Tuesday
May012012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill NYT on clouds
May 1, 2012 Climate: Models Justin Gillis, the New York Times' eco-activist has an article on the role of clouds in climate and the dispute over their impact. It is, in essence, an extended pop at the work of Richard Lindzen.
Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
Reader Comments (70)
Said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist: “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
Not to mention the neglect of the dictates of dialectic materialism and the insult to the Proletariat.
It is interesting to note that an article about controversies over the role of clouds in relation to the climate should not contain even a single passing mention of Svensmark's theory. Perhaps the Warmists think that if they ignore Svensmark he will go away.
May 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM | Neil Craig
'Clicking Kerry Emmanuel's link I find his graph to be a beautiful work of art.'
Funny that. Emmanuel always struck me as the kind of bloke who would be good with colours.
I found the article appalling on so many fronts. The use of the names of scientists without specifying their specific positions, the misleading description of the time period over which temperature has changed, the silliness of the quotation mentioned by Nicholas Hallam @ 10:46.... on and on. Do I detect desperation in the absence of any actual warming in the last 14 years? I should think that Lindzen with his very entertaining dry wit could destroy the author in not much more than 100 words, but I am sure he has more worthy opponents and better ways to spend his time.
Although strictly O/T other than the 97% NYT reference, I am hugely grateful for the link provided by Jonathon Jones to the full Zimmerman download of the Doran-Zimmerman survey. I had been after this stuff for years- what the other seven questions were asking, etc. I had surmised that to an Earth Scientist community, there had to be more searching questions in there. It turns out that there were, but these are all compressed into subsets of question 3, one set for AGW supporters, another for AGW sceptics- the other questions 4 through 9 mainly for identifying the respondent's demographic detail.
The greatest revelation of all though has been the unexpected virtual unanimity in critical verbal comments from respondents on the phraseology of the questions, and also considerable suspicion about the motivation and objectives behind the survey.
Big reinsurance companies love to hear those things. That's why the rates go up and with cyclone activity around historical lows profits shoot up as well. And people like Kerry are in high demand for "expertise".
Pharos, glad you found it helpful, but I must hat tip Barry Woods who first drew it to my attention.
While I haven't done more than glance at it, at first sight it seems to me that a proper write up on this has the potential to match "Caspar and the Jesus Paper" and "The Yamal Implosion". But it would take a lot of time to do it properly.
Almost a sure sign of first class BS is that Bob Ward thinks its good .
Isn't Kerry Emmanuel the one who is a director of an insuirance company which has reviewed its policy charges because of global warming/climate change/extreme weather?
May 1, 2012 at 9:38 PM | Jonathan Jones
Indeed. There are sections of the appended comments that could well have been found on a typical BH thread. Silk 97% purse from a sow's ear.
I tried to post this earlier but I don't think the Captcha worked.
Yesterday there was a posting on cloud fraction measurements (satellites) vs. cloud fraction predictions over at Rogher Pielke Sr.s blog. Since cloud variations of 2% can has as much warming or cooling effect as green house gases its helpful to look at prediction vs. measurements. To make a long story short, the global circulation models are not very good at predicting cloud fractions at all. Read about the paper here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/a-new-article-total-cloud-cover-from-satellite-observations-and-climate-models-by-probst-et-al-2012/
“It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
Should MIT scientists be given lessons in grammar? The definite article "The" is used when talking about something definite like "The Inca civilisation". "Collective civilisation" is an indefinite expression and what he should have said "It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to collective civilization.” This begs the question what is "collective civilisation"? How is is it different from civilisation?
What! A risk risk to civilisation? No less? How could Richard Lindzen be so callous as to put our entire civilisation in jeopardy merely by doubting the IPCC?
Buffy Minton said.. "The only silver lining is in your tin foil hat, Joe."
No tin foil hat Buffy. Just my Mk1 eyeball.
Just look up at the sky....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST8kInYZ338&feature=related
This blog is excellent and I have learnt a lot. But it does tend to get bogged down in minutia and fails to appreciate that their opponents aren't like them. They will do anything to further their agenda.
I've taken just such a straw poll : the groundling cat is talking through his hat
Joe, the truth about CAGW is IN the minutiae, that's why it's difficult to pin down, and difficult to convince lay-people that they CAN understand the science. And we're not trying to convince our
opponents - they're already a lost cause to their own hubris - we're trying to convince humanity not to believe them - they are not the enemy, just normal people.
[No - you have been told before]
Joe - please, those trails in your video are contrails, not chemtrails. I do not doubt that very occasionally some governments or black ops military have experimented with 'chemtrails' in the post war period. Indeed there is evidence for this. If the trails in your video were pink or yellow then fair enough, they deserve attention. But they are not pink or yellow. They are white, because they are just made up of ice crystals, which can form when jet engine exhaust gases cool at certain altitudes. Do some research and do not believe everything you read on the internet.
Jonathan
If you'd like to send it over I'll see if I feel up to a write-up.
RPJ has a post up accurately describing this NYT article as a news-empty hit piece. I didn't realise that Gillis had form and had already been criticised by RPJ as acting more as an activist pseudo-journalist.
The NYT Puts the Hit On
lapogus...
Thanks for your input. I know the difference between chemtrails and contrails. I've worked in aviation for 25 years.
Contrails fade after a few minutes and are caused by the hot gases from the engine suddenly reacting with the freezing air temperature.
The chemtrails linger and disperse in the sky eventually forming a thin white cloud that covers the sky.
This is a recent phenomenon ( since about 1998) and there has been no change in the fuel used or the cruising altitude of airliners ( approx 34,000 ft) that I have seen.