Another climate skeptic moves to the science corner

[billvon 2,410]

Good on him for following the science instead of the prevailing political winds.

=================
Leading Climate Skeptic Changes Position: Global Warming is Real, and Man-Made
David Dayen Monday July 30, 2012 1:03 pm


. . .Richard Muller, the head of the project, was a confirmed climate skeptic, and he got plenty of attention from the right side of the spectrum for his views. In fact he got funding, including $150,000 from the Koch Brothers, to study climate science and produce a set of conclusions. And after years of work, years of going through ice samples and carbon readings and all the rest, Muller determined that global warming does in fact exist:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

"My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

Muller’s findings, by the way, show a greater degree of warming than even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, largely seen as the consensus view of the scientific community.
=====================

[kelpdiver 2]

is he just following the money? First from the Kochs, and now for his self founded outfit?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Good on him for following the science instead of the prevailing political winds.

=================
Leading Climate Skeptic Changes Position: Global Warming is Real, and Man-Made
David Dayen Monday July 30, 2012 1:03 pm


. . .Richard Muller, the head of the project, was a confirmed climate skeptic, and he got plenty of attention from the right side of the spectrum for his views. In fact he got funding, including $150,000 from the Koch Brothers, to study climate science and produce a set of conclusions. And after years of work, years of going through ice samples and carbon readings and all the rest, Muller determined that global warming does in fact exist:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

"My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."

Muller’s findings, by the way, show a greater degree of warming than even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, largely seen as the consensus view of the scientific community.
=====================

Now the sides are tied because one of the linked articles I posted yesterday has a former alarmists turning to science saying man made climate change is wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

Quote

Now the sides are tied because one of the linked articles I posted yesterday has a former alarmists turning to science saying man made climate change is wrong

If by "tied" you mean 99.99% of all scientists compared to a handful of people mostly funded by oil interests. Yes, I suppose that is "tied."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Now the sides are tied because one of the linked articles I posted yesterday has a former alarmists turning to science saying man made climate change is wrong

If by "tied" you mean 99.99% of all scientists compared to a handful of people mostly funded by oil interests. Yes, I suppose that is "tied."

Another bogus talking point but please, dont let that stop you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

I've got to go toward agnostic with this debate.

I think it is only logical that all the human activity on earth has an effect. What that effect is, how much of what we are seeing is due to that effect (over normal global cycles), how much the planet can self-heal and such are all highly debatable and subjective.

I think it is clearly in our self-interests to be careful with our use of finite resources and seek less finite resources. I would suggest that any use of finite resources should be toward exploiting less finite resources (ie: use of fossil fuels should lead to use of solar / wind / etc.) So, a cautious person would err on the side of global climate change being human induced. Whether it is real or not may be a moot point in that light. What to do about it is a much more useful discussion. Fossil fuels WILL run out before the sun burns out. Let's explore what to do about it. We DO breath this air we are placing pollutants in. Let's explore what to do about it. The oceans WILL deplete if we aren't careful. Let's explore what to do about it.

No alarms. Just recognize reality and shephard your resources wisely.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I've got to go toward agnostic with this debate.

I think it is only logical that all the human activity on earth has an effect. What that effect is, how much of what we are seeing is due to that effect (over normal global cycles), how much the planet can self-heal and such are all highly debatable and subjective.

I think it is clearly in our self-interests to be careful with our use of finite resources and seek less finite resources. I would suggest that any use of finite resources should be toward exploiting less finite resources (ie: use of fossil fuels should lead to use of solar / wind / etc.) So, a cautious person would err on the side of global climate change being human induced. Whether it is real or not may be a moot point in that light. What to do about it is a much more useful discussion. Fossil fuels WILL run out before the sun burns out. Let's explore what to do about it. We DO breath this air we are placing pollutants in. Let's explore what to do about it. The oceans WILL deplete if we aren't careful. Let's explore what to do about it.

No alarms. Just recognize reality and shephard your resources wisely.

Small effects in isolated areas? I agree

World wide impact? I am not that arogant to think we have that kind of power

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case).

Step back and look at that.

Anyone who has looked at the physics knows that CO2 does indeed absorb radiation emitted by the earth. There is no arguing that.

What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models", especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year". What can be argued even more are the "solutions" being proposed by governing bodies. These can, and should, be "denied".

That's the essence of this argument, IMO.

None of us are going to see drowning polar bears in our lifetime. Nor will our children, or our grandchildren, nor our great-grandchildren.

How much green house warming was in place before our species came into being? About 70 degF. Is another 2-3 degF going to kill us? I think not.

Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should we allow governments to take control of that process via ridiculous edicts? Absolutely not.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,410]

>400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case). Step back and look at that.

I have.

Would you be OK with increasing the amount of arsenic in your water to 400ppm? After all arsenic is a natural element found both in water and your body. If this is a normal, natural element, then increasing it can't possibly have any ill effects - can it?

>What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models",
>especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year".

No one claims that.

>Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely.

OK. What steps? So far all I see are steps to INCREASE CO2 emissions.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

I've got to go toward agnostic with this debate.

I think it is only logical that all the human activity on earth has an effect. What that effect is, how much of what we are seeing is due to that effect (over normal global cycles), how much the planet can self-heal and such are all highly debatable and subjective.

I think it is clearly in our self-interests to be careful with our use of finite resources and seek less finite resources. I would suggest that any use of finite resources should be toward exploiting less finite resources (ie: use of fossil fuels should lead to use of solar / wind / etc.) So, a cautious person would err on the side of global climate change being human induced. Whether it is real or not may be a moot point in that light. What to do about it is a much more useful discussion. Fossil fuels WILL run out before the sun burns out. Let's explore what to do about it. We DO breath this air we are placing pollutants in. Let's explore what to do about it. The oceans WILL deplete if we aren't careful. Let's explore what to do about it.

No alarms. Just recognize reality and shephard your resources wisely.

Small effects in isolated areas? I agree

World wide impact? I am that ignorant to think we don't have that kind of power

Atmospheric CO2 levels increased by 50% seems like a pretty LARGE human influence.

Destruction of the ozone layer over most of Antarctica seems like a pretty LARGE human influence.

Almost total destruction of the buffalo seems like a pretty LARGE human influence.

Fishing the north Atlantic cod almost to extinction seems like a pretty LARGE human influence.

Laying waste to thousands of square miles around Chernobyl seems like a pretty LARGE human influence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Would you be OK with increasing the amount of arsenic in your water to 400ppm?

It's pretty clear to me that you were on a debate team at some point in time, or else aspired to be on a debate team.

You're failing miserably with that analogy. Humans don't exhale arsenic. They do exhale CO2.

Quote

>What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models",
>especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year".

No one claims that.

Note the quotation marks. Agreed, they're not claiming it this year, but there are claims it'll happen in our lifetime. Bullshit.

Quote

>Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely.

OK. What steps? So far all I see are steps to INCREASE CO2 emissions.

Well, considering China is emitting more CO2 than Western democracies combined, you tell me. Maybe the "alarmists" can go and sing Kumbayah with them?

Nuclear is the only viable solution, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,410]

>It's pretty clear to me that you were on a debate team at some point in time,
>or else aspired to be on a debate team.

Nope. I did work at the school TV station at one point, though. You can probably figure out a way to attack me with that.

>Humans don't exhale arsenic. They do exhale CO2.

They both absorb and secrete it. It's a trace nutrient.

Once again - 400ppm is tiny. It's a tiny fraction of a percent. In fact, let's reduce that level to 200ppm. It's HALF of what you claim is a concentration of CO2 that should do nothing. Are you OK with it now? Would you be willing to ingest even half of what you claim is an insignificant level?

Didn't think so. Suddenly you're starting to think "wait a minute - this is my health you're talking about! 400ppm doesn't sound like such a tiny amount any more." And you know what? You'd be right.

>Note the quotation marks. Agreed, they're not claiming it this year, but there are
>claims it'll happen in our lifetime. Bullshit.

Who is claiming that polar bears will be extinct within our lifetimes?

>Well, considering China is emitting more CO2 than Western democracies combined,
>you tell me. Maybe the "alarmists" can go and sing Kumbayah with them?

And there's room for all sorts of deniers on Bay of Bengal Island.

Well, there used to be.

>Nuclear is the only viable solution, IMO.

Nuclear is a good baseline generation source. Wind and solar are good for bulk power, hydro is good for load leveling, and natural gas makes for good peakers.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

You can probably figure out a way to attack me with that.

Didn't realize I was that good.

Quote

It's a trace nutrient.

Exactly.

Quote

Who is claiming that polar bears will be extinct within our lifetimes?

Al Gore, and friends.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.” - Muller, Nove. 2011.

Indeed. He doesn't follow the political winds. He was pegged as a skeptic because he didn't wholesale agree lockstep with the climate science luminaries.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

To be precise it is .00395% of the atmosphere.

It is 1/400th of the greenhouse gases

Water vapor is by far the No. 1 greenhouse gas.

Atmospheric water vapor is Responsive to the ocean, which has a heat capacity 1000 times that of the atmosphere.

So this is what is often lost in the CO2 issue. Perspective. And why people thing El Nino years are warm years. No. The end of el nino is a warm year. The ocean's heat content is released into the atmosphere.

And this affects the earth's energy balance. Which is never in balance. Ever. How do we know this? Because there has never been a day in recorded history with no wind. Or rain. Or snow. The earth strives to balance by weather. All the heat energy in the ocean? We get hurricanes. If one looks at ocean surface temperatures before and after a hurricane blows through they'll see cooler water in its wake. That energy is transferred into winds and convection, etc. Which is released with rain and wind. And waves.

That's weather. We haven't had a hurricane landfall in the US since Ike. July, 2012 set a US record for fewest tornadoes since records began. Weather.

The accumulation of weather is climate. Climate is changing. All the time. Short term climate change. Mid-term climate change. Long term climate change. Always changing because the earth is never in balance.

Most view me as a skeptic. I question predictions. I am considered a skeptic - and align myself with them - even though I believe that earth's climate is changing, the earth is warming, and human activity has some responsibility for it. However, I believe that the warming will be negligible, the human causation more so.

I myself am interested in learning more about oscillations. The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. The Pacific decadal oscillation. Both have been on the upper side the past couple of decade. It remains to be seen what will result, but I myself won't be surprised if by 2030 or 2040 we'll have seen cooler temps. Not that I'm presicting it, because they aren't well understood.

But I credit Muller. He's not a cloimate skeptic. He's a guy who likes to see proof. I think he's a pretty evenhanded fella. No Judith Curry, but noit much of an ideologue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 388]

It was funded by the Koch brothers and has been rejected for peer review by the most prestigious Journal on the topic. So by your standard it cannot be trusted.

"The BEST team stated that the paper had not been rejected by peer review and no major flaws had been discovered. This does not appear to be true: the Journal of Geophysical Research ended up rejecting the BEST paper on UHI (Urban Heat Island) effects".

[devildog 0]

Quote

400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case).

Step back and look at that.

Anyone who has looked at the physics knows that CO2 does indeed absorb radiation emitted by the earth. There is no arguing that.

What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models", especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year". What can be argued even more are the "solutions" being proposed by governing bodies. These can, and should, be "denied".

That's the essence of this argument, IMO.

None of us are going to see drowning polar bears in our lifetime. Nor will our children, or our grandchildren, nor our great-grandchildren.

How much green house warming was in place before our species came into being? About 70 degF. Is another 2-3 degF going to kill us? I think not.

Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should we allow governments to take control of that process via ridiculous edicts? Absolutely not.

Dinos thrived with C02 concentrations 17-18 times what they are now. 400, hell, even 800 ppm isn't going to do anything.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 2,410]

>>It's a trace nutrient.

>Exactly.

Yep. But you're still not going to willingly drink water with even half of that concentration of arsenic in it.

CO2 is a trace component of our atmosphere. But anyone who thinks you can increase its concentration by 50% and have absolutely nothing change - doesn't understand atmospheric chemistry.

>Al Gore, and friends.

Got a quote? Or was this from FOX News?

[billvon 2,410]

>Dinos thrived with C02 concentrations 17-18 times what they are now.

Five times, actually. And yes, temperatures were much higher; average POLAR temperatures were around 50F. Sorta blows holes in the "CO2 doesn't do anything" meme.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case).

Step back and look at that.

Anyone who has looked at the physics knows that CO2 does indeed absorb radiation emitted by the earth. There is no arguing that.

What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models", especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year". What can be argued even more are the "solutions" being proposed by governing bodies. These can, and should, be "denied".

That's the essence of this argument, IMO.

None of us are going to see drowning polar bears in our lifetime. Nor will our children, or our grandchildren, nor our great-grandchildren.

How much green house warming was in place before our species came into being? About 70 degF. Is another 2-3 degF going to kill us? I think not.

Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should we allow governments to take control of that process via ridiculous edicts? Absolutely not.

Dinos thrived with C02 concentrations 17-18 times what they are now. 400, hell, even 800 ppm isn't going to do anything.

Of course, dinos didn't build cities along coastlines, have extensive industrial and agricultural infrastructure... And by the way, they became extinct

PS your numbers are incorrect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>Al Gore, and friends.

Got a quote? Or was this from FOX News?

What? Did you sleep through "An Inconvenient Truth"?"

I know it was labeled fiction, but that didn't stop him from producing it....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,410]

>What? Did you sleep through "An Inconvenient Truth"?"

Nope. I did notice that while he said that warming was "bad news for creatures like polar bears" I did not see a claim that they would all be extinct within our lifetimes.

I fear you have once again been listening to FOX News.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

>Al Gore, and friends.

Got a quote? Or was this from FOX News?

What? Did you sleep through "An Inconvenient Truth"?"

I know it was labeled fiction, but that didn't stop him from producing it....

Snipping the original question, which was "Who is claiming that polar bears will be extinct within our lifetimes?" is weasel tactics. So do you have a source for Al Gore saying that?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[doubleplay 0]

Quote

400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case).

Step back and look at that.

Anyone who has looked at the physics knows that CO2 does indeed absorb radiation emitted by the earth. There is no arguing that.

What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models", especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year". What can be argued even more are the "solutions" being proposed by governing bodies. These can, and should, be "denied".

That's the essence of this argument, IMO.

None of us are going to see drowning polar bears in our lifetime. Nor will our children, or our grandchildren, nor our great-grandchildren.

How much green house warming was in place before our species came into being? About 70 degF. Is another 2-3 degF going to kill us? I think not.

Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should we allow governments to take control of that process via ridiculous edicts? Absolutely not.

Who's going to take control if not the governments? I wonder???

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

400 ppm is 0.0004 (...by weight in this case).

Step back and look at that.

Anyone who has looked at the physics knows that CO2 does indeed absorb radiation emitted by the earth. There is no arguing that.

What can be argued is the dire predictions being made by people who write "models", especially when they claim all the polar bears are going to die "this year". What can be argued even more are the "solutions" being proposed by governing bodies. These can, and should, be "denied".

That's the essence of this argument, IMO.

None of us are going to see drowning polar bears in our lifetime. Nor will our children, or our grandchildren, nor our great-grandchildren.

How much green house warming was in place before our species came into being? About 70 degF. Is another 2-3 degF going to kill us? I think not.

Should we take steps to reduce CO2 emissions? Absolutely. Should we allow governments to take control of that process via ridiculous edicts? Absolutely not.

Who's going to take control if not the governments? I wonder???

Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers, of course.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.