RE: A free AND responsible press;
Here is a link to FactCheck.org's science site. It affirms that Obama has been correct or nearly correct about recent claims he has made about 2014 being the warmest year, as well as the fact that 14 of the 15 years since the turn of the century have been among the hottest years on record:
I sent you this link so that you can at least understand what is accurate, even if you are not willing to edit, or reject entirely, letters about climate change that do NOT contain (accurate) information about global warming. In fact, some of the letters and articles in the Tribune from deniers, contain almost NO accurate information at all, and it can be proven that they don't!
Surely your role as a trusted news outlet, involves reporting real information and actual facts pertaining to the stories and issues that the Tribune covers? So, how about really editing the letters of denial that are sent to Readers' Views for their accuracy--as you claim is your right to do under the Readers' Views, opinion page guidelines?
I found an article affirming Obama's climate claims in about two minutes by simply going to the FactCheck.org website, and consulting its science section. So, why can't the Tribune do the same? You have often needed to verify or correct some information in my letters, so that means you have actually bothered to check the sites I referenced by using the Internet. I can virtually guarantee you that some day the American Press, and the press worldwide, will wonder why it didn't recognize the importance of AGW (man-made global warming), and actually bother to check some of the supposed facts in countless letters of denial that are published in newspapers like the Tribune. So, many news outlets like the Tribune will eventually NEED to begin vetting deniers sooner or later. By not doing so, members of the press are inadvertently allowing downright false pieces of misinformation, as well as blatant lies, to be given a free but false pass! Would you publish a letter, or article, which claimed GW Bush is really a transsexual, or that President Obama is an avowed necrophiliac? With the possible exception of President Obama—of course you wouldn't!—at least not until you were damn sure that you were really reporting factual and verifiable information!
Global warming may not entirely eradicate the human race, but it will very likely expose our children and their children, to a hostile and perhaps even deadly, environment. So, If we don't become extinct, as up to a million other species may (by the end of this century), we will need to view our global climate as part of a delicately balanced web. For that reason the extinction of many other species would very likely, adversely affect the human race and damage our worldwide environment as well!
I am not trying to attack your integrity or coerce you into heeding the songs of canaries in coal mines—environmental ignorance is (although not always deliberate), typical of the press around the world—not just in Duluth Minnesota. However, I am asking you to seriously consider the things I and many others have mentioned in letters which have been sent to the Tribune.
I consider the role of the press to be just as critical as the role of climate scientists in spreading factual information about AGW. So, it's my hope that increasing numbers of informed people will frequently send letters containing truthful information about man's role in global warming to their local news outlets. Even if such letters are sent to the editors WITHOUT the express purpose of being published in various opinion page sections, such letters can also serve the purpose of keeping the journalists, who work at those outlets knowledgeable about the many types of misinformation and downright lies that are distorting actual facts about climate change. So after those in the press are provided with truthful information, the ball will then be in their court, and they will have the responsibility to act with honesty and accuracy concerning the facts about global warming—ignorance really should not provide anyone with a free license to lie! So the press will eventually have NO excuse to enable deniers! And, the press really does need to play a paramount role in educating the public--that's why it needs to be educated itself!
What is the rationale behind the claim that outlets like the Tribune reserve the right to edit for accuracy, if so much inaccurate and misleading information is continually printed in your pages anyway? You needn't ALWAYS vet the letters of denier for facts, but just as you examine my links—and rightly so—can't you also occasionally attempt to verify the claims of deniers by spending just a few extra minutes on the Internet, or simply going to links like the one I provided at FactCheck.org? What is your excuse as a professional news outlet when, like so many others, you deliberately look the other way, and thus legitimize the lies and misinformation provided by deniers without first verifying the truth behind what they say for yourself?
Peter W. Johnson
So scientist are being blamed for being more thorough and painstaking about the data they collect, which now leads the NOAA to adjust its figures? This in itself is a bit strange since climate scientists are often criticized for not being careful enough about the data they examine--yet climate scientists are the ones doing the correcting?ReplyDelete
Even though deniers claimed that the hiatus revealed a complete stop of warming, it turns out there may not have even been a slowdown either! This is intolerable to deniers because their entire network of propaganda is based on establishing doubt, and claiming scientists are missing important points. They really need to ensure the future profitability of the petroleum and coal industries because once renewable energy is established as a main player, it will cost less to find, install, and use, plus the fact that it will provide proportionally more energy for cost, than oil, gas and coal. Renewables will also be phased in slowly so they do not drive energy costs up initially---presumably because if the industry had to build effective wind turbines and photovoltaic facilities immediately, it would jack up the amount of money they would need to invest, and thus raise the prices of consumers utility bills.
If all of this was just the result of honest ignorance on the part of deniers, it might not seem so bad. But just as it is impossible for them to immediately check all of the new NOAA data, it is also impossible for them to cherry pick and manipulate data in ways that obscure the existence of a warming trend--- unless they know full well what they are doing! Therefore they are deliberately falsifying data!
I have read about the enormous amounts of heat energy that are absorbed by the oceans, but the fact that most of it is collects in the Indian ocean, is news to me. I suppose this also makes sense when one examines ocean currents and discovers which way all the factors make these currents flow. However, you can bet that deniers will try to discredit this information also and attempt to say that this too, is just another form of deliberate manipulation of data.
It seems that way doesn't it - rush out and attempt to "kill the messenger".ReplyDelete
I have been arguing on other blogs the fact that deniers are disputing the results is an encouraging sign - it means they now accept the data indicating a hiatus, it means they trust the results. If they thought all the data was wrong (or fraudulent), why would they bother disputing the new results?
It parallels the situation with the Lamb graph in a previous IPCC which has been interpreted as meaning the Little Ice Age was global (it actually doesn't). The deniers attempt to use this as evidence to dispute the Mann et al Hockey Stick reconstruction.
You make a good point. The very fact they use the data to claim there was no warming means they concede the fact the data is valid.ReplyDelete
You keep insisting that I am using only American and European data. This I have NEVER done. ALL of my data references have been for net GLOBAL emissions.ReplyDelete
You seem to have difficulty understanding what I have written.
All of my SO2 references are from published data, and show the decrease in total SO2 emissions over the years (1972-2011), and the accompanying RISE in average global temperatures that occurred in tandem with their decrease...
(I have a spread sheet of the above, but don't know how to include it in this communication)
Between 1972 and 2011, there was only one 5 year period, 2000-2005, when net global anthropogenic emissions of SO2 rose (by 5.58 Megatonnes). This caused a drop in average global temperatures of .09 deg. C.
Using the .02 deg. C temp. change per net Megatonne of SO2 removed climate sensitivity factor that I have confirmed, a temp. decrease of .02 x 5.58 = 0.11 deg. C would be expected.
As mentioned in my WUWT essay, and shown on my annotated graph, there is a "background" temperature (when there are no temporary El Nino or La Nina, or volcanic excursions), that is slowly rising due to fewer dimming aerosols. An El Nino excursion above that baseline CANNOT be cited as evidence of on-going global warming, since the temperature rise is only temporary.ReplyDelete
Heat is not being stored in the oceans due to greenhouse gasses. The oceans are getting hotter simply because the sunshine striking them is getting stronger.
The reason I keep insisting you are using only American and European emissions is because of YOUR OWN STATEMENTS! You continuously state U.S. and European emissions have fallen due to the Clean Air Act (and European equivalents) without EVER acknowledging increases in the rest of the world. So, don't try and put that one on me.ReplyDelete
Again, when you consider WORLDWIDE emissions (i.e., emissions from ALL of the countries in the world), your hypothesis
Again, once you are posted on WUWT you have lost ALL credibility. Period. End of sentence. Move on.ReplyDelete
Ironically, you have proved that very point. See my other comments concerning your failed hypothesis.
Peter, is this what you are looking for?ReplyDelete
It's progress (sort of...) :-)ReplyDelete
It shows the same kind of info but I could have sworn the website I originally saw it on was the skeptical science website. Thanks!ReplyDelete
If you follow the link "click for animated version", it does take you to SS. http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67ReplyDelete
Yup, that looks like what I saw. Thanks for your sleuthing cunudium.ReplyDelete
Love Pete and Shari
Why not respond to my post on its merits rather than simply dismiss it because it was posted on WUWT?ReplyDelete
This comment demonstrates everything wrong with your claim because I disproved your hypothesis from the start and have continued to disprove your hypothesis via the scientific method all along, but you simply ignore it. One more time for the record:ReplyDelete
Your hypothesis states global warming is caused by the decrease in SO2 levels as a result of the Clean Air Act and cite reduced emissions in the U.S. and Europe as your supporting data.
Putting it to the test, via the scientific method, and including worldwide SO2 emissions, (not just U.S. and European emissions) we find the following:
1) There were times when SO2 emissions declined on the worldwide basis and global temperatures increased, but also times when it decreased. Hypothesis failed.
2) There were times when SO2 emissions increased on the worldwide basis and global temperatures increased, but also times when it decreased. Hypothesis failed.
3) There were separate time periods when the worldwide SO2 emissions were equal but had different global temperatures. By your hypothesis, periods of equal emissions should have equal temperatures. Hypothesis failed.
Your hypothesis is so totally and completely flawed that no one but me and WUWT would give you an audience. I did it because I invited anyone to submit their claims in order to show how flawed they are (success). WUWT did it because it has rejected science and has no credibility (fail).
I certainly hope this closes this discussion, but I have read enough of your comments to know better.
Unfortunately, none of your points 1-3 are valid.
What you are obviously doing is ignoring the TEMPORARY increases and decreases due to El Ninos and La Ninas, etc., and taking the reported NASA/GISS temp. values at face value.
Yes, for example, there can be periods where SO2 emissions went down and the reported temperature also decreased (where I claim that it should have increased). But if you examine those periods, you will find that there was a La Nina present at that time, or a volcanic eruption, that caused the decrease in average temperatures
The graph that I included with my WUWT posting
shows the correspondence between climate peaks and valleys with El Ninos and La Ninas or volcanic eruptions. The correspondence is essentially 100%
You need to ask yourself
A true display of rejecting science is when the denier in question cherry picks the data to get the results he/she wants.ReplyDelete
A basic question (which you cannot answer, even if you are a Phd:)
Please explain how the removal of a net (decreases-increases) 28 Million tonnes of strongly dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosols can be removed from the atmosphere without having a climatic effect.
I am so glad you asked that question. It makes me think there might be some hope for you. The answer is that removing the SO2 aerosols have an effect, but the removal does not correlate with the change in global temperature. Some times, removing aerosols results in surface temperature changing one way, but other times it results in the surface temperature changing the other way. This indicates there is something even more dominating involved than SO2.ReplyDelete
Are you understanding the science?
The end of this comment includes my auto-sign off in Gmail, I had no idea that it would be printed where I make comments about Mr.Keatings posts.ReplyDelete
It was a nice touch, though.ReplyDelete
And the stronger sunlight causes water vapor to form and thus increases the greenhouse gas effect even more. Also are you saying that the Ozone layer is being affected all over the world, simultaneously.ReplyDelete
In the 1960s and 1970s the primary areas where this was happening were above the Antarctic circle at the very southern tip of Chile and Argentina. but even its effect on global temperatures were far from being the only factors influencing global temperature averages. And since when does a temperature rise need to be permanent in order to indicate global warming. If you look at any graph, a long series of up and down temp changes are clear to see, the important variable is that over a long range of time, the chart shows a gradual upward trend, that corresponds with human industrial activities as well as any valid natural influences.
My first visit to this blog for a while.ReplyDelete
From what I see, the reduction in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions is a first-order effect, overpowering such things as changes in cloud cover, the Ozone layer, etc.
Simply using the Climate Sensitivity factor of approx. .02 deg. C. temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reductions in SO2 emissions will allow prediction of the resultant average global temperature to within less than a tenth of a degree C.(when natural causes such as El Ninos, La Ninas, etc.are excluded)
A temporary temperature rise, such as that from an El Nino, is NOT an indication of global warming. What IS an indication of global warming is the average global temperature when there are no excursions due to El Ninos, La Ninas, or volcanic emissions.
This temperature has been trending upward strictly in tandem with the removal of sulfur dioxide aerosols, so that .when an El Nino occurs, we tend to experience ever higher temperatures.
I have a graph which illustrates this, but don't know how to include it in a post.
It is unfortunate, but to avoid cooking ourselves, we must halt all further reductions in SO2 emissions.
Tell me something, does this graph of yours reflect, and explain, the fact that we have had record levels of worldwide SO2 emissions the last few years while at the same time having the hottest years ever? As long as you ignore the data and the science, you will continue to come to false conclusions.ReplyDelete
The graph is a plot of data from an Excel spreadsheet of total worldwide SO2 emissions 1972-2011 (obtained from published data) and does explain why temperatures are increasing.(as total emissions decrease, temperatures rise) The rise is .02 deg. C. for each net Megatonne of reduction in SO2 emissions.ReplyDelete
In spite of your assertion that there have been record levels of SO2 emissions over the past few years, the data shows that net emissions have been steadily declining since 1972, the only exception being the period 2000-2005, when there was a net increase of 5.58 Megatonnes. For the following 5 year period, 2005-2010, the decrease continued, declining by a net 9.28 Megatonnes.
I wrote a posting that will be published tomorrow. It will show conclusively, for anyone who doesn't reject science, that your assertion is invalid.ReplyDelete
Take a look here.ReplyDelete