Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[septimine]

“Global Warming” is wishful thinking of which many so-called “scientists” are guilty.

**The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People
Alan Caruba Monday, February 13, 2012 **
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44602

I’m not sure I’d go that far. I think the climate is changing, but the problem I have is that all the solutions we have right now essentially don’t work well enough for us to continue an industrial civilization. If the zealots of GW get everything they want, we’ll be partying like it’s 1699. But that also means that there will be at least a few BILLION people who starve to death as we can no longer grow preserve and transport enough food to feed them. It means that all of the people of the third world who depend on having a factory job to eat are out of luck.

Even if everything said about AGW is absolutely true, the scenarios given are still much better for the poor than “shut down civilization, we don’t want to kill off polar bears”. Even having some coastal areas flood is not unsurvivable – we have ships and planes to move people to drier land. Moving the climate zones is survivable by changing what you plant – maybe massachusets will one day be as famous for her oranges as her lobster. Again not nearly so hard to solve as finding a way to shut down all power grids and still try to feed 7 billion humans.

 

[Erich]

Where is this paper? No link?

Here’s a link.

 

[kama3]

“Global Warming” is wishful thinking of which many so-called “scientists” are guilty.

**The Global Warming Hoax is Now Killing People
Alan Caruba Monday, February 13, 2012 **
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44602

Well, let’s wait two weeks till February ends, so we can ask GISS how it compares to past Februaries. In the mean time:

data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=1&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=01&year1=2012&year2=2012&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

The above link will show your a map of global surface temperature for January 2012 versus mean of Januaries between 1951 and 1980. All of North America is significantly warmer except of Alaska. Averaged globally, there is a +0.36 deg. C increase.

 

[kama3]

Here’s a link.

The first link Google gives me goes to Heartland Institute.

By a weird coincidence, this came out today:

Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science

Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an “insider” at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that “the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science”, the documents said.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: “They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.”

Let me get this straight. Someone leaks an alleged Heartland’s document titled Heartland Climate Strategy which says, inter alia, that they plan to fund Watts with $90,000. Heartland claims that the memo is fake. But then Watts comes out and says that he did, after all, get that $90,000 from Heartland.

The documents suggest several prominent voices in the campaign to deny established climate science are recipients of Heartland funding.

They include, according to the documents, a number of contrarian climate experts. “At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found,” the documents say.

Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified. However, Heartland’s website notes that Idso, Singer, and Carter were commissioned to write a report for the organisation.

The strategy memo as published by DeSmogBlog mentions “cultivating” as a potential ally Andrew Revkin, a respected journalist who enjoys a huge following at the New York Times DothEarth blog.

The leaked papers are here

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

How many scientists have come out against AGW? I would love to know the numbers. And I would love to see those papers as well.

…

The numbers speak for themselves. The temperature is rising ten times faster than any increase in tens of thousands of years. And if you are going to claim that data is faked, you better show proof.

Here you go:

In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed “Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.”

“Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,’” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

There is no consensus. But of scientists that are convinced of the problem of global warming or of the lack thereof, proponents of the anthropogenic hypothesis only outnumer their detractors by a mere 1 percentage point. But by far the far the largest group are the neutral scientists.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, littlebum2002, all I need to do is provide contravening evidence for the lack of a consensus. Maybe the world is warming…but the point is, there’s no consensus among scientists that humans are the cause, much less the 97% that you keep touting.

I’ll try looking up some of the 539 papers, and more detailed info on the study, such as methodologies, if you’d like.

Also, if you insist on more recent studies, I can try to find those as well.

 

[kama3]

Not all scientists withstand the temptation toward academic dishonesty. But examples of this happen every day. Why did Phil Jones have to fudge his research, if he’s on the right side of the debate? You tell me. I don’t know. But my point is, it happens. Not all scientists are as interested in the truth as you or I am. Some of them just want money and accolades from people who are all too ready to agree with them.

1. There is precisely one paleoclimatic reconstruction which is believed by some to be faulty – so-called MBH98. Actually, I personally believe that MBH98 is faulty. However, NOAA Paleo (link upthread) lists 91 other reconstructions. They all largely agree with each other and with MBH98. So if you throw out MBH98, you still have a predominant consensus.
2. Re: Phil Jones and temperature data. First of all, there are FOUR historical temperature databases: NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and the fourth one which I will talk about shortly. NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT all largely agree that the Earth is warming. These three databases have been compiled independently. Phil Jones worked only on HadCRUT. So Phil Jones’ errrr… methodological shortcomings only poison one of three databases. So feel free to throw out HadCRUT; you still have NOAA and GISS which agree in showing the warming.

Second, I mentioned that there exists the fourth, independent dataset called Berkeley. That dataset has been compiled last year by a team of scientists funded by some prominent opponents of the AGW hypothesis. The Berkeley group performed an independent and open reanalysis of historical temperature data. This is the important part here, because there were some errrr… doubts about the methodology used to compile the other datasets (particularly HadCRUT). So the Berkeley group did the work themselves and openly described the process in great detail. And now the important part: the Berkeley dataset agrees with NOAA, GISS and even HadCRUT and shows warming (just have a look at Fig. 1 in this link).

 

[Deus_lo_vult]

1. There is precisely one paleoclimatic reconstruction which is believed by some to be faulty – so-called MBH98. Actually, I personally believe that MBH98 is faulty. However, NOAA Paleo (link upthread) lists 91 other reconstructions. They all largely agree with each other and with MBH98. So if you throw out MBH98, you still have a predominant consensus.
2. Re: Phil Jones and temperature data. First of all, there are FOUR historical temperature databases: NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT and the fourth one which I will talk about shortly. NOAA, GISS and HadCRUT all largely agree that the Earth is warming. These three databases have been compiled independently. Phil Jones worked only on HadCRUT. So Phil Jones’ errrr… methodological shortcomings only poison one of three databases. So feel free to throw out HadCRUT; you still have NOAA and GISS which agree in showing the warming.

Second, I mentioned that there exists the fourth, independent dataset called Berkeley. That dataset has been compiled last year by a team of scientists funded by some prominent opponents of the AGW hypothesis. The Berkeley group performed an independent and open reanalysis of historical temperature data. This is the important part here, because there were some errrr… doubts about the methodology used to compile the other datasets (particularly HadCRUT). So the Berkeley group did the work themselves and openly described the process in great detail. And now the important part: the Berkeley dataset agrees with NOAA, GISS and even HadCRUT and shows warming (just have a look at Fig. 1 in this link).

Kama3, see the above post (#24) to littlebum2002.

I’ll make no secret of the fact that I don’t understand any of this jargon, I admitted as much to littlebum2002. Although you might shoot back by mentioning that I have a profound interest in the theological jargon of Canon Law. I give you props for the power of your intellect. I don’t doubt your sincerity either, as I also told littlebum2002.

What I doubt is the essential existence of a scientific consensus, before advocates of anthropogenic global warming can implement their solutions. The lack of a consensus is no small impediment to the solutions of global warming. The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, or of emission controls in general will profoundly change how the world works. If will affect the lives of every human in post industrial countries.

Those wishing to change the status quo have on their shoulders the burden of proof to satisfy the rest of us. Before you and your anthropogenic ilk impose your solutions upon us, you MUST find consensus with your colleagues in order to persuade us that these solutions must be implemented.

 

[maryj]

Manmade global warming??? We’ve been duped…
spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

 

[kama3]

“Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers ‘implicit’ endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no ‘consensus,’” according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech.

This conclusion does not follow from the data.

What you actually have is 45% papers in favor of AGW vs. 6% against. The neutral papers are just that – neutral, or abstaining from vote. So in fact you have 7.5:1 in favor.

Now, why are there so many neutral papers? Well, because that’s how science works! Consider the following situation:

1. Researcher A goes to Greenland, drills an ice core and does a reconstruction of historical temperature and CO2 levels. His dataset covers time between the year 500,000BC and 1800AD. He does not address AGW at all, because AGW is post-1800 phenomenon. To put it more bluntly, he is not paid to look for AGW, he is paid to look at climate history before 1800AD. So his paper is neutral.
2. Researcher B investigates infrared absorption spectrum of CO2. He is not paid to do climate research, but chemistry (or physics). His paper does not mention AGW, so it is neutral.
3. Researcher C is an astronomer who investigates how Sun shines in infrared today and how it shone in the past. He takes spectra of many G-type stars of different age. His paper concerns stellar evolution not climate, so again, it is neutral with respect to the AGW hypothesis.
4. Researcher D combines B’s data on infrared absorption of CO2 with C’s data on solar evolution and A’s data on historical CO2 levels creating a mathematical model which calculates past surface temperature from Sun’s age and CO2 levels. He is interested in pre-industrial times, which makes him neutral with respect to AGW.
5. Researcher E investigates an instrumental record of CO2 and temperature past 1800AD. His job is to look at the trends in these variables, without investigating the underlying causes. His paper accepts AGW without an explicit statement, because the reader can see the CO2-temperature link from the data.
6. Researcher F combines D’s pre-1800 model with E’s post-1800 data and observes that the model correctly predicts present warming. He then runs the model to 2100AD, using predicted levels of human CO2 emissions. His paper explicitly concludes that the AGW hypothesis has merit.

Thus you have one paper which explicitly endorses AGW, one paper that implicitly acknowledges AGW and four papers which are neutral with respect to AGW. However, the paper which explicitly endorses AGW is built upon the solid scientific foundation provided by the neutral papers.

 

[kama3]

Manmade global warming??? We’ve been duped…
spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

Did you read your own link?

Vahrenholt: All I’m saying is that CO2 is a climate gas, but that its effect is only half as strong as the IPCC claims. Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through worldwide emissions trading. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don’t have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries.

(emphasis mine)

Actually, I can symphatize with the belief that IPCC underestimated solar influence. Problem is – assume that there are two main forces at play: the Sun and CO2. We have no control over the Sun, but we do have control over CO2. So this is not really an argument against limiting CO2. Arguably, large solar influence on climate makes our situation worse, because we have to worry about two things instead of one.

 

[maryj]

Did you read your own link?

(emphasis mine)

Actually, I can symphatize with the belief that IPCC underestimated solar influence. Problem is – assume that there are two main forces at play: the Sun and CO2. We have no control over the Sun, but we do have control over CO2. So this is not really an argument against limiting CO2. Arguably, large solar influence on climate makes our situation worse, because we have to worry about two things instead of one.

Of course I read the link. I thought it was very interesting…but thing is…I don’t worry

 

[littlebum2002]

I am sorry. I misunderstood your request.

The Greenhouse effect is the result of thermal radiation being reflected onto the planets surface by gases in the atmosphere. Radiation from the sun enters the earth’s atmosphere. Some is reflected by the atmosphere, some passes through it on the way to earth. The radiation hits the earth and, because of the immense amount of heat in the earth, the radiation is effectively slowed down before being reflected back into the atmosphere. (The wavelengths are longer). This radiation goes back to the atmosphere where, again, some bounces back towards earth and some is emitted into space. Our Atmosphere is better at reflecting long-wavelengths. This means that, if you increase the gasses in the atmosphere, the amount of radiation initially reflected on entry into the atmosphere increases slightly, but the amount of longer-wavelength radiation reflected back to earth on the way out increases at a greater rate. If this were not the case, then the extra gas would reflect just as much of the sun’s initial radiation as the earth’s reflected radiation, cancelling itself out. However, if this were the case, earth would be cold and uninhabitable. An example of this effect is the moon Titan, whose atmosphere reflects short-wave radiation better than long-wave radiation, thus constantly cooling the planet.

The Greenhouse effect was first theorized in 1824, and was experimentally proven in 1859 and again in 1896. The Greenhouse effect is not exclusive to Earth, as it also exists on Venus and Mars, and Titan has an anti-Greenhouse Effect. I wasn’t kidding in the least when I said you could win a nobel prize for disproving the Greenhouse Effect. Such an experiment would show we have had a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our atmosphere, and the atmosphere of other planetary bodies, works for well over a hundred years.

I have not had time to investigate the claims made by the other gentleman. I will attempt to do so tomorrow.

 

[littlebum2002]

I am sorry. I misunderstood your request.

The Greenhouse effect is the result of thermal radiation being reflected onto the planets surface by gases in the atmosphere.

Radiation from the sun enters the earth’s atmosphere. Some is reflected by the atmosphere, some passes through it on the way to earth. The radiation hits the earth and, because of the immense amount of heat in the earth, the radiation is effectively slowed down before being reflected back into the atmosphere. (The wavelengths become longer). This radiation goes back to the atmosphere where, again, some is reflected (this time back towards earth) and some passes through into space.

Our Atmosphere is better at reflecting long-wavelengths. This means that, if you increase the gasses in the atmosphere, the amount of short-wavelength radiation initially reflected on entry into the atmosphere increases slightly, but the amount of longer-wavelength radiation reflected back to earth on the way out increases at a greater rate. If this were not the case, then the extra gas would reflect just as much of the sun’s initial radiation as the earth’s reflected radiation, cancelling itself out. However, if this were the case, earth would be cold and uninhabitable. An example of this effect is the moon Titan, whose atmosphere reflects short-wave radiation better than long-wave radiation, thus constantly cooling the planet.

The Earth reflects about 30% of the radiation which hits it from the sun. The average temperature of a hypothetical planet, the same size and position of earth, that reflects 30% of the suns radiation but has no greenhouse effect would be about 5 degrees F. However, because of the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on Earth is about 60 degrees F.

The 4 main greenhouse gases are:
Water vapor
Carbon dioxide
methane
ozone.

The other gases in our atmosphere, like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Helium, Hydrogen, etc., are more stable than these other gases, and therefore are not affected nearly as much by radiation and therefore do not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

I sincerely hope this is enough information, because I don’t think I know any more on the Greenhouse Effect! I had to do a lot of research to come up with this, honestly. If you have any specific questions, I will be glad to research them for you as well.

The Greenhouse effect was first theorized in 1824, and was experimentally proven in 1859 and again in 1896. The Greenhouse effect is not exclusive to Earth, as it also exists on Venus and Mars, and Titan has an anti-Greenhouse Effect. I wasn’t kidding in the least when I said you could win a nobel prize for disproving the Greenhouse Effect. Such an experiment would show we have had a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our atmosphere, and the atmosphere of other planetary bodies, works for well over a hundred years.

I have not had time to investigate the claims made by the other gentleman. I will attempt to do so tomorrow. I can only post about once a day (if that, my daughter is my #1 priority), so please do not be upset if it takes me awhile to respond.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I am sorry. I misunderstood your request.

The Greenhouse effect is the result of thermal radiation being reflected onto the planets surface by gases in the atmosphere.

Radiation from the sun enters the earth’s atmosphere. Some is reflected by the atmosphere, some passes through it on the way to earth. The radiation hits the earth and, because of the immense amount of heat in the earth, the radiation is effectively slowed down before being reflected back into the atmosphere. (The wavelengths become longer). This radiation goes back to the atmosphere where, again, some is reflected (this time back towards earth) and some passes through into space.

Our Atmosphere is better at reflecting long-wavelengths. This means that, if you increase the gasses in the atmosphere, the amount of short-wavelength radiation initially reflected on entry into the atmosphere increases slightly, but the amount of longer-wavelength radiation reflected back to earth on the way out increases at a greater rate. If this were not the case, then the extra gas would reflect just as much of the sun’s initial radiation as the earth’s reflected radiation, cancelling itself out. However, if this were the case, earth would be cold and uninhabitable. An example of this effect is the moon Titan, whose atmosphere reflects short-wave radiation better than long-wave radiation, thus constantly cooling the planet.

The Earth reflects about 30% of the radiation which hits it from the sun. The average temperature of a hypothetical planet, the same size and position of earth, that reflects 30% of the suns radiation but has no greenhouse effect would be about 5 degrees F. However, because of the greenhouse effect, the average temperature on Earth is about 60 degrees F.

The 4 main greenhouse gases are:
Water vapor
Carbon dioxide
methane
ozone.

The other gases in our atmosphere, like Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Helium, Hydrogen, etc., are more stable than these other gases, and therefore are not affected nearly as much by radiation and therefore do not contribute to the greenhouse effect.

I sincerely hope this is enough information, because I don’t think I know any more on the Greenhouse Effect! I had to do a lot of research to come up with this, honestly. If you have any specific questions, I will be glad to research them for you as well.

The Greenhouse effect was first theorized in 1824, and was experimentally proven in 1859 and again in 1896. The Greenhouse effect is not exclusive to Earth, as it also exists on Venus and Mars, and Titan has an anti-Greenhouse Effect. I wasn’t kidding in the least when I said you could win a nobel prize for disproving the Greenhouse Effect. Such an experiment would show we have had a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our atmosphere, and the atmosphere of other planetary bodies, works for well over a hundred years.

I have not had time to investigate the claims made by the other gentleman. I will attempt to do so tomorrow. I can only post about once a day (if that, my daughter is my #1 priority), so please do not be upset if it takes me awhile to respond.

Thank you. This is actually a pretty solid principal and seems empirically provable, which means that my first objection was based based on an erroneous definition. My second objection is far more to my area of expertise.

The methods of cooling the planet are not just simple reflection, for instance when light hits a plants leaves the plant turns the electromagnetic radiation (The energy that would otherwise be heat.) into chemical energy through photosynthesis. Another example would be that heat which transfers from the ambient atmosphere into water causing it to evaporate and rise as high as the mesosphere; from there it is free to radiate out the heat without interference from other greenhouse gasses. As you point out the atmosphere acts like a blanket to keep heat in. If it didn’t we would all freeze to death, but that clearly means also that we have other mechanisms to act as radiators; otherwise that blanket would have smothered us long ago.

Back to plants, they breath CO2 like we breath air, as they need it in order to complete the chemical reactions necessary for photosynthesis. The greater quantities of it available the more light/heat energy a plant can take out of the atmosphere at a time, and as a byproduct of this we get oxygen which creatures higher up on the Porphyrian Tree need to live. Then, as stated by others in this thread, we have to take into account the temperament of the sun; in other words how much energy is going into our system will greatly determine how much energy will be in our system. A sentence so obvious I felt I was insulting you as I typed it, but it needed to be pointed out.

This is a vast and complex subject which I have only begun to touch upon, but hopefully I’ve given you some idea of the ways actions within the system tend to balance out. If you increase CO2 then you get more heat trapped by our atmospheric blanket, but you may get less heat overall because CO2 is the water in our radiator. And other players are involved as well, like the next greenhouse gas water vapor which carries the heat out of the blanket altogether, and then proceed to drop that water on the land to give drink to the plants and on the waters to aerate them*

*Which is why it’s an absurd statement to say that global warming would cause deserts. The reality is far from it, as it would put more moisture in the atmosphere to help irrigate them.

P.S. I apologize if this post isn’t clear; I usually am a bit foggy headed at 5 am.

 

[carn]

I guess you did not read my statement.

The only two scientific principles that prove humans cause global warming are

1. the greenhouse effect, the idea that gases like CO2 and water vapor released into the atmosphere cause heat to remain trapped and warm the earth, and
2. the physics principle that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2.

The reason so many people deny climate change is the exact reason you showed: They think temperature charts, tree rings and ice cores are the proof of anthropogenic global warming. They are not. These two principles alone prove global warming.

No, they prove that releasing CO2 causes temperature increase.

If humans only did release CO2 this would prove they cause an increase in temperature. But humans also do lots of other things. Only if all changes sumup to an temperature increase do humans cause warming, otherwise they cause cooling. That might even change, for exmpale the increased use of filters in the 1980s changed the emission pattern of humans and therefore it might have been before a cooling and afterwards a warming.

 

[kama3]

*Which is why it’s an absurd statement to say that global warming would cause deserts. The reality is far from it, as it would put more moisture in the atmosphere to help irrigate them.

Yes, but it will also change the worldwide distribution of rain.

If the previously fertile land becomes desert, then, even if a former desert becomes a fertile land, we are bound to have migrants counted in billions. And migrations of such scale never happen peacefully.

 

[kama3]

I sincerely hope this is enough information, because I don’t think I know any more on the Greenhouse Effect!

It’s also worth noting that without the Greenhouse Effect, the average temperature on Earth would be -18 deg. C. Due to Greenhouse Effect, it is about +15 deg. C, so the Greenhouse Effect warms the planet by 33 deg. C.

Another point – one prominent AGW scientist only became interested in AGW after researching the Greenhouse Effect on Venus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Atmosphere_of_Venus

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

**It’s also worth noting that without the Greenhouse Effect, the average temperature on Earth would be -18 deg. C. Due to Greenhouse Effect, it is about +15 deg. C, so the Greenhouse Effect warms the planet by 33 deg. **C.

Another point – one prominent AGW scientist only became interested in AGW after researching the Greenhouse Effect on Venus: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Atmosphere_of_Venus

Then we owe it a debt of gratitude, 18 C below is not my favorite temperature:winter:.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Yes, but it will also change the worldwide distribution of rain.

If the previously fertile land becomes desert, then, even if a former desert becomes a fertile land, we are bound to have migrants counted in billions. And migrations of such scale never happen peacefully.

I am fond of irrigation technology, and I often find myself wondering why we don’t make more use of it. Anyhow if you plant enough trees, you can turn barren deserts into lush forest in the space of fifty years, but now we’re getting into outright teraforming which is a topic deserving it’s own thread.

 

[kama3]

if you plant enough trees, you can turn barren deserts into lush forest in the space of fifty years,

Paradoxically, one of anthropogenic CO2 sources is deforestation, i.e. burning forests to obtain arable land.

but now we’re getting into outright teraforming which is a topic deserving it’s own thread.

We’re already terraforming the planet, except that we do it as an unintended side effect.