AGW is a lie

[chaim]

This is some nice amateur climatology, is it your work or from else where?

Unfortunately you seem to have fallen for several common pitfalls. Firstly you will have to revise your analysis as HadCRUT3 was recently adjusted to correct for an error in data processing and the "nose dive" you speak of has all but vanished: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Also if you look at any other metric, such as GISTEMP form NASA, the cooling you claim is essentially non-existant.

Secondly you need to work on your statistics - fitting a 4th order polynomial would be fine if there was some evidence that the climate was a 4th order polynomial system - which there isn't. I am guessing the intent of the 4th order fit is to exaggerate your alleged "cooling trend".

You also completely overlooked any sort of uncertainty estimates. If you look at the actual data from the Hadley center you will notice two things. The first is that the "cooling trend" (ie the last 2 years being cooler than the two before those) is about 0.02C. However the 2 sigma error bars in the data set are about +/- 0.1C. A "trend" that is 5 times smaller than the uncertainty is not a trend, it is statistically meaningless. You also forgot to put error bars in your model comparison - if you did you would notice that the error bars include almost ALL the model projections. Finally a 0.02C cooling over a period of 2 years is WELL within the natural variability of the climate system.

I have a quick question for you:

Based on your Schwabe solar cycle hypothisis, what is the lag time between solar cycle and climate response?

Also what is the mechanism you propose that links variations in solar cycle length with the climate? Correlation does not prove causation, so you really need to elaborate on your mechanism.

Well, lets look at some other data.

In 1988 James Hansen published one of the most famous climate models. He generated three “scenarios”.

Scenario “A” envisioned little or no efforts to curb GHG emissions and very little volcanic activity.

Scenario “C” envisioned a very significant effort to curb GHG’s and significant volcanic activity.

Scenario “B” was somewhere in between. Below is a copy of Hansen’s 1988 model with the HADCRUT3 temperature data (10 year moving average and 4th order polynomial) overlaid. As is shown by the data, the actual temperature changes were less than all of Hansen’s scenarios despite the fact that GHG emissions have continued to grow.

Some will undoubtedly say that computer modeling methods and climate modelers’ understanding of climate dynamics have improved since Hansen’s 1988 model. Therefore, a more recent model:

The actual temperature observations since 2000 must certainly fall well within the range of these models. Lets see if they did:

These models are quite recent, but the actual temperatures just won’t cooperate. The HADCRUT3 annual temperature anomaly tracked at the low end of the model range until a couple of years ago and then took a nose dive. None of the models predicted this.

If CO2 is still going up, and it is, then why on Earth did those temperatures start to decline? Could the Sun have anything to do with this? As I have argued before, it Sun plays more of a role in global temperatures than CO2.

Note how shortening Schwabe (11-year) Solar Cycles preceded the warming periods from 1908-1942 and 1978-2003. Furthermore, lengthening Schwabe Solar Cycles preceded the cooling period from 1942-1978. With the end of Solar Cycle 23 in January 2008, it is now clear that the Schwabe has gone long again.

NOTE: SOLAR CYCLE LENGTH IS PLOTTED WITH INCREASES MOVING TOWARD THE X-AXIS AND DECREASES AWAY FROM THE X-AXIS

Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the Earth has oscillated between warming and cooling spells of 0.2C to 0.5C every 30 (+/- 5) years:

If Gore is only the messenger, how did he miss all of this from those delivering the message? Oh yeah, it isn't the message he wants the poor peons who have no say in how much of their money which they worked for is taken from them in the name of Science and wasted on trying to alter nature.

 

[chaim]

You are showing your ignorance here Greatcloud. The keeling curve referenced earlier is based entirely on data from Hawaii. Keeling also made measurements at the South Pole in the early 1960's however these are not included in the plot above- although they would show the same thing as CO2 is a well mixed gas. To claim otherwise is flat out wrong.

The purpose of the keeling curve was to show a dramatic increase in co2 in the latter part of the century. He started out measuring in the Antarctica wastelands then for the seventies he changed his proxy data to Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa is an active volcano giving out great amounts of co2. How does this not alter the purpose of the graph.






CO2

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah. You may try to say the same to Chinese, Indian and may be Russian and Iranian, and see what would they say to you. US does not own the earth. A clean US means little to the emission of global CO2.

Given that the US is responsible for about 20% of the world's CO[sub]2[/sub] production, a clean US does mean a lot to the emissions of global CO[sub]2[/sub].

 

[thaumaturgy]

The purpose of the keeling curve was to show a dramatic increase in co2 in the latter part of the century. He started out measuring in the Antarctica wastelands then for the seventies he changed his proxy data to Mauna Loa. Mauna Loa is an active volcano giving out great amounts of co2. How does this not alter the purpose of the graph.

Ohmygosh! Do you think Keeling and coworkers didn't realize that?

Though Mauna Loa is an active volcano, Keeling and collaborators made measurements on the incoming ocean breeze and above the thermal inversion layer to minimize local contamination from volcanic vents. In addition, the data is normalized to negate any influence from local contamination.[9] Measurements at many other isolated sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve,[10] though no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa(SOURCE)

(Emphasis added)

You'd think scientists don't bother with details on this stuff. Sadly for you, you may be unfamiliar with how difficult science can be.

 

[atomweaver]

Yeah. You may try to say the same to Chinese, Indian and may be Russian and Iranian, and see what would they say to you.

Goalpost-shift noted. I wouldn't bother speaking to other countries, until I had cleaned up my own act. Don't you have some book at hand with a quote in it that starts "Thou Hypocrite,"...? That was some good advice, tending to your own business before you try to tell others how to go about theirs.

What's more, have you not considered the economic implications for the free market innovators that bring real solutions to the world? The person/company who can develop a cheap, non-carbon-derived energy system (wind, solar, whatever) which is locally deployable will make a fortune of billions selling it in the open market. The US has a storied history of technical innovation that should be leveraged into solving this problem, even if only because the high cost of oil makes it economically favorable. Carbon-free energy solution could be the next Silicone Valley for the US (or whatever other country solves the energy issue).

US does not own the earth. A clean US means little to the emission of global CO2.

As thaumaturgy's math shows, you are incorrect.

 

[juvenissun]

Given that the US is responsible for about 20% of the world's CO[sub]2[/sub] production, a clean US does mean a lot to the emissions of global CO[sub]2[/sub].

You do not expect to reduce the emission to less then 10% from US. So with only 10% decrease on US, but may have another few percent INCREASE from the rest of the world DOES NOT mean much at all to the global budget.

If the US keep burning fossil fuel, how much would she INCREASE the current percentage? I don't think it will go any higher than the current emission.

So, I think the problem now is NOT on US, but is on many other populated countries. To them, it is NOT POSSIBLE to limit their enthusiastic development (fuel consumption) by any peaceful means. They do not really care if the sea level will rise or not.

 

[Gawron]

Chaim,

It never ceases to amaze me how many experts on everything there is to know about everything there is to know frequent this website. However, in response to your first question, my field is Biology, so I do run some of my work in other fields by a Geologist friend of mine. I make no claim to know everything about everything.

I am at work now and have limited time, but I will respond in more detail later.

Posted by Thaumaturgy:

"Ohmygosh! Do you think Keeling and coworkers didn't realize that?"

I am sure they did. I think that is the point Greatcloud is trying to make.

 

[juvenissun]

Goalpost-shift noted. I wouldn't bother speaking to other countries, until I had cleaned up my own act. Don't you have some book at hand with a quote in it that starts "Thou Hypocrite,"...? That was some good advice, tending to your own business before you try to tell others how to go about theirs.

What's more, have you not considered the economic implications for the free market innovators that bring real solutions to the world? The person/company who can develop a cheap, non-carbon-derived energy system (wind, solar, whatever) which is locally deployable will make a fortune of billions selling it in the open market. The US has a storied history of technical innovation that should be leveraged into solving this problem, even if only because the high cost of oil makes it economically favorable. Carbon-free energy solution could be the next Silicone Valley for the US (or whatever other country solves the energy issue).

As thaumaturgy's math shows, you are incorrect.

I don't think you understand the mentality of people in, for example, China and India. They do say to US: mind your own business. But they also say: don't tell us what to do. The gas in China now is only <$3 per gallon. Ask them how do they do that in a free market?

US can do little to slow down the global increase of CO2 now, from any point of view. To evacuate her coastal cities is what she should do. It would take a few decades to get that done nicely, if it ever gets started.

 

[atomweaver]

So, I think the problem now is NOT on US, but is on many other populated countries.

Rather, the problem is on the US and on many other populated countries

To them, it is NOT POSSIBLE to limit their enthusiastic development (fuel consumption) by any peaceful means. They do not really care if the sea level will rise or not.

Bold emphasis mine. ORLY?

Most of China's industrial development is on the coast;
Shanghai elevation; 0 to 399 feet
Hong Kong Elevation; 0 to >1000 feet
Shenzhen area (including Guangdong) average 82 feet

They're trying to transition their agrarian population into a modern industrial one. You think they don't have an interest in sea levels?

Lets look at India... Gee, the biggest industrialized city for them is Mumbai. Oh, look, its another coastal city of millions, elevation of 0 feet to an average of 26 feet.

How about Russia? They've got it better than most, but still have a significant coastal population in the Baltic area (St. Petersburgh, etc)

In other words, that was a foolish comment to make. Most everywhere in the world, countries are concerned about sea levels, because so many people live in coastal areas.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Chaim,
Posted by Thaumaturgy:

"Ohmygosh! Do you think Keeling and coworkers didn't realize that?"

I am sure they did. I think that is the point Greatcloud is trying to make.

No, Greatcloud's "point" was to show how the keeling curve was misleading. His earlier claim that it was "well known" to be misleading was what I challenged. His response was a simplistic failure to understand the details behind the science.

You see, as you a biologist I'm sure you run experiments that require some understanding of the subtleties and details of the experiments. I am not sure Greatcloud actually knows that those details are pursued vigorously by scientists.

He makes big claims, he has to back them up. When his claim is "backed up" by an oversimplification or ignoring of the details, then it is incumbent upon us as scientists to point out how the details were conducted.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You do not expect to reduce the emission to less then 10% from US. So with only 10% decrease on US, but may have another few percent INCREASE from the rest of the world DOES NOT mean much at all to the global budget.

So do you think the world's richest, most wasteful country, who makes up less than 5% of the earth's population but burns 25% of its petroleum should do virtually nothing because it isn't going to make a difference once China and India come online?

Sorry, but in order for us to have any say whatsoever on the global stage we have to take the beam out of our own eye before we can focus on the mote in China's.

Because once China comes on-line at the size of economy that they are capable of, well, then the game is up.

But further, who better to shoulder the burden of investigating alternative fuels than the richest civilization this planet has ever known?

We have had it good for a long time. But we've sat on our hands for 30+ years. We knew fossil fuels were an issue from supply since the 1970's. We did nothing. Our CAFE standards are abysmal and if we tell others to use fossil fuels more wisely we look like hypocrites.

Now we've got issues to deal with not only from supply of petroleum but the ecological impact of all fossil fuels. We are a civilization that runs on energy. So far "oxidation" is our main source. That has got to change. Who better to start, and what better time to start it?

So, I think the problem now is NOT on US, but is on many other populated countries.

And the U.S. has the right to complain about other countries' growth? Ha! We are the ones driving giant hummers to grocery store. WE are the ones who make up less than 5% of the earth's population but burn 25% of its petroleum.

To them, it is NOT POSSIBLE to limit their enthusiastic development (fuel consumption) by any peaceful means. They do not really care if the sea level will rise or not.

You'll note that they are experiencing the same type of brutal forward aggressive growth the U.S. did in the guilded age. No one I know thinks it would have been a good thing to be a regular "joe schmoe" in the Guilded Age when the robber barrons were laying waste. The only difference is, now the modern robber barons and super-captilists can do a whole lot more damage (thanks in part to our ability to have massively negatively impacted the planet on our way up) than the 19th century industrialists could.

This isn't a blame-game. This is merely our need to take responsibility and act quickly and reasonably. I don't care if China does this or that or India does this or that until we can get our own house in order.

We in the U.S. owe the world a great deal for its riches. We've been on top for a long time, now let's use our position of world's main remaining superpower to do THE PROPER THING!

 

[atomweaver]

I don't think you understand the mentality of people in, for example, China and India.

I've been to both. I travel in China about twice a year on business. I've got plenty of business associates in both countries.

They do say to US: mind your own business.

Their respective governments do say that, superficially. The topic of global warming is an active concern for individuals, however...

But they also say: don't tell us what to do.

An oversimplification that borders on uselessness.

The gas in China now is only <$3 per gallon. Ask them how do they do that in a free market?

Yeah, yeah, they've got subsidies, but that's biting them back;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/business/worldbusiness/21gas.html

What's more, I question your use of the word "only" $3/gallon. When your average well educated professional in Shanghai makes thirty grand a year, and your average worker in industry makes $200 a month, $3/gallon remains a small fortune.

US can do little to slow down the global increase of CO2 now, from any point of view. To evacuate her coastal cities is what she should do. It would take a few decades to get that done nicely, if it ever gets started.

Sounds like running away from the problem, literally.

 

[chaim]

What do you expect? You are posting in the physical sciences forum!

I will admit that I am not a climate scientist per se, however I am a 'practicing' atmospheric scientist involved with trace gas measurements (such as CO2 and water vapor). I do keep up with the journals and it amazes me how much of the junk you read on the web makes it out to be that there is an active scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change. Of the hundreds of papers that come out annually in J. Climate and JGR Atmospheres, maybe 1 per year is in anyway skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. There is a reason that every relevant scienitifc society in the world has a position statement in supprot of AGW - the evidence is clear and overwhelming.

That being said I would be happy to discuss your solar influence theory with you.

Chaim,

It never ceases to amaze me how many experts on everything there is to know about everything there is to know frequent this website. However, in response to your first question, my field is Biology, so I do run some of my work in other fields by a Geologist friend of mine. I make no claim to know everything about everything.

I am at work now and have limited time, but I will respond in more detail later.

Posted by Thaumaturgy:

"Ohmygosh! Do you think Keeling and coworkers didn't realize that?"

I am sure they did. I think that is the point Greatcloud is trying to make.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What do you expect? You are posting in the physical sciences forum!

I will admit that I am not a climate scientist per se, however I am a 'practicing' atmospheric scientist involved with trace gas measurements (such as CO2 and water vapor). I do keep up with the journals and it amazes me how much of the junk you read on the web makes it out to be that there is an active scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change. Of the hundreds of papers that come out annually in J. Climate and JGR Atmospheres, maybe 1 per year is in anyway skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. There is a reason that every relevant scienitifc society in the world has a position statement in supprot of AGW - the evidence is clear and overwhelming.

That being said I would be happy to discuss your solar influence theory with you.

In my experience both as an earth scientist, former sea-air interface chemist and current resident near a major oceanographic research center where I get to see many talks given by legitimate scientists, I have to say Chaim is worth listening to.

The "controversy" is minimal and limited to fringes. Science always has controversy, that's what makes it great, but when it comes to important topics such as AGW we need to listen to the best minds with the best models, the majority of which are pointing toward AGW as a real and present danger.

The dangers of not acting are far too serious and there is a very real possibility of a strict "time limit" before it is too late.

As Hansen from NASA recently said in a talk I went to here, we may have already passed a couple of the major tipping points.

 

[Tomk80]

What Atomweaver and Thaumaturgy said.

 

[juvenissun]

What Atomweaver and Thaumaturgy said.

Let me complete it ...

... are probably true. But, what Juvenissun said is also probably true.

 

[Tomk80]

Let me complete it ...

... are probably true. What Juvenissun said is probably completely divorced from reality.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is some exposing of lies note the Mauna Loa graph.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78705J6fvUc&feature=related PART 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ieexFZr0E&feature=related PART 2

 

[[serious]]

Ah, moving from argument by blog to argument by youtube. Don't have much time before I leave for work, but I'll watch until I see at least 1 distortion/falsehood.

And we're there. He shows the CO2/temperature graph obtained from the ice cores, finds a few thin slices on the graph where there is a small local peak in CO2 with no similar local peak in CO2. Now, after seeing these, he has a few options:

1. Admit that there are other gasses and effects not mapped on the graph that can account for it.
2. Admit that ice cores are inherently single point measurements and thus have an increased random error in very small slices (like those he used)
3. ZOMG Global warming is the lie!

I imagine he'll also touch on the "lag" in the ice cores. Again, a few choices:

1. admit that there are strong feedback cycles and taking CO2 leads to warming leads to further CO2 and more warming can't be simplified to warming leads to CO2
2. Conspiracy!!!!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here is some exposing of lies note the Mauna Loa graph.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78705J6fvUc&feature=related PART 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ieexFZr0E&feature=related PART 2

As of right now I've only made it through PART 1 but if you could please find this guy's website (I couldn't find it), post the link. I'd dearly love to look at those graphs closer.

Here's what I noted in Part 1:

1. He only shows the Mauna Loa graph in passing, has nothing to say about it's actual measurement. Maybe that's in Part 2.

2. He is quick to throw out Henry's Law to impress his science skills but has to rely on an audience member to explain saturation??? Wow.

3. He loves water vapor! Yee ha! Except the real danger of CO2 is that, unlike water vapor which cycles out of the atmosphere more quickly (in days), a mole of CO2 once in the atmosphere will stay there a much longer time. I believe the general rule of thumb is that CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of something like 50-200 years. So once we put CO2 into the atmosphere above and beyond the natural CO2 content cyclings it is going to stay there.

In addition we know much of the new CO2 run-up above and beyond natural fluxes is man made...because it is depleted in 14-C and therefore we know its largely from the burning of fossil fuels.

Presumably the earth has a natural balance of CO2 cycling, but indeed mankind is responsible for a massive influx of new CO2 at a faster rate than the original carbon was sequestered.

Now I'm kind of intrigued by his CO2 IR absorption graph on the last slide. I couldn't see it that well, but it looked like he was mixing units. The upper graph appeared to be in wavenumbers which is standard for FTIR analyses. He kept pointing at what looked like a 650cm[sup]-1[/sup] absorption band and calling it a 6.5micron wavelength, but unless I'm very much mistaken, 650 wavenumbers is actually a wavelength of 0.0015cm or 15 microns wavelength.

I would really need to see the actual presentation graph. If you can provide a posting of this graph, it would be much easier to tell what he was pointing at.

Oh, and one other thing, if you wish to debate by YouTube, find YouTube vids with better sound quality so we can ALL hear what is being said.

As I get more time I'll try to slog through Part 2. I'm sure it will be as scintillating as Part 1.