Yesterday I mentioned a Washington Post story telling people to take to the streets to protest the Capital coal plant. Today is the day of the protest
A significant winter storm shuttered schools, disrupted train and bus service and left thousands of people without power in the Washington area this morning, as hundreds of plows struggled to clear between three and 12 inches of snow from roads throughout the region.
About three to six inches total accumulation was expected inside the Capital Beltway, with up to a foot falling in parts of Southern Maryland, making it potentially the largest winter storm in the region in three years. Strong winds sent flakes dancing through the air, and temperatures hovered in the low 20s, allowing the snow to stick. Temperatures are expected to remain below freezing all day, forecasters said, and the wind might push the wind chill to single digits tonight.
As usual, great timing by the Climahysterics.
 
The infamous Dr. James Hansen should be there leading the charge. My post last week about 2008 being the coldest year this decade included a reference to Hansen. I wrote, “This is the same man who turned off the air conditioning in the Capitol while speaking about Global Warming on a hot day in 1988.â€Â I also mentioned his exposure of bad data for Russia just this past October. He used September data (a statistically warmer month) in place of cooler October data. This skewed the temperatures upward.
I don’t knock him for his extreme beliefs, but I do disagree with the questionable tactics he uses to get his message across. According to Fox News , he is in hot water since he works for NASA, yet is helping to organize a protest.
Hansen might be stuck in New York due to the weather. Of course, the true believers will say that this is just weather, and is caused by “climate change.” Then they’ll get in their SUVs for the slow commute to work.
I wonder if Obama will needle the protesters as sissy’s if they don’t show up en mass, telling them they need “some flinty Chicago toughness.” Or will he jack the thermostat up?
A.J Strata has some great information on how Japan is breaking away from the IPCC silliness, and what consensus really is.
In addition to Dr. Hansen and company having used bad Russian temperature data last fall, do you realize that much of the “global warming” is a figment of their data weighting method? After the USSR went bust, over 5,000 temperature reporting stations in Siberia went silent due to budget woes. Without all those extremely low temperatures in the mix, worldwide average temperatures appeared to have jumped upward. Curiously, satellite temperature data, since such data became available in the 1960s, shows at most a 0.1 deg. C change in the Earth’s average temperature, and that’s not entirely certain.
Another problem with Dr. Hansen is the use of flawed computer models. Their “hockey stick” temperature curves are equally likely to flip upward as well as flip downward at the right end of the graph, with minor tweaks in the data set. It’s due to cumulative roundoff error in their curve extrapolation algorithms, purely a phenomenon of their computing method, and has ZERO bearing on real-world climate behavior.
1. Winter weather does not disprove AGW.
2. Japan is not “breaking away from the IPCC silliness”. Their energy industry lobby, basically, asked five scientists (most of whom do not specialize in climate studies) to comment on global warming, and most happened to disagree with AGW. This group does not speak for the government of Japan, who has called for a 50% reduction in emissions.
Your continued willingness to ignore facts, spread misinformation, and exaggerate claims speaks volumes about whether you are interested in truth or propaganda.
3. You also continue this bogus mantra about “alarmists” not “walking the walk”, despite the fact that:
a. Al Gore actually lives a green lifestyle. He reduces his carbon footprint, gets energy from green sources wherever possible, and further reduces footprint to zero by investing in green investments.
b. You have no idea what type of lifestyle others that you generalize about live. You continually assume everyone drives a Hummer and flies everywhere, but you really don’t know.
c. I have listed for you what I do to reduce my carbon footprint. You have still claimed that I don’t do anything, but when asked to name specific steps I should take that I currently do not, you avoid the question.
Therefore, you’re a joke. Quit embarrassing yourself. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about climate science, let’s talk like adults. This childish, Limbaugh-esque routine is getting old. What most sad is that some people actually consider you a source for information.
Andrew,
You realize that we have satellite data dating back to 1979, which covers nearly the entire planet, and which basically confirms the surface temperature trends, right?
WOW, since 1979 huh? 30 years worth of surface temperature data more than enough statistical data to form a conclusion based on a 4.5 billion year life span.
Nice red herring, sleestak. Besides, you seem to have misunderstood what I was talking about. Our surface temperature data goes back much farther than 30 years. I was referring to satellite data, which confirms the trend shown in recent surface temperature data.
Andrew’s point was that surface temperature data cannot be trusted, due to data collection and analysis. This is a common “skeptical” argument, usually accompanied by pictures of what seem to be poorly placed weather stations. However, many biases and anomalies in the data are corrected before the global temperature is calculated, and this has been verified by satellite data.
About your 4.5 billion-year lifespan comment:
1. First of all, I find it laughable that you “skeptics”, who dispute global temperature data that is collected today via many weather stations all over the planet, and who also dispute paleoclimatology studies of recent history, would actually present rough estimates of temperature swings billions of years ago as proof of anything.
2. What is most concerning about recent climate change is the RATE of warming that we’ve so far experienced. This rate of warming is unprecedented. If you look at it on a larger scale with past changes in climate, this warming will appear as a nearly vertical line.
3. Another concern about recent warming is the fact that we now have an established civilization covering our planet, which requires certain amounts of resources. If warming continues unabated, sea levels would rise, forcing people living in low-lying areas to move inland, causing possible overcrowding and placing a strain on available resources. In addition, further warming would destroy entire marine ecosystems via the bleaching of corals; cause a reduced production of various agricultural products, such as cereals, which are badly needed in impoverished areas; and result in increased occurances of drought and famine in already struggling areas of the world. From this aspect, warming several billion years ago is also irrelevant.
4. Finally, this is climate change that we can do something about. There are several indicators that this warming is not of natural origin:
a. As I stated earlier, the rate of warming is unprecented.
b. This unprecendented rate of warming is coupled with an unprecedented increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. CO2 is now at about 390 ppm, which is the highest it’s been in the last 650,000 years.
c. There is no natural explanation for either of these events, and the fact that they are occurring simultaneously should be a clue.
d. Perhaps our greatest indicator that recent warming is due to human activity is the fact pattern of temperature changes in our atmosphere. At the same time that we are experiencing a significant warming on the surface and in the lower troposphere, the stratosphere is cooling. This is exactly what would be expected if this global warming were caused mainly by an increase in greenhouse gases, because the effect of increased carbon dioxide is reversed in the stratosphere. This pattern is also contradictory to what would be expected if the Sun were primarily to blame for recent warming, as some have claimed. If this were the case, we would expect a more uniform warming throughout the atmosphere.
So, recent warming can be attributed to our activities since the industrial revolution, which means we CAN do something about it, and the fact that there would be undesirable consequences for NOT taking action means that we SHOULD do something about it. Your comment about a 4.5 billion-year lifespan has no bearing on our current situation and only serves to distract from the issue.
OK, Reasic, fair enough. Since you’re so smart, tell us the following:
1. What is the most important greenhouse gas on Earth? Carbon dioxide? Methane? Other?
2. In less than 500 words, please describe the Maunder Minimum and its bearing on current global climate conditions.
Andrew,
1. Your question is vague. The question should be: “Which greenhouse gas has made the greatest contribution to recent global warming?” I’m sure what you meant by your question, instead, (and what many “skeptics” confuse with my re-wording of your question) was: “Which greenhouse gas makes the greatest contribution to the total greenhouse effect?”
The answer to the latter is water vapor, which accounts for a majority of the total greenhouse effect. However, the answer to the former is carbon dioxide, because of the fact that water vapor is a feedback. Water vapor has an extremely short atmospheric lifetime (7 to 10 days, compared to approx. 250 years for CO2), which means that its atmospheric concentration quickly adjusts as temperatures change. As temps rise, water quickly evaporates, reaching equilibrium within about a week, and as temps fall, water vapor condenses. Conversely, CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere stays there for decades. Therefore, water vapor cannot CAUSE a CHANGE in climate — it can only amplify the changes caused by other catalysts. this is why water vapor is left out of discussions on climate CHANGE.
2. This was one of those “clever” attempts to educate by inserting a question one doesn’t believe the opposing side understands or has considered. Nice try. The Maunder Minimum was a period in the 17th and 18th centuries when solar activity went dormant, so to speak. This obviously had a sizable impact on climate, as there wasn’t a human industrial presence on the planet at the time.
This period, and others that pre-date the industrial revolution, are often referenced by “skeptics” as “proof” that solar activity is primarily responsible for global warming. However, there is one major difference now. We currently have the addition of industrial activity to consider. I can readily admit that the Sun has played a role in the past, but that doesn’t mean that it plays a role now. I’ve heard a good analogy to this from Silke, who said something like this: “The fact that forest fires were once caused solely by lightning, does not mean that they aren’t also now caused by human activity, like runaway campfires or burning cigarettes, for instance.”
I can agree that the Sun played a prominent role in climate change in the past, and even a continued significant role into the early 20th century. However, the Sun’s role has diminished as greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase, and it will continue to do so in the future. The contributions of solar irradiance and other climate forcings have been quantified, and the Sun’s role has been found to be very minor in recent years.
You know, you can look at the graph of sun spots and see a huge swing, but you must instead find a graph of the actual change in energy output from the Sun during solar cycles. I think the total output is around 1366 watts per square meter, but the change in energy during a cycle is about 1 W/m^2. Then, you must also consider that this is a cycle, so any sustained changes would have to come from changes in the length of the cycle. This means that the maximum expected contribution must be much less than that number. The IPCC’s estimate is 0.12 W/m^2. Their estimate for carbon dioxide is about 1.66 W/m^2. This is all backed by research. Feel free to consult the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
Sorry for the lengthy response, but this is a complicated issue — definitely much more complicated than “it’s natural” or “the Sun’s to blame”. I’d love to discuss this further, if you like.
Andrew? sleestak? Teach? Please don’t let me down. This always happens. I put up a rebuttal, and then I hear nothing in response, and the post drifts away into the nether regions of Teach’s blog.
If you have any viable arguments, I honestly want to see them. I’m interested in learning the truth. If you know something I don’t, please share it.
What’s to rebut? Yet another IPCC report, put out by people who are invested in it being Mankind’s fault, yet, they, like you, fail to actually live the lives they think everyone else should embrace. Meanwhile, there are reports of a 30 year downturn in the global climate (I’ll believe them when the trend continues.)
All this talk about climate change and carbon footprints is fearmongering with a purpose: Just follow the money. Somehow, the Earth got along without us worrying about it — through floods, asteroid impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, widespread wildfires, earthquakes, you-name-it. Climatologists studying ice cores and paleontologists studying fossils tell us that at times the Earth had more than twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as we do today, yet life THRIVED in those ages. The Earth has been both hotter and colder than it is now. Not too long ago, a tree trunk came out of the ice high in the Alps, high above present timberline, and was dated to the time when Hannibal crossed those mountains with his armies and elephants in a quest to attack Rome from the north. This means the climate was much warmer in that region two millennia ago, and Hannibal’s men hardly encountered any ice or snow at all.
The only difference this time around is that some people have figured out how to get government grants, i.e., other people’s money to study the “problem”, and others have figured out how to use the “problem” to exert unwarranted, tyrannical power over their fellow men. Into which category do you fall, Reasic?
Teach,
Please do not generalize! Who, specifically, in the IPCC does not “actually live the [life] that they think everyone else should embrace”? And while we’re at it, what exactly is that “life that they think everyone else should embrace”?
And no, there aren’t “reports” of a 30-yr downturn. You read PART of ONE, and now, all of the sudden, there are many? Right…
Teach,
I’ve also asked repeatedly for you to explain to me what I’m not doing that you think I should. I’ve listed the steps I take to reduce my carbon footprint. What do you think is missing from the list? What am I doing wrong? Let’s be specific.
Andrew,
So, your response to my scientific argument is basically conspiracy theories (follow the money), conjecture, and anecdotal evidence? I believe we were on the subject of water vapor and the Maunder Minimum. Should I take your change of topic as a concession that water vapor is not the most important greenhouse gas in climate change, and that the Sun is not mostly responsible for global warming?
Why are so many denialist arguments so over-simplistic? “People are either this or that.” No, this is a fallacy known as a false dilemma. I don’t fall into either category. I have simply studied the evidence, examined the arguments on both sides, and am convinced that the planet is warming due to human activity. I do believe that there is a small portion that is natural. I do not believe the catastrophic scenarios you’ve probably heard about are very likely. However, I think we can still see some very dire consequences without them.
The difference between past climates and this one, as far as our ability to cope with a change in climate, is that we now have a thriving populace, which spans nearly the entire globe and requires a certain amount of resources. A temperature increase of only a few degrees could bring about a modest sea level rise, famine, drought, melting ice caps, and increased ocean temps, which would be detrimental to much of the plant, animal, and human life that we now have living on this planet.
As I explained to sleestak earlier:
Let’s talk science, because that’s what has convinced me — not Al Gore’s documentary, news reports about doom and gloom, or anecdotal evidence about the latest heat wave. So, please tell me that you’ve at least read or skimmed the IPCC report summary.
Still no substantive response?
Typical…
Still no change in your lifestyle, mimicking Al Gore, eh? Typical.
Actually, Teach, I HAVE made changes. I’ve told you this many times. Why do you insist on making baseless claims? I’ve even provided you with a list of the changes I made, and asked you for specific criticisms as to what more I should be doing, but you never engage in specifics. I guess that way, you couldn’t make stuff up about people anymore, huh?
I’ve also explained many times that Al Gore is carbon neutral. No surprise here that you haven’t grasped that either.
Why do I keep having to repeat myself to you? This is getting to be like talking to my four-year-old son.
The thing is, Teach, that I HAVE made changes to my lifestyle, and I’ve told you this many times. I even provided a list of many of the changes. I’ve also asked for you to be specific about what it is I’m doing wrong, so maybe I can correct it. You, however, continually avoid specifics. I guess that way you can continue to make stuff up about people.
I’ve also explained many times that Al Gore is carbon neutral. I’m not surprised that you haven’t yet grasped this either.
Whoops. I received an error page the first time I tried to post.
Really, Teach? Still no specifics? I wonder why. Look, you’ve continually accused me of not changing my lifestyle, but when challenged on specifics, you always clam up. Why don’t you just save yourself the embarrassment and clam up to start with.
I’m also getting tired of typing out detailed, logical rebuttals to your nonsense, complete with links and resources to back it up, only to be disappointed time and time again, as you either don’t respond or come back with conjecture and gossip. The same goes for you, Andrew. I thought you’d be different. I thought you might actually engage me in a debate, and try to refute my arguments, but I guess I was wrong.
Gee, I wonder why deniers never want to talk about scientific evidence, and why they never have a valid rebuttal to AGW arguments? Maybe it’s because you guys don’t know, and don’t want to know, about climate science. You only know talking points. The talking points do you no good when you’re faced with a scientific rebuttal, do they?
This is clearly a waste of my time. Let the record show that I explained the issues of water vapor, solar irradiance, and no counter points were offered by any of you. In just about any debate forum, that would mean that you LOSE.
Maybe there’s a reason you can’t come up with a valid response. Maybe, just maybe, your viewpoint is incorrect.
Andrew?
I’m confused. You asked me two questions, and then when I answered, you changed the subject. Do you have a response of any kind to my actual answers? Why does this always happen? Why can’t any “skeptics” ever provide a rebuttal to my simple scientific arguments?
Quit drinking the kool-aid, guys. Learn to think for yourself.