AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:03 AMPost 3 of 10:
what makes the number 11,717 so ominous. 11,500 is half of 23,000. That means, boys and girls, that we are once again at a possible end interglacial, also known as glacial inception.
That’s right, glacial inception. Bet you didn’t see that one coming.
SIDETRIP 01:
The sidetrip above provides extensive documentation relating to the End Holocene debate. Bet you didn’t know it was a debate either. Actually, the debate over the probable length of the Holocene began at the same time the AGW debate did, and from exactly the same data. We will tune in on this debate with Dr. Wallace S. Broecker, arguably the father of modern paleoclimatology, in a question posed as the title of his fascinating paper:
“The End of the Present Interglacial: How and When?” Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 17
“Despite the large decline in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation during the last 8000 years, neither sea level nor polar temperatures have as yet undergone any significant downturn. This behavior is consistent with the prediction by Kukla and Matthews (1972) that the Holocene interglacial will terminate suddenly with a jump to another of the climate system's modes of operation. This is what happened at the end of the last period of peak interglaciation. However, complicating the situation is evidence that ice sheet growth during the transition from marine stage 5e to 5d preceded the shut down of the Atlantic's conveyor circulation which is thought to have brought Europe's Eemian to a close.
“However, it must be kept in mind that the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases may alter the natural course of events.
“With this new information in hand, three questions come to mind.
(1) Were previous intervals of peak interglaciation terminated by abrupt global coolings?
(2) How close are we to the end of the present interval of peak interglaciation?
(3) Will the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases alter the natural sequence of events?”
You should be able to guess where this is going. This is by no means a falsification of the AGW hypothesis. It is but the beginning of a powerful argument that either eviscerates or obviates the entire AGW discussion.
Ulrich Muller and Jorg Pross, writing in Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) sum this nasty little problem up neatly:
“The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
In 2009 Crucifix and Rougier ask:
“We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterised- AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:03 AMPost 4 of 10:
by repeated transitions between `cold' (glacial) and `warm' (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.
“On one side, Professor Bill Ruddiman carefully inspected and compared palaeoenvironmental information about the different interglacial periods. This comparison let him to conclude that glacial inception is largely overdue [4, 5]. According to him, the Holocene was not supposed to be this long, but the natural glacial inception process was stopped by an anthropogenic perturbation that began as early as 8,000 years ago (rice plantations and land management by antique civilisations). On the other side, Professor Andre Berger and colleagues developed a mathematical model of the climate system, rated today as a `model of intermediate complexity' [6, 7] to solve the dynamics of the atmosphere and ice sheets on a spatial grid of 19 x 5 elements, with a reasonably extensive treatment of the shortwave and longwave radiative transfers in the atmosphere. Simulations with this model led Berger and Loutre to conclude that glacial inception is not due for another 50,000 years, as long as the CO2 atmospheric concentration stays above 220 ppmv [8]. Who is right?”
This warrants repeating: “The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.”
You see, if the IPCC et al. are right about CO2/AGW, then Ruddiman is probably right: if it were not for AGW we would already be in a now overdue (or due now) glacial. And that makes what to do about AGW a very interesting question indeed!
Rohling et al (2010) chime in with this:
Finally, the alignment shown in Fig. 4 (which is similar to that of Ruddiman, 2005, 2007) exemplifies a completely different, more controversial (Spanhi et al., 2005; Siegenthaler et al., 2005), possibility. It has been argued that variability in the planetary energy balance during Pleistocene glacial cycles was dominated by greenhouse gas and albedo related feedback mechanisms, and that the role of insolation was limited to only triggering the feedback responses (Hansen et al., 2008). Hence, the apparently anomalous climate trends of the most recent 2.0-2.5 millennia should also be investigated in terms of changes in these feedback responses due to processes other than insolation, including controversial suggestions concerning man’s long-term impacts from deforestation and CH4 and CO2 emissions (Ruddiman, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Hansen et al., 2008). There is support from modelling studies that the relatively minor early anthropogenic influences may have been sufficient to delay glacial inception (Vavrus et al., 2008; Kutzbach et al., 2009).
It’s not much of a mental leap to realize that stripping a “climate security blanket” capable of preventing or mitigating glacial inception from the half-precession old Holocene interglacial might be inviting the tipping point known as glacial inception. Even if the IPCC et al. are right and Ruddiman is wrong, the question is the same. Remove AGW GHGs etc. from the late Holocene atmosphere and take your chances with glacial inception.
What you should be able to realize here is that the appropriate response to AGW in the middle of an interglacial might be the exact opposite of what to do at an end interglacial. - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:04 AMPost 5 of 10:
Those happy to take their chances with what may be an already overdue glacial and risk glacial inception by reducing AGW/GHGs to whatever late Holocene concentration you prefer, plunk down here.
What sense does it make to even consider removing trace gases with purportedly the power to perhaps delay or ameliorate glacial inception? Those that just realized being right about CO2/AGW means we may need to do a U-turn on policy plunk down here. We may already have a glacial inception insurance policy aka CO2/AGW.
You are allowed to change your mind at any time.
In either the “Do Something” or “Do Nothing” cases, you may wish to consider the following:
“Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
Sirocko et al (A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature 03905, pp 833-836)
In case this was not clear, all we may need do is nothing about CO2/AGW for the next ~4,000 years to perhaps cheat glacial inception.
In summing up this section, the entire AGW debate might actually be just that simple. GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. It is no more complicated or simple than that. Period.
a) If GHGs can get us over the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?
b) If GHGs can’t vault us across the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?
Not falsified, obviated.
As you might expect, it actually does get worse than you think.
OBVIATION BY SNR AND GI
In this section we will look at two essentially insurmountable obstacles to AGW, signal to noise ratio (SNR) and the climatic “madhouse” known as Glacial Inception (GI). Either one obliterates any concern whatsoever related to AGW. The reference standard chosen to represent the absolute worst case of AGW is the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 (2007)
SIDETRIP 02: - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:05 AMPost 6 of 10:
Your attention is drawn to Figure 10.33 from page 821 of Chapter 10 of AR4. SRES marker series A1F1 is the IPCC’s worst case “business as usual” scenario in which we do nothing about CO2/AGW in terms of the absolute measure of climate change, relative sea level (RSL). The median value of A1F1 comes in at +0.425 meters by 2099, or about +1.4 feet above present day mean sea level ( or amsl). If we use the upper error bar for A1F1 as the ultimate absolute worst case, we get about +0.6 meters (about 2 feet) amsl by 2099.
So the upper error bar of the worst case “business as usual” scenario from the gold standard of climate science, the IPCC, is +0.6 meter relative sea level rise by 2099. This is the ultimate AGW “signal”, so do take note here.
Is that a lot?
Actually, the more intelligent question might be:
Can we even detect our worst case CO2/AGW “signal” at an end interglacial/glacial inception?
Which brings us to yet another debate taking place in the paleoclimate community you have probably heard nada about: What is glacial inception like?
You see, the problem here, of course, is “noise”. Neuman and Hearty (1996) spell it out for us:
“The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”.
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it for us:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.” [emphasis mine] Hearty and Neumann (Quaternary Science Reviews 20 [2001] 1881–1895) abstracting their work in the Bahamas state:
“The geology of the Last Interglaciation (sensu stricto, marine isotope substage (MIS) 5e) in the Bahamas records the nature of sea level and climate change. After a period of quasi-stability for most of the interglaciation, during which reefs grew to +2.5 m, sea level rose rapidly at the end of the period, incising notches in older limestone. After brief stillstands at +6 and perhaps +8.5 m, sea level fell with apparent speed to the MIS 5d lowstand and much cooler climatic - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:06 AMPost 7 of 10:
conditions. It was during this regression from the MIS 5e highstand that the North Atlantic suffered an oceanographic ‘‘reorganization’’ about 11873 ka ago. During this same interval, massive dune-building greatly enlarged the Bahama Islands. Giant waves reshaped exposed lowlands into chevron-shaped beach ridges, ran up on older coastal ridges, and also broke off and threw megaboulders onto and over 20 m-high cliffs. The oolitic rocks recording these features yield concordant whole-rock amino acid ratios across the archipelago. Whether or not the Last Interglaciation serves as an appropriate analog for our ‘‘greenhouse’’ world, it nonetheless reveals the intricate details of climatic transitions between warm interglaciations and near glacial conditions.” [emphasis mine]
From a dozen such Eemian studies from around the globe, Hearty et al (2007) provide on Figure 2 a worldwide range of sea level highstands, predominantly identified at the End Eemian, ranging from +6.0 meters to +45.0 meters amsl. Lysa et al (2001) extend the possible end-Eemian climate noise envelope to +52.0 meters amsl:
“The Arkhangelsk area lies in the region that was reached by the northeastern flank of the Scandinavian ice sheet during the last glaciation. Investigations of Late Pleistocene sediments show interglacial terrestrial and marine conditions with sea level up to 52 m above the present level.”
And then there’s Bausch and Erlenkeuser’s (2008) “”critical” climatic evaluation of last interglacial (MIS 5e)”:
“As has been stated previously on the basis of some of the records from core M23055 (Bauch et al 1996), the main 5e-ss [5e sensu stricto – the authors] of the last warm period in the Nordic seas occurred within the upper part of the MIS 5e interval, and the warmest phase occurred towards its very end (see also Haake & Pflaumann 1989).”
We are now up to a possible 2 strong positive thermal excursions right at the end of the last interglacial, the Eemian, as it was undergoing glacial inception. Upon closer inspection, that second, stronger highstand itself may have had 11 negative thermal excursions with potentially 8 positive thermal excursions right at the end Eemian:
“This implies a total sea-level change of at least 6-7 m occurred during the fall and subsequent rise between Units 2 and 3. Besides, this remarkable fall of sea level promoted a renewed input of pebbles fed to the coast, probably trough fluvial incision and erosion of older beach deposits. Our conclusion is that sea level rose and fell repeatedly during the second highstand of MIS 5e, reaching similar elevations a.s.l., and depositing Units 2 and 3 and their various subunits.”
Their conclusions:
“Evidence of rapid changes of sea level during the second MIS 5e highstand, comparable to the “sustained MIS 5e highstand” with a duration of 10 +/- 2 ka, has been recognized in a prograding barrierspit system located at La Marina-El Pinet (Alicante). Detailed sedimentological analysis allowed differentiating three orders of sealevel fluctuations.
“The largest-scaled fluctuation is recorded as the conspicuous erosion surface (IV) and the associated increase in grain size that divides deposits of the second highstand in two morphosedimentary units: Unit 2 and Unit 3. It involved a minimum total sea level variation of 6-7 m. - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:06 AMPost 8 of 10:
“These units include eight prograding subunits separated by less prominent erosion surfaces. Petrographic analysis of marine sediments below and above the surfaces revealed that subaerial exposure took place after deposition of each subunit. In our interpretation, the erosion surfaces are the result of repetitive relatively slow falls of sea level followed by rapid sea-level rise. The minimum amplitude deduced for fluctuations is 2 m, which represents a total change (fall and subsequent rise) in sea-water of 4 m. After each fall and erosion the sea level rose to similar topographic elevations. We propose a millennial or submillennial periodicity (∼1 ka) for these fluctuations, and disregard storm surges as a likely generating mechanism. The large magnitude of the repeated sea-level fluctuations suggests a contribution by rapid ice sheets melting and build-up.
“The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations of sea level has been recognized inside the subunits from shifts of the foreshore and uppermost shoreface facies, and a decadal periodicity is suggested.”
One need take care to process all of that data up to this point. Out of two strong positive pulses frequently reported for the end Eemian glacial inception phase, the second and stronger one actually had “8 prograding subunits”. Interpretation: during the third, final and highest sea level highstand at the end Eemian there were 8 “repetitive relatively slow falls of sea level followed by rapid sea-level rise” of about 4 meters.
One can only hope that this is sinking in. Somehow, we are going to have to be able to detect an AGW “signal” of +0.6 meters amsl from as many as maybe 8 rapid oscillations hovering between 1 to almost 2 orders of magnitude greater sea level rise estimates (+6.0 to +52 meters amsl) for the end-Eemian. Both large pulses, and the eight sub-pulses within the second large pulse, wildly exceeded anything so far prognosticated by AGW.
The Eemian, being the next youngest interglacial in the record, is also the best preserved and therefore of the best resolution. Even so, if we take a look at the ends of the other two post-MPT interglacials which also occurred at an eccentricity minima, the climatic “madhouse” picture is just about as grim.
Consider this contribution from Desprat et al (2005) as regards the end-Holsteinian (MIS-11 to -12 glacial inception):
“The Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial, centered at ~400 ka, appears to be the best candidate for understanding climatic changes in the context of low insolation forcing such as that of our present interglacial. Direct correlation between terrestrial (pollen) and marine climatic indicators and ice volume proxy from deep-sea core MD01-2447 (off northwestern Iberia) shows for the first time the phase relationship between southwestern European vegetation, sea surface temperatures in the northeastern Atlantic midlatitudes and ice volume during MIS 11. A warmest 32,000 years-long period and three following warm/cold cycles occurred synchronously on land and ocean. The end of the warmest period sees the glacial inception…..”
and this from Pol et al (2010):
“During the glacial inception from MIS 19 to MIS 18, the low resolution EPICA Dome C water stable isotope record (Jouzel et al., 2007) has revealed millennial variability principally marked by the occurrence of three consecutive warm events (hereafter called Antarctic Isotope Maxima — AIM, following EPICA-community-members, 2006, and noted A, B, C on Fig. 2).”
SIDETRIP 03: Glacial Inception: - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:07 AMPost 9 of 10:
For some this might seem to be a lot of science, but it is also necessary for the record and section argument of evisceration and obviation of the entire climate discussion. Any AGW component of climate change, at such a time as a half precession cycle old interglacial, is most-likely irrelevant. By itself the SNR problem is staggering. The upper error-bar of the worst case IPCC AR4 scenario yields the maximum AGW “signal” of +0.6 meters amsl by 2099. This is the “signal” we are charged to detect from the climatic “madhouse” known as glacial inception. Which has, and could again, consist of from at least 2 (often 3) major positive thermal excursions with perhaps as many as 8 lesser cycles of sea level rise and fall within just the second, last, and strongest major excursion attending the last glacial inception.
How is it we are to even notice the IPCC-AR4 upper error-bar SRES marker A1F1 AGW scenario, coming in at +0.6 meters amsl, which is ten times (an order of magnitude) less than the lowest estimate of +6.0 meters amsl, for the final Eemian highstand? Want to go apples to apples, +0.6 vs. +52.0 meters amsl rise, AGW clocks-in at just 1.15%, a “signal” almost 2 orders of magnitude lower than the “noise”! Signal Processing experts feel free to chime in here. I don’t know how to detect a future AGW “signal”, the exact characteristics of which we don’t know yet because it hasn’t happened yet, from normal natural end interglacial/glacial inception background climate “noise” levels 1 to nearly 2 orders of magnitude higher, and of which there might be 2 to 8 such.
This simply cannot be taken seriously.
Consider that the +0.425 to 0.6 AGW median to worst case scenario is 4 to 6 “tens of centimeters:
“The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations of sea level has been recognized inside the subunits from shifts of the foreshore and uppermost shoreface facies, and a decadal periodicity is suggested.”
What? Decadal periodicity is suggested for “The smaller-scaled (tens of centimeters) order of oscillations”? Might that include 4 to 6 “tens of centimeters”? And might that not obviate the worst case AGW scenario of 6 “tens of centimeters”? You might want to have a long think about that.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CHALLENGE
“I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”
This, obviously, I have not done, in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I eviscerated, obviated and neutered the entire climate change discussion. Meaning, strictly using the “scientific method”, I just rendered any question regarding “man-made global climate change” utterly moot and trivial:
1) GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. They either have or have not already done so. It is no more complicated or simple than that. Period. Meaning, of course, that removing CO2/GHGs to some policy level might tip us into the next glacial. We only need to make it another ~4,000 years or so until insolation begins to rise again. The only thing in the air that makes that possible is if you and the IPCC are right about AGW/CO2/GHGs. If wrong, then none of that matters. In case you hadn’t noticed yet, being right about AGW/CO2/GHGs actually means we might “skip a precessional beat” like MIS-11 did, and end up with another extended interglacial, if we do nothing about it/them. - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:08 AMPost 10 of 10:
2) Is +0.6 meters amsl all you got? I’ll see your +0.6 meters amsl rise by 2099 and raise you tenfold to the lowest estimate of the sea level highstand, +6.0 meters amsl. Notice I did not call…. You consult your AGW hand (the “Gorical”) and you then “see” my raise of +6.0 meters amsl and raise pot to say 21.3 meters amsl, the final MIS-11 highstand resulting from the 3rd and final positive thermal excursion of that interglacial (which, of course, was not instigated by AGW) and call. I lay down my cards. I’ve got a +45.0 and a +52.0 meter highstand flush. AGW cannot beat such a hand.
3) And you would be the wiser not to try. Because none of this climate change discussion we are having even matters regardless if we are right or wrong about CO2/GHGs/AGW. We are either overdue for glacial inception or we are due now. Whenever the end Holocene finally does arrive, if it is even in our power to let it, we are probably assured of the climatic “madhouse” that is glacial inception. Replete with abrupt, orders of magnitude stronger positive thermal excursions.
You see, by merely adopting the meme that AGW/CO2/GHG emissions can trap and store heat, for maybe thousands of years if we stop emitting right now, by that same token we might have already obviated glacial inception. And maybe can continue for the next ~4,000 years or so.
Or might your preference actually be glacial inception?
Are you now aware how easily the AGW argument can be turned on its head? You see, the far more menacing problem is not if one “can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, but that “The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles.” A decades old debate you have probably heard nothing about, until now.
The $30,000 question regards proving that man-made global climate change is not occurring. Disregarding that one cannot prove a negative, we can adopt the premise that not only can man-made climate change occur, it may already have prevented glacial inception and could possibly do so well into the future, hopefully the next ~4,000 years or so.
The AGW meme is therefore reversed, using nothing but the scientific method itself. AGW is real? Fine. OK. Now take the AGW/CO2/GHG “pollution” out of the late Holocene atmosphere so Mother Nature can maybe get on with her, perhaps overdue, if not due now, next glacial inception. And be quick about it!
“This is why the past million years has been essentially a continuing ice-age, broken occasionally by short-lived interglacials. It is also why those who have engaged in lurid talk over an enhanced greenhouse effect raising the Earth's temperature by a degree or two should be seen as both demented and dangerous. The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age.”
Stated famous astronomer Fred Hoyle on CCNet back in 1999 (sorry, the link no longer works).
In the final analysis, only being right about AGW/CO2/GHGs makes any difference whatsoever. Consider Sole, Turiel and Llebot, writing in Physics Letters A 366 (2007), pp. 184–189:
“There are different works that relate the CO2 air concentration with temperature changes, supposing that CO2 may [12] or may not drive this temperature increase [20]. In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have - AnonymousJuly 8, 2014 at 5:10 AMPost 11 of 10:
Yeah, that's right, 11 (so far) of 10. See what happens when one opts for a weak blog engine as this one?
observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state.”
In juxtaposition to your challenge to “anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”, I have proven that if you are right about AGW/CO2/GHGs, you simply could not be more wrong concerning what to do about it/them at the now 11,717 year old Holocene.
Again, and for the prize, GHGs either can or cannot mitigate glacial inception. Period.
a) If GHGs can get us over the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?
b) If GHGs can’t vault us across the next ~4,000 years of glacial inception risk, then why are we having this discussion at all?
And again, and for the prize again, I bet you didn’t see that one coming…….
The question is what is such an education worth? $30k?
I can only hope so…….
Response:
I still find it amazing how many deniers are trying to weasel out of the challenge with an attempt to redefine it. It is my challenge and I get to define it. Deniers keep complaining about how it is impossible to prove a negative (it isn't), but then they keep telling people they can do just that. This challenge is for all of those deniers that keep saying man made global warming is not real and they can prove it. So, here's your chance to do just that. If it is, in your words, impossible to prove a negative, then why do deniers keep telling the public they can do just that? If you can't prove it, stop telling people you can. That is the whole purpose of the challenge.
The issue of what to do about global warming is another issue. Once all the deniers agree that man made global warming is real and they stop trying to deceive the public, then we can move on to the next discussion.
Your entire submission consisted of saying a new ice age is imminent (or even overdue) and we need to be more concerned with that than with global warming. I looked over your submission and I have all sorts of issues and think it is flawed, but that isn't what this challenge is about. I will point out the fatal flaw of your submission is your dependence on the 23,000 year number. Ice ages don't come and go like trains. There is not a schedule. Besides that, there are all sorts of very serious flaws in your argument. You really need to go back and do your homework.
Now, in regards to proving man made global warming is not real, we have a decision in your own words:This, obviously, I have not done, in any way, shape, or form.
We have found something we agree on.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Interglacial
Monday, June 30, 2014
Converting Veterans Administration Health Care to Private Sector Won't Work
Now that the furor over the scheduling fiasco at some of the Veterans Administration Health Centers has become tepid this article reviews problems in the V.A. which would not be ameliorated by the private sector, as suggested by some legislators.
Fact-There were inordinate delays in patient care at some Veteran’s Health Centers
Myth-Treating Veterans in the private sector would improve their care
The V.A. has an unusual patient mix, which includes severe combat injuries as well as an aging population of older veterans with chronic disease and often, low incomes. First of all, with the exception of major urban trauma centers, most U.S. hospitals are not ready to treat combat injuries, especially in the mental health and social support areas. Secondarily, the private sector health system in the United States is driven by finance and reimbursement decisions which do not target serving the chronically ill and low income patients. Though the nation now provides health insurance to most of its population, if you availed yourself of the tax-credit-insurance-exchange-option, this does not mean that the low income population who are covered solely on Medicare/Medicaid actually are able to obtain care management in any coordinated manor. The Veteran’s Administration does provide care management, both in terms of the nation’s first and well integrated electronic medical record program and because the V.A. is a single health system. The electronic medical record and patient management system of the V.A. is so good that other countries have adopted it, including Switzerland, and it was a free open source system until former President Bush allowed Cerner to put a black box around it. Fobbing the veterans off into the mélange of U.S. health systems would not create better record keeping or care coordination, except possibly under the best integrated health systems, such as the Mayo Clinic or Kaiser, which function as true group practices. Even if the best integrated health systems could contract to serve veterans, there would be capacity issues.
Fact-The incentive plan for Veteran’s Health Center managers was based on reducing patient wait times
Myth-Perverse incentives in the private sector do not cause delays and inappropriate treatment for patients
In reality, the private health sector in the United States is composed of many for-profit and non-profit health care organizations, and financial interests all too often cause adverse patient care and waste. Primary areas of waste in the private sector health system are; predominance of unnecessary procedures which do not necessarily improve patient outcomes and fraud. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that Medicare fraud costs the government up to ten percent of all annual Medicare billings, which meant the fraud tally was 57 billion dollars in 2011.[1] That works out to two hundred dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Fraud is not a problem in the V.A., since there are no private sector incentives to overcharge or provide unnecessary services, as the entire system runs on a budget. One of the concerns in the private health care system now is the shortage of primary care clinicians, especially since we have added so many more patients to the lowest economic tier of medical care, via the Medicaid expansion. This program does not provide adequate reimbursement for health care providers. The current Medicaid program is probably the closest model the nation has to the V.A. patient management issues, because it has a low income patient population, who also have difficulty finding a doctor, which results in wait times and gaps in the care continuum. As T.R. Reid pointed out in The Healing of America, we have citizens going blind because they can’t afford their glaucoma medicine.[2]
Fact-The Veteran’s Administration is the most cost effective health care system in the nation for the complex patients it serves
Myth-Private sector health systems could treat the veterans more efficaciously
Even if we just compared the Veterans Administration to Medicare, the V.A. is far less expensive than the per capita cost of Medicare. A recent study by the Health Economic Resource Center comparing prescription drug costs between Medicare and the Veterans Administration shows the V.A. costs 48.2% less for the same RX.[3]This is because, unlike Medicare (no thanks to President Bush) the V.A. actually has group purchasing of prescription medications and a lower administrative cost for distribution. And this economic principle applies throughout its network.
Private health care systems must balance their budgets based on a complex system of financial reimbursements for services, because they are not government agencies. This means they can make organizational changes with greater ease, but they also assume the financial responsibility. Because of this reality, the private sector has an over-abundance of imaging, specialty surgical facilities and the like, as they are very lucrative. The U.S. health care model has a “build it and they shall come” approach, hence we are awash in ambulatory surgical centers for joint replacements. Let’s face it, doctors spend twelve years in medical training and have huge government funded loans and they need to make money. As individuals they are merely responding to the health system of incentives, which is driven largely by medical device companies and the pharmaceutical industry.
To improve care for our veterans, many whom have serious injuries from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, we need to give the Veterans Administration enough money to hire enough clinicians. All of the political rhetoric and head rolling won’t change the patient wait times if there aren’t enough clinicians. I don’t want to hear about congressmen taking the agency to task, but rather, how much money has been allocated to help alleviate this problem. Don’t take a short cut with our service men and women. It isn’t always about making money, but about providing care.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, aka healthpolicymaven and author of Unraveling U.S. Health Care-A Personal Guide.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Small Business Insurance Exchange First Year Results
Small Business Insurance Exchange First Year Results-Where Does Your State Stand?
Now that first year data for enrollment in Small Business Insurance Exchanges is available, The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health systems research group, sponsored a webinar for SHOP results.[1]This article reviews nine states which chose to participate in the Small Business Insurance Exchange program, reveals information on enrollment and some surprising innovations for these quasi-governmental insurance marketplaces which was gleaned from that presentation as well as other sources including state legislative sites.
Statewide Performance
Several states created incentives or mandates for the local insurance industry to participate in the SHOP exchanges. The difference in approach between Maryland and Washington is stark, one set a clear standard and mandated participation, sort of “you will suffer together equitably approach” versus Washington’s “who wants to play approach. Colorado, New York, and Oregon decided to implement waiting periods for insurers who chose not to participate in the small business exchange program initially.[2]This does not appear to be much of a disincentive, because the cost to establish the programs, would be borne by the insurers, and create a competing component for their existing insurance programs.Waiting to participate may be viewed as prudence, but with the risk for market share loss.
California
California’s Small Business Health Options program has been plagued by enrollment glitches, but it is expected to succeed over time. When I navigated to their site from the healthcare.gov site, it suggested that employers had to mail their completed application materials.
Colorado
Colorado’s health insurance exchange web site, called Connect for Health Colorado clearly indicates the employer category, which the end user can follow to locate plan information and insurance broker or government assistance.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia was able to get its Small Business Exchange open in a mere nine months and it includes; Aetna, Carefirst (a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan), Kaiser, and United Health Care. According to the D.C. Health Exchange Director, only one group with fifty employees enrolled in their SHOP, but they found robust participation from the small businesses it was meant to serve. Of program enrollees 83% had fewer than five employees and 50% of those enrollees chose the platinum or most comprehensive health care plan, and 28% chose the gold plan. It appears that adequate health care coverage is of more concern to these business owners than the lowest price plan.
Florida
Florida has been successful with its Small Business Health Options Program and its web portal was clear and easy to follow.
Maryland
Originally Maryland mandated that insurance companies with state revenues in excess of 20 million of insurance premiums participate in the small business exchange.[3] Maryland further incentivized private insurance companies to participate in its SHOP CO-OP program by exempting them from paying premium tax on small business health insurance plans within the SHOP program. As of May 2014, Maryland has decided to abandon plans to run its own Small Business Exchange, because of the high cost, instead opting to rely on the insurance broker community to market it. This means that qualifying employers will still be able to obtain government tax credits for purchasing insurance, which have been available since 2010, but only through the federal exchange starting this year.
New York
In New York State, most major insurance carriers were interested in participating in the small business exchange. But New York has a robust marketplace with many carriers and several of their Medicaid carriers were interested in entering the SHOP marketplace. This would seem to be a prudent move, allowing diversification of risk, a stabilizing factor for managing a population.
Oregon
Oregon, which is now infamous for accepting over 130 million dollars in federal money to set up an exchange, including 48 million for “early innovation”, and ultimately was unable to enroll a single individual it it’s web portal.[4]For more information on federal money given to states for the insurance exchanges go to Chapter 13, of Unraveling U.S. Healthcare-A Personal Guide, published in July 2013, by Rowman and Littlefield. Oregon found, like Washington, that only a single insurance company wanted to participate in the SHOP program. As of March 17, 2014, Oregon has been unable to enroll a single individual on its small business exchange program.[5] To further entice small business to enroll in the small business exchange program Oregon has reduced premiums by 13.1%, which is a significant regression.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has successfully launched its Small Business Exchange program, with a greater percent of small business participation than any other state. Rhode Island’s web site for SHOP is integrated into the general health exchange web site which I was able to navigate through easily. Way to go Rhode Island!
Washington
Washington State chose not to participate in the small business exchange in the inaugural year, primarily because only one insurer indicated an interest in bothering with the exchange process.
Federal Marketplace Information
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) has also stipulated that insurers with a 20% or greater share of the individual exchange market must offer the small business exchange as well. The deadline for small business exchanges has been moved to 2015. CMS has created a tool for employers to use to calculate full time employee equivalents, in order to determine eligibility for SHOP exchanges, in addition to the tax credit estimator. Follow the links to see for yourself.
Employers are slated to receive a bundled monthly billing even if employees have five different provider and plan choices, by 2015. The federal small business insurance market place will include an agent/broker portal, so businesses can designate a representative and that party will receive some stipend. In order for a small business to receive the federal tax credits for health insurance purchasing, the plan must be part of the Small Business Health Exchange Option, which mandates standards for coverage and plan administration protocols.
It is unclear how insurance agents will be paid for federal insurance exchange enrollments, but since CMS does pay Medicare enrolled agents to market Medicare products, and CMS is the governing agency for the program, this should be manageable. The big difference is Medicare plans have a single 3 month open enrollment window each year, whereas the SHOP plans have a rolling calendar of enrollments depending on the date of inception.
For more information on small business exchanges, an excellent nonpartisan summary is found at the National Center for State Legislation,[6]which was one of my sources for Unraveling U.S. Healthcare-A Personal Guide’s chapter on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And this is the healthpolicymaven signing off, encouraging you to explore your options for health care subsidies from your government. Your government is helping you to pay for your insurance, through direct insurance subsidies or indirectly through tax free benefits for individuals and tax deductible benefit plans for employers.
[1] http://www.commonwealthfund.org/about-us/events/2012/small-business-exchanges
[2] http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2013/rwjf406939
[3] http://marylandhbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Maryland_Health_Benefit_Exchange_Act_of_2012_Senate_Bill_238_House_Bill_443.pdf
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Unraveling-U-S-Health-Care-Personal/dp/1442222972
[5] http://stateofreform.com/news/industry/insurance-plans/2014/03/oregons-health-co-op-targets-small-group-market-lowers-rates-13/
[6] http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/small-business-health-insurance.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
As individual post length is limited to 4096 characters, and my submittal spans almost 33,000 characters, the entire submittal will be about 10 posts, numbered 1 through 10. Whereas I took care to provide proper links to the research papers I quoted from, this site objects to web addresses it claims contain "illegal characters". In honor of such superior intellect, I have deleted all links from my submittal. After 13+ hours of preparing this submittal, with links to the source papers, provision of those links will require a more intelligent blog engine than this. I am not going to bother, after 1am, to try and construct the attributions in text for so many scholarly quotations as I have included here. I can indeed provide the links, but not on so prissy a forum as this.
The reason I am posting as anonymous is that according to whatever data this weblog is connected to, I do not own the Wordpress identity I have owned for many years now. The hoops one must jump through to distribute knowledge, sheesh!
By William F. McClenney, CA-PG #4430
The Keating Challenge, as stated is:
“I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring”
That, of course, would be attempting to prove a negative. But how about this for an even more dramatic challenge:
“Let’s assume that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, would you still be willing to stake the winner if he/she were to prove that the correct thing to do about it is anywhere from maintaining current anthropogenic GHG emissions to actually increasing them?”
In addition, I will also present powerful arguments why AGW may not matter at all. So please be certain that we all have the Operating Assumption down pat: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs can cause a positive thermal excursion in earth’s climate. In fact, if I may say so, we had all better hope and pray that this assumption is correct.
I will be quoting copiously from the peer-reviewed literature, providing links to every paper I can. I will attempt to keep this as brief as possible, however the areas of discussion require you to either already have a solid background in the subjects, or be willing to acquire that knowledge by taking some of the “sidetrips” to other locations where this knowledge may be gained.
WHEN WE LIVE:
It would be one thing if we were having this discussion say a few thousand years after the Holocene Climate Optimum, when producing a positive thermal climate excursion might very well rank as a potential problem for humanity. Unfortunately, for the proponents of AGW, the Holocene is presently 11,717 years old as of c.e. 2014. That might be one of the more ominous numbers you will ever encounter. The Holocene Epoch is the 9th interglacial that has occurred since what is known as the Mid-Pleistocene Transition, or MPT.
“The emergence of low-frequency, high-amplitude, quasi-periodic (~100-kyr) glacial variability during the middle Pleistocene in the absence of any significant change in orbital forcing indicates a fundamental change internal to the climate system. This middle Pleistocene transition (MPT) began 1250 ka and was complete by 700 ka.”
During the MPT the period between interglacials went from being paced by the obliquity (or tilt) of our axis of rotation (~41kyrs) to being paced by eccentricity (~100kyrs) which is the variability of our orbit around the sun from near a circle to its most elliptical or “eccentric”. Eccentricity has a second order period of ~400kyrs between each maximum or each minimum. But it is the third orbital variable which comes into play at this exact moment in time, the precession cycle, which varies between ~19-23kyrs.
Here is when we live. We are presently at one of the 400kyr eccentricity minima. As the MPT is generally discussed as centering around ~800kyrs ago (kya hereon), then it too occurred at an eccentricity minima, as did the Holsteinian Interglacial (also known as Marine Isotope Stage [MIS] 11) which occurred around ~400kya. We are also at the 23kyr node of the precession cyclicity. Seven of the last 8 interglacials back to the MPT, achieved interglacial warmth for about half a precession cycle. And that is