[Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
Paul Rumelhart
paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 09:02:45 PDT 2015
Yes, I should never have made my original post. The tone of Tom's posts
aimed at me really get my goat sometimes.
Paul
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul: 'I'm not interested in yet another back-and-forth exchange.'
>
> Back-and-Forth-Exchange: 2
> No Back-and-Forth-Exchange: 0
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 08:51:32 -0700
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: thansen at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com; godshatter at yahoo.com
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early
> Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
>
> Droughts happen, Mr. Hansen. Droughts in California happen. At least
> once, according to
> http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more,
> there was a 240 year drought, followed 50 years later by a 180 year drought
> (all of this starting in the year 850). Ten or twenty year droughts are
> not uncommon in the historical record (based on tree ring data, sediments,
> and other evidence).
>
> It's also possible, though I'm sure it's hard to believe, that the huge
> increase in population and in water use by agriculture might be having some
> effect on the current drought.
>
> This idea that anthropogenic climate change must be causing the drought is
> another example of hyperbole in this topic. That's why I just watch the
> data as it comes in and ignore the doomsayers. Could it be having an
> effect on the drought? Sure. Along with lots of other things.
>
> Right now, turning to CO2 as *the* answer is no more scientific than
> saying "God did it". I also can't help you with the question of why bad
> things happen to good people.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> I was born (1951) and raised in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles.
> Before my parents passed I would go back to the valley two or three times
> each year (except for the years I was overseas). There has never EVER been
> a drought as bad as these past four years in Los Angeles. The latest word
> is this drought is expected to continue for the next few years.
>
> FYI, Mr. Rumelhart: Six (or seven) years does not reflect a weather
> problem. IT REFLECTS A CLIMATE PROBLEM !
>
> "Six percent of normal rates" is not "low snowfall". It is virtually NO
> SNOWFALL. In a state where over 80% of the water produced by snowfall goes
> to agriculture, which is the foundation of a majority of the state's
> economy (think exports), we'll all be picking up the bill very soon.
>
> Another thing: Extended droughts result in extremely dry areas (think
> trees). Over the next few years, the potential for fires in Southern
> California is likely to increase exponentially.
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 20:35, Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> As a former Californian who goes back most summers, Lake Shasta has been
> low for the last 20 plus years, at least to my eyes. I remember a lot more
> water in it in the late '80s.
>
> Sunil
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:33:02 -0700
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: moscowcares at moscow.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early
> Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
>
> A couple of years of low snowfall? If I were talking about snowfall
> records being broken the last couple of winters (such as what happened in
> Boston), you'd be telling me it's just weather and not climate.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Moscow Cares <moscowcares at moscow.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul Rumelhart stated:
>
> "Anyway, if climate change is as big a danger as they make it out to be,
> it should become very obvious Real Soon Now. I'm not talking about
> "97.386% of scientists now toe the line" type studies, I'm talking about
> crops failing en masse and cities getting flooded."
>
> For starters, Mr. Rumelhart . . .
>
> Courtesy of the *Motley Fool *(an investment firm) at:
>
>
> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/04/19/dont-let-the-california-drought-dry-up-your-invest.aspx
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> California's drought is Causing a Major Problem Nobody is Talking About
>
> California's water system is crashing. The Golden State is headed into the
> fourth year of drought conditions, and it's time investors readjusted their
> portfolios for the long run. Here's what you need to know.
>
>
> *When the water's gone*Investors have a lot to learn from the California
> drought: It's a real-life lesson in the importance of diversification and
> hedging. While the drought and ensuing regulations have actually left Big
> Ag relatively untouched, its energy sector is undergoing a rapid revolution.
>
> Hydropower accounted for around 20% of California's in-state generation
> from January to July (the wet months) for the past decade. But recent data
> suggest that hydropower's "new normal" may be more like 10%, or perhaps
> even less. For the 2014-2015 winter, officials now estimate that *California's
> snowfall clocks in at just 6% of normal rates.* [my emphasis added]
> -------------------------------------
>
> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com <http://www.moscowcares.com/>
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still.
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 19:32, Paul Rumelhart <paul.rumelhart at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I'm not talking about emissions controls or fuel efficiency initiatives
> (both of which I think are a good idea). I'm talking about raising oil
> taxes to fight climate change and carbon trading schemes. The last thing
> you want to do in a struggling economy is raise fuel prices. The cost of
> *everything* goes up. People find it harder to look for jobs, they can't
> buy as much, etc. The economy comes to even more of a standstill. Carbon
> trading schemes are a joke, cooked up by energy companies to reign in coal
> companies so that they can make more profits on natural gas.
>
> While I'm not a fan of Big Oil fat cats in a smoke-filled room doing...
> whatever it is they do in smoke-filled rooms, the simple fact is that we
> wouldn't be where we are technologically without easy-to-burn carbon. If
> we had to stick to windmills and solar heating, we would have been sunk.
>
> Meanwhile, the one saviour of a solution (at least until we get cheap
> fusion) is the same one that the same people pushing carbon credits and
> solar power don't want you to use - nuclear power. And... we're back to
> the topic of people wanting to manipulate me through fear.
>
> Anyway, if climate change is as big a danger as they make it out to be, it
> should become very obvious Real Soon Now. I'm not talking about "97.386%
> of scientists now toe the line" type studies, I'm talking about crops
> failing en masse and cities getting flooded. Since it's become so
> politicized, the only smart thing to do is to sit back and see what the
> climate does and assume everyone's lying to us. So far, I haven't seen
> anything to get worried about.
>
> Paul
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Paul writes: <I don't see any need to put any brakes on the economy in
> order to force us off of oil. If anything, we need the economy as strong
> as possible so we can be effective when we need to be.>
>
> Comments like this is the basis for why the 'debate' about climate change
> becomes so corrupted. It's actually good for the economy when government
> tightens up on emissions and mandates increased fuel efficiency because it
> spurs on innovation and accordingly creates jobs and new industries.
> What's the downside...It goes against your best interest if you've invested
> in Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobile, Oil ETFs, Master Limited Partnerships,
> etc.?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 19:30:21 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early
> Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
> From: paul.rumelhart at gmail.com
> To: starbliss at gmail.com
> CC: scooterd408 at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
> I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but for me it comes down to a desire not
> to be manipulated by fear as well as the desire not to be demonized for
> it. According to Wikipedia, we have had a temperature increase since about
> 1900 of 0.74 +- 0.18C. CO2 levels back then were about 280ppm, we're
> currently at about 400ppm. Calculate that out, and it would appear that we
> should expect an increase of around 1.7C for a doubling of CO2. OK,
> great. I'll keep that in mind over the next 80 years or so. Not nearly as
> high as what they are trying to scare us with. I keep an eye on sea level
> data at http://sealevel.colorado.edu. That first graph has been pegged
> at 3.2 +- 0.4 mm/yr for the last couple or more years now. Not even a hint
> that it will start erupting upward anytime soon. We're talking a little
> over a foot a century. Nothing to piss our pants about. Sea ice in the
> arctic continues to frustrate those who keep expecting an ice free summer.
> No idea what it will do this year.
>
> Almost everything else is speculation and over-exaggeration as far as I
> can tell. I don't buy into the "man is killing the planet" morality play.
> I don't see any need to put any brakes on the economy in order to force us
> off of oil. If anything, we need the economy as strong as possible so we
> can be effective when we need to be. I don't think we should be messing
> with geoengineering schemes quite yet.
>
> If things take a sudden turn for the worse, I'll rethink my position.
>
> That's my basic take on it. I'm not interested in yet another
> back-and-forth exchange.
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. As for the possibility of religion trumping my common sense on this
> topic, I have no idea what spiritists / occultists think about climate
> change; as far as I can tell there is no position on it. Maybe all 12 of
> us should sit down and discuss it sometime.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seriously, Scott? I think Debi was serious... Was she joking and I did
> not get it?
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood, or you were engaging in hyperbole for amusement...
>
> You can't really mean to suggest that *everyone *who has a view on
> anthropogenic global warming is merely "clinging tightly to their own blind
> biases."
>
> Or just the people you "hang with?"
>
> Scott Dredge wrote:
>
> "The motley crew that I out hang with just clings tightly to their own
> blind biases on this issue."
> --------------------------------
> There will always be some who take extreme unreasoned views on most any
> important issue, on one side or another. Thus Deb makes a good
> point about some who "melt-down," who are denying the validity of the
> thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies indicating significant
> anthropogenic climate change is occurring, when confronted with this body
> of science.
>
> But as I recently told a local climate change activist, if you want to
> find peer reviewed published scientific studies that question the consensus
> scientific view on anthropogenic climate change, they can be found. I have
> made a deliberate effort to study the scientific theories that indicate
> anthropogenic climate change is not a problem to the extent most competent
> scientists indicate it is...
>
> Below are a few that have generated considerable discussion in recent
> years. I'll not present the scientific refutations of these published
> scientific papers, but refuted they were.
>
> Note the first paper below is authored by the famous Richard Lindzen from
> MIT, who former NASA climate scientist James Hansen described as "the dean
> of anthropogenic climate change skeptics" in Hansen's book "Storms of My
> Grandchildren:"
>
> Published in "Geophysical Research Letters:" 26 August 2009
> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039628/abstract#publication-history>
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL039628/abstract
>
> On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
> Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang ChoiNote this comment from the Abstract:"...the
> inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem
> in climate prediction."
> -------------------------------------------
> Published in "Remote Sensing" July 2011:
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603
>
> *Roy W. Spencer* <http://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Roy%20W.%20Spencer>*
> * * <roy.spencer at nsstc.uah.edu>* and **William D. Braswell*
> <http://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=William%20D.%20Braswell>
>
> On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in
> Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance†
>
> Claiming a "misdiagnosis" indicates the "skeptical" analysis here...
> -----------------------
> Regarding your statement "The sad reality is that throughout history
> science has been routinely trumped by politics and religion until it can be
> proven beyond all doubt." demonstrates a misunderstanding, according to my
> study of epistemology, theory of knowledge, and the scientific method, of
> the nature of scientific inquiry. Nothing can be "proven beyond all doubt"
> technically speaking. New data or theory can always alter a given
> scientific consensus, though some scientists would argue this is
> philosophical nit-picking on some very well established theories.
>
> But consider the millions of people who insist that the theory or
> evolution, insofar as it indicates homo sapiens evolved over millions of
> years from other species, is not a "proven" scientific theory, despite the
> overwhelming scientific evidence. *Science is still "trumped" by
> religion on this issue.*
>
> *Given the bias of some people, it does not matter how well "proven" a
> scientific theory may be... it will still be denied!*
> ---------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Seriously Debi? The motley crew that I out hang with just clings tightly
> to their own blind biases on this issue. They just reject any report and /
> or attack the source that doesn't align with their own unalterable belief.
> The sad reality is that throughout history science has been routinely
> trumped by politics and religion until it can be proven beyond all doubt.
> And personally, I'm OK with that to some extent because the effect is that
> it forces very comprehensive and far reaching studies to unearth all the
> facts and impeach all of the fiction.
>
> This short video is a good parallel of what happens whenever the topic of
> climate change comes up with either my 'global warming is a myth' friends
> or with my 'we are going to die because of global warming' friends:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvSjiq1pLVY
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: debismith at moscow.com
> To: starbliss at gmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 19:32:23 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early
> Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
>
>
> Thanks, Ted. this is good info, and assists me when i talk to folks with
> little science background and a denier agenda---you are always on top of
> it! I have watched climate denier folks melt-down when confronted with
> facts that refute their disbelief---even they can only suspend disbelief
> until their arms hurt a bunch....and most of them don't have the muscle
> mass....
> debi R-S
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> *To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 17, 2015 6:44 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Realclimate.org 4-13-15: Ruddiman's Early
> Anthropogenic Climate Impact Theory
>
> I was surprised to just today read on Realclimate.org a piece dated 13
> April 2015, by climate scientist William Ruddiman, discussing how the
> scientific community has received his controversial theory regarding early
> (before major fossil fuel powered industrial civilization) human climate
> impacts.
>
> His Realclimate.org piece argues, and I quote, against the alleged
> "censure from a nearly monolithic community intent on imposing a mainstream
> view" that is sometimes claimed to exist by those critical of the science
> demonstrating major human impacts on climate change.
>
> I was particularly interested in this Realclimate.org piece because I
> referenced his theory in a 2007 op-ed in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News,
> which now has a Google News webpage of an actual scan of the actual op-ed
> page in the Moscow-Pullman DN. How or why this scan happened I do not
> know, but it can be read at the webpage below:
>
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2026&dat=20070223&id=x14zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MvAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3113,2791746&hl=en
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ruddiman's Realclimate.org article mentioned above is pasted in below,
> and comments generated by his article are also available at the website
> below:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/a-scientific-debate/
>
> A Scientific Debate Filed under: Climate Science — mike @ 13 April 2015
>
> Bill Ruddiman, University of Virginia
>
> Recently I’ve read claims that some scientists are opposed to AGW but
> won’t speak out because they fear censure from a nearly monolithic
> community intent on imposing a mainstream view. Yet my last 10 years of
> personal experience refute this claim. This story began late in 2003 when I
> introduced a new idea (the ‘early anthropogenic hypothesis’) that went
> completely against a prevailing climatic paradigm of the time. I claimed
> that detectable human influences on Earth’s surface and its climate began
> thousands of years ago because of agriculture. Here I describe how this
> radically different idea was received by the mainstream scientific
> community.
>
> Was my initial attempt to present this new idea suppressed? No. I
> submitted a paper to Climatic Change, then edited by Steve Schneider, a
> well-known climate scientist and AGW spokesman. From what I could tell,
> Steve was agnostic about my idea but published it because he found it an
> interesting challenge to the conventional wisdom. I also gave the Emiliani
> lecture at the 2003 December American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference to
> some 800 people. I feel certain that very few of those scientists came to
> my talk believing what my abstract claimed. They attended because they were
> interested in a really new idea from someone with a decent career
> reputation. The talk was covered by many prominent media sources, including
> the New York Times and The Economist. This experience told me that
> provocative new ideas draw interest because they are provocative and new,
> provided that they pass the key ‘sniff test’ by presenting evidence in
> support of their claims.
>
> Did this radical new idea have difficulty receiving research funding? No.
> Proposals submitted to the highly competitive National Science Foundation
> (NSF) with John Kutzbach and Steve Vavrus have been fully funded since 2004
> by 3-year grants. Even though the hypothesis of early anthropogenic effects
> on climate has been controversial (and still is for some), we crafted
> proposals that were carefully written, tightly reasoned, and focused on
> testing the new idea. As a result, we succeeded against negative funding
> odds of 4-1 or 5-1. One program manager told me he planned to put our grant
> on a short list of ‘transformational’ proposals/grants that NSF had
> requested. That didn’t mean he accepted our hypothesis. It meant that he
> felt that our hypothesis had the potential to transform that particular
> field of paleoclimatic research, if proven correct.
>
> Were we able to get papers published? Yes. As any scientist will tell you,
> this process is rarely easy. Even reviewers who basically support what you
> have to say will rarely hand out ‘easy-pass’ reviews. They add their own
> perspective, and they often point out useful improvements. A few reviews of
> the 30-some papers we have published during the last 11 years have come
> back with extremely negative reviews, seemingly from scientists who seem
> deeply opposed to anything that even hints at large early anthropogenic
> effects. While these uber-critical reviews are discouraging, I have learned
> to put them aside for a few days, give my spirits time to rebound, and then
> address the criticisms that are fair (that is, evidence-based), explain to
> the journal editor why other criticisms are unfair, and submit a revised
> (and inevitably improved) paper. Eventually, our views have always gotten
> published, although sometimes only after considerable effort.
>
> The decade-long argument over large early anthropogenic effects continues,
> although recent syntheses of archeological and paleoecological data have
> been increasingly supportive. In any case, I continue to trust the
> scientific process to sort this debate out. I suggest that my experience is
> a good index of the way the system actually operates when new and
> controversial ideas emerge. I see no evidence that the system is muffling
> good new ideas.
> ---------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20150420/f8c88142/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list