The Truth About Climate Change

[westwall]

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

Don't all scientists say that? Didn't Einstein ask to jail or execute scientists who doubted General Relativity?

An anonymous posting? That's what we're discussing here?!?! For all we know daveman wrote it himself.

Greenpeace also had a call for violence on their website or did that escape your addled brain?

 

[westwall]

Fact: Animals exhale CO2
Fact: Plants have survived from the CO2 obtained from animals and humans way before humans even existed or started using fossil fuels.

So there's almost no chance of all plants dying from global warming regulations.

Fact: At CO2 concentrations of 200 ppm or less very little grows.
Fact: At high levels of CO2 plants grow like the dickens. All evidence we have shows that when the CO2 levels have been elevated the world was a much nicer place.

Fact: According to the geologic record in those rare times that the atmosphere has not been able to deal with elevated levels of CO2 the excess has gone into the oceans and precipitated limestone, thus sequestering the CO2 for later era's.

Which has it's own consequences.


ENN Original news: High Atmospheric CO2 Levels May Cause Mass Extinctions in the Oceans

One of the greatest causes of global climate change is the human emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2). These emissions are released into the atmosphere, but much of it gets absorbed into the world's oceans. A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looked at prehistoric ocean sediment and found a disturbing trend. Periods of high CO2 concentrations have historically coincided with mass extinctions of marine organisms.
.............................................................................................................
However, unlike today, the hypoxia of 85 million years ago did not come from the mouths of rivers, but from the atmosphere. In that way, the resulting dead zones covered the whole globe. Marine wildlife had literally nowhere to go. The researchers showed that the extinctions occurred over extremely short periods (geologically-speaking) of only hundreds of years or less. Furthermore, they were caused by only modest changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean oxygen levels

This alarming finding puts greater emphasis on halting climate change, to the degree that we can. Current high atmospheric CO2 levels pose a grave threat to marine life. According to the NASA Earth Observatory, dead zones have expanded tremendously in the past half-century. Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide in Australia said, "Earth's oceans are in a much more delicate balance during greenhouse conditions than originally thought."

Countered quite handily by these experimenters who used real science and not computer model horse crap.




"Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Enhance Health-Promoting Properties of Foods

Antioxidants are of great importance to human health. In some cases, the additional carbon fixed by plants during CO2-enrichment is invested in antioxidative compounds; and one of the most prominent of these products is ascorbate or vitamin C. In the early studies of Barbale (1970) and Madsen (1971, 1975), a tripling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration produced a modest (7%) increase in this antioxidant in the fruit of tomato plants. Kimball and Mitchell (1981), however, could find no effect of a similar CO2 increase on the same species, although the extra CO2 of their study stimulated the production of vitamin A. In bean sprouts, on the other hand, a mere one-hour-per-day doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration actually doubled plant vitamin C contents over a 7-day period (Tajiri, 1985).

Probably the most comprehensive investigation of CO2 effects on vitamin C production in an agricultural plant -- a tree crop (sour orange) -- was conducted by Idso et al. (2002), where a 75% increase in the air's CO2 content was observed to increase sour orange juice vitamin C concentration by approximately 5% in run-of-the-mill years when total fruit production was typically enhanced by about 80%. In aberrant years when the CO2-induced increase in fruit production was much greater, however, the increase in fruit vitamin C concentration was also greater, rising to a CO2-induced enhancement of 15% when fruit production on the CO2-enriched trees was 3.6 times greater than it was on the ambient-treatment trees.

These findings take on great significance when it is realized that scurvy -- which is induced by low intake of vitamin C -- may be resurgent in industrial countries, especially among children (Ramar et al., 1993; Gomez-Carrasco et al., 1994), and that subclinical scurvy symptoms are increasing among adults (Dickinson et al., 1994). Furthermore, Hampl et al. (1999) have found that 12-20% of 12- to 18-year-old school children in the United States "drastically under-consume" foods that supply vitamin C; while Johnston et al. (1998) have determined that 12-16% of U.S. college students have marginal plasma concentrations of vitamin C. Hence, since vitamin C intake correlates strongly with the consumption of citrus juice (Dennison et al., 1998), and since the only high-vitamin-C juice consumed in any quantity by children is orange juice (Hampl et al., 1999), the modest role played by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content in increasing the vitamin C concentration of orange juice could ultimately prove to be of considerable significance for public health in the United States and elsewhere.

Another important study to assess the impact of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 on plant antioxidant production was that of Wang et al. (2003), who evaluated the effects of elevated CO2 on the antioxidant activity and flavonoid content of strawberry fruit in field plots at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, where they grew strawberry plants (Fragaria x ananassa Duchesne cv. Honeoye) in six clear-acrylic open-top chambers, two of which were maintained at the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration, two of which were maintained at ambient + 300 ppm CO2, and two of which were maintained at ambient + 600 ppm CO2 for a period of 28 months (from early spring of 1998 through June 2000). The scientists harvested the strawberry fruit, in their words, "at the commercially ripe stage" in both 1999 and 2000, after which they analyzed them for a number of different antioxidant properties and flavonol contents.

Before reporting what they found, Wang et al. provide some background by noting that "strawberries are good sources of natural antioxidants (Wang et al., 1996; Heinonen et al., 1998)." They further report that "in addition to the usual nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, strawberries are also rich in anthocyanins, flavonoids, and phenolic acids," and that "strawberries have shown a remarkably high scavenging activity toward chemically generated radicals, thus making them effective in inhibiting oxidation of human low-density lipoproteins (Heinonen et al., 1998)." In this regard, they note that previous studies (Wang and Jiao, 2000; Wang and Lin, 2000) "have shown that strawberries have high oxygen radical absorbance activity against peroxyl radicals, superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and singlet oxygen." In their experiment, therefore, they were essentially seeking to see if atmospheric CO2 enrichment could make a good thing even better.

So what did the Agricultural Research Service scientists find? They determined, first of all, that strawberries had higher concentrations of ascorbic acid (AsA) and glutathione (GSH) "when grown under enriched CO2 environments." In going from ambient to ambient + 300 ppm CO2 and ambient + 600 ppm CO2, for example, AsA concentrations increased by 10 and 13%, respectively, while GSH concentrations increased by 3 and 171%, respectively. They also learned that "an enriched CO2 environment resulted in an increase in phenolic acid, flavonol, and anthocyanin contents of fruit." For nine different flavonoids, for example, there was a mean concentration increase of 55 ± 23% in going from the ambient atmospheric CO2 concentration to ambient + 300 ppm CO2, and a mean concentration increase of 112 ± 35% in going from ambient to ambient + 600 ppm CO2. In addition, they report that the "high flavonol content was associated with high antioxidant activity." As for the significance of these findings, Wang et al. note that "anthocyanins have been reported to help reduce damage caused by free radical activity, such as low-density lipoprotein oxidation, platelet aggregation, and endothelium-dependent vasodilation of arteries (Heinonen et al., 1998; Rice-Evans and Miller, 1996)."

In summarizing their findings, Wang et al. say "strawberry fruit contain flavonoids with potent antioxidant properties, and under CO2 enrichment conditions, increased the[ir] AsA, GSH, phenolic acid, flavonol, and anthocyanin concentrations," further noting that "plants grown under CO2 enrichment conditions also had higher oxygen radical absorbance activity against [many types of oxygen] radicals in the fruit." Hence, they determined that atmospheric CO2 enrichment truly did "make a good thing better."

It should also be additionally noted in this regard that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 also make more of that good thing. Deng and Woodward (1998), for example, report that after growing strawberry plants in air containing an additional 170 ppm of CO2, total fresh fruit weights were 42 and 17% greater than weights displayed by control plants grown at high and low soil nitrogen contents, respectively; while Bushway and Pritts (2002) report that a two- to three-fold increase in the air's CO2 content boosted strawberry fruit yield by an average of 62%. In addition, Campbell and Young (1986), Keutgen et al. (1997), and Bunce (2001) report positive strawberry photosynthetic responses to an extra 300 ppm of CO2 ranging from 9% to 197% (mean of 76% ? 15%); and Desjardins et al. (1987) report a 118% increase in photosynthesis in response to a 600 ppm increase in the air's CO2 concentration.

Other researchers have found similar enhancements of antioxidative compounds under enriched levels of atmospheric CO2. Estiarte et al. (1999), for example, reported that a 180-ppm increase in the air's CO2 content increased the foliar concentrations of flavonoids, which protect against UV-B radiation damage, in field-grown spring wheat by 11 to 14%. Caldwell et al. (2005), on the other hand, found that an ~75% increase in the air's CO2 content increased the total isoflavone content of soybean seeds by 8% when the air temperature during seed fill was 18°C, by 104% when the air temperature during seed fill was 23°C, by 101% when the air temperature was 28°C, and by 186% and 38%, respectively, when a drought-stress treatment was added to the latter two temperature treatments. Lastly, in an experiment conducted under very high atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Ali et al. (2005) found that CO2 levels of 10,000 ppm, 25,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm increased total flavonoid concentrations of ginseng roots by 228%, 383% and 232%, respectively, total phenolic concentrations by 58%, 153% and 105%, cysteine contents by 27%, 65% and 100%, and non-protein thiol contents by 12%, 43% and 62%, all of which substances are potent antioxidants. What is more, it is interesting to note that the increased consumption of such plant material - naturally enriched with antioxidative compounds as a consequence of the historical rise in the air's CO2 content - may have played a role in the observed decline in human mortality rates over the period 1950-1994 (Tuljapurkar et al., 2000)."




Ali, M.B., Hahn, E.J. and Paek, K.-Y. 2005. CO2-induced total phenolics in suspension cultures of Panax ginseng C.A. Mayer roots: role of antioxidants and enzymes. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 43: 449-457.

Barbale, D. 1970. The influence of the carbon dioxide on the yield and quality of cucumber and tomato in the covered areas. Augsne un Raza (Riga) 16: 66-73.

Bunce, J.A. 2001. Seasonal patterns of photosynthetic response and acclimation to elevated carbon dioxide in field-grown strawberry. Photosynthesis Research 68: 237-245.

Bushway, L.J. and Pritts, M.P. 2002. Enhancing early spring microclimate to increase carbon resources and productivity in June-bearing strawberry. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 127: 415-422.

Caldwell, C.R., Britz, S.J. and Mirecki, R.M. 2005. Effect of temperature, elevated carbon dioxide, and drought during seed development on the isoflavone content of dwarf soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] grown in controlled environments. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53: 1125-1129.

Campbell, D.E. and Young, R. 1986. Short-term CO2 exchange response to temperature, irradiance, and CO2 concentration in strawberry. Photosynthesis Research 8: 31-40.

Deng, X. and Woodward, F.I. 1998. The growth and yield responses of Fragaria ananassa to elevated CO2 and N supply. Annals of Botany 81: 67-71.

Dennison, B.A., Rockwell, H.L., Baker, S.L. 1998. Fruit and vegetable intake in young children. J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 17: 371-378.

Desjardins, Y., Gosselin, A. and Yelle, S. 1987. Acclimatization of ex vitro strawberry plantlets in CO2-enriched environments and supplementary lighting. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 112: 846-851.

Dickinson, V.A., Block, G., Russek-Cohen, E. 1994. Supplement use, other dietary and demographic variables, and serum vitamin C in NHANES II. J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 13: 22-32.

Estiarte, M., Penuelas, J., Kimball, B.A., Hendrix, D.L., Pinter Jr., P.J., Wall, G.W., LaMorte, R.L. and Hunsaker, D.J. 1999. Free-air CO2 enrichment of wheat: leaf flavonoid concentration throughout the growth cycle. Physiologia Plantarum 105: 423-433.

Gomez-Carrasco, J.A., Cid, J.L.-H., de Frutos, C.B., Ripalda-Crespo, M.J., de Frias, J.E.G. 1994. Scurvy in adolescence. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 19: 118-120.

Hampl, J.S., Taylor, C.A., Johnston, C.S. 1999. Intakes of vitamin C, vegetables and fruits: Which schoolchildren are at risk? J. Amer. Coll. Nutr. 18: 582-590.

Heinonen, I.M., Meyer, A.S. and Frankel, E.N. 1998. Antioxidant activity of berry phenolics on human low-density lipoprotein and liposome oxidation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46: 4107-4112.

Idso, S.B., Kimball, B.A., Shaw, P.E., Widmer, W., Vanderslice, J.T., Higgs, D.J., Montanari, A. and Clark, W.D. 2002. The effect of elevated atmospheric CO2 on the vitamin C concentration of (sour) orange juice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: 1-7.

Johnston, C.S., Solomon, R.E., Corte, C. 1998. Vitamin C status of a campus population: College students get a C minus. J. Amer. Coll. Health 46: 209-213.

Keutgen, N., Chen, K. and Lenz, F. 1997. Responses of strawberry leaf photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and macronutrient contents to elevated CO2. Journal of Plant Physiology 150: 395-400.

Kimball, B.A., Mitchell, S.T. 1981. Effects of CO2 enrichment, ventilation, and nutrient concentration on the flavor and vitamin C content of tomato fruit. HortScience 16: 665-666.

Madsen, E. 1971. The influence of CO2-concentration on the content of ascorbic acid in tomato leaves. Ugeskr. Agron. 116: 592-594.

Madsen, E. 1975. Effect of CO2 environment on growth, development, fruit production and fruit quality of tomato from a physiological viewpoint. In: P. Chouard, N. de Bilderling (Eds.), Phytotronics in Agricultural and Horticultural Research. Bordas, Paris, pp. 318-330.

Ramar, S., Sivaramakrishman, V., Manoharan, K. 1993. Scurvy - a forgotten disease. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 74: 92-95.

Rice-Evans, C.A. and Miller, N.J. 1996. Antioxidant activities of flavonoids as bioactive components of food. Biochemical Society Transactions 24: 790-795.

Tajiri, T. 1985. Improvement of bean sprouts production by intermittent treatment with carbon dioxide. Nippon Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi 32(3): 159-169.

Tuljapurkar, S., Li, N. and Boe, C. 2000. A universal pattern of mortality decline in the G7 countries. Nature 405: 789-792.

Wang, H., Cao, G. and Prior, R.L. 1996. Total antioxidant capacity of fruits. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 44: 701-705.

Wang, S.Y., Bunce, J.A. and Maas, J.L. 2003. Elevated carbon dioxide increases contents of antioxidant compounds in field-grown strawberries. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51: 4315-4320.

Wang, S.Y. and Jiao, H. 2000. Scavenging capacity of berry crops on superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals, and singlet oxygen. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48: 5677-5684.

Wang, S.Y. and Lin, H.S. 2000. Antioxidant activity in fruit and leaves of blackberry, raspberry, and strawberry is affected by cultivar and maturity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48: 140-146.

 

[westwall]

Wow. Part of the regular cycles of earth. I'm sure that's something scientists haven't considered yet.

They've considered ways to hide them.

Daveboy has his little tinfoil hat on again.

Better a foil hat then a wooden brain.

 

[daveman]

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

Don't all scientists say that? Didn't Einstein ask to jail or execute scientists who doubted General Relativity?

Pffft. Obviously Einstein wasn't a real scientist.

 

[daveman]

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

Don't all scientists say that? Didn't Einstein ask to jail or execute scientists who doubted General Relativity?

An anonymous posting? That's what we're discussing here?!?! For all we know daveman wrote it himself.

Wow. Now THAT'S utter desperation, folks.

 

[daveman]

Wow. Part of the regular cycles of earth. I'm sure that's something scientists haven't considered yet.

They've considered ways to hide them.

No they haven't.

Ummm...yes, they have.

When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period | Watts Up With That?

 

[daveman]

Wow. Part of the regular cycles of earth. I'm sure that's something scientists haven't considered yet.

They've considered ways to hide them.

Daveboy has his little tinfoil hat on again.

I don't share your preferred taste in headgear, cultist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, one could go to real scientists and see how new data changes our understanding of the past. But undegreed ex-TV weatherman are so much smarter than real scientists. Daveboy, you are a hoot. Here, read something that real scientists have written;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Of course you will not, it is far longer than a wingnut talking point, therefore, beyond your abilities.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course, one could go to real scientists and see how new data changes our understanding of the past. But undegreed ex-TV weatherman are so much smarter than real scientists. Daveboy, you are a hoot. Here, read something that real scientists have written;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Of course you will not, it is far longer than a wingnut talking point, therefore, beyond your abilities.

Do you support the OP theory that CO2 attracts asteroids?

 

[wirebender]

I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

I don't think microwaving Spaghetti-O's is actual science konradv.

 

[daveman]

Of course, one could go to real scientists and see how new data changes our understanding of the past. But undegreed ex-TV weatherman are so much smarter than real scientists. Daveboy, you are a hoot. Here, read something that real scientists have written;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Of course you will not, it is far longer than a wingnut talking point, therefore, beyond your abilities.

"...see how new data changes our understanding of the past."

Is that how you're rationalizing the IPCC getting busted for hiding past climate variations?

You've been lied to, Roxy. And you're not smart enough to see it.

 

[IanC]

remember the NAS panel? they agreed that the Hockey Stick used incorrect methods and bad data that gave useless results. they even said bristlecones should not be used in temp recons. but then in a bizarre fashion they said the HS might be right because other paper (using the same incorrect methods and bad data) got similar results. I guess they wanted to hedge their bets

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones


"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."-- Official Policy of the IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

 

[Trakar]

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

At a rate of 0.12° C per decade, "statistical significance" (which is a very specific definition) cannot be determined over a period of less than one and a half decades. In order to properly evaluate statistical significance you would be required to use a longer span of data. If we try to force an evaluation on the limited data span we would see the rating at the margin of significance, but, this is an improper treatment of the data and flawed statistical methodology, which is what Dr Jones explains in the rest of the quipped comment you quote.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."-- Official Policy of the IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

A fringe partisan political blog was the best source you could find?

regardless, the full exchange, in context:

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Dr Edenhoffer is an economist and his focus is upon the economic impacts and implications inherent to many of the policy solutions being offered to address the issues that the science is indicating. First, and foremost, the IPCC is an international scientific and political investigation and analysis group formed largely according to the principles and rules established under the Reagan administration (in return for US acceptance and participation in a global climate investigation effort) back in the late '80s:

...in 1988 the WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unlike earlier conferences, national academy panels, and advisory committees, the IPCC was composed mainly of people who participated not only as science experts, but as official representatives of their governments — people who had strong links to national laboratories, meteorological offices, and science agencies like NASA. The IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. This met the divergent needs of a variety of groups, especially within the United States government, which was a prime stimulator for the action. The AGGG was not formally abolished. But within two years this small body ceased to meet, as most of the world's climate scientists were drawn into the IPCC's processes.... International Cooperation

Beyond this, the IPCC is not "doing science" or "making policy." The IPCC is reviewing the available science and then performing some analysis and summary of the available science and producing a report on what the science says and what overall picture is best supported by that data. Increasingly, the political elements of this group are starting to become more important with increasingly specific policy options being implemented among individual nations and groups of nations internationally in addressment to these issues. Increasing pressures for coordinated international treaties, agreements and regulations means that we need more intensive economic analysis of the the implications for policies designed to maximize results while minimizing costs. THis is important, because while there are some basic economic realities resolvable we are really only recently (more in the last 5 years than the previous 20) with lots of options available, of course the longer action is delayed the fewer the options to choose from, the more costly the effort, and the less efficacy there is in each unit of implementation, but those are definitely choices that we need to be aware of and ultimately make.

The IPCC is performing the task which it was chartered to attend to, I guess I just don't understand what you are finding unusual in an economist talking about some of the basic implications of actual and potential policies that are in many cases designed to try and address (among other things) the market failures created by government intervention in the energy and fossil-fuel resource markets. Some policies seeking to correct instances where redistributions of wealth have occurred through the redirection of public tax dollars to distort a market and convert tax dollars into private profits, seek that correction by recouping those lost tax revenues from those who improperly profitted from the market distortion. I'm not saying that this is the only, or even best policy to pursue, but it is certainly one direction under discussion and something that needs to be looked at and evaluated in more depth before the policy makers and citizens of many nations can decide upon the best path(s) forward.

 

[Trakar]

remember the NAS panel? they agreed that the Hockey Stick used incorrect methods and bad data that gave useless results...

That is a most peculiar distortion of reality, of the sort that is generally classified as "delusional disconnect."

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

...The academy essentially upholds Mann’s findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says, adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work...

 

[westwall]

I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

I don't think microwaving Spaghetti-O's is actual science konradv.

Oh SNAP! Bender 5 konrad 0.

 

[westwall]

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Phil Jones Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

At a rate of 0.12° C per decade, "statistical significance" (which is a very specific definition) cannot be determined over a period of less than one and a half decades. In order to properly evaluate statistical significance you would be required to use a longer span of data. If we try to force an evaluation on the limited data span we would see the rating at the margin of significance, but, this is an improper treatment of the data and flawed statistical methodology, which is what Dr Jones explains in the rest of the quipped comment you quote.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."-- Official Policy of the IPCC

Read more: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

A fringe partisan political blog was the best source you could find?

regardless, the full exchange, in context:

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Dr Edenhoffer is an economist and his focus is upon the economic impacts and implications inherent to many of the policy solutions being offered to address the issues that the science is indicating. First, and foremost, the IPCC is an international scientific and political investigation and analysis group formed largely according to the principles and rules established under the Reagan administration (in return for US acceptance and participation in a global climate investigation effort) back in the late '80s:

...in 1988 the WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Unlike earlier conferences, national academy panels, and advisory committees, the IPCC was composed mainly of people who participated not only as science experts, but as official representatives of their governments — people who had strong links to national laboratories, meteorological offices, and science agencies like NASA. The IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. This met the divergent needs of a variety of groups, especially within the United States government, which was a prime stimulator for the action. The AGGG was not formally abolished. But within two years this small body ceased to meet, as most of the world's climate scientists were drawn into the IPCC's processes.... International Cooperation

Beyond this, the IPCC is not "doing science" or "making policy." The IPCC is reviewing the available science and then performing some analysis and summary of the available science and producing a report on what the science says and what overall picture is best supported by that data. Increasingly, the political elements of this group are starting to become more important with increasingly specific policy options being implemented among individual nations and groups of nations internationally in addressment to these issues. Increasing pressures for coordinated international treaties, agreements and regulations means that we need more intensive economic analysis of the the implications for policies designed to maximize results while minimizing costs. THis is important, because while there are some basic economic realities resolvable we are really only recently (more in the last 5 years than the previous 20) with lots of options available, of course the longer action is delayed the fewer the options to choose from, the more costly the effort, and the less efficacy there is in each unit of implementation, but those are definitely choices that we need to be aware of and ultimately make.

The IPCC is performing the task which it was chartered to attend to, I guess I just don't understand what you are finding unusual in an economist talking about some of the basic implications of actual and potential policies that are in many cases designed to try and address (among other things) the market failures created by government intervention in the energy and fossil-fuel resource markets. Some policies seeking to correct instances where redistributions of wealth have occurred through the redirection of public tax dollars to distort a market and convert tax dollars into private profits, seek that correction by recouping those lost tax revenues from those who improperly profitted from the market distortion. I'm not saying that this is the only, or even best policy to pursue, but it is certainly one direction under discussion and something that needs to be looked at and evaluated in more depth before the policy makers and citizens of many nations can decide upon the best path(s) forward.

Oh please. How much does the IPCC want us to spend to hopefully drop the global temps by one degree...maybe? Hmmm? I'm waiting.

 

[westwall]

remember the NAS panel? they agreed that the Hockey Stick used incorrect methods and bad data that gave useless results...

That is a most peculiar distortion of reality, of the sort that is generally classified as "delusional disconnect."

Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature

...The academy essentially upholds Mann’s findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says, adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work...

Sure oltrakarfraud, sure. Here is an old story from a MIT publication discussing the problems with that old graph of yours.



Energy

Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
October 15, 2004
By Richard Muller

Audio »


Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isnt. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.





But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.











Global Warming Bombshell - Technology Review

 

[daveman]

At a rate of 0.12° C per decade, "statistical significance" (which is a very specific definition) cannot be determined over a period of less than one and a half decades.

You might want to tell Chris. He's all proud of himself for "proving" global warming in his record high temps thread.

 

[asedeL]

I'm hoping for a good change in this world.