PDA

View Full Version : We have been gored by Gore!


boyntonstu
2nd February 2010, 05:57 AM
We have been gored by Gore!

Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

…..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..

How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy?

Follow the money, follow the money.

DC
2nd February 2010, 06:07 AM
yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet.


folow the money? as if we really are doing ANYTHING significant against climate change..... Copenhagen saved our climate so much.... not !

Upchurch
2nd February 2010, 06:34 AM
We have been gored by Gore!
I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article.


…..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..
'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that?

I direct your attention to this (http://xkcd.com/675/).

(we almost need that as an emoticon.)


How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy?
Probably more trust than we can have in Pseudo-Science and Politics when the spew nonsense to affect policy.

Thunder
2nd February 2010, 06:37 AM
So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas…..

this is an issue I have too thought about. but then I was told that scientists are not stupid people, and adjust temperature readings to factor in heat-island effect.

what evidence do you have that they are not factoring in the concrete, asphalt, and brick heat island effect?

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 06:53 AM
Yeah…

If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there. You can also look at just rural sites and see the exact same thing. The final nail in the coffin for this little conspiracy theory is that the effects of urbanization have been removed from temperature data for a long time.

mhaze
2nd February 2010, 07:34 AM
Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable.

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 07:45 AM
'cause stupid scientists wouldn't think to control for that?

I direct your attention to this (http://xkcd.com/675/).


The problem isn't that they didn't think to control...the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data, or the raw data itself, or both.

marksman
2nd February 2010, 07:49 AM
If you look at ocean areas you still see the same trend, and it’s a little tough for urbanization to have any effect there.

Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs...

tyr_13
2nd February 2010, 08:03 AM
Yeah.. well... er... did the scientist think maybe it's Atlantis? Stupid mermaids and their stupid urbanization programs...

Really the living in the mermaid inner cities is much more sustainable than most other forms of living. It's the mermaid sub-urban sprawl you have to worry about. :D

Ryokan
2nd February 2010, 08:41 AM
I'm sorry, but how does Al Gore play into this? He isn't even mentioned in your article.

He's the one that invented the whole climate change fraud, don't you know?

Upchurch
2nd February 2010, 08:56 AM
Not that your statements to this effect were any more true pre Climategate, but today they are quite laughable.
Because... why?

"Climategate" was a legitimate controversy and not a smear-job based on out-of-context statements?

I refer you to my above link.

Darth Rotor
2nd February 2010, 09:05 AM
I'd like to point out that the measured change of the CO2 content of seawater is not a myth.

That facet of climate change, whatever you wish to discuss in re readings on thermometers, is an indicator that we need greater CO2 absorption, and less CO2 production, since the capacity of the oceans to absorb is finite.

Plant more trees. And a few more, while you are at it.

DR

varwoche
2nd February 2010, 09:09 AM
We have been gored by Gore! Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh.

It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).

So the question is whether rising mercury is simply a result of thermometers once in the countryside gradually finding themselves in expanding urban areas Someone send a memo to the glaciers, the permafrost and the biota -- tell them to chill out.

How much trust can we have in Science and Politics when they skew data to affect policy? Pseudo-skeptical arm waving.

Follow the money, follow the money. Pseudo-skeptical arm waving.

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 09:10 AM
the problem is that they won't release the process used to manipulate the data

Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is…

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 09:13 AM
Like Upchurch says, Gore isn't even mentioned in your article. Sheesh.

That doesn’t matter, all right thinking libertarians know Gore is running a massive global conspiracy of scientists to pick on the little oil companies and make megabucks form themselves!!!!

theprestige
2nd February 2010, 10:33 AM
yeah Gore lied, so lets keep going on with the polution of our planet.
There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. Al Gore could have gone with that, and nobody would have complained (though they might have expected him to set a good example in not polluting).

Upchurch
2nd February 2010, 10:46 AM
There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason.
What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled?

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 11:42 AM
Other then in the peer reviewed literature where they spell it out in great detail that is…

You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect!

What, would you say, is being suggested that isn't scientifically settled?

Anthropogenic Global Warming. Mostly the hockey stick. Oh, and the realization that in light of the scientific gyrations over our nicely chilled present winter season, AGW can now explain anything.

Peephole
2nd February 2010, 11:59 AM
Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot.

Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...

Peephole
2nd February 2010, 12:01 PM
You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations. Perfect!
Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 12:01 PM
You're right, I think; I misremembered. East Anglia threw out just the raw data, so now nobody (even them) can check their calculations.

CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 12:04 PM
Yes, winter proves that there is no global warming. You're an idiot.

Also, the hockey stick graph has been confirmed over, and over, and over, and over...

You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 12:08 PM
CRU gets it’s data from the various national weather services. I am puzzled as to how they can throw out data they don’t own and don’t host. Are you claiming they broke into these weather services and threw out their data?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

That is not the case.

Unless you collect that raw data again. But climate deniers are obviously too lazy for that, because they aren't interested in conducting actual science.

More likely, it's because the "deniers" haven't invented time travel yet to grab the raw data from one hundred fifty years. That seems to be the time frame we're looking at, as far as I can tell.

Upchurch
2nd February 2010, 12:16 PM
You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.
Yeaaaah. This (http://xkcd.com/675/).

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 12:47 PM
Yeaaaah. This (http://xkcd.com/675/).

No, this. (http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/confirmed-global-warming-hockey-stick.html)

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 01:15 PM
That is not the case.


Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

Dancing David
2nd February 2010, 01:21 PM
You should really know that nodding repeatedly over anything the scientific club you so desperately desire to hang out with says is rather sycophantic, not scientific, behavior. The famous hockey stick simply omitted contradictory evidence from tree rings for a portion of the data. That is not good science.

Oh, by the way, our winter has been remarkably cold. And I'm pretty sure you're in violation of forum regs.

By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

:)

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 01:24 PM
Umm yeah I’m afraid it is. CRU has nothing to do with colleting or hosting weather station data. You should really do a little research before posting.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about? By the way, CRU didn't use "national weather organizations." What they mean by weather stations are things like these:

He pointed out that the data showed that 49 of the Chinese meteorological stations had no histories of their location or other details. These mysterious stations included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had certainly been moved during the study period, perhaps invalidating their data.

From the OP's article. No, these are not weather stations manned by people that keep individual records.

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 01:31 PM
Could I ask you to please read the article before you post in regards to something you apparently know nothing about?


a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 01:32 PM
By how much, and is that what global warming would do in your area?

So we have a cold winter, what was the prior extremes, how often, mode and mean?

We had one week of standard January weather, but that was it. Thirty years ago it was that way all January long.

Unfortunately here in the US most local weather reports use a 20 year sliding average. So when they talk about 'today's average', that is only the average for the last twenty years, which strangely has been rising.

:)

Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.

A sign of things to come? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cHgnzs9e)

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 01:38 PM
a) the link doesn’t work
b) Even if it did work it would not change the basic fact that weather station data belongs to and is available from the various national weather services around the world not CRU. CRU gets their raw data by going to these weather services; they do not produce any of themselves. none

I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) Now please stop talking about things you don't know about. It is clear that there was data that only CRU possessed that was key to their conclusions. Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. The data from those weather stations in China was incorrigibly compromised (and that doesn't even have to do with the other data fiasco).

Obviously CRU is not the keeper of all climate data in the world; just the stuff they based their conclusions on.

Guybrush Threepwood
2nd February 2010, 01:42 PM
It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night. The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).


I'm sorry Varwoche, but this clearly shows you have not read the article. The paper being disputed was from 1990. Urban heat islands was really an end of the eighties thing, like the Happy Mondays.

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 01:46 PM
Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

varwoche
2nd February 2010, 01:52 PM
Nobody is trying to prove that this winter is the coldest on record, even though it's cold enough to disrupt farming in Georgia and Florida. Instead, the emphasis is on how this cooling diverges from predictions made by AGW proponents in relation to CO2.
Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/) (NASA)

varwoche
2nd February 2010, 04:18 PM
I checked the link, and it works. If it doesn't for you, here it is again. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece) ... Read the quotes I posted from the OP's article again. Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 05:15 PM
Again, CRU is not involved in any way with the collection of weather station data. Please do your homework. The data referred to in the article was CRU’s copy of data received from various national weather services. The use this data they are not authorized to redistribute and are in no way responsible for archiving it, it’s simply not part of their mandate.

This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.

Cooling? What cooling?

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade (NASA)

You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that.

Hmm. An opinion piece written by an agenda-driven doofus that makes no attempt to provide contrary facts, published in a rag. Unimpressive in the extreme.

Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin?

lomiller
2nd February 2010, 05:24 PM
This is a little frustrating. You seem to think your word is enough for everybody to lay down their objections.

On the other hand, I did your work for you and found out that much of CRU's raw data apparently came from NOAA/GHCN. Not all - most.



Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 05:32 PM
Yes it is, what is it you don’t understand about the fact CRU does not deal with weather stations in any way shape or form. They analyze data from other sources; they are not the original source of any of the raw data.

What you don't understand is that your mouth is not made of solid gold. Phil Jones co-published that research paper (referenced in the OP) with a Chinese-American researcher in 1990. Now, for some reason, it's hard to find when his term actually began at CRU - but if it did before 1990, that would be CRU actually taking in raw data from weather stations. Ahem. Perhaps you could be useful for once and find out if that is true or not.

Sporanox
2nd February 2010, 05:35 PM
The notion of urban heat islands as an explanation for GW is so 1999 (and thoroughly debunked).


Oh, by the way...

The story has a startling postscript. In 2008, Jones prepared a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research re-examining temperatures in eastern China. It found that, far from being negligible, the urban heat phenomenon was responsible for 40% of the warming seen in eastern China between 1951 and 2004.

2008. Now if you mean that the heat phenomenon is only slightly supposed to affect global warming, then you would be right according to what's come out so far. But it did seem you were implying something else.

Thunder
2nd February 2010, 07:19 PM
just out of curiosity, how to climatalogists adjust temperature readings to factor in various amounts of heat island effect?

a thermometer near grey concrete will have less of a heat island effect than near black asphalt.

wouldn't every single thermometer require a separate and unique heat island adjustment?

INRM
2nd February 2010, 07:38 PM
I don't want to pollute the planet. I just have a problem with scientists manipulating data, and fearmongering

Thunder
2nd February 2010, 07:49 PM
most people I have met, who do not believe in AGW, don't give a **** about pollution, clean air, trees, open space, preserving natural areas, or clean water. All they care about is their $$$.

fullflavormenthol
2nd February 2010, 08:00 PM
most people I have met, who do not believe in AGW, don't give a **** about pollution, clean air, trees, open space, preserving natural areas, or clean water. All they care about is their $$$.
Parky76>

I will honestly admit that I am skeptical about AGW, but...but I believe cutting pollution, setting the highest standards for clean air, increasing forestation, working for an open space environment, definitely preserving natural areas, and making our water clean is not only a good idea; but should be the focus. To put it in the most simple way, while I am not sure about all the research at this time, I can think of no reason why we should not do things to preserve the Earth as if it turns it does exist. Again I am on the fence, but I don't understand the anti-AGW argument for ignoring changes that are 100% better regardless of the truth.

You get what I am writing? There is no good reason to ignore what you listed, because no matter what the truth is those things make for a better environment.

Thunder
2nd February 2010, 08:09 PM
Parky76>

I will honestly admit that I am skeptical about AGW, but... To put it in the most simple way, while I am not sure about all the research at this time, Again I am on the fence, but I don't understand the anti-AGW argument for ignoring changes that are 100% better regardless of the truth.


that's fair. true AGW Deniers hold their beliefs due to politics, and not science. Just like Holocaust deniers and 9-11 Truthers. its not about facts...its ALL about politics.

but yes, many of the changes that folks want to make to fight global warming, would be very good for our planet and human health, even if AGW turns out to be bogus.

fullflavormenthol
2nd February 2010, 08:24 PM
that's fair. true AGW Deniers hold their beliefs due to politics, and not science. Just like Holocaust deniers and 9-11 Truthers. its not about facts...its ALL about politics.

I agree. It is stupid nonsense to excuse pollution, and building needless crap every which way. To be honest it is merely a way to excuse the excess that they want to protect.

but yes, many of the changes that folks want to make to fight global warming, would be very good for our planet and human health, even if AGW turns out to be bogus.

Which is where I don't understand the deniers. Making sure we have more trees (even tree farming for paper) makes a great impact on CO2 levels. Building wind farms, solar plants, and even nuclear helps us get out from under oil; which is a major cause of pollution (even if you don't believe it warms the Earth) that has a negative effect on our environment.

Hell, all I need to side with the improvements the AGW proponents support is to be around engines spewing out pollution. It is more a matter of human and general environmental wellbeing for me, and which is why I don't get many of the anti-AGW crowd. I see myself on the fence, and still thinking "This is a good idea" while they just want to ignore the human and general environmental cost of their actions.

Personally I just want to present a perspective of someone who is unsure, and use my position to say that I think they (anti-AGW) are wrong in their position that nothing should ever be done. Many of these improvements proposed by the AGW crowd should be carried out for their own sake. There is nothing but benefit to come from it, which is why I actually support these things.

I do agree that many people use the "questioning" position to oppose every positive change, which is stupid.

EDIT: I will also admit I am not a denier, just unsure.

Thunder
2nd February 2010, 08:36 PM
Hell, all I need to side with the improvements the AGW proponents support is to be around engines spewing out pollution. It is more a matter of human and general environmental wellbeing for me, and which is why I don't get many of the anti-AGW crowd.

EDIT: I will also admit I am not a denier, just unsure.

wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.

tide power..is FREE. and yet, AGW deniers seem to be against all of these things. I don't think they are being shills for the fossil fuel industries, I think they are just:

#1. afraid of large-scale change.

#2. associate clean or even cleaner energy with Greens/Hippies/Commies/NYers/Gays...etc etc etc.

trust me. I have met these people. this is how they think.

they believe that fossil fuel usage, pollution, smog, and filthy water, is part of God's covenant with Abraham..or something.

fullflavormenthol
2nd February 2010, 08:48 PM
wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.

tide power..is FREE. and yet, AGW deniers seem to be against all of these things. I don't think they are being shills for the fossil fuel industries, I think they are just:

#1. afraid of large-scale change.

#2. associate clean or even cleaner energy with Greens/Hippies/Commies/NYers/Gays...etc etc etc.

trust me. I have met these people. this is how they think.

they believe that fossil fuel usage, pollution, smog, and filthy water, is part of God's covenant with Abraham..or something.
Exactly.

I remember watching Jerry Falwell on Politically Incorrect saying that global warming wasn't real by saying that the Bible never mentioned it. It sickened me, and is an example of the "well it can't happen" belief among the AGW deniers. My thing is that with them it isn't science, it isn't doubt, it is merely a wish to simply believe it isn't happening. Preservation of the environment is a good idea regardless. I take my example from Teddy Roosevelt, who could have kick Chuck Norris' butt any day. :D

varwoche
2nd February 2010, 09:44 PM
You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that. Ah, so you hit some cold weather -- a stunningly meaningless factoid.


Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin? You consider a diatribe by an agenda-driven opinion writer as weighty evidence? I consider it a steaming pile of Kevin Bacon.

DC
2nd February 2010, 11:11 PM
There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. Al Gore could have gone with that, and nobody would have complained (though they might have expected him to set a good example in not polluting).

actually Copenhagen showed that humans are not smart enough to take action, they cant or dont want to see the results of our actions, we will realize what we have done when it is to late. then we have also some idiots in denial mode that will not relize it while they are on a vacation trip to New York where most taxidrivers work as gondoliere meanwhile
its just human stupidness, gratz.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 08:37 AM
Phil Jones co-published that research paper (referenced in the OP) with a Chinese-American researcher in 1990. Now, for some reason, it's hard to find when his term actually began at CRU - but if it did before 1990, that would be CRU actually taking in raw data from weather stations.

Are you trying to claim the CRU is responsible for Chinese Weather stations circa 1990?

It seems far more likely they received the raw data from Chinese Authorities rather then producing it themselves...

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 10:28 AM
Ah, so you hit some cold weather -- a stunningly meaningless factoid.


You consider a diatribe by an agenda-driven opinion writer as weighty evidence? I consider it a steaming pile of Kevin Bacon.

Ah, we shouldn't consider little things like the temperature anymore. You are beyond parody.

Are you trying to claim the CRU is responsible for Chinese Weather stations circa 1990?

It seems far more likely they received the raw data from Chinese Authorities rather then producing it themselves...

Well, it pains me a little, but you are right. Wei-Chyung-Wang received the temp data from a Chinese colleague.

Which is where I don't understand the deniers. Making sure we have more trees (even tree farming for paper) makes a great impact on CO2 levels. Building wind farms, solar plants, and even nuclear helps us get out from under oil; which is a major cause of pollution (even if you don't believe it warms the Earth) that has a negative effect on our environment.


I used to believe in AGW until quite recently - when the email scandal hit. I was always uncomfortable with its advocacy, though, because on a personal level, AGW-prevention measures hit the richest the least. They are the ones that maintain their jet-setting lifestyle with expensive carbon credits, the ones who plant 40,000 trees somewhere in Southeast Asia to offset their new album, and the ones that can afford the hybrid/electric vehicles.

Now, I try not to be too resentful of the rich - their money is theirs to spend - but the effort to accommodate every aspect of their extravagant lifestyles in the "green" campaign is not beneficial to the environment on the whole and suggests something dishonest about the cause. It suggests that anti-AGW measures are feel-good aloe vera substituted for tangible help to the environment. This shows up elsewhere in the AGW umbrella, as well - Time had an article the other day about a couple of greenies pushing range-fed cattle as acceptably low greenhouse gas producers. That is ridiculous; it has been well known for years that one of the best ways to cut down on your personal greenhouse gas production is essentially becoming a vegetarian. To me, that shows that most people under the net are comfortable changing their (and other's) lifestyles up to a point, beyond which they invent rationalizations to maintain a certain level of comfort.

This brings up the other reason I dislike the campaign against AGW. I feel it encourages an unhealthy obsession with greenhouse gases at the detriment of actual environmental action. For example, there was a report in Nature a while back on a newly invented machine that could capture vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. All well and good, but that does nothing to limit pollution in general. Similarly, as long as one can buy carbon credits for all the wasteful activities they engage in, that keeps things "green," but does nothing for the effects of pollution visible in the present day. Does anyone really believe that all those trees Coldplay arranged to plant in SEA will affect the pollution they cause elsewhere? No, it won't. It will only affect a heretofore unseen temperature increase in a very, very, very slight manner.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 10:32 AM
I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax. Alternative energy/freedom from oil dependency itself is largely thrown by the wayside if one takes a look at the stated top priorities for this administration.

DavidJames
3rd February 2010, 10:47 AM
I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax. Alternative energy/freedom from oil dependency itself is largely thrown by the wayside if one takes a look at the stated top priorities for this administration.I think you will find your ideas much more at home in the conspiracy theory forum.

Except for the idea where you ignore/reject the 2009 warming data from NASA in favor of your cherry picked observations of some cold weather in a few parts of the country.

That belongs in the personal dogma and political bias prevents critical thinking forum.

Cleon
3rd February 2010, 10:49 AM
Ah, we shouldn't consider little things like the temperature anymore.

Temperature != climate.
Localized temperature definitely != climate.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 10:51 AM
I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax.

Fear mongering IMO.

At present releasing CO2 is an externality, a component whose consequences are not paid by the people involved in the transaction. Not having to pay for the effects of your economic activity is in fact a form of government subsidy, and is a distinctly ani-free market way to do things.

The alternatives on the table for pricing this externality back into the price of goods and restoring the free market are a) a carbon tax and b) cap and trade. The latter is less subject to government intervention as it allows the market to set pricing on CO2 emissions.

The irony, IMO, of cap and trade is that Libertarians have a great deal of difficulty coming to terms with the imposition of ownership rights on something (CO2 emissions) that previously had no clear owner. Meanwhile they gloss over the problems of how land becomes private property. I guess they simply assume land has always been private property.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 10:56 AM
I think you will find your ideas much more at home in the conspiracy theory forum.

Except for the idea where you ignore/reject the 2009 warming data from NASA in favor of your cherry picked observations of some cold weather in a few parts of the country.

That belongs in the personal dogma and political bias prevents critical thinking forum.

I don't mean that the cap-n-trade proponents actually want to screw up the economy.

Temperature != climate.
Localized temperature definitely != climate.

Hence, why I posted that article about a possible cooling trend earlier.

At present releasing CO2 is an externality, a component whose consequences are not paid by the people involved in the transaction. Not having to pay for the effects of your economic activity is in fact a form of government subsidy, and is a distinctly ani-free market way to do things.

Who, exactly, should we pay for these consequences? And why should we pay in the first place when we could do something that has a much more immediate effect, e.g. replacing our energy sources?

Safe-Keeper
3rd February 2010, 11:12 AM
Isn't it cute how they squeeze Al Gore into every single one of their arguments as if he's some sort of magic word that'll make all of us nasty sceptics go away:D? It's like a Catholic drawing a cross whenever she enters church or something.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 11:13 AM
Who, exactly, should we pay for these consequences?


The person who produces the CO2 needs to be the one who pays. If they are a manufacturer they pass that on in their pricing, just as they do with all legitimate expenses.


And why should we pay in the first place when we could do something that has a much more immediate effect, e.g. replacing our energy sources?


Which energy sources get used an dhow much of them get used is a function of market forces. If one, in this case fossil fuels, doesn’t required it’s users to pay for all it’s associated costs it will be artificially cheaper and therefore be used in preference to alternatives even when a true free market would dictate otherwise.

It functions as a subsidy in the sense that it encourages the use of an otherwise less competitive product. This is the exact opposite of what you get in a functioning free market

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 11:26 AM
The person who produces the CO2 needs to be the one who pays. If they are a manufacturer they pass that on in their pricing, just as they do with all legitimate expenses.

I asked who should we pay.


It functions as a subsidy in the sense that it encourages the use of an otherwise less competitive product. This is the exact opposite of what you get in a functioning free market

That logic assumes that there are hidden costs passed to the consumer. An analogy would be the tax money that goes to subsidizing Amtrak. Where exactly are these hidden costs, and, for that matter, how would a consumer switch sources in an electric grid? And why do you think that consumers would be more likely to push for new energy sources instead of just repealing cap-n-trade, which would be far easier?

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 11:41 AM
I asked who should we pay.


That depends on which scheme you adopt. Since everyone is harmed under a carbon tax you pay the community as a whole as represented by the (hopefully) elected government.

Under cap-and-trade you pay the person who owns the CO2 emission rights.




That logic assumes that there are hidden costs passed to the consumer.


No, it assumes there are costs that are being paid by someone other then the producer of consumer.

When such costs exist, as they do with CO2 emissions, it will artificially lower the price of the product, artificially increase it’s usage and artificially increase it’s desirability in relation to comparable products. All of this goes counter to what a free market should be doing.

boyntonstu
3rd February 2010, 11:56 AM
Grapes were grown in England in 2 different centuries when it was warm enough to do it.

Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.

garethdjb
3rd February 2010, 11:59 AM
Grapes were grown in England in 2 different centuries when it was warm enough to do it.

Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.

Worry (http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html)

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 12:05 PM
That depends on which scheme you adopt. Since everyone is harmed under a carbon tax you pay the community as a whole as represented by the (hopefully) elected government.

Under cap-and-trade you pay the person who owns the CO2 emission rights.





No, it assumes there are costs that are being paid by someone other then the producer [or] consumer.

When such costs exist, as they do with CO2 emissions, it will artificially lower the price of the product, artificially increase it’s usage and artificially increase it’s desirability in relation to comparable products. All of this goes counter to what a free market should be doing.

If neither the producer or consumer is burdened by the costs, then there is no reason to burden both producer and consumer except a misguided sense of social justice.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 12:12 PM
Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.

They grow grapes in England, and much further North then the Roman vineyards which were in Wales and Southern England.

boyntonstu
3rd February 2010, 12:13 PM
Worry (http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html)

Good find.

I should have been more specific.

According to WIKI -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_wine#Roman_to_19th_century

Roman to 19th century

The Romans introduced wine making to the United Kingdom, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. The British climate was too cold and too wet to grow grapes for making wine. Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England mentioned in the Domesday Book, although much of what was being produced was for making communion wine for the Eucharist.

Are there grapes grown in Lincolnshire?

I will worry when they grow over most of England.

The point being that it was much warmer in England in Roman times than it is today.

Cleon
3rd February 2010, 12:17 PM
The point being that it was much warmer in England in Roman times than it is today.

Even if true, as I said earlier: localized temperature != climate.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 12:17 PM
If neither the producer or consumer is burdened by the costs, then there is no reason to burden both producer and consumer except a misguided sense of social justice.


If incurred costs are paid by neither producer or consumer, but some other third party you no longer have a free market. "Social justice" has nothing to do with it. you either have a free market economy or you don't. What you are proposing is at odds with a free market economy.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 12:19 PM
If incurred costs are paid by neither producer or consumer, but some other third party you no longer have a free market. "Social justice" has nothing to do with it. you either have a free market economy or you don't. What you are proposing is at odds with a free market economy.

Not when the producers and consumers compose the entire economy we speak of. Is that what you meant? The US economy?

And don't think that, by repeating the words "free market" over and over, you will convince me just because I lean right.

EDIT: And could you please explain to me how, unless the "third party" is the government, your logic applies here?

garethdjb
3rd February 2010, 12:25 PM
Good find.

I should have been more specific.

According to WIKI -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_wine#Roman_to_19th_century



Are there grapes grown in Lincolnshire?



Seems (http://www.three-sisters-vineyard.co.uk/location.html) so (http://www.somerbyvineyards.com/Default.aspx)

There are vineyards in Yorkshire (http://www.holmfirthvineyard.com/) as well it appears.

Upchurch
3rd February 2010, 01:01 PM
Worry (http://www.english-wine.com/vineyards.html)

Seems (http://www.three-sisters-vineyard.co.uk/location.html) so (http://www.somerbyvineyards.com/Default.aspx)

There are vineyards in Yorkshire (http://www.holmfirthvineyard.com/) as well it appears.
[/sad trombone riff]

boyntonstu
3rd February 2010, 01:22 PM
Depends on whether it is a macro or a micro climate:

The length of the growing season of grapes differ from variety to variety and studies shows that at least 170 days of active, frost-free, growing is needed for grape vines to ripen a crop (remember, this figure will not be same for all varieties). But not only the length of the growing season is important; the heat accumulated during the growing season will determine if your grape vine will successfully ripen the grapes or not.

You will have to find out how many days of full sunlight with a temperate above 10°C or 50°F is measured where you live. This is called the GDD or “growing degree days”. Studies made on the physiology of the grape vine, determined that the grape vine is not very active below these temperatures.

The GDD is measured by using the following formula:

(HT + LT) / 2 - 50°F or -10°C=GDD *

HT = highest temp; LT= lowest temp

By adding up all the GDD points, you can measure your regions suitability for growing grapes and should be more than 2000 GDD (Fahrenheit) or 1200 GDD (Celsius) points. The closer your macro climate is to these numbers, the more suitable it will be for growing grapes.

http://www.my-grape-vine.com/blog/grape-growing-climate/

There may be hardy grape varieties available today that were not available uring the Roman Empire.

How does the England climate stack up?

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 01:23 PM
Not when the producers and consumers compose the entire economy we speak of.

It still doesn’t matter. The supply and demand curves are still shifted by the externality. When all the producers and consumers end up paying the external cost that is incurred, they are in effect subsidizing transaction that would not normally take place in a free market.


And don't think that, by repeating the words "free market" over and over, you will convince me just because I lean right.

Hardly. Right wingers tend to ignore such free market basics like externalities. I seldom expect them to be on board when actual free market ideas are being discussed, to them the term is more of a meme or mantra they repeat without understanding what it is or how it really works.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 01:29 PM
How does the England climate stack up?

Irrelevant unless we have the same number for Roman times. We are, afterall comparing wine in England today vs Roman times, not Wine in England vs Wine in France.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 01:45 PM
It still doesn’t matter. The supply and demand curves are still shifted by the externality. When all the producers and consumers end up paying the external cost that is incurred, they are in effect subsidizing transaction that would not normally take place in a free market.

This reasoning process is amusing.

1: Assert that there is a cost to production of energy not taken into account, presumably because it is not quantified yet (how would one quantify that?)

2: Assert that we do not have a "free market" anymore because of that one facet, even though we've never had a free market according to that definition

3: Assert that to return the market to its "free" status, a cost has to be imposed by the government

:covereyes

Thermal pollution from nuclear reactors can alter the marine ecosystem in undesirable ways. Yet no one would propose regulating such pollution because allowing it "subsidizes" nuclear power. The principles of the free market really have nothing to do with this.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 01:49 PM
For some reason, this reminds me of the health-care debate, probably because of the whole "distribution according to ability to pay = rationing" idea. Ridiculous. Rationing is imposed by the government - that's why it's called rationing. Similarly, I'm fairly certain a subsidy does not exist until it is enacted by a third party.

varwoche
3rd February 2010, 01:56 PM
Grapes were grown in England in 2 different centuries when it was warm enough to do it. Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.
Are there grapes grown in Lincolnshire? I will worry when they grow over most of England.
There may be hardy grape varieties available today that were not available uring the Roman Empire.
You should enter your goalposts in the Boston marathon -- I'd expect them to do well.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 02:14 PM
Yet no one would propose regulating such pollution because allowing it "subsidizes" nuclear power.

Nuclear power is another place where externalties arise. You would find nuclear power much much cheaper and much much more dangerous if there was no regulation. This is because the cost of risk would be externalized, so nuclear power producers would no longer need to spend money of safty and could therefore make bigger profits at lower prices.

In the case of nuclear power, the externality is removed via regulation which gives rise to the possibility of to little or to much regulation. This is similar to the problem you would see with a carbon tax, which is how big should the tax be. Cap-and-trade avoids this difficulty by letting the marketplace decide how much those carbon emissions are worth.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 02:22 PM
Nuclear power is another place where externalties arise. You would find nuclear power much much cheaper and much much more dangerous if there was no regulation. This is because the cost of risk would be externalized, so nuclear power producers would no longer need to spend money of safty and could therefore make bigger profits at lower prices.

In the case of nuclear power, the externality is removed via regulation which gives rise to the possibility of to little or to much regulation. This is similar to the problem you would see with a carbon tax, which is how big should the tax be. Cap-and-trade avoids this difficulty by letting the marketplace decide how much those carbon emissions are worth.

"Externalities," ok, by all means, not tacit subsidies.

I do like the market dodge cap-n-trade would make by avoiding direct accounting by the government (although the "cap" would certainly play a large part in this). Of course, I can't support it given the doubts I have as to the integrity of the AGW establishment.

lomiller
3rd February 2010, 02:41 PM
"Externalities," ok, by all means, not tacit subsidies.

A subsidy is a form of externality…

The reason subsidies are problematic is because they are externalities…

Newtons Bit
3rd February 2010, 03:03 PM
wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.

Really? Where can I get some free solar-cells for my house? I'd like some free-energy. I'm tired of paying $0.03/kw-h for coal based power.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 05:08 PM
A subsidy is a form of externality…

The reason subsidies are problematic is because they are externalities…

Well, the fact that energy industries are not yet burdened by cap-n-trade imposed by the government...is not a subsidy.

varwoche
3rd February 2010, 05:10 PM
Ah, we shouldn't consider little things like the temperature anymore. You are beyond parody. How can you seriously claim that local weather has any* bearing on global climate or CO2 impact on same? If I called this a grade school mistake it might be insulting to grade-schoolers. And I'm beyond parody? :confused:

Incidentally and of equally nil merit, our weather here in the Pacific NW has been uncommonly warm (due to el niño).
January was warmest on record for Seattle area (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010954521_warmjanuary02m.html)

Now, I try not to be too resentful of the rich - their money is theirs to spend - but the effort to accommodate every aspect of their extravagant lifestyles in the "green" campaign is not beneficial to the environment on the whole and suggests something dishonest about the cause. It suggests that anti-AGW measures are feel-good aloe vera substituted for tangible help to the environment. Holy cow! When you assign weight to this sort of ludicrous metadata, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Note to self: add rich people to epitome of pseudo-skepticism list

* For pseudo-skeptics keen parsers, any is shorthand for anything more than an infinitesimal...

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 05:17 PM
How can you seriously claim that local weather has any* bearing on global climate or CO2 impact on same? If I called this a grade school mistake it might be insulting to grade-schoolers. And I'm beyond parody? :confused:

Incidentally and of equally nil merit, our weather here in the Pacific NW has been uncommonly warm (due to el niño).
January was warmest on record for Seattle area (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010954521_warmjanuary02m.html)

Here's the link again since you missed it.. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cHgnzs9e)


Holy cow! When you assign weight to this sort of ludicrous metadata, it's no wonder you're so confused.

Note to self: add rich people to epitome of pseudo-skepticism list

* For pseudo-skeptics keen parsers, any is shorthand for anything more than an infinitesimal...

Exactly what are you talking about here? I never said I didn't believe in AGW because of the apparent insincerity of its advocates; I said I was uncomfortable with the cause.

varwoche
3rd February 2010, 05:53 PM
Here's the link again since you missed it.. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cHgnzs9e)
No sale.

There's nothing in this article having to do with local weather, much less tying it to agw one way or another.

But even if I'm wrong, naked links are non-communicative. Please quote the relevant bits.

I never said I didn't believe in AGW because of the apparent insincerity of its advocates; I said I was uncomfortable with the cause. Thank you for clarifying.

Sporanox
3rd February 2010, 06:10 PM
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.
'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’
Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.


As you can see, there is reason to believe that this will not be an isolated phenomenon. Those are the takeaway quotes, of course; the summaries of the science involved are also in the article.

As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

Captain.Sassy
4th February 2010, 10:12 AM
…..It is well-known that the concrete, bricks and asphalt of urban areas absorb more heat than the countryside. They result in cities being warmer than the countryside, especially at night.



ackshilly I think you've got it backwards.

I read a paper a while ago by some British scientist who looked at the temperature anomaly over a decade or so using only nighttime measurements, and the same anomaly using only daytime measurements. The idea was that at night (IIRC) the urban heat island effect (UHIE) was actually much less than during the daytime to non-existant. Anyways, at the end of the story it turned out that the temperature anomaly trends were the same either in the daytime or in the nighttime ergo no UHIE (NUHIE).

I know I know 'some paper I read a while ago' is a pretty dry fig leaf in this neck of the net, so
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05137510

"In the daytime, urban heat island intensity was stronger than that at night."

Course I might have this backwards. I didn't read the whole paper just the first two paragraphs (of this latest one) so maybe at the end they go 'And it turns out everything we knew about UHIE (EWKAUHIE) was wrong.

Anyways, I like the rest of your analysis. Follow the money, follow the money. (FTMFTM). Not bad.