Althouse: "[I]t now appears there is little chance that the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December will produce a comprehensive and binding new treaty on global warming."

October 20, 2009

"[I]t now appears there is little chance that the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December will produce a comprehensive and binding new treaty on global warming."

"With the clock running out and deep differences unresolved..."

118 comments:

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I thought the clock already ran out ten years ago.

It's quick a clock, one that can reset itself.; 10/20/09, 12:53 PM
raf said...: No biggie. If a binding treaty were possible it wouldn't bind anyone anyway.

wv: seshis. Which I read as "sheesh."; 10/20/09, 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Hopes are fading like the vinyl on a mid-80's K Car left out to bake in the blazing Artic sun (circa 2030).; 10/20/09, 1:03 PM
Widmerpool said...: Faithful readers who have wrapped themselves in the New York Times cocoon are only now discovering that, gosh darn it, it's expensive!

It's Expensive!; 10/20/09, 1:07 PM
Kev said...: (the other kev)

On the plus side, they can go ice skating afterward.

I would be upset about the money being wasted at yet another useless meeting, except a 'successful' meeting would cost all of us so much more.; 10/20/09, 1:10 PM
The Drill SGT said...: My post was going to be "Good",

but Joan beat me to the thought; 10/20/09, 1:13 PM
John Stodder said...: My contrarian side says each country will address the threat in their own way, as they become convinced (or not) that AGW is a real problem.

The "we have to act now!!!!!!!!" frenzy is bogus. I agree that mankind is heating up the planet a bit, and it's a problem worth watching, but there is no consensus among scientists that it's happening so quickly that we have to reorganize the global economy at warp speed to avoid catastrophe.

Let's just work in a stately, responsible manner toward electrification of transportation, powered by nuclear energy, and renewable sources as they become more cost-efficient. We'll get there in time.

wv: avidne -- Fanatic for the NFL Patriots.; 10/20/09, 1:14 PM
jayne_cobb said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/20/09, 1:17 PM
kathleen said...: promise?; 10/20/09, 1:19 PM
Alex said...: The sad thing is how many people nodded along to Gordon Brown's deadline of doom. I bet lots of really cute college chicks believe in AGW.; 10/20/09, 1:21 PM
Salamandyr said...: Joan beat me to it.; 10/20/09, 1:26 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: There is hope. Change may be in the air. The hope is maybe by next year the world will realize this is all a big hoax. It was dreamed up by greedy socialists who found a criminal way to make big profits, fame and glory at the expense of the tax payers.

The change? Al Gore, his fifty scientists and the various Venture Capital firms and other scam "environmental business" operations will be indicted, tried, and convicted for running the biggest multi-billion dollatr ponzi scheme since Madoff.; 10/20/09, 1:26 PM
Todd said...: I cover a related item about their god "algore" here:
http://justplainenglish.blogspot.com/2009/10/saving-sacred-cow.html; 10/20/09, 1:31 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/20/09, 1:44 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Oh no! We're all going to die!

Watch out for the tidal waves or the heatwaves or the glaciers or the hurricanes or the permafrost or whatever it is! Our doom could arrive in any form!; 10/20/09, 1:45 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: WV: catoco: cat taco

And that's all there will be to eat when the end comes!; 10/20/09, 1:45 PM
SteveR said...: Meanwhile Waxman-Markey creeps toward your pocketbook...; 10/20/09, 1:48 PM
Angst said...: IMHO, we need to take a good look at who/why/how these "CRISES" keep occurring.

From President Obama's http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/bold_solutions_to_the_economic_crisis/

"Let's treat this mess as a golden opportunity. President-elect Obama has America's attention and goodwill so this is the time to do the hard things..."

Perhaps a bit more reflection BEFORE action might lead to better results.

wv: nocabo - Cabo San Lucas after hurricane Rick.; 10/20/09, 1:48 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: So let's consider this missed deadline an opportunity to do a real life experiment!; 10/20/09, 2:09 PM
Bart DePalma said...: After a decade of inflicting Kyoto on their citizens, it is telling that the EU is using US insistence that China and India be included as a dodge to avoid Kyoto II.; 10/20/09, 2:12 PM
David said...: Wait. We only have 50 days to act to save the planet. Isn't that right?

FYI: There will still be a planet after the humans are gone. The planet was here for billions of years before we arrived and was quite an interesting and heavily populated place for a good part of that time.

Yes of course I would like humans to survive for more than a few hundred thousand years. Perhaps we are unique--nothing like us and with our talents in the universe. Certainly if we become extinct it's unlikely our kind will come to this planet again. So let's give it our best shot. But enough of this "we are the planet" notion. Sounds so racist, you know.; 10/20/09, 2:14 PM
quilbill said...: Regardless of whether AGW is happening, I'd rather take my chances with the planet than follow those parasitic asshats anywhere.; 10/20/09, 2:17 PM
miller said...: Um. A document signed by the President doesn't bind us to anything - it's just a document. A treaty has to be agreed-to by the Senate for it to be effective.; 10/20/09, 2:18 PM
MadisonMan said...: I bet lots of really cute college chicks believe in AGW.

Not so cute ones too. And guys.

I usually just show them observations (data) that show warming. Belief doesn't enter into data. We also talk about different periods of fluctuation in the atmosphere (this usually loses many of them). Example: Hurricanes.; 10/20/09, 2:21 PM
Ronery Bare said...: OMG!!! But there are only like 54 or so days left TO SAVE THE WORLD!!!!1! OMG!!!; 10/20/09, 2:29 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Is this a crisis? Does that mean that we're going to be taken advantage of again?; 10/20/09, 2:38 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/20/09, 2:45 PM
Tank said...: Does algore have to return his prize?; 10/20/09, 2:46 PM
Henry said...: Does algore have to return his prize?

No. He gets another one. Lose in Copenhagen. Win in Oslo.; 10/20/09, 2:53 PM
gk1 said...: Kind of the downside of being a shrill global warmis. When your imaginary due dates are passed and nothing happens, what do you do? Suddenly "discover" we have another 10 years?; 10/20/09, 2:53 PM
AllenS said...: Don't panic. There will always be life forms on this earth. 10,000 years from now this will be the Althouse Cockroach Blog. I'll be here commenting as AllenroachS.; 10/20/09, 2:56 PM
Shanna said...: At a birthday dinner the other day, I discovered that my cousin’s husband is really very concerned about global warming. Of course, he looked at me like I was crazy when I mentioned the medieval warm period, the marauder minimum, sunspots and the little ice age. He was unaware of all of these things. All he knows is that the seas are rising. He’s a pretty smart guy who I rather like, so if this is his knowledge level about a subject that is somewhat passionate about (this coming from someone who is usually rather mild), than what can I expect of most of the people who talk about global warming? They must know absolutely nothing about the subject.; 10/20/09, 2:58 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I usually just show them observations (data) that show warming. Belief doesn't enter into data.

I believe there is probably warming. I mean it happened before which is why the glacier that covered a chunk of Indiana is gone.

I don't believe man is causing global warming.; 10/20/09, 3:00 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: The reason I believe in global warming is because of the activity of that big giant fireball in the sky. I'm wagering that big giant fireball in the sky has a lot more to do with global warming than my SUV.; 10/20/09, 3:03 PM
garage mahal said...: All those billions of tons pollutants we put into the air every day just magically disappear! Kind of like throwing something out the window at 55mph. It's gone man.; 10/20/09, 3:09 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: 55MPH??

Only tree huggers drive that slowly! Heh.; 10/20/09, 3:12 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Garage thinks CO2 is a pollutant. Heh.; 10/20/09, 3:16 PM
Bob said...: Maybe they should hold this conference via internet instead of flying hundreds of delegates to Denmark. We might pick up another year from the savings in carbon footprint. Or we can just admit this was a ponzi scheme and move on to fixing on some real problems. Dont see that happening with this crew.; 10/20/09, 3:16 PM
KCFleming said...: Hoosier's a heretic.

On this blog I once mistakenly called AGW anthropomorphic global warming rather than 'anthropogenic' GW.

But I am beginning to believe I was right the first time.; 10/20/09, 3:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: I would not trust any "Reports" coming out about this Coup D'Etat of all Coup D'Etats being postponed. This is the one thing that Obama has been groomed for, and gone thru the motions of being an American President for, which is to see our surrender accomplished to this World Governance Axis. With this treaty they have a world tax and a world currency and a world enforcement authority over the area of the North American Province formerly called The States United, or some such archaic name.; 10/20/09, 3:24 PM
garage mahal said...: Garage thinks CO2 is a pollutant. Heh.

Really? All the shit that comes out of smokestacks and tailpipes is pure CO2?; 10/20/09, 3:25 PM
Alex said...: Really? All the shit that comes out of smokestacks and tailpipes is pure CO2?

No shit! Probably is generating the electricity that powers your PC right now! You should stop being a flaming hypocrite and turn off all your power RIGHT NOW!!!; 10/20/09, 3:27 PM
garage mahal said...: No shit! Probably is generating the electricity that powers your PC right now! You should stop being a flaming hypocrite and turn off all your power RIGHT NOW!!!.

Maybe YOU should go start your car and let it run 24/7, and leave ALL your lights on, and crank your heat to 80 degrees. Otherwise you're a flaming hypocrite!; 10/20/09, 3:29 PM
MadisonMan said...: I saw a really interesting seminar a week or three ago, and one of the conclusions was that even if Climate Change of the warming variety is responsible for an increase in Hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean -- which the presenter was not claiming, not without a boatload of caveats -- it will be 60-90 years before man will be able to say conclusively that there is cause and effect, because of the natural variability in that basin.; 10/20/09, 3:33 PM
Alex said...: Maybe YOU should go start your car and let it run 24/7, and leave ALL your lights on, and crank your heat to 80 degrees. Otherwise you're a flaming hypocrite!

Sputter, sputter, sputter.. That's your best comeback garage? Now why would I waste all that precious electricity for nothing? I use as much as I need, no more.; 10/20/09, 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I remember in 2007 scients were claiming that the Arctic ice cap would be totally gone by 2013. Now that. accoring to satellite measurements, global temperatures are falling, not rising, and multi-year ice is growing again, they have pushed back their estimate of an ice-free Artic to 2030.

If you gave some of these global warming advocates a choice of having God make the planet cooler or God giving Congress the political will to pass cap and trade. they'd universally take the latter case, because that allows them government control, which is their primary interest, not a better planet.

In the about-to-be-published book, SuperFreakanomics, one leading scientist said the problem isn't higher temperatures, which, on the whole, are probably good for the planet, but only temperature that rise too fast. Try telling that to a climatista and you'll rupture the blood vessels in his brain.

It has always amazed me that climate change doomsayers often claim without a hinit of embarrassment that the consequences of too much CO2 are both increased droughts and increased flooding. Don't they even listen to the words coming out of their mouths?; 10/20/09, 3:35 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: Really? All the shit that comes out of smokestacks and tailpipes is pure CO2?

No it's not. But global waming legislation isn't aimed at heavy metals or benzene or any of the stuff that we already regulate quite effectively. It's aimed at CO2 in the upper atmoshphere, which is absolutley harmless to humans and hence not a pollutant.; 10/20/09, 3:37 PM
garage mahal said...: Now why would I waste all that precious electricity for nothing? I use as much as I need, no more..

Oh REALLY! So, as a conservative, you can actually drive a fuel efficient car, or *gasp* a hybrid even, and not be labeled a hypocrite??? How fucking convenient! Only liberals are hypocrites. Hmmmm.; 10/20/09, 3:40 PM
Henry said...: I'm still waiting for a single climate model that predicts a single verifiable outcome.

Shrieking is verifiable, but that's not what I mean.; 10/20/09, 3:41 PM
Alex said...: garage - conservatives conserve ya know. We don't enjoy wasting resources for the fun of it.; 10/20/09, 3:42 PM
Skyler said...: I usually just show them observations (data) that show warming. Belief doesn't enter into data.

But the data is the basis of the entire fraud. In high school science classes you should have learned that the error in data cannot be removed by getting more data with the same errors.

The weather stations that they take these measurements from in modern times are in various states of repair, and are located in often very poor locations.

Even if the data collection were ideal at each location, there's no way that a measurement at one place can predict within a tenth of a degree the temperature just a few hundred feet away, let alone extrapolate over the entire globe for an entire year.

There are huge parts of the globe where no measurements are taken, and who's to say if the temperature in the mojave desert is more important than your uncle's forty acres in Michigan?

And you can't take a world wide system of weather stations, the best of which have an accuracy within a few degrees and a sizeable percent much less accurate, and come to a global assessment accurate to tenths of a degree.

Global warming may or may not be real, but there is nothing whatsoever that can be used to claim such a phenomenon.; 10/20/09, 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I bet lots of really cute college chicks believe in AGW.

....And guys.

"Stop. Stop. We only met tonight. I'm just not ready to go that fast. I don't even know you that well."

"I understand. I really do. Its just that this global warming thing has me so upset. And, who knows how long we'll even be here. If those damn Republicans get their way, we'll all die in a month."

[resuming the action]

"..and I just don't want to be alone when it all happens. I just want to spend my last cool minutes with someone as sensitive and caring, and environmentally aware as you......"

[and the earth heats up even more.]; 10/20/09, 3:49 PM
traditionalguy said...: Garage. If billions of tons of plant food are enriching the earth and its abundance to support more human lives than ever, then we need to give out Nobel prizes to the best CO2 producers. Or if we want human lives cut back to near deserted times so a few superior Godlike Democrat Billionaires can enjoy the view, then keep supporting the Graet Soros Hoax.; 10/20/09, 3:52 PM
MadisonMan said...: Even if the data collection were ideal at each location, there's no way that a measurement at one place can predict within a tenth of a degree the temperature just a few hundred feet away, let alone extrapolate over the entire globe for an entire year.

This is a nonsense statement without any basis in fact. Temperatures are very nicely correlated in the horizontal because of turbulent motions and convection. If my thermometer, my ideal data collector, showed a rise over 40 years of, say, .1 degrees, it is virtually certain that the temperature has also risen .1 degrees a few hundred feet away.; 10/20/09, 4:03 PM
Automatic_Wing said...: If my thermometer, my ideal data collector, showed a rise over 40 years of, say, .1 degrees, it is virtually certain that the temperature has also risen .1 degrees a few hundred feet away.

This is correct, assuming nothing else in the area changes over that 40 years. But what if you build a parking lot or install an air conditioner next to your thermometer site?; 10/20/09, 4:15 PM
Shanna said...: Oh REALLY! So, as a conservative, you can actually drive a fuel efficient car, or *gasp* a hybrid even, and not be labeled a hypocrite??? How fucking convenient! Only liberals are hypocrites. Hmmmm.

As long as you’re not telling other people what to drive, you can drive anything you damn well please without being a hypocrite.; 10/20/09, 4:25 PM
Skyler said...: This is a nonsense statement without any basis in fact. Temperatures are very nicely correlated in the horizontal because of turbulent motions and convection.

Sure, that is generally true if the terrain and topology is consistent. But how many times have you measured the temperature at your home and see it be a couple degrees different from what the local airport is reporting?

And weather is not usually "correlated in the horizontal" because there are very clear discontinuities in the weather. That's what those squiggly lines on the old weather maps are all about.

And the weather in downtown Austin airport is often quite different than a few miles to the west in the hill country. Why should the airport temperature be used over the temperature in the hill country where there is no thermometer?

And how do they come up with tenth of a degree accuracy based on more than a century of data? Go to places in the third world and tell me with a straight face that societies struggling to stay fed and fighting malaria are going to have accuracy of temperature measurements within a tenth of a degree. There are vast swaths of this globe uninhabited, or sparsely inhabited, or inhabited by technologically inept peoples. And that's today. Fifty years ago it was worse. A hundred years ago it was the norm. Beyond a hundred years, it is pure make believe to think that we can know the global temperature within a tenth of a degree.; 10/20/09, 4:26 PM
Pastafarian said...: Wow, MadisonMan, you better consult your talking points more closely. Page 332: Global warming will occasionally cause local cooling, by changing weather patterns like global ocean currents and the gulf stream and the like.

(That way, when someone notices that it's damned cold for October, you can say: Of course it is! Bushitler's weather machine has destroyed the natural balance!)

So couldn't your thermometer indicating a 0.1 degree increase in one location just be a local phenomenon?; 10/20/09, 4:34 PM
Pastafarian said...: Skyler, we know what temperature it was historically from concentrations of various gases in the bubbles of atmospheric gas trapped in very old arctic ice.

Those concentrations vary with temperature because, when it's colder, the ocean will allow much more CO2, for example, to dissolve into it.

So we know it was colder when we see less CO2 in those bubbles. That's how we know that less CO2 in the atmosphere results in lower temperatures.

It all makes perfect sense, if you ignore the blindingly obvious circular reasoning involved.; 10/20/09, 4:40 PM
MadisonMan said...: And weather is not usually "correlated in the horizontal" because there are very clear discontinuities in the weather.

I'm not sure how you can claim discontinuities at one time can destroy horizontal correlation. Persistent discontinuities -- at a coastline, for example -- will not disrupt horizontal correlation either.

Further, the fact that temperatures vary over the horizontal -- from downtown to outside town, for example -- does not influence how the temperature changes over time. Yes, there are urban influences -- these are actually very well modeled and understood and can therefore be corrected.

There are two possibilities: We are talking about two different things, that is I am talking about what happens if the temperature rises everywhere, and how it will be measured and those effects will be observed. A hypothetical in the future. You may be talking about the historical temperature record, in which case the effect of urbanization (or irrigation) or re-siting can obscure the true temperature trends over time. That's possibility one. Possibility two is that we are talking about the same thing and you are wrong.; 10/20/09, 4:46 PM
Steven said...: You want to fight global warming?

Take every member of every environmental group or political party opposed to nuclear power, execute them, wrap them in plastic, and bury them deep.

That will seriously reduce emissions in the short run by seriously reducing the number of people consuming power. It will sequester the carbon in their bodies. And it will make it much easier to replace coal power with nuclear in the long run.; 10/20/09, 4:47 PM
Skyler said...: Pasta, sure, that's true enough.

But you can't tell the temperature from gas bubbles within a tenth of a degree, and you can't know the year very certainly either.

I don't dispute that we can know general trends in weather and climate. Clearly there were ice ages and periods of warming. But even then we can't know what the annual "global" temperature was to an accuracy of a tenth of a degree.; 10/20/09, 4:48 PM
MadisonMan said...: Pastafarian, you should read what I write more carefully. I say nothing about how widespread my local temperature change is; I only point out the obvious, that the change at my thermometer is very nicely correlated with the change at a location several hundred feet away.; 10/20/09, 4:49 PM
Skyler said...: Mad Man,

As a scientist, surely you know that you can't take discrete temperatures measured with an accuracy measured within 1-2 degrees in some locations, and 5-6 degrees in most locations, then extrapolate for an entire year and the entire globe and come to conclusions with an accuracy within 0.1 degrees.

Add to that the fact that even in the US, temperature is not measured for quite large parts of the country, that much of the ocean temperature is not measured at all, and most of the surface of the earth is not measured either.

The premises of global warming are absurd to the extreme and were it not for the political agenda, you would give such premises a "D" at best in your classes.; 10/20/09, 4:59 PM
garage mahal said...: There's really no way to tell if the globe is warming. But we KNOW it's not! Has to be a hoax.; 10/20/09, 5:07 PM
Skyler said...: There's really no way to tell if the globe is warming. But we KNOW it's not! Has to be a hoax.

I don't know anyone who's said that they KNOW the globe is not warming. But we also don't KNOW that you're not beating your wife.; 10/20/09, 5:13 PM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/20/09, 5:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: Garage...Walk outside and breath in and out. Then do that again once a week for 4 weeks and come and tell me whether its getting colder or warmer. If the Great Surrender of American Sovreignty does not happen in December, it will be because the Airport was snowed and iced closed for the month in Copenhagen.; 10/20/09, 5:21 PM
David said...: I know the earth is warming, Garage, and that it has been on that general trend for about the last 12,000 years. I am not sure what the role of human activity has been in the last 50-150 years, but I know that it was immaterial for the previous 12,000. I also know overwrought bullshit, clever manipulation and mass fear when I see it. When the global warming doomsayers start to show a glimmer of doubt or uncertainty, I will start to take them more seriously.; 10/20/09, 5:25 PM
Tarzan said...: There may be warming, there may be not. We may be influencing it, we may be not. None of it is of any concern to me, as the way it has been billed as the Great Crisis Of Our Age is a clear indicator that it's BS. Who was it, the Club of Rome or some such bunch of NWO fanatics who have a paper somewhere that says that all they need now is a 'common enemy' to unite the masses and stoke the ovens for the Final Socialist Utopia To End All Socialist Utopias. Too lazy to google this myself.; 10/20/09, 5:31 PM
Tarzan said...: There's also the argument that GW'ers like to offer: "Yeah, but what if we're right? To be safe, we have to assume the emergency is real!"

(heavy sigh)

My Born Again friends used to say the same thing back in high school. "Yeah, but what if there really is a hell? Are you prepared?"

(heavy sigh)

It's a crazy, religious cult and nothing more. Say what you want about the Inquisition, the secular religions have killed many, many more.; 10/20/09, 5:34 PM
MadisonMan said...: Skyler, I never claimed what you write at 4:59 to be true. I guess I'm rejecting the words you are trying to force into my mouth.

vw: disksize; 10/20/09, 5:36 PM
Penny said...: "If the Great Surrender of American Sovreignty does not happen in December, it will be because the Airport was snowed and iced closed for the month in Copenhagen."

I'm not sure it will be The GREAT Surrender, tg, perhaps just the systematic surrender of the America you and I once knew.

Face it, this man-made global warming hoax seems to have caught on with a good portion of our population, but particularly with young adults, who OBTW were not raised by anyone who remembered the depression. They missed out on those stories we heard at our grandparents' knees and never forgot.

Conservation of energy and resources, and even money, is admirable, except as it is foisted on us with untruths in order to jumpstart major shift changes in thinking.

I can be an admirer of Machiavelli, and still hate my view. Not that sheep's buns aren't adorable...; 10/20/09, 6:07 PM
Skipper50 said...: Thank G-d.; 10/20/09, 6:30 PM
garage mahal said...: I am not sure what the role of human activity has been in the last 50-150 years, but I know that it was immaterial for the previous 12,000

Well, I would agree with you up to the point where we starting emitting billions of tons into the atmosphere, that we didn't do for the previous 11,900 years.; 10/20/09, 6:39 PM
miller said...: so how many tons of atmosphere are there? Billions might be a lot when compared to billions, but not so much if compared to trillions.; 10/20/09, 6:46 PM
chickelit said...: Well, I would agree with you up to the point where we starting emitting billions of tons into the atmosphere, that we didn't do for the previous 11,900 years.

Garage: suppose the ocean's ability to sequester CO2 is grossly underestimated, sending all that nasty carbon back down to the sea floor for eventual recycling?; 10/20/09, 6:57 PM
chickelit said...: Here's the real insidious part of the Copenhagen treaty:

If the treaty were signed and enforced, and no catastrophic warming occurred, the adherents would then claim that they had stopped the warming, even though it was never going to happen.; 10/20/09, 7:00 PM
MadisonMan said...: Billions might be a lot when compared to billions, but not so much if compared to trillions.

Atmospheric concentrations of chloroflourocarbons rarely exceed 1 part per billion. (I think -- that's from memory). Yet deleterious effects occur despite the low concentrations. Don't be misled: low concentrations do not mean no effect.; 10/20/09, 7:13 PM
The Drill SGT said...: we've been over this before several times. Here is my view as a AGW agnostic.

1. the temperatures may or may not be increasing
2. therefore the earth may be getting warmer
3. this may or may not be linked to CO2
4. this may or may not be connected to man
5. this may or may not be bad

until such time as climate modelers can convincingly use a model to both replicate past temperature variations and predict future temperature changes that later we verify, I am unconvinced that they understand the complicated reality and can forecast what the future holds.

10 years ago, I am willing to bet that most modelers predicted steadily increasing global temps along with increasing CO2.

CO2 went up, but temps went down. That indicates 4 things.

1. we dont understand the science
2. the current models are crap as predictors
3. if there is a linkage from co2 to increasing temps, it is more complicated than we model
4. it's getting colder

I for one am unwilling to destroy our economy on the possiblity that these models are right.; 10/20/09, 7:14 PM
chickelit said...: Don't be misled: low concentrations do not mean no effect.

The same is of course true for water-bourne pollutants.; 10/20/09, 7:16 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: I am a mere mechanical engineer, but I know a little bit about finite element modelling. Each variable in the model has to be be functionally related to all the other variables in the model. Depending on the mathematical relationships, small differences in initial conditions or (often assumed) constants can cause huge differences in the model's predictions. The size of each element also has tremendous bearing on the precision of the model. The period of time over which the model attempts to make predictions has tremendous bearing on the accuracy of the model. Given these inherent weaknesses in finite element modelling, any current AGW-predicting models are so much fantasy. The smallest element size that modern computers can analyze and still keep up with real-time weather is on the order of cubic kilometers. These models are less than 100% accurate even given time frames of less than a week. Conclusion: anyone who puts any faith in current AGW models is an idiot.; 10/20/09, 7:44 PM
sonicfrog said...: Skyler, we know what temperature it was historically from concentrations of various gases in the bubbles of atmospheric gas trapped in very old arctic ice.

Those concentrations vary with temperature because, when it's colder, the ocean will allow much more CO2, for example, to dissolve into it.

So we know it was colder when we see less CO2 in those bubbles. That's how we know that less CO2 in the atmosphere results in lower temperatures.

It all makes perfect sense, if you ignore the blindingly obvious circular reasoning involved.

It's not that simple, as in virtually ALL the ice core samples, including the Thompson / Vostok core used in An Inconvenient Truth, the rise in CO2 lags temp rise by as much as 800 years, and demonstrates the same lag when temps go down. There are NO past indicators that CO2 CAUSED temp rise. This does not mean that it can't, but this does greatly increase the burden of proof, and currently, the temps are not following the continued increase in CO2.; 10/20/09, 7:56 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/20/09, 8:01 PM
Michael Haz said...: No believer in the global warming hoax has been able to explain why the great glaciers that covered much of North America began to melt some 10 million years ago (without help from SUVs or coal-powered electric generators.

I have asked repeatedy on the Althouse blog for an explanation; none has been provided.

Ans while you're at it, explain why Greenland was, uh, green when it was discovered.; 10/20/09, 8:07 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Sonicfrog said...It's not that simple, as in virtually ALL the ice core samples, including the Thompson / Vostok core used in An Inconvenient Truth, the rise in CO2 lags temp rise by as much as 800 years, and demonstrates the same lag when temps go down. There are NO past indicators that CO2 CAUSED temp rise

which would seem to indicate that temps rise, THEN CO2 comes out of solution in the world's oceans rather than CO2 increases driving temp increases.

that would be consistent with the basic laws of thermodynamics that would show that fluid temps would be a lagging indicator of gas temps because of the difference in molecular densities.; 10/20/09, 8:09 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tyrone, whether or not the climate is forecast correctly is certainly an open question, but arguing that it's not because you can't forecast the weather beyond x days is poor reasoning.

I will agree that you know a little bit about finite element modeling.; 10/20/09, 8:11 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Michael,

as interesting as those questions might be, you missed one that goes to the heart of the AGW religion.

In prehistoric times, CO2 was much higher than todays 360 ppm, yet temps did not spiral into literally hell on earth.; 10/20/09, 8:17 PM
MadisonMan said...: I have asked repeatedy on the Althouse blog for an explanation; none has been provided.

As I've said before, look up Milankovitch cycles. I'm not sure why you don't.; 10/20/09, 8:17 PM
The Drill SGT said...: tyrone and MM,

are those climate models really finite element based models or are they very large linear programs instead?

I cant believe the world has enough computing power to do finite modeling of climate.; 10/20/09, 8:19 PM
MadisonMan said...: I believe they are all spectral models that are far more computationally efficient than gridpoint models. The difficulty lies in transforming the data to gridpoints to account for sub-gridscale processes.; 10/20/09, 8:24 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: MadisonMan said...

Tyrone, whether or not the climate is forecast correctly is certainly an open question, but arguing that it's not because you can't forecast the weather beyond x days is poor reasoning.

I will agree that you know a little bit about finite element modeling.

Please explain to me how climate is independent of weather.; 10/20/09, 8:31 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: MadisonMan said...

I believe they are all spectral models that are far more computationally efficient than gridpoint models. The difficulty lies in transforming the data to gridpoints to account for sub-gridscale processes.

Still subject to GIGO.; 10/20/09, 8:35 PM
Joan said...: Oh no! We're all going to die!

Well, yes, just not all of us at the same time.; 10/20/09, 8:47 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Tyrone, whether or not the climate is forecast correctly is certainly an open question, but arguing that it's not because you can't forecast the weather beyond x days is poor reasoning.

Absolutely specious. Whatever type of modeling you employ, today's weather provides the initial conditions. Going forward, tomorrow's weather provides initial conditions for all future model predictions. And so on. If you can't predict the weather, you can't predict the climate, at least not to the absurd precision claimed by the IPCC, Al Gore, et. al.; 10/20/09, 8:52 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: MadisonMan said...
I will agree that you know a little bit about finite element modeling.

Always resort to the ad hominem when you are losing the argument!; 10/20/09, 8:58 PM
Paul said...: "In prehistoric times, CO2 was much higher than todays 360 ppm, yet temps did not spiral into literally hell on earth."

Bingo.

That fact alone discredits the AGW hypothesis and would suggest first and foremost that CO2 is a minor factor at best.; 10/20/09, 9:03 PM
Elliott A said...: Can't resist commenting...An accurate model is only possible when the data input into the model is known to be correct. You can't get accuracy from theory and postulates. All the variables which influence the planetary climate, only some of which are known,have only been directly measured for a very small stretch of time. These data are unreliable in predicting any trend.

The current state of the PDO is in fact reducing planetary tropical cyclone activity to the lowest observed in the satellite age. Tropical cyclones are the means the system uses to remove excess heat from the tropics and distribute it to the polar regions where it is subsequently lost to space by radiational cooling in the cold dry polar climate.

The CO2 levels at the end of the little ice age were so low that many plants were on the precipice of suffocation.Even if increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by minute amounts can cause huge increases in global temperature, low CO2 is a much greater danger. We won't do to well if the plants can't grow.; 10/20/09, 9:15 PM
dick said...: Go back 10 years or 20 years and use the global models to predict today's weather and temperatures based on what the temperatures were then. If you can do that consistently, then maybe I will believe in AGW. If not, then it is just BS and not worth bothering about. You can even go back to when Algore came out with his news and see if you can do it from that point to today. Same difference. Bet it won't even be close.; 10/20/09, 9:34 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: One problem is that the people who are most adamant about man caused global warming due to man caused CO2 is that they are often the most scientifically illiterate. AlGore, for example, apparently barely passed (C- and D+ is what I remember) the two bone head science classes that he took in college. We aren't talking college level chemistry or physics, but rather the sort of classes that anyone with any science aptitude laughs at (at my school, one of those was Cosmology and Evolution).

Then, they go and read papers by people who are working in this area, and totally miss all the limitations that the authors included to get the papers peer reviewed. They go to the bottom line or the summary, and miss that the authors have a page of provisos that severely limit the applicability of their papers.

And, then, of course, the papers are based on models. Models that don't predict either the past or the future at all well. And, to make the models computationally feasible, numerous simplifying assumptions have been made (which are part of the provisos and limitations I mentioned above). And, yes, some of the simplifying assumptions often involve grid size. But, they also assume certain feedback models too, which have not been validated, and are becoming increasingly suspect. Oh, and one of the big ones - they invariably assume constant solar energy, which is, of course, one of the main alternate hypothesis for Global Warming (and now, due to lower solar output, Global Cooling).

So, the journalism majors read the studies, and conclude that the model predicts that, for example, the sea will rise 20 feet in the next six months, and panic. But they missed all the provisos that say that this was only a model, that the model is based on certain things, etc. Instead, they just panic.

If it were just a bunch of scientifically illiterate people panicing a bit, running around, frothing at the mouth, it wouldn't be that bad.

But it isn't. They are so sure that these models (that they have no way of even thinking about understanding) predict the end of the world, that they want to beggar our grandchildren and great grandchildren just to prevent this imagined catastrophe.; 10/20/09, 9:38 PM
MadisonMan said...: Please explain to me how climate is independent of weather.

Read more carefully. I said the weather need not be predicted accurately to yield the correct climate. That does not say that climate is independent of weather.

Does a climate model work or fail based on the correct prediction of the monster storm of late November 1950? No. Should there occasionally be a very vigorous storm over the central US in November? Yes. Don't look for equivalence in mean sea level pressure, however, for obvious reasons.; 10/20/09, 9:52 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The criticism of the temperature measurements has at least two components.

One is that the Weather Service has a lot of measuring stations around the country. And, if you know where to look on the Web, you can find out where they are. And, then, you can go and look at them (not really very exciting, since the measurement tools are invariably protected from the elements).

One problem that has arisen though is that in a lot of cases, the locations have gone from rural to urban, and this is likely to have significant effects on the measurements. Asphalt and concrete just reflect a lot more heat than do the natural environment that preceded them. Plus, you have a lot more vehicle traffic in urban areas, that themselves generate heat, etc.

There are web sites out there that show different measuring sites and how they are likely being biased by the urban setting they are now in. For example, I remember one where the measuring site was (now) situated close to the vent of an air conditioning system for a large building.

And, yes, the Weather Bureau tries to control for this, and occasionally moves its measuring stations. But that too has its own problems.

Another problem with global temperature readings is that the height of the temperature run-up seemed to coincide somewhat with the fall of the Soviet Union. The problem is that a lot of their temperature measuring stations were abandoned then, and, likely the abandonment was greatest in the most remote areas - which means Siberia. To the extent that the measurements from those stations were not entirely discarded, there would be a natural bias towards global warming just there.

But, one of the biggest problems, I suspect, is that the effects of different levels of solar radiation are not fully taken into account. If they are taken into account at all. That assumes that we know enough about the solar effects on global temperatures to adequately control for solar energy fluctuations, which I don't think we do, and, esp. not at the levels of accuracy being bandied about here. And, solar energy levels are likely to be the biggest independent variable involved, esp. since that is where almost all of our global heat comes from.; 10/20/09, 9:58 PM
MadisonMan said...: The current state of the PDO is in fact reducing planetary tropical cyclone activity to the lowest observed in the satellite age.

Really? The eastern Pacific season has been quite active this year -- so has the western Pacific -- 33 storms so far, vs. 31 last year. The 2nd strongest storm on record in the eastern Pacific (Rick) just occurred over the weekend (I admit that's a dubious record given the state of observations).

So I'm curious where your fact is coming from.; 10/20/09, 10:01 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: MadisonMan said...

Does a climate model work or fail based on the correct prediction of the monster storm of late November 1950? No.

Have you ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? If you are claiming precision of 0.1 degrees C per decade as the IPCC does, you had better have all your butterflies lined up.; 10/20/09, 10:04 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tyrone, have I claimed precision of 0.1 C anywhere?

Stop reading what you think I say, and read instead what I actually write.

You might start by answering this question: Where have I claimed that global climate model output is any good?; 10/20/09, 10:21 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: You might start by answering this question: Where have I claimed that global climate model output is any good?

I beg your pardon, but you are the one who took issue with my statements, not the other way around. I never said that you claimed this precision did I? Take your own advice about careful reading. But if you are not defending the IPCC's nonsense, then what in hell are you defending? If you don't agree with them then you must agree with me.; 10/20/09, 10:35 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tyrone, I'm just here to clear up the huge problems you have in understanding climate modeling vs. weather forecasting. I'm helpful that way.; 10/20/09, 10:40 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: You might start by answering this question: Where have I claimed that global climate model output is any good?

I beg your pardon, but you are the one who took issue with my statement, not the other way around. Where did I say that you claimed such precision? I did not. Take your own advice about careful reading. But if you are not defending the IPCC's nonsense, then what are you defending? If you don't agree with them, then you must agree with me!; 10/20/09, 10:40 PM
chickelit said...: Bereft of electrons and hydrogen, CO2 is an empty husk of an energy store, exhausted and waiting to be recharged in the carbon cycle.; 10/20/09, 10:45 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: MadisonMan said...

Tyrone, I'm just here to clear up the huge problems you have in understanding climate modeling vs. weather forecasting. I'm helpful that way.

Let me get this straight. So weather prediction is inaccurate but climate modeling is not? Did you or did you not just take me to task for (allegedly) saying that you stood by climate models? Read your previous post:

Where have I claimed that global climate model output is any good?

You can't have it both ways. Further advice-- snark doesn't win scientific arguments.; 10/20/09, 10:49 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: P.S. As I asked before, please show me how initial conditions, i.e. weather, are irrelevant to climate modeling?; 10/20/09, 10:54 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: Sorry to disappoint you, but I have to go to bed. The judges--Pointsman, Blicero and Pirate Prentice-- say I win. So there.; 10/20/09, 11:00 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tyrone, here's something for you to read when you wake up.

Your initial post made the common -- but erroneous -- point that because weather forecasting can be bad that climate forecast must also be bad. That is bad reasoning: weather forecasting and climate forecasting are two very different things. A climate forecast doesn't have to forecast the weather accurately. As I said, whether or not a climate forecast model accurately predicts the monster blizzards of 25-26 January and 6-7 February 1978 is irrelevant to whether or not a climate model is doing a good job predicting the climate. But the climate model better predict, occasionally, a nice whopper of a storm.

Re-read the previous paragraph: Have I said anything about whether the climate forecast model is very good? No. I've just said that arguing that it's bad because weather forecast are bad is not a valid argument. Do not expect a climate simulation of the 20th century to have a big snow storm over the Ohio Valley on 25-26 January 1978.

Further, weather is not used to initialize a climate model -- at least not historically. Climatological data are used instead. For example, the mean values for September 1, or December 1st, or whatever day you want to start on, might be used rather than observed weather on those days. (See this, for example). I'm not sure why numerical model output from weather forecast models isn't used (for all I know, it could be and I just don't know about it, but I don't believe I've read about that, but I try to avoid J. Climate -- I'm more a MWR or W&F person).; 10/20/09, 11:59 PM
Skyler said...: Mad Man, you're trying to get us on a red herring. You said the data was more than sufficient to predict global warming, when in fact the data is flawed and incapable of producing the results claimed.; 10/21/09, 12:11 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: All those billions of tons pollutants we put into the air every day just magically disappear! Kind of like throwing something out the window at 55mph. It's gone man.

Says the man who tools around in his BMW he loves so much.

How about you put your ass in a Prius? Maybe then your bullshit comment would have some merit.; 10/21/09, 5:20 AM
MadisonMan said...: Skyler, I have not said that about the data. Data cannot be used to predict anything; data are only observations.

Unless you're talking about 'model data' -- something that any good meteorologist hates to see at a conference presentation because you realize it is all predicated on the goodness of the model or the initial data.

Example: the aforementioned talk on hurricanes in a warmed future showed results derived from a model driven by the IPCC future atmosphere, which has warming concentrated at upper levels. Well, what if that future temperature distribution isn't quite right? What if the assumed warming is distributed throughout the atmosphere more uniformly rather than peaking at jet level? Well, then the hurricane results the speaker has been talking about for the past 40 minutes are all called into question. And you can never get those 40 minutes back.; 10/21/09, 7:48 AM
MadisonMan said...: You can, of course, use the data -- in some form -- as initial data into some kind of model, and in that sense data can be user to predict. But the data itself? No.; 10/21/09, 7:50 AM
Joan said...: Further, weather is not used to initialize a climate model -- at least not historically. Climatological data are used instead. For example, the mean values for September 1, or December 1st, or whatever day you want to start on, might be used rather than observed weather on those days.

This is just stupid. The only difference between "climatological data" and "weather data" is the period of time over which it is collected.; 10/21/09, 11:09 AM