Global warming: truth or propaganda?

[Ender]

I am of course willing to listen to any reasoned argument.

One of my favorite jokes is this one.

Student: “But sir, your position is contradicted by the facts!”
Professor: “So much the worse for the facts.”

The greenhouse theory of global warming requires that the earth’s atmosphere warm first leading to warmer surface temperatures. According to satellite measurements of the last 20-30 years, that is not happening; the atmosphere is not warming faster than the surface. There was a response from the National Academy of Science that essentially said “we think the data are incorrect.” (I really wish I had bookmarked that site, unfortunately I cannot provide a link.) The NAS may turn out to be right but their “so much the worse for the facts” position is very unsatisfactory.

Ender

 

[steveandersen]

One of my favorite jokes is this one.

Student: “But sir, your position is contradicted by the facts!”
Professor: “So much the worse for the facts.”

The greenhouse theory of global warming requires that the earth’s atmosphere warm first leading to warmer surface temperatures. According to satellite measurements of the last 20-30 years, that is not happening; the atmosphere is not warming faster than the surface. There was a response from the National Academy of Science that essentially said “we think the data are incorrect.” (I really wish I had bookmarked that site, unfortunately I cannot provide a link.) The NAS may turn out to be right but their “so much the worse for the facts” position is very unsatisfactory.

Ender

Why would the atmosphere have to warm first?
The problem with greenhouse gases is that that are opaque to IR so that they raise the temperature that the ground has to be to radiate at the same rate and keep the earth in equilibrium.

that in turn could raise the temp of the air.
but there is nothign that says that air heats up first

Do you think that this is about a warming blanket of air heating up the ground?

Air is a poor conductor and heat sink

It is however a pretty good insulator

 

[Ender]

Why would the atmosphere have to warm first?

Instead of trying to deduce the theory, go on line and look it up. I’m not a climatologist and while I believe that the evidence for AGW is weak I have no reason to believe scientists have no theory for how greenhouse warming is supposed to work. My understanding is that, according to the currently accepted theory, the greenhouse effect requires that atmospheric temperatures rise before surface temperatures.

Ender

 

[Tiber_Squid]

A few other points to ponder in the debate – hopefully not duplicating because I wasn’t able to get through every one of the previous posts and their weblinks. I think as Catholics we need to see how that world-view should affect things. We have an obligation to use this gift that God gave us with stewardship – in some cases and times we’ve blown it severely. Near where I live, we’ve polluted the Bay and nearby rivers and have seen local shellfish populations crash among other things. We know we caused that and can fix it over time to some degree.

However, to expand out to global warming as if there was some accurate measure of the average surface tempertaure now with equally accurate temperatures long before people is ridiculous. The amount of error in estimates of temperatures hundreds of years ago appears to be able to account for a lot of the apparent shift in temperature as the Industrial Revolution changed Europe and then America. Combine that with some estimates and more recent measurements of solar flux, sun-spot cycles, and other factors, there are many explanation. Perhaps also some explanation of what constitutes greenhouse gases, with I’m told 90+% of that being WATER VAPOR (read clouds!). We could go on and on and on, and many good arguments against global warming can be made from a scientific standpoint. I don’t see the proponderance of true scentific arguments going for global warming. Usually, the rhetoric in the news treats denial of AGW up there with denial of the holocaust.

I’d love to be the guy who invented this “carbon offset” business – although hopefully my conscience would get to me before I started really cashing in on it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Theories do not determine scientific fact.

And if someone has facts that contradict a theory, then the theory is automatically invalid.

Cooked.

Toast.

AND if the alleged 2500 consititue a consensus and if, today, we are voting on science, then consider the Petition Project.

What happened was a few folks got upset at the focus (or one of the foci… as I wrote earlier, every time an AGW argument is defeated, the focus changes to some different argument) … on the role of “voting” and “consensus” in science… alleged consensus.

So, Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Arthur Robinson started the Petition Project. They collected something like 17,000 or 19,000 signatures that supported NATURAL climate change, not man-made global warming. Nearly a 10 to 1 consensus AGAINST “global warming”. [And even that term is a misnomer. The climate changes constantly … up for ten years, down for 20, and then up again… and none of it correlates to CO2… ]

But I digress.

Visit www.oism.org and click on the Petition Project.

 

[steveandersen]

Instead of trying to deduce the theory, go on line and look it up. I’m not a climatologist and while I believe that the evidence for AGW is weak I have no reason to believe scientists have no theory for how greenhouse warming is supposed to work.

Of course they have a theory
I wasn’t trying to deduce it I was trying to understand what you were trying to say and maybe politely point out that I thought that you were making a misstatement.

My understanding is that, according to the currently accepted theory, the greenhouse effect requires that atmospheric temperatures rise before surface temperatures.

Ender

That is not my understanding (and a quick review confirmed it)

Atmospheric temperatures can fluctuate widely
Its major contribution is as a transmission medium not a heat sink

Although a warm atmosphere is likely to be a wetter atmosphere which can add positive feedback since water is a more powerful greenhouse agent than CO2 and a wetter atmosphere will also have a higher heat capacity.

 

[steveandersen]

Theories do not determine scientific fact.

What is “scientific fact”?
There are data points and observations (and as you pointed out in post #59 data can be wrong for a host of reasons) and then there are theories and models that try to make sense of the observations.

While we colloquially use the term “scientific fact” for theories that are so well established that there is no real uncertainty about them, it is not a term that is used in serious science.

And if someone has facts that contradict a theory, then the theory is automatically invalid.

Cooked.

Toast.

Well in post 62 you said one piece of anecdotal evidence was enough so you need to make up your mind if it is facts or anecdotes.

But I stand by my response in post #64 (which you never replied to)
One outlier does not invalidate a theory
Theories must be supported by the preponderance of the evidence not every last single piece.

If there is a contradiction it could be (as you pointed out in post #59) that there is a problem with the data or that the theory needs to be modified or even toasted
but it doen’t require it to be toasted

AND if the alleged 2500 consititue a consensus and if, today, we are voting on science, then consider the Petition Project.

so now you are saying that it is 2500 and not 6?

What happened was a few folks got upset at the focus (or one of the foci… as I wrote earlier, every time an AGW argument is defeated, the focus changes to some different argument) … on the role of “voting” and “consensus” in science… alleged consensus.

once again you are the one who has not replied to my points (as I have had the courtesy to do to you) rather you are the one who has just brought up new web sites, books, or topics. Such as below:

So, Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Arthur Robinson started the Petition Project. They collected something like 17,000 or 19,000 signatures that supported NATURAL climate change, not man-made global warming. Nearly a 10 to 1 consensus AGAINST “global warming”. [And even that term is a misnomer. The climate changes constantly … up for ten years, down for 20, and then up again… and none of it correlates to CO2… ]

But I digress.

Visit www.oism.org and click on the Petition Project.

The Oregon Petition (which is now 10 years out of date which I suppose is better than the stuff from 1922 you were quoting earlier) was conceived in reaction to the flawed Kyoto accords.

Some of the statements in its cover letter have, in the past 10 years, been shown to be in error.

There has also been some contention over the number and qualifications of verifiable signatures. Scientific America did an audit of the signatures in 2005 and concluded that “Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers–a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

Not bad and even if SciAm’s crude extrapolation is off by 100%
It is still an order of magnitude less than the general opinion

The words of the petition are often misrepresented as saying that there is no evidence for human contribution climate change or greenhouse gases however if you read the text it says “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate” which is not the same thing.

I would probably have signed that in 1998. If the flaws in the cover letter were fixed I might sign it today.

I’m not sure what your point was in mentioning it.
Of course there is diversity of opinion in science.

 

[Al_Masetti]

It is important to read carefully.

And reading everything is extremely important.

It makes science boring at times, although there are some “ah- HA!!” moments.

Some scientists spend their entire careers working in obscurity, chasing down blind alleys and not coming up with anything sensational. Sometimes decades after their death, someone will be plowing over the ground those old dead folks already covered and suddenly the old data will tie into some new hypothesis … and their is suddenly one of those "once in a lifetime “ah-HA!!” moments.

By all means read about the work of G.M.B. Dobson and the work done by more recent investigators in the field of stratosphere ozone (and other gases).

And also read up on Gordon Gribble.

Since these two investigators are not exactly household names, an essay or two might help get folks more familiar with their work. Fun and interesting.

NOW, here is another lead for students (of all ages) to find an “ah-HA!!” moment in science:

Go to Google and type in “Beating Cancer at Its Own Game”… That is the title of a speech by a fellow named Judah Folkman.

It’s about an hour. I just stumbled over it one day a couple of years ago. It used to be on satellite, but now unless the Univ of Washington has changed their Web site, you can watch and listen to the speech on your computer.

Anyway, he describes cancer research and the theories about stopping blood vessels that supply tumors with blood supply (antiangiogenesis). They began theorizing about the role of the drug thalidimide in stopping blood supply. Hmmmm. THEN, they got to chatting with some eye doctors and found that people with Down’s Syndrome didn’t get certain eye diseases … AND there was the “ah-HA!!” moment.

So, check out Judah Folkman’s speech. And listen to how he worked with antiangiogenesis for YEARS getting nothing but criticism. And then … voila.

check it out

 

[Al_Masetti]

On www.climatechangedebate.org , there has been an on-going discussion of Mann’s “Hockey Stick”.

The discussion appears, then goes dormant for a while, and then comes back. However, the “Hockey Stick” was an important part of the IPCC computer models … and then in the version most recently released, the “Hockey Stick” was abruptly dropped, without any comment.

Anyone interested in science should do some research on the discussion of the “Hockey Stick”.

Here is a recent post on the “Hockey Stick”.

"The original Hockey Stick by Michael Mann has been pretty much discredited because of his methodology and his creative selection of data. And yet it lives on.
If you listen to some of Mann’s apologists, the problems with the study were minor and didn’t affect the results. Besides (they say) there are other studies that show essentially the same thing. The problem is that at least some of those studies probably used the same data. They have been “peer reviewed” which means nothing these days.

Peer review is often not much more than a “right on” from a cheering section of friends. Mann’s study was really the only one that was closely scrutinized. That was because is was such an important part of the IPCC report no doubt.
Mann used proxy data for the stick and ground based temperature data for the blade of the hockey stick as best I understand it. All ground based records are questionable until each reporting stations has been evaluated as to warming (or cooling) bias due to location. Also, it must also be determined that apples are compared to apples. In the old days, the temperature average was calculated based on the maximum
and minimum temperatures. That may not be the case now. I think that the average temperature for the day is now based on many samples taken during the day and then averaged. That isn’t a bad way of doing it but it is a different way. If new measurements are to be compared to old measurements, they must always be calculated the same way.
Don’t be surprised if you are told that the cosmic ray theory has already been debunked. Of course, it hasn’t been. It is amusing that anyone would still cling to the Mann Hockey stick as a factual climate record but object to the cosmic ray theory even though it is only a theory.
There is little doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 can cause some warming. The big question is whether the warming from CO2 is of any practical consequence. If it turns out that CO2 warming is not of any real significance and climate is driving almost entirely my forces that are not anthropogenic, then we simply have to adapt to whatever nature dishes out in terms of climate.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Whether or not you agree whether we have control of the weather, why do people want to pollute the environment? I frankly get sick of looking at and breathing polluted air and wondering how much mercury is in that fish I just ate.

We have the capability to do what is right, but we choose not to.

I think that the environmentalists should get away from the global warming issue and focus more on the health benefits of a clean environment.

 

[Ender]

why do people want to pollute the environment? I frankly get sick of looking at and breathing polluted air and wondering how much mercury is in that fish I just ate .

The level of pollution goes hand in hand with prosperity. The wealthier the nation is the less the pollution it will tolerate as it can afford to clean up its environment. Even people living in LA don’t know what serious air pollution is really like, for that you have to travel to some place like China (WHO: seven of the ten most polluted cities in the world) or Mexico City.

Regarding mercury in fish, the alarms about that are brought to you by the same people pushing the threat of global warming. Don’t be surprised to find that this “threat” is pure hype.

consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/192

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

Whether or not you agree whether we have control of the weather, why do people want to pollute the environment? I frankly get sick of looking at and breathing polluted air and wondering how much mercury is in that fish I just ate.

We have the capability to do what is right, but we choose not to.

I think that the environmentalists should get away from the global warming issue and focus more on the health benefits of a clean environment.

I almost completely agree with you. Here are some concerns we should have as a country:

1 in 4 adults found to have elevated levels of mercury:
nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24mercury.html
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290533,00.html

The studies are still continuing. But the possibilities seem alarming.
medpagetoday.com/tbindex.cfm?tbid=744

Government allowing dumping by BP into Lake Michigan
wsbt.com/news/local/8583292.html

 

[pprimeau1976]

Government allowing dumping by BP into Lake Michigan
wsbt.com/news/local/8583292.html

BP? Aren’t they the company that claims in their commercials to be more environmental? Interesting.

 

[Ender]

Here are some concerns we should have as a country:

1 in 4 adults found to have elevated levels of mercury:
nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24mercury.html

This is a little off the point of global warming but the tactics of the alarmists are similar. So - what constitutes an “elevated level of mercury”? 5 micrograms per liter of blood vs 1? 5.1 vs 5.0? Is there an average level and if so what is it? What is the standard deviation? None of these questions is addressed so there is no way to know what is meant by “elevated level”.

• “10 percent of women of childbearing age had blood mercury levels at or above five micrograms per liter, the threshold considered the low end for potential health risks.” Actually the EPA says that 5.8 mcg/L is the threshold of possible health risks. Understand that below this level the EPA doesn’t think health risks even *potentially *exist.
• “The survey … found that one-quarter of women ages 20 to 49 had a blood mercury level at or above five micrograms per liter, while nearly half of Asian women had a blood mercury level at that threshold.” At 5 mcg/L no potential hazard exists. What does “above” 5 mcg/L mean? The EPA RfD (reference dose) is itself above 5; surely they know that much. Of that one-quarter “at or above 5 mcg/L”, what percent were at or below 5.8? Isn’t that the significant question? Why didn’t they report the percent above the RfD instead of the meaninglessly vague “percentage that is some unspecified amount above a number known to be below what the EPA considers even potentially dangerous”?
• “The department also found that adults eating fish three or fewer times a week had average mercury levels below the threshold, while average readings for adults who ate fish four or more times a week were above it.” This is known as finding a correlation between facts without showing a causation. To understand the difference here is a correlation without causation: a heavy concentration of Churches is often found in areas of high crime (ummm probably because both are in densely populated areas). The researchers didn’t address any other possible explanations for the presence of mercury. Their implication may be correct but let’s not pretend that this represents good science.

What the article in the Times does is to sound scientific without actually specifying the details to prove their case. If they had data to support their position they wouldn’t have to rely on implication and innuendo. That their article makes no such scientific case it is irrational to assume that they had one to make.

Ender

 

[Al_Masetti]

This was posted today or yesterday, but I checked it out and the info is EXTREMELY interesting.

Anyone interested in science should have an incredible amount of curiousity.

---

Willis Eschenbach posted an interesting graphic this morning at
ClimateAudit.org.

climateaudit.org/?p=1822#comment-122072

There is much discussion here about whether or not current global temperatures are rising or not. He took the El Nino effect out of the temperatures and … well, you can judge for yourself if temperatures are rising or not.

---

In case you aren’t curious enough to click on the link, … without El Nino, it looks like the temperature is flat.]

[So what does that tell us? Propaganda???]

 

[Al_Masetti]

This is the actual Eschenbach post.

I couldn’t get the graph to copy … perhaps someone with better computer skills than me (or a better computer) can go in and get the graph and post it to this thread ]

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 28th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Steve Milesworthy, thanks for your comment. You say:

#52 Alan
Jae and I have a difference of opinion with regards to the last 9 years temperatures, that’s all. He says its flat, I say it looks a bit up and down, but its really up, since 1998 was an exceptional year.

Well, as y’all know, I’m an inveterate investigator of curious relationships. I kept hearing people saying “the temperature hasn’t risen since 1998?, to which the AGW supporters say “Yeah, but 1998 was an El Niño year, so it’s no surprise that it was so high, that’s why the temperatures look flat”.

So I decided to see what the temperature data looks like with the El Nino trend removed. There are several measures of El Nino strength, including the ENSO (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) Index, the BEST (Bivariate Enso Timeseries) Index, the El Niño 3-4 Index, and the MEI (Multivariate Enso Index).

Of these, the MEI has the best relationship with the HadCRUT3 temperature (r^2 = 0.24). Accordingly, I regressed the MEI on the temperature and removed the effect of the El Niño variations from the temperature record. Here are the results, showing the HadCRUT3 temperature record (blue), and the same record with the El Niño effect removed :

A few things of interest:

1. After removing the El Niño variations, temperatures since 1998 are flatter than they are when the variations are included.
2. There appears to have been a change in the relationship between El Niño and temperature that coincides with the PDO change in 1976.
3. Year to year variations since 1998, discounted for El Niño, have been smaller than the historical norm.

All in all, I’d say that the idea that the temperatures are still rising since 1998 is doubtful … removing the El Niño variations flattens the data out rather than confirming a rise.

w.

 

[Al_Masetti]

*homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/El_Nino_and_HadCRUT3.jpg

 

[steveandersen]

On www.climatechangedebate.org , there has been an on-going discussion of Mann’s “Hockey Stick”…
There is little doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 can cause some warming. …

Concession accepted

 

[Al_Masetti]

It becomes important not to take things out of context.

That’s why folks have to read everything.

 

[steveandersen]

It becomes important not to take things out of context.

That’s why folks have to read everything.

As we said back in 30 or so post ago, reading everything is of limited utility unless you have a functioning BS detector, a good grasp of the fundamentals of science, and an appreciation for the basics of risk assessment.

With only 24 hours in a day, reading everything is neither practical nor possible.

As for my comment above and taking things out of context; you had stated in earlier posts that you thought that the human/climate link was fraudulent (a very serious claim that you have yet to substantiate…it is one thing to say someone is wrong yet quite another to propose a large scale, systematic deception which is an inherent implication of the title of the thread) and you repeated (in all CAPS) that there was no evidence for the link.

Then you posted the text above that clearly says yes the greenhouse gas effect is real and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I’m not sure what more of a link or evidence that you need.

The author of that text did not quantify his statements that the net effect of CO2 is minimal or can be ignored. While water dominates in a broad range of spectra (a product of both the physical properties of water and the fact that it is present in higher concentrations) the CO2 contribution equals or exceeds that of water in a narrow range of spectra that happens to coincide with the wavelengths at which the ground radiates.

While water contributes about 3 to 4 times the absorption effect than CO2, it is present in quantities that are two orders of magnitude higher. CO2 is clearly a more serious contributor on a mole per mole basis. The person you quoted does not go into detail about how he modeled carbon forcing but he doesn’t appear to be following the laws of science or math that I am familiar with.