http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world.../18244249/

 

FTA: "In its report, the IPCC states the goal would be achievable only if the world cuts greenhouse emissions to near or below zero by 2100, which could be unrealistic given the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere."

 

I asked before but none of you guys answered: "Is Co2 considered a "greenhouse gas" for this zero emission reduction, yes or no? 


 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Feds say "No repeat of polar vortex"

 

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/.../17630033/

 

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-ne...u/36890008

 

Ummmmm, we should change our entire style of life for a prediction of a 2 degree temperature change 85 years from now, but those same morons confidently predict the weather in three weeks and are [BAD WORD REMOVED] wrong. Enough with the [BAD WORD REMOVED], these [BAD WORD REMOVED] don't know a damn thing but what they guess will happen based on the faulty and ever changing data they have at the moment. No, we won't believe them because they are constantly WRONG, even when 95% of them agree. "Oh but weather isn't climate" they say. Then the feds need to change their name from "NOAA's Climate Prediction Center " to "NOAA's Your Guess Is As Good As Ours Center."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject.   May I ask a few questions? 

 

If we could split the world's climate scientists into two camps: believers and skeptics, what percentage would be believers and what percentage would be skeptics?  

 

Do you think the scientists who are "believers" are biased in some way?   If so, is the bias intentional?  

 

You say, "If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any).
"

Can you explain that a little more?   What sort of adjustments are being made, and, according to the people making the adjustments, why are these adjustments being made? 

 

What is your background?  (Of course, you don't have to answer if you don't feel like it.  A lot of people don't like to give out information about themselves on the internet.  So I will understand if you don't want to answer.) 

 

1. It depends on what you consider a believer vs. a skeptic. All of the scientists accept the greenhouse effect
 (misnamed, but that doesn't really matter, the effect is still real). All accept the fact that it has warmed since 1979. There is a huge spread in opinion in the amount of warming expected for a doubling of CO2, 1-2K per doubling vs. 4-5K at the upper end. IIRC, the most recent IPCC report has published a range of 1.5 to 4.5. Using temperature and CO2 measurements gives a value in the 1.5 to 2.5 range, depending on which temperature measurements are used. If you divvy the climate scientists up by "big problem" vs. "small or no problem" then as a WAG, I'd guess the percentages are about 70-30.

 

2. Yes, but mostly unintentional. There is a selection effect in play; if someone isn't a believer that person is much less likely to go into the field. How many athiests apply for the priesthood? Also, non-believers have a much harder road to a PhD since most of their advisors and committee members are invested in global warming being a problem.

 

If you are asking about the research, there is also an unintentional effect in play here. If a scientist gets a result that doesn't agree with his pre-conceived opinion, he'll double and triple check the results. If the results agree he won't bother to re-check. A lot of the adjustments to the raw data are also affected by this. If the adjustment trends to cooling it is questioned, if it trends to warming it is accepted immediately.

 

3. The raw temperatures are adjusted in several ways. One method (called homogenization) is to compare results to nearby stations and filter out any abrupt changes that only appear in one station. This is reasonable, but will filter out necessary corrections of drift. For example, in the case of temperature stations, they are painted bright white to prevent sunlight heating of the box containing the thermometer. As they age, paint will weather away and/or they will get dirty. When one is repainted, it will appear as an abrupt change. If that change is filtered out, then the intermediate small warmings from aging will add together to create a continual warming.

 

NOAA adjust their temperatures by adding theoretical adjustments to the raw data.

Individual:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...ffs_pg.gif

Total:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...raw_pg.gif

 

The biggest adjustment is for time of observation differences. This is not done on a site by site basis (which IMO, is the scientifically-correct way), but is just a theoretical value added to the final result. The one adjustment which cools the trend, the urban heating effect, is a suprisingly small adjustment. Note that the total sum of the corrections adds 0.4F to the warming. About half of the reported warming is due to corrections.


There are also annual adjustments to the temperature vs. time series. These always increase warming compared to the previous year's published series, usually by cooling the past. These are defended as being correct, but when every adjustment is in the same direction year after year it's certainly suspicious. Here is an example of adjustments from a previously published result by the same group.



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...tments.jpg

 

Satellite measurements of sea level are also adjusted. If you're a glutton for punishment, here's a link:


http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_ha...no_rev.pdf

 

One quote:


 

The range reported on the OSTM/Jason-2 (O)(I)GDR has already been corrected for a variety of 

calibration and instrument effects, including calibration errors, pointing angle errors, center of 

gravity motion, and terms related to the altimeter acceleration such as Doppler shift and oscillator 

drift. The sum total of these corrections also appears on the (O)(I)GDR for each of the Ku and C 

 

band ranges (see net_instr_corr_ku and net_instr_corr_c). 

 

How much these adjustments change the sea level rise is beyond my desire to dig that deeply. One of the world experts on sea level, Dr. Nils Morner, claims that the satellite measurements are adjusted so that the rise agrees with the pre-satellite value (specifically Hong Kong tidal measurements). Take all such claims skeptically, but he was an expert. You'll find that almost all of the publically expressed skepticism is from older scientists. They can afford to express skepticism because they have nothing to lose. For a young scientist to express skepticism risks being ostracized. Of course, that don't mean that the skeptics are right, but it's another factor to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...-told.html

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Here's how I see it: (Pascal's Wager)


____________________________________________________________

|Changes Made|          Deniers are Right        |      Deniers are Wrong         |

____________________________________________________________

| No Changes   |      Low. Benefit, Low Cost    |      High Cost, Low Benefit    |

____________________________________________________________

| Changes        |       Low Benefit, Low Cost    |     Low Cost, High Benefit     |

____________________________________________________________

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Here's how I see it: (Pascal's Wager)


____________________________________________________________

|Changes Made|          Deniers are Right        |      Deniers are Wrong         |

____________________________________________________________

| No Changes   |      Low. Benefit, Low Cost    |      High Cost, Low Benefit    |

____________________________________________________________

| Changes        |       Low Benefit, Low Cost    |     Low Cost, High Benefit     |

____________________________________________________________

 

The question I asked above is pertinent to the cost of changes column. Is Co2 the greenhouse gas that those people are calling to reduce to near zero by 2100? Because the cost of that is beyond the human race's ability to pay.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The question I asked above is pertinent to the cost of changes column. Is Co2 the greenhouse gas that those people are calling to reduce to near zero by 2100? Because the cost of that is beyond the human race's ability to pay.

 

But the question of whether we can afford to do anything about it is not relevant to the question of whether it is happening.   In other words, you can't say it's not happening just because you don't want to do anything about it.  

 

Personally, I am deeply skeptical as to whether we can do anything about it.   I am not so skeptical about whether it is happening.  

---

But the question of whether we can afford to do anything about it is not relevant to the question of whether it is happening.   In other words, you can't say it's not happening just because you don't want to do anything about it.  

 

Personally, I am deeply skeptical as to whether we can do anything about it.   I am not so skeptical about whether it is happening.  

 

I'm skeptical that mankind is the source of any climate change that may be occurring other than the buzzing of large swaths of foliage in other countries that would otherwise be absorbing additional Co2. We could probably do something about that if we (the USA) wanted to.

 

But for these people to say "zero Co2 emissions by 2100" means that all you mouth breathers have to stop exhaling. Which is why population reduction is at the heart of the climate change movement, GCM is just another means for them to insist that we stop breeding and start euthanising.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The question I asked above is pertinent to the cost of changes column. Is Co2 the greenhouse gas that those people are calling to reduce to near zero by 2100? Because the cost of that is beyond the human race's ability to pay.

They're not talking about CO2 when they're talking about Zero Emissions.  They're talking about cutting fossil fuel usage to near zero.  Meaning clean energy.  I'm actually surprised conservatives don't believe in taking care of the environment.  Especially considering most of them are religious.  I'm surprised that the two don't go hand in hand. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

They're not talking about CO2 when they're talking about Zero Emissions.  They're talking about cutting fossil fuel usage to near zero.  Meaning clean energy.  I'm actually surprised conservatives don't believe in taking care of the environment.  Especially considering most of them are religious.  I'm surprised that the two don't go hand in hand. 

 

I fully the support the immediate construction of 200 nuclear power plants across the country. Who is with me?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

They're not talking about CO2 when they're talking about Zero Emissions.  They're talking about cutting fossil fuel usage to near zero.  Meaning clean energy.  I'm actually surprised conservatives don't believe in taking care of the environment.  Especially considering most of them are religious.  I'm surprised that the two don't go hand in hand. 

 

I've not seen anything that supports excluding Co2 from their Christmas list.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Here's how I see it: (Pascal's Wager)


____________________________________________________________

|Changes Made|          Deniers are Right        |      Deniers are Wrong         |

____________________________________________________________

| No Changes   |      Low. Benefit, Low Cost    |      High Cost, Low Benefit    |

____________________________________________________________

| Changes        |       Low Benefit, Low Cost    |     Low Cost, High Benefit     |

____________________________________________________________

 

Both 'changes' columns are High Cost.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

They're not talking about CO2 when they're talking about Zero Emissions.  They're talking about cutting fossil fuel usage to near zero.  Meaning clean energy.  I'm actually surprised conservatives don't believe in taking care of the environment.  Especially considering most of them are religious.  I'm surprised that the two don't go hand in hand. 

 

What's clean?


 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...-pollution

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Both 'changes' columns are High Cost.

What's the high cost?  I'll be waiting, but I won't expect an answer.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

What's the high cost?  I'll be waiting, but I won't expect an answer.

 

So-called 'clean' energy is twice the cost or more vs. fossil fuels. Besides the direct cost, there will be a hit on the economy in general if electricity gets more expensive, as that takes money out of circulation. Did you really think that replacing the current power plants with (say) windmills was going to be cheap?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So-called 'clean' energy is twice the cost or more vs. fossil fuels. Besides the direct cost, there will be a hit on the economy in general if electricity gets more expensive, as that takes money out of circulation. Did you really think that replacing the current power plants with (say) windmills was going to be cheap?

You're talking about PRICE not COST.  There's a difference between COST and PRICE.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

You're talking about PRICE not COST.  There's a difference between COST and PRICE.  

 

Crippling the economy because of price is surely a cost.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

1. It depends on what you consider a believer vs. a skeptic. All of the scientists accept the greenhouse effect
 (misnamed, but that doesn't really matter, the effect is still real). All accept the fact that it has warmed since 1979. There is a huge spread in opinion in the amount of warming expected for a doubling of CO2, 1-2K per doubling vs. 4-5K at the upper end. IIRC, the most recent IPCC report has published a range of 1.5 to 4.5. Using temperature and CO2 measurements gives a value in the 1.5 to 2.5 range, depending on which temperature measurements are used. If you divvy the climate scientists up by "big problem" vs. "small or no problem" then as a WAG, I'd guess the percentages are about 70-30.

 

2. Yes, but mostly unintentional. There is a selection effect in play; if someone isn't a believer that person is much less likely to go into the field. How many athiests apply for the priesthood? Also, non-believers have a much harder road to a PhD since most of their advisors and committee members are invested in global warming being a problem.

 

If you are asking about the research, there is also an unintentional effect in play here. If a scientist gets a result that doesn't agree with his pre-conceived opinion, he'll double and triple check the results. If the results agree he won't bother to re-check. A lot of the adjustments to the raw data are also affected by this. If the adjustment trends to cooling it is questioned, if it trends to warming it is accepted immediately.

 

3. The raw temperatures are adjusted in several ways. One method (called homogenization) is to compare results to nearby stations and filter out any abrupt changes that only appear in one station. This is reasonable, but will filter out necessary corrections of drift. For example, in the case of temperature stations, they are painted bright white to prevent sunlight heating of the box containing the thermometer. As they age, paint will weather away and/or they will get dirty. When one is repainted, it will appear as an abrupt change. If that change is filtered out, then the intermediate small warmings from aging will add together to create a continual warming.

 

NOAA adjust their temperatures by adding theoretical adjustments to the raw data.

Individual:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...ffs_pg.gif

Total:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...raw_pg.gif

 

The biggest adjustment is for time of observation differences. This is not done on a site by site basis (which IMO, is the scientifically-correct way), but is just a theoretical value added to the final result. The one adjustment which cools the trend, the urban heating effect, is a suprisingly small adjustment. Note that the total sum of the corrections adds 0.4F to the warming. About half of the reported warming is due to corrections.


There are also annual adjustments to the temperature vs. time series. These always increase warming compared to the previous year's published series, usually by cooling the past. These are defended as being correct, but when every adjustment is in the same direction year after year it's certainly suspicious. Here is an example of adjustments from a previously published result by the same group.


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...tments.jpg

 

Satellite measurements of sea level are also adjusted. If you're a glutton for punishment, here's a link:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_ha...no_rev.pdf

 

One quote:


 

<div>The range reported on the OSTM/Jason-2 (O)(I)GDR has already been corrected for a variety of 

calibration and instrument effects, including calibration errors, pointing angle errors, center of 

gravity motion, and terms related to the altimeter acceleration such as Doppler shift and oscillator 

drift. The sum total of these corrections also appears on the (O)(I)GDR for each of the Ku and C 

 

band ranges (see net_instr_corr_ku and net_instr_corr_c). 

 

How much these adjustments change the sea level rise is beyond my desire to dig that deeply. One of the world experts on sea level, Dr. Nils Morner, claims that the satellite measurements are adjusted so that the rise agrees with the pre-satellite value (specifically Hong Kong tidal measurements). Take all such claims skeptically, but he was an expert. You'll find that almost all of the publically expressed skepticism is from older scientists. They can afford to express skepticism because they have nothing to lose. For a young scientist to express skepticism risks being ostracized. Of course, that don't mean that the skeptics are right, but it's another factor to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...-told.html

</div>

 

The trouble is, if as you say, 70% of climate scientists say this is a big problem, vs the 30% who say this is a small or no problem, then whom am I to believe?   A lot of people say the ratio of believers to skeptics is even higher than you say.   And if I google, "Are sea levels rising," I get all sorts of hits on what seems like very credible sources, well-known and respected scientific organizations, who universally say yes, sea levels are rising.  In the face of conflicting opinions like this, I tend to go with the majority, who seem very credible to me.  

 

Add to that the fact that global warming skepticism is concentrated among people with a political reason to deny it: people who are afraid that the solution might be something they don't want.  Studies show that when people are confronted by unpleasant solutions, they tend to deny that a problem exists at all.  

 

You also lay out the idea that some scientists are saying they are believers out of fear of ostracism or losing their job.  I don't find that very persuasive.  I have known some scientists in my lifetime, and they are just not that way.  They put on blinkers and pursue the truth.  Maybe I just have more faith in scientists than you do.  

 

Like I have said before, I don't think there's anything we can do about it.   The solutions are so unpleasant and expensive in the short term, we won't ever have the political will to undertake any solution.   So I hope you are right that this is not a big problem.   Fortunately for me, the predictions are for the worst effects to happen far enough in the future that it won't affect me.   I'll be dead.   My generation will not only have bankrupted the country, we will have destroyed the environment.   From the greatest generation to the worst generation in one single generation. 

---

How much these adjustments change the sea level rise is beyond my desire to dig that deeply. One of the world experts on sea level, Dr. Nils Morner, claims that the satellite measurements are adjusted so that the rise agrees with the pre-satellite value (specifically Hong Kong tidal measurements). Take all such claims skeptically, but he was an expert. You'll find that almost all of the publically expressed skepticism is from older scientists. They can afford to express skepticism because they have nothing to lose. For a young scientist to express skepticism risks being ostracized. Of course, that don't mean that the skeptics are right, but it's another factor to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...-told.html

 

Here is a response to Dr. Morner's allegations: 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axe...-rise.html

 

"Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification wich are easily proven untrue.  The mainstream media needs to realize that <span>Mörner is simply not a credible <span>source of information about sea level rise or <span>climate science in general.  One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data.</span></span></span>"

 

So whom should I believe?   The great majority of experts, or this one guy who tells me what I want to hear, that there is no problem and there's nothing to worry about?

 

More about Dr. Morner:

 

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/...About_Lies

 

"So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?

Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching.

And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See here, here, here, and here.

And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an interview (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.

And he is an “allied expert” with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook."

 

Here is even more about Dr. Morner: 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/g...vel-claims

 

This guy is a real wacko.    I would suggest you stop citing him as a credible source.  

---

Here is a response to Dr. Morner's allegations: 

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html'>http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html</a>

 

"Nils-Axel Mörner's claims regarding sea level rise are the very definition of denial, involving nothing more than conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated accusations of data falsification wich are easily proven untrue.  The mainstream media needs to realize that Mörner is simply not a credible source of information about sea level rise or climate science in general.  One individual's unsupported conspiracy theories do not trump empirical observational data."

 

So whom should I believe?   The great majority of experts, or this one guy who tells me what I want to hear, that there is no problem and there's nothing to worry about?

 

More about Dr. Morner:

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33225_Kook_Lies_About_Lies'>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33225_Kook_Lies_About_Lies</a>

 

"So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?

Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html'>dowsing and water witching</a>.

And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See <a class="bbc_url" href='http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/12/bob_lind_finds_magnificent_pha.php'>here</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href='http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/12/more_mindbending_ideas_from_bo.php'>here</a>, <a class="bbc_url" href='http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/12/damage_assessed_at_ravlunda_ir.php'>here</a>, and <a class="bbc_url" href='http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/03/lind_morner_still_mucking_arou.php'>here</a>.

And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf'>interview</a> (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.

And he is an “allied expert” with the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nrsp.com/scientists.html#13'>Natural Resources Stewardship Project</a>, a group that is <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists'>controlled by energy industry lobbyists</a>.

Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook."

 

Here is even more about Dr. Morner: 

 
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims'>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims</a>

 

This guy is a real wacko.    I would suggest you stop citing him as a credible source.

Malabar likes to post junk science from the 1 or 2 quacks out there still shilling for the Koch brothers. Again, I'm not sure why he does it. Perhaps he is one of those adverse to the solution.

---

FTA: "In its report, the IPCC states the goal would be achievable only if the world cuts greenhouse emissions to near or below zero by 2100, which could be unrealistic given the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere."



 

I asked before but none of you guys answered: "Is Co2 considered a "greenhouse gas" for this zero emission reduction, yes or no?

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas</a>


Yes. We all know what we exhale. You aren't being cute; you are being ignorant.

---