Although I am not Ken (the group owner), I ask: And what does any of this *sturm und drang* have to do with geoengineering?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]>wrote: > > This is all very interesting but we all know that correlation doesn't infer > but does suggest causality. It should be sensible. However, do we forget > global warming and anthropogenic CO2 as simply an interesting correlation? > If there is some technical sense to the correlation it takes on a higher > significance. It is also true that the Maunder Minimum was a prolonged > period of no sunspots and apparently led to what turned out to be a > disastrous prolonged cooling. That was a particularly significant > correlation. There were also shorter correlations in about 1850 and 1960 > and > current. I think the correlation has been perfect for a very limited number > of events for which there is data. > > It is also true that global warmings and coolings have been recorded for > hundreds of thousands of years in ice core data and also in pacific mud > deposits. The core record is similar to the temperature change record of > the > last 1000 years. Since the related CO2 data trails the temperature; > something else has got to be going on and sunspots are as good a > possibility > as anything I know. > > What I find so strange is that I would expect that such a strong > correlation > would lead to a strong research activity to see if the causal aspects could > be established. I am not aware of such research except maybe some in > Denmark > on clouds. That tells me that truth, understanding and science are not the > issue. It can tell you whatever you like. To each his own. > > For my taste sunspots are important. > > -gene > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Read [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Read > Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:46 AM > To: Ken Caldeira; Margaret Leinen > Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; Mike MacCracken; Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; > Geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > Sometime back there was quite a literature about sunspot correlations with > economic activity So far as I recollect, its intent was to warn about > infering causality from correlation I used to ask my students whether the > clouds were hurrying by because the trees were tickling their tummies ? or > was it just that the trees were waving goodbye to the passing clouds ? > Sometimes they got the point > Peter > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > To: "Margaret Leinen" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; "Mike MacCracken" <[email protected]>; > "Ken > Caldeira" <[email protected]>; "Dan Whaley" > <[email protected]>; "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:11 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > > > > > One out of every 20 time series show spurious correlation at the 95% > > significance level ( and even more if you let me choose how to adjust, > > smooth, truncate, or detrend the data). > > > > Causal mechanisms leading to successful prediction are the hallmark of > > science. > > > > Correlations are good motivators to look for causal explanation but > > correlation should not be confused for causality. > > > > Who would like to wager that the correlation that Eugene comes up with > > will not depend on detrending, smoothing, truncation of data, or some > > other manipulation to acheive it's purported statistical significance? > > > > Sent from a limited typing keyboard > > > > On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:56, Margaret Leinen > > <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > >> Eugene, Can you provide reference(s) for the sunspot work: "the > >> strong influence of sunspots has been clearly shown over the last 4 > >> warming/ cooling cycles, and there are thousands of similar cycles > >> shown in the proxy record but no sunspot data to go with it. So the > >> best data and perfect correlation for 4 events we have is sunspots." > >> -- especially for the perfect correlation. You may have done this in > >> earlier posts as I know that you have mentioned it before, but I have > >> not been able to find a reference in your earlier contributions. > >> Margaret > >> -- > >> Margaret Leinen, PhD. > >> Climate Response Fund > >> 119 S. Columbus Street > >> Alexandria, VA 22314 > >> 202-415-6545 > >> > >> > >> > >>> From: "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> > >>> Reply-To: <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:06:34 -0400 > >>> To: <[email protected]>, 'Ken Caldeira' > >>> <[email protected]>, 'Dan Whaley' > >>> <[email protected] > >>> > > >>> Cc: 'Geoengineering' <[email protected]> > >>> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > >>> > >>> Mike, what do you plan to explain and teach? What is known for sure? > >>> Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some global > >>> warming based on reasonable hypothesis, BUT HOW MUCH? And if you > >>> produce a big number or high percentage then you are as bad as the > >>> deniers. The honest position is that everything we think we know > >>> about climate science, none of which has been subject to rigorous > >>> test, suggests that CO2 plays a role and is causing some of the > >>> warming but not all because the strong influence of sunspots has > >>> been clearly shown over the last 4 warming/cooling cycles, and there > >>> are thousands of similar cycles shown in the proxy record but no > >>> sunspot data to go with it. So the best data and perfect correlation > >>> for 4 events we have is sunspots. The best qualitative science we > >>> have is greenhouse effects, There are other cloud, ocean current > >>> effects, etc. etc. > >>> > >>> If you simply take the opposing position you are as bad as the > >>> deniers. Take the position that the science is not well established, > >>> it is qualitative, and we simply do not know enough to be > >>> quantitative. However the proxy record of 540 million years says it > >>> will get warmer and in the not too distant future we will need to > >>> control the temperature EVEN IF WE STOP INPUTTING ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 > >>> TOMORROW. > >>> > >>> Knee jerk reactions are not useful. > >>> > >>> -gene > >>> > >>> _____ > >>> > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike > >>> MacCracken > >>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:17 AM > >>> To: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley > >>> Cc: Geoengineering > >>> Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > >>> > >>> > >>> Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to > >>> address these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple > >>> of these. See: > >>> > >>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_ > >>> critique > >>> _of_robinson_etal/ > >>> > >>> http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_ > >>> on_lindz > >>> en/ > >>> > >>> MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. > >>> Karl, 2003: > >>> Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin > >>> of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723. > >>> > >>> MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really > >>> understand, pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and > >>> Society: The Relationship Between Policy and Research in National > >>> Laboratories, Universities, Government, and Industry, November 1-2, > >>> 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, > >>> 287 pp. > >>> > >>> And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then > >>> there is the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of > >>> others as well. It takes time (and time away from real research) and > >>> is frustrating at times, but simply has to be done. I am very > >>> surprised that there was now a response trying to address the > >>> concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie Pittock being in > >>> Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.). > >>> > >>> But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like > >>> that there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a > >>> myth explained by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's > >>> modeling of over 40 years ago-but up comes the myth again, and > >>> again, and again. > >>> > >>> We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not > >>> reverting to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types > >>> of arguments. > >>> Explain, teach, explain. > >>> > >>> Mike > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" > >>> <[email protected] > >>> > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> That something like this would be published in The Wall Street > >>> Journal indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it > >>> is what you believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with > >>> experience. > >>> > >>> Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but > >>> is now drowning in a sea of medievalism. > >>> > >>> Reality has become just another special interest group. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode > >>> > >>> The Climate Change Climate Change > >>> The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. > >>> > >>> By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL > >>> > >>> Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure > >>> him on the science of man-made global warming. When the > >>> administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote > >>> against climate-change legislation. > >>> > >>> If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member > >>> of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives > >>> prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is > >>> preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A > >>> growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens > >>> once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. > >>> [POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press > >>> > >>> Steve Fielding > >>> > >>> Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic > >>> majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system > >>> through Congress is because the global warming tide is again > >>> shifting. > >>> It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the > >>> media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who > >>> disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the > >>> scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan > >>> and even, if less reported, the U.S. > >>> > >>> In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document > >>> challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where > >>> President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of > >>> the population believes humans play a role. In France, President > >>> Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's > >>> new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. > >>> Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, > >>> but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected > >>> a new government, which immediately suspended the country's > >>> weeks-old cap- and-trade program. > >>> > >>> The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma > >>> Sen. > >>> Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the > >>> U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate > >>> summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to > >>> receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement > >>> last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her > >>> nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical > >>> chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made > >>> warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar > >>> Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new > >>> religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will > >>> Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its > >>> position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science > >>> magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.) > >>> > >>> The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The > >>> inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined > >>> since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed > >>> research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, > >>> hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial > >>> crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that > >>> would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. > >>> > >>> Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. > >>> Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he > >>> published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" > >>> underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its > >>> fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted > >>> Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in > >>> April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity > >>> and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed > >>> dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian > >>> polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is > >>> back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day. > >>> > >>> The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, > >>> elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was > >>> attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration > >>> was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least > >>> 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The > >>> Senate was not so easily swayed. > >>> > >>> Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the > >>> renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., > >>> attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate > >>> skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special > >>> assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the > >>> Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. > >>> > >>> This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting > >>> for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green > >>> science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament > >>> breaks for the winter. > >>> > >>> Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to > >>> the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in > >>> light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push > >>> through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats > >>> fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world > >>> is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to > >>> re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. > >>> > >>> Write to [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- > >>> > >>> Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page > >>> report posted by the senate minority... > >>> > >>> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View > >>> <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileSt > >>> ore_id=8 > >>> 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9> > >>> &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.374 / Virus Database: 270.12.93/2205 - Release Date: 06/27/09 > 05:53:00 > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
