The Oil Drum | Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick

218 comments on Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

goghgoner on April 10, 2008 - 11:18am

"I attended a talk on Global Warming this past week, by Richard Stegemeier a member of the National Academy of Engineering, who began by drawing a distinction between engineers and scientists, and noting that it is largely climate scientists that have been involved in the publications of the IPCC".

Holy cow. There are climate scientists and not Oil CEOs on the IPCC. I cannot believe how misleading your statements are. This article is ridiculous. I don't know why you want to start this conversation on TOD but you have. Glaciers are retreating all of the world and you just cherry picked some data.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 12:45pm

"Glaciers are retreating all of the world and you just cherry picked some data."

Absolutely false. Antarctic ice is the largest extent it's been in 50 years, some 40% more ice extent. Tabet glaciers are increasing, so too are glaciers in South America. There's some 3500 glaciers around the world, the alarmists are looking at only a small handfull of them and extrapolating.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

goghgoner on April 10, 2008 - 1:20pm

I have worked in scientific (not climate) research for a few years now. If anybody on one of my teams was being dishonest, I would blow the whistle and so would most folks in this line of work. I've looked at the research papers and the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is real. If you would like to post a peer-reviewed link...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 1:47pm

Show me the peer reviewed links that all the world's glaciers are shrinking.

Antarctica:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Fracture_Barely_A_Blip_in_the_Bi...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

goghgoner on April 10, 2008 - 3:05pm

"Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres."

--IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 5:24pm

The IPCC is not peer reviewed. Sources from science journals or other publications that shows each one that is shrinking, how long it has been shrinking (before the 1900's?).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

xeroid on April 10, 2008 - 6:12pm

If the world is warming ice can be expected to melt and the water run into the sea and also if the oceans warm they expand - so, if the world warms the sea level will rise.

Is the sea level rising? A simple question, what is the answer?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 1:59am

Yes, it is rising, but you are about to find out things are not what you have been led to believe.

Here is the change in sea level for the past 20,000 years:

For the past 8,000 years:

(From http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Sea_Level_Gallery)

Now for the past 110 years:

Notice the flat rate of 0.19 feet/century. (From http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?...)

Recent article:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

S. J. Holgate

Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007.

Recent Satelite data:

(From http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-nerem.html)

The IPPC forth report says there has been no, repeat NO, accelaration in the rate of sea level change. Yet they predict more than the current rate. Why has there not been any change in the rate yet? How much must that change be? Well, 3 to 4 TIMES the current rate to match the IPCC predictions, 30-40 TIMES to make Gore's 20ft prediction. Thus the graph would have to look like this:

So all the hype about radical sea level changes has not occured yet, read below on the islands in the Pacific too.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

xeroid on April 11, 2008 - 6:03am

So, you agree - overall the world is warming - the sea level proves it - change IS happening. If the temperatures are changing that means climate is too. Clearly from your charts this is normal even without man's actions.

What is not normal is burning of fossil fuels (that have taken millions of years to accumulate) in a few tens of years - this causes a massive discontinuity in C0₂ levels and it is MAN MADE, so it is avoidable - any climate changes resulting from this will likely be discontinuous also and, by implication, avoidable.

Because of inertia you would never expect to see simmultaneous cause and effect - there WILL always be a time lag.

The sea level is a proxy for AVERAGE temperature change and because of the huge bulk of the Oceans there is massive inertia - near the North pole where we see the normal (self limiting, due to the curvature of the Earth) positive feedback from melting sea ice the temperature changes (and climate changes) are way more than average - this implies that elsewhere the changes will be less than average (where glaciers are not retreating? ... the South Pole?)

However, few places have zero change in temperature and hence zero change in climate.

History tells us to expect climate change, it is not change that is the potential problem but RATE of change.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 10:09am

So this then begs the question, when will the rate of sea level start to accelarate? If all these glaciers are melting, and have been because of AGW of some 20-30 years now, why has that water flow into the seas not increased the rate of rise? It also begs the question, if this lack of rise, if it continues flat, kill AGW theory?

So realize what you are saying. You are saying that there is no sea level rise at the moment that is caused by AGW. Thus all the media reports, all the hype about the CURRENT sea level rise is flat wrong right? You can't have it both ways. If the current trend is flat and, as you claim, the change in the rate is yet to come, then the current rate CANNOT be from AGW. Thus all the hype that it is from AGW must be wrong. By your own admission.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

yartrebo on April 11, 2008 - 10:31am

Sea level doesn't change on a dime. It is probably the slowest acting effect of global warming.

If you do look more closely at the recent data (the last 100 years or so), the sea level rise is accelerating, though quite modestly. At this point it's nothing terrible, but it does have the potential to become much worse.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 11:16am

Did you not read the abstract?

"Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). "

And you have a reference to back up your claim it won't turn on a dime, and you have a reference that it will become much worse. And you fully agree then that the current rise, in spite of Gore and others, is NOT currently from AGW. Right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

xeroid on April 11, 2008 - 3:11pm

I don't know what the future will be and neither do the IPCC researchers - or you! Not least because nobody knows what all the variables and feedbacks are.

The climate research gives probabilities not certainties - if you are looking for certainty you won't get it. The data the IPCC and others use is statistical and has error bars, it is not 100% accurate and you need to take lenghty periods of time (decades) to get a feel for what is happening. The statistics are not as accurate as you think they are (nor are the IEA and EIA oil statistics, on a month by month basis!)

Is there climate change? ... yes! North Polar ice melting more and more for one good example! Will the climate of some parts of the world change adversely in the future ... Yes!

Is man responsible for part of the change? ... yes! How big a part? ... nobody knows! The historical temperature data does not go up in straight lines during warming periods and it won't do now - just because the temperature is not doing what you think it should for AGW does not mean there is no AGW due to fossil fuel burning.

Is man's use of fossil fuel, horizantle drilling, non-organic farming, overfishing etc etc sustainable ... NO!

Peak oil, peak food, peak population and peak pensions are just a few of the unsustainable challenges besides anthopogenic climate change facing man.

BAU means an uncertain world - get used to it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mdsolar on April 12, 2008 - 10:00am

Richard is just trying to bamboozle you by changing the plot scales. The sea level rise is accelerating and he has already been corrected on this point on this list.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 11:56am

Then you better tell the IPCC as their 2001 report says: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” The 2007 report says: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear."

Include in your letter to the IPCC a copy to Holgate from the above reference I cited.

Interesting, Chris, you did not provide a reference. Please do so. How much is the change in the rate? You did not say.But I do have references that shows it has NOT changed From:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/22/unbelievably-d...

Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently. Real studies and model studies of sea level change deny the untrue assertions in the article. And there are far, far too many such studies for me to cite them all. So, I provide the following as examples.

Church, J.A., White, N.J., Coleman, R., Lambeck, K. and Mitrovica, J.X. 2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950-2000 period. Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625.

Cazenave, A. and Nerem, R.S. 2004. Present-day sea level change: observations and causes. Reviews of Geophysics 42: 10.1029/2003RG000139.

Lombard, A., Cazenave, A., Le Traon, P.-Y. and Ishii, M. 2005. Contribution of thermal expansion to present-day sea-level change revisited. Global and Planetary Change 47: 1-16.

Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. 2006. Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JC003229.

In the above references, Church et al. say their "best estimate" of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century was 1.8 ± 0.3 mm/year. In addition, they noted that "decadal variability in sea level is observed, but to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000." What is more, they reported that no increase in the rate of sea level rise has been detected for the entire 20th century, citing the work of Woodworth (1990) and Douglas (1992).

More refs:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/lowering-sea-leve...
(Kolker, A. S., and S. Hameed. 2007. Meteorologically driven trends in sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23616, doi:10.1029/2007GL031814.)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/14/sea-level-slowdow...

Wöppelmann et al. note that “two important problems arise when using tide gauges to estimate the rate of global sea-level rise. The first is the fact that tide gauges measure sea level relative to a point attached to the land which can move vertically at rates comparable to the long-term sea-level signal. The second problem is the spatial distribution of the tide gauges, in particular those with long records, which are restricted to the coastlines”. The records that we do have contain any number of inhomogeneities related to observer and instrument changes – the IPCC estimates of sea-level rise may be even less accurate that we are led to believe.
...
OK – here’s the bottom line. When Wöppelmann et al. factored their measurements of land motion into the estimate of sea-level rise, they determined a global value of 1.31 ±0.30 mm per year compared to the 1.8±0.5 mm per year value given by the IPCC for the recent half century. We understand that the IPCC acknowledges a low-end value of 1.3 mm per year in their estimate, but another way to look at this article is that Wöppelmann et al. just reduced observed sea-level rise by 27%! Perhaps the IPCC should reconsider whether they still have high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has in fact increased from the 19th to the 20th century.

Of course, these results gained absolutely no press coverage whatsoever – imagine the coverage they would have received had their results increased sea-level rise by 27% and suggested that sea level rise was occurring faster then previous research indicated!

Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396–406.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

mdsolar on April 13, 2008 - 8:15am

Richard,

it is not possible to debate with you because you do not do so in good faith on this issue. As a simple exampe, you ask for references and links from me now when you know that I have already demonstrated your contention to be false here on TOD.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 12:28pm

I post references, even if i have to do it several times. If it is false that sea level has not changed its rate then SHOW US!! How difficult can it be to get a ref and post it? None! So do it, back up your claim with one reference.

I have already shown by the references above that the rate of sea level rise has NOT changed. How on earth is that NOT on good faith?!

If there is any lack of good faith it's your claim that this is MY contention when all I have done is post the references, hence it is the conclusion of these researchers that there has not been any change in the rate. So go take your disagreement to them.

Dogmatism at its best again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 9:08pm

While you are at getting that reference, send it to this too, I'm sure they will be receptive to be shown by you that they are wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on April 13, 2008 - 10:02pm

Did you actually read this chart or was this just another quick and dirty cut and paste job?

Just looking at the graph, sea level increased by 5 inches from 1850 to 1950. It increased by more than 6 inches from 1950 to just past 2000. The total increase appears to be greater in the latter 50 years than in the previous 100 years. The graph is misleading, as an absolute change in 50 years which is greater than an absolute change in 100 years can't have the same slope. The annotation "trend continues at same slope" appears to be wrong and could just be b.s. on your part.

So, no, this graph seems to show that you are wrong and supports others on this site arguing that you are wrong.

Perhaps you could draw the line from 1800 to compare 100 years with 100 years. But that would not support your conclusions.

Not to mention that last decade or so seems to be trending upwards.

Your 7 inches per century doesn't even make sense. Which century? Certainly not from 1800 to 1900. And from 1900 to 2000, it increased by 8 inches.

So, what is it about this graph that makes any sense and even remotely supports your conclusions?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 11:40pm

Please stop blaming the messenger. If you have a problem with this graph, or anything I post with a reference, then take it up with them. This is not MY graph, this is the graph from that website. The point is the rate is not changing. To match the IPCC, to get that trend you would need, it would have to be 3 TIMES the current rate. As noted in the references I've posted before, the rate is not changing, it is fluctuating within normal ranges. If you have a reference that supports the notion that the rate has changed, please post it. If not, then the current hype that the changes in sea level is because of global warming must be wrong. Certainly the 19,000 scientists who added their names to this petition think AGW is wrong. Go contact them and show them they are misguided. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on April 14, 2008 - 9:03am

So,now the new cop out is that we should go to your original source if you post stuff on this site that is mislabled and fails to support your position. No. If you are going to post here, you should defend your own data, not expect others to explain your data by going to your source.

You have chosen to be the messenger for those who think that global warming is a hoax. Then you post a graph that says the opposite of what you say about sea level rise and then ask me to not blame the messenger. If you don't want to be blamed, then quit posting info that says the opposite of what you purport to believe. As long as you keep posting stuff on this website that you use to support your position, then you should actually analyze your information to ensure that it says what you think it says.

In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference. So, thanks for providing a reference that shows that the rate of change is increasing.

But you are mixing two concepts. First, has the rate of sea level rise changed. It certainly appears that it has just from what you've posted here; never mind what other references are out there. Once we have determined that the rate has changed, the question becomes one of causation. According to your reference, the IPCC is not ready to state that they have enough data to confirm that the sea level rise is caused by global warming. As scientists, they are taking a conservative position and as, is typical of scientists, they are calling for further study, including more years of data. This is to be expected.

But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite.

Don't ask us to contact your so called scientists. Either defend your positions with valid data or quit posting. Next time someone else posts here in support of AGW, should you be expected to contact the IPCC?

Or maybe you should. We here in Boulder have probably the greatest concentration of climate scientists in the world. Start with NCAR. Take the tour and talk to the scientists who actually were part of the IPCC. Argue with them. They can take everything you throw at them. I have seen them in action. But don't tell them to go contact one of your references if you are having problems arguing with them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 14, 2008 - 9:51am

"In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference."

Yes I do stand with the data. It's saw toothed, did you not see the other 2 that has a higher rate for a while, then drops? This is just another of those saw tooth changes. In fact, again I refer you to the IPCC 2007 report about this very point: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. "

But you are missing the whole point. To get to the IPCC's 20 inches in 100 years would require a rate THREE TIMES the observed rate. You claim the IPCC is conservative, so too do people like Gore who wants 20 feet of rise, that's THIRTY TIMES the current rate! Others have thrown out even higher rates over shorter distances of time.

"But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite." Nor can you claim the opposite then.

Bottom line: Is the current rate BECAUSE of AGW? Yes or no. If Yes, why has the rate not changed to the value it should under the predictions? If not then all the current hype on the MSM about the rise because of AGW is flat wrong. Which is it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Euan Mearns on April 14, 2008 - 9:40am

Richard - is it possible that the change in trend around 1860 marks the onset of melt following The Little Ice Age?

I'm surprised this thread is still going - its been very interesting. If you reply can you send me an email flagging the reply - since I may forget to come back here.

Euan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 14, 2008 - 12:11pm

It certainly looks that way doesn't it. That was my first thought, but did not want to speculate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Euan Mearns on April 14, 2008 - 12:46pm

Thanks Richard. Its too simple, isn't it?

I'm just back from X country skiing in Norway where on quiet evenings in the mountain cabins I read about the advance of Norwegian mountain glaciers during The Little Ice Age and about the sea ice apron that surrounded South Greenland - which no doubt was reflected by extended ice cap and glaciers on shore. I've also read about perma-frost inside excavated Greenland Norse settlements - pretty damned sure that permafrost wasn't there when the settlement was inhabited during the MWP.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 11:58am

Are you refering to me or the Warm Mongers? Because those are the VERY arguments I use to support the skeptical position!! There is nothing in what you said I would disagree with at all. Thank you for supporting my position.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SailDog on April 10, 2008 - 8:07pm

The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities. The idea that they would falsify their work and that others would collude is risible.

Nasa's GRACE program has measured ice sheet loss from Greenland over a period of at least 10 years; and the loss is accelerating.

There is also plenty of evidence of glacier loss, all over the world. There is also plenty of other evidence of warming so I am afraid climate change sceptics are beginning to look just a little bit silly, irrational even.

Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific).

At the same time I understand and support Heading Outs comment on there being insufficient FF to raise CO2 levels by the amount the IPCC a warning us about. Unfortunately I am not sure that that matters. I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable.

That does not mean there is no point in working hard to reduce FF use, of course we must. We might just get lucky and only have PO to worry about!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 2:21am

"The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities."

Here is a list of other scientists from the world’s great universities who do NOT accept the "consensus", this list is growing.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/Skepti...

And the papers in the IPCC report are not peer reviewed at all. They are written for the report and not subjected to other scrutiny before publication. In fact, the summaries are written first by non-scientists and then the scientists are told what to put in their reports to coincide with the summaries. This is not my wild accusation; this is a charge from the very scientists themselves who wrote for the IPCC.

"Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific)."

Yes, you had better get up to date on this. Tuvalu has NOTHING to do with sea level rise and everything to do with over population and bad land practices. There's lots about this on the Net, simple google will find it.

"I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable."

What peer reviewed papers do you have to back up this "thought"?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

offtrack on April 11, 2008 - 11:32pm

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

this link shows how Co2 works.
so before you run around like chicken little, lets first look at
the basic facts of CO2.

soon to come is a new report.
from
http://aqua.nasa.gov/
so lets all wait before shouting like loons.

coming soon, and you wont be too pleased.

mr. neutral

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 12:06pm

Thanks for posting that nice summary of skepticism of AGW.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 12:28pm

This is also good:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1598

"AGW is just such bad science at this time that I want nothing to do with it."

"In the AGW school of warming, the litany of one poor package of junk science after another - attempts at distortion, editing, hiding data, changing data (Hansen), inventing trends (Mann), changing conclusions (IPCC), ad hominem attacks (Hansen and most of them), censorship by a hysterical media, outrageously incapable computer modeling, and even outright lies (fill in the names here…) - should send enough alarm bells ringing to warn even the most obtuse about what is happening; though not loud enough to alarm the faithful it seems. It really is a new religion."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 12, 2008 - 1:07pm

Hmmm.... his bio says,

Dr. Sutherland is a retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees.[...]

He is especially interested in the history and development of the world-wide nuclear industry; the medical uses of radiation; and in the many health studies related to the uses of radiation over the last 100 years.

His articles on the site include,

"Anthropogenically driven Global Warming (AGW): Some pro and con comments" [if you read the article, it's all con)
"The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks"
the rest are just on how awesome nuclear reactors are.

GoogleScholar (only in beta, so it might miss a lot) pulls up
- a book, Health Aspects of High-level Radioactive Wastes [pdf]
- Science and Risk
- Origins and Management of Radioactive Waste

and the same in French.

So he appears to be quite the authority on radiation hazards to humans. But about climate science he can claim no special authority, and has written no peer-reviewed articles on the topic so far as I can see. He seems to spend most of his time advocating in various media for more nuclear reactors.

Well, at least we can't accuse him of being self-interested, since one typical argument of pro-nuclear people is that it'll mitigate climate change... if climate change doesn't exist then no mitigation is needed and we can forget the nukes, right? Sutherland doesn't seem to be aware of peak oil or other resource issues.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 7:17pm

Global Warming Petition

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Listed here (on the left) are the approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS and MS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ecofan on April 12, 2008 - 3:36pm

The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities. The idea that they would falsify their work and that others would collude is risible.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is, the IPCC reports aren't "reviewed" by anyone. Here's how the system works:

1. The reports are written by a small group, some of which aren't even scientists, and all but one of which has a personal stake in preserving the hoax. These writers are political appointees, not chosen from the best of the scientists actually doing empirical science. All of the global warming panic is being generated by "models", not empirical science. In fact the models are so flawed they are the laughing stock of the broader climate science community.

2. After the draft is finished, then the "committee" is invited to comment. The writing group can reject any comment it wants, and in particular rejects any comment which seriously disagrees with its already established opinion. The literature is full of irate letters from scientists who howlingly object to the censorship, to no avail. The writers word is final... there is absolutely no "peer review" allowed. The Secretary General of the UN himself cannot alter one word of the report.

Yes, I'm an atmospheric physicist, and I realize most of you on this forum are not. I can recognize "cut-and-paste" as well as anyone.

For those of you who are not rocket scientists, you might like to read this excellent summary which was written for the layman at this link

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

For a more detailed discussion of the Corruption of the UN IPCC reports, try
http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm

"Modeling" is not science. It is a prediction which unfortunately is fatally flawed because the modelers, in their urgency to promote the hoax for political and economic gain, deliberately omit critical variables from their models which would expose the hoax for what is is.

This is not a "conspiracy". This is a collection of junk scientists, policy wonks, journalists, and radical environmentalists who independently support the panic because it will ( and already has ) divert vast sums of money into a large assortment of environmental projects.

I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla. The notion that "all the world's scientists agree" in in fact part of the hoax mechanism, and nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, "warming" came to a screeching halt several years ago despite continuously increasing CO2 levels, and since then there has been a slight cooling trend, according to the accepted HadCRUt3 data which now shows a decadal cooling trend of 0.4 degrees Centigrade per decade.

You all can argue until you are blue in the face, it will not change the science one iota. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and to date there is not one scintilla of actual empirical science to indicate the future will be any more than a cyclical repetition of the past.

Fortunately, Solar Cycle 24 is predicted to be a fairly warm one lasting 11 years, so hopefully the cooling trend will self-arrest, but also unfortunately, Solar Cycle 25, which will peak about 2022 is going to be one of the quietest sun cycles in many decades, with significant cooling to affect most of the rest of the 21st century.

"People eat more ice cream in the summer. More people drown in the summer. Therefore eating ice cream causes drowning."

You may now continue with your cut-and-paste BS which evidently even the plagiarists on this forum do not actually understand.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 7:06pm

Thankyou for posting this.

I've got an email yesterday showing that Al Gore has admitted he owns or has direct stakes in environmental companies that are directly benefiting from the alarmism. How ironic, these very people here who hate capitalism and champion AGW are being duped by the very Minister of the dogma (Al Gore) practicing capitalism at its worse by creating a need for his "product" based on the fear of the masses. So where is Gore getting the $300 million from to promote the alarmism of AGW? From the money his companies will make off it, which in turn will come from the people conned by his message.

When I get back to my computer I'll post it.

Thanks again for the support of integrity in science.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

HughCampbell on April 13, 2008 - 7:41am

Kindly spare us your Gore fetish.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on April 13, 2008 - 9:12am

I have no doubt that there are many people who support peak oil theory on this site and elsewhere who also invest in oil and other energy companies, who play the commodities market, and who are otherwise invested in companies or commodities which will profit from a shortage of oil. I guess all of us here are being duped.

Your real need here is not to support integrity in science. Your overriding passion is to defeat what you think is a position purely driven by socialism and the desire to destroy capitalism.

So, really, in your view, all the time, effort, and passion that Gore has spent getting the message out on global warming over the years is just driven by pure greed. And, oh my God, he is investing in environmental companies. Well, at least he is clearly a capitalist.

You have gone down that road and yet you bristle when it is pointed out that the source of much of your "information" comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo.

Thanks for coming out and showing us where you are really coming from.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 4:08pm

How is posting peer reviewed papers that shows the sea level has not changed it's rate "comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo. " Please explain.

The difference is that Gore is making his own demand. It's snake oil salesmanship pure and simple. He makes up the hype and claims the world will die if we do not act and buy into his "solutions". If any one else did this everyone here would be screaming to have his head. But because Gore is the messiah of the orthodoxy then it's OK. He's no different than the evangelicals on TV fleecing the flock of followers.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 13, 2008 - 12:31am

Yes, I'm an atmospheric physicist

Excellent! Tell us, for what university, institution or company do you work for? Have you a webpage detailing your qualifications, experience and publications?

I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla.

Please name these scientists, so that we can learn more.

If you've no reply, we can only conclude you're talking bollocks...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 1:26am

"If you've no reply, we can only conclude you're talking bollocks..."

Dogmatism at it's best. Instead of taking the man at his word, you assume he's lying due to some ulterior motive, because AGW orthodoxy must be maintained at all costs. This is how true religion works.

The big test will be will you give up AGW if what he postrd is true? Will you state that? That will be the true test to see where your own motives are.

Yep, the cracks in AGW are widening. Take some advice, best you get off the sinking ship soon.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

ecofan on April 13, 2008 - 4:50pm

Yes, I'm an atmospheric physicist

Excellent! Tell us, for what university, institution or company do you work for? Have you a webpage detailing your qualifications, experience and publications?

I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla.

Please name these scientists, so that we can learn more.

If you've no reply, we can only conclude you're talking bollocks...

One of the things I have noticed about the cut-and-paste morons is the fact that when they are unable to understand the science, they always attack the messenger. Sorry, Sonny, but you're not going to get my name or my university or my CV or my colleagues, as those are reserved for professional discussions and unfortunately you do not qualify. If you want to "assume I'm talking bullocks", please go ahead. Assumption not based on fact is most typical of the academically ignorant. In fact, I would expect you to "assume" various degrees of conjecture, since it is clear you have no scientific understanding of your own.

And to clarify a point, it is clear that it is "you", not "we" who have come to those "assumptions". Please do not suggest that the rest of the individuals in this forum are as scientifically and mathematically illiterate as yourself.

Now that we have exchanged suitable personal insults, I will "assume" you are happy, and this is my last note on this particular subject. My dear old Dad once told me, "Never get into a kicking contest with a jackass".

Farewell...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 6:15pm

Can you please contact me off list? jrwakefield@mcswiz.com. You are new here so you may not know what I have endured trying to debunk this hoax for almost a year now. Definitely on your side.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 13, 2008 - 10:49pm

For my part, I do not think that academic qualifications or experience are needed to understand the basic science behind these sorts of issues; a good general education combined with effort will do the trick.

You're the one bringing up qualifications.

You're saying, "I Have A Degree, So Respect Mah Authoritah." If that's so, prove it.

You're saying, "Many Qualified People Believe As I Do." If that's so, prove it.

You can't wave your and others' qualifications around as "proof" and then fail to show it. Argument from authority is always a logical fallacy, but if you're going to use it, at least demonstrate the authority.

Otherwise, we have to assume that in fact you are not an authority, but are just making things up.

"Trust me" is not really a very persuasive argument.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 11:48pm

"For my part, I do not think that academic qualifications or experience are needed to understand the basic science behind these sorts of issues; a good general education combined with effort will do the trick."

Now that is a very interesting thing to admit, because I get flamed for not having a PHD in atmospheric physics, that I should spend 10 years getting one to have any rational challenge to the AGW dogma, and now you are saying I don't. So which is it?

Interesting that also you assume he is lying, for what motive you do not say, but you expect us to believe the nonsence of AGW from people who have no qualifications to do so. You think he is lying because you dislike the message. It is not a message you want to hear. Your whole life is around AGW being true, and it will come crashing down when shown to be false. So you must pull out all the stops to prevent that from happening. Typical dogmatism.

You want a list? How about this 19,000 http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm. Go EMail them all and tell them they are lying.

You ask for proof, yet no one from your side provides one shred of it for support. Dogmatism at its best.

Bottom line is are you just lying too?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 14, 2008 - 3:16am

Now that is a very interesting thing to admit, because I get flamed for not having a PHD in atmospheric physics, that I should spend 10 years getting one to have any rational challenge to the AGW dogma, and now you are saying I don't. So which is it?

I never said you had to have a PhD in atmospheric physics. I certainly don't have one :)

I can't be held responsible for what other people have said to you. Just because other people and I agree that you're talking bollocks does not mean that we also agree on whether or not you should have a PhD in atmospheric physics before you can say anything about the world's climate.

Interesting that also you assume he is lying, for what motive you do not say

I assume he's lying because he's making a grand claim but refusing to back it up. If I said, "actually I have a doctorate in atmospheric physics, and am in daily contact with climate scientists, and they say that AGW is real and we're going to turn the planet into Venus by 2050", then you would - rightly - ask me to back it all up.

His motive I plainly laid out - to be able to make an argument from authority. "Me is smart, trust me."

but you expect us to believe the nonsence of AGW from people who have no qualifications to do so.

Not at all. I don't expect you to believe me when I say that AGW is real, but I would expect you to believe the thousand or more people involved in the data collection and scenario development that went into the 177 separate scenarios reviewed by the IPCC.

Likewise, if I said (for example) that raising women's literacy and prosperity lowered birth rates in the developing world, much more so than raising that of men, I wouldn't expect you to believe me, but I would expect you to believe the World Health Organisation, or UNESCO or similar.

I'm afraid I can't email any of those on your list of 19,000, as they're just names, with no emails, no location, place of work or similar listed.

In addition, you don't mention that this petition was circulated in April 1998, before the development of a true consensus. People change their minds over a decade, after all.

The OISM website you direct us to is the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, staffed by,

- Dr. R. Bruce Merrifield, a retired professor at Rockefeller University in New York, who won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for performing the first laboratory synthesis of an enzyme using a peptide synthesizer, in 1964.
- Dr. Fred Westall, described on the OISM website as "an expert in the biochemistry of immunology and a former director of laboratory work at the Salk Institute."
- Dr. Jane Orient, a physician in Tucson, Arizona, heads the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, an organization that says it works for "less socialism" in medicine. Orient is best known for her claim that childhood MMR (measles-mumps-Rubella) vaccinations cause autism.
- Carl Boehme, a computer consultant with an address in Boise, Idaho, is listed as the OISM's "Professor of Electrical Engineering."

which is to say, exactly zero climate scientists. Doctors, biochemists, and one eletrical engineer (there seem to be a few of these floating about in climate change denialist circles, including old Fred Singer, once an apologist for the tobacco industry).

The OISM website is still taking "signatures" for its petitition. You can apply to sign up here (pdf for you to print and mail in). The form asks you to tick whether you have a BS, MS or PhD and in which field, and note any other specialised knowledge you have. They don't ask which university you attended, or what year you graduated, and thus have no way of verifying if you're telling the truth. I could send in thirty forms claiming to be thirty different people with PhDs in this or that, and those thirty names would be duly added to the list.

As sourcewatch notes,

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers [of the then 15,000] of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists."

This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all.

When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

The names on that list, their qualifications or even whether they exist at all, are completely unverifiable.

On the other hand, here's a list of institutions which believe that human-made global warming is real and a danger. And they all verifiably exist, and can be contacted to check if they really believe this,

The Academies of Science of the following areas,
* United States
* United Kingdom
* Germany
* Japan
* Canada
* China
* France
* India
* Russia
* Italy
* Australia
* Belgium
* Brazil
* Caribbean
* Indonesia
* Ireland
* Malaysia
* Mexico
* New Zealand
* South Africa
* Switzerland
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

American Association for the Advancement of Science
(i.e. The guys who publish the Journal of Science, the most highly syndicated peer reviewed science journal in the world)
http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2007/02/3630_aaas_s...

American Geophysical Union (a scientific organization with over 50,000 members, mostly earth scientists)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

The Pentagon
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903 ...
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

Exxon Mobil
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches_20070213_RWT.aspx
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14exxon.html?pagewanted=print
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZurM7c19ig

So if you want to make arguments from authority, well I reckon verifiable authority beats unverifiable authority any day.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on April 14, 2008 - 9:11am

But haven't you heard the latest from Jr? He is just the messenger and is not responsible for his own utterances or any data or other information that he posts here. And, of course, you haven't even scratched the surface of all the organizations supporting AGW. But Jr has his precious petition.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 14, 2008 - 10:00am

Nice try, but... All those groups and organisations are just piggybacking on the IPCC reports, which we know are not peer reviewed, and were written by non-scientists to get what they wanted in policy first, then told the scientists what to write to conform to the message. That's why it's called a hoax. It's not the first time the entire world has been duped, but it is the first time at this scale.

"I assume he's lying because he's making a grand claim but refusing to back it up."

Make sure you practice what you preach with everyone then. Lots of outlandish nonsence is spewed here with no references. I can see his point, why would he want to subject himself to the intolerant bigotry on this subject any time someone posts contradictory comments. I'm used to it, maybe he isn't.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 15, 2008 - 2:56am

No defence of the 19,000 univerifiables, then? Excellent, we shouldn't expect to see you mentioning them again until they can be verified.

Make sure you practice what you preach with everyone then. Lots of outlandish nonsence is spewed here with no references.

Well, I am not going to ask for references if someone says the sun will rise tomorrow. Some things can be assumed. But if something outlandish is posted, then yes I'll ask for a reference, assuming it's a topic I'm interested in.

If it goes against the broad scientific consensus, then it counts as "outlandish."

I can see his point, why would he want to subject himself to the intolerant bigotry on this subject any time someone posts contradictory comments. I'm used to it, maybe he isn't.

Boohoo, more from the denialist playbook, cry "I'm being persecuted!"

Nobody asked him what his qualifications were. He volunteered them. He said, "I'm qualified, so you should trust me."
"Okay, prove it."
"What?! Prove my claims?! I'm being persecuted!"

If you bring it up, people might question it. If you don't want it questioned, don't bring it up.

I mean, if I say, "actually the moon is made of green cheese, and you can't question that because I have a PhD in planetology, and a diploma in cheesemaking, you just have to trust in my brilliant and broad knowledge", then you're going to at least ask me where I got this PhD from. Or would you just trust me?

No, you'd question me, and rightly so. Bollocks should not go unchallenged.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 15, 2008 - 10:25am

And there's not the least bit of chance that he's ligit? No benifit of the doubt when the message is not what you want to hear? I'll ask again, would you reject AGW if he were right? And I will check that list. In the meant time here is a smaller list, just a few hundred, with their affiliation http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/Skepti....

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 10, 2008 - 1:31pm

Go post at realclimate.org, they'll sort you out, troll.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Undertow on April 10, 2008 - 1:36pm

jrwakefield believes that
DrumBeat: March 25, 2008

RC is owned and funded by a radical left wing political organization and run by a small group of NASA "scientists" who get their funding from Al Gore.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 10, 2008 - 1:44pm

Well, he's wrong.

It's part of ZOG. I'm a Jew and thus part of the conspiracy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 1:49pm

Their domain is owned and paid for by Environmental Media Services http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

biophiliac on April 10, 2008 - 4:12pm

From RealClimate

A disclaimer
Filed under: *In the News *Climate Science

— eric @ 4:53 PM

Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml).

If you really want to say something intelligent about global warming, rather than copy and paste from wacko websites, review your undergraduate quantum mechanics textbooks, particularly the sections on blackbody radiation and infrared spectroscopy. The physics has been understood for over one hundred years. By the way, The Oil Drum is hosted by the GAIA Host Collective, which by your logic makes Heading Out to be in the pocket of some weirdo commie tree hugger's association.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 5:41pm

Turn the tables around and if I had posted what you just did you would claim that you cannot trust what they say as they are biased and would not reveal their true funding. And you would add, if they have no affiliation to EMS, then why does EMS own the domain name? You would say something is fishy about that. So much is thrown about my postings as being funded by big oil (with no proof at all of that, just a blatant untrue allegation.), how is my allegation any different? I’m just showing the hypocrisy and double standard. What is important is the evidence on all these sites, not who funds them.

So you see what you want to believe is what you want to believe. To me my sources are just a legitimate as RC (though I personally think RC is biased big time, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Hence the only reason people squawk and complain about the sites I post is because they DO NOT want to even think there is any possibility of any kind of doubt over their dogma of AGW. They hold this dogma not because of the science (there is none in the outrageous alarmism) they hold on it it because it is vehicle they can use to slam democracy. Thus they hold onto the dogma of AGW (as opposed to the scientific theory of it) for ideological reasons.

But in SCIENCE one has the RIGHT to challenge any scientific theory, and not be lambasted with intolerant bigotry and name-calling. That is not a sign of good science, it’s a sign of dogmatic belief systems scared of being shown wrong.

Once the momentum of the "skeptics" starts to grow, which it is, and the world just does not behave with the dogma (which it isn't), then one wonders what will become of them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

biophiliac on April 10, 2008 - 11:12pm

So you want to challenge the science with science? Go ahead and make your case with science (you haven't so far). Don't worry, I can take it, I'm a physicist.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 2:15am

Then you know perfectly well that NO theory in science is settled and that anyone is free at any time to challenge any theory based on evidence. That one should be able to present that challenge without having to suffer the wrath of intolerant bigots, right? So why is AGW any different?

And I have CONSISTENTLY provided peer reviewed references, yet those here would rather trash the source than deal with the evidence. Those same people spew out all kinds of wild predictions with no basis on any peer reviewed papers. They take Gore hook line and sinker yet his presentation is far from the scientific understandings, and blatantly wrong on at least 32 counts.

So where is your scientific integrity since you are a physicist. Or is your ideology getting in the way. Ask yourself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 11, 2008 - 2:30am

Denialism 101

[General tactics] conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

I'd mark this post as part of

But it also has bits,

"Accusation: "Because of X, Y and Z, you are wrong"
Response: If they fail to call you an idiot, there are a few ways to respond to this. Either nitpick an aspect of their argument so that you can ignore the rest while diverting the discussion into a meaningless tangent."

and also

In this modern world there is such a thing as "parity of ideas". Everything must be balanced against its opposite. If anyone says anything that contradicts you, it is your right to be able to counter what they say for "balance", even if you don't have proof or credibility. If they don't do this you are being persecuted.

And of course, if you're persecuted then you're just like Einstein, right?

Overall, not bad as a denialist post. But it'd benefit from using just one tactic at once. A shotgun's only effective at close range, at longer range you want a single round to go out and hit your target. So I advise sticking with one tactic until you're called on it, then change. I give this denialist post 4 out of 10.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 9:57am

Dogmatism 101

Take what you actually are and smear the oposition with it. "conspiracy [The UN and Radical Environmentalists], selectivity (cherry-picking) [disallowing any contradictory evidence], fake experts [Al Gore], impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts) [The recent 1998 to now non warming is part of global warming!!], and general fallacies of logic [CO2 will kill all life on earth]."

Yep, that's the AGW dogmatism all right.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on April 11, 2008 - 10:52am

I didn't "disallow any contradictory evidence", I just failed to respond in detail at all to your blatherings. I'm not responding to each and every little bit of confusion and deliberate obfuscation, I'm just mocking you.

I'd be the last person to argue Al Gore has any clue what he's talking about. He's just making the turn to leftish greenish politics so many former politicians make. He was responsible, after all, for making sure the Kyoto Treaty was nice and wet and woolly on the US. So maybe he's trying to make up for that, I dunno.

There's been global warming since 1998, when the period is taken as a trend in a longer series. As someone concerned with peak oil, you already know that you can't look at day-to-day figures to discern long term trends. There's no, "oh look Russia added 100,000bbl/day in January, therefore there will be no peak ever." It doesn't work like that; we consider long-term trends, coupled with the general science.

But you know that already.

I don't know of any qualified person who believes that CO₂ rise will kill all life on Earth. Of course, defeating your opponent's arguments is always easier when you make them up yourself. Don't be ashamed, that's part of a long tradition begun by Socrates.

Keep working on it, jr, you're still not quite up to being a proper denialist. Really you need your own crackpot theory to put up in opposition to it, and you can submit it some journal some mate of yours created online. Call it, um... Climate Researchers Against Persecution.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 11:29am

"I'm not responding to each and every little bit of confusion and deliberate obfuscation..." back to you.

"I'd be the last person to argue Al Gore has any clue what he's talking about."

Now compare to biophiliac below:

"I have not seen Gore's movie, but my understanding is that aside from some overdone visual effects, the scientific content was sound by the standards of documentary film-making."

So whose right, you or biophiliac?

"I don't know of any qualified person who believes that CO2 rise will kill all life on Earth" Lovelock, and many on this site have claimed that the earth will be unlivable by man nor beast.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

offtrack on April 11, 2008 - 11:44pm

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

is Peden, qualified or did he just get behind in the union dues.
or?

read it and pick it apart.

please.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Black_Dog on April 12, 2008 - 12:19pm

Dr. Peden may be an expert in his field, but he has missed several basic points that I can see.

For example, he shows a graph of the absorption/emission lines for CO2, claiming that they are vary narrow and can't possibly influence climate. He ignores the fact that H2O absorbs in different portions of the spectra and that the CO2 lines fall within "windows" between the H2O effects. He also misses what's called "pressure broadening" of the CO2 lines, which spread their effective range of absorption. In Over much of the Earth, the atmosphere moves thermal energy from the surface to higher elevations mostly by means of convection. It's at the higher levels of the atmosphere that the so-called "greenhouse effect" is strongest. The result is that when seen from outside the atmosphere, the Earth's emission spectra looks like that of a much colder body than what we experience at the surface.

Peden also claims that CO2 is a heavier molecule than O2 and N2, thus will settle to the bottom of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is in constant motion and the gases are very well mixed throughout. The same is true for CFC's, although there are denialist who claim that those settle out as well.

There's more there which I think is flawed, but I'll leave it to the experts to pick it apart.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

biophiliac on April 11, 2008 - 11:07am

It is true that nothing is settled in science, but ask yourself if you are qualified to even try. What is your background in quantum mechanics, IR spectroscopy, atmospheric chemistry, cloud physics, etc? And ask yourself what your agenda is: Why are you trying to disprove global warming and not some other "unsettled" theory like the theory of gravitation, the Standard Model, the big bang? If you really want to make a contribution to science by correcting a big mistake that we are all making, you have to move beyond cutting and pasting graphs from various websites and become an expert: invest 10 or 20 years to learn the subject and people will *start* to take you seriously.

I have not seen Gore's movie, but my understanding is that aside from some overdone visual effects, the scientific content was sound by the standards of documentary film-making.

By the way, the vast majority of scientific literature supports the AGW hypothesis, which means that your source of references is carefully edited.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 12:01pm

Then no one here is an "expert" either to make any claims about what will happen in the future. I'm quite capable of reading papers and understanding what the thrust of the paper means. I read a very wide array of technical books and papers on science, including physics, geology, paleontology and evolutionary biology. So do not for one minute imply I'm incapable of understanding what's going on. I taught myself geology and debunked a creationist who claimed that polonium haloes showed the earth was created in 3 minutes (Gentry has a PhD in Physics). Took me 2 years, but I solved how the halos formed and published. With no formal training in geology. Just read the published materials and talked to geologists. G. Brent Dalrymple edited the paper for me and said I was the best amature geologist he'd ever met. I even got to visit his lab at the USGS before he retired. So don't even try to belittle my ability to understand science.

"By the way, the vast majority of scientific literature supports the AGW hypothesis, which means that your source of references is carefully edited." Not acording to this list of skeptics. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/Skepti...

"the scientific content was sound by the standards of documentary film-making."

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 461,000 for "al gore" errors.

Specifically http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/20/35-errors-disc...
and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigor...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

biophiliac on April 11, 2008 - 1:52pm

You are questioning the scientific ability and motives of thousands of geophysicists who study global warming, why should I not question yours? Your web sources (above) and methods (googling) are bogus. There is a whole industry of Gore bashing, so no surprise. Why don't you stick to scientific sources and databases? Go to your university library and go through Nature, Science, GRL (and other AGU journals), etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 3:03pm

Not "thousands of geophysicists who study global warming", a small number, and some of them I do highly question their motives (Like Hansen) (you are all quick to point to unjustified motives of the long list of scientists I've presented). There are lots of papers published in those very journals that do not support AGW theory. They are reviewed in www.worldclimatereport.com, www.co2science.org, www.icecap.us, and www.climateaudit.org. If you go past your ideological objections to the sites and read the peer reviewed papers they present then maybe you will see that there is a mountain of evidence there that makes AGW highly suspect. Do yourself a favour, just go and read the papers they present.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Black_Dog on April 11, 2008 - 8:43pm

I've been curious about Gentry's Polonium Haloes for a while, after a local Seventh Day Adventist preacher loaned me Gentry's book. I think the whole notion of the Haloes was likely to be off base. So, do tell us where you published, so we might read your astounding findings for ourselves. Better yet, where's the PDF, so we can all read it.

Ah, come on, here's a chance to brag and bask in the limelight!
----------------
EDIT: Here it is, thanks to Google and the talkorigins FAQ.

Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
---------------
E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 12:08pm

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 12:36pm

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

For example Richard S. Lindzen, in his paper at the 2005 Yale Center for Globalization conference clearly points to one particular pro-hoax web site calling itself "Real Climate" which tells us that it is all about "climate science from climate scientists", featuring among others, the now universally discredited work of Michael Mann and others who were too quick to become his overnight followers. The site isn't actually run by "scientists", it's actually run by Environmental Media Services, which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

quixotic on April 10, 2008 - 2:19pm

Even though the central part of the antarctic ice sheet is growing (due to the ozone hole), this is more than compensated for by the accelerating loss of ice at the periphery of the ice sheet.

See
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648
for the full story.

Remember: if the whole thing goes, sea levels rise by 61 metres.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 2:48pm

The whole thing will not go, it would have to be above freezing for hundreds of years non stop for it all to melt. It did not all melt during the global wide medeaval warm period, it won't all melt now. Second even if it did all melt, most of Antarctia is under sea level, hence the ice would be displaced by the water weight for weight. Thus the rise would be far far less than your claim of 61 meters, for which you give no peer reviewed paper to support. I get slammed for not providing references, so how come it's OK for you to not?

And your link is a year old now, things have changed, look at the graphs in the link I posted which is new. That article is not supported by refereed papers on the subject that has appeared in WorldClimateReport.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Will Stewart on April 10, 2008 - 4:12pm

most of Antarctia is under sea level

This statement is unclear; most of the planet is under the sea level, as all oceans have a bottom. Do you mean most of the ice associated with Antarctica is under water? If so, please provide a reference.

That article is not supported by refereed papers on the subject that has appeared in WorldClimateReport.

You are getting your information from one-side blog? No wonder...

You need to list the 'referreed papers' so that they can be examined for their approach and findings. In the meantime, see this NASA article;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 10, 2008 - 6:05pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

"About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet, a sheet of ice averaging at least 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) thick."

"Antarctica without its ice shield. This map does not consider that sea level would rise because of the melted ice, nor that the landmass would rise by several hundred meters over a few tens of thousands of years after the weight of the ice were no longer depressing the landmass."

Yes, a large portion of the land mass has to be below sea level.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%e2...
For a peer reviewed study of the extent of the ice there.
Monaghan, A. J., D. H. Bromwich, W. Chapman, and J. C. Comiso (2008), Recent variability and trends of Antarctic near-surface temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D04105, doi:10.1029/2007JD009094.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/wilkins_fracture_barely_a_blip_i...
Wilkins’ Fracture Barely a Blip in the Big Picture as Antarctic Ice Anomaly 2nd Highest on Record

"You are getting your information from one-side blog? No wonder..."

Yes, because they review peer reviewed papers that does not support the dogma, and RealClimate, also very one sided, refuses to admit to. Referenced paper above.

"You need to list the 'referreed papers' so that they can be examined for their approach and findings." Then you better goddammed do this yourself, and others here, for every single outlandish "prediction" posted on TOD about the dire consequences of AGW. Next time someone posts some future outcome due to the effects of AGW I'll expect you to also demand "..to list the 'referreed papers' so that they can be examined for their approach and findings."!!!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Euan Mearns on April 10, 2008 - 6:14pm

Wow - what a map.

Isostasy - the rise and fall of land masses due to gravitanional loading and unloading - which may be ice or sediment - caused by the "glacial" flow of olivine in the earth's upper mantle (lower lithosphere upper asthenosphere)

and

Eustacy - the rise and fall of sea levels in response to the melting and freezing of ice caps or to changes in the volume of ocean basins due to plate tectonic processes.

Unfortunately I don't have a degree in Climate Science from The Euphoric State University and am therefore wholly unqualified to comment upon the radiative insular properties of CO2. Why is it that N2 and O2 don't insulate but CO2, CH4 and H2O (in particular do?) - I can never remember.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enemy of state on April 10, 2008 - 7:17pm

That's actually an interesting question. It really has to do with where the spectral bands of molecules reside. Molecules with two atoms don't have rotational degrees of freedom of the correct energy to absorb/emit in the relevant infrared frequencies. Molecules with more than two atoms, are much more complicated geometrically, and have many more energy modes. Thermodynamicists sare concerned with this because its affect the heat capacity of the gas, and spectroscopists are interested because they want to know the frequencies shapes and strengths of any absorption lines within the frequencies of interest.

This stuff is covered in intermediate (say senior year or first year graduate chemistry). I'm not a chemist, but I did study this stuff for my job.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SailDog on April 10, 2008 - 8:35pm

The West Antarctic ice sheet is the one that is causing most head-aches in the Antarctic. It is grounded, but below sea level as your map shows. However its top is far above the level at which it would float. Sea level rise from this ice sheet alone is estimate at 5m.

However if this one goes, so will the Greenland ice sheet. That is worth 7m (that is peer reviewed) and I have personally worked that one out myself using GRACE data.

Even if sea levels only rise by a quarter of the amount predicted - say 3m - it will cause havoc. The problem is made worse by our limited understanding of ice sheet physics, particularly for one that is grounded below sea level. This whole issue is a risk management problem. Just as I cannot say with certainty what will happen in the future, neither can anybody else.

The right way of analysing this issue; as with any other risk, is to consider what the probability of a particular scenario happening is (eg sea levels rise 3m by 2020) and then to calculate the impact.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 2:06am

Have you worked out the thermal physics involved to melt the ice? That will show us what temps would be needed to melt it in what time frame? There all this hype out there that it will all melt, very quickly, yet no one has provided any calcuations that will show us this.

Greenland is also below sea level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

"The weight of the massive Greenlandic ice cap has depressed the central land area to form a basin lying more than 300 m (1,000 ft) below sea level."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SailDog on April 13, 2008 - 10:07am

As Euan said - that is a great map.

And - no I haven't worked out the thermal physics involved to melt these two sheets.

However I am not sure the thermal physics are 100% relevant. There are other complex physics in play that are poorly understood. It seems that meltwater flowing through the ice does not re-freeze as assumed, but falls to the base of the ice sheet and destabilizes it. This could allow the ice to flow into the sea where the thermal physics become irrelevant - it floats away and melts, but then it is in the sea and the sea level rise has happened. There is evidence that Greenland glaciers are flowing up to six times their historic speeds.

As I say I believe this is a risk management issue and must be approched accordingly. There is science behind AGW, even if you disagree with it. There is significant evidence of warming, that is undeniable. Therefore there is some degree of risk that AGW is real. At this point we can argue over the extent of the risk, but if you try and tell me the risk is zero I could equally validly accuse you of dogma.

Just for the record - I am a "mature" student nearing the end of an Environmental Sciences Masters degree. I have read a lot of peer reviewed science supporting AGW recently. The universities position is that AGW is a "well supported theory". Good as the URL was on denial (and I understood much of it) I will need to see irrefutable SCIENCE knocking the theory over before I change my own position. However I have forwarded the URL on to my relevant Prof. and we will know doubt spend some time discussing it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 4:02pm

For the record I do not say there is no risk to climate change. The world in changing, it always has and always will, and there is nothing we can do about it. I even had someone on another list tell me that even if the warming is purely normal we should "fix" it anyway!!

What climate change will not do is wipe out the biota making the world uninhabitable. It wont do that for another 4 billion years if we understand how the sun works. The hype of alarmism and call to action is not scientifically sound. There is no published papers that make these wild claims (they would never get past peer review) it's all just from those who are going to make big bucks from keeping the alarmism alive.

But, you do need to read all the relevant information, don't be fooled by the dogmatists here that claim the sites I reference are biased, of course they are, but so too is their's, especially RealClimate. The queation is, what is the bias and what are the motives?

Good luck on your journey in this area, get back to us and let us know what you find out. You can contact me off list if you wish.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

enemy of state on April 10, 2008 - 7:28pm

There are something like 100,000 glaciers in Alaska alone. The tidewater glaciers are not good climate indicators because they are strange beasts. Most of them have very healthy mass balances -they get more snow then melts, they gradually advance in their fiords pushing gravel below them, once they get too long that they can't stay grounded, they begin breaking up and rapidly loss mass/length to the sea, retreat takes maybe a hundred years, while the advance stage a few thousand. Because melting is such a small effect on these glaciers recent climate changes don't have much effect. Something like 98% of glaciers are currently retreating, which means 2% aren't. If climate was not changing you'd expect this ratio to be more like 50/50.

The total amount of ice in Antarctica and Greenland can be reasonably well measured by the effect of their gravity on satellites. The mass balance in Greenland is approximately known by this technique. The total volume in Antarctica hasn't changed enough (last I saw which is a couple of years old) to know if it was increasing/decreasing.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 7:19pm

This email I got will answer that question:

Dear Benny,
>
> Mr. Shanklin responded back (CCNet, 27 March 2008) to a story I posted about the Antarctic ice on http://icecap.us. Yes I am aware of the difference between floating shelf ice and pack ice and how pack ice is more susceptible to yearly coming and going. My main point is that Mr. Shanklin and associates are ignoring the fact that the total extent is growing not shrinking even as localized warming on the peninsula is causing ice losses or changes. And please note the warming and melting has been focused on the Antarctic peninsula and not the vast continent which has been cooling (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=1...)
>
> I have no doubt the recent warming trend in the Antarctic peninsula area has led to greater amounts of melt "ponding" on the ice shelves, weakening them. Meltwater at the surface acts to increase the extent of fracturing in the ice making the ice more susceptible to ocean waves. This is a natural on-going process. Something we have only recently paid great attention to because of the unwarranted focus on the recent natural cyclical warming that may be coming to an end.
>
> Most of Wilkins is said to be 400 years old which meant 400 years ago it was open water or pack ice and developed with a push from the Little Ice Age. This coming and going thus is not new.
>
> And the link to the Cryosphere today image Mr. Shanklin pointed to (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg) please note how the total southern hemisphere ice extent is 60% ahead of what is was last year at this time when it went on to set a new record for the satellite era.
>
> As for the volcanism comment "I would however be interested to know which volcanoes are currently active to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula. As far as I know the last eruption from Deception was in the 1960s, so this cannot be used to explain the current Peninsula warming of some 3 deg C in 60 years.' , see: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-activ....
>
> Anthony Watts has added the following in response to your note:
>
> See this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm. Note this is from (BAS, Mr. Shanklin's British Antarctic Survey)
>
> "The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet erupted 2000 years ago (325BC) and remains active. The subglacial volcano has a 'volcanic explosion index' of around 3-4. Heat from the volcano creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea. Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is showing rapid change and BAS scientists are part of an international research effort to understand this change.
>
> Here is a map of the ice sheets: http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/
>
> See this satellite image of Wilkins ice shelf, note hole in ice shelf at lower part of image in middle of the shelf. That doesn't happen from wind/wave/sea action. Only a heat plume could do that.
> http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/wilkins.html. Using Google Earth to locate it
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=70%C2%B0+15'+00.0%22+S+73%C2%B0+00'+00.0%22+W&ie=UTF8&ll=-70.259452,-73.037109&spn=17.503542,95.800781&t=h&z=4&iwloc=addr
>
> Apparently Mr. Shanklin has a problem trying to understand that when you have an ice shelf sitting over an active plate boundary, where the crust is disrupted, and volcancoes abound near it, that there would be submarine heat in the region. He's apparently unfamiliar with submarine vents near such areas that expel superheated water, or unwilling to consider the possibility.
>
> And this NASA GISS map shows a clear hotspot:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&mont...
>
> In the case of the NASA GISS model output, that hotspot is centered directly over the Wilkins ice shelf. What is notable about the NASA GISS model output is the complete absence of any other hotspots in Antarctica.
>
> Regards
> Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

218 comments on Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…”

—Winston Churchill, November 1936