Puzzle me this? Oceans COOLING?

[MegansPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 1 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]356110[/snapback]</div>

This is a fundamental problem with the funding of climate change science. If you stay on the path, you get the $. If you stray, you don't. You see the same sort of thing in what is accepted for journal publication. See here...
[/b]

If you actually go to the site you link to, the rejection from Science states:

>>Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
Best regards, Etta Kavanagh<<

There is nothing non-standard in a magazine not publishing a letter ALREADY DISSEMINATED over the internet. Most magazines, especially one of the stature of Science, prefer to publish their contents first, not second. This is not "supression of dissent"; it is simply standard publishing practice. In fact, it states as much on Science's own web page with submission guidelines for authors:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/fa...x.dtl#prior_faq
>>What about manuscripts that have been posted online before submission?
We do not consider manuscripts that have been previously published elsewhere. <<

Also, it's just a little humorous to think that a scientist could earn more money doing climate science at a university than he could working for an oil company. What were Exxon's profits again this year? CnnMoney.com from July 27, 2006: >>Profits at Exxon Mobil surged 36 percent to a near record $10.4 billion ...the second biggest ever reported by a U.S. company, behind only the $10.7 billion Exxon itself earned in the fourth quarter of 2005.<<

[LongRun]

I think we should use up all the fossil fuel as fast as possible. When we run out, we will figure out a new way. Life goes on. People will not respond until they have no other choice.

[TimBikes]

[quote]
If you actually go to the site you link to, the rejection from Science states:

>>Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
Best regards, Etta Kavanagh<<

Here is Peiser's rebuttal...

"I would be grateful if you could send me evidence for your claim hat "the basic points of

[my] letter have already been widely dispersed over the Internet." As far as I am aware,

neither the details nor the results of my analysis have been cited anywhere. In any case,

don't you feel that SCIENCE has an obligation to your readers to correct manifest errors?

After all, these errors continue to be employed by activists, journalists and science organisations (as I have informed you on a number of occasions since January)."

[MegansPrius]

I cannot prove that Peiser posted his results online before Feb 2005, although it still seems likely, but as I cannot prove it will concede this point. Nonetheless, the point is rather moot in that Peiser HIMSELF no longer stands by the content of his letter to Science.

From the ABC Australia Web site:
>>In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.
Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.
"Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
Read Benny Peiser's response to Media Watch's questions (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf)
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000) <<

By the way, the AAPG bulletin is the publication of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006

In the interests of flogging dead horses and putting this to rest, a thorough evaluations of Peiser's study (who, it should be remembered, is a social anthropologist, not a climate scientist) have been done by several other websites and reveals that it did NOT replicate the prior study that it criticized:

From http://norvig.com/oreskes.html:
>>Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. <<

You can judge for yourself if you're really bored at work and read an entire list of Peiser's "reject or doubt climate change" abstracts in full at http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

If you don't want to read all 34, consider the one below, which Peiser claims "rejects or doubts" global warming; the abstract clearly "reject(s) or doubt(s)" the idea that greenhouse warming could cause more frequent or more severe hurricanes -- but it explicitly assumes global warming because of CO2. (credit http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/archives/001721.html).

Global Climate-Change and Tropical Cyclones
Lighthill J, Holland G, Gray W, Landsea C, Craig G, Evans J, Kurihara Y, Guard C
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 75 (11): 2147-2157 Nov 1994
Abstract: This paper offers an overview of the authors’ studies during a specialized international symposium (Mexico, 22 November-1 December 1993) where they aimed at making an objective assessment of whether climate changes, consequent on an expected doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the next six or seven decades, are likely to increase significantly the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones (TC). Out of three methodologies available for addressing the question they employ two, discarding the third for reasons set out in the appendix. In the first methodology, the authors enumerate reasons why, in tropical oceans, the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) suggested by climate change models might be expected to affect either (i) TC frequency, because a well-established set of six conditions for TC formation include a condition that SST should exceed 26 degrees C, or (ii) TC intensity, because this is indicated by thermodynamic analysis to depend critically on the temperature at which energy transfer to air near the sea surface takes place. But careful study of both suggestions indicates that the expected effects of increased SST would be largely self-limiting (i) because the other five conditions strictly control how far the band of latitudes for TC formation can be further widened, and (ii) because intense winds at the sea surface may receive their energy input at a temperature significantly depressed by evaporation of spray, and possibly through sea surface cooling. In the second methodology, the authors study available historical records that have very large year-to-year variability in TC statistics. They find practically no consistent statistical relationships with temperature anomalies; also, a thorough analysis of how the El Nino-Southern Oscillation cycle influences the frequency acid distribution of TCs shows any direct effects of local SST changes to be negligible. The authors conclude that, even though the possibility of some minor indirect effects of global warming on TC frequency and intensity cannot be excluded, they must effectively be "swamped" by large natural variability.

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 3 2006, 01:04 PM) [snapback]356994[/snapback]</div>

I cannot prove that Peiser posted his results online before Feb 2005, although it still seems likely, but as I cannot prove it will concede this point. Nonetheless, the point is rather moot in that Peiser HIMSELF no longer stands by the content of his letter to Science.

From the ABC Australia Web site:
>>In fact over the last year and half since Benny Peiser wrote up his results, he's backed away from those claims.
Peiser now admits he didn't check the same articles that Naomi Oreskes used.
"Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
Read Benny Peiser's response to Media Watch's questions (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...ep38peiser.pdf)
So how many of the 34 articles does Benny Peiser stand by?
How many really "reject or doubt" the scientific consensus for man-made global warming?
Well when we first contacted him two weeks ago he told us...
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch
And when we pressed him to provide the names of the articles, he eventually conceded - there was only one.
(Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues: Annual report, by Gerhard LC and Hanson BM, AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471 Apr 2000) <<

By the way, the AAPG bulletin is the publication of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
— Email from Benny Peiser to Media Watch, 12th October, 2006

In the interests of flogging dead horses and putting this to rest, a thorough evaluations of Peiser's study (who, it should be remembered, is a social anthropologist, not a climate scientist) have been done by several other websites and reveals that it did NOT replicate the prior study that it criticized:

From http://norvig.com/oreskes.html:
>>Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. <<

You can judge for yourself if you're really bored at work and read an entire list of Peiser's "reject or doubt climate change" abstracts in full at http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/

If you don't want to read all 34, consider the one below, which Peiser claims "rejects or doubts" global warming; the abstract clearly "reject(s) or doubt(s)" the idea that greenhouse warming could cause more frequent or more severe hurricanes -- but it explicitly assumes global warming because of CO2. (credit http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/archives/001721.html).

Global Climate-Change and Tropical Cyclones
Lighthill J, Holland G, Gray W, Landsea C, Craig G, Evans J, Kurihara Y, Guard C
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 75 (11): 2147-2157 Nov 1994
Abstract: This paper offers an overview of the authors’ studies during a specialized international symposium (Mexico, 22 November-1 December 1993) where they aimed at making an objective assessment of whether climate changes, consequent on an expected doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the next six or seven decades, are likely to increase significantly the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones (TC). Out of three methodologies available for addressing the question they employ two, discarding the third for reasons set out in the appendix. In the first methodology, the authors enumerate reasons why, in tropical oceans, the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) suggested by climate change models might be expected to affect either (i) TC frequency, because a well-established set of six conditions for TC formation include a condition that SST should exceed 26 degrees C, or (ii) TC intensity, because this is indicated by thermodynamic analysis to depend critically on the temperature at which energy transfer to air near the sea surface takes place. But careful study of both suggestions indicates that the expected effects of increased SST would be largely self-limiting (i) because the other five conditions strictly control how far the band of latitudes for TC formation can be further widened, and (ii) because intense winds at the sea surface may receive their energy input at a temperature significantly depressed by evaporation of spray, and possibly through sea surface cooling. In the second methodology, the authors study available historical records that have very large year-to-year variability in TC statistics. They find practically no consistent statistical relationships with temperature anomalies; also, a thorough analysis of how the El Nino-Southern Oscillation cycle influences the frequency acid distribution of TCs shows any direct effects of local SST changes to be negligible. The authors conclude that, even though the possibility of some minor indirect effects of global warming on TC frequency and intensity cannot be excluded, they must effectively be "swamped" by large natural variability.
[/b]

Thank you MegansPrius, that was thoroughly and accurately done.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 3 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]356994[/snapback]</div>

I cannot prove that Peiser posted his results...blah blah blah...
[/b]

Nice post - too bad it misses the point entirely. While you all are busy getting panties in a wad over Peiser, the original posting to which I responded - and to which I have not seen a response yet - was this:

"A group did come down here to measure the decreasing ice, a couple of years ago. When they arrived no one could look at them with a straight face. Their grant was worded as if to tie future funding to the successful measurements of the shrinking ice pack. We showed them the roofs of several powerhouses. We walked on them. We handed them a pick so they could find the foundation. We got the pick back. We think the egg heads should do their studies in places where the weather won't kill them."

The gist of my response was that science is taking a back seat to politics. LongRun posted a troubling observation - you either color within the lines, or you don't get funding.

[MegansPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Dec 5 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]357850[/snapback]</div>

Nice post - too bad it misses the point entirely. While you all are busy getting panties in a wad over Peiser, the original posting to which I responded - and to which I have not seen a response yet - was this:

"A group did come down here to measure the decreasing ice, a couple of years ago. When they arrived no one could look at them with a straight face. Their grant was worded as if to tie future funding to the successful measurements of the shrinking ice pack. We showed them the roofs of several powerhouses. We walked on them. We handed them a pick so they could find the foundation. We got the pick back. We think the egg heads should do their studies in places where the weather won't kill them."

The gist of my response was that science is taking a back seat to politics. LongRun posted a troubling observation - you either color within the lines, or you don't get funding.
[/b]

Tim,
You're the one who brought up Peiser. See
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=356110
http://priuschat.com/index.php?s=&show...st&p=356601

So don't pretend I'm "missing the point" when I provide evidence refuting claims you spent 3 posts and 350 words advancing.

As for the startling claim you cite in your non-response to my take down of Peiser, I can only say I'm shocked, shocked to hear there was ice buildup on a generator building in Antarctica! That would presuppose wild laws of nature, say, like the fact that generators generate HEAT in running, and that Anarctica is COLD, and that ICE might FORM on the ROOF and AROUND a HEATED building in Anarctica! My goodness, I just don't know how that could have occurred.

Ice forming around a building has nothing to do with the Antarctic Ice pack. For just one example of recent ice loss in the Antarctic, see http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/ , from which I quote:
"For reference, the area lost in this most recent event dwarfs Rhode Island (2717 km2) in size. In terms of volume, the amount of ice released in this short time is 720 billion tons, enough ice for about 12 trillion 10 kg bags. This is the largest single event in a series of retreats by ice shelves in the Peninsula over the last 30 years. "

Your funding "color within the lines" assertion is false as well. Big Oil has much more money (see Exxon Mobil Profit Rises to $10.4B, the Second Highest Ever at Foxnews.com). And they use it. Last year Exxon provided 2.9 million to organizations that misinform the public about climate change. (See the letter from the Royal Society of Great Britain, asking Exxon to stop funding bad science http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guar...ttertoNick.pdf)

[DaveinOlyWA]

ever see "An Inconvenient Truth"...i dont mean the movie, the DVD. there is an update to what gore said with an additional year of data. maybe we should consider the loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica recently.

in the 1960's my dad went to Greenland to help build the nuclear power plant at Camp Century. they built this plant on nearly 2 miles of ice. (they thought it was less than half a mile.) there was a group of scientists there that wanted to do core drilling. they were there on a 6 month project. the goal was to get as much sample as possible to study. it took them 14 months to complete the job because the thickness was much greater than they had anticipated.

also, when my dad was there, the entire northern part of the island was inaccessible by water for 10½ months a year because of ice. that time has been reduced to zero. (the ice no longer extends hundreds of miles out into the sea making it possible for cutters to make it to the shore)

granted we are talking about 45 years ago. but its only been the last 20 or so where anyone even noticed the ice disappearing. so is the ocean getting colder??? well, might have to do with the trillions of gallons of ice from Greenland that has slid off into the ocean.

[kingofgix]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 5 2006, 10:11 AM) [snapback]357881[/snapback]</div>

Your funding "color within the lines" assertion is false as well. Big Oil has much more money (see Exxon Mobil Profit Rises to $10.4B, the Second Highest Ever at Foxnews.com). And they use it. Last year Exxon provided 2.9 million to organizations that misinform the public about climate change. (See the letter from the Royal Society of Great Britain, asking Exxon to stop funding bad science http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guar...ttertoNick.pdf)
[/b]

I have been following this issue closely for over a decade, and it just boggles my mind how (or why) so many people, mostly in the US, don't seem to get it.

For global warming to be a "hoax" as some claim would require a massive, I would argue unprecedented, worldwide conspiracy of scientists from many different disciplines. And why, to what end? Not to get funding. That would not even begin to explain such a broad conspiracy. You have to totally abandon faith in virtually the entire scientific community to accept that explanation. You have to be willing to accuse the majority of scientists (in certain discipline areas) of being dishonest, immoral, and only in it for the funding. Thats preposterous.

On the other hand, you have the oil companies and the entrenched military industrial complex that drives the world economy. Do they have a motive to refute global warming? You bet, what could be more clear! Do they have the resources. You bet, and incredibly more so than the scientific research community! Have they been caught in the act of trying to misinform on the subject. Absolutely they have, and who could expect anything else? I would think it would be a virtual given that companies with as much money and influence as the oil companies would try to misinform on something like this. Yet there are still those, in the face of overwhelming evidence, who try to discredit the science and buy into the propoganda. Its incredible to me.

Go back the basics, known facts:

CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas" and its concentration in the atmosphere has been proven to be closely is related to atmospheric/global temperature.
Humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Atmosphereic CO2 levels are rising rapidly.
Global temperture is rising.

Whats not to understand?

I'm not saying it is as simple as that, and I realize that global climate is very complex issue, but it doesn't make sense to me to debate about IF global warming is happening. We should move on, and start talking about WHAT to do about it.

[DaveinOlyWA]

global warming is not a hoax. only a fool still believes that. only its cause can be debated on even the broadest of terms.

i believe that the onset of global warming is accelerated by the actions of man by several HUNDRED years.