TCS Daily


Global Warnings from the Ivory Tower

By Roy Spencer - September 22, 2006 12:00 AM

The Royal Society of London, England's premier scientific society, has sent a letter to Exxon-Mobil asking that the energy giant stop funding organizations which have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." This unusual step seems strangely out of place for a scientific organization, and it belies a dogmatic adherence to a prevailing scientific theory that will, in the end, only make the Royal Society look a little foolish.

It the letter, Bob Ward, the official spokesman of the Royal Society says,

"It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

So, while Mr. Ward states that it is "more crucial than ever that we have a debate," he apparently wants a certain group of scientists to decide which global warming information is misleading and which is not. I find that scientists on both sides of the issue have differing opinions on what kinds of evidence represent weak or strong support for their side.

The reason that a debate even exists is because it is so difficult to tie observed warming to human activities, versus other, natural causes of warming. Uniquely attributing some observed effect (e.g., warming) to a specific cause is the kind of conundrum that scientific research must continually struggle with. We might all agree on the observations, but what the observations mean is an entirely different matter.

This problem is particularly acute for global warming, where there is only one experiment, it is being conducted now, and it is not yet finished. We can't devise a laboratory experiment to see how the Earth will respond to slowly increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Certainly the current warming could be caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, but we know so little about natural climate variability that there is really no way to know whether a small part or a large part of our current warmth is manmade.

To confound scientists even further, a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters reveals that in only two years (2003-2005), over 20% of the globally averaged upper ocean warming that had occurred over the previous 48 years has now been cancelled out by a strong cooling trend. The reasons for this unexpected cooling are unknown. Computer models of the coupled ocean and atmosphere system do not produce such behavior. Are we to believe that warming is only caused by mankind, but that cooling is only caused by nature? Give me a break.

On the policy side, Mr. Ward's comments are even more surprising. Science has nothing to say about what policy actions should be taken on anything. The statement that "people...need to take action" and that "we can't have people trying to undermine it (action)" further suggests that he believes that the billions of dollars we are spending on new energy research is 'not taking action'.

The United Nations' orchestrated IPCC process that Mr. Ward refers to is, in my experience, led by some very opinionated scientists who are using the science to advance not only their own scientific views, but their political views as well. From what I have seen, these folks are misinformed on how economies work and the unintended negative consequences that their so-called 'solutions' to the global warming problem will cause.

How does the Royal Society explain scientists who do not buy into the global warming gloom-and-doom hype who have taken no money, directly or indirectly, from oil or coal companies? I wrote and spoke on my views as a so-called "skeptic" for over ten years for no fee. I have never been asked to write about something that I didn't believe in, and I know others who avoid any financial connection with non-governmental sources, if only to avoid any potential ad hominem accusations.

It should come as no surprise that there is no shortage of environmentalist exaggeration and half-truth that also "misleads people about climate change". After all, professional environmentalists and climate scientists might lose their jobs if the global warming problem was to ever go away.

As a result, everyone in the global warming debate is biased. People can expect that corporations will emphasize research that supports their opinions and goals, while environmental lobbying groups will do the same. Everyone has financial motives, and government-funded scientists and environmentalists acting as if they own the moral high ground is an increasingly tiresome pose.

Maybe the British dabbling in socialism has caused them to resort to this "government funded experts know best" mentality that has led to the Royal Society to resort to such a tactic. But here in the United States we still believe in a free flow of ideas, good and bad, all of which reflect biases. We let the people (and our elected representatives) decide what courses of action are best for the country. The Royal Society's letter is just one more example of why the public is so distrustful of scientists' pronouncements regarding environmental problems.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Categories:

498 Comments

Funding science and politics
The Royal Society did not ask Exxon to stop funding science, they asked Exxon to stop funding misrepresentations of science. Exxon and others seem to be most interested in that bit of misinformation that says there is serious scientific debate on the fact and causes of global warming (sorry, Dr. Spencer).

Just as there are physicists who do not believe in quantum mechanics and biologists who do not believe in evolution, there are environmental scientists who do not believe global warming largely comes from manmade CO2. Holding up these iconoclast holdouts as evidence of scientific controversy is wrong in each of these three cases. But that is exactly what Exxon is paying big bucks to do.

ps. How do I know there is a consensus? I work in a university & talk to atmospheric scientists.

There is no consensus because...
...I work with atmospheric scientists who do not believe in the AGW crisis. While your observation does not prove a consensus, my observation at least proves that there is still legitimate debate.

More importantly, what exactly is a misrepresentation of a science that is almost entirely speculative? Since when are scientific theories considered sacrosanct?

Your assumption that the RS is totally correct is an opinion, not a scientific fact. Your arguments are no different than those of all regimes that seek to control the free flow of information. The idea that elites have the right, even the responsibility to protect the 'ignorant' from 'inappropriate' thoughts has been the key to all human oppression.

How easy it is...
to dismiss serious scientific debate. All you need are these labels: "iconoclasts", "holdouts", "deniers", and "shills". One need only attach one of these labels to throw out any data that counters your consensus. This even works on all the scientists who receive no money from Exxon.

>"ps. How do I know there is a consensus? I work in a university & talk to atmospheric scientists."

And where does their money come from I wonder? One merely has to take a look at the backers of realclimate.org to see that your argument over funding goes both ways.

When next you talk to your bevy of atmospheric scientists please ask them the how consensus figures into the scientific method. If only one person believed in evolution evolution would still be a fact.

Excellent!
Very well said.

Come out of the ivory tower
Dear LiberalGoodman -- If you would be willing to look beyond the ivory tower you would see that not all organizations that don't agree with you are funded by oil companies. Many are truly independent.

Ask your atmospheric scientists the following question:

What has the greatest impact on the earth's temperature:
1. Carbon Dioxide
2. Water Vapor
3. Solar Energy Output

I think they will tell you that water vapor has the greatest greenhouse gas impact (35% - 70%) and solar energy output is, by far, the biggest single factor that impacts the temperature of the earth.

When you consider that (1) humans have no control over the sun's output and (2) none of the proposed greenhouse gas control programs address water vapor, it makes one wonder why there is such fuss about only carbon dioxide (10% - 25% impact) only from industrialized countries. Do you think there could be political motives involved?

Can you undestand why some people want to continue to investigate the problem before we begin shutting down power plants and killing what little industry exists in the USA?

what they did was
declare that only science that we agree with is science.

Which is what LG does on a regular basis, so I'm not surprised he approves of the tactic.

As to all the people LG knows agreeing with him. Why is anyone surprised.

is 1/4th now largely made up of
Because the newest IPCC says that only 1/4th of the warming is caused by something other than the sun.

Areopagetica
Jim is of course right, but it is unfortunate that the defense of scientific liberty in this case falls upon one who was so honestly, and disasterously ,wrong for so long in purveying what proved a biased satellite temperature data set that,indeed served to disinform the debate.

Yet such is the extent of our ignorance that that scarcely signifies- I hope this good cri de coeur becomes a better , and even more candid op-ed.

Did they really ?
On which of the (so far) 4000 pages in which of the (so far) seven sections of the IPCC 2007 draft report did The Great One read this astonishing fact ?

We all want to go to and see what we have somehow missed.

The power of one
"If only one person believed in evolution evolution would still be a fact."

If one person proved it wrong, it would not matter how many believed.

MSU Temperature Data Integrity
Let's compare and contrast: Michael Mann's hockey stick and Christie and Spencer's satellite temperature data. In one case, the original data and methods STILL aren't available and no significant correction of an obviously flawed statistical analysis has been admitted. In the other case, the data and methods were published and when errors were found, they were corrected. The current data are now probably the best estimate of global and regional lower troposhpere temperatures we have, especially in areas where other measurements are sparse (like most of the world).

Take a look at the data here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt_6.0p

Try plotting the North Pole data (NoPol) and the South Pole Data (SoPol). The Arctic has indeed been warming rapidly, starting in about 1994. The Antarctic, however, has barely changed for the entire nearly 30 years of data. We know that CO2 is a well mixed gas and that the concentrations at both poles are essentially the same. How come there's no apparent warming at the South Pole (or in most of the Southern Hemisphere for that matter)? Isn't the effect of CO2 supposed to be largest at the poles where water vapor is at a minimun? As far as I know, none of the computer climate models are in accord with these observations. Tell me again the science is settled.

2 points
At the time he was promoting the satellite data, there was no evidence that it was inaccurate.

The corrections that were done to the satellite data were quite minor.

A missing datum
I notice that in the referenced article this two year period of cooling (2003 to 2005) occurs within the context of a 13 year period of warming (1993 to 2005). How come Dr Spencer didn't see fit to mention that?

Recent Cooling of Upper Ocean

by JM Lyman, JK Willis and GC Johnson

Abstract

"We observe a net loss of 3.2 (±1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005. Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth's total surface area). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027033.shtml

Are you truly serious?
Liberal you said: "The Royal Society did not ask Exxon to stop funding science, they asked Exxon to stop funding misrepresentations of science. Exxon and others seem to be most interested in that bit of misinformation that says there is serious scientific debate on the fact and causes of global warming (sorry, Dr. Spencer)."

You must live in a world of nonreason. The RS wants ExxonMobil to stop studying global warming because ExxonMobils's scientific results do not agree with the IPCC's. I have worked with Exxon experts a number of years and know they are nobody's fool. And, they can see through nonsense when they run across it. They are not the largest and most financially sound company in the world by accident. ExxonMobil can just as easily state that the RS should stop funding mispresentations and quit playing games with truth.

The bottom line is this. ExxonMobil and others study the science of global warming and note this issue is not anywhere clear, especially human induced warming. They are calling the IPCC's bluff about this myth. If I had been ExxonMobil I would have simply laughed in their aristocratic face and told them to "get real". Until empirical data can be provided, this issue is nothing but a political issue, not a scientific one. The Brits are hoping to make dollars off the U.S. via emissions trading as well as simply making us noncompetitive economically worldwide. With their system of government and labor, they cannot compete with anyone unless the deck is stacked. They and others are simply jealous of the the most successful country formed since the world begin. And, that is not by accident either.

Let's assume Exxon is doing wrong and knows it.
OK, let's assume Exxon is doing wrong and knows it. Too bad. If the public is buying it more than the public is buying the scientists, then tough shitski y'all (as they say in South Russia). What is different about this than the immigration debate? North Americanists -- those who advocate open borders to the south and north -- are right, but we aren't making a good public case right now. So the public debates how high to build the fence, tattooing the Pledge on every immigrant's arse, and making it sedition to say the word "aboot".

If you're a global warming proponent involved in the science, you're in the debate. You have to play the game, present the facts, present your argument, and let people judge. They may not like your "facts", they may not like your "solutions". They may have reasons that dumbfound you. But that's tough beans, because the world isn't a scientocracy. And when you assert that it should be, as the Royal Society has done vis a vis Exxon, you show profound arrogance and weakness. In my mind, that makes you and your "facts" suspect, and makes your "solutions" dangerous. Just remember, the Montreal Protocol cost us the Space Shuttle Columbia. CFC-based foam was never a problem on the fuel tanks.

I am all for science, the search for truth, etc. But science is just part of the debate on most things, not the final say. Science that is too weak to accept that is most definitely too weak to offer workable solutions.

ID Roy is at it again.
The truth is there is no real debate anymore. Only made up ones, sure you can find some who will argue that it's not happening. Just like you can find IDer's, flat earther's anti-relativity and so forth, some do it cause their crazy, some cause they can't move on and some just do it for the money. I'm guessing I know which one Roy is. You can get anything if your willing to pay, Hell even mass murders can find a lawyer who'll defend them. Companies told us that their products were fine even when they weren’t and that’s the point of the letter. Roy has demonstrated his faith based approach to biology by embracing creationism(ID), and he demonstrates his wallet based approach to climate science with his continued attack on his intellectual betters. If there was debate why do we never see the other side on TCS maybe it's because...

Gobal warming is real without it we would all die.
Without greenhouse gasses the world would be much colder. The issues is are we tipping the scales, and if so what can we do? Even if the wrming is natural should we try to stop it. As for kill industry your gov's doing a much better job at that then any changes that may need to be made to reduce your CO2. Hell you guys should be making a killing selling nuke power stations in stead you subs coal and oil to make it cheap.

Is calling someone names your idea of an argument? You need to leave the grade school playground.
Saying the debate is over is the best reasoning you can come up with? Comparing Roy to flat earthers and mass murderers is an argument?

Dear Geek...
I'm finding it hard to relate your comment to mine ("A missing datum"). I did not make any statement of opinion, but only commented that it was curious that Dr Spencer made such a point of saying that worldwide ocean temps had declined during the period 2003-2005-- while failing to disclose that this was a blip within an overall gain in ocean heat during the period 1993-2005.

I will, however, add the opinion that it would have been more honest of Dr Spencer, in making his point, to disclose that the authors of the paper he cites have found that overall, temps appear to be increasing.

You refer to me as "ID Roy"... intimating perhaps that I'm one of those people who promotes the cause of Intelligent Design? In the past six months I've only written about fifty comments here to the effect that I find this to be a shoddy and superficial exercise in attempting to prove a negative, and that the edifice of genetic radiation from LUCA-- our Last Universal Common Ancestor-- is overwhelming and compelling.

So I would ask that you spell out your criticisms of my comments (either about anti-AGW theories or about ID creationism) with more clarity than can be found in your post. You could start by clarifying your comment that "The truth is there is no real debate anymore". Debate about what, I'm wondering? And who is winning?

I would also request that for my convenience you address your comments directly to me.

Thanks in advance. Roy

References?
If Exxon funded studies reliably rebut the main stream global warming ideas, surely they would be published in refereed scientific journals. Do you have references?

I agree that Exxon did not get where it is today be being stupid. That's not the same as saying they are honest. Do you think Exxon has stood on principle and never bribed a foreign official or offered a US politician a "campaign contribution" in exchange for a favor. Do you think they would fund research on global warming if they had the slightest doubt that it would help their business? The only way GW research could help Exxon is by showing that it doesn't exist.

Why the trend is irrelevant...
The problem is our ability to predict the next-year's temperature, or the temperature ten years down the road, based on a model. We cannot predict significant events like El Nino and La Nina without including them in the model from the start (at least, I have never once seen a GCM naturally result in El Nino type weather phenomena.) We did not predict these two significant cooling events discussed in the Lyman article. The problem of the effects of clouds is still not resolved. The question of urban heat islands and their effects is still not resolved. And on, and on, and on....

The fact that these two significant cooling events came in the middle of a warm period is irrelevant, the critical point is that we did not predict it, and if we cannot predict major weather phenomena with at least a reasonable degree of accuracy, then the models we are using are inadequate.

ID Roy is Spencer not you
At least I'm pretty sure that's the case.

BTW if you would like to see a more informed discussion of both Lyman's paper and the RS letter, try the Pielke's blogs (Jr. and Sr.) here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

Pielke Jr., for example, thinks the RS is risking it's reputation by taking such a strongly political stand.

Pielke Sr. thinks that climate models can be useful, but they aren't ready to be used to predict the future. The main problem being that they don't get the regional parameters correctly and that global temperature (to which most if not all models are tuned) is a poor metric for climate. Ocean heat content would be much better, but we don't have any good long term data yet.

Where are your referenced studies and are you honest?
Liberal: those questions can be reversed. However, your accusation of dishonesty is simply slanderous and insulting. I worked with Exxon through the American Petrolem Institute for about 12 years and know the studies published by API were honest. I wonder about people who accuse others of dishonesty without references. Why do you not furnish information about ExxonMobil being dishonest? Can you prove the studies you know among academia are honest? How about you Liberal, are you honest? Why should I believe your answers? You need not answer because I would not believe you anyway. Your response is without merit and slanderous.

If it's not doing any harm, why must we stop it?
Especially given the harm that trying to stop it will do to us humans.

The point is
that the models do not support the existence of sudden cooling of the oceans.

This is just another example that shows how incredibly incomplete the models are.

Blip?
Funny blip that was as big as the trend that you want to believe means something.

Feigning blindness
Your argument rests on the supposition that if we cannot accurately predict the short-term future we should just take no action, and blunder along into whatever it ends up being.

I would like to transport that argument to a discussion of planning the economic future, and ask whether you would support our never taking any planned action to guide that, as the economic future can never be accurately predicted in great detail either. Would you then advise that the Fed never intervene in the service of some design to alter future behavior?

Note that we can never know whether we can predict the long-term future-- for the reason that we will never get there. It recedes like witches' water. So such an argument would not be applicable.

Your bringing in every little thing like urban heat islands, etc just obfuscates the facts now piling up. In Siberia, wholesale sections of the permafrost have begun melting this summer-- releasing immense quantities of GHG's in a classic feedback event. This can only increase-- it is not a reversible trend. THAT is a salient event. The fact that urban areas are increasing in extent, and in their energy usage, and that they only have a warming effect, never a cooling effect, is another salient event.

The fact that emerges is that you have begun with your conclusion. And no matter what the evidence, you must ignore it and return to your conclusion. I don't see that as being a valid approach, in climate study or in anything else. First, you have to look at the actual events unfolding around us.

So forget your models, or problems with the models, or whatever blind alleys you are running down. It's getting hotter and we know it. Concomitantly, the majority of human interventions contribute on the side of more warming, not cooling. There is something very obvious connecting these two facts. The only people who can't see it are those trying hard not to see it.

There's another Roy?
I'll retract my comment. I didn't even consider he might be talking about Roy Spencer. Geek, I apologize.

Long term data for ocean temps can certainly be found by proxy measurements, such as phytoplankton counts. They have long been used to define glacial and interglacial periods. It should be easy to chart the advance or decline of tropical species that shed their skeletons, and thus can be measured in historic deposits, against their present distribution.

Plus, we have the current phenomenon of acidification, caused by excessive levels of atmospheric CO2. If you haven't been following this, google "ocean acidification" to learn more about the theoretical danger of dissolving the shells of the world's mollusks and corals-- not to mention the phytoplankton at the base of the food web. This phenomenon is a function of warmer ocean waters as well as of greater CO2 concentrations.

Thanks for catching my blunder.

The limitations of any model
Every model carries within it the tacit assumption that unexpected phenomena may arise, and send the data off in a new direction. That does not negate the idea that we are capable of modelling reality. It just says that none of our models can be set in stone. They are all tentative, pending further data being received.

However if you look at the timeline from the past to the present, the oceans are gaining, not losing, heat.

wwgeek just failed the IQ >= 105 test
The article of which you speak by Prof. Spencer can be found here:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080805I.html

If you read that article as an outright endorsement of Intelligent Design, you've demonstrated an ability to read and an inability to analyze deeper than your thumb can fit up your nose. The last two sentences are pretty important to that debate and to this one: "Whether intelligent design is ever taught in school is probably not as important as the freedom that we have in a free society to discuss, and study, such issues. And for that, I am thankful."

Lockstep political correctness in science, where detractors are mocked to try to bring them into line or discredit them, is a sure-fire indicator that there is tremendous disagreement rather than consensus. And if there is real disagreement, then maybe the science doesn't justify the Governator getting rid of his Hummers or the rest of us living like its 1969.

Prove yourself worthy
All this huffing and puffing, but no references in the refereed scientific literature. Is there a real scientific study on GW funded by Exxon in the scientific literature? Yes or no? I'm asserting the answer is no because I don't know of any. I'm assuming you really know because you're so sure you do. If you want to prove the answer is yes, now's the time. Otherwise you're just another stupid conservative blowhard.

(ps. others, these insults are for Danielf alone. They're no worse than he did to me. Moreover, they serve a purpose -- beyond making me feel better. They might get him to produce.)

Prove yourself honest
How about you providing the information that ExxonMobil is dishonest? And because you do not know of ExxonMobil's scientific works, that means nothing to me since you would not acknowledge them anyway, maybe because you are dishonest like you accuse everyone else of being. So why should I believe you.

(ps. others, these insults are for Liberal alone. They're no worse than he did to me. Moreover, they serve a purpose -- beyond making me feel better. They might get him to produce, although I know he cannot).

Sixty-Six Papers on Climate Science by ExxonMobil Scientists
Liberal likes to slander, insult and call names. This is immature. Still, he owes me references on the dishonesty of ExxonMobil as mentioned in his previous message. Either put up or shut up. Papers can be found on ExxonMobil's site, although this is little of what they have done in this area.

http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_enviro_publications.asp

Trends
MTA,

Oh, for heaven's sake, how often do I have to say this. Any damn fool with a computer and Excel software can take a data set and do a linear fit to it and claim a trend. Take another look at the satellite and ground anomaly records and you'll see they look nothing alike. While the ground data shows a clearly visible secular trend the satelllite data is strongly bias by the large 1998 El Nino anomaly near the end of the data set and there is not clear secular trend. And remember, the ground data sets have not been subjected, in toto, to the same level of scrutiny that the satellite record (it's shorter and therefore much easier). For example, see Christy's study showing a gross mismatch of trends in valley and sierra data set in California. The conclusion that the satellite record does not recapitulate the surface record remains to any who care to see.

Now we're talking!
See, that wasn't so hard. Maybe next time we can get to this stage without the insults.

The papers you mentioned do indeed seem to include Exxon supported publications in refereed scientific journals. I was not able to get all of them, but I sampled a few. The first interesting thing about them is that (at least the ones I looked at) support the basic conclusions of catastrophic climate change caused by human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere. For example reference (34) on your list (Figure 1) has a very clear "hockey stick". Reference (32) clearly states that without serious corrective measures, human caused global warming will quickly cause climate change on the scale of the ice age cooling (but in the other direction).

Now, I don't know exactly what publications from Exxon the Royal Society of London was upset about, but it probably was not these.

As for the pristine ethics of corporate Exxon, I refer you to

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/launder/regions/2003/0405mobil.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/swiss.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-cray/exxon-exxposed_b_17663.html

Item 1
Bribery issue.

Howard Hughes was asked before a Congressional comittee if he provided women and liquor to military officers involved with procurment.

His reply was yes.

When asked why he said because everone else was doing it.

None of your information proves ExxonMobil did anything
Liberal:

Here is the bottom line. You accused me of insults when you were the one who began them in your reply to my first note challenging your opinion on the RC's scolding of ExxonMobil. In your first note, you accused ExxonMobil of being dishonest. The information you provided in your last message on ExxonMobil not being honest was nothing by hearsay. There was no proof. You also told me ExxonMobil did not have any papers published and peer reviewed on climate science. You said you had never seen any papers which of course validated in your mind you could not be wrong. But, they did publish papers so you were wrong again. You then called me a blowhard. I called you nothing. Look back through the messages.

You are simply a non-professional looking for attention.

where is common sense or when theories are nonsense
Quote:
Plus, we have the current phenomenon of acidification, caused by excessive levels of atmospheric CO2. If you haven't been following this, google "ocean acidification" to learn more about the theoretical danger of dissolving the shells of the world's mollusks and corals-- not to mention the phytoplankton at the base of the food web.


This sounds really bad, but past CO2 levels and temperatures have greatly exceeded anything that we are seeing today and and somehow the corals and phytoplankton not only survived but flourished.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

LG admits that he lied
He stated that he knew Exxon didn't do peer reviewed work, and that there work was dishonest.

Now he admits that he has never before read any of the work sponsored by Exxon.

You are citing Huffingtonpost as a reference????
That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read.

modeling reality
While it's possible that any model may be wrong. Those models used by the AGW crowd have been proven wrong more frequently and much more severly than average.

Regarding the oceans warming up. COnsidering the fact that the sun is warmer than it has been at any time in the last 1600 years, I'm not surprised that the oceans have warmed up a little.

modeling and planning
Considering the utter disaster that has been made of economics by those who have sought to plan the future, I'm surprised that you use economics as your example.

Everyone who has tried to "fix" the future in economics, has wound up making things much worse.

No doubt those who try to "fix" our climatic future will have the same result.

It's getting hotter. True, the earth has warmed up from 287K to 287.6K, an amount that is less than our ability to measure accurately. At least 3/4ths of the warming that has occurred is due to the sun getting warmer.

2 points
1)The CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere has been much much higher in the past. Funny thing, at those times, sea life, including shelled sea life, has flourished.

2) As the oceans warm, they can hold less CO2 in solution, so acidification won't be going up that much.

I suspect wwgeek is pulling a stephen here.
IE, anyone who is not willing to declare that there is not an iota of a chance that God had some part in evolution, is nothing but a creationist.

basic misunderstanding of models
Quote:
Every model carries within it the tacit assumption that unexpected phenomena may arise, and send the data off in a new direction.

This is utter nonsense.
Models take data in, apply exact formula's to the data, and form a result.
The result can only change with changed data or changed formula's.
If we don't know what data is relevant or what formula's to apply to the data, the model is useless.
The model itself doesn't carry any tacit assumptions unexpected phenomena of any kind.
Models are not magic and people who make the models are not Gods.

Common man`s comment on gobal warming
Iam most ordinary common man living in Mumbai, this one most crowdest city of India.Iam suffering from pollution, bad weather product by cars and other vihicles. globle warming increasing is real fact and suffering from this warmimg which show on my health, early old age, and lots of sickness in my family.

Royal Society of London vs Exxon
Let's return to the original subject: did the Royal Society of London criticise Exxon for supporting scientific research that turned out not to support GW?

As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Exxon has not supported scientific research that rebuts GW. On the contrary, the scientific research listed on your web site seems to support GW as a looming man made threat.

Let me repeat the challenge: suggest peer reviewed Exxon funded scientific research that suggests GW is not mostly manmade or is not a significant problem.

As to insults, from your first post: "You must live in a world of nonreason." From your second post: "How about you Liberal, are you honest? Why should I believe your answers? You need not answer because I would not believe you anyway".

As for my insult, you have to admit it did the trick. You did supply references. Too bad they didn't support your case.

Liberal, you are not worth the time
My last message to an untruth person. If the future I will know when I see your name on a message that it will not be worth reading. You are a nonprofessional.

Hmmm! Models, Money, Data and Scientific Method
During the Cold War the DOD, DOD through NOAA, NSI, etc all paid substantial money,100s of billions, to fund climate, weather and oceanographic research. Most of that money went to universities and most of the professors had herds of graduate students. No one imagined that either the Cold War or such government funding would end. Besides the Weather Channel where do all those graduate students now with their PhDs and their own graduate students work? Who and what funds their research?

Government funded research is just as subject to political and economic bias as any other human activity. Government funded research is then put through the bureaucratic filter, which is confused at best and certainly not unbias.

Data collection, especially of surface temperatures, is just as suspect as satellite temperatures. But first understand we are comparing a relative tiny timeline for hard temperature data and trying to assume past conditions and to predict future climate on a planet that has been evolving climatically for 5 billion years. Second NOAA, NWS, was asked during the 1980s to submitted budget reductions. It is my understanding to save their satellites they had to give up something. They gave up or consolidated many ground based data collection sites. Testimony was that satellites could just as accurately collect surface temperatures. The ground sites that remained were in and around urban areas. I can think of two sites that were moved by less than five miles and while you can clearly pick out the geographical move in the data, correlating the two to make predictions is difficult.

"Models, all models, are a small imitation of the real thing." When I was still in and around the climate and oceanography folks 20 years ago their models had significant problems. All the so called global warming consensus is based on those models. Some models had no way of adequately modeling clouds and there was little data to determine what affect clouds, depending on particle size and altitude, had on weather much less climate. Remember in all things climate there are feedback loops. From the end of WWII Western Europe and North America spent trillions cleaning up and removing large particulates from the atmosphere. Hmmm! Wonder what affect that had? We cleaned up 95% of such material.

Why was China and India left out of the provisions for Kyoto Treaty? It was well known how fast both economies were growing and that China in particular was more interested in economic growth than pollution.

Remember that all coring data, ice or sediment used to estimate the past climate is based on a lot of assumptions. There is no way to determine exactly the environmental conditions in the past that caused specific isotope ratios, gas levels, or even changes in the fossil records. Models are based on assumptions. If inputs into the model for verification are also based on unprovable assumptions and if one or more of the assumptions are wrong, more often a problem than not, then the advice from the model can be dramatically wrong.

What is the single largest component of the Earth's "atmosphere"? The world oceans! All those that believe we really have any understand of the oceans and their influence on weather but especially climate please raise your hand. Hmmm! Hands Please!

Finally, has each person considered how much their lives would change if each of us reduced our carbon foot print to what has been suggested by the political enviromental community? Having been heavily involved with the environmental community in the past, I can tell you that some in that community see global warming as the only way to "bring the USA and its terrible habits to its knees" and to "allow the rest of the world to have equal footing."

Understanding climate is important but science is done by human beings with all the prejudice and failures that go with the species.

We are still waiting for your supposed IPCC reference

"Because the newest IPCC says that only 1/4th of the warming is caused by something other than the sun."

In which section ( of 7 to date ) and on what page ( of ~4,000 , so far) ?

TCS Daily Archives