Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

s243a

Council Member
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?

My guess would be that it is easier to distinguish short term signals from noise then it is to distinguish long term signals from noise. Clearly the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is going to respond much slower then the temperature near the surface of the ocean. As a consequence the low the frequency of the driving signal the greater the effective heat heat capacity.

Also as far as nonlinearities go the larger the signal, the greater the effective heat capacity. Consequently the sensitivity of climate to CO2 should depend both on the frequency and amplitude of the signal.

s243a

Council Member
Well, it's late but I wonder if we can derive an expression for the heat capacity which is a function both of frequency and the input amplitude. Consider the steady state solution for an ocean of infinite depth.

Since warm water rises and the ocean is heated from the top perhaps conduction is the dominate mode of heat transfer. Thus the rate of heat transfer is described by the partial differential equation:

dU/dt=J dT/dx

dU/dt is the rate of thermal energy transfer
J is the conductivity
dT/dx is the rate the temperature changes with the depth of water

The rate the temperature changes at any differential volume of water is proportional to the amount of energy going in mines the amount of energy going. I contented that it can be described mathematically as follows:
(I can try and prove it if you want)

dT/dt = C (d^2 U)/(d X^2)

where:
dT/dt is the rate of change of temperature per time
C is the heat capacity per depth
(d^2 U)/(d X^2)= the derivative of the rate of change of temperature per depth

Now we have a system of partial differential equations. We want an approximate steady state solution. Separation of variables makes sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_variables

because in steady state we expect a periodic input to result in a periodic output. This equation may also have exact solutions. I'll see what I can come up with.

MikeyDB

House Member
Tonnington

I enjoy reading your contributions but imagine that there's a relevant point that isn't being made here...perhaps...

"Science" is the observation of phenomena followed by hypothesis and experimentation to qualify and quantify observed phenomena. Science produces "theories" (and some would argue "fact") that may serve as useful predicators of both large and small scale systemic occurrence....

"Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change" as topical constructs have been politicized...to such a significant degree that the "science" opposing camps reference in support of their ideas is selective and particular to the position....and doesn't reflect the understanding that scientists maintain with regard to the process and discipline. "Opinion" (actually paid-for endorsements by both sides) has usurped the basic tenets of science. I don't have any absolutely conclusive falsifiable data that I can contribute to the discussion but it isn't beyond some threshold of common sense to consider that when people are stridently defensive in both opposing and championing the notion of global climate change (as far as the 'human' contribution to cyclic phenomena) adopt their perspectives in a manner similar to the way that a great deal of political and cultural positions become established, irrespective of so fuzzy a concept as "truth" or for that matter "science".

If we reject every indicator that human industry and propensity for energy use predicated on the burning of fossil fuels is in fact a contributing element to the observations currently in hand suggesting quite strongly that our behavior has off-set or disturbed that normal cyclic phenomenon of heating and cooling, aren't we just as "luddite" as those scoffing at the possibility of heavier than air machines that could fly...or who balked at considering that the atmospheric envelope was mankind's limit and travel to space the moon and even beyond was simply a pipe-dream of the willingly self-deluded?

The economies of scale, the great consuming societies born out of many of the advances produced by "science's" contribution to technology are a reality. There is no doubt that emerging world players like China will follow a route entirely similar to that of the European and Western corporate machine....

We know that over-fishing, poor environmental management and consumption without regard for the outcome results in pollution on a scale that has seriously impacted species and is having effect on all life-systems on this planet.

Convincing the fisherman that you can't fish for generations on end without damaging the resourse's capacity to replenish itself hasn't worked.... Any time the voices of caution are raised it's regarded as an attack on the stream-roller of production and consumption and this is inevitably bound to politics and economics long before any attention is paid to the "science" involved.

We're simply at that crossroads again...

It seems increasingly pointless to invite people to learn about the past and synthesize the elemental contributions that have contributed to the situations we now confront. From religion and politics to species extinction and de-nuding of our planet to wring as much profit from the earh as possible without a thought given to the potential consequences...

Humanity at it's finest......

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
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.

The five simulations are monthly data generated with Schwartz's AR1 process. Schwartz's method for estimating time scales was also applied to the GISTEMP monthly data in the same manner.

When comparing his AR1 process, to the observed data, it's clear that global temperatures cannot be modeled with an AR1 process and linear trend.

Hansen's investigation included three scenarios, three different emission diets. Scenario A was one where no mitigation is applied to emissions, Scenario B was moderate reductions, and Scenario C was more extensive reductions. Included in the scenarios was a volcanic factor. Statistically, Earth was due for a large eruption, and Mount Pinatubo arrived within a few years of the model prediction.

They diverge as one would expect, because unfettered increasing emissions will warm the planet much more rapidly than the other two scenarios, especially given the volcanic forcing.

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Mikey, the politics of the situation has given rise to what some have coined "an excess of objectivity."

Basically, anyone of us can do google searches to find what we're looking for. We can even cherry pick scientific studies to find what we're looking for. The interesting point about Schwartz, was that his paper was immediately heralded as the death blow to global warming. So far, it hasn't really been accepted by the academics in that field. As I mentioned earlier it isn't even Schwartz's field of expertise. There are many scientists who do specialize in sensitivity and have produced very good papers which have survived the skeptical nature of science.

Schwartz himself isn't in the class of scientists like Singer or Ball. He actually opines that we should be doing all we can to reduce emissions and avoid the consequences. He is a respected scientist who has done very good work in the field of aerosols and climate forcings. He wouldn't hold his position at Brookhaven if he were a dunce.

s243a

Council Member
The five simulations are monthly data generated with Schwartz's AR1 process. Schwartz's method for estimating time scales was also applied to the GISTEMP monthly data in the same manner.

When comparing his AR1 process, to the observed data, it's clear that global temperatures cannot be modeled with an AR1 process and linear trend.

Hansen's investigation included three scenarios, three different emission diets. Scenario A was one where no mitigation is applied to emissions, Scenario B was moderate reductions, and Scenario C was more extensive reductions. Included in the scenarios was a volcanic factor. Statistically, Earth was due for a large eruption, and Mount Pinatubo arrived within a few years of the model prediction.

They diverge as one would expect, because unfettered increasing emissions will warm the planet much more rapidly than the other two scenarios, especially given the volcanic forcing.

If the curves are simulations wouldn't you at least initialize it so that it matches up with the temperature at the start of the time series? Also you can get a better fit to the data if you use some kind of predictor correcter technique like a Kalman filter. Maybe sometime I'll try to verify the results you presented. It is curious that if they were running it against past records why they would need to use three scenarios. Why not just use the actual historical CO2 levels.

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
The model was a 100 year controlled run, to examine the climate equilibrium sensitivity to changes in aerosols and trace gases (CO2, CH4, N20, etc.)

The three scenarios were just that, scenarios. It wasn't entirely certain what would happen, never is. They made estimates of what the future would look like, and ran their model with a set of possibilities.

Keep in mind that this was one of the earliest attempts at transient climate models. There are many such models now, and many more empirical studies.

If Hansen had used a climate sensitivity of around 1 degree, instead of the standard 2-4.5, the results would be well below observed trends. As is, estimates for future emissions and economics will always be ambiguous. Scenario B has performed extremely well given the limits of this outdated model.

Walter

Hall of Fame Member

Topic: The Environment
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense
I make an effort to dispel some of the myths surrounding the Global Warming hysteria. by Edward Townes
(Libertarian)

These days it is well nigh impossible to not be aware of the 'Global Warming' hysteria. From the doomsday movies, to alarming media headlines, to politicians scrambling over each other to get on the green bandwagon, one thing is clear - it’s not politically correct to question it.
When I first decided to look into what all the fuss was about on climate change, I was not opinionated on the subject at all. From what I understood then, the only difference between the global warming alarmists and me was a difference in opinion on the economics involved. That has now completely changed.
They have engaged in exaggeration and deception on just about every single last aspect of climate change. In fact, the only thing I can really confirm for you is that carbon dioxide has a 'greenhouse effect' in our atmosphere, and we are responsible for 0.28% of it [6]. Actually, even the word "greenhouse" is misleading because that implies a restriction on convection currents, which is not physically accurate. The moon doesn’t have an atmosphere and experiences an average surface temperature of 107°C and -153°C for day and night respectively, which is obviously a much larger range compared to Earth's. The best explanation for how an atmosphere's "greenhouse" effect acts, is it increases the planet's heat capacity (i.e. it holds more energy and thus takes longer to heat up and cool down) and thus makes the climate more gentle and hospitable.
But let's step back for a moment from the atmosphere and talk about Earth's historical and current temperatures. Global warming alarmists would have us believe that we are now seeing a global temperature at a height not achieved for a very long time. This is simply not true. We have seen temperatures even within the last 1,000 years higher than our present, which is not even a blip in Earth’s history.

Complete article: http://www.nolanchart.com/article805.html

Extrafire

Council Member
[...]
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. [...]

Hmmm....yeah, I went back and read it again. Apparently I missed this little part:
if the other possibility occurs of an Ice Age... then we're really more screwed then before.
which is so very true. And based on past climate fluctuations I would suggest it isn't a matter of if, but when it occurs.

As for the dumping of CO2 in streams, I spoke without knowledge (I said I'd never heard of it) and shouldn't have spoken with such "authority" on the subject.

Extrafire

Council Member
[...]

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.

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.

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

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)
About time you should face reality. If we warm up we'll do just fine, better, in fact than we are now. Populations will increase northward, agriculture will also spread northward, deaths from cold (which far outnumber deaths from heat) will drop, extreme weather events will likely lessen, control of disease and epidemics will be much easier. If we cool down, we'll suffer, because the opposite will occur. And we will cool down, and cool down drastically, unless recurring natural fluctuations somehow cease. Based on those past fluctuations, we're on the cusp of a new ice age. That's not political rhetoric, not ideology, it's what the empirical evidence tells us.

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)
Well we could effect it a bit by putting certain substances into the atmosphere, like that sea salt injection I mentioned somewhere that would increase cloud cover and reflect heat away. But nobody's really promoting that because the current global warming hysteria is in reality an ideological crusade that has nothing to do with the environment or climate per se. The whole purpose is to demonize and harm the western capitalist economies, particularly that of the US, and so all proposed "solutions" thus far have been aimed at that objective. Warming it, of course, would be much more difficult. Too bad, because we may need to one day.

As far as the simpler solution of putting contaminants into the air, it depends just what they are.. It's already happening in mid and far east Asian countries, and the result is what's called the "Asian brown cloud" which has been demonstrated to greatly increase atmospheric temperatures.

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.
Guilt?? I didn't say that. I said gullibility. Humans are gullible creatures. We fall for just about any kind of scam. Which is the only reason this whole climate change panic is happening.

Bugger off, EVERYTHING is a wealth transfer, that is the nature of wealth and its purpose.
No it isn't. Wealth is something that is created when people are free to try to improve their lot. Jealousy of those who are successful at it is what's driving this whole scam; they want to move that wealth to those who won't (or aren't allowed by their governments) to do what it take to create their own wealth.

Zzarchov

House Member
Well, if you want to move cities north and move farmland north. Good for you.

That is known as a wealth transfer. See, those new farms and infrastructures aren't free. Its transfering wealth from those who built up their area and their homelands to those who own large swathes of northern land or who own construction companies.

Its also more expensive than just cooling the planet.

So your logic is "Why spend X money to keep a problem from growing, when we can transfer large swathes of wealth to other people by spending 10 times as much!"

Nice.. shooting you own arguements in the foot I see.

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Winter wallop has many Canadians digging out

Updated Tue. Jan. 1 2008 5:04 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

New Year's Eve festivities were cancelled in Newfoundland and P.E.I. as 2008 was ushered in with a powerful winter wallop that dumped up to 30 centimetres of snow.

The heavy dose of the white stuff had Atlantic Canadians and others marking the first day of the year with shovels, chipping away at the fresh white blanket as Environment Canada issued a string of severe weather bulletins.

And more was expected to hit Atlantic Canada later Tuesday and into Wednesday with another storm threatening to further bury the region.

About 25 centimetres of snow is expected to fall on northern Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and up to 20 centimetres in western Newfoundland through Tuesday.

Southern New Brunswick is also predicted to get up to 30 centimetres, along with high winds.

The systems taking effect in the Atlantic provinces on Tuesday followed heavy snow and freezing rain that doused the region on Monday, making roads slick and treacherous and causing a number of airline cancellations. Some carried over to Tuesday, with airlines recommending that travellers check for cancelled flights before heading to the airport.

The inclement conditions prompted officials to postpone New Year's Eve festivities in Charlottetown and St. John's.

In Ontario, many woke up to a blanket of heavy, wet snow, and weather watches/warnings were put in effect for much of southern Ontario, from Kingston to Toronto to Sarnia.

The snowfall was expected to taper off by Tuesday afternoon over most of southern Ontario, though the improvement was not expected to hit eastern Ontario until Tuesday night.

"While total snowfall amounts for most areas will be near 15 centimetres places near eastern Lake Ontario could see amounts up to 20 centimetres," stated Environment Canada.

"Areas near western Lake Ontario which received some rain earlier this morning will see much lower totals."

Cold Arctic air was predicted to move into all regions of Ontario Tuesday night and Wednesday.

Extrafire

Council Member
Well, if you want to move cities north and move farmland north. Good for you.

That is known as a wealth transfer. See, those new farms and infrastructures aren't free. Its transfering wealth from those who built up their area and their homelands to those who own large swathes of northern land or who own construction companies.

Its also more expensive than just cooling the planet.

So your logic is "Why spend X money to keep a problem from growing, when we can transfer large swathes of wealth to other people by spending 10 times as much!"

Nice.. shooting you own arguements in the foot I see.
You aren't using logic at all. Cities won't move north, people will, as the climate improves it will be more attractive and people will migrate if the job opportunities are there. I and a lot of other people moved north to Prince George for the jobs, even though the climate wasn't so nice. It's been getting better over the last 22 years that I've been here, but still, most people (including myself) who have moved up here want to move back to where it's warmer. Just because we moved north doesn't mean the cities we came from depleted, quite the contrary, since they have warm lugubrious climates, they've grown considerably in the interim. That isn't a wealth transfer, the growing economy up here is creating wealth, and that new wealth is what's paying for it all. (A friend of mine owns a trucking company and is also building a cattle ranch, clearing new land at his own expense just so he can do what he enjoys - farming)

Cooling the planet, on the other hand, would entail great expense for temporary effect (if you stop doing it, it will warm up again) if at all, and even if we can do that (which is debatable) we wouldn't be able to do enough to counter the natural variations in global temperatures. And if we could do it, we would only increase the cost of food, heat and transportation at the cost of trillions of dollars sucked out of the world (primarily western) economy.

So my argument really is - why spend trillions of dollars trying to counter a beneficial natural warming trend when the effect of warming is better conditions, better health and growing wealth from human activity?

Extrafire

Council Member
We can do this?
Probably not. Theoretically we could place ships in the northern oceans and spray sea water into the air, thereby adding salt particulate to the air which would result in condensation and thus more cloud cover which would reflect sunlight. Similarly we could inject particulate into the upper atmosphere in the manner of a volcano and shade the earth, cooling it as has happened naturally. However, whether we could do that in sufficient quantities is unlikely, and would require a great deal of energy (mostly fossil fuels) which, if AGW theory is true (not) would neutralize the effect.

Of course, that would only work if the natural climate fluctuations all stopped. The effect of humans is so tiny, and our best effort in that kind of effort would be so puny compared to natural variations that our effect wouldn't even be measurable. The whole idea is nonsense.

Zzarchov

House Member
Woah Woah Woah.

You just said earlier it was a cycle. Therefore you only need to cool the planet on the upswing and stop on the downswing.

By your own admission thats a temporary solution to a temporary problem.

As for cities not moving north, now you are ignoring those same historical trends (Even recent ones with massive environmental shift: See the Aral sea). People don't stay where there is no reason for them to be there. Its expensive to ship food from the arctic to the southern regions, people will be forced to move north as cost of living skyrockets.

To Walter: Yes we can cause global cooling, its remarkabley easy, enough so we've had to worry about causing it accidentally or as a side effect of other things (such as wars). Naysayers who claim we can't alter the environment are kind of daft, if we really wanted to we could collapse the gulf stream in 2 minutes. We can literally harness the power of the stars, land on the moon and mine any resource the planet has to offer and shift things around.

Extrafire

Council Member
Woah Woah Woah.

You just said earlier it was a cycle. Therefore you only need to cool the planet on the upswing and stop on the downswing.

By your own admission thats a temporary solution to a temporary problem.
Indeed it is a cycle, a 1500(+-) year cycle, not 5 or 10 years. Since warming is beneficial, why would we want to cool it? And since cooling is generally detrimental, we might want to warm it up during the cooling, but we just aren't able to do that.
As for cities not moving north, now you are ignoring those same historical trends (Even recent ones with massive environmental shift: See the Aral sea). People don't stay where there is no reason for them to be there. Its expensive to ship food from the arctic to the southern regions, people will be forced to move north as cost of living skyrockets.
Hmmm....refresh my memory. What hot cities have relocated northerly? San Diego? Cairo? Rio? And where is food growing most productive? Saskatchewan? Or Texas, Mexico, Florida, Israel (where they get 4 crops per year of produce in their deserts compared to one in Canada's best growing areas)? And where does most of our produce come from? Oh yeah, from those hot southern regions. Would it be any more expensive to ship south than north? No. Would the worst global warming scenario possible result in those southern regions being unable to grow food? No. It would only mean that they'd have to compete with the more northern producers.

People don't stay where there is no good reason for them to be there? How's this for good reasons; warm tropical climate, jobs, homes. Why would anyone leave for no reason? And the cost of living doesn't skyrocket in warming trends, it drops. Things are more expensive when it cools, and northern food production fails and much more energy is needed to survive. Just compare the costs of heating and snow clearing between, say, San Fransisco and Prince George.

To Walter: Yes we can cause global cooling, its remarkabley easy, enough so we've had to worry about causing it accidentally or as a side effect of other things (such as wars). Naysayers who claim we can't alter the environment are kind of daft, if we really wanted to we could collapse the gulf stream in 2 minutes. We can literally harness the power of the stars, land on the moon and mine any resource the planet has to offer and shift things around.
:lol: You've been reading far to many science fiction novels.

Zzarchov

House Member
Oh, so you think the moon landing and the H-Bombs are myths, you are one of THOSE types...

Food ships from arable land to cities without it (such as desert cities). When land becomes too far from food sources their is massive population redistribution. You'll notice I gave an example (the Aral Sea).

Seriously, this isn't the 1840's, the pinacle of our technology isn't steam. If we want to alter the environment we can. This is before we get into genetics, lets not forget the change simple algae caused.

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Editorial: Global warming 'consensus' a fiction

Skeptics from a range of scientific disciplines get louder in their opposition to doomsday claims

An Orange County Register editorial

Global warming hype peaked in 2007 with calls for vast increases in government control to stifle industrial growth, eliminate fossil fuels and impose new carbon taxes.
We were told desperate measures are needed because there's a scientific "consensus" that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing dangerously. Former Vice President Al Gore claimed there's no legitimate objection to the catastrophes he and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict.
All this received much media coverage and support from politicians and government bureaucrats, who stand to gain control if we heed their warnings. The problem is, there's noscientific consensus for doomsday claims, let alone that drastic remedies are needed.
Growing numbers of global warming science skeptics are making their opposition known. They include experts in climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, environmental sciences and physics, among others. They are affiliated with prestigious institutions worldwide, including Harvard, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, MIT, the International Arctic Research Center, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and many others. Many shared a portion of IPCC's 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (co-won with Mr. Gore), and others have won previous Nobel Prizes for their research.
A U.S. Senate report accumulated more than 400 of their views to refute Mr. Gore's claim of "consensus."
For example, physics professor emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut said, "You think SUVs are the cause of glaciers shrinking? … Don't believe what you hear out of Hollywood and Washington, D.C. … [C]limate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backward. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead, a warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels."
Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, said, "because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that real climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."
Read the consensus-refuting comments of these scientists online at www.epw.senate.gov (click on U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007).
As Swedish geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus at Stockholm University, wrote, "Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate …. As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s … it will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one" meter.

Status
Not open for further replies.