The Great Global Warming Blunder

I've already asked that question. The answer has to do with fearing carbon credits going to one political party's coffers ... blah blah blah, etc. No dis'n one party or the other ... as I've stated time & time again, both parties are equally corrupt.

But yes ... take care of the big things (not buying millions of barrels of fossil fuel from terroristic countries ... make energy independence priority 1 ... etc) and the CO2 thing becomes moot.

.

 

Hi Tochatihu,

I sorry its taken so long to respond. I haven't read the full article, only summaries, but I should be able to download it for free on Monday. I'm not a denyer, but simply want to understand the science and ask if these are simply statistical anomalies. So yes I completely agree, this is not about blunders but science.


Since the net affect of higher temperatures, more CO2, and shifting rain patterns is a complex one, is the drop simply a function of reverting back to a lower level. In the previous decades there was a gain of 6%, then in the latest one a loss of 1%. Are we just headed back to a stable mean, or is a new downward trend starting? It sounds like Z&R are predicting a downward trend with rain shifts and temperatures trumping CO2.

My local weather has huge variations. Last year we were in a bad drought, with lake levels dropping lower than I have ever seen them, and water measures turning much of the landscape brown. Monday places had over 10" of rain, with 2 people washed from their cars. There is a strong movement to get rid of invasive species, and help native plants that are better adapted handle the dry and the wet. Which leads to the next interesting question, can humans help manage plant life in a positive way for the climate change, as opposed to much of the negative ways farming and population have been changing the landscape.

 

It may not be good for the fossil fuel business, but it is great for the energy conservation/RE business, and net/net good for the the economy.

 

why is gasoline so cheap now?

 

World wide demand is down. The run up in 08 was largely speculative.

Icarus

 

More manipulated than speculative.
Manipulated by Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.

 

I ran across an interesting comment by the former US head of Shell. He pointed out that the demand during that period also had a very strong component of Chinese buying. Specifically, the Chinese were shutting down coal plants for the Olympics and resorting to buying diesel fuel for all the facilities that could use diesel instead of coal fired electric plant power.

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/China/Oil.html

Doesn't really look like that much of a spike in 2008. Looks like the progression of a long-term trend. I'm going to trust those who say it was the gamblers at Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street bankers were most of the run up. Just like GS was trying to take down Greece earlier this year- raw speculation at the expense of us peasants.

 

Hi Austin

"It sounds like Z&R are predicting a downward trend with rain shifts and temperatures trumping CO2." I am sure that Steve Running would agree with this. For me, the great strength of their study is that it links variation in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate (time-series measurements at places like Mauna Loa), with variations in the global remotely sensed vegetation 'green-ness'.

Secondarily, it implies that net oceanic CO2 sequestration did not vary much over this time period. That would also be an important result, and not one that can be made currently by satellite or ship measurements.

Weather extremes always attract media attention, and 2010 has not been short of them. The link with anthropogenic climate change is there the most tenuous. However this is where the precautionary principle would seem to come into play (extreme events make news because they are so costly). As I have suggested before,. this is an area where we could probably benefit the most from the wisdom of the Pielkes (sernior and junior), and use previous variability as a guide to adaptation and mitigation.

That said, the 'classic' study of 20th century droughts was by Aiguo Dai et al. in J. Hydrometeorology 2004. Its conclusions were a bit gloomy, and (as far as I can tell) have gone unchallenged because they were consistent with the global river-flow historical data.

Now, that is a real potential growth area for earth system science. River runoff records are finally growing to statistically useful lengths over most of the globe. In the US, the records are better but the studies seem to have not been done. If youse guys know any graduate students lokking for projects in that area, or even high school science projects, just tune into

USGS Real-Time Water Data for the Nation

and start downloading the free archives

I wish I had the time! No but seriously, my attention is more focused on China now and over here streamflow records are militarily sensitive. I kid you not.

another editorial topic is that we are amazingly poorly prepared to conduct agriculure in the 21st century, and government leaders seem amazingly unconcerned. You touched on this in your comments. We can certainly be concerned that agricultural landscapes are 'unnatural', but man, people gotta eat. Populations and appetites increase, the assistance that fossil fuels supply to ag. become more expensive, and the biological factors that limit net supply (pest and disease on crops and loss after harvest) are poised to benefit from 'new climates'. I am just not liking the prospects for 21 century food supply.

Hate to be so gloomy, but the presumption that everything will be fine if we just keep doing as we have done... Pangloss comes to mind.

 

Doug, it sounds like it's time for edible landscapes! It would be interesting if a lot of sub-urban folks became part-time farmers. Seems like there could actually be some efficiencies there. Things like water usage and reduced petro-fertilizer use (composting yard waste and food waste into improved soil). That sort of thing seems more difficult to do on a large scale, but at the 1/4 acre level, seem (and are) quite doable. As food prices rise, more and more people will get in on this. Food's healthier too!

 

we put in a 1200' fruit and veggie garden this year. it was great, but a lot of hard work and not for everybody. organically, there is a lot to learn about disease and insects. and the deer and bunnies gotta eat too!

 

If that is the standard, then we should discount everything Josh Willis does on ocean temps. Or Michael Mann on temperature reconstructions. Or Phil Jones on surface temperature measures. Right?

Even if Spencer "screwed up" as you claim, a "screw up" or error should not forever mark a scientists work as disreputable. In fact, some of the greatest scientists have famously made thousands of errors before making new discoveries (Edison / light bulb for instance).

Instead Spencer raises an important point in that this line of inquiry (clouds) has not been fully studied. Is it not incumbent upon science to test / validate (invalidate) various theories? Anything less is faith my friend, not science. If Spencer is proven to be wrong based on the science, so be it - then he can either succumb to the AGW mantra or - hypothesize another theory.

 

If we might seek to exclude expressions such as screwed up from the discussion...

You can read Christy's description of the situation here:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf

Here's a bit: "Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Or we might say that the error was discovered and corrected. I see no reason to 'mark' Spencer's satellite radiation inversion work as disreputable. In fact one can go to his website and observe the troposphere warming continuing at present.

A bit more recent from S&C is here:

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements

And (for free) you can read the abstract at least and find that harmony now reigns in the world of atmospheric temperature inversion. That's what S&C do, see?

If you have the powerful urge to get the entire article, see your local librarian, or I can go digging at JGR. But only grumpily, because their website is a pain.

I would like to postpone discussing clouds (again) because I really do hope (along with Spencer and Lindzen) that they will save us from undesired warming. Tired here. Please and thank you.

 

Exactly. If two sets of data do not fit, we should strive to ask why, instead of assuming that the scientist with the data showing a difference in viewpoint screwed up. In this case we have found the satellite data had errors, it is no reason to attack the reputation of the scientist using the data. When data is faked on the other hand, this casts strong doubt on the the cheaters even if this faked data confirms trends that fit our hypothesis.

The cloud theories seem promising, but there is so far a lack of data to confirm or deny it. Until that data is in I too would like to reserve judgment.