tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post6533379904184719621..comments2024-03-28T21:42:44.372-04:00Comments on the daily howler: HOWLER HISTORY: History's greatest weather forecast!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41122625438615922842012-07-09T18:18:59.496-04:002012-07-09T18:18:59.496-04:00I have the feeling that Bob Somerby's readers ...I have the feeling that Bob Somerby's readers tend to be generous-minded contrarians. David in Cal plays into this well, whatever his motives -- plays well if we assume his game is to disrupt.<br /><br />Could we all agree to stop responding to David in Cal for a while? (I've made this commitment, to myself, before, though obviously I've wavered.) Would be interesting. Whatever his motives, he derails discussion in these comments. Meanwhile, Bob S's actual arguments get overlooked. And Bob is good but needs correcting/modifying -- not David in Cal style, but of another sort. Good enough to make the correcting and modifying worth an effort not derailed by David in Cal. This site does not belong to him.mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-62818299058347066222012-07-09T13:53:52.767-04:002012-07-09T13:53:52.767-04:00Write about the fact of climate change, anywhere, ...Write about the fact of climate change, anywhere, anytime, and guys like David in Cal show up peddling the same denialist half truths, along with bogus links, etc.<br /><br />Maybe they're paid; maybe it's just a hobby.<br /><br />The good news is that reality appears to be overcoming them among the public, although it's hard to be optimistic.Aloysiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-7377307826533480012012-07-09T11:42:21.879-04:002012-07-09T11:42:21.879-04:00"Is Frank Rich really the enemy?" I do..."Is Frank Rich really the enemy?" I don't know his history, but if he was one of the silly people who didn't accurately report on politics back in the 90's then he's a fair representative of what has been wrong with the mainstream press. The rightwing spin machine got as far it has in part because the mainstream press was/is either cowardly, dishonest, or plays by the rules of false centrism. In fairness to Frank Rich, he wasn't that bad in the 00's (though he may have slipped back into old habits in 2006). But anyway, Bob is using him as an example of a larger problem. <br /><br />DonaldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56763706315361401382012-07-09T11:41:02.223-04:002012-07-09T11:41:02.223-04:00Your article doesn't say what you say it does....Your article doesn't say what you say it does. A colleague predicted a global cooling event based on his application of Hansen's Venusian model.<br /><br />The amusing bit is, there has been an effect based on increased aerosols in the atmosphere: global dimming. And it probably would have resulted in global cooling, but the prediction failed to account for the carbon-based warming effect.Matt in the Crownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02083162679471045642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-2103169701024283122012-07-09T11:28:04.180-04:002012-07-09T11:28:04.180-04:00Where, one might ask, was Al Gore on the matter of...<i>Where, one might ask, was Al Gore on the matter of global warming when he was actually in office? Did he sell the idea with the same passion and urgency he had for NAFTA, bombing civilian power plants in Serbia or deregulating the financial markets?</i><br /><br />If Woodward's <i>The Agenda</i> is to be believed, yeah, he was. His chief concern within the Administration's policy was getting his carbon tax through. Long story short, he was over-ruled. But if Woodward's account is anything close to the truth, Gore was borderline obsessed with getting that carbon tax.Matt in the Crownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02083162679471045642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25395064984356813292012-07-09T11:03:14.304-04:002012-07-09T11:03:14.304-04:00I thought Bob was going to bring up the newspaper ...I thought Bob was going to bring up the newspaper reports about conservative boneheads who one cold day during some recent winter mocked the notion of global warming. But this post was much better.<br /><br />Regarding the above links to 1971: the newsbuster article stated one S.I. Rasool was the author, not Hansen. And while I'm no David Brooks, I'd venture that the accuracy of computer models has improved quite a bit in the past forty years. <br /><br />And, does once wrong mean always wrong? <br /><br />Last, high speaking fees don't really mean a thing regarding Hansen's science.Blake Eldernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-87837218579971120692012-07-09T10:28:52.972-04:002012-07-09T10:28:52.972-04:00BTW James Hansen has been wildly wrong in the past...BTW James Hansen has been wildly wrong in the past. In 1971, he and other NASA scientists were predicting a new ice age. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971\<br /><br />Hansen has received over a million dollars from various groups because of his climate warnings. For this Chicken Little, one catastrophic prediction is as good as another, for the purpose of his own prestige and wealth. <br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?q=james+hansen+million+dollar+speaking+fees&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7ADFA_enUS429David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3234247923391245202012-07-09T10:26:31.085-04:002012-07-09T10:26:31.085-04:00What David and his ilk can't accept is that th...What David and his ilk can't accept is that the overwhelming demand for cheap energy by the industrialized nations has put billions of their fellow human beings in real jeopardy.<br />And that doesn't include billions of the yet unborn.<br /><br />"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors: we borrow it from our children."<br /><br />Conservatives decry the entitlements expected by middle class Americans, but ignore the beam in their own eyes: That rich countries have a God-given right to cheap energy, regardless of the consequences.<br /><br />Conservatives whine about the public debt we will leave our grandchildren, but claim ownership of all cheap resources now, because we "can't afford" to develop expensive alternatives.<br /><br />The answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is supposed to be yes.<br /><br />Here's a number for you. 1/20th of the world's population consumes 1/5th of the world's petroleum annually. And yes, I know OPEC squanders even more, thank you. <br /><br />Of course, the answer to that is "India and China are doing it too!"gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-70101652799182582522012-07-09T10:12:28.286-04:002012-07-09T10:12:28.286-04:00Anonymous -- I have no doubt that there is global ...Anonymous -- I have no doubt that there is global warming. The globe has been warming for hundreds of years, ever since the end of the little ice age. The BEST study went back to 1800 and showed warming for two centuries.<br /><br />My areas of doubt include:<br /><br />-- Is the warming catastrophic?<br />-- If so, what practical steps can be taken?<br />-- What are the causes of the warming?<br />-- How reliable are the models?<br /><br />Note that climate scientists admit that "they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere."<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/25/us-climate-cooling-idUSTRE61O3O820100225David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18395959787056849692012-07-09T10:05:43.681-04:002012-07-09T10:05:43.681-04:00P.S. The slope really did look exteremely high up ...P.S. The slope really did look exteremely high up to 1998. So, I can understand why climate scientists at that time felt it was unprecedented and catastrophic. However, the leveling out since 1998, despite continuing rise in CO2, changed the picture.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1783600515514109752012-07-09T09:45:47.065-04:002012-07-09T09:45:47.065-04:00We have here a wonderful illustration of why Somer...We have here a wonderful illustration of why Somerby's brand of press criticism is so very irrelevant and self-infatuated.<br /><br />Is Frank Rich really the enemy? Or would it be David in Cal, with his obfuscations, selective quotations and well-prepared talking points, characteristic of a determined plutocratic anti-science industry? Why is global warming a myth? Because:<br /><br />"The slope from 1905 to 1940 is roughly equal to the slope from 1950 to today. I calculated the former slope as .52/35 = .015 and the latter slope as .75/51 = .015."<br /><br />Get that, folks? David in Cal just disproved the 97% consensus among climate scientists, based some figures "I calculated". Nothing to worry about! Though you'll notice, he doesn't actually come out and say there's no such thing as global warming, or that it doesn't present a catastrophic scenario. <br /><br />And haven't Democrats like Al Gore proven to be heroic promoters of the truth only when there's no prospect their policy prescriptions could actually become law? Indeed, don't they prove to shills for the very same interests, when they actually have a chance to do something about it? Didn't Al?<br /><br />And what happens at TDH? An endless mythology concerning Somerby's friend and irrelevant press criticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-66173549938340179282012-07-09T09:28:39.528-04:002012-07-09T09:28:39.528-04:00Yes, I've heard the theory of unprecedented pa...Yes, I've heard the theory of unprecedented pace. However, The actual numbers show that recent rate of warming isn't unprecedented. According to the catastrphic models, human activity only had a significant effect on temperature for the last 40 years or so. The actual figures show that recent warming was at a rate comparable to the first part of the century.<br /><br />Look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg" rel="nofollow">last 100 years</a>. Between 1905 and 1940 the temperature anomaly rose from -.5 to .02. From 1960 to 2011, it rose from -.35 to .4.<br /><br />The slope from 1905 to 1940 is roughly equal to the slope from 1950 to today. I calculated the former slope as .52/35 = .015 and the latter slope as .75/51 = .015.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-49912836422015933802012-07-09T01:22:05.194-04:002012-07-09T01:22:05.194-04:00David in Cal, more cherry-picking. Do you think cl...David in Cal, more cherry-picking. Do you think climate scientists aren't aware that in some places islands are growing, not shrinking? Really, they are. Indeed, they predicted that the effects of the melting Arctic ice cap would be felt most, in terms of rising sea levels, in the Atlantic regions of North America, Europe, and Africa (I'm not sure about South America).<br /><br />For over 30 years I have known numerous scientists --biologist, chemists, geologists -- whom it is fair to characterize as climate scientists, all of them cautious and serious-minded people (and most of them pretty a-political, by my standards -- none of them anything more than mildly liberal, some quite conservative). The older ones used to be wary of some of the more alarmist claims. No longer. Not a single one.<br /><br />The geologists were the ones to nail it. The earth's climate is always changing -- of course it is, as we all know from learning in elementary school about the most recent Ice Age, for instance, or later about longer-term changes (like the pre-Cambrian seas that left us sandstone in what is now deep inland territory). It's the scale and pace of climate change that is unprecedented in earth's history (short of when huge meteors hit us, or rather, hit creatures like the dinosaurs). The geologists confirmed the scale and pace issues.mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24820031412468005782012-07-08T22:18:30.973-04:002012-07-08T22:18:30.973-04:00mch, you make some good points. Nevertheless, AFAI...mch, you make some good points. Nevertheless, AFAIK the predicted problems of low-lying islands haven't yet come about. E.g., the Australian reported that <br /><br /><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/coral-islands-left-high-and-dry/story-e6frg6z6-1225878132101" rel="nofollow">The latest research indicates that most of the Pacific's low-lying islands are growing, not shrinking.<br /><br /></a>David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-25475868062321862752012-07-08T20:57:47.014-04:002012-07-08T20:57:47.014-04:00David in Cal, what you've presented is not the...David in Cal, what you've presented is not the way to calculate these things. You have to coordinate many types of data, not cherry-pick or rely on anecdotal evidence.<br /><br />Btw, I grew up going to the Jersey shore. Even then, the natural beach erosion was compensated for by replenishing the sands every year, though I didn't realize that at the time. To me, the shore and sea were eternal, and I could gaze across and imagine England -- or, as I became aware at some point, Portugal. Do you know for sure that such sand-replenishment doesn't account for Bradenton Beach's stability? Oh, I just checked. Brandenton Beach is on the Gulf, not the Atlantic coast of Florida. Details like that matter. Miami's Atlantic coast beaches, for instance, are massively replenished, annually. The human causes of this erosion include building habits and such, of course, but recently even Miamians are buying into climate-change as behind the recently increased rate of erosion.<br /><br />Even without the human-caused effects of climate change, the eastern coast of the US would be eroding (or trying to). Evidence that human-caused rising sea levels are accelerating this erosion has mounted enormously. Really, climate scientists are very aware of all this, the ins-and-outs, the possible variables, the difficulties of coordinating data you can count on. Their conclusions are not based on anecdotal or partial evidence, or on a political agenda. Doesn't make them automatically correct, but please don't be foolish in the ways you question their conclusions.mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23602568894807186442012-07-08T20:53:57.953-04:002012-07-08T20:53:57.953-04:00gravymeister, Bangladesh has been named the countr...gravymeister, Bangladesh has been named the country most vulnerable to natural disasters. Tragically, disasters there are nothing new. <br /><br />E.g., in 1991, a devastating cyclone hits Bangladesh, killing more than 135,000 people. In 1970, nearly half a million people lost their lives to a powerful cyclone. Seven of the nine most deadly cyclones or hurricanes of the 20th century took place in Bangladesh. See http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cyclone-kills-135000-in-bangladeshDavid in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20053411630239510712012-07-08T19:55:44.034-04:002012-07-08T19:55:44.034-04:00Be sure to let the Bangladeshi know your conclusio...Be sure to let the Bangladeshi know your conclusions.<br />I'm sure they will find them comforting.gravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32250641401455567632012-07-08T19:42:57.253-04:002012-07-08T19:42:57.253-04:00TIL, what I claimed was that temperature had level...TIL, what I claimed was that temperature had leveled off since 1998. Your ocean temperature graph shows the leveling. Your meteorological stations graph shows a slight rise since 1998. However, this trend could be distorted by the Urban Heat Island Effect.<br /><br />It's my understanding that the most scientists think the most unbiased measurement of temperature change is the <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/" rel="nofollow">satellite measurement.</a> It's available back to 1979. It clearly shows some global cooling from 1979 to 1984, rapid global warming from 1984 to 1998, and then a series of ups and downs, which show little or no trend, depending on the exact trending method used. BTW, note that unlike the graphs you referenced, this one is fully up to day, going right up to June, 2012.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-51194066302794306652012-07-08T19:27:26.550-04:002012-07-08T19:27:26.550-04:00mch, it's not clear that storms are getting mo...mch, it's not clear that storms are getting more severe. Look at the list of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records" rel="nofollow">most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States:</a> <br /><br /><b> <i>Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes in the United States<br />based on size and intensity for total points on the Hurricane Severity Index Rank Hurricane Year Intensity Size Total </i></b><br />1 Carla 1961 17 25 42 <br />2 Hugo 1989 16 24 40 <br />Betsy 1965 15 25 40 <br />4 Camille 1969 22 14 36 <br />Katrina 2005 13 23 36 <br />Opal 1995 11 25 36 <br />7 Miami 1926 15 19 34 <br />8 Audrey 1957 17 16 33 <br />Fran 1996 11 22 33 <br />Wilma 2005 12 21 33 <br /><br />Of the four biggest, three were in the 1960's. None is more recent than 2005.<br /><br />Also, sea level hasn't been rising. Florida and low-lying islands haven't gotten smaller. I was in Bradenton Beach, Florida last month. Houses along the beach are still standing and are not water-logged. The beaches are as wide as ever.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41032308590036333792012-07-08T18:52:39.357-04:002012-07-08T18:52:39.357-04:00Let's call it climate change. Not as a rhetori...Let's call it climate change. Not as a rhetorical ploy but to get at what the effects of global warming will mean (are already meaning). In the summer we concentrate on the excessive heat, but we should also be noting the other effects of global warming, and "climate change" better captures the whole panoply (from more severe storms, in every season, to rising sea levels).mchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14296442448276060042012-07-08T16:15:04.988-04:002012-07-08T16:15:04.988-04:00The graph I linked to shows that global temperatur...The graph I linked to shows that global temperature has NOT leveled off since the 90s, which is your claim. You posted the ENSO graph because it's the only one that would allow you to make such an absurd claim, which is something global warming deniers have been doing for some time. In fact, 2005 and 2010 (well after the 90s, I'll point out) are the hottest years on record, while 2011 is the 9th hottest, and 2012 is, as of April, going to be the hottest in history. <br /><br />As for "correct," you wouldn't know correct if it shoved itself up your ass and sprouted roots the size of a redwood tree's.TILhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42456315960368392852012-07-08T15:51:09.556-04:002012-07-08T15:51:09.556-04:00hardlindr, your cite supports exactly the point I ...hardlindr, your cite supports exactly the point I made. I wasn't claiming that GW had stopped or that man wasn't responsible. I was pointing out the objective fact that predictions of surface temperature made in the 1980's and 1990's have so far failed to come true. It's a lot cooler than was predicted back then.<br /><br />BTW the idea that the earth is warming in ways not reflected in surface temperature or in satellite measurements is an unproved theory AFAIK. I don't believe science has yet found a way to actually measure the heat content of the deep ocean.<br /><br />TIL, you are correct that the graph I cited focuses on fluctuations of El Nino. However, it does show the overall global temperature anomalies. The graph you cited seems to end at 2008. The missing years -- 2009, 2010, and 2011 continued the same fairly flat pattern.<br /><br />Nevertheless TIL's graph through 2008 shows just what I said: temperatures leveled out since 1998. Note that the red line, the 5-year running mean, is flat for the last 3 or 4 years. That confirms the leveling of global temperature in recent years.<br /><br />gravymeister wisely pointed out that:<br /><br /><i>Global warming doesn't mean every spot on Earth will increase temperature at the same rate. Some will heat up fast, some will even cool for a while.</i><br /><br />That's why I looked at the overall global temperature for a period of years. That's why Bob Somerby's focus on a particular area in a particular year for a few weeks tells us nothing about global warming.<br /><br />AnonymousJuly 8, 2012 2:39 PM -- the proposed "solutions" to global warming are too minor to save us, if the pessimistic projections are correct. W<br />They're talking about steps that would reduce the temperature in year 2100 by only a small fraction of a degree. Given that China, India, and other developing countries are unwilling to forego the luxuries we have in the west, atmospheric CO2 is bound to keep increasing for a long, long time, regardless of what the US does.<br /><br />IMHO we should be exploring some sort of geo-engineering approach. That could have the advantage of being practical and effective. Also, if the earth is warming, but the cause <i>isn't</i> primarily CO2, then geo-engineering might work, while CO2 schemes would be bound to fail.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1477804958998565962012-07-08T14:50:07.704-04:002012-07-08T14:50:07.704-04:00I used to suspect that, but why a Republican opera...I used to suspect that, but why a Republican operative would waste time here, and make such stupid, easily penetrable "arguments" left me scratching my head. What he is is some late-middle aged guy who's unemployed or early retired (against his will), bored as hell, in desperate need of attention, and so he does this. Nothing he says here will influence anything anywhere. He's just a troll.TILhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34630462091175803782012-07-08T14:39:32.506-04:002012-07-08T14:39:32.506-04:00The question is, David, are you willing to take an...The question is, David, are you willing to take any portfolio losses to forestall the catastrophe you won't quite come out say isn't coming, whatever the accuracy, or your selective assessment of the accuracy, of a 30 year-old model?<br /><br />You've already informed the blog that the highest priority and moral imperative of the U.S. government is ensuring the continued value of your retirement assets and taxing your income at low rates, and that poor children are happier and healthier when they don't government assistance for food and healthcare (no evidence provided, of course), and have insisted that what's good for you is good for everyone else, so how exactly do these priorities sort themselves out?<br /><br />What threshold has to be met (other than irreversible catastrophe), before you're prepared to acknowledge that government regulatory action is necessary?<br /><br />@TIL<br /><br />Trollboy, as you call him, is probably a "plant" -- not, in fact, a real person, but someone paid to spew disinformation on the 'net. Ordinary citizens, however right-wing, are rarely this practiced in the talking points. Anyway, five dollars says he is or was a Repub operative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35220368498103165222012-07-08T14:28:47.408-04:002012-07-08T14:28:47.408-04:00Once again, trollboy fails a fact check:
http://d...Once again, trollboy fails a fact check:<br /><br />http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif<br /><br />or:<br /><br />http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif<br /><br />Trollboy took a graph for one feature of climate (fluctuations in the cycle of El Nino, which is whan ENSO measures) and tried to make it good for the whole planet. But when you're a stupid troll, you assume everyone else is as stupid as you are, and so you'll be able to get away with your stupid trollery. <br /><br />Has anything trollboy ever said on any subject held up to even mild scrutiny? Ever? Nope. But he keeps at it anyway. In addition to being plain stupid, he's also, oh, we'll call it dignity challenged.TILhttp://til.tknoreply@blogger.com