New paper finds sea levels rose up to 8 times faster & to much higher levels during the last 5 interglacials

In my opinion, the following is the best recent article by a climate change skeptic:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?tesla=y&ref=/home-page

Here are the two most helpful quotes:

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is “settled” (or is a “hoax”) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters.

and:

There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

What I’ve been arguing for years is that the way to approach the whole AGW debate is to consider it in terms of probabilities. What’s the probability that any degree of AGW exists? What’s the probability that AGW, if existing, will be catastrophic (worst case scenario) versus easily manageable? Given these ranges of probabilities, how much government regulation and government incentive is prudent?

What we need are more data … not simply climate data, but also economic data. The California voter initiative to essentially ratify the Kyoto Treaty was a tremendous service to the nation and the world, because it will provide actual data on the economic results of heavy handed government regulation and government incentives.

I don’t believe that there is an absolute emergency to take drastic measures on a national basis. Let’s continue to support climate science research and watch what happens with the various local initiatives (e.g. California’s). Ten years from now, we’ll have a lot more data, to allow for more informed consideration and debate.

Time for a time out from certitude. Climate science is neither “settled” nor “a hoax.” It’s just science, doing what science does. Same thing with the economics of green energy and the economics of restriction of carbon emissions. Economics may be the dismal science, but it’s science, as well. We need more climate data and we need more economic data. In ten years, we’ll have a lot more of both.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Hi Randy,

I personally think that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the theory that AGW is a real and worsening phenomenon. I’d put the probability of this as being true at about 95%. With respect to the probability of a worst case scenario — an irreversible tipping point which would lead to displacement of millions of people from low lying coastal areas and Southern Ocean islands within the next 100 years, I’d put that at about 50/50.

With respect to the probability that humans are causing a relentless increase in atmospheric CO2, I put this at 100%. It is a fact that our species didn’t evolve to live with an atmosphere at current CO2 levels, which are now higher than they’ve been in the entire history of homo sapiens.

It is an immutable fact that increases in inspired CO2 results in a need for both respiratory and metabolic compensation. There’s a formula for calculating the drop in blood pH. Delta pH = 0.003 X (40 − PaCO2). Where PaCO2 is the partial pressure of inspired carbon dioxide. The CO2 content of EXPIRED air is NOT relevant. What is relevant is the CO2 content of INSPIRED air. With increased inspired CO2, the rate of breathing increases, with increasing oxygenation of blood, with increased oxidation stress. This is potentially bad. For example, it’s oxidized lipids which are responsible for atherosclerosis. Oxidative stress is also thought to be promoting of gene mutations. Another thing which happens is that serum ionized (free) calcium increases. Calcium ion levels also affect cell function. Sperm counts are dropping all over the world, and no one knows why. Worst case scenario is that humans lose the ability to reproduce.

The truth is that we don’t know what’s going to happen to the current forms of life on this planet as human-caused CO2 levels continue to increase. I think that the conservative thing is not to continue the greatest human guinea pig experiment in the history of humanity.

Now, all of this is speculation and theory. I can’t prove it and you can’t disprove it. We simply don’t have sufficient data.

As I wrote, however, I don’t think it’s an immediate emergency. I do agree with the Wall Street journal op ed that it makes all the sense in the world to encourage green energy production and energy efficiency. And to be supportive on continued climate science research.

When you talk about spending “trillions of dollars” and ruining economies, you are being as much a hysterical alarmist as the extreme green side of the debate is with their assertions of environmental gloom and doom. As I wrote, we’ll see what is the economic effect of ratifying the Kyoto Treaty, as we watch what happens in California. We Californians voted to inflict this upon ourselves. We had the legal right to do this. And the rest of the nation will benefit greatly, as we all observe how this turns out economically for California.

The power industry complained that efforts to curb sulfur pollution would have grave economic consequences, but cap and trading of sulfur emissions has worked brilliantly. We’ll see how this works with carbon emissions. We’ll see if the idea that promoting green energy will lead to an economic boom or to economic disaster.

The main thing is that we need more data. More climate data. More economic data. We should all just take a timeout and let the data declare itself. We can then resume the argument around 2025. Let California be California and let Texas be Texas and let Massachusetts be Massachusetts and let Kansas be Kansas. With regard to the last, Kansas did the nation a great service when it drastically cut state taxes to prove that this would actually increase state revenues through the stimulation of greater economic activity. Other states, e.g. California, increased taxes. We’ll all have the chance to see how all of these state level experiments work out, and we’ll all benefit much more from actual data than from theoretical arguments.

I’d like to see more funding for research into the biological effects of very long term exposure to different levels of atmospheric CO2, for reasons described above.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Ontario, Canada went full bore on renewables and tried every manageable method of substituting fossil fuels. They are presently 300 billion in the red. The preponderance of expenditures were subsidies and grants. They subsidized infrastructure, energy, something for nothing schemes(medicare,etc.), job creation, immigration, all types of welfare, while decommissioning fossil fuel entities. Today, they are in big trouble, whilst motor vehicles are exploding in numbers and their road system is crumbling. You can lump this all together and call it socialism in a hurry. The air is not clean and they are now a have not province. Did I mention that they shut down some nuclear reactors? There is no green in this(money).

@Larry+Weisenthal:

The entire AGW hypothesis is based on the (unproven) concept that increased atmospheric CO2 levels -purportedly from the burning of fossil fuels – is causing increased global temperatures. The shrinking of the polar caps being a result of these alleged increased temperatures. This theory is utterly disproven by the following:

1. There has been no increase – but rather a DECREASE – in global temperatures for the last 18 years DESPITE a steady increase in the atmospheric CO2 content. If increased CO2 content/cconcentrationwas tbe cause of global warming, as AGW theory purports, then how can global temps possibly be going down while CO2 is increasing?

2. If the polar ice caps were decreasing in size prior to 1998 in response to increased global temps caused by increased CO2 concentration, how can it be that the caps set 8 separate size increase records this year despite rising CO2 levels?

3. During the period that earth’s polar caps were shrinking, astronomers reported shrinking polar caps on other planets in our solar system, such as Mars and Pluto. (When they still considered Pluto a planet). Now, tbose extraterrestrial polar caps are also increasing in size, just as Earth’s caps are doing. Were we burning fossil fuels on Mars and Pluto 20 years ago? What we DO know is that solar activity has DECREASED since the late 1990s, coinciding with the increased growth of polar caps.

AGW theory is at best misguided, and quite possibly a horrendous, manipulative, political hoax. If I ever presented such a weak, easily disproven theory as is AGW to an IRB trying to get funding for a medical research project, I would be drummed out on a rail and unlikely to be considered for any research grants ever again. For some reason, AGW is given almost sacrosant credibility seemingly because it is considered “smart” to overlook the glaring inconsistencies in the actual AGW “science” in veritable worship of the collectivist political goals of pseudointellectual elitists who have only a passing acquaintance of the concept of Schroedinger’s cat from watching an episode of “The Big Bang Theory”.

True science is by nature inherently skeptical. When hard facts do not support a theory, the tbeory is not accepted. The irony of AGW cultism is the disdain such believers hold for anyone who believes in God ostensibly because His existence cannot be proven, while they give infinite adoration to manufactured, preconceived data from egregiously faulty and inaccurate computer models -over and above empirical evidence clearly destroying the very foundation upon which AGW theory is so shabbily built.

There is not a statistically strong enough baseline to even determine if the climate is warming, let alone if a minute trace gas could impact it.

Since the big splash in front of congress to launch this scam a simple annual coin toss would have reflected the observed average temperature data better than any of the warmmongers’ computer models.

This pathetic charade discredits environmentalism and tarnishes the word “science”.

Larry – why don’t you look up the NOAA data just published showing that 1695 low temp records were equaled or broken between Sep 11 through the 20th here in the US this month.

Honestly…when data point after data point shows up that indicates global temps are decreasing, how ridiculous is it to continue holding to the AGW hysteria?

@Larry+Weisenthal:

Larry – tit for tat? Really? From the page you put forth:

In the atmosphere, 500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth’s surface. The average position of the upper-level ridges of high pressure and troughs of low pressure—depicted by positive and negative 500-millibar height anomalies on the August 2014 and June 2014–August 2014 maps—is generally reflected by areas of positive and negative temperature anomalies at the surface, respectively.

Now see if you catch the slight of hand with which the AGW cultists keep trying to fool us:

With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world’s land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This makes August 2014 the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880, beating the previous record set in 1998.

So in other words, unless the records dating back to 1880 – which the AGW-supporting NOAA webpage to which you linked is using to compare the current “500-millibar height pressure anomalies correlate well with temperatures at the Earth’s surface” methodology – ALSO measured temperatures using the same millibar height pressure anomalies used today rather than actual temperature measurements, the veracity of the claims to elevated temperatures is seriously in question. Furthermore, why not make the same comparison between September temperatures in 2014 going back to September 1880? If, as the AGW cultists insist, average global temps are rising alarmingly due to mankind burning fossil fuels, then comparisons of temperature data for each month of the year going back to 1880 should show a pattern of rising temperatures for all twelve months over the period from 1880 until today.

What surprises me, Larry, is how you express a desire to follow the data to accurate conclusions, yet you refuse to even acknowledge the very glaring constitutional defect of AGW theory – namely that man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 via burning of hydrocarbons is THE cause of alleged rising global temperatures – despite the lack of verifiable global temperature increases while we have the continued increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. You cannot have increased CO2 be THE CAUSE of (alleged) global warming, if CO2 levels are rising while temperatures have been going down since 1998.

Reviewing the June-August temp data presented by NOAA from your weblink (with the breathless Chicken Little “highest temp increase since 1998” hyperventilated verbage) with the obvious difference in temperature determination (millibar atmospheric differentials today versus actual temperature measurements going back to 1880) one must ask the question “Why are we changing the way in which we are measuring temperatures to a method that was not being used in the past periods to which we are trying to compare current temperatures?”

Any sane person, when presented with actual data that proves there is a pending catastrophe unless appropriate countering steps are taken, will make an effort to do avoid the disaster. However, when confronted with hysterical claims based on GI/GO computer models, grossly manipulated data (i.e. Mann, et al, attempting to hide the Medieval Warming period), political opportunists like Gore and Ehrlich preaching insane predictions of doom unless drastic government action is taken to restrict and control individual activity – all while living in mansions and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels flying around the world making their ridiculous proclamations, of course…the sane person will remain skeptical of the unproven theory and should be highly suspicious of the underlying motivations of the proponents attempting to sell their snake oil cures.

When these supporters of such a weak and unproven theory publicly call for those who disbelieve their theory to be imprisoned – as RFK, Jr did roughly one week ago – they have all the scientific credibility and moral authority of those who burned “witches” for allegedly causing crop failures or curses to befall the local population.

Hi Pete, I said I really didn’t want to get into a tit for tat time waster of two amateurs going back and forth, presenting arguments which we’ve each read on blogs favorable to our point of view. Your “Al Gore” and “RFK Jr” stuff is a straw man. I’ve already stated that I’m against the politicization of science, by either right or left. I will point out that your own “breathless hysteria” concerning the alleged negative economic consequences of prudent, moderate, common sense measures to foster energy efficiency and conservation is simply the mirror image of Gore and RFK Jr. I don’t think it’s as bad as you say, economically, and I don’t think it’s as bad as they say, environmentally. I’m in favor of prudence, moderation, and more research.

With regard to the 1998 atmospheric temperature high, no one said that the only thing which influences global temperatures at any point in time is CO2 in the atmosphere. With everything in equilibrium over time (radiant energy from the sun, etc.), then pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global (atmospheric plus ocean) temperatures. But there are temporary local influences. Those of us who live in Southern California close to the ocean have tremendous respect for the ability of ocean temperatures to dramatically alter air temperatures.

What would you expect were there to be a period in which overall global winds were down, along with a slowing of ocean water circulation (deep to shallow)? You’d expect the atmosphere to be a lot warmer. This is what scientists believe happened in 1998, to my inexpert knowledge. So you have an anomalous warming, unrelated to CO2. Now, when winds and ocean upwelling increase, you get a cooling from the anomalously high 1998 peak, but what’s important is that the decade from 2003 to 2013 was clearly warmer than the decade from 1993 to 2003. You have to look at the trend line, not the peaks and troughs of the saw-tooth temperature curve.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

The other thing to consider when viewing the NOAA data on CO2 levels in the atmosphere is that ghese measurements are being taken near the still active Mauna Loa volcano. We know that volcanos put out sulpher and CO2, so what are CO2 measurements in the atmosphere averaging around the globe? I cannot find that data, but if the AGW theory of oceans acting as heat and CO2 sinks is accurate, shouldn’t CO2 levels be higher in regions that are away from the oceans?

Do you men of medicine realize that 51% or more of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by animal agriculture? Go vegan–compassion, health and a sustainable environment.

@Larry+Weisenthal: Progress not perfection Larry. As you know a plant based diet is not just about one’s health or the environment. It’s about refraining from consuming cruelty.
Re cruelty==You’ll note I haven’t once mentioned your Alma Mater’s football team. Go Irish.