Robert, As I recall, the new aspect of the clouds portion of the climate the model you are referring to was about the height of the clouds in the atmosphere, not about the presence or absence of clouds. Clouds had already been included in the models for quite some time.
I may be thinking of a different model that you're referring to though. Ooh, a whole industry generating "enormous wealth" with a vested interest in promoting the idea of anthropogenic climate change? Where is this money and why don't I or any of my climate change studying friends have access to any of it? The only "enormous maount of wealth" I know of is on the anti-change side. Neahga On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]>wrote: > I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant > to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would > look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and > there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from > various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate > predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and > discarded. > > We do have a whole "industry" of people promoting the theory that > anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in > that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their > influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be > "underground" in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they > are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of > the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. > > The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that > included "clouds"! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect > of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they > don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics > of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. > > As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future > value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the > ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of > hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials > that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel > reserves decline. > > My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my > tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, > and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need > the aggravation of this sort of a "discussion". All I really care about is > the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of > Ganter, Philip > Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - > EOS Forum > > Robert, > > I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists > with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete > agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times > of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear > for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the > science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps > accuracy is not sufficient. > > I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must > confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I > must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that > water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a > realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome > (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and > it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's > napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is > about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error > you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that > may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would > like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to > change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see > it as soon as possible. > > Phil Ganter > Department of Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > > > On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, "Robert Hamilton" <[email protected]> wrote: > > My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes > the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the > greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the > greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely > wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour > concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total > effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur > continuously. And then there are winds.... > > I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, > it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven > climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, > generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some > experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by > rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following > experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some "decider" has > simply decided it has to to CO2, and to look at anything else makes one a > heretic. > > Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name > just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, > a large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water > to produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, > and far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water > when you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the > fracking gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force > people to eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more > expensive allow the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. > Note that there is no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is > emitted! We even have a political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is > amazing to me. This is not a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both > Bush II and Obama have pursued this. I also really don't care much if we > use coal or fracking gas to boil water, just the quality of the science. > > Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs > are the only cause. Again, some "decider" decided is had to be caused only > by CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal > science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have > a problem with the poor quality of the science. > > As we all know, any "consensus" in science is derived from the empirical > support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any > political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental > Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we > should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less > the voice of various political trends of the day. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM > To: Robert Hamilton > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - > EOS Forum > > Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved > calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, > using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- > stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was > just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our > prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying "There is no > evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric > warming" is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate > system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly > compensate for the increase in CO2. > > On a related note, I recommend that everyone read "The Discovery of Global > Warming" by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a > free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a > great review of how we know what we know. > > Jane Shevtsov > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything > else. > > at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the > > oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to > change > > regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is > no > > evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric > > warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to > show > > that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that > > atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the > > various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to > > suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the > > greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, > > and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater > than > > the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and > present. > > > > Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase > > in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and > > fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with > > rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in > > the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. > Conversion > > of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat > > sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun > due > > to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and > > this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which > used > > to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such > > issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political > > hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and > > amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. > > > > The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will > > out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts > the > > political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is > they > > that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of > > academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone > hole. > > They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? > > Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is > > causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it > > isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know > > for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they > > (we) are wrong). > > > > I suppose I am a "denier" because I reject politically motivated science, > > and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me > if I > > were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't > > need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will > > be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble > > along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties > > along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those > > casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. > > > > Rob Hamilton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of > > malcolm McCallum > > Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - > > EOS Forum > > > > society has never been trusting of scientists. > > However, the same could be said of business with identical survey > > mechanisms. > > So what. > > > > This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless > > opinions. > > ITs about the facts that exist. > > Period. > > > > As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries > > were by academics. > > Very few were made by others. > > Do your homework. > > > > Malcolm > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jerome Joseph Howard wrote: > > > > > >> See the Goddard site at > > >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. > > > > > > > > > Those graphs also show a flattening of global mean temperatures > > > over the past decade or so. Therefore the flattening trend > > > could conceivably continue for another 20-25 years, just > > > like the 30-35 year flattening trends of 1880-1910 and 1940-1975. > > > IF the anthropogenic factors that contribute to warming are > > > relatively minor or moderate in relation to the natural factors > > > which may well turn out to be the case. > > > > > > In view of these uncertainties it is understandable why > > > industry and agriculture appear to be taking a wait and > > > see approach instead of making plans for a much warmer > > > world. > > > > > > The track record of academia is not stellar in the minds > > > of conservatives that run industry and agriculture. > > > Surveys indicate educated conservatives have grown > > > increasingly distrustful of scientists (but not science) > > > http://tinyurl.com/7dkgolp > > > > > > > > > Paul Cherubini > > > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > > > > > -- > > Malcolm L. McCallum > > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > > School of Biological Sciences > > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > > > Managing Editor, > > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > > Allan Nation > > > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > and pollution. > > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > MAY help restore populations. > > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > > Wealth w/o work > > Pleasure w/o conscience > > Knowledge w/o character > > Commerce w/o morality > > Science w/o humanity > > Worship w/o sacrifice > > Politics w/o principle > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > > -- > ------------- > Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. > Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org > > "In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a > systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual > and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person > who has also written a dissertation." --John Janovy, Jr., "On Becoming a > Biologist" >
