Hockey Stick confirmed by independent US researches in response to congress request

[a_unique_person]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5109188.stm



The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic "hockey stick" graph.
The diagram, which shows a sharp upturn in temperatures in recent decades, has been a prime target for groups who doubt humans are warming the planet.
These sceptics had challenged the way the hockey stick data was assembled.
They argued it had been massaged to produce the distinctive shape.
The fall-out culminated in one US politician demanding to see financial and research records from the three scientists who had put the data together: Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (sometimes referred to simply as MBH).
'Plausible' assessment
The new report, carried out by a panel of the US-based National Research Council (NRC), largely vindicates the researchers' work, first published in 1998.
...The report says it has very high confidence that the last few decades of the 20th Century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years.






Discredited?

[casebro]

"WARMER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS" That is a meaningless tidbit of information. On a climatological scale it is the equivilent of one sunny day in Seattle. I want some dependable data regarding a longer period. Say, hot spells for the last 200,000 years. Say, proof that it is hotter now than ever before? If so, then I will buy into the (A)GW theory.

[robinson]

"These sceptics had challenged the way the hockey stick data was assembled. ":wackylaugh:

[luchog]

"WARMER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS" That is a meaningless tidbit of information. On a climatological scale it is the equivilent of one sunny day in Seattle.

Something that only happens once every 400 years. :)

I want some dependable data regarding a longer period. Say, hot spells for the last 200,000 years. Say, proof that it is hotter now than ever before? If so, then I will buy into the (A)GW theory.

That's what annoys me most about the Global Warming doomsayers. They're working with an extremely small dataset, but expecting to extrapolate many orders of magnitude beyond it. 400 years is an eyeblink in a geologic/climatologic context.

And that doesn't even include the fact that our climatological data is progressively less reliable the farther back beyond the previous century we go.

And if it's the warmest time in the last 400 years, does that mean it was warmer 500 years ago, or do we simply not have data that far back?

[robinson]

I don't understand the Global warming fights. Is there some way contestants could state right up front what they are fighting over?

Or what the stances even are.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I don't understand the Global warming fights. Is there some way contestants could state right up front what they are fighting over?

Funding.

Or what the stances even are.

They should get funding.

[BobK]

Are we supposed to be alarmed that it's the warmest it's been since the Little Ice Age?

[a_unique_person]

Alarmed that it is going to keep getting a lot more warmer.

[a_unique_person]

No comment on the report, however, that it validates the hockey stick.

[Zygar]

On a climatological scale it is the equivilent of one sunny day in Seattle.

Not to nitpick or anything, but that's two sunny days in Seattle in a row. Or one sunny day in winter in Seattle. :D

[joobz]

Are we now saying GW isn't happening?
I know we are in doubt over humanity's involvement in it, but doesn't the climate chage being reported have a signifigant effect on the future of our species? Obviously these effects will be regionally dependant, but are we to not care because on a planetary scale, these temperature changes aren't big.
Show me that increases in temperature won't affect our environment and our interaction with it.

[a_unique_person]

"WARMER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS" That is a meaningless tidbit of information. On a climatological scale it is the equivilent of one sunny day in Seattle. I want some dependable data regarding a longer period. Say, hot spells for the last 200,000 years. Say, proof that it is hotter now than ever before? If so, then I will buy into the (A)GW theory.

The climate gets cooler and warmer, but always does so for a reason. It's not something that just happens and we don't have a clue why. The research has shown why we are in a warming phase.

[BobK]

They only speculated about 1000 years and exhibit no confidence prior to 400 years ago during the LIA. Would you prefer the temp hadn't increased since then?

Considering the length of the stick has been reduced from 1000 years to 400 years, I would say what used to be a hockey stick, now looks more like a boomerang.

[Geckko]

I thought this was old news.

I think this is the relevant excert from the report linked in the OP:

And the report's panel also said it was unable to confirm the original conclusion of Professor Mann's work that the 1990s were the hottest decade and that 1998 was the hottest year - because of the difficulties in estimating the past climate over such short timescales.

That seems to be a nice way of saying that the conclusions of the orignal paper (as described) can't be supported.

I am not sure what then the opening OP is trying to add here???

[DeviousB]

1) The Mann-Bradley-Hughes report uses a combination of proxy data to deduce the required global mean temperature of the graph. The resolution of the time axis was chosen by Mann et al particularly to investigate post-industrial warming. This time resolution can only be supported by data that are comparably well dated.

The NRC concluded:
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including the relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the "Medieval Warm Period") and a relatively cold period (or "Little Ice Age") centered around 1700.

I.e. the method is sound, the results from multiple studies are consistent.

It can be said with a high level of confidence that the global mean surface was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

I.e. the bit of the graph from 1600-2000 is very likely right.

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years that during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900

Ie. the bit of the graph from 900-1600 could very well be right ...

The main reason that our confidence in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions is lower before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900 is the relative scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence.

... if your dates are accurate.

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was thaat the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperatures reconstructions and pronouced changes in a variety of local procy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecendented during at least the last 2,000 years.

I.e. the method used to construct the 1,000 year graph is increasingly less accurate the further back you go. However, the trend it demonstrates has been independently verified.

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium

I.e. Yup, that's quite a hockey-stick alright ...

[L]ess confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millenium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

... but don't push your luck!

[DeviousB]

That seems to be a nice way of saying that the conclusions of the orignal paper (as described) can't be supported.

So that's what the NRC meant when they said...

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperatures reconstructions and pronouced changes in a variety of local procy indicators [...]

I did wonder.
:rolleyes:

[Just thinking]

Didn't we (the USA) just experience one of the mildest hurricane seasons in 2006? -- with hurricane activity being one of the leading indicators of Global Warming intensity.

[DeviousB]

Didn't we (the USA) just experience one of the mildest hurricane seasons in 2006? -- with hurricane activity being one of the leading indicators of Global Warming intensity.

Says who? Certainly not NOAA ...

The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricanes will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.

... or RealClimate.org ...

Hurricane forecast models (the same ones that were used to predict Katrina's path) indicate a tendency for more intense (but not overall more frequent) hurricanes when they are run for climate change scenarios

... or the Pew Center ...

As stated above, the frequency of hurricanes has not increased on average over the long term. However, scientists believe that global warming will result in more intense hurricanes, as increasing sea surface temperatures provide energy for storm intensification; An MIT study published recently in Nature provides the first data analysis indicating that tropical storms are indeed becoming more powerful over time.

... or, say *sniff* *sniff*, can you smell straw?!

[a_unique_person]

Didn't we (the USA) just experience one of the mildest hurricane seasons in 2006? -- with hurricane activity being one of the leading indicators of Global Warming intensity.

There was plenty of source material for hurricanes, but also local weather conditions, (el-nino, good for you bad for us), that are not conducive to the formation of hurricanes. Just about everytime one tried to start, it was torn to shreds by wind shear. If they did get going, they were steered off towards the middle of the atlantic, where last year they would have headed for the mainland.

In other parts of the world, there was a very active typhoon season.

[CapelDodger]

Didn't we (the USA) just experience one of the mildest hurricane seasons in 2006?
Yes.

... with hurricane activity being one of the leading indicators of Global Warming intensity.
No. Who on earth told you that? Surely not the same people who after last's year very active season said that wasn't a leading indicator of global warming? Nor, presumably, the people who, as the icecaps lap around their ankles, will be conjuring-up a conspiracy theory to explain the fact.

[CapelDodger]

The contrarian obsession with the Hockey-Stick puts me in mind of a general who's lost control of the battlefield and himself and compensates by micro-managing a tiny, less-than-crucial action on some obscure front. As if by mastering this one point - which they can't - they can reverse the collapse all around them. Forgotten are the dozens of other temperature reconstructions performed before or since, with different data sets (improved data sets since Man et al) and peer-reviewed methodologies and the same results.

Great Big Elephant not yet mentioned on this thread : permafrost is melting that has been accumulating without melting for the whole of this interglacial. That's the period in which human civilisation has developed from Catal Huyuk to a world population over 6 billion, almost half of them urbanised. That happened in what passes for a settled climate in comparison to what's happening now and coming soon.

Forget all the historically-illiterate hand-waving about the LIA and Medieval Warm Period and Romans growing olives in York/Eboracum. The permafrost is melting and we're screwed. If it has ever been this warm during this inter-glacial for as long as it has been the permafrost would have melted just as it's melting now. Glaciers would have retreated or disappeared just as they have done now (they didn't, there would have been traces remaining of the resulting morraines).

It's said Great Big Elephant that has reduced contrarians to this one obsessive action : discredit the Hockey Stick whatever it takes and all other reconstructions will evaporate, the lost glaciers will reappear, the permafrost will still be frozen, seasons won't have shifted. All will be good, behaviour won't have to change, they'll have been proven right, the established economic order can continue unregulated along the path to consumer heaven.

It's kinda sad that contrarians such as John Daly - dead, but the cult lives! as I predicted! - can get purchase with otherwise righteous sceptics. "Just another sunny day in ...". Jeebus, gimme a break. Who out there actually knows what a 0.6C global temperature rise actually signifies? (No need for you to answer, a_u_p :) .) Beyond "Well, 0.6 is a very small number ..."

[a_unique_person]

Ten people have been killed and billions of dollars of damage caused after Typhoon Cimaron hit the Philippines. The typhoon slammed into Luzon, the Philippines' most populated island, on Sunday night as a maximum category five storm.



Category 5 typhoon in the phillipines.

http://media.theage.com.au/?sy=age&category=bulletin&rid=23159&source=theage.com.au%2F&t=276KU1&player=wm6&rate=646&flash=0&ie=0

[CapelDodger]

Category 5 typhoon in the phillipines.

http://media.theage.com.au/?sy=age&category=bulletin&rid=23159&source=theage.com.au%2F&t=276KU1&player=wm6&rate=646&flash=0&ie=0

So what? The Phillipines isn't American anymore. And what Empire did Australia ever have? Eh? No answer? Never even conquered Indonesia. Just shut up and hang some more corks off your hat :mad: .

[Verde]

And what Empire did Australia ever have? Eh? No answer? .

Oh, cut them a bit of slack, mate! There's Cocos-Keeling, and Norfolk Island. Christmas and Lord Howe. Willis and Mellish Reef.
And don't forget Heard and Macquarie Islands.
[In the summertime] the sun never sets on the great Aussie empire.

[DeviousB]

Nor, presumably, the people who, as the icecaps lap around their ankles, will be conjuring-up a conspiracy theory to explain the fact.


It'll be tha' fault o' those durned Icelandians, I'll wager! They're behind these Waters o' Mass Destruction f'sure! Who else would know as much about ice as an someone from Ice-land?!

I mean whut sort o'a man goes around wit' horns on his hayed instead o' in his pants like God intended?

And whut about that thar Sportacus fella allus tellin' folk to 'warm up properly'?! Enough of their propaganda, I say! It's about time we showed those herring-eating, exercise monkeys jus' who's the boss o' this planet!

I've looked up the capital of Iceland on the map, and our airforce will begin bombing Dublin in 5 minutes!

[Jimbo07]

The contrarian obsession with the Hockey-Stick puts me in mind of a general who's lost control of the battlefield and himself and compensates by micro-managing a tiny, less-than-crucial action on some obscure front. As if by mastering this one point - which they can't - they can reverse the collapse all around them. Forgotten are the dozens of other temperature reconstructions performed before or since, with different data sets (improved data sets since Man et al) and peer-reviewed methodologies and the same results.

Great Big Elephant not yet mentioned on this thread : permafrost is melting that has been accumulating without melting for the whole of this interglacial. That's the period in which human civilisation has developed from Catal Huyuk to a world population over 6 billion, almost half of them urbanised. That happened in what passes for a settled climate in comparison to what's happening now and coming soon.

Yup, Arctic change due to global warming is not so much a hypothetical scenario espoused by fear-mongerers, but a genuine political and military concern. The continued loss of ice has serious implications in terms of a year-round opening of the Northwest Passage. Canadian Coast Guard ships make passages through the Arctic carrying scientists and equipment to study climate change in the Arctic. ex:

Amundsen (4th article) (http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/06-07/oct28.html)

[CapelDodger]

Oh, cut them a bit of slack, mate! There's Cocos-Keeling, and Norfolk Island. Christmas and Lord Howe. Willis and Mellish Reef.
And don't forget Heard and Macquarie Islands.
[In the summertime] the sun never sets on the great Aussie empire.
Of course, I wasn't in me-mode back there, but I'll admit my Australian territories knowledge-base just rocketed. OK, even the Welsh have outstripped that in their day (the way they tell it), but respect. What's the Aussie term for conquistadore?

Given the subject matter, I don't see Mellish Reef making it through unless that famous Aussie irony is in play and it's actually some precipitous volcanic rock.

Norfolk Island. Rings a bell. Did some Royal Navy chap make an arse of himself there recently?

[CapelDodger]

Yup, Arctic change due to global warming is not so much a hypothetical scenario espoused by fear-mongerers, but a genuine political and military concern. The continued loss of ice has serious implications in terms of a year-round opening of the Northwest Passage.
There is an all-bets-are-off feel to the matter. Considering how much effort was put into finding North-West and North-East passages back in the day you have to conclude that a year-round navigable Arctic has significant economic and strategic implications. It's the greatest geological change that humanity has witnessed, it really changes the face of the globe. Continental drift is far too slow for that but of course ice responds on a vastly different timescale.

You could get boat-people from Korea arriving in Norway one day. Given some combination of circumstances. And one thing about the future is certain : it will be a combination of circumstances. I really wouldn't venture to predict anything 50 years down the line. (Part of my mind is rowing back from that absolute statement even as I type :) . The John Daly cult will still exist, for one thing.)

[luvhumility]

There is an all-bets-are-off feel to the matter. Considering how much effort was put into finding North-West and North-East passages back in the day you have to conclude that a year-round navigable Arctic has significant economic and strategic implications. It's the greatest geological change that humanity has witnessed, it really changes the face of the globe. Continental drift is far too slow for that but of course ice responds on a vastly different timescale.

You could get boat-people from Korea arriving in Norway one day. Given some combination of circumstances. And one thing about the future is certain : it will be a combination of circumstances. I really wouldn't venture to predict anything 50 years down the line. (Part of my mind is rowing back from that absolute statement even as I type :) . The John Daly cult will still exist, for one thing.)

I venture IT WILL BE EVEN HOTTER!!

time to wake up and smell all that yummy CO2!!! mmm mmm good!
Does anyone have a soda? or a SUV tail pipe I can put in my kitchen?

Now its gittin real hot in my kitchen! can someone turn on the A/C!

ohh no the powers out due to a heat wave!

ohh no... NOW I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING about this problem!...

my name is average american in denial!

lh

[Soapy Sam]

On average (with some major and minor reversals) the world's climate has been in a warming trend for the last 20,000 years. I don't think any climatologist would dispute that this is true to a first approximation.

The question of interest is- How much of the increase over the last few years is down to human activity?
We don't know.

I would note in passing, that the last 20,000 years have been rather kind to Homo sapiens.

[a_unique_person]

We do know. Modelling cannot reproduce the current climate unless AGW is added into the equation.

[a_unique_person]

I would note in passing, that the last 20,000 years have been rather kind to Homo sapiens.

Yes, read Tim Flannery, "The Weather Makers". Manking has spent the vast majority of it's existence on the edge, until the recent benign weather patterns made it possible for civilsation to appear. Prior to that, mankind was just as smart as it is now.

[CapelDodger]

On average (with some major and minor reversals) the world's climate has been in a warming trend for the last 20,000 years. I don't think any climatologist would dispute that this is true to a first approximation.
Nor would they, but the first approximation is meaningless. 20ky ago the world was in an ice-age, now it's in an interglacial. 100ky ago it was warmer than now so to the first approximation the world's climate has been in a cooling phase for 100ky.

The question of interest is- How much of the increase over the last few years is down to human activity?
We don't know.
We can make a very good approximation. The Hockey Stick itself shows that human influence is very significant. Other causes are hard to find -great effort has been expended on finding them or, failing that, making them up - and none of them show any signs of being nearly as significant. The Sun is observed in great detail these days, so hand-waving about solar variation doesn't wash any more (not that it doesn't still go on). The oceans are subject to better and better observation, as is cloud cover. If there's a major cause of warming that isn't man-made it's hiding itself remarkably well.

I would note in passing, that the last 20,000 years have been rather kind to Homo sapiens.
So far so good. How kind the next century will be is uncertain, obviously, but I'm not optimistic.

[varwoche]

The contrarian obsession with the Hockey-Stick ... Forgotten are the dozens of other temperature reconstructions performed before or since, with different data sets (improved data sets since Man et al) and peer-reviewed methodologies and the same results. Indeed, on top of which there are studies based on a variety of observations and methodologies that arrive at the same basic conclusion. The singular fixation on Mann is goofy.

Great Big Elephant not yet mentioned on this thread : permafrost is melting that has been accumulating without melting for the whole of this interglacial. And especially when you consider the amount of methane (and carbon) trapped in the permafrost. link1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060906-methane.html) link2 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-global-warming.html)

[Jimbo07]

And especially when you consider the amount of methane (and carbon) trapped in the permafrost.

And mercury, which surprised them on the Amundsen.

[Verde]

Of course, I wasn't in me-mode back there, but I'll admit my Australian territories knowledge-base just rocketed.


No worries, mate!


OK, even the Welsh have outstripped that in their day (the way they tell it), but respect. What's the Aussie term for conquistadore?


I'm not an Aussie, but I spend a lot of time down there. I'd guess the literal translation would have something to do with sheep and beer.

Hmm. That could probably apply to the Welsh also.


Norfolk Island. Rings a bell. Did some Royal Navy chap make an arse of himself there recently?

Yup. Something about rocks that were in the wrong place. As I recall, it was the New Zealand navy that bailed him out. (Probably spent their entire annual military budget on that one)

[CapelDodger]

I'm not an Aussie, but I spend a lot of time down there.
You'd find it quiet down there at the moment, most of them appear to be in Cardiff at the moment. Simple pleasures are best : watching your team get hammered by the Aussies, then into town to get hammered with the Aussies.

I'd guess the literal translation would have something to do with sheep and beer.

Hmm. That could probably apply to the Welsh also.
It's not by accident they have a New South Wales. :)

[CapelDodger]

... watching your team get hammered by the Aussies ...
Or not. Whatever. Always a pleasure to watch the Wallabies in action. 29-29 after a seriously excellent game. The first draw in the 98-year history of the fixture.

... then into town to get hammered with the Aussies.
We're off to the Walkabout later to accuse Aussies of being here to steal our water :) .

The Aussie term for conquistadore is apparently "Giteau". The Welsh term is "Martin Williams". It's all about being robust, flexible and supremely opportunistic.

What's more, we get to watch the All Blacks hammer England tomorrow. I follow the local habit of supporting two teams - Wales and whoever's playing England.

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, on top of which there are studies based on a variety of observations and methodologies that arrive at the same basic conclusion. The singular fixation on Mann is goofy.
The denialists' situation must be very uncomfortable. They've been at this for almost twenty years, since before AGW even crossed most people's horizons. Ideally, for them, it never would have. Now it's common talk, and commoner day by day. The denialist camp has done nothing but lose ground. It must be worst for the cultists who KNOW it's not real because they are privy to the special knowledge that simpler folk just can't seem to grasp. It must be frustrating to believe that something you regard as a conspiracy against the public interest is succeeding. I hope it's frustrating. Knuckle-biting, carpet-chewing, life-manglingly frustrating. I see no reason to expend any of my charitable impulses on people who so wantonly accuse honest scientists of incompetence, corruption and/or fraud. iIm not a vindictive person ...

Who am I kidding? I'm a very vindictive person. I'll play fair and decent with anyone until they don't do the same. :mad: The I'll play by their rules. Can I help it if I love it?

It must make things worse for the denialists that the actual weather just keeps on not turning cooler. A particularly silly product of that has been this recent apparition, the 8-year cooling phase since 98. 98 having been way off the trend owing to a very strong El Nino (as you're well aware). There's a strong need to believe out there.

And especially when you consider the amount of methane (and carbon) trapped in the permafrost. link1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060906-methane.html) link2 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-global-warming.html)
We're screwed. Frankly. Even in Great Big Elephant terms this is a feature. We can't stop that melting whatever we do, and it generates its own momentum. Go globally carbon neutral tomorrow and we're still screwed.

[Jimbo07]

Go globally carbon neutral tomorrow and we're still screwed.

Yup. Environmentally, we're currently paying for the sins of the past. For example, in the middle of the 20th C. people dumped unused crude on the ground at wells, and constructed rural service stations by running ABS pipe from the tanks to the pumps! Emissions were just belched out of stacks without even flaring! :eek:

Contrarians remind me of ID supporters... right down to accusing others of either being unscientific, or here, supporting 'woo.' :boggled:

[CapelDodger]

Yup. Environmentally, we're currently paying for the sins of the past. For example, in the middle of the 20th C. people dumped unused crude on the ground at wells, and constructed rural service stations by running ABS pipe from the tanks to the pumps! Emissions were just belched out of stacks without even flaring! :eek:
Forgive them, for they knew not what they did. It's the likes of Exxon and its hired pack of imps that arouse my special ire. They know. They just can't seem to care. Way worse than the cultists, who are at least sincere and are mostly adolescents trapped in amber.

Contrarians remind me of ID supporters... right down to accusing others of either being unscientific, or here, supporting 'woo.' :boggled:
It's a common theme that the deluded or mendacious accuse their opponents of their own worst faults. Believers accuse atheists of "dogmatism". Greenhouse denialists claim that AGW is "junk science". Look out for this phaenomenon and you'll find it all over the place.

(edited to add "special" to "ire". I have plenty of general ire for wider distribution.)

[Jimbo07]

Look out for this phaenomenon and you'll find it all over the place.

Bah! Now you're just espousing the "law of Fives." ;)

BTW, I'm not so quick to judge Exxon, etc. When I was a wee lad, I pumped gas. A lady was incensed that I asked her not to smoke at the pumps, saying something to the effect of, "We used to smoke over barrels of gasoline on the farm all the time, and I'm still here." A lot of things were just 'accepted.'

The oil and gas industry (and other fossil fuels like coal) are cleaner than they were, but a lot of that has to do with governmental regulation. There is a way to go yet...

[CapelDodger]

Bah! Now you're just espousing the "law of Fives." ;)
That I'll have to look up.

BTW, I'm not so quick to judge Exxon, etc. When I was a wee lad, I pumped gas. A lady was incensed that I asked her not to smoke at the pumps, saying something to the effect of, "We used to smoke over barrels of gasoline on the farm all the time, and I'm still here." A lot of things were just 'accepted.' My thing is about Exxon's behaviour now, when it knows but deliberately obfuscates and misleads for its own perceived benefit because it doesn't care about the damage that might result.

Having got that straight :) , I used to pump gas as a kid. It was my holiday job from the summer before I went to University. Which is to say summer '73. What an earner. Easter '74 we were only serving regular customers, and then only with two gallons. This is in the Home Counties, by the way, mucho dinero. Imagine what they were prepared to pay for the third gallon, the fourth ... Strangers became regular customers hailed and well-met at the whiff of a Ben Franklin.

Even in ordinary times the fiddles were awesome. ("Awesome", I'm slipping into Kiwi mode here.) Gotta love a cash business. And the guy I was working with had been there for 28 years, knew everybody and every scam, sounded me out in less than three hours and we were off and running. I learned a lot from Mike, bless 'im. I learned a lot from dealing with the public. Head of the list : Get Another Type of Job. That was more a confirmation, since I was already booked for three years of Computer Science. But once, like going to the opera, you have to try it so you can answer "Yes" when asked if you have.

[varwoche]

The denialists' situation must be very uncomfortable. They've been at this for almost twenty years, since before AGW even crossed most people's horizons. Ideally, for them, it never would have. Now it's common talk, and commoner day by day. The denialist camp has done nothing but lose ground. It must be worst for the cultists who KNOW it's not real because they are privy to the special knowledge that simpler folk just can't seem to grasp. It must be frustrating to believe that something you regard as a conspiracy against the public interest is succeeding. I hope it's frustrating. Knuckle-biting, carpet-chewing, life-manglingly frustrating. I see no reason to expend any of my charitable impulses on people who so wantonly accuse honest scientists of incompetence, corruption and/or fraud. iIm not a vindictive person .... Schadenfreude is entirely underrated.

[CapelDodger]

Schadenfreude is entirely underrated.
Not where I living it ain't. Sometimes it seems as if that's all we've got left to take comfort from.

I am soooooo loking forward to the mid-terms on Tuesday. :D

[Soapy Sam]

My thing is about Exxon's behaviour now, when it knows but deliberately obfuscates and misleads for its own perceived benefit because it doesn't care about the damage that might result.

I'd be interested in an example or two of this obfuscation. Can't say about downline businesses, but I would be run off if I threw a piece of litter over the side of the rig.
The major energy companies these days insist on extremely stringent environmental standards. I recall working on a rig near Shetland in 95 , when Greenpeace invaded it's sister rig and hung sleeping bags over the side, dropping food and excrement in the water, any of which would have resulted in immediate firing for the rig crew.

And since when were "Ben Franklins" legal tender in either Wales or the Home Counties?:confused: (We will not raise the sad question of exchange rates).

[Texastwister]

Guess what Jimbo....unused crude has been coming to the surface for as long as it has been in the ground.........the only reason oil is in the ground is because some geological formation kept it from coming to the surface.....

[Jimbo07]

Guess what Jimbo....unused crude has been coming to the surface for as long as it has been in the ground.........the only reason oil is in the ground is because some geological formation kept it from coming to the surface.....

This is truly profound.

Okay. You've changed my mind. All practices by all energy companies have always been fully environmentally sound.

That's better. I was worried for a bit...

:rolleyes:

[CapelDodger]

Okay. You've changed my mind. All practices by all energy companies have always been fully environmentally sound.

That's better. I was worried for a bit...

:rolleyes:
I've seen pictures from Baku in the 1860's that were truly grim. The oil was just pumped into lakes to be ladled into barrels by (presumably) short-lived people.

The first oil recovered in Pennsylvania was actually a contaminant of brine wells, they just skimmed it off and threw it away until - hey, this is America! - someone thought of a way to sell it. As snake-oil medicine. From baldness to bunions it's just the ticket :) .

We know a lot better now, and act better, despite industries fighting tooth and nail against regulation. The problem with CO2 is you can't see it, as you can oil and soot coating an environment.

[CapelDodger]

I'd be interested in an example or two of this obfuscation. Can't say about downline businesses, but I would be run off if I threw a piece of litter over the side of the rig.
But not if it was CO2, since that's invisible and nobody would notice. AGW via CO2 was what I was referring to. Can you flare off gas?

The Royal Society - a body so august it takes in parts of july and september - was moved to complain to Exxon about their funding of lobby groups and institutions that do nothing but obfuscate and mislead when it comes to AGW. Some of them do other things as well, of course, such as obfuscate and mislead on the subject of second-hand smoke and the like. Exxon isn't their only funder, after all. They'll put out to anyone for beer.

(Be warned, everybody, it seems I'm in a bitchy mood tonight :) .)

[Texastwister]

More damage was done by the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez than the original spill. The dirty little secret is that it doesnt take very long for oil to evaporate and disappear...but that doesnt save the little otters covered in black

[Texastwister]

I dont usually post on message boards, more of a lurker, but there is so much dis-information on this topic it forced me to come out of the shadows.....more money is funneled into the eco-environmental religion than Exxon uses to discredit all the garbage

[fsol]

I dont usually post on message boards, more of a lurker, but there is so much dis-information on this topic it forced me to come out of the shadows.....more money is funneled into the eco-environmental religion than Exxon uses to discredit all the garbage

Got any cites for that?

[DeviousB]

More damage was done by the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez than the original spill. The dirty little secret is that it doesnt take very long for oil to evaporate and disappear...but that doesnt save the little otters covered in black

Only the volatile (and ironically most toxic) components do this. Crude persists in the oceans for much longer. After the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989, some of the oil was still present on beaches around Prince William Sound as late as 1997 (Hayes and Michael, Marine Pollution Bulletin 38 (1999)).

[CapelDodger]

I dont usually post on message boards, more of a lurker, but there is so much dis-information on this topic it forced me to come out of the shadows.....more money is funneled into the eco-environmental religion than Exxon uses to discredit all the garbage
If you've lurked here for long you'll surely realise that terminology such as "eco-environmental religion" will not build you a firm credibility-base. You already carry the burden of (apparantly) being from Texas. When in a hole like that, don't dig.

Are you quite sure that your opinion on this matter is based on considered appraisal of the evidence? That no element of pre-judgement has slipped in because you work in oil?

(I've worked in the industry myself, but at the tie-wearing end in plush offices. They're slow payers, in my experience, you wait three months then they "lose" your invoice. Not that my judgement is coloured by that experience, of course :) )

If you think that people like varwoche, Jimbo or me are driven by religious mania it must be really dark where your head is. These funds "funneled" into the (I'll try to type this without giggling) "eco-environmental religion" (nope, couldn't do it) are funneled by whom, from where, to what purpose? Any paper-trail available?

[CapelDodger]

More damage was done by the cleanup of the Exxon Valdez than the original spill.
Might that be because the clean-up limited the amount of damage from the original oil-spill? What point are you trying to make here? That simply leaving the spill to itself would have done less damage in the long run? It's hard to see how that works.
The dirty little secret is that it doesnt take very long for oil to evaporate and disappear ...
There's still goo coming out of West Wales beaches following a big spill in the 60's. You must be aware that crude contains non-volatile fractions. You should be aware that you can't get away with such glib statements in this environment. Lots of people around who think, and know a thing or two.

...but that doesnt save the little otters covered in black
They might have been saved if Exxon had used a double-hulled tanker. If Exxon hadn't employed a drunken ship's master. If Exxon had provided a sufficient and rested crew. Doubtless there were cost implications, I wouldn't want to make cavalier accusations of incompetence or lack of concern. They probably were concerned, about costs, and competent in keeping them down.

[Verde]

And especially when you consider the amount of methane (and carbon) trapped in the permafrost. link1 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060906-methane.html) link2 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060615-global-warming.html)


We're screwed. Frankly. Even in Great Big Elephant terms this is a feature. We can't stop that melting whatever we do, and it generates its own momentum. Go globally carbon neutral tomorrow and we're still screwed.

I recently re-watched the classic 'Dr. Strangelove', with the concept of the Doomsday Bomb being triggered.

From my readings on the permafrost studies, I fear we have now met the real-world version of this.

On the plus side, knowing that I can do nothing personally to contribute to a solution, I feel less guilty driving my big SUV to pick up my grandchildren, although there is an extra tear in my eye when I look at them.

No smilies on this one.

[lenny]

Forgive them, for they knew not what they did. It's the likes of Exxon and its hired pack of imps that arouse my special ire. They know.

it would be interesting to see a graph from, say 1940 to 2000, showing the fraction of boardroom members in tobacco companies who smoked...

[lenny]

We do know. Modelling cannot reproduce the current climate unless AGW is added into the equation.
models do not produce the "current cliamte" all that well either way, even after years of in-sample advances.

the arguments from the obs are strong, and perhaps stay stronger if separated where possible from the "realism" of (current) models.

[CapelDodger]

models do not produce the "current cliamte" all that well either way, even after years of in-sample advances.

the arguments from the obs are strong, and perhaps stay stronger if separated where possible from the "realism" of (current) models.
It's not my impression that current models are wildly out of whack, but I guess it's a subjective decision as to what's good and what's bad.

I agree wholeheartedly that the observations are the clincher. Of course, they always had to be. This is presumably why the contrarians are reduced to obsessing over models and climate reconstructions such as the Hockey Stick. Consider what happened to Bellamy when he claimed the world's glaciers were advancing - he was hit by a wall of photographic evidence of empty valleys that were once ice-filled.

It's also presumably why the public and politicians are increasingly accepting the horrible truth. Claims of conspiracies or of access to secret data that disproves the evidence of people's own eyes just doesn't wash. The argument is now shifting to "OK, it's happening, but best we not do anything about it".

There will always be the chumps who "believe" on the basis of what they want to be so. "I don't believe smoking causes harm" - doesn't want to give up. "I don't believe in evolution" - wants to stay centre-stage in the Universe. And so on.

On an entirely different note, where's Diamond?

[DeviousB]

On an entirely different note, where's Diamond?

Do you mean the Diamond Light Source (http://www.diamond.ac.uk/default.htm)? If so, it's based at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot in Oxfordshire.

(I can't actually see any references to Diamond on this page. Where'd you pull that from CD?)

[brodski]

Do you mean the Diamond Light Source (http://www.diamond.ac.uk/default.htm)? If so, it's based at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot in Oxfordshire.

(I can't actually see any references to Diamond on this page. Where'd you pull that from CD?)
Diamond is the name of one of the regular posters here, he has very strong views on AGW (he doesn’t believe in it). I suspect that is what CapelDodger is talking about.

[DeviousB]

Of course. I guess I'm not awake yet.

(Nurse? Get me 500 cc's of fresh coffee, stat!)

[CapelDodger]

Diamond Light Source? I'll have to look into that. :cool:

[ponderingturtle]

"WARMER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS" That is a meaningless tidbit of information. On a climatological scale it is the equivilent of one sunny day in Seattle. I want some dependable data regarding a longer period. Say, hot spells for the last 200,000 years. Say, proof that it is hotter now than ever before? If so, then I will buy into the (A)GW theory.

Well it is likely as much of the last 200,000 years was an ice age

[CapelDodger]

Well it is likely as much of the last 200,000 years was an ice age
The last inter-glacial was warmer than this one (although the gap is narrowing), for reasons seasoned by contingencies. It had a very average shape. This inter-glacial has a remarkably unusual shape, even discounting the Younger Dryas.

All this stuff on timescales way beyond the relevant one - the inter-glacial in which a human civilisation of 6-odd billion has erupted - is, of course, obfuscation and misdirection. Or regurgitations of the obfuscated and/or misdirected. Let us speak of them no more.

Hockey Stick. Unusual shape for an inter-glacial. No unusual volcanic activity in evidence. An unusual amount of industrialised society 6-odd billion strong. Come to think of it, the only amount. One unusual thing coincident with another unusual thing with a robust scientific explanation for linkage. Why assume coincidence? I reckon the game's fixed.

[lenny]

It's not my impression that current models are wildly out of whack, but I guess it's a subjective decision as to what's good and what's bad.

i think we can be objective here, asking whether or not a model is empirically adequate (a la van Fraassen). state-of-the-art models are undoubtedly useful, and while they "look like" the earth in many ways they all have nontrivial systematic flaws. none are quantitatively "realistic" given the uncertainty in our timeseries of observaitons.


I agree wholeheartedly that the observations are the clincher. Of course, they always had to be.
that is what makes climate so much more of a challenge than weather. interpolation vs extrapolation: modern weather models also have systematic flaws, but as we have a large collection of forecast/observation pairs we can learn how to account (for some) of these.

in climate-like problems, the problem statement rules out access to relevant obs; not excuse for doing nothing, but it makes the problem much harder!

[CapelDodger]

i think we can be objective here, asking whether or not a model is empirically adequate (a la van Fraassen). state-of-the-art models are undoubtedly useful, and while they "look like" the earth in many ways they all have nontrivial systematic flaws. none are quantitatively "realistic" given the uncertainty in our timeseries of observaitons.
I give way to your clearly superior expertise. To someone like me, who first came across climate-modelling in the mid-70's, what we have now seems like science-fiction. But the good is enemy of the best, as the saying goes.

[lenny]

I give way to your clearly superior expertise.

sorry CapelDodger, i did not mean to spout expertease! i should have provided evidence.

models are certainly more useful now than they were in the 70's. in the 70's they did not really have oceans, but even today they get little things wrong, like the temperature across the tropical Atlantic. (it has the wrong sign, see http://climatechange.pbwiki.com/ErrorsInGCMs [graphs available here are from the literature]).

that makes it unlikely that they could get hurricane behaviour usefully, even if they could simulate hurricanes. i do not have a reference handy, but i think most if not all models still get tropical rainfall at night, instead of in the afternoon.

it seems reasonable to me to take this fact, that a model gets these current phenomena "badly wrong", as limiting the faith we can place in that model getting second order effects accurately in a changed climate.

models have and will improve with time, but i think we have to be honest about their limitations and learn to use them as they are.

[CapelDodger]

sorry CapelDodger, i did not mean to spout expertease! i should have provided evidence.
No problem, I didn't intend to be snippy but I can see now it looks that way. :o I'm no expert on modelling, my early involvement was incidental and transient.