Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[chucku]

Has anyone considered the possibility that changes in global climate are due (at least in part) to naturally occuring cycles of sufficient length we do not or are unable to know when one cycle begins or ends. Or if there are more than one overlapping cycles at play. Species (plant, animal and fungi) have become endangered, extinct, mutated and evolved long before there was any human influence.

 

[Happycamper]

I don't know anything about David Suzuki, but the link you provided starts with some of the examples of climate change that we are now seeing in a different light. I quote "The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought."

The glacier thing has been dramatically overstated (not by the individual scientists, but by politicians and the IPCC) as shown earlier in this thread, as well as record low temps recently recorded.

Extreme weather events are another lie, Amazon forests another lie, and sea levels? What the fuck. Sea level rises, they are the same level as rise as they have been for years and years. 1 ich per decade, if even that. It's so tiny it's almost imeasurable. Forgive typos

 

[vtac]

Happycamper, please don't respond to me without addressing the contents of my post.

vtac, with regard to your post, I had some thoughts. I agree the climatedepot website looks cheesy. I don't know anything about these other sources camper is quoting: Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Mail. He says they are not trashy. Do you have an opinion?

Personally I'd rather hear what actual climate scientists have to say.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/

You linked to wikipedia. I don't have an opinion on wiki or the link you posted, but I know that it is not a credible enough source for me to use in my professional reports...so I can't say it trumps any of camper's sources.

See the "References" section at the bottom of that page. But read that again: No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.

You also said "Do you post on any serious climate science websites?" Very interesting, and I would love to see what a response in that crowd would be like! Can you suggest any?

Grist and realclimate have comment sections. Serious scientific debates don't typically take place on internet message boards where anyone can post with essentially complete anonymity. We have big, respected scientific organizations for a reason.

 

[Happycamper]

Happycamper, please don't respond to me without addressing the contents of my post.

vtac, with regard to your post, I had some thoughts. I agree the climatedepot website looks cheesy. I don't know anything about these other sources camper is quoting: Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Mail. He says they are not trashy. Do you have an opinion?

Personally I'd rather hear what actual climate scientists have to say.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/

You linked to wikipedia. I don't have an opinion on wiki or the link you posted, but I know that it is not a credible enough source for me to use in my professional reports...so I can't say it trumps any of camper's sources.

See the "References" section at the bottom of that page. But read that again: No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007.

You also said "Do you post on any serious climate science websites?" Very interesting, and I would love to see what a response in that crowd would be like! Can you suggest any?

Grist and realclimate have comment sections. Serious scientific debates don't typically take place on internet message boards where anyone can post with essentially complete anonymity. We have big, respected scientific organizations for a reason.

You seem to be in denial (don't like using this word but so what) of the new scientific evidence coming out. I have encountered a few people like you that don't seem to take it well at first. But most people do come round after a while. Good luck Vtac, and I hope you break free.

 

[Happycamper]

The top climate scientist in the whole fucking world is saying CO2 has 30% less effect on warming the planet. (and this is the first dip my toe in the water, lets see how bad the death threats are type study)

 

[vtac]

You seem to be in denial (don't like using this word but so what) of the new scientific evidence coming out. I have encountered a few people like you that don't seem to take it well at first. But most people do come round after a while. Good luck Vtac, and I hope you break free.

In denial? I linked a website discussing the very piece of information you're talking about in the very post you just quoted.

Here it is again with 2 more.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704194504575031404275769886.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/on-water-vapor-and-warming/

Have you read the actual research paper in Nature that you're so excited about? And could you even understand the science behind it? I certainly couldn't because I don't have any background in climate science. Do you?

I welcome anything that could help slow climate change and I hope this turns out to be something significant. You can say "see! see! I told you so!" all you want if it does and I'll be happy. But it doesn't appear that we're at that point yet. Maybe we should, uhh, give it more than a couple days?

First of all, this is a paper about internal variability of the climate system in the last decade, not on additional factors that drive climate. Second, this is a discussion about stratospheric water vapour (10 to 15 km above the surface), not water vapour in general. Stratospheric water vapour comes from two sources the uplift of tropospheric water through the very cold tropical tropopause (both as vapour and as condensate), and the oxidation of methane in the upper stratosphere (CH4+2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O NB: this is just a schematic, the actual chemical pathways are more complicated). There isnt very much of it (between 3 and 6 ppmv), and so small changes (~0.5 ppmv) are noticeable.

The decreases seen in this study are in the lower stratosphere and are likely dominated by a change in the flux of water through the tropopause. A change in stratospheric water vapour because of the increase in methane over the industrial period would be a forcing of the climate (and is one of the indirect effects of methane we discussed last year), but a change in the tropopause flux is a response to other factors in the climate system. These might include El Nino/La Nina events, increases in Asian aerosols, or solar impacts on near-tropopause ozone but this is not addressed in the paper and will take a little more work to figure out.

Update: This last paragraph was probably not as clear as it should be. If the lower stratospheric water vapour (LSWV) is relaxing back to some norm after the 1997/1998 El Nino, then what we are seeing would be internal variability in the system which might have some implications for feedbacks to increasing GHGs, and my estimate of that would be that this would be an amplifying feedback (warmer SSTs leading to more LSWV). If we are seeing changes to the tropopause temperatures as an indirect impact from increased Asian aerosol emissions or solar-driven ozone changes, then this might be better thought of as impacting the efficacy of those forcings rather than implying some sensitivity change.

The study includes an estimate of the effect of the observed stratospheric water decadal decrease by calculating the radiation flux with and without the change, and comparing this to the increase in CO2 forcing over the same period. This implicitly assumes that the change can be regarded as a forcing. However, whether that is an appropriate calculation or not needs some careful consideration. Finally, no-one has yet looked at whether climate models (which have plenty of decadal variability too) have phenomena that resemble these observations that might provide some insight into the causes.

The top climate scientist in the whole fucking world is saying CO2 has 30% less effect on warming the planet. (and this is the first dip my toe in the water, lets see how bad the death threats are type study)

In the WHOLE fucking world? Who is this prodigy and where are they saying this so categorically?

 

[Happycamper]

You seem to be in denial (don't like using this word but so what) of the new scientific evidence coming out. I have encountered a few people like you that don't seem to take it well at first. But most people do come round after a while. Good luck Vtac, and I hope you break free.

In denial? I linked a website discussing the very piece of information you're talking about in the very post you just quoted.

Here it is again with 2 more.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704194504575031404275769886.html
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/on-water-vapor-and-warming/

Have you read the actual research paper in Nature that you're so excited about? And could you even understand the science behind it? I certainly couldn't because I don't have any background in climate science. Do you?

I welcome anything that could help slow climate change and I hope this turns out to be something significant. You can say "see! see! I told you so!" all you want if it does and I'll be happy. But it doesn't appear that we're at that point yet. Maybe we should, uhh, give it more than a couple days?

First of all, this is a paper about internal variability of the climate system in the last decade, not on additional factors that drive climate. Second, this is a discussion about stratospheric water vapour (10 to 15 km above the surface), not water vapour in general. Stratospheric water vapour comes from two sources the uplift of tropospheric water through the very cold tropical tropopause (both as vapour and as condensate), and the oxidation of methane in the upper stratosphere (CH4+2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O NB: this is just a schematic, the actual chemical pathways are more complicated). There isnt very much of it (between 3 and 6 ppmv), and so small changes (~0.5 ppmv) are noticeable.

The decreases seen in this study are in the lower stratosphere and are likely dominated by a change in the flux of water through the tropopause. A change in stratospheric water vapour because of the increase in methane over the industrial period would be a forcing of the climate (and is one of the indirect effects of methane we discussed last year), but a change in the tropopause flux is a response to other factors in the climate system. These might include El Nino/La Nina events, increases in Asian aerosols, or solar impacts on near-tropopause ozone but this is not addressed in the paper and will take a little more work to figure out.

Update: This last paragraph was probably not as clear as it should be. If the lower stratospheric water vapour (LSWV) is relaxing back to some norm after the 1997/1998 El Nino, then what we are seeing would be internal variability in the system which might have some implications for feedbacks to increasing GHGs, and my estimate of that would be that this would be an amplifying feedback (warmer SSTs leading to more LSWV). If we are seeing changes to the tropopause temperatures as an indirect impact from increased Asian aerosol emissions or solar-driven ozone changes, then this might be better thought of as impacting the efficacy of those forcings rather than implying some sensitivity change.

The study includes an estimate of the effect of the observed stratospheric water decadal decrease by calculating the radiation flux with and without the change, and comparing this to the increase in CO2 forcing over the same period. This implicitly assumes that the change can be regarded as a forcing. However, whether that is an appropriate calculation or not needs some careful consideration. Finally, no-one has yet looked at whether climate models (which have plenty of decadal variability too) have phenomena that resemble these observations that might provide some insight into the causes.

The top climate scientist in the whole fucking world is saying CO2 has 30% less effect on warming the planet. (and this is the first dip my toe in the water, lets see how bad the death threats are type study)

In the WHOLE fucking world? Who is this prodigy and where are they saying this so categorically?

ok, I was a little bit drunk when i said the top scientist in the world. (It's Solomon, she is quite high up there) And also the 30% is a little wrong, it's specifically a third of the warming in the 90's was not due to co2, it was due to 10% more vapor (than todays levels) in a certain place in the atmosphere.



This is in Guardian Newspaper today:


Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese?CMP=AFCYAH

The Chinese issue (Chinagate ) (already raised on one of the links from yesterday) is coming out in the UK mainstream media.

Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.

A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming a hotly contested issue.

Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones's collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had "screwed up".

And in another mainstream uk media paper the Independant http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...t-hid-flaws-in-data-say-sceptics-1886487.html

Climategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics

The "climategate" controversy intensified last night when the senior British scientist at its centre, Professor Phil Jones, faced fresh accusations that he attempted to withhold data that could cast doubt on evidence for rising world temperatures.

NIWA Unable To Justify Official Temperature Record

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been urged by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) to abandon all of its in-house adjustments to temperature records. This follows an admission by NIWA that it no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings.

In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
Vtac: reading your link, about the methane thing, I dont know how true this is, but I heard methane levels either stopped rising or really slowed down a few years ago. (recalling last 5-10ish years) For some reason, no one knows why, when they should be going up. Maybe this is a safety mechanism we don't understand kicking in somehow, which has lowered the water vapor which is cooling us down.
Is the story about methane levels not rising true?

It is quite worrying until we find out definitely what is causing more or less of the water vapor.

 

[stickstones]

I saw a small portion of a History Channel show last night called "A Global Warning". What little I saw was fascinating and I am looking to see if it is showing later...two hour show.

11,500 years ago the planet underwent a significant and fast warming phase. It heated up very quickly...in the span of one human lifetime. Many mammals were killed off and humans, of course, survived. Why it heated up we don't know, but one controversial theory is a comet hit the planet releasing tons of CO2. One of the scientists was saying the earth has a natural cycle that currently is warming at a rate of about 0.1C per century (I'm not sure I got that measurmenet right) and that we are making this happen faster at about a tenfold rate.

When we get the scientists by themselves, unfiltered through propoganda, it really is fascinating and believable stuff.

Don't forget the words of the brilliant Mr. Smith, "Humans are a virus." Why do we resist our nature. We are destined to fuck things up!

 

[SSS]

ok, I was a little bit drunk when i said the top scientist in the world.

that explains a lot about you and your posts.

less drinking, more thinking.

 

[Purple-Days]

Yeah, I listened to some of that show Sticks. Seems the oceans warming may be responsible for releasing trapped methane hydrates. I have known about methane hydrates for a while, but this idea that these will create the big swing is pretty scarry. Methane is 16 (? check that) times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Release the methane and it's all over (for several billion people)

 

[rayski]

oh...oh!
Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

 

[Happycamper]

ok, I was a little bit drunk when i said the top scientist in the world.

that explains a lot about you and your posts.

less drinking, more thinking.

But then I would have to work on my Fucking Personality.

 

[Happycamper]

oh...oh!
Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame

After posing the question I looked it up. But i could have already guessed the armagedon type hype.

Think back to Viking times, evidence of the Viking settlements are still there in green land, plus evidence of just how many cattle they had. And therefore how much food they needed to grow to feed them.

So as the Artic has clearly been much warmer in the past (the Vikings were there for at least 100 years before it got too cold again and the Ice core data clearly confirms much warmer times), I'm not that bothered about hearing an Icicle is dribbling there.

Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu also insists the ice caps have ALWAYS expanded and contracted.

 

[Happycamper]

NASA Still Spreading Antarctic Worries http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/03/nasa-still-spreading-antarctic-fud/#more-15981

A January 12, 2010 Earth Observatory article warns that Antarctica

has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002 and that if all of this ice melted, it would raise global sea level by about 60 meter (197 feet).

If sea level rose 60 meters, that would wipe out most of the worlds population which would no doubt make some environmentalists happy. Sadly for them though, Antarctica contains 30 106 km3 of ice which means that it will take 300,000 years for all the ice to melt at NASAs claimed current rate of 100 km3 per year. (Chances are that we will run out of fossil fuels long before then.) The surface area of Antarctica is 14.2 million km2 which would indicate an average melt of less than 7 millimeters per year across the continent. (Is NASA claiming that they can measure changes in Antarctic ice thickness within 7 millimeters?) But even more problematic is that UAH satellite data shows no increase in temperatures in Antarctica, rather a small decline

NASA themselves appear very confused about Antarctic temperature trends. As you can see in the two images below, sometimes they think Antarctica is warming and other times they think it is cooling

According to NSIDC, sea ice extent has been increasing over time around Antarctica this is consistent with the idea that temperatures are cooling

One of the key features of Hansens global warming theory is that the polar regions are supposed to warm much faster than the rest of the planet. The image below is from his classic 1984 paper, and shows that Antarctica is supposed to warm up 6C after a doubling of CO2. If the cooling trend which UAH shows continues, it will take Antarctica a very long time to warm up six degrees.

Hansen also predicted that sea ice would diminish around Antarctica and significantly decrease albedo. Clearly that prediction was wrong as well.

Some are quick to come to Hansens defense by saying that climate science has improved since that paper was written, we now know that Antarctic shouldnt warm as fast as the Arctic. That is indeed a fine explanation, but the problem is that most of Antarctica is not warming at all.

 

[stickstones]

camper...part of the problem here is seperating science from politics. I think the politics of global warming is corrupt, but that much of the science is not. For instance, that history channel show I mentioned had some interviews with scientists out in the field. It was great seeing these interviews, as I am certain these eggheads trapped in the polar regions studying ice have no political bones in their bodies at all. I find them very believable about their conclusions. I would be interested to hear you opinions on which scientific claims you think are valid after you have looked at them without the political filters.

 

[Happycamper]

At the end of the day, rising methane levels, rising co2 and a warmer world have somehow been a perfect recipe for lower water vapour levels in the upper atmosphere. Well, no one knows yet what really causes it, but a warmer world does not seem to automatically mean more water vapour in the area that matters.

After a long thought about falsification. If the temperatures increase by a further 0.5c then I think we should take action.

 

[Happycamper]

camper...part of the problem here is seperating science from politics. I think the politics of global warming is corrupt, but that much of the science is not. For instance, that history channel show I mentioned had some interviews with scientists out in the field. It was great seeing these interviews, as I am certain these eggheads trapped in the polar regions studying ice have no political bones in their bodies at all. I find them very believable about their conclusions. I would be interested to hear you opinions on which scientific claims you think are valid after you have looked at them without the political filters.

Can you remeber the name of it, I would definitely watch it if I can find it.

Thats why I think Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu is credible. He was one of those egg heads, he used to be the director of the main research centre in the Artic. However when he publicly said that he did not see the global warming crisis in the Artic, and it was a process that has always happened, he seemed to suddenly get replaced at the institute. (it happened the same year, he made the statement in 2007 whilst he was still the director and then he was suddenly replaced).

 

[stickstones]

I have searched for the next two weeks and it is not on again. I only saw the final half, so I am on the lookout and will let you know if I see it airing again. The show was called "A Global Warning?" Note it is not "Warming", but rather "Warning".

However, my previous post was in regard to any climate change scientific research, not just what was on that show. Surely, in all this research you have done, you have come across some element(s) of the global warming argument that you find credible?

 

[Happycamper]

I have searched for the next two weeks and it is not on again. I only saw the final half, so I am on the lookout and will let you know if I see it airing again. The show was called "A Global Warning?" Note it is not "Warming", but rather "Warning".

However, my previous post was in regard to any climate change scientific research, not just what was on that show. Surely, in all this research you have done, you have come across some element(s) of the global warming argument that you find credible?

Yes, I do actually agree with the main claim. Pumping Co2 into the atmosphere is more likely to warm the planet than cool it.

I don't agree with flawed models causing the scare, and then been used as the basis for incredibly expensive policy decisions.

We're finding out new things almost daily, the science is been rewritten in front of our eyes. The fact that now they are quite certain and can measure the effect and change water vapor has had for the last 30 years, we might not be totally to blame after all.

I might be able to find it somewhere on the interweb. (the show) it sounds interesting.

 

[Happycamper]

The other day I heard about a book in Australia. A couple of very wealthy people decided to use their money and travel the world and talk to everyone first hand to see if they could settle if it was true or not.

They still could not say at the end after talking to just about every single expert about this.

 

[stickstones]

^^^
That's not surprising to me. I don't think it can be proved any time soon at all.

Interesting idea though, for something to do and something to read. Can you find more on that book? It would be interesting to find out who they considered to be 'everyone'.

But beyond agreeing with the main claim or the theory, is there any specific scientific research/evidence you have run across that you consider credible and that truly (not politically) bolsters the other side of the argument?

Personally, I find the fossilized evidence and the ice core sampling sciences to be interesting and compelling.

 

[SSS]

camper...part of the problem here is seperating science from politics. I think the politics of global warming is corrupt, but that much of the science is not. For instance, that history channel show I mentioned had some interviews with scientists out in the field. It was great seeing these interviews, as I am certain these eggheads trapped in the polar regions studying ice have no political bones in their bodies at all. I find them very believable about their conclusions. I would be interested to hear you opinions on which scientific claims you think are valid after you have looked at them without the political filters.

bingo.

the problem here is that you're talking to a hack. a guy who knows a lot about politics and virtually nothing about climate science. i still laugh about that "top scientist in the world" remark. i wonder when the scientist super bowl is. i'd really like to see that one.

 

[Happycamper]

Its a discussion. What is the problem? What you write is in your opinion, what I write is in my opinion. Why not join in properly, we were serious about you giving your take on that co2 80% less feedback paper.

 

[SSS]

what's the problem? the last person i would discuss science with is a politician. which is what you are. go team (fill in the blank)! yeah, that's real debate.

your knowledge of science is obviously lacking and i'm not getting paid to teach. what is there to say to someone that claims scientists have rankings like football teams and that the "amazon rainforest is a lie"---whatever the hell that means.

your so-called discussion is crap. try cutting down on the booze and spending a little time learning 9th grade science.

 

[stickstones]

I agree. SSS, given your experience, I think you could prove valuable to the discussion if you would take the time to address the science and not the character of the posters. But you may not have the time or desire to do that, and that is understandable.

I do find it disappointing that a real scientist would come in here and, instead of trying to shed some real light on the situation, decide to simply take pop shots at the OP. It actually brings you 'down' to the very level to which you are condescending.