Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140827141609.htm

Self-deceived individuals deceive others better
Date: August 27, 2014
Source: University of Exeter
Summary: Over-confident people can fool others into believing they are more talented than they actually are, a study has found. These 'self-deceived' individuals could be more likely to get promotions and reach influential positions in banks and other organizations. And these people are more likely to overestimate other people's abilities and take greater risks, possibly creating problems for their organizations.

Over confident people can fool others into believing they are more talented than they actually are, a study has found.

These 'self-deceived' individuals could be more likely to get promotions and reach influential positions in banks and other organizations. And these people are more likely to overestimate other people's abilities and take greater risks, possibly creating problems for their organizations.

The study by researchers from Newcastle University and the University of Exeter, has also found that those who are under confident in their own abilities are viewed as less able by their colleagues.

The findings, which will be published in the journal PLOS ONE, are the first time a link has been found between a person's view of their own ability and how others see their abilities, and could partially explain financial collapses and other disasters.

As part of the research the team asked 72 students to rate their own ability and the ability of their peers after the first day of their course. Of those, 32 students (about 45%) were under confident in their ability as compared to their final mark, 29 students (40%) were overconfident and 11 students (15%) were accurate in their assessments of their own ability.

There was a positive correlation between the grades students predicted for themselves and the grades others predicted for them. In other words, students who predicted higher grades for themselves were predicted to have higher grades by others, irrespective of their actual final score. The same applied to those who were under confident.

The task was repeated after six weeks of the course when the students knew each other better and the findings remained the same. Those who were over confident were over rated by others.

Study author Dr Vivek Nityananda, research associate at Newcastle University explains: "These findings suggest that people don't always reward the most accomplished individual but rather the most self-deceived.

"We think this supports an evolutionary theory of self-deception. It can be beneficial to have others believe you are better than you are and the best way to do this is to deceive yourself -- which might be what we have evolved to do.

"This can cause problems as over confident people may also be more likely to take risks. So if too many people overrate themselves and deceive others about their abilities within organizations then this could lead to disastrous consequences such as airplane crashes or financial collapses."

Joint lead author, Dr Shakti Lamba, of The University of Exeter added: "If over confident people are more likely to be risk prone then by promoting them we may be creating institutions, such as banks and armies, that are more vulnerable to risk."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Exeter. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference: Shakti Lamba, Vivek Nityananda. Self-Deceived Individuals Are Better at Deceiving Others. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9 (8): e104562 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104562

 

[agentaqua]

This is all about money and computer programs that do not take into effect all the components. All these scientists need a job.

Even oil barons "need a job", OBD - as do oil patch workers, fish farmers, sportsfishermen, politicians, and everyone else. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the science stands. It does. There are caveats and debate on predicting the current levels of CO2 emissions into the future using the available models and whether those CO2 levels will increase or not - YES - but the data is solid on that it is really not a good idea to continue business as usual - and there are some fairly big risks to future generations continuing to do so.

Inferring that the reason scientists do research in climate change or any other area of science is only because they "need a job" - is not only a weak argument, but demonstrates your contempt and lack of understanding of the scientific process.

 

[OldBlackDog]

No contempt for real scientists.
The science on man made global warming does not stand up to the test.
Computers are only as good as the input given them by man.
Man does not yet know all the variables to put in to a program. This is shown daily by all the new things found by science.
Just like the computer programs to tell how many sockeye are going to return.

Even oil barons "need a job", OBD - as do oil patch workers, fish farmers, sportsfishermen, politicians, and everyone else. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the science stands. It does. There are caveats and debate on predicting the current levels of CO2 emissions into the future using the available models and whether those CO2 levels will increase or not - YES - but the data is solid on that it is really not a good idea to continue business as usual - and there are some fairly big risks to future generations continuing to do so.

Inferring that the reason scientists do research in climate change or any other area of science is only because they "need a job" - is not only a weak argument, but demonstrates your contempt and lack of understanding of the scientific process.

 

[GLG]

No contempt for real scientists.
The science on man made global warming does not stand up to the test.
Computers are only as good as the input given them by man.
Man does not yet know all the variables to put in to a program. This is shown daily by all the new things found by science.
Just like the computer programs to tell how many sockeye are going to return.

Have a look at this video to see what the science says.
Then read the bit at the end of this post....

[RnWoFJmqCF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnWoFJmqCF8#t=315

A letter to you grandchildern


Dear Grandchildren,


As I write this in 2014, many people are arguing about whether global warming is a real problem and, if so, how serious it will be for you when you are my age. I have examined the evidence,and decided to:


_____ do nothing


_____ try to reduce my own "carbon footprint" a bit


_____ do everything in my power to stop the increase in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases


Hope your world is a good one.


Love,


________(your name here)______


The ball is in your court, play it well my friend.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Nice politics

Have a look at this video to see what the science says.
Then read the bit at the end of this post....

[RnWoFJmqCF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnWoFJmqCF8#t=315

A letter to you grandchildern


Dear Grandchildren,


As I write this in 2014, many people are arguing about whether global warming is a real problem and, if so, how serious it will be for you when you are my age. I have examined the evidence,and decided to:


_____ do nothing


_____ try to reduce my own "carbon footprint" a bit


_____ do everything in my power to stop the increase in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases


Hope your world is a good one.


Love,


________(your name here)______


The ball is in your court, play it well my friend.

 

[SpringVelocity]

no contempt for real scientists.
The science on man made global warming does not stand up to the test.
Computers are only as good as the input given them by man.
Man does not yet know all the variables to put in to a program. This is shown daily by all the new things found by science.
Just like the computer programs to tell how many sockeye are going to return.

omg lolololol!

 

[OldBlackDog]

Myth: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

 

[OldBlackDog]

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later
Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014
Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.


The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
This might have been correct at the time of writing pre-2004, but by 2008 Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, the minister for Natural Resources and Tourism in Tanzania wrote ”contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing”. By 2011 we can read “Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.” In October 2007 Mr Justice Burton of the UK High Court ruled, for the purpose of teaching, against unqualified use of this passage summarised from the Gore book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Mr Gore’s assertion was that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus that it cannot be established that the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed.

3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19 This estimate was conventional wisdom until the specialist satellite era, when measurement technology improved. As the NOAA figure shows, Jason 1 (data from 2002) and Jason 2 (2009) have complicated the story, with data showing ocean levels falling at times. The Jason instruments were specifically designed for ocean level measurement. More time is needed before the modern estimate of ocean change can be calculated. It is noted that Ocean Heat Content, OHC, a cause of ocean level change, has barely changed since measurements became acceptable through an increase in the number of Argo buoys in year 2002 or so.

And so it goes, as listed below. The following abbreviated quotes from NatGeo 2004 need examination in the light of accumulated knowledge. Note that peer-review, having been repeatedly found wanting in the years before 2012, is not a requirement for commentary, though it can be desirable. In several important ways, such as immediacy, the modern blog world has adequate accurate commentary, to allow suggested revisions or retractions of the quotes below.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. “The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912.” P.14
2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14
3. “… raising average global sea level between four and eight inches in the past hundred years.” P.19
4. “But the recent rate of global sea level rise has departed from the average rate of the past two to three thousand years and is rising much more rapidly – a continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes…” P.19
5. “Even relatively small storm surges in the past two decades have overwhelmed the system of dikes, levees and pump stations … upgraded in the 1990s to forestall the Gulf of Mexico’s relentless creep.” P.19
6. “Vulnerable to sea-level rise, Tuvalu, a small country in the South Pacific, has already begun formulating evacuation plans.” P.19
7. “The scenarios are disturbing even in wealthy countries like the Netherlands, with nearly half its landmass already at or below sea level.” P.19
8. “The 20th Century has seen the greatest warming in at least a thousand years, and natural forces can’t account for it all.” P.20
9. “Both greenhouse gases and temperature are expected to continue rising.” P.20
10. “Thick smoke towers over a forest near Fairbanks, one more sign that Alaska is getting hotter…. Computer models predict that CO2-induced warming could eventually raise the incidence of fires by more than a half.” P.25
11. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to break up, which scientists consider very unlikely this century, it alone contains enough ice to raise sea level by nearly 20 feet.” P.27
12. “Ocean temperatures are rising in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought (NOAA)” P.27
13. “Oceans are important sinks …. and take up about a third of human-generated CO2.” P.28
14. “ … three greenhouse gases … orchestrating an intricate dance between the radiation of heat from Earth back to space (cooling the planet) and the absorption of radiation in the atmosphere (trapping it near the surface and this warming the planet).” P.29
15. (At Barrow) “There are no words, though, to describe how much and how fast the ice is changing.” P.33
16. “Researchers long ago predicted that the most visible impacts from a globally warmer world would occur first at high latitudes: rising air and sea temperatures, earlier snowmelt, later ice freeze-up, reductions in sea ice, thawing permafrost, more erosion, increases in storm intensity. Now, all these impacts have been documented in Alaska.” P.33
17. “The Fleishmann’s glass frog is barely hanging on …. As Earth’s temperatures rise, scientists are exploring climate’s role in a worldwide amphibian decline.” P.34
18. “Alpine plants are edging uphill and beginning to overrun rare species near mountain summits.” P.41
19. “This is the first instance in which humans appear to be accelerating the change, and warming could take place so quickly that species will not have the time to adapt and avoid extinction.” P.41
20. “At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no more room to run”. P.41
21. “Coral necropolis …. Increasingly the planet’s coral is in hot water, parboiled in periods of calm, sunny weather … In 1998 the world’s coral suffered its worst year on record, which left 16% bleached or dead.” P.41
22. Re: turtle breeding “Storms amplify the trend (to more females) shearing away trees that provide cooling shade to nests on beaches. ‘Severe weather events … really knock the socks off in favour of the females’.” P.47
…………………………………………………….
Fast forward to page 73 because there are enough quotes already, to find –
23. “A warming world will harm some – and benefit others. Home heating costs will likely fall in New England … The prospects are grim for drought-plagued Ethiopian children, who could see rainfall decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. Widespread poverty and dependence on subsistence agriculture make Africans the most vulnerable to climate change.” P.73.

There are a couple of boxed headers along the way. Two are

24. “IT’S NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM; IT’S AN OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.” P.33.
25. Then “WE’LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE ACTUAL CHANGES IN 30 YEARS. BUT IT’S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NatGeo has apologised for some past errors. The July 2004 edition had some images of hunters with tusks captioned to be from a dead elephant found in the bush. Trouble was, the tusks had numbers on them showing capture several years before in another country. Earlier, there was the apology and subsequent stronger rules when an altered image of the Pyramids of Egypt was printed on the NatGeo cover of Feb 1982. That lead to a statement of NatGeo rules for altered images.

 

[seadna]

No contempt for real scientists.
The science on man made global warming does not stand up to the test.
Computers are only as good as the input given them by man.
Man does not yet know all the variables to put in to a program. This is shown daily by all the new things found by science.
Just like the computer programs to tell how many sockeye are going to return.

As a scientist myself, I'd like to understand how you can tell "real scientists" from others. I'd really like to understand what you have done to make this determination.

 

[SpringVelocity]

As a scientist myself, I'd like to understand how you can tell "real scientists" from others. I'd really like to understand what you have done to make this determination.

Its the ones (real scientists) that take bribes and money from the big corporations... You know the ones no problem nothing to see here...

 

[OldBlackDog]

What’s the hubbub? It all comes down to men behaving badly. Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat.

Here are some of the highlights of the documents released.

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science.

Kudos to Anthony for being there, online, and being prepared to handle the traffic this topic generated. I would hope that this event would precipitate a greater openness regarding publicly funded research. It would be nice to see better adherence to scientific method. At the very least it has exposed some well funded, ivory tower thinkers, behaving very poorly.

As a scientist myself, I'd like to understand how you can tell "real scientists" from others. I'd really like to understand what you have done to make this determination.

 

[agentaqua]

As a scientist myself, I'd like to understand how you can tell "real scientists" from others. I'd really like to understand what you have done to make this determination.

"REAL" scientists - from the perspective of those who celebrate ignorance and propaganda - are those so-called scientists who appear to agree with their indoctrinated perspective - irrespective of what the science says.

"REAL" scientists - from the perspective of other scientists - are those who publish in respected scientific journals so everyone can judge and reference the science - which is a different authority as compared to media releases generated by paid PR consultants - as you know CDNA.

Some people who are willfully ignorant of the scientific process feel more comfortable with their prayer beads rather than reading and understanding the science. It is - for them - not a search for the truth - but rather a popularity contest to find the paid spokesperson they can emulate or quote, meanwhile trying to shoot the messenger of scientific information - while not recognizing the difference between science and propaganda.

Meanwhile these same people will use all this technology developed through our scientific process - like internet, computers, trucks, oil servicing equipment and even electricity - w/o any thoughts about how these things were developed nor about whether they trust the science behind these "inventions". Suddenly they are converts to the scientific process without any debate nor thought.

 

[OldBlackDog]

“The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed
total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ... It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports....Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.”
The leak of emails coincided with the exposure of some embarrassing errors in the AR4, most notably a claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, a claim that turned out to lack a scientifically valid basis.

 

[Cuba Libre]

Havent you got a tractor to sit on somewhere?? Or at least go chase a whitetail ?????? LOL!!!!

 

[SpringVelocity]

“The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed
total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ... It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports....Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.”
The leak of emails coincided with the exposure of some embarrassing errors in the AR4, most notably a claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, a claim that turned out to lack a scientifically valid basis.

Man your way off.... Very very foolish way of thinking IMHO..Carry on.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Hans von Storch, 63, is director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center Geesthacht for Materials and Coastal Research, near Hamburg. A mathematician and meteorologist, he ranks among the world's leading climate experts. At the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, he had an important role in analyzing the computer models used to simulate future climate changes.

 

[OldBlackDog]

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments.

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

SPIEGEL: Does this throw the entire theory of global warming into doubt?

Storch: I don't believe so. We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.

SPIEGEL: Do scientists still predict that sea levels will rise?

Storch: In principle, yes. Unfortunately, though, our simulations aren't yet capable of showing whether and how fast ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will melt -- and that is a very significant factor in how much sea levels will actually rise. For this reason, the IPCC's predictions have been conservative. And, considering the uncertainties, I think this is correct.

SPIEGEL: And how good are the long-term forecasts concerning temperature and precipitation?

Storch: Those are also still difficult. For example, according to the models, the Mediterranean region will grow drier all year round. At the moment, however, there is actually more rain there in the fall months than there used to be. We will need to observe further developments closely in the coming years. Temperature increases are also very much dependent on clouds, which can both amplify and mitigate the greenhouse effect. For as long as I've been working in this field, for over 30 years, there has unfortunately been very little progress made in the simulation of clouds.

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.

SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?

Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves.

SPIEGEL: In a SPIEGEL interview 10 years ago, you said, "We need to allay people's fear of climate change." You also said, "We'll manage this." At the time, you were harshly criticized for these comments. Do you still take such a laidback stance toward global warming?

Storch: Yes, I do. I was accused of believing it was unnecessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is not the case. I simply meant that it is no longer possible in any case to completely prevent further warming, and thus it would be wise of us to prepare for the inevitable, for example by building higher ocean dikes. And I have the impression that I'm no longer quite as alone in having this opinion as I was then. The climate debate is no longer an all-or-nothing debate -- except perhaps in the case of colleagues such as a certain employee of Schellnhuber's, whose verbal attacks against anyone who expresses doubt continue to breathe new life into the climate change denial camp.

 

[OldBlackDog]

William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, at least seven or eight out of ten would likely say yes. This is due to nearly 25 years of gross exaggeration of the human-induced global warming threat by scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and the media who wish to profit from the public’s lack of knowledge on this topic. Many have been lead to believe that Al Gore’s movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth, provides incontrovertible evidence that human-induced global warming is a real threat. Yet, contrary to what is heard from warming advocates, there is considerable evidence that the global warming we have experienced over the last 30 years and over the last 100 years is largely natural. It is impossible to objectively determine the very small amount of human-induced warming in comparison to the large natural changes which are occurring.
Many thousands of scientists from the US and around the globe do not accept the human-induced global warming hypothesis as it has been presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports over the last 15 years. The media has, in general, uncritically accepted the results of the IPCC and over-hyped the human aspects of the warming threat. This makes for better press than saying that the climate changes we have experienced are mostly natural. The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated. The alleged ‘scientific consensus’ on this topic is bogus. As more research on the human impact on global temperature change comes forth, more flaws are being found in the hypothesis.
It must be pointed out that most climate research is supported by the federal government. All federally sponsored researchers need positive peer-reviews on their published papers and grant proposals. This can be difficult for many of the ‘closet’ warming skeptics who receive federal grant support. Many are reluctant to give full expression of their views due to worries over continuing grant support. It is difficult to receive federal grant support if one’s views differ from the majority of their peers who receive support to find evidence of the warming threat. The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of a question has not yet occurred. Such open dialogue has been discouraged by warming advocates.
Implementation of the proposed international treaties restricting future greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 to 80 percent of current emissions would lead to a large slowdown in the world’s economic development and, at the same time, have no significant impact on the globe’s future temperature.
Many of the Global Climate Model (GCMs) simulations by large US and foreign government laboratories and universities on which so much of the warming science scenarios are based have basic flaws. These global models are not able to correctly model the globe’s small-scale precipitation processes. They have incorrectly parameterized the rain processes in their models to give an unrealistically enhanced warming influence to CO2. This is the so called positive water-vapor feedback. The observations I have been analyzing for many years show that the globe’s net upper-level water vapor does not increase but slightly decreases with warming. These GCMs also do not yet accurately model the globe’s deep ocean circulation which appears to be the primary driving mechanism for most of the global temperature increases that has occurred over the last 30 and last 100 years.
GCMs should not be relied upon to give global temperature information 50 to 100 years into the future. GCM modelers do not dare make public short-period global temperature forecasts for next season, next year, or a few years hence. This is because they know they do not have shorter range climate forecast skill. They would lose credibility if they issued shorter-range yearly forecasts that could be verified. Climate modelers live mostly in a ‘virtual world’ of their own making. This virtual world is isolated from the real world of weather and climate. Few of the GCM modelers have any substantial weather or short- range climate forecasting experience.
It is impossible to make skillful initial value numerical predictions beyond a few weeks. Although numerical weather prediction has shown steady and impressive improvements since its inception in 1955, these forecast improvements have been primarily made through advancements in the measurement (i.e. satellite) of the wind and pressure fields and the advection/extrapolation of these fields forward in time 10-15 days. For skillful numerical prediction beyond a few weeks, it is necessary to forecast changes in the globe’s complicated energy and moisture fields. This entails forecasting processes such as amounts of cloudiness, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, cloud-cloud-free radiation, air-sea moisture-temperature flux, etc. It is impossible to accurately code all these complicated energy-moisture processes, and integrate these processes forward for hundreds of thousands of time steps and expect to obtain anything close to meaningful results. Realistic climate forecasting by numerical processes is not possible now and, due to the complex nature of the earth’s climate system, may never be possible.
Global temperatures have always fluctuated and will continue to do so regardless of how much anthropogenic greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere. The globe has many serious environmental problems. Most of these problems are regional or local in nature, not global. Forced global reductions in human-produced greenhouse gases will not offer much benefit for the globe’s serious regional and local environmental problems. We should, of course, make all reasonable reductions in greenhouse gases to the extent that we do not pay too high an economic price. We need a prosperous economy to have sufficient resources to further adapt and expand energy production.
Even if CO2 is causing very small global temperature increases there is hardly anything we can do about it. China, India and third world countries will not limit their growing greenhouse gas emissions. Many experts believe that there may be net positive benefits to humankind through a small amount of global warming. It is known that vegetation and crops tend to benefit from higher amounts of atmospheric CO2, particularly vegetation which is under temperature or moisture stress.
I believe that in the next few years the globe is going to continue its modest cooling period of the last decade similar to what was experienced in the 30 years between the mid-1940s and the mid-1970s. This will be primarily a result of changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation. I am convinced that in 15-20 years we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on other popular and trendy scientific ideas that have not stood the test of time.
______________________________________________________________________
The author is a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where he has worked since 1961. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in Geophysical Science. He has issued Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.
- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=820#sthash.hYTS1Hd9.dpuf

 

[GLG]

OBD do you know what you just did?.....
[2DbP7wqCwq8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DbP7wqCwq8
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006
Hearing “Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies:
Implications for Climate Change Assessments”

Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate
change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I conclude that the claim of “detection of anthropogenic climate change” is valid
independently of which historical temperature reconstruction one chooses to believe in.

And from your above post...
SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?

Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop.

Perhaps 3 to 6 degrees Celsius with business as usual.

 

[OldBlackDog]

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.