By the way, here is a little bit of history on the “Oregon petition” (courtesy of http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2001/01april/book.html):
squeegee, just saw your post after I posted. So, I provided your cite before I knew you had asked for it. (Telepathic man! 
)
As for the refutation, I’ll try to see what I can dig up, but since I am not an expert in this particular field I can grow old rather quickly trying to refute everything that people find on the internet. This is why science has a system of peer review and why, when the scientific questions have important policy implications, panels like IPCC and the NAS panels that have studied global warming are convened in order to assess the current state of the peer-reviewed science!!! Unfortunately, the days of being a Renaissance man in science are long gone!
From EPI, who at least claim (though I can’t verify) to be non-partisan
They have some really interesting stats, but the more I read and hear, the more confused I get. According to their "about us page on their website, they were “formed by Dr. Michael S. Coffman, its current President, to provide a network of over fifty reputable and highly competent scientists and consultants as a resource to companies, organizations and citizen groups seeking information and training on environmental issues. These scientists and consultants are involved in the cutting edge of environmental research and management within universities and private organizations, and are highly knowledgeable in their areas of specialty, ranging from environmental issues such as global climate change and wetlands, to ecosystem dynamics and landscape resource management, and the socio-economic impact of America’s changing culture.
Environmental Perspectives, Inc. provides consulting services in resource and ecosystem analysis, speaking, training, and writing. These services are designed to assist companies and organizations in building understanding, analyzing their environmental strengths and weaknesses, developing business strategies, assisting in public relations, and finding solutions.
It is the goal of EPI to provide positive solutions to America’s environmental problems by providing companies, organizations, and citizen groups with 1) factual information on environmentalism and environmental issues, 2) assistance in developing plans to bring balance to these issues, and 3) the know-how to meet the new expectations of our changing American culture.”
The 3rd chart down touches on the solar flare affect on our planet, but I couldn’t find a cite for the Oregonian Professor I heard talking about solar flares and the increase in the Martian temps on the radio this past week.
Her basic point was;
Mars temps are increasing.
Solar flare activity is high.
True, Mars doesn’t have a viable atmosphere to shield it from the affects of the flares.
However…their distance from the Sun is greater than ours,
She concluded be stating “perhaps” those same flares are having an affect here on Earth. Even though our atmosphere provides better protection, we are also an awful lot closer to the Sun than Mars is.
[/lurk]
'The Reason and History of Sovereignty International:
http://www.epi.freedom.org/sovbkgrnd.htm
The top link on the right sidebar (the only web link listed along with street address and telephone numbers on how to contact EPI):
http://www.discerningtoday.org/
Now they can CLAIM they are non partisan, but it took me about 45 seconds before my ‘anti-UN right wing Christian group with a bone to pick alarm’ went off; you didn’t really believe this is non partisan, did you?
[lurk]
Wuss. 
Seriously, I would be interested in anything that points out that the facts (specifically those compelling charts) in the Oregon Petition are incorrect. Did the author just make up this thing out of whole cloth? Or did he just select data that worked toward his bias? The latter would be what I’d expect, which would still make the data interesting.
I didn’t say, one way or the other. I admit, the link is suspect, but I’m not going to condemn Dr. Coffman (Jewish surname?) and 50 other researchers findings just because their website has a link to a christian organization who’s selling their literature. I’m gonna poke around on some pro-environmental group websites to find facts that debunk their research; not poo-poo them via a “guilt through association” accusation.
Does objectivity cause paranoia?
The more I read, the more suspect I become of both camps.
The “have no fear” crowd has an (obvious) financial stake in debunking the global warming theory. A large part of their funding comes from private (polluting) interests who want to keep the status quo.
Whilst
The “sky is falling” crowd has an (obvious) financial stake in sensationalizing the global warming theory. A large part of their grants come from public sources that would dry up if the threat was close to non-existant
Okay, squeegee, here is one problem with the Oregon petition: it shows that satellite data suggest cooling in the lower-to-mid troposphere since 1979. And, it is true that when these data were first published, they did seem to suggest that. However, a few years later (or maybe even shorter than that; I’m not sure), it was realized that there was a correction that needed to be made for the decaying orbits of these satellites over time. [Note that these satellite were never intended to be used to study long-time climate trends.] Once this correction is made, the decline in these temperatures disappears and in fact the temperature rises over time. I don’t think there is any scientific controversy over the correction and it’s been known for a few years, so it is rather disappointing to see that this web site has not attempted to update things. [It may be true that when this petition was first composed, it was not known yet.]
By the way, there is still some discrepancy between the satellite data for the troposphere and the surface measurements … i.e., the satellite data rises more slowly. There was an NAS panel convened in 2000 to study this and here is a press release of their report-- http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068916?OpenDocument and here is the first page of the “findings” chapter of the report-- http://books.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/21.html#pagetop
Watchit, jshore: that indiscrete comment may endanger your non-renaissance standing. Please be more circumspect.
Seriously: The data you’re refuting is (was) indeed correct (ok, before someone corrected it), so it sounds like Mister (Ms?) Oregon Petition is at least drawing on legitimate sources, no?
Can’t find a complete review of the paper but here are a couple of sites that briefly outline additional problems:
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/envis/doc97html/globalssi321.html
http://www.queens.edu/faculty/jannr/bio103/kyoto.htm
Well, noone is arguing that these folks completely fabricated their data. Their data seem to be drawn from a variety of non-peer-reviewed and peer-reviewed sources. What junk science tends to do is present data out-of-context, sometimes out of the context in which they originally appeared in the refereed papers and sometimes out of context of the more general refereed literature. (After all, not everything that makes it through the peer-review process is ultimately correct. Thus, if one culls a small subset of the peer-reviewed literature, one can show things that are diametrically opposed to what most of, or the most currently accepted, peer-reviewed literature shows.)
Here are a couple of other specific problems that I see in the Oregon petition:
(1) Note that Fig. 15 presents sea level data from a satellite altimeter purporting to show that the sea level is actually falling a bit. In the caption, it is noted that in the peer-reviewed paper where this appeared, the data was corrected using ground measurements at some stations to show a sea level rise. The implication is that this was somehow fudged. However, presumably from the references (which I haven’t actually tracked down myself) the need for this correction made it into the peer-reviewed literature; the authors of the petition have chosen to dismiss this correction without giving us any reason why.
(2) The authors of the petition make much of the fact that most of the warming has occurred before much of the rise in CO2 levels. However, in doing this they ignore a fact that global warming deniers themselves like to point out: that there are natural, as well as anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Fig. 15 on p. 58 of the IPCC Working Group I technical summary (TS) shows that climate model simulations using either only natural forcings (solar and volcanic) or only anthropogenic forcings does not reproduce the experimentally observed global temperatures vs time [although visually the anthropogenic appears to do a better job at least with the dramatic temperature rise since ~1970]. However, when the model includes both the natural and anthropogenic forcings, the model does an admirable job of reproducing the major features of the temperature series (look for yourself).
If you don’t feel like downloading that entire PDF file, the same figure is also available on a web page as part of the “summary for policymakers” of the IPCC Synthesis Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/syr/figspm-2.htm
Oh, what the hell…Here’s another problem with the Oregon Petition. Look at Figure 14; now the general impression left by the figure and the text description is that in Ref. 41 [Santer et al.] they drew a line through the solid data points showing warming whereas if they had considered more of the times series as shown by the open data points in the figure then they would not been able to do this.
Now, here’s the true story (as I have gleaned from looking directly at these references): Santer et al. published the paper (Ref. 41) in which no figure like Figure 14 here even appeared. In fact, they did not even use the data set shown in Figure 14 and their graphs were not simply temperature departures but were of something called R(t) which serves as a comparison [a correlation] between temperature data and climate the predictions of climate models that contain anthropogenic forcing. What they were trying to show is that over this time, R(t) was **generally ** trending upward which means that the model predictions and the time-temperature series are becoming more strongly correlated or, in other words, that the anthropogenic forcing is becoming a stronger and stronger component in explaining the time-temperature series (which everyone agrees also contains within it natural climate variability).
Figure 14 here is then a figure that appeared in a letter to the editor by Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger [Ref. 42] which attempted to refute the Sander’s paper. In response to this, Sanders et al., wrote a reply [also in Ref. 42]. In their reply, Sanders et al. note first that the data set [by Angell] that Michaels and Knappenberger used to make this figure is a data set “which has instrumental biases and known deficiencies in its spatial representativeness” (and they include references). In particular, they compare to a recently-available data set that they believe is better over the whole period [by Parker] which shows that the Angell data set’s peaks in the late 50’s early 60’s are not correct and the dip at the end of the data set is a bit too pronounced. They did find one grain of truth in Michaels and Knappenberger analysis in that they were right that data from 1988-1995 available in this new data set does show a decrease in this R(t) value after 1988. However, they argue that the data is still more consistent with the hypothesis of a combination of anthropogenic forcing and superimposed natural variability (than with natural variability alone as Michaels and Knappenberger were suggesting).
At any rate, I don’t know how this whole saga has all turned out in the end or whether there has even been a definitive resolution to the scientific debate over this particular issue. However, what is true is that a figure such as Figure 14 of the Oregon petition presents just one side of the story and in a particularly deceptive way. It is indicative of what you end up with when you try to summarize a small piece of the peer-reviewed literature from a very biased point-of-view.
By the way, Patrick Michaels is an interesting guy and you can find lots of op-ed pieces by him in The Washington Times for example. I actually saw him talk here in Rochester about a year ago. He is a professor at University of Virginia but also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is one of the biggest global warming deniers (although interestingly enough, he doesn’t disagree with the amount of warming predicted by many of the climate models…He now just argues that the global distribution of this warming will be such that it will not be of great consequence). He has received funding from the Western Fuels Association and in fact was funded by them to publish a newsletter/pseudo-journal on climate change. Also, with the above-mentioned letter to the editor as one exception, I believe that his publications on the subject in the peer-reviewed literature are rather sparse. Of course, this background doesn’t mean that whatever he says is wrong but it does help to give you some idea of where he is coming from.
This sentence will make more sense if you eliminate the first appearance of the word “climate”.
JohnBckWLD wrote:
Not likely.
The “super-cannon” Saddam Hussein wanted built would have been the biggest gun ever built in history. However, it would have had a range of only 1000 miles.
A 1000-mile-range gun would have to impart a delta-V to its payload of roughly 13,000 feet per second. To put a payload into low Earth orbit requires a delta-V of over 25,000 feet per second. And to put a payload on an Earth-escape trajectory of any kind requires that you impart “escape velocity” to it, which is over 36,000 feet per second. Detonating enough explosive to impart this kind of delta-V would tear your gun apart before the payload even left the muzzle.
It’s worth making another clarification here…I shouldn’t really just say “time-temperature series” because what R(t) actually measures is a correlation vs. time not only in the temperature changes but in the spatial distribution of the temperature changes where the “spatial distribution” is in both latitude and height. I.e., their test is checking not only if the models are predicting an increasing amount of the temperature change but actually the spatial distribution of that temperature change.
Well, if we want to get technical, we’re in what climatologists (yes, even LEADING climatologists) would call an “interglacial period.” Anyone remember "Ice 1999: the Ultimate Disaster’? (published 1977, before the phrase “carbon budget” existed).
GEE, BILLY, WHY ARE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES RISING? When a similar question was posted on the 'ol BB board, I was accused of supporting the “worst-case” scenario. Howsabout y’all read Norman Spinrad’s “Greenhouse Summer,” where he calls the worst-case scenario “Condition Venus?” Again, economic predictions are all based on the current technological/economic condition. The US could meet Kyoto standards without serious economic harm; even most economists are willing to admit that.
Humans are, BY WEIGHT, one of the largest groups of living being on the planet. Blue-green algae forever altered the atmosphere of the Earth (that’s why we have the luxury of breathing oxygen). Don’t you think it’s a fallacy to say we its impossible for humans to do the same?
Where exactly are we going to add more hydro power? Especially when there is a large movement of Greens to tear several of the ones that we have down? (Glen Canyon…?)
Wind is almost competitive - by what measure, exactly?
As for the nuclear industry being highly subsidized…can you give an example of what you are talking about?
I don’t know what AceFace meant by that, but I can give examples:
The Feds agree to handle long-term disposal of radioactive waste. Sure, they’re doing a lousy job of it, but it’s a problem of large and uncertain cost and complexity. (I assume that the nuke industry pays some sort of waste disposal fee and I am aware that they take responsibility for near-term storage of nuke waste, until it gets deposited at Yucca Mountain or some such location.)
Nukes are granted limited liability for nuclear accidents. This amounts to a rather huge subsidy for such a mature industry. My reading of the Economist suggests that the caps are set fairly low relative to the expected cost of a serious nuclear accident.
And of course nuclear power plants have been financed in the past with tax-exempt bonds (see WOOPS), but I suspect that this subsidy is/was extended to other power systems as well.
The extent to which nukes received more general investment tax credits is unclear to me.
OTOH, I’m sure Anthracite is aware of the preceding, so I remain somewhat 
.
Here’s a link that I found
http://www.sustainableenergy.org/resources/technologies/nuclear.htm that quotes numbers from the Congressional Research Service showing that nuclear power has received the lion’s share in R&D funding:
I must admit that I would like to see a more complete analysis as I wonder about other sorts of subsidies (like the various tax breaks for oil exploration) and also the fact that I imagine fossil fuels received subsidies long before 1948.
Here’s another link: http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/features/news/nuke_power.html …admittedly most of it is not on the topic of subsidies but on the subject of whether nuclear power is really greenhouse-gas-free. [The point is that the processes to mine the uranium and produce the final fuel are very energy intensive. Unfortunately, the article is lacking any attempt to really make this quantitative and compare to other options (after all, even solar and wind would use resources that would take energy to produce), but it is an interesting point as far as it goes.] The one part of the article at the end that does talk about subsidies is interesting because it quotes someone from the Cato Institute.