published Saturday, March 9th, 2013

Climate change waits for no man

Things are heating up on this old globe.

And it's not just because of newspaper headlines and if-it-bleeds-it-leads television news.

A new study looking at 11,000 years of climate temperatures evidenced in ice cores and fossilized microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures shows the world in the middle of a dramatic mercurial U-turn.

The planet is lurching from near-record post-ice age cooling to a heat spike that took only 100 years, according to the study just released in the journal Science. That rate of change in one century "is unprecedented compared to anything we've seen in the last 10,000 years," said the study lead writer Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University.

"In 100 years, we've gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum. We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly," he told The Associated Press.

What does it mean?

The study, measuring more than 73 sediment and polar ice samples from all over the globe, indicates that the Earth -- left to its own nature -- would be colder right now. In fact it would still be on the naturally, cyclical cooling trend that it was on at the turn of the 20th century. The decade from 1900 to 1909 was colder than 95 percent of the last 11,300 years, the study found.

But now, the opposite is occurring. Between 2000 and 2009, it was hotter than about 75 percent of the last 11,300 years, and hotter than at any point in the last 4,000 years.

Think about it: The earth's natural cooling of 4,000 years was reversed in a century.

Remember June 2012 in Chattanooga when a string of 100-plus degree days sent TVA's power demand peak through the roof?

Marcott's study, which takes climate "records" out of the 150-year range to something more like an 11,300-year range, shows that were it not for modern man-made influences, the Earth would be in a very cold phase right now and getting even colder -- perhaps even headed back to another ice age.

On the up-side, too much smog and carbon-based pollution that has made our lives fast and comfortable may be saving our far-out-in-the-future descendants from life in a glacial cave.

On the down-side, it's taking them -- and us -- where no man has ever gone before.

Need specifics? By 2100, the Earth will be warmer than anything evidenced since before the Ice Age began, according to Marcott.

The National Science Foundation says that could be a general rise of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

A few degrees can make -- literally -- a world of difference, and Marcott and other scientists are concerned about people's ability to adapt to a drastically changed climate.

"We're kind of set up for things not to change too much," he said. "I certainly hope we can pull ourselves out of it."

We'd best get on the stick, and we need to stop worrying about things like the profits of fossil fuel companies. The future brings new challenges and new opportunities.

To get there in time, we'd better boldly go where no man or woman has gone before.

58
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

Forgidaboutit...we aren't going to give up our pick'em up trucks, air travel, electronic gizmos, and jet skis just to hold the temperature down.

Even if whole swaths of the planet become arid and uninhabitable, people can always move to Siberia, Greenland, Canada or the Antarctic. The climate in those places should be pretty good in another century. Also, the heat may help solve the world's over-population problem. The inevitable human die-off could reduce the planet's population by billions, creating jobs in funeral services and the moving industry.

The remainder people should be able to access the Arctic oil and when that is all used up, they can move on to one of the other planets in the cosmos.

Disposable planets...another human invention.

March 9, 2013 at 1:39 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck,

How long can you tread water?

March 9, 2013 at 7:12 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Hey conservative, your stupid is showing. Better see to that.

March 9, 2013 at 7:18 a.m.
conservative said...

Good morning Ike,

He who fears God has nothing else to fear. - Charles Spurgeon

March 9, 2013 at 8:07 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

Strange that you would mention "Greenland." Around 1000 AD it was warm and GREEN.

Reindeer and Elk flatulence?

"The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time."

http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm

March 9, 2013 at 8:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Actually, Greenland was WARM and GREEN millions of years ago. Around 1000 AD it was a little warmer than now, but the glaciers were still there. There are a lot of ideas about why it is named Greenland; one is the Vikings' desire to attract settlers from Scandinavia. The warming period of that time produced a climate that would grow crops at the coast, but did not produce a green continent.

March 9, 2013 at 8:40 a.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck,

"The remainder people should be able to access the Arctic oil and when that is all used up, they can move on to one of the other planets in the cosmos"

Did you mean remaining instead of remainder?

Anyway, I guess those 2.3 earths that you say you are consuming makes a little more sense considering the number of planets remainder.

March 9, 2013 at 8:56 a.m.
nucanuck said...

Ever notice how con-man tries to re-direct discussion by constantly inserting trivial distractions? I have yet to see him make a cogent argument for anything that he constructed by thinking through the topic at hand. It's always criticism of others or isolated quotes from his narrow world. He is our pet pot stirrer, but with nothing worthwhile to add.

March 9, 2013 at 10:38 a.m.
conservative said...

Hey nucanuck,

How could I top what you wrote at 1:39 a.m.? You global warming kooks destroy your own arguments with your own words.

"Disposable planets...another human invention." and you wonder why regular people don't take you serious.

March 9, 2013 at 11:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

the dumbest conservative,

"You global warming kooks destroy your own arguments with your own words."

Not once have you disproved or made a logically rebutted anything anyone here has ever said regarding climate change. You copy and paste what people type. That is the extent of your intellect.

"and you wonder why regular people don't take you serious."

You have just described the thoughts of everyone that has ever read a post that begins with the line "conservative said...".

Congratulations, you have reached self-awareness without being aware of it!

“Irony is wasted on the stupid” ― Oscar Wilde

March 9, 2013 at 12:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I am all for conservation, but these dorks that try to use a CO2 caused climate crisis as a motivation only dilute the argument.

March 10, 2013 at 1:10 a.m.
nucanuck said...

BRP, you might be a victim of selective reading.

March 10, 2013 at 10:50 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nucanuck said... "BRP, you might be a victim of selective reading."

No, more like objective reading. I do not let others tell me what to believe so I can mindlessly goose-step to their drum.

March 10, 2013 at 9:22 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Maybe objective, but your CO2 conclusion puts you in a minority so small that it might objectively be considered the lunatic fringe.

Even the hard core scientific skeptics have reluctantly come around, leaving only the scientists hired to find fault, and of course, those who consider themselves objective by reading the hired data.

March 11, 2013 at 12:58 a.m.
conservative said...

So, nucanuck what is your CO2 conclusion?

Are you causing global warming, yes or no?

March 11, 2013 at 8:02 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Still hoping for the Bible verse mentioning CO2. Or Greenland. Or glaciers. Did God make those and forget to mention them in the Bible? How about kangaroos? Petroleum?

March 11, 2013 at 8:28 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

nucanuck said... "Maybe objective, but your CO2 conclusion puts you in a minority so small that it might objectively be considered the lunatic fringe."

Hah! Have you ever considered that maybe it is you that has been bombarded with propaganda and have been led to believe that the rational conclusion is lunatic fringe?

Do you also believe that Barack Obama is an exceptional speaker?

Do you believe that an "assault weapon" ban would decrease violent crime?

March 11, 2013 at 9:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

BRP, whether Obama is a good speaker or "assault weapons ban" would decrease crime are speculations based on subjective information. But AGW is well established by tons of evidence and accepted by almost every climate scientist out there. (the opinions of other scientists only matter in a secondary way-it is climate scientists who review the studies in climate). There is no more debate, either that the global temperatures (not regional, global) are rising and that CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels is the primary cause. Even former deniers, after reviewing the evidence, agree.

March 11, 2013 at 9:11 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "Still hoping for the Bible verse mentioning CO2."

Now that is funny! I am trying to imagine a sermon where there is mention of an odorless, colorless gas, as yet to be isolated or named, that is critical to life but affects solar light retention by the atmosphere and triggers a feedback that multiplies the retention of solar energy, or maybe not... that buffers the retention of solar energy. Imagine the response of the audience!

That would have been a hit on the shores of the Mediterranean.

March 11, 2013 at 9:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Curious that the bible only mentions things found in the Middle East. It's as if the rest of the world didn't exist. No llamas. No Camanches. No pandas. No tasmanian wolves. No maize. No Alaska. No Pacific Ocean. No Andes. No Redwood trees. Funny that conservative does not have an answer to this.

Bible doesn't mention uranium either. Or C-14. Or plutons. Or subduction zones. Or mid-oceanic rift zones for that matter. Wonder why. Didn't God make those too?

March 11, 2013 at 9:53 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "Even former deniers, after reviewing the evidence, agree."

This is clearly the result of an effective propaganda campaign that uses isolated facts, ignores others, and draws erroneous conclusions. Selective reading, or targeted corruption of available reading materials at its best.

March 11, 2013 at 9:55 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "Curious that the bible only mentions things found in the Middle East. It's as if the rest of the world didn't exist.."

Of course it does not mention things that would not be recognized and understood by the audience. If it did, the authors would have been labeled "right wing nuts" or something like that and the more important messages would have been lost in the controversy.

March 11, 2013 at 9:58 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

This is clearly the result of an effective propaganda campaign that uses isolated facts, ignores others, and draws erroneous conclusions. Selective reading, or targeted corruption of available reading materials at its best.

Not really. That would assume that the vast majority of climate scientists were part of a massive conspiracy. Keeping such a conspiracy together in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary would be at the very least expensive. Scientists are as a rule conservative, and will not accept new paradigms quickly. This is a relatively new paradigm, and the more historical data measured (ice core, sediment isotope ratios, etc) the more compelling the conclusions become.

March 11, 2013 at 10:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu,

You are being led to believe that consensus over CO2 levels having a direct impact is the sum total of the argument and agreement on that one small point puts the entire issue to rest. The debate about feedback is still raging, one camp continues to insist that feedback multiplies the effect of CO2 and the other believes that feedback buffers the effect of individual greenhouse gasses. The data that has been collected since man made global warming was declared a crisis does not support the multiplying effect, which is assumed in ALL of the climate models that predict the end of the world as we know it. The data supports buffering, which makes complete sense, it is hard to imagine life on this planet surviving for more than a short period of time if the atmosphere was the unstable thing that would be required of the theory of feedback multiplication.

The latest propaganda emphasizes the agreement on the direct effect of C02 and ignores the growing division between the "multipliers" and the "buffers". It is ALL about the feedback.

March 11, 2013 at 10:44 a.m.
conservative said...

lkeithlu said...

Still hoping for the Bible verse mentioning CO2. Or Greenland. Or glaciers. Did God make those and forget to mention them in the Bible? How about kangaroos? Petroleum?

===============

Are you on medication?

March 11, 2013 at 11:22 a.m.
conservative said...

lkeithlu said...

Curious that the bible only mentions things found in the Middle East. It's as if the rest of the world didn't exist. No llamas. No Camanches. No pandas. No tasmanian wolves. No maize. No Alaska. No Pacific Ocean. No Andes. No Redwood trees. Funny that conservative does not have an answer to this.

Bible doesn't mention uranium either. Or C-14. Or plutons. Or subduction zones. Or mid-oceanic rift zones for that matter. Wonder why. Didn't God make those too?

===============

Are you off your medication?

March 11, 2013 at 11:24 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

well, conservative, am I right or wrong? Does the bible mention these things? If so, where? If not, why? Had they been created and God forgot to mention them? How do you have an opinion on climate if it isn't in the bible?

You are being led to believe that consensus over CO2 levels having a direct impact is the sum total of the argument and agreement on that one small point puts the entire issue to rest.

Actually, that is not really true. Although CO2 is the primary factor, there are other green house gases (methane is a good example) and gases that have the opposite effect, such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, water vapor and particulate matter such as dust and ash. Climate researchers are fully aware of these and take them into account.

March 11, 2013 at 1:31 p.m.
nowfedup said...

Having read posts they seem to verify why USA cannot fill 3 million jobs requiring higher education in the sciences and hi tech fields

March 11, 2013 at 1:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

In addition is the CO2 uptake by oceans (and the related scidity of the oceans) CO2 uptake by vegetation, increased plant growth countered by deforestation or drought, ice-albedo feedback-less ice means more dark surface or open water that can absorb rather than reflect heat, volcanism produced particles that block sunlight, increased temperatures melting permafrost and releasing long-stored methane (a real problem given the magnitude of the stored methane and the fact that temperature increase is higher at the poles) and release of methane hydrate from ocean bed deposits. It is a complicated picture, but the most telling is the sudden and rapid increase in global temperature since the industrial revolution, unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years.

March 11, 2013 at 1:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu,

You are describing some of the theoretical sources of feedback multiplication. You are obviously a well read and devout student of that theory. There is another theory out there that is supported by the empirical data. Temperature has not responded to C02 levels as predicted by the climate models. The data shows that all of the complicated related influences act to buffer the temperature response. Instead of multiplying global temperature, that data shows that the global temperature change is reduced by all of those things. It is important to step back and look at the big picture and not let the avalanche of news and information coming out of politically motivated sources cloud your understanding.

March 11, 2013 at 2:10 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sources, please?

March 11, 2013 at 2:12 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "Does the bible mention these things? If so, where? If not, why?"

You are in education, right? How effective do you think your lessons would be if you rambled on about incomprehensible tangents? Your core message would be lost as your students struggled with things they could not understand.

Whether religious teachings are a product of man or man is just a conduit for a message from another source this holds true. A good teacher / messenger delivers a message in a context that can be easily comprehended and embraced. Llamas, the Comanche and pandas have no role in the important life lessons that religious texts are attempting to convey, unless you live in an area where those things exist and your parables are enhanced by those elements of a familiar back-drop.

March 11, 2013 at 2:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

My point was for conservative, who is adamant that the Bible is the word of God, infallible and complete. It is a written record of stone age mythology, a selection of tales and parables that had been passed down through the ages orally, and put into writing first by ancient Jewish scribes. The reason none of these things are mentioned is because HUMANS wrote it, and their world did not extend beyond the local Middle Eastern area in which they lived.

That conservative has an opinion at all about modern science is laughable, because it doesn't appear that he accepts any source other than the bible.

You have those sources regarding your feedback loops?

March 11, 2013 at 2:25 p.m.
conservative said...

lkeithlu said...

well, conservative, am I right or wrong? Does the bible mention these things? If so, where? If not, why? Had they been created and God forgot to mention them? How do you have an opinion on climate if it isn't in the bible?

You are being led to believe that consensus over CO2 levels having a direct impact is the sum total of the argument and agreement on that one small point puts the entire issue to rest.

Actually, that is not really true. Although CO2 is the primary factor, there are other green house gases (methane is a good example) and gases that have the opposite effect, such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, water vapor and particulate matter such as dust and ash. Climate researchers are fully aware of these and take them into account.

==================

I'm sorry but I just find that rambling, incoherent and nothing to do with the price of eggs in China.

March 11, 2013 at 3:15 p.m.
timbo said...

Anyone who believes this global warming crap is one of three things.

  1. Stupid
  2. Gullible
  3. Getting a grant from the government to study "global warming."
  4. All of above.

By the way, no matter what we cut in the US, China, India and the rest of the third world will keep right on going.

This article was absolutely dumb.

March 11, 2013 at 3:31 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "My point was for conservative, who is adamant that the Bible is the word of God, infallible and complete. It is a written record of stone age mythology, a selection of tales and parables that had been passed down through the ages orally, and put into writing first by ancient Jewish scribes. The reason none of these things are mentioned is because HUMANS wrote it, and their world did not extend beyond the local Middle Eastern area in which they lived."

Understood and agreed, but let's suppose that God was channeling information through humans that eventually was written down by Jewish scribes. What use would llamas have to the message? None. Is that not an adequate answer?

“You have those sources regarding your feedback loops?”

The feedback loop thing is my interpretation, with an engineering background, of why climate models over predict the impact of CO2 on global temperature. Every model has a multiplier, sometimes several multipliers applied to various orders, to the input that predicts the response of the output. The climate models predict more of a temperature response than the data shows. Over the last few years I have seen several articles that discuss the observed response verses the predicted response and have quite consistently seen evidence that, for whatever reason, the system is very complex and research is still in its infancy, the multiplier is less than "unity" if unity is defined as the expected absorption of energy due to CO2 in the atmosphere. The climate models use a multiplier much greater than unity, 3-6 times if I remember correctly. The authors of the climate models use factors like those you described earlier to justify using a factor greater than unity. The data does not bear this out. I wish I was able to share a list of sources but I am not good at cataloguing this kind of stuff and find when I search my words like "global warming CO2 temperature buffering" and the likes I am not getting the articles I have read, many of which were probably in print in science and engineering journals.

March 11, 2013 at 3:34 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Let's not forget, we have not touched on the fact that historical temperature changes have lead changes in CO2 concentration. It is impossible to develop a model that does this. It is almost certain that historical CO2 levels are driven by global temperature, which is driven more by solar radiation than anything else. THAT is one thing that everyone can agree on, the solar radiation part. The notion that CO2 follows temperature is much easier to explain than the reverse.

March 11, 2013 at 3:40 p.m.
Leaf said...

BRP says, "The data supports buffering, which makes complete sense, it is hard to imagine life on this planet surviving for more than a short period of time if the atmosphere was the unstable thing that would be required of the theory of feedback multiplication."

Just because it is hard to imagine doesn't mean it's not true. There have been massive die-offs in the fossil record where most species on earth suddenly go extinct. Not too long ago, there was a glacier a mile high over what is now Maine. At one point in its history, ice covered the entire precambrian Earth all the way to the equators. Venus may have had an Earth-like climate early in it's history, now it is boiling hot with acid rain. There are plenty of natural systems that go along for a while one way, then reach a tipping point and change quickly and drastically. I'm not saying that any of these things will happen necessarily, but believing with all your might that nothing will change, will not stop change from ocurring.

March 11, 2013 at 3:56 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu,

I found a bunch of relevant articles by searching "amplify dampen global warming" that argue both sides of the issue.

March 11, 2013 at 4:09 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Here is a bit that covers amplification verses buffering in 12 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0gDErDwXqhc

March 11, 2013 at 4:12 p.m.
timbo said...

This subject is not worthy of this over complication of what the data says or doesn't say. It is a waste of time.

Leaf hates scripture and religion but he is just like the a "green" religious nut. He believes this stuff on faith that the self-serving green scientist mafia is honest. The are not. Arguing about global warming is the religious equivalent of arguing about the color of Jesus's underwear.

Global climate change has been around forever. I has always changed for many reasons that are much more powerful than little ole us. Let's say by some miracle that you greenies are right. The earth is such a huge system, if we are going down the global warming hill, it can't be stopped. You might as well buy some ocean front property in say...Ashville, NC.

The fact that global warming hysteria fit's the green energy agenda makes this all suspect. They want to take money away from the oil lobby and give the money to the "green" lobby. It is just a transfer of power and money.

March 11, 2013 at 4:17 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Leaf said... "I'm not saying that any of these things will happen necessarily, but believing with all your might that nothing will change, will not stop change from ocurring."

No one is arguing that nothing will change. The argument is over the expected change from atmospheric C02 generated by man. The evidence does not support a crisis position. The evidence suggests a small increase in temperatures over that which would otherwise occur. A small increase is probably beneficial, especially if we are entering a cyclical cooling period due to solar radiation.

March 11, 2013 at 4:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

timbo said... "This subject is not worthy of this over complication of what the data says or doesn't say. It is a waste of time."

I would agree in most cases, but lkeithlu is a thoughtful person that may be persuaded if presented with the truth.

March 11, 2013 at 4:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, BRP, I'll check them out.

Conservative, only part of my comment was addressed to you. Of course, your ability to comprehend what I write made that difficult. I will try to be more clear in the future, so as to not confuse you. However, you have not even addressed my challenge: to find any reference to CO2 in the bible. You don't have one? Then where is your source of information? Are you just forming your opinions out of air, or MSU?

March 11, 2013 at 4:21 p.m.
Leaf said...

timbo, just because I don't believe in religion doesn't mean I hate it. It's just like I don't believe in Maximus, but I don't hate him. I think religion serves a useful purpose for many people, and it is part of the human experience and part of our history and culture.

I don't think that anyone has cornered the market on absolute truth, including myself, but I find religion to be highly unlikely.

Logic has more to do with my stance on anthropogenic climate change than belief. Since I can't go back in time and build a career as a climate scientist, look at every piece of data and form my own opinions over decades of study, logically I choose to believe what 99% of them are saying and disregard the 1% who are funded by oil companies. Do you see the distinction? Yes, at some point you have to choose to believe, but I choose the most likely scenario. If I am proven wrong, then so be it. I won't continue to cling to my beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.

March 11, 2013 at 4:36 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"The evidence does not support a crisis position. The evidence suggests a small increase in temperatures over that which would otherwise occur. A small increase is probably beneficial, especially if we are entering a cyclical cooling period due to solar radiation." - BRP

I feel so silly for ever having listened to all those climate scientists - all 98-99% of them - who have been studying climate change for years and decades. How could I have been so foolish as to take them seriously?? Obviously they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I should have listened to BRP, timbo, and the shills for the oil companies from the very beginning. Thanks, you guys, for sharing your wisdom and expertise on this subject. I'm going to send emails to every climate scientist whose name I can find and tell them they might as well stop their research because we're getting the real nitty-gritty from the likes of BRP and timbo, our own home-grown, certified climate scientists. I'm so relieved to finally see the error of my ways. I think I'm gonna go out now and spew as much carbon into the atmosphere as I can, just because I know that it's okay to do it. Yee-haw! Thanks, you guys. I feel free at last!

March 11, 2013 at 4:43 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Rickaroo said... "I feel so silly for ever having listened to all those climate scientists - all 98-99% of them"

This sounds like another example of selective reading. I suppose to come up with that 98-99% statistic you have to listen only to those scientists that are funded by government grants to prove a specific outcome.

March 11, 2013 at 4:59 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

BTW...now that I see what scientific experts BRP and timbo are, I'm beginning to have doubts about the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity, Hubble's law of cosmic expansion, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Newton's law of gravitational force, as well as a few others. I'm sure that you guys have much more profound insights into the scientific research that went into forming these laws and you might come up with different conclusions entirely. If the climate scientists are nothing but liberal hoaxers and charlatans then what's to say that scientists like Einstein, Hubble, Newton, etc. were any different? Please...share with all of us your profound insights into these various laws and enlighten us as to how they might be wrong. I will cease believing in any of the above mentioned laws immediately if only you will inform us of the error of our ways and those of the scientists for whom they are named. I can't tell you what an honor it is knowing that we have such heavy-weights of science like BRP and timbo right here in ol' Chatt-town.

March 11, 2013 at 5:24 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Although argument from incredulity is not especially valid (I see this used against evolution all the time) I am willing to check out BRP's claims. I am not convinced that the vast majority of climate scientists are on Government dole (I don't consider grants to be the same thing-in my experience I have not seen gov. grants come with any expectation of a particular outcome).

March 11, 2013 at 5:29 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

BRP... 98-99% of climate scientists includes all climate scientists world-wide. You think that every climate scientist from every country is guilty of skewing their data or falsifying their research on account of funding from the government? There is no one more guilty of "selective reading" than you, Burpee.

March 11, 2013 at 5:33 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Richard Muller, a physicist and professor at the University of California, who has been one of the more prominent and long-standing deniers of anthropogenic global warming recently reversed his position completely. He was conducting research that was funded in large part by the Koch brothers and expecting to come up with evidence that would solidify his stance. However, by the time he concluded his research this is what he had to say: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” (Christian Science Monitor, July 30, 2012)

With the funding coming from the Koch brothers one cannot very well make the claim that his findings were tainted or influenced by funding from the government. But I'm sure, BRP, that you will have some other reason why his findings should be doubted. After all, you are the expert, right?

March 11, 2013 at 6:02 p.m.
gjuster said...

It would be good if the media actually did their job and questioned the results rather than just report them as true.

Eighty percent of the source data sites were marine, so temperatures from 80% of the data set used in this paper record ocean water temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures. Thus, they may reflect temperature changes from ocean upwelling, changes in ocean currents, or any one of a number of ocean variations not related to atmospheric climates. This in itself means that the Marcott et al. temperatures are not a reliable measure of changing atmospheric climate.

The whole premise may be bogus.

March 12, 2013 at 7:57 a.m.
Easy123 said...

gjuster,

Why are you trying to take credit for a quote that isn't yours?

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/marcott-rebuttal.pdf

Your quote is from Dr. Don J. Easterbrook. Easterbrook's views are very far from mainstream and differ tremendously from the scientific consensus.

YOUR whole premise is likely bogus.

March 12, 2013 at 8:10 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

The marine sources are important, as the correlations between temperature and isotope ratios are part of the data, and after all, 70% of the surface is marine. It comes back to the scientists, though. If you work in this area of science, you have the experience and mileage to judge the work being done. If you don't, even if you have read all the relevant primary sources, you probably don't. If one of us, as a non-climate scientist, can think of a "what if", you can bet that they have already thought of it and investigated it thoroughly.

So, do we trust the scientists and their consensus on this issue or not? If so, then we go with what they say, and any engineer, mathematician, police officer or high school teacher that "claims" they have the answer, we generally ignore unless they demonstrate that they also have the evidence (and they must explain all the rest of the evidence using their paradigm too)

If not, then it is up to us to demonstrate that the thousands of scientists are part of a secret conspiracy to hide the truth. When we can't even show that the Vatican, a much smaller and secretive enclave, has engaged in a conspiracy, how can we believe that scientists all around the world are? This is exactly how evolution deniers work.

Science is not a democracy. You must use the evidence (all of it) to support your position. Scientists disagree all the time, and are just as prone as any group to hang on to a pet theory for ego's sake. However, when you have consensus this high, that is pretty significant. Are there those that exaggerate the "crisis"? Of course, but most of them are not the scientists, but media and celebrities (like Gore) who dramatize things beyond the reality.

If you read or hear claims, check them out. If it is coming from a scientist, find out whether they are still publishing pertinent work.(primary literature) If they are, find out how often they are cited. If they publish a popular book, read reviews by scientists in the field. Figure out if they have an agenda. Do they work for Greenpeace? Exxon? Sierra Club? The Democratic Party? GOP? Who supports them is important (Gov grants such as NSF are not an indicator of an agenda)

March 12, 2013 at 8:49 a.m.
gjuster said...

Actually, government grants are a strong indicator of an agenda since most government grants are looking for a particular outcome. If you are doing a study to disprove AGW, you're not getting a grant from the government

March 12, 2013 at 10:37 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

If you are doing a "study to disprove AGW" you yourself have an agenda and granting agencies of any kind will not award funds. When you apply for a grant it should be phrased as a question, asked in the context of already existing work, specific enough to be answered using the methodology described.

No "one" study can "disprove" AGW. But a multitude of studies that demonstrates patterns that are not consistent with the conclusions drawn by climate scientists would, and they would be noticed.

March 12, 2013 at 10:51 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

You deniers who keep clinging to your hypothesis that government funding has tainted pure science and influenced the work of climates scientists are making an argument that is every bit as flimsy as Bush's argument for going to war in Iraq based on WMD. You dim-wits who call AGW a "liberal hoax" are probably the same ones who brand others as conspiracy theory kooks concerning more plausible conspiracy theories but you don't even see how far-fetched and silly is your own kookiness in calling global warming a conspiracy theory. We're not talking about just American climate scientists who have come to a consensus on human induced global warming but every climate scientist in every country across the globe. You honestly think that every climate scientist world-wide is involved in a massive "liberal hoax?" And all the while you're rejecting and ridiculing the findings of the very scientists you should be listening to you're taking the word of people who are not even experts in the field and who are more apt to be influenced by corporate funding than any climate scientist ever would be influenced by government funding. And to make matters even worse, you won't even acknowledge that there is at least a chance that AGW is real; rather you make preposterous claims that it most definitely is NOT happening. You guys are truly a piece of work.

March 12, 2013 at 11:21 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Grant proposals get turned down all the time. If a proposal repeats previous work with no change or modification, if the question is not clearly articulated, if the methodology is not designed to answer that question, if the work can be done without the grant or if there is another granting agency that is more appropriate, or if it is clear the applicant has not studied the relevant primary literature, if the itemized requests are padded with unnecessary equipment or compensation, or if the location is remote when the work can be done closer to hand. All of these are reasons to reject a proposal. The applicant can then "claim" that their proposal was rejected for political reasons, and the granting agency will not defend itself in a public forum.

March 12, 2013 at 11:29 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.