Balkinization  

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Standing and Executive Power in Massachusetts v. EPA

JB

You may have noticed that one of the key issues in yesterday's global warming decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, was the highly technical doctrine of standing to sue, which regulates plaintiffs' access to the courts to challenge government action. Behind the decision is a larger set of issues about what has become the central constitutional issue in the Bush Administration: executive power. Let me explain.

Standing doctrine is among the most unprincipled and arbitrary parts of American constitutional law. The Supreme Court has expanded and contracted standing requirements repeatedly over the years in order to accommodate cases that a majority of Justices want to hear or would rather shut down. Even though standing is analytically distinct from considerations of the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action, standing decisions have often reflected a majority of the Court's views on the merits.

None of this is particularly surprising. Standing is a hybrid doctrine that serves multiple purposes. It tries to guarantee that the right parties are before the courts to create an adversary proceeding. It is a doctrine of judicial restraint that prevents courts from meddling in areas that are best left to political wrangling. It allows courts to assert rule of law style administrative review over executive officials who need to be checked when they engage in arbitrary decisionmaking. And it is a discretionary doctrine that allows courts to expand or contract their dockets to deal with cases that they feel should or should not come within judicial purview.

We can't understand the waxing and waning of standing doctrine over the years without recognizing that at its heart are rule of law questions about the role of courts in a democratic society on the one hand, and the need to restrain arbitrary government action (usually executive action) on the other.

The EPA case is good example of a case where courts might want to construe standing requirements generously. A majority of the Court believed that the Bush Administration was acting arbitrarily and high-handedly in its attitudes about global warming. The political branches and widespread public ridicule of the Bush Administration's views on the environment had so far been unable to budge the President very far, and his loyalists in the EPA were more or less sticking to the party line. (Whether or not you agree with the details of this political assessment, assume for the moment that this is how the majority saw it.)

Granting standing in this case allows more people (and states) to sue the government, which increases the chances that the EPA will begin to act in a less arbitrary fashion. Less arbitrary executive action serves rule of law values, a more rational policy making process, and good government. Whether you buy this line of argument depends on whether you think the Bush Administration has been acting unreasonably on environmental issues, and whether you think the best solution for a stubborn and arbitrary executive is more lawsuits, or more political pressure from Congress and the public and the inevitable remedy of new Presidential elections in 2008.

The line up of Justices in this case is hardly surprising. The majority are the same Justices who decided Hamdi and Hamdan-- two other cases which were also, in their way, about high handed executive arbitrariness and overreaching. Nor are the positions of the two newest Justices-- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito-- at all surprising. Bush appointed them to the Supreme Court to promote and protect executive power. The scope of standing is inversely correlated to how free a hand executive agencies enjoy. That is why one could easily have predicted that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia's long quest to promote the power of administrative agencies at the expense of judicial review.

It will be interesting to see whether Roberts' and Alito's enthusiasm for executive power in all of its forms continues if and when the Democrats regain the White House, or if a standing question is presented where the plaintiffs raise substantive issues they care deeply about. My guess is that they will prove to be relatively consistent in their support of both executive power and limited standing, but I recognize that history tells a different story. In the past the Court's conservatives have expanded or disregarded standing requirements to take cases challenging affirmative action programs and voting redistricting decisions. Neither conservatives nor liberals have been very consistent when it comes to standing, but that is because, despite all the theorizing it has generated, standing doctrine was never designed to be consistent.

Comments:

I note that, to adopt CJ Roberts's mixed metaphor, the previous "high water mark" of "diluted standing" requirements came during the Nixon Administration. This is no accident, I think.
 

Professor Balkin:

Standing doctrine is among the most unprincipled and arbitrary parts of American constitutional law. The Supreme Court has expanded and contracted standing requirements repeatedly over the years in order to accommodate cases that a majority of Justices want to hear or would rather shut down...

The EPA case is good example of a case where courts might want to construe standing requirements generously. A majority of the Court believed that the Bush Administration was acting arbitrarily and high-handedly in its attitudes about global warming. The political branches and widespread public ridicule of the Bush Administration's views on the environment had so far been unable to budge the President very far, and his loyalists in the EPA were more or less sticking to the party line. (Whether or not you agree with the details of this political assessment, assume for the moment that this is how the majority saw it.)


Are you arguing that it is somehow desirable for the a court to arbitrarily grant standing to plaintiffs who normally not qualify as a vehicle to impose the court's own arbitrary policy preferences on the democratic branches when the courts disagree with the democratic branches?

As an aside for this hypothetical, neither of the elected branches of the government have adopted the very apparent regulatory policy preferences of 5 members of this Court. Don't make this into a Bush against the world scenario.

Granting standing in this case allows more people (and states) to sue the government, which increases the chances that the EPA will begin to act in a less arbitrary fashion.

How is the EPA acting in an arbitrary fashion? The Court never came to this conclusion and I see no evidence of it.

Whether you buy this line of argument depends on whether you think the Bush Administration has been acting unreasonably on environmental issues, and whether you think the best solution for a stubborn and arbitrary executive is lawsuits on the one hand, or more political pressure from Congress and the public and the inevitable remedy of new Presidential elections in 2008.

Here is the nub of it.

I would slightly reframe this statement though. How you come down on the issue of standing may have a great deal to do with whether you think policy issues should be decided by unelected courts and bureaucracies or the elected branches of the government.

The entire purpose of this lawsuit and the Court's decision was to achieve the former because proponents of this regulation have had no success convincing the People and their representatives of their doomsday scenarios.
 

Prof. Balkin:

The Supreme Court has expanded and contracted standing requirements repeatedly over the years in order to accommodate cases that a majority of Justices want to hear or would rather shut down....

You don't say..... Newdow. An atheist scares the Devil outta them.

Cheers,
 

A major problem with the standing doctrine is that no one with standing may challenge an egregious failure by government, thus resulting in harm to people and to the fisc.

But I attribute the expansion of the standing doctrine to the laziness of trial judges in conjunction with SCOTUS's desire NOT to address some major issues AND to decrease litigation in the federal courts. Come to think of it, that may be laziness as well. Now what is the SCOTUS caseload?
 

Prof. Balkin:

It will be interesting to see whether Roberts' and Alito's enthusiasm for executive power in all of its forms continues if and when the Democrats regain the White House, or if a standing question is presented where the plaintiffs raise substantive issues they care deeply about. My guess is that they will prove to be relatively consistent in their support of both executive power and limited standing, but I recognize that history tells a different story....

One case they "cared deeply about" was Dubya v. Gore where the usually parsimonious Rehnquist et.al. decided to find "equal protection" standing for a petitioner who didn't even vote in the state in question, and where there was no claim, much less any evidence (particularly since the events at issue hadn't even happened yet), of any "invidious discrimination" which was Rehnquist's customary bar to standing if you happen to be black and have lost your job.

In the past the Court's conservatives have expanded or disregarded standing requirements to take cases challenging affirmative action programs and voting redistricting decisions.

Is this an oblique reference to Dubya v. Gore, Prof. Baqlkin? ;-)

David Lewis:

I note that, to adopt CJ Roberts's mixed metaphor, the previous "high water mark" of "diluted standing" requirements came during the Nixon Administration. This is no accident, I think.

My vote would be for the above-mentioned Dubya v. Gore.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma pretends it's just the courts who are filled with "activists":

Are you arguing that it is somehow desirable for the a court to arbitrarily grant standing to plaintiffs who normally not qualify as a vehicle to impose the court's own arbitrary policy preferences on the democratic branches when the courts disagree with the democratic branches?

News fer ya, "Bart": The whole friggin' country is worried about global warming (and Iraq and the economy and pollution and energy depletion, etc.).

This is you and your buddies, "Bart". You folks have this deluded idea that all the "normal" people, the good and solid 'Merkuns, are behind you and the preznit, and that it's just some claque of loony leftists that are causing trouble that just won't go over in Middle America. But you folks blew it. "Big time", as one GFYer would say. And the funniest thing is that you guys just can't see it. Little did Dubya and Rummy know that when they were talking about a few trouble-making "dead-enders" in Iraq, they were talkng about themselves....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Finally I'll cede you a point, "Bart":

How is the EPA acting in an arbitrary fashion?

Why, quite right! They are not acting in an arbitrary fashion. ;-)

Cheers,
 

Don't cede so fast, Arne. Slip op. at 32:

In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(9)(A).

Maybe they weren't arbitrary! Maybe they were just capricious or contrary to law!
 

The entire purpose of this lawsuit and the Court's decision was to achieve the former because proponents of this regulation have had no success convincing the People and their representatives of their doomsday scenarios.

Enough!

1. The "People and their representatives" passed the Clean Air Act in the first place. Just because you don't like the wording of that act doesn't mean that democracy has been circumvented somehow.

2. The people and their representatives, busy beavers that they are, also created the system of judicial review under 42 USC 7607 that the petitioners used to question the EPA's compliance.

3. The EPA didn't contest the scientific claims of the petitioners in court, even though they did so in denying their original petition.

4. Even in Congress, which is occasionally quite oblivious to the workings of the real world, global warming is now seen as a substantial long-term threat to life and property.

5. At this point, only fringe scientists with a demonstrable political or business agenda deny the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming.

6. While it may come across to you as an appeal to authority, you should bear in mind that the petitioners are far more qualified to interpret climatic data than either the High Court or the administrators of the EPA.
 

Here's another interesting bit on standing ; I'm pretty sure it is not an April Fool's joke:

The judge said the law requires that information provided by whistle-blowers about alleged fraud must provided voluntarily, but he said Maxwell was required to provide the information as a government auditor.

The government had declined to intervene in the case. In a statement issued the day after the jury reached its verdict, the Minerals Management Service said Maxwell chose not to follow the agency's required procedures to report alleged fraud because if he won his lawsuit, he would be awarded part of the damages Kerr-McGee would have to pay.


The Government wouldn't prosecute and then blamed Maxwell for taking on the suit - presumably at risk to his, ummm, "career opportunities" - because he'd share in the damages?

Figa is a 2003 appointee. Given what's been going on with the USAs, why not the judges too?
 

PMS_Chicago said...

The entire purpose of this lawsuit and the Court's decision was to achieve the former because proponents of this regulation have had no success convincing the People and their representatives of their doomsday scenarios.

Enough!

1. The "People and their representatives" passed the Clean Air Act in the first place. Just because you don't like the wording of that act doesn't mean that democracy has been circumvented somehow.


The fact that Congress (in my view unconstitutionally) delegated its authority to enact laws to an unelected bureaucracy does not mean that the acts of that unelected bureaucracy are in any way "democratic."

In any case, the CAA speaks of pollution. Pollution means the contamination of the air, earth or water. CO2 is not a contaminant in the atmosphere, it is a naturally occurring element in the atmosphere which is necessary for life on Earth. (arne, please spare us the comparisons with selenium and mercury).

2. The people and their representatives, busy beavers that they are, also created the system of judicial review under 42 USC 7607 that the petitioners used to question the EPA's compliance.

The Constitution created the courts and implied the power of judicial review. The fact that the People's representatives adopted the Constitution does not make the unelected judiciary a democratic branch of government.

3. The EPA didn't contest the scientific claims of the petitioners in court, even though they did so in denying their original petition.

This was a dishonest argument by the Court. EPA's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision one way or the other. This is not an admission of the allegations made by plaintiffs. However, with 20/20 hindsight, EPA would have been better advised to argue that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision and therefore the government denies all allegations by plaintiff that there is sufficient evidence.

4. Even in Congress, which is occasionally quite oblivious to the workings of the real world, global warming is now seen as a substantial long-term threat to life and property.

Words are cheap. Actions are the only things that count. If they thought that EPA should be able to regulate CO2, then all they needed to do is enact the necessary legislation. The last statement on regulation by Congress was an utter rejection of the Kyoto regulations.

5. At this point, only fringe scientists with a demonstrable political or business agenda deny the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming.

That is the propaganda. However, all you have to do is perform a cursory google search to find that this claim is a lie and there is an vigorous debate on the subject among scientists who have no connection to the oil or auto industries.

As one small example, you might want to check out the Brit Channel 4's program The Global Warming Swindle on Youtube before they take it down again. Along with a presentation of a variety of theories for global warming, the scientists observed as I did here that temperatures have risen and fallen during the increase of manmade CO2 emmissions and that a number of scientists listed on the UN's new report are actually green house theory skeptics.

In any case, this bias argument can easily be turned around on proponents by asking them whether any part of their salary or grants are provided by governments seeking to prove this theory.

6. While it may come across to you as an appeal to authority, you should bear in mind that the petitioners are far more qualified to interpret climatic data than either the High Court or the administrators of the EPA.

How?
 

Bart said:

"In any case, the CAA speaks of pollution. Pollution means the contamination of the air, earth or water. CO2 is not a contaminant in the atmosphere, it is a naturally occurring element in the atmosphere which is necessary for life on Earth. (arne, please spare us the comparisons with selenium and mercury)."

Specious argument to say the least. There are many things that are "naturally" occurring and are necessary for life, but too much of which is a bad thing. Iron in the blood stream, for example. Water would be another--see water intoxication, hyponatremia, etc.
 

"Bart" DePalma soldiers on for the maladministration:

[PMS_Chicago]: 1. The "People and their representatives" passed the Clean Air Act in the first place. Just because you don't like the wording of that act doesn't mean that democracy has been circumvented somehow.

The fact that Congress (in my view unconstitutionally) delegated its authority to enact laws to an unelected bureaucracy does not mean that the acts of that unelected bureaucracy are in any way "democratic."


Ummmm, the EPA was the respondent here, and argued for doing nothing. Are you claiming, "Bart", that it was the EPA that exceeded authority in not acting?!?!? You're not making any sense; drinking before noon?

In any case, the CAA speaks of pollution. Pollution means the contamination of the air, earth or water. CO2 is not a contaminant in the atmosphere, it is a naturally occurring element in the atmosphere which is necessary for life on Earth. (arne, please spare us the comparisons with selenium and mercury).

Why? As I pointed out (but which whizzed 40,000 feet over your head), selenium is also "necessary for life", but nonetheless a toxic pollutant at higher concentrations (and regulated by the EPA). Care to explain why this fact isn't relevant? Care to explain why you avoid this like the plague? Care for a chromium cupcake while you're cogitating?

[PMS_Chicago]: 2. The people and their representatives, busy beavers that they are, also created the system of judicial review under 42 USC 7607 that the petitioners used to question the EPA's compliance.

The Constitution created the courts and implied the power of judicial review....


So when there's implied power and an express power, there should be no question then that the courts have power to review these actions (or lack thereof), right?

... The fact that the People's representatives adopted the Constitution does not make the unelected judiciary a democratic branch of government.

As you well know (but ignore), PMS_Chicago was adverting to the Congressional passage of the CAA as the act of a "democratic branch of government".

[PMS_Chicago]: 3. The EPA didn't contest the scientific claims of the petitioners in court, even though they did so in denying their original petition.

This was a dishonest argument by the Court. EPA's position is that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision one way or the other. This is not an admission of the allegations made by plaintiffs....


But they didn't deny the claims. OK, Boy Lawyer, what happens next?

But FWIW, the courts cited to acts and statements from the EPA essentially conceding the science in reaching their conclusion.

... However, with 20/20 hindsight, EPA would have been better advised to argue that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision and therefore the government denies all allegations by plaintiff that there is sufficient evidence.

If we were all as bright and "prescient" as you, "Bart", we'd be walking around backwards with glasses on our ass. Believe me, the EPA and the maladministration had plenty better lawyers than you ... but that isn't saying much, is it?

[PMS_Chicago]: 4. Even in Congress, which is occasionally quite oblivious to the workings of the real world, global warming is now seen as a substantial long-term threat to life and property.

Words are cheap. Actions are the only things that count. If they thought that EPA should be able to regulate CO2, then all they needed to do is enact the necessary legislation....


The claim is that they did.

... The last statement on regulation by Congress was an utter rejection of the Kyoto regulations.

Which said exactly what as to the science?

[PMS_Chicago]: 5. At this point, only fringe scientists with a demonstrable political or business agenda deny the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming.

That is the propaganda. However, all you have to do is perform a cursory google search to find that this claim is a lie and there is an vigorous debate on the subject among scientists who have no connection to the oil or auto industries.

As one small example, you might want to check out the Brit Channel 4's program The Global Warming Swindle on Youtube before they take it down again....


From the Channel 4 website:

"We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

"One of the major climate sciencitsts on this program, Dr. Wunsch from MIT has publicly said that the producer of this program swindeled him and his views have been grossly misrepresented. The film-maker has previously had to apologize for misrepresenting the views of people he interviewed. Let the viewer beware."

And see here and here.

From the above links:

"Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

"Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)"

Lots more good stuff.

So who's the producer of this "independent" pile-o-crap, you ask? "Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997; www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/ 12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)"

Comparing such type TV docufiction with published and peer-reviewed data is a category error.

... Along with a presentation of a variety of theories for global warming, the scientists observed as I did here that temperatures have risen and fallen during the increase of manmade CO2 emmissions and that a number of scientists listed on the UN's new report are actually green house theory skeptics.

Ummm, check out the Wunsch stuff above, if you want to know who's being misrepresented. The 40's-70's cooling is also addressed in the first "here" link (as well as being addressed by the many papers that find incontrovertible evidence of warming).

In any case, this bias argument can easily be turned around on proponents by asking them whether any part of their salary or grants are provided by governments seeking to prove this theory.

Huh? Feel free to provide any proof you have that gummints (or anyone else) are requiring people to publish positive results on global warming to get funding. OTOH, we know well that the maladministration is trying to hush any of those employed by the gummint from even mentioning it.

[PMS_Chicago]: 6. While it may come across to you as an appeal to authority, you should bear in mind that the petitioners are far more qualified to interpret climatic data than either the High Court or the administrators of the EPA.

How?


By including actual scientists?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma says:

If they thought that EPA should be able to regulate CO2, then all they needed to do is enact the necessary legislation. The last statement on regulation by Congress was an utter rejection of the Kyoto regulations.

Just to be absolutely clear on another point: Is it your contention then, counsellor, that rejection of the Kyoto Treaty constituted an amendment of the Clean Air Act? If so, could you please cite what language was changed?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
 

arne:

You are welcome to address the actual facts and opinions given by the various scientists in the Global Warming Swindle.

The best the Brit press managed was questioning the source of a graph showing temperatures since the last glacial period, but they never challenged the data itself.

This is very similar to the ad hominem attack you made on the producer of the program but not against the facts and opinions presented.

That is pretty much the SOP for the green house theory coreligionists.

ARTHUR: This is the Messiah, the Chosen One!

SIMON: No, he's not.

BRIAN: Aaaagh!

ARTHUR: An unbeliever!

FOLLOWERS: An unbeliever!

ARTHUR: Persecute! Kill the heretic!

FOLLOWERS: Kill the heretic! Kill him! Persecute! Kill!...


Monty Python's Life of Brian
 

Those wishing a deeper understanding of global climate change can learn more (and discuss the issues with some actual climate scientists) at http://www.realclimate.org

Those wishing only to make political hay while the planet burns can find their talking points at http://www.whitehouse.gov .
 

"Bart" DePalma:

arne:

You are welcome to address the actual facts and opinions given by the various scientists in the Global Warming Swindle.


OK. Dr. Carl Wunsch:

The remarkable answer is provided by the film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin:

"I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

“It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.” ('“Global Warming Is Lies” Claims Documentary,’ Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669 U&news_headline=global_warming _is_lies_ claims_documentary)

Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the film:

“The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

Wunsch comments:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)

Dr. John Christy:

"Christy is generally considered a contrarian on some global warming and related issues, although he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [2]. In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

"Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

From here:

"While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.

"Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Dr. Paul Reiter:

"I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage."

And I'm not a climate scientist ... but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night....

Dr. Richard Lindzen:

"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[15] Climatologist James Annan,[16] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[17] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[18] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[18]

"Lindzen replied to Annan "The quote [at Reason Online] was out of context. I think the odds are about 50-50. I said that if anyone were willing to give warming much higher odds than that, I would be tempted to take the bet."[19]"

So, with (admittedly, by him) 50/50 odds, Lindzen wants a 50 to 1 payoff. Wow, he needs to go to Vegas ... and get his kneecaps busted.

More on Lindzen:

"Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration."

Paul Driessen (not a Ph.D nor a climatlogist)

Dr. Roy Spencer:

"Spencer is listed as a collaborator for the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, two US think thanks that have received large monetary donations from ExxonMobil. [1]"

More Spencer, just for kicks:

"In support of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.... In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college." [4]"

"evolutionism".... ROFLMAO

Patrick Michaels:

"Patrick J. Michaels is senior researcher in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming; and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Noah Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. According to his bio on the Cato website, Michaels is a visiting scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) in Washington, DC. The nonpartisan Congressional Quarterly calls the Marshall Institute "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming as a threat." According to an ExxonMobil report, the ExxonMobil Foundation donated $80,000 to the Marshall Institute's Global Climate Change Program in 2002. [The ExxonMobil report wrote "George C. Marshall Foundation, Washington, D.C." (rather than "George C. Marshall Institute"); Media Matters for America concluded that this was a typographical error on the part of ExxonMobil, as there is an organization named the George C. Marshall Foundation, but it does not have a Climate Change program and it is located in Lexington, VA (not Washington, DC).]"

Pat rick Michaels is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute....

Dr. Fred Singer:

"Global warming

Singer emphasizes natural factors over anthropogenic causes to explain global warming. Singer wrote:

The scientific world had known about the sunspot connection to Earth’s climate for some 400 years. British astronomer William Herschel claimed in 1801 that he could forecast wheat prices by sunspot numbers, because wheat crops were often poor when sunspots (and thus solar activity) were low. Not only did the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) coincide with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Spörer Minimum (1450–1543) aligned with the second-coldest phase of that period. [10]

His most recent sole-author publication on global warming was a letter about other scientists' research which appeared in Eos, December 16, 1997.[11] However, Singer is also listed as co-author of two 2004 articles in Geophysics Research Letters.[12]

Singer has also claimed that most glaciers are advancing, a claim widely publicised by David Bellamy as evidence against global warming. In fact, the vast majority of glaciers have been retreating since 1850. Singer's stated source is an unspecified 1989 article in Science. George Monbiot performed both electronic and manual searches of the journal, and found no such article. [13]

Publication on health effects of tobacco

In 1994 Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI), a conservative think tank of which he was a Senior Fellow.[14] The report attacked the US Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science". [15]

Accusations of conflict of interest

Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. [16] Writing for The Guardian, George Monbiot claimed that in 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."[17] Monbiot also added that "I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money from Philip Morris."

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. While funds were not directed specifically in his name, publicly available documents show that Singer's non-profit corporation SEPP received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.[16]"

And this about Durkin:

"As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph."
The best the Brit press managed was questioning the source of a graph showing temperatures since the last glacial period, but they never challenged the data itself.

["Bart"]: This is very similar to the ad hominem attack you made on the producer of the program but not against the facts and opinions presented.

That is pretty much the SOP for the green house theory coreligionists.

ARTHUR: This is the Messiah, the Chosen One!

SIMON: No, he's not.

BRIAN: Aaaagh!

ARTHUR: An unbeliever!

FOLLOWERS: An unbeliever!

ARTHUR: Persecute! Kill the heretic!

FOLLOWERS: Kill the heretic! Kill him! Persecute! Kill!...

Monty Python's Life of Brian


Wrong Monty Python, "Bart". Here, I'll help ya:

"You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off! ..."

Next time, use your computer (it seems to be smarter than you), and Google (vastly more intelligent).

"Bart", these guys get paid to mouth that crapola. Why do you sell yourself so cheap?

Cheers,
 

You mean actual scientists like these?

Paul Reiter - Professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. (falsely listed by the UN as a scientist who helped draft the IPCC report until he threatened legal action to compel the UN to remove him).

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen (Director in the Danish Space Research Institute (Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut).

Tim Ball - Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Professor from the Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg until 1996.)

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center

John Christy - Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and Lead Author, IPCC
Ian Clark - Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Piers Corbyn - Weather Forecaster, Weather Action

Paul Driessen - Author: Green Power, Black Death
Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen

Richard Lindzen - Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.

Patrick Michaels - Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Paul Reiter - Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris

Nir Shaviv - Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

Frederick Singer - Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (From 1962-64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.)

Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA

Philip Stott - Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London
 

Ha-ha, "Bart". Beatcha to it. Scroll up.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

The film also debunks the IPCC claim that the 2,500 scientists contributing to its reports also support its alarmist conclusions. One key IPCC contributor for example, the Pasteur Institute’s Paul Reiter, threatened to sue the IPCC if the group didn’t remove his name from a chapter with which he disagreed.

Oh, really? "I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage."

So Paul Reiter is thretening to sue the IPCC because he was a "key IPCC contributor", eh? In his own mind?

You know, with the vast hordes of climate change sceptics out there, you'd think that a good researcher would be able to find a few that don't have their arms up into the elbow in the pockets of industry.... Can you do that, "Bart"?

For kicks, here's the Third IPCC Assessment Report (full reports including technical reports here). Why don't you tackle the facts in that, "Bart"?

Of course, since 2001, the evidence has only accumulated much thicker.

Cheers,
 

You are welcome to address the actual facts and opinions given by the various scientists in the Global Warming Swindle.

I went and watched the program after lunch, and I have to admit that it's a very nicely polished and persuasive program. There is a fundamental flaw, and a fatal one at that: the data they use to make their case is either old or flawed.

One of the things the speakers in the film relied upon was the discrepancy between surface warming trends and tropospheric warming trends. They said if the troposphere doesn't warm up, clearly there's something wrong with the global warming model. However, it turns out it does warm up*, if you have accurate satellite and weather balloon data. The CCSP analysis of the data sets states that "the tropospheric temperature has increased as fast as or faster than the surface over the period 1958 to present." (*see Chapter 3 for a detailed description of the data sets and approaches used to come to that conclusion)

The other scientific leg to stand on in the film was the perfect fit of solar activity to rises in temperature, as espoused by Friis-Christensen. That work was first presented back in 1991, when the nifty perfect-fit graph was first presented.

If it were true, it would be a fantastic rebuttal. However, a detailed scientific explanation by Damon and Laut for why that graph does not fly can be found here.

The smug laughter of temperature preceding CO2 levels should be silence by the British Antarctic Survey's excellent statement, from which this quote comes:

Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earth’s axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO2 levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each other’s response, this “positive feedback” can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance. In the current case, the situation is different, because human actions are raising the CO2 level, and we are starting to observe the temperature response.

Does that address the facts and opinions expressed by the various "scientists" on the program?

(Arne, do I owe you a royalty or something for using quotes like that? :) )
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: arne, You are welcome to address the actual facts and opinions given by the various scientists in the Global Warming Swindle.


I should have known better than to ask you to present evidence. Did you take evidence during your stay at Boalt Hall?

Anyway, here goes...

OK. Dr. Carl Wunsch...Wunsch comments:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)


I notice that Dr. Wunch does not claim that anything he said on the program was in error. Apparently, he disagrees with the program's arguments but does not rebut a single point.

Next...

Dr. John Christy... In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

This is an opinion based on speculation and does not address fact or opinion presented on the program.

The remainder of the quotes fall into the same category.

Dr. Paul Reiter:

"I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage."

And I'm not a climate scientist ... but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night....


And yet the UN falsely claimed that Dr. Reiter helped the IPCC create its reports until Reiter threatened legal action to compel the UN to remove his name.

This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program.

Dr. Richard Lindzen:

"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[15]...


This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program.

Dr. Roy Spencer:

"Spencer is listed as a collaborator for the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, two US think thanks that have received large monetary donations from ExxonMobil. [1]"


This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program. More guilt by association fallacies.

Patrick Michaels...

Ditto.

Dr. Fred Singer:

Ditto.

And this about Durkin:

"As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)


FINALLY, you have actually referenced an argument made on the program.

However, the best rebuttal you could cut and paste was this...

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph."

wow...

The graph scale used on the show differs from the graph scale used by the critic.

I notice that these critics do not challenge the facts that (1) human green house gas production increased significantly between the 1940s and the 1970s as the world industrialized and the fleet of automobiles increased exponentially but (2) the temperatures dropped between the 1940s and the 1970s.

C'mon arne. You are supposed to be an engineer. Is this the best you can offer?

In fairness to arne, he is probably doing pretty close to the best he can. I have reviewed the various published articles claiming to rebut this program and they do not do much better. A number of ad hominem and guilt by association attacks, but amazingly little contrary science.

Let me help you out arne. Some critics have attempted to explain the drop in temperature in the middle of the century when CO2 was rapidly expanding with yet another unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling." Maybe you want to look it up and try to pitch it here. The theory is exceedingly weak and easily knocked down, but it is the only spin on this subject of which I am aware.
 

PMS_Chicago:


(Arne, do I owe you a royalty or something for using quotes like that? :) )


No. I'm glad for the assist. Debunking "Bart"'s nonsense is tedious, and sometimes I wonder if it's even worth the effort (but I have this inate distaste for itellectual dishonesty, so I soldier on). I'm glad to have others pitching in. The satellite kerfluffle supposedly showing stratospheric coolig is old news; it's been resolved and the conclusions revised. The CO2/temp lag was addresses also on one of the "here" links I gave earlier.

People like "Bart" cherry-pick "scientists", cherry-pick data, and cherry-pick specific claims in the climate reports, but they can't even manage to produce anything that can stand up as a peer-reviewed alternative to the cosensus view. They best they ca do is throw stones, and try to muddy the waters as much as they can to claim "well, we just don't know...." The really sad part is that this is precisely the same tactics that creationists have been using for a century in a losing battle (except in the minds of the True Believers). But sadder still (and more ominous) is the fact that denying that evolution is happening (and has happened) is of relatively benign effect (as long as scientists know what they're doing and ignore the eedjit creationists), but here, the anti-global-warming contingent is trying to use their pseudoscience and shoddy research to influence policy decision that will have a large effect on us all, whether we ignore their efforts or not. Which is why it is important to show this stuff up for what it is whenever it raises its ugly head.....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

I should have known better than to ask you to present evidence. Did you take evidence during your stay at Boalt Hall?

I gave you a link to the IPCC report. Read it.

Anyway, here goes...

OK. Dr. Carl Wunsch...Wunsch comments:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)

I notice that Dr. Wunch does not claim that anything he said on the program was in error. Apparently, he disagrees with the program's arguments but does not rebut a single point.


See the bolded part.

Next...

Dr. John Christy... In an interview with National Public Radio about the new AGU statement, he said: It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

This is an opinion based on speculation and does not address fact or opinion presented on the program.


Hey, it's your "expert".

The remainder of the quotes fall into the same category.

Dr. Paul Reiter:

"I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on sea level or polar ice. But I do know from talking to many scientists in many disciplines that this consensus is a mirage."

And I'm not a climate scientist ... but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night....

And yet the UN falsely claimed that Dr. Reiter helped the IPCC create its reports until Reiter threatened legal action to compel the UN to remove his name.


See my other post. Dr. Reiter is a medical entomologist (you know, someone who studies bugs?)

This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program.

Who needs to rebut opinions?

When it comes to "opinions", then it's time to start following the money trail ... right back to ExxonMobile.

Dr. Richard Lindzen:

"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[15]...

This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program.


It just goes to show that Lindzen is either stoopid or dishonest (see above quote for what he proffered for a "bet").

Dr. Roy Spencer:

"Spencer is listed as a collaborator for the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, two US think thanks that have received large monetary donations from ExxonMobil. [1]"

This is also not evidence rebutting the facts or opinions presented on the program. More guilt by association fallacies.


Oh. Right. "Guilt by association". You mean kind of like this?:

"In any case, this bias argument can easily be turned around on proponents by asking them whether any part of their salary or grants are provided by governments seeking to prove this theory."

Hate to say it, but I really don't know any gummints that have a vested interest in global warming being true. OTOH, the energy companies clearly have a vested interest in keeping the status quo on energy usage. Not to mention, "fellows" in private/indurstry "think tanks" (read: "propaganda houses") clearly have a much stronger interest in telling the paymasters what they want than do a plethora of diverse gummint civil service employees, university professors with tenure, etc..

But go ahead, "Bart": A pulitzer is waiting for you. ALl you have to do is investigate all the thousands of scientists that agree with anthropogenic global warming and ask where their funding is coming from, and what it is contingent on. You see, our job is easier: With so few "sceptics", we can look em all up and publish facts sheets on their institutional affiliations and funding sources.

Patrick Michaels...

Ditto.


Wow.

Dr. Fred Singer:

Ditto.


More wow.

And this about Durkin:

"As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)

FINALLY, you have actually referenced an argument made on the program.


Actually, I got tired and just told you to use the damn blue clickies.

However, the best rebuttal you could cut and paste was this...

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph."

wow...


Did you try it? His graph and the normally accepted one tell quite different stories. Why, do you suppose?

The graph scale used on the show differs from the graph scale used by the critic.

Not by much (1.0 °C versus 1.2, and 140 years versus 120 years [although the range in question was well within both] and that's plenty easy for the eye to reconcile). But that wasn't the point of the comparison (not that you're smart enough to figger that out).

I notice that these critics do not challenge the facts that (1) human green house gas production increased significantly between the 1940s and the 1970s as the world industrialized and the fleet of automobiles increased exponentially but (2) the temperatures dropped between the 1940s and the 1970s.

Still on that old hobby-horse, eh?

Covered in the links I gave ya.

C'mon arne. You are supposed to be an engineer. Is this the best you can offer?

Im trouncing you, "Bart". Sad to say, no different than your "legal" scholarship.

In fairness to arne, he is probably doing pretty close to the best he can....

Ain't even breaking a sweat. I can find more stuff in a hour with Google than you can cut'n'paste in a day.

... I have reviewed the various published articles claiming to rebut this program and they do not do much better....

Out with it.

Here, try this for a succinct critique:

Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:

"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)

On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkin’s film:

“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...

“We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)

A number of ad hominem and guilt by association attacks, but amazingly little contrary science.

"Bart": Clue fer ya -- a TV docufiction is not a published scientific report.

As PMS_Chicago (and the links I gave you, if you chase through them) have noted, many of the claims of these people are based on bad or old data and even worse science.

Why you think you're beating me by citing to one docufiction and then saying I haven't finished demolishing every stoopid or erroneous claim it makes, when there's literally thousands of legitimate scientific studies out there that support global warming ... ummm ... "beggars belief".

Let me help you out arne. Some critics have attempted to explain the drop in temperature in the middle of the century when CO2 was rapidly expanding with yet another unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling." Maybe you want to look it up and try to pitch it here. The theory is exceedingly weak and easily knocked down, but it is the only spin on this subject of which I am aware.

Oh, feel free to cite the papers, "Bart". And tell me why you think they were mistaken. See if you can do it in your own words without wearing out your "C" and "V" keys.

Here's a pretty picture fer ya (from here, with lots more pretty pictures for a slow person like "Bart"). You'll note that there's no place with a steady downward trend of temperature with a "rapidly expanding" CO2 concentration. In fact, the times of the most rapid accumulation of CO2 has been since 1980 or so, and that oeriod is when the temperatures have really skyrocketed.

Of course, real (and honest) scientists have heard the cavils about the 40's-70's cooling (which is hardly as marked as that shown in your docufiction), and have addressed them. You just don;t want to listen. "Nya-nya-nya....I can't hheeeeeeaaarrrrrrr yyyooouuuu"

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Let me help you out arne. Some critics have attempted to explain the drop in temperature in the middle of the century when CO2 was rapidly expanding with yet another unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling." Maybe you want to look it up and try to pitch it here. The theory is exceedingly weak and easily knocked down, but it is the only spin on this subject of which I am aware.

Here's a start fer ya. Knock away. Feel free to go to the original sources too.

Cheers,
 

PMS_Chicago said...

One of the things the speakers in the film relied upon was the discrepancy between surface warming trends and tropospheric warming trends. They said if the troposphere doesn't warm up, clearly there's something wrong with the global warming model. However, it turns out it does warm up*, if you have accurate satellite and weather balloon data. The CCSP analysis of the data sets states that "the tropospheric temperature has increased as fast as or faster than the surface over the period 1958 to present." (*see Chapter 3 for a detailed description of the data sets and approaches used to come to that conclusion)

Thank you for taking the time to actually address the facts and opinions presented in the program.

A few points about your observations concerning the troposphere:

The argument made by 3 scientists on the program is that the green house theory predicts that the troposphere should warm faster, not identically, with the surface because this is where the sun's heat will be trapped by the greenhouse gasses.

The CCSP group claims that green house theory predicts greater tropospheric warming only in the tropics. However, on the bottom of page 2 of the executive summary, the CCSP group admits that the majority of observational data sets show greater warming on the surface than in the troposphere in the tropics. They proceed to blame the tropospheric measurements rather than their own models or their own surface temperature sets for this discrepancy between the known facts and the green house theory.

The CCSP report has also come under attack by one of its former members for conflict of interest, bias and deliberate limitation of the data sets consulted.

The other scientific leg to stand on in the film was the perfect fit of solar activity to rises in temperature, as espoused by Friis-Christensen. That work was first presented back in 1991, when the nifty perfect-fit graph was first presented.

If it were true, it would be a fantastic rebuttal. However, a detailed scientific explanation by Damon and Laut for why that graph does not fly can be found here.


Damon and Laut's article claims that there are two mathematical errors which change the last couple years of the Friis-Christensen graph. Given that Damon and Laut do not describe these alleged mathematical errors or their corrections, I will assume for the sake of argument that they are correct in their allegations.

Take a look at the temperature a trendline in graph 1(a) and Damon and Laut's "corrected" solar trendline in graph 1(c). The temperature and the solar trendlines are almost identical from 1860 through the end of the 70s with a divergence for some unexplained reason from the late 70s to the early 80s.

Most interestingly, the temperature and solar trendlines were nearly identical from 1940 through the late 70s - a period which saw the temperature trendline cool while human green house gas emissions soared.

Also of note, the authors take pains to point out that they are not ruling out the link between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures, only correcting the math errors in the original graph.

The smug laughter of temperature preceding CO2 levels should be silence by the British Antarctic Survey's excellent statement, from which this quote comes...

On this issue, both sides are only presenting theories to explain the CO2 lag behind temperature which have not been verified by actual testing.

However, the British Antarctic Survey's theory of warming trends started by solar activity and then boosted by released CO2 does not comport with the nearly identical temperature and solar trendlines between 1860 and the late 70s. If the BAS theory was correct, we should see a divergence in the temperature and solar trendlines where the temperature trendline increases faster due to the boost of released CO2 fairly soon after the warning trend starting around 1900. There is no such divergence.
 

pms:

As the program points out, the other problem with the CO2 boost theory is that the CO2 levels observed in the ice core samples lag behind temperature rise by some 500-800 years.
 

"Bart" DePalma lies:

The argument made by 3 scientists on the program is that the green house theory predicts that the troposphere should warm faster, not identically, with the surface because this is where the sun's heat will be trapped by the greenhouse gasses....

Oh. So they like "straw man" argumentation too... See below.

The CCSP group claims that green house theory predicts greater tropospheric warming only in the tropics....

Dunno where you get this from.

Here's what they do say on page 2:

* Since the late 1950s, all radiosonde data sets show that the low and mid troposphere have warmed as a rate slightly faster than the rate of warming at the surface. These changes are in accord with our unsderstanding of the effects of radiative forcing agents on the climate system and with the results from model systems.

* For observations during the satellite era (1979) onwards, the most recent version of all available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. The majority of these data sets show warming at the surface that is greater than in the troposphere. Some of these data sets, however, show the opposite -- tropospheric warming that is greater than that at the surface. Thus, due to the considerable disagreements between tropospheric data sets, it is not clear whether the tropospher has warmed more than or less than the surface.

* The most recent climate model simulations give a range of results for changes in global-average temperature. Some models show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface, while a slightly smaller number of simulations show the opposite behavior. There is no fundamental inconsistency among these model results and observations at the gloal scale.

* The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.

... However, on the bottom of page 2 of the executive summary, the CCSP group admits that the majority of observational data sets show greater warming on the surface than in the troposphere in the tropics....

SFW?

... They proceed to blame the tropospheric measurements rather than their own models or their own surface temperature sets for this discrepancy between the known facts and the green house theory.

Nope. Here's what they say: "Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface thna in the troposphere [see above quotes too], some observational data shows more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

This is hardly a concession, seeing as all models predict both tropospheric and surface warming, as does the data, and the only tiny dispute here is whether the surface or the troposphere heats more. As pointed out, some models give more to each, and some of the data supports one or the other. But the main thing is that they both are warming, and which of the models is most accurate. I'd note that there isn't a "model" put forth by anyone as to how it doesn't warm at all, nor any alternative "theory" that rejects CO2-induced warming that accounts for the disparate data better. About the best you can say is that if the data shows some variability (some with greater T over S, some less), then other factors are at work, including measurement error.

If you think this "discrepancy"
is the death-knell of global warming theory, you really don't understand what's going on, "Bart".

The CCSP report has also come under attack by one of its former members for conflict of interest, bias and deliberate limitation of the data sets consulted.

From your link, "Bart": "However, those who are concerned that the CCSP Report is not objective have real reasons for questioning these conclusions. While, the authors of the report are no doubt sincere and have good scientific credentials within their specific disciplines, they are evaluating their own research."

Huh? Where's the "conflict of interest"?

This malarkey:

"To briefly illustrate this conflict of interest, I will use two topics from the CCSP Report. First, Tom Karl (Chairman), Tom Peterson and Russ Voss are from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and are vested in the surface temperature record set created by NCDC. (Tom Karl is also Director of NCDC). Other surface temperature experts on the Committee such as Chris Folland and David Parker of the United Kingdom (UK) Met Office also have a vested interest in the existing surface temperature trend data. When the first National Research Council (NRC) Committee reviewed the report, Phil Jones of University of East Anglia in England, also with a vested interest in the existing surface temperature data set, represented that community. Thus, the same community who has invested significantly in creating the global surface temperature record is assessing its value."

These people "created" these data sets?!?!? Kind of like Sir Cyril Burt "created" his twin studies numbers? This criticism is nonsense. No one is questioning the temperature data sets. If there's inaccuracy in these, it's measurement error, rather than some hoked-up numbers like Burt's.... Unless you have some evidence to the contrary that they made the numbers up, "Bart"....

Roger Pielke may have had his difficulties with the rest of the folks, but he sounds like he's got a bug up his butt here to me (probably because he has other differences with the rest of the panel and with other atmospheric scientists (see here).

And this quote: Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces. He has said:

"[T]he evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers."

From a comment on Pielke's web site, quoting the AMS:

"In return, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate their findings in ways that portray their results and the results of others, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts."

Roger ought to take a Valium, and lissen up....

If he wants to dispute the data (which is essentially what he's doing above), he should come up with his own friggin' numbers and get 'em published.

Damon and Laut's article claims that there are two mathematical errors which change the last couple years of the Friis-Christensen graph. Given that Damon and Laut do not describe these alleged mathematical errors or their corrections, I will assume for the sake of argument that they are correct in their allegations.

Take a look at the temperature a trendline in graph 1(a) and Damon and Laut's "corrected" solar trendline in graph 1(c). The temperature and the solar trendlines are almost identical from 1860 through the end of the 70s with a divergence for some unexplained reason from the late 70s to the early 80s.


Ummm, you mean like increased CO2?

You neglect figure 2 for some reason.

Most interestingly, the temperature and solar trendlines were nearly identical from 1940 through the late 70s - a period which saw the temperature trendline cool while human green house gas emissions soared.

Huh? Since when did "human greenhouse gas emissions soar[]" in the 1940 to late 70s? The most marked increases have taken place subsequently.

Also of note, the authors take pains to point out that they are not ruling out the link between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures, only correcting the math errors in the original graph.

They don't rule it out, but they sure put a damper on if for explaining the most recent rises. And the whole second part of the article was about stuff other than the math errors in the two data points in Figure 1(b).

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

However, the British Antarctic Survey's theory of warming trends started by solar activity and then boosted by released CO2 does not comport with the nearly identical temperature and solar trendlines between 1860 and the late 70s. If the BAS theory was correct, we should see a divergence in the temperature and solar trendlines where the temperature trendline increases faster due to the boost of released CO2 fairly soon after the warning trend starting around 1900. There is no such divergence.

The temperature "led by a few centuries".

This is true because the temperature increase was driven not by the CO2 initially but by irradiance changes. Only when CO2 was released, did it contribute to the warming (which was far more substantial than in the initial period).

In the present situation, we've been driving the CO2 releaee ourselves, and the temperature follows CO2 more closely (there's no reason that the time constant for temperature driving of CO2 should be the same as the time constant for CO2 driving of temperature, and AFAIK, the models agree with such a difference). What we're seeing now is in fact a irradiation/temperature divergence (just as one would expect to see eventually), and that just a century in.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[to PMS_Chicago]: As the program points out, the other problem with the CO2 boost theory is that the CO2 levels observed in the ice core samples lag behind temperature rise by some 500-800 years.

Umm, why is this a problem?

It's been explained to you, if you'd bother to click the clickies.

Cheers,
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: Let me help you out arne. Some critics have attempted to explain the drop in temperature in the middle of the century when CO2 was rapidly expanding with yet another unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling." Maybe you want to look it up and try to pitch it here. The theory is exceedingly weak and easily knocked down, but it is the only spin on this subject of which I am aware.

Here's a start fer ya. Knock away. Feel free to go to the original sources too.


Do you understand the theory enough to make your own argument?

Your link was to a post trying to squirm out of the fact that various green house theory boosters were pitching global cooling back in the 70s.

Here is all your link has to say about sulphate aerosol cooling:

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.

Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).


In short, we are expected to accept on face value without any evidence that "the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols."

The heroes at the IPCC admit that they are guessing as to the levels of aerosols and keep changing their guesses to create the necessary imputs to achieve the model outputs they desire.

The implication here which they decline to spell out is that sulphate aerosols produced during the post WWII economic boom reflected the solar heat away from the earth and acid rain regulations in the United States removed these aerosols and allowed CO2 driven global warming to proceed.

Here are the reasons why this spin does not pass the laugh test:

The cooling period we are discussing extended from 1940 to the mid 70s.

The Great Depression has suppressed industrial production of sulfate aerosols during the 30s and could not have started the cooling trend in 1940.

The United States acid rain regulations started in the states in the mid 80s and were amended into the Clean Air Act in 1990. These laws came into effect 10 to 15 years after the warming cycle started in the mid 70s.

Worse still for this nonsensical spin, the Clean Air Act goals have not yet been met and when they are met will not substantially change the atmospheric aerosols as they existed between 1940 and the mid 70s. The amendments simply require acid rain pollutants in 2010 to be reduced to where they were before 1980.

The blame America first arrogance that spawned this spin that the CAA amendments changed worldwide sulfate aerosol production is palpable. Asia has industrialized since the mid 1970s and many nations outside of Japan have no limits on sulfated aerosol production. Indeed, China admits that it is currently the worlds largest producer of airborne sulfur dioxide. Therefore, if this sulphate aerosol cooling spin is correct, why are world temperatures not dropping because of this additional pollution???
 

"Bart" DePalma:

["Bart"]: Let me help you out arne. Some critics have attempted to explain the drop in temperature in the middle of the century when CO2 was rapidly expanding with yet another unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling." Maybe you want to look it up and try to pitch it here. The theory is exceedingly weak and easily knocked down, but it is the only spin on this subject of which I am aware.

[Arne]: Here's a start fer ya. Knock away. Feel free to go to the original sources too.

Do you understand the theory enough to make your own argument?


Yep. Do you? Care to explain why (and how) sulphates cause cooling?

Your link was to a post trying to squirm out of the fact that various green house theory boosters were pitching global cooling back in the 70s.

We've been through this dishonesty before.

Care to name more than a minuscule number of those that have reached consensus on global warming that were predicting Ice Ages back in the '70s?

It was a link to a page that pointed out the sorry state of the RW Mighty Wurlitzer song'n'dance about the scientists supposedly flip-flopping so of course they can't be trusted. It's just not true.

It's what you're trying to do here as well in reverse: Claim that sulphates can't be responsible for the slight cooling trend in the 40's-70's, because everyone says "CO2 was going up all this time", so of course we should have seen temperatures go up as well if that was true".

Well, "Bartster", you got "two mints, two mints, two mints in one." Sulphates and greenhouse gases and solar irradiance and surface albedo changes (and a number of other factors) contribute to climate temperature (both ranges and averages).

The trick is teasing out the contributions. As we know more and more, it becmes more and more certain that CO2 contributes a fair amount to the warmign we observe, and that we will continue to have warming as (and if) CO2 continues to increase (absent any major perturbations from the other contributors, such as volcanoes going off all over the world, or nuclear winter).

As pointed out by the many articles and the research summaries, sulphate increases in this period are probably responsible for the slight decrease, but as sulphate production has gone down (with cleaner fuels and such) and the CO2 contribution increased, the CO2 component has overwhelmed this sulphate "cooling".

This is the accepted theory now, regardless of what was known ack then. That we haven't had an Ice Age since the dire predictions (in the sensationalist popular press, as the article notes) of the 70's is hardly a disproof of aerosol cooling as a contributor to climate temperature. The IPCC, CCSR, and other reports all include sulphate areosol effects in their analysis, yet still reach the conclusion that the CO2 forcing will predominate and the CO2 increase is anthropogenic.

Now, aside from such a canard, what's your objection to sulphate cooling?: __________________

Here is all your link has to say about sulphate aerosol cooling:

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.

Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).


In short, we are expected to accept on face value without any evidence that "the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols."

Nope. This is a summary of the conclusions. Go to the myriad papers that were used to reach this conclusion for the nitty-gritty (as I told you to do).

But do I have a task for you, "Bart": Come up with a theory that doesn't include CO2 warming (and you can leave out the unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling") and that accounts for the 40's-70's temperatures and which accounts for the current temperature trends (because, yaknow, since you think the 30 years there are crucial and essential to any understanding, shouldn't the next thirty years [when we had even better temperature records] be just as important for any comprehensive theory to resolve?), the stratospheric cooling, and the historical record.

The heroes at the IPCC admit that they are guessing as to the levels of aerosols and keep changing their guesses to create the necessary imputs to achieve the model outputs they desire.

Huh? Since when? Any evidence of this charge?

The implication here which they decline to spell out is that sulphate aerosols produced during the post WWII economic boom reflected the solar heat away from the earth and acid rain regulations in the United States removed these aerosols and allowed CO2 driven global warming to proceed.

Yes. Your point?

Here are the reasons why this spin does not pass the laugh test:

The cooling period we are discussing extended from 1940 to the mid 70s.

The Great Depression has suppressed industrial production of sulfate aerosols during the 30s and could not have started the cooling trend in 1940.


Ummm, IIRC, we were burning a lot of sulphur (as well as a lot of other things) round about 1940.....

The United States acid rain regulations started in the states in the mid 80s and were amended into the Clean Air Act in 1990. These laws came into effect 10 to 15 years after the warming cycle started in the mid 70s.

You're assuming a hard cut-off and a hard start (typical RW foamer binary logic, if I may say so) to both the inflection and to the contribution of CO2 and aerosol to climate. It simply tain't true.

Worse still for this nonsensical spin, the Clean Air Act goals have not yet been met and when they are met will not substantially change the atmospheric aerosols as they existed between 1940 and the mid 70s. The amendments simply require acid rain pollutants in 2010 to be reduced to where they were before 1980.

Here ya go:

"Despite these difficulties, a few statements are possible: in Alpine ice coress sulfate concentrations increased roughly by a factor of 10 since the beginning of the industrial period (about 1870), with a maximum around 1975 (Schwikowski et al., 1999a) or 1980 (Preunkert et al., 2001), followed by a significant decrease after that. The evolution of the sulfate signal is consistent with the history of the SO2 emissions in Central Europe (Schwikowski et al., 1999b, Preunkert et al., 2001)."

That's just a five minute search.

And a pretty picture fer ya.

FWIW, I remember the Reagan maladministration strongly resisting sulphate reductions and denying the "acid rain" theory back in the '80s. Deja vu all over again.

The blame America first arrogance that spawned this spin that the CAA amendments changed worldwide sulfate aerosol production is palpable....

Who said that? Nice knocking down "straw men" (particularly those that you have a real visceral dislike for), but who's saying that the CAA was totally resposible for worldwide sulphate production?

... Asia has industrialized since the mid 1970s and many nations outside of Japan have no limits on sulfated aerosol production.

Your point?

Indeed, China admits that it is currently the worlds largest producer of airborne sulfur dioxide. Therefore, if this sulphate aerosol cooling spin is correct, why are world temperatures not dropping because of this additional pollution???

It's been explained to you, "Bart". You just won't listen.... not to mention you're still so stoopid that you keep thinking in binary terms about everything (e.g., it's either CO2 or S02; either warming or cooling, etc.), which any reasonable scientist knows is a ridiculous assumption and theoretical framework. But it is a workable rhetorical framework ... when trying to impress the rubes. "You're either with us, or you're against us."

Cheers,
 

arne said...

But do I have a task for you, "Bart": Come up with a theory that doesn't include CO2 warming (and you can leave out the unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling") and that accounts for the 40's-70's temperatures and which accounts for the current temperature trends

We covered this in multiple posts above. Temperature tracks solar activity almost identically before and after human production of CO2. Go watch the program to which I linked. The scientists from multiple disciplines researching solar activity, sun spots, radiation and cloud formation have combined their efforts in several charts whose factual basis is undisputed apart from two alleged mathematical errors during a short period at the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s.

Conversely, temperature does not track human production of CO2. We have experienced a long term warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 15th century. The current mid term warming trend started in the 19th Century before any significant human production of CO2. During the recent period of human CO2 production, we experienced a 35 year cooling trend between the 1940 and the mid 70s despite a spike in human production of CO2.

Bart: The heroes at the IPCC admit that they are guessing as to the levels of aerosols and keep changing their guesses to create the necessary imputs to achieve the model outputs they desire.

Huh? Since when? Any evidence of this charge?


I bolded it for you in the last sentence of the excerpt from your own cited blog.

Bart: Here are the reasons why this spin does not pass the laugh test:

The cooling period we are discussing extended from 1940 to the mid 70s.

The Great Depression has suppressed industrial production of sulfate aerosols during the 30s and could not have started the cooling trend in 1940.

arne: Ummm, IIRC, we were burning a lot of sulphur (as well as a lot of other things) round about 1940.....


Burning lots of stuff? Are these the kind of rigorous standards you put into your engineering product?

Temperatures went up between 1900 and 1940 before turning down again. In order for sulfate aerosols to depress the temperatures after 1940 but not before 1940, there had to be an event just before 1940 to substantially increase the production of these aerosols. There was no such event. Indeed, as I pointed out, the Great Depression before 1940 had slowed the industrial production which causes these aerosols.

Bart: The United States acid rain regulations started in the states in the mid 80s and were amended into the Clean Air Act in 1990. These laws came into effect 10 to 15 years after the warming cycle started in the mid 70s.

arne: You're assuming a hard cut-off and a hard start (typical RW foamer binary logic, if I may say so) to both the inflection and to the contribution of CO2 and aerosol to climate. It simply tain't true.


I never assumed a hard cutoff as I posted in the very next paragraph. Of course, you knew that.

Bart: Worse still for this nonsensical spin, the Clean Air Act goals have not yet been met and when they are met will not substantially change the atmospheric aerosols as they existed between 1940 and the mid 70s. The amendments simply require acid rain pollutants in 2010 to be reduced to where they were before 1980.

arne: Here ya go: "Despite these difficulties, a few statements are possible: in Alpine ice coress sulfate concentrations increased roughly by a factor of 10 since the beginning of the industrial period (about 1870), with a maximum around 1975 (Schwikowski et al., 1999a) or 1980 (Preunkert et al., 2001), followed by a significant decrease after that. The evolution of the sulfate signal is consistent with the history of the SO2 emissions in Central Europe (Schwikowski et al., 1999b, Preunkert et al., 2001)."


Exactly what does sulfate production in central Europe which fell on the local Alps have to do with the CAA's effect in the United States or the level of sulfate aerosols over the 99% of the rest of the Earth? This is the equivalent of saying that because a high percentage of persons in Disney World wear plastic mouse ears that similar numbers in cities across the world wear mouse ears. In short, its cherry picking data.

However, this limited data does suggest another problem with this theory of sulfate aerosol reflection. The sulfates tend to come back to Earth as "acid rain" fairly close to where they were released. The study which you quoted assumed that the sulfates found in the Alps came from the immediate area in Central Europe. Therefore, this cooling effect should be more pronounced around emission sources and there is no evidence of this. Otherwise, China would be in an enormous cooling trend right now.

arne: That's just a five minute search.

It shows.

Bart: Indeed, China admits that it is currently the worlds largest producer of airborne sulfur dioxide. Therefore, if this sulphate aerosol cooling spin is correct, why are world temperatures not dropping because of this additional pollution???

arne: It's been explained to you, "Bart". You just won't listen.... not to mention you're still so stoopid that you keep thinking in binary terms about everything (e.g., it's either CO2 or S02; either warming or cooling, etc.), which any reasonable scientist knows is a ridiculous assumption and theoretical framework. But it is a workable rhetorical framework ... when trying to impress the rubes. "You're either with us, or you're against us."


This is known as tap dancing around and never addressing the unpleasant facts.

Reminds me of the song Razzle Dazzle sung by the flim flam defense lawyer Billy Flynn character from the movie Chicago:

BAILIFF(Spoken)
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here

BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?

ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.

BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous

BILLY
Row after row will crow vociferous

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

BILLY
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

COMPANY(The same time as BILLY's)
Give 'em the old
Razzle Dazzle

BILLY
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star

 

Bart, I'm afraid I'm having difficulty participating in this debate after that last round, not because I've been convinced (I haven't, and as a "scientist" who works with climate data, I'm not likely to, to be quite honest), but because I'm a bit distracted by your rhetoric.

It has to do with your particular approach to authority, and it's very interesting, at least to me.

If the government's employees tell you that Person X is an enemy combatant, you accept it on face value, and even defend the government's right to keep the proof of that designation secret.

On the other hand, if the government's employees tell you that global warming is a credible danger and carbon dioxide is a driving factor in that threat, you reject it out of hand in favor of a hypothesis that doesn't work in the period of highest temperature increase even though the raw data is available for you to examine and see for yourself.

Granted, the situations are different, but I begin to wonder: if you can have such doubt about the ability of some professionals to do their job correctly, how do you expect the rest of us to swallow what other professionals say without balking* and asking for evidence?

*Or balkinizing, as the case may be.
 

PMS_Chicago said...

If the government's employees tell you that Person X is an enemy combatant, you accept it on face value, and even defend the government's right to keep the proof of that designation secret.

On the other hand, if the government's employees tell you that global warming is a credible danger and carbon dioxide is a driving factor in that threat, you reject it out of hand in favor of a hypothesis that doesn't work in the period of highest temperature increase even though the raw data is available for you to examine and see for yourself.


On what do you base this premise? I do not accept anything at face value. I would not last here very long under multiple cross examinations if I did.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of the reasoning I have given over a few dozen prior posts as to why the status determinations at Gitmo are more credible than the government's claims concerning green house theory:

1) You can judge credibility by the actions of the parties:

The military does not claim that every single capture is an enemy combatant and has shown a relative objectivity in releasing or attempting to release substantial numbers of captures which the status hearings showed were either civilians or no longer dangerous enough to hold.

In stark contrast, the government green house theory proponents quite frankly lie when they claim that their theory is proven fact and nearly every scientist with the exception of oil company whores and intellectual quacks recognize the truth of their theory. This hardly screams objectivity. Rather, it sounds more like the unobjective certainty of the Inquisition.

2) You can also judge the relative merits of these positions by bothering to take the time to examine and weigh the facts for yourself.

Although the sources of the evidence and some of the evidence itself used at the status hearings is classified, enough has been declassified make a reasoned personal decision as to whether the military correctly determined that some of the detainees at Gitmo were unlawful enemy combatants.

Some are easy like the parade of high value al Qaeda officers which openly brag about their planned, attempted and sometimes performed mass murders.

Others require applying a modicum of common sense to a large quantity of circumstantial evidence. For example, the unclassified hearing documents indicate that the captures from Afghanistan identified as al Qaeda were generally foreigners (primarily Arabs from the Gulf States) whoe traveled through Pakistan (often attending a madrassa or a terrorist training camp), who were found in the company of Taliban or al Qaeda and who either admitted their membership in the Taliban / al Qaeda or offered an unbelievable excuse such as seeking employment or religious training in Afghanistan where there is no employment opportunities and where the locals dod not speak your language. To me, this is sufficient evidence to make the determination that the capture is an unlawful combatant member of the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Rebutting the claims of government green house theory proponents is much easier because the data is readily available. I have laid out a substantial and supported case on this thread that the known facts simply do not support the hypothesis that CO2 has ever driven atmospheric temperatures and that the sun appears to be the primary driver of temperature which can be read and viewed above.

Consequently, you are going to have to support your claim that I am either accepting or rejecting either set of government claims at face value. Frankly, I have put in too much work doing research to support my posts here to let such a claim stand uncontested.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[Arne]: But do I have a task for you, "Bart": Come up with a theory that doesn't include CO2 warming (and you can leave out the unproven theory called "sulphate aerosol cooling") and that accounts for the 40's-70's temperatures and which accounts for the current temperature trends

We covered this in multiple posts above. Temperature tracks solar activity almost identically before and after human production of CO2....


Except it doesn't. That was the point of the graphs I gave you and the article PMS_Chicago cited for you.

But where is this "theory" published?

... Go watch the program to which I linked...

Sure. And while you're waiting, you could go watch this one: Capricorn One.

Let me know when you've got a peer-reviewed article to cite.

... The scientists from multiple disciplines researching solar activity, sun spots, radiation and cloud formation ...

You left out "bugs". And "lawyers". ;-)

... have combined their efforts in several charts whose factual basis is undisputed apart from two alleged mathematical errors during a short period at the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s.

It's a crock, "Bart". Put together by the above-mentioned "scientists" (and non-scientists) with their arms up to their elbows in oil company money.

Conversely, temperature does not track human production of CO2. We have experienced a long term warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 15th century. The current mid term warming trend started in the 19th Century before any significant human production of CO2....

Back to the old "binary" thinking, IC. No one has said that other factors (including the Milankovich cycles) don't contribute to climate. The question is the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 to present warming. Anthropogenic CO2 didn't contribute way back because it didn't exist to any significant extent. But CO2 is rising at truly exceptional rates and is at exceptional levels right now.

... During the recent period of human CO2 production, we experienced a 35 year cooling trend between the 1940 and the mid 70s despite a spike in human production of CO2.

Been addressed (repeatedly). You're just not listening.

But, JOOC, where's this "spike in human production of CO2" "between the 1940 and the mid 70s"? Where, "Bart"?

["Bart"]: The heroes at the IPCC admit that they are guessing as to the levels of aerosols and keep changing their guesses to create the necessary imputs to achieve the model outputs they desire.

[Arne]: Huh? Since when? Any evidence of this charge?

I bolded it for you in the last sentence of the excerpt from your own cited blog.


Huh? You mean this?!?!?:

"Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM)."

They're talking about future estimates contingent on assumptions. When the assumptions of future SO2 were lowered (due to newer data, amongst other things), they changed their predictions. That hardly invalidates the model or the science. If we start burning high-sulphur coal again, they may have to re-revise the estimates.

["Bart"]: Here are the reasons why this spin does not pass the laugh test:

The cooling period we are discussing extended from 1940 to the mid 70s.

The Great Depression has suppressed industrial production of sulfate aerosols during the 30s and could not have started the cooling trend in 1940.

[Arne]: Ummm, IIRC, we were burning a lot of sulphur (as well as a lot of other things) round about 1940.....

Burning lots of stuff? Are these the kind of rigorous standards you put into your engineering product?


Look it up, "Bart". IIRC, the burning program was called "WWII"; Google that. Harldy a period of industrial lull.

FWIW, I'm a scientist as well.

Temperatures went up between 1900 and 1940 before turning down again. In order for sulfate aerosols to depress the temperatures after 1940 but not before 1940, there had to be an event just before 1940 to substantially increase the production of these aerosols. There was no such event....

But they were going up (see below), regardless of this pathological need of yours for "first causes"...

... Indeed, as I pointed out, the Great Depression before 1940 had slowed the industrial production which causes these aerosols.

And your figures on atmospheric SO2 to substantiate these claims are ... where?

Bart: The United States acid rain regulations started in the states in the mid 80s and were amended into the Clean Air Act in 1990. These laws came into effect 10 to 15 years after the warming cycle started in the mid 70s.

Look, "Bart": The Yoo Ess of Aye ain't the only country in the friggin' planet (despite your delusions), and the CAA wasn't the only reason for folks to stop burning high-sulfur coal.

Look, for some real data on SO2, check out Figure 1 here.

The climate models take into account the SO2 emissions (as well as CO2 as well as solar irradiance). You don't.

[Arne]: You're assuming a hard cut-off and a hard start (typical RW foamer binary logic, if I may say so) to both the inflection and to the contribution of CO2 and aerosol to climate. It simply tain't true.

I never assumed a hard cutoff as I posted in the very next paragraph. Of course, you knew that.


Sure, you did. You keep shouting '40-'70 like some majick talisman, and how it 'just doesn't fit because the CO2 was rising then (but not as rapidly as both CO2 and temperature are rising now. But during this time. to a reasonably close fit, SO2 went way up and then tapered off a bit. Not to mention, there's physical science behind the explanation of SO2 cooling (and not just the correlation) ... which, as it happens, is also true of the CO2. To claim that CO2 doesn't affect temperature, given the known physics of CO2 visible and IR absorption, requires an additional theory to explain some other mechanism whereby CO2 teperature increases by "greenhouse" absorption are countered by some other factor related to CO2 concentration that counters this effect. This you haven't done.

[Bart]: Worse still for this nonsensical spin, the Clean Air Act goals have not yet been met and when they are met will not substantially change the atmospheric aerosols as they existed between 1940 and the mid 70s. The amendments simply require acid rain pollutants in 2010 to be reduced to where they were before 1980.

[Arne]: Here ya go: "Despite these difficulties, a few statements are possible: in Alpine ice coress sulfate concentrations increased roughly by a factor of 10 since the beginning of the industrial period (about 1870), with a maximum around 1975 (Schwikowski et al., 1999a) or 1980 (Preunkert et al., 2001), followed by a significant decrease after that. The evolution of the sulfate signal is consistent with the history of the SO2 emissions in Central Europe (Schwikowski et al., 1999b, Preunkert et al., 2001)."

Exactly what does sulfate production in central Europe which fell on the local Alps have to do with the CAA's effect in the United States or the level of sulfate aerosols over the 99% of the rest of the Earth? This is the equivalent of saying that because a high percentage of persons in Disney World wear plastic mouse ears that similar numbers in cities across the world wear mouse ears. In short, its cherry picking data.


I just gave you more data (see above). If you choose to dispute the explanation, you have to come up with an alternative explanation.

However, this limited data does suggest another problem with this theory of sulfate aerosol reflection. The sulfates tend to come back to Earth as "acid rain" fairly close to where they were released. The study which you quoted assumed that the sulfates found in the Alps came from the immediate area in Central Europe.

Where? Agreed, local SO2 is probably a large contributor, but there's volcanic components (and other global sources) as well, I'm sure. But you assume only local production ... not to mention, Europe is still part of the entire planet, last I checked.

Therefore, this cooling effect should be more pronounced around emission sources and there is no evidence of this. Otherwise, China would be in an enormous cooling trend right now.

Do you know that this is not the case?

[Arne]: That's just a five minute search.

It shows.


And it suffices, becasue you have no SO2 data whatsoever (outside your ignerrent blatherings). But I gave you som more.

["Bart"]: Indeed, China admits that it is currently the worlds largest producer of airborne sulfur dioxide. Therefore, if this sulphate aerosol cooling spin is correct, why are world temperatures not dropping because of this additional pollution???

[Arne]: It's been explained to you, "Bart". You just won't listen.... not to mention you're still so stoopid that you keep thinking in binary terms about everything (e.g., it's either CO2 or S02; either warming or cooling, etc.), which any reasonable scientist knows is a ridiculous assumption and theoretical framework. But it is a workable rhetorical framework ... when trying to impress the rubes. "You're either with us, or you're against us."

This is known as tap dancing around and never addressing the unpleasant facts.


What "unpleasant facts"? Let me know when you find some.

In the meanwhile, care to address my objection to your 'binary' "analysis" here?

What's your best estimate on the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to global warming?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

On what do you base this premise? I do not accept anything at face value.

But if it's in Dubya's advantage, and/or he hears it from Freeperville, WhirledNutsDaily, or Limbaugh, he asserts it like Gawd's Own Troot.

If they're "illegal enemy combatants", they're illegal enemy combatants, no matter what human rights organisations and some busybodies from New Joysey say, and no matter if one of them is an 80 year old man on crutches and there's kids in there.

Reality and "Bart" have never made their formal acquaintance.

That much has been established beyond reasonable doubt these last months.

And if "Bart" says that Brown II "held that courts may legislate forced bussing of students to achieve desegregation", just lissen ta him, and don't go believing your own lying eyes or any pernicious deceptions that FindLaw may try and inveigle into your brain through Satanic wiles.

Is that clear to all and sundry?

Or should we just all conclude that "Bart"'s an unrepentant, unshamable lyin' sack'o'sh*te and get on with what we need to do....

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Here is a thumbnail sketch of the reasoning I have given over a few dozen prior posts as to why the status determinations at Gitmo are more credible than the government's claims concerning green house theory:

1) You can judge credibility by the actions of the parties:


"Q Mr. President, thank you. On Iraq, what steps are being taken to ensure that questionable information, like the Africa uranium material, doesn't come to your desk and wind up in your speeches?

"THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me first say that -- I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence."

or, better yet:

"THE PRESIDENT: The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

(from this unimpeachable source)

Yep, no doubt who's got the track record to beat.

The military does not claim that every single capture is an enemy combatant and has shown a relative objectivity in releasing or attempting to release substantial numbers of captures which the status hearings showed were either civilians or no longer dangerous enough to hold.

They didn't want to do that, and they didn't start to do that, until they were forced to, kicking and screaming all the way.

Hardly "good faith".

In stark contrast, the government green house theory proponents quite frankly lie when they claim that their theory is proven fact ...

No one says it's "proven fact". "Bart" sounds just like a creationist talking about evolution. Same tactics, same rhetoric.

Not to mention, "Bart" has in no way shown that what they say is wrong (if he does, maybe there's a Nobel for him there right alongside His Emanence Rush's Peace Prize, but I'll play the Megabucks before betting on that; odds astronomically higher....

... and nearly every scientist with the exception of oil company whores and intellectual quacks recognize the truth of their theory....

This would give a rational person pause for thought. And what can we conclude from the observed behaviour of Mr. "Bart" here?

... This hardly screams objectivity. Rather, it sounds more like the unobjective certainty of the Inquisition.

ROFLMAO..... Since everyone agrees (with the exception of paid hacks and kooks), must be a plot. Hey, "Bart": Gravity is a commie scheme to curtail your Gawd-given right to fly. Tell those commie bastards to shove it, and express yourself. Leap off that building, and show those modern-day Torquemadas that they're not going to get you to buckle under, no how, no way....

Believe me, we'll all be pleased you showed the Gravitational Orthodoxy wrong....

Cheers ... and godspeed.
 

Post a Comment

Home