EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Costs of Climate Change Touching Down All Around: Insurers
Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs
As southern Indiana, Kentucky and other midwestern states woke Saturday to devastated communities and a rising death toll, the world again was treated to pictures and video of mother nature's ferocious power and the merciless power of her most precise and terrifying storm, the tornado. Most striking to some is the early arrival of this year's tornado season, which usually begins later in the spring and runs into summer. For climate scientists, who have long predicted longer or more powerful storms and less predictable seasons, the events are an affirmation that offer no comfort.
Jerry Vonderhaar, left, comforts Charles Kellogg after severe weather hit the Eagle Point subdivision in Limestone County, Alabama (Photograph: Jeronimo Nisa/AP) More striking this week, however, was a little noticed hearing -- just a day before these massively destruction storms -- where the nation's insurance and re-insurance companies came together to recognize the impact that climate change is having on their industry, a direct measure of the financial costs on US taxpayers and private businesses.
Reuters reports:
Powerful tornadoes raked across a wide swath of the Midwest and South on Friday, killing at least 28 people in four states and bringing the death toll to at least 41 from a week of deadly late-winter storms.
The twisters splintered homes, damaged a prison and tossed around vehicles across the region, leaving at least 13 people dead in southern Indiana, another 12 in neighboring Kentucky, two more in Ohio, and one in Alabama, officials said. In all, the latest line of storms battered a band of states from Ohio and Indiana on southward to Alabama and Georgia.
"We are no match for Mother Nature at her worst," Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said in a statement, adding that he would visit the stricken southeast corner of the state on Saturday.
And the New York Times adds:
The storm systems stretched from the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes and were so wide that an estimated 34 million people were at risk for severe weather, said Mike Hudson of the National Weather Service regional office in Kansas City, Mo. At one point, the storms were coming so fast that as many as four million people were within 25 miles of a tornado.
Why So Many Tornadoes?
According to the Associated Press:
While the main tornado season runs from spring to early summer, this year's early outbreaks show that tornadoes can form under a variety of conditions and strike during fall and winter, too. This year's mild winter and warm start to meteorological spring has upped the risk of dangerous storms.
"We've been in a very warm pattern all winter," said meteorologist Mark Rose of the National Weather Service in Birmingham, Ala. "Because it has been so mild, it increases our chances for severe weather."
That's the meteorologist explanation. Meteorologists as a professional class, however, have been very reluctant by and large to discuss the science behind global warming and climate change, as noted recently by Marvin Meados at the Huffington Post.
Climate scientists, though, are not, and their peer-reviewed research speaks volumes. Notably, a landmark 2007 study by NASA's Goddard Institute on Climate Science published this report, predicting larger and more violent thunderstorms and tornadoes in the United States as global warming trends continued. In part (emphasis added):
The central and eastern areas of the United States are especially prone to severe storms and thunderstorms that arise when strong updrafts combine with horizontal winds that become stronger at higher altitudes. This combination produces damaging horizontal and vertical winds and is a major source of weather-related casualties. In the warmer climate simulation there is a small class of the most extreme storms with both strong updrafts and strong horizontal winds at higher levels that occur more often, and thus the model suggests that the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common with warming.
Climate Change: Insurers Confirm Growing Risks, Costs
In a press briefing on Thursday, representatives of the nation's top insurance companies, citing a year of history-making natural disasters and $1 billion-plus in damages, took a definitive stance, along with members of the US Senate, to confirm that the costs -- both to taxpayers and private businesses -- from extreme weather events will continue to climb due to the irrefutable march of global warming and climate change.
According to the Insurance Networking News, "representatives from The Reinsurance Association of America, Swiss Re and Willis Re and Ceres, a nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups working with companies to address a variety of sustainability challenges, joined Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) yesterday to discuss the growing financial impact of global warming."
Here's a short video segment from Thursday, Cost of Climate Change, featuring Sanders:
“From our industry’s perspective, the footprints of climate change are around us and the trend of increasing damage to property and threat to lives is clear,” said Franklin Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “We need a national policy related to climate and weather.”
“As a member of the global insurance industry, we have witnessed the increased impact of weather-related events on our industry and around the world,” said Mark Way, head of Swiss Re's sustainability and climate change activities in the Americas. “A warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing losses, which is why action is needed now.”
Cynthia McHale, the insurance program director at Ceres, issued a more unequivocal statement: “Our climate is changing, human activity is helping to drive the change, and the costs of these extreme weather events are going to keep ballooning unless we break through our political paralysis, and bring down emissions that are warming our planet. If we continue on this path, extreme weather is certain to cause more homes and businesses to be uninsurable in the private insurance market, leaving the costs to taxpayers or individuals.”
***
Bill McKibben: A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never!
Last year, in the wake of another outbreak of powerful and deadly tornadoes, author and climate activist Bill McKibben took up his pen to address the often cited reality that no single weather event, by itself, can be unequivocally attributed to climate change. This, however, is a fact that avoids the uncomfortable truth that climate patterns are shifting -- and will continue to shift -- as global temperatures rise. The patterns are unmistakable, and we avoid them at our peril. His tongue-in-cheek approach did not diminish his message, and it works as well today in the wake of renewed tragedies as as it did in the wake of the Joplin tornado last year. He wrote:
Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections. When you see pictures of rubble like this week’s shots from Joplin, Mo., you should not wonder: Is this somehow related to the tornado outbreak three weeks ago in Tuscaloosa, Ala., or the enormous outbreak a couple of weeks before that (which, together, comprised the most active April for tornadoes in U.S. history). No, that doesn’t mean a thing.
It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advisable to try to connect them in your mind with, say, the fires burning across Texas — fires that have burned more of America at this point this year than any wildfires have in previous years. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been — the drought is worse than that of the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if they’re somehow connected.
If you did wonder, you see, you would also have to wonder about whether this year’s record snowfalls and rainfalls across the Midwest — resulting in record flooding along the Mississippi — could somehow be related. And then you might find your thoughts wandering to, oh, global warming, and to the fact that climatologists have been predicting for years that as we flood the atmosphere with carbon we will also start both drying and flooding the planet, since warm air holds more water vapor than cold air.
###
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
220 Comments so far
Show All"There is no detectable human fingerprint in today's observed climate variation."
Well they say it takes all kinds.
You can find approximately zero scientists who would accept such a hilarious absurdity.
i'm with Alcyon at this point, Hayduke is so far out on the fringe of the fringe he's not worth wasting time on.
The criminals who say there is no danger may be insane, suicidal, sociopaths or just plain stupid, having their kicks, or old, with no children or grandchildren, or old with children and/or grandchildren that they do not give a damn about. As long as there is an intent to argue that there is no danger when there is a potential danger, it is a crime. It is not free speech.
Not everyone among the public has the time or the energy to read up on journal articles. When there is a well-orchestrated and well-funded denial industry as has been documented by people like George Monbiot, and the talking points put out by this denial industry are spread by people who may be simply looking for their kicks, but in the process end up sowing doubts and confusion, and diverting the energy from urgent action, IT IS A CRIME. And it is about time that criminals are called by that name. Insanity and stupidity are not good enough excuses.
When a body is attacked by viruses, the body spends vital energy in defense, and so much less energy is available for other constructive work, or for defending itself from other dangers. When a country is attacked, or even kept in fear of attacks, much resources are diverted for defense, leaving less for productive activities. And so it is in a public forum like this. Look at the disruptive effect of denialist posts. The energy and time spent responding to their crap are not available for discussing other, more productive or more critical points. Sometimes they do have a certain value: by responding to a denialist talking point, a certain issue may be clarified for the benefit of others. But when it becomes an endless distraction and disruption, that value has long been lost.
And finally, more than complete scientific certainty (which is an insane demand in the first place), it is the precautionary principle that should be the guiding principle here.
I have yet to find this "well-orchestrated and well-funded denial industry." I've been writing about climate variation since 1991, and I have never accepted the AGW explanation.
When do I get my slice of the pie?
Also, do you think that none of the reasons we should get off fossil fuels are worthwhile? Not peak (fossil) energy, not AGW-independent (to the extent it's possible) but fossil fuel based ecological damage, not inequality, not overconsumption and waste? I think you probably know that AGW is only the largest and probably the most immediately dangerous of these issues, but absolutely not the only one - why shouldn't we take it into consideration at least as a part of a complex plan to address the problems caused by large scale changes in global ecological systems? Or are you saying that it is not just not completely 100% scientific but absolutely improbable too?
The Precautionary Principle is a social construct, not a scientific principle. It applies to policy formation, not scientific investigation and interpretation. I am not a social scientist.
I've not said anything for or against "getting off of" fossil fuels to this point. Throughout my 40 plus years as an environmentalist, I have constantly worked to reduce and eliminate where possible pollution from all sources, including that from burning (and spilling) fossil fuels.
To this end, I do not drive a car. I walk or ride a bicycle. I have chosen to live in a place that does not require fossils fuels for heating or cooling our 800 square foot passive solar home. My wife and I grow much of our own food. We both chose work within walking distance of home. In other words, we have chosen our life carefully so as to minimize our contribution to pollution from fossil fuels.
However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate variation. If we manage to reduce global population levels and global consumption levels, we will, as a by-product, reduce our dependence on these polluting energy sources. If that reduces CO2 production, so much the better, but reduced CO2 production will not change existing trends of climate variation, any more than increasing CO2 production does now.
"... reduced CO2 production will not change existing trends of climate variation, any more than increasing CO2 production does now."
Hayduke2000 denies that changing the composition of the atmosphere has any effect on climate variation. That's the level of desperate ridiculousness he must stoop to, in order to cling to his extreme denialism, evidenced in his previous statement that there is zero evidence of any human effect on climate.
Hayduke2000 is nuts. Cuckoo for cuckoo clocks. Wheee!
This is of course a fundamentally faulty argument. The precautionary principle is indeed a social construct, but so is the scientific method (which in itself is not a "scientific principle" but a set of social heuristics) in all of its aspects. The difference is that science is looking for accurate, trustworthy, dependable (and socially shareable) *knowledge* while not really caring about how much time and other resources this takes and so the scientific method is a social construct developed in order to gain social knowledge; while the precautionary principle is a social construct that serves in making *safe decisions* based on what may be inaccurate, uncertain or insufficient information (ie. the usual circumstances in real life).
You do not apply the "scientific method" in everyday decisionmaking. For example, you will not allow your child to run through a red light even if you do not know for sure that cars are coming. You apply the precautionary principle in this case, not the scientific method.
Now the problem is not that this is a fallacious argument. Everyone makes mistakes. The issue is that this is a standardised argument, generally the first line of defense in "denialist" thought against the precautionary principle argument. The second line is often the "economic damage" argument which I mentioned. I'm not saying you're a denialist or an inscencere and dishonest person, but the completely invalid argument you used is very typical for that side. I advise you not to use this any more because philosophically it is completely worthless and people with some degree of sophistication will associate it with denialism.
"However, this has nothing whatsoever to do with climate variation. If we manage to reduce global population levels and global consumption levels, we will, as a by-product, reduce our dependence on these polluting energy sources. If that reduces CO2 production, so much the better, but reduced CO2 production will not change existing trends of climate variation, any more than increasing CO2 production does now."
"We?" Who exactly is this "we"? If this "we" includes poor people in overpopulated countries, I hope you will try to include them in making this decision. But in any operational sense, "we" can only mean the rich West (and mainly its elites), which is how I will use this expression. Also, if "we" need to reduce "global consumption levels", this cannot, by definition, include people living around $2/day.
Besides the moral issues ("we" who fucked up the Earth have decided that the problem is overpopulation in poor countries? hope you're not saying this, because it is completely disgusting), this is also a faulty argument. It is not overpopulated countries doing most of the waste, except mainly China - and even in China, about half of total pollution serves "our" consumption. Also, a lot of the worst forms of waste are side effects of "our" own luxury consumption (eg. by buying up the best agricultural land in third world countries for biofuel production).
And frankly, it's not like the rich West has any serious moral background to demand a decrease of resource use from China, that's just ridiculous hipocrisy, and of course it's completely impractical, not a single Chinese would take that seriously from "us". Waste (and pollution) comes overwhelmingly from the rich West and the countries serving it. Decrease in the number of poor people in poor countries would quite obviously not lead to significant decrease in waste and pollution. It would only enable "us" to exploit those places even more.
I can't remember the exact description by Bohm (I have read other stuff by David Bohm), but basically, for us to derive the same "meaning" from words, our consciousness has to be connected in the first place. Of course, the AGW deniers are saying different things. But even for us to know that they're saying different things, our consciousness is connected with their's. So we're not all that "different" after all, and I hope one day (soon, I hope) this will become clear to all. Anyway, keep posting!
Alcyon, Mar 5 2012 - 5:01pm
Must feel pretty good to get all this "attention", eh?
Let's keep our terminology straight.
"I don't think it's a crime if you hold this belief as a private person." What belief does this refer to? I've not talked about any belief. If you're referring to climate variation, AGW, scientific skepticism, these are not beliefs.
So, if a scientist reaches a conclusion through the hypthetico-deductive method of theory confirmation that is antithetical to an established theory, while earning a salary, or through the sale of books, then that scientist is a criminal? What crime has the scientist broken? In what country is it a crime to publish information contrary to accepted theory?
If this proscription had been followed throughout history, we'd still be living on a flat Earth in the center of the Universe.
So advertising is a crime? (industrial level manipulation)
I meant that there is no such thing as "thought-crime", so you're privately allowed to think whatever you want, but using lies and manipulation for your own gain, through cheating others, should of course be considered a crime. (And btw, "belief" is a technical term and all of these things you listed turn into "beliefs" if someone holds them true. Any statement you think is true turns into a part of your mental state called a "belief".)
"So, if a scientist reaches a conclusion through the hypthetico-deductive method of theory confirmation that is antithetical to an established theory, while earning a salary, or through the sale of books, then that scientist is a criminal? What crime has the scientist broken? In what country is it a crime to publish information contrary to accepted theory?"
I'm sorry to say but in science, there exists *no method whatsoever* for "theory confirmation". *Scientific theories can not be confirmed* (except maybe intuitively, but not scientifically). If this is news for you, start with some Karl Popper and go on to Imre Lakatos. There has been some development in philosophy of science since Whewell.
Second, it is not about "publishing information while earning a salary". It is about earning a salary for publishing *incorrect* information, and *distorting* arguments, often while being completely aware of it.
"If this proscription had been followed throughout history, we'd still be living on a flat Earth in the center of the Universe."
No. Saying this just demonstrates that you don't really understand much about history of science, except what you may have read in some pop-science magazine. And actually, seeing the power divisions, denialist are not exactly on the side of Galileo - but on the side of established power.
In addition to this, intellectual integrity is *extremely* important in science and scientists who use their name for ulterior goals are still often shunned by the scientific community. So in fact they do consider spreading lies and manipulation (and lack of integrity in general) as a very big issue.
"So advertising is a crime? (industrial level manipulation)"
In its current form it should be. Absolutely.
BTW, I noticed that among the deniers on this thread, one has been around for a while, but posting mostly denialist crap, another is less frequent, but also posting mostly denialist crap, while claiming to be an environmentalist of some sort, and another shows up for the first time, certifying the credentials of this second person.
I think you know what I mean by "at this late stage". The window of opportunity to avoid disaster is shrinking, and our energy needs to be focused on some major changes worldwide that would take humanity away from disaster and towards a sustainable, fairer, saner world. So I do not look upon efforts to drain the energy of people by willful spreading of disinformation all that kindly anymore.
Fortunately, no response is necessary as citations were not provided to support the claims made in the original post.
A Wikipedia page on temperature, a flaming meteorological description of tornadoes, and Hansen's 2011 story about his grandchildren do nothing to support a connection between climate variation and claims for increasing frequency and severity of tornadoes. Nor do they support the contention of a causal link between climate variation and human greenhouse gas production.
Hayduke2000 cannot be bothered to read the papers I've provided links to, evidently. Hansen's paper is not a story about his grandchildren, it's a scientific paper about the implications for our future from paleoclimate evidence.
All of the papers I have cited, along with the definition of temperature, support the existence of a causal link between greenhouse gases and extreme weather events. It's like this:
Some topics in climatology are difficult to understand, but none of the these three points are. Hayduke2000, despite his pretensions of objectivity, is unable to produce a single citation from the scientific literature refuting any of these points.
Why would Hayduke2000 find it worth his while to "spew" in this venue? Just who does he think he's reaching? This message further confirms his steadfast refusal to back up his self-styled "skepticism" with any citation of scientific results. This is a new definition of "skeptic" meaning "one who only looks at evidence which supports his prejudices, however meager."
You can lead an ass to science, but you can't make him think.
This is one of the biggest problems I see in this discourse, the casual situational redefinition of words.
We all know what skeptic means, without even cracking a dictionary.
The use of obfuscating terms, such as "climate denial," "denialist," "spew," and now this redefinition of the word "skeptic," demonstrate a shallow desire to dominate discussion with meaningless irrelevance.
If you really have courage enough to defend your case with citations, evidence and cogent rationality, comment on the posts on WUWT!
Yes, I know, you've already written off Anthony Watts, so it's beneath you to even read his blog.
From Webster's:
Hayduke2000's gang are the ones engaging in "casual situational redefinition" of this honorable word. When your mind is made up, when the evidence does not matter, when you refuse to read anything contradicting your religious doctrine, it is not properly called "skepticism."
What I've been saying. The reason the crackpots never provide any sources for the crap they spew is because it's from fossil-fuel sponsored stooges like Anthony Watts. Mouthpieces like Hayduke2000 are well aware that exposing their denialist sources would say more about themselves than the matter at hand. In denialist doublespeak, it is skeptical to uncritically accept the prevarications of known liars, skeptical to summarily reject scientific results which inconvenience the powers that be, skeptical to deceptively withhold one's sources of disinformation.
What is your opinion of the vast majority of climate scientist who agree that global warming is indeed a fact and it will soon lead to runaway, irreversible global warming and an eventual mass extinction of life on Earth?
What is you opinion of the warnings from Dr. Igor Semiletov and all of his many associates about the release of millions and then likely billions of tons of CH4 from the Arctic's melting permafrost?
Do you believe or disbelieve that added CH4 will create the runaway, irreversible global warming to commence?
What do you believe will occur when a only three billion tons of methane gas, CH4 enters our atmosphere?
What do you believe will occur when several trillion tons of CH4 is release from the melted Arctic permafrost and enters our atmosphere?
What do you believe may occur if a category 4 or 5 tornado strikes a nuclear power plant and it's open spent fuel rod ponds?
What is you opinion of 96 tornadoes hitting the central US in one day in early March and several were category 4 tornadoes? Do you believe that is normal weather activity?
What t is your opinion of people who work for customer relations firms who are paid to downplay and or deny the effects of global warming by the Koch brothers, or Exxon and or other giant corporations? Do you believe such type of professional writers are honest to accept money to write the big business false agenda?
He finally replied and his answers are the typical stock answers from a dirtbag corrupt shill… They have to get advice on how to reply from one of the top pig shills of what to write, or are advised to totally ignore the questions.
If he is an independent freelance “scientist”, which is highly doubtful, I can believe he receives no funding, no one would fund anyone who is that stupid. No scientist for example who has at least two brain cells wired denies AGW.
I'm impressed with the total lack of content of this post. It's amazing that one can wax so eloquent without saying anything.
Accepting the reality of climate variation is not the same as accepting the reality of runaway, irreversible global warming and an eventual mass extinction of life on Earth. Climate variation is real, the rest is idle speculation.
Future release of CH4 is speculation. Observed CH4 release is normal.
I don't believe in anything. There is no evidence to support the speculation of runaway, irreversible global warming.
There is no evidence that three billion tons of methane gas, CH4, will enter our atmosphere.
There is no evidence that several trillion tons of CH4 will be released from the melted Arctic permafrost and enter our atmosphere.
Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a tornado. The likelihood of this speculated event is tiny.
The recent tornado activity is well within the range of historically documented tornado activity.
I have no opinion of people who work for customer relations firms.
For the record, I am retired with no pension. I have no source of income other than my monthly SS check. If the Koch brothers, or Exxon and or other giant corporations are handing out money, I've yet to receive my share.
I am an independent scientist. I receive no funding of any sort for my research. My research and my conclusions are my own.
You're a liar. No scientist works without funding from someone.
Calling people names accomplishes nothing other than making one look foolish.
Data Based research does not require funding.
Let’s examine the facts of the matter… Based upon what you have posted here so far, it is clearly obvious that you are a lying shill… You are also an obtus, ignorant and stupid shill. Shills aren’t all paid to shill, some insane and stupid people do it for nothing.
You should just accept (the truth and the facts) of what you are and swollow them gracefully.... No; I am not trying to be pleasant, you corrupt shills deserve less respect than that afforded to a rat's fleas.
I seriously doubt that you are a paid shill, the hired agencies of the Koch brothers, Exxon, and other giant corporations normally only accept the work of those who have displayed they have an IQ of at least 50.
Really, you should understand that personal attacks merely demonstrate a shallow and ignorant approach to any topic. When reason fails, resort to name calling is giving up.
Also, it's really helpful, if one wants to be taken seriously, to take time to check spelling, punctuation and word choices. I know it's popular in these days of Twitter and all to eschew punctuation and capitalization, but such failings interfere with coherent communication. It just looks as if one doesn't care about what one is trying to say.
And with your rreplies, I am quite certain that you can understnd what I wrote and this is not a class for english lit or a spelling bee.
If you had any common sense at all you would pay close attention to what ~Alyucon~ and ~Aleph Null ~ are writing in replies to your ignorant nonsense if you actually did wish to learn the truth about AGW.
Of course you are a fraud and a charlitan and you are here to attempt to disrupt the thread.
You fail as all shills fail... Without you dirtbags showing up we would not get links from Aleph Null,, Webwalk,, CT, Siouxrose, and the many other honest people here that give information of truth that we had not previously seen or read.... I therefore do appreciate your stupid comments and disruptions.
And btw duck, I don't need any of your advice either about how to live my life or write comments. F/O shill. .
Fortunately, I don't look to anonymous web posters for instructions on how to live my life.
For those who are willing to open their minds to information, I'm crafting an article on climate variation that will appear on my blog, http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/ I will welcome comments from anyone willing to engage in rational discussion.
>>Hayduke2000 wrote: "I have yet to find this "well-orchestrated and well-funded denial industry."<<
This is not with any hope of convincing you, as you seem to be pretty heavily fortified "upstairs". I am posting this just in case someone else is curious about the denial industry - it is also the title of one chapter in George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning".
* The denial industry case notes
* The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working
* The denial industry
* Attacks on climate scientists are the real 'climategate'
* Failure to catch climate email hacker is the real scandal
>>Hayduke2000: "I've been writing about climate variation since 1991, and I have never accepted the AGW explanation."<<
Do you also read what other people write? I have to ask, because you talk about "...Hansen's 2011 story about his grandchildren". That seems to indicate you have no idea what you're talking about. "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity" is a book, although scientific in nature, written for the general public.
If you are not a paid shill for the denial industry (and it is possible that you are not), then please do yourself a favor: summon up the courage to read a book like James Hansen's, and summon up further courage to admit that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong all along. Or even possibly wrong. I know that the human ego generally would do everything possible to prove itself "right", even willing to sacrifice its physical host, if necessary, and kill other people too -- all just to prove itself right. I am not saying you are capable of killing (directly, at least), but that is how "strong" the ego is, and how determined it is in protecting its "investment" in an idea over the years. I am saying this just in case you are a freelancer, and not a paid shill, spreading your secondhand talking points that you must have picked up from here and there, some even subconsciously. Maybe you really believe that you have a unique perspective, supposedly caring for the environment, while actively denying AGW. But that is just the ego at work. Everyone wants to be unique, after all!
BTW, have you heard of a scientist called Svante Arrhenius?
>>He was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes would cause global warming.<< (Wikipedia).
Arrhenius published his paper on this topic in the 1890s with some rough estimates on the level of warming expected. Of course, it seemed like he thought a little bit of warming could be a good thing -- considering he was doing his work from Sweden, a hundred years ago! What I'm saying is, there have been scientists with superior intellect and years of observation and research experience behind them, and a little bit of humility on this matter is not a bad thing, really.
The fact that someone writes something and gets it published does not mean that everything written within is true. Each statement must be assessed on the evidence presented to support it. This applies to George Monbiot as well as any other writer.
I have read Hansen's book, as well as every other major book written about climate change, and every published paper that is available without cost. Since I have no funding sources other than the US Social Security Administration, I can't go out and buy everything that's available. Fortunately, I have a good public library and university library close by.
As I've stated before, I don't believe anything. Climate variation is not subject to belief. I have studied the relevant literature... all of it, on both sides of the debate.
I originally became skeptical of AGW while working as an archaeologist when I discovered the archaeological record of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These corresponding data sets told me that climate variation occurred in the absence of human CO2 production, and, therefore, it was not necessary, and ultimately misleading, to claim that modern climate variation is caused by human produced CO2.
These are not "second-hand talking points" as you disparagingly put it. This is my own research.
Svante Arrhenius speculated in 1896 that global temperature would increase with an increase of atmospheric CO2 from burning coal. He came to this conclusion without evidence, with no record of global average CO2 concentration over time and with no evidence that an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause and increase in global average surface temperature. He was widely criticized at the time for his speculations, and much more widely acclaimed for his other work in chemistry.
Obviously, climate science has advanced a bit since 1896.
Science is not about humility, it is about evidence and verification. Personalities have nothing to do with it!
Hayduke2000 wrote:
The tendency of Hayduke2000 to confidently spout utter rubbish is what convinces me he has no scientific background. Real scientists take care to avoid embarrassing themselves with ridiculous misstatements.
Arrhenius ingeniously calculated the infrared absorption of atmospheric CO2 and water vapor (the greenhouse effect, essentially) based on infrared telescope observations of the Moon from the Allegheny observatory in Pittsburgh. From this evidence he correctly inferred the logarithmic formula (still in use today) relating atmospheric CO2 to a planet's surface temperature - a brilliant feat - based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and previous work by Joseph Fourier. Of course Arrhenius had his detractors, but they turned out to be dead wrong, like Hayduke2000, who is just as ignorant of scientific history as he is of basic physics.
Laughably, this imposter implies Arrhenius was wrong about the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be frozen solid. There is no way to explain the energy budgets and planetary temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars without taking into account the greenhouse effect. Only crackpots dispute this. Only an extreme crackpot would presume that data from archaeology is somehow relevant to paleoclimatology.
For anyone who, unlike Hayduke2000, takes a genuine interest in the history of climate science, the standard reference is a free online book by Spencer Weart. It's a great story, told well:
I said nothing about the "greenhouse effect." I didn't even say the words. Make up what you will, imply whatever fantasy you prefer, careful readers will note what I actually said.
There is no "greenhouse effect." There is radiative forcing, an entirely different process. Different is not the same. Hint: this is not 1896.
Since you know nothing about archaeology, or science, apparently, you would not know about verification among independent data sets.
Textbook denialist technique, here. Hayduke2000 makes a grotesque misstatement about Arrhenius' work not being based on evidence. In response to my post exposing his ignorance on this matter, he breezily changes the subject with a more grotesque misstatement: there is no greenhouse effect, the imposter says, there is only radiative forcing.
The greenhouse effect is a consequence of positive radiative forcing which warms up the surface of any planet with an atmosphere. Greenhouse gases comprise molecules which can absorb and emit infrared energy. Arrhenius realized that this property of CO2 means that a significant amount of earthlight - infrared energy rising from the surface of the Earth - is thrown back down by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Arrhenius discovered the greenhouse effect - a cornerstone of climate science which Hayduke2000 denies the existence of.
That's what climate science deniers do, they deny the validity of climate science, even to such an absurd extent.
First of all, the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" has been shown to be not a global phenomenon. Same with the "Little Ice Age" -- not global in nature. In any case, since you say you've worked as an archaeologist, you might find this of interest:
European conquest of the Americas may have driven global cooling
>>"Recovery of forests following the collapse of human populations in the Americas after the arrival of Europeans may have driven the period of global cooling from 1500-1750 known as the Little Ice Age, report researchers speaking at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. By some estimates, diseases introduced by Europeans may have killed more than 90 percent of population on the New World within a century of first contact. The rapid depopulation led to large-scale abandonment, and subsequent reforestation, of agricultural lands in the Americas. Analyzing charcoal found in soils and lake sediments at sites across the Americas, Richard Nevle and Dennis Bird found evidence to suggest that this forest regeneration sequestered enough carbon to trigger global cooling."<<
Even though the above excerpt uses the term "global cooling", I cite it only as an example of another hypothesis as to how humans could have had a hand in this too -- through genocide. A related hypothesis also exists for an earlier period:
How Genghis Khan cooled the planet
>>In 1206 AD Genghis Khan began the Mongol invasion: a horse-crazed bow-wielding military force that swept through much of modern-day Asia into the Middle East and Eastern Europe. But aside from creating the world's largest empire, the Mongol invasion had another global impact that has remained hidden in history according to new research by Julia Pongratz of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology. Genghis Khan and his empire, which lasted nearly two centuries, actually cooled the Earth. ...
The answer to how this happened can be told in one word: reforestation. When the Mongol hordes invaded Asia, the Middle East, and Europe they left behind a massive body count, depopulating many regions. With less people, large swathes of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
In the study published in The Holocene, Pongratz along with Carnegie colleague, Ken Caldeira, and German colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, compiled a model of global land cover beginning in 800 AD. She kept her eye on four historical events closely, which she theorized could have impacted the climate due to the return of forests after depopulation: the Black Death in Europe (the end of the 14th Century), the fall of China's Ming Dynasty (the last half of the 17th Century), the conquest of the Americas (the 16th and 17th Centuries), and the Mongol invasion of the 13th and 14th Century.
"We found that during the short events such as the Black Death and the Ming Dynasty collapse, the forest re-growth wasn't enough to overcome the emissions from decaying material in the soil," explains Pongratz. "But during the longer-lasting ones like the Mongol invasion and the conquest of the Americas there was enough time for the forests to re-grow and absorb significant amounts of carbon."
The Mongol invasion had the most significant impact. According to the study's accounting, re-growth of forests during the Mongol invasion absorbed 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, equaling the amount of carbon global society now produces annually from gasoline.<<
Why do I get the feeling that you pick up all your talking points from the denial industry, notwithstanding your own denial on this count? A quick look at your blog shows that you have listed quite a few climate change denialist websites, with some of the characters clearly having oil industry connections. And yet you want to deny that you might have picked up secondhand talking points, perhaps even subconsciously? Not convincing. At all!
That said, I also have to say that your blog does have some interesting stuff -- indicating that you do have an interest in environmental issues. I have seen this before: people who have an interest in and are concerned about environmental issues also happen to deny AGW. And I have a pretty good guess as to why this is so. And that has to do with picking up what I call an "association meme". Richard Brodie talks about it in his book "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme". It is my guess that the climate change denial industry has been using association memes, and with some considerable success, especially to target people who may be somewhat smarter than the average person. But being "somewhat smarter than the average person", unfortunately, is not enough to be hooked by some conspiracy peddler, who himself may be repeating a talking point put out by the denial industry. BTW, the term "denial industry" is not derogatory. It is the most accurate way I can think of to describe people and organizations involved in a particular form of PR campaign with funding from the fossil fuel industry, but cleverly hidden to hide direct connections, through foundations.
Besides, I am not the one who made claims of being "an independent scientist". So I have no hesitation in relying on sources that I consider to be more credible than the fossil fuel industry-funded denial industry. So, for now, I'll take the explanation that the so-called MWP was not based on data indicating any kind of "homogeneity" and that there is considerable spatial heterogeneity, with some regions actually much cooler than now, to prevent any conclusion of this warming being global in nature.
Having argued with Aleph Null about the utility (or futility) of responding to deniers who are there simply to get their kicks (if they are not actual paid shills), I think I am just about done responding to your posts. The few responses I made were due to my giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Would you care to say something about the actual paper itself, the data presented, the methodology, the conclusions? This is about climate science, after all, and climate science is presented in peer reviewed papers for comment and consideration.
It appears that you prefer to "spew" nonsense rather than deal with the science of climate variation, or with rational discussion of the evidence. I suspect from this predilection for meaningless verbiage that you really have no knowledge of climate science other than that gleaned from Wikipedia and the Skeptical Scientist blog.
Go ahead. Discuss Broecker. Show me why it is wrong with cogent argument, examples that refute Broecker and citations backing them up.
Bet you can't do it!
There is no need to compose research papers, as the imposter absurdly demands, in CD discussion threads. It is sufficient to present the findings of professionals on the issue at hand. With regard to the heterogeneity (regional nonuniformity) of the MWP, the IPCC's AR4 report well-represents the consensus view - that the MWP was a regional phenomenon:
Broecker himself has this to say about the MWP in his 2008 book, Fixing Climate:
Chen, L., Zonneveld, K.A.F. and Versteegh, G.J.M. 2011. Short term climate variability during the "Roman Classical Period" in the eastern Mediterranean. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 3880-3891.
"it would appear that the relatively high temperatures of today are not unique. In fact, they may well be somewhat lower than those that prevailed there during the Roman Warm Period. And these findings suggest that the non-unique warmth of our day need not be attributed to a unique phenomenon, such as the historical increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has resulted from mankind's burning of fossil fuels."
References
Carlaw, K.S., Harrison, R.G. and Kirkby, J. 2002. Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate. Science 298: 1732-1737.
Frisia, S., Borsato, A., Spotl, C., Villa, I.M. and Cucchi, F. 2005. Climate variability in the SE Alps of Italy over the past 17,000 years reconstructed from a stalagmite record. Boreas 34: 445-455.
Giraudi, C. 2009. Late Holocene glacial and periglacial evolution in the upper Orco Valley, northwestern Italian Alps. Quaternary Research 71: 1-8.
Holzhauser, H., Magny, M. and Zumbuhl, H.J. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15: 789-801.
Kvavadze, E.V. and Connor, S.E. 2005. Zelkova carpinifolia (Pallas) K. Koch in Holocene sediments of Georgia - an indicator of climatic optima. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 133: 69-89.
Stott, P.A., Tett, S.F.B., Jones, G.S., Allen, M.R., Mitchell, J.F.B. and Jenkins, G.J. 2000. External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings. Science 290: 2133-2137.
Versteegh, G.J.M., de Leeuw, J.W., Taricco, C., and Romero, A. 2007. Temperature and productivity influences on U-37(K') and their possible relation to solar forcing of the Mediterranean winter. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 8: 10.1029/2006GC001543.
The quoted passage directly contradicts IPCC AR4 and Broecker's opinion in 2008 (linked and quoted above). The imposter cherry-picks only those parts of Broecker's work which can be distorted to imply support for crackpot denialist notions.
Hayduke2000 personifies phony skepticism - intellectual subservience to the doublethink standards of right-wing think tanks, masquerading as intellectual freedom. Among this sad crowd, Anthony Watts is admired for performing logical backflips at the behest of the fossil-fuel multinationals, like a well-trained puppy.
The MWP "controversy" is such old news. But you see how a denier reacts: facts to a denier are like BBs hitting a brick wall. The exquisitely ignorant finely hone their skills in the art of ignoring inconvenient realities. Out at the Skeptical Science website, where genuine scientific skepticism prevails over the phony variety, there's a good article about this MWP business:
The global map of MWP temperatures is a concise summary.
What's with all this citation? This is yet another "reference" straight out of denialist blogs. I need not have bothered with giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is clear that you have an agenda here.
And why selectively leave out just 8 words from that excerpt you cited above? The full paragraph reads thus:
>>"With respect to the southern region of Italy, it would appear that the relatively high temperatures of today are not unique. ..."<<
The words in bold were exactly what you left out. Considering that you did a copy/paste of this part along with all those references found at the end of that paper you cited,
what was the need to leave out those 8 words?
Could it be that I had already said that the MWP is thought to be somewhat regional in nature, and so you left out these 8 words that clearly refer to one region, just to add "weight" to your "argument"? I know a little bit of dishonesty and cherry-picking never bothers climate change deniers. Here we see it in action, almost real-time.
BTW, I refuse to believe that you got this paper through your "scholarly" reading, because it sits right on the current front page of the AGW denialist website "CO2 Science".
Even the previous paper by Broecker for which you cleverly gave a university web address, also sits, and has been cited elsewhere, on this same "CO2 Science" website -- which you evidently think is more "scientific" and "scholarly" than Wikipedia. There's even an article called "Why We All Love Wally Broecker " by Sherwood B. Idso and Keith E. Idso on this same "CO2 Science" denialist website.
For those who may be curious, "CO2 Science" is the website of this highfalutin front group called "The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". According to SourceWatch,
>>The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years. It employs Science and Public Policy Institute head Robert Ferguson.<<
So, all those "References" posted by "Hayduke2000" can be found on just one climate change denialist site, founded and/or run by some characters who are also linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).