Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lester

Council Member
Sep 28, 2007
1,062
12
38
61
Ardrossan, Alberta
Natural climate change would take thousands of years to take place, what we see today is primarily our fault because it's really started to happen over the last hundred or so years - which coincides with the advent of industrialization and automobiles.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Natural climate change would take thousands of years to take place, what we see today is primarily our fault because it's really started to happen over the last hundred or so years - which coincides with the advent of industrialization and automobiles.
That's what they like you to think. But no, natural climate change has happened faster than it is now, both warming and cooling. I suggest you watch all 4 parts of Climate Change, Is CO2 The Cause? which I've linked before. It's all explained better than I can.

And as I asked before, why would you think that the coldest point since the last ice age is an ideal climate?
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Natural climate change would take thousands of years to take place, what we see today is primarily our fault because it's really started to happen over the last hundred or so years - which coincides with the advent of industrialization and automobiles.

If it was our fault at 0.6 degrees per century it would take us 1000 years to put enough carbon to in the air to stop the next ice age. Lets go for it I don't want to see Toronto under ice.


Figure 1. EPICA deuterium values. Blue line at -400, more or less marking retreat of continental glaciation from southern Ontario (and elsewhere). Grey marks interglacial periods with values above -400.
The blue line is set at a value to try to isolate interglacials. Values of -400 were reached about 12,300 BP. I tried to pick a value at which glaciers would not be covering Toronto. Toronto was free of glaciers by 12000 BP, though not 13000 BP., though glaciers still covered Ottawa.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,610
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Scientists have proven that the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, for millions of years.

Well I personally didn't see any records officially stating opening up of the passageways in the past, so I left it open since I could't personally state either way without talking out of my arse. But yes, I was aware that the planet has continually warmed and cooled in drastic levels in comparison to what we've been comfortible with in the last 100 years or so.

Nonsense. Ice ages are a natural recurring fluctuation, and scientists have been warning for decades that we're due, if not overdue for another one. And there's nothing we can do except prepare for it. Of course, for the last few years we haven't heard that anymore because of the frenzy over "global warming".

Nonsense? My quote you responded to basically agreed with your above statement, plus the explination of Hurricanes relations to Ice Ages. I agree with what you said above. :p

Never heard of that one. Not possible, the streams won't absorb it. There is talk of sequestering it deep underground, which would work. And it would also work if it was pumped deep into the ocean, where pressure and cold would turn it to solid form (dry ice) which is heavier than water, and it would sink to the bottom and never be released. But it would make no difference to climate anyway.

Here's the news about it... came out two weeks ago or so from US scientists....

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/11/08/oceans-carbon.html

.....House and colleagues from Harvard and Pennsylvania State University said they found a way to remove hydrochloric acid from the ocean and neutralize it using silicate from volcanic rocks. That increases the ocean's alkalinity, so it can store more atmospheric CO2 as bicarbonate, already the most common form of carbon in the oceans.

"That means we may be able to safely and permanently remove excess CO2 in a matter of decades rather than millennia," House said, describing the process as accelerating the natural system to industrial rates.

In nature, carbon dioxide is dissolved by fresh water, forming a weak acid. The acid is neutralized as water filters through rocks, producing an alkaline solution of carbonate salts, the release said.

Eventually the water reaches an ocean, where the alkaline solution holds the dissolved carbon until it eventually becomes a sediment.....

If yuo read the entire article, you'll see that they certainly don't account for many various other issues, and is just basically an all out stupid idea. It's just yet another example of a quick fix / sweeping under the rug so to speak..... then in another 50 years, the ocean's begin to change because of more salts and this sediment being unloaded into the oceans, and then begins to kill off the life in the oceans.... which of course comes back on us in the food chain.

Oh and here is a counter argument to the plan I found the same day:

http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a011123.html

..... But some scientists argue that engineering nature to avoid environmental damage inevitably causes other, perhaps greater damage.

Writing in the Oct. 12 issue of Science, Dr. Brad A. Seibel of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, Calif., and Dr. Patrick J. Walsh of the University of Miami caution that carbon dioxide could harm deep-sea creatures......

.....A small-scale experiment to pump about 40 tons of liquid carbon dioxide into the waters off Hawaii has run into stiff opposition from some environmentalists and has not received final approval.

Carbon dioxide does kill, as researchers demonstrated in even smaller-scale experiments this year in Monterey Bay.

From a small submarine, the scientists, from the Monterey Bay Research Institute, squirted about five gallons of liquid carbon dioxide into each of several small plastic pools at the bottom, 12,000 feet down. They then put cages containing five sea urchins and five sea cucumbers each about a foot and a half from the carbon dioxide pools, wanting to see how they fared compared with others in cages farther away.

When they returned three weeks later, everything in the cages next to the pools was dead. The researchers found that creatures like small crustaceans living in the nearby sediment were also injured or killed. Modifying the experiment, the researchers then placed sea urchins and sea cucumbers 6 and 15 feet away from the carbon dioxide. Those animals survived without visible injury; tissue samples are being examined for cellular damage.


"It seems CO2 injection will have detrimental effects," said Dr. James P. Barry, an associate scientist at the institute involved in the experiment. "That's almost certain. The degree of damage is the question."......​
So obviously, if these little pools of carbon dioxide killed these creatures in three weeks..... what would this tell you guys if every country decided to unload all of our emmissions constantly, everyday into the oceans? We'd be screwed even worse then what we are now.
 
Last edited:

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,610
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Just to add on my previous post and the two links towards the CO2 Ocean plans, this is yet another perfect example of how just because a few scientists come up with a plan or an explination, doesn't really mean it's a good idea or correct.

One group of scientists claim this is a good idea to do..... yet another group of scientists argue the opposite.

Science is clearly not absolute, correct all the time nor should we just jump on any plans they tell us about without thinking.

Just because they got the label of "Scientist" doesn't make them anymore brighter then you and I... as sometimes plain common sense can out weigh what scientists are telling you.

So if scientists can try and pull a fast one on us like the above moronic plan with the CO2.... what does that tell you overall about how you trust what you hear?

All I'm saying is for people to think first before following. Science loves to seperate itself from religion, so perhaps we shouldn't following them like a religion (AKA: don't just follow what they say blindly.... they're just as much human as you and I, and are certainly not perfect.... and prone to influence.)
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
What's this nonsense now about streams not being able to absorb the co2? That's pure bull plop. I can inject CO2 into my fish tank, I can inject CO2 into the water at my school to increase the growth of some selected micro algae.

It's not hard to do. Solubility increases as we increase the pH of the water, increase the pressure in equilibrium with the solution, decrease the temperature of the water, and the pressure associated with certain compounds added to the water.

Increasing pH or the concentration of something like methanol would be the logical choice. The Co2 will stay in solution longer from these water chemistry changes than they will from physical changes like pressure and temperature. Though it's not a very good idea. There are a host of ecological problems associated with these kinds of changes. If you want to kill the fish in the rivers, and promote acidification of ocean waters, then this would be acceptable.. Simply dumping the pollutant somewhere else is not the answer.

As far back as 1960, the first proposals for using microalgae for biofuels were being hypothesized. Growing the selected microalgae in high production ponds, and settling the 'sludge' via flocculation. You then harvest the sludge into tanks where anaerobic bacteria break down the organic matter to produce methane and CO2. The methane is used to generate electricity, and the CO2 flue is used to inoculate new ponds.

It's still not feasible on costs. Probably due to the scaling problems from research to production.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,610
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I don't remember disputing that streams and rivers couldn't deal with CO2.... what I was disputing was the quantity of what would be distrubuted into the water and what would occur if we became acustomed to doing this without thinking about the consequences.

You can inject CO2 in a fish tank just fine... but what happens when you unload an entire power plant's worth of CO2 + everything else that expells CO2 emissions around the world?

but this quote here:

If you want to kill the fish in the rivers, and promote acidification of ocean waters, then this would be acceptable.. Simply dumping the pollutant somewhere else is not the answer.

Seems to show we're on the same level anyways.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I don't remember disputing that streams and rivers couldn't deal with CO2.... what I was disputing was the quantity of what would be distrubuted into the water and what would occur if we became acustomed to doing this without thinking about the consequences.

You can inject CO2 in a fish tank just fine... but what happens when you unload an entire power plant's worth of CO2 + everything else that expells CO2 emissions around the world?

Seems to show we're on the same level anyways.

I didn't quote Extra, it was actually he who said that it wasn't possible. Apologies for the confusion Prax.

The quantity which can be dissolved is dependent on the other factors I mentioned. water can become super saturated without our intervention. You see this in waters below a set of waterfalls. As the falling water dives deep from the plunge, gases at the surface are forced into solution. As they drive further down into the water, they are under more pressure, and that allows gases to exceed normal solubility. They will come out of solution further downstream as the pressure dissipates.

Sequestering any gas is a complicated procedure. You need to monitor the site, to prevent any large escape of the gas, which can be quite deadly. Basically, people will have to monitor the site for many generations.

Theres all kinds of ideas out there, most of them untested, and many actually produce harmful side effects. We could pump aerosols like sulfates into the atmosphere, to negate the positive forcing caused by the increasing greenhouse gases, but then we end up with acid rain.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Oh, you're so full of it. You've said this stuff before and I've pointed out how wrong you are. Get real.

No, you made rambling posts which didn't address the issues and pointed out factual lies because you didn't read a book.

"Earth is warming if you measure from 30 years ago. Or from 200 years ago. Or from 16,000 years ago. Earth is cooling if you measure from 900 years ago, or from 1000 years ago, or from 2000 years ago, or from 8000 years ago, or from 400,000 years ago, or from millions of years ago.
So what if it is cooling on the grand scheme of things? Do you know why heating/cooling of the earth is bad?

Its because we live in a carefully balanced society based upon the careful supply of goods and food. A change either way has massive reprecussions.

What temperature it was 100 years ago is irrelevant. What matters is the temperature at the time our infrastructure was put in place, and what stresses it can handle. Whats "natural" is irrelevant. Its natural for rivers to have floodplains as well. If you have a city on the floodplain, natural or not, you either need to move the city or alter nature.

So where do you pick your point to start measuring, and why? What's so special about the last 200 years? The beginning of the industrial era that you're measuring from just happens to be the coldest point since the last ice age. What makes that the ideal, how can you determine what an ideal temperature is anyway?

As I pointed out, the Ideal temperature is the one our society is built around. The natural state of the mediteranean is a giant salt flat. Natural or not, massive death and disruption would occur if that happened.

As pointed out, it depends where you measure from.

No it doesn't, it matters based upon what society is able to deal with.

BS! Warmer earth was much better for humanity in the past. Only nut-bars really think the coasts will flood, all scientists know better. And warmer climate means more food production, less famine and disease. That's already been proved by history.
Assuming it was, that is because humanity had at that time built its infrastructure to deal with that climate. Any temperature (barring extremes) would work, because infrastructure would have been built to function to that temperature.

If the temperature shifted quickly then the infrastructure would collapse (as it has for countless civilizations in history, ie, Indochina and Central America)

I asked you this before: You know how to cause global cooling??? Please tell, because no-one else does.
Change the chemical compostition by dumping things into the atmosphere (by plane), or the simpler solution of putting contaminents into the air to reflect light (the same effect as a nuclear winter)

The only problem is the unending gullibility of the human mind, and no, there is no fix for that.

Guilt at what? Altering nature is what man does, when we plow a field, drain a swamp etc. Cooling a warming earth is no different, quit being such a whiney tree hugger "Global warming is natural, whaaaa" who cares. Its bad for us , so we change it.

It's just a wealth transfer. Open your eyes!

Bugger off, EVERYTHING is a wealth transfer, that is the nature of wealth and its purpose.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
No warming to idea of climate change

Monday, December 24th, 2007
Who says Mother Nature doesn’t have a sense of humor?
While the international socialists bent on establishing a new world order under the auspices of the United Nations were holding their “climate” conference in Bali, the United States was trying to dig out from what could be called a severe winter storm. Except for the fact that it arrived a week before the winter solstice, the “official” beginning of winter. As the Bali conference was winding down, weather-satellite photos showed that about 60 percent of the U.S. was covered with varying degrees of snow.
Meanwhile, the much-ballyhooed conference in Bali was turning into a disaster.
The radical environmentalist movement, now the home of the displaced communists who were set adrift when Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union, was attempting to impose its demands on the world economy by forcing an acceptance of a “green” agenda, an agenda that would have forced nations to curtail economic growth. But only the most successful nations. (Dan Sernoffsky, Lebanon Daily News)
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
This is the thread where we can request threads on certain papers.
1. I would like to see a thread on Schwartz’s paper “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System.” He used a new approach combining surface temps with ocean heat content to measure climate change and used the Mt. Pinatubo eruption for the climate perturbation. He concluded climate sensitivity to rising CO2 was only 1/3 of the IPCC estimate. For some reason, he is still worried about CO2 and is studying the possibility of using aerosols as an antidote to CO2 warming. I would like the thread to discuss his paper and also see if we can get him to comment on why he is still worried.
His paper is here.
Article in North Shore Sun.
Article in National Post.
2. I would also like to see a thread on the recent Petr Chylek paper titled “Aerosol Optical Depth, Climate Sensitivity and Global Warming.” Chylek concludes that we have overestimated the cooling impact of aerosols and the warming impact of CO2. An abstract of his paper is here.
I would also like to discuss how these two papers relate to one another.
Steve, what do you say?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2517#comment-182314
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Can I assume you've read Schwartz's paper?

Even Schwartz himself recognizes the limitations of his simple single compartment energy model. Some of his assumptions I have problems with. His analysis was modeled from the assumption that Earth's climate has one single heat capacity, and one single time constant. We know that these are not at all representative of Earth's climate. The oceans warm much more slowly than the land masses, though they do absorb more heat.

Climate sensitivity in this paper is S=T/C S being sensitivity, T being Time constant, and C being the heat capacity. That is way too simple to accurately sum up the climate. In order to measure the heat capacity, he treats the time series of temperature measurements as a linear trend in his models, and models them auto-regressively, where the proceeding y-values are dependent statistically on the previous y-values.

My biggest problem is like I already said, the climate is not a single factor system. There are many time scales by which the climate responds to different climate forcings and perturbations. The atmosphere, upper atmosphere, surface ocean, deep ocean, land mass, ice sheets, all of them have their own time scales. Atmospheric changes are nearly instantaneous, while deep ocean changes take many years.

Notice in the paper, that Schwartz never used his model to run actual temperature records, to see if his model could reproduce the 20th century temperature record. When scientists did that, they found that Schwartz's model does not satisfactorily portray reality.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
My biggest problem is like I already said, the climate is not a single factor system. There are many time scales by which the climate responds to different climate forcings and perturbations. The atmosphere, upper atmosphere, surface ocean, deep ocean, land mass, ice sheets, all of them have their own time scales. Atmospheric changes are nearly instantaneous, while deep ocean changes take many years.

Notice in the paper, that Schwartz never used his model to run actual temperature records, to see if his model could reproduce the 20th century temperature record. When scientists did that, they found that Schwartz's model does not satisfactorily portray reality.

And yet the science is settled?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I never said that. No, it certainly isn't settled. But this paper by Schwartz adds very little to the body of knowledge. The oceans for instance have much left to provide in the way of findings.

I think it's wise to note that, there are many reasons to be skeptical of new findings. Models particularly have been beaten up, some of it is warranted, and some of it is not. This model, the criticism is certainly warranted, as it doesn't meet the criteria of any useful model.

If a model can't predict the past or present, it's not of much use is it? On the flip side, back in 1988 Hansen and the folk at GISS produced a model which has accurately predicted past behaviour of the climate system, and the future behaviour from 1988 onwards.

The current models are lacking as well. The IPCC for instance fails to take into account the non-linear behaviour of melting ice and the albedo change. Non-linear data from the melting ice, which is empirical data, and flies in the face of Schwartz's assumption.

So no, of course the science isn't settled.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
I'm glad we agree on something. We share vastly different opinions on what constitutes good science. To me complex computer models are in part fantasy because they over fit the data. How do you validate a model with countless internal parameters and initial conditions.

What I like about Schwartz is it uses the most basic physics to estimate the CO2 sensitivity and time constant of the earth. Thus there is less chance of making a mistake or over fitting reality. I plan to look at Schwartz in in depth sometime in January along with:
@Larry– My article discussing Schwartz’s time constant is Time constant reanalyzed.”
I basically look at the same data, but account for measurement imprecision.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2517#comment-182504
I find you comment about Schwartz model unsatisfactorily fitting the temperature data interesting. Do you have some comparisons between Schwartz and Hansen models in terms of prediction skill?
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Notice in the paper, that Schwartz never used his model to run actual temperature records, to see if his model could reproduce the 20th century temperature record. When scientists did that, they found that Schwartz's model does not satisfactorily portray reality.

"Contrary to initial expectations of the team at Real Climate, Tamino’s criticism, or James Annan’s agreement with Tamino’s criticism, after accounting for measurement uncertainty in field data, the extremely simplified model for the climate system suggested by Schwartz 2007 describes the existing GISS data rather well."
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2007/time-constant-for-climate-greater-than-schwartz-suggests/
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
I'm glad we agree on something. We share vastly different opinions on what constitutes good science. To me complex computer models are in part fantasy because they over fit the data. How do you validate a model with countless internal parameters and initial conditions.

What I like about Schwartz is it uses the most basic physics to estimate the CO2 sensitivity and time constant of the earth. Thus there is less chance of making a mistake or over fitting reality. I plan to look at Schwartz in in depth sometime in January along with:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2517#comment-182504
I find you comment about Schwartz model unsatisfactorily fitting the temperature data interesting. Do you have some comparisons between Schwartz and Hansen models in terms of prediction skill?

I have no problem with Schwartz's use of basic physics, all studies and models use the basic physics. This isn't like geomagnetism or solar enthusiasts who need to ignore noise in the climate system to make their correlations fit, this was as you say a simple model. My problem is that his model is so simple, that it is a gross underestimate of the climate system. The climate does not behave linearly, so I don't know why Schwartz would use such a regression.

Further, he uses citations for his paper but ignores the principle authors comments. For instance, he cites Levitus 2005 and proclaims:

The present analysis indicates that the effective heat capacity of the world ocean pertinent to climate change on this multidecadal scale may be taken as 14 +/- 6 W yr m-2 K-1. The effective heat capacity determined in this way is equivalent to the heat capacity of 106 m of ocean water or, for ocean fractional area 0.71, the top 150 m of the world ocean. This effective heat capacity is thus comparable to the heat capacity of the ocean mixed layer.
But Levitus says this:

There are three reasons one does not expect uniform heating of the ocean from the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. The first is that internal variability of the earth system (e.g., El Nino) may affect regional ocean heating rates in a non-uniform manner.
The second is that the natural and anthropogenic aerosols are not well-mixed geographically and can have a substantial effect on regional warming rates. This has been documented for the northern Indian Ocean by Ramanathan et al. (2001a,b) who estimate a decrease of absorbed surface solar radiation exceeding 10Wm-2 over much of the Indian Ocean due to the presence of aerosols. The IPCC (2001) report also documents the geographical variability of various aerosols, ozone, black carbon, etc. that affect the amount of radiation available to enter the world ocean.
The third reason is that any change in the earth’s radiative balance may induce global and regional changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and ocean which could in turn affect the net flux of heat across the air-sea interface on a regional basis.
I wasn't commenting on Schwartz's model as it affects temperature. His model deals with climate sensitivity to forcings, not actual temperature predictions. Hansen's model does deal with temperature, and a few other factors.

Heres Schwartz's model run against the GISTEMP monthly data in 5 simulations.


That's not surprising. As I said earlier, the climate responds to perturbations in a blatantly un-uniform manner. Changes in solar forcing are nearly instantaneous in the atmosphere, while solar changes will affect the oceans on much longer scales. If the cliamte did respond so quickly, then the predictable period between temperature change and greenhouse gas concentration increase in the proxy records wouldn't take nearly as long.(nearly 1000 years)

Here's the Hansen model, with the three scenarios he posited and the actual empirical measurements.



When you do read the Schwartz paper, look for the detrending of long time series. He admits that the climate does respond at different rates depending on the mechanism associated with the forcing, so why the bias towards shorter time periods by removing longer trends?

If you take a look at his CV, most of his focus has been on aerosols, why he jumped into sensitivity is a mystery to me. Perhaps he simply bit off more than he can chew?
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz.html
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Can you explain that first graph to me. It looks rather bazaar. As for the second graph what are the three scenarios and why do they diverge so much at the end of the run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.