this post was submitted on
23 points (81% like it)
30 up votes 7 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

22
23

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (online.wsj.com)

submitted ago by somethinginteresting

all 58 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]publius_lxxii 3 points4 points ago

This is a well written article. It lays out the case very well.

[–]inkandpaperguy 1 point2 points ago

The cap and trade game will be the next taxation scam imposed on all of us. We orbit a giant ball of fire w/ cycles of intensity levels. Human ego is the cause and cure for everything. Blaming human activity for climate change is like blaming bread for becoming toast.

[–]counters 2 points3 points ago

Cap and trade is the opposite of a tax.

[–]inkandpaperguy 0 points1 point ago

Cap and trade forces wholesale operational changes to industry or the purchase of carbon credits from other countries. Who do you think pays for all this nonsense?

[–]counters -1 points0 points ago

For starters, cap and trade does nothing of the sort. Where in the world did you ever get the idea that an international carbon market was being proposed? That's absurd - we're going to need some citations on that.

Under cap and trade, the question "who pays for all this" is simple and obvious. Not all companies involved in emissions trading will emit more than they're credited. In fact, the entire premise of the system is that some companies can easily and quickly research, develop, and implement new technologies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. At the end of a business cycle, they'd have leftover carbon credits since they've already reduced emissions significantly.

Then, they recuperate the associated costs of this progression in two ways. First, they sell their surplus credits to other companies which aren't able to rapidly implement emissions reductions. Second, they profit off their technology by selling it to competitors. It would be up to an individual corporation whether it is cheaper to face fines because they are emitting over they're legal allotment, to invest in new technology quicker and try to recuperate the costs, or by from other companies which have already done this.

It ain't a tax. it's the market-based solution to emissions reductions. The opposite of cap and trade is literally a tax - a flat government fine on industrial greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of how large or small they are or how you've reduced emissions in the recent past.

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

This article lies about Kevin Trenberth. It also lies about the validity of De Freitas publications. It also lies about the lack of warming in the last decade, and the last 22 year trend being below AR4 predictions.

Again, I have to ask - if they have such a strong case, why do they need to lie?

[–]deck_hand 2 points3 points ago

I gotta say, mooli, that you seem to be out on a limb, here. You've made four claims that don't seem to be substantiated. A lawyer might say, "claims made based on facts not in evidence." What specific lie did the letter make about Kevin Trenberth?

I can see that you might believe that the paper de Freitas published was not correct, but that wasn't his decision to make. His role was simply to ensure that the paper was peer reviewed and passed by the reviewers. The paper was properly reviewed and passed. Any disagreements with the conclusions of the paper should be then addressed by writing a paper with proper scientific refutation, which could then be peer reviewed and published. That's the process. Your claim seems to be that de Freitas should somehow have more expertise than the reviewers and reject their decision out of hand if he sees a paper he doesn't like? That doesn't sound like science, to me.

We have seen a very real and demonstrable change in trend around the year 2000. We were warming much more rapidly before that, and less rapidly after.

We have continued to warm slightly in the 21st century, but at no where near the pace predicted by any model. The pace is so slight, in fact, that our temperatures are not outside of the error bands of the temperatures of a dozen years ago. What this means, scientifically, is that there is no way to be sure the temperatures are not the same. The higher temperatures today could simply be measurement error.

The predicted CO2 based rise in temperature was 0.17 degrees per decade, which means .34 degrees in 20 years and .51 degrees in 30 years. We are at 32 years in, and where we stand depends completely on which data set you use. If you use the most highly adjusted dataset, we're warming more rapidly that forecast. If you use either of our most accurate instruments, the satellites, we're well under.

Your claim that the "article" said that the warming trend for the last 22 years was below AR4 predictions is a strawman at best. The letter actually read "The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections," which means that we use the 1990 predictions.

If they continue to issue new predictions every 5 years, they can continue to claim accuracy in "recent" times while ignoring decades of failed predictions.

[–]JRugman 0 points1 point ago

The trend over the last 10 years is not statistically significant, and cannot be compared with the results of climate model projections.

If they continue to issue new predictions every 5 years, they can continue to claim accuracy in "recent" times while ignoring decades of failed predictions.

That's not how science works. As our understanding of the climate system improves, as it has since 1990, the projections of climate models will change. The 1990 projections (not predictions) were wrong. That's not contested. In fact, every climate model projection ever made has been wrong. But that's not to say they aren't useful. And the model results from 2007 are more useful than the model results from 1990.

Were the projections made in 1990 lower than the observed temperature increase? Slightly, but well within the margin of error. Why was this? For a start, they predicted a higher increase in GHGs than actually happened. And they did not account for the cooling effect of aerosols. These factors have been updated in more recent models.

There is no 'lack of warming for more than a decade'. And the IPCCs model projections have been far more accurate and useful than any predictions coming from skeptics.

[–]deck_hand 1 point2 points ago

That's not how science works

If you'll forgive me, I was under the assumption that science required a couple of things to be considered "science." One of those things was repeatability, and the other was predictive power. Of course, you'll tell me that I'm wrong, because science can be done without making predictions, and besides, the "projections" were accurate to within the projected error bands. So, don't bother, I already know.

As far as there having been a "lack of warming for more than a decade," let's just say it depends on how you look at the data. I'll admit that in many of the data sets, the resulting trend is still positive if you'll admit that certain trendlines certainly look negative.

The link you provide, proving the accuracy of the models, uses a "baseline" temperature based on the year 1765. At the shown warming leves (which disagree with other data sets, such as the one I linked to above), at least half of the observed warming occurred before 1940. Also, I've seen numerous claims in the last 10 years that GHGs have grown MORE than expected, where you are claiming they grew less than expected. I'm having trouble finding sources that say we are growing less than expected.

I did find an article saying that emissions dropped 1.3% in 2009 due to the global economic crisis but the article goes on to say that the drop was less than the 2.8% reduction they thought was going to happen, so I'm not guessing that will help your argument. Can you provide a source? I'd like to read it.

[–]JRugman 0 points1 point ago

There are plenty of scientific fields that don't rely on repeatability or predictive power. Plate tectonics, cosmology, or particle physics, to name a few.

The predictions being made in climate science are mostly concerned with how the climate system responds to a change in radiative forcing. These forcings include variability in natural effects as well as anthropogenic influences, and our understanding of these is constantly being refined. So updating future climate projections every 5 years or so is completely valid. It's like a company revising its profit forecast to deal with changes in market conditions.

I'll admit that in many of the data sets, the resulting trend is still positive if you'll admit that certain trendlines certainly look negative.

The only statistically significant trends to be found in any of the data sets show consistent warming for the last 30 years at least. Yes, some data sets show a lack of warming over the last 10 years, but statistically, that's just noise, so it's too soon to draw any firm conclusions from those trends.

The link you provide, proving the accuracy of the models, uses a "baseline" temperature based on the year 1765. At the shown warming leves (which disagree with other data sets, such as the one I linked to above), at least half of the observed warming occurred before 1940.

I don't understand what point you're making here.

I've seen numerous claims in the last 10 years that GHGs have grown MORE than expected,

Yes. More recent assessment reports have issued more conservative BAU GHG forecasts once it was recognised that the 1990 report had forecast a higher increase than actually occurred. The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) was issued in 2000, and was an attempt to improve on the emissions scenarios used in the first two ARs. From the wiki article:

The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than that projected in the most fossil-fuel intensive SRES A1FI emissions scenario. [...] Human-caused greenhouse gas emissions set a record in 2010, a 6% jump on 2009 emissions, exceeding even the worst case scenario cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

So, the emissions rate has increased at worst-case-scenario levels. But the main factor for temperature projections is the radiative forcing, which comes from the change in atmospheric concentration.

The 1990 FAR forecast CO2 levels of approx 400ppm by 2010, and an overall radiative forcing of 3.5W/m2. The actual values were nearer 390ppm and 2.8W/m2.

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) went too far the other way, and under-predicted the temperature change (but you don't hear much from skeptics about that).

The TAR and AR4 temperature projections were based on the SRES, and it looks as though overall GHG emissions are closest to the A2 scenario. It's too soon to conclusively say how accurate the temp projections have been, but the important thing to note is that when projections are compared to observations, you need to account for all the assumptions that have been made in order to produce long-term temperature forecasts.

[–]thingsbreak 1 point2 points ago

This article lies about Kevin Trenberth.

It also completely misrepresents Bill Nordhaus's economic analyses. So much so that he's publicly calling them out for it.

if they have such a strong case, why do they need to lie?

You've answered your own question. They have to lie because reality doesn't support their position.

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points ago

This article lies about Kevin Trenberth.

This isn't an article, but a letter. Here is what it says about Trenberth:

...This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

How is that a lie?

It also lies about the validity of De Freitas publications.

Regarding De Freitas:

In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

Where is the lie?

It also lies about the lack of warming in the last decade,

How so? Warming has been lacking for the last decade. If it weren't you wouldn't have warmist scientists trying to explain it away with Chinese coal.

and the last 22 year trend being below AR4 predictions.

They never claimed AR4 predictions, since that is only four years old. Here's what they said.

indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections

It's time you make good on your claims of deceit. If you can't, you need to delete or edit your comment.

[–]publius_lxxii 2 points3 points ago* 

Regarding De Freitas:

The interesting thing about that Soon and Baliunas paper which stirred up so much controversy - the Zero Order Draft of the IPCC AR5 agrees with one of its significantly controversial conclusions.

edit: phrasing

[–]moirende 0 points1 point ago

In the magical world of climate science, "lies" are anything believers in "the cause" don't like, factual or not. The doublespeak kicks in almost immediately in the hopes that impressionable naifs will see the accusations, get turned off, and decide not to bother checking for themselves. It is a tactic which, unfortunately, often works all too well.

[–]mooli 1 point2 points ago

Was Trenberth talking about a lack of warming over a decade timescale and the inability of models to account for that? Yes or no?

Can the the conclusions about millennial warming in the De Freitas publications referred to be accurately described as fact? Yes or no?

Can someone with an understanding of science and statistics honestly look at the last decade and say definitively that there is no warming? Yes or no?

Is the trend over the last 22 years inside the error bars for model runs with emissions scenarios comparable to reality? Yes or no?

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points ago

You are trying to answer my questions with questions. Try again.

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

Those questions have no other answer than "no". Hence, they are liars.

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points ago

So wrong.

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

Go on then. Prove it. Answer yes and back it up.

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points ago

You want me to prove it, after you have constructed ridiculous conditionals to back up your nonsensical claims of lies? It would have been much easier for you just to admit that those weren't lies than to try to spin your way out of this.

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

Next item:

In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years.

That conclusion is not "factually correct". This is a lie.

Still with me?

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points ago

That conclusion is not "factually correct". This is a lie.

It most certainly is factually correct.

[–]mooli 0 points1 point ago

Thirdly:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.

Of the signatories, Lindzen at the very least is smart enough to know what a null hypothesis is and that the lack of a statistically significant trend over a decade does not mean that there is no trend. Hell, you know this. To claim otherwise - in the full knowledge that such a claim is utterly unsupportable by the available data - is a lie.

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points ago

Mental gymnastics, again. It's funny that my camp gets labelled "deniers" when it is your camp that is denying what is right in front of you! There has not been warming for the last decade. Surely, you must see this. Does that mean the time frame is sufficiently long to completely dismiss AGW theory? No.

Please ponder these questions. At what point does a lack of warming disprove IPCC projections? How many more years must lack warming before those projections are falsified?

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

Finally:

the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.

The observed warming is within the error range of even those earlier predictions for emissions scenarios that were comparable to reality. To say the warming is smaller than predicted is a lie of the order of Pat Michaels lying to congress about Hansen.

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points ago

You do love your mental gymnastics, don't you?

[–]mooli -2 points-1 points ago

You will note the preceding statements match the phrasing of my original questions. You have claimed I was contructing ridiculous conditionals when in actuality I was simply restating the claims from the original article.

[–]Will_Power 2 points3 points ago

You have a funny way of viewing the world. You have to include all sorts of qualifiers in everything to claim deceit. It's really sort of sad.

[–]mooli -1 points0 points ago

Since you're determined to be obtuse, lets take this one at a time shall we?

The article said:

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

That's not what Trenberth was talking about. What they have written there is a lie.

Are you keeping up?

[–]Will_Power 1 point2 points ago

That's not what Trenberth was talking about.

Bullshit. That is exactly what Trenberth is talking about. Why don't you try to provide evidence to back your claims instead of singing, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"

[–]butch123 4 points5 points ago

Please respond to the replies others have made. I am interested in your point of view about the article containing unntruths. I also am interested in the recent article posted by JRugman of 255 scientists who have the opposing opinion.

The Sciencemag article seems to have no qualifications listed for their signers although some are names familiar from the literature, The date of signing is not clear. And the conclusions are flights of fantasy without any manner of verification.

[–]mooli -1 points0 points ago

Its funny that the sciencemag article doesn't include their credentials. Generally speaking, that's because they don't need to - and I doubt there'd be enough space to print all the names and the credentials! The signatories are so very obviously qualified and with relevant expertise. That you dismiss their conclusions as "flights of fancy" speaks volumes.

OTOH I read the signatories credentials in the WSJ piece like I read children insisting on putting their age when they write letters to magazines.

Seriously - it looks like rather desperate padding, and most of the credentials are irrelevant. The ones that are relevant are just the same names as always.

Yawnsome.

[–]butch123 3 points4 points ago

Concerning credentials...I have seen other lists of scientists that support AGW and the credentials posted with those indicate that climate change is outside the main field of expertise of those listed. Being unable to see the information for these people is not making the argument for your cause...it is a detriment.

[–]hammiesink 2 points3 points ago

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.

The source of concern for global warming is in the presence of the cause, regardless of whether the effect has shown up yet or not. The effect will be "grainy", and since climate is defined as "30 to 50 years of averaged weather", that graininess can be on a scale of decades.

It is the presence of the cause that is the focus of concern:

  • CO2 is rising in the climate system (CDIAC)

  • The CO2 accumulating in the climate is of the isotope that comes from fossil fuels, not from natural sources. (Manning 2006, Pelejero 2005)

  • The CO2 from fossil fuels has been "pushed" down into the ground by millions of years of the Earth's ecosystem and atmosphere, which led to the cooloer and more stable climate that we enjoy now. But now it is being dug out of the ground by us and placed back into the climate system.

  • The greenhouse effect has been known for over a hundred years.

  • CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas

  • It takes a long time for CO2 to get out of the atmosphere, unlike the stronger greenhouse gas watever vapor, which rains out of the atmosphere within a week or two.

  • If nothing else major is in play in the atmosphere to offset, this will inevitably lead to warming.

  • Nothing else major is, in fact, in play right now.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 20840 on app-102 running 30e6d1a.