Global Warming / Early Spring

I wish.  This is Rock Creek Lake, California, on May 20, 2010.  In a normal year our campground there would have been open a month ago.

Postscript:  Save the “weather is not climate” lectures in the comments.  I understand.

  • Shills

    Wally,

    You say: ‘This is exactly what climate scientists and the politicos that attach to did with the global warming scare. They also did the same thing 30 years ago or so with globabl cooling.’

    My guess, Wally, is that 30 years is used to avoid any known noise in short term phenomena, but still be small enough to give us a decent idea of the trends responding to known climate forcings. In terms of achieving stat. significance, who would focus on the 15 years, or 30, 50 years, that did not achieve significance when the overall trend shows warming?

    Again, just guessing this stuff. But if you really think there is something up with the choice of time frame, and no one has bothered to critique it for 30+ years, then go explain it to a climate scientist or submit a paper.

  • hunter

    30 years is used because few people remember specifically back much farther.

  • WaldoRockNRoll

    Joe you linked to a rather large catalog of links on a site that claims on its homepage that it’s “All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats, so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you with wrong numbers.” Is this a credible source or is this a source that, like you, takes an exaggerated view of the issue as a cornerstone of your belief system?

    So George, since “such data do exist, and they do not paint quite the picture the anthropogenistos want us to see” why don’t you peer-review an article on this information? Blow them darn alarmists out of the water! Otherwise this sounds like a lot of hot air (play on words, get it?).

    Well Wally, I think the 2001 hockey stick goes back to the year 1000. I know that you do not believe in the IPCC, but so far I have not seen anything that convincingly discredits them or their work. So no, I do not think I made a “false statement” but rather one that you disagree with and dislike, which is no more convincing to me than the stick is to you.

  • Justa Joe

    “…Is this a credible source or is this a source that, like you, takes an exaggerated view of the issue as a cornerstone of your belief system?”

    Oh Waldo, What a cop out. You’re the only person on this site peddling a “belief system”. Everyday the public is treated to a barrage of outlandish claims put forth in tax payer funded “studies” by “scientists”. The public is also treated to the media hype of said outlandish claims from said studies. You are denying that these outlandish claims exist? The warmlist compiles perhaps hundreds of articles from every type of media source most of which reference some “scholarly” study from some climate crank or at least some press release from some “environmental” group.

    Don’t blame me. Blame them. I don’t make the outlandish claims I only read about them. Heck, even your beloved IPCC report(s) are chock full of debunked claims. The whole claim of malaria spreading due to AGW is presently in the news.

  • George

    Perhaps I did not make myself clear: My point is that climate “scientists” (on both sides of the argument) invariably think in the short-term, but the climate of the Earth acts in the long term. By short-term I mean less than 1000 to 10000 years.

    And, no, I don’t want to do your research for you. Since most of the long-term records are in the geologic literature, I suggest you look there. Try Google Scholar. There has been good and interesting work done on hurricane frequency along the Gulf Coast through most of the Holocene. My point that these data paint a picture which should make most anthropogenistos uncomfortable is that the frequency of violent storms seems to have declined in recent centuries, not increased. Yet I read from time to time about how hurricanes have recently increased in frequency and intensity. The geologic record does not support his claim (although it has been put forth by NASA).

    Another source for global climate history, popularized for easy digestion, has been published by Prof. Scotese at one of the University of Texas locations. Worth a look.

    For the record of relative sea level change, have a look at The Geology of Florida, Randazzo and Jones eds., which contains some interesting stuff about sea levels throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Then ask yourself, when the sea level was so high that all of the Florida peninsula was submerged, where were the icecaps? And when the sea level was so low that Florida was twice as big as it appears on a road map, where did all the water go?

    Climate folks would do well to study a little geology, and learn a bit about the history of our planet.

    As a item of trivia for your friends, point out that half of Florida is already underwater because of Global Warming (surprising, but an accurate statement!)

  • George

    I meant NOAA!

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “Well Wally, I think the 2001 hockey stick goes back to the year 1000.”

    And its been manipulated to such an extent that its worthless. Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed. There is no reason read any more of your post when you really on the hockey stick.

  • Wally

    Whoops, that needs to be rely not really.

  • Wally

    Shills,

    “But if you really think there is something up with the choice of time frame, and no one has bothered to critique it for 30+ years, then go explain it to a climate scientist or submit a paper.”

    Despite the impression you may get on this board, I don’t have the time to write a paper for every criticism I have or gap in knowledge I believe there to be in every field I care enough to read up on. Further, one doesn’t have to submit a paper to still have a valid criticism.

  • Justa Waldoe

    Well Joe, perhaps you don’t know my personal history with CS, but I have made a small career here questioning and challenging the tribe’s sources, most of which are incredibly dubious. Like the one you posted.

    But fine, if you feel that, simply because someone posits a theory about AGW that “the public is treated to a barrage of outlandish claims put forth in tax payer funded ‘studies’ by ‘scientists'” (itself some pretty vitriolic hyperbole) I have to wonder – how do you know all this? All you’ve given us is a catalog of articles about GW – that in itself does not prove anything. How many of these can you actually counter, Joe? How many have you actually read?

    This is exactly where exaggeration comes in and forms your belief system – I read a number of your links, and nothing there is particularly outlandish.

  • Walldy

    ****”And its been manipulated to such an extent that its worthless.”

    Well, see Wally, you say that – but for me that is not particularly convincing.

    ****”Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed.”

    Are you sure about this?

  • Waldorge

    ****”I don’t want to do your research for you.”

    Why not do it for the world? Don’t worry about me – prove the IPCC scientists wrong for the sake of all the victimized taxpayers out there. Or perhaps you actually don’t have a valid criticism? (I imagine that the climatologists know a good deal more about geology and planetary history than anyone here does).

    Tell me, folks, I’ve been attacked a number of times on these boards for “appeals to authority” – what is George doing?

  • Shills

    Wally,

    ‘Further, one doesn’t have to submit a paper to still have a valid criticism’

    Maybe ‘valid’ but not nec. sound.

    Who are the best peeps to judge whether the argument is sound? The experts.

  • WaldoWarm

    ****”I don’t want to do your research for you.”

    Perhaps you should George. This is “Prof. Scotese at one of the University of Texas locations” at http://www.scotese.com/moreinfo17.htm

    “During the last 150 years humankind has increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouses gases, principally carbon dioxide. As a result, the gloabl climate is warming. As the Earth climate warms, the polar ice will melt and sea level will rise. This will decrease the amount of land and less energy will be reflected back into space. This additional warming will melt more ice and the seas will continue to flood the continents, resulting in more warming. It is likely that rapid global warming will trigger positive feedback mechanisms that will change the Earth’s climate mode from Ice House to Green House – like it was when the dinosaurs were around. The only question is how long will it take? 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years.”

    Thank you. I’ll be looking into your other sources as well.

  • If you “understand”, then what is the point of this sort of post? If you didn’t understand that’s one thing, but if you do understand, then it would seem that simple akrasia is at work.

  • Jason M. Nichols FTW above!

  • Wally

    Shills,

    “Maybe ‘valid’ but not nec. sound.

    Who are the best peeps to judge whether the argument is sound? The experts.”

    The necessarily is the key there. So yes I’d agree, one doesn’t need peer review to have a ‘valid’ or ‘sound’ criticism.

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “Well, see Wally, you say that – but for me that is not particularly convincing.”

    Well, it isn’t just me saying it. Even the creator of it now says it should have been more of a field hockey stick. Regardless, you can look up criticisms of it, its common knowledge at this point.

    “****”Further, efforts to replicate the hockey stick have failed.”

    Are you sure about this?”

    Yes, can you point me to one successful replication?

  • ADiff

    Successful replication? Wally…of course there have been MANY… http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/

    Of course these were ‘Monte Carlo’ simulations, demonstrating that no matter what one fed in to Mann’s methodology one ALWAYS got a ‘hockey stick’.

    Now as to anything supporting the hockey stick reflecting any actual physical phenomenon….that’s the ‘big zero’.

  • Wally

    ADiff,

    Yes, that’s of course what I meant, data/analysis supporting that it was an actual physical phenomenon and not a product of “adjustments.”

  • Shills

    Wally,

    You say: ‘So yes I’d agree, one doesn’t need peer review to have a ‘valid’ or ’sound’ criticism.’

    In theory, yes. But in practicality, your ideas do no good just floating around your head. Communication is key to science.

  • Wally

    Shills,

    Climate science has broken out of the academic world and into the political world (largely by their own doing, but also by politicos like Gore). And ultimately scientific findings have to be accepted by the public before public policy can be created around those findings. So, the scientists have to convince me, and others like me. Which is why we don’t need peer review in this case. One doesn’t need peer review to voice criticisms in such a public debate.

  • Shills

    Wally,

    Not sure what your point is in relation to our discussion. I still maintain that little blog criticisms do nothing to contribute to the science.

    However, you are reminding us all of how the denier groups are making it so hard for honest scientists to communicate with the public.

  • WaldoBaby

    ****”ultimately scientific findings have to be accepted by the public before public policy can be created”

    Yes, and this is why it is so disturbing when one finds a purported commentator, such as Mr. Meyer, who appears to be simply drumming up hastily conceived notions about science based upon dubious information from dubious sources. The public is often very easily misled by people such as Mr. Meyer.

    ****”One doesn’t need peer review to voice criticisms in such a public debate.”

    Okay – but I always have the same very pertinent question: how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.

    For instance…

    The park system in California is very poorly run. Parks are not opened in Spring when they are supposed to be – just look at Rock Creek Lake. Mr. Meyer is clearly deceiving taxpayers. If he wanted to, he could open Rock Creek Lake. Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

    Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?

  • Wally

    Waldo,

    “how does one know that one’s criticisms are, in fact, valid? I could concoct all sorts of “criticisms” about any number of subjects – and I would easily get a number of people agreeing with me whether or not my “criticisms” are valid.”

    There is no 100% perfect way to know which criticisms are good or bad, important or trivial. This is even true among the experts in any given field. People will disagree about such things and there is often not a “correct” answer. You seem to want the perfect answer, but not even the experts can give that to you.

    “Weather is just an excuse. I demand to see his records because I believe he is hiding something from us.

    Is this a valid criticism? Are these valid demands?”

    Yes. Just about every request for more data is a good thing. Further, I don’t claim Meyer is really doing science. He’s more of an outlet for the public debate and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.

    Now if you want more information about this park and are skeptical of Meyer’s data or what ever, I suggest you email him. He doesn’t read these comments, at least not often it seems.

  • Wally

    Shills,

    “I still maintain that little blog criticisms do nothing to contribute to the science. ”

    Not sure how you got the impression I think I’m contributing to the science. I’ve never said anything like that, and if you interpreted something that way, you misunderstood. Though I think you’re now just trying to build straw men in an attempt to ‘win’ or ‘score points’.

    What I’m saying is that one can have a valid criticism of some scientific work, but not go through peer review, and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate (yes very minimally, but if they change one person’s opinion its something).

    “However, you are reminding us all of how the denier groups are making it so hard for honest scientists to communicate with the public.”

    If they are having trouble it is their own fault. If someone could present me with adequate evidence of a looming catastrophe I’d certainly be willing to change my behavior. I’m not sure why you alarmists go through so much trouble attacking the skeptics motives (even if in the round about way you did above). Do you think we want to see a disaster? If an asteroid where about to hit Earth (something that’s easier to know for certain), that would kill 90% of life on this planet, possibly leading the extinction of man, do you think we’d ignore it and try to tell people nothing is going to happen? Don’t you think I’d support relatively extreme taxation to fund a project to stop such an asteroid? I just don’t get it.

    So to return to the point, the pro-DAGW scientists are running into my opposition because I do not fiend their data to support their conclusion, while at the same time they (and their politico friends) attempt to alter my behavior based on this faulty conclusion. If they had better data, and all round better science (including more open science), I’d have no issue with them.

  • ADiff

    Mr. Meyer is doing what every good citizen should do, educating himself and others on the evidence (or lack thereof) in participation in policy formation. That’s the role of a citizen, as a layman. This involves assessments of the soundness, integrity, applicability and usefulness of evidence considered. He wisely refuses to simply accept the posited interpretations of those supplying the evidence (‘scientists’, interest advocates, special interest groups like WWF, the U.N. &etc). Scientists themselves are free, of course, to (very unwisely) assay centrally into the policy debate. Unwisely, because it corrupts their role as objective investigators ( i.e. as scientists) and they, as a class, are, and have been demonstrated historically, uniquely ill-suited to direct (or even influence) public policy. Not only are ‘scientists’, as a class, possessed of their own particular special interests, but they are inclined very destructively to confuse this with the general interest, tend to lack broad experience and knowledge outside of their specialties, group closely in a tightly knit highly unrepresentative sample of the larger population, and proceed from a dangerously myopic perspective in performance of the same layman’s role of participation in policy debate.

  • Shills

    Wally,

    You say: ‘…and that while these comments likely don’t effect the science, they very well could effect the public debate…’

    And this is the reason we have vaccine denial, tobacco denial, aids denial, evolution denial, holocaust denial, 9/11 denial, swine flu denial, and climate denial.

    You say about Meyer: ‘…and occasionally he links to science or makes his presentations using other people’s science.’

    So those presentations of his are borrowed ideas but he doesn’t reference??

  • Wally

    I’m sorry shills was listing off a bunch of “denials” supposed to mean something?

    And yes, Meyer does reference, at least generally, I can’t say I’ve read everything he’s done. Is there something in his work you have a specific question about?

  • Wally

    ADiff,

    Couldn’t have said it better regarding the self-education on topics that enter into political debate.

    And regarding scientists’ roll in policy, ,y personal belief is that its one or the other. You shouldn’t be formulating political documents (ie. IPCC reports)and trying to guide the political debate with your own research, or while doing any research in that field. Along with the issues you bring up, this creates a pretty obvious conflict of interest.

  • Waldo3daywkend

    ****”People will disagree about such things and there is often not a “correct” answer. You seem to want the perfect answer, but not even the experts can give that to you.”

    Nope. What I want is honesty and integrity, from the scientists and the people who criticize the scientists. So far the scientists are far more honest and have a great deal more integrity.

    What I also want is an honest evaluation from people who know the field and some respectfulness from the people on the fringes. I perfectly well understand that climate science is a brand new field that is still in the process of defining itself, and I understand that there are magnitudes of uncertainty about all sorts of things – things I don’t even know about (and probably neither does anyone else here). I even understand that the entire climate change debate may either turn out to be a non-issue for any number of reasons we are all familiar with or may turn out to be exactly what current scientific thought predicts.

    But simply because not everything is known about the science of climatology, or simply because scientists (who are human) have made mistakes or even, on occasion, acted unprofessionally, I and people like me do not accept the notion that they are or are under the influence of “politicos” or riding the “gravy train” or, most importantly, that the science is faulty. There is virtually nothing on this website, or in the deniosphere in general, that conclusively implies any of these things, and certainly the sorts of charges made here and at places like Watts Up or Pete’s Place or Jo Nova or C3 are unproved and usually proved false – we’ve been debating them for months now.

    Mr. Meyer is not a “commentator” and this is not “open review” science – look at the top of this page for a perfect example of what Mr. Meyer and the people here are involved in.

    And no Wally, those are not valid criticisms above. I made them up on the spot. I could email Mr. Meyer or write the Ca. assembly or hire a lawyer or write a blog and accuse Mr. Meyer of all sorts of things. But that does not make any of these actions valid.

    ****”This involves assessments of the soundness, integrity, applicability and usefulness of evidence considered.”

    That is not what goes on here or on sites like this one.

  • Shills

    Wally,

    you say: ‘I’m sorry shills was listing off a bunch of “denials” supposed to mean something?’

    Merely to show that many denialist movements have before focused on influencing public opinion rather than addressing the science properly. Just a possible historical analogy. You know, like you said, what we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat.

    you say: ‘Meyer does reference, at least generally’

    Is ‘general’ referencing good enough for you?? Look at his layman’s guide; very inadequate referencing. I don’t need to show you specific examples because just a quick browse over should make it apparent to you. You might even accuse me of cherry-picking.

  • Carol

    Global warming is a Hoax from the Left wing government!