WW2 it was bombed and there was a mass evacuation. Its not hard to see why there would be a relocation of the thermometer.
I note you do not point me to a link from Watts up, but to the GISS site.
However I agree with you that all data should be available. The BOM data which (i assume) GISS is using, is.
Please feel free to leave out any and all data you believe is compromised. that leaves plenty for you to interact with.
Assume you have prooved all the shenanigans you like. We still have the issue of determining if there is a risk to the planet.

The link to the GISS site was provided on the WattsUp page.  Those are the data that were used and described in that post.  The WattsUp post discussed every issue you have brought up so far…it’s pretty clear you either have not read or not understood what was discussed there.

The objection is not to the raw data, but what was done with them.  Every bit of “warming” is a direct consequence of the adjustments made to the raw data and not from the data themselves.  In essence, the researchers didn’t need data, just their manipulations, to conclude Darwin had experienced warming.  A similar phenomenon happened with Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph:  When the data were replaced with red noise, an almost exact replica of the hockey stick was the result.  IOW, the formula’s result was strongly independent of the data fed into it…not what one hopes to have from an accurate mathematical model.

Fair enough, in that case link the watts up page showing the link (I read the article pointed to in an earlier post but may have been reading another part of the site than you are referring to here).
My point still stands. Assume the shenangigans. there is still plenty of other data to link to. I have read the skeptic articles posters have pointed me too. have you read the articles I have pointed to?

Thanks Bo. I think you and I agree that there may be a practical problem to be dealt with. I gave you one graph, but in researching your last comments I came across plenty of material that supports your position re the Peron. that graph was specifically about sea levels, I was not trying to dispute your comments about the Peron which were well founded and I have no trouble saying that. Thank you for your Rottnest Island reference. I like Quokkas - the small wallabies that live there!

Fair enough, in that case link the watts up page showing the link (I read the article pointed to in an earlier post but may have been reading another part of the site than you are referring to here).
My point still stands. Assume the shenangigans. there is still plenty of other data to link to. I have read the skeptic articles posters have pointed me too. have you read the articles I have pointed to?

I’ve compared the data sets posted at WU and those at the BOM, and while I didn’t comb through a century of data, they appear to be distinct data sets that largely agree to within 0.1 degC, so the effect of using the BOM data as opposed to the GISS data will not likely alter the conclusions posted at WU by more than that amount.

My question is:  Why should anyone trust the CRU or now that they have been shown to be engaging in shananigans?  Also, why should we trust NASA, when it refuses to release its data?  Why do we trust the IPCC report, which leans heavily on both?  Why should we trust those peer reviews of both, given that no examination of the raw data, the “adjusted” data or the program code that spits out the results was made?

Jeff,
I think I have answered your question exhaustively(!). Please leave out any climate change data or argument from CRU. Or any other source that you judge to be contamininated. Please. Engage with the raw data.
I think you have conceded my point - that Watts up provided no link. You have gone out and compared the two sets of data, well done. Now, go and examine the BOM data for the whole of Australia which does appear to be heating up. (But I repeat my caveat - you don’t need to use surface data to conclude that a greenhouse affect is occurring.)

Yes, I’ll concede that Australia does seem to have a positive tenperature trend, but the raw data do not seem to be available.  What the BOM displays are “corrected” values, not raw.

Yep, fair enough. Here is a description of what BOM does to its info http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml and http://reg.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_var/further_info.shtml
It does not appear to be outrageous to me anyway. They note for example the effect of daylight saving on the time of observation, or the arrival of standard equipment.
The Darwin station was shifted for the reason of war. But for example Sydney’s Observatory Hill has not shifted, and standard equipment arrived in the 1950s, so the data from then on is pretty “raw” or unadjusted I would say.
Its rather interesting that the posters here want to talk about Australia all the time!

I thought the WU post on Darwin was interesting, my only tie to Down Under.

As for AGW in general, it doesn’t fill one with confidence to see so many hiding data, restricting access to methods and procedures, manipulating data, peddling weak associations as rock solid evidence, engaging in outright faud, bullying the heterodox, etc.  Too much money and too many reputations are at take now that the battle lines are drawn.  This is not how science is supposed to operate.

Ah, well, #72, now you know why those who practise it for a living often say that Scientists don’t do science; people do science.  In other words, practitioners of science are ultimately human beings first and professionals second, and thus their subjective value judgements usually mingle to some degree with their objectively derived conclusions.  The climate debate is especially fraught in at least two dimensions: one is the attraction of adequate funding, that can even cause science practitioners to subvert their own professional practise as apparently happened with the East Anglia group, but another is the commitment or identification that scientist-humans have for their own patch. 
I think that in Australia - correct me if I’m wrong, obadiah - where all major population centers are really on or close by the coast near sea-level (Canberra not counting as a major center), as are major centers of many of its Asian trading partners, any possible perturbation to sea level is of enormous consequence for the future of the entire nation.  This is not really so in the USA, nor in much of Europe nor even Canada, where many major population centers would not be much affected by sea level rise but their ability to keep themselves cheaply heated and lighted at current levels will be very affected by regulations of CO2 emissions etc. etc.

Jeff,
With all the things you point out, we are left with the need to manage risk to the planet and to be good neighbours. It would be good if scientists were not affected by sin, but they are. One thing all this may give you confidence in and that is the bible’s description of mankind.
TACit, there is a lot to what you say… However the Europeans appear to be offering much more in the way of emmission reduction than other developed nations. The US and China appear to be the holdouts, China wishing to increase emissions, and the US only proposing low reductions.

You beg the question, O.  We allow liars, bullies, swindlers and the corrupt to determine what the risk to the planet is, we are doomed.  The science isn’t even remotely settled here, despite the open attempts to stampede us.  The best evidence of what the true agenda is here is the horrified response one gets when solutions to the supposed problem are suggested that do not involve massive increases in State power (e.g. geoengineering).  Why anyone would be against simple, cheap solutions in favor of complex, expensive ones doesn’t make sense unless that’s the whole point.

Jeff,
in my country the debate would seem to be between the Liberal and National coalition which is looking at simple and possibly cheap solutions, and the Labor government which favours a cap and trade system. So the alternative that you suggest looks set to get a hearing at least.
I don’t intend to debate the possible solutions at SFIF. But simply to say, find the best data you can and work out your position from that.
What do you think is the risk that man made warming will cause real problems 5% 10%, 25% 50%??? At what level of risk should we investigate solutions (whatever sort you favour)?
I am not sure the science will ever be settled BTW.

obadiahslope
The Only nation to cut greenhouse gas emmission since Kyoto, was the United States. Without the burden of the treaty, without new EPA ‘dominion grabs’, and without even a left-leaning administration.

Bo,
you may have better sources than me. But here’s a start.
Here is a graph of the US Emissions.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/us_ghgemissions90_04.cfm

Here are some scorecards for the G8
http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/top_climate_stories/climate_scorecards_09.html?g8_climatescorecards_2009_flash/&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=kyoto targets&utm_campaign=Allianz Knowledge - Climate Scorecard

You’ll have to walk the trail for the whole mess, but 2006,2007,2008, are all pretty easy to read…
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-usa-2007-2008-reduction-eia.php

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007-02-508.pdf Ain’t bad either.

Though I wasn’t aware of how important the ‘per capita’ part I left out was….The numbers for CO2 are almost flat (until you do the / number of people, thing) - but when you do that, the number one polluter (China) doesn’t look nearly so bad anymore….

Point is and was:

During the Older Peron, I’d not be willing to eat my food raw, nor do without the candles, but I’d be willing to help someone move above the flood-plain. During this age, I’m not willing to give gov’t control of my life to avoid a unlikely scenario.

As an Australian I am in no position to throw stones. We are the highest per capita emitters of green house gas. You will have to walk me slowly ... but i can’t see that

The Only nation to cut greenhouse gas emmission since Kyoto, was the United States.

The US greenhouse gas emission has gone up since Kyoto.
Other nations have cut more. Britain has cut its greenhouse gas emission since 1990 by 17.3 per cemtaawhich is about the same percentage as the US has increased.

What do you think is the risk that man made warming will cause real problems 5% 10%, 25% 50%??? At what level of risk should we investigate solutions (whatever sort you favour)?

I think the probability that Man is causing the change is slight, below 5%.  I also think that the chance that it’s actually detrimental is probably on the order of 20%.  If we are causing it and it is detrimental, then I think we ought to investigate technological solutions to absorb the CO2 we do create while promoting others (like small nukes) to generate electrical power without burning fossil fuels.

Our EPA has just declared dominion over the very gasses we exhale.  It’s hard to imagine a more totalitarian regime for dealing with this.

C’mon folks, is this REALLY about global warming, or something else? If global warming due to man-made emissions is true, then why go to such great lengths to hide substantial evidence contrary to Al Gore and the rest of his Hee Haw gang, and emasculate those who try to bring this contrary position to light? This is about the POWER over other human beings, to control what they can and cannot do, plain and simple. What scares me the most is that the scientific community as a whole, a community that prides itself on the scientific method, the voracity of fact, and the scientific decision process, has sold itself to the devil for reasons that are not yet clear to me. How do “rank-and-file” scientists benefit from mistating the truth about global warming?...

...and the debate within this particular blog has been awesome to watch…

...live free or die…

[44] CanaAnglican,

As a baccalaureate Geologist and a graduate of an M.S. curriculum in Oceanography and Meteorology, I am curious to know the basis on which you base the statement that [emphasis mine]

(a)ll the data taken together can only point to global warming which … has greatly exceeded what can be attributed to natural cycles of temperature change.

Specifically, what past records, historical and/or prehistorical, are you depending upon to determine what rates of temperature change over time constitute “natural cycles of temperature change?”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Amazed and Graced,
please spend as much time as you like exploring the motivations and actions that you describe. But reserve some time to examine the data as well.
Keith,
It is interesting that many “sceptic” leaders are geologists. In some ways this is a tussle between two branches of science.

[84] obadiahslope,

That is an interesting observation, and one that parallels my thinking on the matter. As a geologist, the evidence is very clear that there have been quite wide variations in the Earth’s climate during her history. Also as a geologist, one learns to take a very long term perspective on questions of climate. As a meteorologist, we have not significantly advanced the time frames over which we have some ability reliably to forecast the weather, let alone the climate, during my adult lifetime (I am currently 64 years old). The accuracy of forecasts within the next 3 to 5 days has measurably improved over that time, but we are still largely restricted to about 5 days if you want any confidence in the forecast.

And, having been involved in forecasting during my tenure in the Navy, I am well aware of the limitations of numerical forecasts. Not only are the mathematics complex, but the spatial density of observing stations is (a) highly irregular and (b) not sufficiently dense. Given that density, the terrain models underlying the forecast models are also similarly coarse.

During graduate school in the Navy, I also discovered the degree to which numerical models, particularly atmospheric and oceanographic forecast models rely on adjustable “tuning parameters.” I had the distinct displeasure to be given one for my M.S. thesis, certified tested by the relevant Professor, and previously used to generate results which were the basis for a goodly number of professional papers (all peer-reviewed, of course). The displeasure came from obtaining a result using one of four permutations of the two tuning parameters recommended by the Professor which gave the result that, after 19 and a fraction days of observed (historical data) wind-driven mixing of the ocean in a specific region off the coast of California, the salinity of the seawater, which had started on the first day at a uniform 34‰, suddenly in the two succeeding iterations, went from 33.95‰ and then to 6.7xx‰. (For those not familiar with seawater salinity the symbol ‰ represents parts per thousand, and what the final number above says is that there are over 6,700 parts of salt per 1,000 parts of everything. Put in simple English, that is saying that in each gallon of seawater the model was forecasting 6.7 gallons of pure salt—a physical absurdity.

It took me several days of digging, but I eventually found the error. It was an unedited portion of a copy and paste operation in the FORTRAN code at the core of the calculation.

But the one asset that being a geologist can give a person is the ability to remember to consider the time scales which must be considered in assessing whether or not particular observed phenomena are normal or not. Hence my question to CanaAnglican at his comment [44].

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Keith I am looking for a “sceptic” to debate with the science writer in a christian newspaper I run. The topic would be the basic science (not the politics and other stuff). would you be interested? (I have not asked the “other side” yet).
I envisage an exchange of short polite emails….

[86] obadiahslope,

I’ve answered via a “Private Message” through this site, including my personal email, so we can more conveniently discuss it further.

Blessings,
Keith Töpfer

obadiahslope, the only “data” I need is the revelation that the “scientific community” has been exposed as a group of so-called scientists putting out crap for data and CONSPIRING to emasculate anyone who disagrees with them in order to achieve their specific goals IN SPITE of the “data” they themselves have accumulated and analyzed. This is standard liberal agenda brown-shirt tactics, designed to achieve their goals regardless of fact, public opinion, or law. When SCIENTISTS start playing this game, I really worry about where this planet is going. How long before “they” go to the next level and start eliminating the opposition? Before you call me crazy, I remind you that this has ALREADY OCCURRED in the old Soviet Union, the “new” Russia (who continue to eliminate the opposition every day), the Khmer Rouge, Nazi Germany, present day Sudan…geez, it’s a long list…present day China, present day Myanmar, the “old” Afghanistan, the “old” Iraq, present day Syria…

“Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” - Ben Franklin (I think)

...live free or die…

EXHIBIT “A” for post #88: Excerpts from the Times of London.
———————————————————————————
The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” became entangled in a new climate change row.

Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr. Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.
————————————————————————————

Liberal Gameplan: If the facts don’t back up your claims, change the facts.

...live free or die…

#83.  Keith,
I rely on data from NOAA, EPA, and NASA.  They show sharp increases in global temperature that are correlated with industrialization.  If you research CO2 correlation with temperature in EPA data, you will find positive correlation between the two for the past 400,000 years.  They go up and down in almost perfect sync.

I retired as the Director of Measurement Services at NIST, and earlier was Chief of Standard Reference Materials there, where I helped certify CO2 gas SRMs for validation of CO2 atmospheric measurements.  Each reissue needed grossly higher concentrations to stay in the range needed for atmospheric measurement.

Clearly, we are using the atmosphere as a dump for CO2 and it is causing the temperature to rise.  Every morning I look in the mirror and see the nose on my face.  These correlations are clearer than the nose on my face.

I have no “politically correct dog in the fight.”  I am a conservative and am more than a little sorry that so many of my brothers pooh poo global warming.  Just because Al Gore is a total idiot, it does not mean he cannot stumble into the obvious.

By the way, so much Arctic ice has melted that the Northeast Passage was opened to navigation this past summer.  Direct shipping linkage between East Asia and West Europe may be a good thing.  Those in the Maldives may have to pay for it by losing their homes.  There will be winners and losers. —Stan

@CanaAnglican - by way of CV, I have a background in statistics in the private sector. Quality control for industrial processes, where sampling theory and confidence limits have very practical implications. I was senior analyst for CACI Market Analysis Division for two years where we did linear regression analysis to build predictive models for retail site selection. And I spent five years working in healthcare research where we analyzed massive datasets of several million records each to characterize hospital usage.

Your assertions in re NOAA, EPA, & NASA data are self-contradictory.

a) nobody has 400,000 years of records for either temp or CO2. There are various proxies which are the subject of a variety of interpretations - and those interpretations are hotly debated.
b) correlation between temp and CO2 does not prove causation. In fact, the record shows that CO2 concentration changes lag behind temperature changes. CO2 is not the cause, it is a lagging indicator.

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote—in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim—that “changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987).”  Hence, he concluded that “changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988).”

CO2 Science, Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003 , to cite but one article.

[91] RedHatRob,

Thank you for that citation. I was aware of data confirming the lag in atmospheric carbon dioxide as compared with temperature changes, but it might have taken me days of searching the web to find it, assuming I would even have been able. And it makes sense, as the colder the water, the more dissolved gas it can carry in solution. Having only read CanaAnglican’s last post just prior to yours, that is exactly what I was thinking of attempting to find.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Climategate is getting worse.

The CRU emails include one in 2004 from Prof. Phil Jones crowing that he had rejected two papers challenging the CRU data showing warming in Siberia.

Today, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis charged that “the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.” Specifically, the IEA has charged that Hadley sorted and cherry-picked Russian data in order to include only measuring stations which showed warming.

Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations at the superb, independent Wattsupwiththat.com

[90] CanaAnglican,

Thanks for the reply. RedHatRob beat me to the punch on pointing out the erroneous thinking surrounding the correlation between CO2 and temperature changes. I would agree with your assessment of Mr. Gore’s intellectual qualifications, but feel obliged to respond in the skeptical (that would be sceptical for those of our commenters using the Queen’s English ) mode concerning his stumbling on the obvious. And, by way of full disclosure, I must admit that I consider myself an Old Whig, in the same sense as did F.A. Hayek, i.e., a subscriber to the ideas of Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Edmund Burke and David Hume, among others.

As his recent comments concerning the temperature of the core of the earth demonstrate, there is little of scientific knowledge that Mr. Gore is incapable either of learning or of not getting wrong, and I am vague because I can not be certain to which it should be attributed.

But, as you can see, even solely from the citation given by RedHatRob, this is an “as yet to be settled” debate, all of the pronouncements of the numerical climatologists notwithstanding. Show me the conclusive evidence and I will gladly revise my working hypothesis. In the meanwhile, those on the other side of the argument are advocating changes in governmental policies that can reliably be predicted to result in the impoverishment, to the death for many, of a considerable proportion of the world’s population. So the stakes are not about you, or I, or anyone else simply “winning” an argument, nor about displaying our superior intellect. We need to get it absolutely right.

Until such time as the science is clear, we should, as Christians who ought to see ourselves as stewards of Creation, take what steps make economic sense to lessen our contribution to greenhouse gases, and avoid taking missteps which are economic nonsense, because the latter will expend the resources which we are sure to need to undo the damage caused by those self same missteps.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[93] RedHatRob,

Speaking of “cherry picking” some component of the alleged warming is a probable statistical anomaly caused by a historic event whose occurrence commenced about 1991. And it also involves the Russians, and more particularly, their temperature observation data. That data, particularly for remote stations in areas of low population (does Siberia come to mind as meeting that description?), began to diminish very specifically for the observation stations fitting that description.

Some may be asking themselves, what does 1991 have to do with this. The answer is, that is the year in which the USSR began its breakup. As a result of a shortage of government capital combined with the beginnings of relatively rapid and wholesale privatization of the Russian economy, their government began closing observation stations, focusing very specifically on those located in remote and underpopulated places (meaning a lot of them were in the far north). When stations in the colder areas are removed disproportionately from one’s data set, the resulting average temperature of that data set is clearly going to rise, and probably do so in relatiely dramatic fashion.

So, some of the data were delivered “pre-cooked,” as it were. Just thought people might like to be aware of the fact that all data are not necessarily equal.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

#91 Dear RedHatRob and #94. Keith:

Data from NOAA, showing Keeling’s work appears below.  We worked with Keeling while he was alive and provided him measurement standards.  He found about a 20% jump in CO2 at Mauna Loa over about a 50 year period.  This is consistent with the amount of coal and oil burned during the period:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/sio-mlgr.gif

Is there any other 50-year period in history with a 20% jump in CO2 in so short a time?  As for the CO2—temperature correlation, take a look at the data provided by the EPA in:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/co2_concentrations-lg.gif

Causation?  I only said the graphs are correlated.  However, we are putting CO2 into the air and the temperatures are rising.  See data from NOAA covering the same 50-year period at:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temp-anom-larg.jpg

So here is an experiment we need.  Let’s cut CO2 emissions and see if temperature goes down.  Not practical you say.  OK let’s just give up and keep throwing crap into the atmosphere.  It’s a fairly large sink and it will take more than a century to double the CO2 from 1950 levels.  Good idea?  Not for those of us who seek to be good stewards.  But we could decide how much capacity humanity has for warming.  As I said before some are already benefitting.  Then we could work to limit change to that level.

Keith, would not one simple stewardship question be to ask the following?  How many of us really want to burn oil and coal when nuclear power is a proven technology?

Do you find it as amusing as do I that the world’s ice is melting, while some say that warming is a hoax?  That’s a hoot or woot or whatever people say these days.  Oh, nevermind, I forgot, they never look at the Icesat data.

Speaking of the world’s ice melting, has anyone calculated the amount of heat this has been absorbing to partly offset the warming?  Such a calculation would give us some clue as to the rate of more rapid warming that will occur when the ice is gone.

[96] CanaAnglican,

The nuclear proposal is the most sensible one made to date. I seriously doubt that you will find a stronger supporter of nuclear power than myself. I have advocated the adoption of nuclear power for electrical generation for something like forty years.

A little personal history: I retired from the U.S. Navy in 1991 after just over 20 years. My first 5-¾ years were served in Basic Training (19 weeks), Sonar School and four years as a Sonar Technician on three different U.S. nuclear powered submarines, with the final 20 weeks being spent in Naval Officer Candidate School in Newport, RI. I was commissioned as a Naval Oceanographer [the Navy’s techincal specialists responsible for (1) Meteorology, (2) Physical Oceanography and (3) Mapping, Charting and Geodesy] on 01 April 1977, and three years later, reported to the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, where I completed a ten quarter M.S. program in Physics (Air-Ocean option). During my service as an Officer I served 4-½ years at the Naval Polar Oceanography Center (aka the Navy-NOAA Joint Ice Center, and now called the National Ice Center) as a Department Head.

People who maintain that global climate (including temperature) change is purely a hoax are demonstrably completely uninformed (for whatever reason), in the senses of both recorded and geological history. No adult having any rational sense finds such attitudes, whether born of mental limitation or psychological disorder, so much as entertaining, let alone amusing.

Neither I, nor RedHatRob, meant to imply that you were arguing for human causation. What concerns me, and I suspect Rob as well, is the potential human catastrophe that many of the public proposals for dealing with the problem raise. And in the case of the Kyoto Treaty, peer-reviewed studies have shown that the changes required will be inadequate to stop the climate changes which Kyoto proponents accept as “predicted” (assuming that those predictions are accurate, which they do tend to assume). Our failure to go nuclear is, in very large part the result of consistent propagandizing of the public against nuclear power, perpetrated by many on the left who want Kyoto style regulation. If you can figure out a way to counter that propaganda that stands a chance of moving us toward the only clean technology we know capable of providing the necessary power, let me know where to sign up. I hadn’t realized that, in exchanging views with you, I was dealing with another rational realist (which is not to say that I had assumed the opposite, because I hadn’t—I simply hadn’t figured out where you stood).

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
LCDR, USN [ret]

[96] CanaAnglican,

One problem with the graph of the EPA data is that the scale is too small (too coarse-grained) to observe the fact that the peaks in temperature precede in time the peaks in atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you were to look in the book I cited at my comment [1] on this thread, you will find information which displays that “reversed” temporal correlation as well as specific references to the source documents. That is one of points Rob was making at his comment [94].

If post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy (and it is), all the more evidently so is ante hoc ergo propter hoc.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Keeling’s work is well known.

There is also documentation that temps rose during the 20th century - the amount is in dispute, ranging from 0.5C to 1.5C. I DO dispute the alarmingly distorted “hockey stick” of Prof. Mann.

The CO2 concentrations at ML do NOT correlate well with the observed temp pattern. To take but one significant instance - they have continued to rise over the past 10 years, while the observed temps have been flat or declined slightly. This certainly raises the question as to whether the 0.5 to 1.5 temp rise was caused by CO2, indeed whether it was caused by humans at all.

See here for link Anthony Watt’s examination of several datasets including the Keeling CO2 observations and his tests to see which correlate with temperatures. Hint, the CO2 correlation is weak. Solar radiation is much stronger.

This data is certainly not conclusive enough to compell the adoption of the draconian Kyoto or Copenhagen measures. The proposed solutions will have enormous costs and will dramatically impact impoverished populations.

The two greatest contributors to 20th century prosperity and freedom were the mass-produced automobile and cheap energy in the form of electricity. The foundation for a significant economic prosperity - with benefits for every income bracket remains the same. Mobility and cheap energy. These things are positive economic goods. They are not evil. They are blessings.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus debunks ‘green religion’ here:
http://www.sanctusbenedictus.com/2009/12/czech-prez-speaks-truth-about-global.html#links

#97 Keith,

the only clean technology we know capable of providing the necessary power

I beg to differ about your use of the adjective ‘clean’ in reference to nuclear power. I will not consider nuclear power a ‘clean’ technology until the problem of disposing of radioactive waste is addressed. Until then, nuclear is the dirtiest and most poisonous of all power technologies.

We will not solve the nuclear disposal problem until we accept as a consequence ‘writing off’ a very large chunk of real estate for virtual eternity, such as a certain section of Nevada. However, that is not going to happen until a certain Nevada senator either retires or passes from this vale.

Nuclear waste issues have been addressed ad infinitm.  They just haven’t received political absolution.  When the lights go out, maybe the momentum will shift.

In what way have they been addressed, Capt. Deacon Warren? We are about to get a coal-fired power plant here on a stretch of river that had survived to this point untouched. It’s deeply distressing. If I could be assured that nuclear waste can be disposed of harmlessly, I would back nuclear power.

[101] and [103]

They have both been addressed in a variety of forums. Explicit references can be found in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner (Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 1596985011; (Paperback-288 pages, February 2007).

I don’t have a copy, nor do I presently have the time to get a copy from the library, extract the relevant citations from the endnotes, and post them here. I don’t own a copy of the book, having borrowed it from the public library late last summer. The toxicity issues have been seriously oversold by zealots who are, to put it delicately, careless with the exact truth. The latter includes some of those Americans who believe that the number of children one has should be the subject of government control

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer