How's everyone enjoying their "Global Warming"?

[Zarathustra]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

[finn]

Boy I thought I was the one usually up for a bit of conspiracy theory but really this is out there and was dealt with up-thread some time back. The figures were not "fiddled" but normalised to take out and balance the accuracy removing the statistical errors.

Smoking gun?

Certainly smoking something......!

[Zarathustra]

These are scientists checking the data for statistical errors. Hardly a conspiracy theory. This is normally part of science--skepticism and error correction. It's only controversial when "science" becomes political advocacy and one has a dogma to defend with smears.

Scientists are human. They have all the biases we all possess. They sometimes even lie about their studies. And Group Think is a real phenomenon. There is nothing irrational about making sure these human flaws don't corrupt such an important issue.

[finn]

I concur Z, but there has to be independent and scientific means to the checking process. This in fact has already happened and one might think the need for yet a further review unnecessary when the reviews have already met stringent scientific standards, certainly not by a UK think tank that is composed of known climate change deniers and whose reviews deny process and method in favour of argument.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a political body set up to resist/lobby for policy which fits its own beliefs. It has published three "Reviews" to date, which when they themselves were reviewed, were discredited as having been laden with the very inaccuracies they were purporting to be exposing. They are known to have links to right wing groups and have some political muscle through links into the Conservative establishment including Nigel Lawson the former Chanceller of the Exchequer. They refuse to discuss their financial backers and hide them behind the fascade of being a charity. The Charities Commission in the UK is in an ongoing battle to have that status removed primarily for the use of inaccurate information........ much like describing statistical normalisation as "fiddling", like The Telegraph, the UK's most right wing daily and frequent mouthpiece for GWPF does.

The GWPF panels of "experts" and "academics" are in fact all known climate change sceptics and deniers, some of whom have expertise in non related disciplines, none of whom are approaching the subject matter without well documented preconceptions. The key figures that run and "advise" are in many cases complete laymen with no qualification to advise and no ability to critique scientific methodologies. Some, like the Australian Robert Carter, are in fact paid to comment and testify anywhere they can, pumping material that has not been tested or reviewed, into a manufactured debate.

Of course scientists are human and have biases, the so called "fiddling" was to counter that and other anomalous readings that affected the accuracy of the data. But gathering the biased and untruthful onto a panel whose sole purpose is to create unfounded doubts, smear scientists and the science community and push untested theory and belief into the science forum is basically sabotage. As a journalist at The Times wrote:

If one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.

It may not be irrational to ensure that flaws in the data are accounted for, but by the same measure it must therefore be irrational if flaws are being introduced. The GWPF is not introducing untested material into discussion by accident, it is doing so deliberately and at times with a view to sabotaging the already tested and established credibility of the science, whilst trying to hide under the rationales of science.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This topic is tangentially-related, since some people are of the opinion that California's current drought is due to anthropomorphic climate change. Courage Campaign wants large retailers in California to stop selling bottled water from sources in California.

Yes, snowfall in the mountains has been a little lighter than usual in recent years--and that is no one's fault--but in my opinion part of their current drought crisis is due to California's overreaching environmental protection and usage laws. They have gone too far in the opposite direction of trying to "save the Earth" and this is part of the consequence.

Seriously--California has a shortage of water? When they are next to the Pacific Ocean? Really? They should have built a couple of desalination plants decades ago so they wouldn't be having this problem now.

[SoulBiter]

Yes, snowfall in the mountains has been a little lighter than usual in recent years--and that is no one's fault--but in my opinion part of their current drought crisis is due to California's overreaching environmental protection and usage laws. They have gone too far in the opposite direction of trying to "save the Earth" and this is part of the consequence.

Seriously--California has a shortage of water? When they are next to the Pacific Ocean? Really? They should have built a couple of desalination plants decades ago so they wouldn't be having this problem now.

A lot lighter than usual amount of rain. Many of the Ski resorts had incredibly short seasons and many of the runs were not even open due to lack of snow. Think...usually 85 to 100 inches of snow, instead they get 21 inches of snow. Also not only is the snow coming later but its melting earlier.

But I agree, a few desalination plants would go a long way to helping this issue.

[kevinswatch]

Desalination plants aren't the solution to California's problems...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_desalination_plant

It will produce 50 million gallons of water per day and will provide 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego region.

The total cost is expected to reach near $1 billion.

A 1 billion dollar plant that produces only 7% of one county's water needs is pathetic.

They wouldn't need a few desalination plants to solve California's problems. They would need a few HUNDRED. The costs and energy use to do that would be ridiculous.

The answer is in better water conservation.

-jay

[Hashi Lebwohl]

hrm....yes....well....

Okay, I have the link to the leaked version of Pope Francis' upcoming encyclical via L'Espresso magazine....but it is entirely in Italian, of course.

1. «Laudato si’, mi Signore», cantava san Francesco d’Assisi. In questo bel cantico ci ricordava che la nostra casa comune è anche come una sorella, con la quale condividiamo l’esistenza, e come una madre bella che ci accoglie tra le sue braccia: «Laudato si’, m’ Signore, per sora nostra matre Terra, la quale ne sustenta et governa, et produce diversi fructi con coloriti flori et herba».

"Praised be You, 'my Lord," sang St. Francis of Assisi. In this beautiful song we are reminded that our common home is also like a sister, with whom we share the existence, and as a beautiful mother that welcomes us in her arms: "Praised be You, 'my Lord, through Sister Mother earth, who sustains and governs us, and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs "

Anyway, it is supposed to address climate change and the poor but the official Encyclical is not due for release until Thursday. Be aware--this draft is 192 pages long.

[Avatar]

Nice to see the Pope working on the relevance of the church.

--A

[kevinswatch]

Good for the pope. I like Pope Frank.

-jay

[Orlion]

Nice to see the Pope working on the relevance of the church.

--A

That seems to imply that it has little to no relevance

[Avatar]

I think its relevance is waning to a certain extent. If nothing else, same-sex marriage laws in both Ireland and Mexico suggest a reduction in influence, at least in terms of the social sphere.

--A

[Zarathustra]

I've always thought there was a certain amount of dogma and religious fervor behind the global warming movement. I guess it's official now.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

California is now--finally--beginning to take a serious look at desalination in an effort to take measures against the current drought they are experiencing; naturally, environmentalists are upset about this. Part of the reason for the current situation is, yes, insufficient snow in the mountains during winter and rain during the other seasons. The other contributing factor, though, are the environmental regulations which those very environmentalists have pushed through the State legislature for decades which prevent such common sense solutions as Army Corps of Engineer lakes or other reclamation projects. The one big artificial lake that California made--the Salton Sea--has been a long-term disaster because they built it incorrectly.

The story cites that environmentalists think that more conservation will help. Have they ever heard the phrase "a day late and a dollar short"? It is too late for "more conservation" to help. Strict conservation would have been a good idea two years ago. Truthfully, if I lived in California--and I hope I never have to--I would be going to the ocean, filling up jugs of water, taking them back home, then filtering and disinfecting them myself for use.

(there really wasn't a better thread for this story, so I put it here)

[Avatar]

Largely with you on the "too little, too late" thing.

--A

[SerScot]

Hashi,

I thought the Salton Sea was a natural formation that occured during severe flooding in the 1920s or 30s?

Well, it appears we were both wrong:

The modern sea was accidentally created by the engineers of the California Development Company in 1905. In an effort to increase water flow into the area for farming, irrigation canals were dug from the Colorado River into the valley. Due to fears of silt buildup, a cut was made in the bank of the Colorado River to further increase the water flow. The resulting outflow overwhelmed the engineered canal, and the river flowed into the Salton Basin for two years, filling the historic dry lake bed and creating the modern sea, before repairs were completed.[2]

It is man made but was man made "accidentially".

[kevinswatch]

From your article, Hashi:

“Ocean desalination is extremely energy intensive,” said Sara Aminzadeh, the executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance. “We should all be looking at Australia. They built six desalination plants during their drought, and four of them are now shut down. It’s not the best solution.”

The $1 billion project will deliver 50 million gallons of water a day, a sizable amount but still only about what 120,000 households, or 7 to 10 percent of county residents, use, said Scott Maloni, a vice president at Poseidon Water, the plant’s developer.

Desalination plants aren't the solution to California's problems...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsbad_desalination_plant

It will produce 50 million gallons of water per day and will provide 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego region.

The total cost is expected to reach near $1 billion.

A 1 billion dollar plant that produces only 7% of one county's water needs is pathetic.

They wouldn't need a few desalination plants to solve California's problems. They would need a few HUNDRED. The costs and energy use to do that would be ridiculous.

The answer is in better water conservation.

-jay

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I know desalination is cost-intensive and in some cases does not solve water shortages. The main point I was addressing was that California is finally getting around to considering it even though it will never happen in time to solve the problems they are having. The time to build desalination plants, even if they will manage to produce less than 10% of the necessary water supply, would have been 1995. Of course, no one worries about water shortages until the water shortage has already become a problem, at which point it is already too late. They should have been building reservoirs or other long-term water storage measures even if that meant gutting some of their extremely strict environmental regulations. The natural climate of Southern California is great for agriculture but it cannot sustain the population of people living there and hasn't been able to sustain that population level for decades.

At some point the drought in California will reverse itself but by then a subtle change in its citizens' collective personality will have taken place. Forced rationing. Water shaming. Reporting on your neighbors for violations.

SerScot, I watched a well-made documentary about the Salton Sea a couple of years ago so I am probably fuzzy on some of the details. I thought they had built it on purpose. I am pretty certain that at some point it will return to being a dry lake bed but that might take another couple of decades.

[Orlion]

Maybe California can steal more water rights from Arizona

[kevinswatch]

Ultimately, I think you had the right idea in your previous post. The answer is not desalination plants. The answer is that people need to stop moving the heck to California and get the heck out. The water supply obviously can't support the population. And as you said, that isn't changing. So stay away from California, seriously...

My argument though is that I would rather see efforts go into other water resources solutions (and trust me there are many, the article you linked to had a lot of great ideas). Water resource solutions that aren't simply a waste of taxpayer resources and harmful to the environment (like desalination). If I was a San Diego resident I'd be pissed at this waste of money.

But seriously, I agree, I wouldn't move to California... Sounds like a mess.

-jay