CARBON MADNESS

Source: Weekly Times (AU)

“When the facts changed, scientist David Evans changed his mind about global warming” headlined The Australian newspaper last Friday July 18, 2008.

In what should be a must read for all, David Evans BSc, BE-EE, MA (Sydney), MS-EE, MS-Stat, PhD EE (Stanford) and consultant to Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 reveals that “the world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990 and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming” “Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory”.

David Evans devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. “I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol” he says.

“But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.” In fact, “the new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half million years the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years BEFORE the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon, which says something about which was cause and which was effect!”......



Read more: http://www.weeklytimes.com.au/2008/07_july/23_07_08/story_05.html

---

This has pretty much been my theory for a long time. I still think we should triple our efforts to reduce pollution, but I also want as accurate science as we can get.

the brain

Herer's the peer reviewed science since 1999 - read 'em and weep

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming
Science 2001. 291: 566 (commentary and summary of recent research)

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

nice try though...

oh yeah, this too...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5875...

Science 25 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5875, pp. 518 - 520
DOI: 10.1126/science.1153468

Human-Induced Arctic Moistening

Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis Zwiers*

Abstract

The Arctic and northern subpolar regions are critical for climate change. Ice-albedo feedback amplifies warming in the Arctic, and fluctuations of regional fresh water inflow to the Arctic Ocean modulate the deep ocean circulation and thus exert a strong global influence. By comparing observations to simulations from 22 coupled climate models, we find influence from anthropogenic greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols in the space-time pattern of precipitation change over high-latitude land areas north of 55°N during the second half of the 20th century. The human-induced Arctic moistening is consistent with observed increases in Arctic river discharge and freshening of Arctic water masses. This result provides new evidence that human activity has contributed to Arctic hydrological change.

<full article needs subscription>

I do think the Earth is warming, just not primarily due to CO2. I am more concerned with mercury, chemical fertilizers, sulfur, oil spills, etc than I am with C02 and I think that is where we should focus our efforts. I won't have blind devotion to anything or anyone no matter what my polical leanings.

You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, as are we all. You will please excuse me if I don't state my opinions of stuff like this (and those who breathlessly promote it) on a mixed forum.

clearly and unequivocally indicate that the recent warming of the Earth's climate is due to human activities.

There is *NO* peer reviewed evidence to the contrary - only pathetic right wing horse shit like the OP.

again - nice try

if both the authors and reviewers come from the same pool of peers that are part of the scientific consensus, that doesn't inspire as much confidence as say peer reviews by those that hold no opinion or even better, the opposite. Ever heard of preaching to the choir?

If a study can stand the scrutiny of those who are impartial or even hostile it is worth a lot more than when the group doing the review have pre-agreed that they agree on everything.

In US courts one may have a "jury of your peers", but these peers are not the co-accused or someone with a vested interest in the outcome. I am sure you prefer to think of the deniers as the accused, with yourself as a member of the impartial jury?

Peer review is based on the concept that not everyone is an expert in everything. Therefore, for something to be accepted for publication it has to pass a review by people who understand and can properly evaluate the arguments in the paper. Review doesn't focus on conclusions, it focuses on the details of the methods and construction of the arguments used.

In fact, if you knew anything about the academic community and the competition among journals, you'd know that solid evidence disproving global warming would get published in a heartbeat.

You've entered the depths of the absurd with your infantile criticisms of climate change.

Added on edit: Howie, would you also address the questions I asked in post #19?

You reject any research where the funding can be traced to big oil or the right wing now. I don't expect that to change if more scientist were involved.

How many skeptical posts by WriteDown is it going to take before you label him a right wing denier?

"You reject any research where the funding can be traced to big oil or the right wing now. I don't expect that to change if more scientist were involved."

The paper by Jacques and Dunlap clearly shows that most of the information you are using about GW does not originate with "scientists". It is a product of public relations firms and right wing fossil fuel funded 'think tanks' that are combing valid science journals and then using whatever information they can cherry pick to construct arguments which are distributed by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity, through press releases and over the internet.

That isn't science, that is propaganda.

I asked a basic, legitimate question of you: if, as you claim, scientists are jumping on the GW bandwagon because it gets them funding why aren't more of them going for the money of the fossil fuel interests and publishing work that puts the supposed "scam" of global warming into its grave?

Why?

What happens to scientist who dare question the consensus - it seems they are ostracized.

Seriously though; either because money isn't being offered, or because it is a lost cause.

Why do scientists hate 'Merica????

:rofl:

and anything else *is* RW denier pseudo/anti- science

That mechanism is consistent with everything we know about the physical behavior -- particularly the interaction with solar radiation -- of CO2, CH4, and other GHG's. There is no similar mechanism for any of the other phenomena you list, only a (very, very rough) coincidence in time.

Consider this old logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc. That is, "after that, therefore because of that". Miniskirts were introduced, then the Earth got warmer. Therefore we conclude: miniskirts cause global warming. Same argument you are marshalling for mercury or oil spills causing GW.

"“When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008 the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions they will be seen likewise”."

Look they have stupid fundies too!

So this guy is a stupid fundy "scientist" who worked in Howards "EPA". Not sure how much you follow Aussie politics but Howard is their Shrubya.

Why is it that the "scientists" who always come out against global climate change are in cahoots with big business, and the oligarchy party of their country? Strange don't you think. And every few months one of these morons pops up in one country and the press screams it to the sky! "Look out of the billions of people on our planet we found someone stupid enough to believe that Global Warming is a hoax!"

I am not defending some of his stupid political jabs, but I do question global warmings main cause. Many of the other planets have warmed during the same period. I am more concerned with the carcinogenic chemicals that we are pumping into our land, sea, and air than I am about C02. I knew I would have some disagreements, but that's just how I see it.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526154.300-asias-brown-clouds-heat-the-himalayas.html

----------------------------------
Now scientists have shown that this polluted atmospheric layer is causing significant warming in the region, equivalent to that caused by recent greenhouse gas emissions.
----------------------------------

Edit: Or perhaps Mars is warming due to dust storms??? Stay tuned.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

Re:

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc. doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

maybe if the tons upon tons of trash we're pumping into the air every day had a color instead of being clear.. maybe then it would be easier for the Humans to understand.. Nah, probably not, Earth-Rape is cool, no worries :)

Thorough debunking here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=581#comment-93013 .

The deniers aren't interested in the science or objectivity. They never seem to care about any of the hard evidence that contradicts their views nor any rebuttals from the scientific community. The act as though the mere denial of human-caused GW makes them "objective".

The lag of CO2 behind warming detected in ice cores is an old argument, hardly "new evidence" that carbon forcing of GW isn't real. Here's a good explanation: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17623653.100

I am always skeptical and keep an open mind. I find the word "denier" smacks a little too much of religious zealotry though ala Spanish Inquisition. The only thing that will answer the question is time.

We know the causes here - anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Natural forcings have been examined time and time again - and rejected as playing a significant role in the current warming trend.

Solar forcing cannot account for the observed warming trend on Earth. Only anthropogenic CO₂ emissions match the data.

The arguments and proofs are extremely complex, so anyone could be forgiven for not grasping the interrelationship between the various potential "causes" and "forcings".

However there is another way to come at the problem: Why have the fossil fuel companies worked so hard to promote known false information on the topic. If they actually had the truth on their side, and if (as the "deniers" like to speculate) scientists are in it for the research dollars, wouldn't you think that is a match made in heaven? That in no time at all, the truth and the money that supports the research would find each other and settle this supposed "debate"?


Let me recommend two pieces of reading. The first documents and discusses the campaign waged by Exxon Mobile to create doubt in the mind of the public about the risks of climate change. You may have heard more on this lately when the descendants of the founder's of Exxon, the Rockafellers, challenged the current Exxon CEO for his role in this activity and tried to have him ousted. They received about 40% support, but the fact that the creation of fear, uncertainty, and doubt regarding global warming is a well funded marketing campaign can no longer be denied.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html

So how do they do it? What are the steps involved in finding and suckering in enough people to make a difference. Well, they've been working on it for years. This paper shows the evolution of the (politically conservative) anti-environmentalist movement:
The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship by Peter Jacques*
"Environmental skepticism doubts the importance and reality of environmental problems, but it is not about science. It is about politics — global politics to be specific."

And this one explains how that fossil fuel funded "movement" is organized to deceive people like you:
The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

Authors: Peter J. Jacques a; Riley E. Dunlap b; Mark Freeman a

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.


Now, most of the people around here know this and know that the effort diplays a sort of 'consciousness of guilt' on the part of those doing it (fossil fuel interests). When someone comes along and says there is a legitimate difference of opinion, how should they be greeted?

How would you greet someone who had been cloistered in a religious institution that insisted the Earth is flat?

Wierd - I just wrote this entry on DU about David Evans the author of the article you're all talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x163641

You'll note he has written nothing similar for publication in peer reviewed lit.:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming...


His arguments:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.


I've seen many of these placed in the proper context (which negates his interpretation) but a couple are new to me. Anyone care to invest the time to properly address this? Frankly, I'm sick to death of the endless repetition...