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
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.
Did you mean black pants? If so, that would be awesome! If you indeed meant back pants...I am curious and not yet sure if I need that product. Could you send a picture of the second? Do they beep when I walk backwards?
ReplyDeleteAack! She's Back! (me that is.ha!) Part II
ReplyDeleteIMHO, :-) The problems arise when politics gets involved. The ‘green’ ticket is very politically charged. Your beloved Spain has been one of the world leaders in green job creation. They are now at nearly 20% unemployment. The link below talks of some of the unintended consequences the single-minded approach to green job creations has created. In Spain, for every 1 green job created = 2.2 ‘regular’ jobs are lost.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/Calzada%20EPW%20Testimony%20Aug%206%202009.pdf
Some other examples of unintended consequences:
When I was teaching school in Tucson, AZ our high school was so overcrowded the students were forced to go to school in 1 of 3 shifts (morning, afternoon or night). The school district was being held hostage by an owl. The district owned land to build a new HS, but because a random hiker said he saw a ‘Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl whose range just barely extends into North America from Central America and Mexico and might nest in the area on occasion, we should protect the area. The owls are not even slightly endangered but are rarely seen in AZ.
The high school was finally built a few years ago, but what was the true cost for the students?
Another knee-jerk example: CFL lightbulbs “while the bulbs are extremely energy-efficient, one problem hasn’t gone away: All CFLs contain mercury, a neurotoxin that can cause kidney and brain damage.
The amount is tiny — about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen — but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as “low-mercury” can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels.” (MSNBC report) In the long term is the mercury going to be more hazardous to the environment than what is being saved? I use them in most areas of my house, but I am very wary. In fact, there is an 11 step process required to dispose of a CFL bulb safely.
(We know I am long winded...Part III continues )
You would be hard pressed to find a someone being more green than my dad (his nickname at the firestation was ‘re-psycho-man’. He literally has been known to pull the car over and pick up water bottles lying in the street and recycle them. We are quite serious about recycling at our home as well, using reusable grocery totes, watching our water consumption as well. I don’t need my mayor, senator or other leaders telling me how to be greener especially when they are doing very little to show the way other than witty lip-service.
ReplyDeleteEthanol gasoline: the amount of grain required to fill ONE tank of an average SUV would feed a person for an entire year. If the US grew corn as its only crop for the creation of ethanol, we would only satisfy 16% of the need. Yes, we need to continue creating and investigating new ways and utilizing technologies we have to get off our need of foreign oil. (Nuclear, wind, solar, drilling here in our own land) We have all the resources we need in this blessed country, we just need the innovation to utilize them. It must be done right, with an open mind and research as to how our new discoveries affect and effect us, our environment and economy.
I am also quite bothered that our emergency TARP bills were passed, and very little of it has been spent, (just the govt's personal project piggy bank. Which jobs were created/saved and how is that measured? Now they want to pass another one without this money even being spent, and they have no money to fund it....I don't, nor could I live my life that way) the portion that has been spent is questionable (both Bush’s and Obama’s TARPS lest you think I think this is one-sided crap)
One glaring example of politics getting involved: Obama’s Weatherization Czar, Cathy Zoi, happens to be married to the V.P. of Serious Materials, a small window company offering energy efficient windows that the President and Vice President Biden have lauded and given much high profile exposure/contracts. Whether there have been any true improprieties, I don’t know. I am one who agrees with the adage “Avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing”. The politics involved is what creates the polarization.
Yes, the right and the left BOTH care about the Earth. Both sides are offering suggestions. We need to educate ourselves about the consequences (good & bad) of these suggestions. We also need to trust ourselves to be able to make decisions for ourselves. We the People are not idiots, we are not in anyone's pocket and best equipped to make common sense decisions.
PS: regarding the post B & C the temp changes are identical, yet the one that backs up his theory is good enough and the other not...interesting
all my love, me :-)
I am looking forward to reading this book. I am on the hold list at the library. One other person is in line before me.
ReplyDeleteSorry for my no response, but I had given up getting any! So many thanks to your intelligent replies! Your comments are well received, though I have a somewhat jaded hope, as do you, that the government will do things right; And as for We the People, well my hope is jaded there as well. But America has muddled along with our political/religious troubles for a while, so here's hoping we can get a few things right and carry on with style or at least without more major collapses. :) I may respond more directly to your comments, but right now I'm going to watch House. :)
ReplyDeleteHi Syb,
ReplyDeleteI've been on hiatus. Did you listen to the NPR program on the difficulty some scientist are having who have research that does not support global warming getting published in scientific journals? They are being blackballed by their own colleagues. It was an interesting program.
I'm in enthusiastic agreement that we need to take care of this earth, fight pollution and be responsible inhabitants. I guess the question is where can our resources be put to best use?