Joust The Facts

The Joust The Facts "Quote Of The Day"

Coming today from the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens, on the subject of global warming climate change.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

Deceit?  How about How about the climategate emails, versions 1.0 and 2.0?   Arrogance?  How about Phil Jones of East Anglia University and Michael Mann of Penn State?  Money?  How about James Hansen of NASA?  Power, politics?  How about the oracle himself, Al Gore?

Speaking of Mr. Gore, there is a legal aphorism that at least this site attributes to him:

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, hollar.

Given that Al Gore has been doing a lot more "hollaring" than arguing, perhaps the laws (of science) and the facts are not really on his side.

Exit Question:  Will Jon Huntsman need to "revise and extend" his own remarks on the topic?

HUNTSMAN: Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science.

Politicians govern by concensus.  Scientists don't.

Recognizing The Standard Smear

This is getting to be routine.  Some individual - judge, in this case - does something to offend the sensibilities of liberal activists and, voila!!, said action is determined by those same activists to be directly attributable to financial self interest or being beholden to special interests.  It happens virtually every time.  In this instance, episode 936 I believe, a federal judge ruled today that the off-shore drilling moratorium ordered by President Obama was "capricious," to say the least, and unwarranted, and he lifted the ban. 

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

Logical?  Yes, but who cares?  Obviously it's because he had stock in a drilling company.

Environmentalists and liberal lobbyists were quick to note Judge Martin Feldman’s financial interest in Transocean, an offshore drilling equipment contractor likely to be hit hard hit financially if the drilling ban continues. A number of groups circulated his disclosure forms to Washington reporters within minutes of his decision to reinstate drilling.

"A number of groups," like the Soros-funded and humorously misnamed Center for American Progress.  Critique of the judge's logic?  No.  An alternative reading of the applicable laws? No. Just a smear, and a lousy one at that.  Never mind that the federal government approved the drilling permits, and never mind that the other rigs pass safety inspections.  Is this the only stock he owned?  Is this a major portion of his portfolio?  Did he buy more before ruling?  Irrelevant!!  Blasphemy!!

Liberals seem to complain a lot about judges rulings that go against them, kind of like Italian soccer players.  Former President Jimmy Carter had a little whine today (HT Maetenloch), for example, about a Supreme Court ruling (6-3 decision) that barred any type of support for terrorist organizations, a decision which is really hard to argue against.  But even worse is the financial/influence smear immediately and irresponsibly advanced, and with little other than outrage at the outcome behind it.

It may not matter.  The President is busy stacking the commission assigned to look into the disaster with anti-drilling activists, and it's not likely that looking into this is going to change their minds, the opinions of recognized engineering experts notwithstanding.

Even as this commission moves forward, engineering experts across the country have agreed that there is no scientific reason for a blanket drilling ban. The Interior Department invited experts to consult on drilling practices, but as we wrote last week eight of them have since said their advice was distorted to justify the Administration's six-month drilling moratorium.

Judging from that decision and now from Mr. Obama's drilling commission, the days of "science taking a back seat to ideology" are very much with us.

And I Suppose This Is The Result Of Global Warming, Too

Lake Erie has frozen, for the first time in 14 years.

Following a cold snap in the Northeast, Lake Erie's surface is virtually frozen over for the first time in about 14 years.

The ice ranges in thickness between paper thin along the northern shore and several inches along the southern shore, where many people are ice skating.

GoErie.com reports that the lake hasn't completely frozen since the winter of 1995-1996.

First time in 14 years.  Of course, a 'climate scientist' says that more snow can result from global warming.  On the other hand, it seems that another 'climate scientist' is speaking in much more dulcet and qualified tones about the theory.  And that IPCC 2007 assessment is looking a lot more like Swiss cheese at the moment.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC...

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

Must be just another anti-science Republican.

Ask A Physicist

In conclusion (p. 94, bottom) (warning: pdf.)(hat tip: krakatoa @ ace of spades)

The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis.  This is not the case.  In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.  Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.

Which, given this work by two physicists, chips away another brick in the wall of "scientific concensus." And which the authors also address (p. 94 middle)

A theoretical physicist must complain about the lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of "questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday."  In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.

Are these gentlemen right about the lack of a CO2 greenhouse effect?  Good question, well worth a legitimate scientific discussion, one not subject to blackballing from "peer-reviewed" journals or secret data and even more secret calculations and models.

By the way, this was published in January 2009, well before the ClimateGate emails emerged.

The JTF "Quotes Of The Day"

From a Times Daily Mail (UK) Online (MSM) news story - yes, there is at least one - having a look at "hiding the decline":

'Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’

And throw pears into the mix - much of the actual data were "adjusted," like this.  And a response to it all from Doctor Zero, one I wish I'd had time to write.

Dear global warming fanatics,

Please. Stop. You’re embarrassing yourselves. Take a deep breath, and try to understand what has happened to you during the past month. You need to accept that your dreams of global domination are over. Increasingly shrill attempts to terrify the masses into ignoring Climagate are only making you look foolish. The con job you’ve been running for the last thirty years is busted forever.

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

Willis Eschenbach at Watt's Up With That? (hat tip: krakatoa at Ace)

"Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero."

They blinded me with science.  Oh, and, by the way, the "scientific concensus" may not be, at least among scientists.

The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.

The Cowardly Climate Lion

Plans can change quickly when they need to, I guess.

Former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday abruptly canceled a Dec. 16 personal appearance that was to be staged during the United Nations' Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins next week.

As described in The Washington Times' Inside the Beltway column Tuesday, the multimedia public event to promote Mr. Gore's new book, "Our Choice," included $1,209 VIP tickets that granted the holder a photo opportunity with Mr. Gore and a "light snack."

Berlingkse Media, a Danish group coordinating ticket sales and publicity for the event, said that "great annoyance" was a factor in the cancellation, along with unforeseen changes in Mr. Gore's program for the climate summit. The decision affected 3,000 ticket holders.

"We have had a clear-cut agreement, and it is unusual with great disappointment that we have to announce that Al Gore cancels. We had a huge expectation for the event. . . . We do not yet know the detailed reasons for the cancellation," said Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media, in a statement posted by the company

First, isn't anyone else offended that this guy is charging $1200 a head just to be in his magnificent presence?  "Have a light snack with The Climate Prophet himself, for only the cost of a real nice LCD TV."  And Sarah Palin gets grief for actually taking a few plane flights in the course of her bus tour for Going Rogue.

Second, just like the CRU team at East Anglia, Mr. Gore has never been one willing to actually debate knowledgeable  critics.  The CRU team poisoned the peer-review process, refused FOIA requests from non-believers, and at a minimum discussed deleting information and communications.  He avoided a debate with Lord Christopher Monckton like the plague last spring, with protective Democrats vetoing Lord Monckton's appearance before Congress while his plane was en route.

Finally, I don't think Mr. Gore will be alone in "modifying" his Copenhagen schedule.  There will be a boatload of "schedule changes" by those unwilling to answer some serious questions about data, methods, and the honesty of the researchers primarily responsible for scaring as much of the planet as they can.

They Can't Handle The Truth

So, allegedly lacking space, they threw it all away.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

They dumped it to save space?  Perhaps.  But I'll bet most of us can think of other less charitable reasons the data might have been dumped.  Yesterday they claimed they'd release the data in full.  They didn't really mean that, though.

Because all we now have is the "adjusted data," with no record of either the raw data or the actual adjustments (and the logic behind them), scientists wishing to double and triple check the work of known liars and system manipulators would need to start with the "adjusted" data to begin their work, which is akin to taking over a train that has already been headed down a particular track to its destination.  But the group at CRU would like everyone to take their word on the adjusted data, and move along.  Right.

Other AGW climate change proponents, like MP George Monbiot, would have us believe that a couple of corrupt scientists should be dumped unceremoniously, but that the train should be allowed to continue because the evidence is still solid.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.

A wider conspiracy ... like, for example, destroying the source data?  We are left, at this point, with starting over from scratch.  The methods, the data, and the ideologically driven actions of the "scientists" at the East Anglia University CRU, and of those like Dr. Mann who were intimately involved in the ruses, are all so questionable that to soldier on as if nothing has changed shows only the religious fervor with which the proponents hold their beliefs.  If the data has been destroyed, then you'll need new data, the raw form of which would need to be released as soon as it has been obtained, prior to any analysis or manipulation, for open source analysis.  Otherwise the "truth" about AGW will continue to be solely a political argument over world governance and the tax burden and oppressiveness of government on people simply trying to live.

11/29/09 1235: More, from Christopher Booker in the Times of London: "the worst scientific scandal of our generation."

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

Let Me See If I Understand This ...

The polar bear is endangered by a lack of sea ice ...

ScienceDaily (May 15, 2008) — U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne  announced May 14 that he is accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The listing, the government says, is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.

... a lack of sea ice that, strangely enough, suddenly doesn't exist anymore.

On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record.

Does anyone have an explanation?  Incidentally, while (prior to this year) northern hemisphere sea ice had been declining at 2.8% ... per decade ... southern hemisphere sea ice has been increasing at 4.2% per decade.  Will we be removing the designation if over the next year or two sea ice remains at higher levels?  Right, silly question.

This just in: The earth's climate changes, and always has.

*See the nifty graphs at Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit.

Save Everything!

Alas, we are all indeed doomed.  On "the sidelines at the Clinton Global Initiative" (a grandiose moniker if ever there was one) scientist Jane Goodall claims that biofuel production is hurting the rainforest.

NEW YORK, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Primate scientist Jane Goodall said on Wednesday the race to grow crops for vehicle fuels is damaging rain forests in Asia, Africa and South America and adding to the emissions blamed for global warming.

"We're cutting down forests now to grow sugarcane and palm oil for biofuels and our forests are being hacked into by so many interests that it makes them more and more important to save now," Goodall said on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative, former U.S. President Bill Clinton's annual philanthropic meeting.

This on the heels of the news that biofuels produce more greenhouse gases than petroleum-based fuels.

Growing and burning many biofuel crops may actually raise, rather than lower, greenhouse gas emissions. That’s the conclusion of a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen, best known for his work on the ozone layer. He and his and his colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N₂O, also known as ‘laughing gas’) than previously thought – wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming.

‘The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuels are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,’ Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper and atmospheric scientist from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World magazine. ‘What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.’

I guess that's a problem if you believe that greenhouse gases are the driver for global warming, a point which remains under considerable, if denied by one side, debate.  File this under "damned if you do, damned if you don't."  Could oil be not only the most plentiful and easily obtainable fuel, but the best currently available mass fuel and the most environment friendly?  You know, if only there weren't so many darn earthlings in need of cheap energy ...

 

Looking On The Bright Side ...

... at least now we don't have to worry about global warming.  Scientists have determined that were using up the planet - its resources will be gone in a mere 44 years.

BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

I can't believe it.  No America bashing in a story about the environment.  Oh, wait, sorry, my bad.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

This study was made absolutely vital after a large amount of oil was recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico.  There is also conflicting data on food supplies from the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

A new technical interim report from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concludes that the long-term food security outlook for developing countries is good. While the world population is expected to reach eight billion by 2030, growth in global agriculture should be more than sufficient to meet world demand.

The WWF is not the World Wrestling Federation (now known as the WWE) but the World Wildlife Fund - might they have an agenda?

Somewhere Paul Ehrlich is smiling.

Why did Ehrlich’s predictions fail to come true? Because the model he used, like almost all those who predict dire problems from population, was basically flawed. In a nutshell what Ehrlich did was take population growth for the 1960s and extrapolate it out through the 1970s, but he insisted production of resources such as food and water were at their limits -- both would likely decline, and certainly not increase.

Food production not only increased, but increased faster than population growth, so 27 years after the publication of The Population Bomb, not only are there many more people alive in the world, but they eat more than they did in the past. Water quality, which Ehrlich believed beyond repair, has also steadily improved.

In a related story, the members of the WWF have contributed to recovery of the planet by moving to Borneo, giving up their automobiles and IPods, and subsisting only on locally grown mangoes and coconuts.

Because The US Won't Join Kyoto?

Pollution in Tehran is toxic enough that 1600 people Iranians recently were treated for smog-related illnesses, an over 5000 die there annually.

More than 1,600 people have been taken to hospitals in Tehran as pollution in the Iranian capital reaches critical levels, health officials have said.

Hospitals have reported increased cases of heart attacks and breathing problems, while many residents are complaining of fatigue and headaches.

Public offices and schools have been closed in an attempt to reduce traffic, and clear the city's blanket of smog.

Authorities have warned of thousands of casualties if pollution levels persist.

[...]

Authorities have blamed the severe smog on emissions from the capital's three million cars, many of which lack modern exhaust filters.

At the Montreal Conference,

Jennifer Morgan, climate-change expert for environmental group WWF, said US negotiator Harlan Watson's decision to leave the talks overnight showed "just how willing the US administration is to walk away from a healthy planet and its responsibilities".

She added "It's obvious America's to blame.  These deaths would be preventable if only they'd agree to crush their economy.  All the other nations are chipping in and dramatically reducing emissions.  Oh, and if GM would give Iran 3 million modern cars."

Former President Bill Clinton echoed, calling Bush "flat wrong" for worrying about injuring the American economy and exclusion of China and India from the treaty.  "I don't care if the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto while I was President, and with 3 years left in my term I did nothing to push for it. I've since done my own research in my spare time, while personally aiding millions of tsunami victims, and

"there is no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real, accelerating and caused by human activities.

Besides, I can undermine the sitting Republican President on foreign soil, so this is a two-fer for me."

12/10/05 1500: Linked to Wizbang's COTT XXXXI.  Wizbang's Kevin Aylward is the founder of the Weblog Awards, where you could, you know, go vote for one of the finalists, if you like.

12/10/05 1610: Stop The ACLU is also up for a Weblog Award, and mentioned favorably here.

12/10/05 1900: This story covered at Newsbusters, somewhat more seriously, where they point out the part of the story left out when CBS reported it, a part that Fox News did add.

As recounted by Jim Angle during Friday night's "Grapevine" segment on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, in July of 1997, "the Senate voted 95-0 against even considering the treaty and warned President Clinton not to even send it up to them, saying the United States shouldn't sign anything that would, quote, 'result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'" Angle added, "As a result, President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty for ratification."

That's Darwinism For You

It seems that too much booze can lessen the chances of you propagating your genes.

Problem drinking may dampen both a man's sex life and his chances of having children, according to a new study.

Researchers in India found that men being treated for alcoholism had lower testosterone levels and more sperm abnormalities than non-drinkers did. They also had a far higher rate of erectile dysfunction (ED) - 71 percent, versus 7 percent of abstainers.

Seventy-one percent?  That's a plea from Mother Nature: "Please, please don't pass on those genes."  Bar owners and distillers are groaning.

A Further Look At Global Warming And Hurricane Strength

Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow in environmental studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, has a scientific look at the claims that strong hurricanes like Katrina are due to global warming, and finds the articles unconvincing.

Hurricane Katrina’s magnitude was not changed by global warming. In fact, despite a hundred news stories to the contrary, it’s not at all clear that any such warming will result in more frequent, let alone more intense, tropical cyclones. Take, for example, the recent rise in hurricane frequency in the Atlantic Basin; it’s as if we have returned to the 1930s, ’50s, and ’60s, when storm activity reached a ferocious height before settling down for several decades.

Keep in mind, however, that there are some differences between now and then. Today’s hurricanes tend to concentrate in Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, whereas in mid-century they repeatedly struck the Atlantic coast—all the way to Canada. This is worth noting because, in a warming world, simple reasoning predicts that activity should have moved north, not south. Obviously things are not so simple with hurricanes and climate change.

[...]

So, rather than focusing exclusively on what’s happening in our provincial part of the North Atlantic, we should be asking what is happening to hurricane activity around the planet. And the answer is . . . nothing. More specifically, there has been no significant movement in either frequency or strength despite a warming trend since 1975, a cooling trend in midcentury, and a warming trend in the early 1900s that was similar to what we see today.

Mr. Michaels notes that hurricanes tend to occur over water that is at least 28 deg.C, then notes that every year the water gets to greater than 28 deg.C in the Gulf of Mexico.

One of the peculiarities of hurricane behavior is that there is a threshold, at 28°C, where storms reach an intensity of Category 3 (“severe”). (In the last 50 years there have been just two such storms over cooler waters.) But once the temperature exceeds 28°C, there is no relationship between warmer water and intensity. At any temperature above the threshold, each storm has an equal chance of reaching Category 4 or 5.

Every August, the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico exceeds that threshold. This year it was very warm south of Louisiana: 31°C—about as hot as it was in 1997 and 1998. And, given that the Gulf reaches the magic 28°C threshold every year, no matter whether the planet is warming or cooling, there is no practicable, economical policy that can ever drive temperatures below this figure.

Oh, Really?

I don't have the time for a full analysis, but this report from Brian Ross of ABC News caught my eye.

More Scientists Say Global Warming Causes Strong Hurricanes

Considering that the same proposal had been made after Katrina hit, I think a little review is in order.  You can start your reading here, with a lengthy discussion I already did on the topic, and also with this piece at TMH's Bacon Bits.  Let's look at today's story.

Some preachers have said Katrina was meant to punish New Orleans for being a sin city. In Jerusalem, a prominent rabbi says the hurricanes are meant to punish President Bush. An Islamic Web site describes Katrina's destruction as God's fair punishment for America.

And others say it is no more than the natural, historical cycle of weather, that there have always been and always will be clusters of damaging hurricanes.

"This is just the way nature behaves and I find it astounding how tremendously lucky this country's been in the past 20 years in the lack of a major landfall," said Bill Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. "People need to view this as a tragedy, an event of nature that occasionally occurs, and we shouldn't blame anybody for it."

I see.  Those who don't believe it's man-made (by Bush) for not following the Kyoto treaty that was rejected by 95 US senators are equivalent to those who believe it's the wrath of a vindictive God.  Nice analogy.

But there is another explanation, one that is highly controversial, but in the last few weeks has gained significant scientific credibility.

Some people are pointing to global warming, saying that our use of fossil fuels has helped to heat up the planet and its seas, producing much stronger hurricanes.

Explanations don't gain scientific credibility over the course of "the last few weeks."  They gain credibility over the course of years, with models and experiments that don't require numerous "guesses" like climate models do.  The argument that warmer water fuels stronger hurricanes is very supportable - that's science.  The argument that use of fossil fuels causes that warmer water is not so supportable - that's speculation.  There are scientists on both sides of the issue.

"There's good evidence to show that Category 4 and 5 storms indeed are becoming more common and a bigger part of the overall pictures of the hurricanes in the world," said Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the government-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Trenberth is the author of one of the papers, which links stronger hurricanes to warmer seas and global warming caused by humans. Global warming, he says, has caused increases in sea levels and in the temperature of the oceans, which increases water vapor in the atmosphere and provides fuel for massive storms.

Okay.  No one is arguing the last sentence.  It's the previous one that's controversial.  Let's, for example, say that warmer water temperatures / global warming were caused by shifts of magma within the earth, or due to increased energy from the sun.  With these warmer water temperatures we might be seeing stronger hurricanes, but the cause would not be controllable by man.  So we're back to the need to prove that humans cause global warming by our insane addiction to burning fossil fuels.  And if you believed that you'd also need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the U.S pretty much alone risked it's economy (remember, China and India are exempt from Kyoto) that the globe would cool back down.

Many of the scientists at the National Hurricane Center have long been skeptical of linking global warming to more powerful hurricanes. But the former director of hurricane research at NOAA Hugh Willoughby says he has changed his mind because of these new findings.

[...]

Willoughby says government leaders need to pay close attention to the findings that global warming will mean more rainfall in hurricanes.

"If you think about it, raining more doesn't seem like a problem, but Hurricane Jeanne rained an awful lot in Haiti last year and killed 3,000 people," said Willoughby. "Global warming makes this nasty weather nastier. It's getting harder and harder to stick with the, 'There ain't no global warming'…That's harder and harder to say."

Again, whether the global climate is warming is measurable.  It may well be 0.5 C warmer, but even the author of the paper in Nature referenced in this article can't explain the strength increase in hurricanes that he sees (and with which others disagree) based on that rise.

Emanuel's finding defies existing models for measuring storm strength. Current models suggest that the intensity of hurricanes and typhoons should increase by 5 percent for every 1ºC (1.8ºF) rise in sea surface temperature.

"We've had half a degree [Celsius] of warming, so that should have led to a 2.5 percent increase [in intensity], which is probably not detectable," Emanuel said. "What we've seen is somewhat bigger than that, and we don't really know why."

There's another MIT scientist who is on the other side of the issue, Dr. Richard Lindzen.

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

His review is not all that brief, and I can't do it justice here.  Read the whole thing.

In any event, here's what we know.

• The water temperatures are higher.
• The higher temperatures fuel stronger hurricanes.
• We've seen two very strong hurricanes hit the states this year.

Here's what we don't know.

• Whether the burning of fossil fuels is the primary engine of global warming.
• Whether man-caused global warming is the cause of the higher water temperatures.
• Whether the number of strong hurricanes is a trend or an anomaly.

9/24/05 1400: On the other hand, if you do firmly believe that man's dependency on the combustion of fossil fuels for energy is the source of global warming, perhaps you'd like to explain the same phenomenon simultaneously observed on Mars.

9/24/05 1410: Submitted to the adults-only version of Wizbang's Carnival of the Trackbacks - this one is XXX!

Space, The Final Frontier

4Frontiers, a new company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, wants to settle Mars.  That's right, I said settle Mars.

All companies set goals, but newly formed 4Frontiers Corp. is eyeing some expansive horizons. The company's mission: to open a small human settlement on Mars within 20 years or so.

Sure, it may sound far-fetched. And the company's initial plans are a lot more terrestrial than ethereal, like developing a 25,000-square-foot replica of a Mars settlement here on Earth, then charging tourists admission.

If I'm any judge of horseflesh, I'd say the tourist admission fees are the likely endpoint.  How many billions of dollars would something like this take?  And, other than the satisfaction of accomplishing it, what would investers hope to get out of it.

But the people behind the venture are quite serious as serious as the $25 million they want to raise from investors.

That'll get you as far as Poughkeepsie.  They're going to need a lot more money than that.  They're also going to need a "Rocket Man".

Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kids
In fact it’s cold as hell
And there’s no one there to raise them if you did
And all this science I don’t understand
It’s just my job five days a week
A rocket man, a rocket man

And I think it’s gonna be a long long time...

9/17/05 0840: Wizbang's COTT XXIX.

More On Global Warming And Hurricanes

It looks like Nicholas Kristof needs to read this as well.   Mr. Kristof quotes realclimate.org:

"The available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been," declares an analysis by five climate scientists[.]

My quote from an article from the same source?

Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming - and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.

Remember the phrase, "We don't really know why," which was stated by Mr. Emanuel, one of Mr. Kristof's sources, in reference to increases in hurricane strength above and beyond what even pessimistic global warming models suggest.   Again, it depends on which scientists you believe, and no one really knows for sure.

Mr. Kristof, to his credit, did do some research, and provided links, that Mr. Gardels did not.

Now, don't get me wrong here.  I'm actually for gradually increasing efficiency in energy use, and gradually decreasing problematic emissions of all types, though I'd prefer it not be by one-size-fits-all federal directive.  What I'm not for is an international edict that may have deleterious effects on the American economy, and from which many nations, including China and India, with their large and rapidly growing economies, are exempt.  That the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto during the Clinton administration should speak volumes.  I'm also against those who present speculative scientific modeling as inarguable fact.

Previously:
It's Called Research

Also submitted to Wizbang's COTT XXVIII.

Lileks Takes On The Whole ID/Evolution Thingy

Unfortunately James Lileks is simply a better writer than I.  I say unfortunately because I had been thinking about writing something in a vein similar to his Screedblog post today, and, well, he writes better.

The entire evolution vs. ID debate is setup as Tyson vs. Holyfield - a battle to the death.  What it much more closely resembles is Shaq vs. Kobe - a pairing that doesn't seem to get along, but plays for the same team and wins championships.  I know, the analogy is a stretch, but hang with me for a minute.

As Lileks says, "Uh, how about both."  Perhaps, maybe, suppose that all of the findings and scientific information that support and confirm the principles of evolution have taken place over millions of millenia.  And just suppose that maybe, perhaps, a guiding presence had a hand in that.  Why must it be one or the other?  Can't the two work together to bring us the championship trophy we see every day when we open our eyes?  Realistically the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

A day or two ago over at QandO Blog Jon Henke noted a CBS/NY TImes poll  in November 2004 which asked of Democrats, Republicans and Independents whether they believed in pure evolution, ID, or pure creationism.  The numbers between the groups were startlingly similar.  Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself.  Sure, the Republicans scored a little higher on the Creationism scale, and a little lower on the pure evolution scale, but still quite comparable.

So, why not both?  Does that solve the problem?

Environmental Damage Vs. Shuttle Damage

From a Reuters story yesterday.

Commander Eileen Collins said astronauts on shuttle Discovery had seen widespread environmental destruction on Earth and warned on Thursday that greater care was needed to protect natural resources.

Her comments came as NASA pondered whether to send astronauts out on an extra spacewalk to repair additional heat-protection damage on the first shuttle mission since the 2003 Columbia disaster.

[...]

"Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world," Collins said in a conversation from space with Japanese officials in Tokyo, including Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

"We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used," said Collins, who was standing with Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi in front of a Japanese flag and holding a colorful fan.

Collins, flying her fourth shuttle mission, said the view from space made clear that Earth's atmosphere must be protected, too.

"The atmosphere almost looks like an eggshell on an egg, it's so very thin," she said. "We know that we don't have much air, we need to protect what we have."

I wonder if she's aware of the controversy that environmental concerns about using foam made with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) caused NASA to change the foam, which may have led to the disaster with Columbia.  I initially saw a report of this possibility over at The Jawa Report.

From Richard Bennett's Mossback Culture (February 2, 2003):

So concerns about the effects of freon on the ozone layer lead directly to the crash of the Shuttle, apparently. You'd think NASA would be able to get some kind of a waiver on this stuff.

Bennett quotes from a Mercury News article:

As recently as last September, a retired engineering manager for Lockheed Martin, the contractor that assembles the tanks, told a conference in New Orleans that developing a new foam to meet environmental standards had "been much more difficult than anticipated."

The retired Lockheed engineer, who helped design the thermal protection system, said the switch from a foam based on Freon — also known as CFC-11 — has "resulted in unanticipated program impacts, such as foam loss during flight."

There's lots of good reading in the comments over at Rusty's place.  Let's hope that the astronauts all get back safely.  Perhaps Commander Collins needs to realize that decisions, like the one to eliminate freon in producing the foam, can have devastating and fatal consequences.

And Rusty, welcome back from vacation.

8/6/05 1220: COTT XXIII at Wizbang

Tramps Like Us...

The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive
Everybody's out on the run tonight
but there's no place left to hide
Together Wendy we'll live with the sadness
I'll love you with all the madness in my soul
Someday girl I don't know when
we're gonna get to that place
Where we really want to go
and we'll walk in the sun
But till then tramps like us
baby we were born to run

Physics and Sports

So it's sort of social.  Demented and sad, but social.  Actually understanding the physics of collisions helps quite a bit in my field, sports medicine.

Weekdays, Dr. Gay is an experimental atomic physicist at the university who spends most of his time smashing electrons in a basement laboratory, studying the way they scatter as a means of understanding what might go on in the plasma of a fusion reactor or a star.

On fall weekends, when the Huskers play, he makes the short walk across campus to Memorial Stadium, to pursue his avocation - football physics.

To watch a football game with Dr. Gay is to view the sport through a different lens, one where talk of fly patterns, blitzes and muffed punts is supplemented by discussions of vector analysis, conservation of momentum and strange forces that can affect the flight of the ball.

And if football isn't your thing, you could study golf or baseball.