Global Warming Question

[Alceste]

The Pentagon is now preparing for Global warming, as a threat to national security....

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Risk assessment and disaster preparedness is a standard feature of any government agency. I've prepared them myself, in the context of information management (server failure, hacker attacks, theft of equipment etc). The preparation of a disaster recovery plan doesn't necessarily indicate the expectation of an event. However, no government agency wastes valuable resources preparing risk assessments for things that are not expected to occur at all. They brainstorm all the things that might happen and rank them according to likelihood, then they prepare a plan for anything on the top tier. If they finish that (good luck!) then they move onto the second tier, and so on. So, the fact that it's being prepared at all might indicate they believe there's a strong likelihood of global warming causing a high level of disruption. Or, it might indicate they've gotten caught up on a backlog of top-level risk assessments and have moved on to tier two. (Not nearly as likely).

Anyway, it's about time the Pentagon got caught up with every other country in the Western world. The UK has been working on their plan for years. Germany has already started implementing theirs.

 

[Oberon]

who cares?

I have more fruballs than you.....:clap

Thus I have been peer reviewed (my responses)
by this forum.

It is agreed then, that I am superior.

1. Peer-review is only the first step in the process. After an paper or study has been peer-reviewed, it goes forward into publication. At this point the whole scholarly community can critique it. This is exactly what happened to the "hockey-stick" graph used by themadhair. It was torn to pieces by Wegmann,Hans von Storch, Nico Stehr, Sheldon Ungar and others, and subsequently left out of latest (2007) IPCC summary for policy makers. In other words, despite the fact that Mann's graph passed the peer-review, after publication the more important peer-review commenced (when the scholarly community reviewed the publication) and the graph was rejected.

2. Peer-review only matters if your peers are in some way qualified to judge. Though we no doubt have many very intelligent and qualified individuals on this forum, unfortunately the frubals system is not adequately constructed to peer-review posts nor are the members vetted in anyway. Sorry

 

[Oberon]

However, no government agency wastes valuable resources preparing risk assessments for things that are not expected to occur at all.

Right. The pentagon spent thousands of dollars on a several month study to see whether or not umbrellas detracted from the appearence of military officers.

As for preparing risk assessments, it is their JOB to expect the unexpected. Unfortunately, they often suck at it, but nonetheless plenty of resources are devoted to risk assessments for unlikely risks.

 

[Alceste]

For the benefit of anyone who is still reading Oberon's oil-industry-funded propagandistic nonsense:

Frederick Seitz
In the 1990s, Seitz' work with the George C. Marshall Institute changed to debunking anthropogenic global warming by publishing reports and opinions of those questioning the theory. In a 2007 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists described the GMI as a "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians" funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation and employing the same strategy formerly used by the tobacco industry, repeatedly attacking the science behind the theory and insisting that there was actually a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement among scientists.

David E. Wojick
David E. Wojick is a well-known and vocal climate change "skeptic", with strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunctcoal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society. Wojick is listed as "contributing editor" " to Environment and Climate News, a publication of the Heartland Institute, a US think tank at the forefront of the attack on climate change science. Heartland has received over half a million in funding from ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world.

Roy Spencer
Spencer is a prominent global warming skeptic. Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil.

Soucewatch

 

[Mr Cheese]

fortunately the frubals system is an adequately constructed peer to peer-review.

I agree, my fruballs show that I am superior to you

 

[Oberon]

For the benefit of anyone who is still reading Oberon's oil-industry-funded propagandistic nonsense:

As opposed to green-funded propaganda nonsense.

Frederick Seitz
In the 1990s, Seitz' work with the George C. Marshall Institute changed to debunking anthropogenic global warming by publishing reports and opinions of those questioning the theory. In a 2007 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists described the GMI as a "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians" funded by Exxon Mobil Corporation and employing the same strategy formerly used by the tobacco industry, repeatedly attacking the science behind the theory and insisting that there was actually a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement among scientists.

So according to your source, a bunch of guys accused the former President of the National Academy of Science, Chairman of the American Physics society, longtime professor, and winner of the National Medal of Science as being "an industry funded propagandist." Of course, where is the proof? Sourcewatch.com? And everybody gets funded by somebody.

David E. Wojick
David E. Wojick is a well-known and vocal climate change "skeptic", with strong links to the coal industry and a now-defunctcoal industry front group called the Greening Earth Society. Wojick is listed as "contributing editor" " to Environment and Climate News, a publication of the Heartland Institute, a US think tank at the forefront of the attack on climate change science. Heartland has received over half a million in funding from ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world.

Again, should we believe this because "sourcewatch.com" says so? Wasn't it you who believed wikipedia on DDT, only to find out that they blatantly misrepresented their sources? Ask him yourself:

David E. Wojick, PE, Ph.D.
RESUME391 Flickertail Lane, Star Tannery VA 22654
540-858-3503
[email protected]
Strategic Planning, Issue Analysis
and Technology Forecasting


Interdisciplinary Education:
Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh (1974). Specializing in Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis. Doctoral thesis was an analysis of scientific and technological revolutions.
B.S. in Civil Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University (1964).
Experience:
1965-1970. Water resources engineer for the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I worked my way through grad school designing large dams. Experience with the new National Environmental Policy Act got me interested in the logic of complex issues. Helping implement computer-based engineering, which was new at the time, started a lasting interest in technological revolutions. In fact my first major paper was titled "The Structure of Technological Revolutions."
1970 - 1976. Faculty of Carnegie-Mellon University, where I helped to found the Department of Engineering and Public Policy. Focus on technological revolutions and technology intensive regulation.
My research centered on (1) strategic regulatory issues, and (2) developing a mathematical model of complex issues. At the same time I was a national consultant to the civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, on the management issues involved in implementing new engineering computer applications. I started designing regulatory compliance systems for major firms in the Pittsburgh area, using new methods of complex issue analysis that I developed at CMU.
1976 - 1981. Head of Adams & Wojick Associates. Using the tools I had developed at CMU, plus ongoing innovations, our engineers analyzed federal regulations for industry and government. We designed the required rules, procedures and information systems, as well as looking for confusion causing factors. Rising to the national policy level, I helped write regulatory reform legislation and to set up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB. I received a national award from Engineering News Record for "helping EPA to engineer better regulations".
1981 - present. Independent consulting and research. I have used my mathematical and engineering tools to help people deal with big regulatory and technological changes. This practice has expanded from the regulatory arena to massive paradigm shifts like technological and global policy revolutions.
Clients have ranged from banks, trade associations and industrial firms to the Chief of Naval Research and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. (See Distinguished Client List) At first much of this work was in Defense. At present most of it is with the electric power industry, where global deregulation is creating bold new uses of information. Between 1991 and 1994, I was strategic planning consultant to the AES Corporation, helping to make them one of the world's largest independent power producers. I now cover strategic power issues for the Electricity Daily, especially the growing collision between the Megatrends of deregulation and environmentalism.
The basic research program started at Carnegie-Mellon goes on. The thrust is formal analysis and modeling of (1) regulatory change, (2) new science and technology, and (3) the dynamics of information. I have developed several powerful tools in these areas.
My work combines engineering, mathematics and management science, but it is not academic. My experience is working with top Federal and industry executives on the front lines of big change.

Resume of David Wojick

Roy Spencer
Spencer is a prominent global warming skeptic. Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil.

Wait a minute... the connection that disqualifies this guy is that he wrote over forty columns for TCS daily, run by DCI Group, which works for ExxonMobil? That is your smoking gun?

"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

About Dr. Roy Spencer « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Soucewatch

I know, the pinnacle of investigative journalism and unbiased research: sourcewatch.com.

Give me a break.

You have to love the fact that when people can't actually confront the science, they can always resort to baseless ad hominem by calling every expert, no matter how awarded or distinguished, a stooge for big oil.

 

[yossarian22]

Saying half of the scientists from 2003 disagree with the IPCC report is disingenuous and, moreover, outdated. Disagree is a worthless term when talking about a scientific issue because I could go to a convention for evolutionary biology and find hundreds of scientists who disagree with each other over various aspects of specific mechanisms. To equate that to "scientists dont agree about evolution" is idiotic.

And as Oberon is quick to point out (albeit obliquely in a sort of quasi argument), the effects of global warming are not universal across latitude or longitude, so it will create increased political tension as countries have retracting supplies of food and water while others don't.

e:
We are perfectly justified in refusing to listen to people who have a clear conflict of interest, especially since you seem unable to source people who aren't funded in some way by big oil.

 

[themadhair]

1. Peer-review is only the first step in the process. After an paper or study has been peer-reviewed, it goes forward into publication. At this point the whole scholarly community can critique it. This is exactly what happened to the "hockey-stick" graph used by themadhair. It was torn to pieces by Wegmann,Hans von Storch, Nico Stehr, Sheldon Ungar and others, and subsequently left out of latest (2007) IPCC summary for policy makers. In other words, despite the fact that Mann's graph passed the peer-review, after publication the more important peer-review commenced (when the scholarly community reviewed the publication) and the graph was rejected.

Some facts:
1) Wegman’s report wasn’t peer-reviewed.
2) Wegman’s report incorporated criticisms of statistics used by Mann. These criticisms were incorporated into the Mann’s later research. In fact some of the criticisms cited by Wegman, such as those proposed by McIntyre and McKitrick which you mentioned earlier, don’t effect the graph at all and other methods of statistical calculation also yield the same result.
3) You seem to completely miss that the graph I am so fond of cites multiple data from multiple research sources showing the same pattern Mann discovered. As I said previously, it went from being a hockey stick (which Wegman criticised) to being a whole hockey team.
4) Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who thinks the graph I constantly cited, which wasn’t submitted for peer review until November 2007, was somehow rejected because it didn’t make it into a summary that was published over eight months earlier???

Throw enough muck at a wall and hope that either some of it sticks or the person on the other side becomes exhausted wading through the piles of irrelevant shoite I guess.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Saying half of the scientists from 2003 disagree with the IPCC report is disingenuous and, moreover, outdated. Disagree is a worthless term when talking about a scientific issue because I could go to a convention for evolutionary biology and find hundreds of scientists who disagree with each other over various aspects of specific mechanisms. To equate that to "scientists dont agree about evolution" is idiotic.

And as Oberon is quick to point out (albeit obliquely in a sort of quasi argument), the effects of global warming are not universal across latitude or longitude, so it will create increased political tension as countries have retracting supplies of food and water while others don't.

e:
We are perfectly justified in refusing to listen to people who have a clear conflict of interest, especially since you seem unable to source people who aren't funded in some way by big oil.

right

Denial aint a river in Egpyt

 

[Oberon]

Saying half of the scientists from 2003 disagree with the IPCC report is disingenuous and, moreover, outdated.

2003 is hardly outdated. IPCC still uses research from earlier than that

Disagree is a worthless term

Fortunately, the question is very specific: are humans mainly to blame for the current climate change? Nearly half did not agree.

We are perfectly justified in refusing to listen to people who have a clear conflict of interest, especially since you seem unable to source people who aren't funded in some way by big oil.

Not true.

First, the we only have accusations of funding by "big oil." Not proof.
Second, several of my sources were never linked, even by Alceste, to big oil.
Third, people like Lindzen, who Alceste claims is not credible because of stuff he supposedly was paid for in the 90s, was a lead author in the 2001 IPCC, so either they use people who aren't credible, or Alceste is simply and completely wrong.

 

[Oberon]

Some facts:
1) Wegman’s report wasn’t peer-reviewed.

Wegmen's report was commisioned by the government and utilized a panel of experts. Moreover, the National Academy of Sciences, Hans von Storch, Nico Stehr, Sheldon Ungar, and others, all have severely criticized the hockey-stick graph you use. Even the IPCC dropped it from the 2007 summary for politicians.

2) Wegman’s report incorporated criticisms of statistics used by Mann. These criticisms were incorporated into the Mann’s later research. In fact some of the criticisms cited by Wegman, such as those proposed by McIntyre and McKitrick which you mentioned earlier, don’t effect the graph at all and other methods of statistical calculation also yield the same result.

3) You seem to completely miss that the graph I am so fond of cites multiple data from multiple research sources showing the same pattern Mann discovered. As I said previously, it went from being a hockey stick (which Wegman criticised) to being a whole hockey team.
4) Why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who thinks the graph I constantly cited, which wasn’t submitted for peer review until November 2007, was somehow rejected because it didn’t make it into a summary that was published over eight months earlier???

Only it doesn't change much from previous graphs. There is still a great deal of debate over whether or not the MWP was as warm as the current climate, and all you have done is constantly regurgitate Mann's graph, new or old. Only there isn't any agreement on this issue.

Throw enough muck at a wall

I responded to your last call for more research with a number of recent studies. The issue is hardly solved. The truth is that although Mann is continually criticizing McIntyre and McKitrick, and they return fire, and a number of others have given their views, there are plenty of people who have done the research and who believe that the Medieval Warming Period was similar to the current trend, and that it may very well have been hotter.

 

[Oberon]

3) You seem to completely miss that the graph I am so fond of cites multiple data from multiple research sources showing the same pattern Mann discovered.

​

You seem to completely miss that Mann is hardly the only person weighing on this debate. There are many opinions, and have been and continue to be a number of experts whose research supports a MWP similar to the current trend. In addition to pass citations, see below for more.​

A number of reconstructions of millennial-scale climate variability have been carried out in order to understand patterns of
natural climate variability, on decade to century timescales, and the role of anthropogenic forcing. These reconstructions have​

mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data​

​

.Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.According to our reconstruction, high temperatures—similar

to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990—occurred around ​

​

AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961–90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that islikely to continue.​

​

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/Moberg-nature05.pdf​

While there are differences among those reconstructions and significant uncertainties remain, all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then.These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well. Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Section 6.4). There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusualin the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant.​

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Jansen_etal.pdf​

​

 

[Alceste]

Fortunately, the question is very specific: are humans mainly to blame for the current climate change? Nearly half did not agree.

Bullcrap. So you're just going to LIE now?

Ridiculous.

Second, several of my sources were never linked, even by Alceste, to big oil.

Name them, and I'll finish the job. I haven't been reading most of your posts, (since unlike you I verify the credibility of a source before wasting my time considering their opinion) so it's possible I missed a couple.

 

[Oberon]

Bullcrap. So you're just going to LIE now?

Ridiculous.

Are you still sticking with your theory that more than half of the experts surveyed believe that humans are mainly responsible for massive climate change prior to the existence of the human race? Or is this some new ridiculous theory?

Name them, and I'll finish the job.

1.Other names include Dr. Vincent Gray, another lead author for the IPCC who was disgusted by a lack of scientific methodology exhibited by the IPCC (and another one of your 2500), and Christopher Landsea, who resigned from the IPCC in disgust because of a lack of its blatant bias. An another outside critic I have mentioned is Professor Robert Carter.
2. Your latest so-called "discrediting" was ripped to pieces here. I would have thought you learned your lesson when you depended on wiki for info on DDT, which blatantly manipulated its sources. I guess not, seeing as now sourcewatch.com is gospel for you.
3. If Lindzen was discredited for stuff he did in the 90s, why was he a lead author for the IPCC in 2001?

since unlike you I verify the credibility of a source before wasting my time considering their opinion) so it's possible I missed a couple.

HAHAHAHA! You call sourcewatch.com "verifying credibility?" Just like wikipedia was your quality source on DDT.

 

[themadhair]

Anyone else notice that Oberon didn’t actually address the four points I raised above? And notice how Oberon goes off on a tangent where he throws more stuff out that doesn’t address any of those four points?

 

[Oberon]

Anyone else notice that Oberon didn’t actually address the four points I raised above? And notice how Oberon goes off on a tangent where he throws more stuff out that doesn’t address any of those four points?

I did address them. You entire case rests on Mann's new graph. But Mann isn't alone in this debate, and there is no reason we should accept this one more than the last. I gave you sources the last time you asked for them, and added more this time. There IS STILL DEBATE on the medieval warming period and whether the current warming is unique within the last millenium, not to mention the fact that evidence suggest it was quite warmer a few million years ago.

All you do is regurgitate Mann. And, in all honesty, there are plenty of experts who agree with Mann that the current warming is unique. That doesn't change the fact that plenty of experts and studies have found the reverse.

Try again.

 

[Alceste]

Anyone else notice that Oberon didn’t actually address the four points I raised above? And notice how Oberon goes off on a tangent where he throws more stuff out that doesn’t address any of those four points?

I've noticed that. He's one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I've ever seen, and I've been at this for a while. Only the fundamentalists even come close - talking about how gay people are sinners - and even they would hesitate to lie outright when the facts are available to anyone who cares to scroll up.

 

[Oberon]

I've noticed that. He's one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I've ever seen, and I've been at this for a while. Only the fundamentalists even come close - talking about how gay people are sinners - and even they would hesitate to lie outright when the facts are available to anyone who cares to scroll up.

What happened to you finishing the job on my list? Was it that not even sourcewatch.com had any possible (no matter how remote) alleged links between Gray, Lansea, and Carter and "big oil?" Or responding to any of the points?

As for intellectual dishonesty, you are the one claiming that over 50% of climate scientists surveyed believe that humans are responsible climate change before they even existed.

Actually, let's look at the charge of "intellectual dishonesty" and see who it fits.

1. You began our disagreement with your wiki article on DDT. I proved that DDT blatantly manipulated its own sources, and although themadhair was outstanding enough to admit being wrong, you never did.
2. I give you awarded and distinguished academics, leaders in their fields, some of whom are part of the 2,500 list of the IPCC, and you say that sourcewatch.com discredits them.
3. I have listed numerous articles that have passed peer-review to support my view, and I can't recall you listing a single one.
4. I listed a survey conducted by reputable scientists and you claimed that over 50% of those surveyed believed that humans were primarily responsible for massive climate changes prior to the existence of the human race, and have yet to retract that statement.

Whose intellectually dishonest again?

I do research, and you make ad hominem attacks against reputable researchers and scientists who disagree with you. I read the various journals and studies conducted, and you refer to sourchwatch.com and wikipedia.

Hmmm.

 

[themadhair]

I did address them.

I appear to have missed where you showed any of those four points are wrong.

 

[Oberon]

I appear to have missed where you showed any of those four points are wrong.

I didn't say that point one was wrong, but subsequent peer-reviewed studies have backed wegmen.

As for your other central point, that the graph you use is Mann 2008 (2007? I can't remember) I am not saying you are wrong in that Wegman or other studies I have cited do not directly address that particular study. What I am saying is that is irrelevent to my point.

You keep regurgitating Mann. And although a number of experts agree with his position, plenty don't, and they have their own research and studies (some of which I have cited) to back them.

My point is that this is NOT a decided issue in climate science, and you can keep showing your graph all you want, it isn't anywhere near agreed on by all the experts.