September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Things to do in GSO | Main | Hidden costs »

Oct 21, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

bubba

From Mother Jones?

Oh, please........

Let's look at what Muller said in today's WSJ:

"The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy’s Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world. Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64oC temperature rise in the past 50 years, 'most' of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming."

.....and:

"The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that’s in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate."

Let's see:

Muller says the record shows a more stable climate, and the temp stations records are "awful", we can't accurate figure out what the ocean temperature results are, but IPCC says "it's ANTHROPOGENIC!", but the margin of error is at least three times larger that the "estimated warming".

Yeah buddy, that's a clincher for the Team Climate Alarmist, for sure!

"Global Warming is real"! As if....

Kevin Drum is an agenda whore who ignores not so small things that are inconvenient to the Drumbeat meme.

Kinda reminds me of you.

bubba

Roger Pielke Sr, on the Muller report.

Anthony Watts:

"I also believe it would be premature and inappropriate to have a news article highlighting the conclusions of this paper until such time meaningful data comparisons are produced and the paper passes peer review.

The list goes on, but that won't stop the alarmist cabal, nor will it stop the purveyors of slant, as found on Mother Earth and this blog, from attempting to frame an issue to neatly conform with their worldview.

Ed Cone

Just to be clear, the quote "Global warming is real" is from the Berkeley Earth news release.

Drum's quote is the one about smarter skeptics.

Bob, surely you can make your points with a little less personal vitriol. Thanks for trying to do that, it would be nice if these threads were a bit more collegial.

john hayes

I'm finally coming around on this global warming thing. All I needed was some hard evidence.

Andrew Brod

Ed, the quote "Global warming is real" is also from Muller's WSJ column. Bubba chose to omit that part, as well as a few other revealing bits.

bubba

"Just to be clear, the quote "Global warming is real" is from the Berkeley Earth news release."

Just to be clear, you're the one who felt compelled to include it in the lede, supporting the concept that skeptics are wrong, ha ha......for some arbitrary reason, I'm sure.

No one disputes the fact that global warming has ocurred throughout Earth's history. Also, no one disputes that CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past. Unfortunately for the Alarmists, the historical record between the two suggests CO2 lags heat, not the other way around.

What part of the excerpts provided from Muller do either you or Brod not understand?

Andrew Brod

So you're admitting that global warming is happening now? And the only thing you're disputing is the anthropogenic part?

That's new.

Ed Cone

"Global warming is real" is how the statement from Berkeley project begins. I didn't pluck the phrase from a footnote, it's the opening salvo of the document.

These scientists, tasked with studying work of climate researchers, obviously felt this conclusion was worth emphasizing.

And while the report doesn't get into causes, it does conclude that the scientists who have in the main pointed toward anthropogenic arguments are doing their work well: "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

Fred Gregory

Al Gore faked video of warming experiment

john hayes

All I know is scientist Al sure produces his fair share of warm CO2.

bubba

"So you're admitting that global warming is happening now?"

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

bubba

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

Too bad the other information I provided puts that prevarication to rest.

al gore jr

ain't i got a purty mouth

john hayes

To be read like Jeff Foxworthy on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour:

I believe the earth’s overall temperature trend during the last 80 years or so has been one of warming.

I believe that there has and likely will be in the future, periods of global cooling.

And I REALLY believe in global climate change.

I believe that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising recently.

I believe that man probably accounts for some of that.

I believe that might account for a portion of the warming observed, particularly in the last 30-40 years.

I do not believe that there is any good evidence that further rise in the Earth’s temperature, up to some unknown limit, would be either more detrimental or beneficial to the planet than a similar degree of cooling.

I do not believe that science has established any reliable track record in predicting what the earth’s climate will do in the future, much less the overall effect it would have on life on the planet.

I believe that man has little ability to shape or alter the overall direction or magnitude of the Earth’s climate changes , and believe even more strongly that since we cannot predict those future changes or know that they would be overall harmful in the first place, that such attempts, however well-intentioned, would primarily result in a colossal waste of money and energy that could better be directed toward much more predictable and easily achieved improvements in the quality of life on the planet, as well as unnecessary and corrosive infringement of personal and economic freedoms.

In the current polarized political climate, I firmly believe that the desire to create policy in that regard, is more driven by political ideology than the certainty or predictive powers of science, and the reflexive attempts to resist such policy (which I will personally confess to, to some degree), likewise.
Given these same, in my mind, undeniable human factors, and my belief that the behavior of politicians, governments, corporations and people in general, unlike climate change, is usually quite predictable, I believe that ALL funded research is almost definitionally biased by multiple factors, most obviously the source of the funding.

Given all that, when I first tried to wrap my brain around this topic a few years ago, I believe the most practical conclusion one can come to, as far as our response to the world’s continuously changing climate, is summarized in the adage “when in doubt, don’t”, or, as we say in medicine “first, do no harm”. Nothing I have learned since has altered that belief, so far.

As an aside, I cannot belief our lucky stars that we were saved from having Mr Gore being the Leader of the Free World by just a few hanging chads. Talk about a threat to the planet.

Finally, yes, I believe he shore do got a purdy mouth.

Steve Harrison

Doc, that "first, do no harm" thing doesn't apply, at least as far as coal-burning goes. It's been doing harm for quite some time now, and even if you don't believe atmospheric carbon levels are an issue, you (as a physician) should be greatly concerned about the smorgasbord of toxins and heavy metals permeating our air and water, not to mention the bioaccumulation of methyl mercury marching up the food chain.

And right up in front of state/national Republican platform issues is the removal of regulations and statutes governing those emissions, soon to be followed by the removal of those expensive pollution control technologies like scrubbers and such.

Keeping in mind what you said about "do no harm", please pay close attention to what those Presidential hopefuls are saying.

john hayes

Hi, Steve. Long time. I am no fan of pollution, which I see as a separate issue, though perhaps not absolutely inseparable from, AGW. And can we at least agree on the purty mouth thing? ;)

Dave Dobson

How ironic -
"First, do no harm" is an argument for stopping global warming until we understand what it will do rather than an argument for letting it run its course. We're running a grand experiment on the planet - what happens when you double atmospheric CO2 concentrations over 250 years? The problem is, we don't have another planet to move to if the answer turns out to be "Things suck pretty bad."

Ed Cone

"I firmly believe that the desire to create policy in that regard, is more driven by political ideology than the certainty or predictive powers of science..."

I strongly believe this not to be the case.

Also, a valid scientific finding is what it is, regardless of political externalities.

The reality of warming itself was disputed, and the science was challenged as biased and/or imprecise.

The Berkeley project set out to assess both the results and the quality of the science. It now says warming is real and the science has been sound.

That doesn't prove warming is anthropogenic. But it does lend some credibility to the science, which has pointed to man-made contributions to warming.

Ged

Thought I'd poke my head in here with the news of this latest report on global warming just to see if anything around these parts has changed. Brings stability and sanity to my world to know that in fact, no, it hasn't. Bob's still denying and Fred's still side-kicking.

Take care all, happy holidays!

john hayes

"First, do no harm" is an argument for stopping global warming until we understand what it will do rather than an argument for letting it run its course."

Absolutely backwards, in my opinion.
Your statement presumes you can predict the future and know that temps will rise , unabated, which you cannot know.
It presumes that whatever controllable part of climate change, if such exists, could override the observed dramatic shifts beyond our control that have been occurring for eons before we were here, which you cannot know.
It presumes you know that what you think is going to happen in the future will result in a bad outcome, which you cannot know.
It presumes we have the resources to stop it in the first place if we wanted to, which you cannot know.
And it it presumes that the efforts will themselves be immune from the laws of unintended consequences and not itself choke the life out of civilization, which you cannot know.

I understand what you are saying. I've heard it before. But you beg my questions all the way around, without addressing any of them. Your "what if" scenarios are scary, but not persuasive. There are too many dots to connect to get from what we know (point A) to what we should do (point B). The probability of point A leading logically to point B must be sequentially multiplied by the probability of all your assumptions in between to determine the soundness of the latter. that erodes to a pretty paltry number along the way, in my opinion. Please note that I am not claiming confidence in my knowledge of any of these things, (which is kind of my point) other than the human factor of the behavior and motivations of politicians, governments, corporations, environmentalists, etc, being more predictable than climate change.

Steve Harrison

Yes, doc. Al Gore is an attractive man. And we owe him a debt of gratitude for that whole Internet thing. :)

john hayes

Ed, i didn't read all of your links completely, but it appears to boil down to "Yes, we are more sure than we were that global warming has occurred". As you point out, there is no discussion of causality, nor doomsday predictions or grand proposals to stop it. I really didn't glean much new here, although I didn't read it all. I am less concerned about the manner in which science is conducted than with what frothing zealots like Gore would do with it if they had the power. It damned near happened and I am sure it will again. I mean according to his book, shouldn't Florida be about half-way underwater by now?

Andrew Brod

We're disagreeing about null hypotheses. In statistics, the null is the default presumption; you don't conclude the alternative hypothesis is true unless unless you have sufficient evidence.

The basic idea applies to many decision-making processes. For example, in criminal proceedings the null hypothesis is that the accused is innocent. That's why acquitted people are said to be "not guilty" rather than "innocent." Acquittal doesn't imply innocence, just the absence of guilt.

My favorite political example is still the Clarence Thomas hearings 20 years ago. The evidence wasn't conclusive, so both sides had to argue for their preferred null hypothesis. The Republicans said Thomas shouldn't be denied a seat on the SCOTUS unless there was clear evidence of misconduct. The Democrats said a seat on the SCOTUS was so important that Thomas shouldn't be confirmed unless there was clear evidence of no misconduct. Neither side was fundamentally right; it was about values and persuasion.

Similarly here. CP argues for a null hypothesis that everything's fine, or in any case that policy won't accomplish anything. I don't see how that's consistent with his "I believe" statement that "man probably accounts for some of that," but whatever. His null implies doing nothing unless we're more sure of anthropogenic warming. Others argue for a null hypothesis of anthropogenic warming, which implies doing something unless we can be more sure there's no problem. I've long agreed with the latter view ("There’s no scientific evidence that my house will catch on fire next week, but if it’s all the same to you, I think I’ll buy homeowner’s insurance."). But as with the Clarence Thomas example, neither side's null hypothesis is fundamentally right. It's about values, risk, and persuasion.

And some people may never be persuaded.

john hayes

It is consistent because of the 5 or 6 considerations in between "man probably accounts for some of that (increased CO2)," and "policy won't accomplish anything"(your quote, but close enough for argument's sake). So maybe everything's fine/policy won't accomplish anything" is a pure null hypothesis and an exaggeration of what I actually said or believe. Mine is more of a nil hypothesis. But very similar to Dave, I see your point. What we are all saying is basically "my null's nuller than your null". I can't take it any further.

Ed Cone

John, there's more to the report than "we're surer now that warming is real." There's also, "the science is being done right."

So while it does not address causes, it does endorse the process that has posited causes.

That undercuts the "it's all agenda-driven" meme that you yourself advanced in this very thread.

If the science stays on trend -- if, for example, this project goes on to endorse the idea of man-influenced warming -- I wonder what kind of proof, and how much of it, skeptics will need.

None of which addresses questions of cost and benefit.

john hayes

If it goes on to endorse the "idea" of man-influenced warming, then that will be one step in the direction of knowledge/probability. My problem is with the influence of people with louder megaphones who are light-years beyond that point already and who are much closer to power and policy implementation than are scientists.

BTW, check your email, Ed....please.

Andrew Brod

"None of which addresses questions of cost and benefit."

Or the incidence thereof. The cost to the U.S. of doing nothing may be relatively small, on the order of a couple of percentage points of GDP each year within a few decades. Mind you, that ain't nuthin'. So far in this expansion real GDP has grown by just under 2.5% per year. Things would be very different if it'd been 4.5% per year. Even so, 2.5% has been merely wretched, not catastrophic. We'll survive a drop of 2 percentage points.

That's less true for poor countries, especially low-lying ones like Bangladesh, where the damage could indeed be catastrophic. It's well and good to sit here and debate how many angels can dance on the head of a marginal change in economic freedom when it may well be a matter of life and death for others. Add in the fact that we're responsible for a very large share of total CO2 emissions, and it should present us with a difficult ethical quandary.

Andrew Brod

Perhaps the most destructive belief outlined in CP's otherwise-reasonable-sounding riff:

"Given these same, in my mind, undeniable human factors, and my belief that the behavior of politicians, governments, corporations and people in general, unlike climate change, is usually quite predictable, I believe that ALL funded research is almost definitionally biased by multiple factors, most obviously the source of the funding."

Of course it's fair to assess the funding, but it appears you've gone beyond assessment to complete disregard. Do you view all research in this I'm-rocking-my-tinfoil-hat-as-I-type-this fashion, in particular medical research, or is it just research that yield results you dislike?

Ed Cone

Part of the value of the Berkeley project is that set out to address questions about the quality of research, and is itself funded in part by leading skeptics.

Investigating for bias makes sense, but if an investigation says the science is sound and you go straight back to questioning it on the basis of bias, aren't you saying that no research (at least no research that challenges your beliefs or preferences) will ever be acceptable to you?

bubba

"....but if an investigation says the science is sound and you go straight back to questioning it on the basis of bias, aren't you saying that no research (at least no research that challenges your beliefs or preferences) will ever be acceptable to you?"

There is no empirical evidence that says the science is sound, much less accurate. In fact, all the evidence says otherwise.

Here's one important example:

"Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict."

john hayes

Andrew, I mean research that is funded with a hoped-for outcome in mind which will translate into power or money or both for the funder. Governments thrive on governance, corporations on profit. Pharmaceutical research is a good example of the latter It is very obvious and there are some good books on the subject. NIH funded research, I have some direct experience with. It is not so blatant from the top down, but career researchers can be some strange birds in general that I have seen up close in personal. They are quite aware of who is funding them. But also,they have egos like everybody else. Nobody wants to prove a nothing. Everyone wants to prove a something (or disprove the null hypothesis). They live by the adage 'publish-or-perish (as I'm sure you are quite familiar). No-correlation research tends not to get published, nor attract media attention, nor prestige among peers.

You keep exaggerating everything I say. How does "I believe that all funded research is almost definitionally biased by multiple factors, most obviously the source of the funding " translate into "complete disregard"? I said there is bias inherent in all research. Translate that to 'worthless crap' if it bolsters you. And as far as selectivity in "research you don't like?"--have I said a word favoring one source over the other? Did I not say ALL? You don't need to do that to get your points across. Or maybe you do. As much as I hate to admit it, this straw man stuff of Roch's that I always accuse him of using as an ever-stale excuse not engage, I'm finally starting to get it, and every time, it is with you.

Dave Dobson

John, tell me if I got this right:

Your statement presumes you can predict the future and know that temps will rise , unabated, which you cannot know.
Let's do nothing, because the trend that's been going on for 150 years and which is accelerating might somehow reverse itself.

It presumes that whatever controllable part of climate change, if such exists, could override the observed dramatic shifts beyond our control that have been occurring for eons before we were here, which you cannot know.
Let's do nothing about the big changes occurring now, because big changes have occurred in the past. Big changes which were discovered and quantified by climate scientists whom I now don't believe and routinely accuse of bias, and which operate on really long Milankovitch and other timescales and are due to processes (like CO2 fluctuation!) that we mostly understand.

It presumes you know that what you think is going to happen in the future will result in a bad outcome, which you cannot know.
Sea level rise is bad for everybody without gills. Period. And it's happening. Bad outcome.
The rest of it is likely a complex cost-benefit analysis (if you're not a polar bear), but that's not the subject of Ed's post. It would be good to undertake that kind of analysis, but if you refuse to accept what thermometers tell us, what hope do we have that you'll accept what ecologic and economic models tell us?

It presumes we have the resources to stop it in the first place if we wanted to, which you cannot know.
That kind of thinking is what lost us World War II and the Cold War. Oh, wait...

And it it presumes that the efforts will themselves be immune from the laws of unintended consequences and not itself choke the life out of civilization, which you cannot know.
Let's do nothing, because the stuff we would do to stop the bad stuff could possibly cause some other unspecified bad stuff that I haven't thought of yet. I hope you're not ever a cop trying to stop a bank robbery or a surgeon trying to save a patient.

bubba

"Let's do nothing, because the trend that's been going on for 150 years and which is accelerating might somehow reverse itself.

....Let's do nothing about the big changes occurring now...

...And it's happening. Bad outcome.

....Let's do nothing, because the stuff we would do to stop the bad stuff could possibly cause some other unspecified bad stuff that I haven't thought of yet."

Nothing bu shrill and total nonsense, unsupported by fact, reason, logic, evidence, or science.

We've been through this drill before. Are you ready to start it again?

I will counter every last piece of propaganda you post.

Andrew Brod

CP, it's not my intention to exaggerate everything you say. (And by the way, Mr. Self-Aware: everything you say?) As you know, blogs are an imperfect mode of communication. Nuance can be omitted by the writer or missed by the reader.

Having said that, there's a big difference in saying that some funded research (e.g. a tobacco-industry study on tobacco's health effects) should be viewed with skepticism and saying that an entire literature should be disregarded. And if you didn't say "disregarded" and are merely arguing for some "bias" in climate research, you then have a greater burden to explain why we should disregard, downplay--whatever--the strong consensus of that literature.

Moreover, while you're right that as a general rule, academic research tends to prefer correlation results over non-correlation results, you're quite wrong if you intend that as a blanket statement covering all sciences and all hypotheses. It depends on the theory being tested (which sometimes requires a zero correlation to be proven) and the public-policy context. It would be big news if someone in climate science could, within the construct of peer review, achieve the non-correlation you describe. That researcher would be a star and the journal would get some big publicity.

In the '90s, a couple of very good labor economists (Card and Krueger) found that a particular application of the minimum wage in fast-food restaurants in New Jersy and Pennsylvania increased employment. That ran strongly counter to what most economists believed--and continue to believe--about the minimum wage. Our most basic model of labor supply and demand says that can't be true. The profession spent a good deal of time trying to digest that result, and it's led to a clearer understanding of minimum-wage laws.

The point is that while there may well have been a bias in the literature against poorly done research finding positive employment effects, there was no way a decent journal could reject well-done work. We're still waiting for similar seminal work to be done in climate science overturning the consensus on warming.

David Boyd

While it doesn't overturn the warming consensus, the cosmic ray/cloud study leads to arguments over cause. But it has to be allowed and not quashed. Every scientist in the world, no matter what discipline, should have always been offended by the term 'settled.' Settled science is contrary to science.

Andrew Brod

I agree, and so do scientists. We're just a bunch of schmendricks talking about science, and maybe some believer in global warming (perhaps above in this thread) referred to settled science. That's wrong--no such thing.

But there is a strong consensus based on current information, and denying that is also contrary to science.

Ed Cone

John Hayes aka CP is on a relatively short break from commenting to focus on a large work-related project, so he will not be responding to these most recent rebuttals in the next couple of weeks.

David Boyd

Glad you feel that way, AB. We are in agreement. And, I assume, we are in agreement when lawmakers want to change policy on the basis of settled science.

Andrew Brod

No, we are not. Or at least I think we're not. If a lawmaker or lobbyist or pundit uses the phrase "settled science," that's a mistake. On that we agree. But if the phrase is used (inaccurately) to refer to a strong consensus based on what we know right now, then there shouldn't be a problem with appropriate policy being based on that. All we can do is go on what we know, factoring in uncertainty as well as consensus.

Don't get hung up on a phrase.

This is why the environmentalists of whom I'm aware advocate for what are termed no-regrets policies: measures that would help address climate change if it's indeed happening but would also be good ideas if it's not. Take the one-time Republican favorite, cap and trade. An efficient market-oriented method of controlling greenhouse gases would have benefits unrelated to climate change.

polifrog

I like that the discussion has shifted from the "global warming is man made based on scientific consensus" to "hey, perhaps we should prove this global warming thing is occurring before tying it to man."

===

Assuming that natural global warming is occurring should the automatic assumption be that we do something about it in the way Brod mentions?

This is why the environmentalists of whom I'm aware advocate for what are termed no-regrets policies: measures that would help address climate change if it's indeed happening but would also be good ideas if it's not. Take the one-time Republican favorite, cap and trade.

It seems to me that global warming is preferable to global cooling in a couple of ways.

The first, if history is any guide, is that global cooling can spiral out of control toward a "snowball Earth" while there is no similar geologic history that results in the Earth spiraling toward ever higher temperatures. With history as such a guide, perhaps the true safety is in warming rather than cooling.

Second, there is no denying that a warmer Earth can support more individuals than a cooler Earth. Again, we can look at history as a guide. The Mideveil warm period was a period of comfort and relative wealth due to warmth.

Are our environmentalists looking a gift horse in the mouth?

Dave Dobson

Polifrog wrote:
The first, if history is any guide, is that global cooling can spiral out of control toward a "snowball Earth" while there is no similar geologic history that results in the Earth spiraling toward ever higher temperatures. With history as such a guide, perhaps the true safety is in warming rather than cooling.

Snowball Earth, if it happened, was likely due to runaway positive feedbacks leading to significant cooling. The risk with global warming is runaway positive feedbacks leading to significant warming. Using these hypothesized events, which happened before the evolution of all modern multicelled life, on a faster-rotating Earth with a fraction of the modern oxygen content, seems like a bad basis for developing policy covering the next century.

"No similar geologic history" for past warming is flatly not true. The ice age cycles of the past 2-3 million years have all been affected by feedback, both in the warm direction and the cool, over ranges as big as what we're looking at with the current warming. The feedback cycle is just how albedo works - ice is white, dirt is brown. And there are many periods of more severe warming than what we're looking at now (though you'd have to look really hard to find faster warming). One example is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, in which the Earth warmed rapidly following the cold period of the dinosaur extinction, and this warming triggered significant release of methane from frozen deposits in the sea floor. Methane's a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so that triggered even more intense warming, to a temperature far warmer than what we've had in the more recent geologic past. There's a good graph at the Wikipedia site linked above.

So, Polifrog, your statements on geologic history are pretty much not true at all. However, I actually support some of the point I think you were making, that we should look hard at what parts of a warmer world are likely to beneficial and what are harmful. That's just good policy, and the benefits may outweigh the costs (although the costs will be extremely high for some, like the Tuvalese and maybe the Bangladeshis).

Also, it's kind of inconsistent to assign all of the positive developments of the Medieval Warm Period to warming (and not to the political, economic, or technological advancements of the time) while simultaneously refusing to accept or even investigate any current and future negative outcomes to the modern, more intense warming.

bubba

"....while simultaneously refusing to accept or even investigate any current and future negative outcomes to the modern, more intense warming."

"Modern" defined as....?

"More intense warming" based on what? Hansen's (and other Alarmists') models?

Excerpt:

"As for the skeptics predictions, mine were based on recurring climate cycles that can be traced back at least 400 years, long before CO2 could have been a factor. Using the concept that’‘the past is the key to the future,’ I simply continued the past, well-documented temperature patterns into the future and offered several possible scenarios beginning about 2000: (1) moderate, 25-30-year cooling similar to the 1945 to 1977 cooling, (2) more intense, 25-30-year cooling, similar to the more severe cooling from 1880 to 1915, (3) more severe, 25-30-year cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum cooling from 1790 to 1820; or very severe cooling (the Little Ice Age) similar to the Maunder Minimum cooling from 1650 to 1700. So far, my cooling prediction, made in 1998, appears to be happening and is certainly far more accurate than any of the model predictions, which called for warming of a full degree F. So far cooling this past decade has been moderate, more like the 1945-1977 cooling, but as we get deeper into the present Grand Solar Minimum, the cooling trend may become more intense. "

bubba

Regarding climate policy making:


"Partisan groups lobbying for preferred outcomes have a long history of the selective use of information to support predetermined conclusions. This is acceptable in politics, but not in science.

The motivations for such advocacy science may be a sincere desire to improve the protection of . . ecosystems and frustration with decision-making processes that seem to give too little weight to longer term environmental considerations, or a cynical strategy to exploit the challenges that uncertainty poses to decision-making.

Whatever the cause, making science advice itself partisan means it no longer deserves to be treated in any special way in the decision-making process. There is a serious risk that the long-term costs of merging advocacy with science advice would outweigh any short-term benefits of greater impact on a particular decision."

Billy Jones

You're all full of hot air!

The comments to this entry are closed.