Global Weirding Part II

After reviewing the interview with Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit, i.e. the climategate scientist, from the link given me by Kristin, I have pasted

some of what I found relevant below. The most emphatic we get from Mr. Jones is that he believes 100% that there is global warming, and he believes that there is evidence that most of the warming is due to human activity. Not being a scientist myself, I have a hard time verifying anything he says. But considering his credentials (see the rest of the interview) and the credentials of so many many scientists, I feel it is reasonable to think that they are right. But even if one does not wish to jump in with the intelligentsia, still it only makes sense to act as if man-made global warming were a fact, as I noted in my previous post on Global Weirding. Why? Because nobody doubts that we have a serious land pollution problem, a serious, health risk, air pollution problem, and a seriously deadly addiction to the oil buried in the Middle East. (Why did God bury our oil in the Middle East?) If the scientists happen to all be foolish and crazy, we are still ahead of the game by improving the environment, improving health, saving lives, and inventing sustainable energy practices. If the scientists happen to be right, we will be saving even more lives. It seems to be a no-brainer to me, but I'm obviously missing something. I'm afraid I don't feel particularly sorry for all the factories and industries puffing out pollution who can't be bothered to invent safer, and often cheaper in the long run, methods of production and transportation. Also I recommend reading Hot Flat and Crowded: Why we Need a Green Revolution by Thomas Friedman. According to Friedman, in addition to saving our health and lives by jumping on the green wagon, we will also be saving our economy.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Well that is a just a portion of the interview. If you want to read the entire interview go here.

Global Weirding

With all the snow and cold this winter, I occasionally hear people talking somewhat derisively about global warming? Global warming? What global warming? I read (ok, listened to) Tom Friedman's book, Hot Flat and Crowded. He said the term Global Weirding is more accurate than merely global warming. Here's what he said (2007):

.. sweet-sounding "global warming" doesn't really capture what's likely to happen. I prefer the term "global weirding," coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things -- from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.

Also a well-known fact is that climate change (global warming) causes more frequent and severe snowstorms:

Record snowstorms need two things: temperatures below freezing, and very high humidity. On a planet warmer by a few degrees on average, the Northeast US will still have plenty of days below freezing; the big difference will be warmer seas producing higher levels of moisture in the air — and therefore more severe cold-season storms.

Fact: We can expect more extreme weather

Scientists tell us that climate change has already led to more extreme weather in the United States and we can expect stronger hurricanes, more wildfires, heatwaves and droughts, to name a few. The cost of inaction could reach half a trillion dollars a year.

Fact: The world is warming at a quickening pace

Weather in one region over days or months should not be confused with climate or the patterns of weather over decades and centuries. And the science is clear here: the last decade was the hottest on record. And to put this year’s weather in perspective, January was warmer than average for the continental United States.

Well, there you have it. Frankly, I don't get why there is such heated debate over global warming. I don't think anybody doesn't believe we have a pollution problem. Pollution in the rivers, in the lakes, in the oceans--mountains of it floating around. And the air. Does anyone seriously think that air pollution is not a huge and serious problem? Nobody I know. And then what about our funding of states that want to kill us? Does anybody think that it wouldn't be a great idea if we didn't support our oil addiction by buying it from Saudi Arabia et al? Nobody I know.

Does anybody think blowing up the tops of mountains (resulting in poisoning the water and unlivable conditions for miles around--for people and animals--in Tennessee and West Virginia) is a great way to get coal? Does anybody wonder if it is your next-door neighbor who is making this greedy grab for oil, or if it's huge corporations supporting billion dollar lifestyles and the politicians they buy?

So even if you disbelieve every single scientist that is not working for big oil about the reality of global warming, still you would have no reason not to support efforts to stop burning fossil fuels, and would logically be happy about new research into solar energy, wind energy, recyclable products, and bio fuels. And you would vote in every green candidate for any office you possibly could.

Am I missing something?

Already have everything?

For Christmas this year I got a goat and a share in a water buffalo--everybody has one you know. They were some of my favorite presents! Heifer.org sends out a gift catalog and you choose what to give someone: a bunny, a goat, a cow, a share in a water buffalo, etc. A certificate is sent for the giftee, and the actual animals are given to families around the world to help them become self-reliant. It's a really wonderful concept. And while I don't have everything I want, I have pretty much everything most of my gift-giving family and friends can afford to give me. So unless they have a few hundred thousand to donate to my wildest dreams fund, I figure It's better to get a gift that can really make a difference for someone. Mary wrapped up the goat certificate with a little stuffed goat she found along with a very sweet note. What a great present. Check it out at heifer.org. (Once you get there, click on the Gift Catalog.)

How to prevent a Viking attack

With the resurgence of pirates in the Mediterranean, there has been some fear of Viking attacks as well; this fear is not entirely unfounded--Vikings have been actually sited in the burbs of the Southeastern portion of the United States. In view of this development, we (the royal one) have developed some guidelines to help you avoid such an attack.

A birthday

For my b-day we went to the Orangery, named for Marie Antionette's greenhouse at Versailles--a very pricey French restaurant. (Well, yes we had been given a gift certificate, but even with that it was pricey. The tip was as much as the price for a similar outing at a nice restaurant.) We tried to act decorously, but Stephen kept breaking into an English accent--I don't think he does French--still, it seemed appropriate. The food was fabulous! The lady on the Steinway played Happy Birthday for me. It wasn't too embarrassing. Afterwards, by previous decree, Stephen and Russ accompanied me to JC Pennys Big and Tall section to browse over the 80% off clothes. That was fun (and more my style, sigh)!

I got a new purse for my birthday. It is a bit too young-looking with rhinestone bling on it, but it had all the features I wanted, and who wants an old lady purse anyway? So I got it. But when I got it home and took out the stuffing, the purse lost its shape and collapsed. I brooded about that and finally made a cardboard form, unpicked the purple silk lining and stuffed the form in. So clever! :)

We skyped with Mary, and Eliz called in-- we all gave Stephen advice about his new romance. He obviously needs it. He told us that the girl of interest had told him she didn't like Valentine's Day--as if couples needed an excuse to be romantic! Stephen thought that meant he shouldn't do anything on Valentines. We all laughed him to scorn, and he seemed very confused and distraught. Thank God I wasn't born a man. His romance might be over before I get this posted. :)